Posted by Andy on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:01 | #

A number of Nigerian politicians have been conned out of thousands of dollars by people selling papers purporting to certify them as “corruption-free”.

  That is too funny.

Posted by Political Guru on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:04 | #

Oriana Fallaci-

Here at MR we see her southern european genetic cluster makeup as part of the problem.

I wouldn’t doubt if she was part of EITHER an Arab or Jewish conspiracy. 

She definitely isn’t white but she was a good Med if there ever was one.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:45 | #

Except that being born in Florence, Tuscany makes her not a Med at all.

Posted by Guruuuuuuuu on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:56 | #

“Except that being born in Florence, Tuscany makes her not a Med at all.”

Wrong:
http://dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-global-survey-regional-affinities.pdf

Posted by Gurruuuuuu on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:03 | #

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181945&rendertype=table&id=TB2

Posted by Northerner on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:08 | #

Rienzi,

Oriana Fallaci lived in her own country and advocated for the interests of her people.

You set up a website (“Legion Europa”) attacking people advocating the preservation of Northern Europeans in their own countries. You’ve never apologized for this.

Your attacks on J. Richards and sensitivity to any notice of Northern European distinctiveness suggests you haven’t changed much.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:13 | #

According to the link less than four [37.5%] of ten in Tuscany are classified as Meds.

Posted by Northerner on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:23 | #

Come on, Rienzi. You’re citing DNAtribes as a source now? That’s even weaker than citing DNAprint.

DNAtribes uses the CODIS markers (a handful of autosomal STRs selected to be useful in identifying individuals, not in identifying the individual’s ethnic origin).

Observed allele frequency data was used to simulate 4,000 individual genetic profiles
for the studied world populations.

Wow, that sounds very impressive. Four thousand individual (simulated) genetic profiles. Based on allele frequency data collected for forensics purposes (in other words, “Tuscans” born to e.g. Sicilian parents will definitely be included in the sample).

Not sure what you’re trying to show with the second link. Tuscans are not a mix of those four parent populations, so an “admixture” estimate using mtDNA frequencies of these populations is not useful (except maybe for comparison with the Etruscan aDNA).

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:32 | #

For the first time, Stanford researchers have used novel statistical computer modeling to simulate demographic processes affecting the population of Tuscany over a 2,500-year time span. Rigorous tests used by the researchers have ruled out a genetic link between ancient Etruscans, the early inhabitants of central Italy, and the region’s modern day residents.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 21:40 | #

However, I’ll concede that Stoddard makes more sense than Grant; the difficulty is, how do I convey that to Meds who appear to have a vested interest in sanctioning immigrant amnesty programmes.

Unlike his mentor Madison Grant, Stoddard was less concerned with which varieties of European people were superior to others (Nordic theory), but was more concerned with what he called “bi-racialism,” seeing the world as being composed of simply black and white races. In the years after the Great Migration and World War I, Grant’s racial theory would fall out of favor in the U.S. in favor of a model closer to Stoddard’s. (Guterl 2004)

Stoddard’s racial theories would help depopularize Grant’s Nordicism and usher in a new kind of racial thinking, which would later be called “Pan-Aryanism” (Aryanism was the belief in a superior white European race). The post-World War II White Supremacist movement would embrace Pan-Aryanism, as it incorporated all whites into a supposed superior race rather than just Northern Europeans.

Posted by Northerner on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:09 | #

Lothrop Stoddard recognized that Northern and Southern Europeans are racially distinct, and indeed wrote an entire book about it (Racial Realities in Europe). I’m sure that is grave enough an insult for over-sensitive Meds to class him as a “Nordicist”.

Anyway, I don’t see a contradiction in noticing both that European genetic distinctiveness is threatened by third-world immigration, and Northern European genetic distinctiveness is threatened by Southern European immigration.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:26 | #

Fair enough Northerner, certainly I have argued that position, however, how do you meld that with Stoddard’s notion of ‘bi-racialism; that the far greater threat comes from outside the general European context? For Stoddard the internecine destruction of WWI portended the end of white racialism wherever it was to be found.

Posted by Marc on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:32 | #

Here at MR we see [Orianna Fallaci’s] southern european genetic cluster makeup as part of the problem.

So, are we Italians who hail from south of the Po not welcome here at Majority Rights?  If so, you ought to adjust the map in the top left corner of the screen… 

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 22:51 | #

My experience Marc, is that door swings both ways and thus the question, ‘how do I convey that to Meds who appear to have a vested interest in sanctioning immigrant amnesty programmes.’

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:15 | #

Marc, you need to sharpen your sarcasm indicator.

Nordicism is something from which I instinctively withdraw.  Those who propound it, even the more emolient and wise voices such as my friend Desmond, seem to my eyes to do so more in a spirit of a reactionary supremacism than connectedness to kind.  At any event, if this is an unfair assessment of the human motives involved, nonetheless it isn’t unfair to say that the note of rejectionism upon which Nordicism hinges is invariably sour and needlessly provocative.

Of course it’s easy for me to say this.  England is not threatened by waves of Sicilians touching down at Heathrow, taking our jobs and disappearing into the black economy.  The debate about the preservation of European distinctiveness is a North American one.  It seems to have been settled in most nationalist organisations in favour of a European inclusiveness which, while it does not set out to disfavour North-South European distinctiveness, seeks to harness the best talent available from all European-Americans.  This seems to me to be tactically sound.

But ... this is an area best fought over by Americans.  This blog is a place to do that, but please maintain the standards of regard for others which one would wish for oneself.

Posted by Andrew on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:19 | #

I don’t know about that, I have seen more Italians that resemble, and have more Middle Eastern features than European, But then again, History and Arab Occupations tells us what happened there.
And don’t forget the principle of Mafia Ideologue and its Origins, ooo yeh Arab an Islamic Occupation again, Of Old, and of New; How European, and a diverse cultural realist in Lala land is that?
And it gets worse by the minute.
Not only is it the Islamic Reichstag and Caliphate, but the Third World Reichstag have yet to do battle with each other; like a buzzard circling a dead carcass; that does not leave much room for European culture, does it. But that is the dead carcass; isn’t it ?

Posted by Northerner on Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:25 | #

Marc:

So, are we Italians who hail from south of the Po not welcome here at Majority Rights?  If so, you ought to adjust the map in the top left corner of the screen…

Speaking only for myself, Italians from south of the Po are welcome to live south of the Po.

It’s unfortunate when migrants from less productive regions flood a more productive region (whether the region be Northern Italy, Northern Europe, or America).

Desmond:

One can’t expect accuracy from Wikipedia. Go to the sources. I’m guessing “bi-racialism” is Guterl’s term, and I wouldn’t rely too heavily on a modern leftist’s interpretation of early 20th century racialism. I doubt Stoddard ever used the term (it certainly doesn’t seem to be present in his most famous book).

You can read The Rising Tide of Color online here: http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01572150

As best I recall, in Tide, Stoddard tends to deal with the white race as a unit, faced with competition from other races, but he always acknowledges the existence of intra-European variation. I don’t think he and Grant disagreed on anything of substance. He certainly didn’t think highly of Southern Italians, for example (see Racial Realities).

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:01 | #

Guessedworker:

The only question should be: do Northern Europeans have a right to preserve their racial distinctiveness, or not?

I was drawn into debating Southern Europeans online after “Racial Myths” created a misinformation-filled website attacking Americans and Northern Europeans and spammed it to sites discussing Northern European racial typology that didn’t even mention Southern Europeans.

Also, pay attention to how Rienzi/Holliday responds to posts by J. Richards that discuss Northern Europeans.

If “Nordicists” sometimes sound “reactionary” or “needlessly provocative” in online debates, it’s because, in my case at least, I’ve learned the most vocal Southern Euros don’t usually respond to reason.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:09 | #

Northerner,

I accept your position on Nordic preservation and the reproach vis-a-vis ‘bi-racialism, however, it still leaves the question about how best to ensure preservation. I started reading The Rise again, as you suggested and came across this paragraph from Stoddard:

Professor Pearson undoubtedly voiced the spirit of the day when he wrote (about 1890) that it would be well “if European statesmen could understand that the wars which carry desolation into civilized countries are allowing the lower races to recruit their numbers and strength. Two centuries hence it may be matter of serious concern to the world if Russia has been displaced by China on the Amoor, if France has not been able to colonize North Africa, or if England is not holding India. For civilized men there can be only one fatherland, and whatever extends the influence of those races that have taken their faith from Palestine, their laws of beauty from Greece, and their civil law from Rome, ought to be matter of rejoicing to Russian, German, Anglo-Saxon, and Frenchman alike.”  1

p. 199 The Rising Tide of Color against White World-Supremacy.

Stoddard rants against the destructive natures of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. He recounts Russia’s defeat in the in the Russo-Japanese War with profound sadness:

“What a triumph,” he exclaims, “what a revenge for the little Nippons to see thus humiliated these big, splendid men who, for them, represented, not only Russians, but those Europeans whom they so detest! This scene tragic in its simplicity, this grief passing amid joy, these whites, vanquished and captives, defiling before those free and triumphant yellows—this was not Russia beaten by Japan, not the defeat of one nation by another; it was something new, enormous, prodigious; it was the victory of one world over another; it was the revenge which effaced the centuries of humiliations borne by Asia; it was the awakening hope of the Oriental peoples; it was the first given to the other race, to that accursed race of the West, which, for so many years, had triumphed with- out even having to struggle. And the Japanese crowd felt all this, and the few other Asiatics who found themselves there shared in this triumph. The humiliation of these whites was solemn, frightful. I completely forgot that these captives were Russians, and I would add that the other Europeans there, though anti-Russian, felt the same malaise: they also were forced to feel that these captives were their own kind. When we took the train for Kobè, an instinctive solidarity drove us huddling into the same compartment.”  1
p.206 The Rising Tide.

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:26 | #

It appears Lothrop Stoddard did use the term bi-racialism (in a 1927 book, Re-Forging America).

Wikipedia claims:

The influx of African-Americans into the Northern states in this time resulted in a “flattening” of racial categories into what eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard named as “bi-racialism” — an absolutist black/white distinction maintained by declaring all mixed-race people to be considered “black”. This required the abandonment of Grant’s gradations of “white” in favour of the one drop theory — which was embraced by white supremacists and black nationalists alike.

Looking at a paper by Guterl, the association of “biracialism” and the “one drop rule” seems to be accurate, but it’s not clear why this would have to involve ‘abandonment of Grant’s gradations of “white”’.

