|
|
|
A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect Richard D. Fuerle The Flynn Effect, discovered by Richard Lynn (Lynn, 1977) and documented and named for James R. Flynn (Flynn, 1984, 1987), is a world-wide increase in IQ scores of about 3 IQ points per decade. That is, people today score higher on an old IQ test than people the same age did who took the same test decades earlier. By suggesting the malleability of intelligence and the possibility that tweaking the environment might increase it, the Flynn Effect has raised the hopes of egalitarians, who believe that “all the races are equal in intelligence” (United Nations, 1950; also Flynn, 1999) and fervently want to erase the black-white IQ gap. Unfortunately, the cause of the Flynn Effect has not yet been pinpointed and, until it is, a program cannot be designed that will put the cause of the Flynn Effect to work increasing black intelligence. Moreover, as many experts suspect, the Flynn Effect may be only an increase in IQ scores, not an increase in real intelligence (i.e., the genetic potential for high intelligence), which may actually be declining (Lynn, 1996). A possible explanation for the increase in IQ scores is that children today mature sooner, both physically and mentally, than children did decades ago (Sarich, 1999). Today’s children score higher, not because their real intelligence has increased, but because their brains are more mature. A 10 year old today has a brain that has grown faster and has more neural connections than the brain of a 10 year old who lived, say, 50 years ago. Because today’s 10 year olds have brains that, perhaps, 12 year olds had 50 years ago, they do better on an IQ test taken by 10 year olds 50 years ago. Psychologists think they are comparing identical groups of children – 10 year olds to 10 year olds, but they are actually comparing apples and oranges – 10 year old brains to 12 year old brains. Real intelligence has not increased, children just acquire it sooner, and fully mature people today may actually be less intelligent than fully mature people were decades ago. Table 1 (Terman et al., 1973) shows Flynn Effect changes in average IQ scores. Table 1 That the maximum increase in IQ scores occurred between the ages of 2-0 and 4-6 is strong evidence that accelerated maturation is responsible for the Flynn Effect because not much else could cause such a large increase in the IQ scores of American children who are that young. The scores fall from age 3-6 to age 10-0, then rise again, consistent with faster maturation to age 3-6, followed by a slowing of the rate of maturation up to puberty and a second acceleration at puberty, which now begins earlier so the effects of the second acceleration start showing up at age 11-0. The difference between black and white IQ scores is small at a young age, then increases towards adulthood. Lynn (2006, p. 45) reports an average IQ of 92 for 2 year old sub-Saharan Africans (s-S Africans), which drops to 67 by adulthood. (Lynn, 2006, p. 37). There is good evidence that blacks mature faster than whites, and that the black brain matures earlier than the white brain. (Rushton, 2000, pp, 147-150). The greater maturity of 2 year old s-S Africans raises their IQ scores, so they test only 8 IQ points (100 – 92) behind 2 year old whites. By adulthood, however, when both white and black brains are fully mature and therefore at the same level of maturity, the difference in IQ scores is much larger, 33 IQ points (100 – 67). This suggests that lower IQ scores at maturity may be the result of faster maturation, and that the Flynn Effect is due to faster maturation. Adult female brain size, adjusted for body size, is about 100cc smaller than male brain size (Ankney, 1992; Rushton, 1992) and average adult female intelligence is about 3.63 IQ points (Jackson, 2006) or about 5 IQ points (Lynn, 2006) lower. Up to about age 14, however, faster-maturing girls have identical or higher IQ scores than boys, but after boys have their growth spurt at puberty they catch up and score higher than girls. (Colom, 2004). This also suggests that faster maturation may result in a lower IQ at maturity, and that the Flynn Effect is due to faster maturation. If IQ scores are lower at maturity, real intelligence has very likely fallen. If it has, the Flynn Effect is not the good news that egalitarians hoped it would be, but is instead ominously bad news because it means that people are becoming less intelligent. The higher fertility of less intelligent people is often given as the reason for a dysgenic drop in real intelligence from one generation to the next (Lynn et al., 2004), but that would not explain a drop in real intelligence within a population as it ages; accelerated maturation would. The Right Tail Effect Figure 1 shows the bell-shaped IQ curves for males (blue) and females (red). Figure 1 In Figure 1, the number of males and females is the same (i.e., the total area under the male curve is the same as the total area under the female curve), but there are more males at the high end of the curve (i.e., the area under the male curve above, say, 1 SD is greater). There are two reasons for that: (1) the male mean IQ is higher, which disproportionately increases the number of males at the high end of the curve and reduces the number at the low end. That is, if the male mean is 5% greater than the female mean, the number of males who are above, say, 1 SD will be more than 5% greater than the number of females who are above 1 SD, and (2) the male curve has a greater SD, i.e., fewer males than females are in the middle of their curve and more are at the right and left ends. Because the difference between average black IQ and average white IQ is much greater than the difference between average male IQ and average female IQ, and the black SD is less than the white SD (Jensen, 1998, p. 353; La Griffe du Lion, 2000), the black-white right tail effect is greater than the male-female right tail effect (Herrnstein et al., 1994, p. 279). As a result, the number of high IQ blacks is far less than the number of high IQ whites. The right tail effect is a mathematical result that occurs when any two groups have different means and/or different SDs. The two groups may be tested at the same time, but differ in age, sex, race, etc. (e.g., males and females, blacks and whites), or the two groups may be similar, but tested at two different times (e.g., 10 year olds in 1920 and 10 year olds in 1970). If two similar groups are tested decades apart and the curve with the higher mean is at the later time, then not only will IQ scores be increasing, but high IQ scores will be increasing disproportionately. Also, the increase in the number of high scorers will be matched by an equal decrease in the number of low scorers. In other words, as long as the size and shape of the later curve is the same as the earlier curve, a right tail increase (more high scorers) is matched by an equal left tail decrease (fewer low scorers), and a right tail decrease (fewer high scorers) is matched by a left tail increase (more low scorers). The Left Tail Effect A study in Spain (Table 2) shows that the Flynn Effect increased low-end scores much more than high-end scores, i.e., the number of people with low scores decreased more than the number of people with high scores increased. Table 2 Those results should immediately raise suspicions about the Flynn Effect because, as explained in the preceding paragraph, if the IQ curve has moved to the right, the decrease in low scorers must be matched by an equal increase in high scorers. Since that did not occur, we know that something else is affecting the scores besides the Flynn Effect. Similar to the results in Table 2, SAT scores, which correlate 0.8 with IQ scores (Seligman, 1991; Flynn, 1984), dropped at the same time that IQ scores were rising. (Deary, 2001, Chap. 6; Herrnstein et al., 1994, pp. 425-427). If the Flynn Effect is due to an increase in real intelligence then it is difficult to explain why SAT scores would fall at the same time that IQ scores increase. However, if the Flynn Effect occurs because the children taking the test are more mature, then an explanation becomes possible, namely that the children taking the test are both more mature and their real intelligence has fallen. The IQ tests are taken by everyone, but the SAT takers are a more intelligent subset. If we compare people who took the SAT decades apart, we find that SAT scores are lower. The reason is that real IQ has fallen and, due to the right tail effect, the number of people at the right side of the SAT curve has fallen disproportionately. On the other hand, if we compare people of the same age who took the IQ tests in the same years that the SAT was taken, we find that IQ scores have increased. The reason is that the test takers who took the more recent IQ test were more mature. Although increased maturity raised the IQ scores of everyone, the decrease in real intelligence disproportionately lowered the number of people at the high end, ergo, rising IQ scores and falling SAT scores and, in Table 2, the number of people with high scores did not increase as much as the number of people with low scores. The Flynn Effect in Mature Adults Once the brain is fully mature, there obviously can be no effect on IQ scores due to accelerated maturation. The density of grey matter in the brain increases to age 30 then rapidly declines, but the volume of white matter in the brain does not peak until about age 45. (Sowell et al., 2003). Thus, any increase in the IQ scores of people over those ages cannot be attributed to accelerated maturation. While IQ scores decline somewhat in the elderly (Mortensen et al., 1993; Raven et al, 1998, Graph G1), today’s elderly nevertheless score higher than elderly people did decades earlier. In one study, people of ages 20 to 70 who took an IQ test in 1942 were compared to people of ages 20 to 70 who took an IQ test in 1992. Those who took the 1992 test, including people over 45 and even people who were 70, did better than people the same age did who took the 1942 test. (Raven et al., 1998, Graph G2). However, between 1900 and 2000 life expectancy at birth for all races and both sexes in the United States increased 63% from 47.3 to 77.0 (CDC, 2006, Table 27). Also, there is a right tail effect because intelligent people live longer than less intelligent people (Hemmingsson et al., 2006; Gottfredson et al., 2004) so, as a population ages, the number of people in the higher IQ percentiles increases disproportionately. In other words, people whose brain is not fully mature have increased IQ scores due to accelerated maturation, and people whose brain is fully mature have increased IQ scores because, while everyone is living longer, more intelligent people live longer than less intelligent people. The Flynn Effect appears to have stalled or even reversed in Norway and some other countries (Sundet et al., 2004; Teasdale et al., 2005 & 2007). If accelerated maturation, as proposed, is the cause of the Flynn Effect, then in these countries children have stopped maturing earlier, either because the rapidity of maturation has reached a biological limit or because whatever was causing more rapid maturation has diminished or reversed. Children Mature Earlier There is considerable evidence that children today mature earlier. “In the abandoned medieval village of Wharram Percy in Yorkshire, the churchyard has yielded hundreds of skeletons for analysis. There ten-year-olds were around 8in shorter than children today: by the time they were fully grown they were nearly as tall as modern adults.” (Roberts et al., 2005). A 1997 study of 17,000 American girls (Herman-Giddens et al, 1997) and a British study at Bristol University (Golding, 2000) tracked 14,000 children and found one in six girls with signs of puberty by eight years old, compared to one in 100 a generation ago. “The average age at menarche – when periods start – has plummeted over the past 150 years in western societies from around 17 years old down to 12 or 13.” (Macleod, M., 2007). Boys, too, showed an earlier onset of puberty. (Karpati, 2002). Possible Causes for Earlier Maturation A number of reasons have been given for the earlier maturation of children. Explanations have included hereditary and diet factors, increases in obesity and body weight, chemicals acting as endocrine disrupters, and the sexualization of children by the media. An explanation that is consistent with experimental evidence and evolutionary theory is that earlier maturation is due to increased calories. It is known that substantial calorie reduction can extend the maximum life span of a variety of organisms, including monkeys, rats, mice, flies, worms, and yeast, by 30 to 70 percent (Weindruch et al., 1986; Yu et al., 1985). Restricting calories reduces aging in humans, which can be expected to extend life span. (Youngman et al., 1992; Roth et al., 2002; Heilbronn et al., 2003; Masoro, 2005). If reduced calories increase life span, increased calories should shorten life span by accelerating maturation. That children consume more calories is shown by the increase in childhood obesity, which has been widely publicized and is a major concern. “A multivariate analysis confirms that obesity (as measured by BMI) is significantly associated with early puberty in white girls and is associated with early puberty in black girls as well, but to a lesser extent.” (Kaplowitz et al., 2001; also, Lee et al., 2007). An earlier maturation, i.e., adapting a more “r” reproductive strategy (Rushton, 2000), when excess calories are consumed over a significant period of time, enables individuals to have more surviving offspring. Conversely, a delay in maturation when food is not available prevents the birth of children who are not likely to survive. The poorly nourished !Kung women of Namibia begin menstruation at 17, while well-fed white Americans begin at 12. (Arsuaga, 2001, p. 218). “Obesity can lead to larger babies …,” increasing the need for Cesarean births, further evidence that increased calories accelerates maturation. (Susman, 2006). Lynn (1990) has suggested that the Flynn Effect may be due to improved nutrition. Better nutrition, however, implies not just an increase in IQ scores, but that a deficiency in the brain has been remedied, so that real intelligence has increased, which is not consistent with Lynn’s later position that real intelligence has fallen. (Lynn et al., 2004). Given the brain’s first claim on the body’s resources and the absence of supporting data, that hypothesis does not seem likely except for severe nutritional deprivation, which is not applicable to developed countries that have had Flynn Effects. If the Flynn Effect is due to increased calories, however, the Effect would be only the normal age-related increase in intelligence occurring at a younger age. It is primarily the quantity of food that affects the maturation rate, not its nutritional quality. Indeed, overall nutrition in the industrialized nations may have actually declined because, despite the fortification of milk, cereals, salt, and other foods with vitamins and other nutrients, there is a greater consumption of low-nutritional, but high-calorie, “junk” food and sugary soft drinks. There is evidence for increased head circumference (Ounsted et al., 1985) and brain weight (Kretschmann et al, 1979) in children, and also for brain weight in adults (Miller et al., 1977). Faster maturation explains the increased head circumference and brain weight in children. The small increase in the brain weight of people whose brains are fully mature is due to (1) the fact that, on average, more intelligent people have larger brains (“r” = 0.44, Lynn, 2006, p. 214) and (2) the increased life span of more intelligent people, resulting in a right tail effect – a disproportional increase in the number of more intelligent mature people, as explained above. Testing the Proposed Explanation There are a few ways that the proposed explanation can be tested. Group A are children of several decades ago who at that time had a chronological and maturity age of, say, 10. Group B are children living at the same time as Group A, but they had a chronological and maturity age of, say, 12. Group C are more mature children living today who, compared to Groups A and B, have a chronological age of 10 and a maturity age of 12. Group C takes the same two intelligence tests that Groups A and B took decades ago. The proposed explanation predicts that the scores of Group C will be higher than the scores of Group A due to their increased maturity, but lower than the scores of group B due to their decreased real intelligence. The proposed explanation also predicts a positive correlation between the increase in IQ scores and the number of years that the age of puberty (and other indicia of maturation) has dropped. Assuming that increased calories are the principal cause of faster maturation, a similar positive correlation is predicted between yearly increase in calorie consumption (or increase in obesity) and the increase in IQ scores, though there may be a lag time between the two and, of course, the effect will eventually reach a biological limit. The proposed explanation further suggests that the Flynn Effect should be at a maximum at about the age at which the difference in maturation between the earlier and later test takers is greatest. As suggested by Table 1, a curve plotting maturation differences and the Flynn Effect against age may show two Flynn Effect peaks and two corresponding maturation difference peaks, one for toddlers and the other for teenagers; the toddler maturation difference peak is expected to be greater because the toddler Flynn Effect is greater. ReferencesAnkney, C.D. (1992). Sex differences in relative brain size: The mismeasure of woman, too? Intelligence, 16:329-336. Comments:99002
Posted by larch on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:59 | # With respect to silver’s other comments - I don’t want to “offend” GW, by going back to the flaming, but suffice to say I continue to maintain that silver is being intentionally divisive. If Lindsay is “channeling Andy Kaufman” then silver is “channeling” McCulloch. If he asserts “that’s the way things are in Australia,” I’m wondering (assuming it is true) that he understands the differences between descriptive and prescriptive arguments. More to the point, even if it’s true that Anglo-Australians define “white” in the manner silver describes, why is silver obligated to promote that same definition himself - *unless he wants to.* As well: “white” is obviously a vague term since people are defining it differently. According to the US government, even predominantly Amerindian, dark brown mestizos are “white.” Ben Franklin thought that only the British peoples and Saxon Germans were white, and all the rest of the “colored” Europeans were non-white and lesser than even the “beautiful” red man. Taylor seems to say “Jews look white to me.” Silver expounds another definition of white, despite the contradictions with his “fears.” Others, such as myself, use white merely as a shorthand for native Europeans - or at least those Europeans that are, or can be, part of the Western “high culture” (excluding Muslims). With respect to the details of what Taylor wrote many years ago (interesting how silver is so knowledgeable of the most minor details of Taylor’s writing - without being “combative,” this seems like an effort to look for as much evidence as possible to promote division as possible), yes, Taylor’s comments were inaccurate and misleading in that instance. To jump from there and accuse the man of being mendacious - have you, silver, ever contacted him and asked his opinions on these matters? Please do so, and let us know how it works out. “The author of the piece is unlikely to be an ‘extremist’; he’s probably the average laid-back aussie guy who alternately finds wogs amusing and interesting and ridiculous and repulsive, without ever drawing any political conclusions from his views. The typical aussie SFer, on the other hand, might pragmatically supress voicing his real feelings, but his opinions are politically meaningful. The idea that this crowd will show much interest in a genotype assay of a guido that showed him to be more European than Ian Jobling does not strike me as likely.” 99003
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:22 | # Expound, did you mean? Six of one, half dozen of the other. Thanks for the expansion. 99004
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:32 | # They’re losing it, their culture and their race for nothing. For not a damn thing of any value at all. There is value to the high IQ whites. It’s called money, wealth, riches beyond their wildest dreams. Asset appreciation and suppression of wages through mass immigration transfers wealth to the best and the brightest Aussies with apparently little risk. Let’s guess at the demographics; majority European and disproportionately Jewish? Average family size, three children. Children attend the best schools etc. etc. 99005
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00 | #
Borjas calculates two percent of U.S. gross national product gets transfered yearly from labor to capital thanks to open borders. That’s around, what — 250 billion dollars a year (figuring a thirteen or fourteen trillion dollar economy)? Something like that (correct me if my figures are off). So, two-hundred-and-fifty billion dollars a year gets taken out of working Americans’ hides to be shifted into the bank accounts of thieving degenerate élite swine thanks to the latter’s insistence on keeping the borders open while their pig snouts remain firmly planted in the feeding trough. 99006
Posted by name on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:08 | # I continue to maintain that silver is being intentionally divisive. If Lindsay is ??channeling Andy Kaufman?? then silver is ??channeling?? McCulloch. Wait, “divisiveness” is bad? Northern Europeans mustn’t be allowed to separate from Southern Euros? What happened to:
The idea that silver is a secret Nordicist is, of course, absurd. Ben Franklin thought that only the British peoples and Saxon Germans were white, and all the rest of the ??colored?? Europeans were non-white and lesser than even the ??beautiful?? red man. No. Work on your reading comprehension.
