The person behind the "Racial Reality" website (previously "Racial Myths"). I don't know what else to say. Just some not-terribly-bright, aggrieved S. Euro-identified type who decided to put up a website.
I've always enjoyed your blog and regularly come here for inspiration.
I second that. It's a refreshing change from all the mentally ill degenerates like the HBDers and VNNers. Nordicists are just a better quality of people.
OD blogger Reginald Thompson is trying to get Hunter Wallace to ban Mark from OD. Reggie is still accusing Mark of posting the comments at TOO.
Adolf Hitler haplogroup E1b1b? ___ Hitler verwant aan Noord-Afrikanen en Joden
BRUSSEL - Hitler was genetisch verwant aan Noord-Afrikanen en Joden. Dat stelt een Belgische journalist na onderzoek van DNA van de voormalige nazileider.
Jean-Paul Mulders bemachtigde DNA bij verwanten van Hitler in Oostenrijk en de Verenigde Staten. Hij kwam daardoor in het bezit van diens Y-chromosoom, dat van vader op zoon wordt doorgegeven.
Hitler bleek tot de zogenoemde haplogroep E1b1b te horen, die in West-Europa zeldzaam is. Deze groep ontstond in het noordoosten van Afrika en verspreidde zich via het Midden-Oosten naar Europa.
E1b1b komt vooral voor bij Berbers en Somaliërs, maar ook bij Asjkenazische Joden, aldus Mulders in het Belgische tijdschrift Knack: ''Je kunt dus, met de nodige relativering, stellen dat Hitler zelf verwant was met de mensen die hij zo minachtte.'' (ANP) 18/08/10 12u17
There is that rumour that Hitler may have been one-quarter Jewish. The story goes that Hitler's grandmother on his father's side worked as a maid in a Jewish household and was impregnated by a Jew there.
Please do not post Reginald's real name here. I've deleted a comment above, which I'll reproduce here with the name removed:
"Reginald Thompson"/[redacted] is a dark, dirty, disgusting, oily, mendacious, repulsive, subhuman swarthoid who clearly lusts after Nordish females. See his Blogger profile where he has a picture of Rachel McAdams: http://www.blogger.com/profile/16971969782630238205
He attacks Nordish preservationism and Nordish preservationists, tries to get Nordish preservationists banned from blogs (e.g. Mark from Occidental Dissent), etc., because he desires Nordish females and sees these actions as a way of lowering Nordish defenses and Nordish male status.
Speaking of [redacted]/Reginald Thompson/Statsaholic a.k.a. [redacted]/Medginald/Statsaholoco a.k.a. the Portuguese Pervert, the Med Mongrel, the Mendacious Med, the Sub-human Swarthoid, etc.:
“The Black Man’s Gift to Portugal” by R.Smith, c.1970
"Portugal began the Negro slave trade after encountering Negroes in its explorations and forays into Africa. Portugal brought the first Black slaves to Lisbon in 1441, and they continued to be imported in such numbers that by 1550, the population of Portugal was 10 percent Negro.
There was no taboo or injunction against sexual relations with the Negroes, and the Negroes’ blood soon became assimilated into the general population through miscegenation, so that today there are no Negroes, as such, in Portugal.
It should be pointed out that the Negro-White ratio, 1:9, in Portugal in the 1550?s does not represent the final percentage of Negro genes, for the Negro element was rapidly increasing while the White element was declining. The male Whites were leaving Portugal in large numbers – sailing to and settling in the colonies, and marrying the native women (the government encouraged this). Most of the Negro slaves brought to Portugal were adult males. The population was thus unbalanced – an excess of White women and Negro males, and a shortage of White men. Chronicles of the era relate that some Portuguese women kept Negro slaves as “pets”. They also married them.
What you can see in Portugal today is the product of uniform, non-selective mixing of the 10 percent Negroes and 90 percent Whites into one homogeneous whole. In effect, it is a new race – a race that has stagnated in apathy and produced virtually nothing in the last 400 years.
The contribution of this new race to civilization in terms of literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. has been practically nothing. Portugal today is the most backward country in Europe. The illiteracy rate is 38 % (U.S., 2.2%, Japan, 1.0%). The infant mortality rate in Portugal is 59.2 per 1000 births (in Sweden, 12.9 percent, U.S., 20.7 percent, France, 20.4%). The workers’ wages are the lowest in Western Europe, the equivalent of a little more than $2.00 a day.
Racial Reality seems particularly perturbed by some of his fellow Latins, Northern Italians, expressing sentiments similar to Nordicists and wanting their own sovereign nation away from their swarthier brethren.
An interesting quote:
"The status of blacks, however, was only one strand in what Progressives called the era's 'race problem.' The Dictionary of Races of Peoples, published in 1911 by the U.S. Immigration Commission, listed the immigrant 'races' within a hierarchy ranging from Anglo-Saxons at the top down to Hebrews, Northern Italians and, lowest of all, Southern Italians—allegedly violent, undisciplined, and incapable of genuine assimilation."
Speaking of "Racial Reality," in his recent post he tries to chalk up the Northern European Industrial Revolution to potatoes, no doubt in order to obscure and deemphasize the differences in IQ, talent, ability, etc. that likely were involved in Northern European advancement far above and beyond Southern Europe.
Indeed, when Nords are the leaders of civilization it must be potatoes or some resource or luck. When Mediterraneans did in it ancient times they get full credit.
It's amusing that all of these Meds who whine and complain generally live in Nordish countries (Dienekes, RR, Diablo Blanco, Reginald, etc) and desire a Nordish woman. Really they're no better than Jews and non-Whites in that regard.
It's amusing that all of these Meds who whine and complain generally live in Nordish countries (Dienekes, RR, Diablo Blanco, Reginald, etc) and desire a Nordish woman. Really they're no better than Jews and non-Whites in that regard.
More high level discourse here, I see.
I wonder if this is sackless cunt, cock gobbler Mark with the Nordic woman obsession?
Whiskey said... I can't change the color of my skin. I would be Black if I could, or even Hispanic. Even being Asian would be better than being White. http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/08/coverage-of-dc-metro-brawl-and.html
why does he like posting Greek and Italian actresses and models so much?
Pride. Also, he doesn't want to appear too explicitly lecherous and invasive.
You could likewise ask why does he live in California if he's such a Greek nationalist. Just like Mexicans that migrate here illegally and force us to take them yet at the same time display such obnoxious Mexican nationalism.
Allan Wall has an extremely loose definition of the white race. Just like a lot of race realists and white nats he’s quick to consider everyone who has any European physical features at all as white. In an unbelievable statement Allan Wall writes the following: “In Latin America, there are millions of mestizos and mulattos who are, for all practical purposes, white.”
Wall also says that “many white Americans have some American Indian blood.”
Wall's article links to an article by Steve Sailer, who nonsensically says Latin America's ruling class "is becoming ever whiter" because "mestizos and Indians ... have been exploiting their social ascendancy to marry white women."
By contrast, Lothrop Stoddard wrote in The Rising Tide of Color:
The revolution against Spain had momentous consequences for the racial future of Latin America. In the beginning, to be sure, it was a white civil war—a revolt of the Creoles against European oppression and discrimination. The heroes of the revolution—Bolivar, Miranda, San Martin, and the rest—were aristocrats of pure-white blood. But the revolution presently developed new features. To begin with, the struggle was very long. Commencing in 1809, it lasted almost twenty years. The whites were decimated by fratricidal fury, and when the Spanish cause was finally lost, multitudes of loyalists mainly of the superior social classes left the country. Meanwhile, the half-castes, who had rallied wholesale to the revolutionary banner, were demanding their reward. The Creoles wished to close the revolutionary cycle and establish a new society based, like the old, upon white supremacy, with themselves substituted for the Spaniards. Bolivar planned a limited monarchy and a white electoral oligarchy. But this was far from suiting the half-castes. For them the revolution had just begun. Raising the cry of "democracy," then become fashionable through the North American and French revolutions, they proclaimed the doctrine of "equality" regardless of skin. Disillusioned and full of foreboding, Bolivar, the master-spirit of the revolution, disappeared from the scene, and his lieutenants, like the generals of Alexander, quarrelled among themselves, split Latin America into jarring fragments, and waged a long series of internecine wars. The flood-gates of anarchy were opened, the result being a steady weakening of the whites and a corresponding rise of the half-castes in the political and social scale. Everywhere ambitious soldiers led the mongrel mob against the white aristocracy, breaking its power and making themselves dictators. These "caudillos" were apostles of equality and miscegenation. Says Garcia-Calderon: "Tyrants found democracies; they lean on the support of the people, the half-breeds and negroes, against the oligarchies; they dominate the colonial nobility, favor the crossing of races, and free the slaves."
The consequences of all this were lamentable in the extreme. Latin America's level of civilization fell far below that of colonial days. Spanish rule, though narrow and tyrannical, had maintained peace and social stability. Now all was a hideous chaos wherein frenzied castes and colors grappled to the death. Ignorant mestizos and brutal negroes trampled the fine flowers of culture under foot, while as by a malignant inverse selection the most intelligent and the most cultivated perished.
"Everyone who posts on these sorts of sites is known to the security forces, and any in Country movement to overthrow a Government which has a significant number of conspirators who posted at Anti-Government sites would be instantaneously crushed."
Assuming that's him, it is obvious that Dick Hoiste really is butthurt at all the WN and paleos who are opposed to globalism, immigration, and outsourcing.
Why does he even bother saying he is "pro-White" when it is so transparently obvious that he wants a cultureless utopia of money-grubbing cogelites?
