Snappy Refutations, Exercise 6

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 18:31.

In between doing other things, I’ve been debating for a couple of days with a Guardian liberal of a scientific bent here.  He came up with the following definitons of the dreaded r-thing, claiming that I qualify on both counts.

They are:-

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

Now, I answered this person in the least snappy way I could, putting both racial superiority and Man as individual and tribalist into their proper contexts.  But I can’t say that it worked any better than a well-chosen, sharp riposte could have.

So what should I have said?  Is there even such a thing as “evil racism”?  Or is it all just a handy exaggeration, a silencer and an ethnic smear?

Tags: Activism



Comments:


1

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:12 | #

Both propositions are substantially true and were formerly widely recognized. 

My response would be, “Here is why…”


2

Posted by Armor on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:33 | #

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.
2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

3. The belief that white people must be forcefully replaced by non-whites.

I am intrigued by definition #2.
Would you still be the same person if you belonged to another race?
What if you belonged to another species?
Would Sharon Stone still be Sharon Stone if she had Whoopi Goldberg’s hair?


3

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:17 | #

Thus, say, someone with an African forefather from prior to 23rd June 1948 would make the cut. Tiger Bay is Welsh. - thecauseway

No, no, no, no!  That’s crazy talk.  The one-drop rule applies. 

Others of my acquaintance would prefer mass genetic testing. - thecauseway

Sounds good to me.  Racial purity is not simply a description of what is or is not now, it is a goal.


4

Posted by Bo Sears on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:52 | #

Geez, attack him for his demonstration of supremacy in the matter of reading your mind, and naming you racist.  How hard is that? Suggest he needs to have an examination for his pathological mental condition to learn how and when he acquired his addition to supremacy.


5

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 21:08 | #

Or, Armor’s Sharon Stone riposte (a few above) is a good way to go about it.  Try this on the bastards:  “Would Gunhild Larking be Gunhild Larking if she had Whoopi Goldberg’s face?”  Try that on them.  See what come-back they can muster.


6

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 22 Apr 2009 23:11 | #

Tour de force, GW.  Your finest outing at the Guardian.


7

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:17 | #

1.

Racial supremacy is the foundation of evolutionary theory. The inferior race goes extinct. Remember it is Origin of the Species and the Preservation of the Favoured Races.  It recognizes that it is normal for an ethnic group or race to want to survive and to avoid displacement by others. It recognizes that mass immigration is ethnic competition over territory and that it negatively impacts reproductive fitness.  It realizes that territory ensures survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants.  The loss of territory, whether by military defeat or displacement by aliens, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction - precisely what is happening in the “multicultural” West today.

  It is YOU, who must realize that WE are merely trying to survive, that we want to live in peace with our families in OUR homelands without the threat of diminishment or destruction.

2. Andrew Fraser’s assertion:

In most countries, in most eras, you need[ed] to belong to an extended family “mafia” for protection. [...]

“Only a people such as the English, characterized by the ‘non-kinship based forms of reciprocity’ associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a ‘society of strangers.’”

Fraser speculates that these attributes have genetic roots.


8

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:31 | #

“Yeah, anyone who actually looks at Heidi Klum’s kids is a racist!”


9

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:45 | #

Very impressive GW.  AntID seems to finally realise he is outgunned or maybe he just wants to skulk away.

What a disgusting suck up to Latoya in his first post.  He obviously has some obsessive need to feel morally superior.  Your arguments must have caused him considerable dissonance.  Leftist racist or racist what are you? 

In my experience calmly explaining their behaviour as traitorous is very effective with these liberal racists.  Which you did in spades of course.  It was a good read.


10

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:48 | #

Sorry forgot.  I wanted to ask that you please be sure to add links to these outside exchanges that you engage in.


11

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:23 | #

CC,

The one-drop rule applies

Where two populations have co-existed in one living space I would agree.  It’s a little different in Europe, whose port cities have, for centuries, carried the genetic traces of merchant seamen from afar.  Tiger Bay, now Cardiff Bay, has given the world the inimitable but plainly mixed-race Shirley Bassey and the great footballer Ryan Giggs.  Neither of them are products of the Windrush rush.  Under the one-drop rule they would be excluded, and I don’t think that’s right or practical.  There is legitimate gene flow and there is illegitimate gene flow.  The difference is that one is part of the life of the nation - major ports are just “like that” all around the world - while the other is coercive and political and must be tenaciously resisted.

So I return to my genealogical-historical model for the mother continent.  For England, Scotland and Wales that means that the eternal nation can be discovered in those who are non-Jewish and whose parentage is unmixed with people arriving from 23nd June 1948.

Your finest outing at the Guardian.

It really all depends on the intellectual quality of one’s opponent.  “Ant” seems to me to be a science faculty lecturer of some sort.  Can’t quite see what his subject is.  He’s relatively good.  But he’s still only got his own prejudices and ad hominem to fall on.  You know perfectly well that none of these people can win on points of substance.  But the purpose isn’t to score a win over them, but to demonstrate the moral and intellectual superiority of our arguments to the wider world.

Usually the mods frustrate my efforts.  I am pleasantly surprised that this one let everything stand.


12

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:24 | #

There is a link, Thunder.  But it’s a long read and I wouldn’t recommend it particularly.


13

Posted by BGD on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:31 | #

It doesn’t matter to the group member where he sits on the foodchain, Aborigine, European, Japanese or Ashkenazim all have a vested interest in replicating themselves and their kind and making that they don’t die out.

I don’t argue that because these people are inferior or superior I want to be able to live alone that’s a secondary argument if it’s used at all. At bottom we are a distinct ethnic entity hat values it’s place in history and its geographical territory and culture and want it to continue.

Superiority can relate to any number of things (G, athleticism etc).

My individuality is in large part borne from the genetic pool that I spring from. The past writings of my forbears have both a universal and a local relevance. Why not take JS Mill to Korea or Africa and see how well you get on..


14

Posted by BGD on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:33 | #

Apol for grammar mangling above, wrote my response too rapidly


15

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:43 | #

Yes I caught the link in this thread but was really pleading for you to make sure in future you always do link to your ‘outside’ efforts.

Far from boring, I found it quite good.  I like such confrontational, real-life discussions.  I regularly peruse the comments here and many of the contributors impress me.  I mean what is Fred Scrooby the energizer bunny, he is so prolific.

Anyhow these confrontations are helpful because I make it a point of giving it a go myself although I often get knocked about.  Your lines help me make a sandwich while my opponent is getting dinner, so to speak.


16

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:45 | #

I meant to address the above comment to Guessedworker.


17

Posted by Ernest Wesley on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:52 | #

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

Depends on the context:

The smallest unit of day to day survival is the individual. Hire by hue for a job and get second best; yet the individual is not a unit of historical survival. Nor is family. The concept of family, over generations, extends to race. Thus the smallest unit of historical survival is the race. Hire by hue for your country and be eliminated.


18

Posted by Ernest Wesley on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:21 | #

*Don’t hire by hue for your country and be eliminated


19

Posted by BGD on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:29 | #

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

Then this doesn’t mean much. You make moral judgements on what is true or not true. Every scientific finding of genetic difference in population groups therefore becomes a thought crime. Do you agree?


20

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:57 | #

Thunder: Yes I caught the link in this thread

Sorry, my eye jumped your first comment here.  Got it now.

I make it a point of giving it a go myself

These refutation posts are useful and will certainly provide you with ammunition to fire back.  I’ve used material from them twice now.  In this altercation with AntID I posted a very good remark by Svigor from one of the early ones in the series.  No sound came there in reply.

I do urge you to keep at it.  We’ve covered all the bases, and they have nothing new to surprise you with.  On the contrary, all the shocks are delivered in the opposite direction.  The greater the volume of articulate resistance from our side that the silent majority read, the better.

make sure in future you always do link to your ‘outside’ efforts

The mods take down a lot of my material, and I have been banned a really ridiculous number of times.  Also, as I posted recently, the quality of opponent is definitely declining.  It’s quite rare to encounter someone like Ant who will slug away beyond the first volley of punches.  Most hit the “report abuse” button, I think, and screw me over that way instead.

Also, I think it’s important to keep the focus where it belongs - on ideas, not personalities.  I don’t want to degenerate into one of these guys who has to blog every comment he makes elsewhere.  That’s narcissism not nationalism, and it’s a turn-off.  But when something of genuine value crops up rest assured I will use it here.


21

Posted by cool new blog on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:11 | #

No, no, no, no!  That’s crazy talk.  The one-drop rule applies.

Say you were a Briton.  Would you really insist on getting rid of (deporting, sterilizing), say, Ryan Giggs, to use Gee-Dubber’s example, if it turned out he was one eighth an octroon (that’s 1 black predecessor, 63 white)?

Captain Chaos sits down for lunch with a recently made acquaintance.  The small talk is flowing and they are bout to clink glasses when Chaos abruptly hesitates.  “Er, Bob, I haven’t seen your lab report yet,” he says quietly, his brows subtly furrowing. 

Sounds good to me.  Racial purity is not simply a description of what is or is not now, it is a goal.

Sheesh, talk about changing the goal posts.  What’s Scrooby supposed to think now?

I mean what is Fred Scrooby the energizer bunny, he is so prolific.

And usually wrong and incomplete.  Quality > Quantity.


22

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:56 | #

@ “Cool New Blog,”

I’m sure CC would make exceptions to the one-drop rule where they are reasonable and necessary.  So would I.  So would anybody.  The point is, if you don’t have an overarching one-drop rule your race may be white but it won’t stay white for long.

As for my being “usually wrong and incomplete,” let me know in real time instead of after the fact.  Let’s see how “right and complete” your critiques can make my comments. 

Final request:  stick to one pen name.


23

Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 08:58 | #

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

You just don’t like White people.

I can believe whatever I like. You’re free to not believe whatever you don’t like, though I believe that makes you inferior as an individual.

Racism is when you apply these standards only to Whites.

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

You just don’t like White people.

That’s good. For a minute I thought you were a race denier who can’t see any differences between various races.

You mean how anyone can say the most nasty things about Whites but can’t speak factually about “people of color” without losing their job or going to prison?

