|
|
|
Tectonics and the European revolution Have you had the feeling, as you trawl the big news stories for meanings pertinent to our cause, that we are witnessing right now, in 2011, the unfolding of something extraordinary, something that cannot be mapped in advance, that may change the lives of billions of people, including ours, before its energy is spent? Adrian Hamilton of The Independent certainly has. He writes in yesterday’s rag:
There is something in Hamilton’s idea, I think - at least as regards the Islamic world. One of the commenters to his article weighs up history’s options thus:
... and this also is probably a fair appraisal of the way the two tectonic plates of North African and Middle Eastern politics - modernism and traditionalism - are disposed. But is there anything in this relevant to our situation, above and beyond the very general assumptions that inform Adrian Hamilton’s thinking? Marine Le Pen certainly thinks so, judging from the quote I reproduced a couple of days ago:
Where Hamilton with his unpredicatability thesis and Marine with her pre-revolutionary situation differ is on the question of time. Nationalists know something about revolution. We have been thinking on the problem for a long while. We understand that the opposing tectonic plates on which our lives are lived out - racial community and individualism/economism - move at certain moments, and not necessarily with the peaceful results for which Marine appeals. The American Civil War was perhaps the classic example. The rise of Hitler and NSDAP was another. The Kosovo War was the most recent. So, following (Adrian) Hamilton’s Rule are there signs in the European world that history is on the move at last? Or is it just that the drive towards the Globality is pushing on and in turn nationalism, in its struggle to resist, is getting things a little more right with Marine, Wilders and associated civic and anti-Islamist politicos? In other words, the pressure is continuing to build but there’s no sign of any European earthquake, and no matter what happens in North Africa and the Middle-East our historic moment, if it is going to come at all, will come in its own sweet and, one must hope, demographic rather than geological time. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:29 | # Both Wilders and Marine are also psych-operations - directed from both sides. (Grimoire) Please descend from Olympus, and explain exactly what is meant by “psych-op”, as well as how you know this to be the case. Is the implication that ‘hidden hands’ from afar are manipulating Arab unrest? If so, this would merely provoke further questions: how? and why only now, and not at points past? Revolutionary movements are no mystery, at least theoretically. First, the old situation is rendered mentally (intellectually, morally, ideologically) indefensible. Then, some incident occurs which raises a sufficient number of persons to such a pitch of either anger or courage that the old repressive measures are suddenly inadequate. Finally, the regime in power is either unable to develop or unwilling to deploy new measures of repression sufficient to quell the inflamed populace. I don’t think that what is happening in the Arab world will be transferable to Europe just yet. The Arab case is a simple delegitimization of the autocratic regimes there, coupled with the use of new communication technologies to facilitate and embolden mass demonstrations against them. The roots of the Arab unrest lay in huge and increasingly visible disparities of wealth; surging youth populations, with a surprisingly large university-educated component; stagnant economies with massive unemployment, and few prospects for meritocratic self-improvement; and the penetration of European-originated liberal and democratic egalitarian ‘ideals’ into ever more remote places (I do not mean to endorse those ideals, either politically or ethically, nor suggest that they were the inevitable or sole outcome of Western intellectual evolution; merely, that they tap into deep and trans-racial currents of envy and desire permanently latent in the human psyche). Will there be analogous “national revolutions” in Europe? One hopes so, but the probability is not good. The raw material situation for the average European is not nearly what it is for the “Arab street”. The possibility of individual economic improvement is infinitely greater. Europeans have the illusion of democratic self-government already. Moreover, what keeps nationalists from majoritarian acceptance - passionate empirical disagreement about the assimilability of nonwhites to European national folk cultures, and norms and patterns of morality and behavior - is far more intellectually embedded among our own masses than any apologia that Arab autocracies can plausibly offer. What was the moral or practical justification for assenting to continued rule by Mubarak or any of the Gulf sheiks, let alone Assad or Qaddafi? But standing athwart the nationalist and power is the steel battlement of “anti-racism”, itself made up of the very strong substances of “human brotherhood”, “equality”, past “injustices” and their alleged present effects, etc. Asking men to give up on all those things, especially when they are constantly promoted by and through elites who benefit in very identifiable ways from the economies and societies resulting from acceptance of such platitudes, is not nearly as easy as merely denouncing regimes whose parasitic relationship to their own governed is obvious even to women and children. 3
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:33 | #
But who or what is pulling the strings, Gmoire? The Joos or political expediency as relates to the intractability of the zeitgeist for revolutionary purposes at present that demands the political figures you mention water down their message in order to be electorally viable? You have advocated adopting a watered down explicit message in the past. Who or what is pulling your strings, the Jews, or political expediency? An answer that does not delve into all imaginable Kraut esoterica would be appreciated. 4
Posted by Bill on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:41 | # Only last night I came across this… A discussion on the existential crisis of our civilisation. “The Rim of Fire, the Mass Strike, and the Crisis of Civilization.” Hosted by Harley Schlanger. http://www.larouchepub.com/radio/index.html Many out there, like Revolution Harry, are pretty well convinced this denouement has been planned for centuries. Looks to me they are one and the same. Take you pick. 5
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:43 | # Where Hamilton with his unpredicatability thesis and Marine with her pre-revolutionary situation differ is on the question of time. Nationalists know something about revolution. We have been thinking on the problem for a long while. We understand that the opposing tectonic plates on which our lives are lived out - racial community and individualism/economism - move at certain moments, and not necessarily with the peaceful results for which Marine appeals. The American Civil War was perhaps the classic example. The rise of Hilter and NSDAP was another. The Kosovo War was the most recent. (GW) This paragraph is unintelligible to me. Please elaborate. I fail to see how these three examples (US Civil War, Nazis, Kosovo) are related, at least to the tension between race/nation and individual/economy. 6
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 08:53 | # LaRouchites at MR? I once saw a LaRouche flier stipulating the Queen Elizabeth was involved in drug-running. Never, never poison the well of national preservation with intellectual extremism. Ideological, certainly; indeed, even by definition we are ideological extremists (ie, we reject the hegemonic ideology of anti-racism). Being so means we must be that much more vigilant against associating our cause with grandiose theories and unsupported, unlikely or outlandish claims. Our strategy must be to coopt as much of mainstream conservative discourse as possible into both our thinking and public pronouncements, while ceaselessly pointing out that true conservatives must be racial nationalists; that conservatism begins at the level of the gene, and thus that “colorblind conservatism” is hardly conservative at all. 7
Posted by Silver on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:25 | # But standing athwart the nationalist and power is the steel battlement of “anti-racism”, itself made up of the very strong substances of “human brotherhood”, “equality”, past “injustices” and their alleged present effects, etc. Not a word about the obvious fact that people increasingly like each other and are increasingly related to each other (which has the effect of lessening psychological resistance/making it more difficult, even when one is attracted to “traditionalist” views). Leon Haller’s brain seems to be stuck in 1982 when so much of all this was still new. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:06 | # Not a word, Silver, because it’s not true. The opposite is happening in Europe. The politicians know it. That’s why Merkel and Cameron have criticised Multiculturalism. Leon, I am puzzled as to why that paragraph is not clear. Is it not obvious to American dissidents that the racial communitarianism of the white South, with its sense of land, its fealty to culture and tradition, was inimical to the egalitarian and hyper-individualist North, with its fealty to materialism, economism and mercantilism? Is it not obvious that this model of an aggressive and morally puritanical constructed life offended by and offending against the Nature it has eschewed is the political ground on which we all stand? 9
Posted by Randy Garver on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:06 | # Guessedworker:
You’re erroneously conflating multiethnicism with multiculturalism. 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:20 | # Erm ... not me. Merkel and Cameron, for whom Multiculturalism, as official policy, is a proxy for multiracialism. They can never ever mention the reality of the latter. 11
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:26 | # Not a word about the obvious fact that people increasingly like each other and are increasingly related to each other (which has the effect of lessening psychological resistance/making it more difficult, even when one is attracted to “traditionalist” views). Leon Haller’s brain seems to be stuck in 1982 when so much of all this was still new. (Silver) Silver, Sometimes I agree with you, but often I find your positions, to the extent they are expressed intelligibly (as the above comment was not), simply empirically wrong. You also are prone to misunderstanding the central import of my remarks in light of their various contexts. Here I was not discussing whether whites have become more comfortable with nonwhites, but whether we can expect some kind of Euro-folkish uprisings analogous to what has been happening in the Arab world. I did not mention people increasingly ‘liking’ each other (meaning whites liking nonwhites), because that is not particularly the case, even for whites (nonwhites may like this or that individual white, but get them to ‘unload’ on whites qua whites, and virtually any large sampling of them will constitute little but a mass of seething anti-white resentments). Yes, some whites are hysterical anti-racists. They possess evolutionarily maladaptive psyches, and will be either reeducated, expatriated or exterminated in the course of or after any nationalist revolution(s). Most whites, however, go along with their own dispossession for many reasons, from fear to apathy to ignorance to (false) morality. Nationalist intellectuals challenge and try to change racial ignorance (the egalitarian falsehoods spread about race), as well as beliefs about the alleged immorality of white preservation (specifically, of using the coercive power of the state to ensure race preservation, even against some white persons’ non-aggressive wishes), through education. We deal with apathy by fear-mongering - pointing out how bad life is going to get if we allow ourselves to be turned into defenseless minorities in our own homelands. We deal with fear by forming organizations to bind like-thinking persons together. I do not believe that most whites support their racial dispossession because of their personal positive feelings toward nonwhites. If that were so majorities might not register opposition to (implicitly nonwhite) immigration. Whites would also not avoid en masse nonwhite dominated living areas, schools and activities. I think the most accurate assessment is that whites, especially in Europe, tolerate immigrants, but don’t particularly want them. That nationalist parties cannot make headway based on this issue, especially outside of the US with its unique and limiting duopolistic political system, is a cause for great wonder - though I continue to think that a large part of the reason is precisely because they tend to attract mentally unstable persons (very much including here at MR; even many of those whom I like and certainly view as comrades in arms do not strike me as normal in the way that I am; hence the extraneous and irrelevant obsessions, non-standard dress, often odd manners of articulation, general inability to distinguish the central from the peripheral, and so forth). And this is so for very complex reasons, which I grasp at least in part (though not yet to my own satisfaction), but their essence is twofold, implicating both thought and action: 1) most whites at some often unarticulated mental level think white racism is morally wrong; and 2) a ‘system’ has evolved whereby the most talented persons in Western societies are professionally rewarded in part to the extent they shy away from racial truth. What kind of man is going to go against the race-liberal zeitgeist? Either a professional inferior, who has little to lose through involvement with disreputable activities, or a truly superior man of far reaching intellect and great strength of character. The problem is that we continue not to attract enough of the latter (though as the objective racial situation worsens, the quality of nationalist leadership is improving, at least on the Continent). I believe this is the case because too many whites cannot fathom the essential morality of our position. And that is so because the morality of racial coercion to ensure racial preservation has not yet, in my opinion, been fully developed. This is the chief theoretical task for nationalists, and the area to which I am applying myself (though I remain still in the research phase). The empirical truth is that many whites exist in a condition of racial doublethink (per Orwell). Personally, they don’t particularly like nonwhites in their lives (despite being far more open to cross-racial fraternization than other races). But psychologically (really morally) they can’t bring themselves to cross the mental barrier of acknowledging that race matters, and that they would prefer that other races just didn’t interact with them. For reasons I myself only recognize, but cannot really fathom, whites uniquely possess some incredibly deep reservoir of egalitarianism that makes them gullible in the face of liberal/individualist antiracism (not, however, the antiwhite ‘antiracism’ of the white self-hating and nonwhite Far Left, which gets little traction with most whites, even liberal ones). Obviously, my empirical ‘take’ can be legitimately and endlessly disputed, precisely because humans, especially in advanced societies, are variegated. Historians and social theorists can only capture broad trends. We all know someone who is this way, another that way. Re miscegenation, I have discussed the dangers of that repeatedly here at MR, including in 2011. Go back and scroll through the last few months of posts, and you will find plenty of my comments on the subject. 12
