|
|
|
Weakening resistance on the liberal-left? Michael White, a very senior Guardian journalist of 30 years standing, wrote two successive pieces covering immigration and the BNP in two days ... here and here. He must be appalled by the number of stout-hearted pro-BNPers posting to his threads - though it’s the same pretty well everywhere these days. The anti-racist shriek tactic that has served the left so well down the years is scarcely evident now. Similarly, there are no intellectually powerful respondees to drive home the postmodern dictat. Why don’t the leftist academics pitch in anymore? Someone posting on both Guardian threads as “stjohnwithout” has noticed that, without them, these arguments are a push-over. It is almost as though the liberal-left, which has dominated political debate for the last half-a-century, has suffered a crisic of confidence. It cannot find the energy to prosecute its Weltanshuuang on its own sacred turf. The balance of power is shifting - at least on the MSM threads. I find myself wondering where it will go from here. Obviously, there can be no question of a fightback by the other side. The nativist memes will become more and more embedded in readers’ consciousness. The only question is if and when those memes will provoke said readers to think past their learned negative response. If the staggering injustice of what is being done to our people can be communicated sufficiently forcefully, pretty quickly, I would say. I’ve always maintained that it takes years to change a man’s mind. But sea-changes among the suggestible - and the vast majority of liberals are, by definition, suggestible conformists - don’t obey the same laws. There is a sea-change happening. Our friend Silver would disagree, insisting that only a highly selective discourse and a special sensitivity for the work can produce results. But under present conditions, which I confess are favourable, I think that force and clarity of opinion, justice of cause, and absence of malice are enough. These are good times to be a political renegade. Comments:2
Posted by Eman on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:01 | #
They do, only in different arenas. They are of course stuck in academia, the mass media, and increasingly in the government, meaning they can reach more minds than a few lone people arguing on far-flung internet threads. But as you say, most of academia, the mass media, and government has become little more than a politically-correct/leftist echo chamber - and thus the real debate is happening away from those arenas. 4
Posted by Bill on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:56 | # We are fortunate (or are we?) that within the nature of the leftist liberal beast, there is a hardwired blind spot, it is inherent, there’s nothing they can do about it, even if pointed out, like here. Such is the nature of this infliction that it is responsible for catastrophic consequences for their cause. Such a consequence manifests itself by producing results (unintended consequences) which are contrary to their desired goals. Such a case in point is the (present) much discussed increase in teenage pregnancies prevalent in Britain today. The protestations of dismay, the furrowed brow, and much ado among the chattering classes as to why this happening, is hilarious. (If it wasn’t so tragic) Initiative, after initiative has been directed at this problem, and still the incidence of teenage pregnancies defy gravity by stubbornly increasing. What further can we do? More of the same they cry in unison, more sex education, lower the age of the children to five year olds - that should do the trick. So where now the BBC’s (media) strategy for the BNP for the period leading up to both the European and national elections. Will the blind spot call for more of the same, ratchet up the bile and hysteria against the concentration camp guards of the BNP? I think they will, because they have nothing left to offer - the locker is empty. This rhetoric can only do our cause good, for our people know that they are not like this. It is an affront to their intelligence. Immigration is like the tide, when the tides on the turn it is almost imperceptible, and yet as time passes the tide advances and sea rises. Inevitably, the time comes when even the most inexperienced recognize the water has risen, and if in danger, know they must take action to save themselves. The people of Britain are approaching this moment. From now on, this awareness can only increase to the point where action will have to be taken – the democratic process or the other. The liberal tide has been coming in for most of my lifetime, it has caused much damage. The final surge came in the guise of Blair and his new Labour project, it has almost done for my country, surely it cannot withstand much more. Will the door fly open or will there be much violence? 5
Posted by Big Sinkair on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:19 | #
With respect to America, GW, not Britain or elsewhere. It’s a question of numbers. You’ve got the numbers, the Americans don’t—or at least they won’t have by the time enough of them wake up and realize the nature of the radical solution required. Try telling Frank McGu—McGu—McGuckin (“Jupiter”) that though (if you can get close enough without the spittle wiping you out). He’s going to be like those Japanese caught on some deserted isle thinking the war is still raging thirty years after it ended, preaching his “watchout we Natey Born Whites we’s goin’ gitchoo,” unaware that they’ve been whittled down to 10% of the population. 6
Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:28 | # Big Sinky I think you may be right that the situation in Britain may be far more advanced than anybody relaizes. If it is, it has to do with the fact that Britain is a much smaller place. The ecological and space constrinats on the problem in Britain are much more severe. An all out race war in Britain would be a seismic event. This would very likely inspire strong resistance in America and other European nations. As Dorothy once remarkes to Toto:“Toto we are not in Kansas anymore.” About the spittle. Not to worry. I have been vaccinated against rabies -and rabbis. 7
Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:36 | # Biggy Why my confidence in the Native Born White American people? If you paid close attetnin to what was going in Native White America on the days after 9/11, you would know that the lid on civility come off for several weeks. It became obvious that there was an enormous amount of rage that was hidding just below the surface. There was massive rqage directed not only towards muslim “Americans” but also towards Steve Sailer’s favorite imimgrant group….THE HINDUS and south asians in general. The hindu “Americans” are very aware that they dodged a bullet. Why has Richard Spencer allowed asian supremacist Razib Khan to post commentary on Taki.com? 8
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:03 | # GW writes: Why don’t the leftist academics pitch in anymore? Within my theory of Jewish virulence this is partially explained the centralization phase coming to an end and the horizontal transmission coming into full swing. Normally the leftist Jews would hang around and try to gain control of something like a Bolshevik or New Deal “solution” to the centralization of private sector wealth—centralizing power in the government under their control. The problem is that they aren’t really adapted to handling those guys upstream of them on the Nile: Nubians like Obama. So they pretty much have to return to their Egyptian role of administering the kingdom, or find a new “promised land”. Either way, they aren’t really in control here (in that dry husk of “the west”) anymore, so their heart really isn’t in it. So long, and thanks for all the shiksas… PS: They may yet try to pull a Pan-western fascist response—with The Obamanation playing the role of Weimar Republic officiating over hyperinflation—but I think they went off half-cocked with the whole Neocon thing so I really don’t think the Jews can pull-off being Nazis to the negroids as “Jews”. 9
Posted by skeptical on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:19 | # America’s best hope is that if a nationalist wave were to overtake certain swaths of Europe (esp. the U.K.) then we should experience some spillover on these shores. The U.S. and the U.K. typically experience the same political trends.
I think the best solution for North American Whites is to politically reorganize ourselves (ethnocentrically) into a vast nation that would include much of modern day Alaska, Canada (pace Quebec), and the northern half of the continental U.S. Such a grand union of our people would not be unnatural, in this case, since the relevant cultural groups have so much in common. The problem of the non-White multitude can only be realistically addressed, in the short-term, by jettisoning much of America’s southern half. 10
Posted by SM on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:18 | #
And you’ve told `dixie about this right? 11
Posted by skeptical on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:07 | # SM,
Dixie is filled with racially incompatible elements, many of these exist because her forebears were content to keep the negro in his place instead of shipping him elsewhere. The consequence of their myopia is that much of Dixie has already been lost (including her major cities), White Americans just haven’t been willing to formalize it yet. Besides, the region is hot as hell and doesn’t get a decent Winter. 12
Posted by Big Sinkair on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:10 | #
Can’t argue with that.
Yeah, yeah, and half of them probably think blacks are “just as American” as they are. And the other half probably think “ending immigration” means the immigrants will disappear. Way too many variables to read too much into those events. (Where are those people now?)
True.
Anyone can draw up his ideal solutions, that would actually be solutions, being based on prevailing realities. That’s always the easy bit. It’s how to get to that point that’s the hard part. I’ve heard the Occ Quarterly is going to publish a piece on separation/partition (not the “competition” essay) in the upcoming (current?) issue. We’ll see how deep into particulars that delves. At Mangan’s I suggested studying the dissolution of Austria-Hungary for some insight into that the contours that American dissolution might develop.
Hmph, yeah, I can imagine: Kill ya later alligator. 13
Posted by Jupiter on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:33 | # So the members of the Occidental Quartely want to sit down with representatives from La Raza nation,China,Iran,Pakistan and India to discuss the terms of surrender. I thinik we should encourage Native Born White Americans to fight back. Check out the recent thread on Secession over at American Renassaince. The Secessionists didn’t do very well. I am for a cordon sanitaire policy as a transition to reclamation of colonized territory. Anyhow, I am not going to debate the issue here. I am sure it will be debated again over at American Renassaince. 14
Posted by q on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:28 | # The problem of the non-White multitude can only be realistically addressed, in the short-term, by jettisoning much of America’s southern half. Yeah, let’s just press a button and jettison America’s southern half. While we’re at, maybe we can “jettison” political correctness from our culture? 15
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:07 | # q,
Presently, that is all the European countries need to do because the numbers there aren’t quite so bad (yet). The U.S., on the other hand, has roughly 100+ million non-White citizens. What do you propose that we do with this mass of humanity once political correctness has been jettisoned? 16
Posted by Armor on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:38 | #
I think they would like living in the Northern half of Mexico. 17
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:10 | #
Nomads outrun by the telegraph. 18
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:18 | #
I remember saying to SF moderator MuadDib years ago that we’d have to cut much of America loose. He acted the “hardliner” and as if his little patch of Dixie was so frickin’ important. Well, it ain’t. BUT, consider that there are only so many ways to an ethnic homeland for Europeans within the current territory of the USA, most of which lead straight through and over the current Frankenstein’s monster that is the USA (or at least, the federal government). The only other option is a Euro ethnic awakening strong enough to return to Constitutional government, which would allow for states to revert to Freedom of Association. In that case, ethnic nationalists could create their own communities and the USA could continue to exist largely as it has since its inception. 19
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:27 | # Also, there’s the religious option. Ethnic nationalist Amish, or whatever. It’s one thing to lock up a nutty Christian Identity guy and proclaim his religion illegitimate (a judge said this, mind you). It’s quite another to lock up hundreds of white conscientious objectors who observe due diligence in not being easy to smear as Nazis. A poster on a recent thread at iSteve about the Amish claimed that the Amish beat the commies’ compulsory state education by sitting in jail and refusing to comply. He says eventually the government gave up. Which segues neatly into a point European-American ethnic nationalists tend to ignore - our numbers are tiny. We cannot honestly say this method or that method has been proven unworkable, or cannot work, because we’ve tried NOTHING in earnest. There isn’t even a we yet. The whole field is open. 20
Posted by dan dare on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:34 | # @GW In my view this thread or, more correctly, the comments appended to your original post point up a fundamental issue with Majority Rights, and the major reason why it always seems to go off half-cocked. You have started up a discussion focusing upon extremely interesting political developments in Britain, which should have provided cause for quiet reflection on the part of American nationalists, perhaps even stimulating thoughts along the lines of ‘How can we replicate the success of the BNP and other European nationalist groupings here in the US?’, but instead we hear the same tired old mantras about secession and RAHOWA. I think it is time we all faced up to the geopolitical reality that the US is merely an outlier in the grand scheme of things, and that there are far more pressing things on the poitical agenda, namely the securing of the ancestral heartland. I would strongly recommend that you considering repositioning this vehicle with a specifically European focus, because the present transatlantic mode is proving to be hopelessly diffused, as exemplified by the present case in which you kick off a discussion on contemporary political reality in Britain which immediately morphs into hand-wringing and mewling about how dire things have become in the once-great US of A. I mean, really, who cares? What’s done is done. Europe is repairable, the US is not. DD 21
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:46 | # ‘How can we replicate the success of the BNP and other European nationalist groupings here in the US?’... Europe is repairable, the US is not. One huge difference is the electoral system. It is exceedingly difficult for minor parties to get even one seat in the House of Representatives here. You have to pretty much displace one of the existing political parties and that generally means something on the order of the Civil War. That’s largely why we Yanks go berserk when presented with more reasonable electoral results in Europe. On the upside, there may be good reason to avoid “repair”. Sometimes you really do need to tear down dangerous structures and rebuild. Is the US in such a situation now? It certainly seems so. 22
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:50 | #
What success? Here is a website, hosted on a server somewhere in the USA, because it wouldn’t have a hope in hell of staying up anywhere in Europe, including the UK. Yet it is the USA that is not salvageable. Thanks for the giggle! 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:33 | # Dan Dare is right that saving the several European nations from race-replacement is more important, far more important, incomparably more, than saving the U.S. What’s more important, saving Britain, Germany, the Scands, Finns, and Icelanders, the Italians, the Greeks, the Central Europeans, the Iberians, the Baltics, the Balkans, the East-Euro Slavs, the Irish, the Maltese, etc., from collective race-replacement, or saving specifically these five places from race-replacement: New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Canada? (Leave the U.S. out for a moment.) Obviously the answer is it’s more important to save the European countries from race-replacement than the other five places listed. It’s important to save them all, Europe and the other five — none is “expendable,” not one — but if a choice has to be made, it has to be in favor of saving Europe first before the others listed. If the others cannot be saved they’ll have to go down. But Europe cannot be permitted to go down (not even partially, which is why, in Europe, not only must excessive incompatible immigration be halted, but the demographic damage already inflicted by the Jews must be reversed with full restoration of the racial/ethnocultural status quo ante). (And yes I threw in “by the Jews” there, because in my view, which only further solidifies every day of my life, the Jews are the ring-leaders, the prime movers, although no one denies the involvement of Euro-race criminals like David Rockefeller, the Bushes, the Kennedys, Karl Rove, Tony Liar, and the Hungarian Midget doing all they can to advance the genocide agenda.) Well, the U.S. falls in the category of “the others listed.” Europe is the root, the U.S. and the others the branch. You lop off the branch, the root grows another. You destroy the root and all dies, root, trunk, branch. Enough said about that. What’s more important, saving European North America, the branch, or saving Europe itself, the trunk and root? To ask the question is to answer it. The U.S. is very big and powerful, yes. But like Canada, Argentina, New Zealand, and the rest, it’s a branch. The trunk and root are what must be saved above all else. Once saved, they can always grow new branches. The branches can’t grow new branches. If the Eurosphere were a country at war, Europe would be its capital, and places like the U.S. its outlying regions. In war, if the enemy (the Jews in this case) take your capital, you lose. If they take your outlying cities (the U.S.) you’re still in the game. They cannot be permitted to take Europe, the capital. The tendency of some Americans since the start of the Iraq War to dismiss and disdain Europe has been influenced by the U.S. Jewish neocons. These Americans may not realize that fact, because the Jews control all propaganda in the U.S., so it’s like expecting a fish realizing he’s in water — “What water?” The Jewish neocons, already against Europe because they’re Jews and Jews dislike Europe, have been even more vociferously against Europe since the Iraq War, because of the initial European resistance to endorsing the U.S.‘s aggression and to being sucked in as allies. The Jewish neocons HATED France for that, LOATHED it. (Of course since then a Kosher neocon government has been installed in France, a neocon government that endorses the war, pushes race-replacement to beat the band, and does everything Jews adore, so no more problem in that regard as far as France is concerned, and the Jewish-neoson “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” propaganda has ended — for now.) Jews, including Jewish neocons, dislike the U.S. but they dislike Europe even more, and the reason is they rightly perceive the one to be merely the branch of that which they basically hate most in this world, and the other the root. And of course they’re in the process as we speak of eradicating what they hate, both root and branch. These American WNs who dismiss and disdain Europe may not realize — certainly don’t realize — the Jewish neocon influence on their attitude in that regard. They’ll never admit that saving Europe is more important than saving the U.S. They couldn’t be more wrong. (Pointing that out doesn’t diminish the importance of saving the U.S. as well, together with the entire Eurosphere.) 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:40 | #
so it’s like expecting a fish to realize he’s in water — “What water?” 25
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:01 | # My hats off to James Bowery and Desmond Jones for their trenchant responses. dan dare,
This seems rather inconsistent, what’s the point of Americans trying to replicate the success of the BNP if our situation is hopeless (i.e. not repairable)? 26
Posted by Michael on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:43 | # I agree 100% with Fred. Europe is much more important than the United States. However, I’m even beginning to wonder whether the destruction of the United States as it currently exists may in fact be the prerequisite for saving Europe. If the US falls to pieces in a maelstrom of ethnic conflict, this will only give additional propaganda fodder to nationalists in Europe who will be able to point to the most convincing evidence yet that diversity means national suicide. Furthermore, if the US does collapse, it will be in no position to “do a Serbia” on any “recalcitrant” forces in Europe. As to the domestic interests of white Americans - the fall of Washington is quite obviously a good thing from their point of view. So in fact I think the best thing for white Americans, and indigenous Europeans, would be to bring forward the collapse and partition of the US into about 5 or 6 mutually antagonistic ethno-states. 28
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:14 | # Michael makes a great point, in that you can’t think about the U.S. and Europe in isolation. The fabric of our politics is interwoven, like tectonic plates along a faultline. dan dare,
I’ve never understood why there aren’t more anglophone European commenters at MR. 29
Posted by Englander on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:30 | #
I don’t think time is on our side here. By the time the US really implodes, racially, the demographic collapse in Europe will be much further along. America has stood as an example of what not to follow for a long time now, but still we imported the same problems. We, as a people, just seem to get used to, and eventually take for granted, these problems, when each and every problem in isolation was completely unacceptable from the beginning, and only continued to worsen over time. Regarding the loss of the American south. This would in my opinion be an unacceptable loss, considering that some of America’s most charming and historic locations are in this region. I’m thinking of Savannah, Charleston and others. 30
Posted by danielj on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:36 | # I’m thinking of Savannah, Charleston and others. I lived in the area for two years. I would give anything to have them be exclusively White locales open for resettlement. Beautiful country, beautiful people, beautiful weather! 31
Posted by Rand on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:11 | # I disagree that Europe is more important than America. This is because America is racially superior to the vast majority of Europe. The fact is that America was settled predominantly by Northern Europeans. And we all know that Northern Europeans are only a small minority of Europe’s population. So if white Americans go down, Nordics go down as well. Also, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are more important than Europe for the same reason. These countries were populated mainly by Northern Europeans. But I think that white nationalists think in terms of the global white race way too often. It’s much more important for whites to fight for the preservation of their own ethnic group, as opposed to fighting for the entire white race. And since I am a white American, my own country is vastly more important to me than a country like Greece, for example. Besides, we all know that there is diversity within the white race. Meaning that no individual white ethnic groups are exactly alike. Therefore, we should all care much more about our own ethnic groups than about the global white race. 32
Posted by Englander on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:21 | #
Yes. And I think it’s unlikely that the most conservative and racially aware of Americans are going to give up their land to resolve issues brought about by Yankees. 33
Posted by Michael on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:45 | # Several things to keep in mind. Firstly, European nationalists are already doing OK. Not well enough, not nearly well enough, but their progress has been acceptable. They are heightening the contradictions of the liberal state (causing fear among the elites), while placing the rights of indigenous people at the centre of their politics. Look at Austria and Switzerland, where nationalists have done very well electorally (of course, they should be doing MUCH more in office, particularly in targeting the hate-speech laws as Geert Wilders has done). The BNP are going from strength to strength and may well be the third party after another 2-3 years. I think it will get to the point where the EU elites will have to make major concessions in order to stay afloat. Remember that the EU has no real popular power, and little stomach for turning its guns on the people - the only thing that really holds this “transnational government” up is the US State Department in concert with the Pentagon. Which leads me onto the next point. Secondly, the Obama Administration has been determined to learn nothing from the economic collapse, and insists on throwing good money after bad. Their solution to the creation of bad debt is to create more bad debt (half of the current budget is actually debt!). Their solution to certain minorities being unable to pay off home loans is to reinflate the housing bubble while forcing banks to make even more loans to minorities who are unable to pay them off. The Democrats’ liberalism ensures they cannot possibly envisage any other way (of course their real motivation is to turn the US into a one-party state, but it just so happens that they will also destroy the very foundations of the state). So the crash is only going to widen and get worse and worse until the entire country collapses in acrimony. That may only be 5-10 years away, and the vast majority of Europe will be salvageable then. Thirdly, it’s the trend that matters. Who is gaining momentum in Europe? Who is losing steam? Who is on the ideological offensive? Who is on the defensive? Who is making forthright, consistent, principled arguments in favour of self-determination and against genocide? Who is spluttering in confusion and resorting to non-sequiturs? The intellectual battle usually runs ahead of serious concrete changes by a few years, or more - the liberals defeated the conservative establishment in the 50s, for example, and by the 60s/70s they were in control. So too is the case now. We aren’t quite at the point of constructing a comprehensive algorithm to end each and every debate on any “relevant” or “derivative”* topic (race, immigration, Islam, whatever) in our favour (although I think we might have something like that soon, if we keep going). But the arguments have crystalised around certain points, and they are becoming more solid by the day. Lines are being drawn along solid, tangible, diametrically opposed worldviews, and people are dropping the euphemisms, throat-clearing (“I support immigration, but…”) and so on, and are coming out squarely in favour of their right to resist genocide. It’s numbers, stupid. If people stick to their guns, keep agitating and so on, I think the long term is looking pretty good. *It is worth keeping in mind that many public controversies that don’t initially appear to be about race-replacement are in fact about that precise topic. The liberal elites often do this by choosing certain emotionally-loaded side-issues (such as the successful integration of a model minority member or whatever; some historical achievement of a famous non-Westerner; the victory of the British Muslim Women’s soccer team - it could really be ANYTHING) and using the inevitable “indigenous” backdown as a wedge for pushing home the issue of the inevitability of race-replacement and its moral desirability, even if this doesn’t logically follow from the issue (See? THAT’S why we should be “inclusive” and “diverse”). It always happens both in public and in private. It’s a Marxist psychological tactic designed to push people on the moral defensive and extort important concessions (again, on diversity) out of them as the price for returning to “normalcy” (i.e. polite society). It will be necessary for indigenous forces to make a comprehensive list, (eventually culminating in an algorithm for debaters) of all the psychological offensives that have arisen and are likely to arise in the future, so as to develop comprehensive responses to them in advance, and disseminate them widely. 34
Posted by weston on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:22 | # Interesting thoughts, Michael. Please post more often. 35
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:05 | #
Sorry, the true master race is not Nordic, but Westic (= Brittany + Cornwall).
