Posted by Cavalier on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:51 | #

You bet I care, like any normal, healthy human.  What else is wrong with you?

Posted by Templar on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:17 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

Let’s try:

“Why should you? The’ll be my grandchildren, after all, not yours, and that I want them to look like me is none of your concern.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:26 | #

What if you just said you didn’t want your grandkids to look like chimpanzees?  Would that shut the guy up?

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:29 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

You don’t have to be interested in race.  Race is interested in you.

You perform as trained.  Do you roll over too?  We already know you play dead.

So, you’ll be adopting then?  I don’t see how anyone who believes as you do could bring biological children into the world in good conscience.

You’ve been taught to hate yourself.  If you don’t care what your kids look like, you’re mentally enslaved.  Wait, did I just insult slaves unfairly?  I mean, slaves might pretend to feel this way in front of the master, but I doubt they’d actually go so far as to

believe

it.

Your genes are at the bottom of who you are.  You don’t care if that’s passed on to your children?  There’s something dead inside you, at your center.

That’s because you’ve buried an essential part of your humanity deep under layers of denial, out of fear.  You don’t have to be afraid.  This fear happens to be entirely irrational.  It’s a burden, not a defense.

My usual answer:
You care about nothing but your own sensations.  Ethnic nationalism is not for you.  It is for people who aren’t hollowed-out inside, who still have at least a remnant of a survival instinct. Begone.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:29 | #

If that won’t work throw in the stuff that drove Silver up a wall — ‘groids, mattoids, the Island of Dr. Moreau, stuff like that.  Just say you’d rather not have Hollywood approach you to film The Island of Dr. Moreau using your grandkids as extras.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:40 | #

Oh yeah, I forgot:

Don’t care then.  The gene pool could use some chlorine.  Here’s a Darwin award, thanks for playing.

Off-topic:

I’m considering changing my tactics on “cognitive elitism,” and to an extent, my position.

Right now, my basic thrust is that “cognitive elite” immigrants will just screw us a more cognitively elite fashion.

But I’m thinking, mightn’t it be best to turn off the “cognitively inferior” immigration spigot and turn on the “cognitively elite” spigot full blast?  Maybe 100 million Chinese and Indians with 120+ IQs could convince our suicidal elite of the error of their ways.

If that’s a bad idea, doesn’t it at least suggest a good rhetorical device?  “Yeah, ‘cognitively elite’ non-white immigration will hurt the current elite far more than it’ll hurt us, so I’m all for it.  Jews won’t be able to guilt-trip millions of 120+ IQ Indians and Chinese.”

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:42 | #

You don’t have to be interested in race.  Race is interested in you.

Or,

You don’t have to be interested in race.  Race is interested in your grandchildren.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:54 | #

I don’t think my meaning was plain enough in the earlier version:

So, you’ll be adopting then?  I don’t see how anyone who believes as you do could bring biological children into the world in good conscience.  With all the starving children in the world…

Also, for a white married to a white:
You should divorce your current o-fey spouse, marry a non-white, and have mixed babies.  The world needs healing and you are a foot soldier for racial justice.  There aren’t enough like you to waste on a white spouse, since 97% of whites choose fellow whites for marriage.  If good people like you keep marrying white, we’ll never become Great Coffee Man.  Plus, you should leave white partners for those who do want to leave behind white descendants (the racist pigs!). 

Or, why did you marry a white?  (follow up as above)  Or, modify according to circumstances.

Mixing is a good thing (come on, you going to tell me it isn’t?), right?  And producing white children is not.  I mean, the former’s good ABOVE AND BEYOND the simple good of making babies.  It’s a TWO-FER!  But the latter’s just good for making babies, but you don’t get the added bonus of Tikkun Olam.  So really, you’re being immoral if you’re partnered with a white person and/or rearing white children!

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:00 | #

So if your white wife gave birth to an obviously half-black baby, you’d have no problem with it?

Or,

So if you gave birth to an obviously half-black baby, your husband would have no problem with it?

Even better:

So, if your wife gave birth to an obviously half-black baby, she’d have no problem with it? (!)

How about a baby with a horse’s head?  How far do I have to go before you start caring?  Why?  Explain your position.