“Red and White” clearly refers to ruddy NW Europeans (as opposed to sallow-complected southern and eastern Euros). Franklin unambiguously describes American aborigines as “wholly” tawny. Taylor??s comments were inaccurate and misleading in that instance. No. Taylor’s comments are perfectly accurate.
This ??crowd?? is not the target, I think, of top tier nationalist thought. Yes, we can’t have racialists choosing their own ingroups in their own countries. We need “top tier” “Sudeuropid” thinkers ruling multi-ethnic empires and stamping out “divisiveness”. 99007
Posted by larch on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:10 | # “Wait, “divisiveness” is bad? Northern Europeans mustn’t be allowed to separate from Southern Euros? What happened to: Since survival and feeedom of association are basic human rights, any call to racial justice must include rights to self-determination and separatism.” I believe in freedom of association for everyone. I don’t believe in lies, hypocrisy, and am under no obligation to agree with, or support, any specific schemes. “The idea that silver is a secret Nordicist is, of course, absurd.” Evidence? “No. Work on your reading comprehension.” Others have thought that Franklin was talking about the Amerindian there. The point is minor. “Red and White” clearly refers to ruddy NW Europeans….” No, it (at least white) refers ONLY to British and Saxons, and not to Swedes, non-Saxon Germans, and other NW Europeans. There’s that reading comprehension again. “No. Taylor’s comments are perfectly accurate.” No, Taylor didn’t mean what you wish him to mean. “Yes, we can’t have racialists choosing their own ingroups in their own countries. We need “top tier” “Sudeuropid” thinkers ruling multi-ethnic empires and stamping out “divisiveness”. That’s an inaccurate description of my views. It may, however, be an accurate view of “Nordish” thinkers such as Mosely, the founders of Nation Europa, as well as SS General Six and others described in “Dreamer of the Day.” Even Lowell’s ideas allow for regionalism and preservation of particularlisms, which I endorse. 99008
Posted by larch on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:48 | # More Franklin: “And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.” Also, in his “tawny” quote, Franklin is specifically citing “English” per se, and not even other of the peoples of Great Britain. So, he was even narrower than my original statement on that. 99009
Posted by armadillo on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:51 | # larch - Why not start your own blog? You’re clearly the most talented of the bloggers/commenters here. This site has suffered since you left. With your own site, you wouldn’t have to deal with time-wasters like name/required/anon/AA/northerner or silver. 99010
Posted by Guido on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:28 | # larch - Why not start your own blog? You’re clearly the most talented of the bloggers/commenters here. This site has suffered since you left. With your own site, you wouldn’t have to deal with time-wasters like name/required/anon/AA/northerner or silver. I certainly second this suggestion. As much as I appreciate GW’s tolerance and appeal to civility, the childish tantrums of Northerner (and Desmond to a lesser as well as Matra to even a lesser degree) have harmed this site. They have pushed away people like Voice and Rnl, just two examples who benefitted the place. Never mind the utter disrespect they show JW. Northerner definitely fits the “little man” designation and has been a net negative, if not an outright agent provocateur. JW should start his own site…if time and energy allow. 99011
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:42 | # Ol’ Ben seems to be confused about who’s white:
99012
Posted by name on Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:47 | # I don’t believe in lies, hypocrisy, and am under no obligation to agree with, or support, any specific schemes. Someone like McCulloch strikes me as infinitely less hypocritical than you. Evidence? Where’s your evidence silver is a Nordicist? (And, wait, what happened to ‘silver is a gnxp infiltrator’?) Silver may be a troll, but I doubt he’s operating within the confines of your particular paranoid fantasy of the moment. Others have thought that Franklin was talking about the Amerindian there. Then others have been wrong. That’s no excuse for spreading misinformation. No, it (at least white) refers ONLY to British and Saxons, and not to Swedes, non-Saxon Germans, and other NW Europeans. Wrong: “the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.” Principal. Not exclusive. As for “Swedes”, I touch on that issue here. Anyway, the point is not that Franklin was an expert physical anthropologist, but that he thought racially and recognized his natural partiality to those most like him, among whom he counted a subset of (northwestern) Europeans rather than everyone who happened to be born on a particular continent. No, Taylor didn’t mean what you wish him to mean. You read minds now? Taylor’s words are perfectly logical and internally consistent. If you have evidence he meant something other than what he wrote, let’s see it. Even Lowell’s ideas allow for regionalism and preservation of particularlisms, which I endorse. That’s mighty big of Lowell. I’m sure the English and Germans and Dutch, will be eternally grateful that some Maltese is willing to allow them to preserve “regionalism” and “particularisms”. 99013
Posted by larch on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:03 | # “Someone like McCulloch strikes me as infinitely less hypocritical than you.” I don’t doubt you prefer McCulloch. The last part of your sentence is amusing, to say the least. “Where’s your evidence silver is a Nordicist?” That’s one possibility, and not the only one (re: GNXP). Interesting that a “Serbian fearful of ‘militant Nordicism” seems to quote in agreement, almost verbatim, that he fears as his own opinion, but I guess to note that is “paranoia.” I can’t help but notice as well that, after his frequent posting of the last several days, he’s vanished after being asked a few “polite” questions. What’s wrong, silver? Being an Australian with such an intimate knowledge of “racialist nationalism” there, you really need several days to formulate an answer? Or, here is the answer: silver has been attacked by “Australian racialist yobs” screaming “get the Serbian wog” and is now recovering. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Hope you get better, real soon. And, now, no silver, and this debate is taking place. Yes, nothing strange about any of that. “Then others have been wrong. That’s no excuse for spreading misinformation.” Perhaps these “others” have based their opinion on other writings on Franklin. “Principal. Not exclusive. “ That’s nitpicking. He did specifically cite Swedes and Germans as among the “swarthy.” “Anyway, the point is not that Franklin was an expert physical anthropologist, but that he thought racially and recognized his natural partiality to those most like him, among whom he counted a subset of (northwestern) Europeans…” The point: a very exclusive subset, indeed. “...rather than everyone who happened to be born on a particular continent. “ Or, who happened to be born on the NW corner of that continent? “You read minds now? Taylor’s words are perfectly logical and internally consistent. If you have evidence he meant something other than what he wrote, let’s see it.” A guy who thinks Jews are white is unlikely to have given the meaning you ascribe to him. Or the invisible silver either. “That’s mighty big of Lowell. I’m sure the English and Germans and Dutch, will be eternally grateful that some Maltese is willing to allow them to preserve “regionalism” and “particularisms”. Lowell has a plan for Europe that does include preserving particularisms. That’s more than one can see for the non-Maltese “Europe as a nation” crowd (including English and Germans) during and after WWII, or the non-Maltese globalist internationalists who are destroying Europe and the West. But, “of course” - Lowell is a phenotypically non-“Nordish” Maltese of mixed European descent; therefore, his ideas must be mocked. 99014
Posted by larch on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:29 | # If I’m not mistaken, this book: That’s a minor point. Eventually the Germans did assimilate (1930’s Bund activities disregarded), but that more than a century later, after the mid 19th century influx was completely “digested.” 99015
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:28 | # Speaking of odd appearances and disappearances, the other odd thing here lately was Birch Barlow’s suddenly “seeing the light,” which lasted all of about five milliseconds until he completely reverted to type but not before he’d unbosomed himself of a whole soap-opera’s worth of the sort of irrelevant personal material that could keep Doctor Phil, Oprah, and Jerry Springer going at the top of the ratings charts for the next hundred years. What’s next, GC coming on here claiming a road-to-Damscus conversion, begging to be accepted as a blogger, with confessions of stalking Benazir Bhutto in a Nazi uniform while carrying a concealed Super-Soaker? 99016
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:13 | # The other thing about Franklin’s seeing Swedes and non-Saxon Germans as swarthy is: Sweden held lots of territory on continental Europe at various times in her history, and doubtless some of those vast tracts were home to less-fair types of Euro, especially if we’re talking about recruits or mercenaries from far-flung Swedish possessions one might see in “Swedish” armies of the period. Could this latter idea also explain “swarthy Germans”? Americans of Franklin’s generation saw plenty of Hessian mercenaries hired by the British. Where those foreign-legion-type units made up of all Hessian Germans without a single Turk in them, for example? 99017
Posted by Jared Taylor on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:11 | # I am certainly not a Nordicist. It takes an excessively lively imagination to have detected concealed and “mendacious” Nordicism in one phrase from a 13-year-old book review. Jared Taylor, American Renaissance 99018
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:38 | # My brother, who is sympathetic to White Nationalism, was incredulous that people like Noridicists who claim that Southern and SE Euros are not White even existed at all. He flat out stated that he had never heard of that and these people were complete idiots. Genetically, Iranians, Kurds, people of the Caucasus, Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Turks, Azeris, and even the people of the Levant and Mesopotamia are all obviously White. In fact, an Iranian is closer genetically to a British or Dane than an Italian or Basque is. Also, a case can be made for throwing the Sardinians, Basques and Lapps out the Euro-White Race (I would call it the European-Iranian Race). Phenotypically, I often have a hard time determining if the Punjabis so numerous around here are White or Indian. A lot of them look like Whites, say Jews or Italians. I am amazed that Anglo Australians would discriminate against “wogs”. There is no discrimination whatsoever against these people here in the US - there was at one point but that’s long past. I also have a hard time telling the difference between a Hispanic and a “White” anymore around here. A lot of the Hispanics don’t really look much different than I do, and most of the Whites around here are Armenids or Meds anyway. An awful lot of the Hispanics here are mostly White - so White they just look like Euros. If you can’t even tell the difference - why is race so important in this case? If the Latin American Indians, Blacks, Zambos, mulattos and mestizos are disproportionately poorer and the lighter people are disproportionately Whiter, they we will have to redistribute the lighter people’s ill-gotten wealth to the darker folks. That’s sort of the case all over the world. If you want to call that racialism, go ahead. I assure that in Latin America, there are many lighter folks, even folks that are about as White-looking as I am, among the poor and low-income. And in a lot of those countries there are darker folks among the rich and high-income. So things are not so clearcut. A lot of the folks you guys call White down there are not. The Chileans and Argentines are about 15-25% Indian on average. No, you do not have freedom of association and neither do Blacks. I mean, you can talk to whoever you want to, but you can’t refuse business to people or not sell them a house or hire them for a job if they are not White. There are plenty of mostly-White communities in the US where you folks should be plenty happy. Some towns in the Sierra Nevada Mts. where I spend a lot of my time are mostly-White. There are some Hispanics moving in but not many. There are a few Punjabis and Chinese running businesses. Why isn’t that good enough? Is your whole day wrecked if you see one Hispanic or Punjabi? To Svigor, I have talked to those who lived in Mozambique under the great Samora Machel. They told me you could walk across the capital Maputo at any time of day or nite and not fear a thing. This is not so much due to police state (a lot of Latin American capitalist states are far harsher on crime than the Cubans) but is due to crime falling under socialism and rising under capitalism. Crime has deep roots in capitalism. This is well-known sociological fact. Amazing you were not aware of that or that you deny it. Dominica has a low homicide rate (2.4) - about 40% the US rate, and the place is all Black and the US is only 13% Black. There is not that much wealth disparity in Dominica and this may account for the low Black crime. High Black crime rates are common but not inevitable by any means. There are hardly any pure races on Earth. All races and ethnic groups have been changing racially for most of their existence, so innumerable races and micro-races have gone extinct over time. What’s the big deal? It’s a normal phenomenon; it’s not the end of the world. I don’t hate Whites at all; actually I am proud to be White, as all races and ethnicities should be proud to be what they are. Scrooby gets that, but the rest of you actively dislike all other races and think they are inferior. It’s more the case that I do not care about my race and it’s future one bit. Plus panmixia will get rid of this pure race nonsense that is dangerous among Whites because it gives rise to guys like you. It’s going to be a lot harder to push WN when the Whites of this country are 20% Indian and 3% Black, which is the future for sure. Plus, Whites mixing with Asians produces a superior stock. 99019
Posted by skeptical on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:29 | # Robert Lindsay,
I wouldn’t confuse the inevitable degeneracy of the White race in California (your pan-mixia) with that of other regions in the U.S. 99020
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:45 | # Phenotypically, I often have a hard time determining if the Punjabis so numerous around here are White or Indian. A lot of them look like Whites, say Jews or Italians. I am amazed that Anglo Australians would discriminate against “wogs”. There is no discrimination whatsoever against these people here in the US - there was at one point but that’s long past. I also have a hard time telling the difference between a Hispanic and a “White” anymore around here. A lot of the Hispanics don’t really look much different than I do, and most of the Whites around here are Armenids or Meds anyway. An awful lot of the Hispanics here are mostly White - so White they just look like Euros. And the above, of course, is the fundamental problem with WN. It goes to Yancey’s point:“Who is White?: Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide”. 99021
Posted by Matra on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:57 | # I am amazed that Anglo Australians would discriminate against “wogs”. At the official level they did not discriminate against them. The fact that huge numbers of southern and eastern Europeans were allowed into the country in the first place during the ‘White Australia’ policy says it all. Of course there would be discrimination at the every man level as tribalism is natural. In the case of Australia the country wasn’t that old when other Europeans flooded in. Britain was not a distant memory. Australians were mostly of a working class English background and saw themselves - correctly - as the founding stock of their young nation. Ties to the UK were stronger there than in some other ‘White Dominions’. Due to its late development, relative to North America, a significant proportion of Aussies had relatives in the old country. Other than Aussie Rules, which was not played much in NSW and Queensland, the sports mad Australians played English sports, something that to this day gives most Aussie and British/Irish men more common reference points than either have with North Americans. Importantly these sports did not include the global game of soccer, just the empire games. In Canada, in contrast, non-British sports and culture dominate so Canadians think continentally - Europe, including Britain, is foreign to them. The Italian-Canadian who follows hockey, watches US network TV, eats chicken wings and speaks with the same accent is more recognisable to the average Anglo-Saxon Canadian than his ethnic kin in the UK. (I’ll leave out the question of whether the average Italian-Canadian returns the favour, so to speak). Canada’s unique ‘French fact’, as it is known, was also used to weaken the Anglo-Saxon Canadian identity a problem Anglo-Australia didn’t have. Also, North Americans moved west and forgot about the other side of the Atlantic much earlier. With only one great river system (with limited damming capacity) Aussies remained on the coasts. The Pacific and Indian Oceans were more important to Australia than any internal river system so unlike the Canadians they continued to look outward to what was left of the empire and later the commonwealth and, naturally, the Mother Country. To the Anglo-Australian the ‘wogs’ just seemed (seem?) more foreign than similar immigrants did in the US and later on in Canada. 99022
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:28 | # It goes beyond that to absorption and then extinction as Darwin outlined in the Descent of Man. The example of Alexa Ray Joel is interesting. Offspring of Billy Joel and Christine Brinkley.
