Posted by Andy on Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:21 | #

It’s precisely my Anglo-American notions of fair play and sportsmanship that have me so riled up in the first place, Steve.

  Exactly. My Anglo-American notions of fair play and sportsmanship tell me that I’m being royally screwed. Additionally, my Anglo-American notions of fair play and sportsmanship make me want to avoid playing with people who don’t share these notions.  The system isn’t fair to whites now and non-whites are probably wholly incapable of adopting Anglo-American notions of fair play and sportsmanship.  In other words, the Anglo-American notions of fair play and sportsmanship are consistent only with racial separatism.

Posted by Rnl on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:14 | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote:

1. Genetic criteria; 2. Descendant and inheritor of European Christendom; 3. Phenotype; 4. Legal-political definition

Stick with (2)—descendant and inheritor of European Christendom—and forget the rest, especially (1). Broad definitions are the best, and anything that might lead to a hierarchy of whiteness should be avoided. When in doubt, include rather than exclude. We should always remember that our enemies fear multiethnic whiteness.

I quote the opinion of a distinguished German statesman: “Much as I gaze in awe at the Jews’ laws for maintaining and preserving the purity of their race, I must nevertheless proceed from my belief that racial theories, should they become the subject of public discussion, may prove a national disaster rather than a blessing. We must accept the mixing of blood as it is. We must not call one blood worse than another, one mixture better than another” (Otto Wagener, _Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant_).

Posted by Billy on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:30 | #

To pick up on the theme in the original posting, it appears that Peter Brimelow has taken to publishing articles by a man named Edwin Rubenstein. An article by Robenstein was posted on VDARE on August 29, 2006, and can be found at:

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/060829_nd.htm

Rubenstein appears to be one of these friendly/enemies by virtue of defining us as non-Hispanic whites. I think this applies only to the US, but he clearly states, “As recently as 1990 76 percent of Americans called themselves non-Hispanic white.”

There’s not a chance that more than .0001% of whites have ever called themselves non-Hispanic whites. It wouldn’t occur to anyone to do so. This is just a lie by Rubenstein, and it means for those so-named:

1. You’re not American by label. You’re so low down, you’re not even hyphenated!
2. You’re not entitled to a capital letter as a proper noun.
3. You’re defined by who you are not.

Naming isn’t as fundamental as genetic coding, but if there is such a thing as memes operating within society, then a lie that we call ourselves non-Hispanic whites must have some meaning or importance. How it plays out, I don’t know, but we’d have to list Rubenstein as a friendly/enemy because of his belief that he can tell us who we are. I don’t think it is a slur, but it is definitely a lie.

And, while he preaches our doom and gives us our name, he predicts defeat and single-digit share in overall population in the US. Thanks, Rubenstein.

Posted by Ben Tillman on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:31 | #

“White people are those young and old people who are attacked for being white on college campuses, on television news and entertainment programs, in the print media, and on sidewalks and playgrounds. White people have their whiteness defined for them by denunciation.”

Exactly, Bo.  We don’t have to define the term, because our enemies have.  And it is imperative that all of those who face this united attack cooperate to respond with a united defense.

Posted by rustymason on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:18 | #

And that united defense is?

Posted by Daedalus on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:48 | #

Sailer’s next topic is his claim that “white Americans these days really don’t like getting down and wrestling with the Al Sharptons [sic] of the world for racial spoils.” But he cites no evidence for this over-wrought claim and, in fact, Al Sharpton is probably the most wrestled with African-American ever. Consider the smackdown administered to him by an Italian-American attorney over the false claims of a kidnapping some years ago.  Sailer typically picked the worst example he could have so far as “getting down and wrestling” is concerned.

Sailer is right and wrong. He’s right in that many elite whites look down upon working and middle class whites who oppose affirmative action. As cosmopolitans, they derive their sense of status from looking down on the average white citizen, especially the more parochial ones, and this is one of the fundamental reasons why they are unreceptive to racial appeals. It’s mere snobbery. In their view, affirmative action takes the edge off of America’s race problem and has been successful in keeping the ghetto blacks in line. If affirmative action were dismantled and government spending significantly reduced, they know very well the black middle class would collapse overnight. The Philadelphia Plan, along with the black studies programs in the Ivy League, was originally adopted in the intimidating atmosphere of the late 1960s when blacks were rioting in dozens of cities and taking over college campuses.

Sailer is obviously wrong in that whites are unreceptive to racial arguments. First, Nixon defeated Humphrey in 1968 by exploiting white fear of black criminality. Second, Wallace and Nixon in 1972 destroyed McGovern over the issue of forced busing. The Democrats ran Carter in 1976 because he was a white Southerner. Reagan attacked black welfare queens in his 1980 campaign to win over the Wallace Democrats (who were later relabled the “Reagan Democrats”). White Southerners abandoned the Democratic Party out of disgust for LBJ’s support for the Civil Rights Movement. In 1988, Bush the Elder ran his infamous Willie Horton ad which helped him defeat Dukakis. In 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a “New Democrat” who promised to “end welfare as we know it.” His policy on affirmative action was “mend it, don’t end it.” Still, Clinton only got a plurality of the vote (Perot had peeled off substantial support from Bush). David Duke, an outright former Nazi and head of the KKK, won the majority of white voters in Louisiana in his Senate and Governor races. In 2000, the majority of white voters in Alabama voted to keep the state anti-miscegenation law. In 2004, the majority of white voters in Alabama defeated an amendment to strike segregationist language out of the state constitution.