There is no contradiction between the two. The best thing white Americans can do for me is to save their own existence. It would be a great encouragement for every one in Europe. And please do something about Hollywood, and stop the pressure to put McDonald restaurants everywhere in the world, and give back the limelight to real, non-Jewish intellectuals. They will have an audience in Europe too. 37
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:54 | #
Why the double quotes around conservative? —> Because you don’t think the “conservatives” are REAL conservatives. The truth is that you LOVE conservatives, but you feel betrayed. By the way: Is there any political movement in the USA that calls itself left-wing and fights against race-replacement? 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:41 | #
No, they didn’t betray me. I was lacking in understanding before. I see more clearly now, and am sloughing off old misconceptions. In reality I’ve never in my life felt “conservative,” and furthermore I do not know what “conservative” is supposed to mean. Society told me “conservative” was the opposite of the “left,” so I thought that was what I was. I thought wrong. Closer to the truth would be to view “conservatives” as a form of the “left.” They’re a form of “leftist.” I am NOT a “conservative.”
The way the Jews have things defined, that’s impossible by definition: by Jewish definition, race-replacement is “left-wing.” But look at this, an article I first read about six or seven years ago which made a very strong impression on me since by nature I veer a little socialist (whence, in part, my attraction to National Socialism): http://www.amren.com/ar/2000/04/
Because the word has no decipherable consistent meaning, and to the extent it does mean something it, “conservatism,” is utterly irrelevant to opponents of the forced race-replacement of whites. “Conservatives” are not opponents of the forced race-replacement of whites. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:59 | # “Conservatives” do not and will never oppose forced race-replacement of whites. No help for us who oppose it will EVER arrive from that quarter. There is no reason for anyone on our side to see himself as “a conservative.” To do so is like pining for a girl who simply does not love you and NEVER WILL; she knows what she likes and, sorry, it’s NOT YOU: your love will go forever unrequited. WAKE UP. The goals of “conservatives” have nothing to do with race, zero. “Conservatives” hate race and pretend it doesn’t exist. They’re fully on board with the genocidalists. What are their principles? No one knows. It’s a cliché but true that they just do what the “left” does, only fifteen years later. Are “conservatives” anything someone concerned about race should be interested in? Not that I can fathom: why in the world would he be interested in them if he’s concerned about race? Makes no sense. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:07 | # Dan, I take your point. It would be great to have more input from Europe. But it is one thing to formulate the wish and another to find willing helpers. Also, bear in mind that MR is not just for reportage of the nationalist “scene” or a log of all the things that are going wrong with the world, but also aims for a deeper critique and constructive thought. We want to transcend ideology, and that narrows the field considerably for potential posters. 41
Posted by Rand on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:38 | # Armor, There is something of a contradiction between the two. Someone who is overly concerned with the global white race might not mind if his own ethnic group was destroyed. But I agree with you that American popular culture is a disgrace. However, Europeans don’t have to have any part of it. If you don’t like it, then stop consuming it. 42
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:02 | #
American popular culture produced by the media is not real popular culture. Its success depends on the advertizing budget, who owns the media, how many records they plan to sell… and not just on the tastes of the American public. It is like the election of a modern beauty pageant. No matter what the tastes of the public, the organizer may decide that the winner has to be non-white. Where I live, we have many music bands, but no real local television, and very little in the way of local radio. Many young people are suggestible and will buy what the media have decided: it won’t be anything local. 43
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:12 | #
We have to distinguish between the top politicians, the grass-roots politicians, the voters… The chairmen of both left-wing and right-wing parties, tend to be left-wing, or devoid of any opinion. I think most grass-roots politicians from right-wing parties are no fans of immigration, but keep quiet to avoid trouble. Most voters, both for left-wing and right-wing parties, oppose race-replacement, although right-wing voters (many of whom would accept to be called “conservatives”) show the strongest opposition. 44
Posted by Armor on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:19 | # Rand, 45
Posted by skeptical on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:55 | # Armor,
How so? 46
Posted by Michael on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:09 | # As an extension of my previous comment, where I touched upon the phenomenon of Marxist psychological brinksmanship, whereby the elites will often raise issues that are, on the surface, only partly related to race-replacement (when in fact they are very morally loaded and intended to demoralise whites in order to promote the very goal of race-replacement), and use them as a battering ram against indigenous resistance, I would like to invite readers to watch the following confrontation on Youtube*. It encapsulates the topic nicely. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcAGsewiuU Now, today’s lesson is, why did the nationalist on this video completely crumble in the face of liberal moral hectoring? How should he have spiked the battlefield more carefully before bringing on the conflict? *I think it is important that we open up a new course of study in “nationalist moral failings in public”. I propose that every week we link and watch a video, very closely, of a nationalist/liberal showdown where the nationalist failed to make their case effectively, slunk away under the moral barrage of the liberals, or failed to properly counter the hectoring of the liberals. That way, we can comment on WHERE the nationalist went wrong, WHY this was so, and HOW they could have avoided their defeat. Only through ongoing study, including rote observations of failure, will we ever learn how to consistently win the moral war. 47
Posted by Shalmaneser on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:35 | # If anyone is interested, I have dissected the economic fairy-tales being told to us by our treacherous political elite in this essay, the first on my blog. Not technical, just straight to the point, reasoned and without the BS on the subject that you’ll hear for the next year in the MSM. It is from a pro-White and anti-Globalist perspective. Check it out and let me know what you think. I’ll likely be doing more soon. 48
Posted by Mentious on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:50 | # I think you are right, and “crisis of confidence” is it. Their consciences get to bothering. I think nativists (etc.) only need to keep on talking their truth in the noblest and most attractive way, and most will crumble save the manipulative elites themselves, who will have to repeatedly shift strategy and be thrown off balance. 49
Posted by Big Sinkair on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:19 | #
Secession and separation are not one and the same. Assume Americans “reconquer” the United States, as per Sam Francis: what then do you do with the people? Some can be (and ought to be) expelled, others resettled abroad (which amounts to the same thing, but suggests some form of financial assistance might be provided), and the rest? Allowing them to remain (at least while fertile) means accepting them into your gene pool, no matter what draconian anti-miscegenation measures are instituted, so that won’t fly. Then it’s either the unlikely (but apparently much appreciated among the screamers) “RAHOWA”/slaughter scenario or partitioning off territory. My point is if the end result if going to be some sort of partition anyway, then why not develop a discourse around it now? At least this has the hope of securing some level of support among the racial other, the effect of which is to mitigate the lack of numbers. It’s a strategy that can appeal even to those intent on “winning it ALL back.” (Another important advantage of this strategy is the compromise it makes possible with liberal sorts who simply cannot fathom the idea of hating racial others, basically saying, okay, don’t hate them, you don’t have to, but not hating (or even liking) them still doesn’t make diversity a strength.) 50
Posted by Mentious on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:21 | # I just watched the embarrassing self-hating Australians. Here are my suggestions (and I use them successfully myself, to awaken the sleeping): —Have your own rich keywords, repeat them One thing is that the fellow needed some vital.weighty key words and to employ them liberally. Some examples would be, “a people” or “our people.” “Heritage,” “our own culture,” “uniqueness,” or “unique Australian heritage and way of life.” “Nation,” too. And “tradition.” Lefties actually give a lot of weight to these words. Always think: What are the best key words that would tend to hang in people’s minds and ‘bother’ them. Have them at the tip of your tongue. Then also some of these should be repeated to assure they are remembered. Then also, you need to be prepared for the predictable self-hater buzzwords, like “racist.” There are many routes to be taken, and it would be an evolving strategy as different buzzwords lose or gain buzz in the culture. At this point, if some one accuses one of “racism,” a response might be, “I prefer the term racially aware, m’am. Are you saying race is bad.” Better than just diluting or deflecting their buzzword is to turn it back on them. Most lefties are totally vulnerable to this. You can always turn their own blade against them. For example, it’s utterly valid, and more powerful now, for nativists to be the ones commandeering terms like “diversity,” because we are the ones trying to actually protect the earth’s diversity of peoples and nations. Or, they like to howl “fascist”! Turn it back on them: “You represent the fascism that seeks to destroy the self-determination of a natural people who evolved over eons of God’s own time.” Bringing in God will be additional garlic and witch hazel to these zombies. In fact, the very word “nativist,” which I’ve seen here at MR, should be an excellent word to flummox nation-wreckers. Take their buzzword and either neutralize and dilute it (as in the ‘racism’ example), or use it for yourself, or use it against them in a different way. “You are the true racist because you are a hater of the Australian people and culture.” That’s extreme, but these kind of polemics upset the stasis of the argument. You always have to be ready for their bull——. For example, if they say, “We stole the land from the natives” you can usually say, “They stole it from some other natives. In fact, they were more brutal about it than us.” (Such is often the case in history.) Then say, “Don’t you have a People that you love? Who should have their own land and country?” I noticed that the people were charmed by the woman’s regional accent. He could have piped in, “There’s your regional Australian accent, and so charming. Is it going to be a better world when all of our distinctive and subtle Australian qualities are going to be mixed in with the rest of the whole wide world, like so much paint all poured into gray, and lost forever?” Which evokes a slogan: “Love Australia” Much of this will sail past the most venal lefties, but will stick in the minds of many people. 51
Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:05 | # I think there is another important ingredient of discontent evolving now, (In Britain) and that is in the left - right political consensus of the globalists. I watched BBC Newsnight last night and the theme of unemployment was being discussed. It seems to me there is an emerging ideological rift being brought about by the economic meltdown. The talking heads were discussing the comparative safety and security of employment in the public sector as opposed to that of the private sphere. This disparity is causing public disquiet. The globalist consensus operates on the basis that there is an agreement that the corporate machine can have its way (unbridled capitalism) providing it funds (among other things) the race replacement multicultural utopia of the left. This now seems in danger of collapse. Unemployment is taking a hammering in the private sector, it is expect to reach three million this year, this is in addition to the estimated 8-10 million non economically active citizens watching daytime television. In contrast, employment in the public sector is rising and being increased by the thousand. This situation is a no brainer. It was pointed out by the corporatist politician Theresa May (Conservative) that this situation was totally unsustainable as capitalism was taking a hit and couldn’t continue to sustain the level of the liberal left’s public spending ambitions. Typically, Employment minister Tony McNulty (Labour) seems oblivious to all. Is there a fault line appearing here? Cause for optimism maybe? 52
Posted by weston on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:11 | # Silver, A question comes to mind. What was the point of making a big fuss about your “last post ever at MR” if not as a rather pathetic attention grab? And then to continue to post even after that, well, it makes you seem like an attention-whoring drama queen.
Capital idea. I’ve been meaning to undertake a study of effective versus ineffective lines of argument, but time constraints have gotten in my way. 53
Posted by Michael on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:24 | # Well, I have posted the Youtube (above) of a classic example. I’ll be back later to see what you all think of that particular incident. 54
Posted by Bill on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:06 | # Theses sanctimonious people should, where ever possible be pressed into specifics. My favorite question would be something like this. Why is it being racist for people to express a desire to be with their own kind? I would press for an answer to this question. Trouble is, you might get a reply thus. If you express a desire for preference for your own, you are not being inclusive of the other. If you are not inclusive to the other you are being exclusive. To be exclusive to the other proves you are a racist. It’s as Fred once said, these people don’t think like we do. Try another one. The Titanic syndrome. The cry goes out from below, it is from the lifeboat control officer. “Room for one more” - child. Up on deck, two mothers with child in their arms hear the call, both parents looking despairingly into the eyes of the other. The unanswered question in their eyes. Ask the sanctimonious to square that one with taunts of racism. 55
Posted by Jupiter on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:40 | # Big Sinkair Never underestimate what Native Born White Americans are capable of under extreme stress. The future will be one of extreme stress for Native Born White Americans. Recently on the Natural Geographic channel-a show about global warming-an expert at Columbia University who advises the US goverment on ctastrophes stated emphatically that the evidence is overwhelming that under conditions of exreme scarcity different tribes will attack each other violently in competition for scarce resources. You are assuming that a violent backlash by Native Born White America is a low probability scenario. This assumption I submit is not at all obvious. And besides, Native Born White Americans should be encouraged to fight back. Anything is possible if there is a will and a way. I basically made this point in a recent post on American Renassaince which was unfortunately was censored. If the obvious direction of where America is headed is stated bluntly it is this:there is going to violent race conflict over competition for the scarce resources within the borders of America. I’ll take it a step further: this violent competition for the scarce resources of America may occur within Euro-American society when things get bad enough. 56
Posted by Jupiter on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:51 | # Have a look at the recent discussion about secession over at American Renassaince. I submit that Native Born White will react violently to the handing over of large tracts of American territory to mexico,india,paksitan,korea and the muslim world. And this is exactly what partition and secession and partition means. And Scrooby,I completely disagree with you that America is not worth saving. Europe’s post-WW2 culture is dirty,disgusting and degenerate. This degeneration left a vacum. The muslims are filling it. The reclamation of Europe will require a complete repudiation of post-European WW2 sex,drugs,rock and roll pro-homosexual athiestic Europe. Europe is dying because..well…it hasn’t got a culture worth saving. Hedonism is not worth saving. Europe needs to reject hedonism. This is the reason why young muslim men rape young swedish women in Malmo. 57
Posted by Jupiter on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:18 | # Or, to it another way, young muslim males see young European women as filthy whores. they are certaintly right in this assessment of young European women. What percentage of this years population of European male infants are being born to mothers who have had many previous pentrations by a long list of males before their fathers impregnated their mothers. Daddy was at the end of the waiting line. 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:18 | #
I didn’t say that, Jupe. Ending the race-replacement of America is extremely important. What I said was ending the race-replacement of Europe was even more important. Here for example is one of the things I said:
59
Posted by Big Sinkair on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:52 | #
It’s not unusual for a regular or semi-regular commenter to announce his “retirement.” Since then, I’ve only responded when I’ve seen my name invoked. That’s one reason. Another, much more important, reason is that when I survey the landscape of racialist “thought” I want to tear my hair out in frustration. I care deeply about these issues, so I post. Now that I’ve answered that, perhaps you could return the favor and outline very briefly just what problem you actually have with anything I’ve said— a lie, an inaccuracy, an attempt to mislead, things of that nature (dated post, oh, say, 06/08).
Here’s a hint: “non-white slime” probably won’t cut it. That’s more than just a jab at you, weston; it’s a big reason why white advocates perform so poorly publicly when being hectored by liberals. The sentiment behind wanting to grab some Indian, slide one hand under his chin and squeeze his cheeks and with the other jerk his head back by the hair and scream, “Look at him! You want your kids to look like this? WELL, DO YA?” often gets the better of you, and, not wanting to let that out, you freeze up. (I mean, come on, WNs have frozen up to “Why should whites survive?” Before you laugh, what answer would you give to a hostile or suspicious audience?) Look, I’ve watched and listened to enough white advocates to be completely confident that I could run rings around the best of them (eg there’s no doubt Jared Taylor’s good, but I’d beat him—actually, I’d beat him as both a racialist and an as anti-racist.) That’s boastful but it doesn’t matter when you know you can back it up.
But you never actually explained why. You tried to, what with those silly “roots and branches” and “capital city” analogies, but once you look past the smoke and mirrors, no reason at all is apparent why an American should sacrifice America to “save Europe” or how it would help even if he did (unless he physically departed America for Europe). I have my own suspicions about why you’re so keen on Europe, which I’m going to air because I’ve not had a moment’s respite from you. Here is Scrooby writing a few years back:
Grandmothers was it, Scrooby? Not just grandmamma Miriam (the race-replacer?), there was another? That’d make you, umm, half-Jewish, not a quarter, wouldn’t it? A few Jewish and a couple of hispanic nieces and nephews? Now let’s just think. Actually sparing—not just talking about it—America from race-replacement would mean a good deal of upheaval and turmoil for the Scrooby family, wouldn’t it? Much easier to “fight” from the comfort of your PC, no? So much easier to egg on ethno-nationalism across the other side of the Atlantic, isn’t it? “Full-bore support” for the BNP! Why of course. Why on earth not? In contrast, I’m willing to put it on the line right where I live—and as an outsider, to boot. Call me all the names you want, I’m yet to see that anywhere else.