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:56 | # GW, I understand and accept the dichotomy between racial communitarianism and liberal hyper-individualism and idolatry of homo economicus. I’m less sure that that tension had much to do with the US Civil War, Nazism or the Kosovo intervention. Maybe I’m failing to see your point. Re the Civil War, we need to beware of the excessive, ex post facto rationalizations imposed from all sides. The South was not so devoid of economic considerations, and the North was hardly a paradise of multiculti correctness. There is a whole literature on how Lincoln blundered into the war, which was fought primarily over the preservation of the Union, and not slave emancipation, which only a small percentage of whites cared about (though later generations of liberals had to find ‘meaning’ in the immense carnage, and came to choose that one - which also intersected nicely with the propaganda swirling around WW2, the rise of social Gospel Christianity, accelerating Jewish media control, Democrat political considerations, etc). Hitler arose through various political machinations. His popularity was mainly based on a real fear of (Jewish) communist subversion, resentments from WW1, economic disaster, and his own superlative political and rhetorical abilities. Kosovo was a NWO action. It was an exercise of raw globalist power against a small and traditionalist white country. The liberal ideology of the Clinton/Blair types was obviously the driving factor. There was little economic gain or motive, as far as I can tell. I was not thinking philosophically, but historically, when I made my statement above. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:37 | # Leon, you said it with your last sentence. To be specific, I’m talking about what the politics of the age make of Man, and the conflict that arises when the outcome is so estranged from his nature. I am always talking about this. Maybe I am serially guilty of imagining anyone understands what I’m getting at. If so, I apologise, and will try harder. That said, I still think this precise dualism is what, for example, the New Right talks about all the time, and what traditionalists and conservatives, revolutionary conservatives, perennialists, fascists and every other variety of malcontent with the modern has always talked about. 14
Posted by Jackonis on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:41 | # Multiculturalism=multiracialism; Cameron and Merkel blather and waffle incongrously but as far as action is concerned they are a big Zero and continue to be hard as steel cogs in the wheel of multicuturalism-multiracialism. European tolerate non whites ? wrong; their craven leadership are the ones that tolerate, promote it and legislate antiracism laws which simply means legislating against the european’s free expression of will and thought. The only way to liberate the european is through a revolution, a racial revolution, We can not be tolerant and nice toward those who seek to delete us from the globe. A racial revolution is a long long way off. One has to be careful the number of colonizers, afro-asian colonizers on the continent of europe does not reach a ” point of no return”. One can not effect or carry out a racial revolution in a Brazilianized Europe . 15
Posted by Silver on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:35 | # Not a word, Silver, because it’s not true. The opposite is happening in Europe. The politicians know it. That’s why Merkel and Cameron have criticised Multiculturalism. No, I think Randy’s right. It’s immigration and multiculturalism (particularly brazen, in-your-face rubbish like Islam) that people are reacting against more than the bare fact of multiracialism. (For now, anyway.) There’s only so much pro-immigration claptrap listen to you can hear before you start to figure out the boosters are full of shit. I’d surmise that increasing numbers have decided that resisting the further entry of aliens into one’s territory is morally unimpeachable. And there are only so many filthy little freedom-go-to-hell-placard-toting koranimals you can tolerate before you start wondering just why in the hell you are tolerating them (ie what’s in it for me?). So I think increasing numbers have decided that telling these fuckers to piss off is likewise morally unimpeachable. But multiracialism itself? To the point they’d be ready to entertain “authentic being” (or whatever it is you’d ask of them) and the promulgation of the expulsion edicts that (so you teach) will surely follow? That’s seems a long way off yet. I mean, come on, thirty years ago you could smirk with impunity at “the wogs” and fully expect to elicit if not enthusiastic agreement then at least a knowing grin. These days… not so much. Allow to me proffer the anecdotal evidence of my nightclubbing career. Fifteen years ago I could unquestionably provoke a fight (or at least the actions that would lead to provocation) on a racial basis purely by setting foot in the ‘wrong’ establishment (which I never did, because are things one just “knew”). These days, well, I’ve tested it. Things have unquestionably changed. I don’t know what I’d have to do to provoke an overtly racial attack; a lot more than my mere presence would be required. Look, maybe people don’t love all racial others equally. But their horizons certainly seem to have expanded beyond just their own group. In practise, I suspect that true comfort is only found among those visibly different but still in the racial ballpark. But my guess would be that people can immediately see the inherent arbitrariness of attempting to strictly delimit their racial preferences once they extend beyond their own group, so, despite sticking to their own kind in practise, they feel compelled to mouth agreement with blanket antiracism. Haller, You also are prone to misunderstanding the central import of my remarks in light of their various contexts. Here I was not discussing whether whites have become more comfortable with nonwhites, but whether we can expect some kind of Euro-folkish uprisings analogous to what has been happening in the Arab world. I know what you were discussing. But the fact that people do increasingly like each other means that it today makes up part of the “steel battlement of anti-racism” (in addition to the other factors you listed). This wasn’t necessarily the case twenty, thirty years ago. But it’s the case today. It’s part and parcel of what “antiracism” means in the minds of more people than ever before. Obviously what antiracism means in the minds of people who consider themselves antiracists is far more important than what you or I think antiracism means (or should or could mean). 16
Posted by Silver on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:43 | # One has to be careful the number of colonizers, afro-asian colonizers on the continent of europe does not reach a “ point of no return”. Well now, if it’s the entire “continent of Europe” you’re concerned about, then, in reality, it reached a “point of no return” hundreds of years ago. Or do you really imagine you’re going to empty out Iberia and Italy (to use but two examples) of half to three quarters of their contents? I hope not—and not least because I’m pretty sure few of the inhabitants there harbor any sort of plan to delete you from the globe. 17
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:34 | #
The premise is false. The Anglo-Saxon is not estranged from his nature because of his pronounced individualism. It is who he is. And secondly, war is proximate. History is full of proximate individuals, tribes and groups battling over resources. It is a basic truth of evolution. It is natural selection. It is also a vast exaggeration, to say the least, that Northerners embraced the Negro as his equal. 18
Posted by Hamish on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:10 | # Silver, While the amount of non-European admixture in Italy and Iberia may be somewhat more than what’s usually found in Northwest European countries, it’s still infinitesimal as compared to the amount of non-European admixture found in Brazil. Therefore it’s outrageous and idiotic for you to point to those two regions as evidence that parts of Europe have already been “Brazilized”. There’s no comparison whatsoever. You really are a two-faced and rotten person who is so utterly lacking in integrity that you’ll even pretend to believe the positions of an extreme Nordicist if only it can help you minimize the magnitude of what’s being done to European gentiles by your backstabbing race. Jews like you make me understand why so many Europeans in history have decided that trying to argue with people who lack anything resembling good faith is a fool’s errand. It makes me understand why they felt words were not answer enough to such cunning, such lies and such incomprehensible wickedness. Europeans, by and large, actually care about this thing called reality. Jews only care about tying the minds of their enemies and potential enemies in knots with circumlocution. We need to seperate, for once and for always, all Europeans from this hissing race of vipers! 19
Posted by danielj on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 04:24 | # Jews like you make me understand why so many Europeans in history have decided that trying to argue with people who lack anything resembling good faith is a fool’s errand. And yet, there it is again… 20
Posted by danielj on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 05:03 | # Look, maybe people don’t love all racial others equally. But their horizons certainly seem to have expanded beyond just their own group. This is undoubtedly true and on a deeper level than you suggest. I will be posting on this very subject soon and hopefully GW will be so kind as to crosspost here. 21
Posted by Hamish on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:09 | # DanielJ, The day of reckoning will come, but it has not yet come. In the meantime I wish the worst and most dishonest of the Jews, such as Silver, could be banned from commenting at this website. Silver only seeks to mislead the readers and in addition makes my perusal of this site much less enjoyable than it would be otherwise. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:45 | # Desmond, As always, because you think down one narrow line you miss the wider meaning. Try, please try to understand that the natural architecture of the psyche, which gives us our sociobiology, is different from personality of Man. A statement about the psyche is not a statement about personality, and vice versa. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:49 | # This is undoubtedly true and on a deeper level than you suggest. There is a deeper level than take-away food? I look forward to receiving the submission, Daniel. 24
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:12 | # The fact is, there is a stitch-up at parliamentary level in which the political class rules ‘race’ out of bounds, and therefore shuts down the debate before it can even start.At least in the UK.This strategem has worked successfully, very successfully for over 50 years now, and the effect is to literally blindside the sheeple to what’s happening by rendering ‘race’ as a non-issue. 25
Posted by danielj on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:14 | # There is a deeper level than take-away food? Yes and no. Take away has become a big deal. We’ve weaved that and other small things into the fabric of our daily lives. Somebody who can be rational about it all (myself) won’t have a problem drawing distinctions after the revolution starts but somebody who hasn’t thought it all through will be compromised. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:23 | # Dirty Bull, Do you think it would be difficult, then, for a nationalist political party speaking the absolute truth and, therefore, testing the capacity of liars to hide their nature ... and difficult for a nationalist political party offering, alone among all the parties, the English people life and English children their birthright, forcing the liars to defend their own vision of the English future (a non-future) ... do you think it would be difficult for such a nationalist party, a party, moreover, led by intelligent and articulate men and women who are not agents of the state security services, to break the political bounds, smash the media’s control, the academic left’s control, the international financiers’ control, and save our people. Political nationalism in Britain has the biggest target in political history to aim for. We can’t miss. Unless, of course, we are designed to miss, built to fail. 28
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:24 | # Well GW, the greatest immigration wave (in both proportionate and absolute size), since at least the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the 500s has just passes us by and is on the way to becoming a mere memory - of interest only to disinterested scholars combing the newspapers of yesteryear. Who (apart from us) even remembers let alone talks about Andrew Neather and his bombshell now?, Didn’t he go as far to say that New Labour actually had the deliberate, pre-meditated, malicious policy of reducing the English to a minority in their own homeland, just for the sake of doing so? 29
Posted by Dirty Bull on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:34 | # I think that it is no coincidence that the European nations in which political nationalism has made the greatese gains (ie nationalist parties actually have a say in parliamentary discourse), are by and large the same countries that embraced protestantism most fervently during the reformation. 30
Posted by Bill on Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:31 | # Dirty Bull March 26, 2011, 03:24 PM Over at the British Democracy Forum .... http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/bnp/91065-problems-facing-nationalist-parties.html a thread has been initiated by a commenter ‘Cyril’ entitled, ‘The problems facing nationalist parties’ A reply on page one of the thread @ 03.32 PM by a commenter with the handle of Henry Palfrey, otherwise known as Guessedworker of Majority Rights replies to the question. He, Guessedworker, in his comment links to a story appearing in the Independent on Sunday the 20th March 2011, which I read for the first time. My reason for bringing all this to your (and others) attention is the similarity of convergence of content (albeit loosely) contained in the conversation therein, which could prove interesting if enlarged upon. I will not comment further (at this stage) as there is so much to cherry-pick from. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 01:49 | # Well spotted, Bill. Yes, this nexus of related issues is a connector between mainstream liberal and nationalist thought, and leads both to the same question: how do we unite our respective constituencies behind us. The difficulty in both cases is the sundering effect of liberalism itself. How does one make an appeal based in unity to a sundered political entity? One can’t feel much sympathy for liberals since they have created this problem for themselves, and even less when the mainstream parties have been solving it by removing the issues that touch on conflicted interests from the debate. Happily, this has brought politics into gross disrepute and raised potential issues of the consent of the governed. For nationalists appealing only to the indigenous voters the problem is, if anything, more acute. The appeal that nationalism is, by definition, bound to make is to shared ethnic interests. But substantial parts of the electorate are so estranged from those interests, and so filled-up with the postmodern pieties, nationalism has to educate as well as politic for votes. And today we don’t know how to go about that. We have simply relied on isostacy - a dangerous and uncertain game. 32
Posted by danielj on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 09:52 | # Suggestibility is always with us, Daniel. Oh that it weren’t so. I look forward to receiving the submission, Daniel. And it may or may not arrive. White Nationalism is wearing me down. Plus, I’ve been busy getting tattooed, playing guitar and pretty much being White trash. Not much time for anything else when you are busy being trash. 33
Posted by Bill on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:53 | # The problem with nationalist parties - A question raised by ‘Cyril’ on the British National Forum 27th March 2011.
Cyril thinks British Nationalism….
