|
|
|
Let’s do the math, Landsburg Steven Landsburg is an economist who brags about the quality of the department in which he teaches, and who was savaged a couple of years ago by Pat Buchanan in The American Conservative:-
The allegedly soulless Landsburg - who, of course, has a Jewish soul - has now written an absurdly comical piece titled One Fifth of an American. It appeared in Slate Magazine yesterday:-
The ensuing argument contains flaws that any entry-level economics student could discourse on without much effort. In any case, this “analysis” sure leaves much out, does it not? A few minutes of using “Google” will fill in most of the blanks, but just to give a few examples:- The fiscal costs of illegals are discussed by Steven A Camarota here. Although the date on Camarota’s article is August 2004, for some reason it didn’t quite make it into Landsburg’s “analysis.” And then we have this, again from 2004, by Frosty Wooldridge ... and this ... and, of course, this from Amren last September as well as a typically lucid and useful Jared Taylor speech which is at least partially related to this topic. One could go on and on, but you get the picture. Does Landsburg understand the economic concept of “externalities”?
It does make one wonder. One can also wonder why an “economist” from such a “prestigious institution” would pretend that the only cost to Americans from illegal immigration is lowered wages. So, we have all the economic costs outlined above that Landsburg blithely ignores. We have the crime, the breakdown of social cohesion, the gangs, the revanchist claims on the American Southwest, the white flight (ie, ethnic cleansing), the graffiti, the lowered standards and failing schools, the torn up porch couches filled with “hard working immigrants” sitting around drinking liquor from brown paper bags and hurling garbage onto the streets ... endless examples of negative externalities, both great and small. And then we have the most important negative externality of all:-
If we conservatively estimate that the Mexicans that Landsburg is so concerned about are ~ 40-50% Amerindian, and if we also conservatively ignore genetic structure (which would then underestimate the genetic impact of this mestizo/Indio influx), then we can crudely estimate that ~ four Mexicans reduce the genetic interests of every European-American by one child equivalent. Thus, 1,000,000 Mexicans impose a cost on every European-American equivalent to 250,000 lost children, and so forth. Er ... one fails to see how unskilled manual laborers compensate for this with increased carrying capacity. In fact, the numbers of the influx are so high that one is hard pressed to understand how compensation could even be possible, even if every illegal was a budding Edison or Einstein. However, as discussed above, these illegals are actually a net economic drain, so it can be suggested that they may be actually decreasing carrying capacity, significantly reinforcing and enhancing the gross negative genetic impact on America’s White majority. With respect to Landsburg’s bizarre idea that American citizens must consider how immigration decisions influence the standard of living of foreigners, how would that work in private life? Is Landsburg willing to forfeit his university position to a needy affirmative action candidate from Mexico? Can we balance out all the positives and negatives and ask Landsburg why his needs are considered more important than that of a stranger he has never met? The idea is ludicrous on its face. White Americans are expected to accept biological, social, political, and economic displacement because an “economist” (and one that ignores basic economic principles at that) tells them that, in his opinion, the gain obtained by “poverty-stricken Mexicans” more than makes up for the loss for real Americans. No, I don’t think so. Even considering only proximate metrics (fiscal issues, quality of life, and social cohesion) the idea that American citizens should be self-destructive altruists to help those from failed societies, so these failed societies can be reproduced on American soil (e.g., southern California) is an absurdity. When we then consider the effect on genetic interests, we understand that what we are talking about here is genocide – genocide through race replacement. What price do we put on the lives and interests of White Americans, Mr. Landsburg? Here’s an article by “Guess Who?” that puts an estimate for a human life at ~ $7 million:
That last sentence, by the way, appears to be the Landsburg catchphrase. Very good, Landsburg. Will European-Americans be given $7 million apiece for every four Mexicans entering the country? Is the US government and all the corporations that benefit from cheap immigrant labor willing to fork over billions of dollars to each non-Hispanic American citizen (including Blacks for example, who also suffer from Mexican immigrants in the same manner) to compensate them for the loss suffered from the legalization of millions of illegals? Let me know when the checks are in the mail. No, instead what we get is the promotion of genocide – uncompensated by even the slightest consideration of the costs – by so-called “academics” who write with all the ignorant self-assurance of a callow teen-ager. This guy is an “economist?” One can think of better words of description. As the fate of Julius Streicher made clear, legally convened tribunals have set a precedent that the promotion of genocide through writing is a crime against humanity of sufficient magnitude to warrant the harshest of penalties. And, of course, the definition of genocide includes such items as: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. The definition is fairly broad in that any objective interpretation – one that does not consider the existence of one group of lesser concern than another group - would agree that population replacement through mass immigration constitutes genocide for the receiving population, particularly once the scientifically valid Salterian analysis is considered. One can only hope that legally convened tribunals of the future will take such cases up with the same enthusiasm as the Streicher case was prosecuted more than 60 years ago. JW Holliday Comments:2