Harrison to Stoddard, 13 November 1920, cited in Perry, “Hubert Henry Harrison,” p. 402. Harrison’s admiration of Stoddard was roughly analogous to the curious relationship between Garvey and Earnest Sevier Cox. Cox, an aristocratic Virginian, a self-styled negrophobe, and a protégé of Madison Grant, had traveled to “white colonies” around the world before the war, an experience he later recounted in his autobiographical Black Belt around the World (Richmond, Va.: privately published, 1963). After serving as an aide to arch-segregationist James K. Vardaman, Cox founded the White America society, and began work on his first critical treatment of the American “race problem,” putting it in a global context. In 1924, with Garvey’s legal troubles growing, Madison Grant clipped out a report of one of Garvey’s speeches on black repatriation to Africa and sent it to Cox, urging him to “get in touch with Garvey.” When Cox reached out to Garvey, the “Provisional President of Africa” responded with overtures of friendship and insisted that the UNIA and the Ku Klux Klan, which Cox was presumed to represent, had shared social visions. Such an argument was (and still is) debatable. But both men did share a thirst for “race purity,” and both headed movements that were explicitly about reconstructing manhood around an electrified vision of racial classification in modern America. Within a matter of months after their initial contact, Cox had spoken at two separate UNIA meetings, and had written to Garvey in support of Virginia’s Racial Integrity Law (authored, in part, by Madison Grant), which took Garvey’s ideas of race purity to their logical conclusion and eliminated the very idea of “the mulatto” from Virginia’s legal system. Race purity and a general disparagement for the idea of the mulatto—key aspects of the New Race Consciousness—were at the heart of the relationship between Cox and Garvey; “for once,” Garvey wrote, pleading for sympathy from Nordic chauvinists like Cox, “will we agree with the American white man, that one drop of Negro blood makes a man a Negro?” Here, at last, another hint of the emergent “biracialism” of racial thought in the United States—a biracialism that was to be the final and peculiarly American product of the New Race Consciousness. Grant to Cox, 18 March 1924, cited in William A. Edwards, “Racial Purity in Black and White: The Case of Marcus Garvey and Earnest Cox,” Journal of Ethnic Studies 15 (1987):125; Marcus Garvey, “Who and What Is a Negro,” Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, ed. Amy Jacques Garvey, 2 vols. (1923, 1925; reprint, New York: Atheneum, 1992), 2:21; Edith Wolfskill Hedlin, “Earnest Sevier Cox and Colonization: A White Racist’s Response to Black Repatriation, 1923-1966” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1974). The term biracialism is taken from Lothrop Stoddard, Re-Forging America (New York: Scribner’s, 1927).

Journal of World History 10.2 (1999) 307-352
The New Race Consciousness: Race, Nation, and Empire in American Culture, 1910-1925*
Matthew Pratt Guterl

I found a few quotes from “Re-Forging America” in a paper that is available online:

And even Stoddard, who in 1920 had [End Page 40] produced detailed rankings of racial quality, maintains in 1927 that “No theoretical questions of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ need be raised.” 13 This is the meaning, after all, of “My country, right or wrong”; the attachment to country, irrespective of rightness and wrongness, affirms the primacy of identity over any other category of assessment. Hence, whether or not Stoddard had personally given up his belief in white supremacy, he had absolutely disarticulated it from his opposition to immigration: “The really important point is that even though America (abstractly considered) may not be nearly as good as we think it is, nevertheless it is ours…. That is the meat of the matter, and when we discuss immigration we had better stop theorizing about superiors and inferiors and get down to the bedrock of difference” (RFA, 102).

What’s striking here about Stoddard’s effort to set aside his ethnocentrism—his bracketing the question of whether America is really as good as we think it is—is not that he in fact gets rid of the ethnocentrism but that he recognizes its irrelevance to his nativism, or rather, that he recognizes that the power of nativism depends upon its pluralism, its transcendence of questions about superiority and inferiority. The point of suspending the question of America’s goodness is to make clear the fact that our attachment to it is based only on our identification with it; even if, Stoddard says, “it could be conclusively shown that a certain stock was superior to us in some ways…we should still refuse to receive it, on grounds of self-preservation” (RFA, 257-58). Where the assertion of racial superiority requires a primary commitment to certain universal values (the ones according to which some races are deemed superior and some inferior) and thus a merely secondary commitment to whichever race happens to rank the highest, the denial of the relevance of superiority and inferiority makes the race as such into the cathected object. This is what it means for Americans to want to be not supremely good or supremely powerful or supremely rich but “supremely American.” This is what it means for difference to be bedrock; it is only for the pluralist that identity—the difference of oneself from others—is absolutely crucial since only the pluralist, suspending the question of better or worse, understands the different as merely different.

Modernism/Modernity 1.1 (1994) 38-56.
American Modernism and the Poetics of Identity
Walter Benn Michaels

Here’s another reference to Stoddard using the word “bi-racialism”:

Schuyler knows that though such declarations of difference were the dogma of a good portion of Harlem Renaissance aesthetics, they were also frequently forthcoming from white speakers where they were often prefaced by concerns for preserving the racial integrity of white America, by which is meant its economic and social privilege. Lothrop Stoddard had argued explicitly along these lines only two years before the publication of Black No More. Advocating to a predominantly black audience the pursuit of “cultural recognition” rather than “social equality,” and particularly opposed to the Harlem Renaissance project linking the two, Stoddard declared in his 1929 Chicago Forum debate with Du Bois that “Keeping white America unimpaired ... is not fundamentally a matter of superiority or inferiority per se; it is a matter of racial difference” (Du Bois and Stoddard 13). Stoddard is more tactful here than usual; with his political opportunism posing as respect for AfricanAmerican music and literature-though rather than actually praising this work, he merely notes that sales and reviews indicate that other white people seem to enjoy it-he argues to the amusement of his audience that “bi-racialism,” including Jim Crow laws, is not a “caste” system because it “does not imply relative questions of superiority or inferiority, but is based upon the self-evident fact of difference” (Du Bois and Stoddard 15).18 Self-consciously playing on rhetoric like Hughes’s in “The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain” and even like Du Bois’s in the same debate,19 Stoddard attempts to keep the discussion focused on questions of distinctive racial traits rather than on what Du Bois had posed as a focus in his opening statement: the fact that “the whole system of exploitation” of colored labor the world over is “the kernel of the organization of modern life” and “modem white civilization” in particular (Du Bois and Stoddard 8-9).

Bottom line: Stoddard may have shifted his emphasis to black/white relations within the U.S., but I seen no evidence that he ever came to believe no differences exist among Europeans.

During the early 1920s, advocates of immigration restrictions invoked apocalyptic scenarios derived from the writings of Lothrop Stoddard, a racialist associate of Madison Grant. Stoddard wrote of the imminent destruction of the white race by “teeming” darker races that would gradually out-breed them. Worldwide, “whites” would soon be supplanted by the “colored” races that they had ostensibly come to colonize. And on American shores, whites of “Nordic,” or northern European ancestry, were now being genetically swamped by “Alpines” and “Mediterraneans,” inferior “subspecies” of whites who were immigrating from eastern and southern European countries. See Lothrop Stoddard, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920), 298, 309. Walter Benn Michaels argues provocatively that, while Stoddard’s white supremacist views are rehearsed, sometimes earnestly, sometimes mockingly, in such canonical modern literary texts as The Great Gatsby, Stoddard’s real significance to modern literature lies less in his flagrantly racist writings than in his eventual call for Americans to identify themselves as a body unto themselves. In 1924, immigration quotas had been implemented to stabilize the makeup of America’s white population, and it was only after the passage of the so-called National Origins Act that the author of Re-Forging America (1927) began to foreground the criterion of racial difference over that of racial inferiority or superiority. For Michaels, the “nativist pluralism” of the late 1920s, the belief that Americans should put aside universalizing racial standards in favor of the more locally derived standard of Americanness itself, was inseparable from the linguistic identitarian concerns rehearsed by modern artists who were preoccupied with the materiality of their mediums. “[N]ativism and modernism,” Michaels argues, came to be powerfully united “as efforts to work out the meaning of the commitment to identity—linguistic, national, cultural, racial—that . . . is common to both.” (Walter Benn Michaels, Our America: Nativism, Modernism, and Pluralism [Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press: 1995], 2-3; see also 14-15, 23) Nativist pluralism, however, appears to have been engendered through a modulation of the category of “race” itself. Insofar as modern Americans were inclined to trade racial for cultural awareness, they did so not only because immigration quotas made it safe to do so, but because meaningful racial differences had already been strategically displaced into the more manageable confines of a struggle between “subspecies” of whites (145 n. 22).

Modernism/Modernity 5.1 (1998) 23-47
X-Ray Testimonials in Muriel Rukeyser
David Kadlec

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:28 | #

Here is some additional context, from a review of Guterl’s book (and, again, I wouldn’t rely too heavily on Guterl’s analysis):

Guterl does us a great service by extending the history of racial construction
well into the twentieth century. By the mid-nineteenth century, Irish and
other immigrants had a tenuous hold on white identity, as described by David
Roediger and others.1 As new waves of southern and eastern Europeans
flooded eastern cities at the turn of the century, racial classification became
increasingly complex. Racial mapping promoted by scientists and displayed
at world’s fairs offered myriad ethnic and racial identities to urban Americans.
In both scholarly journals and public displays, social scientists created a
hierarchy of racial categories that sought to categorize every American
according to his or her genetic material. Guterl reproduces one such convoluted
“race chart” published in 1893 which includes hundreds of racial
groups descended from the original “ruddy races,” “brown races,” and “black
434 REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY / SEPTEMBER 2002
races” (pp. 20–1). The move from this complex web of racial identity to a biracial
America, in Guterl’s analysis, solidified in the decade following World
War I.
In order to focus his story and give it a metropolitan slant, Guterl locates
the center of this transformation in New York City. In doing so he acknowledges
that bi-racialism did not define all regions, the Southwest for example,
and was present earlier in others such as the antebellum south. Focusing on
New York also allows him to extend his study to Europe and the developing
world as the city was “the entrepot from which the growing obsession with
whiteness and blackness was exported” (p. 11). This global perspective on
racial identification is incisive and reflects the work done by Gail Bederman
for an earlier period.2 It is particularly significant given the central role World
War I plays in Guterl’s story, and his biographical subjects’ international ties.
Guterl clarifies his subject further by focusing on the lives of four men.
Daniel Cohalan was an Irish nationalist who sought to reinvigorate Irish-
Americans’ commitment to their native land. At the same time many Irish-
Americans were identifying themselves primarily as white American patriots,
rather than Celtic nationalists. Madison Grant, a direct descendant of John
Adams, proposed a “white world supremacy” he called “Nordicism” that
would unite the Irish, English and other “white folks” under one umbrella (p.
8). In sharp contrast W.E.B. Du Bois responded to the upheavals of World War
I and the Great Migration by developing a form of international socialism that
saw “blackness” as a fundamental category. Guterl’s final figure stood
between black and white, as a victim of bi-racialism. Jean Toomer, the Harlem
Renaissance writer, refused to categorize himself in a period when racial
identification was necessary for public recognition. Thus Grant and Du Bois
were committed to bi-racialism, although from vastly different perspectives.
Toomer and Cohalan, in contrast, found their own ideas shunted aside in the
new order of the “Nordic” versus the “Negro.”
Guterl begins his story by examining the origins of Grant’s Nordicism.
Grant was the author of The Passing of a Great Race (1916), an enormously
popular book that examined the threatened status of Anglo Saxons worldwide
at the eve of America’s entry into World War I. Grant had a Progressive’s
belief in the power of science and his science of choice was eugenics. By
limiting immigration and encouraging northwestern Europeans to breed only
among themselves Grant was hopeful that America’s racial stock could be
purified. Grant’s work was also crucial in popularizing the term “Nordic,”
which by the early 1920s was used to define any American who was not
“black.” As long as one spoke English, looked “white,” and was patriotic, one
could claim Nordic heritage. Thus Grant’s seminal work was instrumental in
creating a national obsession with all things Nordic. The Ku Klux Klan and
the lawmakers responsible for drafting anti-immigration legislation and
WOLCOTT / ”Nordics” and “Negroes” 435
deporting immigrant radicals at the war’s end eagerly embraced Grant’s
Nordicism.
Guterl argues that immigration restriction was a key moment in the
creation of bi-racialism. At this point the “Negro” captured the white public’s
attention as the source of racial strife. The concomitant Great Migration of
southern blacks to the urban North raised the visibility of African-Americans
in the North and fostered a new protest movement among blacks. In New
York City this movement had an international bent with black radicals,
Marcus Garvey being the most prominent, arguing that the oppression of
Africans, Caribbean blacks, and African Americans had its roots in white
colonialism. This analysis fit well into Grant’s division of the world into
“Negroes” and “Nordics.” Thus Guterl portrays a 1920s where two intellectual
movements with opposing views of social justice actually reinforced one
another by promoting bi-racialism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:34 | #

“Also, pay attention to how Rienzi/Holliday responds to posts by J. Richards [...]”  (—Northerner)

JW Holliday is MX Rienzi?