He's the Paul Krugman of HBD, except he's more dimwitted.
Racial Reality seems particularly perturbed by some of his fellow Latins, Northern Italians, expressing sentiments similar to Nordicists and wanting their own sovereign nation away from their swarthier brethren.
That's a typical "racial reaction." You see it all across (immature, net-based) European nationalisms, people from one part of the country going laughable lengths to attempt to distinguish themselves from people from another part on the basis of utterly trivial racial distinctions. Admittedly, there is something to the Italian case, but it has more to do with economics than race; as a racial movement, it is utterly doomed. (If anything, the racial case harms the economic/historical/cultural case.) Anyone can visit the useful Anthrocivitas forum and seek out poster Heraus' "local" threads and quickly realize there's nothing like the nordish homogeneity in N. Italy that WNs emphasize. Nothing like it at all.
Allan Wall has an extremely loose definition of the white race. Just like a lot of race realists and white nats he’s quick to consider everyone who has any European physical features at all as white. In an unbelievable statement Allan Wall writes the following: “In Latin America, there are millions of mestizos and mulattos who are, for all practical purposes, white.”
Like a lot of people who prefer to focus on immigration restriction he probably thought he could artificially contain racial sentiment. Perhaps realizing he can't, he took an explicit racial position that conveniently includes his Mexican spouse. Now, he's correct in a broad sense (a nordicist would say in a degenerate sense) -- I mean, it's just true that a person can occasionally have substantial negroid ancestry yet display a European(ish) phenotype. The thing is, not only is that not remotely acceptable from a nordicist or traditional white American point of view, it's not nearly enough for a political movement; all it can leave you with, when all is said and done, is the deplorable latin-style racialism that wastes time and mental energy sneering at people it hasn't a hope in hell of divorcing itself from, indirectly abetting the efforts of anti-racists. That said, nordicists are absolute fools not to attempt to take advantage of such racial sentiment. Sure, such a pan-"white" movement is nonsense, but you'd be far better off helping to redirect such people than to, in effect, dissuade them (by sneering at them, or promising to "get" them etc).
Wall's article links to an article by Steve Sailer, who nonsensically says Latin America's ruling class "is becoming ever whiter" because "mestizos and Indians ... have been exploiting their social ascendancy to marry white women."
It's possible Sailer just says this get his view across under the radar. But it's equally possible he just doesn't get it himself, just doesn't get that mixing will eventually lead to extinction, that "racial average" is "racial destiny." Obviously what he describes can only go on for as long as whites are being produced somewhere. Sailer can rail against the "you can't say that, it's true!" ethic but he's clearly not immune to it -- just try introducing this all-important topic into one of his threads. (To some extent the resistance is understandable. Talk of the effects of admixture is dominated by the very crudest of racialists, revulsion-ridden supremacists to the bone. That will have to change.)
I don't know about you but I'm not too worried about being polite and catering to the sensibilities of others when my life or the extinction of my people is on the line. I'm much more concerned about survival and what is true. Especially when our ideological and racial enemies are incredibly hostile and disrespectful to us.
But it's equally possible he just doesn't get it himself, just doesn't get that mixing will eventually lead to extinction, that "racial average" is "racial destiny." Obviously what he describes can only go on for as long as whites are being produced somewhere.
Elites tend to be lighter and if it's a racially mixed population they tend to be more White or Caucasoid. However the key point is White homelands must be preserved. That a mulatto or mestizo ruling class dominates a more Amerindian or Negroid population is meaningless, but for some like Sailer this somehow means we're winning.
In Mexico, white conquistadors interbred with Indian women to produce mestizos. Let's assume that in 1519 the Spaniards and the Mexican Indians were equal in IQ and other significantly heritable traits that aid economic success. I'll follow Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies) in stipulating that the conquistadors won solely because by luck they had the guns, germs, and steel on their side, and that the only reason they had superior technology was because Spain was less isolated than Mexico.
Now, imagine a conquistador and his Indian woman have two sons in the 1520s. These two mestizo brothers grow up and go out in the world to seek their fortunes. One is smarter, and he strikes it rich. The other wasn't so lucky in the genetic lottery, and he becomes poor. The rich son has a wide variety of potential wives to choose from. Like most men, and like almost all Mexican men, he is more attracted to blonde women, and thus marries one. (If you aren't familiar with the depths of Mexico's blonde obsession, try watching Spanish-language TV shows. Almost all the women on Mexican TV look like Finns.) His impoverished brother, in contrast, cannot attract a blonde wife. So he marries an Indian girl.
Then, the brothers have children. On average, the smarter, richer brother's kids, who are 3/4 white, are smarter than their underprivileged 1/4 white cousins. They're smarter not because they are whiter, but because their father had more smartness genes than their uncle. This trend continues: in both families, the smartest, most energetic, and most ruthless sons marry the blondest wives, while the blondest daughters marry the husbands with the most Right Stuff. Repeat for another dozen and a half generations. By 2000, this pattern could lead to the most European-looking people being the most naturally formidable, even if they weren't when they arrived in 1519.
The assumption is that the number of non-whites that assimilate into the elite is small enough that they are "locally overwhelmed" by the whites, even if whites are a minority overall.
Steve Sailer clearly gets off on the thought of white women with non-white men. I wouldn’t be surprised if he visits the same interracial porn sites that Razib Khan frequents.
Anonymous said... March 6, 2010 5:06 AM
In the late 90s on his [Sailer's] HBD online discussion group, the topic of porn and the HBD aspects of porn would come up sometimes, and he'd always bring up and talk about Lexington Steele. It was like he was obsessed with him or something.
"For better or worse my academic career consisted primarily of home schooling, and included little post-secondary education due to my parents having been religious fundamentalists who disapproved of higher education."
I would argue that North America is more blondist than Mexico, and Mexico's TV starlets certainly don't look like Finns. Just because a mestiza dyes her hair blonde doesn't make her White or Nordic.
Yes, the elites and the media stars are more White on average, because they need taller, more attractive people, more Caucasoid less Mongoloid. However the Mongoloid strain is seen easily in the vast majority of them.
Sailer seems to get a kick out of these miscegenist fantasies of his, he's a bit of an interracial conquistador himself. In the end he's just another degenerate and part of the problem.
Sailer:
Interracial marriage between whites and East Asians in California has indeed worked largely as advertised, bringing these two races quite close together. Since Asians tend to have slightly higher IQ's and significantly better work ethics than whites, white-Asian weddings have contributed to racial equality.
Now, there is plenty to be said for getting hitched to a Mexican lady. They tend to make better mothers, homemakers, and cooks than the leggy blonde careerists who, however, are so much more in demand in Southern California.
Silver is being slightly harsh on those rougher racialists. But his point is that their brand of racialism won't be a best-seller anytime soon. Things like marketing matter hugely, and life and power are hardly matters or truth only.
For example, Nazism seems to be utter garbage (overall, that is) on the truth level. But I'm even more interested in what a liability it is to white preservation here and now.
Realistically, the vast majority of whites will never become preservationists for the hyper-rational and hyper-independent minded reasons many of us did. As Nietzsche wrote, the average person doesn't find reason very convincing.
It is wise to appear to fairness, something that makes a particular impact on peoples' minds when they are not faced with near-term existential threats. (Hence, in part, the victory of the left over the past 200 years, many of which victories were good.) "Africa for the Africans, China for the Chinese, White countries for everyone" is a powerful emotional appeal. Or, a little edgier, "viva the White race for 200 more years, the Vietnamese and Arab races for another 20,000." Some consider this whining - whatever. It's first and foremost just a direct appeal to preservation. It seems apt to be effective. I couldn't care less whether it is plaintive, and I don't think that question has much to do with effectiveness in reality.
I'm sure Soren is genuinely intelligent even though he seems to be vapid as far as having coherent ideas goes. MR has a clique of people who seem to be of the "autistic spectrum" type and they are rather self-congratulatory of each other. These sort of people have a need to prove themselves to the world or each other.
I'm sure Soren is genuinely intelligent even though he seems to be vapid as far as having coherent ideas goes. MR has a clique of people who seem to be of the "autistic spectrum" type and they are rather self-congratulatory of each other.
Soren ruins those interviews he conducts. They're almost unbearable. His last two interviews were with Matt Parrott and Jim Bowery. Both Parrott and Bowery sound like normal people with intelligent things to say but they kept getting interrupted and the interviews were littered with weird utterances and digressions by Soren.
For example, Nazism seems to be utter garbage (overall, that is) on the truth level. But I'm even more interested in what a liability it is to white preservation here and now. - Rob S
I don't understand this statement at all. Are you talking about "neo-Nazism" or the actual phenomenon of National Socialism? Because if it's the latter, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.
National Socialism was aimed at national independence and self-sufficiency, and sustainability of life. It was utterly biocentric in it's philosophy, so I find the statement that it was "garbage on the truth level" frankly ridiculous. What's more, most of it's Culture was based on concepts grounded in European tradition, i.e. authority, honor, family, etc.
Where's the evidence that Silver's 'brand' (which is really just plagiarized from McCulloch)is any more acceptable. Of course that doesn't stop Silver from blaming everyone else for poisoning the discourse. Elin discovered that when there is no trust there is no love. Putnam, much to his chagrin, discovered diversity breeds mistrust. In other words, contra Silver there ain't no love. People just endure.
Silver is being slightly harsh on those rougher racialists. But his point is that their brand of racialism won't be a best-seller anytime soon. Things like marketing matter hugely, and life and power are hardly matters or truth only.
