The New White Nationalism in America - a critique

Posted by Dan Dare on Saturday, 03 October 2009 21:06.

This essay is a critique of Carol Swain’s book The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. It is adapted from a paper written in 2008 and targeted towards a mainstream (i.e. ultra-liberal) academic audience, so if the tone seems somewhat detached and non-partisan for an MR article, that is the reason why. Although not especially topical (the book was published in 2002) the decision to post the piece was prompted by a comment left elsewhere on the blog to the effect that Obama’s election signals the rebirth of ethnocentrism in the United States. Is that actually a supportable proposition and if so, why? Certainly if Swain’s argument that WNism in America is largely (but not wholly) propelled by opposition to Affirmative Action holds up, then having a beneficiary of the same in the White House would seem to support the proposition as stated.

At the time of the initial publication of her book Carol Swain, was (and still is today) Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University. On her website she cites herself in describing the book in the following terms: “My book is a wake-up call,” says Swain. “We’re at a point in history where we have an opportunity to avert disaster. I believe that unless we take action today, we’re headed for unprecedented levels of racial and ethnic conflict.” Even after allowing for a tinge of self-puffery and hyperbole, it sounded like pretty strong stuff from a rather unexpected source.

I felt that the combination of subject matter - the [re-]awakening of white racial consciousness - and the status of the author as a bona-fide member of an oppressed group, presented an interesting mixture rendering reading and commenting on it a worthwhile exercise. There is also the fact that the book is not positioned as a polemic, unlike most other attempts to deal with racial matters in contemporary America.  In the course of this short critique, I intend to provide an overview of Swain’s stated objectives in writing the book, outline her perception of the problem(s) and their causes, then touch on her proposed remedies, and conclude by noting my personal impressions and commentary.

1 – CAROL SWAIN’S OBJECTIVES FOR THE BOOK

The author states at the outset that her work is intended for a mainstream audience, rather than being targeted at fellow academics and policy specialists, which all augured well for its readability. On the other hand, though, she doesn’t skimp on the citations, footnotes and bibliography for those who might wish to examine her sources for themselves.  In p. xv-xvi of her Preface she sets out the objectives as follows:

(a) [… to] explore the development of an emerging white nationalist (WN) movement that poses a threat to the peace and repose of the multiethnic society;

(b) to heighten public awareness about the various groups that constitute the WN “movement” and their leadership;

(c) to provide liberals in particular with an insight into the ongoing racial problems in the United States;

(d) to show how some of the policies advocated by liberals are exacerbating racial discord, and

(e) to make the case for a reinvigorated public debate into the issues of race and identity politics.


2 – THE PROBLEM AS STATED

In p.1 of the Introduction, CS takes some care to differentiate between what she styles as the ‘old-style White Supremacist (WS) movement’ and what she terms ‘… a new and expanded white consciousness movement … white nationalism (WN)’. She contrasts the ‘new, sophisticated WNism with the crude racism’ of the KKK et al (p. 3), and highlights the current heightened focus on recruiting from an educated, mainstream audience. On pp. 4-5 she mentions the growth of a new ‘Euro-Americanism’ as an emerging new player in the identity politics field, one which is at present camped predominantly on the radical right of the political spectrum.

This ‘new white racial advocacy movement’ (p.15) is led by people who are ‘…cultured, intelligent, and often possessing impressive degrees from some of America’s finest colleges and universities’. They are a ‘… far cry from the populist politicians and hooded Klansmen who fought the losing battles for segregation during the great civil rights upheavals…’ (p.15). From p.16 onwards, several of the leading personalities are introduced, including David Duke, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, the academics Philippe Rushton, Michael Hart, Michael Levin, Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn. The Internet is cited as a prime recruiting tool (p.30) and CS details particularly Stormfront.org and its proprietor Don Black. CS concludes that the fundamental goal of the new WNism is not white supremacism but racial separation:  “White nationalists recognize that America is already a multiracial, multiethnic society, but given their pessimism about the long-term health and viability of such societies, they believe that drastic measures must be taken to change things. Their solution is usually some form of ethnic separation based on territorial partition. Racial separation is the obvious next step for people who believe that racial and ethnic minorities are a danger to the personal safety and social values of white Americans” (p.19).

At this point, then, it seems clear that for CS the danger inherent in the ‘emerging new white nationalism’ and white ‘identity politics’ is not just the challenge it presents to racial integration but the threat it poses for the long-term viability of the United States itself in its present form.

3 – ROOT CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM

Back in her Introduction, CS sets out what she believes forms the underlying causation for the nascent WN movement. These “…seven conditions [which] threaten to fuel the growth of this new [white] racial consciousness movement” are taken up again in Chapter 14 and can be summarized/paraphrased as follows (pp.2 and 423), with an appropriate citation for each, as being illustrative of the author’s rationale for its inclusion:

? Changing demographics principally due to large-scale immigration which brings the prospect that whites will cease to have a racial majority in the US (“… whites who feel threatened by immigration, and fueled by WN rhetoric, may one day take matters into their own hands to ‘solve’ America’s immigration issues” p. 103);

? Job losses due to globalization (“… In almost every sector, large companies manipulate the immigration system, much to the detriment of Americans. The new H1-B work visa program is the most recent example of this” p. 93);

? Resentment over racial preference polices e.g. Affirmative Action (“… affirmative action policies … have become synonymous with quotas, reverse discrimination, and naked racial preferences, all of which are strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of America’s white population” p. 133)

? High levels of black-on-white crime, particularly violent crime (“WNs have seized on this issue of black crime rates and begun a concerted effort to raise the racial consciousness of white America through a series of press releases detailing the racial disparities in violent crime” p. 113);

? Multiculturalism, ‘ethnic pride’, and identity politics (“On many campuses, balkanization and grouping along cultural lines has prompted some white students to self-segregate and seek their own organizations …” p. 314);

? Rising expectations among racial and ethnic minorities (“Moreover it is not only whites who are angry or feel resentful and threatened. A part of the future discord will come from the rising expectations and demands of racial and ethnic minorities, which are sure to increase as minorities become a larger portion of the American population” p. 424) ;

? The communicative power and political impact of the Internet (“Concerted efforts by watchdog agencies and institutional elites to censor WN groups have failed … such groups have highly developed networks and forums that allow them to take their messages to millions of Americans” p.346)

She points to a rising level of racial consciousness amongst European-Americans and WN as the ‘next logical stage for identity politics in America’.

Much of the remainder of the book is taken up with the author’s rationale for identifying this particular “host of powerful social forces” (p.423) as the principal drivers behind the growth of the new WNism. Separate chapters in the book are devoted to the impact of demographic change, crime and the fear of violence, and, in particular, Affirmative Action and racial preference policies in general. In fact there seems little doubt that of all the ‘powerful social forces’ enumerated above, racial preference policies are the most troubling for CS in constituting a main driver for WNism. So much so, in fact, that she devotes a further three full chapters to discussing the implementation of Affirmative Action schemes in America’s colleges, and the legal, social and political consequences that have ensued.

4 – THE PROPOSED REMEDIES

In Chapter 14, the author recites a number of recommendations for initiatives to mitigate and, potentially, to eliminate the roots causes of the problems that she says are putting Americans at risk of “… large-scale racial conflict unprecedented in our nation’s history” (p. 423). She has two distinct groups of recommendations: ideas for the improvement of American society generally, and recommendations directed specifically towards the African-American community. The former group consists of fourteen recommendations, listed on pp. 425-443, the latter group has nine recommendations, described on pp. 425-455.

Among the general recommendations which are both more radical and likely to be challenging to implement are calls to action on: the opening up of political discourse on unfashionable ideas on race; the need to address legitimate public policy issues raised by WNs and conservatives which are currently ignored by governmental offices and liberal elites; the abandonment of all racial- and gender-based double standards, especially in colleges and universities, and the termination of all racial preferences in employment and promotion; and finally, a dramatic scale-back of legal immigration and proper enforcement of current laws against hiring illegal aliens.