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 03:57 | #

Desmond:

I accept your position on Nordic preservation and the reproach vis-a-vis ‘bi-racialism, however, it still leaves the question about how best to ensure preservation.

While I think it would be great if whites around the world united in the face of non-white opposition, unfortunately, I don’t think Tide is much use today, except as a warning that turned out to be correct.

Since European and North American governments are not controlled by people sympathetic to the interests of whites, international military alliances will do little to preserve whites.

Things may turn around in the future. In the mean time, individuals can further preservationist goals by marrying and choosing to live around people of compatible ancestry, for starters.

I sympathize with whites in other countries, but I can do little to help them. I think Americans should be focused on restoring America, and not, for example, traipsing around Eastern Europe praising Slavs as the white race’s last hope a la David Duke.

I prefer to see Slavs prevail against Mongoloids, but I also want my people to survive. I’d call Duke an example of what happens when “Pan-Aryanism” is taken too far.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:01 | #

And even Stoddard, who in 1920 had [End Page 40] produced detailed rankings of racial quality, maintains in 1927 that “No theoretical questions of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ need be raised.” 13 This is the meaning, after all, of “My country, right or wrong”; the attachment to country, irrespective of rightness and wrongness, affirms the primacy of identity over any other category of assessment. Hence, whether or not Stoddard had personally given up his belief in white supremacy, he had absolutely disarticulated it from his opposition to immigration: “The really important point is that even though America (abstractly considered) may not be nearly as good as we think it is, nevertheless it is ours…. That is the meat of the matter, and when we discuss immigration we had better stop theorizing about superiors and inferiors and get down to the bedrock of difference.”

even if, Stoddard says, “it could be conclusively shown that a certain stock was superior to us in some ways…we should still refuse to receive it, on grounds of self-preservation”

“Keeping white America unimpaired [i.e., racially intact] ... is not fundamentally a matter of superiority or inferiority per se; it is a matter of racial difference”

The above passages reflect PatrickZ’s opinion.  I also hold this opinion, as do, from what I gather, a number of regulars here.  Where I differ from PatrickZ is in accepting the modern scientific conclusions on innate racial differences in IQ.  Where I agree with him is in holding that those differences are irrelevant to my opposition to government-imposed massive population transfers having as their aim the outright replacement of our race with other races (and other species)—in other words, the deliberate, government-imposed gradual genocide of our race.

Posted by AD on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:50 | #

JW Holliday is MX Rienzi?

MR is just full of surprises! Is GW actually Frank Salter? Is James Bowery actually Kevin MacDonald? Is Svy actually Strom?

(if JW really was Rienzi i don’t know why he would hide it…so i’m doubtful)

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:03 | #

The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers

Pity.  I was looking forward to the Italian State trying to extradite the old boy from The Vatican to stand trial in the manner demanded of la Fallaci.

Posted by EC on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:27 | #

Desmond,

how do I convey that to Meds who appear to have a vested interest in sanctioning immigrant amnesty programmes.

A good question.  Certainly, you are correct that a majority of Meds, both in the US and Canada, gravitate towards the liberal ideology for numerous reasons.  My belief is due to special interest pandering hooked most of the original generations and they continue to vote along those lines.  Not all, but far too many.  Another reason I believe is due to the relative guilt of being allowed in and in turn being expected to hypocritically close the door behind them.  I’ve heard this reasoning from high school friends that I remain in contact with.  They vote Liberal and in turn for amnesty of Mexicans due to their parents or grandparents being allowed in the US.  Not that voting Conservative is of any benefit at present, though that is for another topic.  I’ve tried to explain the enormous difference to no avail.  I have no answer for you.

A question however, how do you rationalize the open immigration of nations such as England when Meds have no serious impact on voting there?

Northerner,

If “Nordicists” sometimes sound “reactionary” or “needlessly provocative” in online debates, it’s because, in my case at least, I’ve learned the most vocal Southern Euros don’t usually respond to reason.

LOL Uh-huh.  I offer up the gentle suggestion that maybe you should start with your “presentation” of said topic along with your choice of vocabulary for they are in need of a wee bit of polishing.  Though I will grant you that with a certain percentage of Meds (or anyone really) it won’t matter.

You’re citing DNAtribes as a source now? That’s even weaker than citing DNAprint.

I’m curious to know why you hold the work of DNAprint in such low regards? 

Anyway, I don’t see a contradiction in noticing both that European genetic distinctiveness is threatened by third-world immigration, and Northern European genetic distinctiveness is threatened by Southern European immigration.

Neither do I and vice versa, mind you.

The only question should be: do Northern Europeans have a right to preserve their racial distinctiveness, or not?

Of course they do, as do Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Europeans.  All of Europe in fact has that right.  Where is the problem in your mind?  Excessive immigration from Southern or Eastern Europe?  I agree with that due to anything excessive is usually not good.  However, let me state that much of this intra-European immigration is for work and exploitation of wages.  Certainly allowing people to come and work WITHOUT giving them every single right of a native, in my opinion, is probably a necessary evil.  Meaning that workers can and should be allowed, though as guest workers with a specific time limit if that is what the citizenry and nation needs.  Even “retirement” packages and/or pensions is a good idea for people who have spent a long period of time in a country as long as the workers do not remain in the respective country. Citizenship is not necessary, in my opinion.

Though let me add one more thing and that is human accomplishment, wealth, power, advancement is not a static notion.  We all are aware of how time has changed the proverbial landscape of Europe with regards to the above and one can confidently state that what is now will not be the same in 100, 200 or 500 years.  It is human nature to want and try to remain “at the top” or “in power”, yet, since it has never been the case ever in history where one nation or people stayed in power, one can safely assume this to be the case in the future as well.  And if I know one thing about ALL Europeans, it is the fact that “slights” are remembered forever and over umpteen generations, and longer.

 
Also, pay attention to how Rienzi/Holliday responds to posts by J. Richards that discuss Northern Europeans.

Can you provide specific examples of the above and your assumption that Holliday is Rienzi?  I’m more interested to see what you view as less than cordial responses towards Richards by Holliday than if Holliday is in fact, Rienzi.

I sympathize with whites in other countries, but I can do little to help them. I think Americans should be focused on restoring America, and not, for example, traipsing around Eastern Europe praising Slavs as the white race’s last hope a la David Duke.

Well, Duke is at least trying to do something.  Some good and some not so good.  Restoring America is all well and good, though that likelihood is dimming rather quickly.  Balkanization is, in my mind, the only real viable and best option that we can hope for.  Going back to pre-1965 America is a pipedream, however I would certainly welcome it.

Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:04 | #

I sympathize with whites in other countries, but I can do little to help them. I think Americans should be focused on restoring America, and not, for example, traipsing around Eastern Europe praising Slavs as the white race’s last hope a la David Duke.

On this point, we agree. This happens to be one of the major reasons why I have reservations about contemporary White Nationalism. It is thoroughly infected by destructive memes that circulate in the larger culture. White Nationalists take the American tradition of racial nationalism, universalize it, and lose sight of its roots in their own culture. Slavs, Germans, Italians and so forth in Europe become “white people” from whose indigenous nationalist traditions American WN’s feel justified in liberally borrowing from. Thus, we have a kaledioscope of ridiculous Neo-Nazi groups marching around in costumes praising Hitler. This has been a serious problem for several decades now. “White Multiculturalism” is a more accurate label for groups of this sort.

Posted by Matra on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:50 | #

I’m surprised some people here who’d read both Holliday and Rienzi didn’t realise they were the same person.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what WNism is all about.  It’s news to me that WNism requires that each white nation jettison its own culture in favour of universal conformity. I thought it was just a recognition that we all face the same threat and so we should work together wherever possible. It doesn’t require Flemings and Walloons to love each other or Britain to import millions of Poles. Nor should it stop us from pointing the finger at white nationalities that tend to favour multiculturalism - as when I’ve criticised Irish Catholics and Italian-Canadians.  I don’t see why a Flemish or Quebec nationalist wishing to liberate his people from a multiculturalist central government can’t also be a WN. Perhaps someone can define WNism.

Posted by EC on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:33 | #

I’m surprised some people here who’d read both Holliday and Rienzi didn’t realise they were the same person.

It never clicked to me.  It makes a lot of sense now.  Thanks Matra.

I thought it (WN) was just a recognition that we all face the same threat and so we should work together wherever possible.

That’s the ideology I go by.  No need for a universal melding, but more a need for a formidable partnership of sorts to help fend off the current attack.

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:09 | #

Fred:

JW Holliday is MX Rienzi?

Yes.

EC:

LOL Uh-huh.  I offer up the gentle suggestion that maybe you should start with your “presentation” of said topic along with your choice of vocabulary for they are in need of a wee bit of polishing.  Though I will grant you that with a certain percentage of Meds (or anyone really) it won’t matter.

Thanks. When I require your advice, I’ll tell you.

Last time I had an exchange with Rienzi (about North/South European clustering, as it happens) he was fairly reasonable, and we seemed to agree more than we disagreed. I’m probably one of the most extreme “Nordicists” here, and I’m a lowly commenter. The blog owner goes out of his way to make it known he is morally superior to all that. Then, in this thread, we see Rienzi pop up claiming out of nowhere that “MR ... see her southern european genetic cluster makeup as part of the problem.” 

I get the impression someone once looked at Rienzi funny at an NA meeting, giving him a complex about his appearance and putting him in need of constant reassurance that he, as a Southern Euro, is accepted.

And Rienzi is the picture of reason and moderation compared to the likes of “diablo blanco” or “nemo”.

I’m curious to know why you hold the work of DNAprint in such low regards? 

Most importantly: Even if we assume there are no systemic problems with test design or sampling, DNAprint admixture estimates have confidence intervals wide enough to make the tests useless for determining low-level admixture in individuals.

DNAprint have repeatedly lied and misled about the capabilities of its test, and about admixture levels in white Americans (in news articles, on their website, and through email). They have also tried to explain away anomalous results with bizarre, unscientific rationalizations (e.g., baselessly suggesting “East Asian” autosomal results in Germany are linked to the paternally inherited Baltic/Finnish haplogroup N3). Having corresponded with DNAprint founder Tony Frudakis around the time the test was released, I can confidently say he is dishonest and/or completely ignorant of statistics. Mark Shriver publically lied about the source of his Negroid ancestry, first attributing it to non-existent “runaway slaves” in his family, before figuring out it came from a Mexican grandmother he previously forgot to mention. The company has had to repeatedly revise downward its estimate of non-white admixture in white Americans. 

This is the company Rienzi/Holliday advocates WN hand over hundreds of dollars to, for tests that can tell the typical white person nothing of value. DNAprint can’t confirm or deny someone’s belief they have an Amerind great, great-grandmother. What use could it be to a typical white with no reason to suspect recent non-European ancestry? If the test shows some admixture, it’s impossible to determine if the admixture is “real” or statistical noise (though, according to the DNAprint website, there’s no problem here circular logic can’t solve). If the test estimates no admixture, there’s still a good chance the confidence interval overlaps non-zero admixture, meaning the test has done nothing to prove that someone is “pure”. One has to suspect Rienzi is partial to DNAprint because they sent him a certificate stating he is “100% Indo-European”, which he proudly displayed on the Legion Europa website. Of course, this is only the Maximum Likelihood Estimate.

I favor autosomal DNA ancestry testing in theory, but I wouldn’t advocate wasting money on any of the current commercial offerings. More markers, better control sampling, and more competent scientists are needed.

