If at first you don’t succeed

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 16 August 2010 22:53.

This gentleman is Yevhen Alfredovych Chervonenko. He is a minister in the Ukrainian government and a former mayor of Kiev. He is, it appears, also a Jew.

In the video below, he is haranguing patriotic Ukrainians, large numbers of whom, it turns out, do not want to be immigrated to hell, and even fail to label a Ukrainian Ukraine as “Nazi”. He does, of course.

The Nazism issue arose because a poll for a live TV debate addressing immigration asked respondees to choose from three labels to describe the desire to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians: “nationalism”, “patriotism” or “Nazism”. The vast majority in both the east and west of the country chose “patriotism”, much to Chervonenko’s displeasure.

No one in the audience made the obvious historical connection.

Canadian readers might suck their teeth a little at the sight of native Ukrainians rejecting immigration. But that’s only one more argument for the nationalist state.

I should just add that in his bio Chervonenko is described as a former racing driver. But he seems only to have been a navigator in “international rallying” during the 80s (meaning buzzing about behind the Iron Curtain in Moskvitches and Ladas that must have been as chuckable as a blind stoat in a thunder storm). Now, I have nothing against stoats, and nothing but admiration for navigators. But I’m not sure that the boundless steppe requires quite the navigational sang froid as, say, the Ouninpohja. Still, the man has chutspah. There’s no denying that.

Hat tip to Green Arrow for airing the video.

Tags: That Question Again

Comments:

Posted by john on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:30 | #

Quote:“Congress of Ukrainian Jews in Kyiv; one of its active members is the vice president of the Euro-Asian Jewish congress, my friend and colleague Yevhen Alfredovych Chervonenko”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:21 | #

he is haranguing patriotic Ukrainians, large numbers of whom, it turns out, do not want to be immigrated to hell, and even fail to label a Ukrainian Ukraine as “Nazi”. He does, of course. The Nazism issue arose because a poll for a live TV debate addressing immigration asked respondees to choose from three labels to describe the desire to keep Ukraine for Ukrainians: “nationalism”, “patriotism” or “Nazism”. The vast majority in both the east and west of the country chose “patriotism” (—from the log entry)

You could look at this two different ways:

1) wanting a Ukrainian Ukraine instead of, say, a Cameroonian one, isn’t Nazi because there’s nothing wrong it,
or
2) it’s Nazi and, as far as the Nazi position on stuff like this goes, there was nothing wrong with the Nazis.

I spent years denying I was a “fascist” every time the other side leveled the charge, which was every other word out of their mouth, until I said “all right, I have to find out exactly why it’s not true that I’m a ‘fascist’ or exactly why I am a ‘fascist’ and the ‘fascists’ are right.” Several months’ reading at a Nazi forum in 2005 cured me of the mistake I was making (see #2 above: it was analagous to that).

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:27 | #

Their huge advantage, “chutzpah”, comes i think from them having no shame at all when it is related to non-jews and i think that is because they don’t see non-jews as fully human.

It would be like asking a white person to feel guilty for lying to their cat. (Although now i think of it quite a few probably would.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:30 | #

“Their huge advantage, ‘chutzpah,’ comes i think from them having no shame at all when it is related to non-jews and i think that is because they don’t see non-jews as fully human.” (—Wandrin)

Correct, and very perceptive of Wandrin: that is definitely part of it.

Posted by LEW on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:55 | #

Even after years of studying these issues I’m still astounded at their consistency, discipline and shamelessness. Whether in the US, Ukraine, Britain, or anywhere else on the globe, they never deviate from their objectives, not now, and as far as I can tell not ever, going all the way back to the pharaohs.

Wandrin: I agree with Fred. Very astute observation.

Posted by FB on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:11 | #

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=183658

Wanting Israel to be a Jewish state:

1) patriotic

2) nationalistic

3) Nazi

Well, what is it Mr. Chervonenko?

Posted by Netanyahu on immigration on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:57 | #

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Cabinet_communique_1-Aug-2010

5. In the framework of the Cabinet discussion on the status of the children of people in Israel illegally, Prime Minister Netanyahu made the following remarks:

“While we have been discussing this issue for almost a year, the debate has been going on for many long years. On the one hand, this problem is a humanitarian problem. We all feel and understand the hearts of children. But on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the State of Israel. The problem is that these two components clash. We are witnessing a great and increasing illegal migration from Africa, mainly via the open southern border, of tens of thousands of illegal labor migrants. There are those who say that there have been close to 500,000 migrants, and perhaps close to 1,000,000, in the past decade. This is a tangible threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel; therefore, we will make a decision that is balanced between the desire to take these children into our hearts and the desire not to create an incentive for continued illegal migration that could flood the foundation of the Zionist state.

“The committee has produced a balance between these two concerns. It calls for allowing those children who have largely become Israelis, who are here, have been educated here, have studied Hebrew and whose identity has already been formed, to stay here. On the other hand, it avoids creating an incentive lest hundreds of thousands of labor migrants, over 500,000, flood the country. We are committed to resolving this sensitive issue in a considered and balanced way, even if it may not jibe with momentary fluctuations of public opinion. We are committed to doing the right thing for the State of Israel and I think that we will do so today.

“I would add that this is, of course, only one of a series of steps regarding migration policy that we are adopting. I am constantly hearing about how ‘Israel must adopt a migration policy’ as if we have not done so. We have. We are establishing a barrier along the southern border that will be finished by 2013. We will find ways to expedite its construction. It will be, first of all, a physical barrier against the flood of illegal migrants.

The second thing that we have already decided upon is to step up enforcement and punitive measures against employers who illegally hire illegal labor migrants. We will add additional solutions to stop the flood of migration.

Israel is a small country of 7 million. We are a first world nation close to Africa, which has third-world countries. The magnet, the pull from Africa of a great human flow that is passing through Egypt - with almost 2 million illegal migrants of its own, who are gradually moving in our direction - is a tangible threat to the future of the State of Israel, which we cannot ignore. We will adopt a comprehensive policy. Today’s discussion will take into account our sensitivity toward children along with the need to ensure the future of the state of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people.”

Posted by Bill on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:08 | #

Wandrin wrote: 08/17/10, 01:27 AM.

Their huge advantage, “chutzpah”, comes i think from them having no shame at all when it is related to non-jews and i think that is because they don’t see non-jews as fully human.

It would be like asking a white person to feel guilty for lying to their cat. (Although now i think of it quite a few probably would.)

Quick search.

Chutzpah - 1890–95; < Yiddish khutspa < Aram ???p?

Unmitigated effrontery or “has the chutzpah to claim a lock on God and morality” (New York Times)

Utter nerve - effrontery - impudence - gall - insolence - audacity - impertinence.

I didn’t see Hubris anywhere.

This is something that has got me from start, such arrogance. They actually do regard us as base animals. It’s a wonder we’re not ear tagged with those yellow plastic lables you see on cattle.

Just look how the MSM treat their audiences. Can you blame them?

It’s coming.

A human microchip implant is an integrated circuit device or RFID transponder encased in silicate glass and implanted in the body of a human being. A subdermal implant typically contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as personal identification, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(human)

Posted by pollution on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:34 | #

Why the fuck is Alex Jones-type retard Bill polluting Majority Rights?

Take the idiotic conspiracies and microchips back to prisonplanet.com

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:57 | #

No, Bill is an Englishman some years older than I am who has only come to understand the world as it really is over the last two or three years. He is on the same journey we have all been on - and remain on, if we are honest with ourselves. Processing all the information coursing across the internet is a huge task, and it takes time to assay each subject and assign it to its place. We can allow him that.

Posted by Irish Anti-Commie on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:46 | #

Even after years of studying these issues I’m still astounded at their consistency, discipline and shamelessness. Whether in the US, Ukraine, Britain, or anywhere else on the globe, they never deviate from their objectives, not now, and as far as I can tell not ever, going all the way back to the pharaohs.

Even here in Ireland with its tiny Jewish population, they’re at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronit_Lentin
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/95577
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivana_Bacik
http://www.ivanabacik.com/what-i-stand-for/tackling-racism
http://www.obrien.ie/book526.cfm
Chutzpah indeed.

Posted by Big Chief Bear on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:41 | #

“Canadian readers might suck their teeth a little at the sight of native Ukrainians rejecting immigration.”

Yes, we Algonquins and Blackfeet and others are “sucking our teeth” at this clip.

We always love statements like this from GW.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:55 | #

“Even here in Ireland with its tiny Jewish population, they’re at it.” (—Irish Anti-Commie)

Of course they are. Wherever Jews are in the Eurosphere they push race-mixing of Euros, government-coerced if need be, either in front of your face (the two cited in Irish Anti-Commie’s post) or behind the scenes (the ethnic Jewish political fund-raising networks, linked to the ethnic-Jewish MSM networks, ethnic-Jewish founded, funded, and run think tanks, ethnic Jewish political campaign networks, etc., that massively support candidate X over candidate Y after determining through years of private, in-person vetting that X will support open borders and race-replacement: that’s how we got candidates Bush, McCain, Obama, Blair, Clinton, Brown, Cameron, Sarkozy — Jewish money and talent behind the scenes and in lock-down control of the MSM corrupt the whole political process in the direction of race-replacement before the candidates are even selected, so that by election time every candidate without exception, no matter what his other views are, is a race-replacement advocate).

In my view the Jewish love of communism — and we all know how much Jews loved communism, in the 1910s, ‘20s, and ‘30s they were practically the movement, end of story — is secondary to their desire to get Euros race-replaced. Jewish love of communism stemmed in part from their perception that under communism it would be easy to get the Eurogoys race-mixed: that was part of communism’s big attraction for the Jews and part of why communism was set up by the Jews the way it was set up, why it had the some of the characteristics it did. Jewish love of getting the Eurogoys race-mixed was prior to and greater than their love of communism and part of what drove that love: the latter was secondary to the former; the former was primordial in the Jewish psyche.

It still is primordial.

Now that communism has fallen through the Jews have realized they could get to their cherished goal, namely the Eurogoys thoroughly race-mixed out of existence, without communism, and have been going at it hammer and tongs in naked undisguised fashion ever since: “Hey we can get this thing done without having to go through the intermediate step of communism!”: Alon Ziv’s book, Clinton at that carefully orchestrated event forecasting the minorityhood of whites at which the carefully selected audience cheered wildly and the carefully selected press attendees reported the next day as if it were a spontaneous reaction of a normal random sample of white Americans, Sarkozy outright telling Frenchmen in that speech they had to race-mix or the government would force it on them, Blair’s goverment introducing the expression “hideously white” to describe Newcastle, saying they had to get more blacks in there to change its race from white to God-knows-what, Blunkett defiantly snarling there was to be “no upper limit” on non-white immigration pouring into Britain, the Central Council of Jews in Jewrmany viciously attacking Sarazin for those benign, even timid comments he made, the Jews loudly denouncing the timid Swiss referendum result against construction of more mosques, and so on, and so forth.

Moral of the story: Let Jews into your country and kiss your race good-bye. You will face a disaster worse than you could have imagined.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:02 | #

Even after years of studying these issues I’m still astounded at their consistency, discipline and shamelessness. Whether in the US, Ukraine, Britain, or anywhere else on the globe, they never deviate from their objectives, not now, and as far as I can tell not ever, going all the way back to the pharaohs.

But we “cattle” are the same everywhere and at all times. We are “racists” because we possess ethnicity, and “anti-semites” because we resist the Jewish project of our ethnic dissolution.

The project is entirely materialist - Jews have “perfect souls”, and there is no concept of sin, salvation or self-improvement in Judaism. Therefore, the distinction between a materialist secular and spiritual religious life which we cattle insist upon does not apply. The religious formulation of a relentless drive to “heal the world” of non-Jewish ethnicity, that being proclaimed the source of all conflict and suffering, holds true for secular Jewry also.

I have proposed that faith systems are evolutionary survival strategies. Never was that more evident than with Judaism, which has no concept of spiritual striving and whose messiah is a political not spiritual leader. When he appears (that is, when the project of gentile ethnic dissolution is complete), the messiah will grant Jews - the sole surviving differentiated population - universal reverence as the “perfect” people and as G_d’s Chosen People, and will award them all the goyim’s worldly wealth and property, and suzereignty over the goyim in perpetuity. There could be no more naked example of (middle-eastern tribal) genetic interests infusing and determining cultural forms (conversely, I would argue, the adoption of Christianity by Europeans is a reverse process by which genetic interests are, however inexactly, applied to an extant alien doctrine).

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:36 | #

The idea of us being micro-chipped has been discussed for at least 30 years now. The technology is here. More interesting: the prediction of such a system was made approximately 2000 years ago.

http://www.countdown.org/mark_of_the_beast.htm

Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:00 | #

More in support of Desmond

Vito Marcantonio, Radical Congressman from New York

No member of Congress has ever more eloquently and consistently represented one of the most defenseless and vulnerable groups in the United States, the foreign born. In 1940, when arguing against a proposal to exclude aliens from working on federally funded projects, he recalled that immigrants had been “induced to come here to be used as cheap labor – industrial cannon fodder of the labor exploiters,” and went on to say, “These people helped build America… [Nowl we persecute them under the name of America.” When in 1944 an Alabama congressman stated that [white] Southerners had known the meaning of democracy “one hundred years before the gentleman from New York ever saw the Statue of Liberty,” Marcantonio responded in this way: “While my people did not come over on the Mayflower ... [w]e are an integral part of the living flesh and blood of our country.” Outside the halls of Congress, Marcantonio served as vice chair and active supporter of the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born.

Marcantonio’s mother had been born in Italy, so his ardor of the foreign born is understandable. What is perhaps most remarkable was his fervent adoption of the Puerto Rican cause. In 1936 the first of Marcantonio’s five bills calling for independence for Puerto Rico insisted “that the only real solution for Puerto Rico and its problems is to grant to the people of Puerto Rico full sovereignty [which is] the only guarantee which the people of Puerto Rico can have to solve their problems.” Marcantonio also served as an attorney for Pedro Albizu Campos and the seven other members of the Nationalist Party who were convicted in 1936 of conspiring to overthrow the United States government by force. Within East Harlem, where the Puerto Rican community, El Barrio, began to expand, Marcantonio insisted that Puerto Ricans be included among the tenants in East River Houses, East Harlem’s first public housing project, which was located in the heart of Italian Harlem. On election eve 1949, before more than fifteen thousand people on his “Lucky Corner” in the center of Italian Harlem, he declared: “Yes I do defend the Puerto Ricans as our most recently arrived, against the kind of discrimination that was practiced against the Irish, the Jews, and the Italians in the past.”

Marcantonio was the major proponent of civil rights legislation in the House for almost a decade. As the floor leader for the anti-poll tax bill, he was able for the first time to force it out of the Judiciary Committee. What became widely known as the “Marcantonio Anti-Poll Tax Bill” (intended to outlaw the imposition of a fee for voting) passed the House a number of times but was successfully filibustered by the Southern Democrats and their Republican allies. In 1945, Marcantonio was able to thwart these same forces when they imperiled the appropriation for the Fair Employment Practices Commission (intended to prevent discrimination on federally funded projects), by utilizing his almost unrivaled knowledge of parliamentary procedure to threaten the blocking of funding for agencies vital to the war effort. For once, The Nation exalted, the “agile Southern parliamentarians were beaten at their own game.” In the postwar era, Marcantonio attached what he called “the All-Harlem Rider” on innumerable appropriations bills. Stating that “this issue of white supremacy has to be fought out,” his amendment demanded that no government funds be paid to any firm or individual who discriminated against its employers on the basis of race, nationality, or religion. In this way, he repeatedly placed civil rights at the heart of the House deliberations. In 1951, along with Paul Robeson he presented the United Nations with a petition charging the United States with the crime of genocide against the Negro people.

Marcantonio was able to overcome this opposition in large part because his Italian American, Puerto Rican and African American constituents viewed him as an articulate tribune of the people advocating for those who had been left out of the American Dream. Perhaps more pertinently because he lived among them, shared their lives, and personally tended to their problems, he achieved a legendary, even saintly, status. Many recalled his reaching into his pockets to help those facing eviction or in need of school clothing for their children. When I queried an old time resident if anyone in Italian Harlem opposed Marcantonio, she asked: “Didn’t people oppose Christ when he walked the earth?” A Puerto Rican woman who wrote Marcantonio requesting “a small turkey for my children” stated: “You are the bread of the poor people.”

Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:29 | #

Vito Marcantonio: radical politician, 1902-1954

Marcantonio also came to the defense of individual Italo-Americans who experienced defamation or discrimination. A highly publicized incident of this nature occurred in 1945 when an Italo-American living in Brooklyn wrote Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi castigating him for opposing continuation of the Fair Employment Practices Commission. (On numerous occasions, Marcantonio personally pressed this Commission to investigate discriminatory acts against Italo-Americans.) In his response, Bilbo addressed the woman as: “My dear Dago.” Marcantonio demanded an apology, pointing out that the woman had three brothers in the Armed Forces, one of whom had died during the war. Bilbo refused, responding:

“It is through you and your gang, and I dare say many of them are gangsters, from the sin-soaked, Communistic sections of the great metropolis of New York that practically all the rotten, crackpot, Communistic legislative schemes are being thrown into the Congressional “mill”....You are neither fish nor fowl - you are neither a Democrat nor Republican - you are a notorious political mongrel….Your main purpose is to arouse enmities and antagonism, hatreds, and animosities - that is the stock and trade of all Communists in America.”

Marcantonio in turn called Bilbo “Hitler’s inconsolable male widow.” This well-publicized controversy concluded with Bilbo insisting he was motivated solely by a desire “to fight against the mongrelization of the two races in America….With the respect and love that I have for the Caucasian blood that flows not only in my veins but in the veins of Jews, Italians, Poles and other nationalities of the White race, I would not want to see it contaminated with Negro blood.”

Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:34 | #

Leonard Covello and Vito Marcantonio: A Lifelong Collaboration for Progress

Simultaneously, the following leaflet signed by Marcantonio was distributed throughout Italian Harlem:

Who Gets Hurt?

Who? The Italian-American Community!

Who? The Negro People!

Who? Every Group in the Fight for Liberty!

Because

The same people who hate us… who discriminate against us, also hate the Negro people, the Jews, the Catholics, the foreign born. They hate everyone who wants America to be free for all of the people.

Senator Bilbo calls us “Dear Dago,” the Jews, “Dear Kike,” the Negroes, “Dear Nigger.” Men like Bilbo are afraid that a united people will destroy discrimination forever. Benjamin Franklin High School is an example of how the People Can Unite and Live Peacefully Together.

The school was built eleven years ago. It is one of the most beautiful, most modern, best-equipped of any school in the city. We fought hard to get it. … But the Reactionaries Don’t Like That… They Fear Unity.

That is why they hang around like vultures… waiting.

And those who would divide us include, unfortunately, traitors among our own people, our own Bilboes. … Those who preach hate. …

We in our own community bear the responsibility for beating back the Bilboes. That is, because we are the majority in this area. And for our own safety, we must do it.