Some of the recommendations for action on the part of the black community and its leadership are no less radical and challenging. These include calls to make the reduction of black crime rates America’s No. 1 public policy issue, for the black leadership to cease using riotous behavior by blacks as an opportunity to press for more federal largesse, and to vigorously condemn the ‘scandalously high’ rates of illegitimacy and AIDS in the black community.


5 – COMMENTARY

At almost 500 pages excluding bibliography this is a long and densely-written work. It is an honest and, to my mind, even-handed treatment of a difficult subject and it is clear that Professor Swain had no compunction in leading to slaughter a number of cows considered sacred by the liberal managerial elites. She is particularly critical of the way in which the self-anointed leadership of various minority communities, and especially blacks, are encouraged through the prevailing dogma of multiculturalism and oppression-theory to indulge in ethnic rent-seeking and identity politics. The non-partisan reader could hardly fail to agree with the author’s conclusion that the social dynamics that have led to the racially-charged atmosphere have increased the vulnerability of mainstream white Americans to the ‘subtle recruitment strategies’ of WNism. Nor with her claim that the situation is greatly exacerbated by the ability of WNs to cloak their arguments in legitimate-sounding rhetoric, as well as the intransigence of the white liberal establishment and minority leaders in addressing the concerns that the white majority has about racial preferences and all the rest.

Impressive as the work is, it is not, in my opinion without some serious flaws. The largest, in my view, is that the author has, despite a strenuous effort to be more all-encompassing, fallen into the trap of viewing the new WNism as a binary issue of black-white identity politics. The undue focus on Affirmative Action and black social pathologies obscures the greater truth, which is that advocates of white separatism are primarily motivated, not by fears of black crime and resentment over racial preferences, by rather by a more atavistic fear of ethnic and cultural displacement. A cursory look at contemporary WN literature, propaganda and, particularly Internet forums such as Stormfront (not to mention of the dozens of private ones), will reveal immediately that, while many white nationalists are extremely disparaging about blacks and wish to be rid of them, there is a far greater level of concern about what is termed ‘the rising brown tide’, which is being fuelled by continuing large-scale immigration from the Third World. In the grand scheme of things, the ‘black issue’ on its own is generally held be manageable in the long term but the demographic transformation is not.

The other criticism I would make is that CS has focused rather too much on the “story so far” and, while issuing dire but necessarily non-specific warnings about the consequences of identity politics, she fails to properly sketch out any plausible future scenarios. She ignores totally the political dimension of the impact that the demographic transformation fuelled by immigration and globalization will have the American political landscape, and appears to assume that a ‘business as usual’ approach will prevail whilst the transformation process runs its course. This is to an extent a reflection of her parochialism and her inability to view the issue through anything other than a prism of African-American sensibility. If she had made a greater effort to examine the situation in other countries, she would not have failed to notice the emergence of ‘far-right’ nationalist parties, some of which have now entered the mainstream political process. In Denmark, for example, the Danish People’s Party has become the third-largest party in Parliament, based on the popularity of its stance against immigration and multiculturalism. In America the continuing option of white flight may delay the emergence of such factions for a while yet, perhaps even another generation or two, but unless the issues that Carol Swain has described can be resolved in the meantime, their eventual emergence is practically guaranteed. Our children and grandchildren will be living in interesting times, I wonder what they will make of the societal legacy that we have left them?

 

Tags:



Comments:


1

Posted by Texan on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:28 | #

the author as a bona-fide member of an oppressed group

And here I thought that the author is a black woman. 


She may not be a member of an oppressed group, but Swain is unique among the left for her relatively fair treatment of WN.  She writes as if she believes that White Nationalists are actually people.  Who else on the left even acknowledges that there could possibly exist a scenario where whites would be understandably aggrieved?

Of course, if separation is the ultimate goal, it’s actually a good thing that Swain is alone in being sensible and moderate.


2

Posted by danielj on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 06:55 | #

It is dangerous.

It just means more Glen Becks and more pressure relief valves while, as Dan rightly states, the issue of racial, ethnic, cultural and religious displacement proceeds apace.

The goal of our Khazaric overlords and their easily manipulated quasi-simians, and I’m more convinced then ever - and mostly because of the insistence of the Great Fred Scrooby - is our replacement and this book is really an attempt to figure out how to achieve that goal with minimal disruption to status quo.

I guess my only remaining question is, is it worth reading Dan?


3

Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:08 | #

I’m not sure it’s clear this is a book WNs should read. This book has had zero impact. I’m realistic about things, and, as I’ve written before, I believe we are headed for “unprecedented levels of racial and ethnic conflict,” i.e. civil war, race war, whatever you want to call. It would be far better for WNs at this stage to read studies on political organisation, political action, and counter-insurgency warfare.


4

Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:09 | #

Or, insurgency warfare.


5

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 12:46 | #

.... I guess my only remaining question is, is it worth reading Dan?


Like the curate’s egg, it is good in parts. There is a lot of interesting background on AA, for example, Swain argues that AA was originally conceived as a way of appeasing blacks and maintaining order in the aftermath of the urban riots in the 1960s, and not as is usually thought, for altruistic motives. I’ve forgotten the citation she offered but it seemed plausible.

I think probably the most striking thing though, is that *none* of the recommendations that she made for changes either in society at large or in the black community in particular have been adopted. According to Swain, lack of positive action would naturally lead to rising support for WN in America?

Has it? I’d suggest not.


6

Posted by bob on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:39 | #

Off-topic, but some of you might like to chime in on the amusing list over here:

http://www.aish.com/j/fs/48929732.html#


7

Posted by bob on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:58 | #

Ah, the site I linked to above is moderated. May I suggest GW set up such a list here? I doubt if I’ll see my submissions on the linked site (though I might). They included “The Renaissance is goyish, the Russian Revolution is jewish”, “Freedom of speech is goyish, the suppression of free speech is jewish”, “Art is goyish, art criticism is jewish”, “Ecology is goyish, psychoanalysis is jewish”, “The World Wildlife Fund is goyish, the NKVD is jewish,” “Building civilizations is goyish, tearing civilizations down is jewish”, “The Muses are goyish, Yahweh is jewish”, “Showing respect to people is goyish, mocking the working class of the nations you live among is jewish,” “Silently observing and noting is goyish, hubris is jewish,” and so on. How about it, GW? Care to stick it to the most bourgeois of peoples, those who have no idea how utterly bourgeois they are?


8

Posted by GenoType on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:19 | #

the opening up of political discourse on unfashionable ideas on race; the need to address legitimate public policy issues raised by WNs and conservatives which are currently ignored by governmental offices and liberal elites; the abandonment of all racial- and gender-based double standards, especially in colleges and universities, and the termination of all racial preferences in employment and promotion; and finally, a dramatic scale-back of legal immigration and proper enforcement of current laws against hiring illegal aliens.

Ever participate in the mediation of a contractual dispute?  The stronger party acquires information, then uses its superior resources to undermine the weaker party’s argument while projecting “fairness,” “good faith,” and “civility.”  The latter is very important to conservatives for as everybody knows, violated conservatives not willing to dispense with the “social contract” have only a superficial sense of self-worth with which to buttress themselves.

Remember the character Bobby in the 1972 movie Deliverance?  Bobby was ordered to squeal like a pig.  Rape is easier endure, I suppose, if the antagonist is “civil.”


9

Posted by GenoType on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:07 | #

If she had made a greater effort to examine the situation in other countries, she would not have failed to notice the emergence of ‘far-right’ nationalist parties, some of which have now entered the mainstream political process. In Denmark, for example, the Danish People’s Party has become the third-largest party in Parliament, based on the popularity of its stance against immigration and multiculturalism. In America the continuing option of white flight may delay the emergence of such factions for a while yet, perhaps even another generation or two, but unless the issues that Carol Swain has described can be resolved in the meantime, their eventual emergence is practically guaranteed. Our children and grandchildren will be living in interesting times, I wonder what they will make of the societal legacy that we have left them?