I don’t think Britain has ever had a nationalist party, specially so after 1999….see…. ‘This Honourable and Noble Cause, Part 1 (State Interference in Lawful Political Parties)’ The time wasted since 1999 in pursuit of a British Nationalist cause has been criminal. Still, we are where we are. Even so, there is no doubt the overall national conversation and awareness with regard to nationalism and mass immigration has changed beyond recognition - anyone who has been here for any length of time must agree this is so. Perhaps this is a good moment to partially answer a question that has always intrigued me. Has the Internet made a difference? It would be folly to suggest that it hadn’t made a difference, but I do think we here in the blogosphere have tended to exaggerate its effectiveness. As I say, we are where we are. Where next in this post modern 21st century global mystery tour? Things seem to be moving in indecent haste these days, the conspiracy people think this is logical but to us lesser privileged, we have nothing but our personal crystal ball to navigate our way through this uncharted maze. The national conversation of globalism, mass immigration, multiculturalism, the economy, the deficit, the politics of austerity, the politics of celebrity, royalty, 20 overs cricket, and endless soccer, is in the vice-like grip of the media in all its forms. The media, is the most important weapon the elites possess and they will not release their grip willingly. Perhaps here lies the crux of the nationalist’s problem, the real (as it is) conversation is confined to a minute portion of the Internet blogosphere - never to extend beyond the bubble to the general public. Our United Kingdom has been divided and conquered from within, our people battered and bewildered into submission. Is this the bottom? Can we sink any further into this atomised liberal cesspit? I’m not holding my breath. What is the solution? Cyril of BDF asks. The truth is none of us really know, but we’re sure working on it, and this only scratches the surface. 34
Posted by Bill on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:25 | # GW. 27 03 2011 12.49AM
I am/was not familiar with the term sundered, so a quick Google search was called for. America sundered. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016118.html Spine chilling. Does Britain (Europe) face such a nightmare? 35
Posted by Silver on Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:48 | # Therefore it’s outrageous and idiotic for you to point to those two regions as evidence that parts of Europe have already been “Brazilized”. Where did I say that those regions (and others like them) had been “Brazilianized” (ie to the degree that Brazil is)? I said they are inextricably mixed. The “point of no return” (to pure whiteness) was unquestionably breached a long time ago. (Stop right here: do you actually doubt any of this?) Incredibly, you then attempt to turn this around on me, as though I were doing anything but responding to the creep who illegimitately considers the entire “continent” of Europe his rightful preserve. This is why I say your indignation gets the better of you. You get so mad you can’t see straight and then you lash out at those who respond to you as though they were the guilty party. Hey buddy, I didn’t invent “WN.” I would have wanted no part in these discussions had I not discovered your overreach into realms where your disgusting opinions are not wanted or appreciated. It’s common knowledge among observers of your movement that there’s no lie you won’t tell, no artifice you won’t resort to in the attempt to sugarcoat what you’re all about; you’ve been scratching your heads about how best to do it for years. I’m no Jew but I most certainly sympathize with those people and share their extreme wariness of your motives. As for ruining your experience of reading this blog, heh, that’s a rich. You’re a hypocrite of the highest order. You single me out for (what you imagine is) abuse time and again and yet have the gall to issue demands for bans on the basis of your displeasure at being forced to read opinions that stick to the topic at hand. As for ruining your experience of reading this blog, heh, that’s a rich. You’re a hypocrite of the highest order. You single me out for (what you imagine is) abuse time and again and yet have the gall to issue haughty demands for bans on the basis of your displeasure at being forced to read opinions that stick to the topic at hand. Dasein, That’s only because the media provides an outlet for some degree of honest discussion on those subjects. But it’s reasonable to assume that (limited) discussion of those subjects has been permitted because of pressure to discuss them coming from outside. I’m not sure there has been similar pressure to discuss race. Look, I don’t doubt for a second that concerns about multiculturalism/Islam/ongoing immigration aren’t often synonymous with race. My point is that they’re not always so. Either because those concerned are newcomers who have only become concerned in recent times, and are specifically concerned about growing numbers of other kinds/cultures; or because those whose real concern is race are uneasy with the term itself, given the tendency to perceive concern about race being “absolutist” in nature—ie, you care about race, then that’s it, you’ll point blank refuse to look beyond another person’s race or even consider him human. That’s just too much for many people. They want a softer edge to race but don’t know how to give it one. They don’t know how to talk about race in a reasonable tone. WNs are no help. WNs are a massive hindrance. So these people remain in limbo; yes, they care about race, but no, they don’t care about race. 36
Posted by Hamish on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 02:59 | # I said they are inextricably mixed. The “point of no return” (to pure whiteness) was unquestionably breached a long time ago. (Stop right here: do you actually doubt any of this?) This is a strawman attack on a form of racialism I don’t believe in. I don’t think there’s some platonic state of “pure whiteness”; I don’t think that at all. I define “White” to mean someone of overwhelmingly indigenous European descent. It’s a biologically meaningful concept because Europe is unusually homogenous in genetics, much more homogenous than (for example) the nation of China. Some indigenous European blood leads to a more brunette and tanning oriented phenotype, I don’t view this in itself as evidence of non-indigenous admixture. I rather view it as a natural adaptation to the climate in the south of Europe. Take one of the ethnicities you dubiously claim to be descended from: the Greeks. If the Greeks didn’t tan under the sun they probably would’ve died off from skin cancer long ago, so why should I begrudge them their phenotype? Greeks fit into the gene map of Europe almost exactly where you’d expect them to be based on geography and history. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html Most Europeans undoubtedly do have a few non-European ancestors if one goes back far enough. But though southern Europeans probably average out to having more than northwest Europeans, the southern Europeans who lack admixture with post-WWII immigrants are still overwhelmingly indigenous. These are the southern Europeans I fervently wish to see preserved. This doesn’t mean I think southern Europeans have some kind of magical right to immigrate to other European countries every time they feel like it, any more than I think northern Europeans have some kind of magical right to immigrate to southern Europe. The southern Europeans already in Northwest Europe should be treated well and have their rights respected, but that doesn’t mean they’d be anything wrong if the English (for example) decided to cut off further immigration from the continent (I mean of course that the English would be doing this in the context of also cutting off all non-European immigration). While all indigenous European ethnic groups have a common interest in defending ourselves against the non-European hordes who seek to replace us, that doesn’t mean that the charming differences between different European nationalities need be diluted more than they already have. An Englishman and a Frenchman, or a German and an Italian, have no duty to interbreed or learn each other’s languages, but they DO have a duty to defend their common European homeland against by far the worst attack it has ever faced. Hey buddy, I didn’t invent “WN.” I would have wanted no part in these discussions had I not discovered your overreach into realms where your disgusting opinions are not wanted or appreciated. You’re an idiot. Why don’t the Greeks want to keep Greek Greek? Why don’t the Italians want to keep Italy Italian? I’ll tell you why: For the exact same reason the English don’t want keep England English. Because the course of the 20th Century saw almost all European ethnic groups go weak, saw them turn into people who care more about holding politically correct opinions than protecting the precious genetic heritage their ancestors sacrificed so much to preserve. What’s disgusting about my opinions? I just think that all European ethnic groups other than Jews and Gypsies are White, and that they have a right to defend their turf just like every other group does. Even Auster understands this:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018975.html Why the holy hell can’t we be allowed the privilege of at least going down with a fight, O Leftist? The only other controversial opinion I hold is that in the same way as Israel excludes European Christians, I think Europe should exclude Jews. They just plain hate us, and it’s about goddamned time that we took the hint. The Gypsies should be allowed to stay, if only because they have nowhere else to go and have been much less harmful than Jews, but should still be cut off from the bonanza that is the European Welfare State. Everyone else in Europe other than the post-WWII immigrants, I have absolutely no problem with and no bone to pick with, except for the bad individuals of various European ethnicities who have decided that selling out our race is easier or more lucrative than standing up against those who would destroy us as revenge for Dacha, as revenge for the Inquisition, and as revenge for a thousand slights most of which only exist inside their paranoid yiddish kops. It’s common knowledge among observers of your movement that there’s no lie you won’t tell, no artifice you won’t resort to in the attempt to sugarcoat what you’re all about; you’ve been scratching your heads about how best to do it for years. This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. I think southern Europeans have as much of a right to the south of Europe as northwest Europeans have to northwest Europe, as the English have to England or the Finns to Finland. Seriously, what’s your fucking problem? I’m not some kind of Nordicist who wants to harm my southern European racial brothers, and I don’t think your dark eyes and hair represent a shortcoming. The only thing I can figure if you aren’t a Jew is that you’re some kind of reverse Nordicist. You desperately want some excuse to hate northwest Europeans for sometimes having blonde hair, for sometimes having blue eyes. If this is the case all I have to say is that you should try to be more open-minded about people who are somewhat different than you. You don’t have to support northwest European immigration into Serbia or Greece, but we still have common interests which you are stupidly ignoring. May God damn your blindness, if you actually are a southern European. 37
Posted by Hamish on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 03:15 | # Everyone else in Europe other than the post-WWII immigrants… Of course, to be more precise, this should read: “Everyone else in Europe other than the post-WWII immigrants and their descendants…” 38
Posted by Armor on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:48 | # Live coverage from the Tunisian invasion in Lampedusa. A news video from two days ago about a “solidarity village” for illegal immigrants in Sicily : 40
Posted by Afidias on Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:06 | # We all understand what we say and mean by Europe, free from Afro-Asian contagion, free from the influx of black-yellow-brown flotsam . This character Silver is a non-european sociopath, and a truculent provocateur. To claim the south of europe as genetically polluted and un-european and compare it to Brazil can only come from sick mind and blind characters. To keep the present trend of non european, afro-asian invasion, unaltered is sure going to lead , at some point in the future, to a ” point of no return”. This point of no return is much more visible and outrageous in Northern European countries; although countries like Italy, Spain and Greece ( not to mention Portugal , an extension of Mozambique-Angola on Iberia) are earnestly on the catch up curve. If I were to be dropped, blinfolded, in the city of London or London, then repeat the process in a city like Buenos Aires, and thereafter asked to give ” demographic impressions” , the impression would be that the first city , London( Paris), is a multiracial hub, closely resembling Sao Paolo or Rio de Janeiro, whereas the impression from the second city, Buenos Aires, would be some mediterranean city, unlike Sao Paolo, or Rio de Janeiro. The general demographic, biological pathology of Europe has reached gravity level. The operation should be simple and to the core. Ban afro-asian invasion of the continent, ban it permanently, and a repatriation program for Afro-Asian bilogical invaders from 1945 onwards. A racial , sanitized, cathartic cleansing to de-toxify the bilogical body of europe. This can be done, withhout violence, bloodshed, or chaos. Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, Europe for Europeans. Each race, each tribe, each consanguinious national bloc in their own demographic terrain. If this operation can not be achieved, than an irrevocable 41
Posted by Silver on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:39 | # This is a strawman attack on a form of racialism I don’t believe in. Hamish, who cares what you believe in? Obviously most of your compatriots believe it, even if they now consider impolitic to admit it. Take one of the ethnicities you dubiously claim to be descended from: the Greeks. Lol, what, pray tell, have I said that could possibly be considered inconsistent with what a person of such descent (having been born and grown as I have) could be expected to say? The answer, of course, is nothing whatsoever, but it’d be interested to see what you pull out of your rear end. If the Greeks didn’t tan under the sun they probably would’ve died off from skin cancer long ago, so why should I begrudge them their phenotype? You can begrudge whatever you like. Nothing in my political views turns on what the Hamishes of the world do or do not begrudge. Greeks fit into the gene map of Europe almost exactly where you’d expect them to be based on geography and history. True, but realistically, so what? If they were located on a different continent no one would ever think to go to such elaborate lengths to “prove” that such people were the very same thing as the people on the continent in question (Europe, in this case, which strictly speaking, isn’t even a continent). . These are the southern Europeans I fervently wish to see preserved. Please. You’re embarrassing yourself. Do yourself a favor and stfu. The southern Europeans already in Northwest Europe should be treated well and have their rights respected, but that doesn’t mean they’d be anything wrong if the English (for example) decided to cut off further immigration from the continent (I mean of course that the English would be doing this in the context of also cutting off all non-European immigration). You know something, my own proposals actually go much further than that. You might have realized that if you hadn’t been so quick to jump down my throat. An Englishman and a Frenchman, or a German and an Italian, have no duty to interbreed or learn each other’s languages, but they DO have a duty to defend their common European homeland against by far the worst attack it has ever faced. Er… do you seriously suppose I’m unaware of any of this? You’re an idiot. Why don’t the Greeks want to keep Greek Greek? Why don’t the Italians want to keep Italy Italian? Who said they don’t or shouldn’t? It’s just that doing so, imo, doesn’t require anything called “White Nationalism.” (It’s more likely to be a detriment than an aid. And you hardly have some stunning track record of success to suggest they emulate.) What’s disgusting about my opinions? The intense, almost psychotic “biologism”—you know, zee science and all that. I think it should have its place. After all, if demographics is destiny than demographic management should be synonymous with good government. But the way WNs place biology front and center… well, you know what I’m talking about. Even Auster understands this: Doug H. writes: Here is my central question. Has there ever been, in all of history, a group of people who was at the top of power, grand explorers, and conquerors, yet they give up their power and willingly stood by while different people, and in many cases less capable people, took over and ruled the once powerful? The key here being WILLINGLY. Auster replies: No. http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018975.html So I suppose Larry Auster’s never heard of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece then? This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Sure it is.