A beautiful woman in her own right but where is her mother in Alexa Joel. She is white, but where are her mother’s unique features? Her hair colour and and texture differs. Her skin colour, lips and eyes all differ from her mother’s. And as the dominant genes grow in population and intermarriage occurs, then inevitably the Nordic features of her mother will disappear; will be totally absorbed and made extinct. 99023
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:18 | # “Genetically, Iranians, Kurds, people of the Caucasus, Georgians, Armenians, Jews, Turks, Azeris, and even the people of the Levant and Mesopotamia are all obviously White.” 99024
Posted by name on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:16 | # Perhaps these “others” have based their opinion on other writings on Franklin. There is no room for dispute. Mistakes happen. But no reasonably literate and impartial person would hold to the “Red must mean Indian” interpretation after reading the passage in question closely. Pointing to a book that possibly promotes that misinterpretation does nothing besides maybe discredit the book. That’s nitpicking. No. That’s accuracy. England and Germany are/were the most populous northwestern European nations. He did specifically cite Swedes and Germans as among the “swarthy.” It’s not really news that some Germans are dark (though probably never as dark as your cheering section “Voice”, the swarthy pretend Minnesota German farmer whose imaginary sister is frequently mistaken for an Arab by hateful Anglo-Saxons). And the “Swedes” Franklin was familiar with may have been largely Finnish. A guy who thinks Jews are white is unlikely to have given the meaning you ascribe to him. Taylor said Jews “look” white to him, which is an interesting word choice considering he was (I believe) asked his opinion on whether or not Jews “are” white. While I’m thinking Taylor has since been more direct in claiming Jews are white (in print), the talk show response was interpreted by some as suggesting his true beliefs lie elsewhere. The whole point with Taylor is “silver’s” claim that Taylor himself is being “mendacious” in his beliefs, and that the quote from Taylor reflects Taylor ’s own opinion (not what McCulloch “thinks”). Until such time as Taylor says differently, Taylor’s other statements over the years suggests that “silver” is wrong. Taylor chose to substitute “white” for “Nordish”. From the context, it is impossible to argue Taylor’s “white” (in this review) includes southern Europeans. Taylor concludes McCulloch’s “book is an important contribution”. I agree this does little to prove Taylor is “mendacious” when he claims to take a more liberal view of who is “white”, but I seem to recall you used to have anxieties similar to silver’s. My impression is you decided to start LE because people looked at you funny at NA meetings. (Or did you overhear some Italian jokes?) Strange that you insist we should take Taylor at his word (which I generally agree we should), when previously you felt compelled to organize around the idea that public proponents of “Pan-Aryanism” were secretly planning pogroms against southern Euros. I don’t find the “who is white?” question particularly interesting or enlightening. Naming something doesn’t generate information about it, much less change its essence. However broadly or narrowly one defines “white”, the genetic facts on the ground will remain the same. The Mexican is still a mestizo even when the DOJ functionary or census taker checks the box that says “white”. Armenians and Jews and southern Italians are distinct from northern Europeans. 99025
Posted by name on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:37 | # Norman Lowell’s ideas deserve to be mocked for many reasons having nothing to do with his race. His scheme is overreaching, impractical, vaguely comical. Not sure how you believe bringing up failed 20th century northern European fascists make it less absurd for a long-haired Mediterranean islander to be drawing up plans for world government in the present. 99026
Posted by danielj on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:31 | # Either we are or aren’t White. GW? Are we? If not, I have no reason to be here. 99027
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:55 | # Larch: I would like to point out that the majority of Americans nowadays who are not race-obsessed loons like you guys have a hard time telling many Hispanics from Euro-Whites, especially the Meds. Most people are proud of their ethnicity, yet also willing to miscegenate it away like me. No contradiction there at all. I don’t think White people are evil or bad or any of that. I’m just in love with panmixia. Whites have not been in Europe for 10,000’s of years. The original Whites were probably those Lapps that you say are not White, because they are 7% Asian. I wonder then if you will also disown the Russians, who are 5% Asian? You say that you support your race on genetic grounds, but on those grounds you are mandated to toss the Sardinians at the very least. Are you prepared to do that or not? See my article The Major and Minor Races of Mankind in which I delineate 6 major races and 86 minor races. For the Euros, I could only justify a race called European-Iranian Race on genetic grounds. I ruled out Basques on the basis of C-V’s principle coordinates chart, which shows Basques outside the circled Euro race group, which the Iranians are firmly inside of, BTW. Notice that Iranians are clearly inside that little circle called Europeans and also note that Iranians are closer to English and Danes than Italians or Basques are on that PC chart. Iranians are closer to Italians than Basques are, yet you include Basques in the Euro race but not the Iranians. If as Taylor says the Ashk Jews are White, and most would say the Armenians are White, then the Kurds and Turks must also be White, because all those groups are closely related. We also need to include the Caucasus people and the Georgians. Nor could I rule out the people of the Levant and Mesopotamia - they had to go in the same group. White have not been evolving in Europe for 10,000’s of years. The Caucasians of 10,000 years ago do not look like modern Europeans - they look more like people of the Middle East - the ones you say are not White. If that is true, you can’t claim anyone back further than 10,000 years. Also the White skin you love so much only goes back 9,000 years. There is no way to genocide the Latinos because no way is that any kind of a race at all anymore than mutt is a breed of dog. That group has everything but the kitchen sink tossed into it in all different combinations. Everyone knows that Latino is not any kind of a race at all. Africans in the US are already genocided - they are on average 17.5% White and 3% Black - they are history and they are also a model of what need to be done to Whites in the US. Many Asians are already mixtures of all sorts of stocks. The vaunted Japanese must be the most mutt race on the Earth - yet they hilariously believe they are the most pure. Laughable! Yes, I think in the future, US Whites will be 15-25% Amerindian and maybe 3% Black on average. Then we will just be another part of Latin America. And US WN’s will become extinct also. BTW, as long as you could care less about phenotype and only go by genes, on what possible basis you include the radial outlier Sardinians (as far from the rest of Europeans as Saudi Arabians, Bedouins, Yemenis and Kuwaitis are) in the European genetic group, all the while tossing out the much closer Jews, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Caucasus types, Iranians, Georgians, and Arabs of Levant and Mesopotamia? The Hispanics have been there in that White town in significant #‘s for 4 1/2 years, but there are no gangs yet. Minorities do not have freedom of association meaning to discriminate in services, housing or schooling either. No one in the US does, thank God. 99028
Posted by silver on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 08:18 | #
That’s not necessarily true, Daniel. Race, like many other factors liberalism routinely ignores or downplays, matters and ought to be sensibly discussed. A consquence of racial questions being popularly shunned is a tendency among those who are willing to discuss them forthrightly to assume greater ideological and terminological agreement between interlocutors than really exists. In the case of MR, this seems to have led to the more disputatious being able to overstate their positions relatively unchecked, in the process driving away more nuanced interlocutors. Nonetheless, that, say, Fred Scrooby or “larch” or “name” or even Tom Sunic or Jared Taylor may not be the most effective proponents of their cause—perhaps they do not know their own people as well as they imagine— ought not to dissuade others whose interests are aligned (however imperfectly) from contributing or exchanging ideas. 99029
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:11 | # Lindsay, I’m not here to teach you the past 13 + years of population genetics since the Cavalli-Sforza book came out. CS is the *only* reference - using quesionable markers - that places Iranians that close to Europeans. Since human genetic variation is clinal as well as clustered, it’s unlikely in the extreme for “Iranians to be closer to Italians than Basques,” particularly since Rh- Italians (and other Europeans) may have some ancient “Basque” ancestry. “BTW, as long as you could care less about phenotype and only go by genes, on what possible basis you include the radial outlier Sardinians (as far from the rest of Europeans as Saudi Arabians, Bedouins, Yemenis and Kuwaitis are) in the European genetic group, all the while tossing out the much closer Jews, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Caucasus types, Iranians, Georgians, and Arabs of Levant and Mesopotamia? “ You are going by one outdated study, used by Salter ONLY because it is the only one (yet!) that has all these populations together and ONLY to make points about relative genetic distances. It is admitted that it’s not the final word. Virtually EVERYTHING you are saying about genetics and racial history is wrong. Ironically, that would make you well qualified to be a white nationalist activist; the point is, however, there’s a whole world of study that you know nothing about. Believe me, Lindsay, others on this thread know infinitely more about population genetics than you do.
99030
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:18 | # “White have not been evolving in Europe for 10,000’s of years. “ Ever hear of the Paleolithic? “The Caucasians of 10,000 years ago do not look like modern Europeans - they look more like people of the Middle East…” Lindsay has photographs. It’s irrelevant even if true, genetic interests are forward looking. “If that is true, you can’t claim anyone back further than 10,000 years.” Idiot. A white today is going to be genetically closer to those ancients than to a negro of today. There is zero genetic overlap in today’s major races. “Also the White skin you love so much only goes back 9,000 years. “ Juvenile and irrelevant. “There is no way to genocide the Latinos because no way is that any kind of a race at all anymore than mutt is a breed of dog.” Huh? Who’s saying that? They are genociding us. “Africans in the US are already genocided - they are on average 17.5% White and 3% Black….” Right. 3 % Black. Got it. And they are 80% Martian. “vaunted Japanese must be the most mutt race on the Earth - yet they hilariously believe they are the most pure. Laughable!” Evidence? Koreans, Japanese, and North Chinese form a fairly tightly clustered group. 99031
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:21 | # “His scheme is overreaching, impractical, vaguely comical.” No less so than that of others’ ; despite Lowell’s faults, his basic idea is sound. “Not sure how you believe bringing up failed 20th century northern European fascists….” There are some who think that pan-Europeanism is the invention of “sudeuropid thinkers” “a long-haired Mediterranean islander” Lowell’s real “crime.” 99032
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:27 | # “... when previously you felt compelled to organize around the idea that public proponents of “Pan-Aryanism” were secretly planning pogroms against southern Euros.” That’s silly. Who are these “pan-Aryanists?” There really aren’t any, by my definition - and my definition is what informs my activity. 99033
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:45 | # A last word to Lindsay: if even Ashkenazi Jews can be genetically distinguished from Europeans (which they have recently started to have been), and if these Jews are of part European ancestry (the extent of which is yet unknown, likely less than half), then, obviously, the other Middle/Near Eastern groups you cite will be even more likely to be (more easily and more distantly) separated. And we have the following; compare the Europeans (which contain Basques and Sardinians) to Parsis and Punjabis. Also note the high “orange-yellow” in the Middle Easterners (and not in the Europeans), which also suggests that more markers would be able to separate them from the Europeans (just as the South Asians became separated from the Caucasian group by the inclusion of more markers): At this point, armadillo’s and Guido’s statements about “time wasting” become more to the point. By the way, Lapps are more than 5% Asian, and, yes, minorities de facto are allowed to discriminate against whites. 99034
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:49 | # “though probably never as dark as your cheering section “Voice” No, that’s the guy who impersonated me on the Fallaci thread, which I’m sure you remember, and then kept quiet until GW challenged him with the evidence. 99035
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 11:56 | # “Nonetheless, that, say, Fred Scrooby or “larch” or “name” or even Tom Sunic or Jared Taylor may not be the most effective proponents of their cause—perhaps they do not know their own people as well as they imagine— ought not to dissuade others whose interests are aligned (however imperfectly) from contributing or exchanging ideas.” Instead, someone who initially came forth as a white-hating Pakistani, and is now a “Serbian” claiming to be mocked by illusory Australian “racialist nationalists” is exactly the sort of “effective proponent” we need. “perhaps they do not know their own people as well as they imagine” No, Sunic, a real Croatian, “knows his people” better than a Pakistani-Serbian knows anything. There comes a time when “don’t pour good money after bad” applies to blogs as well as finance. This thread apparently is one of those times. 99036
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:17 | # According to the various charts in C-S’s book, the Iranians cluster close to Europeans in general and some Euros in particular. On the PC chart, they are closer to Brits and Danes than Italians are. On the tree chart, they can’t be differentiated - Yugoslavs are much more of an outlier, and even they cannot be split off. On the distance chart, they are close enough to Italians to be included in Euros. Using tree charts in C-V, nor can the people of the Caucasus, Turks, Kurds, Jews or Levant and Mesopotamian Arabs - and Yugoslavs are more of an outlier than any of these groups. No way can you include Sardinians in any White race and C-S’s PC chart makes Basques difficult to support. On what basis then do you include Yugoslavs and Sardinians in Euro race. Lapps are 7% Asian and that is it. Russians are 5% Asian. Why are Russians included but Lapps not? Euro skulls from 10,000 years ago do not look like Europeans today. They look like the Middle Easterners you guys insist are not White. The Lapps you insist are not White are some of the only living relatives of people going back anywhere near that far. Otherwise we are getting into Berbers and people like that. US Blacks are 3% Amerindian. I don’t care about your color chart. I’m just measuring genetic distance in my piece. Sufficient distance on PC chart, or 150 or more on the distance chart was usually enough to split a race. Which I was not able to do with Caucasus, Turks, Kurds, Jews or Levant and Mesopotamian Arabs, therefore, to me they are in one race with Euros. Berbers, Algerians, Arabians, Yemenis, Kuwaitis, Bedouins, South Indians, even Pashtuns and Punjabis, were the Caucasians outside the Euro race. Plus the Basques and Sardinians you guys toss in there on no basis whatsoever. The truth is that your sick, wicked, diabolical racial nationalism doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense at all! You can’t even agree on who the White people are! What a joke. Is it phenotype? Well, no you say. So is it genes? Not if Sardinians get tossed in. Well, then is it geographical? Nope, there’s Lapps and Sardinians and Basques. Armenians, Georgians and the people of the Caucasus are not White!? Wow, the mind boggles! 99037
Posted by larch on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:31 | # Lindsay continues to repeat the same things over and over again, ignoring my comments on the CS data, ignoring the irrelevancy of the past to future genetic interests, talks about “skulls” and “phenotype” when I’m talking about genetics - and then tells us that he’s basically going to ignore my “color chart.” In other words, only outdated data that support his position will be considered. All else ignored, and the same statements repeated over and over and over again - with arguments ignored. back to the JJR days. “Not if Sardinians get tossed in” I’ve already explained this. I’m not going to repeat myself endlessly, and post data here if it is going to be completely ignored. “Lapps are 7% Asian and that is it. Russians are 5% Asian. Why are Russians included but Lapps not? “ Lapps are more than 7% Asian. If you’d bother to look at Nei and Roychoudhury and the Jensen remix of that data published in Amren ten years ago by Whitney, you’d see that Lapps are genetically more distant from Europeans than even North Indians. I can keep on saying that the CS data are, to some extent and particularly on the details, outdated. But a reactionary like Lindsay just loves outdated data. “Euro skulls from 10,000 years ago do not look like Europeans today. They look like the Middle Easterners you guys insist are not White.” Hey, I thought that Middle Easterners and whites were the same race? So, what’s the difference? The idiot can’t even get his own lies straight. “The Lapps you insist are not White are some of the only living relatives of people going back anywhere near that far.” Basques, idiot. “Otherwise we are getting into Berbers and people like that. “ They are north African. “US Blacks are 3% Amerindian.” Congratulations. “I don’t care about your color chart.” That says it all. Scientific inquiry at its best. Reactionary closemindedness. Goodbye, I’m done with this thread. 99038
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:45 | # Daniel, is it legitimate to resist changing all Yorkshiremen into Italians? If yes, you should have no objection to “Northerner’s” views. He’s personally sullen and disagreeable but the position he’s taking is unassailable. It makes no difference if he sees Italians as wogs or if Scimitar and Benjamin Franklin consider only sons of the British Isles “white.” Why in the world do you care about that? Just stand your ground, man! I’m a wog in the eyes of Desmond, Benjamin Franklin, and Scimitar. “The wogs begin at Calais,” remember? So fricking what??? RACIAL PRIDE IS NORMAL. Do you have it? Then let others have it. What do you want, a world where people run around self-abnegating themselves unto group extinction like foolish Christians while their race enemies, such as the Jews, look on unable to believe their luck laughing their asses off at how easy it was to get rid of the stupid schmucks? I’ll say this, Daniel: Meds with fragile Med egos aren’t good for The Cause. That’s why someone like Dienekes is of next-to-zero help: the fragility of his Med ego. This site is the proper place for you if you’re a Euro. Know that no matter what your race, you’ll be among other Euros who consider you a member of an inferior race. So fricking what??? Germans think Poles are an inferior race. Frenchmen think Walloons are an inferior race. I think Irish Catholics are an inferior race. Greeks consider all non-Greeks an inferior race. Great, we all think everyone else is an inferior race! I LOVE WHEN THAT HAPPENS! IT’S REFRESHING! IT’S HEALTH, NORMALNESS, THE OPPOSITE OF THIS ELOI BEHAVIOR WHERE EVERYONE MARCHES ZOMBIE-LIKE TO HIS OWN EXTINCTION THE INSTANT THE JEWISH MORLOCKS SOUND THE SIREN! Just stiffen yourself, man, and don’t worry about being called “non-white” or “wog” or whatever! You are what you are! 99039
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:06 | # “White” is only a label, important to American WNs for understandable but strategically negative reasons. All Europeans are white. But the doctrine of clusters and clines commends a degree of caution in the further ascription of whiteness. That said, the two terms are not mutually defining. To be European is not to be just white anyway, but part of the continental European peoples, defined only broadly as Nordic, Mediterranean and Slavic. Throughout the old continent, it is the downstream definitions of ethny and territory which matter. On continental Europe, of course, there is no controversy in ethnic survival as opposed to the survival of the greater group. Indeed, each ethny must make its own effort to survive, though the survival of any one is exemplary for all, and a defeat for the proponents of extinction. The vital difference between this situation and the schismatic tragedy of WN is that American have perforce constructed a flimsy and unserviceable alternative to ethny: whiteness. There is thusfar no evidence that Europeans can survive as “whites”: a mere label. And yet there is insufficient genetic similarity, it seems, to bestow nepotism upon the Nordic, Mediterranean and Slav alike. I do not know the solution. I fear that there is none 99040
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:23 | #
There does not need to be one, because there’s nothing wrong. This isn’t the first time Daniel has been too sensitive. Buck up, Daniel! The same Swedes who think Italians are inferior think Norwegians are inferior. Do the Norwegians look bothered? Doesn’t seem that way. The same Dutchmen who think Italians are inferior think Friesians are inferior, the same Russians who think Italians are inferior think Poles and Ukrainians are inferior. The Poles and Ukes think Russians are inferior right back. What’s the problem? On the contrary, it’s all a sign of pefect good health, nationally and mentally. What’s not a sign of perfect good health is the Robert Lindsays of this world. They’re the ones who are sick, not this other stuff. This other stuff is a sign of excellent health and normalness. It’s not normal to think your race is nothing and to acquiesce in its extinction. 99041