Far-right parties merely reflect an attempt to mediate the situation.  Time grows short.  We haven’t two generations.  Our population is graying.  So mediation is a stall.  It is not the solution.  The first step in providing a solution is to dispense with the old contract and write a new one, by and for the members of the weaker party.  This will require out-contract socioeconomic sustainability which will result in the loss of “prosperity” for some.  Therefore efforts to provide economic sustainability must be targeted. Not all members of the weaker party can be included.  The excluded will include the present leadership of the weaker party, for once control of our “managed” opposition is lost they will rejoin the stronger party.


10

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 17:50 | #

Bob,

I don’t know if there is enough meat on that bone for an MR carnivore.  But if you want to string together a piece around a list of ten or twelve initial pas de deux I will post it for you.  The contact address is under the header.


11

Posted by Prozium on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:11 | #

The Swain book is worth reading. It is a tad dated though (released in 2002). Check out Leonard Zeskind’s Blood and Politics instead.


12

Posted by bob on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:16 | #

GW,

It just has to be taken in the context in which the other list (at that site) is written. The smarminess, the gloating, the delusional aspects. We’ve all encountered this list or ones like it, the one-sided compare and contrast (Hoste wrote recently about an episode of Larry David’s “Curb Your Enthusiasm” that was, essentially, a filmed version), the KMac question of “delusion” or “self-delusion”. I’m just suggesting it be thrown out there so that somewhere on line there’s a list of our own, one to puncture smug fantasies. They’ve grown to believe that from running some smuggling rings in the Rhineland and getting peasants drunk on vodka in the Belarus region 200 years ago, that they’re somehow the pinnacle of taste and culture. I say knock em down, at least rhetorically.


13

Posted by DavoFromSpace on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:57 | #

Tell me, why do leftists fear whites voluntarily separating from colored people so much?

Personally I think it is a basic human right for people to be able to preserve their identity and culture and to be able associate with whom they please. To force them to do anything else is tyranny and is genocide.


14

Posted by Frederich on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:54 | #

A Precursor to the above:

The White Separatist Movement in the United States: http://www.amazon.com/White-Separatist-Movement-United-States/dp/0801865379/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254714334&sr=1-1

Heres one written by an American White Nationalist who, with other men, such as Robert J. Mathews, held true to harder principles of the deed:

Rise of The West

https://www.createspace.com/3338084


15

Posted by Frank on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:21 | #

An example of black rule should WN fail in America: Heart of Darkness movie review: white lesbian woman accepts rape as the price for her living under black rule…


16

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:43 | #

Far-right parties merely reflect an attempt to mediate the situation.

The aim of a far right party is to provoke the enemy into revealing themselves.

The response of the quisling state to peaceful, democratic activity is what makes the revolution, not the activity itself.


17

Posted by Denise Barber on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:45 | #

Errrr….....Swain, and the author of this review have essentially admitted that there IS no America if Whites sign off. How bitterly amusing.

Yup. This is true. The USA was created BY - and FOR - White Anglo Saxon Protestants. We went tragically wrong by admitting the Nation Wreckers in, during the Great Wave (Of Millenial Judaic Subversives). Wilson the Traitor sold us to them, in 1913 - and the corrosion began.

The USA is now a place with a name. A verity of The White Nation is “There si nothing magical about the land. The Land is the People”.

All you naysayers, “liberals”, and deluded, suicidal Utopians, and parasites are about to discover the dismal reality of Life without Whitey. When Whitey goes, so goes Civilization itself.

You can sputter and deny my words, but you know I’m telling the truth, deep down inside.

White Pride World WIDE!

P.S. - Whites Make. Jews Take. Negroes Break. Now go ahead and TRY to prove me wrong!


18

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:12 | #

and this book is really an attempt to figure out how to achieve that goal with minimal disruption to status quo.

Personally I don’t think that’s the case with her. jews want to exterminate us but they couldn’t do it by saying so publically. They’ve had to create a compromise ideology which claims the great social benefits of multi-culturalism, diversity and immigration that can be promoted in public. The jews know it’s a lie but most of the other people who support the ideology are liberal converts who believe in it. I think she’s one of those, and one who sees the growth of White identity politics as something that might hinder the success of the multi-cultural project if White concerns aren’t addressed. She’s ignored because the multi-cultural project she believes in as a good thing is a con - it’s jewish tribal warfare in disguise.


19

Posted by Frank on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:21 | #

Wandrin writes:

The aim of a far right party is to provoke the enemy into revealing themselves.

The response of the quisling state to peaceful, democratic activity is what makes the revolution, not the activity itself.

Only if the press is somewhat fair. Thankfully we have the Internet (for now…)


20

Posted by Steven E. Romer on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 05:40 | #

Probably the MOST important part of all this is left out! That is RACIAL TRAJECTORIES. The destiny of a people, and how race-mixing changes THAT is my #1 concern. This is not football, and color is no concern of mine. These are not teams different in name only. Races are deeply different on many levels. The black race has essentially not changed in about 400,000 years, while there are many changes in the white race (see the Bruce Lahn studies at the University of Chicago, for example). Our BRAINS are different, what we want and care about in culture and motives are different—profoundly different. The averages and shapes of our IQ bell-curves are different than blacks or asians. Our bell-curve is spread-out as if we were in the middle of moving to a new average. That reflects our ongoing evolution. Our temperments and cognitive preferences are very different as well, along with sexual maturation rates, etc. We are walking a delicate path to the future as a race, and mixing can knock us off that path forever. THAT is issue #1—the right to continue building the great destiny our ancestors bequeathed to us. I think that the author of the book was black caused them not to see, or want to consider this core issue.


21

Posted by Steven E. Romer on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:04 | #

Wandrin, excellent post containing this quote:

“The jews know it’s a lie but most of the other people who support the ideology are liberal converts who believe in it. I think she’s one of those, and one who sees the growth of White identity politics as something that might hinder the success of the multi-cultural project if White concerns aren’t addressed. She’s ignored because the multi-cultural project she believes in as a good thing is a con - it’s jewish tribal warfare in disguise. “

They do not just want to eliminate us, they need to destroy our destiny—our ability to accumulate objective truth is directly threatening to their way of confusing and obscuring truth. They know we will become unstoppable if we can ever launch our natural programs of eugenics successfully that we were naturally starting in every white western nation before WW2. The see our strengths as a direct threat to them. Their religion says they are supposed to take over the world, yet we are in their way. If we just are allowed to naturally blossom as a people in our natural cultural forms, they don’t have a chance to compete. Further, their way of coping and their deception will be forever rendered ineffective—as truth always does to lies. We are naturally at total war. We are like the polar opposites—the good and evil; light and dark people—of the Earth.


22

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:29 | #

Only if the press is somewhat fair. Thankfully we have the Internet

Revolutions eventually need to create or utilize alternative media - learning about printing, CB radio or proxy servers could all be useful in the future.


23

Posted by Mark on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:51 | #

There are two major white groups who have some degree of Western advocacy.  The one that is against racial identity politics for any group and just wants a more culturally Western but still multiracial America, such as HBDers, conservatives and most whites, and racial nationalists that advocate racial politics and want a white ethnostate. 

Swain seems to be mostly describing the former, who are not white nationalists, but don’t like black crime and third-world culture, but who would happily welcome Asians and marry them. 

White nationalism is not just a reaction to non-white identity politics and crime, it is asserting their own Manifest Destiny to be a racial nation.


24

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:55 | #

Nor will you:  not for nothing is it said that Jews are smarter than goys.

A lot smarter, from the looks of things ...
>Fred Scrooby

It never ceases to amaze me how whites can be so creative in terms of science and technology, or so industrious in building and working, or so diligent in organizing civilization and yet not be able to understand what’s going on before their very eyes.  Its like you have to spell out everything to white people, and they’re so easily indoctrinated.  It is truly one of Nature’s paradoxes.