WNs who hate the world and seek to spread their hatred.
Lol. You’re on quite a tear here. Any other opinions you’d like to attribute to me while you’re at it? May God damn your blindness, if you actually are a southern European. Piss off Hamish. May you collapse in a heap and pound your fist into the floor amid sobs of anguish, you hate-ridden little creep. 42
Posted by Guy from Asia on Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:21 | # “WNs who hate the world and seek to spread their hatred.” World’s already full of hatred, Silver. Most Westerners are too blind to see it. The stuff WN whine about is neurosis compared to the type of hate people from my part of the world are capable of. 43
Posted by Silver on Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:38 | # World’s already full of hatred, Silver. Sure. But why add to its stock instead of seeking to diminish it? “Boy, this world’s full of crime. We’ll never be rid of it.” So what’s the answer? Can the police department? You know, it’s funny. I don’t really have any serious sort of a problem with their political objectives; in fact, I share them. It’s their ideology and attitudes that sicken me. These are poisonous people. 44
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:05 | # Posted by Dasein on March 25, 2011, 09:31 PM | # though I remain still in the research phase Are you familiar with Alasdair MacIntyre? I’m only familiar with him from secondary sources, but I think you’d find his work suits your worldview as you’ve sketched it here. He’s a Thomistic Catholic, sometimes referred to as a post-modern rightist. Dasein, Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. It is dead-on, but painful! I have 5 books by MacIntyre - all as yet unread!! So, so much work to do. As I have mentioned in private correspondence to GW, I am torn between moving in several different directions. I want a better academic background (ie, I feel inadequate without a PhD; specifically, I want to publish at least one uncontroversial academic book - necessary theoretical background to the later and more important Racial Ethics stuff - and want the doctorate as as ‘gateway opening’ credential; it also gives intellectuals a lot more credibility, in academic as well as media work). But I also have an idea as well as several interested parties, a couple of whom have serious wealth, to begin building an American nationalist activist organization, one which is much less extreme than A3P, indeed, not formally racist or WN at all, as most forms of WN simply repel many conservatives, most of whom are Christian, but which will seek to develop a sense of righteous victimhood and racial persecution on the part of white Americans, as well as pursue a pro-white political agenda - even if it’s never called “pro-white” (here is a bitter irony for WNs, which I understand and incorporate in my strategic thinking, but which many WNs disregard without offering realistic alternatives: in the US, the vast bulk of racial conservatives, that is, those whites most opposed to immigration, black crime, affirmative action, and multiculturalism, are believing Christians; white atheists, along with Jews, even when self-described ‘conservatives’, are generally much less attracted to the racial parts of the true conservative agenda). We need something, some type of pressure group, to unify whites around a moderate, anti-dispossessionist, white empowerment agenda - but which stays completely away from openly talking about race at all. I’m big on “implicit whiteness”. I also believe that we are still several decades away from the time when an explicitly WN mass movement will be able to gain traction (this assumes no exceptional crises - though the response of a substantial minority of the white electorate in 2008 to the greatest financial crisis in modern times was to vote for a black neoMarxist - so please let us beware assuming that national crises necessarily advance nationalist goals). In the interim, between now and at least 2030, possibly longer, we need something in between conservatism and WN, something which shifts the focus of conservatism away from its relentless race-myopia, and prepares the ground for the coming WN of the second half of this century. So I want to be involved at both ends - the theoretical formulation side, and the practical implementation side (well, as activism - politicians who actually legislate the end of immigration, white persecution, etc, will be the true implementers). This is because, as I’ve asserted many times here, I think WN ethics is weak; I think reconceptualizing Western ethics to incorporate racial reality and accept nationalist objectives is pragmatically vital if we are going to win our struggle; but I also recognize that this is a race against time, given the colossal scale of the demographic tsunami. The world of primary thought moves slowly, even in the internet age. But we WNs had better start picking up the pace, or by the time a majority of our folk have finally been convinced of racial reality and the need for racial protective measures, we will be too scattered and few to impose our wills, politically or physically. “Ripening harvest / encroaching jungle”, as I like to remind patriots. 45
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:16 | #
It’s not a fact. There’s some truth in it among a kind of urban hipster class (before they get old enough to want kids and move somewhere as mono-ethnic as they can afford) and there’s some truth among people who are very similar under the skin e.g educated White people and upper-caste Indians, but on the whole the opposite is true. Your version only exists in the sanitised world of the TV whereas i could give you a list of four dozen racially motivated attacks in a small-ish area just in the last month. The other thing that betrays your motives is your anti-white focus. Of those four dozen attacks most didn’t involve a White person at all and the ones that did the White person was the victim. White people are the least ethno-centric. The only time when the majority of the perpetrators of racial attacks in an area are White is when White people are a very large majority of the total population. Long before they’re a minority White people are the majority of victims. Rich White people move away from non-white people because house prices drop. Poor White people move away from non-white areas because the non-white people attack them. In places where black and brown/yellow immigration started at two different spots and gradually collided as the White population was cleansed there’s lots of black vs brown vs yellow vs black violence also. Your whole argument is, ironically perhaps, a racist joke.
This i think is true. It hasn’t been possible to completely suppress the truth about things muslims have done in the same way the truth has been suppressed about other groups because it’s religion not race. This has led to the moral scales actually having a weight on the muslim side to weigh against the White side and that in turn has led some people to react in the logical way, especially as the criticism can be coached in liberal terms. With other groups one side of the scales is completely empty because the news is suppressed while the White side is filled to the brim by the media and schools.
If the media told the whole truth on a consistent basis it would take six months with blacks. Tops. With other groups it would vary depending on the group with educated East and South Asians last and probably requiring an explicit white-only decision as the scales would be mostly balanced if certain issues were dealt with e.g arranged marriages. 46
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 04:34 | #
Yes. Globalization is/was simply the looting over the last thirty years of American capital and technology and its transfer overseas. The problem with doing that over so short a time is the American economy is/was the lynchpin of the world economy. As the American economy goes down like Atlantis it’s unleashing an economic tsunami which will shake everything up.
Or food prices.
Which is where you’d (or at least i’d) expect if race is real and it matters.
I don’t know about that. The other side’s bucket is springing leaks all over the place. Even as soon as the summer things might happen that change the whole game in the UK. 47
Posted by Hamish on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:11 | # You can begrudge whatever you like. Nothing in my political views turns on what the Hamishes of the world do or do not begrudge. So you’re just going to go on hating and fearing northwest Europeans no matter the shared civilizational and genetic heritage they have with southern Europeans. Even if a northwestern European has nothing but goodwill for southern Europeans, you’ll just go on hating and fearing him. I see how it is. You’re either not a southern European, or you’re a southern European who’s been so traumatized by being outnumbered by Anglo-Saxons in Australia that you’ve adopted a pathetic minority mindset, a mindset just like the one which poisoned the minds and souls of the Jews. True, but realistically, so what? So you are overstating how un-European the south of Europe is as part of your agenda of pretending that what’s happening to Europe today is in any way like what happened to the southern part of it in the past. To advance this agenda you take the eccentric opinions of Nordicist extremists and pretend to hold them yourself. If they were located on a different continent no one would ever think to go to such elaborate lengths to “prove” that such people were the very same thing as the people on the continent in question You’re attacking another strawman. I never said Greeks are the very same thing as other European ethnic groups. The point is that they’re similar enough to other European ethnic groups that it’s rational to include them in the racio-civilizational group White Advocates and White Nationalists are pledged to defend. Now I’ll make a deal with you: If more than 50% of the Greeks* in Greece vote to join up with Middle Easterners, then I’ll stop counting Greeks as European and as White. But until then, shut the fuck up. There’s centuries of history showing the Greeks siding with their fellow Europeans against the Middle Eastern hordes who’ve kept trying to invade our Continent, and I’m not going to forget their valuable service just because of some stupid prick like you whining about how you’re “not White”. *I here define Greek to mean someone where all sixteen of their great-great-great-grandparents were born in Greece to non-Muslim parents. (Europe, in this case, which strictly speaking, isn’t even a continent). This is Leftist word game nitpicking against a term (European) you consider a threat. Who said they don’t or shouldn’t? It’s just that doing so, imo, doesn’t require anything called “White Nationalism.” It requires some kind of ancestry based nationalism. For Italians and Greeks to waste time and energy trying to rally their people against non-Italian Europeans and non-Greek Europeans would be the height of idiocy. The threat is coming from non-Europeans. The only way for Italian nationalists to avoid the idiotic waste that would be conflict with the not very large number of non-Italian Europeans in Italy is some form of White Nationalism. The only way for Greek nationalists to avoid the idiotic waste that would be conflict with the not very large number of non-Greek Europeans in Greek is some form of White Nationalism. It might not have that name, but that’s what it would have to be in practice. (It’s more likely to be a detriment than an aid. And you hardly have some stunning track record of success to suggest they emulate.) So what do you want, for non-Greek Europeans to be kicked out of Greece? That’s too extreme to have any chance of working, dumbass. Europeans have never been kicked out of a European country just for being there. (Obviously I don’t consider Ashkenazis to be European.) So I suppose Larry Auster’s never heard of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece then? The Romans fought being ruled over by Goths, even if eventually they succumbed to Alaric. The Ancient Greeks fought being ruled over by the Macedons, even if eventually they succumbed to Phillip the Great. Auster is far wiser than you, and compared to you he is by far the lesser of two evils. The mind of a leftist is an instrument given to nothing but sophistry, as you so disgustingly demonstrate. 48
Posted by Hamish on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 07:38 | # Sure. But why add to its stock instead of seeking to diminish it? I think we should seek to diminish it. The root of the hatred is that non-Europeans want our land and wealth, so we can diminish that hatred by making clear to them that we won’t let them have it. Back when Europeans stood up for themselves, that was when there was respect between the races. Now we have hatred because the non-Europeans don’t respect us. It is very easy to hate that which you don’t respect, it’s a temptation non-Europeans just aren’t advanced enough to resist. 49
Posted by Silver on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:56 | #
The Romans fought being ruled over by Goths, even if eventually they succumbed to Alaric. The Ancient Greeks fought being ruled over by the Macedons, even if eventually they succumbed to Phillip the Great. Auster is far wiser than you, and compared to you he is by far the lesser of two evils. I’ll respond to the rest of your post later. (Brace yourself. You’ve provided me with a “target-rich environment.”) Just to briefly address this. For God’s sakes man, who’s talking about the Goths? I’m referring to the peaceful immigration from all over the empires that took place over centuries and, as immigration of the unlike can ultimately only do, succeeded in remaking those societies. It wasn’t seriously resisted. History records no racial revolts against it. So these pass for examples of nations/empires at the peak of their powers essentially voluntarily ceding control to outsiders. (Listen: this either happened or it didn’t. No but thises and but thats. One group of people was replaced by another and didn’t bother resisting the process, certainly didn’t come close to attempting what would have been required, which is the same thing as what is today required.) I’m just shocked, shocked, shocked that Larry Auster would mention nothing about this, aren’t you? You must have rocks in your head if you think Larry Auster offers you a better deal than me. This is incredible. If I were the “boss of America” there is simply no question you wouldn’t get a better deal out of me than out of Auster. Realistically, the only types who’d have the slightest cause to complain are people like Desmond Jones, who is so terminally “biologistic” one could seriously attempt to argue that he ceased being human a long time ago. This is totally hypothetical, of course, since no one man could ever wield the power required to achieve such a result by himself. But the attitude and the values I propound, if they were embraced by a critical mass, mountains could be moved. What I have apparently failed to make clear to you (not least because of my tendency—a failing of mine, I guess—to regard people like you as irredeemable) is that these are values and attitudes distinctly unlike those the great bulk of people calling themselves nationalists or racialists affirm. Minimally, however, just consider that there isn’t a topic or a debate that I have shied away from. Larry Auster can’t even begin to claim that. 50