Posted by Templar on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:13 | #

Svigor’s on a roll, I see.

“Considering the relatice scarcity of blond hair and blue eyes, why shouldn’t I make the most of my genes?”

Posted by weston on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:13 | #

Just say you’d rather not have Hollywood approach you to film The Island of Dr. Moreau using your grandkids as extras.

        I like this one. 

  Svigor,
Saw you had something posted at Western Voices World News.  Your piece was good, as is everything they post there.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:15 | #

There’s a hell of a lot more to genes than eye, hair, and skin color.  But you don’t care what your grandchildren look like, so why would you care how intelligent, successful, or happy they are?  I might as well be talking to a post.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:18 | #

Weston, I thought that one was good too. 

Svigor,
Saw you had something posted at Western Voices World News.  Your piece was good, as is everything they post there.

My piece?  If you mean something other than a comment (I think I left 2, total), I’d appreciate a link.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:21 | #

These two of Svigor’s are pretty good:

“Don’t care then.  The gene pool could use some chlorine.  Here’s a Darwin award, thanks for playing.”

“How about a baby with a horse’s head?  How far do I have to go before you start caring?”

I’ll have to remember to use those.

Posted by weston on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:23 | #

Svigor,

This one. 

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6301

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:25 | #

That horse’s head one of Svigor’s is hilarious.  Can’t stop laughing here.

Posted by Templar on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:27 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

“If you don’t care, why does it sound like you have a problem with what I want my descendants to look like?”

Or:

“Let me ask you a question: If I had suggested that I wanted my children and grandchildren to come in increasingly dark shades of brown, would you have even blinked?”

Posted by Thunder on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:01 | #

This is my favourite so far:
“Don’t care then.  The gene pool could use some chlorine.  Here’s a Darwin award, thanks for playing.”

I say so far because I don’t think Svigor can be stopped. Imagine the look on the fool who got him started.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:12 | #

Damn, I looked right at it and forgot I’d written it!

Actually, I didn’t write it, so much as edit it.  It started with the Wikipedia article on WNism.  The Wikipedia Cabal kept hostile-editing it, and me out of it, even facts and ironclad logic, that I wrote my own based on my edits and put it up on my site.  I didn’t post it at WVWN though, this is the first I’ve heard of it.

But thanks for the kind word. 

There, right thread.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:25 | #

”If you don’t care, why does it sound like you have a problem with what I want my descendants to look like?”

Indeed.

The point that our interlocutor HAS A MORAL OBLIGATION TO OPPOSE LARGE NUMBERS OF WHITE PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE WHITE DESCENDANTS is a huge one.  It segues nicely into something I was thinking vis-a-vis these snappy threads a few minutes ago; there are snappies that belong basically in every snappy comeback.  I.e., boilerplate that should be tacked on frequently, regardless of context (that is, as long as one is on the subject of ethnic nationalism).

E.g.;

“I have respect for your position, and recognize your right, and that of like-minded individuals to order your communities accordingly; why do I know beforehand that there is a 95% chance that you won’t return the respect or recognition?”

(The only counter they have that I can think of is, “no, fascist, there’s no freedom for fascism; everyone has the equal right to multi-racial utopia, and can ask for no more.”  First retort to this that springs to my mind is “liberals say homosexuals have a right to marriage, but when I respond that they’ve had the same right to marriage as anyone else, from time immemorial (the right to marry a consenting member of the opposite sex), they get all huffy.  Are your positions consistent?  That is, do you oppose so-called “gay marriage”?)

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:38 | #

“Because diversity is beautiful.  Stop being so provincial, whites are 15% of world population, and dropping.  Think globally, act locally.  (optional: fhere are plenty of those boring brown, black, and yellow people)

“Save the snowy egret, save the sea turtles, save the English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Dutch, Germans, French, Swedish, Norwegians, Icelanders, Spanish, Italians, Austrians (continue ‘til out of breath, then continue some more).”

“Genetics come in a package, not a la carte.  White surface traits accompany white behavioral traits*, and white behavioral traits are the only ones proven to create western civilization.”

* (shall I recommend a behavioral genetics reading list?)