It’s called sacrificing for the greater good, Frank. I think you’re underestimating the violent reaction of Native Born Whites to any hint of the racialist revolution you’re encouraging other Native Born Whites to wage. In fact, it’s so egregious an underestimate that you should rightly be considered an agent provocateur—a point plenty of other white advocates have made. 60
Posted by Matra on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:55 | # Europe’s post-WW2 culture is dirty,disgusting and degenerate. It’s no more degenerate than post-war America. You sound like Mark Steyn or a Fox News talking head: Europe is secular, weak, and nihilistic, America is strong, Christian and virile. Yet look who Americans just elected. It is American women who watch Oprah. It is American men who worship black athletes. The last white American I met even gave me the black handshake when parting! Americans (outside of the South) worship the black man and his ways. Europe is dying because..well…it hasn’t got a culture worth saving. Europeans still have cultures of their own, unlike Americans (again, outside of the South) who have become deracinated economic reductionists. All of our problems only started happening under American political, economic, and cultural hegemony. The hegemonic power always influences the behaviour of lesser powers. Under the British, French, and Soviet empires we didn’t have these problems. The collapse of America would be an opportunity for whites everywhere. 61
Posted by Jupiter on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:50 | # Matra A majority of Native Born White Americans rejected Barack Obama. Native Born White Amerians do give lip service to conservative social values. This counts for something. But it is also much deeper than lip service. Europe embraces degeneracy enthusiastically. You can not so this for Native Born White America. Your “like Fox News” is a stupid comment. A more thoughtfull comment would be something like:“Fox News manipulates Native Born White Americans with authentic disgust at Euro-Liberal degenerate culture into accepting a pro-Jewish foriegn policy”. This very true. Do want to concede the cultural issue to the Neocons over at Fox? I sure as hell don’t. I am categorically opposed to the possibility of the Boy Scouts allowing in Homosexual troop masters. How bout you? And this just the tip of the iceberg of the degenracy I am referring to. Americans are not quite the deracinated economic reductionist that you make them out to be. There is a contradiction between what Native Born White Americans say public and what they say among themselves. If you lived in America and interacted with Native Born White Americans you would know this. There are enormous contradictions in Native Born White American society. The increasingly scare resources-made scarce by the importation of high fertlity post-1965 darkies-will make living with these contradictions untenable. Something has to give. Socially Connservative Americans…AND EVEN WHITE LIBERAL AMERICANS-THINK VERMONT-are fleeing -thousands by the day perhaps by the hour-the blessings of post-1965 diversity. EVERYONE KNOWS IT’S ALL ONE BIG FUCKING LIE. Somethings gotta give eventually. At least in America we don’t have to put up with peaphile homosexuals having the right to sunbath nude in public parks as they do in Munich in degenerate unified Germany. Maybe it would have been better if the Russians had never pulled out. 62
Posted by Jupiter on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:04 | # Matra I am just stating the most likely outcome of the present course of action. It is a blueprint for it. I am just more open about what I think is obvious. If the point of no return has not been reached, we are dam close to it. Deporting millions of illegal hispanic aliens will with close to 100 percent provoke a violent racial conflict with Native Born White Americans. Allowing millions of hispanic illegal immigrants become US citizens will-close to 100 percent certainty population only a few years after amnesty is passed. And they will vote enthusiastically to make Native Born White Americans an ever dwindling racial minority within the borders of America. Or to put it another way, post-1965 non-whites are very concious of what is at stake. They are knowingly waging a low-grade race war against Native Born White Americans. I think the inevitable will happen. When Native Born Americns realize that China’s boreders are now hundred miles deep into America, they will react very violently to this new reality. If it were up to the secessionst, this would happen. 63
Posted by Mentious on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:06 | # This arguing question is excellent: “Why is it being racist for people to express a desire to be with their own kind?” With many people nothing more needs to be said, and people will get the right answer to this on a totally instinctive level. Excellent. Everybody should memorize this question for self-haters. Then to this one: “If you express a desire for preference for your own, you are not being inclusive of the other.” My answer would be: “It is utterly absurd to be universally inclusive of everything. It happens nowhere in nature, and is a metaphysical impossibility.” (That would be my style of answer.) “Do you want a loaf of bread universally inclusive of everything? Your salad? Your house?” Simple version: “It’s unworkable and unnatural for anything to be inclusive of everything.” and “Exclusiveness is natural. It occurs all throughout nature. Diversity would not survive without it.” So then this one: “To be exclusive to the other proves you are a racist.” ...is already dead on the floor, absurd, empty. The hollowness of the word “racist” is already revealed by exploring these natural, basic ideas. It becomes clear that “racism” is a word loaded with the agenda of particular peoples. 64
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:54 | #
Clear out, then you will. All you want.
Then why hang around here preaching to the choir when you could be out converting the heathen? Shouldn’t you be over at Ariana Huffington’s, putting your talents to good use? 65
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:07 | #
But you live in Bangkok. What are you “willing to put on the line” in Bangkok? Also, I’ve never seen you put anything on the line. All you do is come here and rail against what people are saying, then follow it up with assurances you’re on our side. You’re not on our side. 66
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:16 | #
It won’t? OK how about “mystery-meat slime’? Or, “non-white mystery meat”? No? Well then, what about the Island of Dr. Moreau? Or the ‘loids, ‘mmoids, ‘groids, ‘gloids, and ‘zoids thing? Would any of those work? If not, I have plenty more, don’t worry. 67
Posted by Nora Helmer on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:40 | # GW: The anti-racist shriek tactic that has served the left so well down the years is scarcely evident now. Similarly, there are no intellectually powerful respondees to drive home the postmodern dictat. Why don’t the leftist academics pitch in anymore? Someone posting on both Guardian threads as “stjohnwithout” has noticed that, without them, these arguments are a push-over. It is almost as though the liberal-left, which has dominated political debate for the last half-a-century, has suffered a crisic of confidence. This is really interesting to hear because for the past few weeks (actually, since just before Christmas really) I’ve noticed the same thing has happened in Norway. The PC, “RACIST!”-howlers seem to have lost their nerve. I (and others) have thought it was a local phenomenon—so, like I said, it’s really interesting to hear that this is happening elsewhere, too. (Especially somewhere as important as Britain!) To fill you guys in, there have been a couple of crises surrounding the current Labour gov’t in Norway that have happened since around Christmas time (not long after we had our very own immigrant “youth” riots in Oslo). One had to do with the removal of the blasphemy laws in Norway. The gov’t was set to get rid of the old blasphemy law (which has been a sleeping law for who knows how long); but at the same time they were going to set in place a “you-can’t-insult-other-religions” law—read: you can’t insult Islam. Well, the Norwegian blogosphere (a small group, but it does exist) caught fire! Innumerable blog posts (that served to embarrass the Norwegian MSM since they didn’t cover the issue until AFTER the bloggers did) and a couple of petitions later and—yay!—no “you-can’t-insult-Islam” law. The other crisis: the Labour gov’t, via the Justice Dept, tried to sneak in a regulation okaying hijabs for the police force. They got caught out—and when they did, they tried to (apparently) lie their way out of it (“oh, no—that press release we issued about hijabs now being allowed in the police force didn’t mean that we had actually finalized the decision—of course we were going to consult Parliament”). This crisis is not over yet, and may even bring down the current government. Meanwhile, the Progress Party now tops the polls in Norway with both Labour and the wishy-washy Conservatives bleeding support daily. But, the left-wing bloggers and the usual PC suspects have been sooooo quiet. I think they really have lost confidence since they suddenly discovered that outside of their little latte-drinking cliques, regular people are fed up with all this nonsense. “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore!” Now you’ve given me some hope that the tide is turning everywhere. Hallelujah! 68
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:14 | # silver, From the perspective of humanity many of your proposed solutions are preferable to a mass blood letting. Sam Francis’ idea of a self-confident White majority reasserting cultural hegemony over America would do the trick given we could achieve a permanent moratorium on immigration, for awhile; part of which would entail restigmatizing miscegenation, restoring freedom of association and working towards increasing the White fertility rate. But you see, even if we cut off all immigration today, our minority status is all but guaranteed. And our enemies will never let up in the drive towards what will be, in effect even disregarding intent, the genetic annihilation of our race. Do you honestly believe the ‘powers that be’ would allow White separatists to secede peacefully? Of course not. Further, Jupiter makes a reasonable point, would tens of millions of White Americans be willing to give up the land that their ancestors built a civilization upon and have lived in for hundreds of years so that Northern Mexico and Western Zimbabwe can be erected on North American soil? I doubt it. So where does that leave us? 69
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:51 | # Moreover, if White Americans are to secede, we will need tens of millions of Whites fully committed to taking up arms, if necessary, against a potential majority of other Whites still loyal to the regime in Washington. Without a portion of the existing nuclear arsenal of America’s military might at the disposal of the secessionists we would almost certainly be crushed, even given a fanatical fight to the bitter end. And with a cache of nukes, that could very plausibly egg on the Washington regime to crush our separatist movement all the more - even at the cost of nuclear weapons being exploded within America’s borders. “Nazis with nukes!”, would be the call to arms for the lemmings, and I don’t doubt many would heed it. And after having crushed the “Nazis” at such a bitter cost, why would they not then also crush or frighten into submission nationalist gains within their sphere in western Europe, their might and resolve already having been demonstrated? So, it seems evident to me, that the hand of pro-White forces must be overwhelmingly strong before it is plausible to take any serious actions towards establishing an ethno-state on the North American continent. Because: we will get one shot at it, and our failure could well mean the annihilation of the White race globally. Therein lies the necessity of “taking it ALL back”, we MUST have decisive victory over our enemies - final victory. 70
Posted by Templar on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:19 | #
That begs an interesting question: Assuming sanity prevails and the white population is able to reassert control, would it be worthwhile to preserve the U.S. in its present form as a subcontinent-wide conglomerate nation, or are regional differences such that it would be better to create a number of new, smaller nations based around regional cultures? 71
Posted by danielj on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:31 | #
Nobody talks that way in public. Nobody acts that way in public. That is “form” language. I guarantee I’ll beat you hands down in the bar talking to normal folk. I speak their language while you just wanna run circles around the people in the wrong circles which seems like an awful lot of running in circles and not a lot of doing anything worthwhile. 72
Posted by q on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:17 | # Templar, All it would take to save the U.S.A. would be to re-institute segregation laws. ALL of them. That includes laws that would make it a crime to misceginate. The problem is, their are too many white-liberal-dogooders blocking this obvious solution. 73
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:35 | # I like Templar’s idea (see a few comments above). I like and fully respect CC’s idea to recover every square inch that’s been forfeited so far and worse yet to come — but once all that land has been re-taken, in my view the new entity that replaces the United States should no longer be one continent-wide United States as was tried and has now failed. It should be divided up into smaller countries, all of them inhabited by men of the European races with a couple of exceptions: 1) ideally, in my view, there’d be a small separate country for Jews, since Jews and Euros living in the same country eventually spells extermination for Euros, so Jews have to get out and into their own land; 2) there’d be a reasonable-size chunk of land in the Rocky Mountain states for the North American Red Indian’s own country: without that, he’s going to go extinct — the Reservation system isn’t enough to enable him to survive as a distinct race. I also agree with someone who posted here recently, it might have been Jupiter, to the effect that Negroes who were here pre-1965 and their descendants should be allowed to stay wherever they’ve been. 75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:44 | #
But without the Jewish Laws Anti-Euro Laws, Rules, and Directives of the 1960s and 70s: no more forced integration, no more affirmative action, etc. The conditions under which whites and Negroes would live in the same country would have to revert back to pre-1964, sorry. If Negroes can make a go of it under those conditions, let them and may they succeed as best they can: more power to them. But this intolerable Jewish artificial-driving-down of the white race has to stop, all of it. We whites weren’t born, we whites weren’t put on this Earth, just to go extinct at Jewish hands, sorry, and we don’t plan to. 76
Posted by q on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 03:01 | # Fred, It’s glaringly obvious blacks can’t succeed in a capitalist system. Their leaders are all too aware of that fact, too! That’s why President Hussein (BHO) is driving us headlong into socialism as fast as he and his leftist comrades can. The question is: can the ignorant masses catch on to their scheme before it’s too late and stop this madness? 77
Posted by weston on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 03:06 | #
Wow, that’s brilliant Silver. Here’s a hint for you: people tend to be more receptive to your arguments when you don’t constantly frame them in a tone of smarmy condescension. Do you have any self-awareness? If non-racialists won’t respond to “non-white slime”, why do you think you can gain any influence among racialists by calling them “vile” and “disgusting”, and boasting of your yet-to-be demonstrated argumentative superiority? Changing your persona and political position every few months doesn’t help, either. Look, I’m not trying to be a dick here. I will certainly seek you out if I ever want advice on how to be the best troll I can possibly be. But when it comes to advice on how to win friends and influence others, I’m not going to waste my time with someone who has demonstrated no capacity in either area.
Ooo, will you be breaking out your magic bullet anti-white racist argument that you claimed to have back when you were a Paki? I’ve been waiting for that one for over a year. 78
Posted by q on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:15 | # HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good comeback, weston! Whitey proves himself superior to Paki. 79
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 04:41 | # Fred, I would not be opposed to giving some additional land to Amerindians so long as it was tied to strict environmental preservation of said lands. The natives in Australia and New Zealand could be co-opted in a similar fashion. It is certainly not in the interest of Maoris, Aboriginals and Amerindians to have their ancestral lands turned into a teeming, third-world trash heap. And by settling the Jewish Question we would actually be doing hysterical Hebes like Abe Foxman a favor, no more inter-marriage. But at the end of the day all must understand that what the White Man says, goes. Early twentieth century “White supremacy”? You betcha. 80
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:00 | #
- Jupiter True - and you can find the same thing in Europe too. 81
Posted by Templar on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:15 | #
I think that could be workable. Up here in Canada, for example, the rhetoric of the (Canadian) Indians regarding their place in the nation is usually tied up in terms of their connection to the land, and they don’t appear to be all that fond of either non-whites or Jews (as in the case of David Ahenakew, former Canadian Army and National Chief of the Assembly of First nations, stripped of his Order of Canada for remarking favourably on how Hitler “fried six million of those guys”). 82
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:36 | #
Is it only a year, thought it was more? I’ve too have been waiting for that one. Ive taken it upon myself to slog through the MR search to find it, Silver’s intimation of his devastating blockbuster arguments. Its here. The money quote + emphasis:
So here we are, eighteen months later and no sign yet of those devastating arguments, the ones we’ve all been waiting for. 83
Posted by danielj on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:55 | # Silver condescended to speak to this fellow non-northerner once but never responded to my reply. 84
Posted by Michael on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:16 | # It is interesting to see that Silver’s mask has now totally slipped off and is now back to being an open supporter of race-replacement. By the way, my answer to your question is quite simple - whites have just as much interest in survival as the Tibetans do today, as the Australian aborigines have had since the 18th Century, as the Palestinians have had since 1948, as the Vietnamese did under a millenium of Chinese domination, as do all of the tribes protected under UN treaty on the rights of indigenous people. There is no case for according the “right to survive” to some groups on subjective grounds alone (i.e. by not questioning their right to define who they are and defend their identity), while denying it to others on the basis of some vague historical duty to be abolished, also defined along subjective criteria. Really, the only shot the marxists have in their locker (in defence of the hypocritical position that third world tribes have certain rights that whites don’t) is the original sin argument that white people were responsible for the historical crimes of imperialism and colonialism against the third world, and must therefore be denied the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, even if you accept these hypocritical criteria, the problem is that the vast majority of Central and Eastern European countries, and even Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, had no record of imperialism in the third world worth mentioning, and yet are still subject to the same restrictive criteria as other European nations that do (such as Britain, France and Holland). The other problem (even if you accept the ridiculous proposition that the crimes of one’s forefathers are binding on you*) is that it completely ignores the countries in the third world which have similar records of imperialism and displacement and yet are not, for some reason, denied their right to exclude others.** On the whole, there are no consistent ethical arguments that can be produced in favour of the destruction of European nations. The only remotely convincing arguments that exist lean entirely on economic grounds. *With regards to the “killer” ancestry argument, the obvious conclusion here would be to apply it on both an individual and a collective level. If you really believe that the behaviour of one’s ancestors should have any effect on your civil and political rights, then this could easily be implemented by denying the descendents of known murderers/thieves/rapists and others the right to vote in a domestic jurisdiction. Rather than applying some vague, broadbrush, accusation of “oppressor” on an entire race, which by definition is an injustice, I don’t see why we don’t extend this argument by actually naming the individuals involved and figuring out who their descendents are. That would be “fair”, seeing as there is no evidence that all or even most white people have known “oppressor” ancestors, and to deny somebody rights (while according them to others) on mere supposition is an obvious example of prejudice. But once again, the liberal/marxists won’t be drawn on that, because it blows the cover on the ethical bankruptcy of their position. **I have seen liberals, when pressed on this, drop their erstwhile support for the rights of Amerindians, Tibetans, or whatever, and fall back on the desirability of intermixing period (“of course, Tibetans should go out of existence too!”. Once again, having abandoned morality we are back to a subjective/aesthetic preference in favour of all the people of the world looking the same versus the continued diversity of humanity. That’s the endgame of this argument. 85
Posted by Armor on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:20 | # (Pre-Scriptum: Fred made a comment about conservatives in another thread, and I gave a reply here by mistake, so now I’ll stay on this thread.)
By definition, a real conservative cannot accept race-replacement. When someone remarks that so-called “conservatives” now agree with race-replacement, it goes to show that the political language has been hijacked, as well as the political parties. Anyway, it has now become impossible to be a true conservative. There is too little left worth conserving (and too many people waiting to be expelled). Although the BNP doesn’t claim to be right-wing or left-wing, the wikipedia leftists define it as far-right. This is obviously because the BNP is anti-race-replacement. We can be sure that political parties classified as left-wing by wiki are precisely those who most firmly support race-replacement. Even so, the wiki entry for “left-wing politics” does not define leftism as support for race-replacement. Instead, it says that leftist is a synonym for socially progressive and egalitarian, which is nonsense. Race-replacement leads to obliteration, not to equality. And the policies of Bush and Obama will generate more misery and inequality than the policies of Ron Paul would have. People who vote for left-wing parties do not do so because they support race-replacement. They must have some other reason. I don’t think the left was predestined any more than the right to become an agent for race-replacement. But they have been infiltrated earlier than the right. It probably has something to do with Jewish activism. I wish the left would try to launch a few political initiatives that are explicitly left-wing and anti race-replacement.