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

You just don’t like White people.

So you’re an individual supremacist who considers others inferior. Weren’t you just talking about that?

If you’re more concerned about yourself than anything else then you’re very likely useless to your community, and perhaps even a threat.

I think of race as an extended family. Why shouldn’t everyone care about their family?

The idea that I’m evil if I’m not more concerned about some other race is what really bugs me.


24

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:02 | #

You mean how anyone can say the most nasty things about Whites but can’t speak factually about “people of color” without losing his job or going to prison?

That’s neat, Tan.


25

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:04 | #

“Sounds good to me.  Racial purity is not simply a description of what is or is not now, it is a goal.”

Sheesh, talk about changing the goal posts.  What’s Scrooby supposed to think now?

(—Cool New Blog)

I don’t traffic in the notion of “racial purity,” Cool New Blog.  Never did.  It’s a meaningless concept for me.  I deal exclusively in opposition to forced race-replacement of white people. 

You have some problem with that?  State it.

(I also deal in telling assholes what I think of them.)


26

Posted by John on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:45 | #

I have used this refutation with regard to the first definition: The only spatial metaphors I use regarding race or ethnicity are “in” and “out”. I couldn’t care less which race is “inferior” or “superior”—I love them like the extended family they are. Even if I and my coethnics are inferior by every measure, I still prefer to work, go to school, and live in the same communities with them than with aliens. My ancestors lived among their own kind and i wish the same for my descendants.


27

Posted by Lord O' The Mountebanks on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:57 | #

I don’t traffic in the notion of “racial purity,”

“Racial purity” is the straw man of choice for the anti-Whites.  They think they can attribute that argument to us and thus make us appear crazies.  I don’t give “racial purity” much thought apart from my distaste vis-a-vis miscegenation.  Neither do most pro-Whites on the internet, save the most rabid of the Nordicists/Aryanists.


28

Posted by Lord O' The Mountebanks on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:03 | #

I have used this refutation with regard to the first definition: The only spatial metaphors I use regarding race or ethnicity are “in” and “out”. I couldn’t care less which race is “inferior” or “superior”—I love them like the extended family they are. Even if I and my coethnics are inferior by every measure, I still prefer to work, go to school, and live in the same communities with them than with aliens. My ancestors lived among their own kind and i wish the same for my descendants.

Exactly.  It’s that simple. 

We pro-Whites don’t really concern ourselves with superiority/inferiority.  That’s another straw man used by the MSM and other Jew-water-carriers to deride our healthy ethnocentric instincts.


29

Posted by GR on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:14 | #

Captain Chaos sits down for lunch with a recently made acquaintance.  The small talk is flowing and they are bout to clink glasses when Chaos abruptly hesitates.  “Er, Bob, I haven’t seen your lab report yet,” he says quietly, his brows subtly furrowing.

Ha, excellent characterization. And that would really happen with the Captainchaos type. Which is why the Jews are not incorrect in wanting such people as far as possible from positions of authority. No one needs a guy like that over them, and I wouldn’t wish it on most mischlinge, either. That furrowing of the brow is everything — the subtle threatening style of the Inquistor and Kommissar, plying you to confess your sins, or make them up to satisfy his paranoia.


30

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:33 | #

On GR’s comment:  Anyone who identifies that as the problem, at this stage we’re in, rather than its diametrical opposite, either doesn’t get it, or is on the other side.  GR, therefore, either doesn’t get it or is on the other side.


31

Posted by Armor on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:06 | #

Racism =
1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.
2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

• What about the belief that certain individualities are superior/inferior to others?
I think that is assumed by definition #2, but is it moral to think that way?

Let’s say that a certain individual is superior to others.
Should he be allowed to choose his country of residence, as you seem to suggest?
What about inferior individuals? How do you suggest we get rid of them?
If you agree with the live and let live principle, why do you support race replacement?
If all individuals are equal, why do we need race-replacement?

• You think race doesn’t matter ; most of us think it matters a lot.
Is that not an argument for you, and for any immigrant who thinks like you,
to move to Haiti, or to some multicultural hellhole?

• If you believe that your individuality is more important than our entire race,
why should we treat you as one of us?

• Sexism is the belief that people’s sex is more significant than their individuality. I know sexism is evil, but I would rather be an nasty sexist than marry a man. Besides, I wonder what kind of zombie is left of you when you take masculinity or femininity out of your identity. What other superficial aspect of someone’s identity can be taken out with no damage to his core individuality: age? IQ?

• Is the character of a cat/mouse more essential than whether it is a cat or a mouse?

• The idea that the individual matters more than his race is similar to the idea that the day of the week matters more than the century we are in. (not sure if that’s an argument for or against race-replacement!).

Hire by hue for a job and get second best (—EW)

The most perverse thing is affirmative action : we import people from the third-world so we can hire them by hue, we ensure that we get second best, and our own people get sacrificed in the process.

Don’t hire by hue for your country and be eliminated (—EW)

Exactly so!


32

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:38 | #

Ha, excellent characterization. And that would really happen with the Captainchaos type.

That’s rich, GR.  I’m not the one who recommends sterilizing people and putting them in death camps.  Normal Lowell envisions an"Imperium” that will be for Whites only and has suggested genetic testing to see who is in and who is out.  I don’t say no non-Whites can live in White countries, but I am for anti-miscegenation laws.

Which is why the Jews are not incorrect in wanting such people as far as possible from positions of authority.

There’s that tick again.  I’m for expulsion of the Jews, what they do after that I don’t care, that is their business.


33

Posted by cool new blog on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:19 | #

I don’t traffic in the notion of “racial purity,” Cool New Blog.  Never did.  It’s a meaningless concept for me.

You deal in binary “Euro”/Non-Euro, which amounts to the same thing, though you might not have been aware of this.  I consider it a symptom of your general confusion.  You also appear to consider ethnicities coterminous with racial taxons, such that you can state your uncertainty about whether “Bulgarians” qualify as “Euros” and your (apparent, anyway) certainty that “Albanians” do (based on, it seems, a logic no more rigorous than “are they Chinese?  Negroes? Mexicans? No? Well...”)

On GR’s comment:  Anyone who identifies that as the problem, at this stage we’re in, rather than its diametrical opposite, either doesn’t get it, or is on the other side.  GR, therefore, either doesn’t get it or is on the other side.

It is a problem (for those who see it as such); not the problem.  There is no reason not to consider it a problem worthy of voicing concerns about.  Your “at this stage” is immaterial.  Those who see things as Chaos does will not simply say, “Okay, phew people, we made it out.  We survived.  That stuff I said about purity back then?  Forget it. I didn’t mean it.”  Silence is acquiescence and it is misleading.  Since you do disagree with Chaos, there is no reason not to say so.  You won’t be putting him off any by disagreeing.  You’re correct that you’re largely on the same side with respect to the larger problem, but no harm is done by agreeing that there will be unresolved issues to deal with later.  Frankly, in my view those issues are overwhelmingly likely to be resolved in Chaos’s favor which is why I counsel you to adopt a Plan B and be at ease with it now.  You don’t appear to have thought so, but I cannot see how anyone could possibly insist that there is but one sole solution once race/white survival is considered valid and important.  (Perhaps it might help to read my “Regulating Racial Opinion” post at my blog.)

Final request:  stick to one pen name.

Well, Frederique mon amie, you washed your hands of me and promised never to read my posts again, so I had to trick you into it.  Problem solved now that I have my own blog.  I’ll leave you fine gents to carry on.


34

Posted by Dasein on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:24 | #

GW, this was a real public service on your part.  Would be very heartening to any budding nationalist who fears that they are somehow immoral.  And it seems you got the last word in- the article is now closed for comments (although I see no reason to believe Ant would have had anything but rubbish to pile on anyhow).  I think you’re also right that this guy is a miscegenator of some sort. 

That furrowing of the brow is everything — the subtle threatening style of the Inquistor and Kommissar, plying you to confess your sins, or make them up to satisfy his paranoia.

Should Jews of whatever degree of admixture be permitted to remain in White countries, we should expect Torquemada to be armed with a DNA sequencer in the delivery room.  There will have to be some control that part-Jews that stay behind do not become ‘New Whites’.


35

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:18 | #

”It is a problem”  (—Cool New Blog)

Is it? …….  (Excuse me, yawwwwwwwwwwwnnnnn ………..  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ………….)  Oh, you still there? (yawwwnn some more …………… )  OK look, we’ll deal with that “problem” once every Eurosphere country in the world has adopted the BNP party platform plank on immigration & repatriation as highlit in blue here,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/nationalism_in_motion_or_liberalism_reformed/#c73470 ,

AND the corresponding BNP platform plank on the restoration of full freedom of association as set out in the log entry’s links. 

Once that’s been done throughout the Eurosphere worldwide, I’ll suggest to CC that he tone down the incendiary rhetoric a little, not before.  OK? 

(Yaawwwwwwnnnnn ………………….  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ………………………………. )


36

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:28 | #

Lawrence Auster “useless on race”?  He’s one of the best there is on race.


37

Posted by Loriver on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:48 | #

Racism

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

Whether or not certain races are superior is a side-issue, what I am interested in is kinship. The accusation of racism is analogous to the word nepotism that we use to describe the preference for family, or the exhibition of nepotistic tendencies (but towards co-ethnics and not simply close family members).

A preference for co-ethnics does not require a belief that certain races or ethnic groups are biologically superior, although these beliefs will often be found together (particularly since they are both supported by race-realism). It does not require it, any more than for a father to prefer his own son to a stranger requires that he believe his son to be superior to every other child.

The charge of racism in this sense of ‘ethnic nepotism’ (which I feel applies best to me) is nothing that I am ashamed of, any more than I should be ashamed of preferring my own family. As for the charge of racism in the sense of racial supremacy, this is an empirical matter and again I feel no shame in espousing what I believe to be scientific reality, regardless of politically motivated objections to this truth.

As for your second definition, I find it to be meaningless. ‘More significant’ must be put in context for it to have meaning. As regards my personal interest in preventing the race replacement of Britons, there is no question that in this context a given individual’s race is more important than his other attributes. On the other hand if you attach no importance to race/ethnicity, then to you other characteristics of an individual are indeed more significant than race in relation to your own interests.