Of course they do, as do Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Europeans.  All of Europe in fact has that right.  Where is the problem in your mind?  Excessive immigration from Southern or Eastern Europe?  I agree with that due to anything excessive is usually not good.  However, let me state that much of this intra-European immigration is for work and exploitation of wages.  Certainly allowing people to come and work WITHOUT giving them every single right of a native, in my opinion, is probably a necessary evil.  Meaning that workers can and should be allowed, though as guest workers with a specific time limit if that is what the citizenry and nation needs.  Even “retirement” packages and/or pensions is a good idea for people who have spent a long period of time in a country as long as the workers do not remain in the respective country. Citizenship is not necessary, in my opinion.

Okay, so here we have a Rienzi fan claim, first, that he accepts Northern European preservationism, but then go on to claim intra-European migration and guest workers are a “necessary evil”. Is a reply even necessary? England became a world power without hundreds of thousands of Eastern European “guest workers”. No country needs guest workers. Cheap labor lowers living standards and retards progress.

Funny you mention “human accomplishment”. Perhaps you should take a look at Charles Murray’s book of that title before lecturing us on how England needs Slavic guest workers. Fantasize all you want, but I don’t see Poland or Naples turning into pillars of human development any time soon.

Can you provide specific examples of the above and your assumption that Holliday is Rienzi?  I’m more interested to see what you view as less than cordial responses towards Richards by Holliday than if Holliday is in fact, Rienzi.

Most recently, Rienzi has taken a few pokes at J. Richards under the name “Tile Hats”. Look through Richards’ threads, and you’ll see Rienzi (not necessarily using the name “Holliday”) get worked up about Richards’ discussing phenotype.

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:33 | #

Matra:

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what WNism is all about.  It’s news to me that WNism requires that each white nation jettison its own culture in favour of universal conformity. I thought it was just a recognition that we all face the same threat and so we should work together wherever possible.

I’d like to interpret “White Nationalism” the way you do, but I don’t think anyone can deny that the type of universalist/multiculturalist confusion Daedalus mentions is widespread in today’s “WN movement”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:50 | #

The blog owner goes out of his way to make it known he is morally superior to all that.

The blog owner is trying to maintain integrity on the threads in the face of commenters who may, for example, be here for no better reason than to pursue a private vendetta.

Know that part of my function is to defend the people who are committed and interested enough to write for us.  Geoff Beck and JJR both enjoyed my support.  JW, although he quit formally some months ago, still does.  I might add that J Richards, who is a senior admin here along with the temporarily absent Phil Peterson, has been a strong supporter of JW’s work on EGI, whether or not he felt that JW was antipathetic to his own work.

I do not care what JW’s past activism entailed.  I do not care what disagreements you, northerner, may have had with him, or what emotions are moving you now.  I care about this blog, and if I think you are intent on damaging it I will oppose you.

Nordicism is not unrepresented here.  Those who favour a Nordicist position have no need to personalise their opposition to a pan-Europeanist agenda, and I am asking you now to cease doing so yourself.  Ideas ONLY are needed here.

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:16 | #

JW, although he quit formally some months ago, still [enjoys my support].  I might add that J Richards, who is a senior admin here along with the temporarily absent Phil Peterson, has been a strong supporter of JW’s work on EGI, whether or not he felt that JW was antipathetic to his own work.

Which is exactly my point, chief. If, despite that support, he makes posts like the one “Posted by Political Guru on Friday, September 15, 2006 at 07:04 PM”, I have to imagine he’s desirous of outright coddling and declarations of Southern European superiority.

I will continue to mention Rienzi’s ethnic background and past where relevant as long as I post here. If you want me to leave, say so.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:23 | #

Northerner, I am ahead of you there.  I had also made that same assumption after the Political Guru 07.04 am comment yesterday, but I can tell you now I was wrong.  PG is somebody else, and he must be having a good laugh at our expense.

What I want from you is to observe the groundrules as I’ve set them out.  If you are saying you can’t post here without breaking them, then don’t post here.  Surely it isn’t too much to ask for you to respect private property.

Posted by On Holliday on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:23 | #

“Posted by Political Guru on Friday, September 15, 2006 at 07:04 PM”,

Just for the record, I did NOT make that post, and GW knows I did not make it.

Posted by Northerner on Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:41 | #

I had also made that same assumption after the Political Guru 07.04 am comment yesterday, but I can tell you now I was wrong.  PG is somebody else, and he must be having a good laugh at our expense.

In that case, I apologize to Rienzi/Holliday for assuming it was him.

Ideas ONLY are needed here. [...]

If you are saying you can’t post here without breaking them, then don’t post here.  Surely it isn’t too much to ask for you to respect private property.

That’s up to you. If you think Kevin MacDonald is “personalising the opposition” in noting the ethnic backgrounds of his subjects, then I obviously don’t belong here.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 00:34 | #

With all due respect to my friend GW, and the loyalty he displays to his compatriots, which is quite admirable, IMHO, it’s not obvious at all that you do not belong here, Northerner.

It may be obvious that I do not belong here, however, your insight into, for example Stoddard, was very helpful.

Posted by EC on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:59 | #

Northerner,

Thank goodness we now have evidence of your unwavering civility regarding internet communications where we can clearly say “most vocal Southern Euros don’t usually respond to reason”.    Let me add that this was of no surprise to me.

Your paragraph re: Rienzi - Pure, unadultered, self-serving dross.  No need for further reply.

Your paragraph re: DNAprint -  Considering I have not looked as deeply into the company, its products, and its practices as you, I can logically infer that what you say may be true.  However, given your not so subtle axe to grind, you do not invoke much confidence with your refutation.  One thing that can readily be glossed from it is that companies in competitive businesses have a tendency of stretching the truth regarding their abilities.  Surely you must be aware of the practices of Microsoft and most other tech companies and their “lies”, are you not?  I would file the behaviour of DNAprint under “typical business practice for US companies” and not under some amorphous category of they trying to screw you or the founder is an idiot in stats.

Okay, so here we have a Rienzi fan claim, first, that he accepts Northern European preservationism, but then go on to claim intra-European migration and guest workers are a “necessary evil”. Is a reply even necessary? England became a world power without hundreds of thousands of Eastern European “guest workers”. No country needs guest workers. Cheap labor lowers living standards and retards progress.

Please read what I write with care and refrain with the hystrionics and ad homs.  I said “probably” a necessary evil and only so because of the general fattened perception most Europeans have of themselves and their unwillingness to do the lowly and menial jobs.  If natives of whatever nation want to do those jobs, fine by me.  Another reason I said “probably” is the fact that the birth rate is below replacement level with a rapidly aging boomer generation in nearly all European nations.  I never said or implied that it is a must evil.  Is it clearer now?

I also said, which you quote above yet did not understand was…

Meaning that workers can and should be allowed, though as guest workers with a specific time limit if that is what the citizenry and nation needs. 

Did you catch the second part of the sentence this time?  IF the citizenry of a nation deems it necessary is what I said and in no way did I try to force my opinion upon what a nation should do.  Did you understand that?

Funny you mention “human accomplishment”. Perhaps you should take a look at Charles Murray’s book of that title before lecturing us on how England needs Slavic guest workers. Fantasize all you want, but I don’t see Poland or Naples turning into pillars of human development any time soon.

More self-serving dross.  It depends what you mean by “any time soon”.  Knowing you hold no crystal ball or even a ouija board, it is safe to say your words ring hollow.  And I’m certainly not going to get into a pissing contest about who did what, here.

Posted by JB on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:08 | #

Is “Northerner” the MR-posting name of another cyber celebrity ? McCullough perhaps ?

Can GW or Mr.Holliday himself confirm that he is Michael Rienzi of Legion Europa ? I was wondering where he went after he shut down his website some time ago.

Anyway, I shouldn’t have to remind anyone reading this blog that the last thing we need is more intra-european squabbles.

Northerner:

I sympathize with whites in other countries, but I can do little to help them. I think Americans should be focused on restoring America, and not, for example, traipsing around Eastern Europe praising Slavs as the white race’s last hope a la David Duke.

a victory for whites is a victory for whites, whether it’s in Spain, Sweden, Ukraine or England and the same goes for the defeats. We’re all on the same sinking boat and you know that

EC:

Meaning that workers can and should be allowed, though as guest workers with a specific time limit if that is what the citizenry and nation needs.

the swiss model doesn’t have time limits but legal and political limits. You could be a temporary worker for 10 or 20 years and your children born in Switzerland wouldn’t have swiss citizenship.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:13 | #

God’s peace to Orrianna Fallaci-She was a resistance member in WWII,and a resistance fighter against the present-day mind-set of Islamic fundalism.Her"to the bone"writings will be missed by many,but can no longer be the target of liberal courts and communistic groups.Farewell,you great lady!

Posted by EC on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:14 | #

JB, I agree and whatever works for individual nations and their citizens.  I only threw out the time limit as an example and did state that these “guest workers” should not be given citizenship rights.

Posted by Anon on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:44 | #

Is the NPD in the Guardian piece the same as the NPD in this article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/16/wgerm16.xml

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:37 | #

EC,

Considering that GW also made the same assumption as Northerner, an assumption for which an apology was issued, it’s well served to put the response in context.

The position of accepting Northern preservation and then suggesting guestworkers even if “that is what the citizenry and nation needs”, is with all due respect, illogical, if you believe in the principle of EGI. Matt Nuenke posted Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s response to Peter Gray’s critique of Dr. Salter’s work. In it KMcD wrote:

...unilateral renunciation of ethnic loyalties by some groups means only their surrender and defeat — the ultimate act of altruism with the entirely predictable outcome of extinction for those practicing it. The future, then, like the past, will inevitably be a Darwinian competition in which ethnicity plays a very large role, either in the humane, universalized manner urged by Salter, or by nature red in tooth and claw.

Ultimately it means competition for resources and portends conflict.

Poland is the Mexico of Europe.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 06:54 | #

As long as Switzerland remains outside the social-Marxist maw of the EU the tough citizenship qualifications will remain. Of course many members of the Swiss remote elites are working assiduously to take the country from European Economic Area membership to full incorporation within the EU and this would entail a revision of Switzerland’s eminently sensible citizenship laws.

Posted by Rnl on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:43 | #

On Holliday wrote:

Just for the record, I did NOT make that post ...

But since you did make this post, you’re obviously still reading the board, despite your recent departure. Why not just return as a regular poster? Your contributions were, I think, appreciated by almost everyone who drops by MR.

Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:17 | #

Rnl is correct. Take a vacation from being ‘On Holliday’.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:06 | #

Rnl is correct, but there’s no doubting the firmness of JW’s decision.  We should be grateful for the body of posts he has left, and hold out no expectation that he will return in any meaningful sense.

Properly speaking, JW is irreplaceable, of course.  But we do have to replace him somehow, and the others.  It happens that Rnl is among that body of MR commenters whose work I frequently admire and who may perhaps be interested in helping us out at a more fundamental level.  EC is, I hope, thinking about the possibility.  JB should, IMO.  His capacity for comment research surpasses anybody here.  Andy - so often good value - produced a sublimely Middle Earth comment towards the end of the “Why we do it” thread, and I thought immediately “there’s a guy who people would really love to read”.

There’s no shortage of potential.  I know there’s often a question of family time rather than any lack of committment to the cause.  But still, I’m on the prowl.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:34 | #

Shot three times in the back, a seventy year old nun who Somali Islamist gunmen were told to hunt down and kill.

At what point does our wonderful elite conclude that Islam and Islamists are incompatible with our culture and ourselves?

Posted by Andy on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:39 | #

Andy - so often good value - produced a sublimely Middle Earth comment towards the end of the “Why we do it” thread, and I thought immediately “there’s a guy who people would really love to read”.

  Guessedworker—I am flattered. I would love to help out in any way that I can.  You can e-mail me at the address I use for my comments.