Posted by one on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:52 | #

Excerpts from a few letters written by Senator Theodore Bilbo, who was mentioned in the comment above

MISSISSIPPI: ... and to the Nation

Monday, Aug. 06, 1945

Mississippi’s Senator Bilbo was off again. He had received many letters protesting his intemperate filibuster against the Fair Employment Practices Committee (TIME, July 9). Now he sat down to answer his mail.

To Miss Josephine Piccolo, a Brooklyn textile inspector, he wrote: “My dear Dago: (If I am mistaken in this please correct me) ... Will you please keep your dirty proboscis out of the other 47 states, especially the dear old State of Mississippi?”

To Miss Helen Feldman, a Chicago secretary, he wrote: “I wired a bunch of these fanatics in New York, and told them if these Communists and fanatical groups did not quit trying to pass such damphool legislation . . . that eventually the great mass of American people would revolt and figuratively liquidate every member of their groups.”

He was really wound up when he replied to Leonard E. Golditch of New York, secretary of the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism. Cried “The Man”: “If Jews of your type don’t quit sponsoring and fraternizing with the negro race you are going to arouse so much opposition to all of you that they will get a very strong invitation to pack up and resettle in Palestine. . . . There are just a few of you New York Jew ‘kikes’ . . . socializing with the negroes for selfish and political reasons. . . . You had better stop and think.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:04 | #

Replying to “pollution’s” post of 5:02 AM: no one here fits his description of what he terms a “conspiracy cultist”:

what do conspiracy cultists do? You waste your time obsessing over irrelevant and ridiculous conspiracy theories about microchips, ID cards, 9/11, chemtrails, FEMA camps, the moon landing, vaccines, etc. [...] Fifty years from now [...] you’ll be chanting “9/11 was an inside job” and freaked out that “gubmint’s gunna put a microchip in me and put drugs in the water supply”.

“Pollution” is either a troll of some sort attempting to derail useful discussion or someone like Dan Dare who, because he can’t or won’t see obvious connections between things, angrily and indignantly labels anyone seeing them and trying to explain history “a conspiracy nut.” I vote for him being sent packing.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:29 | #

GW. Wondered if you’d seen this.

It seems one of your duellists over at BDF recently was a BNP big cheese organiser of West Herts.

GriffinWatch said… http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.com/

We have been informed that Deirdre Gates posted as sarasara on the British Democracy forum, this being the case, then good riddance to the zionist scum that have infiltrated the B.N.P. and a huge question mark on Butlers judgement/intentions.

17 August 2010 16:31

Two of the British National Party’s best councillors resigned today.

Deirdre Gates has resigned from the party and was organiser of our West Herts. group. She was elected last year and continues as an independent County Councillor in Hertfordshire for the South Oxhey division.

I wondered where she’d got to?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:46 | #

Good pick-up, Bill!

That “sara sara” certainly was annoying wasn’t she, in a couple of those exchanges GW got caught up in over there and linked back here. Gal was insufferable.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:49 | #

I thought sarasara sounded like hasbara, thats what I said to her. She didnt respond.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:02 | #

Sarasara did not like her tribe being named and shamed, though she offered no rational refutations of same. It was “anti-Semitic”, “Jew-hatred”, “Nazi” ... and that’s all there was to it. So she felt fully licenced to strike out in the most aggressive and hypocritical manner. Who could possibly complain that she complained to the site owner, a not very bright UKIP libertarian conformist with a less than dazzling command of reality?

Mind you, Henry Palfrey was an aggressive piece of work. I certainly wouldn’t want anybody like that posting round here.

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:51 | #

n/a recently put up an entry that highlights Pound’s frustration with the inability of old stock Americans to even think in terms of race and racial preservation.

Here are a few excerpts:

The Cincinnati etc. erred from snobbery. They did not in George Washington’s time organize on racial basis. No one thought of it, no one could have then thought of it. There WAS a racially homogeneous population in the newly freed colonies. Certain privileges were dear to the privileged. Snobbism is NOT conservative. Fashion is not conservative. La Mode, etc. is a ramp.
...

Razza, race? Is the ruck end of the old colonial stock so hog stupid, so sterile, so stubborn that NONE of ’em have the sense to raise the race issue? That none of ’em have an even polite parlor interest in enquirin’ even the ouija board or the whist table whether the American colonial race shall survive? Kipling said it: he said the Americans obligingly slaughtered each other during the Civil War, so that the Czechoslovaks could inherit Boston Common. Well, what causes that?

Is it too late to inquire, is inquiry become impolite and unYankee? And what races coalesce or amalgamate? What races can dwell together without constantly inciting other races to start fraternal slaughter, and civil assassination?

Go to the entry at n/a’s site and read the whole thing.

Anyway, as I was telling Sam earlier in this thread, we shouldn’t make excuses for the fecklessness (and/or cowardice) of our own elites.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:18 | #

Dasein,

Wandrin, have you read the following, by Goebbels?

Lol, that’s amazing - nothing new under the sun. Ever since i started thinking about the “moral ideal” aspect of things i starting thinking to myself that if it was right then the NSDAP would probably have come to the same conclusion somehow - especially Goebbels. I’ve been meaning to read up on the language AH and Goebbels used and see how they couched their message - to see if they always put a moral-sounding frame around it and if they did the “always attack” thing.

Mr G is quite right methinks and puts it better than me. They don’t think the same way. Assuming they do is a big disadvantage to our side.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 02:02 | #

”as Charles Bronson said in that spaghetti western, they can count — all the way to three.” (—my comment, 8-19, 3:40 AM)

Sorry, I was quoting from years-old memory. What he said was “you can count. All the way up to two”:
______

Harmonica: I saw three of these dusters a short time ago. They were waiting for a train. Inside the dusters there were three men.
Cheyenne: So?
Harmonica: Inside the men there were three bullets.
Cheyenne: That’s a crazy story, Harmonica, for two reasons. One, nobody around these part’s got the guts to wear those dusters except Cheyenne’s men. Two, Cheyenne’s men don’t get killed. That surprise you?
Harmonica: Yeah. Well, you know music and you can count. All the way up to two.
Cheyenne: (Turns the cylinder of his revolver) All the way up to six if I have to.

( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_the_West )
______

It’s a good quote. And it’s why we know they’re doing it on pupose: they can count — all the way up to two. That’s the only skill you need in order to know exactly what’s going on with immigration. We don’t need a paper trail. And we don’t need Andrew Neather. There’s nobody, in or out of government, who can’t count up to two.

Posted by Sam Davidson on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:45 | #

Anyway, as I was telling Sam earlier in this thread, we shouldn’t make excuses for the fecklessness (and/or cowardice) of our own elites.

It’s not an excuse, but I’d say that past generations were more ignorant than anything.

Princeton responded to the Jewish influx by instituting a 10% quota for Jews. Likewise, the government created the Immigration Act of 1924 to stop unchecked immigration. Their reasoning was flawless - Americans have a right to preserve themselves like any other people. It was an old-stock American version of the 14 Words.

These poor people could not have imagined that this small group of wandering Jews would destroy the very fabric of society within mere decades. Who could have predicted the onslaught of feminism, racial integration, campus radicalism, homosexualism, open borders, etc.? In 1940 our illegitimacy rate was 5%. Today it’s 40%. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Society has been turned upsidedown.

Could we have improved the political/social system of the ‘Old Republic’? Definitely. If we ever get our own ethnostate there will be a switch towards a more collectivist system. This change will become inevitable when we find ourselves under siege by the rest of the world. (Think about Germany, South Africa, and Rhodesia.)

Posted by Notus Wind on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:16 | #

Sam,

It’s not an excuse, but I’d say that past generations were more ignorant than anything.

The examples of Ford and Edison suggest that their era wasn’t quite as ignorant as you’re implying. In fact, in my own family tree there are stories people from the same era who were very suspicious of Jewish dealings whenever they encountered them, which wasn’t very frequent.

Could we have improved the political/social system of the ‘Old Republic’?

On my reading, the Old Republic in the 19th century was home to radical abolitionists who were willing to kill their fellow White countrymen in the name of freeing African slaves. Radical egalitarian abstractions loomed larger in their mind than patriotism and although they were very much a minority they still managed to bend the ears of power and become effective. All of this took place before the arrival of European Jewry to Ellis Island.

In fact, you can even go back to the pre-revolutionary colonial era and find people arguing for the mass miscegenation of the newly arrived English with the Indian tribes on the basis of love, peace, and equality. These types only temporarily leave the scene in the early 19th century, which saw the beginnings of modern anthropology, but by the middle of the 19th century they’re tradition was back in full force and hasn’t left since. The problem goes much much deeper than most racialists realize.

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:31 | #

we shouldn’t make excuses for the fecklessness (and/or cowardice) of our own elites.

It’s not excusing. Understanding the mechanisms involved potentially throws up avenues of attack.

Examples:

One strand of white multicultist are people who like to feel morally superior. They take whatever the average person in their group thinks and they pick the contrary view to be different. Hammering away at them on the *moral* consequences of their actions works - a bit. They’ll never change their nature but their level of certainty can be reduced.

A second strand are genuine idealists who believe the multicult is doing good. Hammering away at them on the *moral* consequences of their actions will eventually turn them or at least make them neutral. It might take a while because they blind themselves but in the mean time gradually reducing their certainty gradually reduces their enthusiam for sheep-dogging for the multicult.

A third strand is white politicians being bought by hostile forces. If you look at funding then you see quite plainly the activity of alien ethnic groups buying influence. Pointing out that mainstream parties are getting most of their funding from globalist billionaires who are pro-immigration and pro-neocon is a good line to take.

These poor people could not have imagined that this small group of wandering Jews would destroy the very fabric of society within mere decades.

I think at heart all this boils down to a battle between which of two ethnic groups is the most cohesive and the least cohesive loses. jews have been winning these battles for centuries. Aspects of western civilization may have made it easier for them but whatever aspect was changed the only thing it would effect was how long it took for them to win because jews are so cohesive that if any white nation became as or more cohesive as the jews then they’d expel them in the same way jews will automatically expel all the Arabs (Christian or muslim) from Israel within about three seconds of ever having the opportunity to do so. It’s as simple as that in my view. The only defence is exclusion - so long, thanks for all the bagels. And the simplest grounds for that (in my view) are the scientific racial grounds that are being suppressed - diversity kills. Two tribes on the same ground will conflict and if you don’t want your people to suffer from that conflict then the only answer is separation.

The examples of Ford and Edison suggest that their era wasn’t quite as ignorant as you’re implying.

They were individuals like us trying to persuade the majority of their group that if they weren’t as cohesive as the jews then they’d lose everything. Unfortunately they failed. They failed because jews always act as a group more than white people do.

Why are jews so ultra-cohesive? Partly it’s the master race stuff makes them see themselves as a race apart, special (and subject to different moral rules). Partly it’s because they bring their children up to be paranoid. The lachrymose version of jewish history trains them to view all non-jews as potential enemies that could turn on them at any moment and that the only protection is ethnic cohesion and nepotism.

(Actually all national histories do this however with most nations their history is designed to make the young view external nations as potential threats whereas the jewish version makes their young view all non-jews as potential threats.)

It is perfectly possible to make white nations as cohesive as jews e.g NSDAP or medieval Catholicism, but personally i don’t want western civilization to define itself solely on the basis of self-defense against a pack of crazy, paranoid desert-nazis and more fundamentally, any white nation that made itself that cohesive would automatically expel them anyway so you might as well just cut to the chase.

The problem goes much much deeper than most racialists realize.

I think you’re right that white people, especially the most inventive ones, will also throw up lots of crazy idealists and heretics who can do a lot of harm. Personally i think thats a price worth paying as long as the feedback loop of empirical data is in place because occasionally one of them will be right about something and that will benefit everyone. That’s just my opinion however. But regardless of that i think it’s plain that the problem with multicult ideas is not primarily the ideas themselves. The ideas are demonstrably wrong and would have been proved wrong decades ago by the empiricial data before they did so much damage - if the empirical data hadn’t been deliberately suppressed.

The critical factor in my view, not the only factor but the critical one, always comes back to having an alien ethnic group controlling both the flow of information and the means of production of culture (where culture is defined as the power to define right and wrong).

The proof of that, if true, would be if the MSM suddenly started telling the truth about the negative consequences of diversity thereby providing the empirical data. Would the multicult survive? I think it would start to crumble within weeks. The multicultists would still be there, everything else would still be in place, but the majority would no longer listen to them. They’d be listening to us.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 03:41 | #

On my reading, the Old Republic in the 19th century was home to radical abolitionists who were willing to kill their fellow White countrymen in the name of freeing African slaves. Radical egalitarian abstractions loomed larger in their mind than patriotism and although they were very much a minority they still managed to bend the ears of power and become effective.

As opposed to what, radical institutionalism, driven by a minority group of slave owners who were willing to kill their fellow White countrymen men (the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter…no?) to advance African slavery across the country? Self-interest trumped racial cohesion and though a minority, this group was still very much able to leverage power. Sephardi Jews were also their allies. Despite the fact they were fully cognisant of the horrors cast upon Europeans in Haiti they still promoted the radical institutionalism as a ‘manifest destiny’ in an unyielding pursuit of profit and self-interest.

The smearing of the New England Yankee is of course MacDonald’s (and his academic buddy, Phil Gura [both Catholics?]) recent hobby horse.

In fact, you can even go back to the pre-revolutionary colonial era and find people arguing for the mass miscegenation of the newly arrived English with the Indian tribes

John Rolfe showed great consternation over his forthcoming marriage to the savage Pocahontas.

To you therefore (most noble Sir) the patron and Father of us in this countrey doe I utter the effects of this setled and long continued affection (which hath made a mightie warre in my meditations) and here I doe truely relate, to what issue this dangerous combate is come unto, wherein I have not onely examined, but throughly tried and pared my thoughts even to the quick, before I could finde any fit wholesome and apt applications to cure so daungerous an ulcer. I never failed to offer my daily and faithfull praiers to God, for his sacred and holy assistance. I forgot not to set before mine eies the frailty of mankinde, his prones3 to evill, his indulgencie of wicked thoughts, with many other imperfections wherein man is daily insnared, and oftentimes overthrowne, and them compared to my present estate. Nor was I ignorant of the heavie displeasure which almightie God conceived against the sonnes of Levie and Israel for marrying strange wives, nor of the inconveniences which may thereby arise, with other the like good motions which made me looke about warily and with good circumspection, into the grounds and principall agitations, which thus should provoke me to be in love with one whose education hath bin rude, her manners barbarous, her generation accursed, and so discrepant in all nurtriture frome my selfe, that oftentimes with feare and trembling, I have ended my private controversie with this: surely these are wicked instigations, hatched by him who seeketh and delighteth in mans destruction; and so with fervent praiers to be ever preserved from such diabolical assaults (as I tooke those to be) I have taken some rest.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:00 | #

I just now watched the video linked in the log entry for the first time. I highly recommend it. That was a riveting video, and that younger man in the video is 100% correct: he’s not the Jew’s psychiatrist. The Jew has to resolve his own identity problems, not insist the whole nation of the Ukraine and the Ukrainian race go out of existence in order to assuage Jewish personal identity problems. Excellent answer. In the video a panelist called for a vote on the question that had been put in the public opinion poll. There should be a vote, yes. And on the ballot should be this question: “Do you as a Ukrainian think all brazen Jews who openly wish the demographic annihilation of the Ukrainian people via race-replacement immigration should be asked to depart permanently for Israel? ____ Yes. ____ No.” I’m so mad I’d apply for Ukrainian citizenship just to be able to vote Yes on that. These Jews are unfricking believable: brazen in-your-face natiocides and genocides. They really and truly have to be stopped: someone has to start standing up to these Jews and say, “No further! You’ve genocided your last European race, jealousy-consumed Jew. You don’t like living among Ukrainians in a Ukrainian country? There’s a simple solution: get the fuck out. And stay out. You have a country now. Go to it. Are we coming into your Jewish country and telling it it has to go out of existence as a Jewish country? No. Don’t you dare ever tell us that again, piece of filth! Our land, our race, and our nation are sacred! Don’t ever again touch them!”

That’s how Jews like this specimen need to be addressed, because they simply do not understand anything less direct no matter how many times you say it. Tell them politely you don’t want to be natiocided and genocided till you’re blue in the face, they’ll still try to natiocide you and genocide you. It’s time to take the verbal gloves off with these Jews.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:26 | #

In the video, look at that pure Slavic face on the woman behind the moderator’s left shoulder at the 1:42 mark. That’s what I expect to see when I look at Ukrainians: Ukrainians. No, Mr. Chervonenko, when I look at a Ukrainian crowd that’s the kind of face I expect to see, not a bunch of faces that look like they’re from the Maghreb, or Cameroon, or Uzbekistan. Not mulattoes, gypsies, Orientals, or whatever else constitutes this Jew’s wet dream for Ukrainian race-replacement. My advice to this Jew: have a cup of STFU and sit down. If he wants to race-replace someone so bad, let him race-replace his race, the Jews — there’d be a lot less genocide in the world, that’s for damn sure.

Posted by Pow Wow on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 05:47 | #

“Considering how the leaders of this ethnic group acted in another ethny’s homeland…”

Wait, I thought they were doing this in Canada, the homeland of the Indians, not England. How’d the Anglos act when they got to the New World? Please, Desmond, don’t go down the GW hypocrisy route. An ethny is an ethny is an ethny.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:44 | #

the Maghreb, or Cameroon, or Uzbekistan.

Of course that’s not what was said. It’s other Europeans. LOL. Are other Europeans to be deported from the Ukraine to keep the Ukraine for Ukrainians. LOL. Save the indigenous Ukrainians. Deport their fellow whites. LOL. Especially those fucking Gotlander Swedes. LOL.

Ethnic groups
National structure of the population of Ukraine (2001).

Ukrainian 77.8%, Russian 17.3%, Romanian 0.8% (including Moldovan 0.5%), Belarusian 0.6%, Crimean Tatar 0.5%, Bulgarian 0.4%, Hungarian 0.3%, Polish 0.3%, Jewish 0.2%, Greeks 0.2% and other 1.6% (including Albanians, otherwise known as Torbesh, old communities of Armenians living on the Sea of Azov, and a microcosm of Gotlander Swedes of Gammalsvenskby).[9]

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:53 | #

Chief,

It’s called right of conquest, legitimized by UN resolution. Canada was formed as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. It is Anglo-Saxon institutions, Anglo-Saxon laws and Anglo-Saxon traditions that make Canada.

How’d the Anglos act when they got to the New World?