Who is anyone else to tell me what my interests and priorities should be? Once again, since I do not believe that there is a reason for me to suppress my own strong desires and interests in accordance with someone else’s ideology, I am not ashamed by this variety of the racism charge…and nor should anyone else be.

Since we have seen that this label ‘racist’ will not further our discussion, please let us concentrate on factual disagreement and end this vacuous labelling.

 

Hmm, not at all snappy. But surely it is much more worthwhile to give a detailed reply than a snappy one, unless you are just dismissing someone and not debating?


38

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:21 | #

Also, I think it’s important to keep the focus where it belongs - on ideas, not personalities.  I don’t want to degenerate into one of these guys who has to blog every comment he makes elsewhere.  That’s narcissism not nationalism, and it’s a turn-off.  But when something of genuine value crops up rest assured I will use it here.

I can understand your view and I’d probably be the same if it was me but some of these exchanges are pretty good master classes in debating these issues. If some of them were somehow saved in an archive linked to from here that could be a neat little educational tool.

racial purity

There’s more than one way to skin a cat - dilution would be my preferred way.


39

Posted by Tanstaafl on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:55 | #

Fred Scrooby writes:

Lawrence Auster “useless on race”?  He’s one of the best there is on race.

With friends like Auster we don’t need enemies. Seriously. If Abe Foxman retired tomorrow, Larry could fill his shoes, no problem.


40

Posted by danielj on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:35 | #

With friends like Auster we don’t need enemies.

With friends like Auster, who needs the counter intelligence programs of the ADL?


41

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 07:36 | #

Tanstaafl you’re wrong, comrade, but I won’t argue this further — I know you’ve had some direct clashes with him (which is regrettable in the sense that when someone is allied with us on what is for us the central issue, it would seem the thing to do to avoid clashing over stuff that isn’t the central issue even if you’re as far apart on that stuff as you can get, and even if for the other guy, that is the central issue).

“If Abe Foxman retired tomorrow, Larry could fill his shoes, no problem.”  (—Tanstaafl)

Couldn’t be more wrong.


42

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:13 | #

When I look at a man where this stuff is concerned I want to know one thing, his position on forced race-replacement — other quarrels I can settle later.  If his position is sane I put him in the ally category no matter what he may think of me or my positions.  If his position on forced race-replacement is insane I put him in the criminally insane, moral leprosy, or evil category.  Take Jobling — in his eyes I’d be a loathesome “anti-Semite” who “stinks up the comments threads.”  Jobling would put me in the criminally insane, moral leprosy, or evil category.  Der Hoffmeister (to take another example) would pretty much agree with Jobling.  But I view Jobling and Hoff as allies.


43

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:10 | #

Fred, I generally agree with your view, expressed here and elsewhere, of our side, who is on it, and who isn’t. But not your view of Auster. If Auster is allied with us he’s got a strange way of showing it.

Auster calls this site and everyone associated with it “exterminationist”. He attacks with similar vitriol MacDonald, Buchanan, Taki, Derbyshire, Taylor, Duke, and other pro- and crypto-Whites not because they are too weak in their advocacy, but because their advocacy of necessity impinges on the jews who are so feverishly working against our interests. Auster’s attacks are more damaging than Foxman’s specifically because of the false notion that he is a “comrade”.

Your standards for allies are like the spousal standards of a battered wife whose central issue is marriage. The allies you cite (Auster and Jobling at least) not only batter us, they want a divorce. So much for the central issue. What I’m wondering is, how hard does someone have to work against others who share your central issue before you recognize them as harming that central issue?


44

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:43 | #

One for Thunder ... someone blogging as “hardlyheard” naming the Jew:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/st-george-bnp?commentpage=2


45

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:28 | #

“Hardlyheard” deserves to be heard a lot more (and something tells me this blog right here is the place to hear him ....... )  (Nice job over there, Hardlyheard!  Good work!)


46

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:31 | #

He’s also here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/bnp-black-asian-britons?commentpage=6


47

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:26 | #

It will be interesting to see if Mr Goldman’s verbal proloxity is up to the task of providing us with another Snappy post.


48

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:30 | #

“What I’m wondering is, how hard does someone have to work against others who share your central issue before you recognize them as harming that central issue?”  (—Tanstaafl)

What I see aren’t men I expect to have warm social relations with but men who are helping us get the central issue resolved to our satisfaction, whatever their views on other matters.  I don’t insist on the other issues for the moment.  Until the central one gets straightened out those others are peripheral, of secondary importance.  Peter Brimelow, for example, is not a “liberal Democrat” on various economic and social issues but he has contributors to Vdare.com who are, and that’s exactly as it should be:  these contributors happen to support a halt to the present immigration innundation.

Anyone who opposes the forced race-replacement of Euro-race peoples which is right now taking place is on my side as regards the central issue.


49

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:01 | #

I don’t see how the central issue is going to get resolved if one of the primary causes is ignored or played down (especially when done by smearing others who discuss it).  Maybe Auster is better on the JQ (I haven’t read his blog much), but Jobling is hopeless, or perhaps better- destructive.  Maybe you’ll argue that he’s providing a place for people who aren’t ready now to make the leap to the MR platform because the activation energy is just too great, but the danger is that people will get stuck there and end up promoting Jewish interests.


50

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:28 | #

Goldberg replied and hardlyheard did as well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/st-george-bnp?commentpage=3

Goldberg did not address his own hypocrisy, instead he went off on some crap about Sharia.  I have never, ever seen a Jew admit his double standards.  It’s amazing, though it does not surprise me anymore.


51

Posted by Dasein on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:46 | #

I’d made a few comments on the Paki thread as ‘Europid’ but the last ones were deleted (could be banned in fact, as last one didn’t even appear).  GW has a lot more patience and resolve than I do.  This censorship just pisses me off and I won’t soon find the will to waste my time again over there.  Same with Jobling’s site.  I’d posted a very reasonable (perhaps too much so) reply to his nonsense about GST and how there is no (as in zero) genetic basis to ethnocentrism (I mean, maybe you could cover your ass a bit and say that it’s too small to have much discernible impact) and his moderator (maybe he himself) refused to post it.  I saw that someone at the site complained recently that the forum was boring.  Someone else said that the problem was that they all agree with one another.  The musings of Jobling’s coterie of Jewish nationalists are interesting to get a glimpse into the mind of normal Jews, but yeah it’s going to be boring if Jobling needs to be ok with everything that’s posted.


52

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:35 | #

Hardlyheard writes (his first comment has already been deleted):

Alexander Goldberg (to me): “I never said Sharia is bad”

OK, actually you said it mustn’t be preferenced. Are going to deny that your Jewish ethic interests played no part in your adumbrations there?

Are you going to deny that your Jewish ethnic interests play no part in your support for multracialism in England?

No one will believe you.

What I want you to understand is that it is impossible for an Englishman to speak in ways supportive of his own ethnic interests without the racist trope being used by somebody. If we apply the same trope to you, there would never be the chance for you to speak from Jewish ethnic interests, as you continually do here.

So, something is very wrong, isn’t it.

Now, can you, as a Jew, grant that the BNP is not racist if it speaks for English ethnic interests - even if those interests are contrary to Jewish ethnic interests. Free speech for one, free speech for all.

Hardlyheard is making the same point about Goldberg that I make about Auster, or Daesin makes about Jobling.

Regarding your point Fred, when somebody actively impairs your ability to contribute to the central issue (by calling for you to be discredited, shunned, etc) then they are actively harming the central issue. Woudldn’t you say?


53

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:53 | #

I have never, ever seen a Jew admit his double standards.  It’s amazing, though it does not surprise me anymore.

That’s one of the things that finally did it for me. There’s only two possibilities:

1) They’re completely immoral i.e conscious of their double standards but don’t care i.e fundamentally evil.

Even though I have an ongoing plan to freak out any “judeo-Christian” type Christians I come into contact with by pushing the idea the jewish God is actually Baal, I have a hard time believing the above option.

2) They’re completely unaware they have those double standards i.e to them they’re not double standards because they’re not using our morality, their morality is “is it good for the jews” and so they physically can’t see the double standard because in their morality there isn’t one - denying the Bolshevik Holocaust is good for the jews (because they murdered 20 million White people) while denying the Nazi reaction to the Bolshevik Holocaust is bad for the jews. No moral conflict.

This second option makes sense if you take the EGI idea and apply it to a group that is so ethnocentric their morality has no double standards. In that case White morality could be used as a weapon against White people without jews ever considering themselves bound by that morality.

The second option isn’t even unique to jews in my personal experience. Muslims in the UK are the same as jews - they completely ignore the bad things done by them and only care about bad things done to them. Blacks are similar but not as extreme, on average anyway. I’d say maybe 2/3 of blacks are the same as jews and 1/3 are more like White. Hindus are maybe 2/3 White on this issue. I’d say the same thing can happen to White people too when they get more nationalistic.

All in all it’s part of what made me think MacDonald was on to something talking about White evolution taking a different turn to non-white (including jews). We cannot share terriotory with them because their ethnocentrism gives them too much of an advantage over us and if we ever became as ethno-centric as them we’d…

Following the logic you can see why they want to destroy us. They know precisely what they’d do if they were the majority. It’s why they’re so paranoid.


54

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:58 | #

1. The belief that certain races are superior/inferior to others.

  2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality.

*Takes superfluous business card from wallet, holds it up* “Here’s your little race card.  You hold it up, preen like a peacock, play it on me, and smugly assume you’ve won - that I’ll hang my head and quit the field in shame” (It would be good to act out the preening and smugness as you say this)
*Sneers, tears card into tiny pieces and flings it at opponent, or into the trash, on the floor, etc.*

“Your card’s been canceled.  You’re over your limit.  Your credit’s no good here; you’re going to have to do this with elbow grease.  Roll up your sleeves.”

====

“YOU’RE a racist.  You think non-whites are superior to whites, which is why you hound whites for even contemplating defending themselves the way non-whites do without eliciting a peep from your kind.”

