Derbyshire: Race and Conservatism

Posted by Daedalus on September 03, 2006, 09:57 PM | #

Conservatism = Cowardice. Derbyshire acknowledges this. I disavow the label “conservative.” My ancestors never called themselves conservatives. They were white supremacists and segregationists. Conservatism did more damage to George Wallace’s spine than all the bullets he got in the back from Arthur Bremer. This is what he was willing to say before he started playing the “sneak up on the liberals” game.

“Let us send this message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us today . . that from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the neck of an upright man . . . that we intend to take the offensive and carry our fight for freedom across the nation, wielding the balance of power we know we possess in the Southland . . . . that WE, not the insipid bloc of voters of some sections . . will determine in the next election who shall sit in the White House of these United States . . . That from this day, from this hour . . . from this minute . . . we give the word of a race of honor that we will tolerate their boot in our face no longer . . . . and let those certain judges put that in their opium pipes of power and smoke it for what it is worth.”

Posted by Andy on September 03, 2006, 10:50 PM | #

“Conservatism = Cowardice. Derbyshire acknowledges this. I disavow the label “conservative.” My ancestors never called themselves conservatives. They were white supremacists and segregationists.” 

  My ancestors were conservative segregationists who believed in the superiority of white culture.  The ideas are not mutually exclusive. 

  “Conservatism, to me, is the politics of the Cold Eye.  It strives to see human beings as they are, not through a smeared lens of wishful thinking or abstract ideology.

That’s what I thought too, but clearly it isn’t if self-professed Conservatives are to be believed.  By that metric I am a Conservative, but I’d just as soon leave the appellation to the mass that claims it. ” 

    The problem isn’t with conservatism. The problem is the corruption of the term “conservative” by liberals like President Bush and National Review.  This article from American Renaissance is a fascinating expose of the decline of NR. http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/01/the_decline_of.php 
The conservative movement in this country used to be both cold-eyed and unabashedly pro-white. 

I’d also highly recommend the writing of Jim Kalb. His website is here: http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/ 

  He calls himself a “traditionalist conservative” but he’s a cold-eyed conservative of the type Derbyshire describes.  I know that Fred Scrooby comments regularly at Kalb’s site, so hopefully he can give a better endorsement of Kalb’s work.

Posted by Matra on September 04, 2006, 12:33 AM | #

The word “conservative” only became prominent on the American Right after the publication of Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind in 1953(?). Back then there was still plenty worth conserving. Today the US and all other European nations are down to the bare minimum - our temporary demographic advantage - a sane man would fight to conserve. The word “conservative” has not only been taken over by neocons but now that we have lost just about everything the label may have lost its utility. After all doesn’t “conservative” imply defensiveness and the maintenance of the status quo? Something is under attack needs to be defended and maintained. Most of the posters here are not interested in mere conservation but restoration.  Today’s mainstream conservatives will (at best) only delay our total dispossession on our ancestral lands.

Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 01:09 AM | #

The history of the conservative movement is fascinating. I’m no expert on the subject, but it is my understanding that the term “conservative” was popularized by Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley, Jr. in the sixties. The Civil Rights Movement was going on at the time and the Republicans cynically attempted to build political capital for themselves by exploiting the white backlash to desegregation in the South (Operation Dixie). Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon adapted much of the segregationist rhetoric (while deracializing it) in order to win votes in the South. Nixon, for example, campaigned on a “law and order” platform which he had ripped off from George Wallace. This was the same Richard Nixon who worked behind the scenes with LBJ as Vice President under Eisenhower to get the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 passed; the same Richard Nixon who in his debates with JFK supported civil rights reform (which unleashed all the lawlessness he pledged to stop in the first place) and later as president established affirmative action in the federal government.

The GOP was then what it is today and always has been: the party of Northern big business. It was the party of Reconstruciton and racial liberalism for almost a hundred years before the Civil Rights Movement (this, I assume, is what the “Old Right” refers to). The GOP was the first major party to embrace civil rights under Wilkie in 1940 and Dewey in 1944. The Democrats didn’t embrace civil rights until 1948; splitting the Democratic Party at the national convention that year in the process. Before the 1960s, Southerners didn’t identify themselves politically as “conservatives.” They were segregationists, white supremacists, state’s rights democrats who talked openly and unapologetically about our racial interests; part of the New Deal coalition in the Democratic Party. They would later join the GOP and conservative movement in the backlash to desegregation.

Conservatism is a scam; a scam that has been going on for decades now. Conservatism is nothing more than oligarchs in the Republican Party milking the cultural resentments of common whites to social equality in order to advance a radical pro-business agenda. This is what conservatives care about, not the social issues they campaign on every two years. Their record speaks for itself. Roe v. Wade came down in 1973. 9 of the last 11 appointments to the Supreme Court have been made by conservative presidents. Yet Roe v. Wade still stands. It was conservatives who gave us affirmative action in the first place under Nixon and who have maintained it for decades in spite of numerous court challenges. The illegal immigration problem got started under Reagan who responded by giving illegals AMNESTY. That led to a flood of illegal immigration under Bush who responded with the Immigration Act of 1990 radically increasing the number of third world immigrants coming to the United States. Dubya is even worse on immigration enforcement than Clinton and has gone to bat to push through “immigration reform” and ANOTHER AMNESTY even worse than the Immigration Act of 1965.