A few excerpts from that link:
I agree partially with Melinda, but she doesn’t agree with F.Scrooby. Fred may veer a little socialist by nature, but he still says that the right/left or conservative/liberal divide is something meaningless, the real cleavage is between normal people and race-replacement fanatics. By contrast, Melinda says there are real legitimate differences between liberals and conservatives, and she sees herself as both liberal and anti-race-replacement. She thinks that white nationalists should be more inclusive of people like herself. I think a better solution would be for liberals to launch initiatives of their own against race-replacement, if it can be done. 86
Posted by Michael on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:28 | # By the way, don’t get too confident about the fact that a couple of nationalists have gone down under liberal fire on television. The same dynamic occured from time to time when known communists, another taboo movement, were discovered and shouted down in public fora (and of course threatened with prison or worse, just as nationalists are now) in the first half of last century. And how did that work out for the ruling elites of roughly half the globe? 87
Posted by Michael on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:41 | # My last two comments, btw, were addressed to Silver. With regards to practical, non-ethical, arguments against race-replacement, I know of one recent example where a country went from being one majority to another - Lebanon. I think there is a pretty compelling lesson there for those who like to claim turning a majority nation into a minority one will still provide for roughly the same legal/political order as before, as well as the same rights and protections. With regards to the effects of elite “transition”, I can only refer back to South Africa and Rhodesia. Again, I’ve examined this issue pretty thoroughly. The endgame of everything we are discussing here is not an objectively ethical one - it’s essentially a subjective or aesthetical preference for one kind of world over another. Once the moral arguments have fallen down, we will be back to a preference for nations and identities over a single, unified and more or less homogenous earth. It is important that we: That is the basic gameplan, and it is important to keep advancing to this plan, to stay on track, throughout the debate. With regards to any auxiliary arguments, it is also important to mention the practical effects of multiculturalism and domestic diversity on our basic freedoms (leading, in extreme cases, to a Lebanon or even a Rwanda), and the eventual devolution of democracy into a sort of Ottoman millet system. 88
Posted by danielj on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:27 | # No one can get uppity with me anymore who can’t beat me on the iq test. It’s easy. Everybody do it. 89
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:38 | # According to Friedman there was no Original Sin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xeebU8VhmY&feature=PlayList&p=95A0A61E04B0CD08&index=7 90
Posted by Michael on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 07:46 | # The other argument, which I forgot to mention, that runs against nativism is the white hegemony argument (the ancestry argument having been dropped by this point). This says that white people don’t need, and don’t deserve, the right to self-determination and exclusion (either domestically, or with regards to the world, i.e. immigration policy) on the grounds that they are overwhelmingly powerful and their dominance over others should be redressed by allowing the marginalised to self-segregate while giving them access to the territory and property of whites. This is an egalitarian position which must, to have any consistency, be grounded in the general principle that powerful people (however defined) should not be allowed to associate exclusively with one another in case they impact on the lives and rights of the oppressed minorities. There are several problems here. When asked to provide evidence for the “powerfulness” of white people, the usual measure provided is income or assets, along with their demographic status as the “majority”.* The latter demographic measure actually implies a long term, progressive INCREASE in the civil rights of whites, domestically and internationally, as their demographic position deteriorates - it cannot justify, on its own terms, taking yet more rights away from them given that a significant measure of their “power” is in fact decreasing rapidly. However, the other point worth making is that all societies with certain common rules and identities, everywhere in the world, must by definition constitute a “hegemony” over an area of territory (including in China, India, Japan etc). If demographic hegemony itself is supposed to be abolished, then every single piece of territory with a common identity and rules will have to deconstructed and obliterated and turned into a mass of alienated, atomised individuals with no majority identity in common - implying the destruction of human society itself. This is an interesting position for ontological “collectivists” to take. On the asset/income side of the argument, the implications are pretty obvious: anyone with above a certain, arbitrary, level of personal wealth should be prevented from entering into any communal relationship with likeminded individuals on the basis that they may harm the interests of the less powerful. But there is no reason to narrowly define the list of prohibited relationships on racial grounds alone, particularly as the main measure of “power” itself is not racial, but economic (assuming these people are serious about breaking down inequality or injustice, as opposed to just sticking it to white people). The consistent application of this rule is that the powerful, meaning the entire business/industrial/military elite must be banned from exclusively associating with each other, in any setting (formal or social) whatsoever, which would completely rule out any meeting of Congress, the Chamber of Commerce, or any other powerful and exclusive organisation which could impact on the interests of the marginalised. In other words, we would have to create a totalitarian Khmer Rouge-like society based on coercive levelling, to ensure firstly that nobody has access to disproportionate “power”, and secondly that nobody who has power can be allowed to exercise it. And yet any such polity, being totalitarian, would naturally be ruled by very powerful people. And of course should they flip back to flatly opposing majoritarianism, then I would have two responses here - the first is that the same people have no intention of suddenly coming out in favour of an end to immigration and forced-integration in the year 2042 when whites are meant to be a minority in the US. Far from it, it has been made clear that the system will continue as before. Secondly, demographic numbers are not in themselves necessary indicators of power - as minority-ruled societies such as the former South Africa and the present Sudan demonstrate. Indeed, the fact that middle and lower class whites have been systematically deplaced by immigration and forced desegregation, while hate speech codes have put up across the globe in order to prevent them taking forceful action against their demise, suggests that they aren’t in any hegemonic position at all. Precisely what kind of hegemon or oppressor censors itself and commits suicide as a moral imperative? *In any case, despite nominally sharing an ethnicity in common with Dick Cheney, Joe Biden and other powerful white people, the fact remains that the vast majority of white people are NOT powerful or influential and indeed have very little control over their lives or the circumstances around them. To say that lower and middle class whites mustn’t be allowed to enter exclusive relationships with one another on anti-hegemonic grounds, while the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce certainly can, is to completely distort any meaningful definition of “power”. 91
Posted by Bill on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:59 | # “Conservatives” do not and will never oppose forced race-replacement of whites. (—Fred Scrooby) “By definition, a real conservative cannot accept race-replacement. When someone remarks that so-called “conservatives” now agree with race-replacement, it goes to show that the political language has been hijacked, as well as the political parties. Anyway, it has now become impossible to be a true conservative. There is too little left worth conserving (and too many people waiting to be expelled).” In Britain, whether they realise it or not, the British National Party is being seen as the new Conservative party in the true traditional sense. After a few months of Cameron’s brand of Toryism, the scale will fall. neo-conservatism like new Labour will disappear down the memory hole. Just one quick scroll down any MSM blog confirms that the thinking people have stopped listening to our so called leaders. Even the less interested (in politics) recognise cr*p when they smell it, but they will (in Britain) blindly do an Obama and vote for Cameron, they just cannot get it into their heads the left right choice is an illusional scam. I’m surprise at the number of American bloggers posting in our MSM blogs, there seems little doubt the thinking people of America can see Obama’s wheels are already buckling. If the NWO crowd allow any further elections (in America) then there will be a resurgence of conservative/ republican sentiment. Trouble is, they will get another tick boxed list of candidates to choose from. Change we can. (LOL) Obama is taking a real pasting in our blogs. (And only after a few weeks at that) 92
Posted by Bill on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:37 | # Oops! I knew there was something I wanted to ask. Does the white liberal voter support their own race replacement or do they not see mass non white immigration as a threat to their existence. Long ago I expected to see a “Oh my G-d what have we done?” moment but there’s no sign yet. It’s always puzzled me. Fred’s right, they’re not like us - it’s time we segregated. 93
Posted by Englander on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:23 | # The best course of action against the ‘original sin’ arguments would surely be to publicise them as much as possible. The ordinary people who have to be reached for nationalist support don’t feel responsible for any sort of sin (and nor should they) and wouldn’t take kindly to the idea that their elites have decided that we must perform a collective penance for this. 94
Posted by John on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:10 | #
Here’s a paper http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_2_57/ai_n27361434 titled America’s original sin: the legacy of white racism 95
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:15 | # Michael: “The endgame of everything we are discussing here is not an objectively ethical one - it’s essentially a subjective or aesthetical preference for one kind of world over another. Once the moral arguments have fallen down, we will be back to a preference for nations and identities over a single, unified and more or less homogenous earth.” The reply to that will be, as you have observed, “Then that is my preference.” It must then be demonstrated that the preference of the interlocutor amounts to sheer nihilism. It must be demonstrated that peoplehood in general, and OUR peoplehood in particular, has value, and unless our people are preserved genetically, and our territory is preserved as the indispensable guarantor of our genetic continuity, all the values that flow from OUR peoplehood will be forever lost. That will require educating the interlocutor on things like ethnic genetic interest, genetic similarity theory and race realism. There is no way around it. 96
Posted by Michael on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:11 | # Actually, the endgame concession of “that is my preference” is the LEAST convincing of all the liberal arguments against white survival. Once the liberals are forced to admit that there is no moral basis to their position (see above), practically anything will be able to enter the back door, including arguments that whites have a collective interest in survival. 97
Posted by Big Sinkair on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:59 | #
Michael, well done. You got me out of bed to write this reply. I may not show it but I find responding to the posters on this blog psychologically taxing, simply seeing the name next to some of the replies being enough to repulse me so much I skip reading. In your case, I only read the quoted sentence and closed the browser in disgust. But it got so under my skin I was impelled to get out of bed and trudge off to my study to reply. And then only to let you know how supremely you’ve pissed me off. It’s not just that some (but not all) of you seasoned campaigners are the vilest, most inhuman scum a casual visitor might have the misfortune to stumble across (a reaction you can rest assured must be only too common), it’s also the incredible denseness, the obtuseness, and the incivility I have to put up with. The folks at the SPLC, ADL, Simon Wiesenthal, they can all rest easy (Hi Heidi!): there’s nothing worth worrying about in you clods. (Think about it: anyone capable of reaching the conclusion quoted above after reading anything I’ve said is virtually beyond help.) Oh, okay, I can’t just leave it at that. Look, I was blindsided by this blog. I’ll spare you the details of how it happened but I was lured into racialism thinking it all sounded quite reasonable (though somewhat disturbing) and then BOOM—this blog sent me reeling. It took me a while to recover (no thanks at all to anyone here) and to gain some clarity on the issues raised (again, no thanks at all to anyone here) but I made it—on my own. And if I strike you as arrogant now it’s because, by Jove, I’ve earned the right. (My claiming I could beat Jared Taylor as an anti-racist might have raised some hackles so I want to clarify that I didn’t say it because intend to pursue anti-racism. There are points of view some of you have clearly not considered. I would have liked to work through some of those here, but some of you are just so fragrantly repellent (not to mention detached from reality) I’d rather not waste my time casting pearls before swine. ) Oh, and danielj, I caught a glimpse of your post too. I’m sorry if I overlooked anything you addressed to me. I must have posted a hundred times since so why didn’t you just ask again? I’m approachable, dude. I don’t bite. I’m nothing like the pompous cretins on here. I don’t claim to have all the answers—just better answers than I’ve seen anyone here or anywhere else provide. And if I’m wrong or you disagree, I’d sure like to know why pal. (And if GW takes issue with my posting on this thread I’d like to remind him of the openness to openness he once professed: it was a good idea then and it’s still a good idea now.) 98
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:10 | # silver: “But it got so under my skin I was impelled to get out of bed and trudge off to my study to reply.” Let me get this straight, your “study”? Is that where you, Big Thinker that you are, go to ponder the mysteries of the universe, one of which is the “vilest, most inhuman scum” that inhabit this blog? LOL! Think is, slither, when anyone does try to argue points about “partition” with you, you break out with the insults. “I’m approachable, dude. I don’t bite. I’m nothing like the pompous cretins on here.” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! 99
Posted by Trainspotter on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:10 | # Captainchaos:
Yes, this is correct. As tempting as small state secession may be, it is not the answer (except perhaps as a first step). As long as the multi-cult empire remains in power, commanding vast economic resources and armed to the teeth with nuclear and biological weapons, the prospects for white survival anywhere on the planet are greatly diminished. I would have far more hope for the survival of my kindred peoples in Europe if the American imperial monkey - or 800 pound ape - was off of their backs. Or, better still, in white nationalist hands and assisting them in their struggle for survival. The reality is that if we are to win, we need to win big. Anything less is not likely to be sustainable. Even if small state secession worked, what kind of world would that leave us? A vast, teeming and ever growing Third World, a dominant Asia, a North America that would be overwhelmingly nonwhite, and getting darker by the minute. Ditto for Western Europe and Russia. A relatively small white state is supposed to survive, long term, in such a world? A world in which we will have lost all or almost all of our homelands, and all of the resources that go with them? And we’re going to survive for centuries, for thousands of years, in such an enclave? Maybe, but the Magic Eight Ball is telling me “not likely.” As a practical matter, I’d be more willing to talk small state secession if we were down to a handful of whites - if we had no other choice. But that’s just not the case. There are almost 200 million whites in the United States alone. There are many millions more of our kinsmen in Europe and elsewhere. Hundreds of millions more. We can’t just write them off. We can’t cede them all to the multi-cult, and ultimately have them used against us. The multi-cult empire has got to go, or at least be so weakened that it can no longer aspire to imperial status. The world’s just not big enough for the two of us. I participated in the secession thread over at Amren (and have posted here as well, I believe under a different handle). The secessionist arguments were incredibly weak and flawed, and its advocates resorted more to smears than anything else. Trollish disruption, mostly. I’m all for secession as step one, but only to get the ball rolling. The Left thinks big, so should we. They go for the whole enchilada - which is one of the reasons why they win. We could learn something from them on that score. 100
Posted by Armor on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:34 | #
I agree it would be best to save the whole western world. But as far as I know, the Third World isn’t a danger and doesn’t want to destroy us. Immigrants do not invade the West to destroy it, they are being invited ! Our enemies are only traitors within the West. 101
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:42 | #
History certainly bears out the truth that usurpation of blut-und-boden is the civilizational death-knell. It will not be difficult to illustrate our points to those of education and discernment. I myself “converted” not so long ago thanks to the efforts of people like you, GW, Scrooby, Tanstaafl, Linder, and so forth. The problem I wonder about is how to reach the Whites who have no learning and whose intellect has been atrophied by living in degenerate modern non-culture. Of course, when there isn’t enough for them to eat, we’re the only ones who’ll care. Perhaps the problem will solve itself with time? 102
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:04 | # Then also, you need to be prepared for the predictable self-hater buzzwords, like “racist.” There are many routes to be taken, and it would be an evolving strategy as different buzzwords lose or gain buzz in the culture. At this point, if some one accuses one of “racism,” a response might be, “I prefer the term racially aware, m’am. Are you saying race is bad.” Hurl it back. Racist applies to them far more than to us. Anyone want to summarize the key points of the video for those of us on dial-up? 103
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:10 | # “We stole the land from the natives” you can usually say, “They stole it from some other natives. In fact, they were more brutal about it than us.” (Such is often the case in history.) Haha, I can top that. “Then you’re trafficking in stolen goods.” Get it? If our ancestors took it from group x, what gives leftist scum the right to give it to the rest of the alphabet? I fail to see how the ass-kicking our ancestors gave anyone demands that we should SURRENDER and give the spoils to anyone, especially not a third party. Did the goddamned Indians surrender? 104
Posted by Trainspotter on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:16 | # Armor:
I agree. My point is that the traitors have to be removed from power in order for whites to have a secure future on this planet. The anti-whites amongst us aren’t into live and let live. As to the Third World, it can’t destroy us per se, but what about after non-whites are the majority in all Western nations? What about after they have inherited our nuclear arsenels, after they have inherited our technology and our infrastructure? Sure, they couldn’t create this stuff all by themselves. And, in time, they’ll ruin it. But I don’t think those nuclear weapons are going to disappear anytime soon. They’ll be a threat pretty much indefinitely. The real threat, of course, will be the race traitor whites. There will still be enough of them around for a good long period of time. It’s simple: either they are removed from power and denied the ability to harm whites, or ... they will harm whites. Again, there is no live and let live with that type. And of course the Chinese, while not terribly creative, will certainly be able to provide technical expertise to the less capable non-white hordes. The take home point is that it will be an absolute disaster to lose our white homelands. The small state secessionsists have already, in essence, written off all of our homelands, and say that we should settle for just one reduced version. This is a terrible mistake. A small separatist white nation in an almost entirely non-white world would be in serious trouble. It would have no natural allies. And if we aren’t even willing to fight for our traditional homelands, if we don’t even have the will to do that much, how will we survive when the odds are forever stacked against us? If we can muster the will to survive in a small white state in an essentially all non-white world, why can’t we muster the will to reclaim our traditional homelands, all of which are still majority white? This is one of the many things that the secessionist simply can’t get his mind around: it’s a question of will. If we can muster the will, we can do much better than the creation of a precarious white enclave. If we lack the will, nothing will save us. Bottom line: a small white nation is going to be in trouble in an all non-white world. We shouldn’t even be thinking that way in a world in which there are still many hundreds of millions of us, and we are to this day a majority in all of our traditional homelands. We can do better, and we must do better. 105
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:18 | #
For the time being, I think there is one key to winning face-to-face verbal confrontations with our enemies: Prayer. Prayer is man’s way of aligning his mind with the Universe. Prayer makes braver soldiers, truer spouses, stronger people. We don’t have the television to bring us up with a false-sense of this alignment. This false sense (which is very real insofar as its believers are concerned) of alignment is readily apparent in our enemies. We need other methods, and I think prayer is at the top of the list of what will be most effective. 106
Posted by Templar on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:22 | #
Exactly. People need to get reacquainted with the concept of right of conquest. 107
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:02 | #
Not just the right of conquest. This one hits leftists on their own terms, right in the nuts. If the sin was the white man invading the red man’s land, how does that justify compounding and amplifying the sin (by inviting in the yellow man, the brown man, the sepia man, etc.)? The sin against the red man WAS diversity! And now they want to multiply the sin, using the original sin as “justification”! What kind of psychotic, poisonous black magic is that? 108
Posted by q on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:05 | # “the Third World isn’t a danger and doesn’t want to destroy us.” Yes they do. Let’s not forget about Islamic expansionism, Armor. Just ask the Lebanese Christians—they used to be the majority in Lebanon - not anymore! Remember, Beirut used to be known as the Paris of the Middle-east; that was until the muslims forcefully took over. Lebanon is only one of many examples. If current demographical/political trends continue, the same fate is going to fall upon France, Britain, the USA, and ... 109
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:06 | # And just to be clear, I’d sign on to giving the territory our ancestors conquered back to the Indians long before I ever considered signing on to “invite the world” policy. No contest. 110
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:10 | # Not to put too fine a point on it, but FUCK the chinks, the heebs, the towelheads, the garlic-eaters, the gooks, the wetbacks, the cow-worshipers, etc. Any questions of an American “original sin” are between European-Americans (specifically, Anglo-Saxons and to a lesser degree, several other European-American groups present at the time) and Amerinds. Chinks, heebs, ragheads, garlic-eaters, gooks, wetbacks, cow-worshipers, etc., FUCK OFF. It’s none of your goddamned business. 111
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:15 | #
Yes you do. You are guilty of engaging in the same mean-spirited rhetoric that you accuse others of. Someone once told me that we despise in others most easily and most passionately the things we despise about ourselves. This stuck me as true of myself and I think it is true of humans in general. I’m not accusing you of being exactly like everyone on the board but you come across that way when you don’t show restraint and you get into ridiculous pissing matches. I haven’t followed your every quibble here so I don’t understand what your problem is. What is it? You don’t agree with forced race replacement and you believe there is something beautiful about Western Civ and that it is worth preserving. Where is your beef? Are you mad because the “movement” has a bunch of knuckle draggers in it? A lot of us are. GW is a superb human being. I can tell that without even meeting him. He just seems honorable and there are many more here that have some of the same qualities. I can’t fathom why you let inferior people get to you so. What are your answers Silver? How do I get my rid of my tattoos and criminal record? How do I change who I am? Sometimes I say the word nigger. It’s funny. How do us knuckle-draggers fit into your scheme? What is your grand strategy? I’d like to see it laid out. 112
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:18 | # The sin against the red man WAS diversity! And now they want to multiply the sin, using the original sin as “justification”! What kind of psychotic, poisonous black magic is that? Excellent! This one goes in my anti-anti repertoire. 113
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:24 | # What a thread. Just to underline the quality of journalism the torchbearer of British liberalism is now proud to publish, here are some offerings from Frday to Sunday, all by non-whites:- Stop whitewashing Mother’s Day by Joseph Harker. All hail Princess Tiana by Lola Adesioye. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/mar/20/race-civil-liberties by Fahad Ansari. A step in the right direction by Jo Adetunji. All this is truly pathetic stuff filled with the automatic presumption of the evil of the white male and the need to move him aside. The only effective opposition on the threads is the censor who routinely deletes effective advocacy from our side, and bans us over and again in a final and most eloquent admission of intellectual bankruptcy. 114
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:27 | #
A pithy wisdom, but I’d need something better than a proverb. E.g., social identity theory tells us that ingroups find most salient the differences, and tend to interpret them negatively, and incorporate these differences into their identity (and perceptions of the other’s identity). I know I find dishonesty and hypocrisy the most infuriating, and try as I might to avoid them myself. Nothing pisses me off like dishonesty and general “full-of-shit-ness,” which is why I try to avoid “debating” with blacks as much as possible. 115
Posted by Templar on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:38 | #
Your logic is quite breathtaking in its starkly elegant simplicity. 116
Posted by Templar on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:46 | # I mean that as the most sincere of compliments, if anyone’s wondering. 117
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:07 | # Well thank you. I suppose I try to keep it simple so I don’t have to read more. 118
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:11 | #
On second thought, that actually fits what we know from SIT in a way, since the things that make us different from other groups that we characterize negatively, we begin to characterize more negatively in ourselves as a result. But, this does change the tenor of your statement significantly. From projection to something quite different. 119
Posted by Matra on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:13 | # Your “like Fox News” is a stupid comment. A more thoughtfull comment would be something like:“Fox News manipulates Native Born White Americans with authentic disgust at Euro-Liberal degenerate culture into accepting a pro-Jewish foriegn policy”. This very true. Do want to concede the cultural issue to the Neocons over at Fox? I sure as hell don’t. I am categorically opposed to the possibility of the Boy Scouts allowing in Homosexual troop masters. Though I agree with the Jewish foreign policy bit you are wrong to assume that Europeans are more degenerate than Americans. That is straight out of neocon propaganda. Do you think homosexuality was as mainstream before Americans took control of the West and forced your deracinated values on the rest of us? San Francisco is not in Europe, nor is Hollywood or Madison. Multiculturalism is America’s ‘gift’ to Europe. Nationalism is not only ‘racist’ but it gets in the way of commerce, don’t you know. Funny how those degenerate Europeans never realised that until after the American Empire took over the West. It was Americans (well, actually, ‘Americans’) who turned the history of the Second World War into a moral story of good Jews/liberals v evil Gentile anti-Semites. That is your American narrative. At my British school in the 1970s WW2 was still taught as the British Empire v the upstart Jerries, with few greater moral issues at stake. America’s Hollywood changed all that. Question for you Jupiter: Do you believe that Europe’s unprecedented suicidal multiculturalism and the Americanisation (ie. de-nationalisation) of Europe are separate phenomena? This is not to suggest that Europeans should be let off the hook for toeing the American line. Also, white Americans, especially, those who live in the South and South West, are every bit as victimised by American (Yankee? Jewish?) moralism as Europeans. But claims of American moral superiority and European degeneracy should have gone out of style with ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. They are of no use to our current situation. *BTW I spent most of January and February in Europe and never have I encountered so many smug, patronising Americans (all Northerners and Californians) full of themselves and their own moral superiority. ‘So…where’s your Obama?’ seemed to be their favourite question. When it comes to degeneracy Europeans have little to learn from the Obama Nation. 120
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:15 | # Actually, I thanked you in haste Templar. I can’t accept the thanks for the logic, as it came from a red man. “Bad Eagle,” I think is his name. Basically, his position is that the white man conquered the red man, and the subsequent agreements are between the red man and the white man. Ergo, whites turning the territory conquered by their ancestors over to the yellow, brown, and sepia man is a violation of those agreements. 122
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:20 | # Oh, and if memory serves (it’s been years), Bad Eagle either states or implies that the yellow, brown, and sepia man won’t feel bound by the agreements made between white and red man. 123
Posted by Templar on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:25 | #
You’re welcome. I just appreciate having access to such high-grade ammunition. 124
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:29 | # From projection to something quite different. Not projection. We hate with perfect hatred that which is familiar for it breeds disdain. When we know the niggers, we hate. When we see the nigger in ourselves we hate perfectly. 125
Posted by Templar on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:31 | #
He made the following statement on the Vanishing American weblog a little while ago:
126
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:33 | # Do you think homosexuality was as mainstream before Americans took control of the West and forced your deracinated values on the rest of us? San Francisco is not in Europe, nor is Hollywood or Madison. Americans (real ones) are Europeans. It is our fault. I might be in the minority but I think transnational European unity is necessary for survival at this point. (I’m also reflecting my EGI since I’m descended from various Euro stock) 127
Posted by danielj on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:43 | # Amsterdam, London and Paris are in Europe. The blame game is silly. 128
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:44 | # He’s Professor David Yeagley. Bad Eagle, a Comanche chief, was his ancestor. His blog is http://www.BadEagle.com . His Vdare.com archive is here: http://www.vdare.com/yeagley/index.htm . If U.S. whites no longer want the land, by rights it should revert back to the North American Red Man (who is for the most part a different Red race, by the way, from the Mexican Indian, so the Mexican Indian is not interchangeable with the North American Indian in terms of heritage and getting the land back, not at all). Red Indians have every right to be MAD AS HELL that the white man is giving the land away to alien races who never conquered the Red Man and couldn’t if they had tried. Chinese settlers never conquered the Red Man. Subcon settlers never did. Sub-Saharan African settlers never did. Mexican Indian tribes never did. Europeans did. The Red Man owes NOTHING to these other races today’s Euros are bringing into the country in order to bequeath it to them instead of to their Euro posterity. If the current generation of el-sicko whites try to pull that stunt the Red Man should organize and violently overthrow whoever else dares to try to take his land in place of the whites who conquered it. The Red Man should not accept what’s going on. 129
Posted by q on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:45 | # “When we know the niggers, we hate.” We know all too well how most “groids” hate us. It’s painfully frustrating that white-liberals avoid this obvious fact. If I were to pick the category of people I most dispise, it would be without a doubt - white-liberals. 130
Posted by Templar on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:01 | #
I didn’t notice this post till now. My apologies. 131
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:11 | #
I’ll second that, and well said. 132
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:29 | # The White man is, given the way things are, the best friend the Red man will ever have. It seems that Yeagley understands this fact. The Red man has as much to lose - e.g. blut-und-boden - as we do. If we fail, they fail. I propose a political alliance… 133
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:53 | # Gentlemen, may I cordially suggest that “fuck the chinks” NOT be deployed by an argument on the indigenous side of this debate? Please, it achieves nothing but confirming the propaganda of the other side. And Silver, thanks for your biography. It’s fiction, total fiction, of course, but I appreciate that even an objective supporter of race-replacement, such as your good self, is willing to give up some of his valuable time for my benefit. I always grant my utmost respect to people who are prepared to invest their precious moments in pursuing dialogue with me, even if it is to advocate race-replacement as you do. 134
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:49 | # Here’s a project for Silver’s secret army of dazzling pro-diversity rhetoricians, who are just biding their time for the right moment to come forward and deliver the final, race-destroying, knock-out blow to ethno-nationalism, using their “devastating” arguments guaranteed to make even the most seasoned WN choke up with terror.