“YOU’RE a racist.  You think everyone in the world is a white person with differently colored skin; when non-whites “fail” to live up to your racist assumptions, you blame other whites.”

“YOU’RE a racist.  If I was black, with the same arguments, you’d be kissing my ass.”

“YOU’RE a racist.”  (Fill in details here; there are scads of arguments that fit)

====

“Racist is what swipples call you when they’re losing an argument.”

“Can’t we get beyond establishment-approved boilerplate and have a REAL DIALOGUE (“dialogue” is a liberal code word so it may have some sting).

====

“What is it with liberals?  You change the name of every pejorative every five minutes (negro, colored, Afro-American, black, African-American; homosexual, gay, queer; etc.), EXCEPT for the pejoratives you like (racist, redneck, white trash)?  Then all of a sudden we’re permanently in the 19th century.  Could you be any more obviously racist?”

“Labeling human beings is for imperialists.  If it’s wrong to say race is more important than individuality, then why is it okay to say your race label is more important than my individuality?  You want to label me with your modern equivalent of “nigger” and then put me back into the fields where I belong.  No.  I’m off your plantation, permanently.”

“People like me are growing in number, not shrinking.  We’re not going anywhere.  We stand athwart your road to utopia.  Why not let us build an off-ramp, so we won’t muck everything up for you?  Do it for the black people; we all know that evil white racists are their only problem - let us build an off-ramp and all your problems will disappear.  Why do you insist on torturing blacks?”

====

Or go logical:

“I don’t fit your definition.  Doesn’t that matter to you at all?  Or are you only concerned with making the label stick for the rubes, like a medieval inquisitor with witches to burn?”

====

Notes:
As ever, the response depends on your goals.  Are you trying to persuade your opponent with reason?  (that strikes me as much further down the list of priorities than generally assumed)  Show your opponent he’s dealing with someone with bigger balls, sharper wit, and stronger belief than he?  (that strikes me as the most important thing)

If you’re striving for status/cognitive dissonance (“I’m PeeCee and he’s a heretic, so why is he putting me in my place, and not the other way around as it should be?”), your goal is actually much easier.

That’s my crude preamble to the point of snappy refutations.  Which is why I’ve thought of these exercises as oriented toward in-person verbal engagements, not online textual ones.  If I’m wrong someone correct me.  (snappy refutations can be good textually, too, but nowhere near as important as for interpersonal communications, IMO)

But obviously, GW, you were engaged in a text exchange so maybe I should be concentrating on the secondary applications?

There are several reason-based considerations:

1) Is the statement accurate?  Or more precisely, is it an underpinning of your arguments?  It’s easy to believe in racial superiority without making it a part of one’s political framework.  (just as easy to work it into one’s arguments without actually beliving it)  Kind of hard to address the issue without butting up against the childish habit of liberals* to attack beliefs while ignoring positions; it’s an easy way for adolescent thinkers to skip all the hard work of an actual debate; “don’t worry about what the evil wacist actually says, children!  I’ll tell you what he’s REALLY thinking, via my confabulous telepathy device!” 

I do not base my arguments on superiority.  So, being accused of such constitutes an opportunity for me to kick my opponent in the nuts; I like to get down into the mud on such issues; make them prove the charge, or retract it, or sit there and suck it up while I pour scorn on them.

If one does use superiority as a basis, good luck with it.  I don’t have much experience in that regard, except in short Devil’s advocate doses.

*I’m getting tired of this label.  Anyone else?  I feel more disingenuous by the day, labeling my opponents thus; how many “conservatives” and Republicans fit the bill, yet get a pass when we use this label?  “Westerner” suddenly strikes me as a good substitute.  That way, I’m taking a giant crap on the lot of them, as it should be.  Plus being referred to that way probably makes actual liberals squirm all the more.

2) Is the definition provided accurate?  Dictionary definitions of racism tend to be stricter than the ones actually in use.  Where did my opponent get his?  Should I reject it outright, or quibble?

I see a big problem with definition 2 of racism.  It’s too simplistic.  In what context are we operating?  When it comes to AA, YES, race is ABSOLUTELY more important than individuality.  DUH.  Does that mean race trumps everything?  Of course not.

I had a mind to write more but it has escaped me for now.


55

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:12 | #

Wandrin writes:

MacDonald was on to something talking about White evolution taking a different turn to non-white (including jews)

Yes. It’s pretty obvious we’ve been artificially selected for generations and the result is that we’ve become for the most part domesticated. We can occasionally still be encouraged to stampede this way or that, but we are led by aliens and their lackeys. The leaders who would organize us to throw off these parasites and traitors have been squelched and squashed for so long it’s a wonder there are any who still try.


56

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:35 | #

Tan,

Goldberg replied to that with this:-

The thing is all our interests are served by key shared values that we have in this country: rule of law, liberty, democracy, tolerance, a feeling of pride around institutions such as the NHS and a stable Parliamentary democracy.

... plus a few words of condemnation for Griffin and the BNP.

I replied at length here:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/24/st-george-bnp?commentid=274e5745-e69a-4050-ab4f-150170f1d42d

But he’s kept his head down.  I’d like him to reply, of course, but I doubt that he will now.  He doesn’t want to debate someone who sees his Jewish soul.

Again the quality of comment on the rest of the thread is very poor.  To me, it is indicative of a terrible and final exhaustion.  These creatures no longer have the energy or enthusiasm to demonstrate proofs of their white racism weltanshuuang.  They have passed the zenith of their self-confidence, and now they lie around dissolute, like drugged up political beach bums telling one another they are so, so right, while the tide turns and advances up the beach towards them.


57

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:39 | #

Tanstaafl,

Well I meant the bit in MacDonald’s writing about Whites being more individualistic and non-Whites being more clannish. I think the individualism is what led to our technological advantage however it’s a problem when we share terriotory with more clannish groups.


58

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:23 | #

“Racism is a problem only in racially diverse societies.  So if racism is the only evil left (you guys have “deconstructed” everything else, remember?), then racial diversity is the root of all evil.”

“The primary culprit for “black failure” is racism, right?  Sounds like racism is around every corner, under every hedge.  Why should the accusation bother me when it applies to, well, pretty much everyone but you?”

“As we well know from our friends on the left, racism is EVERYWHERE.  Why do you seem so surprised to find someone who isn’t denying it?”

“White flight, and similar behaviors, prove most whites are racist, too.  Looks like you’re in the minority.”

“97% of all American whites who marry choose other whites as spouses.  Looks like racism to me.  You’ve got your work cut out for you.”

“Most American school kids segregate by race when they get the chance, e.g. at lunch.  Sounds racist to me (well, the white kids anyway)”


59

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:25 | #

GW writes:

To me, it is indicative of a terrible and final exhaustion.  These creatures no longer have the energy or enthusiasm to demonstrate proofs of their white racism weltanshuuang.

I don’t see any exhaustion. They seem to me to have the energy to publish more openly White-bashing articles and op-eds at a faster clip than ever. And I don’t believe they’ve ever had an interest in proving anything. They’re too busy composing their next bit of White-bashing.

Wandrin writes:

Well I meant the bit in MacDonald’s writing about Whites being more individualistic and non-Whites being more clannish.

I’m familiar with it. I was going beyond that to point out the unnatural selection of the past 150 years or so, whose impact is more important. Individualism and even internecine strife didn’t keep Europeans from sailing the world and subjugating most of it. Even as recently as 1945 White men went wherever, whenever, and did whatever they wanted. Our self-confidence and the pursuit of our own self-interests were undermined from within, and it was only possible after our staunchest defenders had been squelched, squashed, bankrupted, assasinated, etc. MacDonald is an avatar, an echo of those past defenders we should hope doesn’t represent our own terrible and final exhaustion.


60

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:27 | #

Well I meant the bit in MacDonald’s writing about Whites being more individualistic and non-Whites being more clannish. I think the individualism is what led to our technological advantage however it’s a problem when we share terriotory with more clannish groups.

I don’t buy that.  I think Rushton’s scale makes more sense, with whites in the middle as usual.  Blacks don’t seem like collectivists to me (mob behavior does not equal collectivism).


61

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:28 | #

Anyone who opposes the forced race-replacement of Euro-race peoples which is right now taking place is on my side as regards the central issue.

Freddie’s also a big fan of Chaim ben Pesach and the JTL.

What’s not to love? smile


62

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:47 | #

Blacks don’t seem like collectivists to me (mob behavior does not equal collectivism).

Inductivist writes:

Friday, June 22, 2007

Mex-Ams are tied to their group almost as much as blacks: The General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans if their ethnic group was important to who they are. Here is the percent of each group that answered “very important”:

Black 66.7
Mexican 58.3
American Indian 41.5
Jews 35.4
Polish 27.3
Italian 24.9
Scottish 23.5
German 23.5
Irish 22.9
English/Welsh 22.2
French 16.7

Mex-Ams are almost as ethnocentric as blacks! And they totally outdo American Indians and Jews. Hundreds of years in America hasn’t fully assimilated blacks and Indians: how long will it take Mexicans who receive fresh blood from the Old Country every day, and when they do assimilate, it’s often toward black ghetto norms?

Tanstaafl also did an analysis on Lyn Swann’s run as a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania discovering a significant shift in black democratic votes to the black candidate Swann despite the affiliation. Of course there is the Obama phenomena. The O man’s a wigger and still they turned out for him in droves.


63

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:17 | #

”Freddie’s also a big fan of Chaim ben Pesach and the JTL ( http://www.jtf.org/ )”  (—Sir Desmond)

Yes that’s right, I’m most definitely a big fan of Chaim ben Pesach and also his associate, David ben Moshe.  Both men are fine, fine, fine Americans, great Americans.  Watching the following video gives me a lump in my throat of emotion, thinking what fine Americans these two men are, grandsons of poor Jewish immigrants from Central or Eastern Europe who at the start of the century came over in steerage with nothing, compared to the wealthy WASP Bush Family, here since the Mayflower, WASP bluebloods, supposed to be leaders of the nation, who are filthy nation- and race-traitors who deserve, every one of them, to be put on trial on capital charges of high treason and genocide.  (I also have huge respect for Rabbi Meir Kahane by the way, a great man, tragically assassinated.)  Here are ben Pesach and ben Moshe, two GREAT Americans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSmedeK4N70&feature=related .