I would say Jews, while they do not possess the creativity or civic conscience that whites do, are much more sensible i.e. they know what is/is not good for them and they think and act as a racial block.  They are also very persistent and will hammer away at a task until it is complete, even in the face of massive opposition.

Another problem is the people we choose as leaders.  What is likable about Bill Clinton or George Dubya?  To me, they are disgusting pieces of filth.  But many whites love people like this who offer nothing but grandiose rhetoric and empty promises.  When you realize this, you get to thinking that aristocracy was probably natural and necessary to keep us on the right track.

Whites seem to live in their own idealized little worlds.  Jews live in reality (though they almost never tell the truth).  That’s the real difference.


25

Posted by Frank on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:06 | #

Whites seem to live in their own idealized little worlds.  Jews live in reality (though they almost never tell the truth).  That’s the real difference.

Honest men who believe they and their family are safe are easy to fool apparently.

Remove the security and the gilded view of an honest, fair world; and hopefully whites will snap back into reality…


26

Posted by Frank on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:26 | #

Dan Dare,

thanks for this article. Thankfully the non-East Asian minorities (and somewhat the East Asians too) are hopeless stuck in “blame whitey” gear.

There’s no getting them unstuck.

the opening up of political discourse on unfashionable ideas on race

Glasnost didn’t work too well for Gorbachev.


27

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:10 | #

Honest men who believe they and their family are safe are easy to fool apparently.

The majority of whites haven’t suffered enough hardship as yet to “wake up” from a racial standpoint, it is true.

Remove the security and the gilded view of an honest, fair world; and hopefully whites will snap back into reality…

Yes, a good example of this would be how the “famine children” of the dark days of Germany after WWI became the most fervid supporters of National Socialism.

PS I said Jews almost never tell the truth.  What I meant is that Jews almost never tell the truth to Goyim.  They can be quite candid among themselves.


28

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:13 | #

and somewhat the East Asians too

Snicker…that’s because white men are taking their women.  No, seriously.  This is a big hangup in the Asian community.  Of course, we could defend by saying that “the negroes are taking our women, so suck it up.”


29

Posted by Bill on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:16 | #

As I once posted…. One could be forgiven in thinking….

Imagine, you have just exited a cinema near you, you’d say it wasn’t possible, it was too far fetched - it could never happen.

Here’s a shameless copy and paste from http://www.nwo101.com/ 

Are there Aliens who look like Humans living on this planet Earth?
By Marcus Salek

As the years roll by, I am becoming more convinced that there is a species of human-looking beings on this planet that are not part of the human race. They are hybrids from another planet who are born without the gene of compassion. This is why they can easily kill us humans without remorse.

It is these aggressive half-breeds that run the world today. Through some kind of hypnotic trances or cerebral implants, they are also able to get weak minded humans to do their dirty work so they can remain in the background. These entranced humans are their front men that get elected to public office using mind control techniques invented by Edward Bernays, the father of mind manipulation and one of them. http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8339

Based on ancient drawings found in caves, an alien space ship apparently landed in the old land of Karzaria about 2000 years ago. Since then, they have selectively crossbred into the human race through cloning and intercourse with unsuspecting humans. This is why they only marry their own and don’t assimilate. The aliens keep themselves pure by only breeding with each other. This maintains there alien race and keeps there genetic structure in tack. They thrive on negative energy and gain strength when there is war, hate, and destruction. Christians call them Satan. They are not from this world.

They demand that all other human races on the planet breed with each other so as to weaken their genetic base and make the aliens more powerful. Those who don’t do this are called racists. This term “racist” is an emotional term designed to make those who don’t support this ideology appear to be evil. This in turn generates anger and negative energy and makes the Aliens more energized.

Now as weird as what I have said may be, does anyone else have a better explanation?

Posted by Freedom Warrior at 9/26/2009 08:28:00 AM


30

Posted by Frank on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:19 | #

Mark,

the East Asians take our geeks! They got Steve Sailer…

The blacks only steal our ugly and over-educated women.


31

Posted by Selous Scout on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:34 | #

Oops I forgot Canada — Canada’s a cross between Sweden and the U.S.

And the Punjab.


32

Posted by Armor on Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:44 | #

Personally I don’t think that’s the case with her. jews want to exterminate us but they couldn’t do it by saying so publically. They’ve had to create a compromise ideology which claims the great social benefits of multi-culturalism, diversity and immigration that can be promoted in public. The jews know it’s a lie but most of the other people who support the ideology are liberal converts who believe in it. (— Wandrin)

I think most of the other people who support the ideology are liberal converts who are anxious to SUPPORT race-replacement, but do not necessarily WANT race-replacement. They like to take leftist postures, to vilify the white nationalists and make speeches in favor of mass immigration. It doesn’t mean they want mass immigration to continue or that they have given any thought to the problem. They probably think that living among immigrants is somewhat unpleasant. (I’m not talking about Carol Swain here).

A JonJayRay quote:  “Leftists don’t have principles. How can they when “there is no such thing as right and wrong”? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one’s shirt “


33

Posted by Nobody on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:10 | #

Tell me, why do leftists fear whites voluntarily separating from colored people so much?

Because that means the gravy train stops running. Without YT around to pay the bills, the whole project grinds to a halt and the place falls apart.


34

Posted by Selous Scout on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:02 | #

Leftists fear Whites pulling ahead too much, which naturally contributes to greater inequality and exposes the monstrous Leftist lie of “racial equality.”

Leftists want to force Whites to live amongst mud people, as it acts as a drag on White achievement, in various ways.


35

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:46 | #

Whites seem to live in their own idealized little worlds.  Jews live in reality (though they almost never tell the truth).  That’s the real difference.

I think their group survival instincts and tactics are just much more honed than ours through living as a minority inside host populations for so long. Whites expect their enemies to come from outside and act accordingly whereas jews see their (potential) enemy next door and act accordingly.


36

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:18 | #

The claim of a major Jewish role mystifies the comrades in Europe because they have fewer Jews, so don’t see it so clearly.

Hollywood has affected us all - slavery, the holocult, all designed to inculcate collective white guilt and it’s that guilt which both the left and the global capitalists exploit to get the immigration they desire. It may be more indirect on mainland Europe and it may even have been an accidental side effect of their desire to conquer America from within but the idea of White ethno-centricity as the new original sin is why the European elites can’t resist the 3rd world invasion and that idea came from jews transmitted in writing initially but much more effectively by film.

jewish survival (outside Israel) is greatly enhanced by the suppression of the host nation’s tribal immune system, similar to the way a body’s immune system is deliberately suppressed during organ transplant, and it’s that suppression of the national immune system which causes so much damage including allowing an immigrant invasion which will inevitably lead to our extinction if it’s not stopped.


37

Posted by Frank on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:23 | #

A JonJayRay quote:  “Leftists don’t have principles. How can they when “there is no such thing as right and wrong”? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one’s shirt ”

A father from Connecticut on the radio (some sports channel) tonight said: “My two sons are at Berkley and I’m progressive, I like to think I’m progressive, but the one with the beard has got to shave it off. Text message your vote to…”

I got a chuckle out of that. His child going “beatnik” (his word) was his reaping what he’d sown in ignorance. I chuckle but of course I hope they straighten up…


38

Posted by Frank on Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:34 | #

Oh, and his justification for not wanting his child to go beatnik was “It could hurt his career. Employers might see him, the coach might see him, etc.”

I don’t know why a sports coach would matter, but the managerial terror of harming one’s career was classic.

Only slaves and refugees have such fears. Free men living among their own people say what they believe and act as they feel right. It’s one thing to fear what peers, real peers, might think because such will make one appear immoral, impious, or weak, etc. But fearing an employer, what “Massa” might think… That’s pathetic. Employees are wage slaves.