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:34 | # permanently sterilized by an accident? This is why Lemkin demanded “deliberation” in his definition of genocide. A virulent organism destroys its host merely by not caring about the survival of the host while it uses the hosts resources—it doesn’t “deliberately” kill the host. It just eats and leaves before it dies with the host. It is the host’s immune system that must “deliberately” kill the virulent foreign organism. However, the Jewish organism isn’t intelligent enough to both define genocide in a way friendly to virulent organisms and avoid all movements that are “deliberate” in their attacks on the host immune system. It, of course, limits the “guilt” to only those “deliberate” attacks and leaves the rest of the invader free of any serious “guilt” as it consumes the world. 3
Posted by Harry on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:54 | # The Perfection of a Successful Group Evolutionary Strategy 4
Posted by wintermute on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:08 | # One can only hope that legally convened tribunals of the future will take such cases up with the same enthusiasm as the Streicher case was prosecuted more than 60 years ago. I’ll clear some space on my calendar, JW, and no worries about my enthusiasm! Regarding the topic of calendrics, I have long been interested in an old proposal made by Dave Stennet or the even more mysterious “Ursus Major”, from the now defunct ESU, that Europeans (who are really only now being born as a people) require holidays to celebrate and reinforce their own achievements and existence. To this end, it was proposed that dates be found for the battls of Chalons and Themopylae, which would then become pan-European holidays. I suppose anti-Turkic battles would do just as well. Suggestions and dates are welcome from the gallery. At any rate, I bring up the topic because the Jews killed Streicher on Purim, one of the many festivals during which they commemorate the murder of Gentiles - Passover for the murder of Egyptian children, Purim for the murder of Persians, Chanukah for the murder of Greco-Romans and so forth. Isn’t it strange that all Jewish holidays celebrate murder? I wonder what sort of personality is born of such an intensively bloodthirsty and frequent ritual? But I digress. On what Gentile holiday would Mr. Landsburg be executed? Until Stennet and UM’s recommendations are met, we as a people have no convenient day which marks the defense of the European people and their Race-Culture against Asiatics. Also, I would not want for Mr. Landsburg, or indeed, any of his active Landmen for whom we would be able to enter writings into IMT evidence, to be forgot. To this end, I feel that some WN/ anti-NWO type should buy up http://www.mmedefarge.com or www.charlottecorday.com to list the accused, their writings, and the crimes with which they are charged. Our very clever Finnish poster has already written convincingly about ‘selling shares in the future’ - whether by explaining to Whites that their children’s lives will soon resemble those of White children in Zimbabwe, or explaining to some White collaborater that his writings or actions will not be forgotten when the day comes. The mere existence of mmedefarge.com or charlottecorday.com would tend to emphasize, both to WNs and to our opponents that we take the charge of genocide, as defined by the United Nations and the IMT, very seriously. In fact, to not keep tally of the would be genocides would be tantamount to saying, we’re not really serious when we throw the word around. But if not genocide, then what is becoming of us? And if genocide is being perpetrated against us, why are we not maintaining lists of the instigators, the rabble-rousers, the theorists, the financiers, the publicists, agents of indoctrination, and so on? Shouldn’t every policeman in the emply of the UK’s Diversity Directorate have his name on the list of those who will have to be at least interrogated by the court to judge their complicity, just as the SS were treated separately from the Wehrmacht at Nuremburg? Shouldn’t members of the American State Department, or whatever branch of the Executive supervises the ban on boycotting Israel, be marked for the same treatment? Of the Duke University academics, every academic who signed the proclamation of guilt against the Duke Three just days after the case became public, should obviously spend the rest of their lives in prison. Does someone here disagree? Noel Ignatiev surely deserves death for his crimes, but what of the administrations that hired or kept him on, what of his fellow academicians who said nothing? Should not all alike be punished? I simply propose an online clearing house for information about those persons who will have to be investigated, following any national revolutions, velvet or otherwise. To remind readers of just what we’re discussing here, I reprint the first three articles of the 1948 Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide.