Here’s an Italian mafia member displaying the right thinking, integrity, honesty, good morals and common decency, and patriotism which are so utterly alien to the WASP Bush filth who go all the way back to the Mayflower:  I think Sir Desmond will like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKoEEe7C3dk&feature=related .


64

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:35 | #

Excuse me, ben Pesach’s group is the JTF, not the JTL (link in my comment above).


65

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:52 | #

Tan,

I go back to the days of Nam demos, Hair and student sit-ins.  I remember the energy of the radical-left - something we only glimpse now in the big anti-globalisation demos.  All that remains of the old ideological fervour is prescribed “truths”, and that’s what you see at the Guardian.  Challenge the prescription and what follows is proscription.  I’ve been banned three times in a single day.  Some of my handles don’t even last one thread.  It’s normal to have four, five, six comments deleted in a row.

The censoriousness has increased as the intellectualism has fled the pages.  Where that’s gone I don’t know.  I can’t find anyone with serious ideas to debate.

So something has changed, and I would say the reason is disillusion with the Labour Party.  I think, also, that the intellectuals no longer have the possibility to retire to the mountaintop to reflect on the Next Great Push.  They’ve done transsexual rights.  They’ve got nothing left in the locker.


66

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:56 | #

GW, I’m 2/3 through that thread.  Wow, you’ve got legs.  I’m surprised at what so far remains of your comments.

Just want to quibble, you shouldn’t have let anti get away with the appeal to popularity thing.

It’s not a fallacy if you follow up with the fact that, in the face of universal armament, unilateral disarmament is suicide (and racist-genocidal).  That’s a bit of judo I particularly enjoy using.

Not to mention the fact that anti made appeals to popularity over and over again in his comments (which you might have addressed since I’ve only begun page 3 of the comments).


67

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:59 | #

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 24, 2009, 09:47 PM | #

I attribute such manifestations to nurture, not nature.


68

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:03 | #

They’ve got nothing left in the locker.

They’ve gotten fat and soft and drunk on their own success.  If they’re not fat and soft and drunk enough now, they will be eventually.  Then the hungry-eyed barbarians will move in and take over.


69

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:06 | #

I attribute such manifestations to nurture, not nature.

Plus there are matters of interpretation.

E.g., saying you’re simply “American” or “American first” first is a WHITE TRIBAL DECLARATION.  Non-whites don’t do this, whites do.


70

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:13 | #

Svi: Just want to quibble

You are right, but I have to knock most of these comments out between bouts of running my business.  It’s all rather rushed, and if I had more time to reflect I’d probably do it differently.


71

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:15 | #

Svigor, Tanstaafl

I’m only reflecting here on the point of double standards and about how recognizing a double standard requires recognizing an equal crime or at least giving some weight to an equal crime.

For example, a Pakistani muslim might talk a lot about non-muslim crimes against muslims but if you reply with some muslim crimes against non-muslims they just blink then shake their heads - they reject the data. It does not compute.

So if you have two identical crimes where crime A is muslim vs non-muslim and crime B is non-muslim vs muslim they don’t have the double standard of saying crime A is okay while crime B is bad. They simply don’t recognize crime A as a crime - they blank it out completely and only talk about crime B.

They don’t recognize a double-standard because they don’t accept the crimes of their ethnic group against another ethnic group as a crime. It’s alway rationalized away. It’s deeper than a double standard. It’s a single standard - my kin group is always right.

I think this is how jews are too - they completely reject jewish crimes as crimes so they see no double standard.

Most (but not all in my experience) blacks are the same in terms of not recognizing double standards - they can talk endlessly about bad things done to blacks but black crimes against others don’t compute. I think these people are as inclined to a collectivist ethnic strategy as the other groups mentioned but they’re not very good at it.

Maybe I’m being pedantic about this difference between the two kinds of double standard.

White people can get that way too of course, especially in wartime - crimes stop being crimes temporarily.

Maybe that’s it - they’re always at war.


72

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:41 | #

“I don’t see how the central issue is going to get resolved if one of the primary causes is ignored or played down (especially when done by smearing others who discuss it).”  (—Dasein)

Would you rather have them ignore or play down one of the primary causes and smear others who discuss it and oppose race-replacement, or ignore or play down one of the primary causes and smear others who discuss it and support race-replacement?  (I’ll go with the former.)

“Maybe Auster is better on the JQ (I haven’t read his blog much), but Jobling is hopeless, or perhaps better- destructive.”  (—Dasein)

I don’t know what Jobling’s game is on the Jewish thing, and I agree he can be obnoxious and bitchy.  Are we sure he’s not Jewish?  If he isn’t Jewish himself he’s being dishonest about it somehow — you can “feel” it.  He “goes out of his way to attack us” too much and in bitchy ways.  But look at everything else he’s doing — THAT’s the important thing, not his bitchiness about things Jewish. 

“Maybe you’ll argue that he’s providing a place for people who aren’t ready now to make the leap to the MR platform because the activation energy is just too great”  (—Dasein)

True, that’s one thing he’s doing.  MR is not for the faint of heart.  We saw how it turned Silver into a basket case and is apparently too much for FJ’s nerves.  You’ve gotta be tough to come here.  Not everyone is.  And your brain has to feel sure of itself.  Not everyone’s does.  This site scares people.

“but the danger is that people will get stuck there and end up promoting Jewish interests.”

The Jewish problem isn’t when Jewish interests get promoted.  It’s when Jewish interests get promoted that run counter to Euro-race interests.  If Euro-race interests are not interfered with, it’s no concern of ours if “people get stuck and end up promoting Jewish interests.”  How is that something we should concern ourselves with, assuming our interests remain untouched, unhindered?


73

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:02 | #

Jobling’s Alexa ratings are about a million.  (A millionth place, that is — pretty damn low.  I just looked it up:  it’s ranked about 980,000.)  Gloat, if you must, as payback for his unnecessary bitchiness toward us.  But don’t gloat too much or too long or you’ll be gloating out of the other side of your mouth:  his low rating is bad news for opposition to race-replacement, his site being one of race-replacement’s frankest, most outspoken opponents.  Our interest is best served by supporting Jobling no matter what he thinks of us or what his Jewish fixations are.


74

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:02 | #

So something has changed, and I would say the reason is disillusion with the Labour Party.  I think, also, that the intellectuals no longer have the possibility to retire to the mountaintop to reflect on the Next Great Push.  They’ve done transsexual rights.  They’ve got nothing left in the locker.

This feels true to me also but I think the reason is deeper - at least in Europe. Over the time I’ve been involved in politics the cultural warfare left has been split into two groups - there was a small group of actual cultural marxists and a much larger group of marxised-liberal spawn. In my experience the former group were always far more effective than the latter because they were cleverer and more subtle. In military terms the marxists were the stormtroopers who took the ground while the marxised-liberals were the infantry who moved onto the ground afterwards to hold onto it.

Although I was involved in centre-left policitics for a long time and had pigeion-holed these two groups, I hadn’t clicked until recently that almost all the first group were jewish and almost all the second group were White.

What’s happened in the last twenty years is:

1. A small but growing proportion of the White proponents of the multicult have realised what they’ve done. They believed White people were somehow inherently bad and diluting White people would make a better world and now they’ve seen with their own eyes how wrong they were. These people are dropping out of politics or if they’re still involved they can’t motivate themselves on this issue anymore.

2. Critically. I think a lot of jews realise they’ve messed up. Long before muslims are a majority in Europe they’ll have driven all but the richest and best-guarded jews out. These jews are stuck and don’t know what to do. There’s still plenty pushing the multicult line but their ranks have thinned.

3. Visible ethnic minorities have taken up the slack but they don’t have the advantage jews have of passing for White. Because they’re visible it is much more likely to be seen as self-interested rather than altruistic.

This may be a European-only phenomenon as I think the (partial) collapse in morale of the multicult is heavily related to massive muslim immigration.


75

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:30 | #

David Duke has been arrested in the Czech Republic:

http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czech-police-arrest-former-ku-klux-klan-leader-duke/373167

(Hat tip: VNN Forum)


76

Posted by Axe Head on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:45 | #

I suggest folks go through and report as abuse all the anti-white comments.  Just pick the “hate speech” label.


77

Posted by Axe Head on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:47 | #

I meant to add, at the Guardian page where GW did heavy lifting.


78

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:47 | #

“Former KKK leader David Duke.”

I love it.  He’s been pointing out for years how “Former KKK leader” couldn’t be more consistently prepended to his name if he legally changed it so.

“Former KKK member Robert Byrd”?  Nope.  “Former Irgun Leader” (insert Jew here)?  Nope.  “Former terrorist Nelson Mandela?”  Nope.

Racism?  ‘Course not you racist!

GW: yeah, well, you did brilliantly for posting in haste brother.


79

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:53 | #

Maybe that’s it - they’re always at war.

It’s absolutely that way with Jews.  When a white lemming starts to dip his toe into white interests with trepidation, the Jew sees an army of a million Nazi stormtroopers bearing burning crosses and swastikas stuffing every Jew on Earth into ovens.

That’s why they go from 0 to 60 without going through 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gears.


80

Posted by Thunder on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:05 | #

GW:
One for Thunder ... someone blogging as “hardlyheard” naming the Jew:-

Thanks for that GW.  I had a quick perusal and it looks like the mods have already deleted one comment.  I’ll have a good read tonight maybe I can even offer that familiar scribe some support.


81

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:50 | #

GW writes:

The censoriousness has increased as the intellectualism has fled the pages.  Where that’s gone I don’t know.  I can’t find anyone with serious ideas to debate.

I agree with Wandrin that many of the White useful idiots have wised up and withdrawn from action. I think however that others have redoubled their efforts, more than compensating overall. The anti-establishment vitriol of the 60s has morphed into more plainly expressed anti-White vitriol, because as we have lost political power those who hate us have been emboldened. They run the establishment now. In the US we see evidence of this flip in the media’s open disgust for Palin and the teaparties, and the DHS report warning about “rightwing extremists” and “white supremacists”. They so detest us that even with our flatline racial consciousness we still offend and threaten them.