Civilized. They did not practice human sacrifice nor did they have a taste for human flesh.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:56 | #

Desmond, the argument Chervonenko and the other creep who was on his side (the guy who looked like a deer in the headlights as the moderator was interviewing him — so he couldn’t have been Jewish, didn’t look brazen enough, must have been a Uke fellow traveler/useful idiot) the argument Chervonenko and the Uke useful idiot were making was, please correct me, fundamentally for open borders David-Blunkett-style meaning no upper limits on mystery meat or on non-Uke whites too many of whom, including Swedes, would also change the Uke race the way too many Poles will change the Brit collection of races.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:09 | #

By the way Desmond, I don’t want to genocide the Ukraine as revenge for the Ukes in Canada’s support for A-S genocide. What the Canadian Ukes did (and continue to do) was plenty bad but not so bad it warrants genociding the Ukraine. Besides, the Jews already genocided the Ukraine; it’s time to ease up on that nation but if they keep it up in Canada I might change my mind.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:26 | #

You see that woman’s remarkable face again at the 2:42 mark: that’s the face of a race. If Chervonenko and his useful idiot get their way that race will vanish from history and when people of the future see those faces in photos they’ll look at each other and ask, as we do when we see the ancient Greek statues, “Was there really ever a race that looked like that? It certainly doesn’t exist today. Today in the Ukraine everybody looks like a Brazilian, a Maghrebian, a mulatto, or a gypsy. Come to think of it, that’s the way everyone has looked ever since Chervonenko and his useful idiot took over.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:46 | #

Ok Fred full disclosure, I admit to Ukrainian hero worship, here, here, here,and here.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:16 | #

Wikipedia:

Gretzky’s paternal grandfather Anton (Tony) Gretzky immigrated to Canada via the United States from Grodno Governorate, Russian Empire, now part of Belarus, with his wife Mary, of Pidhaytsi, Ukraine. In interviews Gretzky’s father Walter has stated that his parents were Belarusians, while on other occasions he has mentioned his family’s Polish ancestry, and has described his father as being born in Russia with “Ukrainian forebears.” Though described as Polish and Belarusian, “the only Slavic language spoken in the family [was] Ukrainian.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 08:20 | #

I like the title of the entry, by the way.

Posted by Pow Wow on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:20 | #

“It’s called right of conquest, legitimized by UN resolution.”

It’s disappointing when you, who I always consider to be a clear-seeing evolutionist, write things like this. Any conquest is “right of conquest”, be it among homo sapiens, foxes, or bird species. And it’s also a bit weird to see you using the concept of a UN resolution as somehow legitimating things. Really? The UN? That’s the organization you look to as giving some universal imprimatur to acts of ethnic displacement and resource diminishment?

“Canada was formed as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. It is Anglo-Saxon institutions, Anglo-Saxon laws and Anglo-Saxon traditions that make Canada.”

I agree. It is these institutions and laws, easily exploited, therefore not particularly effective, that have allowed Canada to be what it is.

“[The Anglos acted c]ivilized. They did not practice human sacrifice nor did they have a taste for human flesh.”

I guess if those are your criteria for civilization, then they did act civilized. If supplying various colonized peoples around the world with substances that help ruin their national communities, if putting more and more destructive weapons into their hands, and if shunting whatever’s left of this bunch onto the less productive land of their forefathers is civilized, than the Anglo-Saxon, like the Israeli, is civilized.

I don’t think it makes a difference to particular First Nations tribes that the people who conquered the land that was once theirs didn’t eat one or two of their ancestors. I doubt if the Ukrainians care that the NKVD Jews putting bullets at the base of their great grandparents’ skulls did so without a primitive ceremony - thus acting in civilized, modern fashion. To kill and displace in what you consider a “civilized” way is as effective as killing and displacing in what you consider an “uncivilized” way.
The end result is what matters evolutionarily. You, of all people, I would think would understand this.

This isn’t meant to be hostile, Desmond. I just don’t see how Aryans, Caucasians, Europeans - whatever we want to call them - in the New World can somehow seek GW’s vaunted “moral” justification for removing other races currently pouring into these lands without coming across as hypocrites. If it were approached along the lines of, “We need this land to survive, and we’ll do whatever we can to keep it, we don’t care about them, we don’t care about anyone except ourselves,” that’s different - it’s healthy and normal. But pointing to UN resolutions as something that should legitimize our survival shows that “we” simply haven’t the power any longer to act this way, either explicitly or implicitly.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:03 | #

I just don’t see how Aryans, Caucasians, Europeans - whatever we want to call them - in the New World can somehow seek GW’s vaunted “moral” justification for removing other races currently pouring into these lands without coming across as hypocrites.

Agree.

The indigenous argument works plain in Europe as a solid moral foundation and widening it out a bit to:

Each nation has a right to preserve its own unique way of being,

and stating that as a principle in a “We hold this to be true” type of way, can be extended a bit to cover this.

If that principle is held to be true, and it is accepted by the first set of invaders that they broke that principle in the original conquest, then they have an obligation now to protect the rights of the original natives. New invaders have no obligation to the first natives. Arabs didn’t sign the peace treaties. Somalis aren’t going to care about reserved land. It is beholden on those who took the land and signed the treaties not only to defend their right to their land but the rights of the original natives to theirs as agreed by treaty.

So white americans have an ongoing obligation to defend indian land.

With a bit of polish that argument might put a pebble in the shoe of white people at the idealist end of the ethnocentric->idealist spectrum.

@Desmond

Founding stock vs later white arrivals.

There is no point just mourning the founding white elites not being ethnocentric enough to maintain the founding stock as the overwhelming majority. They didn’t. It happened already. If you want an anglo-only, or nord-only, or protestant-only, or catholic-only, or everyone-except-anglo or left handed Irish only type organisation with some kind of plan for getting what you want then fine - but simply mourning the loss of something gets nobody anywhere.

The western world is sailing head-on into a god-awful, semi-global ethno-sectarian civil war courtesy of the jews in which i’d guess more people are going to be violently killed than in both world wars put together. In short it’s going to be another jewish century. It could well work out that North America breaks up into dozens of mini-nations. Given that you’d be better off having a Covington type plan that is anglo-only or nord-only or whatever the criterion would be. At least then you’ll be working toward something.

Posted by You know who on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:18 | #

Scrooby, nobody cares what you “expect to see.” It’s not about what you “expect to see.” In fact, it’s not about that even for you: why don’t you fess up and admit it’s all about what you want to see, in the Ukraine and anywhere. (Of course, nobody cares about that, either. But someone had to tell you.)

Nope. It’s about what’s morally plausible, socially sensible and politically actionable. No more, no less.

So close to three quarters of Ukraine’s already non-Ukrainian. Well, there’s not going to be any getting rid of them, I’m afraid. The only thing that solemn little declaration by the nationalist that he’s a Ukrainian in his native land towards the end of that vid will do is prompt Ukrainians who had never really thought about the question to consider whether there really is anything all that special about Ukraine belong exclusively to Ukrainians. Many of them are going to conclude, as masses of Americans, Canadians, Australians and others did before them, that you know, it’s really not all that important that Ukraine belong solely to us; what’s wrong with a few foreigners? They add a nice spot of variety etc. That’s not me talking. That’s what they’re going to conclude, particularly once they start thinking about what would actually have to be done to have an exclusively Ukrainian Ukraine. Particularly those in power. You can count on it. Blah blah nationalism this, and blah blah blah nationalism that, and blah blah blah foreigners suck this much, and blah blah blah foreigners suck that much, does it every time. The sullenness of the nationalist is his own private agony. No one else gives a fuck.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:41 | #

The sullenness of the nationalist is his own private agony. No one else gives a fuck.

White flight proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they do give a fuck, silver.

Immigrant groups always choosing to live in ethnic enclaves proves it, silver.

jews especially always live in ethnic enclaves, both proving it and proving what hypocrites they are.

What sort of people could think they have the right to a unique identity but no one else does?

Sociopaths. Or people who become effectively sociopathic to outsiders through believing they’re a chosen master race.

Posted by LEW on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:55 | #

That is very sad information about the situation in Ukraine

“To be frank, 20th Century Jewry completely obliterated the Ukrainian people. Under Jewish-led communism they murdered all Ukrainian elites, or else absorbed them in to the Jewish gene pool via Jewish gene theft. Then when communism collapsed they became hypercapitalists and economically raped the nation, leaving it a hollow shell if its former self.”

The slow race replacement via migration method currently underway in the West is the Jews’ plan B. Plan A is murders, executions, gulags, box cars, and mass starvation. They would be using Plan A right now if they had the power to do so as the Ukrainian experience shows.

100

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:48 | #

Silver I thought you had sworn off reading my commentary. Why torture yourself? My stuff isn’t meant for people with your kind of brain circuits anyway, it’s meant for people with the other kind — you know, the normal kind.

“close to three quarters of Ukraine’s already non-Ukrainian. [...] what’s wrong with a few foreigners?” (—Silver)

Is that a new definition of “a few”? Getting back to the standard definition, nothing’s wrong with “a few” but I’ve been reading this site since October 2004 and have never seen anyone here, blogger or regular commenter, object to “a few,” only to “a lot” but there were a few days I was out sick so you could have a point.

“They add a nice spot of variety etc.”

Right I know, especially the non-white ones, they’re so vibrant, they’ve got the smaller braincase, the r-selected reproductive strategy and everything, they knock up all the white girls and give them AIDS then don’t marry them, the whole nine yards, which is why we’re so glad to visit their countries as tourists when we feel like a change — it’s called foreign travel, seeing the world, it’s great — but as for your idea that we import enough of them to change our country into Guinea-Bissau thanks anyway, I know it’s the thought that counts, you’re always thinking of the other guy first Silver, that’s what I admire in you but .... uhhhhhhhh ..... no thanks.

“particularly once they start thinking about what would actually have to be done to have an exclusively Ukrainian Ukraine.”

“Exclusively”? No, they don’t have to cleanse the place of small numbers of non-Ukes (assuming these are behaving themselves, not drug trafficking, running white slavery rings in collusion with Israel, etc.), just establish a social set-up that lets all these whatever — Ruthenians, Szeklers, Shiptars, guys who are half-Serb-half-Greek, whatever else they’ve got — lets them understand they’re in the Ukes’ country now, like it or leave it. Lots will leave of their own accord if they can’t do their drug running or white slavery, shipping Slavic girls to Israeli brothels. Great, that’s more room for the Ukes. If Jews like this Chervonenko piece of work help any of these others try to establish hegemony over the Ukes in the Ukes’ own land, the way the Jews here are helping the Mexes try to establish hegemony over Euros, then those Jews and the mystery meat they’re stirring up, both, need to be sent packing, yes that’s right, get the vermin, the termites, out. Leave only the ones who know how to behave in someone else’s country (provided they’re of general Euro race and not present in large volumes).

“Blah blah nationalism this, and blah blah blah nationalism that, and blah blah blah foreigners suck this much, and blah blah blah foreigners suck that much, does it every time. The sullenness of the nationalist is his own private agony. No one else gives a fuck.”

No, that’s not right, Silver: you give a fuck, very much so. You’re a race-replacement advocate. You’re on the other side and an ardent advocate for it. Someone who didn’t “give a fuck” wouldn’t get the fantods from reading my commentary: he wouldn’t “give a fuck” about me, about the race-replacement advocates, about the Jews, or about the whole shooting match.

101

Posted by Armor on Sun, 22 Aug 2010 21:21 | #

particularly once they start thinking about what would actually have to be done to have an exclusively Ukrainian Ukraine. (—You know who)

What has to be done is to deport foreigners back to their country of origin. What is wrong with that?

Are you afraid it will break their hearts if they have to leave us?
Somehow, they got over their homesickness when they came here.

Are you afraid that the extra population will be too much their country of origin?
I think the problem they create here is much worse: participation in a genocide by race-replacement.

102

Posted by Silv on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:01 | #

My stuff isn’t meant for people with your kind of brain circuits anyway, it’s meant for people with the other kind — you know, the normal kind.

Look, I agree it’s normal to want what you want. Plenty of people want it. It’s somewhat out of favor at the moment, for reasons we’re all well aware of, but it’s quite normal. But man you must be blind, deaf and/or stupid not to have realized by now that people find the other thing ‘normal’ too. They just do. Frustrating, but there it is. People just plain like other people, Scroob, or at least they come to, in the normal course of things. That’s one hell of a mountain you’re trying to climb there pal, telling them, in effect, that ‘love is wrong.’ The real problem with it is that what gets ignored is the end game of all that lovin’. That’s the one thing that gets me about all this.

That’s one thing.

The other thing is your racial revulsion level. That’s not even close to normal. That’s so far off normal words can’t really express it. If that were normal things would never ever have even approached the point they’re now at. Not a chance. You can keep telling yourself otherwise, that people see it and feel it but suppress it, or drive yourself batty by wondering how it can be that they don’t see it, insisting that it can only possibly be the result of the greatest deception in history, but it’s not going to help you any. What would help is if you just accepted that the great majority don’t feel anything like the revulsion you do—in other words, to accept reality as it is and build form there. People might actually start paying some attention to you then.

But that’s how it starts. With a few. Then the few become a few more, then they become many—like the blackbirds in The Birds—and then you’re fighting for your life. This is just what tends to happen. And you don’t even have to think about it in terms of national immigration policy. You can see the same thing happen in individual cities or parts of cities. Everyone in America is aware that the country contains a shitload of different races. But for most people it’s only when enough of them move somewhere close by that they start to dwell on race-related issues.

I wasn’t even arguing that Ukraine (or any place) should accept “a few.” I was highlighting the typical sort of thought process that takes place when those who want to bring “a few” suggesting bringing a “a few” in. Few people really care. And then you get some nationalist type beat his chest and say no, we’re thises and we’re not going to put up with any goddammed thats coming to our sacred homeland and he just sounds like an idiot. What a wasted opportunity for that nationalist in that video. There he is he gets a stop on national TV (I presume) and what does he do? He beats his chest. Well, I dare say there are quite a few more Ukes who that resonates with than there are, say, Canadians, but those people who already feel that way we’re already going to say no. Plenty of the rest who don’t so much care are very likely to be put off and decided that, bah, this fool doesn’t speak for me. Let’s open up the country a bit. And you know how that goes, at least today, times being what they are etc. Now, if the fellow had a more sophisticated message—one that I know, I know, shouldn’t be necessary, because everything he’s talking is oh so bloody normal—he might have succeed in impressing upon the suggestibles that it’s about a lot more than merely taking in a few Nigerians or whatever.

I mean, Fred, come on, you saw the reaction of that Jew. He may as well have been Russian, or Bulgarian or Tatar or whatever else they have there. They didn’t come yesterday, you know. So automatically, that’s some 25% on the let a few in side if you’re going to take that hardline approach. Then everyone that those 25% are friends or relatives with. Then all the people that know them or associate with them and “I don’t see what the problem is”—to which the nationalist reply is the standard outraged what-do-you-mean-you-don’t-see-what-the-problem-is-this-is-OUR-LAND, oblivious to the fact that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” So there’s a few more losses. All of a sudden what shouldn’t have been a problem becomes one.

What has to be done is to deport foreigners back to their country of origin. What is wrong with that?

It’s seen as unfair. It’s unfair to just get rid of someone who’s done you no obvious harm, who to all appearances is an upstanding citizen, who might look a little different but that’s a difference to be appreciated, not reviled etc etc. It’s not me you’re arguing with, Armor; this is just what most people, at least for the time being, tend to think.

Are you afraid it will break their hearts if they have to leave us?

Well, yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Frankly, to take someone who’s well adapted and well liked etc and tell him he has to be gotten ridden of because, well, he just doesn’t match your standards of what a human should look like, well… Don’t take my word for it, Armor, go and try that argument out on your fellow Frenchmen and see how well it goes down. (And I’m not even talking about myself here. If my own plans were ever put into action they’d require me to separate, which isn’t something I’d happily on an individual basis, of course not, but as part of a plan designed to achieve a certain end, yes certainly.)

Look, the whole thing gets to the heart of identity and compatibility: Who is who and who should live with whom and why? Traditional notions of ethnicity allow you take some shortcuts, but demographic change is proceeding at fast enough pace that if you want to sound convincing you’re going to have to provide a more thorough account.

I think the problem they create here is much worse: participation in a genocide by race-replacement.

Right, you think that. But why should anyone else (who doesn’t already)?

You know, the sad thing is I actually agree with you. I really do think we’d all be better off around people more like ourselves rather than less like ourselves, and I, personally, am not too fussed about just which divisions are created, or that they might be subject to change. Fine, I say. Let’s go through with all that. It’ll be a bit messy, but it’ll be worth it, especially for future generations. I just don’t think your approach—far too akin to a simple a race hate movement (see Chechar for a sterling example of this sort of lunacy)— does very much to move things in that direction.

103

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:37 | #

Chief,

I take it you dismiss the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It ain’t gonna fly Chief. There is no moral relevance. The Spanish were right. Thank goodness for that Christian meme. Thank goodness for the civilized European. It’s all that saved your red ass. And that’s an evolutionary fact. Sympathy for the devil.

Foxes do conquest, I didn’t know.

Gretzky’s overrated Fred.

Wandrin,

Chill out bro. There ain’t gonna be no mass conflagration courtesy of the Jews.

104

Posted by Pow Wow on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:13 | #

“I take it you dismiss the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Why should I care about some words scribbled by the victors of WWII from an organization set up to keep an economic system entrenched? Yes, I dismiss them.

“There is no moral relevance.”

God, I can’t believe that, at heart, you, whom I’ve always admired for his cold and realistic evolutionary vision, are a guy who believes in something called morals. From Darwin to John Brown in a snap.

“The Spanish were right.”

Agreed. No argument. They spread, they took what they could, killed when they had to, enslaved when they had to, all for gain. It’s understandable. It’s always been the way. Now it’s happening to them, and to you. You might not like it, but neither did we.

“Thank goodness for that Christian meme. Thank goodness for the civilized European. It’s all that saved your red ass.”

But it didn’t save yours.

“Foxes do conquest, I didn’t know.”

When a fox like the red slowly drives out a fox like the Arctic from the Arctic fox’s traditional homeland (i.e. a breeding ground and source of resource acquistion) through aggression (including eating the Arctic fox in an uncivilized manner) and greater control of resources, it’s the same thing a human calls conquest.

105

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:59 | #

Pow Wow,

It is not human conquest because our normal defence mechanism has been disabled by our own elites. And they are doing it for the ultimate conquest not of some or other race but of a deracinated, de-nationated, de-natured, compliant consumer.

If you do not feel threatened by that it is only because you are irrelevant, and know yourself to be so. I wouldn’t crow too much if heuron apatch on your forefathers. I would fight.

106

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:24 | #

Desmond,

Chill out bro. There ain’t gonna be no mass conflagration courtesy of the Jews.

Yes there is. A suppressed foretaste has been silently occuring in all the inner city areas of the western world for the last 60 years. I see the bleeding wreckage caused by it on a regular basis. When white people become a minority everywhere so there’s no chance of intervention they’ll use their media control to engineer a general massacre.

You of all people should be able to understand their mentality - what would you do to all the non founding stock in America / Canada if you had the power? jews hate white people that much.

You don’t want white survival because the part that you’d want to survive, Anglo-Canada, has already been destroyed beyond repair in your eyes. You’d prefer the new Canada / America to go down in flames taking all the non founders down with it.

The simple fact is the Ukrainian genocide can be used to counter the multicult argument. It’s not earth shattering but it’s a useful tool. However you feel an uncontrollable urge to muddy that simple point because your personal hatred of Ukrainians is more important to you than a useful tool of white survivalism . In short you care more about your personal hatreds than about white survival.