Posted by The White Abe Foxman on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:45 | #

Several posts above were remarkably concerned about the varieties of European cultures, heritages, histories, languages, and values. Why is this even an issue? It is eminently clear to us in America that there is a vast diversity among white American peoples, and I do not refer to the glaring differences between the white Semites and the white Europeans.

In the USA, individual whites are acutely aware of their specific European roots. A few have been persuaded to mock those roots (“I’m a mongrel.”), but the vast majority know their roots. The dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture are pleased to describe us as a monolithic, uniform block of bland whites with no differences among ourselves. But do not be deceived, we are very aware.

In fact, smothering our diversity is one of the four key principal negative stereotypes applied to us by our defamers.

Check this out for more information:

http://www.ResistingDefamation.org/sub/stereo9.htm

Posted by Boris on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:49 | #

GW
I truly enjoy this blog, however since I’m proud of both my Spaniard heritage and my Prussian heritage I believe I’d be better served if us Meds started a different blog. For us Meds it is not only insulting but darm right ignorant for northeners to hijack history in such way.
Who protected northerners white little tushy thru centuries of encroachment by Muslims?
The Bizantines, The Spaniards, the Russians, thats who. Northeners have always been shielded from mongrols by above mentioned races, yet they have nothing but contempt for Meds and Russsians.
In closing lets not forget civilazation grew up in the Med and was latter on copied by Germans and the like. Frescos of Minoan civilazation portrays black haired whites, not blonds.

Posted by Boris on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:00 | #

Desmond Jones wrotte:
“how do I convey that to Meds who appear to have a vested interest in sanctioning immigrant amnesty programmes”.
Are you kiding me?
Was Reagan a Med? How about Kennedy, or W perhaps? None of this Presidents were Meds and their amnesties are fact not fiction. Where are the Meds you purport to want amnesty?
Finally when weeping about Russian defeat under the Japs don’t forget their revenge. For most of you who don’t know about this battle and its concequences(it probably eliminated Jap appetite for further war against russia, thus preventing the formation of the second front hitler so badly wanted) do some research about it.
Battle of Khalkhin Gol. It was Zhukov’z coming out party and what a route of the Japs that turned out to be. OOOrah!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Boris on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:05 | #

You know what, if at this stage of the game, whites are squabling over differences between Meds and Nords then we’re screwed, big time. End of game.

Posted by Boris on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:25 | #

Where do all you Northerners come from with this idea Meds are more prone to sactioning immigrant amnesty programmes? What about you northerners? Want examples?
1-During recent world cup of soccer this was reality.
a) Med teams with the execption of one player from Portugal DID NOT have any black players in their rosters.
b) Northern team such as Britain, France and with a token player Germany all had black players.
Is this what northerners want? A team playing for their country that is mostly black, like in the case of France? And don’t just jump on France, Britain had almost as many blacks in their team.
2-It is in countries like Spain, where black players dread playing for racism. Spain is under threat by fifa to put a stop to the widely popular ‘monkey’ chant whenever a black player enters the game.
Now, if northerners come out and say what would be PC that that is blatent racism they’d be correct, but in my heart I know that is exactly the way most feel in here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:32 | #

For heirarchy read genetic distance.

Boris, there is nothing wrong in the desire of people sharing genetic interest to seek to preserve the ethny.  In Europe this is accepted by all who see where we are going.  We save ourselves as the peoples we are.  The difficulty arises only in America and Canada due, chiefly, to the conflict of demos and ethnos that I have referred to elsewhere (and will again).

American and Canadian whites are numbered among a vast, motley crowd made by liberal politics and the universal franchise.  They cannot simply will themselves to transmogrify into ethos while distinctiveness still obtains, ie short of complete panmixia among them.

Distinctiveness infers a separate and even conflicting gamut of ethnic genetic interests.  But ... non-whites don’t attack the interests of Nords.  They attack the interests of whites.  Therefore, as Svi explains, there is a confluence in white ethnic genetic interests, and that is why north, south, east and west Europeans can and must work together - whilst, of course, always respecting eachother’s particularity.

Posted by Northerner on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:44 | #

EC:

1) Yes, I am less than civil with people like you, for reasons I’ve already touched on in this thread. Thanks for noticing.

2) You asked me about my opinion on DNAprint; I answered. I will not argue with you on a topic of which you are completely ignorant.

For other readers, if I’ve put enough doubt in your minds that you thoroughly research the product before buying it or buying into the results, I’ve succeeded.

3) Desmond has already touched on the incompatibility of “guest workers” and EGI. Let me repeat: no country “needs” guest workers. You attempted to justify the importation of guest workers. If that’s your opinion, fine; but you’re coming from a different planet and there is no point in debating you (leaving aside your overall lack of coherence).

End of discussion.

Boris:

Who protected northerners white little tushy thru centuries of encroachment by Muslims?
The Bizantines, The Spaniards, the Russians, thats who. Northeners have always been shielded from mongrols by above mentioned races, yet they have nothing but contempt for Meds and Russsians.

I love this argument. Spaniards, Byzantines, and Russians “protected” Europe by allowing themselves to be conquered by Muslims.

It’s a great mystery how the Turks reached the gates of Vienna, since we know the inhabitants of the Balkans were successful in keeping Muslims out of Europe.

Poitiers is irrelevant. “Spaniards”, by valiantly allowing muslims to overrun Iberia, saved Europe from Muslim domination. (In reality, Visigoths bear most of the responsibility for both allowing the Muslim intrusion and for reconquering Iberia, with some aid from other Germanics.)

In closing lets not forget civilazation grew up in the Med and was latter on copied by Germans and the like.

Indeed. Roads and cities would never have arisen but for our great Meditarranean inheritance. Let us also not forget all the wonderful Spanish and Sicilian scientists who created modern civilization.

I agree with Svyatoslav. Concentric spheres of loyalty make perfect sense to me (e.g., family, nation, race). If feelings are so easily hurt and alliances so fragile, how can they be expected to last even if all “Nordicist” sentiment is supressed?

Posted by Northerner on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:37 | #

JB:

a victory for whites is a victory for whites, whether it’s in Spain, Sweden, Ukraine or England and the same goes for the defeats.

Sure, who can argue with a tautology?

I love to see whites anywhere succeed. But knowing that for the time being poor Eastern European countries don’t have major problems with non-white immigrants does not make me any happier about demographic changes in my own country. Do you understand that?

We’re all on the same sinking boat and you know that

The fates of the peoples of Europe don’t need to be inextricably linked. The EU has done nothing but damage the survival prospects of Europe. America doesn’t have to wait for Europe to turn around before fixing itself. Each should be bailing his own ship. Awareness of the situation worldwide ought to make individuals work that much harder to salvage what they can in their own countries.

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:25 | #

I see Svi’s point.
Northerner
The mistery of Turks reaching the gates of Vienna has a lot to do with the destruction of the Byzantine empire, and not vice versa. Only after the Byz. were no longer potent did this invasion take place, similarly the downfall of the Roman empire left a huge power vaccum in Spain. the Spaniards did not valiantly let the Muslims conquer Iberia, they had no choice. Only with time and totally by themselves did they rid themselves of this yoke. I did not see in my history books any country coming to the rescue of ‘fellow’ christians. Similarly Romanian were also in the front line against the invading muslin hordes. Northern european countries have taken stands with muslims in order to undermine fellow europeans, that’s a disgrace if I ever saw one.

Posted by TNB Alerts on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 02:38 | #

TNB! Hardly a day goes by where I don’t get some Niggerian thing in my email.  All those Niggerian princes and royalty.  My my.  Funny that niggerians get scammed by other niggerians.

Posted by JB on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:01 | #

Where do all you Northerners come from with this idea Meds are more prone to sactioning immigrant amnesty programmes?

Good question. Sweden is a boiling cauldron of self-destructive liberal insanity. They didn’t need jews or irish politicians to push for feminism, race replacement, speech laws, etc.

Northerner:

I love to see whites anywhere succeed. But knowing that for the time being poor Eastern European countries don’t have major problems with non-white immigrants does not make me any happier about demographic changes in my own country. Do you understand that?

Nobody is asking you to be happy. The point of David Duke’s visits to those countries and translations of his books into their languages is to raise awareness and build alliances. If patriotic parties succeed in countries outside North America they will likely help the patriots here and by breaking the moral spell they could serve as examples to millions of whites around the world. For me to help the BNP in some way or another would be a more productive action at this point even for my own country than to help the Canadian Heritage Front or some tiny unknown patriotic political party. We’ll all need to help each other out but by choosing the right battles our chances of winning are better.

But if nordicists’ whinings about ‘meds’ produces some kind of real life results in our struggle for survival I’ll wear my winged helmet and join the teutonic choir. Whatever works

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:11 | #

“There is nothing wrong in the desire of people sharing genetic interest to seek to preserve the ethny.” Agree
” ....and still team up with my fellow NE Euros against the Romanians.” Disagree, although prior to that point I was in total agreement. If we as white people don’t get over this hang up, the hordes will eat us alive. We must be unified as whites and as europeans and lastly as christians. We shouldn’t fight against each other SPECIALLY if we take the side of muslims against fellow white christians.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:14 | #

Sweden is a boiling cauldron of self-destructive liberal insanity.  They didn’t need Jews or Irish politicians to push for feminism, race replacement, speech laws, etc.  (—JB)

This is of course right:  the Swedes are doing just great race-replacing themselves without anyone’s help.  But for the record, I wonder if Jens Orback is Jewish (the very similarly-spelled “Orbach” often is).

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:17 | #

Winged helmet….join the teutonic choir.LOL
I’ll find Babieca.

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:27 | #

Swedes white flight to Norway anyone?

Posted by Daedalus on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:30 | #

The point of David Duke’s visits to those countries and translations of his books into their languages is to raise awareness and build alliances. If patriotic parties succeed in countries outside North America they will likely help the patriots here and by breaking the moral spell they could serve as examples to millions of whites around the world. For me to help the BNP in some way or another would be a more productive action at this point even for my own country than to help the Canadian Heritage Front or some tiny unknown patriotic political party. We’ll all need to help each other out but by choosing the right battles our chances of winning are better.

I wish the Europeans the best of luck, but their struggle won’t be won or lost due to the efforts of Americans. We have an enormous race problem here in our own country that warrants all of our attention and energies. Nick Griffin himself has pointed out that the racialist right in North America is in disarray. The best thing we could possibly do to help out the Europeans is to worry less about the unfortunate demise of the Third Reich and launch a real organized prowhite mass movement here in America. Certainly, the situation in California, Texas, and Arizona is more pressing than that of Poland or Ukraine.

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:45 | #

Svy
What good is EGI if one’s not there to enjoy it.
OK the northerners strategy is wait until the hordes have taken the Meds then we’ll push them back, right? Or, are not this hordes already present everywhere in western civilazation? Or is there a co-ordinated effort we ALL whites, europeans and christians can take? Is there?
In any event a little mixing of the whites is still needed in order to prevent inbreeding, ie i don’t see nothing wrong if 5% Austrians marry some Greeks. Like I don’t see nothing wrong with some Swedes sleeping with some Italians, just not the mongrols.

Posted by EC on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:11 | #

If feelings are so easily hurt and alliances so fragile, how can they be expected to last even if all “Nordicist” sentiment is supressed?

LOL

So who’s stopping you from flexing your little nordicist muscles, my moronic friend?  You insult, berate, belittle, disrespect, instigate, and utilize character assassination along with ad hominems in your quest to liberate this pent up “Nordicist sentiment”.  Then you have the audacity to expect people to not only listen to your screed as you vituperate them, anyone objecting is labelled a “vocal and unreasonable Southern European”.  Reeeeally?  Is that how you see it?  Stating points with tact and civility is one thing as people will respect an opposing view, even if not in agreement.  Being a puerile little twat earns nothing but scorn and rebuke.  So here’s some more of it.  Please do read on. 