Posted by Voice on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:40 | # Well said Fred! I happen to agree with you as well on the Irish Catholic thing too..Shabboz Goy and Soul-less bastards like O’Reilly and Hannity prove my point. I can’t help that I want to slap effeminate Scandi men here in MN every time I get the chance. It could be the God Gene(I love that theory JB) in my Med blood that causes me to do it but, if that theory is suppossed to get stronger as we get close to the equator, it fails because of my instinct to control Negroes and Amerinds in our midst too! lol 99042
Posted by VLC on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:07 | # Robert Lindsay:
99043
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:01 | # “Larch: I would like to point out that the majority of Americans nowadays who are not race-obsessed loons like you guys have a hard time telling many Hispanics from Euro-Whites, especially the Meds.” Humans self-identify racially at 99.8% accuracy. Hey Bob, you might’ve missed my comment directed to you earlier so here it is again: I understand the mindset of everyone on this board. Please do elaborate on my mindset, Bob. People like me have the same feelings that you guys do sometimes, but we just realize that that is part of our base, cave-man like element, and dismiss it and rise above it. Good point; base, cave-man urges like the survival instinct and the reproductive instinct are something liberals want all whites to “rise above.” No, thanks, you have all the fun flying about. Humans are not like dogs and cats. We can choose whether to be racist or beat or wives or rape women or do any of the other stupid things that we are genetically coded to do or be. We have good reasons not to rape or beat women - what good reasons do we have militating against racism? People like me have just evolved to a higher level than you guys. Hmm. What are your criteria for “evolved to a higher level” in this context? Blacks are human beings too, even the not very well-behaved ones. That’s nice. So? US Blacks are here to stay. They are not going back to Africa and we are not going back to Europe. This is contingent on white sufferance, which does at this time seem to obviate the possibility of black repatriation. So? Like an old married couple, we are stuck with each other and have to work something out. Working something out is pretty vague. It could mean eviction and divorce (radical WN position); lots of folks “work things out” that way. It could mean the battered wife stays with her abusive husband and takes her beatings like a good bitch (mainstream “liberal” (republicrat) position); this one’s popular too. Blacks and whites are manifestly not “stuck with each other” in the way you imply, any more than a battered wife is “stuck” with her violent husband. Blacks are divided into a civilized group that has more or less assimilated to US society and an Underclass that is pretty much of a catastrophe. It’s almost like 2 different races now. ...except for the whole ancestry thing, lol. (Still haven’t looked into regression to the mean?) The way you guys lump these people all together in one race is just sickening. How about some examples of this dastardly behavior? I’m having a hard time making that into a sensible statement. How am I “subsidizing the growth of the Underclass”? I never said anything about that. They are human beings and they have a right to survive. Do they have a right to self-determination? How about free association? Bob, do you write “blacks have a right to survive,” when you really mean “blacks have a right to survive in a socialist (i.e., totalitarian or authoritarian “progressive”) state”? Persons in the underclass vary from relatively healthy to profoundly unhealthy. As a Commie, I’m not into welfare either. We support forced work programs. The Underclass would have to work for their money. We take care of their kids in daycare while they work. If they can’t find work, we make work for them somehow. Give them a broom to push. If they can’t make it to work, we drive by and pick them up in vans and take them to work. I have no problem putting gang members in gulags up in Alaska. If they are really irresponsible, we will pay them with a card that they can only spend on rent, utilities and good food. Once they take care of all that, they can cash it in. Sorta like a Nazi. You’d have made a great National Socialist, yeah? In Mozambique under socialism, there was almost zero Black crime, in the heart of darkest Africa. Lol. How do we verify that? Please don’t tell me you just accepted the stats from black socialists! There is nothing genetic in Blacks that mandates they must have a high crime rate everywhere. In Cuba, the crime rate is very low and it’s mostly Black. Bob, yes, we know authoritarianism and totalitarianism can reign in black criminality - we just don’t want to live under either for the privilege of living amongst blacks. And that’s a far cry from your misleading “nothing in blacks mandates” crap. Personally, I think Blacks need socialism. Under capitalism, too many fail, get frustrated and angry and become criminals while trying to get rich. I agree that blacks need a very heavy government hand of some kind if they’re to begin to approach the unreasonable expectations of white liberals (that they behave like the white people in black skin liberals desperately wish them to be). America seems hopeless, and anyway, I’m an internationalist, not a nationalist. WTF is the point of your internationalism, btw? Just GOTTA put all the eggs in one basket? Just REALLY DON’T LIKE competing experimentation? Just GAG when you think about self-determination, ideological and social diversity, etc? Just REALLY have to tell everyone how to live? A burning desire to burn ALL the bridges (panmixia is always an option in a diverse environment; the reverse is true only in evolutionary scale)? Hispanics and Blacks at the moment are voting for progressive and environmental causes. Environmentalism’s part of the package. That’s the extent of its support from blacks and mestizos. For the record: to a man, WNs and other associated types here at MR (and everywhere, if to a slightly lesser extent - can’t account for more than 99% of WNs on that account) recognize Bob & Co.’s right self-determination and free association. Bob & Co. expressly do not reciprocate; in fact they expressly deny our right to self-determination and association. If you’re afraid to address my questions say so. 99044
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 18:15 | # I want to see Bob’s position on the right of blacks to racial nationalism. I want to know if Bob thinks blacks have a right to act as a group to preserve themselves and secure resources (inter alia). If Bob says no, then he’s denying black self-sovereignty, a position that is consistent with his liberalism, but not so much with the reigning liberalism, where whites don’t get to tell blacks jack shit. If Bob says yes, then he’s admitting his denials of racial nationalism apply only to whites. I’d also like to see Bob’s position on the right of individuals to self-determination and free association. It’s obvious Bob believes in neither, because that’s the only way his comments make any sense at all, but I’d like to see him man up and make a statement. Of course, he’s already refused to acknowledge either right, on numerous occasions when asked, so we already know the answer: Bob loathes the very ideas of self-determination and free association. Rather odd position for an ostensible liberal, isn’t it Bob? 99045
Posted by torgrim on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:23 | # R.Lindsay; “India needs Maoism only that can get rid of crap like caste once and for all…. From the “Homeland of the Progressive Agenda”....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis Santa Cruz California, a place that has succumbed to the new totalitarianism. Where Mao’s little Red Book was passed out on street corners in the 60’s. 99046
Posted by torgrim on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 20:40 | # R.Lindsay; “There are plenty of mostly white communities in the US where folks should be plenty happy. Some towns in the Sierra Nevada Mts. where I spend a lot of my time are mostly white.” Doing some research, Bob? Checking out just how white these areas are, are we, Bob? Better make it safe for the Mestizo’s, get that day labor area set up, or how about funding the “alternative” radio station….? The kind that are careful not to show a complete hostility toward the majority but code to the progressive elite,..... the “agenda”. “There are some Hispanics moving in but not many”.... Yeah, this isn’t 1970-90…. As with the Mestizos, we will be watching for you too, Bob. 99047
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:34 | # There are some animals who remember being human but in Robert Lindsey, with his mindless regurgitation of the critical phrase “freedom of association”, we have an animal who doesn’t even remember being human—he can’t conceive of such a creature. I can understand his avoidance of recognizing his loss of humanity out of simple aversion to pain. So, in terms of euthanasia, it might be higher priority to kill the former than the latter. However, in terms of damage to humanity, I think it might be higher priority to put the latter out of the misery of others, than put the former out of its own misery. With such limited resources I think we have to forgo the compassion we might extend the suffering animal and instead allocate those resources to alleviating the suffering of humans. This has the additional virtue that, in the event that karmic forces are real, the forgetful animal may be accumulating future karmic suffering upon itself from which the compassionate human might protect it. 99048
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:57 | # Sorry guys, I was away hanging with some of my Hispanic wangster homies, listening to gangsta rap and smoking blunts. This my life now in the hood as I degenerate further and further in glorious Wiggerdom. My “White” friend and his Hispanic wife just left, bong in hand, to go watch their excellently miscegenated Whispanic offspring. And so the palefaces decline as the hood darkens and the crime rate goes up. Lord knows, I’ve been ripped off 3 times already but that’s price you pay for lack of palefaces. The towns I discuss are towns I lived in for 16 years. One is called Oakhurst, California. Come move here! The Whites are uptight but that’s all right! There’s no crime and it’s full of reactionary fundamentalist Whites, the young women of whom are almost all knocked up and on welfare by their 20’s after their Blanco Superioris husbands abandon them. There’s meth everywhere in the White Underclass, where teeth at 50 or even 40 are a status symbol. I am starting to write most of my blog posts stoned out of my mind on weed. Do you think the quality is starting to suffer? Svigor has questions. What’s in your mind, Svigor? You want to get away from all non-Whites, because I think you dislike them a lot. Yes, I know this mindset. Tony Clifton showed me how to play that role. Good point; base, cave-man urges like the survival instinct and the reproductive instinct are something liberals want all whites to “rise above.” Well, what we want to wipe out is mostly this urge Whites for their race to survive. It is true that I do support the survival of some ethnic groups for assortative mating, especially smaller, endangered ones who wish to preserve their native languages. But most are marrying out anyway. Ya just can’t stop the miscegenation wave, you know. We have good reasons not to rape or beat women - what good reasons do we have militating against racism? It’s immoral, and it goes against the New Society we are in the midst of creating here. Hmm. What are your criteria for “evolved to a higher level” in this context? I am no longer a tribal type man who ought to be tossing spears, wearing loincloths and sticking a bone through his nose like youse guys. I am part of the New Man who has transcended tribalism. Really I was referring to distaste for capitalism. I do run a business, but I hate it, because I am a more highly evolved being than this. Study “new socialist man”. The way you guys lump these people all together in one race is just sickening. How about some examples of this dastardly behavior? I’m having a hard time making that into a sensible statement. You guys are always throwing all Blacks into the “high criminality” pool or the “stupid” pool. It’s so terrible. There is a group of them that can be characterized this way, but if you are careful around Blacks (most liberals are) you can get all the benefits of Black camaraderie and little of the downside. Blacks are divided into a civilized group that has more or less assimilated to US society and an Underclass that is pretty much of a catastrophe. It’s almost like 2 different races now. ...except for the whole ancestry thing, lol. (Still haven’t looked into regression to the mean?) As you do right here. It’s so horrible. I was just talking about you guys to the wigger dude and his Spanic wife. The wigger dude said he thought you guys sucked as he exhaled a bong hit. As you can see, you guys hardly have any Whites for you. This guy is low-income working class guy surrounded by Browns and Blacks, and he ought to be a prime target for you. He called you “White Power” with a frown. See, you are losing your own people! Blacks in the US have no right to self-determination and for the most part they do not have the right to freedom of association either, except in their personal lives. They do not have that right in their professional lives -same as you guys. You may not associate only with your own kind in provision of services, private or government, running any kind of business, in sales of homes, in the provision of access to any commercial establishments or even private clubs. In your own homes and vehicles and in your personal lives, you do have freedom of association. Blacks have a right to survive, meaning to stay alive and not die.
No, you need to study the history of WW2 and the differences of various forms of totalitarianism, from racist national capitalism to revolutionary socialist internationalism. These guys are our worst enemies - they killed 27 million of my comrades in WW2. WTF is the point of your internationalism, btw? Internationalism means to stop thinking as a racialist member of some tribe and to see oneself as a member of the tribe of man. Blacks and Browns are voting for environmentalism right now. It is the WHITE rightwing parties and movements of the Right that have been so deadly in attacking our environmental movement. When it comes right down to it, US Whites are the biggest menace the US environmental movement has right now. Another excellent reason to make them slowly disappear into the more mixed races that support the liberal agenda so much more. Bob loathes the very ideas of self-determination and free association. In general, but I support separatist movements all over the world, even some armed ones. And most Americans oppose almost all of these movements, especially the ones that pick up guns. I oppose some of them, and neither US Blacks nor Whites have legitimate self-determination project. Examples of groups I support: Turkish Kurds, IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, Chechen, Ingush, Dagestani separatists, many separatists in India and Burma, Aceh Movement and Free W Papua in Indonesia. Free Tibet and East Turkestan in China, Kashmiri separatism, Spanish Saharan independence, Scanian, Flemish, Scottish, Welsh, Catalan, Corsican, Kosovan and Breton independence. So I support self-determination - it just that you guys do not qualify. 99049
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:19 | # I agree that I am completely irrelevant. But you guys are starting to really make me mad now - that does it, I’m calling Mom. Especially that guy who said I was a parody. Anyone who is channeling Andy Kaufman obviously demands to be taken seriously. I am 50 unfortunately, not 40. I am not a teenager anymore, which is good as far as zits but bad as far as the ability to get an erection from the mere wind. However, in my heart of hearts, I will always be 20 years old. I still check out young girls, but now a lot of them give me the “What are you looking at you perverted old man!” look, which is one of the tragedies of aging. Robert Lindsay: “I don’t hate Whites at all; actually I am proud to be White” I’ve told you over and over that all sorts of race mixes and race traitors like the wangster Hispanic homeboy wearing all red (wannabe Norteno) who just walked into my room, have racial pride but gleefully miscegenate away while they associate blissfully with any race around them. This guy here is actually a wannabe-Black I think. You just don’t get it. This is the way so many are - proud of their race, yet willing to befriend and mate with any other race. so you plan to mix your genes with latrinos, negroes or hmongs, right ? you know to make sure your children won’t ever be like us. Right ? Huh? You better watch your words. There is a “Latrino” in my home right now, smoking a blunt, he heard you say that through the Net, and he is not happy. Me? I would mix my genes with any race and I have dated a number of Hispanic and Black women. One Black woman I dated for a year or so and we were talking about marriage. So, yeah. I have never dated a Hmong woman, though I tried once. They are kind of inaccessible around here as they mostly mate with their own kind. As they are Asians, they are much more highly evolved than we lowly Whites, and it’s a good idea for us to improve ourselves by mating with these more-evolved humans. I kind of like the idea of miscegenating with a hot little Filipina, actually. Know any hot mail order bride sites? 99050
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:58 | # Robert, Do you also want to see Europeans browned out of existence in Europe? 99051
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:09 | # So I support self-determination - it just that you guys do not qualify. I support the right to life for humans - its just that you don’t qualify. Now, I understand you aren’t really human and that therefore you are unable to justify your statement that “you guys do not qualify” but I’m going to give you precisely one—ONE—chance to do so before I terminate your ability to contribute to this forum. As a gesture of good faith, I’m going to pretend you are actually human and that I believe there is some small chance that there is some reasonable explanation for why people who prefer living among others of their own race—however they define “race”—don’t qualify for the most fundamental of all human rights. So, here’s my reasoning: Humans are animals of honor. Honor is moral territory. Morals are strongly held beliefs by which one lives one’s life. Territory is the land on which one lives one’s life. Humans that share common morals comprise a mutually consenting foundation for honorable occupation of a territory on which they live out their morals, ie: self-determination. What their morals are is of no concern to those outside that territory except insofar as those outside the territory may be concerned about pollution or imminent invasion of other territories (ie: illegal immigration/trespassing, massing armed forces at a point on a border, etc.). Recognition that other adults have different moral territory is a crucial component of being a human since to violate that relationship is to treat other adults as children rather than as fully human adults. To violate this reciprocal relationship is to abrogate one’s own human right to self-determination by failing to recognize that of others. Now, its your turn. Please try to do something other than emit more noise. This may be your last chance to speak here. 99052
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:45 | # GW, I don’t see a qualitative difference between the vast majority of what RL has been posting and the interracial porn troll. The closest he comes to posting actual content is when he makes rare statements like “you guys don’t qualify”. I really don’t think it is reasonable to allow his trolls to stand in this forum, which is why I am being rather insistent that he put up some real content or shut up. More snarky descriptions of his personal preferences in human ecology simply aren’t relevant and detract from the valuable article on IQ to which they supposedly respond. 99053
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:58 | # Europeans can stay as White as they want to, as they are progressive anyway (I’m concerned more with politics than race). Over there, it is the darker non-European Caucasians such as the Iranians, Iraqis, Algerians, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Syrians, Turks, Kurds and whatnot that are threatening the progressive, highly evolved state of affairs by their backwards, reactionary, less evolved religion of Islam. Plus, Blacks are bringing in a higher crime rate via indiscriminate immigration. Europeans of all colors have a right to crack down hard on Muslim immigration in general and Black immigration in particular (Euros should be just as selective about Black immigration as we are in the US with African immigrants). Bowery, you conflate morals and race indiscriminately and without reason. No, people do not have any right to self-determination anywhere on the basis or honor or shared morals or any of that. As US Whites or Blacks both do not constitute what we normally see as a nation, each has their right to self-determination revoked permanently. If European nations decide that they want their future look Euro-White, well, that is ethnocentric, but they have a right to set up their immigration policy that way. That sort of ethnic nationalist preservation project is perfectly legal and permissible anywhere. Nations may regulate immigration any way they wish and for any reason, including overtly racist reasons. It’s a basic human right of sovereignty that applies everywhere. I do not think that Euro nations wish to preserve the Euro-White or specific sub-tribe nature of their states though, from what I can see. Looks like non-White beauties are being nominated for beauty contests all across Europe. I did not realize that flippancy was grounds for banning in this forum. If you have some forum rules, perhaps point them out to me. I live in a multiracial town and I never see much racism at all around here, other than some really minor sentiments directed at Whites. You all claim that multiethnic towns are automatically hotbeds of red hot racial tension, hatred and warfare. What nonsense! You claim that Mexicans hate Blacks - not here- here they love and idolize them. You claim that whiter Mexicans hate darker Mexicans - not the case here. You claim that Whites don’t want to be around Blacks or Hispanics - the Whites around here are pretty much color-blind and mostly hang out with Blacks and Browns with no problems. It’s very common here to see a successful White guy with a beautiful mulatta on his arm, or a White guy with a Mexican woman, or a White woman with either little half-Mexican or half-Black kids in tow. I just saw 2 such creatures today. So, living in this town, your ideology seems so perverse! How could someone like you even function in such a place? In this town, only the Punjabis hang out with their own. Miscegenation now, miscegenation forever. 99054