Posted by Hamish on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:06 | # There’s a point of overstating what happened in history to the point where it becomes a lie. I’m ashamed to admit that in their quest to give Nordics credit for as many great achievements as possible, Nordicists have strayed into this territory many times. An example of this is that Nordicists have greatly overstated the degree of race replacement which occurred in Ancient Rome. Listen: this either happened or it didn’t. No but thises and but thats. It didn’t happen. The immigrants into Rome were overwhelmingly of the same race (i.e. Europeans) as the Romans, mostly Greeks at first and later mostly Germanics. There were some Near Easterners and North Africans. For example, St. Augustine’s parents were North African Berbers. But honestly, does anyone in their right mind think of St. Augustine as being non-White? I think the Near Easterners and North Africans of Classical Times were different than the North Africans of today. I think the Arabic conquest of the Levant and North Africa, conquests which were never repulsed, had a profound effect on the genetics of those places, making them a lot less similar to Europeans than they were in Classical Times. This explains why there wasn’t a “racial revolt” by the Romans. The racial character of their city wasn’t being changed to anything like the extent Nordicists say it was. Well, to anything like the extent Nordicists and idiots like you pretending to be Nordicists to undermine WN say it was. I admire that Auster has never pretended to be a Nordicist. It shows he has a hell of a lot more respect for the intelligence of northern Europeans than you do. 51
Posted by anonymous on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:02 | # Posted by Hamish on March 28, 2011, 01:59 AM | # ‘‘It’s a biologically meaningful concept because Europe is unusually homogenous in genetics, much more homogenous than (for example) the nation of China.’‘ The Chinese look a more homogenous race than the Europeans. The Chinese look more like they belong to the same race than Europeans. It would be far easier to distinguish one European from another European than it would a Chinese from another Chinese. Europeans are not ethnically homogenous. Europeans exhibit wide variation of Hair and Eye colour variation-blonde/ brunette/red/black (all the shades in between). Eyes ranging from grey/green/blue to brown. Skin tone ranging from pale (Northern Europeans) to the Darker shade Southern Europeans. The Europeans form seperate clusters within the European range i.e a Northern European is easily physically distinguishable from a Non-Northern European on the basis of the finer nasal feature of Northern Europeans as opposed the rest of Europeans and even within these clusters it would be far easier to distinguish one European from another European than it would one Chinese from another Chinese. One could accuse the Chinese of looking alike but never the Europeans. One need not be a Geneticist to note the obvious. 52
Posted by anonymous on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 21:04 | # Posted by Hamish on March 28, 2011, 01:59 AM | # ‘‘It’s a biologically meaningful concept because Europe is unusually homogenous in genetics, much more homogenous than (for example) the nation of China.’‘ and if one wanted to dig deeper one would find more variation….. Europeans are not ethnically homogeneous forget the purest racial types. 53
Posted by Silver on Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:18 | # Hamish, I don’t care much for what the “Nordic” character of ancient Rome and Greece may have been. The point is those places received influxes of outsiders who were different, known to be different, but not repulsed. Like you, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the North Africa of 2000-2500 years ago wasn’t the same thing, racially, as today. But it’s doubtful in the extreme that there weren’t observable differences even then (the ancients were quite aware of racial differences). And it’s almost certain that a proportion of the outsiders, even if they were only manumitted slaves, were negroids, whose presence adds significantly, imo, to the sense of demographic change even when their numbers are only small. I think I was right. You really do have rocks in your head. Show me one statement of Larry Auster’s consistent with racial separatism. Go on. And then compare that to the whole point of my involvement in blogs like this, which is to make the point that racially parting ways would result in a better way to live (for the vast majority of us) and considering what sorts of beliefs and values people would need to embrace for that to be possible, and the impediments that stand in the way of it. Auster never, ever discusses any of this. So what actual (not imagined) good is he to you? Wandrin, I spoke only of people increasingly liking each other. I didn’t say that multiracial society could be characterized as “people like each other.” Things, recall, were starting from a very low base. We’re much more involved (in a positive way) in each other’s lives today than even twenty years ago. Are you really suggesting this has no effect on perceptions of racial others? I would say it unquestionably has an effect, and even one that can endure knowledge of another group’s average qualities (ie those negative ones). I don’t think you’re going to get very far by claiming anti-racism was only ever intended as a weapon with which to weaken whites. It was/is a worldwide issue. Just because racism fails to explain every social disparity doesn’t mean that it has no known negative effects (negative effects that people of goodwill, seeing no good reason for those negative effects, will try to alleviate). 54
Posted by Hamish on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:03 | # Auster never, ever discusses any of this. So what actual (not imagined) good is he to you? Auster is a fairly consistent critic of Leftism, which is far more than I can say for you. You’re the kind of person who is so extreme a Leftist that you actually said you were happy when the Serbs, supposedly your ethnic group, had America drop bombs on them. That’s pure Leftist thinking, the apotheosis of treason to the most in part of your ingroup. Auster is also in favor of deporting Muslims from the West whether they like it or not, something I also 100% support and view as an important step in the right direction. I don’t buy this malarkey you’re selling that non-Europeans, a single one, is going to voluntarity leave us alone. The question is not whether Whites and non-Whites come to a mutual agreement on separation. The non-Whites have EVERY reason to oppose it. To give just one example, there’s the fact that they keep becoming a bigger percentage of the population in this or that Western country while we become a smaller percentage. Why should they want a mutual retreat from the ring just when they have us on the ropes? Unlike you, and like me, non-Europeans actually want to taste something called victory and prefer it over defeat. Why should they give up on the conquest of Europe? Because they weren’t here first? Obviously they can just look to the Crusades, how Europeans established religious and political hegemony over a part of the Middle East while massively interbreeding with the natives, as a precedent and justification for what they’re trying to do. No, the question isn’t what non-Europeans are going to do. We already know what non-Europeans are going to do. Rather the question is whether Europeans will see the need to seize control of our own destiny. You have to understand that as long as we remain essentially united, and as long as we set our minds to getting our homelands back from the non-European interlopers, no one is going to have a chance against us as we assert our sacred birthright over Europe. Just because racism fails to explain every social disparity doesn’t mean that it has no known negative effects (negative effects that people of goodwill, seeing no good reason for those negative effects, will try to alleviate). This is Leftist bullshit. The racial discrimination that’s happening in reality is overwhelmingly being committed against people of European descent. Ever hear of something called “Affirmative Action”? Non-Whites are treated BETTER because of their race in the West today, so obviously it isn’t just a question of racism not explaining every disparity between Whites and non-Whites. It’s a question of racism explaining NONE of the disparities between Whites and non-Whites in the West today. Given this, what’s the justification for so called “people of good will” trying to alleviate the so called “negative effects” of White racism when those effects, in aggregate, don’t actually exist? You Leftists want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have Europeans discriminated against on the basis of race, vilified on the basis of race, but then you want to trumpet your moral purity for fighting the negative effects on racism against the only people who aren’t being victimized by racism: non-Europeans. Disgusting hypocrisy. Stop defending the anti-White hate regime as being driven by “people of good will” if you want anyone with half a brain to not see through your act of not being a profoundly subversive Leftist. 55
Posted by Christian M on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:11 | # Why does anyone respond to the Jewish-troll-mamzer-leftist-provocateur-anti-White distraction that calls itself “Silver”? 56
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 08:26 | #
If “the point” is that a relatively small number of outsiders which were not very racially different were genetically assimilated - and there it stopped - then it seems hardly a point worth making. In fact, it would tend to support the view that after a low threshhold for tolerating mixture was crossed ethnocentrism kicked back in and endogamy was reinforced. As for the profoundly racially alien negro, the genetic evidence we have suggests on the whole only very slight negroid admixture in Southern Europeans, with the exception of a few pockets of higher negroid admixture:
This in constrast to the negroid admixture present in Brazilian “Whites”:
57
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 08:31 | #
Why not? It’s not like he’s a master debater or anything. His “points” have all the penetrating power of a Nerf ball. 58
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 09:00 | #
Based upon appearance, I could never say that Slavic- and Italian-Americans are anything but White. Arabs don’t look White to me, yet the aforementioned do. Btw, you can only gain Silver’s approval by engaging ethnic/racial distinctiveness on the level of phenotype and not gene accountancy. P.S. What’s the point of disparaging and dehumanizing non-Nordic Whites, such as by referring to them as “Sicilian mongrels”? It would seem wholly unnecessary, and in fact injurious, to the very reasonable cause of Nordic preservation. 59
Posted by anonymous on Sat, 02 Apr 2011 20:57 | # Posted by Captainchaos on April 02, 2011, 08:00 AM | # ‘‘Based upon appearance, I could never say that Slavic- and Italian-Americans are anything but White. Arabs don’t look White to me, yet the aforementioned do’‘ There is no dispute about the whiteness of Europeans they may all fall under the category of ‘white’ but so what? As far as homogeneity of race goes it is obvious Europeans are not ethnically homogenous. 60
Posted by Silver on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 21:23 | # If “the point” is that a relatively small number of outsiders which were not very racially different were genetically assimilated - and there it stopped - then it seems hardly a point worth making. Who said anything about the numbers being small? As I understand it, the numbers were sufficiently to totally transform the power centers of that world (who cares what happened in, say, Bumfuck, Illyricum?). Btw, you can only gain Silver’s approval by engaging ethnic/racial distinctiveness on the level of phenotype and not gene accountancy. No one needs my “approval” for anything. You’re free to babble about clusters and dendograms till the cows come home. Race for me is just one part of a greater sense of belonging. The part that is based on race comes down to phenotype—shared physical traits. That’s what gives rise to the feelings of warmth when we look at the faces of people in our in-group. It’s not about what some test result says. On another level, people who are similar but too different to properly be considered part of our in-group nevertheless carry the trait of being the-next-best-thing. Say for whatever reason your own group’s finished, done for. It’s nice to know there’s others out there in this world you can fall back on; who can be counted on to basically accept you, and with whom you can reasonably accept to get along with and to like. And we distinguish these people by their phenotypes, not by test results. (I honestly would have thought all this is obvious. I guess when one enters the realm of madcap biologistic racialism reality is forced to take a back seat.) What’s the point of disparaging and dehumanizing non-Nordic Whites, such as by referring to them as “Sicilian mongrels”? It would seem wholly unnecessary, and in fact injurious, to the very reasonable cause of Nordic preservation. Disparagement isn’t all that big a deal. After all, it’s very much a case of only-true-if-you-believe-it. (Although, an incredible proportion of online racialists do seem apt to believe it.) But dehumanization, yeah, that’s poisonous stuff. Of course, the real question is why dehumanize anyone? Hamish, No, the question isn’t what non-Europeans are going to do. We already know what non-Europeans are going to do. You “know” that do you? So far, I don’t really get the impression that you know much of anything. This might come as a surprise to you, but most of mutually dislike each other at least as much as they dislike whites (which stands to reason, since they so often live near one another). “But they’ll unite to get whitey!!” you’ll respond. Perhaps. But if so, in no small part because thoughtless clods like you have left them so little choice. As for me being a “leftist.” Grow up, will you? Truth transcends labels. There’s a great deal that “leftists” are factually correct about. I’m not going to pretend it’s all a bunch of swill just because I might deplore some of the consequences. More pertinently, shouldn’t you be happy that a “leftist” is spouting “race talk” that 95% of conservatives out there wouldn’t touch with a barge pole? Realistically, if “leftists” were won over on race, just what the hell serious sort of reason would conservatives have to keep toeing the antiracist line? Christian M, “Mamzer”! Lmao. Love it. That term’s one of the few things I’ve learned about the world from the white right. 61