Re:DNAprint, AGAIN businesses do overstate their products and accomplishments as part of “normal practice”.  I again refer to Microsoft and their monopoly on “vaporware”.  This is to be expected in this current business climate and one should not jump to “liar” and “idiot” as conclusions.  Secondly, you do NOT instill a shred of confidence in your assertions due to your transparent agenda.  Even if you are 100% correct in your claims, which some are clearly erroneous, you simply come off as a spiteful dumbass.  It seems you cannot string two sentences together without needing to insult someone.

You go on, after attacking the people in the company because one is a Greek and another has a Negro in the family tree, as well as both being liars and idiots in statistics, by mentioning your disappointment in the sensitivity and specificity of the test.  In your frenzied and glass always being half emtpy quest for a test of racial purity, as if you are the original Nordic “Adam” in need of a genetic test for confirmation upon which all the maidens will line up for your seed, ask what good is the test?  First though, let us not forget how you “destroy” the test’s credibility with statements such as this… 

there’s still a good chance the confidence interval overlaps non-zero admixture

A “good chance”?  You don’t say?  LOL What exactly is a “good chance”, Northerner?  5%, 10%, 51%, 90%?  If I drank a potion and there was a 5% chance of dying, then that is a tremendous chance I would be taking.  If I had a 5% chance of surviving cancer, then that’s a shitty chance.  Just what is the context you speak of with your “scientific” mumbo jumbo of “good chance”?

Getting back to what good is the test?  It’s good in the fact it has shed light on major racial categories and the degree of admixture in populations.  Your “one drop” rule not withstanding.  It allowed the topic of race to be slowly but surely discussed in “polite” company without calls of “racist”.  It has dramatically reduced the wiggle room of anti-racists in their ever diligent denial of race.  It has given credence for further research in race to name just a few “goods” this company and test have done.  The question begging to be asked is what the fuck have you done? 

You state that you prefer autosomal DNA ancestry testing though with the disclaimer of “more markers, better control sampling, and more competent scientists are needed”.  So to summarize, you gloss over an available test and company with flimsy reasoning and prefer another form of testing, yet all in THAT business are useless.  Well, I won’t be sleeping a wink in eager anticipation for your foray into the genetic testing scene with this “perfect test” coming out of your lab, eh?  LOL Please keep all of us abreast on your progress.   

Re: guest workers, you don’t want them?  Fine.  I really don’t care at all.  However, don’t look now, but an exodus is occuring right under your nose from England.  To places like southern France, Spain, Italy, Greece, and yes, even Turkey.  Looks like not only is the population aging rapidly and not replacing itself, but also natives are jumping ship with only the Negro, Brown, and Yellow contingent to batten down the hatches.  Good luck with that, tough guy. 

I love this argument. Spaniards, Byzantines, and Russians “protected” Europe by allowing themselves to be conquered by Muslims.

Suffice to say, you can add military knowledge to your long list of deficiencies.

Posted by EC on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:16 | #

Desmond,

The position of accepting Northern preservation and then suggesting guestworkers even if “that is what the citizenry and nation needs”, is with all due respect, illogical, if you believe in the principle of EGI.

Point taken, however, let me ask you an honest question.  Would you rather see the UK wither into nothingness and even possible extinction for the sake of EGI, or would you care to see her nursed back with the help of guest workers, if that is what the citizenry wanted and within the context mentioned above re:time limits and citizenship? 

You see, I advocate free will and in the context of a racially aware society in need of help with basic societal machinations, a choice of “guest workers” would not have a detrimental effect on EGI especially when these same guest workers do not stay, do not gain citizenship rights, and are limited in numer.  A choice of no “guest workers” is fine as well, if that is what is wanted.  Either way, a free choice needs to be made otherwise are we not acting identically as the egalitarian, anti-racists?  Of course in this case, we’re in the “right”. 

In all seriousness, if I’m missing something, please explain.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 06:55 | #

Rather than a hypothetical, EC, possibly you could cite an example where a guest worker program has revitalized a languishing population without threatening EGI. The Canadian experience with the importation of Chinese guestworkers to build the railway in the 1880s has haunted immigration policy to this very day and was a major factor in destroying white racial conciousness.

The present suggestion of a guestworker programme

is already stirring up trouble with the unions, who fear that imported cheap labour will keep wages from rising and could lead to poorer working conditions. Alberta unions are deeply unhappy about one oil company’s plan to use a Chinese contractor and some Chinese labourers for a project in the oilsands. Canada has been down this particular road before. An estimated 15,000 Chinese workers built the western sections of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

More recently, the temporary foreign worker program was used to bring in exotic dancers, a.k.a strippers, from Eastern Europe. Human rights groups protested that some of the women were forced into prostitution once they arrived.

It’s proved problematic in Germany, France and the Netherlands. The Germans initiated a voluntary repatriation programme offering monetary incentives for Turkish guest workers to repatriate. The Poles, in the UK are already straining the system, in one instance, apparently, where benefits were claimed for children living back home in Poland. There is rising tension in Switzerland about whether guestworkers there can continue to be denied Swiss citizenship.

G/W programmes, IMO, imply a whole legacy of problems, not the least of which is EGI, which have unforseen outcomes that are not easily dealt with.

Boris,

Massachusetts Alliance of Portuguese Speakers is one group of Meds who advocate for Immigrant rights such as protection from deportation, ESOL and citizenship assistance funding, bilingual education, medical interpreter availability and amnesty for undocumented residents.

Jim Kalb at Turnabout captures some of the sentiment, IMO, that some Meds have displayed vis-a-vis the liberal groups that support efforts to promote antireligious feminist pro-abortion multicultural policies.

[Ego: I should add: minorities support rule by experts like judges and bureaucrats — they vote for the liberal parties — because they don’t trust the native majority. The more immigrants (California, Toronto, New York, Boston) the more support you get for the rules now prescribed to us no matter how wonderfully Catholic and devoted to family values the immigrants are. If you want I could dig out a reference to studies (by an Italian immigrant) of the politics of Italian communities in Toronto. All the Catholic patriarchal family values immigrants from Italian villages vote for antireligious feminist pro-abortion multicultural parties because they think those parties will represent their interests over against those of the native English Canadians.]

The effective result of Italians, Greeks, and more evidently Portuguese immigrants today, working for their own ethnic interest, has been to produce in the city of Toronto, that even as late as 1970 was 70-80 percent Anglo-Saxon, a virtual elimination [WASPs are ~12% of today’s Toronto] of the city’s founding people. It is much more complex than just hords of Sicilians taking jobs from Anglo Canucks. It has also produced a mass exodus of Italians and Greeks from the city and an evident despair in some Greek families now seeing their sons taking Filipino brides.

It was a mistake to allow Eastern and Southern European immigrants into Canada, not because of any knee-jerk sense of Nordic superiority, but because these groups would be naturally inclined to distrust the majority population and naturally inclined to support their own people. And that behaviour, whether we like it or not as a larger white group, served to undermine white particularism as well as white universalism.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:19 | #

EC,

Ethnic genetic interest is not a matter of secondary interests like economics, prosperity, progress, etc.  It operates at the racial interface, and concerns only the striving for ethnic preservation and advancement.

Thus, on my hard-drive I have the third part of an essay on white nationalism - held back until the water here was less choppy - which starts with a definition as follows:-

Life in the broadest, natural sense has no purpose more accessible to our minds than the transmission of genetic information.  This purpose it effects and perfects through the adaptation of genes to environment.  For Man, adaptation has its ultimate expression in ethnicity, and he and his co-ethnics act adaptively to the degree that they perpetuate their distinct ethny.

It is important for white nationalists interested in the potential value of Salterism to understand that distinctiveness, which is as good a way of understanding EGI as any, is always damaged by racial inter-mixing, and racial inter-mixing always occurs where two people find themselves in the same living space.

In other words, if you were part of the liberal elite and you wanted to “transit” to the 21st century without ethno-nationalists spoiling your game, you would just put two or more peoples together in any historical homeland and watch Nature-blessed distinctiveness disappear.

EGI is more likely to be understood by - and protective of - a people who remain highly distinct, the more distinct the better .

Posted by EC on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:59 | #

Desmond,

Rather than a hypothetical, EC, possibly you could cite an example where a guest worker program has revitalized a languishing population without threatening EGI.

How about the United Arab Emirates?  Approximately 50% of the population is non-“Arab” with the predominate race being South Asian.  Granted, it is a Muslim nation, though one of the most liberal and open of them where non-Muslims are allowed to freely walk the streets in normal clothing and not harassed/threatened.  I cannot vouch for the stats, though if I recall, not much if any intermixing and no rights for non-citizens.  Now, I do not know how much this massive guest worker population has rivitalized a “languishing population”, if at all, though it seems to be working for them.  People know they go there to work and not to expect anything else.

GW,

Thanks.  I guess, in the context of EGI, it truly becomes a slippery slope once allowing others in a nation, unless those others are of similar sub-racial, genetic stock.  And also considering that Europeans may not be so diligent in maintaining their distinctiveness out of empathy or civility, etc.  Though I did start with the preface of “racially aware” society.  I await your post.

Posted by EC on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:21 | #

I want to clarify, just so there is no further confusion, that I am not advocating a guest worker program as a must.  Over the next several generations, it may be necessary.  Then again, it may not.  In the context of a society that is racially aware and interested in self-preservation, as well as strict stipulations mentioned above, it stands a greater than average chance of being viable without hurting the host population’s EGI.  In our current political milieu, guest workers no doubt result in catastrophic results for any host.  The Swiss, as Desmond sites, are feeling the PC pressure despite their success so far, I’m sure.  In a “new reality”, they (G/W) should and probably would not have this effect.  As long as people know they come for work, are expected to leave, treated civilly and nothing else, you will have a percentage of people willing to do just that for work and money.

But then, all this is simply a side issue that took on a life of its own.  I am not beating the drum for G/W’s and no one should read anymore into that.  I threw it out as an aside because I believe, in the right circumstances, it can be beneficial to both parties.  If others disagree and see absolutely no need for it, great.  I have no problem with that decision either.  What I do have a problem with is to be used as a platform for certain people to release their pent up ire, due to mostly imaginary causes.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:35 | #

EC,

I was just going to add the “racially aware” preface to your argument when you nailed it in your last post.  This is the starting point that will NEVER be achieved(especially in USA) unless Meds are accepted as white by Nordicists or Northern V Southern european mentality WNs.

What we need to remember is once we’ve reached a point of racial awareness(able to shrug off WWII Aryan crap, hell even Hitler allied with Italy ..hehehe) then racially aware whites will naturally marry(as a larger percentage) within breeding groups most like themselves whilst appreciating the genetic diversity within the european phenotype.

I empathize with the Nordicists/Northern phenotype because we are all hyper racially sensitive at this time of trouble so it is natural for them to block any PERCEIVED threat from southern european cluster(Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Portugese and some Eastern Europeans) from immediately breeding with their women.  This will not happen.  Meanwhile, Jamaican,Subcons,AmerInd and Sub-Saharan men are breeding 25% of time with white women in white areas across the globe .

The other thing I find a bit puzzling is the known Med population movements throughout europe we have seen documented over the last year on MR(e.g. 3rd Century AD London 90% of population with Roman Chins, Black Haired Blue eyed Irish)  I think the only part of Europe that could come close to “pure” would be maybe Scandinavia but even that is disputed with Mongoloid markers found in greater percentage in these populations?

Once again, we need to be politically astute in these times(Jared Taylor comes to mind) when framing our arguments.