As for the wane in serious ideas and debate, the most effective argument against our past defenders used to be “you’re crazy, you’re paranoid, you’re imagining bad things will happen because you’re defective. The worst thing that can happen is Nazis. You’re a Nazi! We dare not go near any slippery slope that leads toward repeating that horror, so you are banished!”

Anyone willing to look can see clearly now that many of our memory-holed defenders were prescient, not crazy. Not only that, but it’s obvious that the people who are crazy are the ones who today in the face of overwhelming third world immigration, the complete breakdown in social standards and family values, and non-White violence insist instead that White supremacist boogeymen are the “real” problem. The insanity argument has shifted in our favor. In the one-on-one conversations I have this point is easily made and meets no objections.

This ties in with Auster and Jobling, obsessed as they are with silencing “far-White” and “judeo-obsessive” boogeymen. They do their damnedest to attack even the muted, neutered defenders we still have, because to them the threat of a potential pogrom of jews looms larger and is more important to prevent than stopping the White genocide that is already in progress.


82

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:19 | #

Here’s an excerpt which is à propos, taken from a comment of Prozium’s at Jobling’s forum:

“Ian J:  ‘Also, there is only a small community of non-anti-Semitic pro-whites to begin with.’ “

That’s probably because the very concept of being a “pro-Jewish, pro-white, anti-anti-Semite” is an oxymoron.  While it is true that many anti-Semites are deranged conspiracy theorists who blame the Jews for everything (everyone who has been around this scene a long time has encountered these people), most intelligent, reasonable, openminded pro-whites can see there is an element of truth to what they say.  The American Jewish community is the vanguard of the far left-wing of the progressive movement.  White racial consciousness is anathema to all but a tiny minority of Jews. […] The small minority of pro-whites who post [at Jobling’s site] believe the kookiness of the fringe right is worse than the damage done to our cause by hostile, anti-white Jews.  I don’t see the logic in that judgment. […]  I’m sure that my impression is shared by many others:  what sense does it make to be pro-Jewish when Jews are so typically anti-white? […]

( http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/04/15/the-anti-anti-semites/ )


83

Posted by ScotchFiend on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:13 | #

@Axe Head

Naaahhh, don’t play their censorship game. One of the glories of White civilization is free speech. Pragmatically, it’s better to encourage them display their hatred and contempt for Whites to provide some of the raw material for waking up the larger population of Whites. As time goes on we can mine various manifestations of this into very instructive reading to recruit more Whites into White advocacy.

One idea I’ve had to subvert the widespread censorship practiced by the MSM and many web sites is to create separate comment services where people can comment on existing sites, like the Guardian. Basically it would work by having an add-in within the browser so that when you’re on a web site reading a story, it will automatically notify the user when comments have been censored (e.g. with a little red light). This could be somewhat community driven, so it could have some very flexible features, like the ability to be configured per web site so that the user might be able to submit the comment through the add-in so that it is directly submitted to the comment service, which then passes it through to the original web site.

By submitting the comment directly to the comment server, it knows that the comment should appear before too long in the comment section of the web page. It can also make the comment available immediately to other users. It may then have enough sophistication to periodically check the web page to check in various ways whether the comment was censored (e.g. it never appeared or it appeared and was later removed).

The comment service could also be used to create comments for web pages that don’t have any comment feature, so that when a user hits any web page, they are notified that other comments exist, or they can choose to create a new comment.

An open standard could be created for comment client/server communications, so there might be several different comment servers that exist and the user could choose which ones to check in the add-in. There might even be different comment clients (the program used by people to look at the comments) to choose from.

It can have other sophisticated features, like the ability to filter out comments from people you find annoying, or various rating systems to help identify the “best” comments. It could have a metadata system to help categorize what the comment relates to and have sophisticated search capabilities. It could also provide more sophisticated comment features to better trace the flow of conversation among comments. If it became popular enough, it might pretty much displace the built-in web site comments. The idea is to empower the individual, not the commissars.

You could also create private comment communities if you want to more privately discuss various things on the web.

It could also tie into other information services when that made sense. For example, you could have various White advocacy communities and as members submit or discover interesting comments around the web, they can submit them to their community site very efficiently.


84

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:42 | #

Scotchfiend is surely correct about free speech being part of our racial heritage. Several new and innovative laws are required to deal with non-White immigrant behaviour in UK and at least one of the many egregious interloper offences may be addressed by an “Alien threats to the EGI of the indigenous people” Act. Clunky as it may sound, this law, in essence, would mean that any of the usual dusky “British” suspects may be found guilty of racial ‘lese majeste’, so to speak, and be subject, inter alia, to deportation. Naturally, this measure would not affect the free speech rights of those who are British by descent.


85

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:20 | #

Thunder,

This was the comment that Alexander Goldman’s shotgun-rider deleted:-

hardlyheard

24 Apr 09, 2:20pm

Alexander,

I just checked your profile and your articles at the Guardian. Guess what. They are all about how great Jews are, how bad Sharia is, and how very, very bad the BNP is.

Do you know what? That’s a very nationalist outlook for a Jew. All those Jewish ethnic interests pushed, pushed, pushed, as if there is nothing else that matters in this world.

Now you add how great this “multi-ethnic, multifaith nation” is. For Jews like you, obviously.  But it isn’t great for the English who are being race-replaced. We would like to have a political party in power with as much care for its native people as Israel’s three political parties have for Jews. Or as much as the BBD has for Jews.

You see, it can’t be right for Jews to be hyper-ethnocentric like you, but for the English to be “racist”, “far right” “haters”, can it?

So let’s assume it’s right and proper for all people to care for themselves, and that caring expresses in certain common desires - such as the security of one’s people’s life and the possession of one’s land (land guarantees security, as every Israeli knows).

You can’t possibly disagree with that, can you? Unless you are a double-standardiser and a hypocrite, of course.


86

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:20 | #

ScotchFiend, your idea is excellent.  I’ve also thought such a service would be useful (my posts at CiF have often been deleted).  It’s the sort of thing that the open source community would also be likely to get behind.  Their hatred of ‘the system’ is a trademark.  I bet if you got a few developers together (not sure if you’re one, but from the level of detail you provide I’m guessing you may well be) and started up a SourceForge project you would get some talented people to help out.


87

Posted by John on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 06:32 | #

You could call it “Bullhorn”.


88

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:27 | #

Would you rather have them ignore or play down one of the primary causes and smear others who discuss it and oppose race-replacement, or ignore or play down one of the primary causes and smear others who discuss it and support race-replacement?  (I’ll go with the former.)

I’m not sure it’s that simple.  Suppose I have some rare form of cancer, so far undiagnosed.  I see a bunch of specialists, most of whom say that my symptoms are normal, there’s nothing to worry about.  But one of them realizes the problem and suggests a sensible therapy.  At the recommendation of my granola neighbour, I also visit some homeopath who says that yes, my symptoms are real, but I need to ignore that specialist and that he’s a quack.  I agree with most of what you post Fred, but here I agree with Tanstaafl.  If you believe that Jews are a fundamental cause of the dilemna facing Euros, Jobling and Auster are a problem.

I don’t know what Jobling’s game is on the Jewish thing, and I agree he can be obnoxious and bitchy.  Are we sure he’s not Jewish?  If he isn’t Jewish himself he’s being dishonest about it somehow — you can “feel” it.  He “goes out of his way to attack us” too much and in bitchy ways.  But look at everything else he’s doing — THAT’s the important thing, not his bitchiness about things Jewish.

My theory, and only that, is that Jobling’s not Jewish but he’s hoping that his stance towards Jews will help him land a Jewish wife (I don’t know his biography, but I got the impression from posts at his site that he is single).  Maybe he’s hoping Larry or Michael can introduce him to some nice Jewish girls.  It could be he does it for status, but I get the impression after watching his video that it could also be this something else.

True, that’s one thing he’s doing.  MR is not for the faint of heart.  We saw how it turned Silver into a basket case and is apparently too much for FJ’s nerves.  You’ve gotta be tough to come here.  Not everyone is.  And your brain has to feel sure of itself.  Not everyone’s does.  This site scares people.

I don’t think Jobling provides anything that AmRen doesn’t.  Maybe some oversenstive Jews are more likely to post at his site (and part of the problem is that AmRen doesn’t really provide a decent blogging forum), but these are more likely to be people we don’t want or need.  Exceptions are those like Latte Island who realizes that Jews and Euros don’t belong in the same country.

The Jewish problem isn’t when Jewish interests get promoted.  It’s when Jewish interests get promoted that run counter to Euro-race interests.  If Euro-race interests are not interfered with, it’s no concern of ours if “people get stuck and end up promoting Jewish interests.” How is that something we should concern ourselves with, assuming our interests remain untouched, unhindered?

As long as we’re sharing territory, it’s going to be a zero-sum game.  The only Jewish interest that ought be promoted (and many will rightfully not see it as in their interest) is Aliyah.  And if they are allowed to stay, it cannot be as Jews.  There will have to be some very strict controls to prevent a crypto existence.


89

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:30 | #

BTW, who is FJ?  Is it Fjordman?


90

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:18 | #

Thanks for your replies, Dasein.  I will consider your ideas which, as always, are very interesting.

Regarding the idea Scotchfiend (or “Scotchfriend” as GW writes it) proposes for the creation of a separate comments service where people holding our views can comment on existing sites such as The Guardian without fear of deletion on purely political grounds:  I agree that’s an excellent idea.  Not only that, such a site would be virtually guaranteed to have high web traffic.

Al Ross’s proposal of an Alien Threats to the EGI of the Indigenous People Act is also excellent and ingenious.  Exactly that sort of act, with exactly that sort of name, needs to become one of our side’s explicit goals — or even better than a mere “act” or “law,” it needs to be embedded as a principle in an immutable written constitution or Bill of Rights that cannot be changed by any ordinary voting process (otherwise, quicker than you can say <strike>Jake Rabinowitz</strike> Jack Robinson the Jews will have all the clueless women voters and all the male Euro eunuchoids manipulated into voting to repeal any such law!).  You want the pillars of your society to stand, not be pulled down every five minutes by the Jews, communists, and clueless women voters.  You want them protected, out of Jewish reach.