I wish I’d recorded the program, but I was in my car. It’d make for a great youtube video.


39

Posted by GenoType on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 07:55 | #

The aim of a far right party is to provoke the enemy into revealing themselves.

Imagine that ... far-right parties sneaking up on the enemy and provoking them into revealing themselves!

Whouda thunk it?

Those far-rightists are SMART sonsofbitches, ain’t they?

(Rolling eyes)


40

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:41 | #

Imagine that ... far-right parties sneaking up on the enemy and provoking them into revealing themselves!

No sneaking - peaceful, verbal political activity completely out in the open, activity which sits in the grey area that is considered reasonable and lawful by the average person but which the enemy sees as a threat. The enemy attacks that activity and the reaction to the enemy’s attack creates radicalisation.

The enemy wants to eradicate White people using immigration. White people don’t want to be eradicated. A rightist party might call for a complete halt to immigration and the forcible return of illegals. That isn’t even close to a WN position but a lot of people would see it as reasonable and it’s still much too close to a WN position for the enemy to accept. The enemy will definitely attack. A member of this party might have a dozen friends and relatives in the local area who are neutral. The enemy attacks the party member - they may try and take his job, or his house, or his children, or set people to physically attack him. The dozen friends and family think this is unjust. You just radicalized a whole bunch of White people. That’s the point. You set yourself up as bait in the grey area.

A kind of backwards accidental recent example is Obama. The enemy have used accusations of racism as a way of suppressing resistance to immigration for many years, however they wanted to take fuller advantage of Obama’s skin colour and so tried to extend the accusation of racism to include any criticism of any of his policies. This plan has back-fired and created some White radicalisation by accident because they extended the grey area too far into what the average person sees as reasonable.

It’s very simple.

I’m not saying this is the only option. I’m saying that one way to radicalize people is to get the enemy to do it for you through peacefully forcing them to attack.


41

Posted by Robert Reis on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:41 | #

The Poverty of Racialist Thought

By Israel Shamir

Racial theorist Prof Kevin MacDonald has written a piece about film director Roman Polansky’s recent arrest: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Polanski.html#KM As you might expect, KMD has discovered that Polansky is not condemned by Hollywood because he is a Jew, and Jews protect their own. They also like Polansky because his films and his actions have undermined the Whites’ morals and values. Life is simple for Prof MacDonald.

Real life is funnier and more complicated. In 1967, Roman Polansky directed the most anti-Jewish film ever produced in Hollywood, The Fearless Vampire Killers (Dance of the Vampires) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D1jeG6YtLU In th.is unforgettable film, the Jewish vampire (1) just smiles at the cross and bites the neck of an innocent blond victim; (2) sends his daughter to ruin a Gentile, (3) steals the coffin of the noble vampire, (4) stays on despite attempts to kick him out, and finally, (5) is a mixture of Mark Chagall and Fiddler on the Roof. Polansky mocks practically every negative trait ever attributed to Jews, and does so hilariously! One would expect that an ethnically conscious Hollywood Jew would hate Polansky’s guts, if anything.

Meanwhile, Goldstone, a Jewish judge, found the Jewish state guilty as charged of war crimes and crimes against humanity, while the ultimate non-Jew, PLO leader, Arafat heir and author of a Holocaust-doubting book, Mahmud Abbas, threw away Goldstone’s judgement in order to get his cut for a second mobile phone network provider in Palestine. I repeat: he did not do this in order to feed the hungry, give water to thirsty or to free prisoners. He did it to allow the relatively wealthy people of Ramallah a choice of mobile providers, and to make something good for himself at the same time. Is being a Jew still relevant nowadays?

If you still think so, the Daily Telegraph published a claim that President Ahmadinejad is of Jewish origin. Until now, this piece of news was regularly forwarded for a couple of years by various Zionists in racialist clothes. Now it is official, being published by a paper of record. (Another paper of the record, the Times, upgraded me to a “Swedish Nazi”). We are sorely missing Hermann Goering, the man that could decide who is a Jew.

But even he did not claim to know who is White. In the above-mentioned piece, and it his other recent texts, KMD speaks of “the Whites”, a group which does not function as he thinks a group should function. They allow their morals and values to be undermined by the Jews in the Jews’ own interests. Whites do not pursue their own group interests. A scientific mind would draw a logical conclusion from such a result. If a whale does not behave like a fish, perhaps it is not fish. If the Whites do not behave like a group should, perhaps they are not a group.

He might as well speak about Redheads, or about people whose name is George, and their values and interests. The Whites of KMD and of other racialists are not a group, they are a granfalloon. “A granfalloon, in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel Cat’s Cradle, is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless”, reports Wikipedia.

Indeed, America’s Whites have nothing in common: neither faith nor origin, nor morals, values, traditions or language. The Catholic editor of Culture Wars, E. Michael Jones, said this a year or two ago, at a meeting in Washington, and has been shunned by paleo-conservatives and white racialists ever since. Peter Brimelow, editor of the racialist vdare website, threw a fit and instructed his lawyers to demand the excision of Jones’s talk from the records and the incineration of his photos because he had denied “the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation”. Jones said:

“We [Americans] have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no we…”

Jones rejected the concept of “whiteness”. “White” is not a relevant classifier outside of the Deep South, he says. For the Poles and the Germans, the Greeks and the Italians in the North, “White was a completely negative designation”. If Chicago’s ethnics became “white” it was only because of migration of the blacks from the South, not because of any racial identity of their own. The struggle for the American soul (the “culture wars” in Jones’ term) is simply not understandable in racial terms. The blacks were ultimately the pawns of other groups, which were just as white as the groups they attacked.

The real nations of America, says Jones, are “Protestants, Catholics and Jews. America far from being some unified nation inhabited by generic Americans turns out to be a lot like the former Yugoslavia, a country made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions each engaged in a form of long-standing covert warfare against each other”. In his view, the Jews made an alliance with the WASPs against the Catholics of the North and against the Southern Whites, and turned out to be the joker in the pack.

I am not sure that the three are sufficient for real-time analysis. There are sizeable new groups – Hispanics, Blacks, South Asians, Chinese – who count in the millions. But even the older groups, WASPs and Catholics, may also turn out to be other granfalloons. Proof? They do not pursue their interests. Their elites do not feel responsible for their lower classes even as much as Jewish elites do. They did not make the grade to become nations even in a very limited Yugoslavian sense. And they never did. American Libertarian Jacob G. Hornberger wrote this panegyric to the good old WASP-ruled America:

“Imagine: No income tax, no capital-gains tax, and no estate tax. For the first time in history, people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. No economic regulations. No welfare. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or education grants. No immigration controls. People from all over the world were free to come to the United States. No systems of public (i.e., government) schooling.”

It is supposed to have been a lost paradise, but it is not one I would care to regain. For Michael Jones, it was the anti-Christian Jew, obsessed with his revolutionary zeal, who upset this order and brought confusion. Perhaps this order had to be upset, for it was not good for the lower classes. The Jews used it to their advantage, granted; they used the legitimate dissatisfaction of the blacks in the South to their advantage, too – but there was much to that situation that ought to have been repaired in the spirit of genuine compassion. The American fear of socialism and of ‘revolution’ resonate a fear of compassion, which goes much deeper than the color of their skins.

I have a lot of respect for Kevin MacDonald; some of his observations regarding Jews are astute and timely; but his racialist thought is not reality-based, as illuminated above. There are no “whites” in the US as a group, and it does not seem that such a group is in the process of formation. Nothing unites Poles, Germans, Spaniards, Swedes, WASPs, Southerners in Mississippi, Greeks, Arabs, Irish, Persians, children of the Mayflower, recent arrivals from Russia and other whites. The time has come to provide some constructive criticism for KMD’s work, first of all because it is not devoid of merit. The problem is that too many politically engaged people have tried to shame KMD and other racialists, instead of arguing with them and their readers as though they might be reasonable fellow human beings.