The articles also give us significant latitude for the names and faces that might be listed on http://www.charlottecorday.com:
So, does anyone have some good dates (or equivalents in our calenders) for Thermopylae, Tours, Chalons? I’d like the sentences to be carried out, if possible, on days that commemorate other noble victories of European Man over and against the strategies of Asia. 5
Posted by mens rea genocide on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:16 | # “Complicity” jumps out at me as an awfully broad word. So far as I know, every member of the House and Senate save Ron Paul is guilty. We could rather easily separate the malicious-aforethoughters such as Chertoff/Ziv from the criminally-negligent genociders such as Lindsay Graham. Sentences? Life in prison with homosexual negroes for the former, life in prison with white normals for the latter. 6
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:11 | # ...criminally-negligent genociders such as Lindsay Graham. It seems that my “home-boy” is also a “homo-boy”. Grahamnesty’s notorious speech to a group of invaders (in which he referred to Americans as “bigots”) suggested that his passion for immigration was due to his crush on a U.S. Army officer named Dan Garza. 7
Posted by mens rea genocide on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:22 | # I hadn’t even thought of a homosexual angle but seeing you speculate about it Speaking of mystifying behavior, one wonders what they’ve got on Trent Lott, who we know from the Strom Thurmond eulogy as a secret segregationist, but pushes the Kennedy-Bush bill nonetheless. 8
Posted by Jean Depression on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:44 | # No, Fred, CvH’s essay on racial materialism may be the best thing he’s written, and I am no fan of his. The mysteries of quantum mechanics do not invalidate the concrete nature of biological race, and if one accepts Everett’s “multiverse” theory as the explanation for quantum mechanics’ mysteries, that falls away as well. Do not distort what CvH is saying here. He is frankly saying that Evolian “spiritual race” is bullshit, nonsense, and this is correct. What is this “spiritual race?” How is it defined? Evolian-Yockeyian “spiritual race” is merely an illogical reaction to the “racial theories” prevalent at their time, and before, which were, as Salter describes, disjunctive and essentialist - even and especially in the intracontinental sphere - and which, basically, stated that positive traits such as honor, nobility, and courage were characteristic of certain groups and not others. How does one react to these theories? If one is prone, as was Evola, to mysticism, aristocracy, and nonsense about “tantric ideas” and “gnosticism” one invents the idea of “spiritual race” - that is, a person can be a biological member of race “A”, but a spiritual member of race “B”, and the spiritual trumps the biological. A more sane and truthful explanation could have instead focused on the fact that no group has a monopoly on honor, courage, and nobility, and that the intracontinental racial differences are, on average, a fraction of those which are intercontinental, and that many of the peoples of Europe are mixtures of the various “disjunctive” categories - and thus, even if one wanted to ascribe certain positve traits as characteristic of groups, one could always theorize on a heredity mechanism for their transmission to other, closely related groups. The latter borders on silliness, but it is still better than fevered fantasies about “spiritual race.” 9
Posted by Jean Depression on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:56 | # And, for some reason, Sailer doesn’t link to this critique of Landsburg. Can’t get ‘dem whiteys ‘dinkin’ ‘bout’ ‘dem ‘dere ethnic genetic interests now, can we, boy? Might interfere with “citizenism.” 10
Posted by Maguire on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:58 | # Wintermute, “So, does anyone have some good dates (or equivalents in our calenders) for Thermopylae, Tours, Chalons? I’d like the sentences to be carried out, if possible, on days that commemorate other noble victories of European Man over and against the strategies of Asia.” I propose August 20, 1794 as a memorable date to commemorate by executing enemies of the white race. And this would be a particularly appropriate date for also hanging white race traitors. This was the date General Anthony Wayne led the American Legion to victory over the Western Lakes Alliance of Asiatic Indians at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in modern Ohio. This victory opened the entire Northwest Territory to white settlement. I realize this is not Europe and we’re only discussing an area larger than modern France. A bit of background history here… The Judeo-Masonic entity seated in London had previously issued The Proclamation of 1763. This was a flagrantly shameless scrap of anti-white racist legislation prohibiting white American settlement of these virtually unpopulated lands. The apparent purpose was to secure minor trade advantages for the London government with the savage non-whites of this area. This decree was one of the Intolerable Acts referred to in the white American Declaration of Independence of 1776. “He (meaning King George as representative sovereign of the London government) has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” That