I’m certain that the brilliant verbal ninjas of the “anti-racist” movement, such as the ADL and the SPLC, will be waiting to pounce on these recalcitrant, “hateful” Israelis. Totally certain. In fact, I’ve never been more sure of anything in my life. Any moment now… 135
Posted by Anon on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:54 | # That begs an interesting question: Assuming sanity prevails and the white population is able to reassert control, would it be worthwhile to preserve the U.S. in its present form as a subcontinent-wide conglomerate nation, or are regional differences such that it would be better to create a number of new, smaller nations based around regional cultures? Regional differences are fine. They already exist and have existed in the US long before this country was in the state it is in now. That is OK with me. To me “new smaller nations based around regional cultures” are what roughly existed before the Civil War, though I am simplifying things a bit. If sanity prevails, then questions like this won’t be too big a deal. White reassertion will solve most problems. 136
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 07:54 | #
No, Dan, I don’t. Taken literally, to claim I have all the answers means I claim I can answer any question about any facet of racialism whatsoever, beyond the usual. I don’t make that claim. And I don’t claim to be more intelligent, better read or more educated than other posters; I am quite certain, and I think it is quite obvious, that I am not. But those others, Dan, all they’ve done is describe the racial landscape. That’s all they’ve done. Doing so is the staple of every WN publication, blog and conference. They’ve done it innovatively, imaginatively and even ingeniously. But that’s it. Describing the landscape is important, but the point isn’t to just leave it at that – this is how we declined and fell—the real point is to change it. Philosophy (alone) won’t do that; advocacy will. (In fact, advocacy, in a certain sense, is prior to and more important than philosophy.) And as advocates, frankly, they suck (and I’m not exactly sold on their philosophy, either). In this, they are as detached from the human experience as the multicultist who extols the virtues of diversity from the safety and comfort of his white neighbourhood or his rarified circle of intelligent and civilized multi-friends. Is it “mean-spirited” to say that? Perhaps. But there’s always the chance that splashing cold water on their faces might serve as a wake-up call.
As that relates to me, it means I despise the unvarnished hatred they have for others as much as I despise that tendency in myself when it crops up. And it’s true – I have often hated myself for feeling the way I do. Racial feelings are normal, and as the average, de-racialized person experiences them, essentially harmless. But I’ve fed philosophy, genetics, culture, history and even future into those feelings and I don’t like the man it has produced. I have had to back into the racial positions I have taken, and I’ve only done so not because I have the truth, but because the truth has me.
My “problem,” Dan, is I can’t get two words in sideways without being accosted by some drip like “lurker” or Scrooby or Armor, even when I’m simply pointing out the fault with something that has been stated. It’s simply laughable that these maroons think they can dismiss me with “100% bullshit” (which they only ever assert, not demonstrate) or by pulling up something I wrote two years ago when my head was swimming. Worse, they think that’s the sum total of all I have to say, when the fact is I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface. There’s a million things I could say, both pro and anti (though I’m not sure I’d express the latter – that’s called keeping your gunpowder dry), but no one can proceed in that sort of environment. (Oh, and another problem I suppose I have is sycophancy. My position on what is what and who is who is racially (the “racial landscape”) is essentially no different to Desmond Jones’. The sycophants never lambaste him of course. I wonder what’d happen if it emerged, if it could be proven, I was, say, some Anglo-Saxon myself. Lol, as they say.)
I’m not bothered by the existence of knuckle-draggers; it’s their inordinate influence that gets to me.
Dan, you don’t have to define yourself by your criminal past (although if you listened to GW you might think you have to, so please pay no attention to his “Identity” tosh). If you want to become a better man, a better citizen, a better advocate there are steps you can take to do that, which I have my own views on, all of them quite grounded in reality. I’m not sure why you’ve detected any animosity towards you on my part. I’m pretty sure I’d find more common ground with you than I ever could with someone like James ‘the world owes me’ Bowery.
Only sometimes? I use it all the time. Niggers are the alpha and omega of multiracial insanity. I’m fond of saying, “So that’s the way the world ends; not with a bang, but with a nigger.” Nevertheless, they’re not just niggers, and they deserve a far better deal than they’ve been given, and it’s the polar opposite of “integration.” How to get there forms part of…
You know, I’d like to see it laid out, too. Look, I’ve written too much, when I just wanted to reply briefly to you, and only you, because I’ve again skipped reading the other commenters. Better to get that started on that blog I’ve been planning, I guess. Oh, I just caught this at the bottom of the page:
I guess that’s an improvement over “kicking them in the balls.” Dude, you’re in front of a hostile or suspicious audience, Morty Fishman waiting anxiously in the wings to tell them why everything you just said is a bunch of BS and why it doesn’t matter and there’s nothing to be worried about; you don’t have time to “educate the interlocutor.” It’s not about giving them philosophical justifications, it’s about making them feel something. That’s why BMW doesn’t buy thirty second spots giving you philosophical justifications for driving one of their cars; they use the time to make you feel something. That’s easier said than done because you have to navigate some pretty formidable obstacles, like whites believing feeling good about or preferring themselves amounting to “ultimate evil,” but that should be easier these days, given the deteriorating conditions (which is probably the best explanation for “weakening resistance on the left”). (Mind you, Morty Fishman isn’t always wrong. It’s just that however right he is about certain things, none of it is sufficient to justify continuing along this path. Morty Fishman—and Stevie Steinlight—needs to get with the times.) 137
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:19 | # Hi Silver, good to see you back, and once again I appreciate your time here. I was thrilled to see that you have now moved into the realm of non-fiction, here:
Indeed you aren’t. Your original account of yourself, before you changed your biography about, oh, 5 times, was that you were a dedicated enemy of ethno-nationalism, and that you sought its destruction. There is no reason to believe that you are offering an honest account of your motives now.
Precisely. Nobody “keeps their gunpowder dry” unless they have an enemy (in your case, ethnonationalism) to use it against in future battle. If you were, as previously claimed, a friend of ethnonationalism you would have nothing to “hide” from your alleged allies. However, as an objective supporter of race-replacement, it would be much better if you simply came out and proclaimed your position for all its unimpeachable “morality”. 138
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:36 | #
Are you Colin Laney/wintermute? Or Michael ‘The Scorpion’ Walker, perhaps? Whoever you are, there’s a treasure trove of psychological data waiting to reward the researcher willing to peer into the psyche of one so obtuse he not only refuses to recognize (let alone accept) aid or co-operation when it’s being extended his mind transmogrifies it into its polar opposite. A psychoanalyst, for instance, might describe it as having a “need for opposition”: “Okay, it’s over. You win.” ”Win? No I don’t! I haven’t won! You’re my enemy, you need to keep fighting me!” “But I agree with everything you’re saying. You’ve convinced me.” ”The hell you agree! Every word from your mouth is an attack on all I hold sacred!” “I’m packing my bags and leaving, pal. It’s over.” “Leaving? You can’t leave! Get back here this minute! I have to <I>expel you!”</i> 139
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:02 | #
Boy, you’re really into that biography, aren’t you? If you’re really so interested, wouldn’t you prefer to hear it from the horse’s mouth, rather than rely on third hand interpretations of it? I can’t see how it’s particularly relevant, but if it so thrills you, I’d be willing to pen it for you (just for your being such a sociable chap and all). The “philosophy,” such as it is, that I’m “not exactly sold on” runs along the lines of the material recently posted—and surprisingly enthusiastically embraced (or even tolerated)—under “Imperium.” Now, I know that to even dignify that drivel as “philosophy” is stretching it, to put it mildly, but the point is one should be free to voice disagreement with it (and its contours) without that calling into suspicion one’s motives.
Michael, you know as well as I that there is ethno-nationalism and then there’s ethno-nationalism. These promise to be turbulent times, and while I don’t think I’m capable of compromising on race having to be the foundation of a successful society, whatever extra-racial politics it embraces (ie be it capitalism, communism etc), race can only too easily get out of hand. I think the fact that you seem to be so unconcerned with keeping some gunpowder dry yourself is quite disturbing. 140
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:19 | # Michael, you know as well as I that there is ethno-nationalism and then there’s ethno-nationalism. These promise to be turbulent times, and while I don’t think I’m capable of compromising on race having to be the foundation of a successful society, whatever extra-racial politics it embraces (ie be it capitalism, communism etc), race can only too easily get out of hand. I think the fact that you seem to be so unconcerned with keeping some gunpowder dry yourself is quite disturbing. There are two points to be made here (and I will leave aside my problems with the way you have presented yourself before, my beliefs as to your motives, etc, and will instead address a bunch of words written on a page). The first is that the three most important things to me are the truth, the truth and the truth. My purpose, aside from passing on my genes, is discovering the facts about life - finding meaning is an added bonus. I don’t think there is anything to be gained, from anyone’s perspective, in avoiding facts, logic, whatever, for any reason. You will cause yourself and the people around you far less psychological damage in the long run by facing up to reality early. Indeed, I am of the belief that the longer people attempt to hold out against reality, the more violence they are storing up for themselves later. And this applies to both nationalists and globalists. Any debates that can be had, on any topic, SHOULD be had so that we may know how they pan out, and move on. The second is that I happen to agree with the main point of your quoted paragraph (leaving aside the strange penchant for avoiding debate). I’m against aggressive, hyper-nationalism and I suspect a few others around here are too. I consider myself a moderate nationalist who believes that all societies worthy of the name can only function with a settled majority ethnic-cultural identity. Taking this condition away, and in effect putting territory up for grabs among different groups, is a recipe for massive bloodshed. I’d rather head that off and come to an acceptable, balanced solution whereby the nations of the world can live and trade in relative peace without trying to wipe each other off the map. But that isn’t any grounds for backing off. All arguments FOR and AGAINST this proposal should be stated clearly, so that we can assess the idea, peacefully, on its merits. It is precisely by trying to stave off the “extremes” by ignoring them that we only store up greater danger in the future. 141
Posted by ATBOTL on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:22 | # Why does this site allow this troll’s endless rantings? His presence here only serves to waste time. 142
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:55 | # Michael, I’ve calmed down enough to go back and read your earlier reply. Regardless of what you make of my “biography,” you do me—and, I should think, casual readers of this blog—an injustice when you flippantly dismiss and invalidate my feelings regarding these issues, feelings which, as we shall see, played a key role in constructing the anti-racist power structure and which still today prevent criticism of it. If you maintain this tone I shall have no trouble engaging you in the debate you allege I have a penchant for avoiding.
The obvious retort is Tibetans, Aborigines etc actually don’t have all that much interest in “survival” over the long-term. It’s certainly possible for the powers that be to target members of certain groups qua members of those groups, to persecute them or to slaughter them, in which case legacy referents and their presuppositions like “Tibetan” and “survival” maintain currency as a defensive maneuver, but that is only the result of the benighted ideological blinkers (“Han Chinese” or “Hutu”) the oppressing power is operating under.
It’s important to recall that anti-racism seeks to end racial oppression and exploitation. White racial oppression and exploitation was justified by (though not necessarily undertaken in the name of) claims of racial superiority. In the case of Nazi Germany, this justification was developed prior to the actions undertaken. Thus the struggle to overthrow racial oppression necessarily includes not only individuals but countries in whose name that oppression historically operated (your Swedes and Faroe Islanders, for example ) and in whose name it today (quite audibly) threatens to operate (your Slovakias and Estonias).
And from the foregoing it should be obvious that the reasoning ought to extend to the third world. This is an implicit assumption (there are various reasons it couldn’t be made explicit) of the neo-con project.
Certainly not if what is meant by destruction is tanks and bombs. But the demographic variation, slow-paced and intrinsically harmless, which results from the need to undo racial oppression does not amount to “destruction” and does not justify anxious cries for “white survival.”
This simplistic formulation of “crime and punishment” misses the point. It’s not so much what one’s ancestors did, which is a completed act (though it’s as appropriate to be ashamed by that as it is to take pride in it); it’s the racial justification for what was done, which placed an imprint on our appraisal of reality, which is continuous and which yet sustains racially oppressive cultural patterns, and which threatens to once again inflame our world.
You’re correct. But you’re invoking an endgame scenario which is hardly in the offing. You’re demanding that actions in the present be undertaken in light of what their effect will be thousands of years from now, pretending certainty that those living in that day will not appreciate the efforts their ancestors (us) made to eradicate racial oppression and ethnic particularism. In sum, it’s only prejudice and resistance to abandoning cultural practices of seeking to establish domination (ethnic, racial or religious) that prevent the open-mindedness necessary to fortifying humanity’s common bonds and thus experiencing what otherwise seems like “destruction” as the progress it actually constitutes. <blockquote>Why does this site allow this troll’s endless rantings? His presence here only serves to waste time.(—</i>ATBOTL</i>) Isn’t it simply obvious to you now, Michael, why certain explications need to be kept from the common man? He’s zeroed into race, he’s found his one truth in it, and he’s screaming at the top of his lungs that it’s the most important thing in the world, when that is simply not the case at all. (On a more serious note, ATBOTL, if you don’t understand the point of this thread, your own comment is best construed as “trolling.” Certainly it’s doubtful you have anything better to do with your time that you lament it being “wasted.”) 143
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:16 | #
Thank you. That’s as it should be. Firstly, you can’t expect to “convert” anybody if positions he has held or statements he has made in the past forever condemn him. Secondly, arguments that stand on their own stand on their own, regardless of who is making them. The only grounds for suspicion are questions surrounding what each argument leaves unsaid, in which case your first recourse should be to explicitly put those questions to your interlocutor, not to cast aspersions.
We share much in common then.
That is difficult to believe. I submit meaning is embedded in the very act of discovery, even if only in the sense that you like what you’re finding.
I agree and I think it’s apparent in the (racialist) positions I’ve taken. Please be aware that the same reasoning applies to yourself, in which case instances of disagreement do not amount to “trolling.” (Perhaps you could remind your suggestible minions, too.)