So, if whites are not receptive to racial appeals, why did the Democrats lose every presidential election from 1968 until 2004 (with the exceptions of Carter and Clinton)? Why did they go from being a majority party based in the Solid South to being unable to win a single southern state in 2004? Why did they run away from civil rights after McGovern? Why have they moderated themselves so much on affirmative action? There are still millions of whites who are receptive to racial appeals, especially in the Deep South. The literature on the subject is clear on this point: about 12%-15% of whites are still willing to say in polls that miscegenation should be a crime. It’s quite likely that many more disapprove of miscegenation, but don’t think it should be illegal. Also, given what we know about public opinion surveys, white racial identification is almost certainly underpresented in polls due to social taboos.

There is no reason why a racialist mass movement cannot be built in America today. What is lacking is organization, leadership, money, and media. These problems, while severe, are all tractable.

Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:59 | #

I sent a very lengthy letter to Sailer himself, directly, after his VDARE article came out.  Included were a significant number of links to genetic studies and testing websites.  Included was some links to phenotype. I discussed the cultural issue as well.  Included also was a refutation of his “Al Sharpton vs. whites” stupidity, using some of the arguments from the citizenist debate.

The “great man” gave me a one sentence answer, seemingly focused on that small part of my letter where culture was mentioned: “the book was about race not culture.”

Thus, does Sailer answer a long correspondence critiquing his positions in detail.

That’s an example of Sailer’s technique of addressing correspondence: ignore 99% of the material, and then make a brief, breezy, insipid comment that doesn’t even address the other 1%.  Yeah, Steve, the word “culture” is not in the title of Francis’ book; therefore, it it *must* be obvious that Francis and the other authors have no interest in culture whatseover - which is of course refuted by a look, for example, at Francis’ body of work.

Sailer is not only a dedicated enemy of white racial interests, a panderer to GNXP, and a promoter of miscegenation, he is an intellectual mediocrity who is unable to formulate even the barest defense of his indefensible arguments.

Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:02 | #

Of course when Sailer himself wishes to do so, he uses terms like “whites” and “white Americans” without defining them, apparently taking it for granted that his readers know to whom he refers.

Breezy, Steve, real breezy.

Posted by Sally Bowles on Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:23 | #

Steve Sailer is our very own Tim Wise, except Steve shows
us the deceptively-soft velvet inside of Tim’s iron-gloved fist, while Tim relishes the force of the iron glove.

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:47 | #

Yes, Sally, and there are it seems ethnic similarities between Wise and Sailer as well.

By the way, here is an example that shows that the United States is certainly ready for “citizenism”, and, surely, if whites unilaterally give up race-based activism, why of course blacks and other non-whites will reciprocate:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/08/by_any_means_ne.php

After reading that, one can certainly feel secure that blacks are ready to put “the interests of Americans first.”

One wonders *why* Sailer is hostile to WN.  Because of his own assumptions about his ancestry?  Is his wife non-white (“the Derbyshire gambit”). Is he just a “race-realist” who is, in his deepest ideology, a liberal, despite a surface veneer of “conservatism” (Steve Sailer, another poster boy for the utility of “conservatism” to assist with white racial interests).

The combination of being a) a race realist, and b) Caucasian, if not full-blooded European makes one wonder why the knee-jerk and obfuscatory/mendacious attacks on WN.

One understands why race deniers or non-white “race realists” attack WN.  But why someone who understands - in his own muddled way - the importance of race does this, is a question that needs to be analyzed.

Posted by Bo Sears on Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:25 | #

Steve Sailer has another posting on VDARE today related to the above points:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060904_interracial.htm

I don’t believe there is anything about immigration in it at all, but Sailer takes a gratuitous swipe at “hillbillies.”

Posted by On Holliday on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:55 | #

In email, the “great man” claimed that Francis’ Race and the American Prospect was about race and not culture.  Actually, breezy Steve, it was about both.  From Francis’ intro, reproduced at VDARE:

“Finally, whites need to form their racial consciousness in conformity not only with what we now know about the scientific reality of race but also with the moral and political traditions of Western Man—White Man. The purpose of white racial consciousness and identity is not simply to serve as a balance against the aggression and domination of other races but also to preserve, protect, and help revitalize the legacy of the civilization that our own ancestors created and handed down to us, for its own sake, because it is ours, and because, by the standards of the values and ideals we as a race and a civilization have articulated, it is better.”

Breezy, Steve, real, real breezy.

Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:01 | #

In the past, I myself have sneered at white trash. In hindsight though, some of the best all around people I have ever met were hillbillies. Intelligence is certainly a valuable trait, but so is character. The rough egalitarianism of Alabama rednecks is nowhere near as annoying or off-putting as the pushy, snotty Jews I now have the misfortune of interacting with.

Posted by On Holliday on Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:05 | #

Daedalus is correct. 

But, then, Sailer is a Southern Californian with putative Jewish ancestry, so one would not expect him to care much about “hillbillies” - except where said “hillbillies” have families and vote Republican, providing fodder for Breezy Steve’s pontifications about ‘affordable family formation.’