You’re just another version of Epaminondas.

107

Posted by Pow Wow on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:31 | #

“It is not human conquest because our normal defence mechanism has been disabled by our own elites.”

So what? Identical end results. You’re still conquered.

“And they are doing it for the ultimate conquest not of some or other race but of a deracinated, de-nationated, de-natured, compliant consumer.”

Again, who cares why “they” are doing “it”? Doesn’t matter to me if the guy killing my family says he does it out of love, hate, thrills, etc…my family’s still being killed and going extinct. It sucks, but it’s the way of the world.

“If you do not feel threatened by that it is only because you are irrelevant, and know yourself to be so.”

Don’t know where you got the “not feel[ing] threatened” bit by it, but whatever…

“I wouldn’t crow too much if heuron apatch on your forefathers.”

No one’s crowing, old man, just ‘splaining. Everything is evolution. Every single thing.

“I would fight.”

LOL. No. That’s you in love with your bluster and some brave sounding words. What you would do is type on a keyboard, waiting for some mythical someone else in the future to actually fight.

Oh well, when the guy who claims that Social Darwinism is dead chimes in, I know it’s time for me to chime out.

Adios.

108

Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:50 | #

Frankly, to take someone who’s well adapted and well liked etc and tell him he has to be gotten ridden of (—Silver)

What I would tell him is that he must go back to his own non-white roots. If the main objective is to avoid any unhappiness, any hurt feelings and any inconvenience to individuals, the best solution is to stop having children. In order to minimize misery on the earth, an effective solution would be to get rid of the African race. But normal people usually take the view that their nation must go on existing, in spite of all the suffering. I think white nations should be saved too. Going back home isn’t the end of the world for immigrants.

We mustn’t overvalue individual happiness and individual comfort to the detriment of our collective interests. Happiness depends on having a meaningful life, which implies being part of something greater than ourselves. The nation plays that role.

Another argument is that humanity should always strive upwards. Personally, I wish we could live in a cyclical, never ending traditional society. I don’t really believe in progress. But at least, if life has any meaning at all, we should try to avoid the huge regression caused by our racial replacement.

Right, you think that. But why should anyone else (who doesn’t already)? (—Silver)

As I said above: third-worlders have no problem leaving their families and friends to come here, just to improve their material comfort. How can it be more cruel to go back home than to leave home? It only hurts their wallets.

White people should try to save their collective existence no matter what. But if you don’t accept that, please try to calculate the human suffering :

A. Minus side - Less Happiness - More suffering
1) For individuals: Some unhappiness for some immigrants who get expelled

B. Plus side - More Happiness - Less suffering
2) For individuals: the end of a nightmare for many Whites
3) For Western Nations: salvation

If you do the addition, it becomes clear that the moral thing to do is to kick the darkies out of the West. But you have a tendency to forget number 2. Why should white people tolerate the murders, the rapes, the crummy lives? Why is it worse for an African to have to live among other Africans, than for a white couple to renounce having children because life has become too depressing?

—
When arguing against deportation, the media will appeal to our pity and call us Nazis, a little like Silver. But many immigrants prefer another tactic: they like to invoke their rights, as if non-whites had a natural right to live among whites. I totally disagree with them.

109

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:07 | #

Pow-wow,

You don’t seem to grasp that the problem we face is not low-IQ Third World peoples, whom we could swat off with one hand were we not bound and gagged by these people:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_problem_of_the_power_elite/

It is the same problem everybody else faces. The power elites don’t seek “conquest” for the negro or Moslems. They don’t give a damn about the negro or Moslems. They seek to permanently govern the globe in their own interests. Our fight for life is everybody’s fight for life, even yours - in fact, especially yours, because if you think a much larger Mestizo or African population will be better for you than a white American majority, you’re nuts.

110

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:17 | #

Wandrin,

1.There is no such thing as white survivalism. This video makes that blindingly obvious. The Ukrainians don’t care about ‘whites’.

2. Hatred is virtuous because it aids survival. Jews hate. Ukrainians hate, even the Chief’s people hate.

3.Why engage in the mess of a mass conflagration when exogamy and mass migration will effect the same outcome? Less fuss and muss. However, that said, how do we really know how it will turn out? Evolution has a way of mitigating apparently consummate endings.

You flatter me sir. The impact this writer has on the new order is nominal at best. I’m here to test the theory. And if it doesn’t stand here how do you expect it to stand outside of this cocooned environment?

111

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:46 | #

Yes, I dismiss them.

Ok fair enough Chief.

1. Any realistic evolutionary vision embraces the evolution of morality.

2. It’s not about liking it, Chief. Darwin wrote that “Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe…” The Neutrals were exterminated by the Iroqouis in the Beaver Wars. Their Chief did not aid and abet that extinction by encouraging mass migration of neighboring tribes to provide cheap labour for harvesting corn. His sympathy did not extend beyond his own tribe, at best.

But it didn’t save yours.

It’s not done yet, but, yeah, that is the conundrum from an evolutionary perspective. This is were Dawkins steps in and pronounces one of the manifestations of sympathy in civilized man, Christianity, as a meme, which may seek to survive regardless of how the well-being of the host is affected.

Demise is not a given. To paraphrase el Awrence, evolution has not been written.

3. Let’s agree to drop the fox analogy. Foxes do not maintain a civilization.

112

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:50 | #

1.There is no such thing as white survivalism. This video makes that blindingly obvious. The Ukrainians don’t care about ‘whites’.

White people don’t have to believe in white survivalism for it to exist. It is defined by the common threat to white survival. Even in its simplest and least consciously malign form there are endless billions who want to live in white countries. Their presence in excessive numbers destroys white countries. Only America and maybe Russia are big enough on their own to find a potential solution to that.

In the end none of the white countries will survive unless they realise all white countries face the same threats. It doesn’t matter if Ukrainians or whoever else care about whites. If they care about *their own* people then eventually they’ll need to make common cause with other white nations if they want to defeat those common threats.

113

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:47 | #

Wandrin,

There is no common threat to ‘white’ survival, unless you believe that mass white migration is a threat to white survival. American ‘white’ nationalists will condemn the Ukrainian position just as they condemned the British lad who told the Slovak to go home. The position then is the presence of other Europeans in European countries destroys white countries. It makes no sense when the object is white survival. However, it makes total sense when 80 odd percent of Ukrainians believes that the Ukraine is for Ukrainians.

The alleged attack was sparked, it is claimed, by Jake throwing a berry at the woman in question and then telling her to “go back to your country”.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484594/revealed-racial-tensions-slovak-mothers-pipe-attack-boy.html#ixzz0xUWYQxPC

114

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:08 | #

Silver you’ll forgive me for not replying point-by-point to your screed (mawkish and barely intelligible in parts) of Aug. 23, 3:01 AM? I was tempted to have one more go, to always keep the side of the angels represented, but 1) it would have made the trillionth time for most of it, and 2) that long ramble you posted wasn’t up to your usual standard — you’re turning into a crashing bore, Silver. The thing was almost unreadable. Though pressed for time myself, I would have had to respond to stuff like this for example:

People just plain like other people, Scroob, or at least they come to, in the normal course of things. That’s one hell of a mountain you’re trying to climb there pal, telling them, in effect, that ‘love is wrong.’ The real problem with it is that what gets ignored is the end game of all that lovin’. That’s the one thing that gets me about all this. […] I just don’t think your approach—far too akin to a simple race hate movement (see Chechar for a sterling example of this sort of lunacy)— does very much to move things in that direction.

(Have you thought about joining Jeffry Imm’s outfit? You know, “Choose love not hate, love wins,” that guy? Why not give him a ring?)

(Besides, I like Chechar.)

115

Posted by James Caan on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:27 | #

Wow. It gets much, much worse, folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l—_fyqgjo

Same jew, same show. Dumbfounding.

116

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:51 | #

I’m sorry to be contributing so late to this impassioned thread, but something I posted for Notus over at his Chinese economy discussion may have some relevance here.

Christianity is a “totalist” thought system. I don’t believe that Christianity literally need permeate every aspect of life, but one’s political commitments absolutely, if one is a serious Christian, must be conformable to the Faith. I keep stressing that the core issue of WN is the moral legitimacy of inter-group violence (and to a lesser extent, of coercion to enforce racial purity and cohesion). Examples?

1. A Christian white woman wants to marry a Christian black man. May we use the state to illegalize such a union?

You think this is an ‘orthogonal’ issue? A simple one? Hardly. Christians thinkers today (who are very likely closer to the spirit of the early Church than those of early modern European times) generally believe in “free marriage”, provided both parties are of age, opposite sexes, and Christian. Advocating de-legalizing interracial marriage would strike vast numbers of Christians of all sects as morally wrong. Yet that is precisely what we must advocate, if we wish our people to survive over the long run.

2. The issue of immigration is fairly simple on the surface. It seems obvious that whites have the moral right (and even duty) to keep out non-whites. Unfortunately, the weight of modern theology (I mean serious, non-leftist-masquerading-as-Christian, theology; the silly leftists object to immigration restrictions even on Muslims, one ass arguing that their physical presence among us would make it easier for us to “bring them to Christ” than if they were to remain in Islamic societies where preaching the Good News is forbidden and punished) goes against our view (except wrt Muslim immigrants).

Establishing a Christian case against immigration is eminently possible, but it requires upending the bulk of current writing on the subject, which resolutely fails to incorporate the anti-diversitarian findings of modern biology into its racial theology. Of course, integrating biology into theology is itself an enormous task ...

3. 1 and 2 are the easy cases. The real issue is this: we in the West must reacquire exclusive racial territory if we are to have good survival prospects (I would argue, if we are to survive over the long haul at all - but I recognize some would argue otherwise from the Jewish model of ethnosurvival; I am unpersuaded - look what almost happened to them, for Pete’s sake!). WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, Notus, GW, PF, Dasein, Grimoire, Scroob, Wandrin, etc etc? It means racial repatriation, at least out of Europe (America, and the other non-Euro-indigenous countries, are much more ethically fraught). And what does that mean? It means that not only legal immigrants, but those non-Europoids born on European soil, many of whom only speak a European language, must be forcibly uprooted, handcuffed onto ocean liners, like the African slaves of old, and expelled to elsewhere. And when some resist their deportation?

It means some of them WILL BE SHOT. You dig, homey?

Now it’s all well and good to talk about ‘ontology’, and ‘endogamy’, and the shit GOP or Tories, and the great Enoch Powell (who foresaw and sought to prevent this), and the BNP, and the Call of Blood, and the blood-Jew, and orthogonality, and homogeniety amongst bacteria, or whatever else catches our fancy ... but I’m a bottom line guy. And the bottom line is that coercive violence will be necessary to achieve our ultimate preservationist aim of restoring the racial apartheid status quo ex ante.

You think this is a matter of Christian unconcern??!! I suggest your understanding of the Faith is less than optimum. You show me the Christian authority whose moral theology, as presently interpreted, allows for racial expulsions. Yes, you are correct that the biology of race differences is largely orthogonal to theology. But the legal and political uses to which we will put that knowledge is not in the least outside the realm of Christian notice - and criticism (and again I am referring to the better, more conservative or traditionalist authorities like the current Pontiff).

I don’t wish to patronize someone as affable and polite as yourself, but I think you don’t understand either the state of Christian theology, or, perhaps, the implications of a serious nationalism. Respecting the latter, this is not about merely stopping affirmative action and immigration, or even the ethical allowability of an ethnostate, considered abstractly. This is about some whites somewhere precipitating a war for racial survival. I’m too old, and have worked too hard, to risk what I have by being one of those revolutionaries. But at least philosophically, that is the endpoint (or the first foreseeable of a series of endpoints) of what we are theorizing.

117

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:21 | #

BTW, excellent discussion, People. I actually read the whole of it, which I rarely do. Great passion and material from Fred, Wandrin, GW, Desmond Jones, and others. Many interesting perspectives.

I still think we need to develop that “nationalist minimum”, and then start practical, tactical discussions. I don’t think we need to theorize everything at the outset. We know what we want: White preservation! Non-white foreigners OUT!! No excuses or exceptions. We don’t need to resolve the strategic mistakes or ethicality of all the wrong turns our race has followed. We don’t need extended intra-racial bickering. We don’t need to establish the exact ontological status of Jewry. We don’t even exactly need to determine who is white. We simply must stop the alien invasion. Without that, all other issues become (near-) mute (well, for now; once we have lost of demographic majorities, we then need to think about how to protect ourselves as minorities).

One idea/question: how best can we further the development of a Pan-European genetic nationalist movement? What we need is pro-white internationalism. This is obviously not a new idea, but does there exist any international pro-white organization? Could one be created? I’m thinking of something that transcends borders, and specific nationalisms. An international white brotherhood, not simply an alliance of nationalist parties. Say, The Leonidas Legion. The Indo-European League. Or just the Aryan Legion, the Occidental League/brotherhood/whatever.

Note how the Jews jealously protect the interests of their own everywhere, not just in their own countries and Israel. We need some international organization which can be similarly internationally active, but which would also serve as an international social club of sorts. A place of refuge in major cities around the world, with the ability to recommend amenities, provide emergency legal or banking referrals, etc.

If we aren’t just blowing endless hot air, we all have to get out of cyberspace and into things in the actual world. Just some thoughts from someone who’s been thinking for decades, but wants to start doing.

118

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:42 | #

WOW is right! Thanks for posting that, James Caan. To repeat the subtitle in that video: What exactly did that young guy say that was “anti-Semitic”?

He said nothing “anti-Semitic,” not one word.

According to the Jews, they can genocide all the people they want — but dare so much as to question any of it, you’re “anti-Semitic.” The Jew in that video wants every Negro on the planet to come flooding into the Ukraine, changing it into Cameroon North, and if any Uke dares to so much as pose a question about it he’s “anti-Semitic.”

See how the game is played?

Well the Jews aren’t the only ones who can play that game. Two can play.

And it’s about time we started playing.

By the Jews’ rules.

119

Posted by Joshua on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:58 | #

Why was the short (59sec) clip stopped at the end of the excellent question about the Holodomor? I wanted to see that genocidal Jew squirm! Please tell that there are or will be more related clips on YT of this particular incident…

120

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:30 | #

Had I been in that audience I would have said to that Jew that the Jews committed the first Holodomor and were now trying to commit a second. As the log entry’s title says, “If at first you don’t succeed ...... .” That’s exactly what’s going on: what the entry’s title says. I would’ve shut that guy up “in good shape” as they say in this part of New England. Jews trying to natiocide ancient Euro nations and genocide ancient Euro peoples and races may fool clueless women voters, they don’t fool me.

121

Posted by Socrates on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:33 | #

Moved by moderator from from the thread to None dare call it White genocide

JEWISH THIRD WORLD WAR ON AMERICA—IMMIGRATION

The Judaists (commonly referred to as “Jews”) number one plan to destroy America has been to unleash the 3rd world invasion through immigration to destroy the white majority and turn America into a 3rd world country they can totally control. It is indisputable that Judaists promote 3rd world immigration heavily into White nations. They lie that immigration is good for America, oppose borders, call patriots “racists” while fiercely promoting the exact opposite for Israel, thus proving that their alienism is a malicious swindle.

See Culture of Critique, by Kevin McDonald, reviewed on:

http://www.savethemales.ca/000164.html
http://www.wake-up-america.net/

See how they pushed through legislation to open the flood-gates to massive immigration:

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=50

It is obvious that immigration destroys a nation by imposing more demands on limited resources, such as jobs, land, water, education and health-care. This is the reason for our falling employment and wages and rising prices and the shrinking middle class. Aliens are bankrupting Medicare, Medicaid, states and the federal govt. Crime and corruption are spreading like wildfire. America is already the 3rd most populous nation on earth.

For costs of just illegal immigration, see:

http://immigrationcounters.com

And if immigration were really so good, these 3rd countries would never let anybody escape, instead of lobbying our politicians to give more visas and not build the fence. If the Judaists really thought the alien invasion was good, why don’t they take all the aliens and the Mexicans to Israel? There, they build fences, but oppose the border fence here.

So why are Judaists alienists and destructionists?

Judaists believe they are a special race called “Jews”, descended from Middle Eastern/African Torah patriarchs like Abraham (who was a pimp and sold his own wife Sarai as a prostitute to an African pharaoh), and were persecuted often, so they believe they must destroy society’s cohesiveness and culture to maintain control by using the divide and conquer strategy, such as by promoting the alien invasion, multiculturalism, diversity (so their own barbarianism becomes acceptable in a depraved society) and race baiting.

Judaists also want to destroy White Christian nations because they hate Whites and Christians the most and wish to exterminate them both. Unable to do that militarily, they instead resort to their third world war of bribing politicians and propaganda to promote massive immigration from all over the 3rd world into White nations. They know that once the colored aliens are over 50% , they will rob, loot, steal, kill, plunder and exterminate Whites (like in South Africa), thus effectuating their exact plan.

The Judaists spit on Christians in Israel, call Mother Mary a whore and say Jesus is boiling in excrement in hell in their Talmud (“Talmud Unmasked” by Rev. Pranthis, “Jewish history, Jewish religion” by Israel Shahak.)

See:

http://www.talmudunmasked.com

Also see “Judaism’s Strange Gods”, by Michael Hoffman

“Jews…..exterminate Christians” , see:

http://www.jewishracism.com/Christian_Zionism.htm

Unfortunately, they are able to do that because most Christians are simple gullible people and do not realize that their biggest enemy are the Judaists. The Christians worship Jesus and assume that since Jesus was a “Jew”, the modern Jews are related to him and so worthy of worship. They also take the Old Testament literally and since it says that Jews are God’s Chosen People, they assume that these modern Jews, (the mentally deranged criminals who are engaged in a genocidal war on our nations) were Chosen by God and must be loved and respect, not realizing that the Old Testament is an obvious forgery, as shown below.

The Judaists basic beliefs about their identity, history and persecution are derived from the Torah and Talmud. Most of their beliefs are delusions because the Torah (Old Testament) is fiction, a pure myth.

In fact, most Judaists are European Whites whose ancestors converted to Judaism in the middle ages. See Arthur Koestler, 13th tribe; also Dr. Schlomo Sand’s award-winning book reviewed on:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-wandering-who-by-gilad-atzmon.html
Also see: http://www.khazaria.com

The Torah is a “forgery” (See: McCabe). That is obvious from book 1, page 1. The Earth is not 4000 years old. Cultures (unknown to the scribes) flourished much before. Written records and archeological evidence using carbon dating show man’s presence tens of thousands of years ago, probably over a 100,000 years ago. A million people cannot live in a vast desert (without water or food) in a hostile nation for 40 years—-and leave no trace.

Moshe (an Egyptian, therefore African and Negro) never existed. His story is copied from the older myths of Mises or Sargon. Exodus never happened. For see “Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho” (by Prof. Ze’ev Herzog of the Dept. of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University).

See:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/False_Testament_(Harpers).htm

The Negro Moshe could not have parted the Red Sea, not only because it violates the laws of physics, and there was no Moses, but because there was no Red Sea to cross, since Egypt and Israel have a common land border! The scribes who fabricated the Torah (OT) were negro barbarian criminals or “human animals” (—Hutchins) who lied about God and then made up self-serving lies that they are “God’s Chosen.”