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:46 | #

(optional: fhere are plenty of those boring brown, black, and yellow people)

And added on after that this optional sounds good (never tried this one myself): And red people seem to be disappearing off the face of the Earth.  And other indigenous peoples around the world.  I’d like to see them saved, too.  But you’re standing in the way, Uncle Tom.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:53 | #

“Maybe that’s what happened to the Romans/Aztecs/Amerinds/Anasazi/whatever”

“Maybe that’s what’s happening to the Palestinians/Tibetans/whatever”

Posted by Owsley on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:18 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

It’s my life, and I do care to see it carried on through my children.  How sad that you’ve been convinced that your life is of less value!

Posted by Matra on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:22 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

1) So you don’t care about genetic continuity? Isn’t that highly unusual for any race or species?

2) Given the scarcity of fair skin and blue eyes relative to darker features it is important to do our part to preserve such diversity.

Posted by Mentious on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 06:07 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

ANSWER: “Actually, that’s not all I care about.”

ANSWER: “Well, blue eyes and fair skin are not the only White features. Whites come in many varieties.”

ANSWER:You over-simplify the matter. Ask a more serious question.

(First discredit the remark by hitting any patent idiocies.)

So basically all you care abou…I really don’t care.

ANSWER: “Is beauty the least important things on this earth?”

They respond, “Well, who says that’s beauty?” (or some such)

ANSWER: “That’s just it! Everybody has a different idea of beauty. It makes for a diverse world. You don’t want the world to be diverse anymore?”

So basically all you care…I really don’t care.

ANSWER: “It’s more than looks. Looks are not unimportant, since human sight is a huge aspect of the world-experience itself. But it’s also spiritual and character impulses I wish to see preserved.”

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:33 | #

So basically all you care about is that your children, and your great-grandchildren and so on and so on, will have blue eyes and fair skin? Thats all that matters to you? Because I really don’t care.

Ahh, maybe you’re right. I do tend to get make a mountain out of molehill. Just last week I was fretting over how few native Americans there were left. But you’re right. Red skin….White skin…What does it matter!

.
.
.
.
Although I’ve participated in these I should add that I think we should avoid making a habit of “snappy refutations” if possible.

If you can get someone to engage in an exchange of emails on the subject, that would be preferable so you can lay out the scientific, philosophical and historical case, which is too expansive for a snappy refutation.

...

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:27 | #

Because I really don’t care.

Ive had versions of this before and my angle is that - if they dont care, then they really dont care. I dont want to hear their views on the immorality of immigration control because they don’t care. Their views on race replacement because they don’t care. They have no further right to an opinion because they don’t care. Once they’ve come out with the because I really don’t care line they have opted right out of the debate.

One time I saw someone online complaining about the horrors of a BNP immigration policy (I dont know what that is and Im damn sure he didnt). He then loftily declared that he didnt care who the British population consisted of. I pointed out that since it was immaterial to him whether the population of Britain was 100% replaced with Chinese the next day or blue eyed Nordic types he wouldnt care either way.

I said earlier that the power of many of these liberal/left platitudes is that they are quite unexamined.

The illogicality of the following:

The BNP are dreadful, saying they only want white immigrants, I dont care who the population consists of.

Thats a gift, we are freed from even having to even get into the nuts and bolts of policy. They are going to have to talk their way out of a manifestly stupid statement before doing anything else.

Posted by Big Silver on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:49 | #

If that won’t work throw in the stuff that drove Silver up a wall — ‘groids, mattoids, the Island of Dr. Moreau, stuff like that.  Just say you’d rather not have Hollywood approach you to film The Island of Dr. Moreau using your grandkids as extras.

What a prize moron.  You haven’t “refuted” anything.  You’ve just snapped and confirmed to the other fellow what an insaniac you are, and you shouldn’t be surprised to see him adopt an African, Madonna-style, just to rub it in.  Wouldn’t be such a problem if there were only a few of those types around, but if you’d been paying attention to the world around you you’d know they abound—which makes for a teensy, weensy problem, wouldn’t you say?

Re Snappy refutations 3

This is just a variant of “Well, why should whites survive?”

Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:04 | #

What’s wrong with you, you don’t like people with blue eyes and fair skin?

I care, you don’t. So what’s your problem?

Why do you care what I care about? Mind your own life.