Harsh racialism continues to make it difficult to discuss race (and racial objectives) matter-of-factly. Steve Sailer's blog has been very effective at allowing such discussion to take place -- "heretical" observations seem entirely routine. (Unfortunately Sailer gets 20 thousand readers, Huff Post 20 million, so the work isn't quite yet done.) Specifically as regards the long-term effects of admixture, few things do so much to categorize racialism as a mere "hate movement" than piling on admixed individuals, for example, the treatment here meted out to Reginald (something I've curiously been spared. Come on, you can do better!).
Nazi-symp,
It was utterly biocentric in it's philosophy, so I find the statement that it was "garbage on the truth level" frankly ridiculous.
The fact that it was so relentlessly biocentric in its philosophy is why it was"garbage on the truth level." Few people throughout human history have viewed human life in "utterly biocentric" terms; nor do very many express any sort of yearning to; nor is there much reason to believe those who do so live any better than than those who don't. Biocentrism: right philosophy; wrong species.
Anon (Desmond?)
Where's the evidence that Silver's 'brand' (which is really just plagiarized from McCulloch)is any more acceptable.
Where's the evidence that it is less?
And what have I "plagiarized" from McCulloch? If your only familiarity with his work is The Racial Compact you know very little about that ultra-racialist. In fact, you, with your pained racial loathing and despair, have much more in common with him than I.
My attitude towards your kind can be summed up by the (slightly amended) lyrics to the Electric Light Orchestra hit Livin' Thing:
It's a livin' thing It's a terrible thing to lose It's a giving thing What a terrible thing to lose
Beyond that, nordicism gets my support because I can't see any other engine for a racial reordering. I can't see anyone else taking it up (in sufficient numbers) by themselves. We'll just continue to aggregate and admix and (in the long run) live poorer lives for it. It's not so much that I'm horrified by the prospect, it's just that I think race-centrism is that much more attractive. Your reasons differ, true, but your natural allies (at least for a time) are those who feel as I do.
- "Harsh racialism" continues to make it difficult to discuss race intelligently as well as matter-of-factly. Steve Sailer's blog has enabled people to do so -- "heretical" observations are commonplace and entirely unremarkable. He has 20 thousand readers while Huff Post has 20 million, so clearly the work isn't quite done.
- Re biocentrism. Few people demonstrate any great yearning to view themselves as solely biological units. There isn't much reason to believe those who do so live any better than those who don't. Biology can teach us more about ourselves than we'd otherwise know, biocentrism: right philosophy, wrong species.
- Desmond, I haven't "plagiarized" anything. Your racial loathing and despair has much more in common with his views (which you'd know if you read his books) than do mine.
Soren ruins those interviews he conducts. They're almost unbearable. His last two interviews were with Matt Parrott and Jim Bowery. Both Parrott and Bowery sound like normal people with intelligent things to say but they kept getting interrupted and the interviews were littered with weird utterances and digressions by Soren.
They are unbearable. He's very scatterbrained and eccentric. In addition he's combative with the interviewer. There's nothing to be gained by listening to him other than a headache.
Unlike Silver, McCulloch is a man with an honest love of his people. There is no contempt and loathing for a culture that is too alien to be embraced. Either that or he's lying. LOL
Hunter Wallace's latest droolfest over Glenn Beck's march and the comments following it are nauseating.
The comments are certainly a snoozefest. These types of conversations and rants have been going on for years. The same whining and waiting for doomsday crowd.
I live with someone who watches Beck nightly, so I've seen his show a lot. It's hard to believe that anyone in his right mind could consider Glenn Beck to be good for Whites. Probably half of Beck's material is devoted to attacking racialism, talking about "Black founding fathers" and other such nonsense, worshiping Martin Luther King, defending Israel, etc. Immigration is rarely a topic of his show, and like Lou Dobbs he seems to take the position that unlimited immigration is just fine as long as it's legal. He's probably worse than Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, on the whole. He is a sign of our situation getting worse, not better.
The fact that Beck has attracted a large following of White people means nothing as he will certainly not lead these people in a productive direction.
The problem with white nationalism is that the conditions for solidarity and loyalty to a common cause simply don't exist. The result of this is movement cliques, movement personalities, and movement drama. It's less about individual personalities than it is about human nature and sociology.
I don't really expect any of this to change until there is a lot more hurt in the world for whites. Until then, you might as well get out the popcorn and enjoy the show - that's all there is to see.
Well, I won't pretend to be more learned than you. To be honest I am a beginner, just now reading my first big book on the Reich and the war, Prof Adam Tooze's book, which I highly recommend.
I realize that the blockade of Germany-Austria in the Great War is said to have killed 600,000. So I understand how Germany was therefore basically a dependency of the Western Allies.
I'm familiar with the German peasants getting smacked in the globalized grain market, Nazi doctrine that this would lead to lower birth rates, Versailles as a punitive treaty, the French occupation of the Ruhr Valley, inflation and severe balance of trade problems, peasant overcrowding and severe work schedules, half-domination of the whole national elite by Ashkenazim, and the attempted expansion of bolshevism into Italy, Germany, etc.
Naturally, I'm not mad that Nazis ripped up Versailles, re-armed, and suppressed Ashkenazi power. I'm a little irritated that they suppressed the Ashkenazim to the extent that they couldn't live normal lives, then started a giant unwinnable war whose horror was easily predictable (unlike the case with the First War), then offed 10 million unarmed people. I'm not a total pussy, and I couldn't care less if Nazis had merely zapped, a la Franco, several thousand implacable Reds who were spilling blood themselves and craving more. If only. But what instead happened was not only immoral, but turned into a gigantic liability for European civilization. Surely it had a lot to do with American Nords yielding largely to Ashkenazim. And of course, there's Generalplan Ost, which remained on paper, but sought to take care of inferior Eastern people of the like of Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy.
If I was Hitler I would bide my time after repudiating Versailles. Since I have a food security problem, I'll stockpile hard grains in mile-hi silos (which they did do, to some extent at least). Being worried about the population and the race, I'll pay cash bounties for bearing children, especially superior children (was there ever any positive eugenics anywhere in the West, speaking of incentives rather than just encouragement?). And of course, I would build the biggest possible military, pushing farther and farther by the decades, in order to discourage micromanagement from Britain and America.
Basically, the Goods pursued by the Nazis not only didn't happen, but were never likely to happen. The downsides of what they did - even if we speak amorally - were always very likely.
For example, I've heard it said that French industry depended largely on British coal; hence Germany was not able to marshal serious production capacity from Vichy France. Was that so impossible to predict? I know that fighting France wasn't even part of Hitler's optimal plan, but it was predictable and similar things prevented him from marshaling other conquered industrial capacity.
Of course I respect Blood and Soil in their essence, and Germany's wish to be as independent as possible from the Anglophones, but the ways of going about it were foolish, the race/birthrate views/fears of the Nazi agrarians were unconvincing, etc.
Had I lived then, I probably would have been a fascist at least up to '39, in hopes that fascism would mellow out into a mixed and traditionalist monarchy before anything totally screwed up happened. Maybe that would have happened if Mussolini had had the upper hand instead of Hitler. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and absolute monarchic power in the modern sense seems to tend toward these trainwrecks rather strongly - there's Mao and the bolshies besides fascism, and there are others.
I plan to study a lot more, and maybe I'll change my mind, I'm severely open-minded (I was raised elite-Dem, both at home and in almost my whole millieu, and at the age of 22 I was well to the left of the Dems though not highly political). But I doubt I'll change my mind on this all that much.
98% of whites are less open-minded than me, and have been trained totally endlessly to view Nazism as Hell and the Devil, a view which is not entirely inapt though certainly tilted toward Ashkenazi interests. I think there would have to be a large and bitter (not low-grade) war for years before whites could even begin to listen (rightly or wrongly; in my view wrongly) to a rehabilitation of Nazism. I hope such a thing will never happen, but instead Whites will come to a preservationism that is much more conciliatory towards the interests of foreigners, and will geographically separate from non-whites in a 'fraternal' way, which gets us all of our chthonic continent back, but not necessarily all of the land on other continent
> I don't really expect any of this to change until there is a lot more hurt in the world for whites
Part of the deal is that many current WNs have intransigent personalities on average, for obvious reasons. They took up a philosophy from the number-one most 'illegitimate' books or subcultures of our time, and again and again found all legitimated claims, as well as their 'legitimacy' itself, to be wanting. Eventually, as WN grows, the psychological traits of the average WN will become increasingly typical of Homo sapiens europae, and thus less fractious.
> Where's the evidence that Silver's 'brand' (which is really just plagiarized from McCulloch)is any more acceptable.
It's not that much more acceptable now, but it probably will be tomorrow.
It's hard for me to be 100% certain, though; I'm not an aspie but I admit my social intuitions are subnormal. I can clearly recognize the need for 'marketing' (leadership) in WN rather than just truth and logic, but I personally can't make any notable contribution out how to do the leadership, I am not equipped for that though I wish I was.
So maybe someone else can post in detail about why Nazism is bad marketing.
They're just showing what despicable people they are, something I knew for a long time. I credit Hunter for lasting as long as he did with that pack of jackals.
I'm disappointed with Lena.
Matt should quit being deceptive, he parted because he made a choice to be with that clique of misfits and homosexuals, not because of Hunter's alleged past.
Who is Matt to give Hunter some ultimatum, to force Hunter to renounce something of his alleged past. That's like something the Jews would do, always forcing someone to apologize and grovel. A friend doesn't do that especially when the mob is attacking him. It's beyond petty.