91

Posted by Armor on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:40 | #

A basic question I would like to see addressed some day in a snappy refutations thread : Why should we defend the existence of our race?
When stupid leftists are at their wits’ ends in a debate about immigration, they will start saying things like: OK, maybe Western civilization and the white race will go extinct, so what?


92

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:18 | #

A basic question I would like to see addressed some day in a snappy refutations thread : Why should we defend the existence of our race?
When stupid leftists are at their wits’ ends in a debate about immigration, they will start saying things like: OK, maybe Western civilization and the white race will go extinct, so what?

I’m not sure there is much point even taking such a question seriously.  It would be like trying to explain why you think your children should live.  The best response would perhaps be a question like ‘so do you think some forms of genocide are ok?’ or ‘do you think an African would be right to oppose the disappearance of his race?’.  They can’t give sane answers to those questions and not concede their hypocrisy.


93

Posted by Tanstaafl on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:18 | #

Why should we defend the existence of our race?

As is often the case throwing it back in their face and putting them on the defensive is effective: “Why not?”

Once they start explaining how much they don’t like Whites or prefer non-Whites you can then say: “Who’s calling who a racist?”, or my favorite, “You just don’t like White people.”


94

Posted by Armor on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:52 | #

Good arguing tactics from Dasein and Tan !


95

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:52 | #

“who is FJ?  Is it Fjordman?”

Yes.


96

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:29 | #

Thanks for the kind words earlier, Fred.  Yes, such a piece of legislation as Al Ross mentions would be a wonderful thing.  There is a section on ethnic constitutions in the Universal Nationalism chapter of Salter’s book which discusses this.  EGI could also be used to create a rational immigration policy.  You would have a points system where genetic similarity would provide the greatest weighting.  The BNP’s immigration platform is pretty darn good already, but this would be an excellent addition.  They could promote it to show they are not xenophobes, simply not degenerate xenophiles.  It would also dissolve the attempts of race-replacement champions to make an issue out of the Irish in England.


97

Posted by Loriver on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:25 | #

Posted by Dasein on April 25, 2009, 06:29 PM | #

EGI could also be used to create a rational immigration policy.  You would have a points system where genetic similarity would provide the greatest weighting.  The BNP’s immigration platform is pretty darn good already, but this would be an excellent addition.  They could promote it to show they are not xenophobes, simply not degenerate xenophiles.  It would also dissolve the attempts of race-replacement champions to make an issue out of the Irish in England.

Surely the only reasonable EGI-minded immigration policy for Britain is 0 (mass) immigration from any other country?

I can’t see any reason why mass immigration into Britain is needed at all, although I agree that if it was desperately needed then more closely related populations would be preferred.

As for the Irish who are already here, that is a different issue of deportations (in which weighting by genetic distance is certainly relevant).


98

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:37 | #

Loriver, I don’t support mass immigration from any country into Britain.  The EGI clause would ensure that any immigration wouldn’t be en masse.  It’s almost only 3rd Worlders who are desperate to leave their countries in large numbers.  Perhaps Poland and the UK is a special case (and Ireland too).  But with an EGI clause you could right away justify keeping 3rd Worlders from the former Empire out.  I don’t think the Irish or Scottish (or Danes- I don’t have Salter’s table handy) want to move en masse to Britain.


99

Posted by Thunder on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:09 | #

Thunder,

GW “This was the comment that Alexander Goldman’s shotgun-rider deleted:-...”

Thanks for the heads up.  Everything you say is true and fair comment but I guess we all know the dice are loaded.  Like Dasein says you have incredible patience.  I know I would get discouraged more easily by censoring.

In a way that is why I often prefer personal exchanges, apart from the frenzied shouting by some, which I find to be more rare than the strange looks and going quiet routine, censoring is less likely.  I only hope afterwards that some may think things through a bit.

But damn, some people are so impervious.  I have been engaging a cousin by email for several years now with reams of information but it just becomes a circular sort of dance by him, not answering questions, name-calling, failing to see his own lack of logic.  I guess much of my email effort is wasted because we lack an audience which fails to keep him honest.  I have invited him to a mutually agreed upon website but he shies from that.

I think that is why these snappy refutations are so effective.  Most people just want to laugh and avoid life’s unpleasantness without thinking through the ultimate consequences.  If you can get most to laugh at the liberal-racist or racist as you call them you can chip into their psyches in a positive way.

As I see it anyhow. Now I have to go make dinner for about 20 or so—big occasion here- so my half-assed promise of support has been shelved.  But please, if not too much bother, do offer the occasional heads up I won’t always pike out.


100

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:16 | #

@Loriver

Surely the only reasonable EGI-minded immigration policy for Britain is 0

I think the idea is that, if we win, all the White nations will need a hard to change constitution that contains an EGI based immigration clause to try and provide protection against this happening again to future generations.


101

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:45 | #

”I think the idea is that, if we win, all the White nations will need a hard-to-change constitution that contains an EGI based immigration clause to try and provide protection against this happening again to future generations.”  (—Wandrin)

In the U.S., Congress can make laws but Congress can’t change anything in the Constitution (or in the Bill of Rights) merely by making a law.  In order to change any of those, the American people have to go through a special process which is much harder.  The process is laid out in Article V of the Constitution, which states:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

In order to amend the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) two-thirds of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate must vote to approve the specific amendment, then three-fourths of the state legislatures must vote to approve the amendment.  (Alternatively, state constitutional conventions can be called, as also spelled out the Article V, a method which is almost never used.) 

The stipulated amendment process is not easy, but it’s possible and of course has been pulled off a number of times since the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights were adopted all together by the same men who wrote and voted to adopt the Constitution itself.  While protections against race-replacement are far more secure as a part of a written Constitution or Bill of Rights than as mere laws, even in that constitutional form they’re not completely beyond the reach of the usual alliance of Jews, communists, clueless women voters, and male eunuchoids unless it’s stipulated that they can’t be changed by the usual amendment process or any other process — stipulate they can’t be changed, period.

Notice the final sentence of Article V stipulates three things the men who wrote the Consitution didn’t want subject to change through the amendment process.  Two had to do with slavery and taxation; the interdiction on applying the amendment process to those two was stipulated to last only until the year 1808, whereafter the interdiction expired and the amendment process could be applied if wished. 

The third thing forbade the rescinding of the equal suffrage of the states in the Senate, and no expiration date was stipulated for this interdiction which therefore is an interdiction in perpetuity:  there’s no way to change it, whether by Congress making a law, or by the Consitutional amendment process. 

A written Bill of Rights is good but the U.S. Bill of Rights can be changed through the amendment process, and even though that’s very hard to pull off, it’s not impossible, so that’s not an ideal situation where protections against race-replacement are guaranteed to be targeted by Jews leading their usual coalition aiming at getting them rescinded.  Protections against race-replacement therefore have to be not just written into a Bill of Rights but categorized as among those things, like the equal suffrage of the states in the U.S. Senate, that cannot be altered, period — cannot be changed by the passage of a new law, cannot be changed by the more arduous constitutional amendment process, cannot be changed at all.  Period.  Ever.

That’s what we want.


102

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:54 | #

Change that to:

The third thing forbade the rescinding of the equal suffrage of the states in the Senate, and no expiration date was stipulated for this interdiction which therefore is an interdiction in perpetuity:  there’s no way to change the equal suffrage of the states in the Senate, whether by Congress making a law, or by the Constitutional amendment process.


103

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:06 | #

For non-Americans:  “equal suffrage in the Senate” refers to the provision in the Constitution that each state shall be represented in the Senate by two Senators no matter how small or big the state is.  California, a giant in land area and population( * ), and Rhode Island, tiny in land area and population, each has exactly two Senators sitting in the Senate and casting votes on their states’ behalf:  the states in this country have “equal suffrage in the Senate”:  fifty states, a hundred Senators, two per state. 

The men who wrote the Constitution said that can’t be changed by the Constitutional amendment process they spelled out for changing any other parts of the Constitution if wished.  It also can’t be changed by Congress making a law:  nothing in the Constitution can be changed by Congress making a law.  If a law Congress makes goes against the Constitution it’s exposed to being declared “unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court and thrown out.

So, we have a category of things that cannot be changed, whether by making laws or by the Constitutional amendment process. 

In future, all systems of government of Euro-populated nations will (once those nations’ demographies have been restored to their proper racial/ethnocultural balance) contain a category of provisions the Jews and communists can’t get at because, exactly like the “equal suffrage of the states in the U.S. Senate,” they’ll be placed out of reach of legislative law-making and constitutional amendment.  Into that special category will be placed the protections against race-replacement. 
______

( *  used to be 90% white forty years ago, now the Jews have changed that to 40% white, 60% mystery meat — but it’s still a giant in population)


104

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:30 | #

“The men who wrote the Constitution said that can’t be changed by the Constitutional amendment process they spelled out [...]”  (—my comment above)

Until a few years ago I would have put “The Founding Fathers” there instead of “The men who wrote the Constitution.”  I no longer use the term “the Founding Fathers” because the Jews have taken that beautiful, almost (for Americans) sacred expression and twisted it, blasphemed it, into meaning this country must be a propositional nation if “its Fathers founded it by writing a constitution.” 

What the Jews leave out of course is those Fathers founded only a republic, a governmental set-up adopted by the already-existing nation to see if it would work.  If it didn’t work they’d discard it and try another.  Those Fathers did not “found a nation” by what they wrote on that piece of parchment:  a nation is blood, not ink on parchment. 

The nation is founded on bloodlines that trace their pedigree back to Jamestown and Plymouth Rock and the Jew, communist, or piece of mystery meat that can change that fact of history has never been born nor ever shall be born. 

Do I make myself clear or should I get that translated into Yiddish?


105

Posted by Loriver on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 18:41 | #

Posted by Wandrin on April 26, 2009, 03:16 AM | #

@Loriver


Surely the only reasonable EGI-minded immigration policy for Britain is 0

I think the idea is that, if we win, all the White nations will need a hard to change constitution that contains an EGI based immigration clause to try and provide protection against this happening again to future generations.