I’ve previously drawn a distinction between racial nationalism and ethno or “traditional” nationalism. Racial nationalism is defensive. It seeks only to establish and maintain the requirements of an orderly society, considering threats against itself only those things which threaten to take away the racial (and/or, somewhat secondarily, cultural) conditions necessary for societal orderliness; it takes comfort in its neighbour adopting similar standards and would aid its neighbours in safeguarding those conditions there. Ethno or traditional nationalism is aggressive, combative, quarrelsome; its pride easily wounded it has a hard time coexisting with its neighbours, who have so often been its national rivals. Traditional nationalism seems too invasive of its citizens private beliefs and practices; it is distrustful and demands shows of support in the manner of flag-waving, parades and oaths of fidelity; it struggles to live and let live. 144
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:30 | # Ok, allow me to condense your retorts by summarising the arguments of each paragraph. The first claims that Tibetans and Aborigines don’t have an interest in survival (this is a right, not a left, liberal argument), invokes the might-is-right argument (which is not important to this discussion). Of course, whether Tibetans or Aborigines wish to survive is entirely a subjective choice, as I have mentioned before, and it appears to have been settled in the affirmative. There is thus far no moral argument against the conscious making of this subjective choice. In any case, if you are arguing from right-liberal first principles, then any subsequent moral arguments that are taken from left-liberal premises will be ignored, and vice versa - you will have to build a case on consistent first principles. The second paragraph notes that anti-racism seeks to end oppression and exploitation, which in turn were acted on in the name of superiority. But if no such exploitation and oppression has occured (which in fact is the case with at least half of the European countries) then at a bare minimum, on these grounds alone, there is simply no moral case for “ending racial oppression” by means of flooding countries that had nothing to do with the slave trade, for example. You’ve given yourself an out by claiming that “racial exploitation” does “not necessarily” act in the name of supremacism, which is obviously meant to potentially include mere seperation and exclusion as a form of “exploitation”. Sadly, this line of argument, if it is intended to be followed, is not immediately apparent at all - there is no reason to believe that mere separation is “oppression”. However, the basic argument, that the immoral actions of forefathers are binding on their descendents, must, if it is to be a moral one, be applied at the individual level (hence my point about serial killers) - a failure to do so, and a subsequent enforcement of restrictions against the right to self-determination against individuals whose known ancestors committed no demonstrable sins, is an injustice on its own terms. To then simply say that the actions of past GOVERNMENTS (one agent) are binding on succeeding generations of CITIZENS (a completely different agent) who had no say in the matter (and I could also cite the lack of universal sufferage at the time these offences were committed as yet another get out of jail free card) is to subvert everything that we know about morality - it would be like saying that Mongolians have a duty to be conquered by the Chinese, simply because Genghis Khan conquered the Chinese first - completely arbritary and in fact no different from the morality that Islamists deploy to kill random people on account of their grievance with Israel. The third paragraph takes a right-liberal slant on the “historic oppressor” line, by extending it to all Third World countries and accordingly depriving them of their right to restrict immigration. This is fine, as far as it goes, but it must necessarily be accompanied by a decisive rejection of the rights of any nation to self-determination, wherever found. And indeed, it would be morally binding on the interlocutor NOT to focus his efforts on those countries that are already deconstructing themselves (in Europe, eg), but to concentrate his ENTIRE obsession with race-replacement on those countries that stubbornly haven’t (China, India, Pakistan, etc). And any failure to do so will be taken as evidence of dissimulation. However, it is not immediately obvious why countries would want to commit national suicide - and right liberals have provided no reason, except an unhinged and obscure “moral” one, to do this, and no account as to how that is likely to play out. The fourth paragraph hinges on the distinction between national destruction being caused by an invading army on one hand, or by immigration, supposedly peaceful, on the other. In fact there is scarcely a single historical example of any country that has peacefully transformed itself from one ethno-cultural majority to another - in virtually every case massive bloodletting has indeed occured later, as a direct consequence of the demographic shift (Lebanon and Bosnia are the most recent examples of countries that underwent a massive demographic shift - and how did that go for them?). So if you wish to literally bet the ranch on peace breaking out from overthrowing the cultural identity of your country, you are simply taking a very foolish risk for no obvious gain. Furthermore, if you truly believe that your culture has no value and can be overthrown on a whim, then you have absolutely no business pretending that you will be able to “assimilate” new migrants into a void, which in fact reduces even further the likelihood of the process of replacement migration being peaceful. However, if culture supposedly has no value in itself, the right-liberals (neo-cons) who make this argument need to ask themselves why it is really only the British-descended countries that have produced the kind of freedom that they love so much, and insist on spreading everywhere else at bayonet point. And if they do suddenly love Anglo-Protestant culture again, for some reason, then why are they deconstructing it? The fifth paragraph drops the pretense that this is really about redressing historical crimes after all (for the obvious reason that it would be immoral to do so, as I have shown), but instead claims… it’s the racial justification for what was done, which placed an imprint on our appraisal of reality, which is continuous and which yet sustains racially oppressive cultural patterns, and which threatens to once again inflame our world. First of all, nobody is calling for the reintroduction of slavery/oppression or whatever, and the fact that slavery allegedly has a “racial justification” (whatever that may be) in common with a completely different action and purpose, immigration restriction, is of very little importance - I’m not concerned with “justifications” - I am interested only in the concrete actions that people take and the moral content of these actions. To put it another way - envy has been used to “justify” both capitalist progress (keeping up with the Joneses) and communist oppression (Kill the kulaks!). So what? People are demanding the right to self-determination and separation from others - there is nothing new about this, and it has occured repeatedly throughout history with absolutely NOTHING in common with slavery or oppression (read Nguyen Trai’s famous justification for self-determination from China in the 15th century if you don’t believe me - this is a very old idea and it is not specific to any culture). But if you try to shift this back in the direction of only targeting those states which HAVE “oppressed” people in the past, then I refer you to my point about ancestral moral agency (which you have abandoned anyway) a couple of paragraphs up. With regards to “racially oppressive cultural patterns”, I’m afraid we are really going into total supposition here - what exactly do you MEAN by this? What “oppressive cultural patterns” are you talking about? If you are insinuating that a bunch of BNP supporters sitting in a pub discussing migration are somehow leading up to “oppressing” people, then you have simply distorted the meaning of “oppression” beyond recognition - to suggest that slavery, colonialism and wiping tribes of the map is somehow on the same order of morality as passing the E-verify bill is to abandon any useful standards of logic and reason. However, if you are really saying that the very existence of Britain as a country with relatively high standards of living is an example of “racially oppressive cultural patterns” that continue to this day, a historical injustice in other words, then I refer back to Milton Friedman (linked above), whilst reminding you that you are now actually adopting a Left-liberal position on this debate, which immediately disqualifies your previous points about Tibet, the Aborigines and intra Third-World imperialism. And finally there is the claim that this “threatens to inflame our world” “once again”. Except we aren’t talking about the actions of imperialism and slavery, which did indeed inflame the world. We are talking about a completely different proposition, namely immigration restriction. Is Japan’s immigration restriction “inflaming the world”? Really? How is that coming about? Or what about the neo-cons (the exemplars of the right-liberal position you are apparently taking)? By invading two countries, threatening a third, and bombing the hell out of a bunch of others, I suppose they are really just playing the firefighters to those awful arsonists, the nativist and atavistic xenophobes, of the earth. Of course. The final paragraph concedes everything that I’ve argued - that this is in fact a debate over aesthetics, not morality. Given that the “moral” arguments have been thoroughly refuted, it is now up to the liberals to make their case as to why a uniform world is preferred to a diverse one. 145
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:07 | # By the way, seeing as there is no case for pursuing a morality-based argument against national survival any further and we are now basically down to practicalities and aesthetics, I refer you all back to Robert Putnam on diversity - it reduces social cohesion and capital while increasing friction. 146
Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:08 | #
Even NOW, mass immigration is already the cause of much violence and many murders, but Silver does not accept responsibility for that. 147
Posted by Michael on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:32 | # Racial nationalism is defensive. It seeks only to establish and maintain the requirements of an orderly society, considering threats against itself only those things which threaten to take away the racial (and/or, somewhat secondarily, cultural) conditions necessary for societal orderliness; it takes comfort in its neighbour adopting similar standards and would aid its neighbours in safeguarding those conditions there. Ethno or traditional nationalism is aggressive, combative, quarrelsome; its pride easily wounded it has a hard time coexisting with its neighbours, who have so often been its national rivals. Traditional nationalism seems too invasive of its citizens private beliefs and practices; it is distrustful and demands shows of support in the manner of flag-waving, parades and oaths of fidelity; it struggles to live and let live. In recent history, civic nationalism has been demonstrably more aggressive than traditional nationalism still - America and it’s catspaw Britain have started more wars, invaded, bombed and sabotaged more countries and probably killed more people outside of their borders than any other nations on earth since WWII. Civic nationalism (Freedom! Democracy! The UN!!) has been used as justification for some of the most infamous war crimes, that have led to the United States becoming the most hated country on earth. But seeing as civic nationalism “shares a justification in common” with multiculturalism and mass immigration, that should be more than enough to put paid to those latter ideals, at least on the terms argued by my counterparts. 148
Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:36 | # Michael, I’d like to commend you on providing (primarily in the first page of this thread) some very sensible and effective lines of reasoning that will appeal most to our more educated but still deracinated friends. What you’ve provided goes beyond tactics and holds strategic value. By dismantling the “moral” arguments that support race-replacement, or what is in plain layman’s terms better described as mass immigration and anti-White discrimination, we demonstrate the immorality/error/evil of our enemies - the promulgators of these morally and intellectually bankrupt arguments. This is an important strategy for us to pursue because the moral instincts of Whites have been hijacked and directed against ourselves (Kevin MacDonald calls it “altruistic punishment”). By redirecting these instincts back towards the true injustice we not only relieve a great burden from ourselves, we also place it upon our enemies, where it belongs. Big Sinkair (silver) writes:
This is at best confusion and at worst a deliberate attempt to demoralize. The formidable obstacle this comment steers right toward is demagoguery. Deracinated Whites certainly have been conned into thinking that feeling good about or preferring themselves amounts to “ultimate evil”. However this is not an obstacle so much as it is exactly the point we should call attention to. Our deracinated friends must be convinced to face the prevailing regime of anti-White discrimination for what it is, and contrast it with the discrimination favoring “people of color” that they’ve been brainwashed to accept as normal. Many will then need to understand why this double standard exists. What justifies it? Whether or not the “liberals” then launch into their litany of sins (colonialism, Manifest Destiny, slavery, Jim Crow, holocaust) we should drag them out, shine bright lights on them, and point out that these are raced-based libels against Whites. As Michael describes it, the anti-White argument must then fall back onto a subjective preference for yet another race- and propaganda-based agenda: a utopian coffee-colored future. We are all conditioned to react very negatively to race-based libels and the use of propaganda. Those of us who already see the truth can actually use the energy of this poisonous indoctrination to pry our friends out of their perverted self-hate and self-abnegnation (teaching them these terms, in answer to the taunt of “racism”, helps) and thus toward healthy, natural and enlightened self-interest and ethnocentrism. Memory of the pain of the thorn, once removed, will actually reinforce this change. Loving yourself and your own feels much better than hating them. That’s when the next natural impulse, that’s currently misdirected into altruistic punishment, kicks in: the need to identify and punish those responsible for inflicting the injustice - which is just what we need to end this nightmare. 149
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:04 | #
I don’t begrudge you the attempt but you’ve done neither. Your summaries are twice the length of the originals and you’ve completely distorted my arguments, possibly as a result of having misunderstood them.
The argument being advanced was that Tibetans (or Aborigines or Hutus or Hindoos or anyone) don’t actually have an interest in perpetual genetic/racial survival, despite any perceptions to the contrary, any more than whites do. (Recall, you attempted to defend “white survival” by extending to it the same “rights” you supposed were granted to Tibetans and Aborigines.) I expanded a little on that point by asserting that “Tibetan” was an archaic referent, only justifiable insofar as it defends those being persecuted for being Tibetans, by people equally archaic but occupying a superior position calling themselves “Han Chinese.” The enlightened mind considers both of the aforementioned and any other such ethno-racial referents, along with any attendant presuppositions like “right to (genetic) survival,” obsolescent.
The arguments and practices employed by segregationists and white supremacists do in fact extend to all members of their racial group—that is actually the point. Racial oppression cannot be undone as long as one group considers it proper to explicitly racially separate itself from members of other racial groups or to erect social structures which favour members of one race over members of another: if it’s wrong for Americans it’s also wrong for Danes. I’ve only used the examples of the very whitest groups here, but the same principle extends to all peoples all across the world. Racially barring members of one race from full membership and participation in a society is a form of racial oppression and all forms of racial oppression are immoral and must be opposed and undone.
You’ve completely missed the point. Your forefathers extended racial oppression, a practice much subtler in other societies, to its logical conclusion, highlighting for future generations (us) the immorality of racial oppression in toto, enabling us to draw the proper moral lesson.
They’re free to self-determine so long as they do not engage in the immoral practice of racial oppression.
It is no secret that certain countries are less enlightened than western countries. The project to enlighten them has not proceeded entirely according to schedule and it may well be that it needs to be scrapped, and it should be scrapped if it threatens to derail the good work that has been done in the west. It’s a pity that some countries must remain benighted but that should only strengthen the resolve of western countries to defend, not abandon, the enlightenment they have attained.
The argument was that immigration and genetic amalgamation are not intrinsically destructive of a country. In none of the historical cases you cite was the country in question a liberal democracy committed to overcoming racial oppression. You later conflate the demographic alteration caused by immigration and genetic amalgamation driven by the need to overcome racial oppression with replacing a country’s cultural identity. The two are not the same. The epitome of a liberal democracy’s cultural identity is its commitment to providing the opportunity and encouragement for its citizenry to realize individual ambitions combined with a determination to do so in a way that does not racially oppress others and to prevent the efforts of one part of that citizenry to racially oppress another. This is not to say the effort to fully liberalize western countries and overcome racial oppression has gone smoothly. Cultural factors that had been ignored, suppressed or soft-pedaled in order to accomplish the higher objective of overcoming racial oppression have begun to make themselves felt, and western countries should be prepared to remove, en masse if need be, those malefactors they determine to be existential threats to the liberal order; failing to do so risks fueling the erroneous perception that it is race not culture which is at issue.
Again, it’s not “redress” it’s the realization that racial oppression is always immoral.
Historical injustices like slavery, conquest and genocide were justified by the fact that those who suffered were of a different racial class. That justification led to an elaboration of racial classes and their characteristics and established the degree to which those racial differences were to be considered socially meaningful. It’s those elaborations, not the historical injustices they justified, that continue to distort our perception of reality and lead to racially oppressive practices.
Racially oppressive cultural patterns are the group of informal (not official) behaviours related to judging and treating some members of society as more valuable or important on account of their racial characteristics, particularly those most carefully elaborated by racial oppressors.
“Immigration restriction” does not exist in a vacuum. Restricting immigration need not have anything to do with racial oppression, as long as it is not done in order keep a country “pure.” Moreover, we are not talking solely about immigration restriction, which of course will not and cannot, as you say, inflame the world. There are movements afoot which seek to reinstate some of the racially oppressive practices of yesteryear and enact some altogether new ones, and the attempt to do so will certainly inflame our world.
No, there is moral content there: racial oppression is immoral and racialists who want to change horses in midstream, abandoning the liberty and open-mindedness that anti-racism stimulates, simply in order to “preserve” something as spurious as race are mistaken and confused. It is our liberal institutions and liberal worldviews and our commitment to defend them, not “race,” that are the best guarantors of our way of life and the way of life of all those who seek to emulate us.
Notably missing are the elements of the advocacy with tidbits of “philosophy” I believe will most efficiently result in the above. Very briefly, though racialism has been characterized as demonic, the most noteworthy feature of mine is the minimal shift away from the liberal values most westerners have embraced that it requires. 150
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:08 | # Why does this site allow this troll’s endless rantings? His presence here only serves to waste time. I have a mouse with a wheel between the two main buttons. It controls page scrolling in my browser. Problem solved. Note to interlocutors of trolls; separate your replies to trolls and identify them as such by using the troll’s name prominently. Then we won’t miss anything worthwhile. 151
Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:18 | # ( Warning: This is a reply to the interlocutor of a troll. )
Any complaint about anti-white discrimination is dangerous and should be followed by a clear statement that the place of non-whites is not in the West. I do not object to anti-white discrimination. I object to race replacement. Until very recently, the non-whites were not here at all. And before long, the whites will become a minority. Complaining about any kind of racial discrimination tends to suggest that the presence of non-whites should be accepted as a fait accompli. I totally disagree with that. 152
Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:05 | # In fact, the non-discrimination argument is mainly used as a means to say that any expelling is impossible. Here is, for example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union :
153
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:06 | # Commenting on Big Sinkair’s statement of what he believes:
Opposition to government-enforced race-replacement of whites with non-whites can be called defensive, yes. Such opposition seeks to attack no one, only to defend against genocidal attack.
Preservation of “orderliness” is no more our chief motivation than it is of any group that expresses opposition to its own genocide. Make no mistake: it is genocide and it is being forced, imposed, from the top down by hostile, self-interested, or uncaring élites. Genocide can be done the quick-and-dirty way with bullets, or the slower, stealthy, Jewish-inflicted way, via strategic demography. It’s all genocide.
Not “takes comfort in,” but “sees very simply as normal”: it sees it as normal when its neighbor does not inflict genocide on itself. No one inflicts genocide on himself. When you see genocide, someone else is doing it, not the victim. The Jews, in inflcting genocide, compound their guilt, compound their crime, by insisting, “We’re not doing it — you’re doing it to yourselves.” 154
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:43 | # Crap’n'chaos,
No, I do most of that driving to work, going for walks or lying in bed. Have you really never heard of a “study” before?
I’m not aware that I do that. But if I do it’s because of your inexplicably stubborn, adamantine resistance to the barest essentials of something so eminently reasonable and so eminently more preferable to “dumping” some poor fifth generation sap half a world away (and as a result so much easier to persuade people with). FFS, not only that, it’s damn straight superior—the multi-multi megalopolises would be ideal engines for minimizing economic disruption during a period of readjustment. (Of course, I’m as in the dark as the next man about how any dissolution scenario might play out. But some of the fictional depictions are just outright ridiculous—nigs bringing down airliners with TOWs, yeah right.) And if you really don’t have to hate anyone to love yourself, why the hell can’t there be mixed regions? With your existence secured, I find it impossible to imagine them as anything but examples of positive, truly interesting diversity. It’s the supremely assholic basis on which you disagree, not the fact that you disagree, that gets up my nose. Goddam it Crap’n, you’re actually one of my faves as far as being a straight shooter goes, but I’m gonna have to get nasty with you again, because it’s you, you execrable little c-word, that dispenses with the subtleties and launches right into filthy wog this, fuck off wog that. And while I’m on the topic, that’s a point that’s roiled me about your whole cockamamie “movement,” such as it is in America, from the very start. I resent the arrogance with which you bastards have attempted to shoehorn everyone from the continent of Europe into your fictive “White Race” on the assumption that boy there’s nothing a person could ever want more in this world than to be considered your indistinguishable equal even more than I resent having been made—on reflection—a little guinea pig in your “multicultural experiment,” or treated like some performing seal: “Go on Spiro, do that thing with the bouzouki. Will you look at that Ros, how about that? Yuk-yuk-yuk.” 155
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:49 | # Heh, yeah, sorry about the fuck ‘em thing. I meant just in the context of them butting their nose in and throwing it in our faces when we call them on their part in the systemic violation of our rights. 156
Posted by Big Sinkair on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:17 | #
Whoah, slow down there, pardner. I am long past caring what you think you stand in opposition to. You can oppose government-enforced, government-regulated, top-down, bottom-up, genocide, fratricide, insecticide, spiders or apple cider, inside or outside, all you want; just don’t tell me what damn side I am on. This is me expressing my own views, so I’d really, really appreciate it if you didn’t implicate me in any “our chief motivation…” business. Me, moi, I bloody refuse to have any part of any ideology that insists the most important aspect of that pleasant but tragically mixed up Brazilian fellow is the fact that he’s some low-life piece of “mystery meat” that I’m oh so much better than (cos why? cos absolutely nothing, that’s why) whose existence down the street from me only spells “genocide.” My reasons for wishing to undo “diversity” are quite other than that. Okay?
I think this should fair pretty well in translation: nick off. 157
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:25 | # Do others get the right to comment on your views? If so, that’s what I was doing. You were wide of the mark — which is as close to the mark as you’ve ever gotten, i.e., wide of it. And there you’ll stay: wide of it. You’re unable to hit the mark, for a very simple reason: you’re on the other side. You can’t even see the mark, and you’re here flailing. As usual. 158
Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:32 | # ( Warning: This is a reply to the interlocutor of an interlocutor of a troll. ) Armor writes:
What you say is well stated, especially the last two sentences. I agree with you, and what I wrote previously is in no way incompatible with this. We must call attention to the reverse discrimination of the current regime because too many of our friends are ignorant of it and its propagandized nature. Once they are made aware of this they are prepared to absorb the lessons of Rhodesia and South Africa - to understand what happens when “people of color” get the whip hand over Whites. Couple this with the constant complaints of oppression from “people of color” amongst us and separation pops out as the obvious solution. 159
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:53 | #
LOL! Nice. I was thinking more along the lines of just making sure to put his name at the top. But yours is funnier. 160
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:58 | # And no need to label responses to interlocutors of trolls; if something’s good enough in a reply to a troll for you to snip it out and quote it, then it follows that it’s good enough to join the normal conversation. 161
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:34 | #
It wasn’t us. It was our favorite friends, organised Jewry who feared their exclusion from naturalization on a racial basis. Is the Jew White?: The Racial Place of the Southern Jew Journal article by Leonard Rogoff; American Jewish History, Vol. 85, 1997.