The problem with white nationalism is that the conditions for solidarity and loyalty to a common cause simply don't exist.
IMO, the loss of ethnicity and history is a big part of it. Remember that American racialism began as Anglo-Saxonism. The White nationalism many advocate for today is like Americanism, it's an idea that is said to belong to all "Whites" however broad one defines that, it has no ethnic or historical memory. This is not sufficient motive. Germany succeeded because it was for Germans. The South succeeded as much as they did because Southerners are a distinct cultural entity, not merely a geographic location. White just isn't personal enough.
Matt should quit being deceptive, he parted because he made a choice to be with that clique of misfits and homosexuals, not because of Hunter's alleged past.
I had actually been planning to quietly depart ever since his radio show bragging about his participation in a klan rally and his puff piece promoting the klan.
Who is Matt to give Hunter some ultimatum, to force Hunter to renounce something of his alleged past. That's like something the Jews would do, always forcing someone to apologize and grovel. A friend doesn't do that especially when the mob is attacking him. It's beyond petty.
I didn't ask him to "renounce his past"; I asked him to renounce phishing - in private. I don't think that's too much to ask. I regret that I only really understood the whole episode because of the mob attack and the detailed information that came from that.
In hindsight, I probably should have just bit my tongue and moved on. I convinced myself that I had some sort of obligation to the people I had persuaded to trust him. Maybe I do, but all I ended up accomplishing with my remarks was adding to the dogpile.
I plan to study a lot more, and maybe I'll change my mind, I'm severely open-minded (I was raised elite-Dem, both at home and in almost my whole millieu, and at the age of 22 I was well to the left of the Dems though not highly political). But I doubt I'll change my mind on this all that much.
I'm also terminally open-minded. The problem is that all the various worldviews contain an element of truth, so it's possible to find yourself endlessly cycling through them. Nevertheless, some worldviews have a closer affinity to truth than others. With respect to racialist (ie race-based) worldviews, I discern two basic strains.
There is the extremist, "nazi," version which is characterized by visceral racial revulsion, intolerance of inferiority (which it perceives as everywhere encroaching), despair for the future and regret for the past (including for what might have been); claiming to detect racial conflict in all activities and at every point history, it proposes a militaristic and uncompromising 'rebirth' which will root out traitors and ensure preservation of racial interests by their ongoing expansion.
The milder, more moderate strain accepts the findings of racial science, considers racial differences socially and sociologically meaningful and would center social policy on their importance (an importance it is willing to establish by debate and consensus); it considers racial sentiment surmountable and regards that outcome as socially progressive without succumbing to the temptation to believe racial differences can thus be rendered meaningless, or that rendering them meaningless results in improvement or increased happiness; it proposes racial separation and cooperation as the solution to racial conflict and beyond that emphasizes the social gains that would be reaped as the primary incentive, rather than focusing on the dysfunction to be endured by a prolongation of the status quo.
Silver 'discerns' (LOL) two basic strains of racialism because it supports 'his' puerile notion of good and bad. Black hat 'Nazis' and some ephemeral group of white hat good guys, like a game of cowboys and Indians, shoot it out at Beaver Nazi creek. LOL. Silver, of course, always saddles up with the a posse of good guys to clean up the West, especially that dastardly nefarious Jones gang. (LOL)
It's a good trick. It allows him to be mendacious in the service of good. Sure it's unsavory and hateful, but that too is part of the revulsion he feels toward those evil Nazis and serves the cause of good.
Here's Silver at his best, spitting bile upon the Nazis in the aid of goodness, moderation and temperance. LOL.
“Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”
“I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.”
“Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen.”
“And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to.”
“If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it...more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”
“I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.”
“I intend to see to it that WN fails.”
“Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”
“I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.”
In reality, racialism is more like a continuum, which includes the aracial as well. Probably more like a bell curve that has significantly shifted over the last century.
Silver 'discerns' (LOL) two basic strains of racialism because it supports 'his' puerile notion of good and bad. Black hat 'Nazis' and some ephemeral group of white hat good guys, like a game of cowboys and Indians, because it suites his world view. Silver, of course, also saddles up with the a posse of good guys to clean up the West, especially that dastardly nefarious Jones gang. (LOL)
It's a good trick. It allows him to be mendacious in the service of good. Sure it's unsavory and hateful, but that too is part of the revulsion he feels toward those evil Nazis and serves the cause of good.
Here's Silver at his best, spitting bile upon the Nazis, in the aid of goodness, moderation and temperance. LOL.
“Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”
“I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.”
“Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen.”
“And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to.”
“If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it...more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”
“I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.”
“I intend to see to it that WN fails.”
“Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”
“I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.”
In reality, racialism is more like a continuum, which includes the aracial as well. Probably more like a bell curve that has significantly shifted over the last century or two.
Of interest as well, it is never the Nazi that wants the other guys women. n/a posted about brothels in the South being almost devoid of Negros. The Poles brought to work in Nazi labor camps were accompanied by Polish women. Hungarians and Greeks say the threat to the safety of their women came not from the Nazis but from Ivan and his Asiatics hordes.
And yet it is a common theme of progressives like Silver...
Silver is a miscegenist Paki that fantasizes about debasing White women then tries to lecture White men on racialism? What a sick bastard.
And yet it is a common theme of progressives like Silver...
Progressive is another of those nonsense words. More like an invader and thief who wants something that doesn't belong to him and might find himself on the business end of a gun.
Silver's view alienates him from truth. He is like the Islamic terrorist (not that he bombs or intends to blow-up anything) but that he polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies himself with the “good.” He "divides his worldview into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates himself on the “right” side of the World. Self-elected to the call of racial realism, he is righteous. Righteousness, as a state of Being, begets its own kind of ecstasy.
Oh for the love of God, those (initial) reactions are perfectly normal. You shitheads spend untold hours moaning on race forums about "the Jews" "genociding" you so, fuck ya, obviously anyone wanting to get under your skin is going to push precisely those buttons.
The encouraging thing is that those reactions can be moved past with greater understanding -- an understanding a shithead like you won't lift a finger to provide, of course.
What's with the lol-ing about my having "discerned" two basic strains of racialism? No one knocked on my door to inform me about them so, well, I "discerned" them. Or is it simply not true? I'm imagining it, am I? LOL. What a clown you are.
Do you really think you're doing so yourself any favors by "accusing" someone of being a paki, as though there were any thing wrong with that? The real point of racialism, the one that the average person could most easily accommodate himself with, is that differences are real and meaningful, which means that some populations simply aren't compatible with others if the goods that derive from "racial living" are to flow. The point isn't to zero in on hierarchies like a good little aryan beauty worshipping nutzi -- because the vast majority (white and non-white) are going to continue to consider such an intense focus sick and twisted. (Which it is, embarrassing the objects of your veneration vastly more often, I would guess, than it converts them to your ideology.)
There are many truths in this world. Focusing on some of them may alienate us from others, but so what? That's human life. Even allowing that I am alienated from whatever truth you have in mind, how am I any worse off for it? What does being "alienated" from it even mean? That I don't place that truth front and center and worship at its altar? So what? It's true that one day you're going to be dead. Does that mean you should center your every life activity around that fact? And that not doing so means you're "alienated" from the fact that you'll one day be dead? And if it does, again, so the fuck what?
He is like the Islamic terrorist (not that he bombs or intends to blow-up anything) but that he polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies himself with the “good.” He "divides his worldview into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates himself on the “right” side of the World. Self-elected to the call of racial realism, he is righteous. Righteousness, as a state of Being, begets its own kind of ecstasy.
I see. Wow. You picked up all that from the fact that I take an opposing view to nazi-types on the meaning of race. Impressive. Does the same apply to any one person who vehemently disagrees with any one other on some topic?
There are many truths in this world. Focusing on some of them may alienate us from others, but so what? That's human life. Even allowing that I am alienated from whatever truth you have in mind, how am I any worse off for it? What does being "alienated" from it even mean? That I don't place that truth front and center and worship at its altar? So what? It's true that one day you're going to be dead. Does that mean you should center your every life activity around that fact? And that not doing so means you're "alienated" from the fact that you'll one day be dead? And if it does, again, so the fuck what?
Silver (Shouldn't it be Bronze?) goes from attacking Whites and declaring war by way of miscegenation, to now pontificating on how virtuous he is and attempting to preach to us the correct way to go about racialism. You can't make this stuff up.
If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
Silverfish has had several changes in persona. JWH/Ted Sallis/etc. documented all of this on his (now defunct) blog a couple years ago. This really infuriated Silverfish to the point where it became a personal vendetta of his to smear him non-stop for months on end. That behavior really sealed the deal as far as my view of his motivations.
Even if Silverfish has some legitimate arguments to make with some aspects of racialism/racialists, his past behavior is indicative of the bitter resentment of an anti-racist, not that of a critic from some sort of milder race-realist POV. A race-realist wouldn't post that sort of garbage, even as a troll.
Silverfish would have us believe that his current persona, that of someone who is on our side but merely has a set of "concerns"* is genuine and comes from altruistic racial motivations.
Fred Scrooby: "There is a glaring north-south gradient to Euro-female miscegenation with nonwhite men. Go from, say, Sicely to Sweden: I’d bet you’d travel the length and breadth of the Island of Sicely without finding one single instance of a Sicilian girl letting an African Negro male so much as verbally address her let alone come in the slightest physical contact with her, while in Sweden you’d travel the length and breadth of the country without finding one single instance of a Swedish female who’d be unwilling on principle to sleep with an African Negro."