What’s that? Nevermind. I don’t care what you think.

You know, I read somewhere that the Anastazi had blue eyes and fair skin, and pretty much agreed with you.

That’s not all that matters to me. I don’t want them enslaved either. Being healthy, wealthy, happy, and surrounded by other blue-eyed, fair-skinned people would be nice too. In fact I’m confident the first three things spring naturally from the last. Hopefully my kids won’t live anywhere near yours.

So when does your mulatto kid get out of jail?

Look dude, Whites have a solemn duty to reproduce. Who else is going to protect jews?

Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:27 | #

Narrator writes:

Although I’ve participated in these I should add that I think we should avoid making a habit of “snappy refutations” if possible.

I don’t remember if it was explicitly stated, but I’ve assumed from the meaning of “snappy refutation” that we’re coming up with brief responses to an enemy, ie. someone who is not aligned with us and never will be. We’re not trying to win them over. The purpose of our refutation is to reveal/ridicule/deconstruct their beliefs for the benefit of our misled friends and potential allies who are observing. If I’m alone with someone I judge to be an enemy then my effort, if I have any to spare, goes into getting them to explain their point of view, not convincing them mine is right.

Speaking of people not aligned with us, Silver writes:

You’ve just snapped and confirmed to the other fellow what an insaniac you are, and you shouldn’t be surprised to see him adopt an African, Madonna-style, just to rub it in.

Whites are experiencing a period of enormous selective pressure at the moment. The rest of use are probably better off without the genes of those individuals most eager to adopt a non-White Madonna-style, or miscegenate Klum-style, or die with their seeds unsown while spewing bile at their extended family Dowd-style, or who constantly advise against “extremism” in self-defense for the purpose of survival Silver-style.

As I said above. I care about changing the minds of the misled, not the misleaders.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:40 | #

You couldn’t be more wrong my friend. My boy just married a native peruvian woman, and my little girl is engaged to an aboriginal australian. I won’t have any blue-eyed fair-skinned grandkids. Which is a good thing, because I really detest people like that!

April Fool’s!

Posted by BGD on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:57 | #

Those people you disdain that stretch out behind us and in front of us for thousands of years fundamentally created the world you live in today. If you want your line to continue to exist and to help develop this world for the benefit of their children after them then you had better think a little more deeply. Otherwise they will be enjoying the culture of Pakistan, the economy of Cuba and the music of Africa and ‘they’ won’t be ‘they’ any longer they’ll be something different.

Posted by Big Silver on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:47 | #

or who constantly advise against “extremism” in self-defense for the purpose of survival Silver-style.

If I really were your enemy I’d be encouraging that sort of pointless “extreme” rhetoric.  Think about it: if you fail, it won’t be because you failed to stress the Ni- in Nigger enough.  I’ve haven’t had anything to say against GT and his rural strategy, Covington and NWA, political parties, militias, or even marches or riots, though those are less useful.  Extreme rhetoric just gets in the way of anyone understanding what all the other stuff is really about—and it’s not about establishing that, yep, man, some “people” really are creatures from the Island of Dr. Moreau.  You’ll only make needless enemies for yourself following the lead of easy onliners who think tossing around epithets is “doing something.”

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:21 | #

Think about it: if you fail, it won’t be because you failed to stress the Ni- in Nigger enough.

According to liberals, properly dehumanizing the “other” is the first step in creating a viable group politic.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:33 | #

According to liberals, properly dehumanizing the “other” is the first step in creating a viable group politic.

If that’s so, according to common sense, doing so in a way that causes ourselves the least damage is the way to proceed.  Blacks become the other as soon as you shine a light on them, no need to cut off your nose to spite your face in the process.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:40 | #

If that’s so, according to common sense, doing so in a way that causes ourselves the least damage is the way to proceed.  Blacks become the other as soon as you shine a light on them, no need to cut off your nose to spite your face in the process.

Exactly. Agreed.

Is Silver encouraging us to simply be more refined in our rhetoric? We all believe that we should temper our verbiage in certain social situations so I don’t understand what his problem is.