Posted by Hamish on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:21 | # Silver, Your phenotype based view of race is what turned Brazil into what it is today. They didn’t have a one drop rule and instead just judged whether someone was White based on if they shared enough superficial elements of phenotype with Europeans. Since the superficial aspects of phenotype are based on a relatively tiny percentage of the genotype, this inevitably led to a decoupling of superficial phenotype from genotype. This led to an extremely large introduction of Black and Amerindian genes into the “White” Brazilian population. In other words, it by and large led to the extinction of European Man and Woman in Brazil, a tragedy when you consider that it was Europeans who first created Brazil. See how your philosophy leads to the destruction of our race? In contrast, my ancestry based (i.e. gene based) view of race is what turned America into what it was before the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. About 90% of pre-1965 Americans were representatives of European Man or Woman, and this made the country both a far better place to live and an infinitely better vehicle for the propagation of our kind into the future. Pre-1965, the average White American was far more similar in genetics to full blooded Southern Europeans than the average “White” Brazilian. Perhaps the language and culture of Southern Europeans survived better in Brazil, albeit in an at least somewhat bastardized and Africanized form, but so what? The language and culture of Northern Europeans will probably survive in some bastardized form in post-European America, but that doesn’t change the fact that English speaking non-Europeans will have very little in common with actual Northern Europeans. So who cares? Blood is thicker than water, and thicker than even culture as well. Race for me is just one part of a greater sense of belonging. That’s like saying that family is to you just one part of a greater sense of belonging. It ignores that the family isn’t just a way to stop people without enough friends from getting lonely, it’s also a way for us to send our genes and culture forward into the future. It’s our way of leaving a legacy behind us, our effort to assure than some of us lives on past our death. In fact, the sense of belonging we have with family members has the purpose of helping us in our project of perpetuating our blood into the future. Why do you think I love my family more than a random person of European descent? The answer is because they have much more blood in common with me than even my co-racialists. You have things completely backwards, Silver. I could find a significant number of my co-racialists who look more like me than my son, but this doesn’t change the fact that I love my son more than I do any of those co-racialists, it doesn’t change the fact that I have more blood in common with my son than with those co-racialists who happen to look especially like me. Family is a question of BLOOD (i.e. genes), not merely phenotype. Phenotype only matters to the extent that it correlates with the underlying blood relationship. It is the same with race. Leon Haller pointed out some Syrian woman who looks really European in superficial phenotype, by some accounts more Northern European-like than Southern European-like. But if she’s really of Syrian descent, the fact remains that even if there was widespread agreement that she looks more like Northern Europeans in superficial phenotype than most Southern Europeans, she certainly has much less genetics and blood in common with Northern Europeans than any Southern Europeans does. For this reason in the same way that it makes sense for me to prefer my son over a random European who happens to look a lot like me, it also makes sense for me to prefer Southern Europeans over this random Syrian woman who happens to look a lot like Northern Europeans. Blood is thicker than water, and thicker than superficial phenotype as well. Unless people are wise enough to understand that, you end up with Brazil. This of course why the profoundly subversive Leftist Silver promotes the idea that superficial phenotype should be granted greater attention than genetics. And we distinguish these people by their phenotypes, not by test results. I distinguish people by a combination of phenotype and ancestry, with greater emphasis placed on ancestry. For example there are many people with Ashkenazi Jewish parents who look very European, but once I find out they have Jewish ancestry I discount this fact because: 1. Ashkenazi Jews have far more Middle Eastern blood than anyone in Europe, including Southern Europeans. 2. Perhaps because of this fact, Ashkenazi Jews have a long and sordid history of acting against the best interests of Europeans. Sometimes different European ethnicities have come into conflict, I admit, but the Ashkenazis are different because they’re always against all of us, never relenting or switching sides like actual European ethnicities have a strong history of doing, and this makes them far more damaging. 62
Posted by Hamish on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:55 | # As for me being a “leftist.” Grow up, will you? Truth transcends labels. What you say has nothing to do with truth. There’s a great deal that “leftists” are factually correct about. You just say that because a great deal of what Leftists say is useful to your agenda of destroying our race. That’s the same reason you pretend to agree with Nordicists who all too often distort history in ways which are useful to your agenda of destroying our race. You actually are such a stupid bastard that you quote the ideas of Nordicists who were just saying stuff to disparage Southern Europeans as if any non-Nordicist historian would agree with it. The degree to which non-Europeans made a genetic contribution to Italians and other Southern Europeans during the days of the Roman Empire has been profoundly overstated by Nordicists. In the heyday of Nordicism some of that ilk even went so far as to blatantly and intentionally misinterpret the historical record. Just like the Leftists Silver also relies on as the basis of his asinine arguments and conclusions. More pertinently, shouldn’t you be happy that a “leftist” is spouting “race talk” that 95% of conservatives out there wouldn’t touch with a barge pole? I’m not happy because to my knowledge you only engage in race talk to mislead Europeans who care about race into believing extremely counterproductive things like that Southern Europeans “aren’t White” or that race should be determined on superficial phenotype rather than on ancestry/genetics. 63
Posted by Silver on Mon, 04 Apr 2011 23:46 | # Your phenotype based view of race is what turned Brazil into what it is today. Firstly, let me say that I don’t regard “Brazil” as the nightmare of nightmares . I’m quite positively predisposed to Brazilians. It’s true that far too many of them diverge too greatly from what I am for me to be able to feel the sort of racial closeness I do (and that I value feeling) with those of more closely related backgrounds, and this sense, I would agree that it would be best to take steps to avoid a “Brazil scenario,” particularly since I can see no pressing positive moral case for achieving one, and no necessary moral impediments to avoiding it. As for my view of race inevitably leading to it, you’re wrong. I’m well aware of what racial components are capable of keeping a group “basically” what it is, and which will set it on the road to total disintegration. Keeping the group “basically” the same is no more than a question of numbers. What is required is the will to manage the numbers. Since southern ethnic groups are already mixed to some extent it’s silly to claim that the slightest drop of further admixture (especially of closely related groups) will doom them to non-existence. It’s utter rubbish and no one will ever buy it. Neither will it fly for a member of those ethnic groups to claim that darker members are somehow lesser representatives of all that is good about belonging to that ethnic group because the fact is those darker member often epitomize the sorts of things held to be good about belonging to that ethnic group. The obvious charge is that this generation will be lenient with “the numbers” and accept a little admixture; then the next generation will be lenient; and so on and so on until… oblivion. I get it, pal. I really do. And yet… that’s the hand we’re all dealt and we can do no more than play it (I’ve come up with some plausible workarounds; more on this later). Now, as far as your groups are concerned you have much less leeway with regards to maintaining phenotypic integrity. That’s been established beyond doubt. I’m not just “pretending” to be a nordicist. I actually agree with them when it comes to questions like who they/you are, the desire for self-preservation and what is required to achieve it. You seem to have trouble accepting this, as though, wow, it’s simply beyond the bounds of possibility that an outsider might agree you have a point and agree that action on it is justified. (I certainly don’t agree with aggressive nazi-types, who’d have a problem with the rest of the world even if the rest of the world had done nothing to warrant it; or the biologistic types who value only beauty and intelligence and despair over its diminishment. Nazis tend to dominate race talk so it’s hardly surprising that my initial reaction was oppositional. But thinking about things further I had to admit that some of your concerns and your ideas about how to address them opened my mind to new possibilities and to new ways of conceiving intergroup relations.) That’s like saying that family is to you just one part of a greater sense of belonging. Sigh. What I meant was that the fact of sharing racial commonality in itself isn’t all that makes life enjoyable. The good thing about belonging isn’t merely the fact, hey, these are our racial traits, and woohoo isn’t life fantastic because we share them! Racial traits by themselves are not nothing. It is possible to feel positive about other people simply on shared racial traits. But even better is sharing those traits in combination with history, culture, religion, etc. This is obviously a pretty mundane observation, yet I felt I had to state it because some of the more diehard racists out there often make it sound like all they care about in life is being white. You figure these people would be happy to do nothing all day but sit cross-legged and gaze into each others faces: “Wow, you’re so white!” “Yes, so are you!” “Isn’t it awesome?” “Fuck yeah!” I could find a significant number of my co-racialists who look more like me than my son, but this doesn’t change the fact that I love my son more than I do any of those co-racialists, it doesn’t change the fact that I have more blood in common with my son than with those co-racialists who happen to look especially like me. Okay, fine. That’s your son, and that discussion would be too complex. Luckily, we can circumvent it. What of those coracials who look so close to you as to almost be replicas but whose test results flash warning signs? Are you going to feel closer to them or to someone who looks considerably removed but proves his bona fides with test results? What answer do you suppose the majority of people would instinctively give? You just say that because a great deal of what Leftists say is useful to your agenda of destroying our race. That’s the same reason you pretend to agree with Nordicists who all too often distort history in ways which are useful to your agenda of destroying our race. Look, stfu, will you? What possible reason would I have to be absolutely, utterly committed to such a goal, you idiot? You think somehow life would immediately blossom for me if, say, you all vanished from the planet tomorrow? I don’t get what magic is supposed occur that this goal is held to be so deliciously desirable. As I said, sure, my initial reaction was, holy crap, these nazis want to kill us all, well screw that, I’d as soon kill all them first. And I bet that’s the way most people feel. Most people, unfortunately, don’t think about it any further than that. And when some realize that, like Dutch in Predator, “if it breeds, we can kill it!” that’s the sort of preventative measure they’ll pursue. But it has nothing to do with being ideologically (or pffft, “genetically”) driven to see it through to completion. I did think about it further and I concluded that things don’t have to be this way. There are other ways to arrange our affairs; other ways that allow us to preserve that which is valuable to us and, at the same time, retain the good (especially the goodwill) that has been attained, and minimize the harm done to others during the reorganization process. What’s so objectionable about this? Funny thing is in twenty years of AmRen, in ten years of TOQ, in five years of this blog, and in all the racial babble taking place across the internet, the overarching theme has been “aren’t these people just miserable sacks of shit and don’t you just loathe the useless scum?” An exaggeration? Perhaps. But surely not by much. Doesn’t the fact that it has yielded so little suggest that maybe, just maybe, a new approach is justified? 64
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:09 | #
Yoohoo, Silver, one question if I might. If you had to choose, which would you prefer, that the people of the Balkans experience in the near future panmixia with Nordics or Levantines? This is obviously a quite loaded question, but I figure a clever-tongued fellow such as yourself should be capable of answering it consistent your agenda - both stated and unstated. 65
Posted by danielj on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:28 | # Which of the two would you prefer in the future ethnostate of the American Midwest? 66
Posted by danielj on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:30 | # That is to say, would you prefer Balkan or Levantine inflow? 67
Posted by Silver on Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:39 | # If you had to choose, which would you prefer, that the people of the Balkans experience in the near future panmixia with Nordics or Levantines? This is obviously a quite loaded question, but I figure a clever-tongued fellow such as yourself should be capable of answering it consistent your agenda - both stated and unstated. Cap, I think this may be the most human level on which you have yet communicated with me. That’s quite an accomplishment for you. Cynical bastard that I am, I’m curious, is the reason your question is “loaded” related to my variation on the atheists’ line, which I know you’ve read, “When you understand why you reject other races you’ll understand why I reject yours”? Anyway, I’ll give you a full and honest answer to the best of my ability. And I’ll do that, understand, in order to highlight the issues that are raised; not merely to state some form of preference. See, this sort of preamble is necessary because we’re really dealing with the future of entire peoples when we discuss these topics. It’s no small matter, and glib answers are worse than no answers. Now, my first instinct is to wonder about the numbers involved. You said “panmixia,” which on the surface tends to imply very large numbers, but is in fact very vague. (What degree of “panmixia”? A little? A lot? And how far advanced? Total melding? Halfway through?) In any case, I can see an immediate problem. We know (“know”) from experience that the assimilation of large numbers doesn’t occur quickly. People form enclaves and stick to them for decades. So whatever you meant by “in the near future” is probably going to be “too soon” for the effect that you’re describing—and requesting that I pass judgment on—to occur. Your question really then unavoidably becomes, “Which people do you want creating ethnic enclaves in your lands, Nordics or Levantines”? I’ll probably surprise you here and answer Levantines. Of course I’d have to heavily culturally qualify that answer: They’d have to be Christian not Muslim, or at least atheistic (which is totally unrealistic, and which highlights the difficulty—if not absurdity—of strict racial analysis). (Jewish, if you consider them “Levantine,” would be fine, too. But I’d have reservations about the numbers/religiosity.) I have no doubt that though, because of the huge numbers we’re talking about, we’d maintain distance, in short order we’d be singing in each other’s bars and generally enjoying each other’s company—genuinely, not in order to “have a multicultural experience.” With Nordics, on the other hand, there would seem to be a legitimate risk of some kind of “herenrasse” class evolving. And even though it would in time be bred out, it could do some serious damage to the social fabric in the interim. I’m not saying it definitely would. But there would a real risk, and one which no one who cares about his people would put them through. And that’s only considering the risks. I’d have to also seriously question the desirability of having ratty little Wayne Rooney lookalikes running about everywhere, probably disparaging the local populace as a “wogs,” and certainly appreciating nothing. The only possible upside would be improved productivity and efficiency, but, as I said, that has to be weighed against the possibility of these fuckers trying to take over the place and, in effect, turn it against us. With that said, the glib answer to the glib question you were really asking along —ie “What people do you really want to be magicked into?”—would be nordics. It’s well known that we “win” from those pairings—the resultant mix looks a lot more like the non-nord component than the nord, and it’s quite true (or reasonable to believe, though I consider it proved) that a positive side-effect is the increased intellectual firepower it would provide (provided the elements to be mixed with are a representative slice, and not skewed to the ‘wrong’ end.) Problem is, it’s a state of affairs that can’t be “magicked” into being, and could only occur through traditional processes. While the result may be preferable, I simply have to consider the process, and that process would seem to be a net negative. Now that I’ve answered all that, would you care to tell me what this “unstated” agenda of mine is? A genuine fear of what you’re “all about”? That’s not unstated. I’m quite upfront about that. If it’s something else, I’m all ears. Oh, and this,