In summary, by relying on the insane rantings (Torah) of a gang of mentally deranged black criminals, Judaists themselves become mentally deranged as evinced by their hatred of mankind, low morals, rampant criminality, narcissistic delusions, negrophilia, alienism and hatred of whites, (i.e. their own race).

Light skinned people who believe they are “Jews” and worship these negro criminals and believe they are their descendants and destroy their own nation and race through immigration are obviously mentally deranged self-hating Whites.

We must wake up and stand up against the 3rd world war by the Judaists against US and the EU: immigration. We must only vote for politicians who promise to ban all immigration and support national referenda.

122

Posted by Silver on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 04:36 | #

Armor,

When arguing against deportation, the media will appeal to our pity and call us Nazis, a little like Silver. But many immigrants prefer another tactic: they like to invoke their rights, as if non-whites had a natural right to live among whites. I totally disagree with them.

I’m a pragmatist. I’m more concerned with what’s plausible and possible. People have a natural tendency to believe they have a right to live where they were born. No one grows up fundamentally questioning the propriety of his existence on a certain territory—it’s always those who question it that are wrong. History makes it clear that “native” stock finds it easier to acquiesce than to resist, thus race-replacement. The task is to make the “case for race” despite these obstacles. Doing so may include attacking and weakening their assumptions but that alone won’t be enough, at least not initially.

Look, Armor, you can’t ignore the rest of the world (again, at least not initially) and simply go about making what amount to universal racialist claims. Who should have the right to live in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? There’s no racial uniformity there; hasn’t been for centuries. So who should be permitted to live there? In Iran? In India? In Venezuela? WNs don’t care to think about such questions because they consider the stock that inhabits those territories so far beneath them that it simply doesn’t cross their minds to grant their circumstances any consideration. Well, Hello, Earth to Armor: that’s clearly not what the rest of your people think, so your obstinacy on this point only creates yet another enormous stumbling block. But I’m not surprised. That’s so typical of the revulsion-ridden racialist; he’s so overwhelmed with racial disgust and an accompanying desire to show incompatibles the door, so gripped with anxiety that such may not occur, that he can’t begin to make sense to anyone not similarly gripped. (Look at Leon Haller. By his own account he’s had decades to think about it. And yet his rambling diatribes are all he has to show for it. Pretty sad.)

Happiness depends on having a meaningful life, which implies being part of something greater than ourselves. The nation plays that role.

The nation can play that role. But so can many, many other things. It does you no good to deny that. The trick is to present the ‘nation’ (or something like it) as the most appealing option for satisfying that yearning, or at least to make it compatible with other alternatives. Eg “You love your Buddhism? That’s great. No reason it should require our extinction, though. So join us.” That sort of thing. As opposed to the typical nationalist stance of claiming to be in possession of the knowledge of the one right way to live.

Scrooby,

One day it might occur to you that I’m not your enemy, you pig-headed, revulsion-ridden, worm of a man. You’re most certainly mine, I have no doubt of that. But I’m not yours. You promise me the rope, while I’d only treat you to few months in reeducation camp (well, maybe a few years for an obstinate prick like you, but I’d break you, I’m certain).

Now, you’re right, I am a “race-replacement advocate”—if by “replacement” we mean “restitution.” Why not? Where there’s a will there’s a way. But it won’t be your way. Not if I have anything to do with it. Of course, I—me, Silver— am completely inconsequential. What it seems you fail to appreciate, however, is that psychological reserves my position taps into are very real, so whether it’s me saying it or someone else is beside the point; the point being the position itself is able to generate a whole lot of someone elses clamoring for it—it’s possible I’ll live to regret ever having said anything about race, but I’m obviously betting that that number will be much greater than what your side can generate.

123

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:32 | #

(Look at Leon Haller. By his own account he’s had decades to think about it. And yet his rambling diatribes are all he has to show for it. Pretty sad.) (Silver)

Silver,

You could not hold a candle to my intellect, erudition, or educational background. Have you no sense of reality? Compare my posts to yours. If you cannot recognize that yours are what should be described as “rambling”, then you are simply dumb, which I believe you are.

Our position is crystal clear: we don’t want biologically incompatible aliens being forcibly imposed upon us. We don’t want to live in the same polities with non-whites. We don’t want them ruling us (as now with Obama, elected with a mere 43% of the white vote; or much lower, if one extracts all the non-white ‘whites’ - Jews, Arabs, quarter-mixed, Gypsies, etc, whom our methodologically flawed Census classifies as “white”).

If your diatribes were leavened with any historical knowledge, you might recognize that the views expressed by most of us here were the majority views across the Western world for centuries, until really the 1980s, when the combination of the Negro civil rights movement (a series of lies told to secure a bare majority of white popular support), unrecognized 1960s immigration changes, plus post-60s diversitarian propaganda inflicted in schools and the Jewish mass media, suddenly began to transform the traditional thinking about race among a substantial segment of the (like you, easily brainwashed) population.

Still, I wonder ... if (legal) immigration (people are goddam sick of illegals) were put to a plebiscitary vote in the US (or Britain, France, etc) today, what percentage of (real, that is, racially pure) whites would support it’s continuation? I suspect it would be less than a third.

You think that race-mixers like yourself will win the war to destroy the white race. That brownnosers like yourself will come out on top. Persons like you won’t. The alien races you so cherish don’t give a fuck about little nobody appeasers like you. They will use your gullibility to steal our lands, but once they have them, they will tax, then enslave, and finally butcher you and your kind as much as any more manly whites.

If, that is, life-affirming race-patriots don’t succeed in culling the traitors from our midst first ...

124

Posted by Randy Garver on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:09 | #

Most white nationalists seem to be like a man who has a glass of seawater and desires to create a volume of pure H2O and neat little piles of separated minerals, yet no realistic plan of how to realize his goals, instead occupying his time by pontificating at length about the superiority of such an arrangement, and waxing rhapsodic about implausible fantasy scenarios to achieve it.

The only reasonable approach I’ve read comes from Silver, who seems to take into account the inescapable necessity for universal, voluntary participation in a project involving mass migrations on an unprecedented scale.

The idea that a tiny group of embittered whites would somehow use force against an integrated, inacquiescent population to achieve racial separation, especially in an first world nation with the most heavily armed civilian citizenry in the history of the world, is completely ludicrous.

125

Posted by Matt Parrott on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:43 | #

Randy,

It is indeed possible to separate these groups out and it’s possible to do it with minimal force (perhaps none at all). One might have opined that the people of Yugoslavia are too hopelessly integrated to ever break apart into autonomous ethnostates. One might have opined that global Jewry was far too diverse and far-flung to reconstruct a dead language, reclaim some long-lost territory, and raise up an ethnostate from the desert wasteland. It may indeed be too late for a complete restoration, but the hope that we can manage to eke out some sort of future for our people isn’t as absurd as you and Silver would suggest.

Behind the alarming statistics is a reality that the overwhelming majority of White Americans are still pervasively segregated. One wouldn’t know it from visiting the big cities, or from going to the mall (Do you people get some kind of miscegenation discount?). But the sea water analogy is hyperbole. It’s more like attempting to pick one type of item out of a salad. While many WNs are indeed out of touch with how far along America is down this multicult path, I believe many White elites in cosmopolitan enclaves suffer from a similar misgiving in the opposite direction.

126

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:51 | #

“Do you people get some kind of miscegenation discount?” (—Matt Parrott)

LOL

127

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:02 | #

I have no illusions about whites taking back America, at least in the normal course of events. Europe is another matter. The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white, and they, unlike the Americans, have every system of morality backing their cause (though most don’t realize it due to immoral brainwashing). Thus, Europeans absolutely could physically remove non-whites if they so chose. Their Third Continental War would be by far their briefest, unless the Mahgreb invaded, in which case the Euros could threaten military, even nuclear retaliation. Whites would win. What they lack is the will to do so. Hence the need for WN deprogramming.

My only disagreement, but it is foundational, is that the re-conquest of the continent would be more likely to proceed under a resurrected ethical Crusader Christianity, with a healthy admixture of “ethnonational liberationism”, than by adopting some neo-Darwinian, neo-Naziesque ideology.

Silver is a complete ass, however. There will never be voluntary expatriation of anyone. Realistic? Utterly utopian.

128

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:52 | #

The idea that a tiny group of embittered whites
>Randy Garver

The number who implicitly agree with our aims is not “tiny” at all.

would somehow use force

So I suppose you think we will all just get along, huh? Give me a break. The hostility is coming from without. With each passing year Whites are demonized and attacked more. The invaders and traitors aims are not “kumbaya” - they are hostile takeover.

against an integrated,

The White population is nothing of the sort.

inacquiescent population

The vast majority of Whites have not “acquiesced” to multiracialism, liar.

to achieve racial separation,

This already happens - it’s called White flight.

especially in an first world nation with the most heavily armed civilian citizenry in the history of the world,

The majority of whom are White and alienated. Are you really saying that there is no mass disaffection among Whites? You are a mendacious one, aren’t you.

is completely ludicrous.

You are a troll, and your purpose is to dishearten racial activists. Run along now.

129

Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 19:07 | #

Silver is a complete ass, however. There will never be voluntary expatriation of anyone. Realistic? Utterly utopian.
>Leon

He (a thorn in MR’s side for many years now) and Garver (a comparatively recent arrival on the scene and clearly a Silver mini-me) are avowed liberals who pretend to be sympathetic to White survival but when it comes right down to it they are vehemently opposed to the only possible solutions. That, and they show open hostility and contempt towards Whites as if we were the “persecutors”, all the while ignoring that our ideology is merely a just response to persecution of the most hateful and vile sort. They are trolls and enemies, as far as I’m concerned.

130

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 21:19 | #

Randy,

Why are you here? This is a medium for intelligent people of European descent to discuss matters of political, cultural and philosophical interest to us and our people. You belong on an Negro forum or a Jew forum where your bugger’s self-loathing will be welcomed. You don’t belong among intelligent Europeans. Goodbye.

131

Posted by LEW on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:24 | #

Silver:“Who should have the right to live in, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia? There’s no racial uniformity there; hasn’t been for centuries. So who should be permitted to live there? In Iran? In India? In Venezuela? WNs don’t care to think about such questions because they consider the stock that inhabits those territories so far beneath them that it simply doesn’t cross their minds to grant their circumstances any consideration.”

I’m not following your point here.

WN are concerned with the question of who should be permitted to live in our own native lands because we hope to prevent something you appear to welcome, White genocide.

Why should it matter to us who lives in those other places?

132

Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 01:50 | #

Matt,

For what it’s worth, I would exclude you from the “Most white nationalists…” comment as you and your organization (CoCC) appear to expend considerable effort to develop a positive ethnic identity and community presence. Also, your focus on traditionalism and family values resonates with myself and others who might not identify themselves as “ethnic nationalists”.

(Do you people get some kind of miscegenation discount?)

Indeed. The World Wide Judaism Directorate (WWJD) offers retail discounts for white racial genociders. These days they primarily use RFID implants, but perhaps you may seen the older-style WWJD discount bracelets?

In all seriousness, I hate shopping and rarely ever go, preferring to send my traditional wife to perform this duty on my behalf.

As for the difficulty of racially dividing nations, while I’m admittedly not a history expert, I would suggest that the examples of Yugoslavia and Israel aren’t accurate models for the US. Yugoslavia was a relatively recent amalgamated Slavic superstate without a broad or deep historical narrative of continuity, and Israel’s formation didn’t involve the territorial dissolution of any major world powers.

133

Posted by Armor on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:07 | #

Silver: “People have a natural tendency to believe they have a right to live where they were born. No one grows up fundamentally questioning the propriety of his existence on a certain territory”

Actually, many non-whites born in the West feel like misfits. Repatriation will take care of that. What is at stake is the survival of white nations. It isn’t a matter of individual rights for immigrants. It isn’t about title to territory either. Non-whites are not here for our territory, but for the money we give them.

In order to get racial separation, we’ll have to forget about individual rights and think only in terms of morality: what is moral and what is not. It is certainly immoral to accept the death of white nations in order to avoid hurting the feelings and material comfort of third-world invaders. They have their own countries and their own nations that they can return to. I think when the English colonists were kicked out of India, they were able to readjust to life in Europe.

From the dictionary:

right = An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature

morality = Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong

—
Silver: “WNs don’t care to think about such questions because they consider the stock that inhabits those territories so far beneath them that it simply doesn’t cross their minds to grant their circumstances any consideration.”

I have always thought it was sad that the Chinese Communist Party probably thought nothing of destroying the human diversity within China. I bet a lot of the destruction is done on purpose. But I never took the time to read up on the subject. The media didn’t give me any particular information. The media don’t even pretend to care. They say they care about immigrants living in the West, but they don’t. And I don’t think you really care what WNs think of non-whites.

Me: “Happiness depends on having a meaningful life, which implies being part of something greater than ourselves. The nation plays that role.”

When I wrote that, I took my inspiration from a speech I read by William Pierce. But what he said in fact is that having a purpose is more important than happiness. I think it’s true, but having a purpose also contributes to happiness. Anyway, there’s no point trying to improve our world when we know that our efforts will soon be obliterated by the growing non-white presence. Our sense of purpose is presently going out the window. It can only mean more suicides for white people —until we have a civil war.

134

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:46 | #

Good reply by LEW to Silver, a few above. What has to be grasped about Silver and Robert Lindsay is their underlying motivation in all this is white-hot hatred of anyone having an unflattering thought about another race, just as Christopher Hitchens’ underlying motivation is white-hot hatred of anyone having an unflattering thought about a lower social class (Lindsay has some of that too).

Look [Scroob], I agree it’s normal to want what you want [i.e., to not be genocided — that’s all I want]. Plenty of people want it. It’s somewhat out of favor at the moment, for reasons we’re all well aware of, but it’s quite normal. But man you must be blind, deaf and/or stupid not to have realized by now that people find the other thing ‘normal’ too. (—Silver, Aug. 23, 3:01 AM)

But “the other thing” is genocide, Silver. People don’t find that normal but at the same time people like you don’t want to recognize my right not to undergo it. What’s going on now is planned, Silver: a nucleus of people behind the scenes want to eliminate the Euro races and are proceeding accordingly. They don’t want a bloody mess so are doing it the “clean” way, demographically, by making sure their people control or influence those elements of governance that determine a country’s future demographics: immigration policy, tax policy, the imposition of rules and regulations bearing on forced racial integration, the interdiction of free association, and so forth.

If that’s OK — if Euros are supposed to be nice and lie down and take it — whom do we do it to next, the dagoes? The Jews? The Negroes? The Mexes? Whom? It can’t be that it’s OK to do it to whites but wrong to do it to anyone else. That’s not possible. If whites have to be genocided so does everybody else. If everybody else doesn’t have to be, whites don’t. If whites do, I vote for doing it to the Jews next. Is that OK with the Jews, do you think?

People just plain like other people, Scroob, or at least they come to, in the normal course of things. That’s one hell of a mountain you’re trying to climb there pal, telling them, in effect, that ‘love is wrong.’ The real problem with it is that what gets ignored is the end game of all that lovin’.

That’s the Jeffry Imm script. Stop it, you’re making my eyes tear up, Silver. (Can someone pass the Kleenex please? I ... I can’t go on just at the moment [sob .... sob .....] please just give me a minute to compose myself, I’ll be OK .....)

[OK, there, I feel better now ..... a big thanks and a hug to whoever it was who passed the Kleenex ...]

The other thing is your racial revulsion level. […] the great majority don’t feel anything like the revulsion you do

I have no doubt the majority would have voted race-replacement down in an honestly worded referendum, no matter whether out of “revulsion,” or out of “love,” or out of you-name-it, they would have voted No had they been honestly asked in 1965. They weren’t. It was snuck through and has been rammed down their throat ever since. Furthermore every time a ballot initiative is passed the other side’s appointed judges strike it down on trumped-up grounds. If you’re asking why there hasn’t been an armed uprising yet, that’s a whole nother question from “the great majority don’t feel anything like the revulsion you do.”

But that’s how it starts. With a few. Then the few become a few more, then they become many—like the blackbirds in The Birds—and then you’re fighting for your life. This is just what tends to happen.

OK but let’s get matters back to “a few” first, then we’ll decide where to go from there. Deal?

And then you get some nationalist type beat his chest and say no, we’re thises and we’re not going to put up with any goddammed that’s coming to our sacred homeland and he just sounds like an idiot. What a wasted opportunity for that nationalist in that video. There he is he gets a stop on national TV (I presume) and what does he do? He beats his chest.

I didn’t get your point in this passage about “letting in a few” and “nationalists beating their chests.” The guy in the video btw didn’t strike me as an idiot or chest-beater whatsoever. He struck me as a really good, really normal guy.

For the rest of your <strike>barely intelligible in parts, maudlin screed</strike> your comment, I agree with Armor’s and LEW’s answers to it.

135

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:49 | #

Randy, after seeing your first and second comments above, I agree with those who think you should bog off.

Bye.

136

Posted by Randy Garver on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:04 | #

Guessedworker,

I came here because I heard a radio program by Soren Renner and thought, “Here’s a sharp and interesting guy. They probably enjoy intelligent and spirited debate on his website.”

137

Posted by Thorn on Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:38 | #

I came here because I heard a radio program by Soren Renner and thought, “Here’s a sharp and interesting guy. They probably enjoy intelligent and spirited debate on his website.”

I don’t for one second believe Randy is being sincere.

Obviously he’s trying to be comedic.

Asshat Randy.

138

Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:31 | #

Gudmund,

I’m not suggesting that there are not large numbers of dissatisfied whites, however I am suggesting that currently there is no critical mass of such whites who primarily and explicitly blame non-whites for their problems, and who would further be willing to organize and participate in a forced apartheid/expulsion project that would necessitate a suspension of the US Constitution, abrogation of property rights, large-scale coordinated violence, economic disruption on a grand scale, etc.

You are a troll, and your purpose is to dishearten racial activists.

Not true. I have genuine respect for those who work to better their people, which in this case, are my people too. We likely also share a similar disdain towards left-wing multiculturalism which has infected government, education, and to a degree the commercial sector.

139

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:44 | #

I am suggesting that currently there is no critical mass of such whites who primarily and explicitly blame non-whites for their problems

Oh dear. He thinks we blame non-whites, or necessarily must do so to achieve “critical mass” and, therefore, political agency.

I suppose it could be just a poor choice of words. But I think it’s more likely that Randy simply doesn’t have all the pieces of the picture.

140

Posted by Armor on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:31 | #

RG: “there is no critical mass of such whites who primarily and explicitly blame non-whites for their problems”

There is nothing wrong with most non-whites. We don’t need to blame them for anything. What’s wrong is the forced racial togetherness on the same piece of land. It leads to the genocide of white people. What we need is a kind of no-fault divorce between us and them: they go back home, we stay here, but we still like them. We could also swap countries: all the third-world moves to the West, and we move to their former countries.