MATTHEW JACOBSON, author Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and The Alchemy of Race and Barbarian Virtues: The U.S. Encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad 1876-1917.:
162
Posted by SM on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:40 | #
-the single female parent; ————— Sinkair is one of them. An “optimist” [shiver]. They have `flipped (for their own [liberal] reasons [related to the above comment about western chivalry—and its vulnerability to “browns” and “siennas”—bluntly they don’t want the less liberal (ie non white) races taking over]). They—the extensive borgdom of sinkairs(maybe not this one proper though)—will get things done (given the tone and inherent receptibility of ‘optimism’—exploitive as ever)... It is just a question of what they’re gonna do... So I asked. (As far as the blind spot for females you all historically have [as you allow the bad dogs, unculled, to bite the children and our dimorphic—aint pretty-or-fair—reproduction dynamic to unravel]... that is for another day…) 163
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:47 | # Silver, If you really were a crazed anti-racist, this is something like the reply I might have cooked up for you. Tibetans (or Aborigines or Hutus or Hindoos or anyone) don’t actually have an interest in perpetual genetic/racial survival The maths has been done. The results are in. The case is proven. You are wrong. The enlightened mind considers both of the aforementioned and any other such ethno-racial referents, along with any attendant presuppositions like “right to (genetic) survival,” obsolescent. Enlightened by what? Not knowledge of group selection and genetic interests, obviously. Enlighten yourself. If you don’t like evolutionary science, just observe the natural world. It contains all the refutations of your view. Do tell if you find a single affirmation of it. Racially barring members of one race from full membership and participation in a society is a form of racial oppression and all forms of racial oppression are immoral and must be opposed and undone. Coercing one group - Europeans - to live in their lands with every other human grouping is racial oppression and it must be undone. Here’s why. The cost to the natives is race-replacement - a word for the death of a people. The cost to the aggressors is an end to their aggression and a return to their own lands. The costs and benefits are not symmetrically distributed. Death is a higher price to pay for the Jewish Promised Land than going home is for a European future. Perhaps reading this will help with the morality of the argument:- http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to_do_what_we_must_to_remain_who_we_are/ Racially oppressive cultural patterns are the group of informal (not official) behaviours related to judging and treating some members of society as more valuable or important on account of their racial characteristics, particularly those most carefully elaborated by racial oppressors. No, that is selective. Racial oppression is also the official denial of any meaning or solidity to the life of the native group. Again, the difference is that survival is a noble and natural, necessary affirmation of life, while segregation/repatriation is simply sending the aggressor home and can, in fact, also affirm life. Group preservation - a gift to all mankind - is enhanced for them too. Restricting immigration need not have anything to do with racial oppression, as long as it is not done in order keep a country “pure.” Marxian hate-speech! Aggressors genetically alter the native group, drive group-members away, appropriate group resources. Nowhere in history, nowhere in the world is this welcomed by the said group. Your “purity” rubric is a poor reading of the natural desire to preserve group integrity, group lands, group resources. Put these culturalised Marxist forms of thought away and look for justice and freedom, including freedom from external aggression, in group self-preservation. racialists who want to change horses in midstream, abandoning the liberty and open-mindedness that anti-racism stimulates Anti-racism is primarily hatred of the European, internalised and prosecuted by a very tiny collection of usually violently-inclined Europeans whose sole interest in life is projecting their intense self-loathing onto the delineated victim: the ethnocentric European. Anti-racism and Jewish ethno-aggression alike demand the total submission of Europeans to racial dissolution - for its own sake in the case of Jewish ethno-aggressors and for some spurious “liberty” from the “Original Sin” of “racism” in the case of the traitors. Obviously, for Europeans there is no virtue in either. Hate is always hate. Virtue finds its home in love, in all its expressions, and one of those the world over is human ethnocentricity. Let it alone ... let it be, so when the reclamation comes it will be easy, quick and peaceful, which is what we all want. 164
Posted by Armor on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:55 | # Tanstaafl: “I agree with you, and what I wrote previously is in no way incompatible with this. We must call attention to the reverse discrimination of the current regime (...)” I was slightly overstating my case. There is no incompatibility, but there is a difficulty in finding the best way to state our position. Several methods can be used. I think we can point out that reverse discrimination is more than an injustice, it illustrates the fact that immigration means race-replacement : However, as a way to finance our race-replacement and transfer our money to non-whites, the welfare system is even worse than reverse discrimination, and we cannot even say that it is a case of discrimination against us. The real discrimination is that Mexicans are allowed to keep Mexico for themselves, but white people are not allowed to do the same. David Duke had an article last January about “The Hidden Massive Racial Discrimination in America against Whites” (here), but it is not very easy to use in a conversation. 165
Posted by Michael on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:18 | # Hi, Gentlemen. Apologies for being away - I’ve been busy at work. I’ll probably have to save most of my succeeding comments for the weekend. However, a couple of things ought to be cleared up before I get back to the coalface. By the way, (this is not to Silver), in case there are any left-liberals floating around, would you care to elaborate on the following - is immigration and diversity good for whites or bad for whites? If you answer “good”, then why would you exact a historical “punishment” on whites for the crimes of slavery and colonialism that you also claim is in fact a reward? It seems pretty strange to me that you would want to “reward” massive historical crimes by granting explicit “benefits” to white people. Just food for thought. Anyway: Silver’s first argument is once again that Tibetans don’t have an interest in survival (whi. Once again, this only feeds back into the subjective stream of my argument - they have repeatedly demonstrated more than a passing interest in survival, and seem to be determined to find a way to achieve that. They also appear to have little trouble defining who they are. Once again, you can take your “moral” arguments out to the streets of Lhasa if you like, but they are beginning to sound quite arbitrary by now, and demonstrative of far less than is claimed. The second says, now without reference to history, that it is simply immoral to separate yourself from other people, that racial separation is a form of oppression. Once again, this claim simply assumes what it sets out to prove. I may bar access to my property to anyone I like, on any arbitrary grounds that suit me, including ancestry. And to the extent that I am denying an outsider the ability to utilise the capital value of my property, then I suppose they are somewhat worse off in welfare terms than they’d otherwise be (which is the only true measure of the “cost” to the aggrieved party - it is being denied access to territory, regardless of the grounds, that reduces welfare to a potential invitee). But that is also true of all acts of exclusion, on any grounds, including economic ones. If you have a problem with racism, it must necessarily be in reference to the negative consequences of racism (no idea is intrinsically “bad” independent of the consequences) - if one of those negative consequences is exclusion and the costs that it imposes, then the obvious position for you to take is to oppose all forms of exclusion, on any grounds, to the logical extent of supporting the destruction of private property itself (certainly inheritance and family nepotism would have to be banned, as another form of arbitrary exclusion based on ancestry, at a minimum) - which is an interesting position for a “right-liberal” to take. The third tries to lean on the “ancestral sin” argument by claiming that my forefathers were guilty of historical crimes, while this time claiming that the sin itself doesn’t justify my displacement in order to “redress” anything, but simply that the example of my “forefathers crimes” should be avoided by subsequent generations. The first problem is that there is no evidence that my forefathers committed any crimes - the onus is on the interlocutor to provide that. The second is that nobody is calling for those crimes to be repeated - I am suggesting that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with self-identified peoples to separate themselves from outsiders, which has nothing in common with invading other peoples’ territory and enslaving them (leaving aside that they both allegedly have a common “racial” justification which in fact long predated colonialism, are not specific to any society, and which were demonstrably used in defense of self-determination in the total absence of slavery). The fourth argument suggests that non-Western societies have been far less successful in deconstructing themselves (in fact, having scarcely done it at all). However, it then goes on to suggest that we may have to cease trying to force it on them, in case the West itself reverts to nativism. This is bizarre - it is essentially a position that calls for great existing acts of immorality to go unpursued and unpunished. The obvious problem here is that the same nativist and atavistic peoples from the Third World are flocking into a total void in the West, which as a defeated and shattered society has no ability to place any assimilationist pressures on them, and actually paves the way for the transformation of the West from an “enlightened liberal” society into a society that is dominated by a new people who are very ethnocentric, nepotistic and chauvanistic - in other words, it is a recipe for defeat and self-destruction. The fifth argument suggests that although race-replacement has torn previous societies to shreds, this time it’s different because it’s being done in a liberal democracy. Aside from being a new variant of the famous Trotskyist argument (race replacement hasn’t really been tried!!), no reason has been provided as to why a liberal democracy will be substantially better in replacing its core population than a non-liberal democracy. In fact, the state of California has experienced substantial violence and white flight since the advent of race replacement there, and there is no reason to believe that this process of decivilisation (on moral grounds no less!) won’t spread to the rest of the country. Britain and France have already made stunning legal capitulations to their Muslim minorities as the replacement process has gained speed, and both countries have been rocked by substantial civil disorder and malcontent. If anything, there is a strong correlation between the deconstruction of concrete societies in the US and Europe into civic nationalist entities, and massive crime. South Africa and Brazil are other examples of diverse, non-core ethnicity, societies descending into civil barbarity. However, the sixth argument now says that liberal societies should be prepared to remove “malefactors” that threaten to derail the supposed “benefits” of diversity. If that means the wholesale deportation of, for example, the 1/3 of British Muslim youth who admitted in a poll conducted two years ago that they supported the death penalty for apostates, then I’d be interested to hear about it. The problem is that a society which has already seen fit to deconstruct its very identity is hardly going to then (while staunchly supporting the morality of its deconstruction) have the confidence to actually do something about defusing the non-native xenophobes by cracking down on or even exiling them. There is no reason to believe that in the likelihood of this happening. The seventh argument reverts back to the “justification fallacy”, and I quote: Historical injustices like slavery, conquest and genocide were justified by the fact that those who suffered were of a different racial class. That justification led to an elaboration of racial classes and their characteristics and established the degree to which those racial differences were to be considered socially meaningful. It’s those elaborations, not the historical injustices they justified, that continue to distort our perception of reality and lead to racially oppressive practices. This is a reworking of the original “justification fallacy” (which was refuted by reference to the fact that egalitarianism has been used to justify all kinds of disparate behaviour, from the Khmer Rouge autogenocide through to the civil rights movement - obviously, an action must be considered on its specific merits, not on what it allegedly “shares in common” with completely divergent actions), which now says that the current argument for separatism is really just an ideological descendent of the same justification for slavery and genocide. It also claims, on grounds that have previously been refuted, that this is “continuing to lead to racially oppressive practices”, which I take to mean separatism (in fact, there is no reason to believe that separatism is oppressive, for reasons I’ve stated in previous paragraphs, and no reason for it to be associated with slavery or genocide). In fact, I can think of a few examples of peoples who have justified their own identity and self-determination on grounds that are entirely unrelated to slavery, and indeed predated the colonial era. So presumably, they have the right to exclusion, at least on the grounds of this specific argument. In any case, if you are suggesting that the British people, for example, had no concept of themselves before the colonial era, I’d submit that you are simply wrong. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that the actions of ancestors in certain states are now binding on their descendents in the choices that they might be allowed to pursue today, then I firstly refer you back to the “ancestry fallacy” (refuted), and secondly remind you that this is a matter of subjective interest. Last, and in closing on the areas of complete disagreement, it is said that racial oppression is defined as ethnic favouritism or nepotism in a civil society. Once again, that has nothing in common with slavery or genocide, and is no different to simply preferring your own kind - we’ve already been through the costs of diversity, as elaborated on by Putnam. There’s no obvious reason why ethnic favouritism is “wrong” per se, just as family nepotism, another arbitrary form of “discrimination”, might be “wrong”. Finally, there is no evidence that liberalism will be able to overcome third world chauvenism, and every reason to believe that it is currently being destroyed by said forces. I partially agreed with your last two arguments, with some quibbles, but don’t have time to elaborate. Gotta go. 166
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:53 | # weakening resistance etc I think this will become increasingly more common. Mass immigration and multi-culturalism was supposed to make them safe by turning the white majority into a minority. They didn’t consider that muslim immigration would end up making them far more unsafe than if they’d left things alone. Now they’re stuck. Some will blame the existence of Israel and become it’s biggest critics, some will try to have both worlds i.e mass immigration but restrictions on muslims, others may come to other conclusions. Whatever happens though they will no longer be united in support of the multi-cult, the solid media wall will start to show cracks, and it’s that media wall that keeps our peoples stunned for the slaughter. With the number of invited invaders heading to the tipping point, and the tipping point being massively brought forward if the economic crisis is as bad as it might be, then the next 3-4 years could be the start. Scary times but, if we don’t all get massacred and end up winning, then I think the original borders of Christendom would be nice for the Europeans and the Panama canal would make a neat and tidy border for Americans. 167
Posted by Bill on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:50 | # Moving up a gear. http://www.simondarby.blogspot.com/ The day is rapidly approaching when useful idiots with microphones will not ask such stoopid questions. Humans, are social animals. and are hardwired to form groups and select/follow leaders who look like them, who have millennia of shared experience and whom they can trust. 168
Posted by Gorothcair the Elf on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:14 | #
The jews who started this whole thing are going to get screwed! (Read K. Macs work on jewish influence on immigration policy) Man what is up with these jews?? They get so close… and then whoosh! They had taken control of the Soviet Union but were dumb enough to let that mongol Stalin take control and then he learned about the ‘Doctors Plot’ and immediately turned on the jews and israel and started arming the Arabs!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors’_plot I am not going to offer any links to back this assertion but I think that as soon as the jews take Supreme Control of a Society that there are so few of them (numerically speaking) that there just are not enough smart ones to maintain the Control. Also the jews are trying the whole ‘restrict muslims’ stuff and they are taking both the high and low-brow approach. Stephen Steinlight represents the high brow approach, and Michael Weiner (Savage) is the low brow approach. However once they start saying that it is ok to start discriminating again then that is just going to spring a leak in the dam and eventually the dam will break. I know I wil be out there saying that ‘hey he looks like a muzzie’ when it is in reality a sephardic jew! Anyone seen Michael Medved anywhere?? I want to discriminate against that Arab looking kike!! laugh out loud. Another thing I have heard recently was in Great Britian where a sociologist of some sort was blaming all the immigrant problems on ‘poor genetics’ and that we must discriminate against people with poor genes! This is obviously a poor strategy for liberal egalitarians. It is clear from Research that certain Race will have certain genetic traits in common so it is so easy to construct and argument to just go ahead and discriminate by Race then bother taking a ka-jillion genetic tests and hey we could just bring back Eugenics to take care of these supposed genetic defects but I highly doubt The Left is going to like that idea once it becomes clear Eugenics will ‘negatively impact’ sacred coloreds more then Whites. (luckily I am a Germanic Aryan and have no fear of Eugenics So yeah keep an ear out for this genetic non-sense coming from libs who don’t want to mention RACE. 169
Posted by Big Sinkair on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:21 | # GW, The maths has been done. The results are in. The case is proven. You are wrong. The maths is based on an arbitrary definition of “ethny.” The lack of uniformity across the arbitrarily defined ethny means the group is cannibalizing (genetically altering) itself at the outset, making the attempt to prevent further alteration similarly arbitrary—and racially oppressive. If you don’t like evolutionary science, just observe the natural world. It contains all the refutations of your view. Do tell if you find a single affirmation of it. Sure: the most obvious example is the racial mixing that has happily taken place all throughout history. Furthermore, tribal survival (ignoring the arbitrariness of such designations) as the guarantor of individual survival is obviated by institutional innovations that both safeguard the individual’s survival and free him from suffocating archaic tribal duties. Coercing one group - Europeans - to live in their lands with every other human grouping is racial oppression and it must be undone. It’s solely a question of numbers. The effect has been oppressive because the numbers have been too many too quickly and the cultural factors ignored. Here’s why. The cost to the natives is race-replacement - a word for the death of a people. As explained, no groups have intrinsic interest in long-term genetic survival. The group may be genetically altered but provided that individual liberties are protected throughout the process no individual suffers any harm. The false claim that one part of the group is intrinsically harmful to another is itself racially oppressive and thus immoral. No, that is selective. Racial oppression is also the official denial of any meaning or solidity to the life of the native group. The effort to undo (real) racial oppression does not entail denying meaning or “solidity” to any group, native or not. Again, the difference is that survival is a noble and natural, necessary affirmation of life, while segregation/repatriation is simply sending the aggressor home and can, in fact, also affirm life. Group preservation - a gift to all mankind - is enhanced for them too. There is a difference between short-term and long-term group preservation. Short-term measure to protect the group from… argh, I can’t do this. My heart’s just not in it, not even as an exercise. GW, there is something in the above; I can feel it in my bones there just has to be. There’s no way the EGI argument can be that adamant; being that adamant it just doesn’t square with the human experience at all. (Which is something I wish Rienzi, wherever he is, would get through his head.) But whatever that “something” is, it obviously can’t override EGI in toto, but I’m just too inept (too lazy?) a thinker to get to the bottom of it. Still, I can’t help but think that had the effort been made, oh, twenty, thirty years ago you might not have found yourself in this position. Scrooby,
Maybe, but at least I’m not a half-jew sucking up to people who hate me like Narrator (Harrison Ford=non-white) and Sveegor (Dave Duchovny =“Middle Eastern” appearance). Germanic-sounding-Tanstaafl,
Troll! 170
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:51 | #
You apparently spend your time compiling and storing painstakingly detailed notes of trivia that gets said here in passing, while you completely fail to absorb the larger points. By the way, nobody here hates half-Jews. What they are angered by and what they reject is the largely Jewish-led forced race-replacement of white people, and other astonishingly filthy crap the Jews pull. Nobody is going to pay any attention to the Jews if they learn how to behave in Euro society. The problem is the Jews don’t know how to behave in Euro society any more than the Somalis do who arrive ignorant of the use of a refrigerator or toilet. The community of “assimilated” (= civilized) German Jews who were already here in the 1800s warned about this when the masses of Eastern-European Jews from the lands of the Pale of Settlement began swarming into the country in the 1880s, swarms of Jews who hadn’t a clue as to how to behave in Euro society and whose progeny still don’t. These are ignorant people who by their uncouth presence and their antics poison to death any Euro nation foolish enough to let them enter. 171
Posted by Armor on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:09 | # Silver is but an ignorant bumpkin, who by his uncouth presence and his antics, poisons to death any Euro forum foolish enough to let him enter. My English sounds better and better. I think I’m ready to write a book. It will be about the survival of the white race in a trollish world. 172
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:43 | # Big Slither: “The maths is based on an arbitrary definition of “ethny.”” What constitutes Slither’s body is arbitrarily defined, by him, if I chop of his head I won’t have harmed Slither. All of him will still be there, as I define him. “The lack of uniformity across the arbitrarily defined ethny means the group is cannibalizing (genetically altering) itself at the outset, making the attempt to prevent further alteration similarly arbitrary—and racially oppressive.” The lack of uniformity across the arbitrarily defined dimensions of Slither’s body means I am free to define what constitutes Slither; his desire to not have me chop off ‘his’ head is oppressive to my desire to chop off Slither’s head. “Sure: the most obvious example is the racial mixing that has happily taken place all throughout history.” Slither doesn’t care if I chop off his head. “Furthermore, tribal survival (ignoring the arbitrariness of such designations) as the guarantor of individual survival is obviated by institutional innovations that both safeguard the individual’s survival and free him from suffocating archaic tribal duties.” We can cryogenically freeze Slither’s severed head. No harm done. “It’s solely a question of numbers. The effect has been oppressive because the numbers have been too many too quickly and the cultural factors ignored.” I’ll cut slow and gently, Scout’s honor. “As explained, no groups have intrinsic interest in long-term genetic survival. The group may be genetically altered but provided that individual liberties are protected throughout the process no individual suffers any harm. The false claim that one part of the group is intrinsically harmful to another is itself racially oppressive and thus immoral.” Slither will die one day anyway, off with his head, his legs won’t miss it. “The effort to undo (real) racial oppression does not entail denying meaning or “solidity” to any group, native or not.” Does that mean I get to chop off Slither’s head and he gets to keep it too? Happy day! “There is a difference between short-term and long-term group preservation. Short-term measure to protect the group from… argh, I can’t do this. My heart’s just not in it, not even as an exercise.” Slither won’t live forever and…shit, how will Slither trick the ladies of Thailand into swallowing his ruffies without a head. I_just_can’t_do_it! “...but I’m just too inept (too lazy?) a thinker to get to the bottom of it.” I’m having second thoughts about letting you keep your head. 173
Posted by Big Sinkair on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:43 | # You apparently spend your time compiling and storing painstakingly detailed notes of trivia that gets said here in passing, while you completely fail to absorb the larger points. No, my brain just has a way of storing these details. I can’t help it. Another habit I have is taking people at their word when they are making statements that tend toward the negative on matters of consequence, regardless of whether they are made “in passing” or not. In any case, those statements were made after careful deliberation and most certainly not in passing and they are perfectly consonant with views typically expressed in racialist discussions. What are the larger points that I have failed to absorb? That race-replacement is “government enforced”? That I must base any opposition to it on the fact that it is? Very well, but that is inconsequential. I’m not interested in opposing “race-replacement” as “race-replacement,” but the positions I take amount to opposing it. You oppose it directly for your reasons (and continue to remain willfully ignorant of how much your own being has already contributed to it) and I’ll oppose it for my own indirect, in my view more human and humane, reasons. You can think of it as a multi-pronged attack. By the way, nobody here hates half-Jews. What they are angered by and what they reject is the largely Jewish-led forced race-replacement of white people, and other astonishingly filthy crap the Jews pull. Nobody is going to pay any attention to the Jews if they learn how to behave in Euro society. Okay, so it’s not just half-jews that are permissible, it’s full jews too. Okay, noted. That’s in addition to half-Chinese (that BNP fellow’s child was it?) and half-Fillipinos (danj’s was it?), but only as long as their parents are staunch opponents of race-replacement. Anyone else while you’re at it? (I imagine Mrs. Peachtoast will be none too happy about it but she and her cassowaries will just have to adjust.)