Let us absolve KMD and other racialists from the accusation of racism. Racism is a negative attitude to persons considered belonging to a different race. We all know that racism is immoral and shameful. Racialists are not necessarily racists, and present-day American racialists rarely are. They fail as scientists, not as immoral persons. The schism within America is a schism between ‘whites’ and ‘whites’, and different medicine is needed to treat it.

(to be continued)


42

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:13 | #

“Racism is a negative attitude to persons considered belonging to a different race. We all know that racism is immoral and shameful.”

Reis’ posting of Shamir’s column (and HE, a Jew turned Eastern Orthodox Christian!) is somewhat ironic, in that, for Shamir, by converting, he (Shamir) ‘ceased to be’ a Jew- in short, became a ‘non-person’ in Israel…


One of the most racist, xenophobic states on the planet. So, how can he call the pot black, when he’s a kettle himself?

Why do I say that?

Because, when Shamir says ‘there is no ‘WHITE’ race,’ how the HELL would he know?
He’s an Ethnic Jew, who converted to a form of Orthodoxy that clearly is not ‘catholic’ but is racially exclusionary, even in Israel, where there are Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches!

The Entire OT and the NT (as the fulfillment of that earlier covenant) is UTTERLY SUFFUSED with the ETHNIC PARTICULARISM (i.e., ‘‘racism”) of YHWH God for ‘His People’ - made Adam [Heb. aw-dam- ‘fair, able to blush, rosy’ -cf. Strong’s concordance) ‘in His [YHWH God’s] image and likeness’ (Gen 1); and for whom ‘He [YHWH GOD] has not known the other nations of the world.’ Even Christ, as the Second Adam, comes ONLY, specifically (via the Archangel Gabriel) to ‘save HIS PEOPLE from THEIR SINS.” [Matt.1:21]

Christ Messiah, who gave birth to Christendom (i.e., White, caucasoid Europe) is not a ‘universal savior’ but stated Himself, that ‘I am come ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL.”

Now, either Christ was lying (not!) or we have two- and ONLY two- viable options.
The “Jews” - of which Shamir, both before and now is a racial member - are the ‘Chosen People.’
or
The FOLK of Christendom - i.e., White Europeans - are the “Israel of God.” [Gal. 6:16]

For Shamir to speak in this fashion is both disingenuous (as a ‘christian’) and somewhat presumptive (as NOT being of that ‘PEOPLE’ for whom Christ said he was come to save- i.e., “Adamkind.”

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/of-what-race-are-abraham’s-seed-gal-329/

Or, to put it in the vernacular, ‘It’s a WHITE thing, you wouldn’t understand.’


43

Posted by Bo on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:55 | #

The Shamir remarks, quoted in part above, are completely true to form for many members of his ethnicity.  Most people have a difficult time seeing that the Other is made up of individual members.  President Obama has this problem when he sees all the diverse white students as uniformly “acting white” or all the diverse white people as single-model “typical white persons.”  It poses a tremendous subjective problem to us all to refrain from seeing members of a demographic or religious group as identical clones of each other.

With many Jews, on the other hand, the tendency seems to be reversed in that many of their professional writers and scholars seem to be unable to see others as part of legitimate groupings.  An example of this is the generic labels “gentile” or “goyim” in which members of their culture seem willing to submerge all the rest of us. This is Shamir’s problem, he does not see communities of interest when they plainly exist.

We had an interesting example in San Jose a few Octobers ago when a low-level firefight broke out about Halloween between Christian activists (it’s pagan!) and merchants (let’s sell things!).  Naturally, we intervened to make it a three-sided fight, and argued that Halloween was the legitimate descendant of Irish cultural practices, if somewhat overblown these days, but should be accorded respect as any other ethnic or religious commemoration would receive.

A newswriter on the scene promptly called one of Mr. Shamir’s cousins on the UC-Berkeley campus who claims an expertise on ethnicity, and who promptly denied that there was such a thing as Irish culture or history, and denied any connection between Irish practices and American practices around the last day of October.

Shamir’s essay is simply the latest example from some members of his ethnicity telling us who we are, what our history is, and how we should think and feel.  What Shamir may be incapable of understanding is twofold:  (1) we only need 3-5% of the diverse white American peoples to make explicit whiteness an extraordinarily powerful force, and (2) we are vastly encouraged by his cousins in the dominant media culture, the corporate entertainment culture, and the coastal-urban class who persist in telling us that “whites” exist as a group, albeit an evil group, every day in every way.


44

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:12 | #

It’s funny. The Shamir article posted above is an almost perfect example of what Professor MacDonald talks about. Even in the course of the article the author betrays himself - whites are weakened as a group by being divided into all their constituent sub-groups while hispanics are strengthened as a group by ignoring all their myriad sub-groups and treating them as one solid bloc. jews are so supremely ethno-centric they don’t even seem to notice they are doing it half the time - which i suppose brings us full circle to the starting point of the article which is their attitude towards Polanski raping a blonde-haired child with a german sounding name.

The only relevant extract is:

Meanwhile, Goldstone, a Jewish judge, found the Jewish state guilty as charged of war crimes and crimes against humanity

I think this is real - jews are split in half over Israel, one group wants to defend Israel above all else, certainly above the country of their passport, while the other half wants to sacrifice Israel because it makes jews too visible.


45

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:45 | #

Unfortunately, much of what Shamir writes about whites in America is true. In embracing the quasi-religious ideology of the Melting Pot credo, Americans of European descent have cast off from their ethnic moorings and are now adrift. Their only means of expressing solidarity is through being American, a state of being which has been generously offered to and gratefully accepted by the flotsam and jetsam of the world.


Remember this?


E pluribus unum - Ahm a Murrcan


46

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:17 | #

Roman Polansky directed the most anti-Jewish film ever produced in Hollywood

Isn’t this the Borat schtick?

1. “Whiteness” has no utility. It was a Boasian construct to undermine the Anglo-Saxon/Nordic founding peoples of America.

2. WASP elites did attempt to protect their own in opposition to both mass Irish Catholic immigration (Know Nothings) in the 1840s and mass Jewish/Catholic immigration in 1924.

3. Clearly, as outlined by Boston Brahmin Henry Cabot Lodge, Americans knew who they were. They were overwhelmingly English, and the English they viewed as an alloyed Germanic people. There was precedent. An amalgam of Germanic people became the English. It was once again clear that an amalgam of Germanic people would become the Americans.


47

Posted by Darren on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:25 | #

Some points.

1. Jews routinely tell Jew-jokes and make light of antisemitic stereotypes. It is a form of emotional catharsis for them (I guess). Look at Heeb Magazine - full of the sort of stuff that Shamir claims makes Polansky offensive to Jews. Its sorta like how its OK for black people to call each other the N-word. Point rejected.

2. I don’t think anyone has ever said that Jews have a single position on Israel/Zionism. Many Jews are hardcore ethnic-cleansing Zionists, while others are of the type who want to seek out a negotiated peace that includes compromises on land/settlements. The latter people still qualify as ethnocentric Zionist Jews, regardless of what Shamir wants to think. There are, of course, hardcore Marxists and ultra-Orthodox Jews who reject Zionism completely, but they are a very tiny minority. I have no idea where Goldstone fits, but regardless, one can still be a Zionist and reject Israel’s heavy-handed military policies towards Palestine at the same time. Point rejected.

3. The claims that Ahmadinejad is a Jew have been refuted (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-jewish-family). Even if really he was an ethnic Jew who rejected his identity, that would not invalidate the general idea that the vast majority of Jews stay with the tribe culturally. Point rejected.