same government also stooped to inciting anti-white racial violence and even arming these incited non-whites to attack white mothers and infants: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” The subsequent 1783 Treaty of Paris required the London entity to evacuate all its military garrisons in the Northwest Territory. It failed to do this. It instead maintained these garrisons which protected arms emporiums selling guns to the merciless Indian Savages. These arms of course facilitated their attempted genocides against white working class families, and were known to be likely to be used in that way. An interesting example of what’s now called proxy war and “Low Intensity Conflict”. Following the Battle of Fallen Timbers General Wayne’s troops marched through the Northwest Territory and put all these dens of mercantile inquity to the torch, sometimes right under the eyes of British mercenary troops as happened a month later at Fort Miami (modern Fort Wayne, Indiana). Deep rooted tradition cuts both ways. It can mean one thing among the museums of London and precincts of Westminster. It recalls entirely different behaviors of that same Tradition on the outer marches of the White Race’s living space. Nor was this an isolated aberrational incident. Allying with non-whites to attack working white people for mere financial gain is a multi-century habit of the London regime. There is a straight line running from The Proclamation of 1763 to the concentration camps of the South African War to the Judeo-British firebombing of Hamburg to Dresden to the current London incited Immigration Invasion of the British Isles themselves. I confess that when I recall these traditions I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be best for whites overall if Britain weren’t entirely repopulated with negroes of the lowest IQs and that entire branch of white history and development eliminated as a defective racial cull. However I eschew allying with non-whites to attack whites under all circumstances. This is the greatest sin any regime can commit. There can never be any justification for it, and particularly in ever-shifting ephemeral ‘ideals’, no matter how artfully phrased. These seductive phrases are too often mere propaganda constructs written by the David Frums of the time to justify sordid military-financial schemes, or covert advancement of non-white racial interests at white expense, or both. Maguire 11
Posted by Jewish economic tactics on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:24 | # In the U.K. the socialist Labour Party (run by Blair’s “Jewish Mafia”) has followed a similar policy for housing that largely mirrors the situation in the U.S. Their policy is as follows: 1) Destroy families: by encouraging the break-up of families, in particular white ones, this increases demand for single person dwellings; 2) Flood the country with immigrants: this increases competition for housing, which keeps prices climbing; 3) Increase red tape for planning: under the guise of environmental concerns, the UK government has the lowest number of new-builds in its history. Even better, they have only built 200 social assistance houses per year since coming to power ten years ago; 4) Divide and rule: they keep the population divided by race and ethnicity, which increases the value of homes in areas where schools have a majority of one race or another; 5) Hype crumbling, out-of-date, inefficient homes: most British homes are damp and expensive to keep. This keeps costs high which is good for the banks. They have many TV shows to do this as well; 6) Distract with war: the UK government has avoided doing anything about the issue by gumming up government with fighting the war on terror;
12
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:39 | # most British homes are damp and expensive to keep Well, the east wing is a little discouraging after a downpour, I admit ... and the Grand Ballroom has seen better days. But since the scullery is larger than Grand Central Station, and we really don’t need thirty-three state rooms, we’ve moved in there. And thankfully, the wine cellars are perfectly dry. Heaven forbid the labels from dropping of my Bolly 61. 13
Posted by Matra on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:59 | #
I take it that statement includes the Anglo-Saxons of the US, Canada, NZ, and Australia as they are essentially British. It could even include General Wayne himself! And since non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans in all the British conquered nations above have worked tirelessly on the side of Jews to promote multiculturalism in these formerly Anglo-Saxon nations then a “defective racial cull” would have to include more than the British. 14
Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:12 | #
Actually, it is the other way around: mind/body dualism is indefensible in 2007. 15
Posted by ohp on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:42 | # “I confess that when I recall these traditions I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be best for whites overall if Britain weren’t entirely repopulated with negroes of the lowest IQs and that entire branch of white history and development eliminated as a defective racial cull.” I appreciate your candor. I always wonder what these mick- or german-identified “white nationalist” who admit to fantasizing about genociding the English are doing posting in English on English and American sites. 16