Every year they trot out the same social issues which they have been talking about for decades and have done nothing about. Democrats support gay marriage. Well yeah, but Republicans control both the Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court and have done nothing about it. This was a non-issue a few years ago. It has only become an issue because conservatives are too spineless to do anything about it. Democrats are hostile to religion. Have conservatives in the House ever held hearings investigating the ACLU as a subversive organization like the House of Un-American Activities Committee did with the Communist Party USA from the late thirties to the early fifties?

Most importantly, as for race, don’t even mention it. Conservatives won’t even so much as discuss race now, and when they do, they attack all of us nasty white racists and praise anti-racism. Years ago millions of whites were furious with the Civil Rights Movement. It was at that point that conservatives came along and said: “Let’s sneak up on the liberals. Trust us. When we get to power, big government will be rolled back; the big government that has been interferring with your lives.” What happened? After conservatives corralled our votes, they dropped race from their agenda and pushed racialism to the margins of American politics. That did more to set us back than anything LBJ ever did to us.

Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 02:14 AM | #

What do conservatives really care about? Is it not obvious? It’s money; cheap vulgar materialism. Making life a little easier for the ultra rich. They want cheap third world labor to hold down wages and destroy the unions. They want free trade for their business supporters can export American jobs overseas and undermine the middle class. Got to have that. They want corporate welfare which can lavish upon the pharmaceutical companies and agribusiness. They want “defense spending” to appease the militarists and warmongers in the Pentagon who need foreign wars to justify their own existence. We got to be protected from Iraq, Serbia, Vietnam, Panama, Libya, and all sorts of poor third world countries - Grenada, the nutmeg capital of the world. International tension is wonderful for the oil companies, too. It keeps gas prices up.

Rolling back the New Deal. That’s what conservatism is about. That’s why conservatives suddenly discovered in the sixties that Southerners were not so bad after all. What gets conservatives excited? The prospect of taking social security away from elderly people; letting their supporters on Wall Street run wild with the social security trust fund. Privatizing public education and public utilities; another opportunity for hardworking corporations. Bankruptcy reform; credit card companies should be free to ruin ordinary people with usury. Tax cuts for the ultra rich; the burden of taxation should fall upon our poorest citizens, not multinational corporations who have no loyalty whatsoever to this country. Welfare reform; government bailouts should be reserved for hardworking investors whose Mexican junk bonds go sour and a military that protects every nation but our own and actually puts us in danger. Blocking a national healthcare system; this is imperative, for of all the things government wastes money on, the reduction of poverty amongst WORKING CLASS people (remember, these were Nazis) is certainly the worst of them all.

Conservatives cater to the worst elements in our society; superstitious reactionaries straight out of the Dark Ages who reject evolution and block scientific progress like stem cell research. These are the sort of people who are absolutely certain the world is going to end and Jesus is going to come back in the next fifty years. If giving lip service to religious mumbo jumbo helps them make a buck, so be it. If turning us into a third world country is profitable, so be it. They have all but abandoned even the lip service they have given to preserving our culture by welcoming and encouraging the third world invasion and by celebrating multiculturalism - publically, at the White House. Conservatives strike out on race, science, culture, affirmative action, immigration, economics, defense, and social progress. What else can be said for them?

If that were not bad enough, all of the above, not just the fact that they won’t even discuss race or do anything to stop third world immigration, conservatives are committed to sucking up to the Jews and waging war on their behalf in the Middle East. That’s something even Clinton wasn’t willing to do. The so-called “right wing” is far and away more pro-Israel than the left. So we get war in Iraq and Lebanon, in which thousands of Americans die are either needlessly injured, and potentially, war with Iran and Syria looms on the horizon. If you question this, Hannity denounces you on Fox News as an “anti-semite.”

Conservatives don’t just refuse to protect our border. Bush wants to erase it altogether and create some EU like monstrosity called the North American Union. They want to literally destroy the United States out of the perception that money can be made in the process. We’re going to be nothing but an economy now; a caste ridden mestizo society lorded over by multinational corporations and vultures like the Bush family.

Some people here will go to the polls and ratify all of that this November. I won’t be amongst them. There is nothing admirable about conservtism. It is our greatest misfortune.

Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 08:33 AM | #

“Rolling back the New Deal. That’s what conservatism is about. That’s why conservatives suddenly discovered in the sixties that Southerners were not so bad after all. What gets conservatives excited? The prospect of taking social security away from elderly people; letting their supporters on Wall Street run wild with the social security trust fund. Privatizing public education and public utilities; another opportunity for hardworking corporations. Bankruptcy reform; credit card companies should be free to ruin ordinary people with usury. Tax cuts for the ultra rich; the burden of taxation should fall upon our poorest citizens, not multinational corporations who have no loyalty whatsoever to this country. Welfare reform; government bailouts should be reserved for hardworking investors whose Mexican junk bonds go sour and a military that protects every nation but our own and actually puts us in danger. Blocking a national healthcare system; this is imperative, for of all the things government wastes money on, the reduction of poverty amongst WORKING CLASS people (remember, these were Nazis) is certainly the worst of them all. “

Sounds like a fairly accurate description of “Majority Rights.”

Hail Bush!

Hail the free market!

Hail Big Business Interests!

Hail Victory!

Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 10:17 AM | #

I almost forgot. If it were not government (which holds back economic growth), Yellowstone could look like this.

http://www.janeholtzkay.com/Articles/sprawl.jpg

Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 01:19 PM | #

I listened to Jared Taylor’s remarks.  All good, and as well as one would expect, and similar to the usual points made in AR.

One problem though is that all his remarks - including the ‘scientific’ ones - were all about proximate issues.  Since Taylor has promoted Salter’s work in AR, that was a bit disappointing.