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 12:18 | # I am interested, James, in Robert’s not entirely original view that ethnic continuity is racism. In this respect, he appears to label every people, not just Europeans, with the r-word - except maybe a few tattered tribes, perhaps rain-forest types forced to the edges of extinction by the greed of the logger-barons. I would like him to confirm whether he sees any distinction in this respect between Europeans and others. Are only Europeans capable of racism, or are they in some way particularly capable of it, or is every group pretty much the same? I would like him to explain in what way the survival of an indigenous people in the Brazilian rainforest is different to the survival of the French people in France or the Swedish in Sweden. If the difference is only one of extremis or oppression he is morally defenceless. It cannot be moral to stand by while a people sinks into extremis before attaching the right to survive to them. Equally, it cannot be moral to deny survival to a racially oppressed group like Europeans, when the oppressor classes are the global elites, the cultural left, ethno-aggressive Jews, etc, while commending survival to Yamomani oppressed by Brazilian loggers and the furniture trade. Self-evidently, building a “new world” by a European genocide, however soft, is not morally higher than building a prosperous, modern Brazil. But let him explain why he disagrees. Let’s expose his inhumanity. 99055
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:06 | # All groups are capable of racism, or tribalism. It is the natural and normal state of primitive man. Europeans are no more capable of this than anyone else. Nowadays, no one on Earth is less racist than Whites in the Anglosphere. This is a great thing as it shows we are the most progressive people on Earth in that regard. We antis take credit for this great achievement. Blacks and Browns are much more racist than US Whites nowadays. Certainly ethnic groups have a right to decide to only marry members of their own group in order to continue the line, so to speak. In practice these days it does not seem to work out too well. Immigrants do this for a generation or two, then they just start intermarrying like mad. The attitude of the Japanese is not very healthy, but it is legal and it’s their country. The truth is that most Americans of any race are not really interested in ethnic continuity, so you guys are reduced to an outlier. If you want to continue your line, just don’t marry non-Whites and tell your kids not to marry non-Whites. I don’t really like it, but if it’s ok for Jews to do this, then it’s ok for Whites to do it too. But it won’t go very far. I have worked with US Indian tribes, and racially most of them are already extinct. Tahitians, Hawaiians, Aborigines, Ainu, the Negrito Aeta of the Philippines, the small groups in Siberia, they are all massively intermarried and going extinct now. We don’t care about the race, but as linguists we don’t like to see languages go out. Some worry about cultural extinction too. Truth is, we are in a mass miscegenation wave that is seeing languages and cultures go extinct the world over. You guys are shoveling water against the tide. You don’t freedom of association or self-determination, but you do get to choose who you marry and you can always encourage your kids not to marry out. Almost none of these small tribes are being able to keep from going extinct even if they want to. But the Yanonami have been living on that land for ages - you can make a good case that it is their land. It’s reasonable to set aside reservations for them like they do in Colombia, Brazil, Australia and other places. In Australia you can hardly even go in there if you’re not Aborigine. It’s their land and they have a right to restrict access to it over there. American Indians also get to discriminate in employment for some bizarre reason. I don’t have a problem with this, but US Whites do not get to grab some part of the US for themselves for Whites only, because they are not aboriginal peoples like Amerindians, Ainu or Aborigines. 99056
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:10 | # Robert Lindsay is an opportunistic pathogen, vilest filth who wouldn’t dare to open his maw in a world in which, unlike ours unfortunately, the ‘60s advent of Jewish hegemony had not supervened. Lindsay loathes the Jews, too stupid to realize they’re his best friends, who are furnishing him his best chance of getting what he wants: without the diseased societal/moral conditions they’ve carefully, calculatedly brought about by dint of two centuries of very hard work and planning, he and his dope-crazed “ideas” born of the most absolute and degenerate self-loathing would be the equivalent of non-existent. Incidentally, picture Robert Lindsay but on steroids, and you have the behind-the-scenes Jews who are running so much of our media, big business & industry (40%-60% of CEOs), and university departments and own outright the Dem Party (when you pony up 70% of a party’s funds in contributions, you own that party) and own outright the Bush/neocon wing of the Republican Party while being major contributors to the rest of the GOP. Truly has it been said that the Jews control or heavily influence both the ruling parties and the oppositions in the U.S., the U.K., and France. How do they do it? Mainly by throwing lots of money around the political process plus, of course, their predominance in the media, partly achieved through ordinary garden-variety ethnic neoptism, I’d say to the tune of about two-thirds of their media predominance being due to simple ethnic nepotism, one-third to innate talent. (Now excuse me while I go wash my hands and keyboard in Chlorox for having responded to Robert Lindsay — be right back ....) 99057
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:08 | # Bowery, you conflate morals and race indiscriminately and without reason. So the animal who may once have been a human cannot see that a moral does not cease to be a moral simply because its subject is “race”; that “Thou shalt not racially discriminate.” or “Thou shalt racially discriminate.” are just as much a morals as is “Thou shalt not kill.” He calls making two ideas independent of each other “conflating” them in precise opposition to the meaning of “conflate”. We can expect no better from an animal for whom the vestigial power of speech is little more than excretion of pheromones in sonic form… No, people do not have any right to self-determination anywhere on the basis or honor or shared morals or any of that. Now the animal emits more noises—this time sounding like a human changing the subject from what morals are or are not, to whether morals are a reasonable basis for self-determination. The animal cannot see, because animals don’t recognize laws, that laws _are_ morals of a particular type: morals enforced by government over a territory. This is not surprising since animals don’t understand morals or laws. But the real function of these gibberings is, again, basically pheromonal signaling, along the lines of: “Yes we are incapable of reason. Yes we are incapable of understanding morals. Yes we are incapable of understanding laws. What are you going to do about it? You can’t do anything about it. We’re dominant because we have a bigger army of eusocial, pseudo-sexual, parasitically castrated critters working toward our ends than you humans can resist. Give up.” The animal then proceeds to, further, not answer the human’s challenge to define “self-determination”—instead gibbering various examples and whether it “thinks” they qualify for self-determination. No logic is presented—simply more oracular pronouncements along the lines of “you guys don’t qualify” interspersed with “you’re going to lose”. GW: Robert Lindsey really isn’t capable of carrying on a meaningful conversation. 99058
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:16 | # What’s in your mind, Svigor? You want to get away from all non-Whites, because I think you dislike them a lot. Yes, I know this mindset. Tony Clifton showed me how to play that role. Wrong. Thanks for playing, please try again. Well, what we want to wipe out is mostly this urge Whites for their race to survive. It is true that I do support the survival of some ethnic groups for assortative mating, especially smaller, endangered ones who wish to preserve their native languages. But most are marrying out anyway. Ya just can’t stop the miscegenation wave, you know. Bollocks. The inevitable needs no help - who but a fool spends energy “bringing it about”? Way, way too much energy being expended for me to buy that nonsense. It’s immoral, and it goes against the New Society we are in the midst of creating here. Describe racism’s immorality in detail Bob. Try not to construct any straw men in doing so. As for your New Society, it strikes all of us as a nightmare so no dice there Bob; in fact, you just made an argument for racism, if it goes against your Nightmare Society. I am no longer a tribal type man who ought to be tossing spears, wearing loincloths and sticking a bone through his nose like youse guys. I am part of the New Man who has transcended tribalism. Really I was referring to distaste for capitalism. I do run a business, but I hate it, because I am a more highly evolved being than this. Study “new socialist man”. Bob, you’re hilarious. You can’t possibly believe all this New Man crap, can you? Are you really a racial nationalist shill Bob? You seem to be doing a far better job in that role, than you are as a New Man. There is as much point in “transcending” ethnocentrism as there is in “transcending” the urge to procreate, eat, survive, etc. But that silly bone through the nose ad hom was funny Bob, thanks at least for that. On the other hand, you really didn’t give us any criteria. You guys are always throwing all Blacks into the “high criminality” pool or the “stupid” pool. It’s so terrible. There is a group of them that can be characterized this way, but if you are careful around Blacks (most liberals are) you can get all the benefits of Black camaraderie and little of the downside. Bob, when I wrote “examples,” I meant examples of our behavior, not examples of figments from your imagination. C’mon Bob, focus! Blacks in the US have no right to self-determination and for the most part they do not have the right to freedom of association either, except in their personal lives. They do not have that right in their professional lives -same as you guys. You may not associate only with your own kind in provision of services, private or government, running any kind of business, in sales of homes, in the provision of access to any commercial establishments or even private clubs. In your own homes and vehicles and in your personal lives, you do have freedom of association. Thank you Bob. You took your time, but you came through in the end. According to Bob: Blacks don’t have the right to self-determination in their professional lives: they don’t have the right to form black businesses, follow pro-black business practices, hire blacks exclusively, discriminate in favor of blacks, create black neighborhoods or schools, etc. How about religion, Bob? Do blacks have the right to create all-black churches? Blacks have a right to survive, meaning to stay alive and not die. Blacks have a right to survive, meaning to stay alive in cages, and not die. (I’m curious Bob; does the black right to “not die” mean blacks have a legally protected right to not die from, say, walking in front of a bus, being shot in the chest, catching AIDS, etc?) No, you need to study the history of WW2 and the differences of various forms of totalitarianism, from racist national capitalism to revolutionary socialist internationalism. These guys are our worst enemies - they killed 27 million of my comrades in WW2. And yet you still have far more in common with them than you do the American founders, or any of the Enlightenment thinkers. Internationalism means to stop thinking as a racialist member of some tribe and to see oneself as a member of the tribe of man. To what avail? And, utterly contrary as this goal is to human nature, beyond the why…how? In practice you simply advocate unilateral surrender on the part of whites, but how do you square this circle in your own noggin? Blacks and Browns are voting for environmentalism right now. It is the WHITE rightwing parties and movements of the Right that have been so deadly in attacking our environmental movement. When it comes right down to it, US Whites are the biggest menace the US environmental movement has right now. Another excellent reason to make them slowly disappear into the more mixed races that support the liberal agenda so much more. Nah. As whites disappear, so will non-white “support” for environmentalism (something only whites care about; 2+2=4). You’ll only have accomplished your own destruction. So I support self-determination - it just that you guys do not qualify. Bob, do I need to explain self-determination to you? Or, should I go a bit further back and explain the word “self” to you first? Or maybe the concept of “rights” is confusing you? Lol! You’re good for a laugh. I’m having trouble taking your nonsense as in earnest, though. You seem more like a WN shill than the ultra-weirdo-liberal you claim to be; on the other hand, you seem more like an unhinged wacko than either… You all claim that multiethnic towns are automatically hotbeds of red hot racial tension, hatred and warfare. What nonsense! Yes, the latest of your straw men is nonsense. Ceteris paribus, diversity means more problems than homogeneity (Putnam, headlines, lying eyes, etc.). Don’t ban this guy, he’s great! If I could make him the poster child for liberalism, I would. 99059
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:26 | # Bob seems to think that states have a right to self-determination, but not individuals. I didn’t read his assertions carefully so I might not have this right, but, doesn’t that mean that no new states are allowed? Doesn’t that make a huge portion of the currently existing states (USA, Liberia, former SSRs, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, etc.,) illegitimate? Bob’s got some goofy shit going on here. Better pop some popcorn… 99060
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:30 | # But yeah, Bob is a lost cause if he can’t admit to the fact that basic human decency requires group A to say, “yeah sure, hey, good luck to ya” when group B says “guys, we have some new ideas and want to go our own way, you do your thing and we’ll do ours.” Bob’s liberalism is clearly totalitarianism. I wish I could get all liberals to talk the way Bob does. 99061
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:33 | # Oh, the animal did emit one other—relatively—“interesting” noise that sounded like the word “aboriginal”. Taking in its proper meaning, of course, if “aboriginal” hunter-gatherer peoples around the world decided to kick the neolithic cultures off the land brought to cultivation, that this is a legitimate exercise of “self-determination”. This obvious meaning to the words has no relevance, of course, because for the animal the words don’t have meaning—only their value as pheromonal excretion of the underlying primitive signaling of dominance has “meaning.” 99062
Posted by danielj on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:35 | # Fred, I live in America. It is a mixed country. I want it to be a mixed European country. I am of mixed European ancestry. The “ethnic pride” (and I’m not putting in quotes to mock it) thing won’t work here. We will just end up at each other’s throats with whatever percentage of us that are mongrelized Euros unsure of whose throat to be at. I consider any Euro country worth fighting and dying for because of the racial/cultural solidarity I feel for them. I am wondering if “pan-European” is an acceptable belief here. I am certainly not lacking in gumption and would propose that would could use a little less of it here. [The tone of you post was exhortational and I want to clarify I’m not being cross or confrontation in return. Just throwing around my ideas in the MR sifter.] 99063
Posted by danielj on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:40 | #
They don’t support the liberal agenda. They (various racial and ethnic groups) only support the disenfranchisement of White people, minority welfare, majority wealth transfer and traffic in racial politics to achieve their openly stated goal of maximizing their take of the White kitty. 99064
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:51 | #
The most easily peeled outer layers of the onion aren’t “the onion.” They’re the most easily-peeled layers of the onion. The whites who marry out are the herd animals which get picked off by lions and wolves: it makes the herd stronger, healthier, and better able to survive intact into the future. It’s thermodynamics and you can’t avoid it, can’t get around the Laws of Thermodynamics, as Einstein said. There is no way for it not to happen. Without such whites marrying out, the white herd as a whole would degenerate over time and become easy prey for any passing predator. The thermodynamic function of whites who marry out is herd improvement: they improve the herd. And nothing can stop that either: whites marrying out is thermodynamically inevitable and so is the resulting herd improvement of whites: thermodynamically inevitable. The whites who marry out serve a vital purpose having to do with improvement of white herd quality and the assurance of long-term white herd survival. If the herd hasn’t been under attack in a long time, yes it will lose more than the average number when the wolves finally get around to attacking it. Once that larger than average number is lost, the herd is back in fighting trim and the numbers lost thereafter dwindle to a steady-state thermodynamic minimum. Get out your college physics books, it’s all in there. 99065
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:12 | # Just to be entirely clear, Bob’s ostensible worldview is not only immoral (from the P.O.V. of most westerners), but also flat out stupid: he’d have us all risk everything we have based on faith in liberalism, a faith that would be unjustified without liberalism’s miserable track record. He’d have us all plunge the world into his experiment, with no control group allowed so he can declare success after achieving his failure. That’s the behavior of a lunatic, but in that he’s no different from liberalism at large (except the perception of the herd - somehow they’ve managed to use complicated legerdemain to keep it chewing the cud). 99066
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:27 | #
I’m just a commenter and cannot “officially” speak for the blog but my impression is yes of course, a “pan-European” position is an acceptable belief here. Absolutely, one-hundred percent, nay one-thousand percent. And so is its opposite, a “Euro sub-race exclusive” position. They’re both acceptable and, I would say, other positions are too, provided only they grant the legitimacy of questioning governmental forced race-replacement of Euros or Euro sub-groupings. Your position, Daniel, is broadly also Rnl’s, who stopped commenting here because of repeated uncompromising expression of the opposing view by, among others, Desmond. Kubilai, a Greek Canadian who used to be one of the best of the commentariat here, a first-rater for sure, may also have stopped coming for that reason (I don’t know in his case, but I wonder; in Rnl’s case I think he said outright, if memory serves — someone correct me if I’m wrong). Your position, Daniel, appears to apply to the U.S., not the European homeland, but there are those who apply it to the European homeland as well: Constantin and David Stennett for example. (Stennett no longer comes here; I may have had a hand in chasing him away, I don’t know — I found the guy insufferable and told him off, which should’ve gotten me banned but luckily for me the saintly GW is unusually generous and patient, letting offenders off with warnings, slaps on the wrist, and second chances.) Scimitar also, I believe, applies your position to the Euro homeland. He has a position indistinguishable from Stennett’s, at any rate. Now, that might seem strange, since Scimitar also reserves the term “white” for Britannia’s sons and one or two other adjacent peoples (maybe Dutch or something, Danes perhaps, and that’s about it). Since he’s the offspring of an A-S father and an Austrian-German mother that makes him half-wog by his own definition but all it means to him, then, is if you’re a Euro wog you’re still OK but can’t be considered “white.” I wouldn’t worry about it, in other words. My own views are closer to “Northerner’s” and Desmond’s, which seems paradoxical since I’m a mongrel and Northerner and I can’t stand each other (As for Desmond, he probably can’t stand me but I have no particular bone to pick with him). I’d venture the guess that Larch’s views and mine on the question are a pretty close match. (Larch is another one who can’t stomach me, but I bear him no ill will; quite the contrary.) Look, Daniel, just don’t be thin-skinned about your ancestry, you fit in perfectly here at MR, this is the right place for you, and in general just stand your ground and don’t back off. 99067
Posted by skeptical on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:40 | # Come on people, let us not allow Lindsay to get under our skins. He’s just trying to annoy us at this point.