Jewby says the "exception" of the Kardashian sisters is explained by them being "half a mixture of Scottish and Dutch" and that they "may have had one of these rare genetic events where nearly all the ancestral traits come from just one parent, in their case the north parent. That would certainly go a long way toward accounting for it scientifically."
Scooby is a Jew? And Silver a "bronze"? Are there any white writers actually white?
Just another sign of the times and how dire the situation is.
Part of their assimilation and corrupting process is their attempt to become White and join us.
Like everything else the very definition of White has been moved to the left. It was once Northern European, now it is Mediterranean including North Africa and the Middle East.
Scrooby Jew, like other Jews and non-Whites, likes to gloat over Nordish women being debased by non-White men, like himself. After all he wouldn't have been born if not for miscegenation.
Do we really need to compare scores here, Southern Europe is historically awash with miscegenation from North Africa and the Middle East, continuing on to creating an entire miscegenated continent in South America.
Like everything else the very definition of White has been moved to the left. It was once Northern European, now it is Mediterranean including North Africa and the Middle East.
Who, besides maybe Hoste, considers North Africans and Middle Easterners to be White?
I regard them as white. I guess "Caucasian" is better. I think Sailer does as well.
You and Sailer aren't White Nationalists. "Caucasian" is such a broad term as to be practically meaningless for our purposes. A nation comprised of Northern Europeans is not the same thing as a nation comprised of Southern Europeans, let alone one comprised of Arabs or Armenians, despite the fact that they're all comprised of "Caucasians."
If you don't want to fuse with 'them' (Southerners or Arabs), then you might as well call them something different than what you call 'us' (us in the narrow sense of the smallest unit that is highly important to preserve).
What is decisive underneath is whether or not you want to fuse with one or more 'thems'. It seems that TGGP, despite not being mesmerized by the usual propaganda, doesn't care one way or another. That is, as long as we mainly outbreed with high-IQ conscientious types, he doesn't care if we completely forfeit all our northern phenotypes such as regard for women, largely different artistic and philosophical tastes, different manners and social forms, and our own flipping faces including his own and his mother's, which go back millennia. What can I say, but [rude witticisms that I might as well not say].
I've had what could at most be called a few (no more than two, really) changes of heart -- although a clear majority of unbiased observers would describe it as change of opinion. That's the most normal thing in the world, and you'd think that would be welcomed, it being the whole point of debate and everything, but nothing's ever so simple in the frantic phantasmagory of my critics' minds.
The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth. I don't think much of him as a person, that's true. But it's his ideas about race and genetics that I've reserved my ire for, not him personally. Some "vendetta." If he can't respond to his critics with anything else but invective that's his problem.
If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
I don't how you can say that with a straight face. (Actually, I do. "I'm white, I'm mad, and I'll say whatever I damn well please." Or as I put it, "white makes right.")
I'm not deceived, Desmond(?). I'd have had little to say about race (besides standard antiracist objections) were it not my discovery that legions of your pals are running around the internet more or less intruding into parts of the world that essentially have no use for them. Remember, "accidental dissent."
That said, now that I think there is something to say about race beyond the standard antiracist mumbo-jumbo I most certainly will say it. I'm not "preaching" to you (especially not to you), you nincompoop. It's blindingly obvious that I'm taking what amounts to a 'natural position' on race, one that a reasonable interested party would assume on his own accord, without coaxing, upon having examined the facts. Notice I say a position. Plenty of others would, of course, see it your way. Fine, let them. But you can be sure I'll do my damndest to encourage those who don't to stand up to you on your own terms rather than cede the battle. (We'll fight them in the comments; we'll fight them in the forums; we'll fight them in the blogs; we'll never give up!)
What is decisive underneath is whether or not you want to fuse with one or more 'thems'. It seems that TGGP, despite not being mesmerized by the usual propaganda, doesn't care one way or another. That is, as long as we mainly outbreed with high-IQ conscientious types, he doesn't care if we completely forfeit all our northern phenotypes such as regard for women, largely different artistic and philosophical tastes, different manners and social forms, and our own flipping faces including his own and his mother's, which go back millennia. What can I say, but [rude witticisms that I might as well not say].
TGGP is a Jew. So is Fred Scrooby (by matrilineal descent from both grandmothers), though he claims to identify as German. The "Ted Sallis" referred to above is some kind of Italic.
None of this is uncommon. If you're surprised by it it confirms that you're a newcomer to the 'scene.' Fact is, for whatever reason, many other kinds besides your own seem to think they have something important to say about white racial issues. Most of it, as you can probably tell, is pure bs. Then on the other hand you have the militants on your side who claim that any moment now they're going to rise up and run every non-nord out of the US. Well, there is decades of that sort of hysteria on record. None of it has ever panned out or even come close. You sure you want to follow in those failed footsteps?
I've had what could at most be called a few (no more than two, really) changes of heart. That's the most normal thing in the world, and you'd think that would be welcomed, it being the whole point of debate and everything, but nothing's ever so simple in the frantic phantasmagory of my critics' minds.
The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth. I don't think much of him as a person, that's true. But it's his ideas about race and genetics that I've reserved my ire for, not him personally. Some "vendetta." If he can't respond to his critics with anything else but invective that's his problem.
If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
I don't how you can say that with a straight face. (Actually, I do. "I'm white, I'm mad, and I'll say whatever I damn well please." Or as I put it, "white makes right.")
I'm not deceived, Desmond(?). I'd have had little to say about race (besides standard antiracist objections) were it not my discovery that legions of your pals are running around the internet more or less intruding into parts of the world that essentially have no use for them. Remember, "accidental dissent."
That said, now that I think there is something to say about race beyond the standard antiracist mumbo-jumbo I most certainly will say it. I'm not "preaching" to you (especially not to you), you nincompoop. It's blindingly obvious that I'm taking what amounts to a 'natural position' on race, one that a reasonable interested party would assume on his own accord, without coaxing, upon having examined the facts. Notice I say a position. Plenty of others would, of course, see it your way. Fine, let them. But you can be sure I'll do my damndest to encourage those who don't to stand up to you on your own terms rather than cede the battle. (We'll fight them in the comments; we'll fight them in the forums; we'll fight them in the blogs; we'll never give up!)
Is TGGP a Jew? He sure writes like one - he trolls the entire HBD-sphere and always has some inane philo-Semitic comment anytime anyone posts anything even mildly critical of Jews. By contrast, I've never seen him admit that any criticism of Jews has any merit whatsoever - yet he frequents many blogs where criticism of Jews is one of the main topics. That strikes me as quite strange. He poses as some disinterested moderate on the issue of Jews, yet is 100% pro-Jew all the time. TGGP has claimed to be of Scottish and Irish descent, but I somehow suspect he's about as "Scots-Irish" as our ol' pal Whiskey.
In Mala Fide and (especially) OneSTDV are also possible cryptos. They're basically kosher versions of Roissy and Steve Sailer, respectively. Whenever there is a discussion of race or Jews at a site like iSteve or Mangan's, OneSTDV is always right there to divert the topic to the Muslim threat to the West, and how the media is supposedly pro-Muslim and downplaying Islamic terrorism, and Muslims Muslims Muslims Muslims Muslims. In general, anyone obsessively focused on Muslims who is not some sort of Christian fundamentalist is likely a member of the tribe, posing as a White.
>The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth. I don't think much of him as a person, that's true. But it's his ideas about race and genetics that I've reserved my ire for, not him personally.
Silver,
What's wrong with Sallis's ideas about race and genetics?
>If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
>None of this is uncommon. If you're surprised by it it confirms that you're a newcomer to the 'scene.' Fact is, for whatever reason, many other kinds besides your own seem to think they have something important to say about white racial issues. Most of it, as you can probably tell, is pure bs. Then on the other hand you have the militants on your side who claim that any moment now they're going to rise up and run every non-nord out of the US. Well, there is decades of that sort of hysteria on record. None of it has ever panned out or even come close. You sure you want to follow in those failed footsteps?
TGGP's a Nord, and he rarely speaks against White preservation or its theses. He's merely neutral-ish and reads here out of curiosity and because he considers n/a rigorous. I don't think he has the psychological traits to easily become racialist, so I thought I'd try and hard-sell him.
In fact he claims to be a pluralist secessionist or break-up artist. I believe he would sunder the USA into numerous nations, and give guys like us our own zone. Obviously the pleasingness or displeasingness of this would depend on the size of the zone.
Mala Fide strikes me as an aggressive philo (and blunt-stupid misogynist) who tries to use 'marketing' tactics against criticism of the very best ol' pals and benefactors of Northern Civ, the Jews. No - all our troubles come from White women!
When has TGGP raised this topic - I've only seen him defend Jews in the comments to Mencius Moldbug's hilarious 'Why I am not an anti-semite', in which MM blithely admitted (30,000 words into his post) that he's never read any serious Jew-critical material.
TGGP is at least semi-amenable to reason. He might come around in time. (Personally I started caring about my own people very slowly and gradually.) Mala Fide in contrast is a jack-off would-be demagogue.
> were it not my discovery that legions of your pals are running around the internet more or less intruding into parts of the world that essentially have no use for them.
Yeah, it's terrible that they try to save their 2,500-year-old civilization from being wiped out along with its people. How intrusive.
On the other hand, it's not desirable to you to return to (and be subject to) Pakistan. So what's your brilliant plan?
I'm not sure space is a huge issue in the long run. Populations are going to decline in most places. Obviously an interventionist regime could alter this. There is plenty of reason to alter it toward slower decline and and a shallower bottom. But is there an obvious benefit from having total fertility *above* replacement?