What constitutes Slither’s body is arbitrarily defined, by him, if I chop of his head I won’t have harmed Slither. All of him will still be there, as I define him. Bzzt. One pound of coffee or one tonne of coffee is still coffee. 174
Posted by q on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:11 | # Big Sinkair, For the record: you, silver, stated you are a young man. Friendly word of advice: Do yourself a favor. Get a girlfriend. Eschew from WN websites; then take it from there .... 175
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:14 | # Big Shylock: “One pound of coffee or one tonne of coffee is still coffee.” Glad you agree. Just keeping you honest, Mr. Slither. Hope you’ll understand. “You can think of it as a multi-pronged attack.” Do tell maestro. 176
Posted by danielj on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:15 | # and half-Fillipinos (danj’s was it?), but only as long as their parents are staunch opponents of race-replacement. He would be a quarter or less. I have no problem corresponding with him from another country and visiting him there. 177
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:08 | # ”(I imagine Mrs. Peachtoast will be none too happy about it but she and her cassowaries will just have to adjust.)” He’s got the whole cast here memorized. Lord, Melba hasn’t been seen here since forever. I think “q” is right: the guy needs to get a g/f or something. As for Silver’s game of inappropriately insisting on specific ulterior details at the present stage where broad outlines are all that can be entertained, no one should fall for it or let himself be sucked into it. Ignore it. As for Silver’s dwelling on completely understandable strong language on our side and “disqualifying” us for it, it’s like overhearing a starving Ukrainian on the receiving end of genocide in 1932 saying how much he hates those Russky bastards and replying to him, “You know, had you not blurted out that strong language against another ethnicity I would have been on your side, but now that you’ve shown what a monster you are (which I always suspected anyway — all my life I’ve HATED racists like you, DESPISED them, you son of a bitch) — but now that you’ve shown what a monster you are by using epithets against another ethnicity you have no right to expect sympathy from any quarter and just for that you deserve to lose and be genocided: you’re nothing but a racist pig and the sooner the world is cleansed of your kind the better.” Silver is sort of a groupie, hanging around because he must think something important is going on and he wants to be “in on the action.” Once again: taking the totality of his output into consideration, I see no evidence, zero evidence, he’s on our side. 178
Posted by Big Sinkair on Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:33 | # Crap’n'chaos, Glad you agree. Just keeping you honest, Mr. Slither. Hope you’ll understand. I didn’t agree with you; I contradicted you. But if you consider it agreement then I hope you accept its implication: race-replacement isn’t occurring so long as some of you are still around. In that case, I hope you enjoy your existence on whatever remote island you find to finally settle on and “preserve” your race. I propose your national anthem be “I fought the Jew and the Jew won.” Do tell maestro. Tell what, Mr. ‘Big Idea’? Haven’t I just spent the last page of this thread “telling it” only to be rebuffed by big brave men with “Big Ideas”? Crapper, you and I go back far enough (at least back and forth far enough) by now that I think I can ask you a serious question: why do you hate me so much? Seriously man, why? Forget about hating my kind. Forget about politics. Bring it down to the personal: me personally, why do you hate me personally? I can’t understand this sort of hatred. It just doesn’t compute. It’s incomprehensible. I’m not denying any of your facts, neither about the qualities of your race, nor the precarious position it finds itself, nor the contribution of my kind to that position. I have nowhere attempted to defend my, well, from your perspective “illegitimate” presence here, neither on individual, personal merit nor with assimilationist tales of “when my grandparents came here…” I’m prepared to part ways with you and offer assistance in encouraging us all to do so (and I don’t deny my self-interest in lending that assistance), but still, still you hound me, hound me, as though I personally were the cause of all your ills or at least enough of them that excising me is a matter of the greatest urgency, as though you’d never be able to play win-it-all-back so long as that filthy dago scum Silver is somewhere peddling his “lies” (which are so insidious they are nigh on impossible to distinguish from truth itself). My God, if only there was some non-Greek in Greece willing to offer so much I should make him a national hero, but here my every effort to be conciliatory is treated with the utmost contempt. What is it about me, Crapper, that eats at you so much? 179
Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:04 | # I don’t hate you, Silver. I pretty much believe you are who you say you are. I don’t hate “wogs”. I don’t conceive of Meds as being “wogs”. But I would like to see Northern Europeans preserved, nothing against Meds. I know real Italians, from Italy (Who run a pizza joint!), and they couldn’t be mistaken for anything but White. You like to fuck with people, so I give a little bit of it back to you. I said it before and I’ll say it again, no hard feelings brother, seriously. As for SM, if he is who I now suspect he is, his one (or is it two?) man war on the “Christers” is fucking ridiculous. If we can get the “Christers” to love Jebus (hehe!) and be racists at the same time then who gives a flipping shit if they are “Christers”?! They were once (racists), and they can be again for Jebus’ sake, LOL! This time it’s not me who is ignoring “Desmond’s facts”. Blistering barnacles! 180
Posted by Big Sinkair on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:44 | # He’s got the whole cast here memorized. Lord, Melba hasn’t been seen here since forever. I just vividly recall your pathetic ass-kissing, that’s all. As for Silver’s game of inappropriately insisting on specific ulterior details at the present stage where broad outlines are all that can be entertained, no one should fall for it or let himself be sucked into it. Ignore it. Best to just hold out hope that somehow magically someone will just “do something” and put everything right. That’s how generals fight wars: they prattle incessantly about there being an enemy lurking somewhere, and prattle and prattle and hope that some of the troops eventually pluck up the courage to seek him out and engage him in a skirmish or two and pray the rest will join the fray. Bitter experience has taught them that making plans and exhorting the men to follow them is a sure loser. As for Silver’s dwelling on completely understandable strong language on our side and “disqualifying” us for it, You overdo it but I haven’t “disqualified” you for it. What a ridiculous thing to say. As if you could be “disqualified” on my say so. It’s true that you in particular are a real oaf the way you go about it, for example calling Koreans pan-faced and then “apologising” for it not by saying you don’t really believe it, but by saying that Koreans need to understand that all whites believe it but normally keep such feelings to themselves. But it’s neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. Silver is sort of a groupie, hanging around because he must think something important is going on and he wants to be “in on the action.” Yeah, that’s gotta be it, man. Scrooby with his finger on the pulse yet again. Once again: taking the totality of his output into consideration, I see no evidence, zero evidence, he’s on our side. No surprise there. Listen, you obviously feel threatened by me else you’d take issue with specific points I’ve made. The fact that you don’t do that tells me everything I need to know about you. 181
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:59 | #
When you genocide people they become openly critical of you, critical of your looks, what-have-you. Blame your friends the genocidalists for that, don’t blame the victims of genocide please. By the way, I’ll call anybody anything if he refuses to stop genociding me, but as it happens I don’t remember ever referring to the Koreans as “pan-faced.” Nevertheless I don’t care what they look like. If they genocide me, or if the Jews use them as a tool for genociding me, I’m not going to be too dainty about expressing exactly what my opinion of them is, either of them, Jew or Korean. To repeat the point I made above: notice how Silver ranks genocide and ethnic name-calling in importance relative to each other: genocide for him is nothing, ethnic name-calling for him is everything. This right here proves he’s non-white, by the way. Pakistani, Hindu, or other Subcon would seem to be the only possibility. His continual insistence that he’s a dagoe and therefore hated by all of us here makes it impossible for him to be either a Serb, or a Greek, or a Serb-Greek mix. Certainly no Serb ever born thought that way about himself or his “demographic relationship” to other Euros: doesn’t exist and never did since the world began. His belatedly throwing in that he’a a Serb-Greek mix doesn’t change it. Nothing he’s posted since day one, and that includes the punctuation marks, would have been posted by a Serb or a half-Serb who identified as a Serb. 182
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:04 | # Also, it is becoming clearer and clearer that this person is ill-intentioned or a nut case. Actually it’s been clear for some time now. So I’m not replying to his nonsense any more. And yes, the guy’s a groupie. He sees us as groupies see rock stars or something. That’s why he hangs around here. 183
Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:11 | # @Bill
Yes. If we don’t win politically beforehand then sooner or later we’ll have our own version of what happened in Kenya recently with mass violence by one tribe to drive members of other tribes out of their living space. When this happens our people will instinctively rally to any group of their own people who look like they have any kind of leadership. I was thinking this when reading comments on the seeming slow pace of BNP electoral success. I think the critical thing about organizations like the BNP is, even if they get stuck at around 20% of the vote and that 20% is spread too evenly to make a big electoral advance, the organisation itself and the active membership provide a cadre for the physical resistance when the multi-cult collapses into tribal warfare.
In Europe in particular it’s too late for them to just try and stop muslim immigration as there are too many muslims here already. If they want to survive in Europe they need that immigration reversed and if they just give up on Europe personally I don’t think Israel could survive so they’d be giving up both. Some might end up accepting that and heading to America but I don’t think they all would. So all sorts of surprising (and very conflicted) people will pretty soon be wandering round the fringes of nationalist and anti-immigration groups. 184
Posted by darknight on Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:15 | # Placed in the wrong Entry but who cares. Posted by Guessedworker on March 22, 2007, 04:13 PM | #
Posted by J Richards on Saturday, May 28, 2005 at 02:11 PM “clueless whites” What a befitting desciption of your understanding. I couldnt have described you clueless Jokers better myself! Your so called hatred for us? What a Joke! Dont delude yourselves you hate us. You wish you hated us. Dont delude yourselves that you have the balls TO CARRY THROUGH WITH FULL CONVICTION YOUR HATRED FOR US!!! Yeah, Talk is cheap. Go back to being the SLAVES you really are….. Ciao 185
Posted by darknight on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:33 | # Posted by J Richards on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 11:26 PM in Anthropology, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Race realism The conclusions are clear…we have yet more reasons to keep the non-muslims out of the muslim states even if they are as stupid” 3.In addition, if mass migration of the likes of Muslims reduces sexual freedom in the West, then the mulatto descendents of present-day Europeans will also have less of an opportunity to reacquire the looks of their white forebears via intense sexual selection. 4.White males need not fear being outcompeted by non-white males when it comes to attracting the favors of white women. Most white women know better than to ... As far as humanity goes, you should know that islam rather than christianity, judaism etc…is the stuff of world reality around the world, which is not bad for an “backward” people (FANTASY-All Talk. A figment of the imagination EXACTLY!!!) 6.Can people in their right mind believe that attractive white women can be improved upon if non-whites are absorbed into the white gene pool? ... Can people in their right mind believe that muslims can be improved upon if non-muslims are absorbed into the muslim states? 7. The fact that even more attractive white women exist underscores the ... The fact that even more muslims exist underscores the ... 8. A white man would be find it easier to find the most attractive non white woman than the most attractive white woman A non-muslim man would find it easier to have the most attractive non-muslim women than the most attractive muslim woman… Posted by Kubilai on May 28, 2005, 09:35 PM | # 8.Regardless what I think is the most attractive, the bottom line is that White women are THE most attractive women on the planet. I’m sure many, many, many others think the same way as well. Otherwise, why would so many men of different races always look to hook up with our women? Regardless what I think, the bottom line is that Muslims are THE most Feared on the planet. I’m sure many, many, many others think the same way as well. Otherwise, why would so many people of different races always fear them? Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 12:20 AM | # 9.I agree, Svigor—that’s an excellent point to throw back in the faces of the race-replacers, who are simply green with envy at the beauty of white women. You know, I used to wonder if each race found its women the most beautiful in the world. Now I know the answer: each race doesn’t find its own women the most beautiful in the world, but finds white women the most beautiful in the world, the proof being that, were it otherwise, all the jealous people of other races out there wouldn’t be driven so hysterically to try to destroy the white race—which they’re clearly doing out of purest jealousy. Knowing that, there’s no more need to ask “Who are the fairest women in the eyes of non-white races?”—the intensity of their jealousy gives us the answer to that ... I agree, Svigor—that’s an excellent point to throw back in the faces of the muslim-replacers, who are simply green with envy at the beauty of islam. You know, I used to wonder if each religion found its teachings the most beautiful in the world. Now I know the answer: each religion doesn’t find its own teachings the most beautiful in the world, but finds islam the most beautiful in the world, the proof being that, were it otherwise, all the jealous people of other religions out there wouldn’t be driven so hysterically to try to destroy the muslims—which they’re clearly doing out of purest jealousy. Knowing that, there’s no more need to ask “Who are the best people in the eyes of the non-muslim religion?—the intensity of their jealousy gives us the answer to that ... Posted by Robert of the Rohorrim on February 13, 2007, 11:39 PM | # 10.What he has to say, that Whites need to assert themselves as Whites is not news. Most figured this out long before he said it. What Whites we lack are specifics. The average White man is isolated physically, emotionally, and spiritually. An organization that allowed normal middle-class Whites to meet and share common interests—as Whites—would be a huge positive step. It doesn’t have to be anything special but it must have the support of White Leadership. It could be a car club, a shooting club, an American and European history club, a homeschooling group, a new boyscout-type org that helps boys grow into good men, it doesn’t matter. Simply being able to congregate as Whites and discuss common interests free from the demands of non-Whites would be enormously helpful. What he has to say, that Muslims need to assert themselves as Muslims is not news. Most figured this out long before it was said. What Muslims lack are specifics. The average Muslim man is isolated physically, emotionally, and spiritually. An organization that allowed Muslims to meet and share common interests—as Muslims—would be a huge positive step. It doesn’t have to be anything special but it must have the support of Muslim Leadership. It could be a Moseque, a Home, a community centre, Muslim history club, a homeschooling group, a new Muslimscout-type org that helps Muslims grow into good men, it doesn’t matter. Simply being able to congregate as Muslims and discuss common interests free from the demands of non-Muslims would be enormously helpful.
186
Posted by darknight on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:40 | # Ref Above comment. What an islamic ooops sorry I mean western way of seperating the muslims from the non-muslims oops sorry again I mean the whites from the non-whites:-) 187
Posted by darknight on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:53 | # Posted by Guessedworker on January 17, 2006, 06:29 PM | # Our political and intellectual elites have decided to abolish the ties we have to our own lands. They have not asked us whether we want this. They simply make resistance illegal/immoral when, of course, it is natural and highly moral. Do you seriously expect us to accept this situation indefinitely. Would you expect the Mollucans to accept it if it was happening to them? Our political and intellectual elites have decided to abolish the ties we have to islam. They have not asked us whether we want this. They simply make resistance illegal/immoral when, of course, it is natural and highly moral. Do you seriously expect us to accept this situation indefinitely. Would you expect the non-muslims to accept it if it was happening to them? Posted by Guessedworker on May 17, 2005, 09:20 AM | # In the end, white women have no interest in the beauty of non-white women because the idealisation of beauty is a very private and particular thing. It must have a point of contact with the idealiser, and that is broken when the race of the “object” is changed. In the end, muslims have no interest in non-muslims because the idealisation of God-Faith is a very private and particular thing. God-Faith must have a point of contact with the idealiser, and that is broken when the faith of the “object” is changed. Thanks for clearing it up for me! 188
Posted by darknight on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:55 | # *In the end, white women have no interest in the beauty of non-white women because the idealisation of beauty is a very private and particular thing. It must have a point of contact with the idealiser, and that is broken when the race of the “object” is changed. In the end, muslims have no interest in the faith of non-muslims because the idealisation of God-Faith is a very private and particular thing. God-faith must have a point of contact with the idealiser, and that is broken when the God-Faith of the “object” is changed. 189
Posted by Big Sinkair on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 05:58 | #
Nobody understands the mere fact of his existence on a certain piece of territory as “genocidal.” The fact that that presence over the long-term amounts to “genocide” doesn’t mean that anyone’s existence is intentionally genocidal. (What sort of a loon do you have to be think in such terms? “Genociding me,” good grief. Total nutjobbery.)
It requires the most magnificent delusion to believe something like this. Obviously the point is if all you do is call people names then nobody out there among your own people is going to understand you’re doing it because you’re “opposing race-replacement.” If you doubt it, you need to get out more.
You’re rarely more laughable than when you’re ranting along these lines. “Doesn’t exist and never did since the world began.” That’s simply hilarious. Fred you can attempt to “discredit” me all you want. Sure, it will work in front the simpletons around here. In the real world—the one that actually matters—you wouldn’t stand a chance.
Any reasonable person can see this isn’t true. I am, however, beginning to come under the suspicion that it’s quite true of you. Otherwise how it can be that someone like Ilana Mercer is “one of the good ones” or “on our side”—she hasn’t come close to telling it like it is, how does that make her a good one? Why are you plucking this stuff out of thin air, Scrooby? Why is it that any time anyone (not just me) has ever suggested talking specifics you shout them down and call them insane or, your favorite, an “asshole”? You don’t even allow that that might be a worthwhile use of one’s time to do that. You’re either the nut I think you are or you’re the nut I think you are as well as a devious liar.
“Something big” is happening, or if it doesn’t “happen” it’s big enough to warrant my attention. That much is obvious. But hanging around like a groupie? I think that captures perfectly what you do. Groupies, Scrooby, try very hard to be liked. That’s what you do, not I. You’re the lapdog here, ever anxious for a pat on the head and an attaboy. Should anyone ever care to scratch beneath all the cheerleading you do, they might be surprised to find how little of any actual substance you’ve contributed. There’s something to think about, “comrade.” 190
Posted by exPF on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:23 | # Silver / Sinkair, Please parade your exquisite sensibilities and superior meta-strategy elsewhere, you high-verbal score adolescent punk-dilettante scum. 191
Posted by darknight on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:47 | # correction 8. A white man would be find it easier to find the most attractive non white woman than the most attractive white woman A muslim man would find it easier to have the most attractive non-muslim women than the most attractive muslim woman 192
Posted by white dreamers on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:00 | # Posted by J Richards on Monday, February 27, 2006 at 11:26 PM in Anthropology, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Race realism ‘‘8. A white man would be find it easier to find the most attractive non white woman than the most attractive white woman’‘ Keep dreaming! There is NO WAY a white man can achieve the MOST attractive Non-white woman over the most attractive white woman by virtue of the fact the most attractive Non-white woman has no interest in giving up her own men from her own race or closer for a white man. A white man may find it easier to find a non-white woman over a white woman over a broad range of looks/appearances but when it comes to specifics as regards the most-attractive there is no way on earth the white man can find the most attractive non-white woman over the most attractive white woman! And any attractive non-white woman the white man finds will certainly NOT be the most attractive non-white woman even if he wishes to delude himself into believing it by virtue of the explanation given. Post a comment:
Next entry: Moon Nazis Destroy Earth!
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:39 | #
If history is a guide, after a movement on the right gains enough numbers and enough vocal support, members of the left cease agitation against it and simply “convert” and come aboard the new movement, graciously volunteer to use their media savvy to act as spokesmen for that movement.
So they’ll become “nativists” who will seek to bring a more “balanced and nuanced approach” to the nativist image. Take it mainstream, so to speak. Bring it away from dangerous, unreasonable, extremists.
Then ten years down the road these new spokesmen (who are now the “leaders” of the movement) will elect a Pakistani muslim to be the nativist party leader in Britain…
.
.
.
That’s how the neocons turned a surging right-wing push in the GOP twenty-five years ago, into the rotting carcass that it is today.
...