Daniel, I have what you might consider to be pan-European beliefs and I think that majorityrights.com is amenable to our views. Please stay. Robert Lindsay, If your liberal ideologies are so wonderful then why are turning California into an overpopulated. over-developed wreck? 99068
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:51 | # When I first ventured onto a VFR thread, must be around five years ago, I encountered lots of heated argument and my first comment was to pose a question as to the site’s positions which I wasn’t easily able to discern for all the disagreement. One of the regular commenters replied that their board was like a room full of men training their rifles on each other, except when an outsider knocked and pushed the door open to enter, in which case all gun barrels immediately swung round in perfect unison to aim at the doorway. 99069
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 18:52 | # Come on people, let us not allow Lindsay to get under our skins. He’s just trying to annoy us at this point. So “skeptical” agrees with my assessment that RL’s “comments” bear little more informative content than the interracial porn troll’s photographs. I really don’t think it is a good idea to let him continue posting comments here. Since GW said he wanted something to come from this “conversation” I’ll leave it to him to turn off RL’s ability to post comments. 99070
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:03 | # Fred, your thermodynamics argument can be applied to any selective pressure, eugenic or dysgenic. Humans lost the “right” to ignore the kind of selective pressures brought to bear on them the moment their technology significantly modified those selective pressures. In the present instance, I think we’re seeing a desirable genetic character—moral integrity—being selected out of the gene pool by the capture of indoctrination mechanisms—media and academia—by competing tribes who have basically lost their own morals but have exquisitely developed instincts for controlling morals of others. This is a misanthropic system that deserves to have war—by any means necessary—waged upon it. 99071
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:25 | # Danielj, read and understand Svigor’s words:
The rest is simply a matter (although not necessarily a simple matter) of statecraft supporting assortative migration and territorial reallocation. RL and all similar ersatz “humans” can’t deal with such basic human decency because, well, they are no longer fully human. For the rest of us, there are questions of statecraft—but that is all. If you will not tolerate the existence of some Europeans who would create a territorial boundary around themselves across which you would not be allowed to cross—for whatever reason—then you are hardly better than RL. 99072
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:34 | # James makes excellent points: whites who are “good,” who listen best to what they perceive the society around them requires of them and who sincerely strive to do it, in good faith; whites who aren’t suspicious, devious, or shirking by nature, but earnest, trusting, honest, open, and straightforward, are going to bear the brunt of the winnowing process, for obvious reasons. Those are good, good, good folk and it’s an epoch-making crime what’s being done to them and to the race their qualities are being subtracted from. But their qualities won’t be subtracted entirely from the racial remnant, both by pure chance and by many possessing those qualities possessing in addition the kind of smarts that will keep them from falling prey. But what I was trying to illustrate was, simply, that 1) whites who marry out don’t, when plotted on a graph, trace out the horizontal or up-sloping linear curve assholes like R. Lindsay see in their drug-addled daydreams, but more like a hyperbolic asymptotic curve with “diminshing returns going rapidly to a low-level steady-state equilibrium even after what may look like a hugely promising start,” and 2) the genetic bottleneck we’re passing through right now as we speak is inevitable: there isn’t going to be a way to avoid it (what’s not inevitable, far from it, is the complete genocide of Euros or any sub-group thereof) but once you understand that, you see it’s also beneficial in its ways. 99073
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:41 | # Guilelessness has its charm, is one of the things that makes life beautiful, but when a group is under deadly attack by an enemy group wielding deviousness, dissimulation, and outright lying as its weapons, guilelessness gets winnowed out. 99074
Posted by danielj on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:45 | # Of course I would be completely accepting of that in Europe. How can I accept that here in my homeland? Perhaps some would not view it as my land. I am willing to fight them over it if need be. I am Sicilian, French, German, Irish and God knows what else. I have recently been to New York City for the first time and have seen the Italians there. I have also ran into a lot of them in Providence where I work. I identify more with the German and English men and women I knew growing up and infinitely more with the Anglo-Saxon woman that I’m married to. I find the Italians I’m partially descended from a bit “greasy” and uncultured. However, I have also been up to Vermont and New Hampshire and must say I was extremely disappointed. I have yet to go the White state of Maine, but can say those of English descent in Vermont and New Hampshire were as bad as the Wops in North Providence. Where on Earth would I get “migrated” to if Nordicists took control of the American government? There aren’t enough of me to “assort.” 99075
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:12 | # Danielj, your position is the dominant position within WN. Grow up. 99076
Posted by Charlie Prince on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:25 | # Scroob, I use the term “white” in the sense of social identity: is phenotype a criterion (one amongst many) used to distinguish “us” from “them”? “Whiteness” was an important marker of the American ethnos for many centuries. In contrast, “whiteness” never had a similar importance to, say, Czechs or Serbs. They have never been racially conscious in the same way that we are. The Czechs have moved from aracialism to anti-racism. 99077
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:42 | # Why quibble over words like “white” when a simple rule allowing territorial allocation leading to assortative migration for maximal consent-of-the-governed, applied uniformly across all humans, suffices? I use “White” pretty much synonymously with “European” but that word is not important to me. You can define “white” however you like for your purposes of self-determination. Go for it, but don’t expect some sort of universal governance to apply based on your idea of “whiteness”. Self-determination is the sword by which we may separate the humans from the zombies and clear the lands for humans when the zombies push us into a Malthusian race war. It should be open season on guys like RL. Their land is needed by humans and nature preserves for natural animals and plants. 99078
Posted by Charlie Prince on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:05 | # The “who is white” debate follows logically from White Nationalism. WNs will continue to quibble about it indefinitely because there is no way to precisely the term. “White” and “non-white” shade into each other at the margins. Also, the “who is white” debate is more about identity politics than race. Social identities are naturally unstable. That’s another reason it will never be resolved. 99079
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:05 | # Not really. All rational “white” nationalists know that there will be many different identities with varying degrees of relatedness to each other within “white nationalism”. Ultimately, if this sort of nationalism is defined properly there is no reason it cannot be universal extending beyond even the Salterian or Robertsonian sense of ethnostates to encompass what people think of as “propositional states”. Indeed, it is precisely the recognition that “propositions” are at the basis of ethnostates that leads us to recognize such universality. The only propositions that will not be tolerated will be those that impose themselves on other peoples, however they identify themselves and their compatriots. 99080
Posted by Charlie Prince on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:16 | #
Lindsay’s comments here at Majority Rights should not be associated with Communism. Marx and Engels were not supportive of white racial genocide. They were dismissive of Slavs and largely shared the racial views of their contemporaries. If Lenin admired any ethnic group in the world, it was the Germans. Stalin showed little interest in inciting revolution against the Western powers in Africa. It was the Soviets who slapped down Fidel Castro in 1968 for trying to stir up revolutions without their authorization in the third world. The French Communist Party, for example, did not support the degenerate student movement in 1968. The Soviets sent tanks into Prague to shut up the Czechs. The USSR, Tito’s Yugoslavia, Mao’s China, North Korea, Vietnam, and the Eastern Bloc nations did not become “melting pots” of racial diversity. Homosexuality was outlawed in the USSR as bourgeois decadence. In Eastern Europe, the Soviets jammed Western radio stations to prevent cultural degeneration. Postmodern art was proscribed. Classical music was encouraged. Artists and writers were restricted within the bounds of “socialist realism.” Mao’s Cultural Revolution bared little resemblance in reality to Lindsay’s ideal. Lindsay is more of a Western liberal than a Communist. His ideological roots trace back to the bourgeois counter-culture of the 1960s and from there to the avant-garde. It is probably significant that he lives in California. This comes across clearly in his emphasis upon race as opposed to class issues. A true Marxist-Leninist would immediately dismiss this as irrelevant to socialism. The non-revisionists I know can’t stand these people. They hate them more than anyone. Odd that Lindsay would praise Stalin of all people. He probably would have had him shot. 99081
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:32 | # “Odd that Lindsay would praise Stalin of all people. He probably would have had him shot.” LOL!!!! 99082
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:55 | # If Charlie Prince feels the obstacles to telling who is/isn’t white are too great he can eschew “white” completely and concentrate instead on the individual Euro races, dividing them into groups as narrowly as he wants: he can talk about Wallachians, Montanegrins, Andorrans, Basques, Manxmen, Tuscans, Sicilians, Cretan Greeks, Lithuanians, Estonians, Alsatians, Luxemburgers, Moravians, Russyns, Thuringians, Byelorussians, Maltese, and so on (this process starts getting into Norman Lowell’s idea, which I join Larch in supporting). If those are still too broad they can be divided further: in Flanders, let’s say, you can have a distinct race corresponding to every town and village right across the country if you want. I happen to be on record as advocating precisely this approach something like four or five years ago, at Dienekes blog and another one, as the answer to Jewish academic race-denial: “There are ‘no such things as whites’? OK, Professor Cohen. But there sure as hell are such things as Pomeranians, Swedes, Walloons, and Finns and that Nigerian guy standing over there ain’t one, so, Professor, you can get back to teaching your “Jewish Race-Denial 101” class now, and while you’re at it, get this guy back on your plane and fly him to Israel — I hear they’re in dire need of Negroes down there — apparently the Falashas aren’t nearly enough to satisfy the demand for Negro husbands among Jewish Israeli girls who’ve heard about the unsurpassed orgasms only Negro men can give them ... right, you can read all about that in Alon Ziv’s book!” 99083
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:03 | # There was a time when Jews would’ve been acutely acutely acutely embarrassed by Alon Ziv and his “book” and would’ve been maneuvering behind the scenes to shut the guy up. But those days are long gone: the Jews are over-confident nowadays. Over-confidence is generally viewed as a weakness one may live to regret. 99084
Posted by Charlie Prince on Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:16 | # Scrooby, I’m not in favor of eschewing “white” at all. I don’t think the obstacles to the use of “white ” are so great that the term is useless. There is actually broad agreement in the racially conscious community about “who is white.” The breakdown tends to be at the margins. That only implies that the value of “white” is limited. 99085
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:31 | # Charlie Prince, OK, forgive me, I took your post to mean you were one of these people who are grappling with “the concept of white” and unable to sort it out, such as David B and Professor See the Boring Disgrace. The larger points are: yes, there is a white race; no, if you’re the kind of weak-minded individual who’s not comfy with that you needn’t grapple with it — we have other solutions for you.
Except I didn’t understand back then that race-denial was a Jewish national affair — I didn’t view it as “Jewish race-denial.” I came to acquire that crucial understanding only much more recently. 99086
Posted by silver on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 03:17 | # Scrooby, you would do better to limit your accusations to certain jewish groups/segments, and then only to what those certain jewish groups/segments are actually guilty of—which is not everything under the sun. After all, Jews themselves are subject to the same pressures and demographics is destiny for them every bit as much as it is for the rest of us. The lave does not flow everywhere uniformly, but it does flow and will eventually envelope all the same. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/65/story_6556_1.html http://www.thejc.com/Home.aspx?ParentId=m11s19&AId=57065&ATypeId=1&secid=19&prev=true (In the latter article, that 5000 would be equivalent of 250,000 African illegals entering the US or some 80,000 into France.)
99087
Posted by Charlie Prince on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:10 | #
No. This game of “good Jews” vs. “bad Jews” is a waste of our time. The costs of interacting with Jews so dramatically outweighs the benefits that their total exclusion is warranted. It’s not worth the risk. 99088
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 04:37 | #
When a group is so overwhelmingly culpable, one is entitled to name it “collectively,” without distinctions, as being responsible even though some belonging to it don’t share blame. (Were only a few of its members culpable, this would not be right.) We say “the Germans” were our enemies in World War II even though not all were (lots were out of sympathy with their government and wound up in prison). Enough Jews participate in this two-centuries-and-counting Jewish tribal attack on Euros to justify referring to those mounting it as “the Jews” without specifying exceptions that everyone understands go without saying (and I’ve mentioned explicitly any number of times).
I agree: no group, Jews included, should be accused of something they’re not guilty of. In accusations I’ve leveled I’ve never deviated from that.
Clearly, the Jews pushing forced race-replacement of Euros together with destruction of Euro-society culture and morals see what they’re doing as a net plus for Jews, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. Whether or not it will be a net plus for Jews is another question.
Oh riiiiight, Jews would be clamoring in droves for repeal of the 1965 It’s-Good-For-The-Jews Guaranteed Extinction-For-Euros Immigration Bill were it not for web comments by the likes of me. What a fool I’ve been!!! I had a chance to get the Jews on our side — all I had to do was shut up — and I completely blew it!!! If I hadn’t opened my mouth this site’s commentariat would right now be brimming with Jews indignant over the 1965 bill and clamoring for a return to the 1924 national-origins law. God, I deserve to be shot! 99089
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:25 | # Clearly, the Jews pushing forced race-replacement of Euros together with destruction of Euro-society culture and morals see what they’re doing as a net plus for Jews, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it. Whether or not it will be a net plus for Jews is another question. It’s also obvious that Jews aren’t as vulnerable to the the consequences of their actions as whites at large; the average Jew is much more likely to be able to afford the limousine liberal lifestyle, and much more able, as part of a Jewish community, to work collectively with likeminded cotribalists to ameliorate the effects in question. Silver, Scrooby: Never think a bit of pussyfooting around will win you any friends among Jews. No, pussyfooting around the issue is a maneuver directed at philo-Semitic whites (extended phenotypes), not Jews. Jews are racially tough. Think Sicilians squared. They’re racially aware players to an extent not conceivable to their white extended phenotypes. No, the Queensbury stuff’s for the rubes. A great example is Tim Wise’s private vs. public correspondence with the Birdman. 99090
Posted by Count Sudoku on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:55 | # “A great example is Tim Wise’s private vs. public correspondence with the Birdman.” Could I get a link for that? 99091
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:12 | #
I was going to ask for that too but chickened out at the last minute, not sure I could stomach it. 99092
Posted by silver on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:36 | #
The point of my post wasn’t about ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Jews; it was about sharing common interests. It isn’t much different from white subgroups sharing common interests. If you’d welcome input and participation from ‘marginal whites’ on the understanding that intra-white interests are not always perfectly aligned (evidence of which abounds), the same should probably apply to Jews.
I wonder. What of the risk of having nothing heard for being associated with “nazis”? James Bowery’s solution of state supported assortative migration and territorial reallocation is not extreme; indeed, it strikes me as quite humane. But the average white will not see it as so. Blanket exlcusion and shrill denunciation of Jews will not whites come around.
I’m not so sure. Is it really ‘race-replacement’ they’re pushing? Did you coin that term? I had never heard of it before I found this site. JJR clearly had trouble wrapping his mind around the concept. This suggests the conceptual link between large numbers of racial aliens coexisting amongst the host population and the eventual extinction of the host population is one that is not commonly made. I would suggest the same applies to the conceptual link between race-mixing and extinction. Too many believe (or want to believe—J. Derbyshire, perhaps?) that immigration, “multiracialism” and race-mixing can continue in perpetuity without the host population being affected or even much diminished, let alone extinguished. Therefore, I don’t see the Jewish desire to not be the most alien population among Europeans which leads to Jews supporting immigration and race-mixing the same as Jews wishing to ‘race-replace’ Europeans. Or if there is recognition that this may eventuate, it’s considered to be so far in the future that it is of little relevance for the present. So, to the extent that there is not such recognition, I don’t see your accuastions that Jews are consciously feverishly working to race-replace you as remotely helpful—how much has fourty years of naming the Jew achieved? Furthermore, wouldn’t it be far more beneficial to support someone like Israel’s Avigdor Lieberman (who “gets it”) than to wish race-replacement on Israelis? Svigor, what you call pussyfooting around is often sincere. Whether it ‘works better’ on philosemites or Jews themselves is beside the point. 99093
Posted by Charlie Prince on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:11 | #
We don’t share common interests with Jews. They are hostile to racialism. Mainstream Jewish organizations treat us as “the enemy.”
Jews are the most undesirable minority. Why? Because their track record of subversion is without peer. No other ethnic group has caused us near as many problems.
That’s not an option. Jews despise racialism. They’re going to attack us no matter how we present ourselves. Jared Taylor has avoided the Jewish Question for 15 years now. He is tarred and feathered as a “racist” like all the rest of us. He is excluded from the mainstream like everyone here. The only reason the “Nazi” label is trotted out is to smear racialists. The segregationists of the 1960s were not Nazis. Neither were the Boers in South Africa. These people literally fought against the Third Reich. Many of them had taken bullets fighting the Nazis. Was that good enough for the Jews? No, it was not. Note: For the record, I am not a National Socialist. I resent the mischief that Jews have caused us here in North America. This is not a “strategic” choice on my part. I don’t really care for radical nationalism.
The average white isn’t coming around to racialism because anti-racists dominate the circulatory system of our culture: the media, the universities, the public schools, and the churches. Our stance on the Jewish Question nothing to do with it. If all of the above were endorsing racialism and advocating Jewish exclusion, the vast majority of whites would be all for it. 99094
Posted by silver on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:53 | #
All mainstream organizations treat open racialism as an enemy, as do many prominent consciously white intellectuals. Of itself, such hostility signifies little and does not exclude sharing common (longterm) interests.
Nevertheless here you are. The Polaks of 1924 may not have been the most jubilant racialists but what of it today? (Much of that record could—and ought to be—be debated, btw.)
Almost everybody despises racialism. Jews, in particular, despise it because for them, as they see it, racialism has had such horrible consequences and, I would argue, because so many of you insist that there is not, nor can there ever be, any common interest which extends into the sphere of racialism with Jews. This isn’t a blanket call to ‘aimer le juif’ as you do your own, or even to set about mending fences. It’s a suggestion that rejecting out of hand Jewish co-operation is strategically myopic and counterproductive, just as is rejecting such co-operation from ‘marginals’.
There is a world of difference in the way Taylor has been treated compared to William Pierce. Charles Murray is often treated as a racist crackpot, too.
I’m not aware of 60s segregationists or SA whites being smeared as “nazis”. I think racialism + antisemitism is required to earn that label; evidently, many appear to warrant it.
And if you had some bacon you could have bacon and eggs, if you had some eggs. I don’t dispute the above. I am obviously talking about working with what you have. The Jew obsession is a potent factor in driving away your natural constituency as well as potentially useful sympathetic contributors. 99095
Posted by segregationist onlooker on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:44 | # Good day everyone! Today is the third Monday of January - Robert E. Lee Day. Let’s all remember and celebrate the great American hero, Robert E. Lee. 99096
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:46 | # silver, there are really two issues here: 1) What is reality? 2) How can any of us work within reality to achieve our goals? Clearly 1 must come before 2. We are just starting to get a grip on 1. With a firm grip on reality, it will become much less necessary to tolerate “shrill denunciations of Jews”, “hate”, etc. We have been traumatized and are dealing with structural problems within our own individual psyches as well as ecological problems. If Jews are too strongly correlated with these problems—some of us—the “elite” if you will—must isolate ourselves from them to the extent practicable so we can control for that variable. Think of it like an epidemiologist who wakes up one day surrounded by zombies and notices his cognitive functions are declining. He doesn’t have much time to act and act he must even on such flimsy evidence as ecological correlations. Jews of good will must see this as well. I see progress. Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interest (hopefully enhanced with correlation structure) combined with Kevin MacDonald’s encyclopedic documentation of Jewish virulence in its full blown expression combined with Richard Fausette’s “niche theory” origin of Jewish virulence combined with my theory of the further evolution of Jewish virulence is—finally, after literally millenia of torment of so many peoples—creating a reasonably adequate picture of this aspect of reality that explains the extraordinary correlations between Jews and titanic social problems facing all of us. I do think this progress has been critical to understanding reality, and I do not think it would have been possible by the types we see exemplified in Jared Taylor who are busy trying to affect the epidemic prior to adequate understanding of it. 99097
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:34 | #
Why aren’t Jews forming their own kosher versions of MR.com? (Answer: because what’s kosher is race-replacement, not opposition to it. All opposition to it is “nazi.” So there can’t be a kosher version of MR.com.) (Yes I’m aware there’s one exception to that, the JTF.) Why aren’t Jews all manning the battle stations Jobling has set up over at Inverted World? Jobling’s made that place as welcoming to Jews as humanly possible. What’s he got to show for it? Well ... probably he has, what — tens of thousands of unique visitors a month? Three are Jews, from what I understand: “Jewish-and-Proud” and two others? Something like that. Does MR.com reject “input and participation from” sympathetic Jews? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I missed it if it does. Silver’s comment there, which stated the blindingly obvious then insinuated the gapingly non-existent, was a time-waster if ever I saw one and I strongly suspect the smarter-than-that, subtler-than-that, nowhere-near-as-dense-as-that Silver posted it precisely for the purpose of ... (wait for it) ... wasting everyone’s time.
Right, Ian Jobling is having everything heard, for not being associated with “nazis.” The risk of being associated with “nazis” is one-point-zero, because it’s no more possible to not be a “nazi” than to not breathe: if you who are reading this right now are breathing, you’re a “nazi,” just as you’re an “anti-Semite” (unless you’re been exonerated by a panel consisting of Abe Foxman, Rabbi Marvin Hier, Prof. Leon Wieseltier, Eli Wiesel, and Morris Disease — if not, you’d better hurry up and get down to the local ADL office and sign up for exoneration). Reason? Jewish media control. (Ooops! “Jewish media control” was a “nazi,” “anti-Semitic” thing to say. I slipped up, big-time! Now I’ll NEVER be exonerated by that panel!) You can always find an excuse for not doing what you don’t want to. Unless every last member of our side’s rank-and-file of good but angry people qualifies as a philosopher in the judgment of a panel of Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, and Paris-Sorbonne University philosophy professors, and uses language accordingly, the Jews say “the point of view of those guys is disqualified for being nazi-bitten.” But maybe I exaggerate: To be a “nazi” it’s not enough to 1) breathe, you also have to 2) be normal. There is that added qualification, so maybe I was being too hyperbolic above, in saying breathing was all that was necessary — it’s actually not that easy.