Some places still have serious population growth and will for a good while yet, and if there were a new nation for Westernized non-whites, you might have to watch out for conquest from such places.
What do you say of Europe? What exactly do whites have to do to "deserve" to live on their own small chthonic continent without being admixed?
Yes, I'm Irish. TUJ claimed I was half-jewish at one point, but I have no Jewish ancestry. If you don't believe me you can ask Chip Smith, who knows my real name, to confirm my Irish background.
I'm basically an elitist and so relatively philo-semitic because Jews are high IQ and seem to have developed a functional civilization in Israel. I think Whiskey is an idiot and Mencius spouts nonsense on a lot of related issues, so in that context I try to push back against them. I found Yuri Slezkine persuasive, but I haven't read books Lindemann, Cuddihy or MacDonald. I do have the last's trilogy on my computer in pdf, but I tend to be slow in getting around to reading those compared to dead tree versions.
Silver since you've changed so much, and love us moderate White pres types so much, I'm sure you're all over the net pointing out that Sarrazin is, in fact, extremely distant from Nazism.
Silverfish the Bronze concern troll babbles again, telling us evil white racists what the proper form of racial salvation is.
I'm not telling you anything. You can as militant as you like. It'd be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to those with no interest in militancy (per se).
I can understand Silver not liking the crazy Nordicists who seeth at the Serbs.
Nordicists are obviously correct about the racial dimensions of who they are, and what their minimal political objectives are. I don't hold anything against them for that. (Though even if I did, what difference would that make? "Hey I hate you and we'd better off parting ways" and "hey I love you but we'd be better off parting ways" amount to the same thing)
But why doesn't he vibe on his fellow Balkanite Ted Sallis?
I was under the impression that he's Mike Rienzi/JWH. (ie no 'balkanite.')
What's wrong with Sallis's ideas about race and genetics?
There's nothing "wrong" with them in the sense that if applied (ie enforced) they wouldn't work. Just like there would be nothing "wrong," in the sense of "it wouldn't work," with, say, exterminating every nigger in Africa if applied. But just as in in the case of the reductio ad absurdum (I hope) his ideas won't be applied because they fail so utterly to touch anything in the human spirit.
Look, it'd be one thing if he broached genetic tests as a useful addendum (though I disagree with that too). But he goes on to claim he some ability to be able to pinpoint "genetic interests" through their use and erect a whole life philosophy around their application -- "ultimate interests" etc. Sounds nice on paper, perhaps. But the second you start thinking how it would translate to the real world the shortcomings become obvious.
So you know what the word "matrilineal" means?
Well, don't I? Or is this some kind of "my, what a big word" jab?
Silver is Pakistani.
Sigh.
(Not that there's anything wrong with it, btw. Not in my worldview.)
Yeah, it's terrible that they try to save their 2,500-year-old civilization from being wiped out along with its people. How intrusive.
Firstly, I'm not a paki, you twit. (Again, not there's anything wrong with that.) I'm Serbian and Greek. I "posed" as a paki for one whole post on MR three years ago, just curious to see whether the commentariat there would address me in terms as abusive as those they normally bandied about. (I was very green at the time. Answer: yes, they sure would.)
The point about your pals intruding in regions where their philosophy is neither wanted nor needed has to do with them stoking the flames of racial indignation in countries across southern and southeastern europe.
What do you say of Europe? What exactly do whites have to do to "deserve" to live on their own small chthonic continent without being admixed?
Well, if the entirety of the european subcontinent is their concern then I'd say they're at least 2000 years too late to worry about admixture. The most appropriate answer to your query then would be to restrict their sphere of concern to that subcontinent's northern, or northwestern, realms, where the degree of admixture has not yet progressed so far as to indelibly etch itself onto the constituent ethnic fabrics.
Silver since you've changed so much, and love us moderate White pres types so much, I'm sure you're all over the net pointing out that Sarrazin is, in fact, extremely distant from Nazism.
I've got a better suggestion. Since you're so committed to your cause, why don't you take the time to digest what are clearly some winning responses to racial issues instead of the loser horseshit you've clearly been fed. An example of loser horseshit is, bwahahah, not even the Italians themselves consider those people (southerners) their kin, bwahahah. That's only true in racialist, hard-right circles. For the rest of the population it's as near a non-issue as you'll find. It's a complete loser response, yet one that racialists utterly revel in. Then they wonder why so many people look askance at them and their nutty worldview. (The Jews!! Gotta be!)
Silver: I've had what could at most be called a few (no more than two, really) changes of heart. That's the most normal thing in the world, and you'd think that would be welcomed
"Changes of heart," right... from a raving miscegenist non-White lunatic who revels in fantasies of defiling White women to now pretending to be a virtuous racialist who somehow managed to change his race as well to White.
Silver: The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth.
That was a different person and you're taking statements out of context and fallaciously trying to refute them.
I can see that you have a profound mendacity and I don't know what your game is but I don't trust you one bit and as such it's not worth reading what you have to say.
Missed this earlier: "You and Sailer aren't White Nationalists. "Caucasian" is such a broad term as to be practically meaningless for our purposes. A nation comprised of Northern Europeans is not the same thing as a nation comprised of Southern Europeans, let alone one comprised of Arabs or Armenians, despite the fact that they're all comprised of "Caucasians." " Correct, I'm not a nationalist of any sort and don't have a particularly high opinion of it, though I'm rather tolerant of it. Like Keith Preston, I think people should be able to form polities on whatever basis they wish and that the United States is altogether too large to accommodate the divergent interests within. And yes you can use whatever terminology you like for "our purposes, including making "white" mean "albino". I go for parsimony. If I want to refer to a more narrow subset I can say "northern european". And yes a nation of one is not a nation of another, a nation of English isn't a nation of Germans either. Depends on your purpose.
In Mala Fide claimed his ancestry is "French-Canadian, Anglo-Canadian, Italian, Polish and a bit of Algonquin Indian" in this thread. Maybe, or maybe he's pulling a Whiskey.
Has OneSTDV ever stated his own ethnic/ancestral background?
In Mala Fide claimed his ancestry is "French-Canadian, Anglo-Canadian, Italian, Polish and a bit of Algonquin Indian"
"Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that such differential birth-rates imply for America problems more complex even than those in Europe; because, whereas in Europe they involve mainly shifts in group-intelligence, in America they mean also changes of race with all that that implies in modifications of fundamental national temperaments, ideals, and institutions. And that is precisely what is taking place in many parts of America to-day. New England, for example, once the prolific nursery of the ambitious, intelligent "Yankee stock," which trekked forth in millions to settle the West, is fast ceasing to be Anglo-Saxon country. In Massachusetts the birth-rate of foreign-born women is two and one-half times as high as the birth-rate among the native-born; in New Hampshire two times; in Rhode Island one and one-half times — the most prolific of the alien stocks being Poles, Polish and Russian Jews, South Italians, and French-Canadians. What this may mean after a few generations is indicated by a calculation made by the biologist Davenport, who stated that, at present rates of reproduction, 1,000 Harvard graduates of to-day would have only fifty descendants two centuries hence, whereas 1,000 Rumanians to-day in Boston, at their present rate of breeding, would have 100,000 descendants in the same space of time."
"Changes of heart," right... from a raving miscegenist non-White lunatic who revels in fantasies of defiling White women to now pretending to be a virtuous racialist who somehow managed to change his race as well to White.
Geezus, white politics really does bring the raving nutters out of the woodwork doesn't it?
Listen feller, I don't give a goddam about "being White" and I know of very few people of my background who do, either. "Whiteness" when its present, and whatever degree it's present in, is essentially incidental to their view of themselves and their in-group. What I care about is race. A society constructed around a racial core. Racial living, in the sense of having secured the race question it can once again become insivible. "Preservation," too, but that tends to occur naturally a side-effect; it's not something I feel an urge to rush and check the stats on to see "are we being preserved?" -- it being that technically a race can fade into and out of preservation based on various factors, kinda like Michael J Fox's character in Back to the Future.
As for whether you "trust" me or are interested in my opinion, why in the world would you imagine I care? Go strum your gee-tar or something, like a real White Man.
That was a different person and you're taking statements out of context and fallaciously trying to refute them.
I know it was a different person, you maroon. The point remains. Fallacious, schmallacious, I refuted them decisively, fair and square.
Teeg, dunno. Just a sense I had based on various things you've said, like calling n/a here your "favorite antisemite," which if you've talked race long enough will strike you as a jewy kind of thing to say.
I don't have anything in the way of "nationalist" feelings either. I think it'd be a recipe for disaster for Europe. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the sight of those paki koranimals waving the "Freedom Go To Hell" placards doesn't inspire an urge to mow the worthless pieces of shit down I think there's something wrong with you; who today but the nationalists speaks out against them? I'd rather it was liberals denouncing koranimalism but if they refuse to I'll support anyone who will. (I'm not suggesting I'd actually follow through and mow them down. But saying it captures perfectly the supreme contempt I have for them.) Similar thing with race. I'd prefer it was liberals making the case-for-race but if they won't do it I'll support the only people who will, the lovable White Nationalists.
Silver, I suppose I've picked up some of the Jewish style of humor. As Slezkine said, we've all become a bit Jewish throughout the century.
I initially planned on having some of those numb-skulls in the banner for my blog (combined with Normal Rockwell's "freedom of speech" painting and some of the Westboro Baptists), but I'm terrible at image manipulation and changing the header with even an unmodified image ended up giving it the wrong dimensions. Sure, they disgust me (for their illiberalism and disrespect for their host country) and I think if they don't like our ways they should get the hell out and back to the shithole they crawled out of. I don't have fantasies of extermination though, just separation.