Why the hell would we want to alienate Southern Euros to the cause when we need every European on one side?  Haven’t the Greeks ,Romans, Spaniards and Portugese contributed to what we want to preserve of what is left of western civilization? Hell,  if Askenazi and European Jews were to repent and admit a role in our downfall(along with Catholics,liberal civil rights fanatical whites, white corporate fatcats etc), why wouldn’t we let outliers in the fray?

I just want to win and I know for a fact if this movement is perceived as a bunch of Nazis then we are all completely and utterly wasting our time.  What I think the public perceive as Nazi now if any white movement excludes Italians, Spaniards etc.

Given the freedom to choose, WN will align sub-racially in their european groups over time and phenotypes will survive, but at least we will be around in 500 years.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:01 | #

Voice,

Can you explain how another commenter near the head of this thread shares your IP number and fake e-mail address?

Posted by Voice on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:37 | #

GW,

Guilty!

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:14 | #

This is the starting point that will NEVER be achieved(especially in USA) unless Meds are accepted as white by Nordicists or Northern V Southern european mentality WNs.

The downside of that position is if Nords extend outgroup sympathy to MEDs, expand their altruism beyond a strict EGI, then what prevents it from becoming incidental and thus expanding to not only the people of other European nations, but the people of other races as well.

Segregation is de facto now. Communities, at least where Med numbers are significant, tend to be overwhelmingly Italian, Greek or Portuguese. Why not make it de jure? An alliance to stop non-European immigration could be formed without forcing integration between either group. Realty covenants, if freedom of association was re-established, could allow ethnic groups to re-inforce, legally, the already prevalent tendency to cluster.

EC,

Good point. The example that came to mind later was Israel. It uses Chinese guestworkers to supplement the loss of Palestinian labour. However, the restrictions are extremely severe, no association, no intermarriage and no sex even with Israeli prostitutes. So unless you are a theocracy, where outsiders are considered unclean, or invoke the warning in Deuteronomy, Chapter 7, for the preservation of the tribe, guestworkers can be big trouble.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:20 | #

Voice,

By that I take it that you counterfeited one of JW’s moments of high sarcasm perfectly deliberately - and very skilfully, I might add - and sat on your hands while others leapt to the conclusion you desired.

Well, it would have been admissable as a joke if you had owned up as soon as it became obvious that northerner and others had swallowed your bait.  But you didn’t.  You sat on your hands and watched the fireworks.

You’ve been a commenter here for a long time.  Your point of view is not the issue.  It’s the wilfull deception of your September 15, 2006 at 07:04 PM entry on this thread.  I banned some nuisance-posters this weekend.  I will stay my hand now if I have your assurance of no repetition.

Posted by Voice on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:03 | #

GW,

Point taken. Won’t happen again.  Apologies, frustration got the best of me.

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:41 | #

Desmond Jones
Just because there’s a few Spanish or Portuguese minorities that cling to a pro-amnesty stance, does not necessarily imply all Meds are for this. Your point about Toronto is especially close to me since I lived there mid 80’s ‘till early 90’s. The thing about Toronto(at least when I lived there) is that like most cities in North America it was de facto segregated. Black population at that time seemed small at least to me, and most used to live in the squalor that is Jameson st. The Italians, the Greeks, the Portuguese and the Jews all had their own separate neighbourhoods. To this day(unless mongrol immigration has increased significantly) I see nothing wrong with the Chinese staying in Chinatown, and apparently so do they.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:53 | #

Gw,Again I commend you on your open policy on commentators-you even let assholes like me in.But “snakes in the grass”,AKA nom de plume multiplicities,need to be weeded,as their very veracity is suspect.If one has an object goal,so be it;don’t cloak it with a bunch of gibberish from UCLA/Berkley.Cheers

Posted by Boris on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:54 | #

IMO immigration took a bad turn when ‘multiculturalism’ was imposed down our throats. For example:
Don’t speak English after living here for 20 years? No problem you can do the citizenship exam in Spanish. If someone in 20 years of living in the US/Canada hasn’t learned the languague yet it is obvious:
1- the person is retarded
2- the person has no intention of becomimg assimilated by the countries culture
Why would we want them?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:17 | #

No Shit,Boris[My fathers name] My wife was turned down for a part-time job because she DIDN’T SPEAK SPANISH!!! Here in Florida,All superintindents must have basic Spanish or they are SOOL{Construction Industry}.Are we going to have to learn Bantu next,to assure those black scum from Somalia are properly intergrated into our “melting pot"Mother- Fu33ER!!!

Posted by Voice on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:35 | #

Desmond,

Europe and the R.O.W are different models, I agree.  Although from a purely political point of view the overall strategy of a Global movement regarding racial consciousness of European derived people needs to be consistent, I think.

I arrive at this conclusion by looking out 25, 50 and 100 years and beyond with our declining numbers of European derived people and how the current numbers of non-whites will further expand and attack our cultural, geographic and genetic European interests globally.

Fifty years we will be a despised minority in the US and Canada, with legal protected minority status for our immigrant conquerors.  If you add potential minority status in the UK and untenable political unrest in France, Spain and Sweden it creates an outcome of potential genocidal war.  All it would take is for a non-white controlled US to back the multi-ethnic euro states to wipe out a last gasp white insurgency to end our right to self-determination and peoplehood forever in historic and highly populated European countries.

As we speak today, the nationalist parties in Europe are beginning to work together in building political strategies to win back real power in individual countries.  They already understand that Med, Nordic, Alpine etc is really irrelevant if they don’t take the first steps to secure racial/political representation (at some level) in their respective country to gain the building blocks for future alliances if and when there is a serious meltdown in Europe.

What this says to me, is they see themselves as Europeans born from the roots of Western Civilization-Roman, Greek and Anglo-Saxon achievements-which represents the racial stock that exists from end to end and top to bottom of present day Europe.

If you take the UK’s BNP, they have taken a wise approach in backing the Israelis right to protect themselves from the Muslim Hoards and flipped the Jewish Oppressor model to the Jewish State symbolizing the last Nationalist model built on blood and faith as the reason the Globalists hate them.  This may be a stretch for people at MR, but is very shrewd because they are tying the outcome of Jewish peoples right to a homeland to the Western White mans right to an ethnic state!  A good meme if I ever have heard of one!

How do I pull this altogether?  We are at war.  Intra European squabbling at sub-racial level is an absolute and complete waste of time.  We will be squabbling while the last Blonde Swede and Spanish beauty is being picked over by a subcon, negroid and Nordic male mixed breed.

Extending EGI to from Nordic to Meds or Meds to Nordics is irrelevant in Europe as it isn’t currently happening (other than Poles making life more difficult for non-whites to gain a foothold in UK) nor will decide whether European people have a homeland that genetically resembles what exists today in 200-300 years.  Fricking Spain has gone from 1% minority to 10% in last 10-12 years!!!

With Christianity breathing its final breath and mosques springing up and Islam actually starting to be housed in abandoned churches, do you really fricking care if the BNP starts using terms like Judeo-Christian if the outcome in hundreds of years means white children can have there own living space to play and dream of a future for their and our descendents?

That’s enough ranting for now as I have left ample cannon fodder for rebuttal via genetic studies and past achievements of “individual” and unique areas of Europe to make my comments unworkable and unfair moving forward as we descend into death and savagery.  (this last comment wasn’t directed at you Desmond but a general statement)

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:42 | #

Boris,

Parkdale, [Jameson St.] in it’s halcyon days, pre-WWII, was a venerable and genteel enclave of Toronto’s well-to-do WASPs. Attempts to gentrify in the mid-eighties have been abandoned, AFAICT, to the newly arriving vismin. However, that’s the problem, mass immigration has rendered the city unrecognizable over the last 20-25 years.

And the future is dire.

As was the case in 2001, almost 75% of visible minority persons in 2017 would be living in one of Canada’s three largest metropolitan areas: Toronto, Vancouver and Montréal. Toronto would have 45% of all visible minorities, Vancouver 18% and Montréal 11%.

Under four of the five scenarios, more than half the population of Toronto would belong to a visible minority group. The visible minority population of Toronto would range between 2.8 million and nearly 3.9 million in 2017.

Probably, it will be more like 60% by 2017. The problem being that a majority of Meds [50-60%] over the past 25 years voted, as Kalb indicated, for the very party most anxious to replace them with a mass influx of yellows, browns and blacks because they distrust the Anglo majority, or have a vested interested, [the Portuguese] in protecting a significant illegal community, in a weird twist of Darwinian justice, more than the colonizing masses.

Posted by Desmond jones on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:06 | #

Voice,

As we speak today, the nationalist parties in Europe are beginning to work together in building political strategies to win back real power in individual countries.  They already understand that Med, Nordic, Alpine etc is really irrelevant if they don’t take the first steps to secure racial/political representation (at some level) in their respective country to gain the building blocks for future alliances if and when there is a serious meltdown in Europe.

What this says to me, is they see themselves as Europeans born from the roots of Western Civilization-Roman, Greek and Anglo-Saxon achievements-which represents the racial stock that exists from end to end and top to bottom of present day Europe.

On a practical level, this does not appear to be happening. Austria’s recent immigration restriction legislation was driven by the Freedom Party’s villianization, if you will, of Poles, Croats, Russians as well as Turks. The Irish parliament, in 2004, redefined Irish nationality, as jus sanguinis, moving away fron jus solis.

Even Dr. Rienzi talks of pan-Europeanism as ever expanding concentric circles.

How to divide one’s energy and attention among these circles or cores of interest would depend on the particular situation.  As long as investing energy in the outer cores of interest does not deflect from the interests of the inner cores, then there is really no fundamental conflict.  In many cases, inner core ethnic interests can be complementary to broader European interests, and both can be pursued at the same time.  In cases where there is a conflict,the needs of the innermost cores should predominate and be given maximal attention and priority.

This model appears, IMO, to address the issue of limiting altruism, which Darwin claims is incidental and potentially open to all sentient beings.

If you take the UK’s BNP, they have taken a wise approach in backing the Israelis right to protect themselves from the Muslim Hoards and flipped the Jewish Oppressor model to the Jewish State symbolizing the last Nationalist model built on blood and faith as the reason the Globalists hate them.

It’s possible you are correct, however, where is the evidence to show that this stance by the BNP has actually enhanced their standing? Haider appealed to blood and garnered results only the BNP dream of.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:17 | #

The BNP website reported yesterday’s election successes by the German NPD with glowing satisfaction.  Griffin was quoted as saying:-

“Whatever their individual flaws a victory for genuine nationalists anywhere in Europe should be welcomed as it comes at the expense of the old parties owned by the liberal-globalist elite who are destroying the freedoms, cultures and identities of all the nations of Europe.

“It is also a victory for the modernisers of the nationalist movement who are now addressing the current concerns of voters in the language of the times rather than having a fixation on the past.”

Well, this is a far cry from the skinhead goose-steppers who we usually hear about in the MSM.  That’s to be expected, of course.  But there appears to be a gap slowly but ineluctably opening twixt the oft-told tales of liberalism and the view of the European electorate.

This can be glimpsed, too, in the blindness of the liberal pols’ response to their hate object’s successes.  Thus, just taking a typical example:-

Harald Ringstorff, the state’s Social Democrat prime minister, described the NPD’s gains as an ” absolute catastrophe” yesterday.

He added: “Our most important task now is to take on these brown brothers and defeat them through argument.”

But it wasn’t just the NPD’s power of argument that produced yesterday’s encouragements.  It was popular dissatisfaction with the fruits of liberalism in Germany, and Social Democrat “argument” won’t make any impression on the core problems.  SD’s are in denial, and can only keep on repeating the Nazi race-hate mantra over and over again.

The more one looks at this result and the other stirrings like it in other European countries the more it seems to be the beginnings of something.  But can it be real?  Will it still be there tomorrow and the day after?