“Blanket exclusion [...] of Jews”: MR.com doesn’t practice that. “Shrill denunciation of Jews”: Whether shrill or restrained, denunciation of culprits is always a valid option.
You can’t plead ignorance when the consequences of what you’re doing are obvious. “Who says A must say B.”
No six-year-old does. (Wow, JJR contra race-replacement was ages ago. How many years have you been lurking here? Since day one, apparently.)
That’s OK, have people read this site and they’ll make it. (I think if you click on race-replacement in the site’s Wiki it all comes up. Have ‘em start there.)
It turns out race is a hard concept for some people. (Those for whom it’s the simplest thing in the world are stunned by that realization.) Take Birch Barlow for instance. You’d think he’d be smart enough, having graduated college and everything, to comprehend race. You’d think wrong. He can’t seem to grasp it. Think of the hardest thing you ever had to study in math and physics in college. That’s how hard race is for some people. Strange, but apparently that’s the reality we’re dealing with. I’m talking about men here. Women of course can’t grasp it at all: a car hasn’t got the equipment to fly, or an airplane to be a submarine, or a red-green color-blind person to see red and green, or a woman to perceive race. You can’t do what you lack the neuronal/hormonal equipment to do. No woman sees race.
“Who says A must say B” (one of James Burnham’s “laws”). You can’t plead ignorance.
All right, it must be OK to open Israel’s borders then. (It’s funny how “giving them a taste of their own medicine” can work wonders in terms of ... in terms of “teasing out their hidden understandings of things,” shall we say? ... Yes ... in terms of teasing out their hidden understandings of things ....)
Never heard of him. What’s his blog’s URL? I’ll stop by and leave a few supportive comments.
Notwithstanding my rhetorical “let’s see how they like a taste of their own medicine” gibes (aimed at our diaspora tormentors, not at Israel’s population who have nothing to do with race-replacement in the Eurosphere), I don’t support the race-replacement of Israelis any more than I support the race-replacement of Ireland or of Vatican City even though Irish Catholics and the Vatican Curia are insufferable supporters of race-replacement in my country and elsewhere. I am on record however as regretting that the Jewish question, which was supposed to be solved by the creation of Israel, hasn’t been. Not at all. It’s as much a problem as it ever was.
Obvious exceptions aside, there’s lots of truth in that. It’s well put.
An unassailable statement.
No one here advocates pushing away allies. Jews stay away of their own accord for the reasons summed up by Charlie Prince above and others. Charlie Prince said, painfully but rightly,
and Silver replied with the following non sequitur:
Silver continues:
I for one never traffic in the concept of “racialism.” I call racialism “normalness.” Jews have been in the forefront of perverting normalness since World War II’s end, normalness which had been, well, the “norm,” for a hundred thousand years until 1945. There’s no reason that perversion, which is actively maintained every generation anew with massive Jewish help, can’t be undone. Who are the biggest opponents of undoing it? Oh right, I forgot — the Amish. Yes! Those damned Amish!
No, they fight tooth-and-nail against Euro racial/ethnocultural survival because they’re a rival tribe who see Euro ascendancy relegating Jews to second-fiddle status. They’ve played second-fiddle and are sick of it. They want to start having things their own way without asking Euros’ permission, and now that they’ve tasted that (since 1945 and especially since the ‘60s advent of their undisguised, uncompromising hegemony), they’ll be damned if they’re going back to the old arrangement. They’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming and “if the new arrangement spells death to Euros, too damn bad. That’s what the Euros get for being such stupid cattle and moreover it serves them right for all their pogroms of us and, worst of all, for making us endure Christmas every year!!!”
That bullshit has already been dismissed.
More deliberate wasting of everyone’s time by Silver. The only cooperation Jobling, the most Jew-friendly man in the Solar System, got from Jews was when his Jewish editor walked off the job.
Right, the Jews hated Pierce but are all flocking to Taylor. Silver is better ignored: I had it right the first time. 99098
Posted by skeptical on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:45 | # Charlie Prince, In my estimation, you hit a bullseye with this:
Precisely! Anti-racist (or anti-racialist or simply anti-White) thought-patterns pervade just about every aspect of what White people are exposed to in the States. Everyday, we bear witness to a nonstop display of anti-White imagery (and thought) in our movies, television, radio, reading, public schools, academia (higher ed.), and political discourse. Is it no wonder that people think the way they do? White people have been so marinated in the “bread & circus” anti-White culture that they’ve been rendered unable to even talk about the preservation of their own while amongst their own and behind closed doors! I’ve often wondered if America’s founding fathers could have ever quickened their countrymen to a successful revolution if the everyday colonist was as well fed, entertained, and similarly marinated in the current media tableaux as we are. 99099
Posted by skeptical on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:54 | # James Bowery,
I figured R. Lindsay was just here to stir up some s—t and amuse himself after reading his second (or third) post where he predicted the inevitable destruction of White Americans to the now stated panmixia. Lindsay does have some writing talent and I found myself unconsciously reacting to his words with great emotion, which I am sure was their intended purpose (to rile people like me into a frenzy for Lindsay’s amusement). Oh, and he betrayed himself as being completely insincere with the offhand remark to Larch’s “coloured graph”. And there is simply no point exchanging words with the insincere. 99100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:00 | #
Of course that doesn’t stop him, along with David B the outright race-denier, from being one of the star bloggers at “the internet’s pre-eminent ‘race-realist’ blog.” Yeah you read that right (I only wish you hadn’t). (File that in the “You Can’t Make These Things Up” department ...) 99101
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:06 | #
That’s also why Silver’s here.
Exactly. 99102
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:27 | # This is a response to Silver from the comments section of my blog: “But there is an area of the Sierra Nevada Mts. where I spend an awful lot of time where just about everyone is a Euro-White” So that’s a benefit. And if it were non-white, it wouldn’t be as good. Indeed, going on the evidence, it would likely be pretty bad. Unless it was all Korean, in which case it would be good, but not as good as being all white. Now, how to reconcile that with agigating against WN? Everything you say is correct. WN is wrong because it demands separatism. That White town, where I spent 16 YEARS OF MY LIFE, mind you, well, I know it very well. There is almost no racism in that town at all. It’s about 88% White, 5% American Indian (no problems at all really), ~5% Hispanic and the other 2% are S Indian, Asian, Black, etc. The difference is that your ideology demands that such a town be racist! And that town is not racist! Which is why it is a beautiful place. Even now that quite a few Hispanics have moved in it’s not racist. Even with 5% Amerindians it was never racist. Mostly White towns can be pretty nice if they are not racist. But a bunch of you WN maniacs move in and it’s going to destroy all of that. The Hispanics are laying low, keeping their heads down and being on good behavior for the time being. Small Hispanic minorities are not particularly harmful to mostly White towns - they cause few significant problems. The problem with guys like you is that you can’t stand to live in an 88% White town - it’s 100% or nothing! And most of you hate non-Whites, and the Whites in those towns (Oakhurst and Coarsegold) aren’t racist at all. THIS is the problem. As a matter of fact, I would recommend you guys move to a town like Oakhurst or Coarsegold right now right now. Come to town and ask around and maybe we can even meet for coffee. I think you will love it. A problem, though, is that there is so little crime, and with the innately uptight nature of Whites, the cops harass completely innocent people. A friend of mine was banned by the White kids at the local Starbucks because they thought he was “weird”. He’s 45 years old and they accused him of checking out young women. So what! In this Hispanic town I live in now, NO ONE would EVER do something so stupid and puritanical. It’s normal for any male of any age to check a young female. Mexicans think that is normal human behavior. It’s only uptight, puritanical N European Whites who think there is something weird about that. I have also found that Hispanics are WAY more friendly than Whites. Whites are just cold and uptight and intolerant and puritanical. You get really low crime, but then you get all that not so good stuff too. You guys don’t have a rational project other than hate, separatism, supremacism, expulsion or apartheid. That’s it! None of that is happening anytime soon. WN would be rational if it was the White version of the NAACP - opposing blatant racism and unfair treatment of Whites. Even I would support such a movement 100%. But you guys just can’t be reasonable. You have to be fanatics. You have to hate. I think Fred Scrooby (Love ya, Fred!) is one of the only non-haters on this board. His only agenda is to separate to preserve his own race, and he harbors no ill will towards most other races. I don’t agree, but at least there is a humanistic impulse. 99103
Posted by silver on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:03 | #
Come on, you gave him two weeks and you were already calling it a dismal failure.
“Jewby”—recall that?—not everybody shares your intestinal fortitude. There does not need to be an explicit policy in order for an uninviting atmosphere to exist.
To acknowledge all of that is to acknowledge that the link between multiracialism and ‘race-replacement’ is unclear. You don’t teach a child basic algebra and then condemn him for not going on to derive integral calculus of his own accord. How is it you go on to deny the plea of ignorance to alleged race-replacers?
Look him up if you haven’t. He wants to swap territory with the Palestinians, with the explicit goal of reducing Arab numbers in Israel. Can you really not see the value in anything—that’s how desperate the stakes are becoming, anything—coming from the Euro-sphere (which Israel is, I believe) that controverts liberal assumptions about Diversity Inc.? (It has to be Euro-sphere, and preferably rich Euro-sphere.) He’s savaged by the Israeli left for his brutal ‘racism’, with one (raciallly) Dutch-fathered Labor minister resigning in protest at Lieberman’s then post in the government. Something, someone, somewhere (in proximity) needs to get the ball rolling; it doesn’t necessarily need to begin in Old Europe or America itself. This strikes me as far more intelligent and practical than cozying up to Muslims in an effort to ... what? I’ve never understood Islamist WNs; a politics of bitterness is all I can surmise.
Not the Amish, simply… what to call them? Communists? Marxists? Socialists? Yes, Jews have produced astounding numbers of very prominent ones, but how to explain away the Robert Lindsay’s, the James Flynn’s and the veritable hordes of other such gentiles? What you see as naked Judaism, I see as naked communism/marxism. However much the communism of yesteryear might have aided Jews (debatable), today’s pro-arabism, pro-Islam-ism, pro-immigrationism (yes, into Israel too) dooms Jews almost every bit as much as it does whites. This opens up an entirely different line of inquiry but it’s 4:00am here and I am tired and going to bed and I never intended to get so deep into the JQ. 99104
Posted by Charlie Prince on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:16 | #
There is nothing “immoral” about racial discrimination. Hardly anyone believed that a mere hundred years ago. The term “racism” didn’t come into circulation until the 1930s. The vast majority of Americans disagreed with W.E.B. DuBois in 1910.
A movement is reasonable if its conclusions follow from its premises.
I confess to being a radical. I hate liberal democracy. If that system of government were annihilated tommorrow, I would be overjoyed. As for other races, if they would relocate elsewhere, I wouldn’t have a problem with them.
Hatred is a natural human emotion. Obviously, you harbor an extreme dislike towards any number of things. You are for the poor hating the rich. No one here is going to buy into that cant. Your animosity towards racially conscious whites has nothing to do with “hatred.” 99105
Posted by Charlie Prince on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:06 | #
Irrelevant. That was not always the case. The vast majority of whites go along with the status quo because it pays to do so. My grandparents remember the time when “anti-racism” was considered radical and dangerous. Martin Luther King, Jr. was extremely unpopular here. Jews played a decisive role in establishing the taboo against “racism” in North America. They were the ones pushing for these changes to our culture before they were institutionalized. The American case is not unique. It has strong parallels in South Africa where Jews were vastly overrepresented amongst the vanguard of the anti-apartheid movement.
I’m not willing to risk the racial welfare of my descendants on giving Jews a tenth chance.
I would be happy to debate the issue with you. Personally, I have never bothered to read David Duke. I never really listened to William Pierce either. I came to these conclusions about the Jews independently through my own research.
Almost everyone in America was once a racialist. That changed. All of us here know why it changed, too.
American racialism hasn’t traditionally been anti-Semitic. That only changed in the 1960s. It changed because of the overwhelming Jewish involvement in the movement to destroy racialism. Jews started this quarrel with us for their own reasons. They are completely to blame for the animosity directed towards them in the racially conscious community.
Jews won’t be around to cause us further problems after they are deported from North America.
It’s strategically myopic to assume that Jews would drop their crusade against “racism” if only we would say nice things about them. Several racialists have already tried this. It didn’t work.
No, there is not. I say this as someone who has far more in common with Taylor than Pierce. Even Lawrence Auster won’t cooperate with Jared Taylor at Amren. What does that say about the mainstream Jewish community?
I haven’t seen Charles Murray endorse white racial preservation anywhere. Doesn’t he have multiracial kids?
My grandparents are segregationists. They lived through that period of history.
Victory for us lies in excluding Jews at every opportunity while steadily expanding our discursive sphere to influence larger audiences.
The taboo against anti-Semitism in our culture reflects Jewish penetration of our media and universities. Conforming to the taboo only reinforces it. Accepting Jews is neither practical or sensible in light of the threat they pose. 99106
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:18 | # When dealing with bad behavior, particularly of animals like RL or your pet dog, it is frequently necessary to catch them in the act rather than merely rubbing their noses in the consequences of the act after the fact. Something about temporal association with the “doing” must exist for the reinforcement to be successful. Here we have RL:
caught in the act of metaphorically going doo-doo on the carpet. Compare to his statement:
this is metaphorically equivalent to a rabid animal biting a human. So let’s see if we can do anything with this animal named “Robert Lindsey” posing as a human: Hey, Robert Lindsey—yeah I’m speaking to that vestigial “human” left lingering around underneath the parasitically highjacked nervous sytem. You didn’t lose your humanity by simply holding the opinion that separatism is “wrong”. All holding that opinion does is limits is your right to reside in territories practicing racial separatism. You are perfectly free to live in territories that tolerate—nay even PROMOTE the “good” of racial panmixia within those territories. WN’s believe you are “wrong” for doing so but you did not lose your humanity simply by holding the opinion that separatism is “wrong”. You lost your humanity, making killing you no more an offense than euthanizing an animal, when you said:
Now, I’m not saying that everyone should drop what they are doing and hunt you down but I am saying that if someone _were_ to kill you, for whatever reason/motive, and be tried for murder, I would advise the jurors to vote not to convict on the grounds that you abrogated your human rights by denying them to others. Perhaps there should be some punishment for some modes of killing. I mean just because a rabid dog bites someone you love and they die is no excuse to go torturing the sick animal, however pleasurable as “revenge” that might be. Did the vestigial human read and understand that? Just kidding—I know he didn’t. You really are a hopeless case. Not all animals who once were humans should be euthanized prior to some attempt to cure them, but in your case there doesn’t appear to be any economical treatment and euthanasia is, after all, as much about economics as it is suffering. 99107
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:47 | # “Come on, you gave him two weeks and you were already calling it a dismal failure.” (—Silver) Our predictions torpedoed the Inverted World??? (With power like we should switch from “race” to stock market tips.) ” ‘Jewby’ — recall that? — not everybody shares your intestinal fortitude. There does not need to be an explicit policy in order for an uninviting atmosphere to exist.” The Jews are way tougher than you or I, Silver. “To acknowledge all of that is to acknowledge that the link between multiracialism and ‘race-replacement’ is unclear. [...] How is it you go on to deny the plea of ignorance to alleged race-replacers?” It’s not unclear to the people running the show, who are neither ignorant nor as dense as Birch and David B. You can verify that by observing the way they move their pieces on the chess board. These are people who understand everything and make their moves exactly in accord with that understanding.
If I were a Jew that’s what I’d favor. “Something, someone, somewhere [...] needs to get the ball rolling” It’s rolling. If you imagine that U.S. Jews worried about Israel’s demographics are worried about the Eurosphere’s you’re mistaken. The kind of Jew we’re talking about sees the world divided into Jews and goys, nothing else, no other groups, and if you imagine there are other groups in existence than just those two — Frenchmen, for example, or Germans, or Englishmen, or Negroes, or “whites” — that right there makes you a fascist, all by itself. There are “whites”? OK, you’re a fascist. There are Negroes? OK, you’re a fascist. There are Dutchmen? You’re a fascist. There are only Jews and goys, nothing else? OK, you’re all right, you’re not a fascist. That’s how an astonishing number of these Jews think, including an astonishing number of the kind of Jews who run things. There can’t be demographic encroachments in the U.S. because there aren’t such things as Euros or such things as Negroes: Euros and Negroes don’t exist, they’re exactly the same as each other, and anyone who thinks they’re different is a fascist. On the other hand, there can be demographic encroachments in Israel because Jews and goys exist. They’re the only things that exist: Jews and goys. “cozying up to Muslims” Yes it appears WNs who do this see Israel as an enemy (which I don’t at all) and invoke the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle “how to explain away the Robert Lindsay’s [...]?” They’ve always been among us, too weak by themselves to inflict harm, but after massive bolstering through alliance with Jews they can and do wreak havoc. “What you see as naked Judaism, I see as naked communism/marxism.” I used to see it that way too. My current understandings only gelled something like a year or so after I began coming to this blog. “However much the communism of yesteryear might have aided Jews (debatable), today’s pro-arabism, pro-Islam-ism, pro-immigrationism (yes, into Israel too) dooms Jews almost every bit as much as it does whites.” Jews like Abe Foxman think what they’re doing in sowing Euro societal and racial destruction advances Jewish interests. I think they’re wrong. Some rank-and-file Jews do too, but rank-and-file Jewish dissenters are as able to stop them as rank-and-file Italians are to stop the mafia. 99108
Posted by onlooker on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:19 | # “I think Fred Scrooby (Love ya, Fred!) is one of the only non-haters on this board. His only agenda is to separate to preserve his own race, and he harbors no ill will towards most other races.”—Robert Lindsey That’s because Fred—like ALL the regulars that post here— are a lovers, not a haters. I can’t say the same thing for the “white-liberals” that oppose them [race-realists]. 99109
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:21 | #
So are Serbs, by the way ... (so much for Silver’s being one ...) 99110
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:31 | # Birdman vs. Tim “nobody here but us evil whites” Wise: Sorry, nothing more specific to give you. 99111
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:39 | # Does MR.com reject “input and participation from” sympathetic Jews? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I missed it if it does. Haha. This is how I know I’m not an anti-Semite - because Jews who go Bobby Fischer are okay in my book. They’re righteous Jews in my book. Now, Jews who try to sit at my table and play the same old games? Nope, not having it. Jewish and Proud and company can take a long walk off a short pier. 99112
Posted by onlooker on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:43 | # “So are Serbs, by the way ... (so much for Silver’s being one ...)” Silver’s logic is so much superior to your’s Fred, maybe you should just concede and start listening to him. 99113
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:02 | # WN is forced to demand separatism.