We already have a majority of white people who would rather live among other white people and stop financing their self race-replacement. The problem is how to get rid of the current regime. I’m sure most third-world immigrants will peacefully go home if they are asked politely and if we stop giving them money. In fact, we can give them money to help them resettle. If some of them won’t go peacefully, maybe they can be given some kind of reservation, like the Indians. We don’t need a perfect solution at once.

GW: “it’s more likely that Randy simply doesn’t have all the pieces of the picture.”

He could be a troll, or if he may not have all the pieces.

141

Posted by wog pussy on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:34 | #

But I think it’s more likely that Randy simply doesn’t have all the pieces of the picture.

I wonder if it doesn’t have something to do with his non-white wife.

142

Posted by Silver on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 05:24 | #

Haller,

You could not hold a candle to my intellect, erudition, or educational background.

That’s very likely true. Which only makes it even sadder that in all the years you’ve been hard at work thinking about these issues the ideas contained in your posts here are all that you’ve been able to come up with. If you were honest with yourself you’d admit there’s really not all that much there. (Perhaps you have no sense of reality.)

If you cannot recognize that yours are what should be described as “rambling”, then you are simply dumb, which I believe you are.

Thing is, they all have a point to them or respond directly to a point made by your side. Getting sore at me for pointing out your shortcomings doesn’t change that.

See what I mean? Who hasn’t heard that before? “We want this,” “we want that.” Big effin’ deal. You (especially you, personally) have yet to propose a way any of that can be gotten given the present political (and cultural) realities.

If your diatribes were leavened with any historical knowledge, you might recognize that the views expressed by most of us here were the majority views across the Western world for centuries, until really the 1980s, when the combination of the Negro civil rights movement (a series of lies told to secure a bare majority of white popular support), unrecognized 1960s immigration changes, plus post-60s diversitarian propaganda inflicted in schools and the Jewish mass media, suddenly began to transform the traditional thinking about race among a substantial segment of the (like you, easily brainwashed) population.

Wow, I had no idea.

You think that race-mixers like yourself will win the war to destroy the white race. That brownnosers like yourself will come out on top. Persons like you won’t. The alien races you so cherish don’t give a fuck about little nobody appeasers like you. They will use your gullibility to steal our lands, but once they have them, they will tax, then enslave, and finally butcher you and your kind as much as any more manly whites.

What alien races do I “cherish,” you wanker? I am the alien race (wrt WN politics). Nevertheless, I happen to believe “racialism” as a social and political principle makes a great deal of sense, regardless of how racial lines are drawn or races and peoples sorted. It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with. If you were as sharp as you claim to be you’d realize that makes us ‘natural allies,’ despite my reasons for wanting to racially part ways differing substantially from your own.

LEW,

WN are concerned with the question of who should be permitted to live in our own native lands because we hope to prevent something you appear to welcome, White genocide.

Why should it matter to us who lives in those other places?

Because so much of your opposition to multiracialism rests on your claim to be in possession of some sort of suppressed truth about racial reality and racial behavior. Don’t play dumb. You people are forever screaming from the rooftops that multiracialism doesn’t work, cannot work, has never worked, anywhere at any time blah blah blah. Well then, if wanting to be in possession of a racially exclusive territory is as natural an impulse as you claim, if people of all races have some sort of divine right to their own racial territory, explain why there’s no outcry about “genocide” in those countries, which are certainly not racially uniform.

143

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:26 | #

You (especially you, personally) have yet to propose a way any of that can be gotten given the present political (and cultural) realities.

No prob Bob. Marry a Negro like Silver’s bro, unless of course he’s lying. LOL. After all the guy is an inveterate liar. He holds his own people, the Serbs, (unless of course it’s just one more big fat lie) in contempt for being culturally alien. LOL.

I happen to believe “racialism” as a social and political principle makes a great deal of sense, regardless of how racial lines are drawn or races and peoples sorted.

There he goes again. He can’t help himself. Lies like a rug. In the beginning there is the word ...one big, fat, stinking, grotesque lie. Awww grasshopper…you fucking liar. LOL.

144

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:36 | #

The following ‘verbal gems’ are some of silver’s introductory remarks (they’re from the - Are Jews White, thread):

1)“Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”

2)“Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is—one beset with contradiction and internal bickering—there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo).”

3)“If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it…more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”

4)“Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen. Comments?” [no, wait!]
“I’m not Paki, btw. I was just curious to see what reaction that would ellicit. I’m Serbian…”

5)“Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”

145

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:54 | #

Silver, the sanctimonious mendacious bastard. Silver dripping venom on all desire for preservation. Silver who portrays every effort in that vein as hateful, simply because it excludes him. God help those that embrace his lies. He’s nothing but an emotional Vampire sucking out their life force, their natural desire to survive as a unique entity.

146

Posted by LEW on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:16 | #

Silver: “Well then, if wanting to be in possession of a racially exclusive territory is as natural an impulse as you claim, if people of all races have some sort of divine right to their own racial territory, explain why there’s no outcry about “genocide” in those countries, which are certainly not racially uniform.

Well, I have seen no one but you claim that the desire for a racially exclusive territory is a natural impulse that universally exists among all races at all times everywhere.

Some races clearly prefer their own racial territory and have their own racial territory, while others do not have their own territory and don’t care to have it.

Among the races that don’t care to have it, such as the various groups in the places you mentioned, there is no outcry of genocide because from their point of view race mixing and replacement are not a problem.

Among the races that do have it, such as the Japanese, there is no outcry of “genocide” because, unlike White people, they are not facing genocide.

So what exactly is your point again?

Are you suggesting that because some races don’t want an exclusive territory White people have no right to want one either?

147

Posted by danielj on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:44 | #

What alien races do I “cherish,” you wanker? I am the alien race (wrt WN politics).

Waaaaaambulance!

148

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:57 | #

You have read all my posts, here and elsewhere? Is a blog commenter expected to repeat ad nauseam his entire worldview with each comment?

You (especially you, personally) have yet to propose a way any of that can be gotten given the present political (and cultural) realities. (Silver)

So what exactly are you asking me for? On what aspect of our plight would you like me to explain my position?

I find this paragraph difficult to parse. First, for the record, are you non-white? Second, racialism makes sense, regardless of how races are sorted. What does that mean? Third, “It’s how to get to that, how to achieve it, that I’m concerned with” - is this what I’m supposed to address? In other words, I have nothing to add to the general discussion because I have not recently proposed how to ... what? Devise an appropriate political strategy to achieve racialist goals?

I’m happy to answer questions, but try to be rigorous and clear in your formulation of them. I assure you, when I respond, it may be in depth, but it won’t be rambling.

149

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:47 | #

Silver,

Although we are, alas, merely in cyberspace (I prefer live challenges), let’s play a match before the MR community (and assorted others from your neck of the woods, if you would care to alert them) to see who is the better arguer, and whose grasp of racial/cultural, biological, historical, and political realities is the keener. Shall we?

Seeing as you have time on your hands, why don’t you summarize your position on race. Here are some questions to mull before doing so.

Does race embody something taxonomically meaningful, or is it merely a retrograde concept from a more barbarous past epoch? Are there statistically significant differences in ability, temperament, and behavior between the races, and if so, are they primarily genetically or environmentally determined (and in what relative percentages)? Can different races ever assimilate to different cultures? Can every race conceivably assimilate to any culture? If cultural assimilation across racial lines is held to be possible, do the relative sizes of the groups doing the assimilating and being assimilated to matter? Is the use of state coercion, or, conversely, non-state violence, to ensure racial, national or cultural preservation permissible? What is “national security”, and what is its ethical basis? Does Christianity mandate acceptance of race-replacement? Should any human regardless of individual DNA profile be allowed to procreate unlimitedly? Is there a moral duty to perform charity, what is its origin, what is its content, and how far and to whom does it extend? Is Jewry compatible with Occidental culture and/or European societies? To what extent is the individual Self externally (socially, culturally) constituted? Is demography destiny in democracies? Do whites in the USA owe blacks reparations for Southern state slavery - or do blacks owe whites reparations for post-Civil Rights Era criminal violence? Are whites a special race - biologically, psychologically or historically? Does modern race-denial contradict modern celebrations of racial diversity? Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism? Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care? If the white race is going extinct, is this an epiphenomenon of passive (political, economic, social and psychological) processes, or the intended result of a campaign of genocide?

Obviously, there are many other issues swirling around the race controversy, but thinking about the above should get you started. As you have implicitly claimed the right (and ability) to judge my productions, and found them wanting, let the MR community judge us both, and render a collective verdict. The loser shall exit this site forthwith and forever.

Do you feel lucky, punk?

150

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:49 | #

Meantime, from the How It’s Done in Japan department, this was posted yesterday over at Altright.com by a young Japanese woman living and studying in <strike>California</strike> Mexifornia:

Most readers of this site are probably going to become very jealous when hearing about the focus of the far eastern equivalent of the Tea Party.

”KYOTO, Japan — The demonstrators appeared one day in December, just as children at an elementary school for ethnic Koreans were cleaning up for lunch. The group of about a dozen Japanese men gathered in front of the school gate, using bullhorns to call the students cockroaches and Korean spies.

“Inside, the panicked students and teachers huddled in their classrooms, singing loudly to drown out the insults, as parents and eventually police officers blocked the protesters’ entry.

“The December episode was the first in a series of demonstrations at the Kyoto No. 1 Korean Elementary School that shocked conflict-adverse Japan, where even political protesters on the radical fringes are expected to avoid embroiling regular citizens, much less children. Responding to public outrage, the police arrested four of the protesters this month on charges of damaging the school’s reputation.

“More significantly, the protests also signaled the emergence here of a new type of ultranationalist group. The groups are openly anti-foreign in their message, and unafraid to win attention by holding unruly street demonstrations.

“Since first appearing last year, their protests have been directed at not only Japan’s half million ethnic Koreans, but also Chinese and other Asian workers, Christian churchgoers and even Westerners in Halloween costumes. In the latter case, a few dozen angrily shouting demonstrators followed around revelers waving placards that said, ‘This is not a white country.’ “

And it never shall be!

No one civilized supports publicly berating school children, but every movement has its wackos. A goal of politics is to get the lunatics on your side to be seen as decent people with legitimate grievances pushed too far and their equivalents on the other side as the epitome of evil. The American Left has done this beautifully.

”They are also different from Japan’s existing ultranationalist groups, which are a common sight even today in Tokyo, wearing paramilitary uniforms and riding around in ominous black trucks with loudspeakers that blare martial music.

“This traditional far right, which has roots going back to at least the 1930s rise of militarism in Japan, is now a tacitly accepted part of the conservative political establishment here. Sociologists describe them as serving as a sort of unofficial mechanism for enforcing conformity in postwar Japan, singling out Japanese who were seen as straying too far to the left, or other groups that anger them, such as embassies of countries with whom Japan has territorial disputes.”

They sound like a right-wing SPLC.

”Mr. Sakurai says the group is not racist, and rejected the comparison with neo-Nazis. Instead, he said he had modeled his group after another overseas political movement, the Tea Party in the United States. He said he had studied videos of Tea Party protests, and shared with the Tea Party an angry sense that his nation had gone in the wrong direction because it had fallen into the hands of leftist politicians, liberal media as well as foreigners.”

Japan’s population is 98.5% Japanese and other indigenous groups, with Chinese and Korean residents making up most of the other 1.5%. Whether her population be 50 or 100 million in 50 years is of comparatively little importance, as she will be Japanese. That’s more than one can say for the United States or Europe.

[ http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/the-japanese-tea-party/ ]

“Very jealous” is right!!! I’m sitting here turning green!!!!

151

Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:51 | #

“We want this,” “we want that.”

As though this loose continuum of whites, 2010, is the only group of whites to have to fend for itself against overwhelming odds ever in history. Differences: Past groups didn’t imagine they were struggling for all other whites too—and were struggling in the real world.

If you ask me, and as usual NO ONE has, you all confuse your peculiarities of ego for political theory. Haller wants his plodding elaboration of Christianity to save us all; GW and PF would see Ontology carry us out; Silver, you want YOU to do the job—like the Guru (who, however, mistakes himself for an entire thermodynamic world-process).

The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white,

Leon, when will you learn that precisely is why Europe is failing?

152

Posted by uh on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:07 | #

Leon,

As a long-time follower of Silver’s activity, I can anticipate the answers to most of the questions. You should know however that you’re being too literal for Silver, as Silver was being too ironic for you. Humorless ‘honorable’ white vs. crafty ‘dishonorable’ wog. Ne’theless posing him questions is the best way to draw him out, as he likes nothing more than center-stage.

Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism?

Silver will remind you, as you do all need constant reminding, that White Nationalism is as much a species of philosophical utopianism given the odds against recapturing the monoracialism, political and cultural, and disregarding white taxonomic differences, of yore.

Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care?

Silver believes that if you stretch the time-line a few thousand years, yes, white extinction is inevitable. I once argued to him that whites will always exist as racial debris - as in the Hindu Kush and northern Brazil - thus will never be zoologically extinct. The White Nationalist fear is that those existent whites will have no white consciousness; but that is metaphorical extinction.

The loser shall exit this site forthwith and forever.

This “showdown” approach really isn’t appropriate to MR. These guys don’t care, you have to understand that. They’re all about cryptic private emails and quasi-learnedness. That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here.

153

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:35 | #

“Uh” is self-admittedly not commenting as a strong opponent of government-enforced race-replacement of whites (if he’s an opponent at all, which is open to question). He has outright said he’ll never be fully on-board the opposition to race-replacement (if he’ll ever be on-board at all), and the reason he won’t, according to what he said, has something to do with his seeing himself as racially looked-down-upon by northern Euros, due to his being half-Italian I think he said — or something like that. This mentality is like Dienekes Pontikos who not only has zero sympathy for opponents of government-enforced race-replacement of whites (Dienekes sees such opponents as northern Euros who look down on Greeks racially — and even more so on Turks, which Dienekes apparently is but doesn’t want to admit it, a “Pontic Greek” — therefore has zero sympathy for their efforts to save themselves from extinction) — he not only has zero sympathy for opponents of race-replacement of whites, he positively gloats at every bit of news of race-replacement’s progress, carefully highlighting it as his blog.

So if “Uh” (also known as “Marshal Lentini”) sounds defeatist, that’s probably some of the reason why. My sense is that an additional reason may be his personality type simply doesn’t care about anything but himself. It’s a very common personality type, one moreover that makes the bearer extremly uncomfortable and outright hostile when around people who don’t have that type of personality — people who actually care about things like white-race genocide for example. People like Uh are uncomfortable even being around them. Makes you wonder why he hangs around here.

154

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:41 | #

“They’re all about cryptic private emails” (—Uh)

I’m not a blogger here, just a commenter, but I post a lot of comments and am, I suppose, what’s called a “moderator” since I can edit and delete stuff. I don’t exchange “cryptic private e-mails” with anyone here, whether blogger or regular commenter. Occasional brief e-mail contacts with the blog owner about nuts-and-bolts management such as “should such and such post be zapped?,” that sort of thing. That’s it. There’s nothing “cryptic” going on behind the scenes as far as I know or am involved. Period.

155

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:13 | #

The European nations are still overwhelmingly preponderantly white,

Leon, when will you learn that precisely is why Europe is failing? (Uh)

I don’t follow you. Please enlighten me.

156

Posted by Randy Garver on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:18 | #

Guessedworker: I suppose it could be just a poor choice of words.

Yes, it was admittedly an inelegant turn of phrase which deviated from the intended meaning. And I would agree with you that whites do not require a large “critical mass” to achieve a measurable amount of political agency.

My original point was that the quantity of this political agency required to bring about a desired ethnostate, at least if that state is to arise within existing US territory and without the broad consent and positive participation of both white and non-white alike, would seem to be many orders of magnitude above what currently exists, and yet reading WN forums one might be forgiven for thinking that such a project is almost a near-future fait accompli, an inevitable outcome of the existing political and societal trajectory, an unguarded layup once the theoretical foundations of the movement have been more firmly established and refined.

So it’s not the case that I’m arguing here against the theory of ethno-balkanism, but rather the practicalities of its execution without securing the grassroots buy-in from a supermajority of all those involved and affected.

157

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:23 | #

You should know however that you’re being too literal for Silver, as Silver was being too ironic for you. (UH)

“Irony”? I see no evidence of irony. Do you mean duplicitousness, sarcasm, things like that? ‘Irony’ has a specific meaning, with which I am acquainted (I’m not being ironic).

Who are “these guys”? GW, Scrooby, Dasein, the main persons? You don’t think they care about WN issues, or about my little proposal (directed to Silver, whom I intend to reveal as a fool, as I dislike being disrespected by my inferiors - a very European Old Stock trait, incidentally one now rather in abeyance amongst my people)?

158

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:31 | #

That’s why you’re beating your head against the wall here. (UH)

Where, if anywhere, would I find a better fit for my interests, personality, and approach re these issues?

159

Posted by Reginald on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:13 | #

Among the races that don’t care to have it, such as the various groups in the places you mentioned, there is no outcry of genocide because from their point of view race mixing and replacement are not a problem.

What non-European ethnic groups are being race mixed and replaced again?

I think I heard someone mention Iran.

Here’s the thing: There are different Ethnic groups in Iran, and to some extent I suppose they mix, but genetically speaking these Ethnic groups appear to be extremely similar.

What’s happening isn’t really race mixing, and the immigration policies of Iran are conservative enough that there certainly isn’t race replacement happening to them either.

160

Posted by cladrastis on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:17 | #

If you stop feeding the trolls, they will starve from lack of attention.

Save your energy for a debate with a human.

161

Posted by jabberwock on Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:58 | #

No offense, Scroob, but you can’t hold a candle to Uh’s intellect or analysis. And to think he’s like a third of your age.

Now go back to biting black mailmen.

162

Posted by danielj on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:10 | #

No offense, Scroob, but you can’t hold a candle to Uh’s intellect or analysis. And to think he’s like a third of your age.

Now go back to biting black mailmen.

Yeah. True. But, what you do with it is more important than how big it is.

163

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:21 | #

Silver believes that if you stretch the time-line a few thousand years, yes, white extinction is inevitable.

Big deal! Stretch the time line to 0.5-5 million years and 99% of all species will be extinct.

164

Posted by D-Uh on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:57 | #

No prob Bob. Marry a Negro like Silver’s bro, unless of course he’s lying. LOL. After all the guy is an inveterate liar. He holds his own people, the Serbs, (unless of course it’s just one more big fat lie) in contempt for being culturally alien. LOL.

When are you people going to realize he is no Serb? I have known many Serbs in my many decades on this planet and not a single, solitary one speaks or thinks like Silver. So, either we are quite privileged to have this unique individual gracing us or he is a lying POS. I know where I’m placing my bet.

Silver, you want YOU to do the job—like the Guru (who, however, mistakes himself for an entire thermodynamic world-process). - Uh

Correct. Silver, in typical Paki fashion has the God complex of knowing it all and thinking only he can solve the problems that ail us.

As an aside, the creepy fanboy act you have going with Silver is, well, creepy. I suggest taking his cock out of your mouth and moving on with your super intellectual and insightful self.