Also I would argue that this moderation appeals to a certain cross section of the public, but not the entire body. Sometimes it is all right to be crude and sometimes the only words that properly convey your meaning are crude.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:48 | #

Whites will be a minority in America in 2050.  Do you think the current situation, where whites do all the giving and placating, and non-whites do all the taking and demanding, can persist when non-whites are the majority?  Do you think non-whites will settle for anything less?  It’s a parent’s job to prepare his child for the future, something you’re manifestly not doing.  Instead you’re emotionally and psychologically disarming him before sending him into a den of wolves.  Can you think of worse way to prepare him for the future, and still claim the moral high ground with me?

Please take a good look at South Africa and Zimbabwe and tell me your position is sound.  Do you think the black majority is teaching their kids this crap?

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:07 | #

Big Silver:
What a prize moron.  You haven’t “refuted” anything.  You’ve just snapped and confirmed to the other fellow what an insaniac you are, ...
If you want a donkey’s attention you sometimes have to hit him between the eyes with a hammer.  These people just say whatever shit they think they can get away with because no one stands up to them.  They are posturing, grandstanding, bullying cunts.  As some here have pointed out an amusing, powerful or attention-getting line can focus the attention of the misled (as per Tanstaafl) witnessing the exchange and not inclined to take the mouthpiece on.

Why do I get the impression you just aren’t on board?

Posted by Big Silver on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:35 | #

If you want a donkey’s attention you sometimes have to hit him between the eyes with a hammer.

But in the case cited you’re just confirming to him what he already thought of you.  You haven’t grabbed his attention at all; you’ve simultaneously dismissed each other.

These people just say whatever shit they think they can get away with because no one stands up to them. They are posturing, grandstanding, bullying cunts.

When your own people say it it’s far more likely that they do so because they sincerely believe you’re wrong and immoral.  Snappily refute them, by all means, but make sure you’re refuting, not just snapping.

Why do I get the impression you just aren’t on board?

Some possibilities:

* Making your own mind up about what you’re reading isn’t your strong suit.
* You hold the belief that a non-hater/anti-hater is necessarily opposed to you.
* You imagine there’s actually a concrete standard there against which to be adjudged as “on board” or not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:47 | #

Silver,

The question is: why do you label as “haters” the mentally healthy segment of a sick and victimised race?  The application of “hate” is a piece of Jewish culture war - just a means of ascribing a blanket illegitimacy to all strivings among Europeans everywhere for collective life and limb.

I see you, in a way, as an ally of Jewish ethno-aggressors ... as someone who uncritically accepts and uses their word tools for very personal, not political, reasons.  But we’ll come to that in a jiffy.

First, it seems to me that you must be forced to separate in your own mentation the products of culture war from the real characteristics of its victim.  When you judge those characteristics as “good” or “bad” (by a moral standard other than the standard of Jewish culture war, of course) you must be forced to moderate them by our victimhood.  I mean, anger might be alarming.  It might be ugly.  But it is legitimate given the unprecented situation we are in - that of a people denied peoplehood, castigated as eternal sinners, and expected, frankly, to just bloody well go away as the door to the Third World is flung open.  Why not label those among us who express anger as “angry, and with reason”?  Because that’s the truth.

Now, your real agenda here.  We all know you have had some personal confrontations with Anglo bullies in Australia.  But those confrontations should never cause you to fall under the spell of an alien ethno-aggressive strategy now.  As a thinking man, you must tell the truth regardless of how hard that is made by your personal issues.  You must not hold us to Silver’s Higher Moral Standard of Discourse merely because, deep down, you have a need to burn “hate” our of us and thereby obtain your victory, finally, over those Anglo bullies.

A little reflection about yourself and about justice for Europe’s children would make an ally of you for us, not the Jews.  And that’s what I want.

Posted by Mentious on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:34 | #

...I’ve assumed from the meaning of “snappy refutation” that we’re coming up with brief responses to an enemy, ie. someone who is not aligned with us and never will be. We’re not trying to win them over. The purpose of our refutation is to reveal/ridicule/deconstruct their beliefs for the benefit of our misled friends and potential allies who are observing.

Yes. Certainly the “snappy refutation” approach is not the only approach. But it’s one. There are other approaches, such as drawing out that person, letting them get “their stuff” out, and even “processing” their stuff in front of us.