Now, true enough, in the sociological section of his talk, he discussed how diversity in and of itself is harmful, which in one sense answers the Rayian proximate argument of “if all you care about is IQ and law abiding behavior, let’s import Asians.”

However, debates such as this are a perfect time to introduce ultimate interests, and without apology: ” we pursue white interests, and oppose non-white immigration, ultimately not because of IQ or crime, but because we ourselves are white, and we want to look after our own.  Our racial extended family comes first, considerations about IQ and crimininality come second.”

Well, you may argue that the proximate arguments would resonate better for the particular audience.

Perhaps.

But that’s a problem with conservatism - telling people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.  If the whole point of that debate was to tell the truth about race, then the fundamental truth is EGI.

That this was not mentioned, not even in a “dumbed down”, “we are family” version, was disconcerting.

Posted by Andy on September 04, 2006, 01:38 PM | #

I enjoyed your rambling replies loaded with non-sequiters.  Only Matra’s response was even coherent.  Matra is correct.  Technically, this makes me a “reactionary”.  To avoid confusion, I will refer to myself as such. 

  Both Daedalus and On Holliday equate conservatism with anarcho-capitalism, as if the two were interchangable.  It’s as if this were a debate about zoology and you argued that crocodiles and giraffes were the same thing.  I fear that you are hopelessly confused. 

  Both also sound like they spend too much time listening to “Air America” radio with their rants against Bush.  Bush is a devout liberal.  Invoking Bush as an argument against traditionalist conservatism should be embarrassing to anyone whose IQ reaches room temperature. 

  It is nice to see where you’re both coming from.  Daedalus’ arguments (that On Holliday quotes approvingly) could’ve easily spouted from the mouths of the campus hippies or the Marxist professors from my undergrad days. 

  Liberalism is an emotion-based belief system, priviledging feelings over rationality.  This is why the majority of liberals are women, and the majority of women are liberals.  We see this emotionalism reflected in many of the comments by On Holliday.  Holliday is very angry, and he allows this anger to to replace rational argumentation.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 04, 2006, 02:05 PM | #

White Nationalist shouldn’t be wasting their time on race and IQ “science”. This stuff is only of interets to economic reactionaries.

The goverment shoud intervene with poor support programs to prevent Whites from falling into brutal wage slavery and possibly even chattel slavery.

Race and IQ resesrch rests on an incredibly weak conceptual foundation. The new research is showing quite convincingly that there are high order genomic structures which are heavely influenced by possibly thousands of environmnetal variables.

Even the gene has thousands of connections to the environment.

We don’t need to know the answer-even if it could be found-to the race IQ question. It is not a scientifically interesting question. About as interesting as a correlation between knee cap thickness and intelligence. The question is only of interest to economic reactionaries such as Jared Taylor and John Deryshire.

Jared is going to look mighty foolish if he keeps raising this issue in public. Forty something year old White American engineers sitting home unemployed- because he was replaced by a younger hindu legal immigrant engineer -listening to Jared argue on TV about how hindus are more intelligent than Euro-Americans, are going to wonder if this spokesman for White Americans is really a comrade in arms. With friends like Jared who needs enemies. Jared is not as smart I thought he was

Debyshire is enamoured of the asian. He hangs out with a punk east asian geneticist who wold like to see more east asian scab workers imported in America. In other words, Derbyshire hangs out with an east asian supremacist. If this is conservatism. I don’t want any part of it.

The insecure Derbyshire probably married a chinese woman because he believes he is married into the master race.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 04, 2006, 02:19 PM | #

It should read:“about as scientifically interesting as a correlaion between knee cap thickness and IQ”

Posted by PatrickZ on September 04, 2006, 02:24 PM | #

Of course Daedulus is correct. Conservatives in modern day America are whores for the corporation and the state of Israel. Here is one example:John Derbyshire.

Posted by AD on September 04, 2006, 02:43 PM | #

What about the Council of Conservative Citizens? Aren’t they the biggest/most active pro-white group in the US?

Posted by On Holliday on September 04, 2006, 03:20 PM | #

“punk east asian geneticist”

Actually, South Asian.

Yes, Andy, I *am* angry - mostly at “conservatives” who have sold American down the river.

Non-rational arguments?  I realize that I pale before John Ray and Nick Tamiroff with respect to argumentation, so forget about little old liberal me, effete leftist that I am.

Daedalus’ comments you equate to being what one would expect from a “hippie” or “Marxist professor”; in other words, engaging in ad hominem, rather than a refutation of Daedalus’ arguments.

Very irrational.  I think you got a bit too angry there, Andy.  It is clouding your superior objectivity.

AD, the CofCC - I’ve seen their newspaper, mostly a bunch of old farts who get together to have a barbecue and wave the condfederate flag. I’m sure the elderly Tarzan types here would have a “blast” among them, while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 04, 2006, 05:07 PM | #

“I’d also highly recommend the writing of Jim Kalb. His website is here.  He calls himself a ‘traditionalist conservative’ but he’s a cold-eyed conservative of the type Derbyshire describes.  I know that Fred Scrooby comments regularly at Kalb’s site, so hopefully he can give a better endorsement of Kalb’s work.”  (—Andy, second comment in the thread)

Andy, thanks for bringing up Jim Kalb and his site, Turnabout.  (I used to be a regular commenter at the blog and forum.)  Regarding the question “what conservatives should call themselves,” incidentally, an informal Turnabout poll put that to readers a couple of years ago.  They chose “Traditionalists,” which I think is a good name for what I am, but my own preference at the time was, and still is, Progressives (I actually like Normals better—Normals, as opposed to Degenerates, who constitute the other side—but I realize Normals would never be accepted though that’s the simplest description of what we are, so I’ll go with my second choice, Progressives). 

Regarding whether Jim Kalb is “a cold-eyed conservative of the type Derb describes,” I’d say so, but he’s more (saying that is like saying Sir Isaac Newton was “bright” or Elizabeth Taylor in her prime was “nice-looking”).  Kalb is one of today’s most powerful, penetrating, clear-minded, right-thinking, riveting and, most importantly, normal social/political commentators.  For any seeing this who may not know him, I quoted from his writing the other month in a comment about how the U.K. government created the “chav” phenomenon (Kalb wasn’t writing about chavs or the U.K. government but his writing clearly could be applied in that direction).  The best way to get acquainted with him is of course to simply browse his site.  Whatever you do, do not, repeat, DO NOT omit this essay: Anti-racism.  When I was in college I heard someone say a certain Beatles album was “a prerequisite to life.”  Well, dunno about that Beatles album but that particular Kalb essay is, in today’s world, a prerequisite to life. 

Kalb is on an elevated plane and can legitimately be called “a philosopher,” not just “a commentator.”  He is interested in the religious dimension of what’s going on (as am I), something certain minds may find not their cup of tea.  Nevertheless, my expectation would be that everyone of our persuasion, whether religiously-inclined or not, would benefit from coming to know at least something of Kalb’s writings.

Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 09:19 PM | #

Both also sound like they spend too much time listening to “Air America” radio with their rants against Bush.  Bush is a devout liberal.  Invoking Bush as an argument against traditionalist conservatism should be embarrassing to anyone whose IQ reaches room temperature.

“Traditional Conservatism” in the United States has nothing to do with what the term “conservatism” has meant historically. Neither Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan were “conservatives” in that sense. What actually happened is that during the fifties and sixties a small group of Republicans disaffected with the New Deal began to call themselves “conservatives” in order to give a name to their project of reviving an older form of liberalism.

Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 09:22 PM | #

What about the Council of Conservative Citizens? Aren’t they the biggest/most active pro-white group in the US?

Good point. The Council of Conservative Citizens is a mere echo of its thriving predecessor, the Citizens Councils of America.

Posted by Daedalus on September 04, 2006, 09:40 PM | #

In the aftermath of the Civil Rights Movement, there were millions of white racialists furious with LBJ about integration. As I pointed out above, it was at this point that the “conservatives” came along with their message: “Sneak up on the liberals. Get rid of big government. Cut your taxes.” Now, fifty years later, these same people and their children are deracialized booboisie who drool out of the side of their mouth while watching Hannity every night on FOX News.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 08, 2006, 12:58 AM | #

“The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions ... but by iron and blood.”  -Otto Von Bismarck   [ Works for me! ]

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 05:31 AM | #

““The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions ... but by iron and blood.” -Otto Von Bismarck [ Works for me! ]”

Then what are you doing posting comments on a blog?

Remember the oath you took, entering the military?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 08, 2006, 09:08 AM | #

He’s done his military duty, OH.  He’s retired now, and as entitled as the rest of us are to speak his mind on a blog, isn’t he?

I wish you’d stop bitterly attacking people here who are fundamentally on our side.  You’ve got some sort of “ideological purity” bee under your bonnet.  It’s starting to get old.  Let people who are fundamentally on our side speak, please.  Thank you.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 09:28 AM | #

We can’t afford losing anymore.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 08, 2006, 09:35 AM | #

Meaning what?  (I’m fundamentally on your side, Daedalus, as I hope is clear.)

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 10:59 AM | #

“He’s done his military duty, OH.”

With respect to “domestic enemies”, the oath is still unfulfilled.

“He’s retired now, and as entitled as the rest of us are to speak his mind on a blog, isn’t he?”

As am I, no?

“I wish you’d stop bitterly attacking people here who are fundamentally on our side.”

And I wish you’d stop stating that people with whom I agree with little are “fundamentally on my side.”  Who?  John “immigration and miscgenation is good” Ray?  Who?

“You’ve got some sort of “ideological purity” bee under your bonnet.”

No, you have a “let’s ignore real differences bee under *your* bonnet.

“It’s starting to get old.”

I agree, so stop.

“Let people who are fundamentally on our side speak, please.  Thank you”

First, regardless of whatever comments I make, it is up to Guessedworker who he lets “speak” here.  I do not prevent anyone from speaking.  The only one here promoting censorship is you, with respect to my comments.

Thank you.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 11:12 AM | #

“Sneak up on the liberals.” We can’t afford to play that game anymore. We have been doing it for fifty years now and all we have to show for it is a race problem that is now twice as bad as what we had in the sixties. Conservatives are afraid to address the problem. They will never make any real effort to turn things around. Is this not obvious? As the VDARE article points out, the other conservative speakers declined to appear at the conference once they found out Taylor would be there.

The only chance we have of reversing our decline is winning over white males to our side. White males aren’t flocking into our ranks. This is our fundamental problem. And why is that? Because their resentments, energies, and money are being funnelled down the drain into the conservatism which gives them a pseudo outlet for their frustrations. The conservatives stole our thunder in the sixties. That is why we haven’t gotten anywhere; because conservatism has crippled the will of white men to stand up for their racial interests.

What has to be done is obvious. The enemy is not the left. We’re not trying to compete for the support of Negroes, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, homosexuals, or women. Our object is to radicalize white men. In order to do that, the first thing we have to do is get them to spit out the conservative pacifier. The best shot we have of doing this is building a power base for ourselves amongst the already nominally racialist whites in the Deep South. If we were able to pull Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina into our column, we might not be able to compete nationally, but we could become a permanent disruptive force in American politics and that would garner us the exposure we desperately need. We would also have enough power to throw national elections to either of the two parties.

I’m open to suggestions. Building up a prowhite media and throwing napalm onto conservatives (no, thermonuclear criticism) strikes me as the most practical use of our energies at the moment. We have a microcosm here at MR of why we are losing this war. JJR comes on and throws his two cents out about “Leftism” while his own people are being pushed back into the sea in Australia. Steve, one of the brightest minds here, comes out and says that miscegenation is fine under the spell of abstractions. And then you have all this chatter about economics and brown tories, as others have pointed out, entirely misses the point about what is actually important (Jamaica is not, and never will be, Great Britain).

Revolutions are made by men like Thomas Paine, William Lloyd Garrison, and Robert Barnwell Rhett, not by pale face Booker T. Washingtons. JJR must be horrified. The uppity whites here are getting out of control. :p

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 11:29 AM | #

“I’m open to suggestions. Building up a prowhite media and throwing napalm onto conservatives (no, thermonuclear criticism) strikes me as the most practical use of our energies at the moment.”

Good.  I’ve have always promoted the idea of balkanization - which is reverse citizenism.  We must do everything possible to drive wedges between racial groups, to make them think of themselves as races first and not as “Americans”, to divide, divide, divide.

The good thing is that one can “kill two birds with one stone” here.

The more we promote pro-white media and organization, the more the non-whites will become infuriated, and the more they will spew anti-white rhetoric, making the pro-white media/organization job easier.

Because whites are still the majority, the very act of organizing whites on a *racial* basis will promote the balkanization of the society, and create instability.

Chaos is our friend.  Balkanization is our friend.  Skepticism of “we are all Americans” is our friend. 

“Citizenism” and patchwork reforms that give the establishment more breathing room are our enemies.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 08, 2006, 11:37 AM | #

Voter turnout in American elections is quite low. Congressional elections have turnouts at around percent> sometimes even lower>

I infer from this that there is a large population of White males who are not giving strong support to the corporatists(conservatives)

The current level of economic insecurity has been very effective in keeping millions of American White males in line.

However, the elites are walking a tightrope on this one.

Latin America levels of economic insecurity have provoked revolts in just about every Latin and central amerian nation.

There is great fear among some of the insiders that the black magic fiinancial instruments used by many large Hedge Funds could catastrophically sink the economy.

When a critical number of White males become economically redundant and therefore economically unviable. Let’s face it, there will be a large population of young white males who won’t be able to get laid. All hell will brake loose.

Don’t assume that the bankers and economist are clever enough to maintain the current order of things. They have just been very lucky.

They day will come when east asian immigrants and their offspring will be thrown out of America.

I would be happy to see the former illegal immigrant Derbyshire-illegal immigrant scab worker- thrown out of America.

Was Derbyshire’s chinese wife also an illegal alien scab worker?

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 11:49 AM | #

I’m working on my own little project at the moment which I will eventually roll out at The Civic Platform. My friend in London who used to run the Nordish Portal has got me into citizen journalism. I’m going to hit all the major cities involved in the Civil Rights Movement in Alabama - Birmingham, Montgomery, Selma - and snap dozens of photos with my digital camera of what MLK’s “dream” actually looks like in reality fifty years later. The crackheads and bums that hang out on Rosa Parks Boulevard I find are particularly photogenic. Also, I hoping to do some research into the decay of public schools and the rise of violent crime in the region.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 08, 2006, 11:50 AM | #

The race and IQ research is very weak. Highly flawed conceptually.

At least be honest enough to admit that it is scientifically shallow research. It is only of interest to economic reactionaries such as Jared Taylor.

I cringe at the possibility of Jared Taylor going on national TV blathering on about how east asians are intellectually superior to Amerian White Males, thousands of whom have already been replaced in the engineering and programing labour markets by Jared Tatlor’s,Steve Sailer’s, John DErbyshire’s and Peter Brimelow’s little east asian darlings.

If only I could publicly debate Jared Taylor. I would easily flatten him. Same for Sailer and the illegal alien scab worker Derbyshire.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 12:08 PM | #

IQ tests aren’t good enough. The data is solid, but the ambiguity of indirectly measuring intelligence leaves an opening for environmentalists. One of the most exciting events of the next few years will be zeroing in on the genes that are related to intelligence. Derbyshire mentions this briefly in the mp3 over at AR. The egalitarian hoax will be exploded forever.

Intelligence isn’t everything, but proving the existence of a hereditary component to intelligence (any idiot should be able to infer this from reason alone) undermines all the nonsense about the nonexistence of innate group differences. That, in turn, undermines all the stuff about racism, for if such differences do exist, it is unreasonable not to take them into account. That, in turn, undermines white guilt . . . and Brown as well.

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 12:16 PM | #

Fred, the question is, are we really on the same page?

Some time ago, I proposed the creation of a political test to ascertain how people here really fall on the ideological continuum.  For a number of reasons, this did not work out.  However, a combination of the following four incomplete and flawed “tests” can probably give the required answers:

1.Take the “Political Compass” test:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

2. Assuming you understand Salter’s EGI concept, answer: how important is EGI for your worldview?

3. Are you some sort of nationalist, or sympathetic to nationalist positions?  If yes, and if you are of European descent, go to 4.

4. Take this test (warning: ad-infested website):
http://selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=NationalistType

These 4 components together should do the trick, although #1 and #4 are certainly not perfect, and have significant flaws (plus, I can imagine some people taking #4 being less than truthful).  Nevertheless, together, it makes a reasonable summation, it has utility.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 12:19 PM | #

Senator George Allen Panders

^^ While we are on the subject of conservative cowardice, who could have ever predicted that?

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 08, 2006, 01:19 PM | #

OH-You just won’t let up will you? I’d be very interested to be informed of just what YOU have contributed physically to the Republic. How many lives have YOU saved/protected? How many enemies of the White race have you dispatched?Elitist rhetoric and invective is most usually used by Liberal Democrats,or frauds, to achieve tenure or political power.We old “grunts” just try to stay alive so that we can protect our own,and have earned the right to call a “spade"a spade,and an asshole an asshole. Semper Fi!    P.S.,Thank you Fred, for your ever-present rationality.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 08, 2006, 01:28 PM | #

Daedulus

Differernces in pereformance in is not the same thing as differences in performance based upon inate differences. The latter has not been established( except in the minds of true the true believers)

The correlation betweeen race and IQ is not a scientifically interesting question. For some people,it’s only of interest because of the perceived social and economic consequences of the outcome of the “scientific” investigation of race and intelligence. The fact that the scientific method can be apllied to a given question doesn’t make the question scientifically interesting.

For White Natinalists, the race and IQ question should be completely irrevelant. Americans of European descent are not interchangeable with one billion chinese or the one billon hindus.

What’s lurking just beneath the surface in the race IQ debate is the issue of where a societie’s wealth should be spent.

I’m a hardcore restrictionaist. I wouldn’t let any asians,muslims, east asians and africans into America.

Instead of subsidizing Israel, I would spend Goverment money on improving life for Whites in places such as appalachia. I would rather see America’s doctors,physcists and engineers come from places such as appalachia than India and China. Derbyshire,Brimelow-nice spread in the bershires Pete-and Sailer would rather import outr doctors and scientists from India and China.

It seems obvious to me that the real interest in Race and IQ research is to provide a biological justification for brutal wage slavery and very possibly chattel slavery

If there are White who are intellectually handicapped by their genes, this should not be reason to condemn them to a brutal existence. If anything the case for goverment subsidies becomes even stronger. Let them live in Trump towers at tax payers expense. Much better than subsidizing Israel,murdering innocent Iraqis and destabilizing the Chavez goverment.

There are no compelling scientific,economic and social reasons for Race and IQ research.

As a tactic for organizing Whites who are under assault from arrogant east asians legal immigrants in America, promoting race and IQ “scientific” research it is incredibly foolish.

For example. five years ago, Jared Taylor appeared twice on the Phil Donahue show on CNBC. A perfect oportunity arose during the show to expose harmfull consequences of east asian legal immigration. A forty year old White male in the audience complained about being passed over for promotion at an engineering firm for a 25 year legal immigrant from India.

Jared Taylor, rather than seizing the opportunity, sat there in silence. Five miutes later he sidetracked what could have been a discussion about legal immigrant hindu job stealing thieves from India into a stupid discussion about race and IQ.

I could imagine this poor 40 year old White guy wondering to himself the following"with friends like Jared Taylor,who neeeds enemies”. That’s what I Isaid to myself watching the show. Jared Taylor is a fool.

A tremondous oportunity to organize and move forward was blown on that episode of Phil Donahue show five years ago.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 01:34 PM | #

We old “grunts” just try to stay alive so that we can protect our own,and have earned the right to call a “spade"a spade,and an asshole an asshole. Semper Fi!

Who did you protect us from? Korea? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? Iraq? Serbia? Just curious.

Posted by Matra on September 08, 2006, 01:59 PM | #

Derbyshire has written in a mainstream conservative magazine about preserving the racial balance of the US and has highlighted problems associated with immigration. So whether he’s a citizenist or married to a non-white is irrelevant if lots of conservatives come away from his articles believing that discussing race is acceptable and that immigration must be stopped. The vast majority of whites who read through Sailer’s VDare archives will come to the conclusion that race matters more than anything else - never mind his self-proclaimed citizenism. People who seek out websites like Vdare or Sailer’s are not drones. They will remember what they’ve read about Mexican mestizos, Richard Lynn, Israel Firsters etc, long after they’ve forgotten the details of citizenism.

I believe that once whites accept that it’s OK to think and talk about race they will move away from mainstream conservatism and any other ideology that espouses universal values - or will try to change the already existing conservative parties and movements.  The truth is not respectable at the moment so the MR reader is part of an obscure minority. If Derbyshire and Sailer can make it respectable for non-leftists to talk about race then they are helping WNs in the long term whether they mean to or not.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 08, 2006, 02:14 PM | #

Daedalus-Vietnam[almost three years],Foreign ops in Central America,Mercenary in Angola/SW africa.O.K.?  Also helped{on the ground} bring American technology{satellite communications terminals} to many African/Mid-east/S.American countries.Just what’s YOUR boggle? Eighteen years of my life has been spent outside CONUS,and I probably have a better perspective on various “cultures”,than ANY pin-head academic.Semper Fi!

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 02:18 PM | #

Nick, Daedalus beat me to the punch with his answer.  I’m just wondering why you think being a hired gun for the anti-white establishment somehow makes US military veterans defenders of the white race.

A case can be made that the last US war that actually served white American interests was the one against Mexico, in which land was obtained for white settlement.

How defending “rightist” “South Vietnam” against “leftist” “North Vietnam” served white interests, I’m not sure. All it did was kill off several tens of thousands of young white men (50,000 dead minus the non-white casualties).

Note as well, I specifically mentioned “domestic” enemies.  One does not need a Mensa-level IQ to distinguish “domestic” from “foreign.”

Matra, I’m aware that guys like Derbyshire and Sailer do some good.  However, I’m balancing that against the bad that they do, and trying to balance the books.  Where we disagree I think is the good/bad balance.  Another point is, even if the net balance is good, that doesn’t excuse them from well-deserved criticism with respect to “citizenism” and attacks on WN.

I’ve never said that Sailer and Derbyshire should be completely disregarded.  I am saying that when they say things that are right, we should note that, and when they spread memes which are viciously destructive, we should note that too.

I prefer doing the latter, as it befits my style better (right, Fred?).

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 02:23 PM | #

“Daedalus-Vietnam[almost three years],Foreign ops in Central America,Mercenary in Angola/SW africa.O.K.?”

Explain how each service helped long-term white interests.  Explain how America’s *domestic* enemies were fought in each case.

“Also helped{on the ground} bring American technology{satellite communications terminals} to many African/Mid-east/S.American countries.”

Yes, bringing American technology to non-white nations is exactly what we are looking for to defend white racial interests.

“Just what’s YOUR boggle? Eighteen years of my life has been spent outside CONUS,and I probably have a better perspective on various “cultures”,than ANY pin-head academic.”

John Jay Ray?

“Semper Fi!”

We’re not black or white, we’re all green, green marines!  We all bleed red, good ‘ole American red blood.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 08, 2006, 02:30 PM | #

Thougthfull comments Matra

Brmelow, Derbyshire-great book about the Reiman hypothesis-and Sailer are intelligent guys. I’m sure they understand that America can erupt into a race war.

I have yet to hear a plausible argument from anyone as to how a race war can be avoided.

Maybe they are trying in a last ditch effort to figure out how a race war in America can be avoided.

Should we pave over the adirondacks,yoseminite. and all the other great state and national parks so Native Born White Americans can realize the Amerian dream? The suburbs of LA are right up against the mountain ranges which have been designated off limits by the left/liberal professional environmentalists. There is tremondous pressure to build into this last remaing frontier. Asian and hispanic families in the outer reaches of the LA surburbs are living up to three families per household. It is a catastrophe in the making. Endangered plant and animal species will loose.

Trying to accomodate both Native Born White Americans and asians,muslims,blacks and hispanics will very likely result in the destruction of ecosystems within the borders of America. Society would eventually collapse.

This is all worthless speculation. We all know the asians,muslims,africans and hispanics are palying the racial nationlaist game within the borders of America. That’s the reality people need to face up to.

If we do nothing there will be a race war. IF we deport them there will be a race war. Take your vitamins and excercise. We will need all patriotic White men to be in fighting shape.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 08, 2006, 02:34 PM | #

OH-http://www.pcsuccess.us/yrg/farewell.html A sequence you will hopefully never have to experience.Fuck You-and Semper Fi!

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 02:39 PM | #

“Fuck You-and Semper Fi!

Excellent.

One hopes the readership observes what passes for “argument” at “Majority Rights.”

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 08, 2006, 02:42 PM | #

1. the 3 times I’ve taken the test I’ve always scored within one square of center - usually roughly 1/2 square west and 1/2 square south.

2. it’s top priority.

4. in order:
Meta-Ethnic Nationalist
Nationalist
Subracialist
Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist

I found the test problematic (big surprise); at several points I intuited that subtle distinctions were being paved over.

For example, I think if I had to choose I’d say I’m a subracialist (I’m assuming that’s analogous to old-school racialism with its references to the German race, the English race, etc?), but the twist is that I think a very careful balancing of the other results is a part of being a subracialist.  For example, I think sacrificing more specific racial identity for pan-racial strength might be necessary, and if so I’d support it.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 02:44 PM | #

Daedalus-Vietnam[almost three years],Foreign ops in Central America,Mercenary in Angola/SW africa.O.K.?  Also helped{on the ground} bring American technology{satellite communications terminals} to many African/Mid-east/S.American countries.Just what’s YOUR boggle? Eighteen years of my life has been spent outside CONUS,and I probably have a better perspective on various “cultures”,than ANY pin-head academic.Semper Fi!

I’m a graduate student in international relations at Duke University, so naturally American foreign policy is something that interests me. What did you do in Central America? Nicaragua, I’m guessing?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 08, 2006, 02:48 PM | #

I guess my point is that I’m a flexible strategizer and maximizing EGI is my top (salient) political objective.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 02:49 PM | #

1. the 3 times I’ve taken the test I’ve always scored within one square of center - usually roughly 1/2 square west and 1/2 square south.

I have always scored around the middle of the northwest quadrant. That makes sense. I come from a communitarian background, politically speaking.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 08, 2006, 02:51 PM | #

OH-no worse than yours,except more to the point-I don’t specilize in character assasination,but perferr to the blunt approach-it sometimes gets the attention of effete dillatantes.

Posted by Daedalus on September 08, 2006, 02:59 PM | #

Brmelow, Derbyshire-great book about the Reiman hypothesis-and Sailer are intelligent guys. I’m sure they understand that America can erupt into a race war.

They can’t bring themselves to say: America is a white man’s country. That’s my smell test. No conservative can say that without ceasing to be a conservative. Conservatives believe America is McDonald’s, Walmart, Coca Cola, etc.

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 03:41 PM | #

I may as well give my “test” results:

1. Economic: -6.5; Authoritarian: +1.95

2. It’s the most important thing.

3. Yes.

4. Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist

I agree with Svigor that the latter test was not as fine-grained as one would wish.  With respect to: “Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist”, some of the questions could have been used to distinguish Salterian and Yockeyian variants, but such was not done.

The definitions of the terms is another problem.  While Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist is clear enough, I read Nationalist to mean someone concerned mainly with their own nation, such as people here describing themselves as English nationalists.  Subracialist I take as meaning the Nordic/Alpine/Mediterannean differences of anthropology, while Meta-Ethnic I take to be, for example, Germanic, Slavic, Latin, Celtic, etc.

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 03:43 PM | #

“it sometimes gets the attention of effete dillatantes.”

Nick, please stop offending Dr. John Jay Ray.

Posted by On Holliday on September 08, 2006, 03:45 PM | #

“I guess my point is that I’m a flexible strategizer and maximizing EGI is my top (salient) political objective.”

That’s a sound strategy: Salty Frank and KMacD would certainly approve.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 08, 2006, 04:20 PM | #

While Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist is clear enough, I read Nationalist to mean someone concerned mainly with their own nation, such as people here describing themselves as English nationalists.  Subracialist I take as meaning the Nordic/Alpine/Mediterannean differences of anthropology, while Meta-Ethnic I take to be, for example, Germanic, Slavic, Latin, Celtic, etc.

Ah, yes yours is probably the correct interpretation.  I was taking nationalism to mean aracial nationalism, and subracialism to mean what you’ve here guessed to be nationalism.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on September 08, 2006, 04:21 PM | #

OH-that last one elicited a big howl-you are good at times-LOL Just slack off once in a while from your obvious targets-even we,the great unwashed and diverse thinking,are part of Majority Rights,and have the same goals and desires for our progeny.Intellectuism,just as air-power ,does not win wars-the feet-on- the- ground mud-marines do.[I.E.basic self-preservation]Viewpoints are just that-a personal evaluation of a situation or series of events ,and usually clouded by personal antipathy towards those we generally disagree with.I’m 67 now,but was once not much different than you;but then ,I KNEW EVERYTHING.Now,I’m not so sure. Semper Fi!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 26, 2006, 04:32 PM | #

In re:  On Holliday’s comment of Sept. 8th, 4:16 PM:
______

1)  “Take the Political Compass test.”  I’ve taken it twice over the past couple of years or so, scoring (-1, 0) the first time and I think (0, ½) the second. 

2)  “How important is EGI for your world view?”  To call it extremely important is an understatement.  I won’t say it’s everything, but it’s pretty close to it.  I wouldn’t be saying that if it weren’t under threat, by the way:  I wouldn’t even be thinking about it, but would be taking it as “a given” which there was no need to even bring up.  If someone brought it up I wouldn’t understand why.  The dire threat it is right now confronted with completely changes all that. 

3)  “Are you some sort of nationalist, or sympathetic to nationalist positions?”  I oppose forced race-replacement, and forced race-replacement of Europeans most of all.

4)  “Take this test:”  I just did, and scored:  Meta-Ethnic Nationalist, Nationalist, Subracialist, Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist.  That’s definitely not how I see myself.  I see myself as Subracialist first, “meta-ethnicity” having no existence or meaning independent of subrace and “Nationalist” without race meaning exactly zip (what does “Swiss nationalist” mean if all the Swiss are replaced with Koreans, Romanians, or African Negroes?).  “Nationalism” with race means the same as race, so is sort of redundant.  As for Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist:  if subraces went by the board that would be the best alternative, obviously.  But subraces are still very much with us, thank God, so it doesn’t apply and I reject it.

Posted by grunting brute on November 26, 2006, 05:54 PM | #

Frederick, with all due respect, I don’t quite catch your logic in point 4.  I assume “nationalism” means ethnic nationalism.  Ethnic nationalism, such as Swiss nationalism, should presuppose an interest not in the abstract nation as such, but in the specific people of that nation - an interest in the Swiss.

I also fail to understand why the existence of subraces leads to a rejection of Pan-European Nationalist/Racialist, since that choice does not, or should not, assume the erasure of subraces.

A large problem is the lack of a proper nationalist lexicon, and a proper test designed to fit that lexicon.

How about redefining the categories as:

1. Ethnic nationalist.  For example, a German who cares about the German nation and German *people*, but who has little or no interest in entities beyond that level.

2. Meta-ethnic nationalist.  Someone who has , for example, an interest in “Germanic” peoples (without necessarily considering subracial distinctions between them) - so Germans, Austrians, German Swiss, maybe Dutch, Danish, Swedes, and Norweigens included, regardless of if they are Nordic, Alpine, Noric, Dinaric, etc.  Other examples of meta-ethnic: “Slavic”, “Celtic”, “Latin”, etc.  Little or no interest in larger entities, but with an interest in the subunits.

3. Subracialist.  Someone whose primary alleigance is with their particular subrace (however defined), for example: Nordic, Alpine, Mediterannean, etc. and with little or no interest in other subraces.

4. pan-European.  Someone whose largest set of loyalties are to Europeans as a whole, with additional interests in ethnic, meta-ethnic, and/or subracial subgroups of this.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 26, 2006, 06:22 PM | #

A simple way to go about it would be:  let’s just keep things the way they are without forcing changes on people.  Start with the simplest, most crystal-clear first:  “Don’t forcibly race-replace populations.”  What’s happening now is populations are being forcibly race-replaced.  What’s more, the people doing it know perfectly well they’re doing it.  They’re doing it on purpose.