165

Posted by D-Uh on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:59 | #

No offense, Scroob, but you can’t hold a candle to Uh’s intellect or analysis. And to think he’s like a third of your age. - jabbercock

Cool. A fanboy of a fanboy. LOL

166

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:03 | #

If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it…more if I can, now that I have added incentive)

LOL! The only place Silver can even buy pussy is in Thailand.

167

Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:18 | #

LEW,

So what exactly is your point again?

Are you suggesting that because some races don’t want an exclusive territory White people have no right to want one either?

The point is that desiring it isn’t nearly as natural as you people claim. Remember, you are the ones going about proclaiming We have the Facts, We have the Science, We are only in this position because they are denying Reality, They don’t debate us because they can’t! You’ve got that “Ben Tillman” poster spamming all the race blogs with his cockamamie theory that the multiracial conditions which make race-replacement possible could only possibly have come about as a result of some parasitic trick (anything else being an “absurdity”). Well, looking at the rest of the world, it’s obviously not quite so.

Uh,

If you ask me, and as usual NO ONE has, you all confuse your peculiarities of ego for political theory.

I thought that went without saying. Hey, if it’ll make you feel better next time I’ll ask.

Silver, you want YOU to do the job—like the Guru (who, however, mistakes himself for an entire thermodynamic world-process).

What’s this? I think you need to get off the internet for a while, Lentini.

I simply think that “standard WN” suffers from too many structural faults that make it desperately unlikely to succeed. Read properly, my objections amount to correcting for those faults; if the ‘N’ in WN needs to be scaled back accordingly, so be it. The attitude is: let’s get race right and go on to make decent lives for ourselves. No one needs a guru to teach them that.

Desmond,

Well, er, “culture matters.” We find “familiar” those who think, speak and act as we do. Even a shithead like you would cleave to a slimy greasy dago like me if we found ourselves amid the swoogies in darkest Africa (or shithead like me, you, if you like.) The bulk of the people there didn’t, thus “alien.” Nothing I said could be construed as holding them “in contempt.” And I added that it wouldn’t be a problem if we all (the diaspora) repatriated together, since the enclaves we could form would greatly alleviate the cultural stresses. (It’s another matter entirely when you’re alone.) They wouldn’t even need to be Serbs (since we’d be getting by with English) just roughly racially compatible. Same thing goes for any other country.

(Cousin married a negro, not my brother. A couple of years on, the predictable family breakdown has come to pass. People will make their decisions; what can you do?)

As for “mendacious” and “sanctimonious,” anything you say about race that varies from Desmond’s take will dismissed as mendacious and sanctimonious. I see he’s still trying to get some mileage out of the button-pushing I did three years ago, all of it the result of a natural reaction against WN excesses, as anyone with half a brain could see. Get out of the way, Desmond; not for me, for your own people. Get out of their way and let them see the light. You may yet have your day, but for the moment, get the hell out of their way.

168

Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:24 | #

Leon,

So what exactly are you asking me for? On what aspect of our plight would you like me to explain my position?

What should be done and why? How should it be done and why should that be expected to succeed? Why are your ideas on this superior to any alternatives whose existence you are aware of?

I belong to what I have learned (to my surprise) is a “white ethnicity.” A cursory look at my extended family admittedly lends credence to that supposition, though I myself bear what racial parlance terms a distinctly “mediterranid” visage—the latter itself lent credence by my experiences growing up around so many (S) Italians, Greeks and Maltese.

Racialism making sense despite how races are sorted (who is who, what is what) means that other races living in white-founded (ie British, Nordic), white-majority countries have racial interests of their own, despite those not necessarily being “white,” and would be rewarded by pursuing them in cooperation with other racialists.

Thirdly, it’s my opinion that too much energy is devoted to discussions about the anti-white power structure (seemingly ignorant of the fact that anything not explicitly pro-white is in effect, though not necessarily in intent, anti-white), how horrible its policies are, and how horrible non-whites are. It establishes that there is a problem but seems to have little to say about how it might be solved, including how best to counteract the forces that are intent on not only preventing any solution but also any recognition of a problem.

No, let’s not. You’re better than me.

Seeing as you have time on your hands, why don’t you summarize your position on race.

I think I’ve already done that: race matters, specifically “the white race” matters, and society (at least western society) should be reconstituted to reflect the degree to which it matters.

Does race embody something taxonomically meaningful,...?

Yes.

Are there statistically significant differences in ability, temperament, and behavior between the races, and if so, are they primarily genetically or environmentally determined (and in what relative percentages)?

Yes. Primarily genetically determined. I’d be comfortable with genetics accounting for even as much as 95% of the variance (but not 100%, that’d be ugly). I believe society should err on the side of heredity being “true” even if heredity is not perfectly established, as the downside in being wrong is less severe than the downside in erring that heredity is false.

Can different races ever assimilate to different cultures? Can every race conceivably assimilate to any culture?

Individuals appear to be able, but they likely distort the culture at least subconsciously, and given the opportunity will do so willfully.

If cultural assimilation across racial lines is held to be possible, do the relative sizes of the groups doing the assimilating and being assimilated to matter?

Obviously size matters.

Is the use of state coercion, or, conversely, non-state violence, to ensure racial, national or cultural preservation permissible?

With constraints, permissible.

What is “national security”, and what is its ethical basis?

Defense of state interests. State interests include protection of “way of life.” The ethical basis is self-preference.

Does Christianity mandate acceptance of race-replacement?

No.

Should any human regardless of individual DNA profile be allowed to procreate unlimitedly?

No.

Is there a moral duty to perform charity, what is its origin, what is its content, and how far and to whom does it extend?

Seems so. Love/compassion. The content varies from minimal to lavish. Restricting its sphere is moral.

Is Jewry compatible with Occidental culture and/or European societies?

To a degree. More so than other groups.

To what extent is the individual Self externally (socially, culturally) constituted?

A considerable degree.

Is demography destiny in democracies?

Is so for all societies.

Do whites in the USA owe blacks reparations for Southern state slavery - or do blacks owe whites reparations for post-Civil Rights Era criminal violence?

No, but if so it has been paid in full and then some. No.

Are whites a special race - biologically, psychologically or historically?

We’re all special! Um…yes.

Does modern race-denial contradict modern celebrations of racial diversity?

Yes.

Is multiracialism a species of philosophical utopianism?

As an ideology, yes. As a fact of life (where it has long since been), no.

Is the white race going extinct, and should we or the world care?

Yes and yes.

(Electric Light Orchestra, amended:

“It’s a livin’ thing
It’s a terrible thing to lose
It’s a giving thing
It’s a terrible thing to lose.”

If the white race is going extinct, is this an epiphenomenon of passive (political, economic, social and psychological) processes, or the intended result of a campaign of genocide?

Former, with elements of the latter.

As you have implicitly claimed the right (and ability) to judge my productions, and found them wanting, let the MR community judge us both, and render a collective verdict. The loser shall exit this site forthwith and forever.

Get over yourself, will you. It comes with the terrain. If it’s any consolation, look at the derisive manner in which I’m routinely addressed.

Do you feel lucky, punk?

No.

169

Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:32 | #

What an ignoble little guido you are. Supposedly in your world there are thousands upon thousands of Serbs running around grunting I’m White, man, I’m White, unh, unh, unh. To think that a mental midget like you might hope to exert some influence on the prevailing cultural winds is many, many times worse than an unfunny joke. I can only hope you meet a fitting end for a creature so vile, so foul, so full of futile fury.

170

Posted by D-Uh on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:53 | #

What an ignoble little guido you are. Supposedly in your world there are thousands upon thousands of Serbs running around grunting I’m White, man, I’m White, unh, unh, unh. To think that a mental midget like you might hope to exert some influence on the prevailing cultural winds is many, many times worse than an unfunny joke. I can only hope you meet a fitting end for a creature so vile, so foul, so full of futile fury.

LOL!

Paki, every single Serb was what you are not, and that is proud to be a Serb. Every. Single. One. Men and women alike and in the hundreds. No one gave a shit about white.

The odds that you, our savior, is so different and they are all the same are astronomical. You give “self hating Jews” a run for their money. In reality, you are a crap-skinned POS.

Go fuck yourself.

171

Posted by Silver's "button-pushing" on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 03:54 | #

From this thread

“Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”

“I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.”

“Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen.”

“And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to.”

“If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it…more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”

“I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.”

“I intend to see to it that WN fails.”

“Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”

“I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.”

172

Posted by Desmond jones on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:41 | #

Silver just frew in from Asia and boy are his lies tired.

Silver went to the Doctor ‘cause he was feeling down. The Doc prescribed a dose of medicine. “Doc,” Silver exclaims, “that medicine tasted like bullshit!” “It was bullshit”, says the Doc. “You were down a quart.”

Thai pussy…LOL. While in the mysterious East, Silver purchased the services of a prostitute from a local pimp. When he walked into her room he stepped in a box of cat litter. “Geez,” screams Silver, “this box is full of shit”. “Turn her over,” yells the pimp.

173

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:03 | #

Silver,

I’m not sure what to make of you. Some of your responses are sensible, but then you say outrageous things (which another commenter has collected above). I can’t tell if you are serious or merely ‘baiting the bear’ for fun. Anyway, it doesn’t matter enough for me to expend additional energy on this back and forth.

I don’t have a whole lot of strategic political answers. There may not be any alternative to just slogging out the racialist education amongst our people, raising their ideological consciousness as we wait for some historical event or series of events which will lead them to rapid acceptance of radical solutions.

One thing that is not being done, at least in the US, is politico-social organizing on the Racial Right. We need to stop this web crap and start meeting people face to face in our communities, forming little networks of the like-minded. Someone badly needs to start some kind of nationalist PAC. Nothing original, I admit, but until at least the conservative masses start demanding an end to immigration (which they definitely are receptive to), we will have no successes. And until we stop immigration/invasion, nothing else matters.

Anyway, I really don’t fit in here at MR, either, though I like the site. I don’t like the term “WN”, because I find it difficult to distinguish from “Nazi”. While I am constantly being called a Nazi, and while I have been banned from many conservative sites for being an allegedly “obsessive racist” (which is just not true; I have many intellectual interests, as well as general conservative political ones), in fact, I am simply a true conservative who recognizes that race today is the dominant issue threatening the survival of Western Civ.

My main intellectual concern is with demonstrating the compatibility and indeed necessity of white preservationism (my preferred term to WN) with/to both Christianity as well as traditionalism. I seek to integrate racial science into classical conservative political thought. Beyond that, I am interested in developing pure rightist political philosophy (and I have many other interests I will never write about).

My main political concern is with developing and propagandizing the ideology of white survival, which is not just WN, but involves pushing many other issues which implicitly aid the survival chances of whites (eg, the death penalty). I also want to start a social organization for white Americans as whites, and someday soon try to get a talk radio gig (no doubt at some ungodly hour). Despite how I come across in comments, in person I am quite humorous, as well as fast and articulate. Innumerable persons, some with standing, have thought I should be in the media instead of business, and for the remainder of my career and life I seek to transition in that direction.

174

Posted by jabberwock on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:58 | #

“Now go back to biting black mailmen.”

Meant in the “vicious attack dog” sense, nothing else.

175

Posted by Silver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:55 | #

Leon,

“Outrageous,” you say. Very well, but you neglect the reasons behind it. I’ve noticed that career racialists—those of you who’ve been at it for upwards of ten, twenty years—often tend to be oblivious to how outrageous they sound to people with mainstream views. I was aware of the intellectual reasoning behind racialism when I first came across this blog, but let me tell you, my first exposure to the firebrands here left a very ugly impression. It’s only natural to hit back under those circumstances. I probably overdid it (to my credibility’s fatal detriment, which cheap-shot artists like the above never fail to remind me) but that only reflects the supreme distaste I felt. Nevertheless, racialism is basically correct (people will live better) and basically moral (it doesn’t require causing pain), so I plug away.

I think strategic directions and policy proposals work hand in hand with education, often times spurring it. For example, Jarod Taylor makes a great fuss about freedom of association which then affords him the opportunity to provide a racial account of why he considers it necessary. That sort of thing.

Another point which I’ll make here since you don’t intend to continue this discussion, the obvious objection to a racial morality based on racial self-preference is the risk of escalating tensions between competing groups leading to slaughter on par with the devastation of the world wars. (No problem there, the firebrands say. White makes right! Bring it on!) I hope you might devote some of your forthcoming book to a concept of “enlightened groupism.” McCulloch gives it some thought in a chapter of The Racial Compact but I think the non-racial aspects require more attention—since, in my opinion, the great mass of people is unlikely to ever “think racially” to any significant degree beyond what necessity dictates, even in a scenario in which separation was achieved. (This remains true even if significant coercion or violent confrontation proves necessary. After all, the dust will eventually settle, and an appreciation of the conditions sought to be created may help it do so all the sooner.)

176

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:46 | #

These are complex issues. There is a huge range of us lumped together as WNs, mainly because the bulk of the population has been so bizarrely brainwashed (though a lot are kept deliberately ignorant: I have mainstream acquaintances and even friends who feel no revulsion to white/non-white miscegenation (“love conquers all, Lee, deal with it”), but who get worked up when I explain that in 2009 the US admitted about 138,000 legal immigrants every month, 99% of whom aren’t white).

Some WNs are true Nazis. I don’t reject any white comrade, but I really have no desire for Nazism. Some are members of bizarre (un)Christian or even pagan cults. Some are not Nazis, but extreme Jew haters (I met one like this a few years at at a revisionism conference; the guy was very left wing, not really very pro-white - just blamed Jews for everything bad). Some are skinhead nihilists. Some are Darwinian atheists (a lot here at MR); others conservative Protestant fundamentalists. Some are eugenicists; some are radical natalists; others radical population reducers.

I am a true conservative, a biological Occidentalist. I see the white race as the unique creator and bearer of Western High Culture, which I consider the world’s superior culture and civilization, and which I hold will only be passed on and forever renewed by whites. Otherwise I am honest, and thus a race realist wrt inherited racial differences. I am also attuned to cultural and ideological currents, and believe that whites as whites are widely (and unfairly) blamed and hated, and thus will be at great personal, that is financial and later physical, risk if we do not maintain racial majorities in sovereign polities.

My basic position is based not on hate per se, but love and fear. I am not opposed to interracial commerce (except in militarily necessary technologies), or tourism, or cultural exchanges. I am not spoiling for a fight. I hate white PC traitors vastly more than I feel antagonism towards non-whites. But I don’t have any great liking of non-whites; I don’t think they add anything to my existence; I do feel racially superior to them; and I do resent their presence in my territorial world.

But mainly, I fear the direction the West is headed in, and I now feel that a large measure of coercion will be inevitably necessary for whites to secure their existence as a people. If more persons had listened to the racialists decades earlier, things would not have come to this. Those who imposed the immigrants on us did them and us a great evil. But it is what it is. We can try to remedy matters humanely, but, finally, in Western lands, Europeans come first. We matter, while the others matter very little.

177

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:59 | #

I might quibble slightly with just a few details but overall, Leon’s statement above, 3:46 PM, is outstanding. It’s nearly perfect.

178

Posted by Randy Garver on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:04 | #

Leon,

You seem like a thoughtful and intelligent person, so at the risk of being accused a troll, I’d be interested in your opinion about the following: why is it that miscegenation is deemed “revulsion-worthy” and “genocidal”, but the same language and attention is seemingly spared with regards to non-breeding whites?

179

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:53 | #

Another point which I’ll make here since you don’t intend to continue this discussion, the obvious objection to a racial morality based on racial self-preference is the risk of escalating tensions between competing groups leading to slaughter on par with the devastation of the world wars.

As my Daddy used to say, “Christ turned the other cheek and look what they did to him.”

180

Posted by one on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 02:14 | #

You seem like a thoughtful and intelligent person, so at the risk of being accused a troll, I’d be interested in your opinion about the following: why is it that miscegenation is deemed “revulsion-worthy” and “genocidal”, but the same language and attention is seemingly spared with regards to non-breeding whites?

Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests

The special quality of a defended territory is that it insulates the population from the vicissitudes of demographic disturbances in the metapopulation, namely the connected phenomena of uneven population growth and migration. When an ethny controls the borders of a territory that is large enough to support the population, loss of numbers relative to other ethnies is not necessarily fatal, i.e. it need not lead to replacement. Territory adequately defended guarantees genetic continuity and the chance to ride out a temporary downturn in numbers.

As I argued in Chapter 3, in the absence of mass immigration of genetically distant groups, a population occupying a fixed territory is guaranteed continuity at or below that territory’s carrying capacity, even when its global representation falls due to high fertility overseas. But mass migration inevitably reduces the native ethny’s relative fitness within its own territory, risking its continuity as a distinctive gene pool.

Richard McCulloch, Separation: The Preservationist Imperative

In 1988 I had the opportunity to meet William Gayley Simpson, author of Which Way Western Man . At that time he was in his nineties and in declining health. He compensated for his lack of conversational endurance by distilling the essence of his thought into one very terse and pointed message: “Separate or die.” Those were his last words to me, and that is fitting, for that simple phrase tells us two vitally important things. First, that racial separation is necessary for the long-term preservation of the Northern European race, the founding and still the majority American racial type, which I refer to as the Nordish race. It is a simple matter of either-or—either racial separation or racial death. Second, that the alternative to racial destruction, the solution to the Nordish racial crisis, is racial separation. Not immigration restrictions, segregation, white supremacism or other half-measures, nor anything that need harm other races or violate their legitimate rights and interests. [Note 1] None of these things can save us. Only separation can. Separation is the preservationist imperative.

The reason separation is necessary for racial preservation is simple—the evolution and continued existence of different races is made possible by reproductive isolation. When different populations are reproductively isolated they cannot interbreed or intermix, and consequently evolve in different directions, developing into different races with their own unique and distinct ensemble of genetic traits. Reproductive isolation requires an absence of physical contact. As a practical matter, this requires geographic separation.

There is already a law of biology (Gause’s law of exclusion) which states that multiple animal species with the same requirements cannot coexist in the long term in the same habitat. One will eventually replace the others, which will become extinct. This law can also be applied to human races occupying the same territory: one race will eventually assimilate or replace its competitors. Since it is a fact that every human population living today has interbred with every other human population with which it has had extensive contact, there should also be a law of sociology which states that different races sharing the same habitat (i.e., lacking the race-creating and preserving condition of reproductive isolation) will eventually intermix and blend into one race, destroying their racially unique traits. The more extensive the contact and interaction between the races the more rapid the process of interbreeding will tend to be, but whatever the rate, slow or fast, it will occur, with the most racially destructive consequences for the race with the more recessive genetic traits.

181

Posted by Silver on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 06:18 | #

As my Daddy used to say, “Christ turned the other cheek and look what they did to him.”

Who said anything about turning the other cheek?

182

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:17 | #

Fred,

Thanks for the vote of approval.