Personally, I believe it will.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:22 | #

Of course, we could all go back to voting for those wunnerful people in government.

Hungary’s prime minister has admitted saying that his party lied to the public to win April’s general election.

Ferenc Gyurcsany’s admission came after Hungarian radio played a tape of a meeting he had with his Socialist MPs a few weeks after the election.

On it he says the party had lied to the public and his “boneheaded” government failed to introduce any real policies.

About 3,000 people gathered outside parliament on Sunday calling for him to resign but Mr Gyurcsany has refused.

... Mr Gyurcsany says harsh economic reforms are needed.

“There is not much choice. There is not, because we screwed up. Not a little, a lot. No European country has done something as boneheaded as we have.

“Evidently, we lied throughout the last year-and-a-half, two years. It was totally clear that what we are saying is not true.

“You cannot quote any significant government measure we can be proud of, other than at the end we managed to bring the government back from the brink. Nothing. If we have to give account to the country about what we did for four years, then what do we say?”

Mr Gyurcsany thanks “divine providence, the abundance of cash in the world economy and hundreds of tricks” for keeping the economy above board.

In a speech sprinkled with obscenities, he says: “We lied in the morning, we lied in the evening.”

Posted by Matra on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:50 | #

The problem being that a majority of Meds [50-60%] over the past 25 years voted, as Kalb indicated, for the very party most anxious to replace them with a mass influx of yellows, browns and blacks because they distrust the Anglo majority

Yes, when I lived just off Eglinton West a decade ago the blacks had taken over virtually every shop on the main street but Italians made up the majority in the neighbourhoods off Eglinton. I think the Italians were being being pushed out (or they’re getting wealthy and moving to Woodbridge) yet they are still loyal to the Liberal Party that has made multiculturalism a religion that is beyond criticism. Italians, and other Meds, believe they earned multiculturalism through hard work - kind of like illegal Mexicans recently claiming they built America, including the World Trade Center!  They struggled against the Anglo-Saxon bosses and bigots and now they’ve got their multiculturalism which they must keep at almost all costs. They probably consider going against multiculturalism and the Liberals an act of treason.

The linked article below will give you an idea how they think:

http://tinyurl.com/n5pvj

As bad post-war memories fade, fewer Italians arrive in Canada, and non-whites push out the settled Italians it’ll be interesting to see how they react. Italian-Americans seem to have swung to the Right in recent decades - presumably sharing space with blacks had something to do with that. But as I said earlier multiculturalism is a big deal to Italian-Canadians and it would not surprise me if their views don’t change over the next generation.

Parkdale, [Jameson St.] in it’s halcyon days, pre-WWII, was a venerable and genteel enclave of Toronto’s well-to-do WASPs

Parkdale? Is that the place now known as Crackdale?

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:36 | #

Parkdale? Is that the place now known as Crackdale?

Yeah, or Darkdale or more recently, Shot-deaddale.

Eighteen-year-old Joseph Westley Jones was shot in the head on the evening of April 18 as he rode his bicycle along Jameson Ave. Emergency crews arrived on the scene around 9 p.m., but were unable to get Jones to hospital before he succumbed to his injuries.

A distant cousin, no doubt.  LOL

In the mid-eighties it was more like Whoredale, but now that action has apparently moved up to Bloor and Lansdowne, in the proximity of the ‘gentlemen’s’ club, the House of Lancaster. 

Posted by Boris on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:33 | #

Desmond Jones
Now I see where you’re coming from. It is a great shame that Meds would use the logic you’ve explained. And on thinking back I realise that Meds might indeed by now(or even back in the 80’s 90’s) have enough voting power at least in Toronto the city I know, and love. I believe things started going terrible wrong as soon as the West won the Cold War. If I can put my finger on it. BTW I lived in Bathurst.
Nick Tamiroff
If you think thats bad, wait until we start being even more ‘sensitive’ and no longer require knowledge of the history of the host country. What the heck sir, just tell us about your countries hero and we’ll qualify you as a citizen.
Benito Juarez allright anybody?

Posted by Rnl on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 05:26 | #

Guessedworker wrote:

It happens that Rnl is among that body of MR commenters whose work I frequently admire and who may perhaps be interested in helping us out at a more fundamental level.

I appreciate both the offer and the compliment, but I’m afraid I don’t have enough time to do more than make occasional posts.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 07:30 | #

That’s OK, time is a problem for everyone.  Just find enough of it to keep posting as you are.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:31 | #

Boris-You are another voice of sanity on this site-along with Fred S.You even come off as diplomatic most times,which I obviously don’t have the patience for.Besides,anyone who carries my father’s name can’t be disrespected.His was Boris Petrovitch Tamiroff-killed in the Katyn forrest massacere by his own countrymen.I am the last,except for a useless piece of shit druggie son,whom I would like to forbid use of my surname.Oh well-I’m not here much longer-if I’d known I was going to live this long,I’d taken better care of myself.LOL and Semper Fi!

Posted by Voice on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:37 | #

Desmond,

Re Haider.  I agree that in country Racialists can position themselves as “Austrian”, “German” etc but that isn’t really a pure racialist position as one I am advocating.  Most voters are focussing on Austrian or German pride.  Yes, Voters understand that Austrian represents the native stock, but I am not so sure they would exclude Austrians that aren’t blond/red haired and blue eyed.

So in the sense of strictly a certain strict phenotype, they are flexible in euro category(including meds).  The key aspect is does the person have Austrian ties culturally and is he/she european.

The other key point is how does the media, european wide, portray Haider-Nazi.  I realize we have to throw off the labels our enemies give to us but do we really want leaders of a white renaissance that have legitimate Nazi ties?  Can this type of leader actually build credibility across the european descent world? 

Each country has its own unique challenges with the UK having fought against the Nazis harbour deep hostility toward anything that can be labelled a Nazi.  Historically, for damned good reason!  We know the British are far from innocent in these conflicts but the general public doesn’t nor will it ever I believe.

IMHO, most of the white world has the same opinion of the Nazis as the British-repulsion.  Trust me, If europeans hold a racialist position including european Jewry(and are able to discuss past truthfully) this will repel 60% of Jewry anyway.  This will have no lasting genetic effect on europeans and turn those jews who don’t join the white ranks as traitors to us AND their fellow jews who see the light of where this movement is heading.  We don’t have to hate Jews to win.

As much as it is painful to say, although the Jews set up many of the mechanisms for our downfall we ourselves are the useful idiots who man the levers of power.

It all comes down to shedding the labels of Nazi, Aryan and instilling pride in ourselves and young people that we as a people are worth saving.  By promoting EGI just for northern european phenotype, we are digging our graves because it will be labelled as Aryan etc across the Occident and thereby dooming us to a slow and steady genocide.

Our beautiful northern european phenotypes will be preserved , as racially conscious europeans will , on average, marry someone that is similar to themselves and even separate geographically again according to these naturally sub-racial lines.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:05 | #

Voice,

Isn’t that the beauty of jus sanguinis, phenotypes don’t matter? The only question that matters is your father’s nationality. If s/he is European, is, as you suggest, not the issue per se. However if s/he is Polish and vast numbers of Polish immigrants in Austria are impacting Austrians, then it is fair, under the EGI concentric circles model to emphasize in-group versus out-group even if that out-group is European. The first loyalty resides at home and neighbours come second, although are not unworthy of consideration. It’s easier for Europe because of pre-defined political boundaries, even though ethnic groups may overlap strict national borders.

Re: Nazi ties- it’s a good point. However, if National Socialism is intertwined with your people’s nationalism, even on the most basic level, [those who fought for Austria or Germany in WWII are somehow demonized], then discarding it may be deleterious. In, other words, the pride in your past, the land of your fathers, cannot be entirely rejected. True, it’s not the tradition of the Anglosphere, as Daedulus and Northerner showed vis-à-vis America, however, as the incipient rise of German nationalism reveals, with the break through of the NPD, it has it’s appeal. IMHO, the proclamation of Nick Griffin, “German nationalism is a good thing, even though it’s flawed,” is demonstrative of the BNP’s arrogance, in suggesting that our way, eschewing nationalism in favour of populism, aligning with Israel and British Sikhs, is the right way. In other words, what’s good for Austria or Germany is good, until it impacts upon the well being of other European ethnics.

By promoting EGI just for northern European phenotype, we are digging our graves because it will be labeled as Aryan etc across the Occident and thereby dooming us to a slow and steady genocide.

It appears Northerner addressed this issue:

Looking at a paper by Guterl, the association of “biracialism” and the “one drop rule” seems to be accurate, but it’s not clear why this would have to involve ‘abandonment of Grant’s gradations of “white“‘.

Nativist pluralism should not effect Nordic preservation. Bi-racialism divides North America into whites and others.

“No theoretical questions of ‘superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ need be raised.”

However, it’s not necessarily a model that’s effective for Europe.

Our beautiful northern European phenotypes will be preserved, as racially conscious Europeans will, on average, marry someone that is similar to themselves and even separate geographically again according to these naturally sub-racial lines.

How do you deal with the situation mentioned above? A European ethnic group, distrustful of the Northern European majority, aligns with groups who initiate policies to undermine the founding people. What happens then? Isn’t that what the 1924 restriction was designed to avoid?

Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado,

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.
“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

Posted by Voice on Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:52 | #

Desmond,

I don’t want to seem wishy-washy but you make some excellent points.  If I were to be 100% honest with you I think there are some historical, genetic and behavioural differences between different european groups.  Even if this is true, I have to look at our current state of affairs and devise the best strategy(albeit not perfect) to build

It is quite fascinating looking at this comment from Griffin.  It also aligns with a thought I had after I posted my response to you. I would love to get back to the mindset we had pre-WWII-pre Hitler.  The different europeans respected eachother but they thought their people and cultures were “superior”.  No apologies needed and VERY healthy attitude.

I don’t know if I can come up with the magic solution or comment at this point.  The strategy that I favor, to me , seems to me the most logical especially in the US, Australia , New Zealand etc but Europe is a tough nut to crack. 

I am sure we will debate this moving forward and we will perfect it!

Posted by Boris on Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:01 | #

Nick
No doubt you probably did your best with your son, and that in the end is all that can expected. It sounds to me like too much time in his hands and no defined purpose for his life are doing him in.
Thanks for the diplomat praise, but I never got past the 9th grade and that was to learn english so that I could work and start my new life. I didn’t come here to be a minority and be out with my hand out at all times. I’ve never taken anything from Gov., indeed I even failed to collect on rightfully earned unployment compensation. I don’t cry and whine, just work my backside off.
You speak of your father with great pride. I can do same but reframe from it on the count I want them to have some privacy. The stories they told me about WWII are amazing, and unfortunately even by their own accounts what happen to your father was not all that uncommon. BTW I was named Boris after my granddad.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:57 | #

Boris-thanks much for your missive-and obviously you have “assimilated"quiet well,as did my parents in the 30’s.However,the present influx of non-European trash bodes ill for all in the US.Cultural differences,not language,have always been the defining barrier to assimilation-people who don’t know what a flush toilet or refridgerator is,and stir their shit with a stick[looking for Allah],will NEVER adapt as long as we continue to kiss their ass,as we’ve become so adept at doing.If your parents are still with you,I wish you and them well-Are they[you] Russian, Ukrainian,Latvian,Estonion,or Georgian?Just curious,not invasive. Regards.

Posted by Boris on Thu, 21 Sep 2006 23:56 | #

Nick
Only mother still alive, but all is well. You forgot Belarus, but that was close enough.
I couldn’t learn english fast enough, like I said I came to take on this country like a lion, not a welfare sheep.
I can see the change from over twenty years ago and I don’t like it. Though shit I guess!!!!