99114
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:05 | # WN is wrong because it demands separatism. Wrong. The difference is that your ideology demands that such a town be racist! And that town is not racist! Wrong. The problem with guys like you is that you can’t stand to live in an 88% White town - it’s 100% or nothing! Wrong. And most of you hate non-Whites, and the Whites in those towns (Oakhurst and Coarsegold) aren’t racist at all. Weasel words. I don’t hate non-whites. THIS is the problem. Wrong. What you find wrong with WNism has everything to do with you, and nothing to do with WNism. Whatever it is in you that causes this (head full of bad wiring, I dunno, something…) is anybody’s guess. You guys don’t have a rational project other than hate, separatism, supremacism, expulsion or apartheid. That’s it! None of that is happening anytime soon. You should exercise more concise diction and just call us Nazis. WN would be rational if it was the White version of the NAACP - opposing blatant racism and unfair treatment of Whites. Even I would support such a movement 100%. You’re wrong about the NAACP, too. But you guys just can’t be reasonable. You have to be fanatics. You have to hate. I think Fred Scrooby (Love ya, Fred!) is one of the only non-haters on this board. His only agenda is to separate to preserve his own race, and he harbors no ill will towards most other races. I don’t agree, but at least there is a humanistic impulse. Lol. This is the “thought crime” bit liberals love so much. They oppose what’s in our hearts, and ignore the ideology. Our rights are correlated with how many happy thoughts we think! Bob, wrong audience; 95% male here. Fred Scrooby: The Jews are way tougher than you or I, Silver. This seems to be this week’s theme, at least on my end. Just came up at Sailer’s blog several times. Booooy is it ever true. In our Inverted World Jews are seen as nerdy, self-conscious, nice-guy-finishes-last types, but that’s just a crock cooked up by Jews for the suckers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jews are aggressive, tenacious, will-to-power types, not shrinking violets. Great example is what had me commenting about it at Sailer’s in the first place: Joan Rivers eviscerating a hapless professional black on British teevee. Frickin’ hilarious, but DEFINITELY NOT an example of a white growing a spine. 99115
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:12 | # A more important reason is simply that blacks prefer white victims. Oleaginous Jew Tim “nobody here but us evil whites” Wise actually had the chutzpah (how, why am I ever surprised any more?) to state this does not constitute “hate crime,” because blacks are disproportionately targeting whites as victims for purely economic reasons. Even if true, Wise doesn’t have the brains to realize that whites discriminate against blacks for similarly rational purposes that semantically have no attachment to blackness per se. 99116
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:46 | #
Separation or segregation is the default or natural position for ethnic and racial groups. It’s an evolutionary trait. People fundamentally, wish to live and associate with their own group. 99117
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:57 | # Here’s Robert Lindsay coming over all vain and self-important as the Big Man in anti-fascism. This antifa thing is a mental illness. It expresses as hate for one’s own kind. It is a tragedy of our dystopian age that Lindsays exist at all. But they do, and they try to do as much harm to their people as they can.
Henceforth Robert is persona non grata at MR. IP banning is pretty much a waste of time, except for digital innocents. So I will ask him kindly to honour us with his absence. 99118
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:33 | # I just read part of the exchange between Jason Molloy and Robert Lindsay at the link in GW’s comment above: no time to read the whole exchange right at the moment, but what I got through was very informative. (It’s in the comments thread underneath the article linked in GW’s comment.) 99119
Posted by Robert Lindsay on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:59 | # No problem guys, if you want to ban me as an antifa, that will do just fine. This will be my last post here. You’re welcome to post at the blog, as we have several WN’s who regularly post there, but I need to warn you that there are some antis there who might just try to tear you to shreds. Love ya, Fred! Thx for playing, guys. It’s been real. 99120
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:40 | # Lindsay’s blog is basically about giving a limbic rush to a bunch of “antis” verbally abusing humans foolish enough to participate. They need “the other” not to get to the truth of anything, but for the joy of the monkey-beat—backed up, of course, by government force. For such mutilated creatures, the cry of the monkey shouting down the human is the joy of living. 99121
Posted by Charlie Prince on Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:45 | # I wish Lindsay and the OPP would come to Alabama and speak in my area. “We’re for illegal aliens, communism, and white genocide!” Be sure to put it that way. 99122
Posted by VLC on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:32 | # Svigor: he sent some good hate mail to the Jewish Tribal Review editor too: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wise.htm Svigor: and here’s the reference, keep it in your bookmarks: Racial groupings match genetic profiles, Stanford study finds http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/sumc-rgm012705.php 99123
Posted by VLC on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:53 | # R.Lindsay:
But whites on the other hand don’t have to be foolish cowards that cling on to a suicidal morality. Nothing inevitable here. If you really were convinced about the inevitability of your leftist dreamworld you wouldn’t be arguing for it, you would just relax and enjoy every minute that brings us closer to it. No?
oh yeah ? http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=192136&Disp=7 funny how they don’t seem to care about the environment when it’s time to act individually.
They just throw all their garbage in the street then vote for someone who’s going to pick it up for them? That’s just brilliant, I would have never thought of that by myself. Clearly superior they are.
too many people here seem to react to RL as if 1) Lindsay is a sincere principled person instead of a dishonest immature cyber prick who enjoys the attention he’s getting (not to mention that one has to have some serious psycho-ideological problems to be part of the One People’s Project, “hunting” dissidents and all) and 2) his opinions are relevant or constitute some serious opposition instead of ideological lunacy. I’ve read better debates against ‘antis’ in the Opposition section of Stormfront. I think we’re wasting time debating a communist/OPP troll. How many visitors will read the whole three pages ? We’re probably just typing among ourselves.
99124
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:00 | # VLC, thanks for posting the link to that thing on Tim Wise. That was an eye-opener. Those statements of Wise’s bolster the sense many will have had that his activism — his and that of many if not most Jews similarly occupied (devoted to pro-Negro/anti-Eurochristian agitation, for example) — is inspired by JN (JN disguised as liberalism or leftism), not liberalism or leftism. JN can disguise itself as liberalism and leftism because those call for destruction of normalness — and JN does too, where normalness is the Euro societal matrix: JNs don’t like that matrix because it’s ethnically alien. Few Tim-Wise-type diaspora-Jewish activists advocate corresponding policies for Israel. Some do, but a minority. Most don’t because they don’t want to destroy Israel, they only want to destroy us, the Eurochristians. A leftist would want to destroy both. The small proportion of these diaspora-Jewish activists who do want to destroy both are the liberals and leftists. The majority of them aren’t liberals or leftists, merely JNs fighting what they see as JN’s enemies (Euros). That’s Tim Wise. 99125
Posted by Charlie Prince on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:41 | # VLC, Lindsay’s predictions can be seen in action here on the streets of Kinshasa. The city is literally called “Kinshasa the Garbage Dump.”
“Residents of the Democratic Republic of Congo capital, Kinshasa, used to proudly call their city “Kin La Belle” (Kinshasa The Beautiful) but after years of neglect, they now disparage it as “Kin La Poubelle” (Kinshasa the Dustbin).”
“Rubbish is often dumped in the middle of roads, while people have to brave open sewers running in front of their houses.”
“But there is a bright side - goat herd Imoita Mbala says he always leaves his goats to graze on the rubbish tips as that is where they find the best food.”
“There is no official attempt to recycle any of the rubbish, which has almost blocked this storm drain. But Emmanuel says he searches the rubbish for water bottles, which he makes into plastic toys.”
“He says it is extremely hard work but he has no other way of earning his living.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/africa_kinshasa_0the_dustbin0/img/6.jp “The city council has now started to try and clear up the mess but this often involves burning the rubbish, leading to the choking smell of molten plastic wafting through the air.”
“School children like Markes Kabingele are hired to clean the streets in their holidays. He says he has never tried to ask for protective equipment such as gloves or a face mask.” ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/africa_kinshasa_0the_dustbin0/img/8.jpg “Philippe Bianselo lives around the corner from where the streets are being cleaned but says the efforts are a “joke”. He says he planted these flowers to try and hide some of the dirt outside his house.”
“The city council has just three dustbin lorries for a population of 8m - but lots of wheelbarrows. Council official Basil Lungwana says they are trying hard. He says the biggest challenge is to change people’s habits. Photos: Joseph Winter” 99126
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:01 | # My ancestors were abolitionists. They fought to free blacks from slavery. Today, I want to free my own people from slavery imposed by guys like Robert Lindsay who claim we have no right of self-determination—and I am about as popular as early abolitionists were. I strongly suspect guys like Robert Lindsay were either plantation owners or sadistic foremen on plantations back before abolition, and were equally insolent toward yeoman farmers and abolitionists who fought slavery then. Where are the blacks fighting for my right for self-determination? When will the Congressional Black Caucus fight for repeal of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and when will the American Jewish Congress fight for the repeal of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965? When will the Supreme Court rule that territorial secession of US citizens at will, for any reason whatsoever is a basic human right, the practicality of which must be ensured by any humane government? They won’t. They instead conduct sociobiological experiments on us without our consent and in so doing have gone beyond mere violation of medical ethics to waging war against us. They have no rights. 99127
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:46 | # It just occurred to me today that Lindsay: 1) claimed that panmixia, anti-racism, desegregation, colorblindness, etc., are inevitable. If the “good” stuff is inevitable, and the bad anathema, then why do we need state force to promote the former and criminalize the latter? Liberals’ actions belie their words. 99128
Posted by Prozium on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:50 | # Lindsay also believes that Communism is inevitable. Marx’s theory of history is belied by successful Communist revolutions around the world. The USA and Britain never developed strong indigenous communist parties. It was backward Russia, China, and Cuba that adopted Marxism. Evolution will eliminate Lindsay’s brand of “progressivism.” Throughout the West, “progressives” like Lindsay are sterile. They are more likely to have pets than children. These aging radicals will be gone a few decades from now. Deteriorating economic conditions and rising ethnocentrism amongst surging racial minorities will finish off the rest of their appeal. 99129
Posted by Victor on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:24 | # The Flynn effect proves that there is no real or significant difference between black and white intelligence or the intelligence of all races for that matter. It shows that the only reason people in first world countries score higher than those in less economically well off countries (or people in first world countries in the past) is because of the environmental effects that economic prosperity has exposed them to which has grown over the decades, and it is NOT because of an actual superiority of intelligence (or increase in intelligence over the decades). Africans (including North Africans) score lower than westerners precisely for the same reason that westerners in the 19th century would score much lower than 21st century westerners on a modern IQ test given to them if we could go back in time and test them. It has nothing to do with them actually been any less intelligent. Having attended colleges in America and in Sub-Saharan Africa, I know for a fact that white students are no smarter than African students. Despite the poor environmental conditions they have to study in as well as the severe lack of facilities to aid learning, in addition to the very heavy course load compared to American universities, African students still do remarkably well in their respective science and engineering courses. By the way, it always amazes me how white racists always like to talk about IQ differences ONLY in terms of white and black. They conveniently ignore the fact that there are other races (including in the so-called Asian continent) that score much lower than 100 on average on IQ tests. Examples include Hispanics, Native Americans (who score lower that African Americans, though white racists never talk about it), Arabs, Vietnamese, Philippinos and so on. Check out the Wikipedia article on “IQ and wealth of Nations” to see the very low average IQ scores coming from non-black countries. Qatar scores 78 despite having one of the world’s highest GDP per capita. This shows that IQ scores are not valid when comparing people in radically different cultures and socio-economic conditions. They are only valid when comparing people in the same socio-economic conditions. Beyond that, IQ scores are nonsense. One more thing, I have to respond to that rubbish the being who wrote this article manufactured about black people’s brains maturing faster than those of whites as a way of circumventing the glaring explanation of why black children score about the same IQ as white children and as adults they score much lower. It is painfully obvious that the IQ scores scored as children are a true reflection of the comparative intelligence of blacks and whites, and that the scores as adults are merely a reflection of the radically different social and economic circumstances blacks and whites are subjected to as they grow older. To try and escape that obvious conclusion and make up some nonsensical and fictitious explanation about brains maturing faster than others is simply hilarious and it only goes to show just how desperate white racists are to cling on to their psychologically comforting feeling (or delusion) of ‘superiority’ over blacks. 99130
Posted by 20111021 on Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:36 | # I did not really read the above article carefully so maybe I am covering old ground, but it occurs to me that you can disprove the Flynn effect fairly easily. If that is the case (unless I am also getting smarter too) my IQ number should go down because it is a number relative to the general population. It is not. 99131
Posted by Ryan McAlexander on Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:01 | # I only read the last comment. Wrong, yes you are getting smarter, but the reason your IQ has not changed is becuase IQ test or standardized every year, to keep the avarage at 100. Meaning if, by example, you took an IQ test from 1900 you would score approxamately 130, if your IQ is 100 by the 2000 standardized IQ test. This is according to the Flynn Efffect, IQ’s increase at a rate of about 3 points per decade on average. So if you took an IQ test from 1990, and you were then sealed off from the world for 20 years, your IQ should drop 6 points if you took another in 2010. The reason being is becuase you havent been caught up on modern times, and the test has been re-standardized to fit the year 2010, so that the curve distribution keeps the average IQ at 100. This would translate as Your IQ is 100 in 1990, but now it is 94, because it has been re-standardized for the year 2010 and you are not with modern society. IQ is has a positive correlation with the amount of technology available to the human brain. The more technology, the higher your IQ. I believe i am understanding this correctly. If not please correct me. 99132
Posted by MR. Michael Anthony Ki on Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:41 | # <u></u>I feel the Fynn effect depicts a show of adversity and preemptive subsidary incline measures of design wutg the perceptual taste. Thank you for accepting my comment! Aren’t you surprised? 99133
Posted by W. J. F. on Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:35 | # I’d like to know more about the nature of ‘the tests’ used to measure IQ and the nature of those who designed the test. The word ‘intelligence’ is hard to define and means different things to different people. Would you say J.S. Bach was less ‘intelligent’ than Newton? And would Shakespeare have had a lower IQ score than Einstein? It could be argued that all quick thinking is conditioned response to experiences (including responses to IQ questions) but perhaps those who think slower, think deeper and score lower on IQ tests because they are looking for explanations that didn’t occur to testers, such as causes for causes for causes for even setting these tests in the fist place. Perhaps they were motivated by people who had a deep unrecognised (and perhaps insecure) need to congratulate themselves for designing them in favour of their own type of intelligence. 99134
Posted by Sea Hawk on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:34 | # I have a question: I heard that that intelligence is mostly due to white matter in brain, and that is inherited. If that is true then intelligence must be inherited. But, the flynn effect says otherwise. Who do I believe? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/more-proof-that-intelligence-is-85134 99135
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:11 | # That seems like a question that should be more interesting to supremacists than separatists. Post a comment:
Next entry: Myth versus certainty
|
|
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 & NewsCommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:45. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Tue, 03 Feb 2026 23:41. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Sun, 01 Feb 2026 18:47. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Sun, 01 Feb 2026 17:55. (View) |
Posted by larch on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:46 | #
Silver writes: “I fall outside the majority phenotype here and Australian racialist nationlists (sic) are not shy to point it out.”
Can Silver give further details about his interactions with “Australian racialist nationalists?” The statement suggests that he has had personal interactions with such nationalists and that, during these interactions, negative comments were made vis-a-vis silver’s physical appearance. Is this an accurate description of what happened? One wonders.
Are there Australian readers here? Can they inform us how prevelant “Australian racialist nationalists” are. How likely is it that a person is going to meet sufficient numbers of said nationalists in the course of daily living so as to form an opinion of their phenotypic preferences?
For the readers who themselves are “racialist nationalists” - Australian, American, European, or whatever - how often have you engaged in conversation individuals you consider outside your group, *and* with whom you’ve criticized their phenotype? I’m trying to figure out how common such occurences are.
Or, did silver interact with these racialist nationalists after specifically seeking them out? Did he attend a nationalist rally or two -perhaps to protest against it - and found himself confronted with angry “nazis?” Or, were these conversations all over the internet and if so, how was silver’s phenotype judged? Or was it simply some online “nazis” commenting against Serbians in general?
It would be helpful to understand these racialist nationalists expressed their disdain for silver’s appearance.
Furthermore, I’m curious how all of this is consistent with the fact that, as far back as the 1970s, Australian “racialist nationalism” had as one leading proponent the ethnically Maltese Azzopardi, and that certain of these racialist nationalists prepared propaganda in Italian and Greek in order to appeal to those ethnics.
The comments on Muslims are interesting as well. Silver asserts that, for him, Islam is the big problem in Australia. He also asserts that the Muslims are hostile to all Europeans, including the ethnics, and not only the Anglo-Australians, He asserts further than white ethnic “disdain” for Anglo-Australia is not deep-seated, but, essentially a response to being picked on. This contrasts to the deep and unbridgeable hostility of the Muslims there to all Europeans. He also asserts that “European wogs” hate the Lebanese.
How does this square with his previous (seemingly enthused) comments on how the white ethnics were likely to “team up with” the Muslims against the Anglo-Australians in the next “beach riot?”
Yes, I know I’m bringing up the “past” there, but it’s for the purposes of clarification.