"Has OneSTDV ever stated his own ethnic/ancestral background?"
Half-Greek, half-Romanian"
Once again the odd behavior and anti-White/anti-Nordish ravings come from a quasi-European swarthoid. You will know them by their words and deeds.
Another case in point is this Silver creep. Why is he here?? To be a concern troll and pretentious twit?
Oh yes, we Nordicists are so militant when we observe the truth, yet Silver goes on to express his urge to "mow the worthless pieces of shit down." Just more mendacity from the anti-White Paki turned Serbian-Greek pro-White knight of virtue. He's definitely one of the most insane people you will come across on these blogs.
Silver, More later, but people (including you) said you were Pakistani, and I had yet to see you say otherwise, so there was nothing unreasonable or inimical in my assuming that you were.
> instead of the loser horseshit you've clearly been fed. An example of loser horseshit is, bwahahah, not even the Italians themselves consider those people (southerners)
I doubt you know all about my views. If you want to object to my views, adduce something I've espoused instead of something you apparently acknowledge that I haven't said. Why did you quote my assertion that Sarrazin's statements are extremely distant from Nazism, thus implying it was 'loser horseshit'? If that is your view, feel free to lay it on out, rather than (or prior to) veering into other things.
> has to do with them stoking the flames of racial indignation in countries across southern and southeastern europe.
That's sounds like potentially a quite legitimate point, though I know nothing about it. I had assumed perhaps hastily that you were talking about them poking proselytically into non-racialist anglophone internet areas.
I do know about the Austro-Hungarian and Nazi atrocities in Serbia and I wonder whether you might have those on your mind or your heart in some degree.
More later, but people (including you) said you were Pakistani, and I had yet to see you say otherwise, so there was nothing unreasonable or inimical in my assuming that you were.
I said it once three years ago in an obscure post on an obscure blog which I highly doubt you ever read. I'd never have said it if I realized it was going to be this difficult to live it down. (As I said, I was very green. Little did I know there as many mudslingers among the Honorable Aryans as anywhere else.)
I doubt you know all about my views. If you want to object to my views, adduce something I've espoused instead of something you apparently acknowledge that I haven't said. Why did you quote my assertion that Sarrazin's statements are extremely distant from Nazism, thus implying it was 'loser horseshit'? If that is your view, feel free to lay it on out, rather than (or prior to) veering into other things.
Trust me (hehe). I can tell when a racial point is loser horseshit. The general vibe you give off is you've been imbibing the loser horseshit. I could be wrong but that's how I call it.
With respect to Sarrazin, use your brain: what on earth would you expect me to make of his comment? That it's worlds away from "nazism" goes without saying. You don't need me to tell you that. As for why I'm here and not on the liberal blogs defending him, that's because there are by now...well, I won't say legions, but a sizable number of "race-realists" out there, many of them far more articulate than I, doing just that.
I do know about the Austro-Hungarian and Nazi atrocities in Serbia and I wonder whether you might have those on your mind or your heart in some degree.
More so WWII in general. My father did lose two uncles in summary executions and I was taught a lot about the wartime experience by my parents (though not a thing about the racial aspects, fwiw). I was horrified by war from the youngest. A substitute teacher in the 1st grade (might have been 3rd; same schoolroom) taught us about ships called "destroyers" and described their function. I was distraught -- ships designed to kill people? Our 3rd grade teacher (name Green; Jew? heh) covered the events of wwii in class one day and I was hooked/haunted. The war's logic (as I constructed it) played on my mind for years afterwards. Here you not only had this enormous war, which is bad enough in itself, but hey it happens, that's life, but all of it resting on this disgusting racial premise -- one I was, it felt, constantly reminded of: "Ya fuckin' dago!" etc and which remained an everpresent threat to reemerge. So then you get on internet and find out that yes it is a threat, and not only that, horror of horrors it seems the bastards have a point. Not a complete point, mind you. But enough of a point to warrant some serious thinking.
Oh yes, we Nordicists are so militant when we observe the truth,
What "truth" do you imagine I'm challenging?
And I didn't accuse you of being militant, dickhead; if anything, I urged it. The point I'm making is all your "militancy" (you and whose army, you miserable fool?) will be for naught without a widespread public interpretative framework of any actions you undertake.
Look at "The Order." Those were brave actions; foolhardy, but brave. Even heroic. But who knows of them? And of those who do know, 99% consider them vile acts, not honorable.
yet Silver goes on to express his urge to "mow the worthless pieces of shit down."
Race and culture, while somewhat related, are two different things. Taking a hard line against animalistic buffoons whose stated life purpose is to bring down the very order that makes tolerance possible is an entirely different matter to taking a hard line against someone solely for his race -- like you taking a hard line against lil ole me, for instance. :)
Just more mendacity from the anti-White Paki turned Serbian-Greek pro-White knight of virtue. He's definitely one of the most insane people you will come across on these blogs.
Dickhead, that you would compare a kneejerk emotional reaction -- one which 99% of people would understand -- to a thoughtfully considered and painstakingly constructed comprehensive worldview only demonstrates what a thoroughgoing dickhead you are. Now go strum that geetar.
Sounds like a great basis for making an unconditional statement of fact, that he 'is a Jew'. Are your other inferences and beliefs equally solid?
You got me. Thing is I made a couple of posts critical of Jewish views which clearly implicate him as a Jew on his blog to which nothing in his reply corrected my implication. (Though to be honest I can't recall what those replies were, or if I even ever read them.) Rush to judgment in any case.
I do know about the Austro-Hungarian and Nazi atrocities in Serbia and I wonder whether you might have those on your mind or your heart in some degree.
Dude, I grew up absolutely haunted by WWII and the possibility of the spirit animating its actors reemerging. Heck, I even freaked out when our 1st grade teacher described the ship class "Destroyer" to us -- what, these things are designed to kill people? I went home distraught. That was before I knew a thing about WWII.
As for the "loser horseshit." Look, I can just tell it's what you've been imbibing. It doesn't matter how "right" you are. The antiracist view isn't totally wrong, and the sliver of truth it contains is sufficient to perpetuate antiracist politics because so many people want to believe it. Ultimately, one wouldn't be too wrong to conclude "all is persuasion; there is no other truth."
Sure, they disgust me (for their illiberalism and disrespect for their host country) and I think if they don't like our ways they should get the hell out and back to the shithole they crawled out of. I don't have fantasies of extermination though, just separation.
I don't harbor "fantasies." I was just describing (in what I thought was luridly appropriate detail) the level of annoyance their primitive hostility generates. Of course, meekly requesting they piss off is futile, which really drives home the point conservatives make that modern liberalism is "suicidal" -- there's just no one it can say no to.
I recall the moment awareness of this perplexing reality first dawned on me some fifteen years ago (though being 19 I was easily able to put it out of mind). I saw this Salafi board the train bedecked in islamorags from head to toe, carrying some shepherd's staff (no shit), with his wife and ten (count 'em, ten) little turdlings in tow. If it wasn't for his wife sporting the traditional islamic ninja suit you could be forgiven for their thinking they were part of some nativity play. They really were quite the sight.
Anyway, I said to myself Jesus Christ, WTF? Then I immediately stopped myself: nope, you just have to tolerate it, I said to myself; you just have to; that's the core principle our society is built on.
Now, fast forward fifteen years and a more introspective and self-honest me will tell you that I stopped myself the way I did not because I thought for one moment any actual good came out of tolerating (ie enduring) the presence of those shitheads, that there was anything tolerant-worthy about them, that is, if one tolerated their ghastly aspect one might uncover a gem hidden beneath. No, I didn't think that for a second.
What I did think for a fleeting moment but long enough to recognize it is that if I don't at least make a show of tolerating these people, the *three guesses who* will be able to not tolerate me. And that was it. My brain wasn't willing to think any further than that, for genuine fear of what it might find.
The point then is this: if you're unwilling to formulate (and enforce!) even the most timid of exclusion-principles -- and if you can't attack Islam, then there's nothing you can attack, for nothing else is remotely as disagreeable -- then we really are all fucked and it's just a matter of time. All of us are fucked. You, me, the jews, "the nazis", the whole lot of us.
But then I ask myself this: if you're going to the trouble of thinking all that, then why not just take one more step and go the whole hog: race? It might be psychologically easier to attack Islam, but the logistic difficulty of packing off muslims doesn't differ much from the logistical difficulty of packing off races, so why not take that extra psychological step?
Re "loser horseshit." The point is to encourage average folks to talk about race politically. Not just to sound off about "niggers" or "illegals" or whatever. Plenty of people already do that yet wouldn't dream of being pursuing pro-white politics. For reasons well-understood it's considered "too extreme," and that impression is only reinforced by the kind of absolutist rhetoric I deride as "loser horseshit." Good luck getting people to agree with you in in five seconds flat that, why, yes, you know, every single non-white in America is a vile, vile non-white piece of scum that cannot be gotten rid of soon enough. Most people carry way too much pro-Other baggage -- even if they don't have much to do with other kinds in their day-to-day lives -- for it to be swept away by soundbite absolutism.
The trick is to concede as much ground as necessary but secure agreement that despite everything positive that could be said about racial others, about multiracial society etc we (ie you; or, eventually, as I see it, anyone with an interest in race) have to pursue our racial interests. That's the essential point. The sine qua non of racialism. In my opinion "loser horseshit" fails to achieve it. Badly.