Posted by matron on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:10 | # it strikes me full in the face that you are a complete prat! wise up there are some lovelys girls out there of shady colour. Your silly argument will never take away the beauty of the lovely blackness. matron 17
Posted by GT on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:57 | # ohp writes: “I always wonder what these mick- or german-identified ‘white nationalist’ who admit to fantasizing about genociding the English are doing posting in English on English and American sites.” Rather thin-skinned or selective in our outrage, are we? From the American Declaration of Independence: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” The above is historical fact. Should an American descendant of Englishmen of which I am one, not post facts in English on an English site if it hurts the sensibilities of my English cousins? Should I be offended if my English cousins post less than flattering facts about my American ancestors? Of course not! Try placing Maguire’s statement into context and re-read the entire post. Pay particular attention to the concluding paragraph: “However I eschew allying with non-whites to attack whites under all circumstances. This is the greatest sin any regime can commit. There can never be any justification for it, and particularly in ever-shifting ephemeral ‘ideals’, no matter how artfully phrased. These seductive phrases are too often mere propaganda constructs written by the David Frums of the time to justify sordid military-financial schemes, or covert advancement of non-white racial interests at white expense, or both.” 18
Posted by ohp on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:53 | # GT: “From the American Declaration of Independence:” You are aware, I hope, that “he” was a German. Occupying the British throne does not does not transmute one’s genes. “Should an American descendant of Englishmen of which I am one, not post facts in English on an English site if it hurts the sensibilities of my English cousins?” When the “fact” is that you sit around in your arm chair day dreaming about exterminating one of the more productive peoples of Europe, it might be better to keep that “fact” to yourself around those who think the highest good is preserving these and closely related peoples. By the way, I’m not English. And I’m not offended. It’s better for everyone when people like maguire say what they really think. Saves me reading his posts in the future. 19
Posted by GT on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 03:08 | # ohp writes: “You are aware, I hope, that ‘he’ was a German. Occupying the British throne does not does not transmute one’s genes.” Sounds like you have a bone or two to pick with the Germans. And you are aware, I hope, that Englishmen set George on the throne, cooperated with his ‘genocidal’ policies toward the colonies, and died carrying them out? “When the ‘fact’ is that you sit around in your arm chair day dreaming about exterminating one of the more productive peoples of Europe, it might be better to keep that “fact” to yourself around those who think the highest good is preserving these and closely related peoples.” Maguire doesn’t “sit around in his armchair all day” dreaming about exterminating the English. Do yourself a favor and reread the statement you’ve quoted out of context: ‘I confess that when I recall these traditions I sometimes wonder…’ “By the way, I’m not English. And I’m not offended.” Whatever you are, you’re being less than truthful about taking offense: “It’s better for everyone when people like maguire say what they really think. Saves me reading his posts in the future.” Not only are you acting childish, but disingenuous as well. After all if “it’s better for everyone,” then why should only you be ‘saved’ from reading his posts? Why shouldn’t everybody be ‘saved’ from reading Maguire’s posts? So let’s recap: 1. You quoted Maguire out of context. As far as I’m concerned, ohp, you’re credibility has gone to hell. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:15 | # GT, I’m afraid I’m the one who started this. I regret the turn it’s taken. Still, I’m curious as to whether or not your friend is of Irish-Catholic or of German ancestry. After posting what he posted he can’t object to being asked, but if he’d rather not say, that’s perfectly fine. 21
Posted by Matra on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:19 | # So what is Anglo-Saxon-hating Maguire’s ethnic background? Fred asked the question some time ago yet all we have is his “friend” GT coming to his defence. GT: Sounds like you have a bone or two to pick with the Germans. I don’t know if you are Maguire using a different handle - there’s certainly been a lot of mutual admiration of late - but given Maguire’s vile remarks about Anglo-Saxons it’s interesting that you would attack ohp for a comment not even remotely as offensive as those made by Maguire yet not comment on Maguire’s culling remarks. Indeed Maguire’s talk about his fantasies of culling the British is the worst thing I’ve read at this forum. Certainly worse than anything the occasional leftist poster has said. Do you GT agree with Maguire - again assuming you aren’t the same person - that we Anglo-Saxons are a vile enemy of the rest of the white race? 22