Go on, Cap, choose your poison. 68
Posted by Hamish on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:52 | # Which of the two would you prefer in the future ethnostate of the American Midwest? danielj, Obviously Balkan inflow. I really don’t think that an ethnostate which included both Europeans and Levantines could be accounted worthy of the name ethostate. There may be some small minority of Levantines who cluster first with Southern Europeans, but there’s still a profoundly important difference between them and actual Southern Europeans. Actual Southern Europeans have clearly been shown to cluster firstly with Southern Europeans and secondly with Northern Europeans. In contrast even the Levantines who may cluster first with Southern Europeans cluster secondly with Middle Easterners. This creates three important and elemental conflicts of interest between Europeans and even those Levantines who may cluster first with Southern Europeans: 1. Southern Europeans and relatively Southern European-like Levantines have a conflict of interest on the question of whether Northern Europeans should be race replaced by Middle Easterners: with the Southern Europeans having strong reasons to oppose it and the Southern European-like Levantines having strong reasons to support it. 2. Northern Europeans and relatively Southern European-like Levantines have a conflict of interest on the question of whether Southern Europeans should be race replaced by Middle Easterners: with the Northern Europeans having strong reasons to oppose it and the Southern European-like Levantines having strong reasons to support it. 3. Northern Europeans and relatively Southern European-like Levantines have a conflict of interest on the question of whether Northern Europeans should be race replaced by Middle Easterners: with the Northern Europeans having strong reasons to oppose it and the Southern European-like Levantines having strong reasons to support it. Opening the door to any kind of Middle Easterner would be the death knell for both of the main subgroups of our race: both death for the Northern and the Southern European. Silver pretends not to understand this because he’s either an idiot or pretending to be one. But this isn’t a reason to be biased against Southeast Europeans. Even if Silver really is one of those, Lord knows there are plenty of Northern Europeans just as guilty as him in the race treason department. 69
Posted by Hamish on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:18 | # Okay, fine. That’s your son, and that discussion would be too complex. It actually isn’t complex at all. I’m a Human Being and Human Beings have an instinct to love their biological children due to the highly unusual degree of shared blood between a parent and child. This is why it is perfectly natural that I love my son more than random coracials who look more like me than my son merely due to random phenotypic variation, and not due to a blood relationship. Luckily, we can circumvent it. What of those coracials who look so close to you as to almost be replicas but whose test results flash warning signs? It isn’t so much a question of test results as a question or whether they have recent non-European ancestry. Test results can be cocked up, but when someone has an Indonesian grandfather I know he’s far less related to me by blood than any real European. Are you going to feel closer to them or to someone who looks considerably removed but proves his bona fides with test results? You’re overstating the importance of phenotype. Race, like ethnicity, is a question of blood. When France and Germany fought wars in the past, did the Nordic looking French team up with Nordic looking Germans against an alliance of Alpinic French and Alpinic Germans? Of course not! Naturally in the context of warfare the French sided with their fellow French, the Germans sided with their fellow Germans, without regard to the trivial fact that some French look more like they’re Germans and some Germans look more like they’re French. What answer do you suppose the majority of people would instinctively give? The answer most people would give has little to do with instinct, and everything to do with how Leftists have destroyed the capacity of Europeans to think of race as something with real blood meaning to it. For this reason, brainwashed into not noticing the biological reality of the European race, it’s perhaps understandable that what little group feeling Europeans feel today is based on subconcious visual cues related to the most superficial elements of phenotype, like whether someone has blonde hair or not. I actually have noticed the insane farce of blonde girls feeling an identity as “blondes”, all while they lack any loyalty to the extended family that is their ethnic group or the extended family that is their race. If the ancestors of these girls were such weak-minded fools, these girls never would’ve been born! Europe would’ve been overrun by more cohesive races, by people with a sense of the simple fact that race has its basis found in BLOOD, the prime motivating force of history. 70
Posted by Hamish on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 05:37 | # Neither will it fly for a member of those ethnic groups to claim that darker members are somehow lesser representatives of all that is good about belonging to that ethnic group because the fact is those darker member often epitomize the sorts of things held to be good about belonging to that ethnic group. I wouldn’t dream of suggesting such a thing. What I’m saying is the exact opposite of the idea that an ethnic group should look down on any of its members on the basis of phenotype. That’s what Nordicists promote, to their shame, but as I’ve said repeatedly I’m not a Nordicist. What I’m saying is that an ethnic group should look upon individuals verified to have recent non-European admixture as what they are: as potential fifth columnists who couldn’t be counted on in the event of race based conflict and as potential agents of racial dissolution. If you treat the Middle Easterners in Southern Europe, and their part bred descendants, too well it will lead to something that even someone like you who takes a flippant attitude toward racial preservation won’t like at all. It will lead to more and more Middle Easterners coming until your subrace is chocked off from life completely. Don’t think you’ll be treated as well as the English treated Amerindians. You’ll not have any reservations where you’ll be allowed to preserve a basically pure remnant. If you want to try grandfathering in the part Southern European and part Levantines born before a certain date, that’s one thing, but sooner than later it’s absolutely imperative that further gene flow from the Middle East into Southern Europe be essentially cut off. To do that you’ll need to do the same thing we’ll need to do in the North of Europe: You’ll need to deal with the non-European interlopers the same way Ghandi dealt with the non-Indian interlopers in his homeland. Certainly the full-blooded Europeans were kicked out of India after the Indians got their well-earned independance, even if perhaps some of the small population of half-castes were allowed to stay. If that’s how you want to handle it in the South of Europe, it wouldn’t be that big a deal assuming the number of Southern European-Middle Eastern Caucasoid hybrids were small enough in number. 71
Posted by DP on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 07:09 | # Please tell me which two populations, as we move from Spain to Morocco in clock-wise fashion, following the Mediterranean coast, we can say belong in two different races? I see no two populations that can be thus divided. Hence, I am not denying that Moroccans are generally darker than European Mediterraneans, simply that they are both part of a Mediterranean Race whose existence has been proposed according to the criteria outlined above. This race is clearly very variable, as it is spread over a large geographical area. But I see no way of subdividing it meaningfully. 72
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 08:28 | #
And much to their shame look at the carnage it produced. The intractable nationalism led to the use of other races in unabandoned glee at killing their fellow Euopeans.
73
Posted by Hamish on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:23 | #
Those two populations would be the Greeks and the Turks.
The Mediterranean Race is fictional. There is a Mediterranean Type found a lot in the South of Europe, the Levant, and North Africa. But by the same token this type is found to a non-trivial extent in indigenous Northwest Europeans, and thus it should’ve always been clear it doesn’t signify a race as there’s no way a Mediterranean Type Englishman is the same race as a North African.
The European Race is FAR more cohesive and meaningful than the so-called Mediterranean Race, and yet even the European Race can be subdivided meaningfully. So surely the so-called Mediterranean Race can be. The simple fact is that European Mediterraneans have been found to cluster with Northwest Europeans before they cluster with Near Easterners and North Africans. In contrast, no Near Easterners or North Africans have been found to cluster with Northwest Europeans before they cluster with their co-regionalists. Thus it is rational to classify European Mediterraneans as a subgroup of Europeans, and not as a subgroup of some fictional Mediterranean Race. 74
Posted by Hamish on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 19:39 | #
Desmond, I agree that the all too often brutal wars between different European ethnic groups were tragic. My point wasn’t to say the wars were right, but rather that the lines they were organized along illustrate an important aspect of Human Nature. That point being race and ethnicity are both a question of blood, and that it would be unnatural for people to privilege phenotypic similarity over ethnicity or race. Now it is true that all too often Europeans have privileged ethnicity over race. Obvously to some extent it’s natural to privilege ethnicity over race, but as you point out it’s certainly shameful how much carnage and bloodlust it’s produced in various European ethnic groups toward their fellow Europeans. That’s what did more than anything else to bring German National Socialism down, the fact that they privileged ethnicity over race in ways which made them far more enemies than they needed to make. It’s exactly because the instinct to choose ethnicity over race is natural that there’s such a danger of taking it too far. It should be guarded against. At the same time it should be noted that up until very recently in historical terms, Europeans have with few exceptions done a very good job of uniting against serious non-European threats. 75
Posted by Silver on Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:27 | # It isn’t so much a question of test results as a question or whether they have recent non-European ancestry. Test results can be cocked up, but when someone has an Indonesian grandfather I know he’s far less related to me by blood than any real European. I don’t know how to say this without sounding like a smart ass, but what difference does the recency of the admixture make (as measured according to your own genetics-based approach)? It just seems to me that it’s about feelings more than it is genes. You know, if it happened in the misty past, and no one knows any more about it, well, the maybe the person can be considered to have “gotten over it” or something. But if it was recent, then maybe the person is considered to be at too much risk of (somehow) identifying with the mixed part. Essentially, your line of reasoning seems to come down to a case of “what I don’t know can’t hurt me.” Those two populations would be the Greeks and the Turks. The hell they would. Come off it. What do you really know about this part of the world, Hamish? Next to nothing would be my guess. Realistically, if it weren’t for the religious (and thus cultural) differences, Greeks and Turks would be talking about “reunification.” (Okay, maybe that’s not “realistic.” But it’s infinitely more likely than that the one would see the other as a totally alien, non-white “other.”) I’ve been to Turkey. I’ve known plenty of Turks. Some of my father’s best friends were Turks, and some of the best people I’ve known in my life are Turks. Yes, it’s true Greeks and Turks (and any balkanoids and Turks) often hate each other. But we understand each other, and we’ve found a pretty stable modus vivendi, and it’s only getting better. I’ll be damned if I’m going to throw a spanner in those works just because Hamish has a genetic crush on “whiteness.” And in any “race war,” good God, there’s no question I wouldn’t line up behind Turks; few things in life would disappoint me more than the majority of my coethnics not following suit. Now, listen here, why are you still hounding me? I agreed long ago with your basic premises. Mass-multiracialism is a beyond ridiculous way to live. I couldn’t care less how “rich” it’s possible to become if it means living around…you know. It was one thing thirty years ago, when everyone was still Anglo-Saxon and the only minorities were the wogs. (I defy anyone who grew up in that wog subculture to pretend that what we have today can possibly compare.) But today, bah, it’s rubbish. The question is how to extricate ourselves from the problem. That doesn’t mean pretending to belong to the same groups. It just means cooperation—you want us “out,” and I want “out” of this way of life. Sure, I could just leave tomorrow (and have done, twice, ‘03 and ‘06) but it’s hard by yourself. Far and away the biggest reason I support WNs (even though i think you’re dangerous and poisonous) is because WN would deliver just the wake up call required for us to think about what we’re all doing. (I’ve said all this before. I don’t blame you for not being around to have heard it, but I do blame you for instinctively jumping down my throat as you did on that Holocaust thread.) DP, Please tell me which two populations, as we move from Spain to Morocco in clock-wise fashion, following the Mediterranean coast, we can say belong in two different races? I see no two populations that can be thus divided. That’s a fair point, but the danger is it can be used for blanket race-denial. Where does the white/nordic race end as you move clockwise around Europe from Iceland to Portugal, for example? I’m guessing you probably can’t pinpoint it, but nevertheless at some point you’ll “just know” that you’re among a people “too different” to really be able to call your own (I’m guessing your some kind of NWE), and that if a test could be devised that would deliver an objective result it’d be quite inline with what you subjectively “sensed.” The most useful way out of the dilemma I’ve found is to state that one is “for race”—meaning, at a minimum, for the consideration of race as an important component in group belonging. This has the advantage of sounding more reasonable than the average WN rant-and-raver as well as having the (intended or not) effect of helping the other party see itself in a better light, rather than the deplorable effect of WN “attacks,” which serve only to strengthen opposition. 76
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:40 | #
And yet Salter’s own table, showing the number of immigrants needed to reduce child equivalents by one outlines how Greeks are further distant from the Irish or Scottish populations than the average European Caucasoid is to an average non-European Caucasoid.