4. Regarding whites not having any commonality. Yes and no, from my POV. No, because America was settled by disparate groups of Europeans, many of whom were antagonistic towards each other (Catholics vs. Protestants, Irish vs. Everyone else, Nordicism, etc.). Yes, because regardless of those differences, they are very minor in comparison with the differences between Jew and Gentile European, Gentile European vs. African, and etc. Additionally, Kevin MacDonald has explained himself very well on this topic; he points out that Europeans, especially N. Euro’s, have a tradition of individualism and non-kinship based solidarity. He has also extensively discussed “implicit whiteness”. Shamir misrepresents MacDonald, like most MacDonald critics in this regard. Shamir is right to point out that whites do not have a very solid unifying identity, but otherwise I reject his points here for misrepresenting MacDonald. (I also find it funny that he quotes E. Michael Jones to try to support his argument).

I think E. Michael Jones deserves a response, but I am just going to limit my thoughts to what Shamir has said himself.


48

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:55 | #

I don’t think anyone has ever said that Jews have a single position on Israel/Zionism.

This is were Dawkins “meme” concept better explains the contradictory positions in a group. If it behaves as a virus, as he suggests, then some are more resistant or innoculated to its effect. The meme is only concerned with its own survival and does not care if it consumes biological resources (like Goldstone and other Jews who hold his view) as long as it can survive.


49

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:19 | #

Conflict with Negros, in the Chicago (and New York) race riots (and with other ethnic whites) is also an Irish Catholic tradition, although the Irish Catholic Mr. Sears will probably deny it.

http://www.amazon.com/Notre-Dame-Vs-Klan-Fighting/dp/0829417710


50

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:51 | #

Unfortunately, much of what Shamir writes about whites in America is true.

I think the point is MacDonald doesn’t say there is a unified white identity, he says there should be and that one reason there isn’t (not the only reason obviously) is the action of jews to divide and rule. The irony is Mr Shamir in his article does exactly what Professor MacDonald claims. He subconsciously(?) tries to divide up the white population into small weak little pieces while bringing in his solid blocs of non-white allies as support.

At least that was how it seemed to me.

I don’t think anyone has ever said that Jews have a single position on Israel/Zionism.

My view, which may be wrong, is not that jews suddenly have different positions on Israel but that there’s a serious jewish civil war brewing over it. jews are promoting white genocide through mass immigration from the 3rd world. In Europe the largest and fastest growing group of invaders are muslims. The existence of Israel makes these invaders extremely hostile to the jews in Europe. The policy of promoting the muslim element of mass immigration is quite literally jews cutting their own throats as well as ours. It’s this crisis that i think may have significant side effects.

I think there’s a sizeable group of jews who previously supported Israel and mass immigration who are moving towards abandoning Israel and another sizeable group who are moving towards abandoning mass immigration, or at least muslim immigration.

This is a completely separate point from the rest of the article however.


51

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:00 | #

I think the point is MacDonald doesn’t say there is a unified white identity, he says there should be and that one reason there isn’t (not the only reason obviously) is the action of jews to divide and rule.

With respect, the record shows the opposite. In 1924 America, the default point was a divided Europe. The efforts of Boas and Hirschfeld, among others was to show there were no differences among Europeans (including Jews) and America’s Nordic founding people. Or that phenotypical plasticity, influenced by environmental factors, changed the Jewish/Catholic immigrants into Nordic Americans.

KMac is fully aware that the defence of 1924 was a defence of a Nordic racial group. It is his discovery of Vaile’s words that make it abundantly clear.

The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.

“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.
“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]


52

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:55 | #

What everyone means when they refer to “Whites” is people of European descent.  They do not mean to include mestizos and Arabs.  That is clear.  I fail to see the controversy.  Nordic Whites, who were the founding stock of America and still constitute the vast majority of Whites, are as Desmond says, Northwestern European Germanics.  An alliance on the basis of our broader race is to our advantage; the demand that Nordic Americans not preserve themselves, in the instance that it is made, can be put where the sun don’t shine.


53

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:09 | #

Good discussion here on Shamir.  Very ineresting, and clarifies some things for me, plus giving me new ideas.  Thanks, guys.


54

Posted by Wandrin on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:02 | #

@Desmond Jones
I’ve overstepped my knowledge of North America again.


55

Posted by danielj on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:27 | #

What everyone means when they refer to “Whites” is people of European descent.  They do not mean to include mestizos and Arabs.  That is clear.  I fail to see the controversy.  Nordic Whites, who were the founding stock of America and still constitute the vast majority of Whites, are as Desmond says, Northwestern European Germanics.  An alliance on the basis of our broader race is to our advantage; the demand that Nordic Americans not preserve themselves, in the instance that it is made, can be put where the sun don’t shine.

Indeed! We all know the difference between Sephardic and Askenazi, Orthodox and Reformed, etc. and don’t feel the need to strike the term “Jew” from our vocabulary and conceptual organization despite the fact that Jews vary in morphology and belief in ways even more vast than white folks. Now sometimes it behooves us to distinguish the different types of Heebs in existence and we have no problem differentiating between them when it becomes necessary for purposes of discussion or understanding.


56

Posted by Frank on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:14 | #

Whites used to live in western Asia and northern Africa. They’ve just mixed over time…


57

Posted by Armor on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:50 | #

” What everyone means when they refer to “Whites” is people of European descent. “

Even more so when we say “white folks”.

It is always funny to categorize Jews as non-whites. They are usually the ones telling us there is no difference between a black and a white man. So, they cannot openly complain that being classified as non-white is an insult to them. It would be a racist complaint !

On internet forums, the job of defending the whiteness of Jews is left to non-Jews.

Jewish propaganda against Muslims can also be seen as a way to say that Jews are more like Europeans than like “Semites” (even though the Jews support the replacement of Europeans by Arab immigrants).

In fact, the Jews are super-whites, or super-western people. They have analyzed what it is that makes a person white: unlike Jewishness, it has nothing to do with ancestry, is is entirely a matter of believing in “democracy”, racial equality, consumerism, advertizing, and things like that. That’s why no one is more American than an Jew, or more French than a Jew.


58

Posted by GenoType on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:10 | #

The enemy wants to eradicate White people using immigration. White people don’t want to be eradicated. A rightist party might call for a complete halt to immigration and the forcible return of illegals. That isn’t even close to a WN position but a lot of people would see it as reasonable and it’s still much too close to a WN position for the enemy to accept. The enemy will definitely attack. A member of this party might have a dozen friends and relatives in the local area who are neutral. The enemy attacks the party member - they may try and take his job, or his house, or his children, or set people to physically attack him. The dozen friends and family think this is unjust. You just radicalized a whole bunch of White people. That’s the point. You set yourself up as bait in the grey area.

I understand your meaning: The weaker party tricks the strong into weakening itself.  That is not going to happen.  I needn’t defend this assertion.  55 years of failure is evidence enough.  The BNP will not provoke the jew or his easy money gentile sycophants into “revealing themselves.”  Sorry. 

The stronger party controls the social contract.  Control means resources, interpretation, and moral superiority.  The weaker party, subscribing to a contract written/modified and controlled by the stronger, is morally inferior.  The end game for the weaker party is the stall – not control – in the hope that it can benefit from the stronger party’s largesse. That is precisely what national rightist parties are about.  For us third party efforts are a huge waste of time and resources.  Our goal must be to break the old contract and provide a new one.

There is a role for political rightism at local levels, however.  These must be characterized by perpetual, independent campaigns supported through alternative socioeconomic systems.


59

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:38 | #

I understand your meaning: The weaker party tricks the strong into weakening itself.  That is not going to happen.  I needn’t defend this assertion.  55 years of failure is evidence enough.  The BNP will not provoke the jew or his easy money gentile sycophants into “revealing themselves.” Sorry.

That’s ok. I’m not saying it’s the only viable option and I’m not saying it will definitely work. I’m just saying the definition of “it working” may be less obvious than at first appears.

However I think the “55 years of failure” relates to a Catch 22 rather than the base proposition.