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:28 | #
The rhetoric of the American Revolution shouldn’t be taken too seriously. 1.) During the Revolution, Americans invaded Canada and attempted to incite a “domestic insurrection” there. 23
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 04:50 | #
That’s a stretch. Genocide was never a Crown policy. The goal was to suppress an illegal rebellion in the American colonies against their lawful sovereign - King George III. All parties involved considered Americans to be Englishmen. Over a third of the population were loyalists during the war. Another third still was neutral. You make it sound like the British occupation of Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia was on the same level as Hitler in Poland. Nothing could have been further from the case. 24
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:02 | #
The goal was actually to quell violent massacres along the frontier and deter rapacious land speculators like George Washington from exploiting poor white settlers in the region. This would remain a major problem throughout the nineteenth century. In Alabama and Georgia, the U.S. federal government also honored treaties with local Indian tribes and prevented whites from illegally seizing their lands. Georgia threatened to secede from the Union over the issue. 25
Posted by Matra on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:04 | # Apologies to JW Holliday for the off topic remarks but Maguire’s comments cannot go unanswered. Fred:
It is not fine for Maguire to hide from the question you rightly asked him to answer. Maguire, apparently a white from the Anglo-Saxon creation known as the USA, decided to tell the rest of us Anglo-Saxons what he really thinks of us. That’s fine. But let us have this out. I’ve pointed out on several occasions that I can’t go along with WNism because of the commonalities between it and the anti-Anglo-Saxon ideology known as multiculturalism. It does appear that a lot of WNists are just Nazi fetishists (“the Judeo-British firebombing of Hamburg to Dresden”) with a narrow view of the history of the white race. Should Maguire reappear I’d also like him to tell us about his people. I suspect they are Irish Catholic. Perhaps Maguire or GT can give us a detailed post showing why we are so much worse than the rest of the white race. 26
Posted by Scimitar on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:27 | #
The Nazis, for example, were allied to the Japanese during the Second World War and supported the Arab and Indian nationalists. That we are even having this conversation is amusing. The only people in the world who have ever really historically thought of themselves as being “white” are Anglo-Saxons: the Americans and Australians, and to a lesser extent, the Canadians and English. “Whiteness” has never been a defining characteristic of, say, French, Italian, or German culture. The Nazis certainly didn’t believe in white solidarity. 27
Posted by GT on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:18 | # ohp writes: “That does not follow. Pointing out the foreign origin of a British monarch whose actions you tried to use as evidence the British are uniquely destructive to white interests does not make one anti-German.” Englishmen set George on the throne, cooperated with his ‘genocidal’ policies toward the colonies, and died carrying them out. Need I say more? “Whether or not I am “offended” or “outraged” by maguire’s comment is not relevant. You were offended and lied about it. Now you’re lying about its relevancy “Your continuing this thread does not speak highly to your reasoning ability.” You pulled a statement out of context, mischaracterized its meaning, lied about taking offense, and are lying about the relevancy of your feelings. “How I choose to spend my time is of great interest to me. How others choose to spend their time, less so.” Except “armchair-types” you’re attempting to discredit. “I could hardly have provided more ‘context’ without quoting the entire post, which is already available in this thread.” More disingenuousness. The post’s context modified the statement. “I accused him of ‘fantasizing’ and ‘daydreaming’ about exterminating the English, which is more or less what he “confessed” to.” You are accusing Maguire of having an impure thought, the fleeting nature of which was clearly evident given the context and was not to be taken seriously. “I am neither ‘outraged’ nor ‘offended’.” Which is why you wondered “what these mick- or german-identified ‘white nationalist’ who admit to fantasizing about genociding the English are doing posting in English on English and American sites,” then admitting to not liking “loud, anti-American and anti-British German chauvinists who live in the Anglosphere. Ditto for Irish nationalists outside Eire.” “I took the opportunity to draw attention to maguire’s admission, which anyone discussing racial politics with him should be aware of.” Pissing on my head and telling me it’s rain, are you? This is where you’re coming from: So, what else should we know? “And who the fuck are you? All I’ve been able to gather so far is that you have an unusually close relationship with maguire and you two apparently do a lot of deep thinking together.” This gets better all of the time. Come now, ohp, tell me what you really think! 28