Nobody is utterly aligned one way or another. All people have ambivalence about these things. The tendency with many is to lay their heaviest ammo on you for one view, and see if you can deconstruct it. So there is value, sometimes, in hitting their position hard with a “snappy refutation.” I have had people approach me with sharp arguments (against the survival of European peoples), only to find that the soon came over to my side. They were putting their sharpest positions out there precisely for the purpose of seeing how valid they are; whether you could deconstruct them. They also may not agree with you in the moment, but you often succeed in getting them to lay down those arms internally at first. You have to be sensitive and aware about when you can modulate from “snappy refutation” into things like “honest personal testimony and conversation.” Don’t just keep hitting them on the head with “snappy refutations,” in other words, when they’re actually coming over to your side within. De-escalate the conversation to sincere statement of personal opinion, less defensively.

But the “snappy refutations” mode does have it’s value. They often want to see their ideas vigorously dissected and are hoping that you have a vigorous answer, building a road for them to come to your side. Also, at times the “snappy refutation” has most value for the audience and the fellow you’re addressing to is just playing a role, expediting the presentation of your views. His feelings can be sacrificed, at times, for the sake of the audience. However, if you don’t draw blood (in your snappiness), it’s likely even the recepient of those first sharp challenges (to his statement) will respect you and come to your side later, just the same.

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 02 Apr 2009 23:04 | #

@ silver

But in the case cited you’re just confirming to him what he already thought of you. You haven’t grabbed his attention at all; you’ve simultaneously dismissed each other.

I doubt it as I said:

“These people just say whatever shit they think they can get away with because no one stands up to them. They are posturing, grandstanding, bullying cunts.”

Now he’s finally encountered some opposition to his posturing and like most bullies, in my experience, he will watch his mouth, temper his words and maybe try some more, what he assumes to be intelligent arguments, which you can refute.  Usually bullies mouth off, except when they are afraid.  As I noted and has been said here, he is not the one to be informed, the misled are.

When your own people say it it’s far more likely that they do so because they sincerely believe you’re wrong and immoral. Snappily refute them, by all means, but make sure you’re refuting, not just snapping.

Better just put you in the basket of not paying attention here, reread what I wrote, twice now, about the misled.  The bully is not my people.

“Why do I get the impression you just aren’t on board?”

Some possibilities:
Making your own mind up about what you’re reading isn’t your strong suit.

Or I am right.

You hold the belief that a non-hater/anti-hater is necessarily opposed to you.

Because he makes a hateful statement.

You imagine there’s actually a concrete standard there against which to be adjudged as “on board” or not.

I do not imagine I know and you obviously do not which reinforces my hunch about you.

Posted by gorboduc on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:16 | #

Back to the topic!
“I’d like my grandchildren to be white because they’ll be better placed to appreciate Plato, Virgil, Alfred the Great, Aquinas, Chaucer, Leonardo, Thomas More, Shakespeare, Rembrandt Mozart, Beethoven, Keats, Dickens, Vaughan Williams and all the other great creative geniuses that our white culture has produced, and, by understanding them, to inherit and participate in their great works.  I’d like them to be white so that they may feel an essential link with their native land and fight to preserve it.
  Do you want your grandchildren to be Moslem, so they can read you the Koran to solace your old age: or half negro, so they can rap at your funeral? If THAT’s makes you happy, then frankly I don’t care what befalls you either, but in charity, I hope you die young!”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:53 | #

The site’s caught cancer again.

Posted by Big Silver on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:46 | #

The question is: why do you label as “haters” the mentally healthy segment of a sick and victimised race?

Let’s see, because that hatred is so often visible and visceral?  Is there any other way I’m supposed to interpret “creatures from the Island of Dr. Moreau”?

And it’s not just the “hatred”; it goes to [get ready to groan] creating artificial social constructs in which men are judged solely or overwhelmingly as biological units, schemata in which few—even within one race—can experience adequacy (which loops back into more hatred; this isn’t remotely deniable).  That leaves a permanent stain, GW, one that is completely unnecessary and one I charge every racialist with the responsibility of avoiding, even only if because charging into it seems to maximise resistance to racialism.  (Of course, since attempting to regulate racial opinion is like herding cats, I don’t expect anyone to listen, but I’ve stated it for the record.)