Dasein was talking about a ‘rational immigration policy’ and ‘points system’ which suggested a degree of immigration to me. However, from a racialist perspective the only rational immigration policy is no mass immigration from any different ethny, European or non-European, and I don’t see where any points system would come into this.

I think we should always remember that from a British perspective (or any other distinct European ethnic perspective) the difference between European and non-European immigration is quantitative, not qualitative in terms of EGI.

I appreciate that this is different from the white American perspective, and of course I agree that we want EGI ingrained in the future constitutions of our nations.


106

Posted by Thunder on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:51 | #

Looks like Goldberg won’t be answering hardlyheard at the Guardian.  I guess he had to choose between answering honestly or poorly or ignoring it and not making his double standard clear to others.  I would call that a win.


107

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:42 | #

I just returned to the CiF threads to see what game was grazing within rifle range and found this comment about equality by Anne Perkins:-

How do you do that – how do you compensate for being brought up by a family of serial monogamists determined to eat and drink too much while killing beautiful animals for pleasure, instead of in a family passionately engaged in every aspect of the world around them.

I thought that was too priceless to let pass, and duly logged on as hardlyheard.  Wrote my comment, clicked the button and up came the “submitted to moderator” message.  So Alexander the singularly nationalistic Jew doesn’t need to answer me.  I am a non-person once more.


108

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:16 | #

“Look, old chap, I just want to return to the time when Blacks were considered a curiosity, not a threat”.


109

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:23 | #

Dasein was talking about a ‘rational immigration policy’ and ‘points system’ which suggested a degree of immigration to me. However, from a racialist perspective the only rational immigration policy is no mass immigration from any different ethny, European or non-European, and I don’t see where any points system would come into this.

I think we should always remember that from a British perspective (or any other distinct European ethnic perspective) the difference between European and non-European immigration is quantitative, not qualitative in terms of EGI.

Loriver, perhaps those terms have acquired a pejorative meaning in our current race-replacement regimes, but please don’t read anything into my comments.  Again, I’m not talking about mass immigration.  I don’t think there will be much support for a policy that states there is to be absolutely no immigration between European countries (and I don’t think it’s a good idea).  My point is that whatever immigration there is should have a rational basis, specifically EGI.  It would make more sense for 30% of England’s immigrants to come from Scotland instead of Romania or Pakistan.  One could apply transformations to kinship co-efficients to ensure that essentially zero immigrants are accepted who are racial aliens.  Placing limits on overall numbers and requiring ratios based on ethnic similarities makes complete sense to me.  It seems to me you have undue fear of a slippery slope.


110

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:46 | #

GW, I’m shocked to see though that your last comment addressed to Alexander is still there.  And someone called bayside1x (whose name wisely anticipates the coming ban) has called him out to reply to it.  If Goldberg does address his double standard, he will be the first Jew I have ever seen do so.  Please let us know if he finally replies.


111

Posted by Dasein on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:50 | #

Actually, comments are now closed for the thread, providing Goldberg with his cowardly out.  It seems though that there is some resistance with the moderator contigent, otherwise yours and bayside1x’s posts wouldn’t be there as a black mark on Goldberg.


112

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:17 | #

Dasien,

Thanks for the support, brother, if you are bayside1x.  And thanks just the same if you aren’t.

Goldberg’s articles are all written from the uber-Jew perspective.  Judaic supremacist millenarianism is bubbling away in his mind all the time.  He’ll write some more in the same vein.  I’ll catch him again.

He won’t reply, of course, because that would only open the road to more difficulties.  But how many silent readers will contact the non-Jewish Weltenschauung for the first time, and file it away somewhere inside their heads?

That’s the point, really.


113

Posted by Thunder on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:03 | #

Actually I tried to call out Alexander as bayside1x. Let’s see how long they keep your last comment up. Maybe a series of callouts would help?


114

Posted by Thunder on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:12 | #

@ GW, Dasein

Should have finished reading Dasein.  Well next time maybe Goldberg can be devalued even more.


115

Posted by Armor on Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:14 | #

I’ve found a non-snappy answer to my question asked above: Why not let the white race go extinct.
It is an answer given by William Pierce in a 1976 radio broadcast titled: Our Cause - (mp3). What makes his lecture interesting is that it addresses the basics of the white cause. But a better grasp of the basics can also help people better choose their snappy comebacks, and avoid faulty retorts.

A few excerpts:

Several years ago, I spoke to a class at a private high school in Maryland. / ... / The subject of my talk was the importance of White Americans developing a sense of racial identity and racial pride if we are to survive. When I finished, a White student, about 17-years-old, rose to ask the first question. His question was, “What makes you think it’s so important for the White race to survive?” / I was flabbergasted and at a loss for words. And while I stood there with my mouth open, a young Jew popped up and gave his own answer. “There is no good reason at all for Whites to survive,”

... / the thing which bothered me even more than the phony collective racial guilt which had been pumped into those boys and girls, was my inability to answer the White kid’s question. Why should we survive? That’s one of those questions like, why is good better than evil? / ... / These are questions which most White people, even normal healthy White people, cannot answer satisfactorily today. / A hundred years ago, before the Jews came flooding into our country and taking over our mass media and our educational system, we might not have really needed answers. We just knew that it was important for our race to survive and to make progress. We knew that homosexuality and interracial sex were wrong. Our intuition told us this. The answers were in our souls even if we couldn’t express them in words. But then the Jews—who are clever people, very clever people—came along, and they began asking these very questions. And when we couldn’t answer them, they began providing their own answers.

And here is the main answer Pierce gave in that article:

The attitude of living for the sake of eternity, of living with eternity always in mind instead of living only for the moment; the attitude that the individual is not an end in himself, but rather that the individual lives for and through something greater—in particular, for and through his racial community (which is eternal)—seems to have eluded most of us today. It is an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the Jewish attitude of egoism and materialism. And yet it is the alien Jewish attitude that has been adopted by most Americans today. We have chosen happiness instead of greatness, the moment instead of eternity. We have become a nation—a whole race—of full-time self-seekers, a race concerned with one thing: self-gratification.

All of Pierce’s articles are excellent. On internet forums, I used to rack my brains to give personal answers to the immigrationists. I didn’t know about people like William Pierce. Now I know it’s much more efficient to read what smart people on our side have said and to recycle it.

2. The belief that people’s race is more significant than their individuality. (—GW)

We need to preserve our race because we know every individual will be dead in a hundred years. We need to be part of something greater.

A quote from Richard McCulloch: “The next most compelling reasons [for racial separation] would be those of racial independence, freedom, and self-determination, recognizing that a race exists not only biologically in the bodies of its individual members, but as a corporate body or population with its own racially unique traits and characteristics, whose existence and preservation also requires racial separation.”

I also liked an article by William Pierce, Individualism and Alienation, about the crazy idea that the individual is more important than racial preservation. He said that idea was a sign of alienation.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Nationalism in motion?  Or liberalism reformed?
Previous entry: Physiognomy and Liking: My Experience

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Arktos Alpha-hole commented in entry 'Acrimony on the Alt-Right: Predictably, the Inherent Instability of The Right Emerges' on Wed, 28 Jun 2017 02:13. (View)

Alt-Right Snafus & Kerfuffles commented in entry 'Acrimony on the Alt-Right: Predictably, the Inherent Instability of The Right Emerges' on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 03:47. (View)

Nawaz suing SPLC commented in entry 'Nawaz put at risk by (((The SPLC))), (((Nick Cohen))) blames "The White Left"' on Tue, 27 Jun 2017 01:25. (View)

John K. Press commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:37. (View)

most eligible bachelor commented in entry 'Survivor located of a branch not seen in 30 years among one of the most endangered species' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:42. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:36. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'They 'gave you' Brexit then dissolved into Labour to take away May's power to do anything about it.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 17:00. (View)

We gotta get you a woman commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:49. (View)

Racist commented in entry 'They 'gave you' Brexit then dissolved into Labour to take away May's power to do anything about it.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:34. (View)

T (formerly the Majorityrights.com blogger 'Alex') commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:01. (View)

Sean Gabb / James Kalb discuss liberalism commented in entry 'It's time to put an end to classical liberalism.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:37. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'They 'gave you' Brexit then dissolved into Labour to take away May's power to do anything about it.' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:23. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 05:40. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 02:32. (View)

Abonymous commented in entry 'Marx supported black slavery in America' on Mon, 26 Jun 2017 00:57. (View)

John K. Press commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Sun, 25 Jun 2017 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:40. (View)

Stunning US intel of Putin's direct involvement commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 22:50. (View)

T (formerly the Majorityrights.com blogger 'Alex') commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 16:10. (View)

T (formerly the Majorityrights.com blogger 'Alex') commented in entry 'Theresa May's statement in wake of a White man's attack on Finsbury Park Muslims' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:53. (View)

Putin’s direct instructions to damage Hillary commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 13:22. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:38. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 08:17. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 04:20. (View)

Leeds Great Eddie Gray commented in entry 'Euro Cuck Final: a Disgraceful Epitome of The Cucked European Masculine Instinct for Nationalism' on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 02:38. (View)

al-Baghdadi's death almost "100% certain" commented in entry 'What happens when WNs accept Russian news reports uncritically?' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 23:44. (View)

Greetings to France from Africa commented in entry 'black hyper-assertiveness' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:27. (View)

Somali genius abetted the fire commented in entry 'LONDON'S BURNING: TOWERING INFERNO EXPECTED TO COLLAPSE' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:00. (View)

"I can't answer that" commented in entry 'There's no "there there" to Russian investigation only where the Alt-Right doesn't want there to be.' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 04:48. (View)

Summer Solstice commented in entry 'Nudity in Pamplona. Fancy dress at Stonehenge. Naked ambition in Manchester.' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:19. (View)

Julia commented in entry 'Nudity in Pamplona. Fancy dress at Stonehenge. Naked ambition in Manchester.' on Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:16. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'On Sibelius and Heidegger' on Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:47. (View)

affection-tone