Posted by GT on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:20 | # Scimitar writes: “That’s a stretch. Genocide was never a Crown policy.” Which is why ‘genocide’ was in quotation marks. 29
Posted by GT on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:45 | # ohp writes: “Personally, I already had formed an impression of maguire’s worth from skimming his overly wordy and self-satisfied contributions.” Overly wordy? Self-satisfied? Maguire’s contributions to this site are rather sparse and brief compared to the regulars. So what we have is another bald-face lie masking something deeper. Could that ‘something deeper’ be dislike for Maguire’s criticism of the non-Movement and its cults, I wonder? 30
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:40 | # The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was Salterian. It harkens back to Mr. Bowery’s point touching on state security in a structure that attempts to protect EGI against aggressive nationalism. George attempted to provide such a structure, although he probably did not recognise it as such, under English law with a hierarchy that gave ultimate jurisdiction to the Crown. If you belieive that EGI is the way forward, then all EGI must be secure against the encroachment of belligerent nationalism, whether English, German, French or Sioux. 31
Posted by birch barlow on Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:40 | # Ugh…what a nasty article. Does this moron even consider the fact that unrestrained immigration would ultimately result in the U.S. being no better than the Third World, and thus ultimately make *everyone* worse off? Oh yeah, every Latino is capable of being as successful as an upper middle class American, if only America were not so racist and classist. We just need more education and health spending—maybe $25k/yr per kid on education on $10k/yr per person on healthcare? What a cruel joke. 32
Posted by Maguire on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 04:04 | # Fred, “Maguire, may I ask if you’re either Irish Catholic or German by heritage? (I’m half-German, half-Russian, incidentally.)” 75% German, 25% Scots. That’s probably why I’m partial to bagpipes and the Black Watch. Don’t apologize for asking. On VNNF some folks instinctively accuse anyone writing something they don’t like of being a Jew or an informer. I could (and at the start of the decade did for FAEM) write hundreds of pages about the Satanic level of the modern Washington regime’s crimes against white people as a race. Personally I find these archaic political distinctions to be increasingly meaningless with each passing year. “half-German, half-Russian” A perfect description of my wife, who is a Volga German. 33
Posted by Diseased Illegals on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:58 | # 34
Posted by Jean Depression on Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:20 | # Moral Retard Hawks: Thus, to Hawks, the relative genetic similarities or differences between people should not influence how they behave to each other. Very good, Hawksie. Since your own children have no more claim on your morality than a person genetically more distant, say, me, then the money that you have earmarked for their education, you should give to me. Why not? Hawks’ argument is no different from Landsburg’s: we shouldn’t make any distinctions between people with respect to moral judgements based on nationality, citizenship, or genetic relatedness. If Hawks wants to argue against the “naturalistic fallacy” (which I think is getting a bit over-stressed), fine. But he should acknowledge that it is NOT adaptive to completely ignore genetic relatedness when making decisions in how to treat people. And, if someone wishes to behave in an adaptive manner, then they have that right, without creatures like Hawks, Landsburg, or Clinton telling them, or implying, that they are morally bankrupt haters for doing so. 35
Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:58 | # Moral Retard Hawks Yes, he is a moral retard. As you point out, any principle that would proscribe the pursuit of racial self-interest would equally proscribe the pursuit of personal self-interest. No one behaves in accordance with such a principle, and it follows that the abandonment of human group interests is a matter not of principle but of particularism. Moreover, the whole point of morality is group interest. David Sloan Wilson published his first book 13 years ago. Where has this clown been hiding? Post a comment:
Next entry: The day they started talking Integration - Updated 15th June
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Jean Depression on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:32 | #
Of course, the mass “payout” would inflate the money supply, promoting inflation, and reducing the real value of the money.
In real terms: there is no effective compensation. All we can say is that, in current dollars, 4 Mexicos = $7 million apiece.
One wonders how John Doe, average middle class American, is getting $7 million in value from 4 mestizos working as maids in some rich guy’s house, or picking vegetables in the fields.
It doesn’t quite compute.
And if Landsburg doesn’t think “potential” unborn children have value, would he think that there should be no compensation given to a healthy young woman, who wants children, to be permanently sterilized by an accident?