The application of “hate” is a piece of Jewish culture war - just a means of ascribing a blanket illegitimacy to all strivings among Europeans everywhere for collective life and limb.

But it’s completely possible to do that without (certain kinds of) hatred.  You can be quite explicit without lurching into intellectual vulgarity.  (And I wish you’d can this talk of “Europeans everywhere.”  You’re not entitled to it.)

First, it seems to me that you must be forced to separate in your own mentation the products of culture war from the real characteristics of its victim.  When you judge those characteristics as “good” or “bad” (by a moral standard other than the standard of Jewish culture war, of course) you must be forced to moderate them by our victimhood.  I mean, anger might be alarming.  It might be ugly.  But it is legitimate given the unprecented situation we are in - that of a people denied peoplehood, castigated as eternal sinners, and expected, frankly, to just bloody well go away as the door to the Third World is flung open.  Why not label those among us who express anger as “angry, and with reason”?  Because that’s the truth.

Okay, you’re angry, and with excellent reason.  Do you really suppose me to have held otherwise?

As a thinking man, you must tell the truth regardless of how hard that is made by your personal issues. 

I obviously do.  Am I permitted to expect the same from you?

You must not hold us to Silver’s Higher Moral Standard of Discourse merely because, deep down, you have a need to burn “hate” our of us and thereby obtain your victory, finally, over those Anglo bullies.

There are other, far superior and more important, reasons for holding you to that standard than that (mere truth, for one).  But you can do as you like.

Posted by Ernest Wesley on Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:07 | #

Why not pose the questions ourselves? Questions which naturally lead to White Nationalist conclusions but are apolitically delivered.

Why do you think South Africa has the highest living standards of any African country?

Little questions like these let the other person do the thinking and arouse no defence if properly, purely ponderously, made. Sure self-delusion will allow some people to dodge the obvious and through obscure agrument put it down to climate or the stars or whatever but people continually in need of self-delusion eventually will give up and accept the obvious.

South Africa has the highest living standards of any African country because it has the highest proportion of Whites.

Let us not content ourselves with snappy refuations but in giving questions that only we could possibly have snappy answers to.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:23 | #

Loved the joke about cancer, Scrooby.
Perhaps I should have included Hegel and Schopenhauer in my list. I now add st Augustine, who came from North Africa.
In your heart of hearts, don’t you really carry a torch for Diana Ross…Tina Turner…and Michelle Obama?

Posted by John on Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:39 | #

I want my Jack Russels to stay Jack Russels because I like their dermination, loyalty and patience among other temperamental qualities and general intelligence and quickness to learn. I don’t so much care what they look like and I certainly wouldn’t want to breed them with Afghan Hounds or any other breed for that matter. I want them to stay Jack Russels. WTF is wrong with that?!

Posted by Anon on Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:36 | #

...or half negro, so they can rap at your funeral? If THAT’s makes you happy, then frankly I don’t care what befalls you either, but in charity, I hope you die young!”

I can’t even call that a stereotype. Have you ever been to a Black funeral? I’m not judging all the funerals of a race because of the few I’ve been to, however, in my experience, I’ve seen more reasonable and mourning behavior at funerals where majority of the people there are Black rather than White (we don’t have many other races in our community).

“South Africa has the highest living standards of any African country because it has the highest proportion of Whites.”

Not only does that depend on who’s talking, it’s not a good claim to use. South Africa has the highest living standards (I suppose we’re not considering northern Africa here?) compared to other third world countries when likening them to first world countries because instead of all the Imperialists living behind a chaotic mess in their African countries, they decided to stay giving some semblance of order.

Perhaps if the Imperial countries hadn’t divided up the continent as they saw fit, pushing together people of different tribes who have had long standing hate for each other and separating families, the African people might have had a chance to develop on their own terms instead of having to deal with unasked for living conditions under unasked for oppressors.

As for the living conditions at hand, when looking around the dump of a city I live in, I can’t help but wonder if a simple life in the desert might be more appealing than the smog and dangers of the city. Granted, being eaten by a lion doesn’t sound pretty, but at least when you see a lion, you know they’re bad. However, when you see a fellow human, it’s hard to tell. Just because first world conditions are what people are used to, it does not make them high living standards.