____________
at the risk of being accused a troll, I’d be interested in your opinion about the following: why is it that miscegenation is deemed “revulsion-worthy” and “genocidal”, but the same language and attention is seemingly spared with regards to non-breeding whites? (Randy Garver)

That’s a more complex question that one might think initially. First, despite the harshness of various responses to you above, I don’t actually think you’re a troll, but rather, most likely a sincerely interested person who doesn’t quite realize a) the extent to which a lot of common questions from “The Unawakened” have been thrashed out by WNs ad nauseam over the years, and b) that WNs are so used to being deliberately inaccurately portrayed by the (Jewish controlled) MSM that they/we tend to get overly defensive at times, assuming that real questions are just implicit attempts to annoy us or get us to say impolitic things.

Your question really has two parts to it: why do we oppose miscegenation? And, should we oppose/denounce whites who choose (no one would attach fault to the involuntarily sterile) not to reproduce?

We oppose miscegenation both philosophically (as a principle), and psychologically, though not all WNs exhibit the latter outlook. One of my best friends is harshly opposed to immigration, and virulently hates and fears blacks, and blames them for every little thing (you can imagine his conversation in the Age of Obama), but when we pass by even the hottest white chick walking hand-in-hand with a minority, he just shakes his head sadly, while I start fuming. Miscegenation just doesn’t bother him very much. Well, that is how some of us are “neurowired”. It really “messes with my head” to see attractive white women with non-whites. I emphasize ‘attractive’, because with them there is the element of choice. I am more forgiving when I see really ugly white females with minorities; perhaps they wanted white men, but simply couldn’t find any. I prefer white women myself, but if I were a 19th century explorer shipwrecked in an exotic place, I would probably take a non-white woman, too.

Of course, there is also the ‘commemorative’ aspect to seeing a white hottie with a mud: I am immediately and viscerally reminded of all that I can’t stand about the modern diversitarian regime, including its endless propaganda campaigns against white men - which, incidentally, reduce our sexual opportunities, and not only because WNs now have to compete for our preferred white females with muds as well as fellow white men. Women have a kind of instinct for Who Is Master, and they are drawn to that, however much their (pre-menopausal) bubblebrains may praise egalitarianism and multiculti. There has definitely been a huge loss of white female respect for white men across the social board, and this translates into not only racial survival problems, but relationship ones even where there is no mud anywhere in the picture ... most whites, even WNs, may not be aware of this.

Indeed, I’m so ‘wacked out’ on this that I even believe that feminism is entwined with race-replacement, both sociopolitically as well as psychologically. Modern (Second Wave) feminism followed Civil Rights, and I believe they are more than temporally related. I think white male masculinity took a grievous blow (psychologically, as well as politically) from the empowering of minorities, and that females took advantage of that to press their own ludicrous (and race-endangering) agenda.

Basically, the Jewish agenda of economically, politically, culturally and demographically dispossessing white men has also served to demasculinize them in the eyes of their own womenfolk (which may of course have been part of the intended purpose), and thus render us less sexually appealing. Female sexuality is nothing like the male’s. It truly is socially conditioned (even though that conditioning leads to real biological effects). Today’s white females sense general white male weakness stemming from larger political/cultural disempowerment, which they often then transpose onto all white men, thus making sexual conquests harder for all of us, even handsome white guys, wealthier white guys, tough white guys, etc. Obviously, plenty of us can overcome this disadvantage, but we, living in multiracial environments, all start out with a kind of rebuttable presumption (to use legal language) against us as real men. I resent that.

So seeing a hottie with a mud is naturally annoying to the normal white man, as it reminds him of his lowered status in society. And for the WN, who is perfectly aware of how intentionally/artificially this has come about, it is doubly annoying.

Our philosophical opposition to miscegenation stems from our natural concern not with race reduction so much as with blood pollution, at least today (one can imagine alternative contexts where our numbers would need to be boosted in a hurry). Non-breeder whites don’t change the genome. They just aren’t adding to it. Why would that be considered a problem, unless, again, our numbers had fallen so precipitately that a duty to reproduce could be imputed to everyone (in which case a voluntary non-breeder would be ‘letting down the team’, so to speak)? And, of course, one’s non-reproduction, within the Salterian defended ethny (see comment above), simply increases the ecological capacity for others to breed at greater levels.

The concern is with race/blood purity within separate territory (unique ecological niches).

[BTW, Randy, although I am perfectly willing to venture into sociobiological discussions of racial phenomena where important and appropriate, I am frankly more interested in the political struggle (and its moral justifications) actually to save our race - because it is primarily past political choices which have imperiled our race - than I am in rarefied, scientific and overly impersonal explanations for our plight. If you are interested in learning more about the issues pertaining to white survival I feel it incumbent to warn you against falling into the Darwinian theory ‘abyss’, in which humans are seen to be mere gene replicators, or some such nonsense, stripped of all their agency and capacity for moral choice. Our race is being herded into extinction as a result of perfectly conscious, deliberate acts of racial/legal aggression and attendant false-justificatory propaganda. What we need to do is uncover and disprove that propaganda, and then change our politics and laws from white race-destroying to race-affirming. Whether it is necessary or useful to translate our clear moral and political agenda into obscurantist, scientistic terminology is a matter I leave for the volkisch community to determine, though my stance is public and unwavering.]

183

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:49 | #

@ Leon

Very interesting comment. It is a very accurate and fair analysis of the alienation between white men and women uncluttered with emotional baggage obscuring the message. I think the supposed “misogyny” of WN stems more or less from white men instinctively feeling what you are describing above but not being able to put voice to it as articulately or dispassionately as you have done.

I hope that you will continue to comment here now and again despite what you have said about discontinuing it, as your insights on many of the topics covered here are certainly welcome.

184

Posted by Reginald on Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:01 | #

And, of course, one’s non-reproduction, within the Salterian defended ethny (see comment above), simply increases the ecological capacity for others to breed at greater levels.

But we aren’t within a Salterian defended ethny. Certainly we aren’t in America today, at least.

Therefore if non-reproduction increases the capacity for others to breed at greater levels, a lot of those others will be non-Europeans.

So if a white fails to reproduce in the current spatial-temporal context, it leads to two main effects:

1. Less whites.
2. More non-whites.

These two effects in concert would tend to render the creation of a Salterian defended area more difficult.

Also, it would create a situation where if such an area was created, it would tend to be smaller.

This is not to say that having and/or raising children is necessarily the most efficient use of this or that individual’s time.

185

Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 02:08 | #

Leon,

Thank you for the thorough and quite personal response.

...I don’t actually think you’re a troll, but rather, most likely a sincerely interested person who doesn’t quite realize a) the extent to which a lot of common questions from “The Unawakened” have been thrashed out by WNs ad nauseam over the years, and b) that WNs are so used to being deliberately inaccurately portrayed by the (Jewish controlled) MSM that they/we tend to get overly defensive at times… [Leon Haller]

Admittedly, I had carried rather uninformed opinions about white ethnic advocacy until just a few months ago. Part of the reason for this was no doubt attributable to default acceptance of media portrayals of costumed activists.

Indeed, I’m so ‘wacked out’ on this that I even believe that feminism is entwined with race-replacement, both sociopolitically as well as psychologically. [Leon Haller]

I agree with this conclusion, and would add that I believe it also holds true if you transpose genders. I’ve spoken with other men who have foreign born, non-white wives, and a common theme which emerges is that part of the attraction to these women is their preference for traditional gender roles and family values, and lack of American-style sexual egalitarianism. Modern feminism appears to cut 2 ways.

Non-breeder whites don’t change the genome. They just aren’t adding to it. Why would that be considered a problem, unless, again, our numbers had fallen so precipitately that a duty to reproduce could be imputed to everyone (in which case a voluntary non-breeder would be ‘letting down the team’, so to speak)?[Leon Haller]

As Reginald pointed out, a Salterian-type of ethnic enclave doesn’t currently exist, which is why I am a bit surprised that “Breed More!!” doesn’t seem to be a top rallying cry of WNs, going hand-in-hand with political aspects of the movement.

186

Posted by danielj on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:08 | #

I think this is mostly bull shit. Most of these men just can’t pull a piece.

187

Posted by one on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 03:38 | #

As Reginald pointed out, a Salterian-type of ethnic enclave doesn’t currently exist, which is why I am a bit surprised that “Breed More!!” doesn’t seem to be a top rallying cry of WNs, going hand-in-hand with political aspects of the movement.

You can breed all you want, but without geographic racial separation, racial destruction is inevitable. You can’t achieve racial preservation by increasing birth rates in a multiracial society. An increase in the birth rate of Northern Europeans would only slow the rate our demise, not prevent it. Separation must be our top priority.

I agree with this conclusion, and would add that I believe it also holds true if you transpose genders. I’ve spoken with other men who have foreign born, non-white wives, and a common theme which emerges is that part of the attraction to these women is their preference for traditional gender roles and family values, and lack of American-style sexual egalitarianism. Modern feminism appears to cut 2 ways.

Garver, we can do without your pathetic efforts to rationalize your marriage to an Asian woman.

188

Posted by Randy Garver on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:28 | #

one: “You can breed all you want, but without geographic racial separation, racial destruction is inevitable. You can’t achieve racial preservation by increasing birth rates in a multiracial society. “

WNs have expressed an interest in separation for a number of reasons which I’m not attempting to debate here, but from a purely mathematical standpoint, I’m not sure your claim is quite accurate.

A recent Pew study reported 9% of white marriages in 2008 were inter-ethnic. This would seem to translate to 4.5% of potential white breeding pairs. Roughly guessing a fecundity parity between inter and intra-racial marriages containing at least one white partner, the white-white birthrate wouldn’t seem to have to increase much to make up for potential white births lost to miscegenation.

one: “Separation must be our top priority.”

I imagine you could pursue both strategies simultaneously. Plus, you’d be able to achieve demonstrable results in under a year.

189

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:39 | #

Gudmund,

Thanks for the encouragement. My occasional fits of pique are really directed at myself. I’ve made many mistakes in how I have conducted my professional life, though it was never clear that they were such at the relevant times. The macro-mistake was getting comfortable in where I was at, and just drifting - which, with the passage of years, I’ve come to judge as a dereliction of my racial duties, as, whether you or anyone else will credit me or not, I understood the essence of our people’s plight long before the advent of the internet, whose knowledge sharing and exfoliating aspect has immeasurably increased the sum of racial awareness among our people (this, however, returns me to a deep fear I’ve implicitly expressed in other threads, in which you, too, have been a participant: viz, that we may be reaching our upper limit of converts at our present state of knowledge or polemical persuasiveness; that is, that most persons whose innate psyches predispose them to perceive racial truths easily may have been reached, given the ease of knowledge acquisition through the web ... how I remember nearly two decades ago making a special trip to UCLA’s library to get help in finding the mail address of the little racialist magazine, Instauration - which I never would have heard of if William F. Buckley, Jr., in his Zionistic attack on the alleged anti-Semitism of conservative writer Joe Sobran, hadn’t mentioned Joe’s earlier faint praise of it ...).

I’m now in the process (as I mentioned in passing in an earlier comment on this thread) of deciding whether I shouldn’t transition to a fulltime activist life. By that I mean, I’m considering three overlapping avenues: returning to grad school to do the doctorate some of my college profs had encouraged me to do long ago, which would then give me serious standing to publish in both academic journals of the Right, such as there are, as well as learned periodicals; trying to get into talk radio (with a friend - we’re both pretty funny and passionate and knowledgeable and unintimidated - with good voices and demeanors, we’ve both been told independently by media producers); laying the groundwork for an American nationalist (not WN - that can come in future decades, when our people are more receptive) political activist and social networking organization.

Or I can take a new business job I’m mulling, which would increase my working hours, and money, and then confine my WN contributions to comments as I do here.

If I stay in biz, it’s goodbye serious WN advancement, permanently (until I retire). The dilemma is that I have the personal and intellectual qualities, I think, really to contribute to our cause in a big way,if I so choose. I’m not some socially inept WPower retread, without good credentials, skills or contacts. I think I could equal most of the big name conservative radio guys, while offering a format calculated to drive listeners still further to the Right - not because I’m special, but simply because the big shots aren’t that bright, or even all that entertaining, with the exception of Michael Savage. (Why is Glenn Beck big? Why??! Not funny, not original, not bright, not learned, nothing but “right place and time”). And my idea for a nationalist org, which I came up with 15 damn years ago, but did nothing towards, could catch on (esp if I could combine its theme with radio, as I have already thought out).

Anyway, thanks again for your comment.

190

Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:52 | #

Reginald, Randy, one,

I completely support white racial/political separatism. I also totally support any measure that will increase white birthrates. Randy is obviously correct that these objectives are not mutually exclusive.

I recognize the non-existence of the white ethny. duh. I was simply responding to Randy’s query about why WNs view miscegenation with greater revulsion than white non-reproduction.

191

Posted by Notus Wind on Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:22 | #

Leon,

I just thought I’d make you aware that Grimoire had quite the response to you over at my ontology thread.

I’m considering three overlapping avenues: returning to grad school to do the doctorate…trying to get into talk radio…laying the groundwork for an American nationalist…organization.

Wow, you seem like a man with diverse talents! I hope you make the right decision.

Although I am in great physical condition, for some reason I don’t have the constitution to deal with quite as many people in my everyday life as yourself. Aside from close friends, family, and colleagues I was born a recluse and an academic; the fact that I have to leave my cave and attend professional meetings (every now and then) continues to irritate me. Unfortunately, I didn’t realize this path as soon as I should have because of my practical and antitheoretical Anglo-American upbringing. But I discovered that it’s never too late to make the right decision.

192

Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:38 | #

Notus Wind,

I saw the Grimoire comment about the same time you did, and provided a brief response. I now have to study it more closely, and see if I have anything worth contributing in greater depth.

I wouldn’t call myself very talented as a general matter. But I’m smart enough to do a doctorate (I know that, and by several measures); I’m good at ranting, articulate ‘monologuing’, and finding endless things to say on many topics, plus I enjoy instructing people, so I think I could have a legit shot at radio (if I can develop the right ‘hook’ or general presence to get a show initially); and I am good at managing people, as well as conceptualizing, developing and expanding organizations, plus my idea for an American conservative/defensive nationalist, activist, and educational group (along the lines of, say, the NAACP) is definitely one whose time has come (and will only become more relevant as we move to minority status - without ever of course having eliminated affirmative action, minority preference quotas, anti-white educational materials, etc). Who fights for us (but ... in a firm but moderate, non-WN, non-scientific racialist way)?

The key is that doing these things (well, a relevant but PC doctorate comes first) can reinforce the other concerns. Obviously, I can’t excel in all three areas, but I can do them all to some extent. I can certainly write books and do radio; likewise I could write and build an organization (esp as it would take quite a while for such an org to reach a point of requiring fulltime employees).

I’ve theorized and researched all this at some length. It’s just a big sacrifice (or at least risk) financially. It means a lot of suffering (just consider the doctorate - 5 years - though I would definitely try to so structure my studies as to produce as many media articles out of them as possible, and eventually a book out of my dissertation). Do I want this? Should I risk it? Give up my life as it is, in pursuit of a long-term dream(s) whose rewards are fairly far into the future? Tough call.

193

Posted by Ukrainian Nationalist on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:46 | #

We know some Ukrainian leaders talk about our genocide in Canada, and bla bla - but NO UKRAINIAN LEADERS IN CANADA ARE NATIONALISTS! THEY ALL SUPPORT LIBERAL PARTIES IN UKRAINE!!!!. IN FACT, MOST UKRAINIAN LEADERS IN CANADA ARE SO STUPID THEY EVEN WORK WITH THE PARTY CHERVONENKO BELONGS TO!!!. They on’t look out for the interests of ethnic Ukrainians because the interestsest of ethnic Ukrainians are the same as for all Europeans/whites in Canada - a white country, a Christian country, no gay parades, no feminsim, bla bla. Next time you see one of those idiots who calls themself a “community leader”, undesrtand, they are probably even funded by the Canadian govenrment simply to liberalize Ukrainians abroad.

God bless brothers.

194

Posted by Ukrainian Nationalist on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 06:56 | #

Oh, and in Ukraine, we are fine with other whites living here. Most of it should be for us, but small minorities are natural. However, the minorities must be white.

195

Posted by EA Steve on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:22 | #

Good luck keeping the Ukraine, Ukranian, Ukrainian Nationalist!

You have my full support. I am a European-American, if you are curious.

196

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Sep 2010 13:24 | #

“in Ukraine, we are fine with other whites living here. Most of it should be for us, but small minorities are natural. However, the minorities must be white.” (—Ukrainian Nationalist)

Very well said.

With emphasis on the word “small” and with emphasis on the word “white” (“white” meaning some form of European race, not “Caucasian” which can include Semites, Turks, Central Asians, North Africans, some Subcons, and so on, even — depending on whom you read — some Ethiopians).

Those two words, “small” and “white,” in reference to minorities it’s OK to have, are absolutely non-negotiable.

Very very very well said by Uke Nationalist.

197

Posted by pollution on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 04:06 | #

EA Steve (in the Swamps), why did you endorse a blog that says we should encourage white women to mate with Jews and other Middle Easterners?

198

Posted by EA Steve on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:36 | #

EA Steve, why did you endorse a blog that says we should encourage white women to mate with Jews and other Middle Easterners?

Quoting a blog does not mean I necessarily agree with everything it says. And no, I strongly doubt the second link endorses inter-mixing between Europeans and Middle Easterners. I guess the blog entry’s theme is that allowing such intermixture is better than between Whites and Blacks & Browns.

199

Posted by pollution on Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:47 | #

Talk about a pathetic reply. If you’d just said you disagreed with the post, I’d have left it alone. But no, you had to have it both ways, saying you didn’t endorse the blog but also defending the post.

And no, I strongly doubt the second link endorses inter-mixing between Europeans and Middle Easterners.

Yes it does, you pusillanimous nitwit. It doesn’t get much clearer than this: “We should include Jews in our White genepool!” It says “many-if not most- women” are uninterested in “blonde haired and blue-eyed men” and says “very fair White women” should be encouraged to mate with “darker men” like Turks, Jews, and Syrians.

What is your specific ancestry, by the way? And what is your phenotype?

200

Posted by EA Steve on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:10 | #

Pollution,

In a literal sense, the blog entry does not say “many if not most White women are uninterested in blonde-haired men.” But, I will admit I do now notice your point about a potential misinterpretation, assuming my interpreation is correct about the wording. I see what you mean about “a little more color.” From blonde, or as a general term from say, albino? The author should have written his message more clearly, if my intrepretation is correct. If my intrepretation is incorrect, the blog entry is unacceptable for a pro-White forum.

Regardless of what the possible theme of the blog entry was, I also disagree with the idea that White women are generally uninterestered in blonde men. They are a special part of our race, and my observations are that they are very popular among many White women, particularly blondes (women) . I am sorry I did not clarify that in my first response.

Also, I do not see the necessity of quizzing me on my appearance and ancestry, but since you ask and I have written about my ethnic ancestry in the past:

I am clearly White European, and I am genotypically Northern European.

201

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:50 | #

EA Steve, I suspect “Pollution” is a troll. He’s been here before and, if memory serves, has had his comments zapped before. He’s very close to having them zapped again.

202

Posted by pollution on Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:58 | #

Someone isn’t a “troll” just because you don’t like him, Scrooby. I’m not surprised you’re itching to silence me.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments