Why we do it ... and is it enough?

Posted by Tile Hats on September 08, 2006, 07:04 PM | #

The ninth general idea:

9. “I would like to know what exactly a tile hat is and why it is called a tile hat.

I know that it is a tall silk hat and speculate that it differs from a top hat in that a top hat has a flat top whereas a tile hat has a rounded top.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 08, 2006, 08:35 PM | #

Christian Exodus has a plan.

Christian Exodus activists plan to take control of sheriff’s offices, city councils and school boards. Eventually, they say, they will control South Carolina. They will pass godly legislation, defying Supreme Court rulings on the separation of church and state.

“We’re going to force a constitutional crisis,” said Cory Burnell, 29, an investment advisor who founded the group in November 2003.

“If necessary,” he said, “we will secede from the union.”

Posted by Andrew on September 08, 2006, 08:42 PM | #

“Why We Do It”
Well Some of us are not the most articulate about what we say it; But we are conscious and knowledgeable enough to realize what is on offer by the Asylum PhD’s is Nihilism, even if just a hand full of these Elite Useless Idiots have all the wealth of the world; still will not give them a brain to think with and knowledge to survive; they need someone else to supply that.
That is what we must deprive them of, as well as exposing all their mischievous lies and falsities perpetrated on the populace.
If what we know is true, then it is worth preserving and worth fighting for, undoing the damage might be a bit harder; and I am not dead yet, so keep up the fight to win. If we don’t, then our children and future generations don’t have a hope in hell.
It is that simple, and that is the motivation.  ……. Even if it is one step at a time.

Posted by JJR Apologist on September 08, 2006, 09:24 PM | #

for a white ethnostate within America’s borders

I have argued that this is impossible independent of possessing political power at the fed level because the Feds WILL know and wreck it. The template method to mess up a nice residential area seems to be: build public housing in its midst, fill with welfare negroes or Hmong refugees, which in conjunction with the rising immigration tide pressing at its gates would eventually crush it.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 08, 2006, 09:32 PM | #

Running away to Montanna-the land of ice and rock- is not the solution.

You will be surrounded by non-whiites who will inherit the most lethal military infrastructure that ever existed.

The only way European people can survive in America is to physically remove the hispanics,asians and muslims.

It is amazing to me the amount of denial going on in the White Nationalist movement. If there is a demographic transformation, the non-whites will control the military and police. They will either kill us or enslave us.

The probability of avoiding a race based war within the borders of the US is very close to 0.

I will not concede any American territory to mexico,china,india and pakistan.

Here is what I find interesting. Many White Natinalist moan and groan about the White lemmings who do nothing.

Leftist and liberals express the fear that the anger and rage towards non-whites is right underneath the surface. I believe they are right.

The left understands that they have to come up with a program to appeal to Whites. OF course they never will. Open Borders immigration policy will make it impossible to make large numbers of people happy.

l of the story:White Nationalist shouldn’t be preaching to our fellow Euro-Americans nonsense about seccession and moving to Montanna and Idaho which are ecologically incapable of sustaining a large Euro-American population.

White survival requires the expulsion of post 1965 immigrants and their American born gene-line.

Posted by EC on September 08, 2006, 09:37 PM | #

I have argued that this is impossible independent of possessing political power at the fed level because the Feds WILL know and wreck it.

I agree with this to a point.  I do not fear the Negro or Hmong housing etc, because that eventually will come to pass and people will voluntarily leave if not wanted AND not backed by official government policy.  However, the bigger and more threatening issue is trumped up charges against the initiators of such an ethnostate, planted evidence, unfortunate “accidents”, and mysterious disappearances.  Those are not outside the boundaries of the masters and if push comes to shove where an ethnostate becomes a legitimate reality, the more frenzied the masters will behave.

Posted by JJR Apologist on September 08, 2006, 10:01 PM | #

I agree with this to a point.  I do not fear the Negro or Hmong housing etc, because that eventually will come to pass and people will voluntarily leave if not wanted AND not backed by official government policy.

But that is self-contradictory. The whole point is that the feds want nonwhites there, can shoehorn more at will, and can give them possession of the government jobs and anything else touched by federal funding. Worse case scenario they send in the federal troops like Ike did to force the negroes upon the recaltriant Southerners. So, the community itself cannot fend off these measures; they must have attained substantial influence at the federal level.

My belief is that the US will be taken whole, or lost whole.

Posted by EC on September 08, 2006, 10:52 PM | #

My mistake for not making myself clear.  In a situation where there is significant in-roads for an ethnostate and the Feds force these non-whites in, as you say.  Let’s say that the white ethnostate crowd proves victorious or likely victorious, then the non-whites will leave because they know they are not wanted AND the government, which will be the ethnostate will not be defending their right to remain.  That is what I was trying to get across.

Now with that said, your concerns are valid.  Again, my point is not disagreement, but more concern at the extreme viciousness that the Feds will go and it won’t stop at bringing in truck loads of blacks and Hmong.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 08, 2006, 11:33 PM | #

I like the idea of secession by individual states from the D.C. (“Death to Caucasians”) government envisioned by the Christian Exodus group Desmond cites and the New Hampshire libertarian outfit.  If either of these secession movements succeeded it would touch off a stampede of states opting to unchain themselves from the rotting-but-undead derelict hulk which used to be the United States.  The New Hampshire outfit aren’t interested in race at all (I asked them some time ago—the guy I contacted replied as if their view of immigration and demographics was completely race-neutral); whether or not the Christian Exodus people are aware of race I don’t know (this is the first I’ve heard of them); but that detail is less important at the outset than just breaking away from D.C.‘s death-grip, if possible, and deciding ... “certain matters,” let us call them ... afterward.  Once any state manages to throw D.C. off its back the powers that be will have an extremely difficult time keeping the rest of the U.S. together.  It’ll take just one state seceding to send the whole house of cards fluttering to the ground.  Needless to say to folk such as MR.com regulars, Lincoln’s War of Northern Aggression settled nothing in regard to the legality/morality of secession.  The Yankee merely imposed his will by main force but might doesn’t make right and the entire issue of secession’s legality and morality still stands exactly where it stood in 1859:  Lincoln’s War, and all those who sacrificed their lives, and all the destruction, settled precisely nothing (... unless it be that the Secessionists were utterly vindicated).

Posted by melba peachtoast on September 08, 2006, 11:53 PM | #

We don’t HAVE “decades” in which to act, duckies. This is a SPECIAL time. I know what I mean; why don’t you wake up?

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 09, 2006, 01:58 AM | #

PatrickZ’s point is very interesting and highlights the Two Views of Modern White Racialism:

Thus, it emerges that there are, in reality, two philosophies of racial loyalty. The first sees morality as care solely (or at least primarily) for one’s own. This was the view of traditional man. It was most definitely the view of the Old Testament, which called for the expulsion or extermination of the “nations of Canaan” by the Hebrews.22 The Talmud is a vivid example of an in-group morality which is most demanding when discussing moral obligations to Jews. On the other hand it prohibits doing anything for the welfare of others except as a practical means to limit Gentile hatred of Jews.23 Any kindness or ethical behavior outside the tribe is good only so long as it advances the needs of the tribe. This is in-group morality at its purest.24

This view would find nothing morally wrong with the white man’s conquest of the Indian or the enslavement of the African, and it would certainly see the denial of civil rights to nonwhites as the least any tribe might do to preserve its dominance and identity.25

The more recent expressions of racialism would demand some degree of ethical even-handedness toward all men. They would view it as morally wrong to deprive an out-group, either as individuals or collectivities, of the “right” to self-determination or the “right” to civil liberties. It is this latter view which lies behind the white racialist embrace of Garveyism, the Nation of Islam, and other black-nationalist movements.26 Marcus Garvey, a black-nationalist leader of the 1920s who advocated black return to Africa, has frequently been featured in the pages of racialist journals.27 In the late 1980s the “radical” National Front in England published an article by Abdul Wali Muhammad, the then editor of The Nation of Islam’s newspaper, The Final Call, which praised the Front and discussed the two group’s similarities. The article quoted Louis Farrakhan as saying that he “respected those who desired to keep their race white, just as we want to keep ours black.”28

Posted by Guessedworker on September 09, 2006, 03:43 AM | #

OK, a few thoughts.

1) White Flight is a fact, and will be moreso over the next two or three decades.  Not to harness it is to allow each single relocation to go to waste from an ethnic perspective, and to acqiesce in the model of the self-contained, individualistic white American. 

2) The other side does not operate through the exigency of moaning and inactivity.  The Gramscian nature of the loss of institutions throughout the West should be instructive.  Likewise the way critical theory spearheads the equality debate, and is soaked up by the political, academic, non-governmental and foundational organs of society.

In other words, there is a sense of direction.  Without a way forwards American whites are not going to change their fate.  Most definitely, racialist whites cannot rely on being able to march through the institutions of power in America any time soon.  That can’t be done now, IMO.  So an ethnostate probably HAS to be attempted.

3) A precise, structured blueprint isn’t really the way to do it because life is too damned disorderly to obey it.  Spreading hope and the right knowledge into white America is the way.  The establishment of a European homeland in America would be an organic process, perhaps with some similarities to the great movement west in the 19th century.  The institutions of power would arise organically, too - and at that point the Federal Government’s pretty well certain attempt to skew the numbers could be dealt with in good faith.

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 04:58 AM | #

The racialist movement in America is in disarray. That’s the most pressing problem at the moment. There is not even so much as a national organization that represents our interests. Without a focal point of resistance, resistance dissipates. Worse still, the organizations that do exist don’t seem to have any clear strategy. Instead, they spend most of their time bickering about what the Jews are doing or discussing the history of the Third Reich. This has got to stop. It says a lot that this hasn’t already been done.

Politics is about power. If we are going to become a legitimate political movement, we have got to start building a power base. To build a power base you have to accumulate the components of power - wealth, access, media, and organized mass resentment. Wealth is needed to staff full time activists to organize the masses, raise their awareness, and to fund a legal team that can defend our interests in the courts. Access is needed to twist arms at the top. Media is needed to mold public opinion. Organized mass resentment is needed to scare the powers that be at the top into granting us the access we need (think of A. Philip Randolph and Walter White forcing FDR to create the FEPC). The tools we have at our disposal:

1.) Litigation.
2.) Boycotts.
3.) Street demonstrations.
4.) Political action at the ballot box.

Some combination of these will have to be used to push our interests and punish our enemies. We’re not even in the most rudimentary stages of putting together such a resistance movement in the U.S.

Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 05:43 AM | #

“Politics is about power. If we are going to become a legitimate political movement, we have got to start building a power base. To build a power base you have to accumulate the components of power - wealth, access, media, and organized mass resentment. Wealth is needed to staff full time activists to organize the masses, raise their awareness, and to fund a legal team that can defend our interests in the courts.”

Daedalus is correct.  Now think about the things that the “movement” has actually done over the last 30-40 years, think of all the supporter’s time and money wasted, and you’ll see they have lost all claims to legitimacy.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 09, 2006, 05:44 AM | #

Looking at Daedalus’ strategy, I have to say that I find 1. and to a lesser extent 4. highly dubious. In suggesting litigation as a practical tool for the ending of the anti-white system, he forhets the overwhelming leftie bias of lawyers and judges alike. As Britain’s self proclaimed first lady said, many 60s radicals chose the law as an alternative to politics for the driving forth of social change. Similar things can be said about elections: politicos are lefties/traitorcons, and no serious choice is often given. However, using just demos and boycotts we will turn into a rowdy mob, something that will certainly be used to discredit us.

My suggestion is to remember that power comes not from demos or from loud exclamations of your rights. The only reason these worked for our enemies is that the establishment chose to follow their demands, with the riots serving as just an excuse. On the contrary, power comes from the silent majority, and once we convince these a candidate for conventional election - a genuine people’s rebellion - might be successful.

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 05:48 AM | #

We already have a blueprint of how to turn things around in the U.S.: the overthrow of Reconstruction. The solution to our racial problem is to rebuild white supremacy and to reestablish segregation. That’s certainly a tall order, but more feasible that seceding from the Union and creating an independent white ethnostate. As in the past, the South will have to spearhead this effort, but will need the support of disaffected Western and Northern whites to thwart federal intervention.

Ultimately, I think limpwristed White Nationalism (i.e., “we only want fairness for all peoples,” “do you want the Southwest, well you can have it”) will have to give way to a more militant movement with a new sense of urgency; something along the lines of the massive resistance movement of the fifties and sixties, which was the last real gasp of politicized white racial consciousness. This will require, above all else, radicalizing young white males in the South and West. In order to do that, first things first, we have to destroy conservatism, which is currently absorbing their energies in the two party puppet show entirely controlled by wealthy elites.

Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 06:15 AM | #

“Political action at the ballot box.”

Destroy the GOP.

Chaos is our friend.

The status quo is genocide.

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 06:47 AM | #

Looking at Daedalus’ strategy, I have to say that I find 1. and to a lesser extent 4. highly dubious. In suggesting litigation as a practical tool for the ending of the anti-white system, he forhets the overwhelming leftie bias of lawyers and judges alike.

Are you an American? The NAACP focused on litigation for decades during the early twentieth century as their primary strategy. They didn’t have the mass support to launch effective boycotts, demonstrations, or political campaigns. It was ultimately the judiciary that dismantled Jim Crow in a series of rulings: Gaines in 1938, Smith v. Allwright in 1944, Shelly in 1948, McLaurin v. Oklahoma and Sweatt in 1950, Brown in 1954, Katzenbatch v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States in 1964, Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Congress didn’t swing behind integration until the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was the courts that forced desegregation upon Eisenhower in Little Rock that same year. The NAACP launched a well reasoned legal strategy under Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall which undermined and ultimately toppled Plessy in Brown by establishing contrary precedents.

Which brings me to my next point. It was Plessy in 1896 that gave national sanction to Jim Crow in the South. The road to Plessy was similarly paved by litigation: The Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873, U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1875, Strauder in 1880, Civil Rights Cases and Pace v. Alabama in 1883. It would be an understatement to say that litigation, given the power of judicial review held by the Supreme Court, has been integral to major changes in American race relations over the course of history. The lack of a legal team to defend our interests is one of the greatest weaknesses of the racialist movement in America. It’s like trying to fight a modern war without air cover. The current “leadership” hasn’t even put together so much as a viable national organization to represent white Americans.

Sure. The judiciary is biased against us. That is a fair point. But was the judiciary not similarly far more biased against blacks under Jim Crow when they didn’t even have actual voting rights? Also, to say litigation is a dubious strategy ignores the fact that our greatest victories since the odious Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been won in the courts, without even so as an organized effort on the part of the “leadership” of the WN movement: Milliken v. Bradley in 1974 over busing, Bakke in 1978 and Gratz v. Bollinger in 2003 which weakened affirmative action, Shaw v. Reno and Miller v. Johnson in 1995 which struck down racially gerrymandered black congressional districts.

The SPLC, ACLU, and NAACP have had plenty of success with litigation. That we have been willing for so long to let these organizations harrass us in the courts without building a mechanism for our defense is madness, but that is what passes for “leadership” in the WN movement today.

As Britain’s self proclaimed first lady said, many 60s radicals chose the law as an alternative to politics for the driving forth of social change.

And our response should be . . . to give them free reign to file lawsuits against prowhite activists?

Similar things can be said about elections: politicos are lefties/traitorcons, and no serious choice is often given.

Actually, we have had considerable success on the state level nullifying affirmative action and passing laws against illegal immigration. The recent statutes in Georgia and Arizona come to mind. Of course, these victories owe nothing to the WN movement. An even more promising example: in 2004, Alabama voters defeated an amendment to strike segregationist language out of our state constitution. This in a state that is almost 30% black. So, whites in Alabama are still unwilling to repudiate segregation on their own initiative, with no assistance from the WN movement. Another opportunity for organizing utterly wasted.

However, using just demos and boycotts we will turn into a rowdy mob, something that will certainly be used to discredit us.

The Civil Rights Movement kicked off in 1955 with the Montgomery Bus Boycott and reached its most glorious peak in the March on Washington in 1963. This hardly discredited their cause. Instead, Rosa Parks and MLK are lionized as heroes today.

My suggestion is to remember that power comes not from demos or from loud exclamations of your rights.

This is false. In 1941, FDR was forced to issue an executive order establishing the FEPC to prevent A. Philip Randolph from marching 100,000 blacks on Washington. In 1948, Randolph threatened to do the same thing again to Truman who was forced into desegregating the military. These were the two most important victories for blacks since the end of Reconstruction.

The only reason these worked for our enemies is that the establishment chose to follow their demands, with the riots serving as just an excuse.

FDR did not want to create the FEPC. He was forced to do so by the spectacle of thousands of blacks marching on Washington to demand their rights.

On the contrary, power comes from the silent majority, and once we convince these a candidate for conventional election - a genuine people’s rebellion - might be successful.

The Presidency and Supreme Court were committed to desegregation before Congress. The Presidency and Supreme Court played a similar role in constructing Jim Crow.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 08:52 AM | #

Wondering what the FEPC was (mentioned by Daedalus), I looked it up.  Here it is, for any who are wondering.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 08:55 AM | #

(You’d think they could proof-read some of those Wikipedia articles better, by the way—the FEPC one starts off sounding like someone speaking broken English.)

Posted by Kenelm Digby on September 09, 2006, 09:21 AM | #

Sadly, all attempts at raising White Racial awareness or grandiose pie-in-the-sky visions of ‘ethno-states’ on American soil seem doomed to failure.
Wish it wasn’t so, but unfortunately, ‘that’s the way the cookie crumbles’. The political class will simply stamp on its ‘surly little head’ and crush it when it learns to crawl.
Perhaps a more fruitful line is the reformation of politics along racial lines and not on supposed ‘class’ like today, I believe that is quite common in Asian ‘democracies’ and holds the peace in Malaysia and elsewhere, in this context the BNP and the various European Nationalist parties are worth watching.
  In my opinion, the oldest, wisest head in the White Nationalist movement is none other than the great Tom Metzger, my admiration of his personal fortitude and wisdom is boundless.
I suggest everyone here carefully reads his thoughts and and positions - for they are assuredly the wisest and ONLY rational way forward.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 09, 2006, 09:30 AM | #

Seccession would result in large parts of America being handed over to Mexico and other nations. Asians,muslms and hispanics will inherit a lethal military infrastructure that will use against us.

We can only survive by driving non-whites out of America.

Non-Whites wold be very happy to see us all run off to montanna and Idaho.

Real White Men don’t run away.

I consider the neo-confederates to be traitors. I’m glad the old South was destroyed. Slavery was and is an evil institution. I’m glad imperial Japan was nuked, I’m glad Nazi Germany was destroyed.The slave owners should have been executed

Our job is to talk to our fellow White Americans.  They know they ae being disenfranchised.

At the present time. most of our fellow Whites are in a state of shocked. It is our job to push them along to the revolt stage.

Seccession is for pussies who don’t want to fight.

Yoseminite does not belong to hindu and iranian thieves(here are one million iranians in california)

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 10:21 AM | #

About 13% of White Americans feel strongly enough about miscegenation that they are still willing to say it should be illegal. That’s millions of people. Millions more are intimidated to speak out about their true racial views or oppose miscegenation but are unwilling to say there should be laws against it. There is no reason why racialists can’t establish a power base for themselves in America today, especially in the Southeast. The only thing holding us back is incompetance and lack of leadership on the part of the WN movement. We possess every imaginable advantage in North America over our counterparts in Europe - stronger constitutional protections, a population more receptive to racialism, a national identity that was marinated in racialism for centuries. Sadly, these opportunities are unfortunately being wasted.

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 10:28 AM | #

I consider the neo-confederates to be traitors.

How come? Integration was imposed on the South by the rest of the country. The neo-confederates make a very persuasive case that the South would be a very different country today if it were independent. I have no objection to Southern independence. It’s simply impractical.

I’m glad the old South was destroyed. Slavery was and is an evil institution.

Slavery was infinitely preferable to the integration that was imposed upon us by the U.S. Army. As C. Vann Woodward pointed out, the typical Southerner fought in the Civil War to preserve white supremacy, not slavery. The fight to maintain white supremacy continued after the war into Reconstruction.

Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 11:09 AM | #

“In my opinion, the oldest, wisest head in the White Nationalist movement is none other than the great Tom Metzger, my admiration of his personal fortitude and wisdom is boundless.”

I assume you are being serious?

Posted by On Holliday on September 09, 2006, 11:14 AM | #

“The only thing holding us back is incompetance and lack of leadership on the part of the WN movement. We possess every imaginable advantage in North America over our counterparts in Europe - stronger constitutional protections, a population more receptive to racialism, a national identity that was marinated in racialism for centuries. Sadly, these opportunities are unfortunately being wasted.”

Stress the incompetence.  Imagine the enormous amounts of money (yes, money - there has been enough spent over the last 30-40 years that if it had been spent wisely, there could have been a difference), time, and energt wasted - for nothing.

Imagine that today - and there was a picture of it at the Civic Platform - there are *still* rallies of “nationalists” dressed in Hitler uniforms and swastikas, giving the “heil” salute - in America.

Think of the time wasted on mountaintop fantasylands, promotion of Charles Manson (!!) as the new American fuehrer, “Savitri Devi” and “kali yuga” (and, yes, Evola had a few screws lose as well), and all the rest of the damn utter nonsense.

“Sieh heil” and pass the 40+ years of utter failure.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 09, 2006, 12:14 PM | #

We can’t change hisory. I don’t pretend to know the answer as to why Ameria evolved into its present state. It will take a lot o time to figure this out. No one fully understand why things evolved the way they did

There was oposition in the South to during the civil war among Southern Whites to seccesion and the institution of slavery.

I view the Southern Whites who fought for the the South the same way I view Whites who continue to vote Republican. Complete f…g fools.

And lets be honest, the descendants of the slave owning southern elites are the same ones promoting the new south which has resulted in Atlanta being transformed into a third world cesspool.

The descendants of the soutern slave owners went on a rampage when the descendants of the men who fought for the south revolted against wage slavery in the 30’s,40s and 5os. The descendants of the slave owners were effective in destroying a White labour movement.  This was very good for present day wealthy Germans and Japanese. The Germans and japanese in 2006 have access to a low wage southern work force.

The men who fought for the South were fools who were manipulated by the slave owning class. Not too much different today. Karl Rove is manipulating the current generation of southern men women.

The basic problem with your position and the paleocon position in general is that they are providing Native Born White Americans with a false choice.

The neo confederates and paleoconsevatives are at their core are economic reactionaries. This is their fatal flaw.

I believe that the econimc reactionaries in the White Nationalis movement such as Jared Taylor will turn off many struggling Native Born Whites. White don’t want to be told that race and IQ “science” research demonstrates that Whites are intellectually inferior to the predatory east asian thief.

Moreover, most Native born Whites want protection against brutal wage and chattel slavery. This will require goverment intervention.

For a excellent discussion about this check out the interview with a well kown French historian and social scientist over at occidental quartely. It was a recent issue of the occidental quaterly.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 12:21 PM | #

the typical Southerner fought in the Civil War to preserve white supremacy, not slavery.

I’m not just a Yankee, I was never even south of the Mason-Dixon line except a few summer vacations in rural Maryland as a teenager and a childhood visit to George Washington’s plantation at Mt. Vernon (for non-Americans, that’s in northernmost Virginia, which is the northernmost southern state—so it’s as unsouth as you can get and still be in the South).  So it’s with some trepidation that I question the statement of a southerner like Daedalus on this, but my impression was that the typical common footsoldier fighting for the CSA saw himself simply as defending his country from invasion, not defending an abstraction like “white supremacy” (which was assumed by everyone both north and south anyway) and certainly not as defending the institution of slavery, which only a small minority of southerners took direct part in (the vast majority being too poor to own slaves).  A whole class of white southern workingmen, small business owners, and small entrepreneurs resented slavery because of the way it stilted the availability of job and economic opportunities for them and depressed their wages for those opportunities that opened up.  They Confederate soldier was fighting consciously to defend his country from invasion, not consciously to preserve white supremacy which was assumed anyway by everybody.  Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Patrick, the bad Confederates were the financial interests that wanted to keep slavery going even after it had become an appalling anachronism, originally (and stupidly) imported into British North America from XVIth- and XVIIth-century colonial Spanish-America which had a mentality, culture, and tradition completely alien to those of northwestern Europeans, who wanted to keep slavery going even though it had long been rightly seen as an unjustifiable festering abscess poisoning the young nation’s self-image and moral well-being, and who wanted to keep it going even though it was clearly become a mortal threat to the nation’s future social fabric and demographics (which was what mainly motivated many if not most northern abolitionists rather than solicitude for the Negro slaves themselves—they saw the huge future social and demographics problems it was promising to create for their posterity).  (Slavery of course was also in and of itself a deep, utterly unacceptable moral evil and these men keeping it going, including both southern and northern banking interests, were evil for that reason alone—they were spiritually exactly the same as today’s capitalists, bankers, financiers, and business-&-industrial leaders who are forcing open borders on us and Europe in the name of the profits to be made through “free movement of labor across national borders to match free movement of capital” or whatever their evil scheme is supposed to be.)  The good Confederates were the ordinary men who fought to repulse the invader from their country and for the right of states to secede from the Union for reasons of their choosing without needing D.C.‘s permission.  The “discrediting” of that right brought about through Abraham Lincoln’s successful war (I put discrediting in quote marks because might doesn’t make right) was the beginning of a century-and-a-half-long series of the most outrageous injustices and unconstitutional totalitarian acts forced by D.C. on the American people, acts it never would have DARED to try had the right of secession been generally acknowledged.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 09, 2006, 12:30 PM | #

The passage of the 1965 immigration reform act may end up veing a deat sentence for White Americans. The 1965 immigraton refrom act came directly out of the civil rights movement for blacks.

There is very likely irreconcillable differences between White and Blacks

Black social and ecominc advancement correlates very strongly with progressive White disenfranchisement.

If America becomes racially balknized and blacks find themselves enslaved by east asians,chinese hispanics and muslims…..tough shit ,,,they can really go fuck themselves.

I won’t make the same mistake twice.

ESPN COMMERCIAL TODAY:BEATIFULL BLOND COED GROPING A BLACK FOOTBALL STAR AT A LARGE LAND GRANT INSTITUTION.

ARE THE JEWS AT ESPN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS ONE?

Posted by Donald Miller on September 09, 2006, 01:35 PM | #

WHAT SHOULD WHITE PEOPLE DO?

This is a welcome discussion, but little reference has been made to the tactics of the successful Semitic ethnic group which has been able to dictate its vocabulary to us as our very own vocabulary, and simultaneously to seize a slender slice of southwestern Asia for its very own to which they promptly applied the most stringent land control & management policies.

Here are elements of policy from their playbook, discussed as applicable to us, as well as references to our own successful colonial experience almost 400 years ago.

1) An absolute understanding of the value of voluntary cooperative land ownership. In cities with a large, cohesive, neighborhood of these Semitic peoples (and it appears that other Semitic people, the Arab-Americans, are following suit), there are strict ethno proscriptions against selling land to persons outside their group. This has worked in many places for them, although not in the block-busting days of the 1950s on the East Coast.

In their very own slice of land on the east edge of the Mediterranean Sea, land ownership is almost all in a trust and members of this group are forbidden to sell land to Arabs, Persians, Turks, and such other outlier ethnies under extreme penalties.

What this means for this discussion is that we need to discover and promote tools for cooperative ownership and control of the land itself, preserving as much user rights for house owners as possible. For example, our co-colonists could move into a cul-de-sac inside any city (that we founded and do not intend to abandon), and gradually purchase the ten houses there, saving one for a K-8 or K-12 or even K-16 neighborhood private school, and vesting ownership of all land and houses into the non-profit corporation that holds and runs the central institution, the private school. (While a religious institution would also work, they can go bad very quickly.)

Home owners would not be able to sell the land, and transferring the ownership of 99 year leases on the land & attached house would have to be approved by all neighbors in the co-op. Lotta problems, but small colonies with educational institutions as their centerpiece plus property management services would work fine. These could fission and replicate, cul-de-sac by cul-de-sac. This approach would work well to maintain central cores of population in the most unlikely places.

I realize that this looks like an insignificant micro-solution, but if the point is (A) to protect our children and to develop safe places for self-determination and self-control, and (B) to make a start however small in what is needed, voluntary collective land ownership for ourselves is essential.

We’ve seen examples of friends purchasing homes together, and then one owner dies and his radical daughter moves in with her special husband and his homies. Land policies on a local, small scale are the key to establishing anchors to protect our children from the society that has turned against them.

2) In the meantime, the large thinkers among us can pioneer the establishment of organizations and institutions that mirror the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, and in addition, promote media for us which is already underway. We need our own anti-defamation league, our own White Peoples American Congress, and our own legal defense non-profit.

3) We really need to take great thought on the problems with leadership. While we need structured, exclusionary policies toward other demographics, we also need to start to begin to understand the leadership issues. We get exceedingly bad grades on this question, and I’ve seen at least five groups be destroyed by leadership issues.

There is something about being made head of a pro-white, grass-roots, powerless group that turns the head guy into some kind of vulgar, power-grabbing freak. When this issue is brought up, there is usually a pooh-poohing of it, yet it is our weakest link.

This is a problem to be studied. The end result will probably be that we need a self-governmental model that looks like the Icelandic Thing combined with the Venetian Doge with term limits. One example of successful, very long term leadership (30 years) by one person was the leader of the Pilgrim Colony (distinct from the Puritan Colony), William Bradford.

http://pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/

These are easy tasks and can be started in any locality, in any neighborhood, and by any size group. If we plan to take over entire states, or colonize a region of a continent, shouldn’t we be able to colonize our own cities as a start?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 09, 2006, 03:53 PM | #

Thus, it emerges that there are, in reality, two philosophies of racial loyalty. The first sees morality as care solely (or at least primarily) for one’s own. This was the view of traditional man. It was most definitely the view of the Old Testament, which called for the expulsion or extermination of the “nations of Canaan” by the Hebrews.22 The Talmud is a vivid example of an in-group morality which is most demanding when discussing moral obligations to Jews. On the other hand it prohibits doing anything for the welfare of others except as a practical means to limit Gentile hatred of Jews.23 Any kindness or ethical behavior outside the tribe is good only so long as it advances the needs of the tribe. This is in-group morality at its purest.24

  This view would find nothing morally wrong with the white man’s conquest of the Indian or the enslavement of the African, and it would certainly see the denial of civil rights to nonwhites as the least any tribe might do to preserve its dominance and identity.25

  The more recent expressions of racialism would demand some degree of ethical even-handedness toward all men. They would view it as morally wrong to deprive an out-group, either as individuals or collectivities, of the “right” to self-determination or the “right” to civil liberties. It is this latter view which lies behind the white racialist embrace of Garveyism, the Nation of Islam, and other black-nationalist movements.26 Marcus Garvey, a black-nationalist leader of the 1920s who advocated black return to Africa, has frequently been featured in the pages of racialist journals.27 In the late 1980s the “radical” National Front in England published an article by Abdul Wali Muhammad, the then editor of The Nation of Islam’s newspaper, The Final Call, which praised the Front and discussed the two group’s similarities. The article quoted Louis Farrakhan as saying that he “respected those who desired to keep their race white, just as we want to keep ours black.”28

Lol, I see no distinction:

Any kindness or ethical behavior outside the tribe is good only so long as it advances the needs of the tribe. This is in-group morality at its purest

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 09, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

(You’d think they could proof-read some of those Wikipedia articles better, by the way—the FEPC one starts off sounding like someone speaking broken English.)

Ideological purity, not competence, is the goal at Wikipedia.  I see errors in just about every article I reference there (talking style and grammar here, not necessarily factual errors), and am banned from correcting them.

Posted by Matra on September 09, 2006, 04:12 PM | #

There is very likely irreconcillable differences between White and Blacks

Do any Americans here disagree with that statement?

I ask because I’ve heard a lot about black efforts to re-segregate (schools, etc). Farrakhan has talked about separation between whites and blacks but he doesn’t seem to have much influence. The other night on Lou Dobbs some black representing black engineers was complaining about some Visa programme that was bringing in educated foreigners (probably Asians). Also blacks have a lot to lose from more immigration from Latin America and Asia. (In Cuban-run areas of south Florida they’ve refused to roll over for blacks the way whites do. The Cubans have no guilt, nor will future immigrants)

What about the viability of temporary alliances on specific issues such as immigration and segregating schools?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 09, 2006, 04:14 PM | #

and certainly not as defending the institution of slavery, which only a small minority of southerners took direct part in (the vast majority being too poor to own slaves).

I don’t have the figures, but slaveholding as a percentage of households was both lower than modern leftists would have us believe, and higher than modern southern apologists would have us believe.  Slaveholders were often economically average families, not just superrich plantation owners (though the superrich did probably own the vast majority of slaves).

At least, that’s my understanding.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 04:28 PM | #

Patrick, here are my signature slogans, which I append sometimes to comments:
______

- ”

All I know is

that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell

- Moratorium-plus-

Repatriation

!

- Balkanization is better than Brazilianization!

- “The beauty of the most attractive whites cannot be enhanced by the absorption of non-whites among whites, but will be undermined.”—J. Richards

- The

1965 “It’s Good For The Jews” White Genocide Immigration Act

:  the gift that keeps on giving!

- Diversity is death!—Nick

- What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the usual suspects!

- “White fellows fight back and we fight back hard; it is in our genes, being Anglos.”—Andrew

- Stop genocide!  Long live the Afrikaner Volkstaat!

- Long live Free Padania!

- Long live Free Flanders!

- ”The discussion of race and intelligence is being actively repressed on campuses as I write these words. But intellectually, the battle is over: Race realism has won.”—Prof. Rushton

- “Our concern has nothing one way or another to do with the member of any race or group considered as an individual.  Our concern has to do with numbers, not individuals:  numbers of incompatibles and the policies that bring those numbers about.”—F. S.

- “General Wesley Clark on why the aggressive war against Serbia was undertaken by NATO:  ‘There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.’  That is quite simply the most disgusting thing I have ever heard in my life.  I feel rather ill.”—Steve Edwards

- The New World Order’s official motto:  “To the extent we can manage to commit genocide, there’s hope.”

- “The message we’re always given relative to 3rd-world-ization is, ‘Give up, surrender, your cause is hopeless,’ just like war propaganda.”—John Bolton

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

So it’s with some trepidation that I question the statement of a southerner like Daedalus on this, but my impression was that the typical common footsoldier fighting for the CSA saw himself simply as defending his country from invasion, not defending an abstraction like “white supremacy” (which was assumed by everyone both north and south anyway) and certainly not as defending the institution of slavery, which only a small minority of southerners took direct part in (the vast majority being too poor to own slaves).

There is some truth in this, but it is not the whole story. For example, the Upper South only seceded after Lincoln called for troops to put down the Confederacy. In the minds of Southerners in Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, they were clearly reenacting the American Revolution (the colonies had reluctantly declared independence after George III settled on a policy of coercion in 1776). North Carolina explicitly invoked the “right of revolution.” So yeah, Southerners did fight to fight to defend their home states from invasion (Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson come to mind), but this doesn’t explain why the South ultimately seceded from the Union.

This is a complex topic. It can always be discussed in more detail in the history forum at The Civic Platform. To make a long story short, the typical Southerner fought to maintain white supremacy. The radicals in the Deep South led by Yancey and Rhett intentionally split the Democratic Party at the 1860 convention in order to ensure the election of Lincoln. After Lincoln was elected, they used the spectre of a “Black Republican” president to drum up fear that the Republicans would abolish slavery, integrate the races, and mongrelize the South. It was this fear of mongrelization that was drummed up by the Southern press in late 1860/early 1861 that incited a vanguard of states to secede - South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi. The radicals assumed correctly that the more moderate states would then have to chose between coercion or secession, which is exactly what happened.

The Civil War had little to do with slavery. The Republicans had not campaigned on a platform of abolishing slavery. They had merely advocated its restriction in the territories along the lines of the Northwest Ordinance, and even then, they could not have won had it not been for the deliberate attempt by Southern Democrats to get Lincoln elected. Also, by seceding from the Union, the South lost any claim to the territories; territories which never would have become slave states anyway because they were unsuited for plantation agriculture. The North and Lincoln himself was willing to guarantee slavery forever in the original thirteenth amendment, but that was never the real issue, so his pleas for reunion fell on deaf ears.

There had long been an independence movement in the South, especially in South Carolina, which had threatened to secede several times during the past thirty years. It was independence from the North that the radicals had sought for so long, and they merely manipulated the issue of slavery and fears of mongrelization to advance their own ends. Rhett, for example, had lamented that the Republicans were not trying to abolish slavery in Washington, DC. His stated goal was to “emancipate” the South from the Union which he detested. They were ecstatic when secession ultimately did come about. It was their moment of triumph they had been working towards for years. Ruffin was given the honor of firing the first shot on Fort Sumter (he would later commit suicide when the Confederacy was defeated).

Posted by PatrickZ on September 09, 2006, 05:14 PM | #

For European Americans, there is only one issue:how do we reclaim our nation.

Secession is not the answer.

Running away to montanna and Idaho is not the solution .

I believe that there will come a point in time when a majority of Whites who at the present time keep the Republican party viable by voting for it will no longer give their allegiance to the system.

If seccesion and running off to Idaho is not the solution, then the only option left is driving the majority of hispanics,asians and muslims out of America.

Worse is better is our friend.

In the mean time, while we wait, we should write and speak in uncompoimising terms.

We are in this limbo where there is in fact a enormous amount of anger being built up towrads asians,eat asians,muslims and hispanics. However, the enemy has created just enough economc insecurity to keep European Americans in line. When things get worse, the lid will be blown off.

No one on either side of this issue has yet to put forth a believable argument as to how a race war can be avoided. Brimelow has blatehred some nonesense in the past about a massive buyout to prvfent this from happenning. The problems plaguing America are too enormous for this to happen.

And we all know Sailers citizenship proposal is utter bilge.

Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 09, 2006, 06:57 PM | #

Donald Miller
Regarding point #2 ADL/ go to Resisting Defamation. There’s an organization parallel to ADL but defending whites. This organization also has a legal team and patrons of this site should definately pay it a visit.
Matra
White Cubans(I’d say less than 5% of non-white Cubans left Cuba) constitute yet another example of white flight and definately take most of their fustrations out on blacks, here in the US.
Cubans have no guilt nor will their descendants, indeed. Whats there to feel guilty about? I feel sorry for whites that feel guilt of any kind, not to say we should repent when we need to. After all we all make mistakes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 07:58 PM | #

Excellent point, Boris!  ResistingDefamation.org is an ADL for Europeans!( * )  I hadn’t thought of it that way but that’s what it is.  If Europeans support it, it will grow bigger and stronger and become better able to help protect their interests:  Boris is completely right.
______

( *  Actually it’s not an ADL for Europeans, in that it’s not trying to cause the genocide of any group.  The ADL has as its main goal the protection of Jewish interests, yes, but the means by which it intends to achieve its goal is the actual genocide of non-Jewish Europeans so they can no longer threaten, irritate, or excite the jealousy of, Jews.  Resisting Defamation has not targeted any group for genocide, as far as I’m aware.  So in that sense it’s not the ADL’s exact counterpart.)

Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 09, 2006, 09:05 PM | #

PatrickZ
I usually agree with your points of view, however I feel a correction must be made. To me hispanics is a useless label, for abrief history lesson there are plenty of websites and enciclopedias. For example you mention repatriation of asians, hispanics and muslims. No mention of jews or blacks. Are they alright? but some whites just cause they’re either muslim or hispanic are not?
BTW most of this hispanics coming down the pipe are in some cases 100% pure bred indians. I’m a bit confused but I would repatriate most non-whites and keep it as simple as that.

Posted by Lurker on September 09, 2006, 09:36 PM | #

Sorry muslims have to be a no-no, white or not.

Posted by Boris Perez Buliak on September 09, 2006, 09:46 PM | #

LOL. OK

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 10, 2006, 12:04 AM | #

The difference is evident here:

“Ernst Zundel vowed in a symbolic act, standing and touching the Wailing Wall in Israel in 1968, that he would lift the blood libel of the Holocaust from the German World War II generation and free their children from the curse that is fraudulently peddled ‘Holocaust.’

versus

“Suppose that the Jews’ characteristically big lie were the truth—that the Germans really had made a desperate attempt to rid themselves of their parasites by killing six million of them. If the Germans had done that, what of it? Why should Aryans be concerned about that effort at national sanitation?”

Or here:

Consider the statement of H. F. Verwoerd, South African prime minister from 1958 till 1967: “I wish to state unequivocally that South Africa is a white man’s country and that he must remain the master here.” Or “On the basis of an inherent superiority, or greater knowledge, or whatever it might be, the European must remain master and leader.”

versus

...Ian Smith’s autobiographical The Great Betrayal. There he describes the Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence of November 11, 1965, as one in which “there would be no diminution of African advancement and prosperity.” It was all a matter of time. His policy was “to bring the African into government on a basis acceptable to them.”

One a belief in self-evident mastery, the other laden with moral equivalence.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 10, 2006, 12:26 AM | #

Southern historian Ulrich Bonnell Phillips that the essence of the South was race. He argued that this was the cardinal test of a Southerner. Slavery, he felt, was a system of race control to maintain orderly government and social stability. Of course he is roundly criticised by modern day historians.

...to assume that the Negro was peculiarly suited for slavery because of certain inherent racial traits is quite another matter. This involves not primarily a subjective bias but ignorance of, or disregard for, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Much of this evidence was already available to Phillips, though it must be noted that he grew up at a time when the imperialist doctrine of the “white man’s burden” and the writings of such men as John Fiske and John W. Burgess were giving added strength to the belief in Anglo-Saxon superiority. Nor should he be blamed for failing to anticipate the findings of biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists subsequent to the publication of his volume American Negro Slavery in 1918. It may be significant that he presented his own point of view with considerably more restraint in his Life and Labor in the Old South which appeared a decade later.

Nevertheless, it is this point of view which both dates and outdates the Phillips version of slavery. No historian of the institution can be taken seriously any longer unless he begins with the knowledge that there is no valid evidence that the Negro race is innately inferior to the white, and that there is growing evidence that both races have approximately the same potentialities. 19 He must also take into account the equally important fact that there are tremendous variations in the capacities and personalities of individuals within each race, and that is therefore impossible to make valid generalizations about races as such.

An awareness of these facts is forcing the revisionists to discard much of the folklore about Negroes that found a support in the classic portrayal of slavery. Take, for example, the idea that the primitive Negroes brought to America could only adapt to the culture of the civilized white man in the course of many generations of gradual growth. Phillips saw the plantation as “a school constantly training and controlling pupils who were in a backward state of civilization…. On the whole the plantations were the best schools yet invented for the mass training of that sort of inert and backward people which the bulk of the American negroes represented.” 20

This idea would seem to imply that the Negroes could only be civilized through a slow evolutionary process, during which they would gradually acquire and transmit to their descendants the white man’s patterns of social behavior.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 10, 2006, 06:43 AM | #

I’m always slightly stunned by the love felt for the Confederates in many nationalist circles. After all, consider what they were actually rebelling for: for the right to continue to own black slaves, thus expediating mongrelification of America. The Unionists by contrast had a plan for racial sepuration, Lincoln planning to give them a sepurate state in the unsettled West. Quite apart from that, slave owning reduces the need for work, and is thus dysgenic, allowing the work shy and stupid to pass on their genes in greater numbers.

The right of political sepuration itself should be dubious to a traditionalist caste of mind, potentially degradating as it does into free-for-all libertinism. A sort of market in political loyalties, if you will. What is there to stop some anti-social clown from declaring his property a sepurate, sovereign state, where he can do what he pleases, including disgusting and immoral behaviours?

The history of Europe, and especially the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, is replete with examples of what ignorant marxists would call people power: the peasantry and yeomanry, and even nobility rising up against their unjust and tyrannical ruler. However, in each case they desired not sepuration but a change of ruler: they remained loyal to country, even as they rightly felt no absolute loyalty to any mortal man.

Similarly, the great theologians, from St. Aquinas onwards, whilst recognising the right of rebellion, did not the right of taking your toys and leaving with them.    Even if you are not of a Christian turn of mind, you still have to concede that these were exceptionally learned (in the pagan Ancients as well as Christian ideas) and wise men.

Why then do so many nationalists celebrate a historically precedent-less action, which had as its effect the injection of da blackhh mahn’z straghhle into the American nation?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 08:31 AM | #

there is no valid evidence that the Negro race is innately inferior [in intelligence, as measured by IQ tests,] to the white, and that there is growing evidence that both races have approximately the same potentialities.  He must also take into account the equally important fact that there are tremendous variations in the capacities and personalities of individuals within each race, and that is therefore impossible to make valid generalizations about races as such.

For those who suffered through that passage quoted in Desmond’s comment a couple above—a passage written by what I take to have been an academic who is Jewish, judging by the particular manner in which he not only stupidly but dishonestly attempts to deny race, and published maybe two or three decades ago—here’s an antidote:

- ”The discussion of race and intelligence is being actively repressed on campuses as I write these words. But intellectually, the battle is over: Race realism has won.”—Prof. Rushton

Posted by PatrickZ on September 10, 2006, 10:18 AM | #

Fred

I don’t just see why race and IQ discusion is necessary for what I think we are tryig to achieve which is prevent the demographic annihilation of European people in Europe,Australia and America.  I wouldn’t be traumatized if blacks were had the same intelligence levels as Whites.

I would still would not wish to live among them.

Would your views change if blacks if blacks scored as high as Whites on IQ tests?
My own view is that race and IQ is not a scientifically interesting question. There are other reasons why some people find this research so fascinating.

Genes and higher order genetic structures have many connections to the enviroment. This is the emerging view in genetcs in biochemistry. Because of this, it really hard to take the claims of the harcore genetic determinist seriously.

My cousin was extemely pissed several years back when IQ tests were used in the Bayville school systems to track young children. His son was one of the victims of this tracking system.

Philosopher Phillip Kitcher-he is a very well known analytic philosopher- suposedly has been at work for several years on a book demolition the conceptual foundations of IQ research.

The true beleivers in Race and IQ research should be very worried.

Jared Taylor is very foolish to be taliking about Race and IQ on national television-which he has already done-at a time when Thousands of Native Born White Males are being replaced in the labor market by Indian,Chinese and muslim legal immigrant scab workers. He wil not find a receptive audience for this stuff among economically struggling Native Born White Americans.
You and others on this blog should not make beleif in the Bell Curve theology as a litmus test for who can and can not be on our side.

The true believers are seriously underestimating the role of the environment-this is a very broad term-on different types of cognitive domains(for more about this check out a recent issue of Scientific America)

Posted by Andy on September 10, 2006, 10:47 AM | #

“Philosopher Phillip Kitcher-he is a very well known analytic philosopher- suposedly has been at work for several years on a book demolition the conceptual foundations of IQ research.

The true beleivers in Race and IQ research should be very worried.”

  LOL. Egalitarians have been trying to undermine IQ for decades.  Will Kitcher succeed where Gould failed? I seriously doubt it. 

  “The true believers are seriously underestimating the role of the environment-this is a very broad term-on different types of cognitive domains(for more about this check out a recent issue of Scientific America)”

  Yawn. Yet another strawman argument worn out by the egalitarians.  No one says that environment doesn’t matter.  It’s the radicals on the other side who commit the error in saying that only environment matters.  To deny heriditarianism is folly. 

  “My own view is that race and IQ is not a scientifically interesting question. There are other reasons why some people find this research so fascinating.” 

  Race and IQ is an interesting subject because it matters.  It’s strong component in determining a lot of real world behavior.  Frankly, the vast majority of whites don’t share your opinion.  They won’t care about race without a clear understanding of why race matters. 

“Genes and higher order genetic structures have many connections to the enviroment. This is the emerging view in genetcs in biochemistry. Because of this, it really hard to take the claims of the harcore genetic determinist seriously.”

  This is another laughable strawman argument.  You sound like an egalitarian in disguise.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 10:48 AM | #

Patrick, I oppose the forced race-replacement of traditional communities of Europeans (in North America, Europe, Russian Asia, the Antipodes, and elsewhere where they’ve established themselves) regardless of any question of IQ.  I do accept the IQ research that says yellows are smarter on average but I don’t see that as justification for white élites’ forcibly race-replacing their unconsulted, unwilling fellow whites with yellows, supposedly in a spirit of “racial self-improvement.”  That the race-replacement currently being forced by government is using not only high-IQ races such as yellows and high-caste Hindus but low-IQ ones to bring about our replacement shows, however, that it’s not being done entirely in a spirit of racial improvement.  Actually, it’s not being done in that spirit at all.  It’s being done by an alliance of culprits for a variety of reasons—all of them illegitimate of course.  I seethe with anger about it just as much as you do.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 10, 2006, 11:36 AM | #

Andy, you may want to start with the past year or two of Scientific American where Genetic determinism has been shown be way too simplistic. This just scratches the surface.

Your post also proves once again Race and IQ research is not the least bit scientifically interesting. It is of interest only to economic reactionaries.

Yes, I am an egalaltarian in that I believe the goverment should step in and protect humans from brutal wage slavery and chatel slavery.

I never claimed that genes-nor do any of the serious critics of race and IQ research-were not involved in human inteligence.
The interaction of genes of and environment is poorly understood. This is why its silly for the true believers to be making the claims that they make about gentic determinism.

And even if this question- are certian races intellectually inferior to other races-could be scientifically esatablished,it is a question that society doesn’t need the answer to(anymore than society needs to know the answer to question of the genetic basis of a correlation between large toe size and IQ. There are lots of uninteresting correlations that one can come up with)

It is irrelevant. If some people-lets say a subpopulation of the White population are so handicapped by there genetic endowment, these are the people who would need a lot of goverment support to keep them out of poverty(brutal wage slavery and chattel slavery) I think even Sailer even understands this point these days.

For the most part, the true beleivers real inerest in race and IQ research is to find a biological justification for gross social and econimc inequality. This is not a scientific question. This is a political and econimc question.

Fred, if your intertested in protecting the demogaphc interests of Americans of European, I wouldn’t be pushing the race and IQ research theology in public. It is a very foolish oraganizationizing tactic. Many of them will be turned off by it.

Jared Taylor is going to look very foolish quoting the research of Rushton a man has has an interest in the size of black male penises. Someone will eventually point this out about the wierdo Rushton in a televised debater on natonal tv.

If an arrogant Hindu H1-B visa thief did lecture me about the intellectual superiority of the hindu over the White man, I probably would rearrange the south asian supremacists face.

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 02:07 PM | #

I’m always slightly stunned by the love felt for the Confederates in many nationalist circles.

How come? The diehard secessionists were convinced that the North was a hostile and antagonistic section and that remaining in the Union would be ruinous to Southern interests in the long run. It was better to get out of the Union while it was still possible to do so than to sit around and wait for the inevitable ruin of the South. That, of course, is exactly what happened: every major piece of civil rights legislation ever passed in this country has been opposed by the South and supported by New England.

After all, consider what they were actually rebelling for: for the right to continue to own black slaves, thus expediating mongrelification of America.

This is false. The Republicans had not proposed to abolish slavery in the South. In fact, the Republicans passed a constitutional amendment that would have legalized slavery forever in order to bring the South back into the Union. The South had an emancipation plan of its own: expansion into Mexico and the Caribbean, which was being blocked by the North. Slaves would be sold further and further south gradually until blacks were driven out of America altogether. This is exactly how the North got rid of its slaves during the early nineteenth century.

The Unionists by contrast had a plan for racial sepuration, Lincoln planning to give them a sepurate state in the unsettled West.

Lincoln endorsed giving blacks voting rights in his last speech. That is why John Wilkes Booth shot him. The Radical Republicans then proceeded to give blacks citizenship, voting rights, and full civil rights along with special privileges enforced by the Union army. That’s hardly what I would call racial separation.

Quite apart from that, slave owning reduces the need for work, and is thus dysgenic, allowing the work shy and stupid to pass on their genes in greater numbers.

Slavery was obviously a problem, but billions of dollars worth of assets were tied up in the system, so any idiot could see that the South would have to ween itself from slavery gradually. The Upper South was abolishing slavery in the same fashion as the North: by selling slaves further south, recouping the investment that had been made in slavery in the process. If slavery had simply been left alone, it would have been abolished naturally in the Upper South, and would have been destroyed in the Lower South during the late nineteenth century when the world market was flooded with cheap cotton.

The right of political sepuration itself should be dubious to a traditionalist caste of mind, potentially degradating as it does into free-for-all libertinism. A sort of market in political loyalties, if you will. What is there to stop some anti-social clown from declaring his property a sepurate, sovereign state, where he can do what he pleases, including disgusting and immoral behaviours?

You seem to be confusing republicanism with liberalism here. Secession is a state right, not an individual right. Republicans take for granted that man is naturally a social being destined by nature to live in social state. The states had already seceded from the British Empire and the Articles of Confederation. There is nothing in the Constitution that says states are not allowed to secede from the Union. In fact, in their ratification of the Constitution, both Virginia and Texas retained the right to secede.

The history of Europe, and especially the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, is replete with examples of what ignorant marxists would call people power: the peasantry and yeomanry, and even nobility rising up against their unjust and tyrannical ruler. However, in each case they desired not sepuration but a change of ruler: they remained loyal to country, even as they rightly felt no absolute loyalty to any mortal man.

We have more to fear from unaccountable elites than the general public. The general public is strongly in favor of immigration reform. The general public opposes affirmative action. The general public in the South opposed the Civil Rights Movement. The worst acts of despotism in America have been imposed from the top down, not from the bottom up. Just look at the history of the Supreme Court since 1938.

Similarly, the great theologians, from St. Aquinas onwards, whilst recognising the right of rebellion, did not the right of taking your toys and leaving with them.  Even if you are not of a Christian turn of mind, you still have to concede that these were exceptionally learned (in the pagan Ancients as well as Christian ideas) and wise men.

The United States is not a Catholic nation.

Why then do so many nationalists celebrate a historically precedent-less action, which had as its effect the injection of da blackhh mahn’z straghhle into the American nation?

Southern secession had two especially relevant precedents: the American Revolution itself and the secession of the states from the “perpetual union” of the Articles of Confederation. But that is ultimately besides the point. If the South were an independent country, there would be no Fourteenth Amendment, no Fifteenth Amendment, no Brown, no Civil Rights Act of 1964, no Voting Rights Act, no Immigration Act of 1965, no Loving v. Virginia. The South opposed all of these things. All of the destructive race legislation and judicial precedents that currently exist in America have been imposed on the South by the rest of the country.

New England has long been a problem for the rest of the country. New England opposed the War of 1812 and threatened to secede, opposed the Louisiana Purchase, opposed the annexation of Texas, opposed the Mexican War, opposed (successfully) further American expansion into Mexico and the Caribbean. New England was strongly supportive, however, of waging war against the South, abolishing slavery, destroying our economy and imposing racial integration on us, not once, but twice.

Posted by Calvin on September 10, 2006, 02:22 PM | #

I think you’re getting that back to front. IQ disparities are not an explanation of White pre-eminence; they are the probable explanation for the failure of Africans to achieve the high degree of social and technological development of other races. If IQ alone was the key to the progression of civilisation, the Chinese would have the most advanced civilisations in the world. They don’t so there must be other factors. I would suggest that Europeans have greater powers of lateral thinking, more independence of thought and superior creativity. I might be wrong but I haven’t heard any better explanations.

The standard orthodox explanation is that we are, a: more ruthless than other races, b: more racist than other races, and, c: were lucky enough to acquire/stolen a vast store of knowledge from other races, is easily proved wrong.

The first two points are themselves racist, positing, as they do, the existence of inherent racially specific characteristics confined specifically to Europeans, in this case, “ruthlessness” and, “racism”. It is no less racist to claim that Whites are ruthless ethnophobes than it is to claim that Africans are intellectually undistinguished and indolent. This being the case we are not arguing about who is or isn’t a racist, we are arguing about which “racist” explanation is right..

The last point is mainly nonsense. The fact is that the vast body of useful knowledge that came to Western Europe in the late middle ages was the creation of Europeans (Greece and Rome) in the first place. The real question that needs to be asked is, why the Muslims achieved so little with this knowledge?

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 02:30 PM | #

We can’t change hisory. I don’t pretend to know the answer as to why Ameria evolved into its present state. It will take a lot o time to figure this out. No one fully understand why things evolved the way they did

I know exactly how it happened. I have spent years researching the matter.

There was oposition in the South to during the civil war among Southern Whites to seccesion and the institution of slavery.

Of course. If the war was perceived to be about slavery, the South would never have seceded, much less would Southern whites have bitterly resisted the largest military invasion in the history of North America up until that time for almost five years. Southern whites would have enthusiastically embraced abolition if blacks would have disappeared from their midst without disrupting the economy of the region. It was the formula abolition = integration = mongrelization that drove the South into secession. Southern whites would spend the better part of the next hundred years fighting against racial equality.

I view the Southern Whites who fought for the the South the same way I view Whites who continue to vote Republican. Complete f…g fools.

No. Only a complete f…. fool would argue that Southerners were better off in the Union than outside of it in light of what happened after the war.

And lets be honest, the descendants of the slave owning southern elites are the same ones promoting the new south which has resulted in Atlanta being transformed into a third world cesspool.

Are you familar with the Atlanta area? I was in Atlanta yesterday evening. Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston and other cities have been inudated by white inmigration from the North over the past forty years. The most racially liberal whites in the South are overwhelming such recent transplants.

The descendants of the soutern slave owners went on a rampage when the descendants of the men who fought for the south revolted against wage slavery in the 30’s,40s and 5os. The descendants of the slave owners were effective in destroying a White labour movement.

The descendents of the slave owners supported Jim Crow. As it happens, one of the biggest supporters of racial integration in the forties, fifties, and sixties was the UAW. This happens to be the major reason that unions were so unsuccessful in organizaning southern whites until quite recently.

This was very good for present day wealthy Germans and Japanese. The Germans and japanese in 2006 have access to a low wage southern work force.

The Germans and Japanese build manufacturing plants here and provide well paying jobs. The South is wealthier today than it has been at any point in its history. Yeah. I know we should buy American, but buying American was synonymous with buying Northern overpriced manufactured goods until quite recently.

The men who fought for the South were fools who were manipulated by the slave owning class.

The only fools were men like Andrew Johnson who were stupid enough to cling to the Union in which radicals out to destroy the South sat in the U.S. Congress. Johnson himself would later discover his error when he vetoed the civil rights bills and was impeached for his efforts.

Not too much different today. Karl Rove is manipulating the current generation of southern men women.

Conservatism is definitely a problem, yes. I’m not sure what Karl Rove has to do with slaveowners, though.

The basic problem with your position and the paleocon position in general is that they are providing Native Born White Americans with a false choice.

I’m not a paleoconservative.

The neo confederates and paleoconsevatives are at their core are economic reactionaries. This is their fatal flaw.

This is nonsense. The paleocons, to their credit, have been outspoken critics of the “economism” that dominates the rest of the conservative movement.

I believe that the econimc reactionaries in the White Nationalis movement such as Jared Taylor will turn off many struggling Native Born Whites.

How is Jared Taylor an “economic reactionary”?

White don’t want to be told that race and IQ “science” research demonstrates that Whites are intellectually inferior to the predatory east asian thief.

Who are you to speak for whites?

Moreover, most Native born Whites want protection against brutal wage and chattel slavery. This will require goverment intervention.

I’m not a supporter of wage slavery.

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 02:36 PM | #

Andy, you may want to start with the past year or two of Scientific American where Genetic determinism has been shown be way too simplistic. This just scratches the surface.

Three arguments decisively refute environmentalist arguments about intelligence.

1.) There has to be genes that code for intelligence, otherwise we are unable to explain the difference in intelligence between humans and animals.

2.) Intelligence has to be some physical aspect of the brain, otherwise we can’t explain the changes in people who suffer from brain related genetic diseases or severe brain trauma.

3.) Intelligence cannot possibly be ultimately environmental, as sense data coming in from the environment would be unintelligible without some innate organizing faculty.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 10, 2006, 02:43 PM | #

Daedulus.

I don’t like thei dea of secession. Much bewtter idea is to drive the hindus,sihks,muslims,chinese koreans,phiilipinos post 1965 afircan imigrants out of America.

It would be dangerous for Whites to let the aforementioned racial groups to have complete access to the most lethal militarty structure known to mankind.

Sam Francis opposed to the idea of seccesion.

Well known lefties such as Kirkpatrick hae been peomoting the idea of seccesion for years.

I’m not willing to let mexico,china and iran-one million iranians live in our Californa-have California.

I would put my life on the line to drive the invaders out America.

Secession is surrender.

The lefties would love to see us retreat to montanna and idaho. It would be much easier for them to kill us off.

The level of anger and rage in the White American population is just below the surface. Lefties understand this. If Al Queda nukes a few American cities, the lid wil be blown off sky high.

Patrick

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 02:52 PM | #

“If slavery had simply been left alone, it would have been abolished naturally [...]”  (—Daedalus)

Yes absolutely and, with hindsight, completely obvious:  it would’ve been gone, vanished, done-away with, and Dixie’s Negroes humanely settled elsewhere, certainly by something like 1910-15.  At the absolute outside, it wouldn’t have continued beyond the end of World War I; even that far is virtually inconceivable.  It’s possible it might have been gone by natural withering as early as the mid-1880s.  For every social, economic, industrial and technological reason you can think of, the handwriting of slavery’s demise was already on the wall at the time of the outbreak of Lincoln’s War.  Everything would have turned out far, far better had that war never been fought, the South allowed to go its own way and end slavery its own way.  Going its own way was legal and moral anyway, and the North had no legal or moral right to interfere.

Posted by ben tillman on September 10, 2006, 05:01 PM | #

“Wealth is needed to staff full time activists to organize the masses, raise their awareness, and to fund a legal team that can defend our interests in the courts.”

Absolutely.

Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 05:29 PM | #

See above:
Resisting Defamation.org
——————————————————-
Wether they’re organizing the masses is unknown to me, however a legal fund has been established to defend whites.
Alright!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 05:34 PM | #

Daedulus.

I don’t like thei dea of secession. Much bewtter idea is to drive the hindus,sihks,muslims,chinese koreans,phiilipinos post 1965 afircan imigrants out of America.

If the South were an independent country, there never would have been an Immigration Act of 1965 in the first place. Southern representatives in Congress voted it. The only objection I have to secession is that is impractical and would be resisted by military force. Otherwise, I support the idea.

It would be dangerous for Whites to let the aforementioned racial groups to have complete access to the most lethal militarty structure known to mankind.

Southerners have known for generations that the biggest threat to the racial integrity of the South are the white liberals of the North. I wish this were not the case, but New England has consistently supported vindictive civil rights laws designed to weaken our political power in Congress and the third world immigration which is currently ruining the Southwest. Someone like Ted Kennedy could never get elected in Alabama.

Sam Francis opposed to the idea of seccesion. Well known lefties such as Kirkpatrick hae been peomoting the idea of seccesion for years.

It ultimately comes down to this: what is more important, maintaining white civilization in the South and West, or union with a Massachusetts represented by the likes of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry?

I’m not willing to let mexico,china and iran-one million iranians live in our Californa-have California. I would put my life on the line to drive the invaders out America.

Once again, California would be overrun by third world immigrants and illegal aliens today if it were not for the Immigration Act of 1965. Who supported the Immigration Act of 1965?

Secession is surrender.

Secession is a remedy to the rot of liberalism which is corrupting the United States. A Southern union is in theory a great idea. Within such a union, the preferences of Southerners on all sorts of issues from immigration to affirmative action to abortion would radically change the political status quo.

The lefties would love to see us retreat to montanna and idaho. It would be much easier for them to kill us off. The level of anger and rage in the White American population is just below the surface. Lefties understand this. If Al Queda nukes a few American cities, the lid wil be blown off sky high.

As it happens, the anger and rage of white Americans is largely a phenomena of the West and South, with substantial support amongst urban whites in New England and the Midwest. There are important cultural differences that divide American whites who live in different regions. Compare Jeff Sessions to Ted Kennedy in the immigration debate in the Senate this year.

Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 05:47 PM | #

I think white survival is at such a perilous crossroads that ALL options must be entertained. Instead of bikering and in-fighting amongst ourselves regarding which one method to follow, we should follow all ways and means available without ruling them out. Eventually a method that works will stand out and then all of our concentration and will should be directed towards implementing that solution.
Here’s my resolution:
How can voters in US take their country back?
One of the few Congressman that opposes open-borders is being underminded by his own repuke party. How can this be fixed? All ideas welcome….........

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 06:41 PM | #

How can voters in US take their country back?

First, we have to create a viable national organization to represent our interests.

Second, we have to go where the fish are. That means organizing the millions of whites who are already sympathetic to racialism in much the same way as the NAACP used to recruit amongst blacks.

Third, we have to get these people to contribute financially to the aforesaid organization.

Fourth, once this funding has been secured, we have to create a legal team to defend our interest in the courts and a media arm to get our message out.

Fifth, this media arm has to focus on undermining the conservatives on social issues and the liberals on economic issues.

Sixth, we have to make ourselves a force in American politics by operationalizing racialist discontent into victories at the polls.

We can use litigation, boycotts, demonstrations, and sabotage voting to undermine the status quo.

Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 07:05 PM | #

Who’d want to take on step one? I’m hardly the brightest bulb around here, but I’m sure all for action. Count me in once said organization is formed. But wait, there’s the CofCC, the NV, should they merge first, or should we have a new organization?

Posted by AD on September 10, 2006, 07:22 PM | #

Regardless of what has happened in the past i totally support the “neo confederates”......for the same reason i support the Northern Irish, Boers and Lega Nord. It’s obvious that you should co-operate with other white Americans but the South is your ancestral and cultural home as much as England is for the English and Greece if for the Greeks. You need to go on identifying as *southern* whites and your real *nation* is, was and always will be the South. Despite the proliferation of negroes in the south east, you have maintained your culture better than any other white diaspora on the planet. That’s why *they* hate you the most…...you have endured. I WISH the pioneer stock had similar regional options in Australia to safeguard us against outsiders(including immigrant whites and their often degenerate cultural influences).

Posted by AD on September 10, 2006, 07:32 PM | #

and BTW i don’t say all that out of Scots-Irish Proddy supremacism…...i’m an Anglo-German Catholic.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 10, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

Daedulus

There are many Northerners who despise the Kennedy clan.

They didn’t vote for the 1965 immigration reform act.

The current American political system filters out the patriots and selects for the traitors.

Ted Kennedy is"democratically elected” in this system. Therefor you can not conclude that he has high popular support among ordinary Northern White folk at the current time.

Not a good idea to drive a wedge between different regions of the Nation where Whites live. Whites will either become unified as a racial group or they will be be conquered by Non-Whites.

I’m not convinced that there a different White national identities within American.

What would you lke to see, the midwest restricting the migration of Southern Whites to the midwest in 2006?

By the way when poor Southern Whites had the oportunity to leave the South for the midwest the did. I happened during time periods when legal immigration was brought down to a very low leel.

In Old South, there were many dirt poor southern Whites. I blame the Slave owning Southern aristocracy for this.

I don’t like the choice between returning to the good old days of when Southern White men of means kept poor southern Whites in a state of third world poverty.-I seriously doubt that any mentally healthy Southern White person today would want to go back to those days-and the wage slavery of Andrew Carnigie’s industrial plantations. This choice is probably what made the Kenndys so appealing to thousands of Americans. At least with the Kenndy’s there was some minimal protection against brutal wage slavery in the South and brutal wage slavery in the North.

The moral of the story:people concerned about the survival of European Americans better give European Americans better choices than the evil old southern aristocracy,the evil new south corporatists and the evil Kennedy clan.

What concerns me is that the neoconfederates are as tribalistic in their thinking as the waring tribes in Afgahnistan. Look what this has done for afganistan. Afghanistan is fucking shithole.Been that way for a long time. I don’t think most sotuhern whites want this. I’m hoping that they would like to see ther sons and daughters become professionals such as doctors lawyers,school teachers,engineers,nurses,programmers,dentist and many other high paying pofessions. The neanderthal days for American White woman are over for ever. Thank God.

The old Southern caste system was evil. They maipulated thousands of poor uneducated illiterate Southern White men to die for a political,economic and social system that denied their humanity.

It is in some ways very similar to whats going on today with the evil Karl Rove and his evangelical clergy friends manipulating the intellectually backward southern evangelical into fanatically supporting and dying for the sate of Isarel.

The southern slave owners should have been executed. Andrew Carniegie and his business partner the German immigrant Frick should have been executed also for similar crimes against humanity.(Lincoln was executed)

Patrick

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 07:41 PM | #

Who’d want to take on step one? I’m hardly the brightest bulb around here, but I’m sure all for action. Count me in once said organization is formed. But wait, there’s the CofCC, the NV, should they merge first, or should we have a new organization?

The saddest thing about all of this is that politics isn’t an incredibly difficult subject to understand. It’s not like anyone is being asked to create an atomic bomb from scratch; common sense is all it takes. But that is what passes for “leadership” in the American WN movement. We don’t even have a viable national organization representing our interests today.

Who would do it? Supposedly the “leadership” of the “movement.” Why this wasn’t done years ago is a mystery to me. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone. I have never met with any of these people, so I wouldn’t know. Jared Taylor, David Duke, Kevin Strom, and Don Black should be forced to sit down and work something out, or better yet, Taylor should do it himself. American Renaissance could play the same role that The Crisis once played for the NAACP.

The guys at Stormfront are still debating in 2006 whether or not it is a good idea to run around in costumes with swastikas. VNN is worthless. That there is even a debate about whether or not racialism should be consigned to the fringe forever is telling. I have written about the fantasist problem in White Nationalism for years. Ultimately, I think inaction on the part of the “leadership” is the cause of this. Without a practical outlet for their energies, racially conscious whites create elaborate fantasy worlds and immerse themselves in them. When thousands of people start sharing the same fantasy, and communicating with each other about their fantasy over the internet, this becomes a vicious cycle that is extremely difficult to break.

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 08:34 PM | #

Daedulus

There are many Northerners who despise the Kennedy clan.
They didn’t vote for the 1965 immigration reform act.

The Immigration Act of 1965 was opposed by the South and supported by the North. If the South was not part of the United States, it would have never have become law here in a million years. If the South was an independent country, segregation would still exist. Sure. There are many Northerners who oppose the Kennedys, and I wish them well, but the fact remains that the South would be better off outside of the United States than within it.

The current American political system filters out the patriots and selects for the traitors.

The logjam in American politics stems in large part from the fact that different regions of America have very different cultures and histories. Alabama is not Massachusetts. Where I grew up (Montgomery, the first capital of the Confederacy), racialism is still socially acceptable amongst whites. In fact, the fraternities and sororitie at Auburn (which I attended as an undergraduate) are still segregated.

There are more whites who are still nominally committed to racialism in the American South than anywhere else in the world. Even David Duke, a former Klansman and Nazi, got the majority of the white vote in Louisiana a few years ago when he ran for governor. There is still a lot of bitterness in the South about what happened here in the sixties. If our political leaders would merely speak out about the issue, the masses would follow. Hence my animosity towards “conservatism.”

Ted Kennedy is"democratically elected” in this system. Therefor you can not conclude that he has high popular support among ordinary Northern White folk at the current time.

How long has Ted Kennedy been in the U.S. Senate now? Decades, right? Voters in Massachusetts have had years to throw him out. He is without a doubt one of the most destructive politicians I can think of in all of American history. 

Not a good idea to drive a wedge between different regions of the Nation where Whites live. Whites will either become unified as a racial group or they will be be conquered by Non-Whites.

That’s not the issue. As I said before, I think secession is impractical. That doesn’t mean I oppose it in principle. How can anyone deny, racially speaking, that the South would be better off outside the United States? Look at all the civil rights legislation and who opposed it and who supported it. Look at the current debate over third world immigration. Where do the Senators and Congressmen who oppose this come from?

I’m not convinced that there a different White national identities within American.

Then you are oblivious to America history. Nothing like Jim Crow existed in the North during the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Segregation was a Southern phenomena. The North has been integrated for well over a hundred years. Massachusetts abolished its anti-miscegenation law as early as 1843.

What would you lke to see, the midwest restricting the migration of Southern Whites to the midwest in 2006?

I would like to see the status quo done away with. That’s my top priority. The union is nowhere near as important to me as reversing the colonization of the South by Hispanics.

By the way when poor Southern Whites had the oportunity to leave the South for the midwest the did. I happened during time periods when legal immigration was brought down to a very low leel.

Virtually everyone was poor in the South until quite recently. I’m as outspoken about that as anyone else. Look to the policies of the Republican Party which impoverished the region for decades.

In Old South, there were many dirt poor southern Whites. I blame the Slave owning Southern aristocracy for this.

Yes. Slavery was a cause of underdevelopment. The colonization of the South was a botched operation and slavery was entrenched during the colonial era. After slavery became institutionalized, the question became a choice between emancipation and integration or slavery and segregation. The vast majority of Southern whites opted for the later. Slavery was bad, but not as bad as the prospect of integration and mongrelization.

I don’t like the choice between returning to the good old days of when Southern White men of means kept poor southern Whites in a state of third world poverty.-I seriously doubt that any mentally healthy Southern White person today would want to go back to those days-and the wage slavery of Andrew Carnigie’s industrial plantations.

I don’t like our contemporary circumstances where Hispanics have already colonized South Florida and South Texas and millions more are swarming into Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina. We don’t even the right to freedom of association anymore which renders all our other civil rights meaningless. What galls me even more is how blacks have been allowed to run wild and ruin dozens of cities, indeed, entire regions of Alabama over the past fifty years.

This choice is probably what made the Kenndys so appealing to thousands of Americans. At least with the Kenndy’s there was some minimal protection against brutal wage slavery in the South and brutal wage slavery in the North.

Southern whites were absolutely crystal clear on this point for centuries: poverty is preferable to racial equality anyday. I absolutely agree. I’m not a materialist personally. Wealth is not something I care much about.

The moral of the story:people concerned about the survival of European Americans better give European Americans better choices than the evil old southern aristocracy,the evil new south corporatists and the evil Kennedy clan.

The greatest threat to the racial integrity of the South has always come from the liberal whites of New England. These were the people who abolished slavery at gunpoint, destroyed our economy, gave blacks citizenship, gave blacks voting rights, gave blacks full civil rights and empowered the federal government with the Fourteenth Amendment to interfere in Southern elections, passed the Immigration Act of 1965, and imposed desegregation on us at gunpoint in the fifties and sixties. None of this would have ever happened had they not insisted on it. That’s simply a fact, no matter which way you slice it.

What concerns me is that the neoconfederates are as tribalistic in their thinking as the waring tribes in Afgahnistan. Look what this has done for afganistan. Afghanistan is fucking shithole.Been that way for a long time. I don’t think most sotuhern whites want this.

The neoconfederates are absolutely right: historically speaking, the greatest threat to the South has always been the white liberals of the North. A Southern union would eliminate virtually all our problems with a single stroke. Do you deny this?

I’m hoping that they would like to see ther sons and daughters become professionals such as doctors lawyers,school teachers,engineers,nurses,programmers,dentist and many other high paying pofessions. The neanderthal days for American White woman are over for ever. Thank God.

Are you from the South? If not, why are our social policies any of your business? I would say we have a rather good track record. Look to the North if you want to understand why everyone in America must praise nigger equality and worship Martin Luther King today. No one here wanted any part of his “dream” at the time and one disgruntled Southerner ultimately put an end to that monster altogether. If you want to know why the efforts of unions failed in the South, look at their position on race and their sympathy for communism which destroyed their credibility.

The old Southern caste system was evil. They maipulated thousands of poor uneducated illiterate Southern White men to die for a political,economic and social system that denied their humanity.

What caste system was this? Sure. Planters were wealthier than the average white, but they were ordinary men themselves who came from the same stock. Slavery was horrible, but slavery would have expired had it simply been left alone. Blacks would have been deported to Central America. Such a massive war was not necessary to abolish slavery anywhere else in the Western hemispehre. And slavery was infinitely preferable to integration and mongrelization, which is precisely what the North attempted to impose on the South during Reconstruction, as Andrew Johnson said himself when he vetoed the civil rights bills.

It is in some ways very similar to whats going on today with the evil Karl Rove and his evangelical clergy friends manipulating the intellectually backward southern evangelical into fanatically supporting and dying for the sate of Isarel.

I dislike conservatism as much as anyone else, but the only reason conservatism is a force in American politics today is because of the committment of the Midwest and New England to radical social equality. In the sixties, it was civil rights for blacks. In the seventies, in was fags and women. Now, it is illegal aliens. I won’t pretend to understand the mentality that drives Northerners into embracing such things, but I want no part of them.

The southern slave owners should have been executed. Andrew Carniegie and his business partner the German immigrant Frick should have been executed also for similar crimes against humanity.(Lincoln was executed)

Slavery hasn’t been an issue in American politics for almost 150 years. Suppose the South had seceded from the United States and had been left alone. Then what? We would have conquered Mexico and the Caribbean. Slaves would have been sold further and further south, as they were in the north, until blacks were driven out of the South altogether. Without billions of dollar in assets invested in slaves, the South would have industrialized and our standard of living would have improved enormously. Also, the social liberals of the North would have been left back in the Union to stew in their own juice and become a “nation of immigrants.” There never would have been any civil rights legislation and we wouldn’t have the race problem we have today.

Posted by Matra on September 10, 2006, 09:15 PM | #

Northerners are a millstone round the necks of Southerners. With every passing year Southerners become more like liberal Yankees. Virtually every part of Southern culture from NASCAR to country music has been watered down and liberalised to suit non-Southerners who get offended by confederate flags or anything else that isn’t a sign of deracination.  There’s no reason why the one region of the US with a white racial conscience should sacrifice itself waiting for Connecticut Yankees to get their act together. By that time there’ll be nothing left to defend.

This reminds me of the situation in Canada. In the late 80s Westerners formed right wing organisations many of them determined to end multiculturalism. The political party (the Reform Party)  that came out of these movements couldn’t get elected in the eastern provinces so it watered down every significant policy stand that stood in the way of getting white moderate “conservatives”. It still couldn’t get elected so it eventually merged with the old Progressive Conservative party that sold out white Anglo-Canadians in the first place. Now we have a conservative government that is virtually the same as the Liberals and the old Progressive Conservatives. So we appear to be back to square one on racial matters.

It’ll be the same in the US if a Southern-based movement tries to appease Yankees and urban ethnics. The latest polling from Connecticut indicates that the ethnic European “conservatives” plan on voting for Lieberman. And they probably think neo-confederates are traitors!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 09:24 PM | #

“There are many Northerners who despise the Kennedy clan.”  (—Patrick)

That’s similar to what one Massachusetts commenter with Irish-Catholic ancestry told us.  He said there are many Massachusetts Irish Catholics who despise the Kennedy clan.  Nevertheless the Kennedys keep getting re-elected in cakewalk elections, and have done for half a century now.  If all these northerners and all these Massachusetts Irish Catholics hate the Kennedys, who’s always re-electing them?  The answer is there doubtless are northerners and Irish Catholics who despise the Kennedys, and these are ... relatively few in number.

Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 09:42 PM | #

Daedalus
I personally would like every single illegal deported. But look at how the media(internet) frames the context of illegal immigration and how it plays to the hearts of all this ‘guilt ladden’ whites and others. On aol not to long ago there was a poll about the ‘cute’ little illegal(who has a legal mother, this message is hammered home) child who’s in danger of being deported because(guess what? he came here illegally, what a surprise) So far 30% were in favour of deportation, while 70% oppesed it.

Posted by AD on September 10, 2006, 09:57 PM | #

The answer is there doubtless are northerners and Irish Catholics who despise the Kennedys, and these are ... relatively few in number.-Fred Scrooby

What’s the deal with Irish Catholics everywhere they go? It’s not a “race” thing because oter “celts” like the Scots aren’t so bad once they hit the diaspora. It’s easy to understand the Jewish “will to diveristy”.....but seriously, what’s the deal there…..and to what end? Is there any other Euro ethnic group that is so suicidal and full of shit re:“social justice”?

Posted by northerner on September 10, 2006, 10:26 PM | #

Daedalus wrote: The greatest threat to the racial integrity of the South has always come from the liberal whites of New England. These were the people who abolished slavery at gunpoint, destroyed our economy, gave blacks citizenship, gave blacks voting rights, gave blacks full civil rights and empowered the federal government with the Fourteenth Amendment to interfere in Southern elections, passed the Immigration Act of 1965, and imposed desegregation on us at gunpoint in the fifties and sixties. None of this would have ever happened had they not insisted on it. That’s simply a fact, no matter which way you slice it.

I wasn’t aware that back woods Kentucky is in New England, and Eisenhower and LBJ were born in Texas. Also, you seem to be conflating old stock New Englanders with Catholic and Jewish immigrants. Why? Organizing by the former was in large part responsible for the eventual curbing of immigration in 1924. The latter were responsible for the 1965 Act.

New England did not determine the policies of a Texas-born Pennsylvania German, and the Kennedys have nothing in common with the original settlers of New England, apart from occupying the same territory.

At least one New Englander did more to assist whites in the south than the overwhelming majority of southerners during the “civil rights movement”:

Silent Partner: How the South’s Fight To Uphold Segregation Was Funded Up North

New York Millionaire Secretly Sent Cash to Mississippi Via His Morgan Account ‘Wall Street Gang’ Pitches In

JACKSON, Miss. - On the afternoon of Sept. 12, 1963, a vice president of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. sent a telegram to the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, the agency created by local politicians to fight the civil-rights movement and preserve racial segregation.
...
Those records show large transfers of money by Morgan on behalf of a client who turns out be a wealthy and reclusive New Yorker named Wickliffe Preston Draper. Mr. Draper used his private banker to transfer nearly $215,000 in stock and cash to the Sovereignty Commission for use in its fight against the Civil Rights Act. The entire budget for the effort amounted to about $300,000. Adjusted for inflation, Mr. Draper’s contributions would be worth more than $1.1 million today.

The Sovereignty Commission files do more than simply document one man’s role. They show that some of the most virulent resistance to civil-rights progress in the 1960s was supported and funded from the North, not just the South.
...
Over the next year, Mississippi leaders repeatedly claimed that the campaign was being financed by broad grass-roots support in Mississippi and across the U.S. In truth, contributions from Mississippi citizens never topped $30,000. A surviving partner of Mr. Satterfield’s law firm says the attorney obliquely referred to the source of the big money simply as “the Wall Street gang.”
...
Mr. Draper’s money buoyed a sweeping attack on the civil-rights bill. The Sovereignty Commission’s Washington arm coordinated opposition efforts among less-organized groups, pushed trade associations to fight the bill and lobbied Congress. It sent ghost-written editorials to newspapers around the country and bought ads in 500 daily and weekly papers. By April 1964, the group had distributed 1.4 million pamphlets and mailings, Sovereignty Commission records indicate.
...
The Sovereignty Commission campaign triggered thousands of letters. Despite that, Congress approved the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law.

Frustrated by the defeat, Mr. Satterfield pressed Mississippi’s new governor, Paul Johnson, to help start a new national organization, designed to demonstrate that the plight of blacks in the South was the result not of “mistreatment and discrimination” but the “completely different nature of Negro citizens and white citizens,” he wrote the governor.

“Certain groups in the east who prefer anonymity” were ready to back the effort with $200,000, Mr. Satterfield wrote, if the state would match the contribution. As a gesture of seriousness, an unnamed northern benefactor had sent $50,000.

The donor was, again, Mr. Draper. His gift arrived via Morgan on June 2, 1964. Gov. Johnson endorsed the plan, and the Legislature quickly appropriated $200,000.

But the segregationists suffered another setback, this time at the hands of their most rabid elements. Klan members abducted civil-rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and James Chaney in the town of Philadelphia, Miss. The three were beaten, shot to death and buried in an earthen dam. Six weeks later, the workers’ 1963 Ford station wagon was found burned along an isolated road, still bearing Mississippi license tag H 25503, a number logged into Sovereignty Commission files by an informant a few weeks earlier.

The national outcry brought an end to the new alliance between Mississippi officials and Mr. Draper. Gov. Johnson’s office was flooded with telegrams, many simply repeating the words “justice, justice, justice.” Increasingly isolated, Mississippi leaders took at least symbolic steps to halt violence. The state’s own $200,000 appropriation was quietly returned to the Mississippi treasury.

Later, the $50,000 from Mr. Draper was returned to his attorney in New York, ...

Mr. Draper maintained his interest in the fight to preserve segregation in the South. In the late 1960s and 1970s, he sent dozens of checks to private academies that had opened up to accommodate white families fleeing newly integrated public schools, estate records show.

http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/Institut/pioneer/silent.htm

Posted by Andy on September 10, 2006, 10:29 PM | #

“Andy, you may want to start with the past year or two of Scientific American where Genetic determinism has been shown be way too simplistic. This just scratches the surface. ”

  Once again, the phrase “genetic determinism” is a dead giveaway that a strawman argument is being used.  I don’t read Scientific American.  However, I have read “The Bell Curve”, Michael Levin’s “Why Race Matters”, and J.P. Rushton’s “Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective”.  I am well-versed on the IQ question. I have contemplated the arguments from both sides.  If I were you, I would not take as Gospel the word of a middlebrow, mainstream, high circulation magazine. 

  “Your post also proves once again Race and IQ research is not the least bit scientifically interesting.” 

  How exactly did my post prove this?  This claim is patently absurd, and you should be embarassed to make it.  A whole host of real world issues, like affirmative action, approaches to black and hispanic crime, illegal immigration policy, and government funding for a great number of social problems are implicitly based a certain understanding of the relationship between race and IQ.  Only a fool could say otherwise.  You’re arguing like someone with a great deal invested in racial egalitarianism. 
 
  “Yes, I am an egalaltarian in that I believe the goverment should step in and protect humans from brutal wage slavery and chatel slavery.”

This is utterly irrelevant. 

    “I never claimed that genes-nor do any of the serious critics of race and IQ research-were not involved in human inteligence.”

This is exactly what you are doing. You’re arguing disgenuously here.  You say this out of one side of your mouth and then in your next breath say this: 

“The interaction of genes of and environment is poorly understood. This is why its silly for the true believers to be making the claims that they make about gentic determinism.”

 
You’re right that the interaction between genes and environment is not fully understood.  However, it is understood more than well enough to know that there are significant genetically based racial differences in IQ. 

  “And even if this question- are certian races intellectually inferior to other races-could be scientifically esatablished,it is a question that society doesn’t need the answer to(anymore than society needs to know the answer to question of the genetic basis of a correlation between large toe size and IQ. There are lots of uninteresting correlations that one can come up with)”

  You’re flat out wrong.  As I stated earlier, many policies are based on the assumption that are no racial differences in IQ.  Being based on a false assumption, these policies are necessarily flawed from the start.  At the very least, a proper understanding of the relationship between race and IQ allows us to rectify some of our past mistakes. 

  “It is irrelevant. If some people-lets say a subpopulation of the White population are so handicapped by there genetic endowment, these are the people who would need a lot of goverment support to keep them out of poverty(brutal wage slavery and chattel slavery) I think even Sailer even understands this point these days.” 

This is another reason for IQ research.  We can’t help those whites on the left half of the bell curve if we deny that they exist. 

“For the most part, the true beleivers real inerest in race and IQ research is to find a biological justification for gross social and econimc inequality.”

Once again you’re wrong.  I wish I had a software program that could auto-post that last sentence as a response to each of your posts.  It is a mistake to assume to know the motivations of another person.  I’ve already stated numerous outstanding reasons why race and IQ is an interesting topic.  Additionally, the truth alone should be justification enough for research. 

“This is not a scientific question. This is a political and econimc question.” 

Once again you’re wrong.  It is a scientific question that has extensive political and economic implications.  Furthermore, what does it matter what type of question it is? Why the obsession with whether it’s a scientific question or not? And if it’s not a “scientific” question, why is it being addressed in “Scientific American”?

“Fred, if your intertested in protecting the demogaphc interests of Americans of European, I wouldn’t be pushing the race and IQ research theology in public. It is a very foolish oraganizationizing tactic. Many of them will be turned off by it.”

Once again you are incorrect, sir. What do you base this bald assertion on?  Just because you are turned off by it does not mean that others are. 

“Jared Taylor is going to look very foolish quoting the research of Rushton a man has has an interest in the size of black male penises. Someone will eventually point this out about the wierdo Rushton in a televised debater on natonal tv. ”

Race-deniers and egalitarians consistently bring this up about Rushton, and yes, pointing this out in an attempt to discredit him would be fully consistent with the tactics of those intellectual charlatans.  The fact is, male genitalia size is just one of many pieces of support for Rushton’s differential r-K theory.  It takes *severe* mental deficiency to attempt to undermine that whole theory by implying that Rushton is a “weirdo”. 

“If an arrogant Hindu H1-B visa thief did lecture me about the intellectual superiority of the hindu over the White man, I probably would rearrange the south asian supremacists face.”

For your sake, I hope and pray that your fighting ability is light-years beyond your arguing ability.  Otherwise, that sub-con is going to hand your a** to you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 10:32 PM | #

AD, I don’t know the answers to your excellent questions.  I’ve been thinking about it too, trying to figure it out, but haven’t been able to.  I don’t know what’s wrong with these Irish Catholics.  If “The Other Guy” is lurking out there maybe he can chime in here and enlighten us with an explanation.  I can’t, I’m sorry — but you ask excellent questions!  (I sort of hesitate to mention the i-word [— you know, “IQ” ... shhhhhhhhh! —] ever since I got into a big flap with Charles Copeland about that and narrowly avoided getting banned, but I rather suspect that’s at least ... one factor in the mystery, shall we say? ... if you get my drift ...  Just keep it under your hat, OK? ... Thanks! ...)

To change topics a bit—in regard to the log entry’s theme of what we can do:  one extremely simple thing we can all do as of right now is boycott Miller beer (for any non-Americans who may not have heard, Miller Brewing Company, a beer giant, has been generously funding pro-illegal-Mexican rallies.  Check out the reason why in this log entry by Randall Burns, up today over at Vdare.com:  who knew that one of the honchos at Miller Brewing (its “CMO,” whatever that is) was a native of goddamned Mexico City???

Posted by Al Ross on September 10, 2006, 10:47 PM | #

Fred, perhaps Miller Brewing’s Mexican-born ‘CMO’ is the Chief Mexicanisation Officer.

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

I have never understood why so many Northerners hold the views that they do. Matra makes a good point above. Much of this blends over the border into Eastern Canada which is a lot like New England in its political preferences. “Conservatism” is only a political force because the context of the union forces the two parties to run milquetoast candidates. If it were not for the moderating influence of the South and West, New England would have long ago become a totalitarian state with a hate crimes inquisition along the lines of Canada.

Secession would instantly remove that logjam and each section would gravitate toward its natural preferences. In the South, issues like abortion, gay marriage, multiculturalism, affirmative action, third world immigration, and gun control would be resolved overnight. Race would reemerge as a national issue and without the protection of their Northern sugar daddies the blacks would be put back in their place. If they dislike this state of affairs, blacks would always be free to immigrate to New England which as a sovereign nation which would shower them with welfare, affirmative action, and reparations for slavery while taking guns away from all the whites in the region. The disgruntled racialist whites of the North and West could immigrate here; a win-win situation. The icing on the cake would be to witness Morris Sleaze running for the border with his tail between his legs. Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi could fulfill their lifelong ambition of joining the Communist Party.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 10:51 PM | #

I’ve already had my children but if I were just starting out, one of my sons would get the name Wickliffe Preston Draper Scrooby (assuming my wife approved, of course).  (See “northerner’s” comment, a few above ...)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 10:53 PM | #

LOL @ Al Ross!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 10:59 PM | #

Daedalus’ comment of 2:50 AM is an excellent one!  Outstanding!

Posted by Daedalus on September 10, 2006, 11:09 PM | #

I wasn’t aware that back woods Kentucky is in New England, and Eisenhower and LBJ were born in Texas.

Eisenhower was from Bloody Kansas and LBJ was nominated for president only because he was perceived as being “soft” on race in a Democratic Party dominated by northern liberals like Hubert Humphrey. The same was true of picking Truman for Vice President. His record on civil rights made him appealing to the progressive, Northern wing of the party which was enchanted with Henry Wallace. Ditto for Carter and Clinton. Harry Truman, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush would never have won the presidency in a Southern union. Similarly, the Democrats ran Edwards for Vice President in 2004 only because he was a Southerner who could appeal to Northern liberals.

Also, you seem to be conflating old stock New Englanders with Catholic and Jewish immigrants. Why? Organizing by the former was in large part responsible for the eventual curbing of immigration in 1924. The latter were responsible for the 1965 Act.

The Immigration Act of 1924 was similarly supported by the West and South. I have nothing against New England racialists, and strongly sympathize with them as a beleagured minority in an otherwise hostile section. Madison Grant was from New York and Carleton Putnam was from New England. The strongest support for third world immigration, affirmative action, and deracialization comes from there, and it is a major problem. It was abolitionism and free soilism in the nineteenth century.

New England did not determine the policies of a Texas-born Pennsylvania German

See above.

Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 11:22 PM | #

Miller
Home Depot…...
lets start a list
Ooops I almost forgot Google

Posted by Boris on September 10, 2006, 11:26 PM | #

I wonder if by the time we’re done boycotting every company that undermines us, we’d be left with but a handful. Which is fine by me.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 11:35 PM | #

Eisenhower was from Bloody Kansas”  (—Daedalus)

For those who may not have had a chance to bone up on their high-school and college American history in a while (and for non-Americans):  Bleeding Kansas.

Posted by Andy on September 11, 2006, 12:02 AM | #

I have nothing against New England racialists, and strongly sympathize with them as a beleagured minority in an otherwise hostile section.

  Thanks. It’s not easy. I’m a confederate flag flying, Kennedy-hating, racist, reactionary Masshole.  In fairness to the rest of the northeast, I believe that it is primarily the malign influence of Boston and New York City that is responsible for the horrible reputation the whole region suffers under.  (When casting blame, please don’t forget New York!) Upstate New York, rural Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine are quite sane compared to the rest of the region, although probably not as sane as other parts of the country. 

Secession would instantly remove that logjam and each section would gravitate toward its natural preferences. In the South, issues like abortion, gay marriage, multiculturalism, affirmative action, third world immigration, and gun control would be resolved overnight. Race would reemerge as a national issue and without the protection of their Northern sugar daddies the blacks would be put back in their place. If they dislike this state of affairs, blacks would always be free to immigrate to New England which as a sovereign nation which would shower them with welfare, affirmative action, and reparations for slavery while taking guns away from all the whites in the region. The disgruntled racialist whites of the North and West could immigrate here; a win-win situation. The icing on the cake would be to witness Morris Sleaze running for the border with his tail between his legs. Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi could fulfill their lifelong ambition of joining the Communist Party.

  This illustrates the problems inherent in liberal democracy and in having such a large, geographically diverse nation. This is also what makes seccession such an attractive idea. 
 

To change topics a bit—in regard to the log entry’s theme of what we can do:  one extremely simple thing we can all do as of right now is boycott Miller beer

  I have already been boycotting Miller beer because of the horribleness of the product.  Hopefully those who do enjoy the crappy taste of Miller will now move towards the similar-tasting but not illegal alien-supporting (as far as we know) Budweiser.

Posted by Matra on September 11, 2006, 12:17 AM | #

What’s the deal with Irish Catholics everywhere they go?

Irish Catholics usually migrated to countries that already had an establishment. It didn’t help that in most places, such as the US and Australia, the already established elite was WASP -just like their enemies back home. In the US northeast (Australia too I imagine) they developed a political culture that was antagonistic towards the old stock WASPs. Books on the subject written by the Irish usually say they were reacting to discrimination and poverty. In early California, where the more ambitious Irish arrived right at the beginning of its settlement, they usually assimilated pretty fast and were no different from other whites.  In California the Irish even led campaigns against Chinese migrant labourers.

More recently there’s the whole post-60s Irish Republican left wing radicalism emphasising colonialism. Sinn Fein is influential among expats. On March 25 I posted these excerpts from the Sinn Fein website:

Sinn Féin recognises the specific responsibility of Ireland and Irish people to defend and extend the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. Irish people, as a direct consequence of their own experience of colonialism and human rights abuses, have an empathy with other people in similar situations. Millions of Irish people were forced to leave Ireland - some as refugees, some as what would now be called ‘economic migrants’ and ‘illegal immigrants’ - to find asylum and hope in other countries such as the USA and Australia. We cannot ignore the legacy of this history and the specific obligation it places us under to contemporary asylum seekers and refugees…

Sinn Féin’s resolute opposition to racism is in the context of the experience by many Irish people of anti-Irish racism.

I’ve also noticed that almost every time there are news reports from some African hellhole about the latest famine local aid workers are often Irish - sometimes nuns. (For the record neither of the two most famous Irish celebrity bleeding hearts - Bono or Bob Geldof - is completely Irish Catholic. Bono had a Protestant mother and I believe Geldof’s father was Jewish).

Posted by northerner on September 11, 2006, 12:21 AM | #

northern liberals like Hubert Humphrey. ... progressive, Northern wing of the party which was enchanted with Henry Wallace.

“Northern” is not equivalent to “New England”.

I have nothing against New England racialists, and strongly sympathize with them as a beleagured minority in an otherwise hostile section. Madison Grant was from New York and Carleton Putnam was from New England. The strongest support for third world immigration, affirmative action, and deracialization comes from there, and it is a major problem. It was abolitionism and free soilism in the nineteenth century.

Again, you’re conflating mid-19th century New England, in which the descendants of Puritans still held political power, and mid/late-20th century New England, in which the descendants of Puritans had largely been replaced with immigrants.

I have no interest in rehashing debates from 150 years ago, but I’m curious why someone who acknowledges African slavery in America was a mistake seems to think that it’s expansion across the continent was a good idea. Nor do I have any interest in apologizing for abolitionists.

How many times do I need to point out that Jews and Catholics, not “New England”, are responsible for the 1965 Immigration Act?

Please support your claim that the “strongest support for third world immigration, affirmative action, and deracialization comes from” New England. You are certainly wrong in thinking that “New England” universally wants to ban guns. A city like Boston (the census puts the English proportion of the Boston population at 4.5%) hardly constitutes New England.

George W. Bush would never have won the presidency in a Southern union

I think you’re over-idealizing your fellow southrons. Say what you will about what might have happened in your fantasy alternate history, but, actual southerners support Dubya. If you think you can radicalize southerners by blaming all the South’s problems on New England, feel free. Personally, I think you’re going down the wrong track here. The southerners who are into reenacting the Civil War already do that sort of thing on the weekends, while making sure you know they believe in “Heritage, not Hate.”

Where I grew up (Montgomery, the first capital of the Confederacy), racialism is still socially acceptable amongst whites. In fact, the fraternities and sororitie at Auburn (which I attended as an undergraduate) are still segregated.

Fraternities/sororities tend to be segregated everywhere in the country.

I’ve interacted with people all over the country, including the South East, and I’ve noticed little difference in the degree to which racialism is “socially acceptable”. The South has plenty of PC types, and even in the North East casual racism is not infrequent among whites.

Groups like the League of the South mouth very anti-racist sentiments. Are they secretly racialists? And if so, why would the subterfuge be necessary if southern whites are so strongly racialist?

Posted by Al Ross on September 11, 2006, 12:27 AM | #

Perhaps Geldof and Bono can pool their Irish bleedingheart resources and establish a movement with the aim of forcing the English to apologise officially for the introduction of Sir Walter Raleigh’s potato plant, without which there would have been no potato-famine.

Posted by northerner on September 11, 2006, 12:49 AM | #

In the post above, “New England” was supposed to be linked to a google search for “Vermont carry”.

I should add that I’m not against strong regional identity for southerners or any other group of white Americans. I just think Daedalus has some of his facts wrong and is needlessly antagonizing New Englanders and those with ancestry from New England.

One can speculate about how wonderful it might have been if the South had won. But, there is no guarantee white supremacy would have been maintained in perpetuity. Things can change. Look at South Africa.

Had the South won, my sense is that it would be have a larger black population (no black “great” migration to the North) and be poorer today. I don’t think anything else can be guessed with much certainty.

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

I’m still waiting for the true believers to explain why the correlation between race and IQ is a scientifically deep and interesting question.

As Andy has pointed out above, the real attraction of race and IQ research are its social and economic consequences for certain groups. The economic reactionairies are looking for a biological justification for gross economic inequality.
Andy, White men and women who are being replaced in the labor market by legal immigrant theives from India would not be happy to hear Jared Taylor say on National TV that the Indians, Chinese and Japanese are intellectually superior to White men and woman.This is a very bad strategy if Jared’s intention is to organize White folks. The true believers are really out of touch.

What was the name of the nation that destroyed the higher IQ Japs during WW2 using its superior technology and fighting strategy? Lets see ...oh yeah it was intellectually inferior White America.

Daedulus

To say that intelligence in some way depends upon genes is true. But it is also a scientifically vague and trivial statement.

More later folks

Patrick

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 11, 2006, 09:03 AM | #

Patrick, I agree with you in not wanting whites in this country forcibly race-replaced regardless of the IQ of the races being deliberately brought in by the Bush government to forcibly replace them.  I fully agree with that.  I don’t want whites replaced by yellows or Hindus regardless of whether they have a higher IQ, the same IQ, or a lower IQ.  Jared Taylor is one man who is trying to bring what George Bush is doing to a halt.  You’ve said a number of times that the way to do it is definitely NOT by getting on national TV and saying Mexicans and Negroes are said to be genetically less intelligent because he’ll have to add that yellows are said to be genetically more intelligent and American white people don’t want to hear that.  They’ll interpret that as justifying their forced race-replacement by yellows.  All right, what IS the right thing for Jared Taylor to go on national TV and say?  What’s your advice, exactly, for a strategy for someone like him?  You’ve said a number of times you think a race war is inevitable if Bush and the rest of the white establishment keep up the deliberate forced race-replacement of whites, never consulting them, just ramming it down their throats as they’ve been doing.  You may be right.  I agree with you.  But do you see any remedy to try, short of that—short of all-out race-war?  What, exactly, should someone like Jared Taylor say if he ever gets on national TV?  He should avoid IQ, OK, we’ve got that.  What should he dwell on?  What will persuade U.S. whites of the gravity of their situation, of what is being deliberately done to them, and of what they now need to do to bring the deliberate race-replacement genocide to a halt and reverse the damage until, as you’ve called for, there’s full restoration of the racial status quo ante 1965 with 90% whites again?

Posted by Voice on September 11, 2006, 09:16 AM | #

PatrickZ

I think the IQ question is relevant because it allows the white brainwashed above average IQ masses to begin to examine the racial question from something other than purely phenotypical differences in the races. 

Most people have been completely reprogrammed on the race question and for them, when confronting a racially conscious thought, they are repulsed if the first approach to impure thoughts are cosmetic-bad black skin, good white skin. 

This also goes a long way to beginning to understand Steve Sailer’s Citizenist approach because his commonsense and logical analysis of HBD as it pertains to race begins to open up Pandoras Box, which Sailers realizes has taken many white men down the logical path to racial consciousness and WN-which he feels really guilty for.

As for Taylor and IQ, he makes the case on IQ because it confirms that there are real racial differences.  The Asian higher mean IQ only acts as a way to deflect any criticism of Taylor harboring “white supremacist” views to be dismissed out of hand.  The lemmings say “Gosh, this is interesting now that I can cleanse myself of visions of superiority and look at this racial Question, after all the Asians are far SUPERIOR to whites anyway”  And down the path the lemming goes.

With the IQ question tucked in his cap, the lemming begins to look at behavioural differences(mean racial personality types) between the races.  The crime statistics begin to make sense from a scientific perspective to the lemming, and he begins to to take the moral high ground in discussions involving the racial question whilst not being able to be dismissed out of hand as an irrational racist.

So finally, the lemming can look himself in the mirror and say “Why can’t I be racial conscious if blacks slaughter whites because of high levels of serum testosterone, low mean IQ,  and real behavioural differences which equate to them being uncompatible to share same living space with my fellow whites?”

The IQ question leads the unitiated on the path racial salvation, which is a good thing.

Posted by Daedalus on September 11, 2006, 10:34 AM | #

“Northern” is not equivalent to “New England”.

Obviously. The Upper Midwest, which was colonized by settlers from New England, has the same problem. I single out New England because it has consistently been the most anti-racist section of the country.

Again, you’re conflating mid-19th century New England, in which the descendants of Puritans still held political power, and mid/late-20th century New England, in which the descendants of Puritans had largely been replaced with immigrants.

What’s the difference? New England was completely integrated by 1900; long before the rest of the country. Massachusetts led the way in abolishing its anti-miscegenation law in 1843. Every state in the region had abolished their anti-miscegenation laws by then. Most of them had even passed laws against segregation and racial discrimination. The same was true of the Midwest after the Civil War. It’s not like New England has suddenly become the most radically egalitarian section of the country. Don’t believe me? Check this out.

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm

^^ You can browse the race-related laws of New England from the mid-ninteenth to the mid-twentieth century here.

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/geography.htm

^^ And compare them to those of the Jim Crow South here. It’s like the difference between night and day. The Midwest and New England clearly moved into the egalitarian era long before the West and South. The West dismantled its Jim Crow laws in the aftermath of the Second World War. The South was crushed by the rest of the country and forced to conform to its preferences.

I have no interest in rehashing debates from 150 years ago, but I’m curious why someone who acknowledges African slavery in America was a mistake seems to think that it’s expansion across the continent was a good idea. Nor do I have any interest in apologizing for abolitionists.

Because dispersing the black population across the country is preferable to keeping it bottled up in the South where it can be dealt with by Congress as a regional problem. It’s easy for Yankees to impose their highminded nonsense about equality on the rest of the country when they don’t have to live with millions of blacks in their midst. Many Northern whites in places like New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston began to see the light on race after blacks started showing up in their neighborhoods.

How many times do I need to point out that Jews and Catholics, not “New England”, are responsible for the 1965 Immigration Act?

The disease of anti-racism got started in the North with abolitionism. The earliest exponents of racial equality were abolitionists who criticized Thomas Jefferson for his remarks about race in his Notes on the State of Virginia. After the Civil War, ex-abolitionists flocked into the Social Gospel movement of the late ninteenth/early twentieth century. From there, it migrated into left progressivism, and then into the New Deal coalition where it ultimately metastized into the monster that was unleashed on the rest of the country after the Second World War. Once again, browse the Jim Crow History website. In 1939, the U.S. was two different countries on the subject of race. The South and West had elaborate Jim Crow race laws. The Midwest and New England were already completely integrated.

Please support your claim that the “strongest support for third world immigration, affirmative action, and deracialization comes from” New England.

I was referring to this neo-Confederate article. Scroll down and look at the votes on immigration. The Immigration Act of 1965, IRCA Amnesty of 1986, and the Immigration Act of 1990 were all opposed by the South and supported by the rest of the country. Much the same is true today where the support for immigration reform comes almost exclusively from the West and South.

http://www.leagueofthesouth.net/static/homepage/intro_articles/csatoday.html

You are certainly wrong in thinking that ”New England“ universally wants to ban guns. A city like Boston (the census puts the English proportion of the Boston population at 4.5%) hardly constitutes New England.

Who supported the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban? Again, browse the article above.

I think you’re over-idealizing your fellow southrons. Say what you will about what might have happened in your fantasy alternate history, but, actual southerners support Dubya.

They support Dubya . . . because stopping the Democrats has been their top priority ever since LBJ. The Democrats, of course, are Yankees. Just look at the last two presidential elections. The only reason milquetoast candidates like Dubya get elected is because of the context of the union, which as Matra points out, forces the national parties to run watered down candidates who can win just enough support in the other section to get elected.

If you think you can radicalize southerners by blaming all the South’s problems on New England, feel free. Personally, I think you’re going down the wrong track here. The southerners who are into reenacting the Civil War already do that sort of thing on the weekends, while making sure you know they believe in “Heritage, not Hate.”

Who supported all the civil rights laws? Who gave blacks citizenship? Who passed the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments? Who supports third world immigration today? Who supported using the military to force integration on the South in the fifties and sixties? Who supports radical shit like gay marriage, multiculturalism, and partial birth abortion? It’s simply a fact that none of this would be a problem if the South were an independent country. The neo-Confederates are absolutely right on that point.

Fraternities/sororities tend to be segregated everywhere in the country.

That hasn’t been my experience. I’m at Duke now.

I’ve interacted with people all over the country, including the South East, and I’ve noticed little difference in the degree to which racialism is “socially acceptable”. The South has plenty of PC types, and even in the North East casual racism is not infrequent among whites.

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t believe there are real differences in white racial attitudes between New England and the South. The 13% of white Americans who still oppose miscegenation are overwhelmingly Southerners. This is confirmed both by my own experience and by the political science literature on the subject.

Groups like the League of the South mouth very anti-racist sentiments. Are they secretly racialists? And if so, why would the subterfuge be necessary if southern whites are so strongly racialist?

I don’t know what their deal is. I would suspect they give lip service to anti-racism in order to deflect changes that they are a hate group. That’s fine by me. There was nothing particularly racist about the Jim Crow laws either. They simply disenfranchised blacks in disproportionate numbers. Obviously, it would be much easier to advance our goals in a Southern union than the current one.

Posted by Lurker on September 11, 2006, 11:20 AM | #

Voice - Bravo! I was that lemming. Steve Sailer pointed the way, that group differences are not fully explicable by the evil white patriarchy. Start bringing in a bit of science & statistics the old paradigm shift is well under way.

Posted by Daedalus on September 11, 2006, 11:40 AM | #

If there are no racial differences, as egalitarians assume, it follows that racism is an irrational and retarding force in our society, as whatever differences that exist would be environmental and tractable as a consequence. This is the logic behind integration. We have had fifty years to see where this has taken us. Patrick’s reasoning led straight to the Immigration Act of 1965.

Posted by Voice on September 11, 2006, 12:03 PM | #

thanks Lurker..So was I. lol

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 11, 2006, 01:47 PM | #

I’ve interacted with people all over the country, including the South East, and I’ve noticed little difference in the degree to which racialism is “socially acceptable”. The South has plenty of PC types, and even in the North East casual racism is not infrequent among whites.

Lol, southerners are some racist S.O.B.s.  If you haven’t noticed it then maybe you’re not speaking our language (we tend to clam up and smile and nod for yankees).  Racism tends to be unanimous in working class white southern males.

That said, northerners from big cities tend to know the score, at least about blacks.

Posted by northerner on September 11, 2006, 08:06 PM | #

What’s the difference? New England was completely integrated by 1900; long before the rest of the country. Massachusetts led the way in abolishing its anti-miscegenation law in 1843.

If you are unable to distinguish between the descendants of Puritans and Catholics or Jews, then I have nothing to say to you.

As I’m sure you’re aware, at most a minority of abolitionists, much less New Englanders in general, advocated social equality of blacks. As Kevin MacDonald notes, New Englanders “engaged in a much lower incidence of exogamy with the native Amerindian population (as was the case in the Spanish and especially the Portuguese colonies in the Americas), or with Black slaves (as in the Southern states)”. Many abolitionists were motivated by a desire to end the miscegenation that was occurring on southern plantations.

It’s not like New England has suddenly become the most radically egalitarian section of the country. Don’t believe me? Check this out.

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm

Did you read your own source? Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine didn’t ban public accomadations segregation until the 1950s. The laws you seem to be referring to were mainly limited to Massachusetts. Maine repealed an 1821 law against miscegenation in 1883, but, considering Maine was over 99% white until recently, I think it’s fair to say miscegenation has always been more frequent in the South. Absence of laws against miscegenation does not imply support for miscegenation. Rhode Island banned intermarriage in 1872, though it repealed the law 1881. Connecticuit banned miscegenation in 1908,  declared it a felony in 1933, and upheld school segregation in 1935.

Vermont and Maine passed laws requiring voters to be able to read and write English in 1902 and 1893. Rhode Island maintained a property requirement for voting in city elections until 1928. New Hampshire excluded non-taxed Indians from voting in 1910.

The South was crushed by the rest of the country and forced to conform to its preferences.

Again, “the rest of the country” is not a synonym for “New England”.

Because dispersing the black population across the country is preferable to keeping it bottled up in the South where it can be dealt with by Congress as a regional problem.

That’s the spirit. Make the South’s black population the entire country’s problem. Needless to say, I believe Free-Staters were in the right. It’s outrageous that anyone would want to pollute additional territory with blacks. If blacks are not present, there can be no black crime or miscegenation, period. And if blacks were ever going to be repatriated, it would have been much easier to move a population essentially restricted to the South East, rather than one dispersed throughout the West.

In the long run, the only way to assure white racial survival is through separation and territorial integrity. If history is any guide, Jim Crow type laws can at best serve as a stopgap. As of 2006, the number of white supremacist governments in the world is zero, and no mass white population has the stomach to subjugate non-whites.

(It’s also true that most white countries are being threatened by non-white immigration today, but mass opinion is generally opposed to this. The problem would be that much worse had Europe decided to import millions of African slaves in the 18th century, for example.)

In 1939, the U.S. was two different countries on the subject of race. The South and West had elaborate Jim Crow race laws. The Midwest and New England were already completely integrated.

No.

Who supported the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban? Again, browse the article above.

Again, “the rest of the country” is not “New England”. You keep citing sources that don’t say what you want them to say. If you looked at the actual roll call for the Brady Bill, for example, you’d find that both Senators from New Hampshire voted against it, while all the Senators from Arkansas, Tennessee, and Viriginia voted for it.

New Hampshire:  Gregg (R-NH), Nay   Smith (R-NH), Nay
Vermont:  Jeffords (R-VT), Yea   Leahy (D-VT), Nay

Arkansas:  Bumpers (D-AR), Yea   Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Tennessee:  Mathews (D-TN), Yea   Sasser (D-TN), Yea
South Carolina:  Hollings (D-SC), Nay   Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Virginia:  Robb (D-VA), Yea   Warner (R-VA), Yea

I also suggest you read articles on “Gun Control in Colonial New England”.

No one doubts that the South is, overall, more conservative than the rest of the country. But your notion that all of New England looks like Boston is misguided. Much of New England remained relatively traditional, and extremely white, until recently.

That hasn’t been my experience. I’m at Duke now.

North Carolina isn’t part of the South?

Posted by northerner on September 11, 2006, 08:13 PM | #

“No” in the post above should be linked to a google search for “sundown towns”.

‘I also suggest you read articles on “Gun Control in Colonial New England”. ’ should read ‘I also suggest you read these articles on “Gun Control in Colonial New England”. ‘, where the articles are the following:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/GunControlColonialNewEngland.PDF
http://www.claytoncramer.com/GunControlColonialNewEngland2.PDF

Moving on.

You’re kidding yourself if you don’t believe there are real differences in white racial attitudes between New England and the South. The 13% of white Americans who still oppose miscegenation are overwhelmingly Southerners. This is confirmed both by my own experience and by the political science literature on the subject.

I wouldn’t call the differences “overwhelming”. Looking at GSS data, in 1998 30% of white respondents in the East South Central region favored laws against racial intermarriage, vs. 10.6% in New England, 11.1% in the Mid-Atlantic, 13.5% in the East North Central region. On the other hand, only 6.4% and 3.8% from the Mountain and Pacific regions supported such laws. So, even in the South, there is today a supermajority against laws barring interracial marriage.

And, after examining the GSS data, I can definitely say New England, even inundated as it is with Catholic, Jewish, and other immigrants, is not “consistently ... the most anti-racist section of the country”. At worst, it ties with the West.

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

(The regions are: 1 NEW ENGLAND, 2 MIDDLE ATLANTIC, 3 E. NOR. CENTRAL, 4 W. NOR. CENTRAL, 5 SOUTH ATLANTIC, 6 E. SOU. CENTRAL, 7 W. SOU. CENTRAL, 8 MOUNTAIN, 9 PACIFIC)

Being against laws that ban intermarriage does not mean being in favor of intermarriage. When asked whether or not black/white marriages present special problems, around 90+% of white respondents answered yes in every region of the country.

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

Almost all southern white respondents would be at least somewhat uneasy if a relative married someone of another race, but this is also true of a majority of whites everywhere in the country.

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

Other issues:

Southerners are more likely to favor a decrease in immigration, but at least a slim majority of whites everywhere in the country favors cuts in immigration, and no more than about 10% of white respondents in any region want more immigrants.

Conversely, southerners are slightly more likely than other Americans to favor allowing illegal aliens to work in the U.S. (though less than 20% of southerners hold this position).

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

On most race issues, southerners would seem to be more favorable to racialism, but this is not true across the board. Southerners seem more willing to restrict “racist” expression.

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

A greater percentage of whites in the south feel “not close at all” to blacks, but a greater percentage also feel “very close” to blacks.

http://www.ImageShack.us” />

Posted by Daedalus on September 11, 2006, 09:14 PM | #

If you are unable to distinguish between the descendants of Puritans and Catholics or Jews, then I have nothing to say to you.

It wasn’t Catholic and Jewish hordes who descended on the South in the 1860s and imposed nigger equality on the entire region in the name of “freedom” and “equality.” In fact, the Catholic Irish rioted against the war in the famous New York City Draft Riots and were the bulk of the Northern Democrats who supported the South. No, it was the sons of Northern abolitionists, virtually all of whom were Protestants, who marched at the head of the Negro hordes in 1865.

As I’m sure you’re aware, at most a minority of abolitionists, much less New Englanders in general, advocated social equality of blacks.

This isn’t true. That was the status quo in many New England states even during the Antebellum era. Negroes were free to intermarry and attend school with whites. As early as the 1790s, New England abolitionists were attacking Thomas Jefferson for his assertion in Notes on the State of Virginia that blacks were racially inferior to whites. Frederick Douglas was married to a white woman. The Midwest at the time had something resembling Jim Crow segregation, but these laws were dismantled in the late nineteenth century there. New England moved to abolish slavery and practice racial equality long before the rest of the country.

As Kevin MacDonald notes, New Englanders “engaged in a much lower incidence of exogamy with the native Amerindian population (as was the case in the Spanish and especially the Portuguese colonies in the Americas), or with Black slaves (as in the Southern states)”. Many abolitionists were motivated by a desire to end the miscegenation that was occurring on southern plantations.

These same abolitionists opposed the efforts of Virginians like Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and James Madison in the American Colonization Society to colonize blacks in Africa. The abolitionists were the most outspoken advocates of racial equality in the United States and lionized John Brown when he invaded Virginia to incite a race war against Southern whites. The abolitionists would later support giving freedmen full civil rights and integrating the South at gunpoint in the Reconstruction Acts.

Did you read your own source?

Yes. As the gallery can see, New England had repealed its ant-miscegenation laws early during the nineteenth century; long before the rest of the country. The Midwest would follow suit during the late nineteenth century (with the exception of Indiana).

Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine didn’t ban public accomadations segregation until the 1950s.

No, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Maine were integrated and had either never bothered to pass such laws in the first place or had repealed before even 1860.

The laws you seem to be referring to were mainly limited to Massachusetts.

That is simply because Massachusetts was one of the last states in New England to move against segregation.

Maine repealed an 1821 law against miscegenation in 1883, but, considering Maine was over 99% white until recently, I think it’s fair to say miscegenation has always been more frequent in the South.

Maine is one of many Northern states that formally acted during the late nineteenth century acted to remove its remaining race legislation. Just the opposite was true in the South and West were most states were passing Jim Crow laws.

Absence of laws against miscegenation does not imply support for miscegenation. Rhode Island banned intermarriage in 1872, though it repealed the law 1881. Connecticuit banned miscegenation in 1908, declared it a felony in 1933, and upheld school segregation in 1935

Several states in New England never bothered to pass anti-miscegenation laws in the first place. And yes, there were parts of New England where whites fervently believed in racial equality, so much that they attempted to nullify the fugitive slave law to prevent the blacks that escaped there from being returned to their masters.

Vermont and Maine passed laws requiring voters to be able to read and write English in 1902 and 1893. Rhode Island maintained a property requirement for voting in city elections until 1928. New Hampshire excluded non-taxed Indians from voting in 1910.

Yes. These laws dealt with European immigrants, not blacks who had essentially the same rights in New England well over a hundred years ago that they do today.

Again, “the rest of the country” is not a synonym for “New England”.

I single out New England because it has consistently been by far the most anti-racist region of the country.

That’s the spirit. Make the South’s black population the entire country’s problem.

This is unfortunately necessary because New England has insisted upon imposing racial equality on the South, not once, but twice. The South has never interferred in the internal affairs of New England in such a way. If they love blacks that much, they should be willing to take all of ours.

Needless to say, I believe Free-Staters were in the right. It’s outrageous that anyone would want to pollute additional territory with blacks. If blacks are not present, there can be no black crime or miscegenation, period. And if blacks were ever going to be repatriated, it would have been much easier to move a population essentially restricted to the South East, rather than one dispersed throughout the West.

I totally disagree. The blacks should have been free to disperse into the Midwest and New England to live amongst the Northern whites who loved them so much. After all, let’s not forget that these were the people, not us, who gave them U.S. citizenship, voting rights, and all the civil rights of whites during Reconstruction. It’s only fair that after inflicting this legislative disaster upon the whole country that should have shouldered the misfortune of living amongst them.

In the long run, the only way to assure white racial survival is through separation and territorial integrity.

Yes. If only the South and West could be rid of the liberal whites of the Upper Midwest and New England, I suspect the situation would resolve itself in due time.

If history is any guide, Jim Crow type laws can at best serve as a stopgap. As of 2006, the number of white supremacist governments in the world is zero, and no mass white population has the stomach to subjugate non-whites.

Jim Crow was doing just fine in the South. There was no substantial support amongst Southern whites for doing away with white supremacy. It wasn’t an ideal solution, but it was a tolerable one, within the context of a Union where blacks had been given citizenship and equal rights by New England. If history is any guide, the greatest threat to white racialism comes from the liberal whites from the North who are responsible for inflicting both the destructive civil rights laws and third world immigration upon the rest of the country.

(It’s also true that most white countries are being threatened by non-white immigration today, but mass opinion is generally opposed to this. The problem would be that much worse had Europe decided to import millions of African slaves in the 18th century, for example.)

The South voted against the Immigration Act of 1965 which was supported by New England.

North Carolina isn’t part of the South?

Needless to say, the student body of Duke is not a representative sample of the Southern population.

Again, “the rest of the country” is not “New England”. You keep citing sources that don’t say what you want them to say. If you looked at the actual roll call for the Brady Bill, for example, you’d find that both Senators from New Hampshire voted against it, while all the Senators from Arkansas, Tennessee, and Viriginia voted for it.

If the South were an independent country, it would not have passed the Senate. I believe that was the point the LOS was making.

Virginia: Robb (D-VA), Yea, Warner (R-VA), Yea
North Carolina: Faircloth (R-NC), Nay, Helms (R-NC), Nay
Arkansas: Bumpers (D-AR), Yea, Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Tennesee: Mathews (D-TN), Yea, Sasser (D-TN), Yea
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Nay, Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Georgia: Coverdell (R-GA), Nay, Nunn (D-GA), Yea
Florida: Mack (R-FL), Nay, Graham (D-FL), Yea
Alabama: Heflin (D-AL), Nay, Shelby (D-AL), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay, Lott (R-MS), Nay
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Nay, Johnston (D-LA), Nay
Texas: Hutchison (R-TX), Yea, Gramm (R-TX), Nay

Yea: 10 Nay: 12

Maine: Cohen (R-ME), Yea, Mitchell (D-ME), Yea
Massachusetts: Kerry (D-MA), Yea, Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea, Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea, Pell (D-RI), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay, Smith (R-NH), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay, Jeffords (R-VT), Yea

Yea: 9 Nay: 3

Posted by Daedalus on September 11, 2006, 09:32 PM | #

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted by a groundswell of support amongst white Southerners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_Party

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%-16%)

Posted by PatrickZ on September 11, 2006, 10:05 PM | #

Fred and voice

Good thoughfull posts. Won’t respond tonight. LIE rush hour traffic sucked the life energy out of me. These are the blessings of diversity.

I must move to Ashville. I better get my passport. Maybe Ill sneak in illegaly. Are there still Confederate death squads in the Smokies hunting deserters and their yankee friends from the north.

I’m still waiting for the true believers and mad calibrators-Lynn,Rushton,gottfriedson and Sailer-to reveal the
the great scientific depth of race IQ corelations.

PatrickZ

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 12, 2006, 01:24 AM | #

I received this e-mail message from ALIPAC giving news about the Miller beer boycott:

Supporters of ALIPAC: 

We have just made history as 57 immigration enforcement organizations now support the boycott of Miller Brewing Company through the National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition (here and here).  This unprecedented level of cooperation exceeds our coalition of 55 organizations that supported the National Employer Flier Campaign a few months back.  We are well on our way to 100+ organizations and hope to reach that level of support by Monday of next week!  Miller Brewing Company has chosen an initial tactic of denial and retreat.  While we feel their claim that they will no longer support groups like March 10 Committee and La Raza is a step in the right direction, we also feel that they should apologize to the American public and take further steps while dropping the denials.  The American public needs to be assured that Miller Brewing Company is serious about this before we even consider dropping the boycott.  Here are statements by Miller Brewing and our rebuttal.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 12, 2006, 01:31 AM | #

Sorry about the non-functioning links in my last comment.  Let’s see if these work: 

National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition located here and here.

Posted by ben tillman on September 12, 2006, 01:33 AM | #

Northerner, the graphs you linked to aren’t helpful; the names of the regions to which the bars relate are not legible.

Posted by ben tillman on September 12, 2006, 01:43 AM | #

“I’m still waiting for the true believers and mad calibrators-Lynn,Rushton,gottfriedson and Sailer-to reveal the
the great scientific depth of race IQ corelations.”

You need to stop and listen for a minute.

The race-and-IQ question is important because whites are blamed for black failure, and—among other punishments meted out to us—we are taxed to make blacks succeed.  You claim a concern for working whites, yet you ignore the fact that a white family of four would have several hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional wealth if the national government did not tax us to change what cannot be changed.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 12, 2006, 02:31 AM | #

Voice makes a good point about the introductory capability of the relationship between IQ and behaviour on the road to racial awareness.

However, the case can be made on IQ alone and still include Asians. IQ consists of more than just mean differences as LaGriffe pointed out in his Smart Fraction II, Why Asians Lag. It also consists of variance. In Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations, NE Asians have higher mean IQs yet much lower GDP per capita. LaGriffe demonstrates that it’s in the IQ variance. The percentage of the smart fraction in white societies is greater than in NE Asian societies. There is no net gain for whites [in GDP per capita] by bringing in smart yellows. All he has to do is point to India and China to make his point. Even S. Korea or Japan aren’t models that display a benefit to white societies, and besides they are bastions of ethnocentricity.

Posted by northerner on September 12, 2006, 04:47 AM | #

ben tillman:

You’ll find the regions listed below the first graph, in the order in which they appear on that and subsequent graphs.

Daedalus:

No, it was the sons of Northern abolitionists, virtually all of whom were Protestants, who marched at the head of the Negro hordes in 1865.

The SCV would have you know the South had Negro hordes of its own. Heritage - Not Hate!

Negroes were free to intermarry and attend school with whites.

And we all know antebellum New England was just overflowing with negroes to intermarry with.

As early as the 1790s, New England abolitionists were attacking Thomas Jefferson for his assertion in Notes on the State of Virginia that blacks were racially inferior to whites.

You want to give a citation here? Regardless, you’re arguing in bad faith. I’ll repeat: at most a radical minority of abolitionists argued in favor of e.g. black/white intermarriage.

The abolitionists were the most outspoken advocates of racial equality in the United States and lionized John Brown when he invaded Virginia to incite a race war against Southern whites.

Yes, southerners who murdered whites in their quest to spread negroes over more of the earth’s surface are saints by comparison.

And yes, there were parts of New England where whites fervently believed in racial equality, so much that they attempted to nullify the fugitive slave law to prevent the blacks that escaped there from being returned to their masters. ... This is unfortunately necessary because New England has insisted upon imposing racial equality on the South, not once, but twice. The South has never interferred in the internal affairs of New England in such a way. If they love blacks that much, they should be willing to take all of ours.

Too much confusion and inconsistency here. Sounds like Daedalus got his opinion of the day from Clyde Wilson, but forgot the part about northerners being evil racists in addition to all their other sins.

Daedalus is either extremely ignorant or dishonest in suggesting that people in New England “loved blacks” or that the North was fully integrated.

After the Civil War, Republican
assemblymen in the Bay State took a step further by enacting and reinforcing
laws against racial discrimination in public accommodations.
Massachusetts at the end of the nineteenth century was a state with the
most potent civil rights laws in the nation. Nonetheless, social and economic
conditions of black Bay Staters did not change much, and even
deteriorated in the Hub city, especially after the turn of the century as
contemporary observers and later historians have noted.2 Boston, the
capital of the Commonwealth and “the paradise of the Negro,” where
African Americans could enjoy the same political and civil rights as
whites, became in the twentieth century a city having “a massive and
highly segregated black ghetto” with “most of the negative social attributes
identified with ghetto life.”3 The existing literature, however,
almost unanimously regards the desegregation act of 1855 as one of the
most glorious victories in the antebellum North by and for free people
of color and the post-bellum civil rights enactment as a sign of ameliorating
race relations.4

Race-neutral Individualism and Resurgence of the Color Line: Massachusetts Civil Rights Legislation, 1855–1895
KAZUTERU OMORI
Journal of American Ethnic History / Fall 2002

As best I recall, the literature on “residential segregation” suggests the North was and remains at least as segregated as the South.

A goofy, anachronistic fixation on New England is not useful in understanding politics today. As I’ve shown in a previous post, regional differences exist, but not to the extent that southerners would turn into white nationalists if only liberals in New England disappeared.

Daedalus has already acknowledged that secession is not feasible, so what is the point in antagonizing northerners? Unfettered immigration and federal restrictions on freedom of association will be ended at the national level or not at all.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 12, 2006, 07:55 AM | #

Ben Tillman

I oppose Race and IQ “science” for several reasons.

One of the reasons I oppose it is because it is false. They haven’t established what they claim to establish because the founations of this research is conceptually flawed. I’ll expalin later why this is the case.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in basing a political movement on bad science.

But suppose it were the case that blacks were as intelligent as Whites? How would that change antything? Would you want blacks marrying your children? Would you want to live in integrated neighborhods?

Native Born Whites do not want to be told by Jared Taylor that they are intellectually inferior to the hindus who are stealing their jobs. This is part the race and IQ package that you folks want to unload on a Native Born White population that is under assault by the hindu theif.

Now about those taxes. “higher” IQ asian legal immigrants push up property taxes and housing costs massively. I know this from first hand experience living on LI. Toss in reassessment and you the “higher” IQ asian has an oppettunity to steal a White persons home in a tax lien sale.

“higher” IQ asian immigrants don’t come cheap. When you also throw in the fact that they depress wages thereby petting a brake on real wage growth, the are mighty costly to Native Born White Americans.

If you want to provide a tax break to Native Born White Americans, you should oppose of all Republican and Democratic wars of aggression and shutting down all immigration.

The very wealthy should be taxed much more than they are. A lot of the wealth they have accumulated was stolen from the Native Born White Wage Slaves. If Bill Gates doesn’t like it, he can go move to the Sudan.

It is an obscenity. Th super rich have way more many than the actually need when it comes to food,housing entetainment, paying for their kids college education.

The huge forutunes of the superich enables them to live as demigods in this world with the power of life and death over the the rest of this. Ans this is really the whole point of wealth acumation beyond a reasoinable point for these evil creatures.

I tax these great forutnes. Or they can pay a much higer wage to ordinary hard working Native Born White Folks. They might actually prefer this to having their throats slit during a revolution. That would stil be able to live in very nice homes and have thier kids college education paid for.

We don’t exist to serve the Greedy Cheating class.

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 08:09 AM | #

Thanks, GW, for pushing my inquiry forward.  I’d like to get back to the original issue. 

It appears from y’all’s responses that nothing like which I seek exists.  Good, that means I probably haven’t overlooked it, I can stop my search. 

I think that Fade, Donald Miller, and PatrickZ were closest to my thinking.  I think supremacy and expulsion of the invaders are the only ultimate answers.  But a homeland and secession are too far away and our time is running short.  We must stand and fight where we are.

RESTATEMENT OF MY CONCERN

While the intellectuals continue to try to right the ship, the middle-class or “regular” guy who has become racially aware begins to despair and lose hope.  He has become physically and emotionally alone in his new world.  He gets depressed and discouraged (BB’s only carry one so far), and his behavior and attitude suffers.

He wants to “do something” but has no idea what.  Where can he turn?  How can he contribute what little knowledge and times he has to the rebuilding of civilization in his community?  I have in mind new community-level orgs that can borrow ideas from the old orgs such as the old scouts, rotary, lions clubs, churches, etc.

AN ORGANIC MOVEMENT

Most WN ideas I see on the Net are grand schemes about homelands and how to organize the new society.  But I think it’s too soon for that, and besides, those projects are too big for the average man or woman.  I’m looking for something much simpler and practical to act as a way to bring regular people along, allow fellowship, and a chance to contribute a bit at a time, in their own way. 

There needs to be a semi-organized effort that allows for small groups of regular guys of average intelligence, ability, and time to do something on their own, to enable them to build something that will keep them busy while encouraging and training the next generation of leaders.  This effort must be organic and decentralized—there are too many good ideas, we are too spread out, and we must remain extremely flexible.  And it must not depend on the existing institutions else its independence will be compromised; it must operate entirely outside the present systems or institutions.

EXAMPLE: HOMESCHOOLING AND ITS KERNEL IDEA

Homeschooling does this.  It has a central idea that allows the movement to grow all by itself.  It is out of the control of a single group, there are dozens of different ideologies, and hundreds of incompatible methods, yet it is growing successfully and efficiently at an phenomenal rate all over the U.S., all by itself.  It grows around a kernel idea—that of parents taking total responsibility for educating their children, away from the corruptive influences of the current system. 

It doesn’t need centralized direction, it has an idea.

IN THE MICRO: SOMETHING SIMPLE FOR THE AVG LEADER

There is a small support group called the “Association of Classical and Christian Schools,” which produces a small notebook of general guidelines for setting up a private/home school in the Christian/Classical way.  They also have a membership program.  Though they (appear to) do little else but these two things, they provide an enormously important service.  They are a touchstone or guiding light for the tiny schools, hooking up members with basic schooling info and personal contact information.  To the lonely, fearful homeschooler, the ACCS’s mere presence is proof that she is not alone, that there are many others out there to whom to turn for real support and info.

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 08:13 AM | #

Sorry, the site isn’t taking my edits:
...only ultimate answers.  But a homeland ...
Should be:
only ultimate answers.  A homeland ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 12, 2006, 09:00 AM | #

“Daedalus has already acknowledged that secession is not feasible, so what is the point in antagonizing northerners? Unfettered immigration and federal restrictions on freedom of association will be ended at the national level or not at all.”  (—Northerner)

It’s not at all clear that secession is unfeasible.  For some time now it’s been highly feasible for Puerto Rico, Quebec, Scotland, Wales, and other regions (and gets voted down in referendums).  It was not only feasible but was successfully carried out in the Ukraine, Byelorus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, Armenia, and the former Soviet Central Asian Republics.  It will be pointed out those were extraordinary circumstances — but in many ways they weren’t so extraordinary:  even in its free-fall collapse the old Soviet Union and the new Russia that emerged out of the ruins were plenty strong enough militarily to strenuously oppose secessions they disagreed with, as witness the case of Chechnya, which Moscow is loath to let go its own way because it lies in a generally oil-rich region.  Furthermore, as regards “extraordinary circumstances,” the current forced-race-replacement régime imposed on us by this alliance of genocidal usual suspects amounts to “extraordinary circumstances” which if not ready to boil over just yet, will be in the not too distant future.  Let’s be ready to meet the boil-over when it does occur with detailed plans in place for secession, shall we?  Don’t forget, the making of that sort of detailed plans is itself one element that pushes things toward the boil-over point, as the plans become more widely known, people become used to the idea, they see its advantages, etc.  This libertarian outfit in New Hampshire is very serious in planning the secession of that state from the Union, by the way—they are not cranks but good folk who’ve had it just about up to here with the U.S. government’s outrages.  They differ from us here only in that they don’t look at race but only economics, taxation, oppressive restrictions on liberty, etc.  But they have very intelligent, serious, potentially workable plans.  Canada’s western provinces have been seriously pondering secession for years and nobody doubts that if push ever came to shove with Ottawa they’d very likely pull it off.  Every time such a scenario is brought up in the newspapers and political discussions on TV and so on, it is never dismissed as an impossibility that I’ve seen, but always met with acceptance of its total feasibility, and what gets discussed is never whether or not it can be accomplished but only what its aftermath will be:  “Will the newly-independent western provinces stay independent or request to merge with the U.S?  If they explore a merger, will it be with the whole U.S. or will the northwestern U.S. state of Idaho, possibly with one or more neighbors, break away from the U.S. and join the western provinces in a new country?”  No one ever questions the feasibility of Quebec’s secsssion.  Everyone used to in the 1970s.  They don’t any more.  They only hold their breath each time it’s voted on, and speculate on whether, if it succeeds this time, the Maritime Provinces will be content to stay physically separate from the rest of Canada or request to join the U.S.  (Only morons would opt to join the U.S. under its current forced race-replacement régime, of course, but that’s beside the point of this particular digression.)  While the secession plans of nationalist groups in Flanders, Padania, the Basque Province, Brittany, Corsica, Chechnya, Tibet and a number of other places have for various reasons run into extremely stiff opposition from central governments, even in their cases secession has been shelved only temporarily, and may well succeed in the not too distant future.  In all cases the important thing is to keep the plans alive and up to date.  Kurdistan’s been trying to secede since the end of WW I and is only now taking shape as, if not a flatly independent nation, an autonomous region within the new Iraq, with details still being hammered out by the new crop of Baghdad politicians.  The whole question of autonomous regions or provinces which are not fully independent but have greater say than other regions or provinces in how things are run within their borders is also of great interest as a second-best alternative to strive for until full independence can be achieved, examples being Quebec, Catalonia, the Swiss Cantons, Belgium’s Eastern German Cantons, and others.  Nationalist groups in Alsace-Lorraine are striving after exactly that, and ones in French Flanders may start.  One of the very few advantages of the E.U. is the scope it affords local nationalist ethnic groups for petitioning to be recognized as regionally more autonomous with greater degrees of independence.  The Kaliningrad Gebiet may yet manage to become autonomous in this way, which could be the first step on the path toward its recovering its thousand-year identity as the city of Königsberg and the surrounding (northern half of) East Prussia, an identity which was erased deliberately and barbarically by agreement among London, D.C., and Moscow, with much genocide in the process, by the way—millions killed, a WW II allied-perpetrated holocaust no one seems to talk about ... 

“Unfettered immigration and federal restrictions on freedom of association will be ended at the national level or not at all.”  (—idem)

It will prove harder to unequivocally end either of those outrages at the national level under the current régime than it will be to revolt and break apart into pieces, which I therefore predict will happen, each piece or region going its own way.  The United States as we know it is finished—the Constitution is of course dead and this republic is in its death spiral.  But that’s as it has to be:  what will emerge will be ten times better, stronger, healthier.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 12, 2006, 12:38 PM | #

“The whole question of autonomous regions or provinces which are not fully independent but have greater say than other regions or provinces in how things are run within their borders is also of great interest as a second-best alternative to strive for until full independence can be achieved, examples being Quebec, Catalonia, the Swiss Cantons, Belgium’s Eastern German Cantons, and others.”

I didn’t mean to imply here that any Swiss Cantons strive after independence from Switzerland.  They don’t, of course.  Catalonia also doesn’t at present (it did previously), but seems to be content right now with semi-autonomy.  But for regions, provinces, or states that do hope to become independent, success in being granted a degree of regional autonomy is better than nothing while waiting and working toward the day when the real deal will become possible.  By the way, let’s add Scotland and Ulster to that list of regions which have been accorded semi-autonomy in handling certain of their regional affairs on their own, without central-government interference.

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 01:01 PM | #

What about cultural separation?  Shouldn’t that come first before political separation?

Posted by PatrickZ on September 12, 2006, 01:56 PM | #

Fred

Why would you want to allow Mexico,China, India,Iran-one million Iranians living in California(this does not include their American born children-to lay claim to huge tracts of American territory?

People. who are advocating seession and retreat better start thinking very carefull about the consequnces of what they are advocating.

Running away wil only postpone the inevitable. At some point in time, Whites will be in armed coinflict against the Mexicans,Chinese,Indians,Pakis,muslims,Sihks and other invaders.

I don’t want to mean or insulting about this, but real men don’t run away.

I would be more than willing at some point in time to put my life on the to drive the muslims,asians nigerians and mexicans out of America.

I beleive that patriotic groups such as minuteman are just the beginning of the drive the invaders out movement.

I believe the soldiers of this movement will come right out of the of the larger population of White Americans who don’t post on web sites such as this and American Rennaisance and who don’t at the current point in time even work on immigration reform.

White Ameican natinalism will express itself. This is the Lefts biggest fear. I happen to think the American left understands something that neocnfederates and run- to -the northwest types don’t understand.

The rage and anger is right underneath the surface. This age and anger was expressed breifly right after 9/11 towardfs south asians and muslims.

When the White guys can no longer get decent paying cop and firemen jobs all hell will brake loose.

Posted by A Swain on September 12, 2006, 02:28 PM | #

Politically orchestrated mass TW swamping of ancestral white homelands reinforced by nation-destroying concepts such as enforced multiculturism/multiracialism, Political Correctness and so on, has rendered the continued preservation of all white peoples along with their native homelands, untenable.

Indigenous white Europeans are currently in the process of being dispossessed and disenfranchised of their respective homelands and birthrights such as heritage, culture, national tradition and belief system/s.

There is still a narrow passage of time to begin turning this catastrophe around, but the problem is whites themselves.  PC brainwashing and accusations of racism has cowered them into a state of resigned obliteration. 

Unless they awake from their deadly slumber urgently, whatever is left of their race/s will inevitably be subjected to contemporary slavery, forced miscegenation and episodes of outright genocide at the hands of the actual TW invaders themselves.

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 02:37 PM | #

I agree, Patrick, we must begin fighting right where we are.

“I beleive that patriotic groups such as minuteman are just the beginning of the drive the invaders out movement.”

Now, if only they had some guns.

“White Ameican natinalism will express itself. This is the Lefts biggest fear. I happen to think the American left understands something that neocnfederates and run- to -the northwest types don’t understand.”

Perhaps this is why Harold Covington is so anxious to corral us in the PNW!

“When the White guys can no longer get decent paying cop and firemen jobs all hell will brake loose.”

This is the SHTF that many are waiting for.  I don’t see it happening anytime soon, and when it does start, I would like to see a more controlled demo, a more orderly transition from the existing order to something new.  Whether any migrations happen or not, I think we need to build new cultural orgs now. 

I still find it hard to believe that there is no well-run group out there already addressing this.

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 03:40 PM | #

GW, in re your first post, on the idea of tickle-down ideas.  I don’t disagree with the concept but I am distressed that so little of the intellectual debate on the Net is even concerned with real-world action.  We already know that we have to do something.  We know that we are being ever more openly and boldly attacked; we know what our weakenesses and strengths are; who the agitators are; even the group identity of our most vicious competitors.  We have names, dates, historical and scientific evidence out the wazoo.  We have more than enough facts to begin to put together broad visions and short, mid-, and long-term goals and plans for the average white person to get to work on.

Yet, instead of talking about and organizing ideas for practical solutions, most nuts want to crack themselves on IQ, genome sequences, and who shot whom in the last war.  Where is the sense of urgency among the thinkers?  For godsakes, the invaders are already here; we will be a minority in the US in less than 20 years, and the laws are already heavily stacked against us.  And the intellectual leaders—big to little—have almost no plans at all (at least that we know about) for how to help the average White or to get him engaged in rebuilding.

Ideas will trickle down but people need leaders to follow and ideas to believe in—now.  The intellegensia has so far offered precious little of either.

Sorry for the rant, I know we all do the best we can.  I’m goint to go shoot a rat or something.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 12, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

I have already said this, but I’ll repeat. Blacks were spread around the USA by slave-owners, precisely the people for whom the gallant Southern mental cry-babies rebelled.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 12, 2006, 05:44 PM | #

real men don’t run away

Patrick, seceding from the hellish nightmare D.C. currently offers whites (offers it to them on a “Screw you!  Take-it-or-leave-it!” basis) isn’t “running away to Idaho.”  It’s guiding your state out of a poison-gas-filled cesspool into open air where for the first time in thirty-five or forty years you and other white people can breathe.  That’s all.  You’re taking all your belongings and all your real estate with you, not leaving anything behind, not an ounce, not one atom for D.C.‘s vultures and maggots to descend upon.  Getting away from the sinking D.C. ship leads to life; riding it straight to the bottom doesn’t.

Posted by Matra on September 12, 2006, 06:05 PM | #

I thought the “Heritage - Not Hate!” slogan was due to the perception in the rest of the country that any Southerner interested in his heritage must be a “racist”. Similarly, in NASCAR Confederate flags were the norm until the sport started to get big outside the South - then came the corporate pressure to change. As said earlier it is the need to placate Northerners that is forcing the South to moderate. In general the kinds of Southerners who reject their Confederate heritage are liberals who are embarrassed by their reactionary image in more cosmopolitan regions.

Symbols of the Southern heritage were seen as mainstream until about fifteen years ago - and not just in the South. For decades the same Southerners who cared about their heritage showed few signs of being unpatriotic; they seemed to be the most fervently nationalistic Americans even though it was because they were in the Union they had to abandon segregation. Perhaps the appearance of neo-confederates is a backlash to the campaign to erase their heritage and turn them into good little homogenised Americans.

Having said that I do think Clyde Wilson (mentioned earlier by Northerner) goes overboard with regards to New England. (Wasn’t New Hampshire the only state to reject MLK Day?). I like Wilson but I’ve read him more carefully since I noticed him laying into WASP New Englanders but going easy on the region’s Irish Catholics and never mentioning Jews.

Alex Zeka - “gallant Southern mental cry-babies”

The rights and wrongs of each side in the fratricidal American war - or for that matter WW2 - can be debated and we can disagree amicably. Cut out the insulting language.

Posted by rustymason on September 12, 2006, 06:30 PM | #

Fred, 

What is the profile of a typical White Homeland homesteader, and what would be the draw to get him there?  Almost no one has moved in the less controversial FreeState and ChristianExodus projects, and those that have are relatively unemcumbered by family or job ties.  It may be decades before they achieve their head-count goals, if ever.  I cannot imagine one single mainstream-type person today moving to a White homeland if there is even the remotest possibility of there being “radicals” in it (VNNers,Skins, etc).  I would not risk my family or career on such a thing, at least not any time soon, and I’m relatively radical in my WN views.  Even Haman on Stormfront is having trouble selling his Pioneer Little Europe idea to hard-core WN’s.  Perhaps he’s doing it wrong.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 12, 2006, 07:54 PM | #

Fred

I think it would be a very bad idea to leave very lethal military infrastructure in the hands of the enemy.

Also, even with separation, Whites and non-Whites will be killing each other over the remaining scarce water supplies and farmland. James Kuntsler in his book about peak oil discusses the very real possibility of a race war between Whites and Nonwhites.Kunstler has identified himself as political liberal.He doen’t see a race war triggered by competiton for scarce resources as a remote possibility.

Montanna and Idaho are the Lands of ice and rock. They cannot sustain a large White population. Anyone who thinks these two states can is scientifically ignorant.

Giving up the assive educational and technoligical infrastructure of california,arizona and Texas is something that Whites will never recover from.

The secessinist and retreaters in general really need to think these things out in great detail.

Posted by WJG on September 12, 2006, 08:03 PM | #

GW and Rusty,

This is a very important question, this “OK, I realize we’ve got a big problem, now what?” question.  I have read thru this entire thread and we seem to be all over the place.  Good discussions, many of them, but leading us no closer to an answer.

One of the first things that must happen is that a critical mass of White leaders and thinkers has to take for granted, without apology, that they are openly pro-white and will act in such a way.  When the Rabbis come to teach such uppity Goyim that they are “evil”, and need to return to their seats at the back of the bus the Rabbis need crawl away whimpering with their hooked noses flattened.  Until we can reply to labels such as “anti-semite”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “bigot”, blah, blah, with “Yeah, so what?”, we will go nowhere.  Even at this site White Nationalists cringe and hide from labels such as those.  They are true so don’t run from them.  If you are a WN and think you are not anti-semitic then you don’t understand our main enemy.  If you oppose them (Jews, mislabeled as Semites) then you are against (anti) them.  If you don’t oppose them, I don’t see how you can be a WN at all so you might as well go back to Free Republic or Little Green Footballs and talk of approved subjects for kept “conservatives” like good little JJR.  It is true the Chosenites are not our only enemy but I’d love to hear of another one that even comes close to them.  Wear the labels as a badge of honor.  Arguing them with an enemy who blesses our destruction is a waste.  The “middle class values” of fighting such names mean nothing in our current struggle.  Majority Rights, and Stormfront, and David Duke, and Little Geneva, and Luke O’Farrell, and Bob Whitaker, and the Civic Platform, and the Birdman, and Revilo Oliver (RIP), and Sam Francis (RIP), and William Pierce (RIP) and many others are with us in flesh or spirit.  These groups/people needs to continue to grow in their cooperation.  Our differences must be subordinated to our struggle.

The enemy cannot be allowed to poison these groups (like it did to the John Birch Society) nor our efforts to confederate.  The clarion call of these voices to various segments of our people (leftists, rightists, conservatives, liberals, protestant, catholic, atheists, agnostics, etc.) must continue.  I think things are far too early to have much in the way of big results.  As these WN confederations grow in cooperation, mission statements, legal documents, strategies, and tactics need to be debated and refined.  David Duke’s EURO Conferences are a good start.  We are very early in the building stage.

Once our leaders (many of whom are here at MR) discard the names out of hand “respectability” will follow, not vice versa.  What I mean is all the cringing attempts to gain the approval of our enemy is only met by more abuse.  Why shouldn’t it since all they have to do is say “jump” and we ask “how high?”  They will truly only respect us when we defy them.  If this isn’t realized by now when will it?  We need to tell them to go to hell.  Once they realize their words won’t stop us they might start to back off.  Once their gig is up and the ideological shackles that have been placed on us fall off things might change fast.  Our leaders must be our leaders and act as our leaders, not as Governors at the whim of a foreign empire.

Once this happens various plans can be carried out that set into motion the outward and, to the masses, tangible activities.  Whether this will be reconquest, or secession, or some other thing or combination needs to be hashed out.  It will vary depending on the specific scenario.  In the US Empire I am inclined to believe the first stage of secession (SC, NH, ID?), followed by reconquest will work best.  For those who say we must fight, I agree.  But let’s not conflate fighting with idiotic machismo.  Fighting sometimes involves retreat, even stealth.  Form is great for movies and lost causes.  I hope we strive for effect.  We shouldn’t get too hung up on tactics, or even strategy, until we have a vision to guide us.  The aforementioned WN Confederation can go a long way to uniting us into a viable force.  Otherwise our enemy will pick us off one by one.

In parallel with all this we should strive to be the best fathers and brothers and neighbors we can be amongst our folk.  Let’s not devote ourselves to a cause that won’t be reaped for generations (possibly) if in the process we are failures personally at propagating our people in quantity and quality.

Posted by Donald Miller on September 12, 2006, 08:33 PM | #

What was wrong with the idea of seeking to institutionalize continental or global umbrella organizations?

1) Modeled after the Jewish American Congress—the White Peoples Congress.

2) Modeled after the Anti-Defamation League (to combat forcefully but legally the slurs and stereotypes against us in entertainment & media).

3) Modeled after the Southern Poverty Law Center (a non-profit legal offense & defense center).

Continue the institutionalization of white media.

Explore colonization everywhere, using the model of American British settlements 300-400 years ago.

Posted by Donald Miller on September 12, 2006, 10:28 PM | #

They know how to set up colonies all over the world to protect their children, their culture, and their elders:

*************************

Posted on Tue, Sep. 12, 2006

P.A. approves massive new Jewish center

By S.L. Wykes
Mercury News

The Palo Alto City Council Monday approved the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, setting in motion the final steps toward construction of what backers hope will be a model of multi-generational, multi-purpose development.

The campus, which will occupy a highly visible and well-located eight acres at San Antonio and Charleston roads, will combine independent and assisted senior housing, a pre-school, a community center and fitness facility.

Another four acres developed by a San Francisco-based non-profit housing group, Bridge Housing Corporation, will provide more than 150 townhomes and apartments, more than half of which will be for seniors with low to very low incomes.

The approval vote at the council’s Monday night meeting ends a six-year process for the Peninsula’s Jewish community. In 2000, the former elementary school that had been the home of the Albert L. Schultz Jewish Community Center was unexpectedly taken back for school use.

With some intense fundraising, the Jewish community was able to buy the land for the campus and is nearing the $150 million required for construction.

The council’s approval was the last step in the zoning and building design approvals process. More than 100 supporters of the project came to speak, then watched as the council gave it a unanimous yes.

``We’re thrilled beyond words,’’ said Shelley Hebert, the campus’ executive director, ``and I’m seldom short on words.’‘

A few of the meeting participants voiced their concern about how events at the community center might affect travel on Charleston Road, which is a major crosstown street that provides access to Highway 101.

There was a minor wording change in the conditions that have been set out for the project, which will be built under a ``PC’’ zoning. Certain sites are designated with that title, which stands for planned community. Planning approvals are then set out especially for each site.

In this case, the campus will have to get the city’s permission in advance for parking arrangements that will include off-site parking and a possible shuttle service to it.

The project will also involve reuse of a one-acre brownfields site, where former industrial manufacturing by Ford Aerospace has left low levels of chemical contamination in soil and groundwater. Bridge Housing Corporation received a $200,000 grant from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to install a monitoring system at the site.

The Bridge project housing may be available as early as next year. The campus construction will likely not begin until next summer and will take two years.

Posted by rustymason on September 13, 2006, 12:41 AM | #

OK, sounds great, let me just check my pockets for some spare change.  Aright, everybody pony up! 

All these ideas are great, but what I would be looking for, as an average Bob, is something smaller and more manageable.  “I’m just trying to raise my family right, ya know?  I got kids, I got a mortgage, jees, I just want to do something simple, I’m not out to save the world, just my do my part.  I want to help the cause, of course, but, like I said, I’m just a regular dude.  I can’t really do no secession, passing out leaflets, building no community centers—my wife would freak out.  I just want my sons and daughters to grow up with good, solid White values, none of that multiculti black-mexican-queer jazz.”

Franchises sell ideas to people wanting independence but are too afraid to go it alone.  The Entrepreneur company packages dreams with instructions for budding entrepreneurs.  The Boy Scouts had a franchise system going to spread English/European ideas of boyhood to manhood.  They are selling dreams to those with energy and motivation for a better life.  What ideas do we have to cover this level?

Posted by Guessedworker on September 13, 2006, 04:18 AM | #

Rusty,

Thanks for your promptings on Alex’s “Swiss” thread.  I must say that I think that the kind of infrastructure you are looking for is an organic expression of society.  Organisations such as Scouts clubs arise from its sense of connectiveness and general health.  They probably aren’t amenable to generation simply through some white racialists saying, “Let’s do this thing.”  The customers have to be of a mind to buy the product, and it is all too apparent that this hasn’t been the case for a couple of decades now.

In that regard, let me say also that the reason Western societies are lacking in the requisite sense of connectiveness and general health is not simply because our enemies have imposed their ethnic and political agendas on us.  Our weakness precedes and facilitates that - though, of course, much additional weakness has resulted from those agendas.  It is galling to you, no doubt, to be told that the health of the soil is what determines the strength of the plant.  But such it is.  We are at the metapolitical stage - seeking what WJG calls “a vision to guide us”.

Many years ago when I was learning to be an advertising copywriter I was told by an old hand to obey the sequential form of AIDA in all I wrote.  Attention, interest, desire, action.  Its not a bad rule.  We are still somewhere in the attention-grabbing, informational half of the process.  It has taken a long time to get here.  But things are starting to accelarate, in my view.  Patience will be needed by those, like you, who desire to jump to Action!  But it will come.

WJG,

I agree with all that.

Btw, you should consider what I said on the Resignation thread about commenters stepping up to the plate as bloggers.  We have lacked some strong WN seasoning since Geoff went to Alex Linder.  The hooked noses might need a bit more careful handling for our purposes.  But otherwise your forthright style and clear analysis is welcome.

Posted by Top on September 13, 2006, 04:55 AM | #

Very interesting debate between Daedalus and the Northerner about the North/South devide, which as Matra has pointed out parallels the Central/West divide in Canada.  Here is my take on this topic:

I have grown up in central Canada and I have long contemplated the absolute political defeat of whites in Ontario, resulting in what can only be termed a ‘nightmare’ of a demographic transformation.  Probably the fastest demographic transformation of a population in recorded history - outside of natural disasters and wars.

The thing to remember about Ontario is that it was relatively healthy before WW2 - I was surprised to learn that substantial sections of the T.O. population belonged to ‘extreme’ organizations such as the KKK as little ago as the 1930s.

This bring sme to my first point;  the North/South divide in the US, and the West/Central divide in Canada, was much less of a divide on race before WW2 than it appeared.  Some regions (ex. US South) may have had more laws, but other regions (ex. US North, central Canada) - as the northerner has pointed out - were implementing their own forms of segration.  My argument is that the real racial divide is not North vs. South in US or Central vs. West in Canada but pre-WW2 psychology vs post-WW2 psychology.

Let’s examine the decade leading up to WW2.  Whites were at the peak of their power in North America.  Demographically things were looking up.  Politically the anti-white elements were being pushed to the sidelines.  Laws were being passed that favoured whites.  Intellectually whites were devising strategies to support their demographic dominance.

It was WW2 that was the transforming event.  WW2 legitimized communist/jewish anti-white propaganda.  It re-energized the Frankuft school propagandists.  It allowed for an anti-white intellectual victory to happen in the US north and central Canada.  It scarred whites in a psychologically disabling way.  It allowed the false coupling of white struggle with absolute evil in the minds of ordinary people - with the help of alien and aggressive energy.

Where I agree with the northerner, is that I think that Daedalus overestimates the capability of southerners to overcome post-WW2 psychological warfare of the newer immigrants.  The south (or Canada west) never had to deal millions of smart, well-connected, aggresive aliens coming into their teritory with an intense hatred of the West and white people in general.  My guess is that had the Jews moved to the South instead of New York, the South would fall politically just as the North has, and just as central Canada has.  The jews just moved to what they perceived to be the power centers and did their work from there.

To tie this whole thing into the main topic of this thread:  The number one thing we as ‘intellectuals’ can do is to fight the psychological fires of WW2.  We need to figure out how to de-couple ourselves from the crimes of the Nazis (because we are not Nazis after-all) in public debates, while fighting for accurate white history, including WW2.  We need to figure out how to fight alien propaganda based on Soviet (mostly jewish) WW2 anti-German sort, and 1920s anti-Russian sort.  We need to regain the moral high-ground that the anti-whites have so brazenly taken.  We need to unite different groups of whites in an overall struggle for the benefit of the whites. Etc. 

There is so much to be done just on the intellectual side.  How are we going to form organizations if we ourselves don’t believe in our self-rightousness?  How are we going to convince others who will slander as with the Nazi and Hitler label?  How are we going to neutralize uncle Toms and aliens who will only see the wrong in what we do?

This is where I see the value of blogs like this.  An aspiring (or a sleeping) WN should come here and other sites like this and understand that there are other ways of looking at things.  We cannot underestimate the power of information and psychological transformations .  There are so many fronts… so many myths.  All the rest will follow…  every small effort counts.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 13, 2006, 05:35 AM | #

Fine comment, Top.  I incline to the view that all societies of Europeans were spiritually and emotionally traumatised by BOTH world wars.  In past thread comments I have often referred to the suicide researches by Emile Durkheim (a good Jew, btw).  He found that suicide rates sympathised with periods of societal instability.  He was, unusually for a Jewish intellectual and sociologist, a great supporter of family life, btw.  At a macro level the shock of World Wars I and II was incalculable, and the suicidalism that infected the West in the post-war decades is the direct consequence.

It’s said of old aristocratic families that they can survive one wastrel in the family line, but not two in succession.  That’s our problem.  The second wastrel, worse than the first, is lying in a West End doorway drunk on individualism, materialism and the rest while his family estate is overun by decay and squatters.  Strictly speaking, his enemy is not the decay or the squatters (though the latter’s natural interests are directly opposed to his and he must eject them to reclaim his birthright for his children).  It’s not even the individualism and materialsm.  It’s his inner self. 

Ultimately, we are striving to reform an alcoholic, to get him to leave the liberalism alone.

Posted by rustymason on September 13, 2006, 09:08 AM | #

GW wrote:“It is galling to you, no doubt, to be told that the health of the soil is what determines the strength of the plant.” 

No, I completely understand and accept that, no offense taken.  I’ve had a bit of advertising and sales training myself,  formally in my MBA program and informally as a salesman.  (I’m also the neighborhood composter, so I understand about healthy soil, too!)

What I’m addressing is the thinkers’ neglect of the millions who have awoken, the “early adopters.”  They have bought the idea, and now they want a product, or at least to see a demo.  But there are no working models.  Worse, there are no plans to build one—no one has even sharpened their pencils yet.

I agree that it is ill-advised to just “do something.”  We’ve already been doing that, and the blue-collar men and women continue doing it and getting nowhere.  But that’s largely we’ve had no leadership from the theorists.

My sense of urgency is this:  in the US, almost half of the population is now a legally-advantaged “minority.”  We are taking on third-worlders so fast that Whites will surely be a voting minority in less than 20 years.  All of our leadership is hell-bent on making this happen as quickly as possible, and every indication is that they will succeed (or already have).  Islam is making important inroads into all Western societies, and is a very real threat in several major European cities already.  Millions of average Whites see this, understand the basic issues involved, but have nowhere to turn; they have almost practical-level leadership at all.

We already have some good information and ideas with which to work.  It would make me feel better if I could see some of the ideological and theoretical banter begin to work on packaging some of these ideas into a consumable product—franchise packages or working kits of sorts—for the mid-low level organizers.

For example, Ygg has made a couple of working lists, one for movies and another for books.  To my knowledge, no one has seen that they can do some good (and make a couple of bucks) by packaging these two lists into a couple of books and/or selling WN-approved DVDs on a slick Website.  Has any of the blog leaders even talked about doing anything like that? No.

For another, many WNs on SF have expressed interest in a WN school of some sort, but they have no idea on what it would take to run such a school, how it would be different from other schools (“it’s unique selling proposition”), how to finance it, spread the concept organically, or anything.  The volk need intellectual guidance but receive exactly zero.  No one has even bothered to put together a workable curriculum for them, or bothered to put together ideas on how to franchise a school like this.  The closest we ever get is to have a debate on whether or not we should even try.  Weak.

The homeschooling model is exceptionally good.  It works and could be made to work for us, yet almost no one talks about it. 

These are just a couple of examples of products with a ready market but no mfg, service provider, promoters, or retail outlets.  Shouldn’t at least some webink be spilled over these kinds of ideas?

Posted by rustymason on September 13, 2006, 09:33 AM | #

When would we “be there”?  I mean, how would we recognize that it is time to begin talking about plans to start formulating ideas on how to make plans for the average organizers?

Posted by Guessedworker on September 13, 2006, 09:42 AM | #

Rusty,

The sign that the tipping point has been reached is when the political milieu begins to generate questions and answers itself, rather than having them generated from without by nationalists.  Think of it like hand-cranking a stubborn engine.  You know it will run very soon when it starts to cough.

Posted by rustymason on September 13, 2006, 10:52 AM | #

I hold out little hope, then.  If the current leaders of WN now are not even interested in discussing ideas of how the rubber might meet the road, then we are so far from a solution that I don’t believe anything will change, even in my grandchildrens’ lifetime.

To take my favorite model again, there were dozens of families who pioneered homeschooling before it was legal or socially acceptable.  They found practical solutions to limitations and wrote down their ideas and successes for others to follow.  They were pioneers, preparing the way for the inevitable boom in dissatisfaction with the current system.  They were already leaders, but when the boom came, they suddenly became visible.  Their books and programs are selling to an awakened minority, and their once neglected speeches are much sought after.  They helped keep the movement clear of false prophets, away from the rug merchants of the old system (like Bill Bennett). 

Here’s the important point: They prepared real, workable plans and products in advance, before the masses were ready, before it was legalized.  Without them, homeschooling would not have been legalized at all.  Even if it were, the masses’ interest in homeschooling would have been diverted into another BS program by the state.  I predict that we are headed toward the darker fate.  I predict that if we do not have solid ideas and workable models of what will and will not work at the street or household level, when the opportunity comes, our consumers will simply be sold more of our competitors’ worthless crap.  Our opportunity will be lost.

I.e, we must create an educated consumer, as you might say.  But when he is ready to buy, we must provide him a product else he will buy from the competition down the road.  When he has his checkbook, he must be able to show the Mrs. a picture or a working model, or else, no sale.

Posted by Voice on September 13, 2006, 11:30 AM | #

Rusty

I think you are right.  The other thing required is funds to achieve our goals.

If we had a workable homeschooling educational curriculum what would follow, in time, are Universities springing up to capitalize on european consciousness.

The alternate economy will allow these goals to push forward at rapid pace.  I have stated before that building business that cater to white interests is a huge economic opportunity for the business owners ,but also an area where great care needs to be taken that behind the scenes our interests are not being subverted by greed or non-whites.

As an entrepreneur myself, I look at this opportunity and see how profitable a business would be catering to Amren crowd and leveraging into mainstream white community.

Corporate america is living on borrowed time with its exporting of jobs overseas because they have turned themselves into marketing fronts without manufacturing capability.  Ironically, we could sell all of the chinese manufactured products for the benefit of our own peoples future.  We will see if the Tariff walls go up then!

The other brilliant thing about these business would be that they only have to keep enough working capital to fund the operations of the business and plow profits in donations in white interest non-profits thereby avoiding tax on the profits sent for donations! Ouch.

I have a utility that could be launched nationwide(and in Europe) in weeks but am holding this till I have the financial liquidity to do it.  I know the business as I do it today and help others get all the technology required to launch.

This will be the only way to fund our rebirth as the elites aren’t going to start donating to white causes because they got fat off its decline.  Sad but true.

Posted by rustymason on September 13, 2006, 11:49 AM | #

Capital is not the problem, at least for most of the mid-lower level things.  How much does it cost to create a curriculum and publish a book?  Almost nothing.  How much to start a directory of WN-friendly businesses?  The same.  How much to create an organizational handbook and/or Website containing ideas on building community, raising children traditionally, and creating viable businesses to replicate? Same.

Imagine if a WN networking suport group could get some leadership from the intellectuals.  The brains generate the ideas and provide mentorship and the hands create the products.

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 11:50 AM | #

I have already said this, but I’ll repeat. Blacks were spread around the USA by slave-owners, precisely the people for whom the gallant Southern mental cry-babies rebelled.

Blacks were spread around the USA by the British who were responsible for importing virtually all the slaves into the American colonies during the Colonial Era. They imported far more into the West Indies into places like Jamaica and Barbados. The Civil War was no more about slavery than the American Revolution was ultimately about taxes. Slavery was simply the incident that incited Southerners to finally seek their independence from the Union.

The Republican Party never advocated abolishing slavery in the South. The Dred Scott decision was a blow to the abolitionists and a victory for slaveowners. By seceding from the Union, the South lost access to all the territories, not just Nebraska. The Western territories were unsuited for plantation agriculture anyway. In 1861, the North passed an irrevocible constitutional amendment that would have legalized slavery for all time. Why would the South secede from the Union over slavery - and nullify in an instant all the fugitive slave laws? That makes no sense. Certainly, the greatest threat to slavery was secession: risking war with the Union that could and ultimately did encourage slave insurrections. That’s probably why the biggest slaveowners opposed secession at the state secession conventions.

The Upper South seceded only when Lincoln called for troops to coerce the cotton states. Virginia had been carried by the Constitutional Union ticket in 1860. Similarly, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas left the Union because their neighbors had done so. That leaves Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. South Carolina was the first state to secede. Perhaps the fact that there had been an independence movement in South Carolina for over thirty years is somewhat relevant to its behavior in 1860.

South Carolina was ready to secede in 1850 before the Republican Party existed and before the controversy over slavery in the territories even arose - when the Union was utterly dominated by the Democratic Party which was friendly to South Carolina. The only reason South Carolina didn’t secede in 1850 is because the other Southern states were not ready to do so. That had changed by 1860 due to the dissolution of the Whig Party.

Those who say that slavery was the cause of secession also have to address the inconvenient fact that Southerners deliberately split the Democratic Party at the 1860 convention precisely in order to ensure the election of Lincoln. Also, the biggest cheerleaders for secession were generally uninterested in the question of the territories and had been egging the abolitionists on for years to advance their own goals.

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 12:02 PM | #

but other regions (ex. US North, central Canada) - as the northerner has pointed out - were implementing their own forms of segration.

By northerner’s reasoning, the North is practicing segregation today because blacks and whites don’t generally live together. But that’s not segregation because the legal separation of the races is not prescribed by law, as it was in the Jim Crow South. The North was practicing integration during this time period: there had long been various state laws in the North against both segregation and racial discrimination. Blacks could intermix with whites in public accomodations like restaurants, parks, buses, and so forth. Any black man was perfectly free to marry the white woman of his choice. Also, blacks and whites attended the same public schools as well.

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/outside_south.htm

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/geography/geography.htm

Browse this website. Click on Northern and Southern states and compare their race laws on a state by state basis. Let’s look at Michigan.

Michigan

1871: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited separate schools or departments based on race or color. Allowed for the grading of schools according to the intellectual progress of pupils.

1883: Barred anti-miscegenation [Statute]
Declared all marriages between white persons and those wholly or partly of African descent to be legal.

1885: Barred public accommodation segregation [Statute]
Entitled all persons to full and equal access to inns, restaurants, barber shops, public transportation, theaters, and all other places of public amusement. Penalty: Misdemeanor punished by a fine up to $100, or imprisonment up to 30 days, or both.

1899: Anti-miscegenation [Statute]
Marriage law of 1883 reconfirmed.

1933: Civil rights protection [Statute]
Outlawed racial discrimination. Penalty: Criminal prosecution.

1948: Civil Rights [Statute]
All persons entitled to full and equal access to public accommodations, public educational institutions, transportation, recreation, etc.

1954: Barred National Guard segregation [Constitution]
Prohibited segregation within state militia.

1954: Barred National Guard segregation [Statute]
Prohibited discrimination within state National Guard.

1957: Barred school segregation [Statute]
Prohibited discrimination in schools at all levels. Penalty: $50 to $250, 30 days to six months imprisonment, or both.

1957: Barred public accommodations segregation [Statute]
All persons have equal rights in all places of public accommodation. Penalty: $100 to $500, misdemeanor.

Compare Michigan to Georgia.

1865: Miscegenation [Statute]
Unlawful for officials to issue marriage licenses to persons of African descent and the other a white person. Penalty: A misdemeanor that carried a fine between $200 and $500, or confinement in jail for three months, or both. Ministers who married such persons also guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined between $500 and $1,000, or confied in jail for six months, or both.

1870: Barred railroad segregation [Statute]
Railroads required to furnish equal accommodations to all, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Penalty: Violators could be sued, and the injured party could collect as much as $10,000.

1872: Education [Statute]
Called for separate schools for white and black children. Penalty: Schools that admitted both races would receive no monies from the public school fund.

1877: Education [Constitution]
Schools shall be free to all children of the state, but separate schools shall be provided for white and black children.

1891: Railroad and streetcars [Statute]
All railroads to furnish equal accommodations, in separate cars, for white and black passengers. Law did not apply to sleeping-cars. Streetcar conductors to assign passengers to seats, separating the races as must as practicable. Penalty: Passengers who did not comply were guilty of a misdemeanor and could be ejected by a conductor.

1895: Education [State Code]
Black and white children not allowed to attend the same school. Penalty: Teachers who taught white and black pupils in the same school would not be compensated out of the public school fund.

1899: Railroads [Statute]
Railroad companies had the right to assign passengers to seats and berths, and would separate white and colored passengers in sleeping cars. White and colored passengers would not be allowed to occupy the same compartment. Companies were not compelled to carry blacks in sleeping cars or parlor cars.

1905: Public accommodations [Statute]
Any person could donate lands to a city for a park, with the condition that the use of a park be limited to the white race only, or to white women and children only, or to the colored race. Municipalities could accept such gifts for the “exclusive use of the class named.”

1908: Penal institutions [Statute]
Separate eating and sleeping accommodations were required for white and black prisoners, and while working.

1925: Business licenses [Statute]
No license would be issued to any person of “the white or Caucasian race to operate a billiard room to be used, frequented, or patronized by persons of the Negro race” and vice versa.

1926: Race classification [State Code]
Classified a “Negro” as any person with at least one quarter Negro blood.

1926: Education [State Code]
Required schools to be racially segregated.Teachers who were guilty of receiving or teaching white and colored pupils in the same school would not be compensated.

1926: Miscegenation [State Code]
Colored clergyman can marry Negroes only. Also nullified interracial marriages if parties went to another jurisdiction where such marriages were legal.

1927: Miscegenation [Statute]
“Unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person.” Another statute enacted the same year changed the law to read that all persons with any ascertainable trace of Negro blood must be classified as persons of color. Penalty: Both races would be imprisoned in the penitentiary for one to two years.

1927: Public accommodations [City Ordinance]
No Negro barber in Atlanta allowed to serve white children under fourteen years of age. Court later declared the ordinance unconstitutional.

1928: Miscegenation [State Code]
Miscegenation declared a felony. Also unlawful for Caucasian persons to marry Asians or Malays.

1928: Race classification [Statute]
Required all persons to fill out voter registration forms with information concerning their racial ancestry. If there was any admixture of Negro blood in the veins of any registrant, person would be considered a person of color.

1931: Public carriers [Statute]
Motor common carriers could confine themselves to carry either white or colored passengers.

1933: Education [State Code]
The board of education was responsible to provide instruction of black and white children in separate schools.

1935: Miscegenation [State Code]
Illegal for a white to marry anyone but a white. Penalty:Felony, one to two years imprisonment.

1935: Health Care [State Code]
Separate mental hospitals to be established for blacks.

1935: Public Carriers [Statute]
Required segregation on all public transportation.

1945: Education [Constitution]
Separate schools to be provided for the white and colored races.

1949: Voting rights [Statute]
Those persons registering to vote were required to correctly answer ten out of thirty questions. Many of the questions were quite difficult.

1955: Voting rights protected [State Code]
Repealed poll tax

1957: Public accommodations and recreation [State Code]
Political subdivisions may alienate parks, etc.

1957: Education [State Code]
No public funds to be allocated to non-segregated schools. Penalty: felony.

1958: Voting rights [Statute]
This statute made voter registration extremely tedious and difficult. Law was designated as “An act to effect a complete revision of the laws of this state relating to the qualification and registration of voters.” For example, one of the questions asked “Under what constitutional classification do you desire to make application for registration?”

1958: Public carriers [State Code]
Segregation on public carriers

1963: Public carrier segregation barred [City Ordinance]
The city of Albany, Ga, repealed the ordinances which had required segregation in transportation, ticket sales and restaurants.

1963: Public accommodations segregation barred [City Ordinance]
The city of Atlanta passed an ordinance which repealed all city ordinances “which required the separation of persons because of race, color or creed in public transportation, recreation, entertainment and other facilities.

Notice any important difference?

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 12:35 PM | #

Where I agree with the northerner, is that I think that Daedalus overestimates the capability of southerners to overcome post-WW2 psychological warfare of the newer immigrants.

The soldiers who fought in the Second World War were disproportionately Southerners from the Jim Crow South. Whereas WW2 delegitimized racialism in the North and West, racialism was reinvigorated in the South. The attack on segregation that ensued after the war caused Southerners to renew their commitment to white supremacy. The NAACP lamented that one of the first casualties of the war had been Southern liberalism. This is why the United States was so different from other Western countries in the manner in which it embraced anti-racism. The Civil Rights Movement was bitterly controversial in the U.S. and there was widespread resistance to it, especially in the South, for almost twenty years after the war. Was there ever anything like Birmingham, Selma, Little Rock, or Oxford in Western Europe?

The south (or Canada west) never had to deal millions of smart, well-connected, aggresive aliens coming into their teritory with an intense hatred of the West and white people in general.  My guess is that had the Jews moved to the South instead of New York, the South would fall politically just as the North has, and just as central Canada has.  The jews just moved to what they perceived to be the power centers and did their work from there.

Those of us in the South should know better than to buy into the “Jews did it” thesis. There was nothing that was tried in the 1960s that had not been tried a hundred years before in the 1860s. It took us almost half a century to overthrow racial equality in the South the first time around. “Integration” was nothing more than the North imposing its own racial social system upon the rest of the country. Northerners had been practicing integration for generations on the state level. In New England, they had been doing it for at least a century.

This is actually the third time it has happened. Every so often there is a major war and the U.S. stresses its committment to “liberty” and “equality.” The white liberals of the North get all raptured and carried away with this sort of millenarian rhetoric and set about “reforming” the rest of the country to abolish its evil racist ways. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, they abolished slavery in New England and gave free blacks voting rights. In the aftermath of the Civil War, they passed the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments along with the civil rights laws of that era. For several decades after that, ignorant emancipated slaves had all the rights of white Americans until they were put in their place around the beginning of the twentieth century. In the aftermath of the Second World War, when the North was all disgusted with Nazism, it happened again. The Republican and Democratic parties were committed to civil rights reform by 1948. MLK and his followers ultimately accomplished nothing. It was the federal government, pushed by the starry eyed racial sentimentalism gushing amongst Northern liberals like Hubert Humphrey, that imposed integration on the rest of the country once again.

There are those who say that the Jews control the media and the Jews brainwashed the country into believing in racial equality. This line of reasoning cannot explain two things: 1.) why all the civil rights laws of the 1960s had been tried before in the 1860s before the Jews had settled en masse in the U.S., and 2.) why different regions of the country exposed to the same national media reacted in such strikingly different ways to the Civil Rights Movement.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 13, 2006, 12:59 PM | #

“The Upper South seceded only when Lincoln called for troops to coerce the cotton states. [...] Similarly Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas left the Union because their neighbors had done so. That leaves Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. South Carolina was the first state to secede. [...] The only reason South Carolina didn’t secede in 1850 is because the other Southern states were not ready to do so.”  (—Daedalus, a couple above)

I’ll just add the detail that the minute South Carolina seceded, Maryland( * ), a slave state, resolved to secede but thought it prudent not to until Virginia (along its southern border) officially did, so as not to be cut off from the rest of the Confederacy.  By the time Virginia did, however, Washington had already garrisoned Maryland with federal troops and had the state under lockdown, making secession impossible.  (Lincoln of course went on later to illegally, unconstitutionally jail Maryland newspaper editors and elected officials for questioning his war).
______

( *  For non-Americans, Maryland is, geographically, the northern hinterland surrounding the U.S. capital of Washington, D.C., as Virginia is the southern hinterland surrounding it.  D.C. was surrounded by slave states.)

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 01:05 PM | #

As best I recall, the literature on “residential segregation” suggests the North was and remains at least as segregated as the South.

That’s the status quo, integration. “Residential segregation” is nothing but whites fleeing from one neighborhood to another, from one state to another, because they cannot form legally restrictive covenants to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods. I can’t open up a white’s only restaurant. I can’t open up a white’s only school. I can’t rent a white’s only apartment. This is not the system we used to have in the Jim Crow South. In those days, we actually still possessed the freedom to associate only with our own race.

A goofy, anachronistic fixation on New England is not useful in understanding politics today. As I’ve shown in a previous post, regional differences exist, but not to the extent that southerners would turn into white nationalists if only liberals in New England disappeared.

northerner claims its not useful to discuss sectionalism in American politics. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 shows us otherwise: it was overwhelmingly supported by Northern representatives, and overwhelmingly opposed by Southern representatives in Congress. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is even more telling. It is targeted specifically at Southern states. Thurmond filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for over 24 hours before it was passed. Would any representative from New England ever have done that? And then you have the Fourteenth Amendment which has served as the constitutional basis for imposing integration on us in virtually every major Supreme Court case of the twentieth century from Brown to Loving. Are we to believe that sectionalism had nothing to do with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment too? The Southern states were literally ejected from the Union and forced to ratify that one at gunpoint. No, sectional and cultural differences amongst American whites has been absolutely integral to warping the country towards its current racially egalitarian direction.

Daedalus has already acknowledged that secession is not feasible, so what is the point in antagonizing northerners?

I’m not antagonizing northerners. As I said before, I have no problem with racialists who live in the North. I much wish our circumstances were otherwise. I’m simply pointing out that time and time again destructive civil rights legislation and efforts to open up our country to third world immigration comes out of that region of the country.

This all started over the assertion that the neo-confederates were idiots. I pointed out that their reasoning was correct: if the South were an independent country, there is no reason to believe there would have ever been a Fourteenth Amendment, Fifteenth Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1866, Civil Rights Act of 1870, Civil Rights Act of 1875, Brown, Loving, Immigration Act of 1965, Immigration Act of 1990, Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968, or Voting Rights Act.

Unfettered immigration and federal restrictions on freedom of association will be ended at the national level or not at all.

Why are there restrictions on freedom of association? Why is unfettered immigration the status quo? Someone had to have supported this. Who was it?

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 02:06 PM | #

RE: Secession

Our scene: Mississippi 1962. The Kennedy administration has ordered the admission of James Meredith to Ole Miss in compliance with the Brown decision. The Governor of Mississippi, Ross Barnett, interposes the authority of the State of Mississippi to block racial integration, sparking the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War. Kennedy threatens to send thousands of troops into the state to force Meredith’s admission (he ultimately does so). All of Mississippi is sold out of ammunition. Tens of thousands of armed volunteers from across the South are descending on Mississippi to fight the federal government.

“The state was being swept away by pro-segregation hysteria, and the frenzy was triggering the most dangerous of fantasies: On September 19 Mississippi state senator Jack A. Pace proposed to the Mississippi legislature “a petition to the United States Congress to sever relations between the Union and the state of Mississippi.” His colleagues quickly pulled him out to lunch to cool down.”

Doyle, p.70

A few days later . . .

“The next morning, September 26, Barnett’s representative Tom Watkins called RFK’s assistant Burke Marshall to suggest that the U.S. Marshalls escorting Meredith should push Barnett aside gently, since a show of force could save Barnett’s face and allow him to stand aside with his dignity intact.

RFK and Barnett were soon on the phone again, and once again they got nowhere fast.

“As Attorney General,” Kennedy grandly announced, “it is my duty to see that federal court orders are enforced.”

“I am going to obey the laws of Mississippi,” Barnett parried. “The U.S. Constitution is the law of the land but not what some Court says.”

The attorney general meekly pointed out, “Governor, you are a part of the United States.”

Barnett then made an astonishing statement, a remark that cut through the fog of rhetoric to the heart of the issue. “We have been a part of the United States,” said the governor, “but I don’t know whether we are or not.”

A presumably amazed Kennedy asked, “Are you getting out of the Union?”

Doyle, p.85

It was the closest we ever came to secession since the Civil War. If Governor Barnett and the Mississippi state legislature had not blinked, history might have taken a different course. At that moment, the majority of whites in Mississippi were so furious with the federal government that they would have enthusiastically left the Union had their leaders marched them out of it. It’s easy to imagine Kennedy sending troops into the state - and federal troops firing on the Mississippi state national guard. Imagine the explosion in outrage that would have rippled across the South. A small revolution would have broken out and the federal government would have been forced to occupy the region. We would have been defeated, of course, but the humiliation and resentment of such an occupation would have been seared into the minds of a generation a burning resentment against integration.

But instead, we elected to play politics, and were duped into becoming “conservatives.” “Don’t talk about race.” “Sneak up on the liberals.” The GOP cast out the bait, and we jumped out of the water and snatched it under hook, line, and sinker. Disavowing racial motivations on tactical grounds led naturally enough to deracialization over time. The Democrats were defeated and the “conservatives” were empowered in every branch of government, but in hindsight we have nothing to show for it aside from making a bunch of corporations even richer. All that remains now is a lingering, aracial hatred of “big government”; the origins of which have been largely forgotten. Sad, but a true story.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 13, 2006, 03:16 PM | #

This is unfortunately necessary because New England has insisted upon imposing racial equality on the South, not once, but twice. The South has never interferred in the internal affairs of New England in such a way. If they love blacks that much, they should be willing to take all of ours.

I have to second that.  I’m all for blacks making demographic inroads into liberal, anti-racist regions.  The result is always the same.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 13, 2006, 03:28 PM | #

Rustymason, I assume you’ve looked at PLEs?  Run a search at Stormfront if not.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 13, 2006, 03:43 PM | #

This libertarian outfit in New Hampshire is very serious in planning the secession of that state from the Union, by the way—they are not cranks but good folk who’ve had it just about up to here with the U.S. government’s outrages.  They differ from us here only in that they don’t look at race but only economics, taxation, oppressive restrictions on liberty, etc.

WNs would do well to consider the advantages of a big-tent Constitutional reform movement.  It may be a long shot, but the payoff would be enormous.  If we could defang this monster running amok we could divide the problem into manageable partitions.

A few obvious strengths of Constitutional reform spring to mind:

1. Provides excellent cover; why we want states rights and strict Constitutionalism would be immaterial.

2.  That cover would allow for a great many allies we wouldn’t otherwise have.

3. History and Americanism dovetail well with it, thus it could leverage patriotism.

4. Success would allow for a thousand flowers blooming, i.e., self-determination and various social experiments competing in a free political market; we’ll see where whites choose to live.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 13, 2006, 03:48 PM | #

Of course, I see that our only real chance of success is to smash the mass media monopoly and grab a chunk for ourselves; we’re never going to get anywhere until we can compete with the mass indoctrination machine for the hearts and minds of our people.

The good news is, if we can get some media space we win; we’ll drag those who hate us behind our chariots (rhetorically speaking, of course) if we get the chance to make our case.

The bad news is, those who hate us are perfectly aware of this fact and know perfectly well the entirety of the battle will consist of preventing us from being heard at anything approaching parity in terms of audience penetration.

Posted by rustymason on September 13, 2006, 05:35 PM | #

Svy,

Are you referring to how much support Haman gets?  He has made some progress with PLE’s so maybe I exaggerated a bit, but even so, it’s not much at all.  Don Black pitches for him once and a while, and maybe one or two other big names there, but by and large it’s his lonely ole project.  I haven’t spent much time there for several months so maybe it’s changed since then.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 13, 2006, 06:36 PM | #

Here is something simple that you all can do to help reclaim America for White Americans.
I

If an arrogant legal immigrant bastard from India-Steve Sailers and the true believers favorite imigrants- says to you that White Americans are going to a minority one day soon ,Respond:OVER MY DEAD BODY YOU HINDU BASTARD.

I’‘ve done this

several times already. Try it,you’ll like it.

Reclaiming America doesn’t require us to be true believers in race and IQ “science”

White Americans should grow up and just get over the guilt trip the parasites have implanted in our brains.

It isn’t necessary to believe in race and IQ “science”  to get over the white guilt trip…......if you have one.

If Jared Taylor goes on national tv and says White American are intelledtully inferior to the legal immigrant hindu thief he should no longer be considered a friend of White Americans.

America destroyed the intellectually “superior” Jap bastards with her superior tchnology,weaponry and military tactics.

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 06:58 PM | #

Reclaiming America doesn’t require us to be true believers in race and IQ “science”

Your position: people of different races are interchangeable units and the only differences that exist between them are caused by environmental factors. That’s the racial reasoning behind the status quo. If only we would embrace this status quo, and stop being “economic reactionaries,” we would win. Sorry. That doesn’t make any sense.

Posted by The White American Christian Abe Foxman on September 13, 2006, 07:20 PM | #

PatricZ says (today, 10:36 PM): “It isn’t necessary to believe in race and IQ “science” to get over the white guilt trip…......if you have one.”

He is certainly correct in one sense. In making bridgeheads into Anglo & Euro indigenous & diaspora populations, it isn’t necessary to make it a two step process, by which I mean (1) dealing with the theoretical meanings of, and problems with, Conservatism, Constitutionalism, Citizenism, Libertarianism, Genetics, Liberalism, IQ Rankings, Racial Egalitarianism, White Nationalism, etc., first, and then (2) doing action.

Nothing wrong with exploring globalizing concepts and this will be a big element in long term planning, but if it keeps one from doing action, something is wrong.

It is perfectly okay to look around to see who is beating up on white American people (or white Australian people, etc.) and speak up about it today. Sometimes one little complaint will do the trick, especially if it mimics the spitting and hissing of our favorite people. It’s really all in the tone and voice used.

Bo Sears

http://www.resistingdefamation.org

PS: Yes, the members of Resisting Defamation voted to give me my new title, “The White American Christian Abe Foxman.” I am sure Foxman realizes the most sincere form of flattery is immitation, so he will undoubtedly be pleased, no?

Posted by PatrickZ on September 13, 2006, 07:55 PM | #

Oh come on Daedulus, I never said that. None of what you wrote follows in any obvius way from what I’ve written so far on this website.

I’m not an enviromental determinest. Nor am I a genetic determinist.

The emerging best research in genetics and biochemistry shows that the enviroment-this is a broad term obviuisly-has been severly underestimated in its affect on gene expression.

Moreover,even before this new research on epigenetics and higher order genetic structures- which are influenced by the environment in a profound way-analytic philosophers such as Ned Block have argued very convincngly that-from a logical point of view-inherited traits are not necessarily genetic.

I don’t like societies where there is gross economic ineqaulity like the one you are enamoured of, the old southern caste system dominated by those Southern   enlightened men of means who you and Clyde Wilson would like to install back into power. YIKES!!!

I wish Sherman’s men had put a bullet in the head of every single slave owner.

Sherman was a good man. He made the American West safe for our White ancestors.

The top priority is to shut legal and illegal immgration down completely. And then encourqe the asians and muslims to leave.

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 08:53 PM | #

Oh come on Daedulus, I never said that. None of what you wrote follows in any obvius way from what I’ve written so far on this website.

That’s exactly your position. There are no racial differences. The differences that do exist are environmental in origin. It therefore follows that any connection between race and intelligence is not a scientifically interesting question. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that if that were true, as all egalitarians assume, it would similarly follow that since any nonwhite is as good as any white, it would be irrational and mere racism to oppose third world immigration. Again, that is the status quo - which you support.

I’m not an enviromental determinest. Nor am I a genetic determinist.

This is a straw man mischaracterization of the racial differences in intelligence debate. Hereditarians do not claim to be genetic determinists.

The emerging best research in genetics and biochemistry shows that the enviroment-this is a broad term obviuisly-has been severly underestimated in its affect on gene expression.

Please cite this “emerging best research in genetics” for us.

Moreover,even before this new research on epigenetics and higher order genetic structures- which are influenced by the environment in a profound way-analytic philosophers such as Ned Block have argued very convincngly that-from a logical point of view-inherited traits are not necessarily genetic.

That would be the Lamarckist/Lysenkoist position. I’m not really interested in what philosophers, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, or queer theorists have to say about race either.

I don’t like societies where there is gross economic ineqaulity like the one you are enamoured of, the old southern caste system dominated by those Southern enlightened men of means who you and Clyde Wilson would like to install back into power. YIKES!!!

Obviously. The Bolshevik USSR certainly sounds like it would be more to your tastes. Such “fascist genetics” or “bourgeoisie genetics” was outlawed in the Soviet Union for decades.

I wish Sherman’s men had put a bullet in the head of every single slave owner.

A bullet in the head of every slave owner, and a ballot in the hand of every nigger. That was the position of the Union. Slavery was evil, but the lesser of two evils compared to integration.

Sherman was a good man. He made the American West safe for our White ancestors.

A great man, Sherman. He certainly made the South safe for whites by arming blacks to kill us.

The top priority is to shut legal and illegal immgration down completely. And then encourqe the asians and muslims to leave.

Why should the Asians and Muslims leave? Why shouldn’t Negroes and Hispanics have the right to vote? Remember, there are no racial differences, so it is not like the changing racial demographics of America will affect anything.

Posted by WJG on September 13, 2006, 09:12 PM | #

GW,

When I say we should “flatten” the Rabbi’s “hooked noses” it is entirely metaphorical of course.  A more respectable way of wording that would have been to “stand up to Jewry’s demands that we Whites submit to our own genocide”.  You get the point.  There are times to use coarse language like “Kike”, “Hymie”, “Heeb”, etc., and one of these is when the described group is zealously managing your destruction.  I am persuaded that anti-semitism is a necessary (but not sufficient) sign of a healthy white race the same as being HIV negative is a necessary (but not sufficient) sign of a healthy body.  Being philo-semitic is a race’s AIDS.

I miss Geoff Beck’s contributions here and I am definitely more inclined to his views than most others.  But we (White Patriots) must work together in spite of our occasional differences in approach.  If there’s a chance to contribute to your efforts here, beyond an occasional post, I’d like to do so.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 13, 2006, 09:29 PM | #

The soldiers who fought in the Second World War were disproportionately Southerners from the Jim Crow South.

It appears contradictory. Southern racialists, in disproportionate numbers fighting to destroy German racialism. Why would Southerners, victims of internecine destruction, fight to destroy the the attempt by distant cousins to evolve a survival strategy?

Posted by PatrickZ on September 13, 2006, 09:35 PM | #

Your understanding of modern biology is obviously very limited. Superficially, it may come across Lamrkian,but its not.The lamarkian charge has already been raised in the research community and addresed. It is a non-issue. These ideas already have been scientifically tested in many labs around the world.

Never claimed there weren’t racial differences. I’m focusing specifically on the question of race and intelligence.

My claims are:1)Race and IQ researchers are working with a very faulty model of genes environmnet interaction. Here is how I would describe Race and IQ research:garbage in;garbage out.2)race and IQ is not scientifically interesting;3)People who have an interest in race and IQ for one reason:to jfind a genetic basis for gross economic equality the kind you and your confederate friends have a soft spot in their heart for.

It has already been established through experiment that enviromental factors can have anprofound affect on genomic expresion. the evidence for this grows stronger with each passing year.

moral of the story:heritable does mean some trait,behavior,characteristic is permanetly fixed. A tremendous openning has been opened to discuss scientifically the underestimated role of the environment on genes. The reserch literature on this enormous and growing.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 13, 2006, 09:41 PM | #

Svy,

Are you referring to how much support Haman gets?  He has made some progress with PLE’s so maybe I exaggerated a bit, but even so, it’s not much at all.  Don Black pitches for him once and a while, and maybe one or two other big names there, but by and large it’s his lonely ole project.  I haven’t spent much time there for several months so maybe it’s changed since then.

No, just a pointer.  You know more about it than I do.

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 10:08 PM | #

It appears contradictory. Southern racialists, in disproportionate numbers fighting to destroy German racialism. Why would Southerners, victims of internecine destruction, fight to destroy the the attempt by distant cousins to evolve a survival strategy?

Racialism wasn’t the issue in the war, or at least it wasn’t originally. The British were similarly upholding white supremacy in Africa and Asia at the outset of the war. Churchill was a racist himself. Hitler declared war on the United States. His Japanese allies had killed “our boys” at Pearl Harbor. That is why Southerners fought to destroy Nazi Germany. It was originally a war like any other. After 1943, anti-racism became increasingly prominent in Allied war propaganda and the MSM, as the British and Americans began to search for a way to ideologically define the Third Reich against the West in a negative way.

It was a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. As the Allies attacked Nazi Germany as an immoral racist regime, purely out of wartime expediency, their own racial practices were put under a new scrutiny. After the war, as Americans and Western Europeans reflected upon its meaning, “racism” came to be seen as the cause of the most destructive war in the history of the world, at least to influential white liberal elites. The Nazis as everyone had come to know were bad by definition, so anything resembling Nazism, like Jim Crow in the American South or white supremacy in the British Empire, came to be seen as bad by definition as well and was attacked as such.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 13, 2006, 10:12 PM | #

There was very little that was clever or honest in your last response Daedulus.

There are more options than the restoration of the southern aristocracy and a totalatarian state like the one in the former soviet union.

So don’t accuse me of things that I never claimed to support.

I’m beginning to think that the neoconfederates are an obstacle to White Americans reclaiming America.

fighting the civil war over again is really silly.

I do beleive very strongly that Whites on the bottom of the society should be protected from chattel and brutal wage slavery. This will very likely require goverment protection and intervention on some level. From reading Daedulus’s comments it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that a neoconfederate goverment would provide no protections for White Americans falling into chattel and wage slavery. They would probably provide a genetic and biblical justification for it if did happen(if history is any guide on this matter). But if I’m wrong about this, I will stand corrected

And why would you want the asians and muslims to stay?(If you do)

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 10:25 PM | #

Your understanding of modern biology is obviously very limited.

True. I’m a political scientist, not a biologist, but I try to keep informed about these things, so point me in the direction of the “emerging best research in genetics and biochemistry” that supposedly affirms your argument.

Superficially, it may come across Lamrkian,but its not.The lamarkian charge has already been raised in the research community and addresed. It is a non-issue.

You have argued that acquired characteristics are transmitted to future generations. That’s Lamarckism.

These ideas already have been scientifically tested in many labs around the world.

Again, show us the “emerging best research in genetics and biochemistry” that has validated Lamarckism.

Never claimed there weren’t racial differences. I’m focusing specifically on the question of race and intelligence.

That’s exactly what you are saying: there are no racial differences in intelligence, and the differences that we see in phenotype are environmental in origin.

My claims are:1)Race and IQ researchers are working with a very faulty model of genes environmnet interaction. Here is how I would describe Race and IQ research:garbage in;garbage out.

Yes. That was Stephen J. Gould’s position in The Mismeasure of Man. I’m still scratching my head wondering how this anti-racist pap is supposed to validate white racial preservation. It actually lends itself to anti-racism.

2)race and IQ is not scientifically interesting;

Obviously. The Bolsheviks have long held that race keeps the working class divided, and since your position is essentially a Bolshevik one, it makes sense that you would support environmentalism - and contradict yourself in the process, as you were just telling us above about the ““emerging best research in genetics and biochemistry” which you find so fascinating has discredited hereditarianism.

3)People who have an interest in race and IQ for one reason:to jfind a genetic basis for gross economic equality the kind you and your confederate friends have a soft spot in their heart for.

I don’t know where you get off suggesting that my interest in racialism has anything to do with justifying economic inequality. That is utterly false. In fact, I have spent much of my time attacking neoliberal economics which I reject on this blog, and I hold strongly progressive views on that subject.

It has already been established through experiment that enviromental factors can have anprofound affect on genomic expresion. the evidence for this grows stronger with each passing year.

I haven’t heard anything about Lamarckism making a comeback in the genetics community. If that were happening, I would have certainly heard about it by now.

moral of the story:heritable does mean some trait,behavior,characteristic is permanetly fixed.

This is a straw man that illustates either 1.) ignorance of the hereditarian position or 2.) mendaciousness on your part. I’m leaning towards the latter.

A tremendous openning has been opened to discuss scientifically the underestimated role of the environment on genes. The reserch literature on this enormous and growing.

You certainly shouldn’t have any problem citing this research for us to review then.

Posted by Daedalus on September 13, 2006, 10:57 PM | #

There was very little that was clever or honest in your last response Daedulus.

Your position that there are no racial differences in intelligence is the anti-racist status quo. That’s a fact. This notion has obviously lent considerable support to white racial preservation over the last fifty years. By all means, we need more people like Ashley Montagu, Franz Boas, Stephen J. Gould, and Richard Lewontin around.

There are more options than the restoration of the southern aristocracy and a totalatarian state like the one in the former soviet union.

I never said that either slavery or segregation were desirable. I will certainly argue, however, that slavery and segregation are preferable to racial integration from a white perspective. And what do you have against the Soviet Union? The Bolsheviks would certainly have agreed with you that acquired characteristics are biologically transmitted and that racism is merely a prop to divide the working class and to justify income inequality. That was a major theme of their propaganda for years.

So don’t accuse me of things that I never claimed to support.

You’re a Bolshevik, if not an open one, then a Bolshevik in the closet.

I’m beginning to think that the neoconfederates are an obstacle to White Americans reclaiming America.

The neo-confederates are right. If it were not for the attitude of Northern white liberals, there would be no need to reclaim America, as the South never supported any of the destructive civil rights legislation, multiculturalism, affirmative action, or third world immigration in the first place.

fighting the civil war over again is really silly.

I don’t care about fighting the Civil War again, and neither do the neo-confederates. Their position is that the South would be better off as an independent country; that a Southern union would be more representative and agreeable to Southern cultural preferences. How is that untrue? If the South were an independent country, there would be no real political support for over a dozen social ills and divisive issues currently plaguing the region. If our political spectrum ran the gamut from Mississippi to Kentucky, do you honestly think there would be a “debate” about gay marriage? If these social issues that fuel “conservatism” were put to rest, a wider debate about economics would open up.

I do beleive very strongly that Whites on the bottom of the society should be protected from chattel and brutal wage slavery.  This will very likely require goverment protection and intervention on some level.

I’m strongly in favor of a more equitable society for whites myself. That indicates to me that the racial problem needs to be solved first for the region can begin to develop something resembling normal politics. As I said above, I dislike neoliberal economics and I have been highly critical of capitalism in numerous posts on this blog.

From reading Daedulus’s comments it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that a neoconfederate goverment would provide no protections for White Americans falling into chattel and wage slavery.

Hardly. Populism enjoyed enormous grassroots support in the South during the late nineteenth century. Also, some of the most inveterate white supremacists like Bilbo were strongly progressive themselves on economic issues. Prior to the 1960s, the South was allied to the labor movement in the Democratic Party. Labor didn’t make many gains in the South. The support of the unions for integration hardly helped their case.

They would probably provide a genetic and biblical justification for it if did happen(if history is any guide on this matter). But if I’m wrong about this, I will stand corrected

You still haven’t told us where you are from, or if you have, I haven’t seen such a post. I seriously doubt that you are from around here though. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian minister. Race was more important to the Southern sense of identity than Christianity until quite recently.

And why would you want the asians and muslims to stay?(If you do)

I don’t recall saying I ever supported their presence here. What intrigues me is why you are ostensibly opposed to third world immigration. If all third world immigrations are equal to the white majority, how would their increased numbers here change the U.S. in an undesirable way?

Posted by karlmagnus on September 14, 2006, 08:01 AM | #

The South imported all the slaves that caused the problem in the first place;  if it hadn’t been for the South the US would have passed restrictive immigration legislation about 1850 and would be largely British and blissfully underpopulated. WHAT a pity!

My own view is that Buchanan had the best position of the 3 extant in the 1850s; slavery needed to be ended, but it could have been done over time (say, full civil rights and no lynching by 1900) without a civil war that killed 600,000 people, and a balnced Conservative society with a strong southern influence would have been the result.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 14, 2006, 08:44 AM | #

How would it change America in an undesirable way? Only a neoconfederate or the arrogant hindus I’ve dealt with over the years would ask this question.

Well, we can start with the fact that LA and Miami are spanish speaking and foreign. These two cities have national identities that I woulddn’t recognize as Amercan.

The Cubans are despised by many of the South Florida White Americans.

Silicon Valley is now chinese and hindu occupied territory. Why would I want this.

Ten years ago, in the Social Contract, a Native Born White engineer wrote about his experience looking for a job in silicon valley.

He went to one chinese owned company after another. He was treated with contempt during the interview process then shown the door. I highly recommend that people here read what this man wrote in in the Social Contract. When he arrived home he sat in his car for 90 minutes and almost vomited.

Chicago is very close to becoming the second Mexican city within US borders.

No I don’t believe there ae racial diferences in intelligence based upon fixed genetic differences.

And believing this doesn’t require me to accept a colonization of America by china and india.

It would be incredibly stupid for anyone concerned about the survival of White Americans to go on National TV at a time when White Americans are being replaced in the labor market with chinese and hindus and claim that the chinese and hindu are more intelligent than White Americans.

Tactically, ths would be incredibly stupid. What could have been a long overdue discussion about the damage and harm chinese and hindus inflict upon White Americans will be diverted into a discussion about whether or not hindus are more intelligent than Native Born White Americans. Way to go Jared you moron.

My comment about you lack of undestanding and knowledge about cutting edge biological research was not meant to be a put down

Native Born White Americans are not interchangeable with a billion or more Chinese living in China.

By the way, Chesterton has been an influence on my thinking.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 14, 2006, 08:55 AM | #

“It would be incredibly stupid for anyone concerned about the survival of white Americans to go on national TV at a time when white Americans are being replaced in the labor market with Chinese and Hindus and claim that the Chinese and Hindus are more intelligent than White Americans.  Tactically, ths would be incredibly stupid. [...] Way to go Jared, you moron!”  (—Patrick)

OK, what should Jared go on national TV and say, Patrick?  Any suggestions?  What sorts of statements made on national TV will rouse whites to action (or at the very least, rouse them to start voting for the right candidates and demanding the right party platforms)?  If you were advising Jared Taylor, what would you tell him to say?

Posted by Andy on September 14, 2006, 11:16 AM | #

No I don’t believe there ae racial diferences in intelligence based upon fixed genetic differences.

  I believe that Daedalus is correct; you are, at the very least, a closet Bolshevik. You continually cite diehard Marxists as a response to racialism.  Ned Block’s argument against hereditarianism is worthless.  Block, like Gould and Lewontin, attacked hereditarianism because it conflicted with his radical, egalitarian worldview. His argument is wholly dependent on obsfucation and subterfuge.  He argues that a child can inherit a great deal of toys from its parents. We wouldn’t say that the child having these toys was due to genetics; therefore, inherited does not mean genetic.  It’s a total crock.  Michael Levin’s masterful Why Race Matters engages all of Block’s arguments and thoroughly debunks them.

  I’ve noticed that every reponse from Patrick contains at least one anti-Hindu rant. However, he often neglects to mention blacks altogether.  In a previous post he said that the plan moving forward should be to shut down all legal and illegal immigration. Once that was done, he said, the next step would be to convince the Muslims and Asians in the US to leave. No mention of blacks whatsoever. In his last post, he ranted against parts of America turning into Mexican, Hindu, or Chinese colonies. Again, there was no mention of blacks.  Is this a consequence of your racial Bolshevism? You can oppose the presence of Mexicans, Hindus, and Mongoloids despite your Bolshevism because they bring a different language and culture with them. However, blacks have been here for generations and all speak (at least a rudimentary form of) english. Given that there are no meaningful genetic differences between the races, on what grounds do you oppose the presence of blacks in white society? Answer me that.

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 12:19 PM | #

The South imported all the slaves that caused the problem in the first place; if it hadn’t been for the South the US would have passed restrictive immigration legislation about 1850 and would be largely British and blissfully underpopulated. WHAT a pity!

I hate to quibble, but . . . the slave trade was abolished in 1808. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, a mere twenty years before. At the outset of the American Revolution, slavery was legal in every American colony. The vast majority of slaves came here during the Colonial Era while the South was still under British rule. It’s important to keep this in perspective. The Southern colonies were in many ways an adjunct of the far richer British slave colonies in the West Indies. In fact, South Carolina was founded by small planters driven out of Barbados.

The colonies were established to grow cash crops for export to the British home market, not to create an ideal racial society in the New World. In the West Indies, it was sugar. In South Carolina, it was rice and indigo. In Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, it was tobacco. It’s not like New England was any better. New England was simply unsuited for plantation agriculture because of environmental reasons. New England was also intimately involved in slavery because its economy was dependent upon provisioning the other richer slave colonies in the West Indies. To make a long story short, slavery was implanted and economically entrenched in the New World long before independence.

There is a large body of scholarship about American slavery. I suggest you check it out. First, slavery seems to have been integral to settlement in the New World. It existed in some form or another in almost all the European colonies originally. Second, in the New World, land was abundant, but labor was scarce; the inverse of the status quo in Europe. Anyone could become a substinence farmer, so there was no reason for one man to labor hard for another man growing cash crops for export on a plantation. The first attempt to solve this problem was through indentured servitude, but that didn’t work, because fewer Englishmen were willing to sell themselves into temporary bondage at times when wages were rising in England and women were scarce in the colonies. African slavery originated as a practical economic necessity, and was sustained later because it became enormously profitable.

Slavery was a disease left over from the Colonial Era, but one that essential to the long term success of the American colonies. As the colonies grew rich and the white population expanded, European immigrants were attracted en masse. In the late eighteenth/early nineteenth centuries, New England and the Mid-Atlantic states developed other sources of prosperity and rid themselves of slavery through gradual emancipation. Northerners sold their slaves south over a period of several decades.

A war was unnecessary to abolish slavery. By the time of the Civil War, the Upper South was ridding itself of slavery in the same way New England did: by selling off more and more slaves further south, recouping the investment in slavery, and investing it in other forms of productive activity. Progress was slower here, as it was in the Mid-Atlantic states, but the same trend was at work. Eventually, the Upper South would have rid itself of blacks and slavery entirely.

This would have left the Lower South saddled with the nation’s entire slave population; a population that was growing at an extraordinary rate through natural increase. This created a problem. Where were all these excess blacks supposed to go? They couldn’t be sold to the Upper South, Midwest, Mid-Atlantic States, or New England. As slaves became more numerous, their value would steadily decrease while simultaneously becoming more expensive for planters to maintain them.

The obvious solution was for the Lower South to rid itself of slavery in the same way the rest of the nation had: by selling slaves further south over time, recouping the investment that had been made in slavery, and investing it in other activities. This would have been possible if the North would have supported the acquisition of Mexico, Cuba, Santo Domingo, and parts of Central America, which they blocked (to thwart the so-called “Slave Power”, or at least the expansion of slavery into the Western territories, which was unrealistic, since these territories were unsuited for slavery.

I’m rambling on here. As for immigration, U.S. immigration policy wasn’t federalized until the crisis in California over the Chinese in the 1870s. The immigrants who came were lured by manufacturing jobs in the North and the desire of Northern industrialists for cheap labor to depress wages. I’m not sure what the South had to do with that. Few European immigrants settled here.

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 12:42 PM | #

No I don’t believe there ae racial diferences in intelligence based upon fixed genetic differences.

That’s the premise of Lewontin and Gould, and PatrickZ.

And believing this doesn’t require me to accept a colonization of America by china and india.

The premise that justifies third world immigration right now in the present: all these wonderful Latinos are just as smart as we are, and they will assimilate just like the Germans and Irish before them . . . cuz we are all “human beins.” America won’t be changed forever in any significant way because of their presence here. It is mere “racism” to say otherwise. You are also ignoring the clear implication of your own argument. If there are no racial differences, and the differences that exist are purely environmental, it follows that whites are oppressing nonwhites and preventing them from succeeding in America. This is the sort of nonsense that causes white guilt as well.

It would be incredibly stupid for anyone concerned about the survival of White Americans to go on National TV at a time when White Americans are being replaced in the labor market with chinese and hindus and claim that the chinese and hindu are more intelligent than White Americans.

It would be incredibly stupid for any racialist to go on television and argue that: oh, as it happens, all humans are equal and there are no intrinsic racial differences between them. If that were the case, it is logical to ask what aside from superficial differences in color will stop these people from fully assimilating into the American majority. That’s the foundation behind every disastrous liberal race social engineering scheme whatsoever, from integration to affirmative action.

Tactically, ths would be incredibly stupid.

It makes tactical sense for racialists to ENDORSE the arguments of anti-racists; people who have reasoned that their position, which is yours, undercuts ours?

What could have been a long overdue discussion about the damage and harm chinese and hindus inflict upon White Americans will be diverted into a discussion about whether or not hindus are more intelligent than Native Born White Americans.

Why can’t race realists respond by pointing out that Chinese and Indian immigrants take jobs away from whites and push down their wages? That obviously depresses their standard of living in the same way that Negro and Hispanic crime is already doing.

Way to go Jared you moron.

You’re the moron here. You’re actually the only person I have ever seen on the internet stupid enough to believe that a racialist conclusion is somehow implied by embracing the anti-racist status quo. Or, perhaps, you have no real interest in racialism and are simply here to spread Bolshevik propaganda. No, I disagree. Jared Taylor is a smart guy. He has spent far more time thinking through the implications of his own arguments than you.

My comment about you lack of undestanding and knowledge about cutting edge biological research was not meant to be a put down

When are you going to link us to the cutting edge Lamarckist research in genetics?

Native Born White Americans are not interchangeable with a billion or more Chinese living in China.

WHY? By your reasoning, there are no inherent differences between the two, aside from superficial differences in color. It follows that all we need to render Chinese into White Americans is creative social engineering, and if that fails, a white conspiracy (i.e., “institutional racism”) is responsible. You have utterly no grounds to oppose third world immigration, affirmative action, or integration.

By the way, Chesterton has been an influence on my thinking.

The biggest influence on your thinking seems to be Franz Boas and Ashley Montagu, neither of whom are friendly to racialism. The environmentalist argument has been the staple of anti-racism for, what, going on three centuries now. History teaches us that racial egalitarianism wanes in periods of hard hereditarianism, as in Jim Crow America, and revives in periods of environmentalist naivite, as in late twentieth century America.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 14, 2006, 01:34 PM | #

The South imported all the slaves that caused the problem in the first place; if it hadn’t been for the South the US would have passed restrictive immigration legislation about 1850 and would be largely British and blissfully underpopulated. WHAT a pity!

Actually, yankees did the importing; southerners did the buying.

Posted by rustymason on September 14, 2006, 01:59 PM | #

“Actually, yankees did the importing; southerners did the buying.” 

And Jews did what?

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 02:36 PM | #

And Jews did what?

Jews never played much of a role in the life of the American nation until the early to mid-twentieth century. There were Jews involved in the slave trade, but their activities were confined mostly to the more lucrative areas in the Dutch and Portuguese colonies of the Caribbean and South America. If I recall correctly, only 6% of slaves brought to the New World went to the American colonies. Of those, the overwhelming majority were carried on English ships. North America was a relative backwater in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The only English colony where I have been able to uncover any significant Jewish involvement in the slave trade would be Barbados, and perhaps South Carolina to a lesser extent (South Carolina was founded by settlers from Barbados). Even there, Jews tended to be local merchants rather than planters. There were similarly some Jewish traders in New Amsterdam before the English conquest, but the slave trade was in the hands of Europeans there as well.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 14, 2006, 02:44 PM | #

Racialism wasn’t the issue in the war, or at least it wasn’t originally.

If we accept that as our premise, then the destruction of Southern white racialism, for the vast majority of Northerners, was probably incidental as well. In fact it was not a civil war at all, that, as Jimmy Cantrell writes, like the British Empire,

Not only might their [Southern] independence influence citizens of the Yankee WASP Union to think and act discordantly [according to WASP cultural imperatives,] but, at least as importantly, all those Southern Scots-Irish hillbillies and rednecks would no longer be the tax-slaves to and cannon-fodder for the Yankee WASP Empire. And as the case of the Northern Ireland statelet proves [and it is important to know that Ulster Protestants are close cousins of Southerners,] a liberal WASP Empire requires culturally Celtic Protestants to work against their best interests culturally - and religiously - by allying with Anglo-Saxon Protestants whose telos is Social Gospel secularist multiculturalism in which Celtic Protestants are far more serviceable than Celtic Catholics but despised almost as deeply. Because the number of ethnic WASPs is small, a WASP Empire requires that large numbers of culturally Celtic peoples [and Protestants have usually done so in order to protect their sense of Protestantism] and large numbers of Catholics [who have done so rapidly over the past 50 years] sell their birthrights for a mess of secularized imperial pottage.

In effect the British Empire was not racist but classist, that the BE fought nationalist movements since the ascendancy of Cromwell, in Europe, Asia [the BE supported Ottoman suppression of Greek and Bulgarian nationalism throughout the 19th century] and Africa [twice squashing Boer attempts at independence].

So in the Raj Quartet, Major Ronald Merrick, whose social background was relatively lowly, believed that ‘the English were superior to all other [r]aces, especially the black [this is the English use of black for race, which means not merely black Africans but also peoples from the Indian subcontinent and others with dark pigments: my note.]’ But the Cambridge-educated Guy Perron feels a greater affinity with the Indian Hari Kumar, who went to the same public school [which is not an English equivalent of an America[n] public school but is an exclusive boarding school] as he did, than he does with Merrick, who is very much his social inferior.

Posted by rustymason on September 14, 2006, 02:57 PM | #

Daedalus began:
“Jews never played much of a role in the life of the American nation until the early to mid-twentieth century….”

Alright, Mr. Auster, the jig is up, we know it’s you!

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on September 14, 2006, 03:03 PM | #

Jews never played much of a role in the life of the American nation until the early to mid-twentieth century. There were Jews involved in the slave trade, but their activities were confined mostly to the more lucrative areas in the Dutch and Portuguese colonies of the Caribbean and South America. If I recall correctly, only 6% of slaves brought to the New World went to the American colonies. Of those, the overwhelming majority were carried on English ships. North America was a relative backwater in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The only English colony where I have been able to uncover any significant Jewish involvement in the slave trade would be Barbados, and perhaps South Carolina to a lesser extent (South Carolina was founded by settlers from Barbados). Even there, Jews tended to be local merchants rather than planters. There were similarly some Jewish traders in New Amsterdam before the English conquest, but the slave trade was in the hands of Europeans there as well.

For some time I’ve resisted the typical WN line that jews dominated the transatlantic slave trade, but a while back someone posted a quote from a jewish author saying just that.  Does anyone have that source?  I wish I’d bookmarked it at the time.  I remember Scroob throwing in his tuppence (he might’ve posted the quote, actually), so maybe he can help?

Posted by PatrickZ on September 14, 2006, 03:16 PM | #

How about this:a preference for my own kind.

This is what immigration enthuiasts would call racism. It’s one of those worlds these days that can pretty much mean whatever you want to mean.

But of course, immigration enthusiasts and the non-white immigrants have a racial preference for the future of this nation. Fill in the rest.

Other justifications:job competition;threat to the enviroment.

I don’t think America is an idea nation. America like every other nation has a demographic/racial identity.

Most White Americans can grasp the simple concept that replacing every White American with someone from China would give rise to a completely new nation state. It would be America in name only ..thats if the chinese don’t change the name which of course they would have the power to do.

Either you grasp this simple concept or you don’t. If you can’t, there is nothing I can do about it.

I don’t feel I have to give a PHD defense jusification to any chinese or hindu thief/invader about my demographic racial preferences for the future of America.

The preferences of White America define the terms of the debate. This is the stating point of the debate. Take it as a fundamental axiom.

If Andy’s favorite immigrant group doesn’t like, tough shit.

The hindus in America are predators and have caused very serious harm to White Americans already.

I would prefer developing Native Born White talent for medical careers from places such as Appalachia. We can also draw upon the enormous intellectual talent in the White Male and White Female population.

The reclaiming of America for White Americans doesn’t require a belief in the intellectual inferiority of other races.

Whites who are serious about reversing the brown tide have start thinking very carefully how we are going to actually do it.

It is my contetnion, that at some point in time Whites will have to a high level of force to reverse the situation. I beleive that this is inevitable as the demogrpahics keep changing and resources keep becomming scarcer.

Whites will at some point in time will have no incentive to give their allegiance to a system that has no allegiance to them.

When this happens, Whites will fight for their survival.

Things are changing. But they will have to change a lot faster.

Going on national TV- like the moron Jared Taylor would like to do -telling White folks that they are intellectually inferior to the hindu thief will delay the revolt.

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 03:23 PM | #

The Celtic South thesis. We had a debate about this a few weeks ago. The South was settled by English and Scot-Irish settlers, the former establishing themselves in the lowlands, the latter in the backcountry. Ethnically speaking, neither were Celts. The Scot-Irish were Protestants from the Scottish Lowlands/Northern England by way of Ulster (if I remember my English history correctly, this region was colonized by the Vikings in the Early Middle Ages). The English who colonized the South were drawn from Southern England. The Confederacy drew its strongest support from the lowland whites who were the descendents of the original English settlers. There was a lot of antiwar sentiment in the backcountry on both sides of the border. The common whites of Kentucky, Tennessee, Western North Carolina, West Virginia, Southern Ohio, Southern Indiana, and Southern Illinois were all Scot-Irish.

As I pointed out at The Civic Platform forum, a “Celtic North” makes much more sense. Virtually all of the “Celts” who came to America, Irish and Scottish Highlanders, settled in the North, not the South. The former went to New England. The latter went to upstate New York. A minority of Irish immigrants settled in New Orleans and Savannah. New England is still the most Catholic region of the country today. Aside from differences in climate and economics, the most important difference between the original settlers of the North and South was religion. The Anglican Church was established in all of the Southern colonies prior to the Revolution whereas Congregationalism was established in New England. This obviously reflects the English origins of the majority of white settlers in the South.

This isn’t to say there wasn’t a Celtic contribution to the Southern ethnic nationalism, only that it was nowhere near as predominant as Cantrell claims it was. If the Southerners of the Civil War era considered themselves to be Celts and Yankees to be Anglo-Saxons, then surely much would have been made of this at the time. That wasn’t the case. The closest thing to it was the claim made by a minority of planters enarmored with Sir Walter Scott novels that they were “Anglo-Normans” which, of course, had no basis in fact. The largest “Celtic” contribution to the South almost certainly came from Welsh settlers who were Anglicized enough to pass for Englishmen. Jefferson Davis, for example, was of Welsh ancestry.

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 03:33 PM | #

For some time I’ve resisted the typical WN line that jews dominated the transatlantic slave trade, but a while back someone posted a quote from a jewish author saying just that.  Does anyone have that source?  I wish I’d bookmarked it at the time.  I remember Scroob throwing in his tuppence (he might’ve posted the quote, actually), so maybe he can help?

I don’t know about the transatlantic slave trade, but I am positive they never played much of a role in the slave trade to North America. Then again, North America wasn’t a big destination for the slave trade, so both claims could be true. Jews certainly were involved in the slave trade. That’s a fact. I have seen it acknowledged in the mainstream scholarship on the subject. They were especially involved in the Dutch and Portuguese colonies. Since Brazil imported far more slaves than any other colony, that would be the best place to look. If I recall correctly, Sephardic Jews from the Portuguese colonies in South America were involved in establishing sugar production in Barbados.

Posted by Desmond Jones on September 14, 2006, 03:46 PM | #

The Celtic South thesis.

It still does not preclude Cantrell’s position that 1. Anglo-Saxons required Celtic cooperation, and the Celts, especially the Protestants, embraced that position to protect their religion, and 2. the destruction of Southern racialism/nationalism, like the destruction of German racialism/nationalism, was incidental.

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 04:03 PM | #

How about this:a preference for my own kind.

I prefer my own kind as well, obviously. And so does Jared Taylor. He constantly speaks out for whites as whites. Conservatives refuse to do this. Thus, I cannot understand your criticism of Taylor, who is without many peers in his effort to rehabilitate racialism in North America.

This is what immigration enthuiasts would call racism. It’s one of those worlds these days that can pretty much mean whatever you want to mean.

Racism is the belief that there are intrinsic racial differences and that different races can be classified on the basis of them. The anti-racists argue that there are no such differences, and from that perspective, “racism” is seemingly irrational, which is correct given their premise; the premise that you endorse along with Gould and Lewontin.

But of course, immigration enthusiasts and the non-white immigrants have a racial preference for the future of this nation. Fill in the rest.

Yes. It’s completely natural for an individual (or an animal) to prefer his closest genetic relatives. The survival of his own genes through close relatives enhances his fitness.

Other justifications:job competition;threat to the enviroment.

All true. The reference point is the standard of living of whites. The influx of Asian immigrants throws whites into savage job competition and can be opposed on that basis.

I don’t think America is an idea nation. America like every other nation has a demographic/racial identity.

Racial identity isn’t really important to the racial identity of most nations, obviously, because they are not multiracial. Nowhere on the face of the earth has race been more closely associated with nationalism than it has been in the United States or, to be more specific, in the American South. This tradition of racial nationalism, known to history as white supremacy, presupposed the racial inferiority of blacks. Your assertion that their are no hereditary racial differences in intelligence is foreign to this tradition.

Most White Americans can grasp the simple concept that replacing every White American with someone from China would give rise to a completely new nation state. It would be America in name only ..thats if the chinese don’t change the name which of course they would have the power to do.

I wish that were the case. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was promising, and Asians were entirely excluded after the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, but Americans are unwilling to embrace racially exclusionary immigration policies today because of the egalitarian nonsense you subscribe to.

Either you grasp this simple concept or you don’t. If you can’t, there is nothing I can do about it.

I don’t feel I have to give a PHD defense jusification to any chinese or hindu thief/invader about my demographic racial preferences for the future of America.

You haven’t explained why nonwhites should be excluded from the United States if there is no real differences between them and the white population. Surely, if your environmentalist argument is correct, all we need is social engineering to integrate populations of radically different racial ancestry.

The preferences of White America define the terms of the debate. This is the stating point of the debate. Take it as a fundamental axiom.

White Americans give lip service to all the equality crap you are trying to sell us here. It’s our mission to destroy forever environmentalism for it cannot be used to sustain the status quo (the status quo which you support).

If Andy’s favorite immigrant group doesn’t like, tough shit.

What grounds do you have to exclude such immigrants? If they are all the same, as you say they are, the anti-racists will simply turn around and compare Mexicans and Nigerians to Germans and Swedes.

The hindus in America are predators and have caused very serious harm to White Americans already.

The Hindus are in America because Americans have been bombarded with the anti-racist lie that race doesn’t exist and all racial differences are environmental in origin. This is the stuff that you claim to believe in.

I would prefer developing Native Born White talent for medical careers from places such as Appalachia. We can also draw upon the enormous intellectual talent in the White Male and White Female population.

Why would you prefer that? There is no difference between whites from Appalachia and Negroes from the Congo, remember? They are interchangeable units.

The reclaiming of America for White Americans doesn’t require a belief in the intellectual inferiority of other races.

Ha! This is preposterous. The redemption of America absolutely does presuppose the mainstreaming of race realism. Again, we can already look at what the fruits of the Boas-Gould-Montagu-Lewontin environmentalism has brought over the last forty years.

Whites who are serious about reversing the brown tide have start thinking very carefully how we are going to actually do it.

You obviously haven’t given much thought to the matter at all. Keep in mind that your argument - that there are no hereditary racial differences in intelligence - is the ideological underpinning of the status quo.

It is my contetnion, that at some point in time Whites will have to a high level of force to reverse the situation. I beleive that this is inevitable as the demogrpahics keep changing and resources keep becomming scarcer.

Why would whites bother to do that? By listening to people like you, they have been conned into believing that human beings are infinitely malleable and there are no real intrinsic differences between themselves and other groups.

Whites will at some point in time will have no incentive to give their allegiance to a system that has no allegiance to them.

Whites can’t even summon up a sense of identity to assert their interests as a group because of the popularization of the reasoning you are trying to pass off on us here.

Going on national TV- like the moron Jared Taylor would like to do -telling White folks that they are intellectually inferior to the hindu thief will delay the revolt.

Who is really the moron here? Is it Jared Taylor for reviving a debate about intrinsic racial differences or people like you who believe blacks are just as intelligent as whites.

Posted by rustymason on September 14, 2006, 04:18 PM | #

Daedalus accuses PatrickZ:
“...the anti-racist lie that race doesn’t exist and all racial differences are environmental in origin. This is the stuff that you claim to believe in. “

“...or people like you who believe blacks are just as intelligent as whites.”

PatrickZ, I’m not following your argument in some places and it seems that Daedalus MAY be correct.  Can you answer these accusations directly?

Posted by PatrickZ on September 14, 2006, 04:35 PM | #

Rusty

Arguments evolve through time and space.

Daedulus accuses me of things I never claimed to believe.

what I’ve done so far is offered an outline of What I belive is true as far as science goes.

i will make the argument more detailed as time progresses hopefully sooner than later.

My claims are:1)Race and IQ research is built upon a weak-very weak-theoretical foundation:garbage in;garbage out.
2)telling Native Born Whites that they are intellectually inferior to hindus is tatically stupid.
3)race and IQ correlations are not scientifically interesting. For the most parrt it is of interest only to those who want find a genetic justification for gross economc inequility.

Here is a thought experiment for the true believers:if it were the case that there were no racial differences in intellegence would you folks all of sudden not oppose Non-White immigration?

I’m in a rush got to go. Stay tuned.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 14, 2006, 05:31 PM | #

WJG,

Just seen your comment of September 14, 2006 at 01:12 AM.  Please mail me through the Contact button at the top of the page.

Bo

Abe,

Did all those kind folk who voted your new name mention the appointment with the Moyle?

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 05:32 PM | #

My claims are:1)Race and IQ research is built upon a weak-very weak-theoretical foundation:garbage in;garbage out.

First, PatrickZ tells us that “Race and IQ research” is not scientifically interesting. Then, PatrickZ tells us how it is built upon a “very weak theoretical foundation” and that the latest Lamarckist research in genetics (which he never cites, btw) somehow refutes hereditarianism. So, apparently “Race and IQ research” is not scientifically interesting, but at the same time it is; insofar as it relates to “economic inequality.” Patrick slips in and out of this sort of doublethink throughout the thread.

2)telling Native Born Whites that they are intellectually inferior to hindus is tatically stupid.

PatrickZ has a curious proposition for racialists: Jared Taylor is tactically stupid for not embracing the racial theories of Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen J. Gould - the status quo - which currently justifies integration, affirmative action, and third world immigration.

3)race and IQ correlations are not scientifically interesting. For the most parrt it is of interest only to those who want find a genetic justification for gross economc inequility.

This Bolshevik tripe contradicts 1.).

Here is a thought experiment for the true believers:if it were the case that there were no racial differences in intellegence would you folks all of sudden not oppose Non-White immigration? I’m in a rush got to go. Stay tuned.

No, I would still oppose nonwhite immigration. Whether or not Negroes and Hispanics are less intelligent than whites is a separate issue, but it is both scientifically interesting and relevant to the formulation of public policy. I’m naturally prejudiced in favor of people of similar racial ancestry like myself, and that is the fundamental reason (amongst many others) why I oppose third world immigration. This view is irreconcilable with the environmentalism that you endorse, for such racial preference is driven ultimately by genetic self interest not mere arbitrary prejudice; by favoring my racial brethren over more distantly related aliens, I hedge on the survival of my genes in the local gene pool (which is smart evolutionary calculus). In the light of environmentalism, this is totally irrational, as there is no reason to favor, say, one’s brother over a distantly related racial stranger, which implies that social engineering can abolish the salience of such hereditary distinctions.

Environmentalism is garbage. If humans were as malleable as environmentalists claim that they are, then observable racial differences would not have proven to be as intractable and oblivious to social amelioration as they are. Environmentalists cannot explain why their policy prescriptions fail time and again to achieve the much desired utopian result. Instead, their arguments collapse into conspiracy theories about “institutional racism,” transparent apologetics like the “legacy of slavery,” and other feel good clichés of little scientific merit or explanatory power.

Posted by Daedalus on September 14, 2006, 05:37 PM | #

My claims are:1)Race and IQ research is built upon a weak-very weak-theoretical foundation:garbage in;garbage out.

First, PatrickZ tells us that “Race and IQ research” is not scientifically interesting. Then, PatrickZ tells us how it is built upon a “very weak theoretical foundation” and that the latest Lamarckist research in genetics (which he never cites, btw) somehow refutes hereditarianism. So, apparently “Race and IQ research” is not scientifically interesting, but at the same time it is; insofar as it relates to “economic inequality.” Patrick slips in and out of this sort of doublethink throughout the thread.

2)telling Native Born Whites that they are intellectually inferior to hindus is tatically stupid.

PatrickZ has a curious proposition for racialists: Jared Taylor is tactically stupid for not embracing the racial theories of Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu, Richard Lewontin, and Stephen J. Gould - the status quo - which currently justifies integration, affirmative action, and third world immigration.

3)race and IQ correlations are not scientifically interesting. For the most parrt it is of interest only to those who want find a genetic justification for gross economc inequility.

This Bolshevik tripe contradicts 1.).

Here is a thought experiment for the true believers:if it were the case that there were no racial differences in intellegence would you folks all of sudden not oppose Non-White immigration? I’m in a rush got to go. Stay tuned.

No, I would still oppose nonwhite immigration. Whether or not Negroes and Hispanics are less intelligent than whites is a separate issue, but it is both scientifically interesting and relevant to the formulation of public policy. I’m naturally prejudiced in favor of people of similar racial ancestry like myself, and that is the fundamental reason (amongst many others) why I oppose third world immigration. This view is irreconcilable with the environmentalism that you endorse, for such racial preference is driven ultimately by genetic self interest not mere arbitrary prejudice; by favoring my racial brethren over more distantly related aliens, I hedge on the survival of my genes in the local gene pool (which is smart evolutionary calculus). In the light of environmentalism, this is totally irrational, as there is no reason to favor, say, one’s brother over a distantly related racial stranger, which implies that social engineering can abolish the salience of such hereditary distinctions.

Environmentalism is garbage. If humans were as malleable as environmentalists claim that they are, then observable racial differences would not have proven to be as intractable and oblivious to social amelioration as they are. Environmentalists cannot explain why their policy prescriptions fail time and again to achieve the much desired utopian result. Instead, their arguments collapse into conspiracy theories about “institutional racism,” transparent apologetics like the “legacy of slavery,” and other feel good clichés about culture of little scientific merit or explanatory power.

Posted by The White Abe Foxman on September 14, 2006, 07:56 PM | #

Guessedworker kindly inquires on 9/14 at 9:31 PM, “Did all those kind folk who voted your new name mention the appointment with the Moyle?”

So far no one has brought up the Mohel, the Moyle, or the Milah, so all is well.

The White Abe Foxman intends to do all his thinking with the big head, anyway, so leaving the little head clothed makes no difference.

I cannot tell you how much your posting made me laugh. Thanks.

Bo

Posted by ben tillman on September 15, 2006, 01:06 AM | #

Jews never played much of a role in the life of the American nation until the early to mid-twentieth century. There were Jews involved in the slave trade, but their activities were confined mostly to the more lucrative areas in the Dutch and Portuguese colonies of the Caribbean and South America….

The only English colony where I have been able to uncover any significant Jewish involvement in the slave trade would be Barbados, and perhaps South Carolina to a lesser extent (South Carolina was founded by settlers from Barbados).

Fade, that is ridiculous.  Charleston was always thick with Jews.  And “[f]rom 1790 onward, the slave trade of Rhode Island was chiefly in the hands of the brothers DeWolf”, descended from a Jew from Guadaloupe.

Posted by ben tillman on September 15, 2006, 01:18 AM | #

Fade, even the College of Charleston (and they should know) identifies the DeWolf family as the “largest slave-trading family in the United States”.

http://www.cofc.edu/atlanticworld/Transatlantic%20Slave%20Trade%20Page/links.html

Posted by ben tillman on September 15, 2006, 01:26 AM | #

Katrina Browne (an Episcopalian descendant of the DeWolfs) is just another Tim Wise.

Posted by patrickZ on September 15, 2006, 08:01 AM | #

Anyone who thinks its a clever debating tactic to lecture Native White Americans that they are intellectualy inferior to the chinese and hindu thieves coming into America should take a look at some of the recent threads at American Rennaisance.

I can tell you from first hand eperience as some who has been involved with immigration refrom for 15 years that Native Born White Americans,expecially those who have been replaced in the job market with a hindu, will have a hostile reaction. I have seen this on seveal occasions with my own eyes.

Just to give one example. I attended a debate on immigation in my neck of the woods 12 years ago. One of the immigation enthusiasts, blathered on about how we need asian engineers because of their superior initellect and how without them, the US would   fall behind technologically.

Immediately, An American engineer who idntified himself as being of Italian ancestry-a man in his 50’s-rose up with vains popping out his neck attacking the immigration enthusiast(a local leftwing activist of jewish ancestry)

As far as this devastating contradiction that Daedulus found, it can only be find in his own mind.

I’m off again to rent myself out as a wage slave again today so that I can pay my high property taxes, high because of the pescence of large number of “intellectually superior” asians living in my neck of the woods(These woods are being hacked down to provide breeding space for the"intellectually superior” asian)

Unfortunately, I wasn’t lucky enough to have a trust fund set up for me.

Race and IQ reserch is not the least bit scientifically interesting. It is of interest only to those who who want to justify gross economic inequality.

Jared Taylor is a fool.

Immigration reform-throwing out the hindu-doesn’t require immigration reformers and White Nationalists telling Native Born White Americans- who are being replaced in the labor market by hindu and chinese thieves-that they are intellectually inferior to the hindu and chinese thieves,especially on national TV

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 08:39 AM | #

patrickz, you are wrong, hindus have low iq so what the fuck are you talking about? Read Richard Lynn IQ report of nations.

what should be done in your country is to eliminate the flow of muslims to the US because there is really no value in having them.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 09:22 AM | #

There is something more interesting too: white americans are mostly of southern european ancestry, you have too many greeks and italians immigartion in the past which in my opinion southern europeans are the same as middle easterners.

besides you americans are mxing up things too, like the rediculous word “caucasian” which would imply that “whites” originate from the caucasus mountains in southern russia.

well, the nordics did not originate from the caucasus mountains, but the indo-european language did originate from that area, about because I think indo-european languages were brought along with the neolithic farmers from the middle east. Nordics have very few or no “indo european” genes at all which is mostly haplotype J and E.

Another mistake is to identify “indo europeans” with “steppe” and “horses” and “blond and blue eyed”. No such thing. The original indo europeans were looking as the people in turkey today, there is aboslutely certainty about this. Well, there is really nothing “european” about “indo european” speech because it is simply a language of middle eastern neolithic farmers. Just like Greeks also originate from the area we now call turkey, northern syria, lebanon.

Horses were domesticated in multiple parts of the world at the same time , Ukraine, Mongolia, middle east.

Blond and blue eyes were not among the indo european speakers, probably just as weird for them as rare something they have never seen. In the Iliad by homer, the writer keep on harping about Athena with her white arms, the blue eyed athena, the goddess with the white ankles, etc. etc. It’s clearly something that the indo europeans did not have among them when they were in their original homeland in the what we would now call today turkey. They only encountered blond hair and blue eyes when they arrived in northern greece where slavic tribes lived. There they saw for the first time people with blond hair and blue eyes. Also harping about “menalaos with the “blond hair”, these are clearly signs that blond hair, blue eyes, white skin was alien to the indo europeans, that they made their goddess blue eyed. homer seemed surprised that there is something like white ankles, white arms, blue eyes. He write about it like some exceptional features. It must have been among the tanned skinned, dark and short indo europeans.

Yeah, hitler was wrong to assume that “indo europeans” were from the nodic areas. genetics have excluded this possiblity.
Nordics have the least “indo european” genes of all “europeans”.

It seems to me that Europe is a entitiy of original paleolithic people who live in norhtern europe and neolithic migrants from the middle east who now live in southern europe.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 09:39 AM | #

Don’t believe me?

Just view the pictures of football squad of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. Luis Figo looks like he could be moroccan, lebanese, or a turkish international.

Of course Europe was never one people, it’s the end of eurasia with multiple waves of immigration from east asia and the middle east. I am not even sure if there’s something like “european”. What makes senses? To say that Spaniards are more closely related to middle eastern populations or to a Swede? Europe can be compared to China, the northern han are differnt than the people in the south who have australoid influences. Southern Chinese are more closely related to vietnamese than they are to their countrymen in the north. Two different genetic lineages just like in Europe there is a rift between norhtern and southern europeans. Southern europeans can be classified in the middle eastern cluster.

Posted by Andy on September 15, 2006, 10:01 AM | #

It seems to me that Europe is a entitiy of original paleolithic people who live in norhtern europe and neolithic migrants from the middle east who now live in southern europe.

  I think that IQ scores from Lynn’s “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” suggest otherwise.  I just checked out the Italian world cup squad and large portion of the team has very fair skin, and many of the players have blue eyes.  I wouldn’t deny that southern Europeans exhibit a higher degree of mongrelization than northern Europeans, but to lump all of southern europe in with the Middle East is very silly in my opinion.

Posted by Tile Hats, the Musical! on September 15, 2006, 10:12 AM | #

[To be accompanied by Dr. John Jay Ray, wearing a tile hat, tap-dancing to the music]

[Chorus] JJR wears a tile hat
He’s my main man
JJR is one cool cat
Don’t you understand?

I like to look at…
A naked la-dy’s ass
Even though she poses nude
She’s still a fine young lass

The free market is of course
All the great and the good
Sacrifice race for the almighty dollar
You must do that, and should

Scandinavians are 75% Mongoloid
They are the sons of Han
Because commentators say so
Don’t believe genetics, man

Phil, he be in China
Dealing with the Mongol Nords
We remember Mao and Chou-en-lai
And the other flaxen-haired hordes

Sailer tells us that
Citizenism is the way to go
Razib and GC pull the strings
Watch that puppet show

Greeks and Dagoes are hairy
All from the Middle East
Data that says different
Doesn’t bother the threads in the least

The wops they have big noses
And that, sir, is a clue
Iraqi Arabs they all be
That is cer-tain-ly true

Karl tells us he likes conservatives
Who are the color of coffee
As David B does tell us
That’s a preference like Mahler or toffee

[Chorus] JJR wears a tile hat
He’s my main man
JJR is one cool cat
Don’t you understand?

Raph-a-el was a Nordic
Confucius and Geronimo too
But not Christopher Columbus
For he was a Jew

John Jay Ray tells us
That son Joey should marry Sam
He may as well try to convince an Orthodox Jew
To eat a slice of ham

Defend the English interests
Lest Albion becomes a shell
As for the Ulster Irish
They can go to bloody hell

Born in Sardinia
Was the great Bon-a-parte
Of the French nobility, was
Dad Carlo, that old fart

Europeans and Indians are the same
Says the great Malcolm A
Population genetics says different
Ignore that if you may

Arcane tell us that
Russians are Asians, mate
Therefore, Birch Barlow will
Ask one on a date

Take out your caliper
And measure breast size
Those with the biggest knockers
Win the racial prize

[Chorus] JJR wears a tile hat
He’s my main man
JJR is one cool cat
Don’t you understand?

When Gaul Brennus said, Woe to the Vanquished
The crafty Romans made their plea
Look at us, oh-our-brother
The same people we all be

And, pity poor Gauis Marius
Way back in 100 BC
Couldn’t distinguish Roman from German
So great was their similarity

Those Irish Catholics
Are no good liberal micks
Gillian Rhodes used pictures
Of fat Hibernian chicks

[Chorus] JJR wears a tile hat
He’s my main man
JJR is one cool cat
Don’t you understand?

After the great JJR left
Holliday picked on poor old Nick
MR rallied around soldier Tamiroff
Against the supercilious dick

Paddies, guineas and hunkies
Our misfortune they all be
Much worse than the Jews or coloreds
As you can plainly see

Guessedworker looks down upon us
Says Majority Rights is the best
He worked hard for six days
On the seventh he can rest

[Chorus] JJR wears a tile hat
He’s my main man
JJR is one cool cat
Don’t you understand?

- Finis -

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2006, 10:46 AM | #

LOLOL!!!  Bravo!  Good job, Tile Hat!  LOL!  Encore!

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 11:04 AM | #

I can continue about the flawed theories of “aryans”, hitler had no idea what he was talking about. He mixed up the word with “germanic”, he mend with “aryans” gemanic tribes, you know like germans, danes, dutch, swedes and english etc. In sort he mend nordic with “aryan”. No knowing that the “aryan” which is considered now to classify a language from the middle east.

hitler in his foolishness called the slavic tribes and russians “untermenschen” simply because they were not germanic tribes. Slavic tribes are as nordic as germanic tribes but of course he had no DNA samples in 1938.

About the southern europeans: they have high frequency of “sickle cell” which protects against malaria. This is a subsahara feature (black), it can only be if they have high admixture with middle easterners who in their turn have high black admixture. That is another clue of middle eastern admixture.

To talk about sports further, I think arabs together with hindus (who are partly middle easterners and australoid)and australian abos are the weakest built people on the planet. In summer you see people with shorts and the hairy skinny legs of arabs look like they could be broken like twigs or matches. Well of course you can say that the olympics are “unfair” to judge a people, but clearly it gives a good clue about the fysical strenght of people. There was somebody who said that white skinned people had weaker bones, than darker skinned people. It is the other way around. white skinned people have more massive bone (thicker) than either blacks or arabs. the built of arabs remind me of east africans like ethiopians.

it’s fairly simple to judge the strength of a people by their built and looking at any arab I can say that I can squash them like flies, the skinny bones look so vunerable that it’s no wonder why arabs asses are kicked by israelis.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 11:19 AM | #

The only reason why moroccans, spanish or north african can compete with kenyans in the long distance runs is because they are also some kind of niggers too.

It’s their partly african admixture that enables them to compete with east africans like ethiopians and kenyans. But of course sport is not only running long distances. kenyans and moroccans would not fare well to march long distances with 50 kg backpacks. Nor would they do well in a high G turn because they lacked the muscle power.
None of them mentionned above would be able to swim, becasue they also carry the burden of african admixture. africans have a low center of gravity that makes them sink instead of float. Contrary to some people think, the bad performance of blacks in water is not due to their “thicker bones” which makes them “sink” but their center of gravity is simply wrong to be swimmers. their relatively longer legs coupled to a short trunk makes them unsuitable to be swimmers.

I say that blacks are only good at running.

Posted by Racial Science on September 15, 2006, 11:22 AM | #

“The only reason why moroccans, spanish or north african can compete with kenyans in the long distance runs is because they are also some kind of niggers too.”

Excellent points, CM.  Comments like yours, steeped in the latest scientific findings, are why I rush to read Majority Rights’ comments posts.

Keep on the good work.

Posted by Tile Hatty Hat Hats on September 15, 2006, 11:27 AM | #

“LOLOL!!!  Bravo!  Good job, Tile Hat!  LOL!  Encore!”

Thanks, Fred.

But is an encore necessary?  The other commentators here are doing a pretty good job of that.

But that’s the pleasure of Majority Rights: the line between parody and “seriousness” is so thin, one cannot be sure which is which.

Posted by Daedalus on September 15, 2006, 11:52 AM | #

Fade, that is ridiculous.  Charleston was always thick with Jews.  And “[f]rom 1790 onward, the slave trade of Rhode Island was chiefly in the hands of the brothers DeWolf”, descended from a Jew from Guadaloupe.

What’s your source? I have never read anything about Jews being in control of the colonial slave trade. Their involvement in the slave trade in Brazil and Curacao is widely accepted.

Posted by Daedalus on September 15, 2006, 11:56 AM | #

Race and IQ reserch is not the least bit scientifically interesting. It is of interest only to those who who want to justify gross economic inequality.

Jared Taylor is a fool.

Jared Taylor is a fool. Papa Boas was brilliant. Let’s help PatrickZ spread the word. It’s essential that white people understand this.

Posted by Daedalus on September 15, 2006, 12:02 PM | #

patrickz, you are wrong, hindus have low iq so what the fuck are you talking about? Read Richard Lynn IQ report of nations.

It’s the same crap from PatrickZ in every post: Hindus and Chinese are out to get us. Jared Taylor is a fool. Workers of the world unite. Notice how Patrick ignores Negroes and Hispanics. Perhaps this is a Western or British thing. Patrick still hasn’t told us where he is from. Here in North Carolina blacks and browns are the racial problem.

Posted by Racial Science on September 15, 2006, 12:14 PM | #

“blacks”, “browns”, “yellows” - let us be scientific here.

Chinese tend to have broad noses and forward-thrusting jaws.  Just like Africans.  They have straight black hair, just like Saddam Hussein.  It is quite obvious then that the Chinese are a blend of African Negro and Arab.

Now, but we were told elsewhere that Nords are 75% Mongoloid and 25% Neolithic.  How can this be?  Simple.  The Chinese are admixed Sinids, while the Nords are derived from the unpigmented Tungid stocks.

The Southern Europeans as CM tells us are, of course, Middle Eastern.  But, many of those Spanish and Portuguese and Italian soccer players look a bit chinky to me.  But, if the Chinese are part black and part Arab, that solves the problem.

Marco Polo brought back Negro-Arab Chinamen back from his travels, and those genes entered Italy and Iberia, producing the chinky, hairy Figo looks we see today.

Now, what kind of name is “Polo” anyway?  Sounds like “Ohno”, which is Japanese.  Note that the Japanese have Ainu blood, and the Ainu are hairy.  So, the Japanese are part Middle Eastern too!  So, Marco Polo was an Arabic Jap who brought back Negro-Arab Chinamen. 

It all fits, like the pieces of a puzzle.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 12:22 PM | #

Let me continue about fysical build a little further: everybody with australoid admixture like south asians, south east asians and australian abos will never be good at fysical activities or sports.

The same with arabs, who owes their fysics to eastern africans, given the striking simularity of body build with australoid, it is a fact that the australoid originated from eastern africa before they coasted out to other continents.

It is probably the worst to mix with either blacks, arabs and australoids. Not only out of sports but also out of beauty reasons.

I have read comments about blacks being so good at sports: I say that they are only good in running, short and long distances. Basketball: black NBA used to be the best of the world. American football: nobody plays this sport outside north america. Niche sports with just a few participants could hardly justify the “superiority”. Baseball: if the japanese field their best professional players, they will beat the cubans anytime. The japanese like the americans usually send college teams to world championships. it says hoot about who’s the best in baseball, I think any japanese professional team will beat the cubans sporting names like lotte or tokyo.

Besided these typical american sports I cannot think of any sport in which blacks would be good at. Football: africa has already been overtaken by teams from east asia.
That france field a almost 100% black team says more about the level of french football than blacks being good football players.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 15, 2006, 12:27 PM | #

Tiled Hats, LOL! Can we have some more, please? In fact, can we have a whole musical, possibly including a duet of PatrickZ and the rev. Sharpton?

Posted by JJR Apologist on September 15, 2006, 12:36 PM | #

PatrickZ is a New Yorker who lives on Long Island, apparently—most likely some gentrifying, formerly all-white middle-class area in Nassau County. That accounts for his indifference to blacks and hispanics—they only exist nearby in minute quantities. However, the many better-compensated, upper-middle class Asian professionals at the Computer Associates headquarters and other companies seem to irk him considerably…

I’d also speculate that he doesn’t visit New York City often, because he’d notice the following:

1. Jews own Manhattan. Here is NWO headquarters—apparently, this is where a non-neglible number of the actual string-pullers reside.
2. Large swaths of Brooklyn and the Bronx are blighted by blacks (two million in the city total).
3. Much of Queens, a formerly almost all-white suburban boro is New Mexico.
4. Hasidic Jews in the hundreds of thousands have rebuilt their ancient shetls in swaths of Brooklyn and ride parasitic on governmental services.

And so forth.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 12:40 PM | #

“Chinese tend to have broad noses and forward-thrusting jaws.  Just like Africans.  They have straight black hair, just like Saddam Hussein.  It is quite obvious then that the Chinese are a blend of African Negro and Arab”

Let me analyze this: the first statement is true, the forward thrusting jaw is not rue, it’s typical of blacks and arabs, especially the north africans and big teeth too and narrow faced. Saddam seems to have a form of wavy arab hair,  a bit messes up after he spent some time in a hole.

You have to understand that most population groups have evolved in different parts of the world giving rise to distinctive features, you know like blond hair, big teeth in a thrusting jaw, hooked noses. hookie marries another hookie and children are hookies too.  There are no three races every geographic region is a race, middle easterners are a race, just like nordics are also a race, just like mongoloids are a race in north asia, like the hindus are a race.

there are either no races at all or there are perhaps ten types of humans with distinctive features. C’mon tell me that you cannot recognize a hindu in london, a chinese in london, a arab in london, a italian in london or a swede in london, just to mention a few human types.

Everybody can see that: if there are only three races as you seemed to advocate, what are australian abos? mongoloid? white? black? or are they just australoid related to the people of south east asia and india? you tell me. You want to tell me that a hairy arab with nigger facial features is a “european”?
How stupid are you to think that?

What I have written is something that all the genetic scientists know but do you think they like the outcome of the research?
Do you think they will scream it off the roof or hasten to publish that nordics in genetics are 75% mongoloid and 25% else?

Or that Jews can be traced be identified by their genes?
This is slippery, but do you think when luis figo walks in the street of bagdad, the locals think he’s portuguese? Nobody will pay attention to him because he looks just like them.

Posted by JJR Apologist on September 15, 2006, 12:46 PM | #

Holliday, cut it out. Quit fattening the trolls and being a dick in general, godammit.

Posted by Racial Science on September 15, 2006, 12:52 PM | #

CM, I am agreeing with your mastery of genetics, I’m just expanding on it a bit.

It is certainly true that geneticists know full well that - as you say - Nordics are 75% Mongoloid.  In other words, I agree with you fully: geneticists *know* that you are correct about this, but are covering it up.  So, yes, as CM says, Nordics are Mongoloid.  I’m just saying it is a depigmented Tungid Mongol type, like Korean, and not a Sinid, because the Chinese seem to have African characters.  I’m sorry, but I see they have forward jaws, many of them.  Chinese are depigmented Africans.  Some Africans have slanty eyes, so there you go.

Now, yes, Figo is a Arab-Nigger, no doubt, but I’m just saying he gets some of that blood from the Chinese who entered S. Europe with Marco Polo.  The historians don’t want to admit that, but there it is.  The Renaissance was triggered by Arab-Negro Chinese, augmented by Polo/Ohno.

So, essentially, you are correct: Nords are Mongols and Meds are Arab-niggers.  And yes, the geneticists have been hiding these data from us.

We disagree only on the details in that I think the Chinese are African.

Thanks again to GW and Majority Rights for making this possible.  We are learning so much about racial science - it’s like a seminar!

Posted by Racial Science on September 15, 2006, 12:57 PM | #

“Holliday, cut it out. Quit fattening the trolls and being a dick in general, godammit.”

Holliday has left the building. 

CM cannot be a troll.  If he were a troll, why would he be allowed to spam all the threads?

Look how fast Braun was banned.

Obviously, CM’s posts have value and, need to be carefully considered.

There is merit in his assumption that geneticists are engaged in a conspiracy to cover up the truth.

The truth is out there.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 01:15 PM | #

Well let me analyze something more: it is probable that you are a southern european with large arab nigger admixture as you seems to be concentrating on my luis figo post.

Of course it is true what I am saying, of course the southern europeans have large arab admixture. Only a fool can deny this.

About the 75% mongoloid and 25% else. Let me explain to you what nordics are if you looking at genetics.

Well let’s focuss on north europe: 75% are either r1a or r1b or further to the north like the finnish are 50% haplotype N3

R1a (east) R1b (west) are derivatives of M173 which in turn is a derivative of M45—-> from which North american indian lineages descended from like haplotype Q. R1a can be found at some siberian tribes at over 70%, you can find R1a in Manchuria too or N3 or tat C in Mongolia. No big deal. Nothing out of the ordinary. Did you notice when they genetically mention China, it’s usually or always “Southern Chinese” or some minority group from the south.
Now N3 is a sister clade of haplotype O, there is no denial in that, ask anybody, that over 50% of finnish are N3 says that they once lived in the area of Mongolia or in the neighbourhood of siberia. Well they took a left turn and some took a right turn. M173 is a old paleolithic gene which split into R1a and R1b, it’s from east Asia. It’s the same lineage as the american indians and inuit descended from. It’s as simple as that. You think you changed from negro/arab to european overnight?

Europeans are simply a blend of old paleolithic and newcomers, the latter from middle east. With the northern areas less affected by the neolithic newcomers than the south.
Of course take this to any genetic scientists in your country, just show them what I have written.

show them.

Posted by C.M. on September 15, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

Oh yeah, I claim the nordics and finnish as mongoloid descendants, however I do not claim southern europeans.

of course you feel more attached to middle eastern if you are southern european, almost the same people.

Every geographic area in the world can be defined in clusters, give a random sample and we can tell that he’s from the middle east, or he be a jew.

Look at the skull of nordics and tell me what you see, don’t focus on their blonde hair or blue eyes.

It’s very simple, I once asked a PLA laboratory “what are they”? and I got the answer in language I did not understand first but after more explanation it was perfectly clear. you have to udnerstand that I am no genetic scientists but I got briefed on this subject in substance.

I wasn’t even interested in genes first.

Posted by Racial Science on September 15, 2006, 01:42 PM | #

CM, calm down.  I’m saying I agree with you, except on the Chinese.

Chill out.

You are correct, and the population geneticists are lying.

We all know you are correct, so take it easy.

I am gratified that we have a forum here where the lies of the population geneticists can be so exposed.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 15, 2006, 01:51 PM | #

Look, Mr Science, I am learning stuff from CM that I never learned in my life before.  Stuff I had never realised.  I, like you, am humbled.  I only hope none of those population geneticist wallahs ever start spamming the threads with their filthy lies.

Ah, it’s so hard to know which of you to ban first.

Posted by Andy on September 15, 2006, 02:11 PM | #

It’s the same crap from PatrickZ in every post: Hindus and Chinese are out to get us. Jared Taylor is a fool. Workers of the world unite. Notice how Patrick ignores Negroes and Hispanics.

  This summarizes Partick Z nicely. I noted the same thing in a previous post regarding his obsession with Hindus and silence regarding blacks.  You did get one part wrong: Jared Taylor is a “moron”, not a “fool”.

Posted by Racial Science on September 15, 2006, 02:12 PM | #

Intelligence before beauty

CM first….

Posted by PatrickZ on September 15, 2006, 07:24 PM | #

When the Dystopia arrives full blown, blacks and hispanics will kill each other with extreme violence. Quite possibly they will form an alliance to kill their common enemy….whitey

At that point in time,

we should take care of them both once and for all.

Just wait for the water to run dry. Colrado may decide to cut it off.

Jared taylor is a fool. There was an indredible opportunity five years on Phil Donahue’sMSNBC show.From the audience, a 40 year old White Male complained bitterly about being passsed over for promotion for a 25 year legal immigrant from India at an engineering company

This was a great opportunity to come down viciously on the chinese and hindu thief in America.

He could have saide:Shut down the H-1 B L-1 B visa programs. He could have said:it would be a much better for White Ameriaca if our doctors,engineers,computer programmes came from the majority White population. He could have said:imoprting the little asian and hindu thieves distorts America’s labor policy which should be directed towards devoloping White medical and engineering from places such as Appalachia.

Instead, the fool Taylor sat there like a bump on a log only to sidetrack the discussion five minutes later to discussion about racial differences in intelligence. The momentum was killed dead in its tracks.

Jared your a fool.

Hey Jared, your Jap bastard friends were destroyed in WW2 by the “intellectually inferior"White American with superior,technology,science and military strategy. Way to go idiot.

Posted by ben tillman on September 15, 2006, 09:02 PM | #

“What’s your source? I have never read anything about Jews being in control of the colonial slave trade. Their involvement in the slave trade in Brazil and Curacao is widely accepted.”

Well, the place to start is The Secret Relationship of Blacks and Jews.  I don’t have the primary source for the quote bout the DeWolfs, but here is a series of articles from the Providence Journal earlier this year:

http://www.projo.com/extra/2006/slavery/day1/

For more than 75 years, Rhode Island ruled the American slave trade….

http://www.projo.com/extra/2006/slavery/day6/

The DeWolfs financed 88 slaving voyages from 1784 to 1807—roughly a quarter of all Rhode Island slave trips during that period. Alone, or with other investors, the family was responsible for nearly 60 percent of all African voyages that began in Bristol….

In 1804, Henry DeWolf moved to South Carolina to handle the family’s slave sales in Charleston. The move was typical; the family placed relatives or in-laws in every part of their slaving enterprise from Bristol to Cuba….

“The DeWolf family monopolized the slave trade,” says Kevin E. Jordan, a retired professor at Roger Williams University….

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2006, 10:16 PM | #

“This summarizes Partick Z [...] his obsession with Hindus and silence regarding blacks.”  (—Andy)

Let’s be fair to PatrickZ:  Daedalus said he never told us where he lived but (as has already been pointed out by JJR Apologist) in Patrick’s first comments at this site he did mention more than once he was posting from Long Island, referring to it alternately as “a fish-shaped island near New York City” (why he referred to it that way, I don’t know) and “L.I.”  As for his “silence regarding blacks,” Patrick said in one of his very first posts that he favored restoration of the 1965( * ) demographic profile of this country, namely, restoration of its racial proportions of 90% white and 10% Negro( ** ), to be accomplished by sending all illegals and all legal post-1965-But-It’s-Sooooooo-Good-For-The-Jews! non-whites—including all legal post-1965-But-It’s-Sooooooo-Good-For-The-Jews! African Negroes—back where they came from.  He wants all post-1965-But-It’s-Soooooo-Good-For-The-Jews! African Negro legal immigrants repatriated to Africa.
______

( *  Actually, the demographic balance didn’t start to change until around 1970 or a year or two into that decade—between 1970 and ‘73, let’s say—because the carefully pre-planned, coldly-calculated race-replacement mechanisms deliberately set into motion by the 1965-But-It’s-Sooooooo-Dammmnnnn-Goooooood-For-The-Jews! Immigration Holocaust White-Christian Extermination Bill took a few years after 1965 to gear up and manifest themselves.)   

( **  It was about 87% white, meaning European; 11%-12% Negro; and 1%-2% everything else combined, such as Oriental, Hispanic, Lebanese Christians, etc.  In those days in this country there were for all practical purposes zero — that’s ZERO, as in Z - E - R - O — Subcons.  I happen to like Subcons, as I’ve said in some of the JJR threads — as I do yellows, by the way —  but we certainly don’t need them or any other race race-replacing us.)  (It’s also the case that I’ve only ever mixed with highly-educated, professional Subcons, never Subcon proles, so I may not know whereof I speak on the subject of how likable Subcons are in general.  But the highly-educated ones I’ve met I’ve found without exception to be perfectly fine people, exactly as was JJR’s experience.  But to repeat, that’s irrelevant to the question of race-replacement.)

Posted by Guessedworker on September 16, 2006, 03:07 AM | #

PatrickZ,

MR is not a forum for race-haters.  Other peoples, whether invaders in the West or not, are deserving of something more than you seem able to grant them.  I will ban you forthwith if you can’t control the hatred in your heart and post here soberly and through your faculty of reason.

Posted by Andy on September 16, 2006, 09:13 AM | #

Fred—you’re being entirely too charitable. 

  First of all, his “silence” regarding blacks is vis a-vis his obsession with “the Hindu thief.” The same could be said for Hispanics; while he mentions them, they do not receive nearly the same ranting space as do Hindus or the Chinese. Now, like you, I am not a cognitive supremacist or whatever you call people like the GNXPers. I oppose all non-white immigration.  At the same time, Hindus are relatively few in this country.  I find it extremely bizarre that someone would act as if the Hindu presence in the US is more troubling than that of blacks or hispanics.  I speculated whether this puzzling obsession of Patrick Z’s was due to his egalitarianism.  Perhaps I was incorrect in my assessment, but I do not think that I was off-base in noticing that something is amiss. 

  Secondly, we have the matter of the race-denying egalitarianism.  I find this to be extremely problematic.  Ideas have consequences, and the debate between the racialists and the egalitarians is not an esoteric one without any real-world repercussions.  To paraphrase Lawrence Auster, the egalitarians are the evil and the stupid party.  They’re evil because forced race-replacement (what you refer to as “gradual genocide) is what egalitarianism has wrought.  They’re stupid because believing in egalitarianism takes a tremendous amount of credulity for anyone who has stopped to think about racial matters.  Despite the evident absurdity of the position, it still must be defeated if this genocide is to be stopped. 

  “he was posting from Long Island, referring to it alternately as “a fish-shaped island near New York City” (why he referred to it that way, I don’t know)” 

  He calls to mind the creature “Smeagol” from the Lord of the Rings. Like Smeagol’s obsession with “the thief Baggins” who stole his ring, Patrick Z is obsessed with the “Hindu thief” who apparently steals tech jobs.  “Fish-shaped island” sounds like something Smeagol would say, given his proclivity for odd speech (referring to the sun as “the yellow face” and such) and his love of fish.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 16, 2006, 09:57 AM | #

Hindus,sihks,chinese and pakis. are highly concentrated in certian places. Anyone living in NJ and LI knows what I’m talking about.

They are also highly concentrated in certain occupations.

At tech companies right after 9/11,  anonymous hate emails were sent by Native Born White Empoyees to the dirty hindu thieves It got so bad that the tech companies had to call in clinical psychologists to counsel the hindu theif.

Even though hindu theives numbers were much smalerthan they are now, they were harming Native Born White Americans.

During the 1970’s, thousands of Native Born White Men were replaced at defense and engineering companies with the hindu thief. The damage to White families was significant.

The American Engineering Association has been opposing the importatin of Asian scab workers for years.

On LI, ther asians drive up housing costs and property taxes . Thousands of Whites are leaving.

America should be developing homegrown medical talent not importing and developing -at tax payers expense- hindu medical talent.

Becommig highly dependent on Asian scientific and engineering talent is a national security risk.

James Simmons bonaire hedge fund manager of Rennasaince Technologies made his same point on the Lou Dobbs show several months ago. Other people in the science and engineering fields-Robert Goodstien professor of physics at Cal Tech- fields have expressed the same concern over the years

Hindus are and continue to be a threat to White Amerians.

Yearsback, some made a the exact same comments abot hispanics. There so few of them what are you complaining about. We all no what happened.

Posted by PatrickZ on September 16, 2006, 10:10 AM | #

Guessworker

I’m not a race hater. Take a look at Daedules posts.

But I do think that it is inevitable that if the US is racially balkanized at a time when resources are becommig very scarce,tht violent racial conflict is inevitable.

And no in the immigration refrom movement has ever provided a credible expnation as to how this can be avoided.

You ae accusing me of being a race hater. I don’t even believe that there are racial differences in intelleigence.

If Hspanics and blacks decide to get together and take their anger out on Whitey what should be our response?

This scenario was discussed towards the end of James Kunstlers excellent book about peak oil. Go read it Guerssworker. James Kunstler makes a compelling case that when oil become to expensive social chaos will develope. In the scenario he wrote about in his book Mexicans and Whites will be in violent racial conflict over scarce land.

Like I wrote peviouisly,no one has put forth a credible scenario as to how this cn be avoided. Some White nationalist thnk runnig off to Idaho and
ontanna is teh solution. If Whites did that the will siting ducks.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 16, 2006, 10:23 AM | #

You ae accusing me of being a race hater. I don’t even believe that there are racial differences in intelleigence.

You hate everyone in America equally then - excepting, of course, the lower IQ races.  Anyway, you can’t write without boorish and repetitive insult and you can’t spell, so the door is closed.

Posted by Daedalus on September 16, 2006, 01:19 PM | #

Well, the place to start is The Secret Relationship of Blacks and Jews.  I don’t have the primary source for the quote bout the DeWolfs, but here is a series of articles from the Providence Journal earlier this year:

That’s what I thought. The NOI’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews is a dubious source and would be attacked as such if we used it. It would be helpful if you could track down their primary source. That way I could verify the assertion. I have read many, many books about the transatlantic slave trade, and while the Jewish role in the slave trade is openly discussed in some of them (Inhuman Bondage by David Brion Davis being a recent example), I have never seen anything about Jewish control of the slave trade to North America.

There is a video on Google Video where Tony Martin speaks to revisionists to the subject. Martin also points out that Jews were involved in the slave trade in the Caribbean and South America, which seems to be widely acknowledged, but he doesn’t say they played a major role in the slave trade to the American colonies. That would make sense with the greater historical context. Jews and Catholics were generally deterred from settling in most of the American colonies, and the slave trade (which was extremely profitable) was dominated by the English from 1650 until 1808. The slaves that were brought here during the Colonial Era generally came on English ships (which was required by the Navigation Acts).

It’s true that Rhode Island dominated the American slave trade, and that the DeWolfs played a major role in that business, but of all the slaves that were brought to the colonies, how many came on American ships? The DeWolf slave voyages to Africa occurred after independence. In 1776, blacks were roughly one third of the colonial population. South Carolina was over 60% black at the time. Also, what evidence is there that the DeWolf’s were Jewish? I’m not seeing anything about that in your links.