77
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:54 | # Salter’s tables were based on Fst, if I recall correctly. A much better way to measure relatedness is shared informative by descent segments. It doesn’t have the same problem where it can be influenced by the degree of variation within the different groups involved. I’m not aware of whether the technique has been used on Greeks, so perhaps they cluster first with Near Easterners. Still, if Sicilians cluster with Northwest Europeans it follows that the vast majority of Southern European ethnic groups, everone except possibly some Balkanites, cluster first with Northwest Europeans first as well. 78
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:00 | #
Even if the Fst technique was accepted as optimal, and it’s not, what you say here still wouldn’t prove that Greeks cluster with Near Easterners before Northern Europeans. It could be that the Irish and Scots are more distant from the Greeks than other Northwest European groups, and therefore drawing conclusions based on comparing Greeks to ethnic groups cherry-picked for being less Greek-like than other Northwest European groups wouldn’t be a valid procedure. 79
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:14 | #
It’s getting better mainly because the Greeks and other Balkanites have given up. Just compare the Greek birthrate to the Turkish birthrate. Though I consider Greeks White and Turks non-White, I’m willing to admit that the two groups have some commonalities, certainly more than any non-Balkan Southern Europeans have to Near Easterners. There’s some shared ancestry there from the Greek who colonized Anatolia in Classical times, as well as whatever fractional amont of Turkish blood the Greeks picked up during that time period where the Armies of the Ottomans were ruling over you. But my point isn’t that you should hate each other, instead merely that the Greeks should start standing up for themselves.
How about putting a spanner in the works because you have important conflicts of interest with Turks?
If you fight on the side of the Turks, you’ll justly be treated as a Turk. At least you’ve made clear what side your on. We can’t let those people into Europe, we can’t let those people stay in Europe. They don’t belong here and even if they were genetically interchangable with Southeast Europeans, and they aren’t, their history of attacking Europeans and trying to impose their alien religion on us every chance they get would be reason enough to keep them at arm’s length. What’s so bad about Turkey that it isn’t good enough for the Turks? Of course the answer is that they have conquest on their minds. 80
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:21 | #
I want to point out that I never used the term race war, in spite of Silver’s deceptive attempt to imply such. I instead used the term racial conflict. Racial conflict can, and usually is, far lower intensity that a race war would be. 81
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:10 | #
Ancient admixture is far more diluted than recent admixture. Also, it’s limited in nature. In contrast recent admixture has far more of a genetic punch to it; far more of an impact on how closely related I am to the person with recent admixture.
The feeling that recent admixture is more meaningful is a reflection of genetic reality.
Everyone has ancient non-European admixture. It is in the nature of ancient admixture that it’s spread itself out in the different European ethnic groups. All Greeks have some Turkish admixture, for instance, and the admixture occurred long enough ago that it would be at very nearly the same level in all Greeks. For this reason it makes sense to judge ancient admixture on the level of groups, as opposed to the level of individuals. If a Man’s ethnic group has little and compatible enough ancient admixture that I think it makes sense to count that ethnic group as White, then the question of whether he has a little more or a little less ancient admixture than the mean for his ethnic group is a matter of no importance. In contrast recent admixture is something where there ARE profound genetic differences between ostensible members of the same ethnic group. A “Greek” with a Turkish grandfather is going to be significantly less related to me than any Europeans lacking recent admixture. Recent non-European admixture is always going to make a member of an ethnic group less related to me than full blooded members of that ethnic group, and in almost all cases it will also have the effect of making that individual with recent non-European admixture less related to me than ANY European lacking recent admixture would be. For this reason it makes sense as a general rule to view individuals with recent admixture as not really being European or White. I did some rough calculations on Todd Palin, for example, and he’s less related to the average European than anyone in Europe, and even less related to the average European than a great many people in the Middle East. Considering I don’t count Middle Easterners as White, it hardly makes sense for me to count Todd Palin as White either, does it? Then there’s the even more important issue that ancient admixture has constraints on it that recent admixture completely lacks. I know the old timey admixture between White Americans and Amerindians didn’t go beyond a certain point in terms of how large a proportion of Amerindian genes it introduced into White Americans, but I know no such thing when it comes to the admixture going on today with White Americans and other assorted Europe derived groups. The same calculus applies to the old timey admixture that occurred between Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners, I know it didn’t go beyond that certain point where a groups stops being European or White in any meaningful sense, as the “White” Brazilians have. 82
Posted by Guest Lurker on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:18 | # Hamish wrote:
Unfortunately, it’s not just the Balkan peoples who have given up and have been sold out by their leadership. In two German schools in Hamburg, in addition to Turkish language lessons being taught to German students, there are also general studies courses being instructed in the Turkish language, complete with a map of Turkey on the classroom walls and a picture of Kemal Ataturk hanging as well. The school principal, a woman, praises this as a great indicator of cultural “openness”. White females and effete white male liberals seem to believe submission and capitulation to be “openness”. But the Germans have not had enough. No sir! They’re starting to abandon the allegedly “conservative” CDU in droves for the even further left Greens and Social Democrats in regional elections in places like Hamburg and Baden-Wurttemberg. The left is on a roll in Germany, thanks especially to the leftist media being able to capitalize on the nuclear disaster in Japan and playing on the gullible Germans’ fears. The Japanese tsunami has been a godsend for the German left in an election year. 83
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:20 | #
This is especially the case because the interbreeding with non-Europeans on the part of White Americans and Europeans today is happening at so much higher a rate than ever before in the history of either America or Europe. Also there’s the issue that without a one drop rule, or any other meaningful ancestry based definition of someone’s race, it’s so much harder to keep interbreeding with non-Europeans from leading to the large scale introduction of non-European dna into the White population. History is repeating itself, what happened to Brazil is happening to us today. If trends aren’t checked by something like the creation of an ethnostate for those of European descent, or the deportation of non-Europeans interlopers from as many European countries as possible, we will be left with the kind of heavily bastardized “White” population found in Brazil. And even if Brazil being what it is today isn’t so great a misfortune, if what happened to them happens to Europe and the European majority countries like America and Australia, it will indeed be the greatest misfortune yet suffered in Human history. It will be the extinction of the European race. If we are to grieve and seek to prevent the extinction of the lowly animal species, how much more should we seek to prevent the extinction of the most important and best Human race to ever live? If what was done to the Amerindians by Europeans was wrong, what’s being done to us by Jews and Leftists is far more wrong. 84
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 03:33 | #
Guest Lurker, What you say is certainly both true and profoundly relevant. And it’s well worth noting that Silver has far more in common with Northern European Leftists than he would wish to admit. I just wish some European group would start showing spine, then maybe it would lead to the spell of capitulation as the ultimate “virtue” being broken for the other groups. We’re under the thumb of leadership who wants us to be effaced from the Earth. Bloody wars have been fought over far less insults than what our leaders do to us every single day. What we need is for the truth to be demonstrated that these horrible leaders can be stood up to and defeated in at least one country without those doing the standing being struck down by lightning. 85
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:27 | #
If there is a non-trivial extent of Mediterranean Type admixture in the English, how can the Greeks be further distant from the average Englishman than the average NEC is distant from the average EC? The answer is we shouldn’t trust Salter’s calculations? 86
Posted by Hamish on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 04:49 | # The Mediterranean Type is just that: a type. It makes no sense to speak of “Mediterranean Type admixture”. The occurrences of the Mediterranean Type in England could be due to co-evolution, or just random chance. Also there’s the issue that the Mediterranean Type is found in groups that are heterogeneous relative to each other. If the Mediterranean Type English got their type from people with the Mediterranean Type, as opposed to it being an independent development, then it could well be that the English got their admixture from Mediterranean Types from Western European Mediterranean populations who would have had less in common with the Eastern European Mediterranean populations like the Greeks.
I’m not saying that Salter’s calculations were wrong, only that he based his calculations on a measure of genetic distance which was both flawed and which has since been superseded by a superior technique. Fst measures genetic distance in a way which is overly reliant on the assumption that different populations have the same amount of internal genetic diversity. 87
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:34 | # L21 essentially dismisses the British Med type is linked to Mediterranean Types from Western European Mediterranean populations. It appears increasingly clear the the ancient British “Med Type” is not derived from the Mediterranean populations. Why persist in calling them Med Type? 88
Posted by anonymous on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:41 | # Posted by Captainchaos on April 02, 2011, 08:00 AM | # ‘‘Based upon appearance, I could never say that Slavic- and Italian-Americans are anything but White. Arabs don’t look White to me, yet the aforementioned do.’‘ Based upon appearance they may be anything but ‘white’ but the term ‘white’ refers to skin tone and if it doesnt refer to skin tone but refers to just europeans then it still changes nothing. Homogenouty does not refer to a single feature it referes to the similarity of a race’s ‘‘overal looks’’ and in that regard the european race from a biological perspective is not classifiable homogeneous . The dictionary definition. ‘‘Oxford dictionary consisting of things or people that are all the same or all of the same type ‘‘Adj. 1. homogeneous - all of the same or similar kind or nature; “a close-knit homogeneous group” Europeans exhibit great variation in terms of looks and from a biological perspective cannot be classified as homogeneous. The European race is hetrogeneous not homogeneous looking. The dictionary definition. heterogeneous adjective Definition: made up of parts that are different from each other and unrelated Synonyms: mixed, miscellaneous, varied assorted, diverse, mingled The Europeans are easily dis No one ‘seriously looking’ to understand the purity of race would look towards the European race. The chinese would be alot closer in the running. No matter what way one spins the argument from a racial perspective Europeans are classifiable as hetrogeneous Not homogeneous in appearance. Case Closed. 89
Posted by anonymous on Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:43 | # ‘The Europeans are easily dis’ correction: The Europeans are easily distinguishable from one another in terms of appearance. Post a comment:
Next entry: Pastor Manning again
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:38 | #
That the North African revolutions are psych-operations, no one with any intelligence, insight or credibility denies. A little knowledge on how the system of arbitrage in petroleum futures operates would provide some clarity. In short: N.African instability garners trillions of dollars in profits. Libyan oil production for the next 36 months has already been bought and paid for at an fixed price, negotiated in the past few years.
Revolutions, Earthquakes and Alien Visitation will not change the price of Libyan crude for the Producer.
For the Consumer - political instability causes the price to shoot up - despite the fact there is only a perceived rise in prices at the well head…in actuality production is at the same fixed price for the next three years regardless of what happens. Stocks will rise dependent on ‘futures’ - initially produced to justify the massive increases in fuel costs to the Consumer… despite having only a tangential relationship with the price of oil for the next three years.
Buy-ins on energy commodities always start high - then fall to reasonable levels once a position is consolidated.
Both Wilders and Marine are also psych-operations - directed from both sides. Political futures are also gamed in much the same way as energy commodities.