You need numbers. You can only get numbers with a political position close enough to the average person not to repel them. As the enemy controls the media, that political positioning is, as you say, inevitably limited. Any party or organisation that is close enough to the mainstream to recruit numbers will have to limit what they propose, whereas a party with a stronger position won’t be able to recruit enough numbers. I would say that the 55 years of failure involves rightist parties with positions that were either too close to the mainstream or more commonly too far away from the average person.

What is needed is radicalization by stages e.g you have a party like the BNP which promotes a set of policies that are perfectly reasonable to the average person but which are anathema to the enemy. The party attracts reasonable average people who then get attacked by the enemy - which they do, there’s attacks on the BNP almost daily in UK newspapers. These attacks slowly radicalize people - and it does, i’ve seen it. That’s not enough on its own of course. You need a second party.

It would be like David Duke keeping his existing organisation but getting some people to set up a separate American National Party (or equivalent pressure group) which held fairly mainstream political positions in most areas but with a complete rejection of all further immigration and a commitment to the complete removal of illegals. This kind of organisation could attract the sort of only slightly radical recruits who would currently be repelled by someone like David Duke but would at the same time still guarantee to be under constant attack from the enemy media. The organisation would campaign in the normal way and as the constant attacks gradually radicalized the members it would start to act as a kind of feeder organisation to the more radical one. Leftists do this all the time. They don’t get people to join the Communist Party in one go. They set up false front liberal organiasations to attract liberals and then turn them into Communists gradually.

Radicalization by stages through the use of multiple parties / organisations.

But like i say. I’m not trying to say this is the only, or even the best way forward, just that the aim of mainstream political activity may not be what it first appears.


60

Posted by GenoType on Fri, 09 Oct 2009 22:56 | #

Radicalization by stages through the use of multiple parties / organisations.

But like i say. I’m not trying to say this is the only, or even the best way forward, just that the aim of mainstream political activity may not be what it first appears.


A new contract supported by alternate socioeconomic systems is the goal and on this all genuine advocates/leaders of White must be of one mind.  That is not the case today, nor has it been in the previous 55 years. The weaker party leadership, then and now, seeks largesse in return for accepting the morally inferior position. Yet the numbers are there.  These are the disaffected and they are comprised of those holding their nose at the voting booth, those voting for the stronger party out of anger, those who have stopped voting altogether, and permanent non-voters.  The first group is comprised of conservative believers in the old social contract now owned and interpreted by the enemy.  They retain a stake in it: social respectability as defined by the enemy, economic largesse distributed by the enemy, pride in the occasional legal win (wink, wink) ultimately overturned by the enemy, etc.  From this weaker position they claim their goal is to recapture control of the contract and rewrite it.  The idea is ludicrous.  Sycophants are weak.  They don’t lead.  They don’t “trick.”  Smart sycophants do as they’re told.  Dumb sycophants complain, then do as they’re told anyway.

The latter three groups greatly outnumber the first.  These are the Truly Disaffected and the moral superiority provided by a new contract, designed explicitly for these people, is what I have in mind.  Why?  Two reasons.  The first, as you’ve noted, concerns numbers.  The second concerns opportunity, for with the exception of a handful no thought has been given to providing the Truly Disaffected with a viable contractual and socioeconomic alternative.  None, zilch, zero, nada.  Rightist parties can be excused this failure, simply because contractual legitimacy beyond the local level requires submission of the weaker to the stronger signatory.  For independent rightist thinkers there is no excuse.


61

Posted by Frank on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:35 | #

See what y’all think of this new website (note I’m not involved with it): white-pride.org



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

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

Remember me


Next entry: Cameron and the tactics of the Establishment media
Previous entry: Russia is the future of Europe !

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Trump: "I never mentioned Israel" commented in entry 'Seth Rich story massively botted to cover-up Trump's tactless disclosure to Lavrov and Comey firing' on Sun, 28 May 2017 09:34. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Sun, 28 May 2017 08:07. (View)

Pheasant in Detroit commented in entry 'Detroit Holocaust' on Sun, 28 May 2017 04:41. (View)

Jared Kushner, Slumlord Viper commented in entry 'Undoing inherited wisdom & means of separatism / forcing integration - YKW doing as YKW do' on Sat, 27 May 2017 14:06. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Social Rules: a deeply important philosophical matter beyond scientistic treatment of emergence' on Sat, 27 May 2017 04:21. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Social Rules: a deeply important philosophical matter beyond scientistic treatment of emergence' on Sat, 27 May 2017 02:50. (View)

DanielS commented in entry '28 people, including children, killed as masked gunmen opened fire on bus carrying Coptic Christians' on Sat, 27 May 2017 00:47. (View)

Serg commented in entry '28 people, including children, killed as masked gunmen opened fire on bus carrying Coptic Christians' on Fri, 26 May 2017 20:53. (View)

FBI Russian probe now at Kushner's door commented in entry 'Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say' on Fri, 26 May 2017 15:54. (View)

Philosopher's cabin in Norway commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on Fri, 26 May 2017 14:55. (View)

Flynn, Russian Hacking and Turkey commented in entry '"Israeli Defense Minister: 'I Prefer ISIS to Iran on Our Borders"' on Thu, 25 May 2017 16:41. (View)

Hollywood conditioning commented in entry 'Mulatto Supremacism' on Thu, 25 May 2017 15:28. (View)

Significant role of Iran in Silk Road commented in entry 'Silk Road News: Cui Non Bono?' on Thu, 25 May 2017 15:02. (View)

Chinese launch first Silk Road cruise ship commented in entry 'Silk Road News: First demonstration cargo train departs London for Yiwu, China.' on Thu, 25 May 2017 14:27. (View)

Deon Thrash commented in entry 'WHITE WOMEN FOR SALE!' on Thu, 25 May 2017 08:53. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Thu, 25 May 2017 05:56. (View)

mancinblack commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Thu, 25 May 2017 04:13. (View)

Witgenstein: A Wonderful Life (1989) commented in entry 'The Ontology of Mind: The Gödelian Argument' on Wed, 24 May 2017 13:33. (View)

Authorities were warned about Abedi commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Wed, 24 May 2017 13:22. (View)

Katie Hopkins looks Kosher commented in entry ''Western man, stand up for your wives, daughters', Kate Hopkins tweet investigated as inciting hate' on Wed, 24 May 2017 07:55. (View)

A miserable lie in Whalley Range commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Wed, 24 May 2017 06:36. (View)

Amber Rudd: American leaks "irritating" commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Wed, 24 May 2017 05:30. (View)

Update on Manchester commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Wed, 24 May 2017 05:25. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Social Rules: a deeply important philosophical matter beyond scientistic treatment of emergence' on Wed, 24 May 2017 04:16. (View)

Salman Abedi of sect opposed to Gaddafi commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Wed, 24 May 2017 03:49. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Social Rules: a deeply important philosophical matter beyond scientistic treatment of emergence' on Wed, 24 May 2017 03:42. (View)

Fox Retracts Seth Rich Story commented in entry 'Seth Rich story massively botted to cover-up Trump's tactless disclosure to Lavrov and Comey firing' on Tue, 23 May 2017 18:00. (View)

Euro commented in entry 'Abnormal: AltRight.com celebrates the Soviet Union's victory and fêtes Russia's imperialist legacy.' on Tue, 23 May 2017 17:26. (View)

Tara McCarthy: dark side of the alt-right commented in entry 'Social Rules: a deeply important philosophical matter beyond scientistic treatment of emergence' on Tue, 23 May 2017 17:25. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Tue, 23 May 2017 17:16. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Tue, 23 May 2017 16:35. (View)

Weston on the Manchester bombing commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Tue, 23 May 2017 15:21. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Tue, 23 May 2017 15:05. (View)

Salman Abedi commented in entry 'British Police Confirm 22 People Dead After Explosion At Manchester Arena' on Tue, 23 May 2017 13:37. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'White Left Imperative to defense, systemic health of European peoples' on Tue, 23 May 2017 11:19. (View)

affection-tone