Don't you have a blog, why must you post page after page of your "loser horseshit" ramblings here? Such an attention-seeking troll. Get a life, dude. Seriously, it will be better for you and everyone else.
My friends, America is not a white country. We have the same right as all Americans here. And while Europe may be different, as the population changes that will become an Islamic continent.
Please open up your hearts and understand that as the prophet taught, all the races of man are equal before God. Can anyone deny that it is through his providence that our numbers are increasing?
Silver I have significant overlap with you on the issues, but you're fantasizing that I intemperately hate non-whites or non-Nords - most-likely because I made some hardly-extreme remarks about S Euros and why I don't want Nordish to fuse with them. I certainly like Southerners and hope they one day eclipse even classical Hellas.
By and large I agree with you that on balance niggerological or kikeological rhetoric doesn't advance White preservation.
Said Al-Jabari said... September 10, 2010 10:34 PM
My friends, America is not a white country. We have the same right as all Americans here. And while Europe may be different, as the population changes that will become an Islamic continent.
Please open up your hearts and understand that as the prophet taught, all the races of man are equal before God. Can anyone deny that it is through his providence that our numbers are increasing?
I'm sure this is a real Muslim and not a Jewish troll.
I have a Koran with your name written on it. It's going on the bonfire tomorrow.
Very brave of you. Are you calling the news stations? I'm guessing not, and you have about as much courage as the pastor in Florida, who thankfully has come to his senses.
Allah has filled us with his spirit, and we are braver than you because our God is the true one. That is why we don't fear death, while Westerners have no prinicples and are unwilling to die for their beliefs.
In the end, you will be converted to Islam and know the peace and joy that me and my brothers on a daily basis. And you will thank the Arabic people and their prophet for completing your lives.
The game-changing realization is this: status quo means consigning yourselves to a slow extinction. That forces you to consider just how likable are these people who commit you to a course of racial transmogrification? In my opinion, it all hinges on people deciding that as much as they might like certain racial others, the experience of them isn't so divine it's worth submitting to extinction over.
The main problem (for me) I see here is far too many people who by rights shouldn't have been too concerned about race (per se) running around madly trying to "prove" their whiteness, as though it had always been central to their identity, when that's not remotely the case. To some extent it's understandable and forgivable, but they should be encouraged to see race in its proper context, not lied to or attacked; hence the need for refining racial rhetoric.
Al-Tabs, America mightn't technically be a "white country" any longer. But it's the furthest thing from an islamic one, as I pray you'll discover before long.
Btw, I heard korans burn better if you piss on them first.
Silver, I don't recall any particular comments of that sort, but on the other hand I don't recall you commenting that much at all. And I get what you mean by kneejerk thought.
Honestly, I'm not particularly worried about Islam as an American. If I were a European maybe, but their numbers aren't that great and they don't seem to have formed the same sort of ghettos with a large rejectionist subculture (those "freedom go to hell" signs were in England, I believe). Hispanics will swamp them. The southern border is the main thing to focus on.
I don't have kids or feel a strong connection to anything larger than myself. I don't give much thought to what happens after I die. But I think I've got a long life ahead of me and I'd prefer that the country not go to shit. If I'm lucky maybe seasteads will provide a new America for Americans.
"I, as most other serbs, most other greeks, most other s. italians tend not to have very much to do with [germanics]—save for picking up their relatively easy women."
"Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African "colored". I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved "blonds". But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with "that wog"."
Silver is right about that mentally deranged, idiotic, effeminate, sycophantic mischling Scrooby Jew, but his pompous hypocrisy and anti-Nordish rants particularly against our women are disgusting.
You can see how weak and pathetic a lot of these Mediterranean males are as they attack our women. They have no honor in their souls.
The Jew Mencius Moldbug continues his propaganda campaign of absolving Jews and blaming Anglo-America. This is TJB (typical Jewish behavior) of course.
"It's simply a fact that urbanized Eastern European Jews around the world were widely tuned into this radio channel, and were famous for participation in radical republican movements. Many of my own ancestors fit this profile. Thus it was not at all difficult for a Hitler (or his many Teutonic predecessors in anti-Semitism, eg, Karl Lueger) to associate Judaism with Bolshevism - or to interpret the aggressive diplomacy of Britain and America with subversive control by fantastic and secretive Jewish interests."
"Thus the indubitable decline of Central Europe from pre-1914 conditions (eg, as described in the introduction Stefan Zweig's World of Yesterday) could be plausibly and unambiguously blamed on the Jews as a nation. While this didn't happen to be an accurate assessment of historical causality, it was close enough to reality to convince all but the most sophisticated citizens of the world, and even many of those. WW2 was an ideological war, and all the ideas in the conflict are traceable, directly or through reaction, to the export of Anglo-American democracy."
I can understand you'd be upset or angered. But how is it that it doesn't register in your brain that those rants were nothing more than the reflexive reactions of an organism feeling itself under attack? It's incredible, absolutely incredible, that anyone could ignore that factor.
Now, as it happens, I don't regret having said those things. In fact, I'm glad I said them. Because it demonstrates that the transition that is possible if the issues are framed the right way.
You can keep hammering away in the tradition of the idiot William Lucifer Pierce school, whose infiltration and manipulation are by now second nature to your opponents, and then sit there with your mouths gaping in astonishment when people continue to write you off as complete kooks, or you can learn to hold your piece and connect with the reality people experience.
That reality is that the vast majority don't feel anything like the revulsion you do. Nothing even close to it. Nor is that revulsion something that arises necessarily as a consequence of "racialization." It's a matter of perception more than anything else, just like whether someone finds a work of art beautiful or not is a matter of perception. And perception is multi-faceted, so it's not at all surprising that some people are attracted to (even widely divergent) racial others. I mention this because it seems to me that revulsion is the dividing line between the most intense, nationalistic racialists and the more moderate variety. You guys want, and ludicrously expect, racial identification at the click of the fingers. Well, you've never gotten that and you're not going to get it.
"You sanctimonious mendacious bastard. This whole thread has been about you dripping venom on every Nordicist's desire to preserve their own people. You've couched every effort in that vein as hateful, simply because it excludes you. Of course it's not about hate, it's about survival of traits that have taken thousands of years to develop. However, you, like so many of your "ilk" can't recognise that because you could care less about anybody but yourself. You don't even care about your own people. Serbia's only a place of refuge if your maudlin "poor me" sentimentalities are ineffective. God help those Aussie Anglos that hang with you. You're nothing but an emotional Vampire sucking out their life force, their natural desire to survive as a unique entity."
But how is it that it doesn't register in your brain that those rants were nothing more than the reflexive reactions of an organism feeling itself under attack? It's incredible, absolutely incredible, that anyone could ignore that factor.
About the only thing Paki Silver has said that makes sense. It is remarkable how moronic and dense some/many Nords can be regarding this point. For example "uber Nord Anonymous" claims:
You can see how weak and pathetic a lot of these Mediterranean males are as they attack our women. They have no honor in their souls.
A lot? What 2, 3, 4? Maybe it is the pathetic excuses that pass for men that "a lot of Nords" are that cause your women to flock to more masculine men? Yes, I think that is it.
> I don't have kids or feel a strong connection to anything larger than myself
That's pathetic. But maybe you were born that way. Especially since you show little interest in art (which is pretty related to these sort of things), and are much too keen to be made this way by the usual propaganda.
But since you basically know everything, no doubt you can see how important these things are to the large majority of people.
Has it ever occurred to you that future scientists may revivify you? Not if the world goes to heck, even if well after your death. Of course I realize that fundamental physics may already be in a cul-de-sac basically, but you never know.
Maybe it is the pathetic excuses that pass for men that "a lot of Nords" are that cause your women to flock to more masculine men? Yes, I think that is it.
The ravingmaniac shows up again. It is a typical reflection of your self-delusion that you would try to "refute" anonymous's point by proving him right. You're like a negro who responds to someone saying negroes are more violent than whites by threatening to beat the "racist" up.
Wrong Clouseau, Columbo, Miggles or whatever other bumbling investigator you may consider yourself. But then, typical of Nords with the focus on the messenger while ignoring the message.
It is a typical reflection of your self-delusion that you would try to "refute" anonymous's point by proving him right.
It was sarcasm you fucking tard! lmao It was meant to show the utter stupidity of the comment. Thank goodness we have you geniuses to save the world!
However, it is astonishing, as if right on cue, that your lack of humor when under perceived attack brings home Paki Silver's point quite clearly.
But then, typical of Nords with the focus on the messenger while ignoring the message.
What pathetic excuses for "men" you turds/tards are. I certainly am not a Filipino and have no idea what n/a was referring to, though I am 100% confident he was not referring to me, you fucking tards.
Cyd's arrogance, conceitedness, and presumptuousness are extremely out of place given his severe cognitive shortcomings. However, why would anyone expect any different from someone as self-deluded and lacking in self-awareness as Cyd?
We've seen how he responds to anything you say: with a barrage of nonsensical abusive vulgarity.
Attempting to engage in rational discussion with Cyd is an exercise in futility. The only thing you can do with someone of his ilk is ignore and quarantine him.
"You'd best get back to what you are good at and that would be licking Hunter's ass"
"sackless cunts"
"Fanboy, Cock-Gobbler Supreme"
"I wonder what kind of ugly mug, along with a concomitant existence, this pathetic troll must have"
"It is remarkable how moronic and dense some/many Nords can be"
"uber Nord Anonymous"
"you fucking tard"
"Let me repeat for the Miggles/tards"
"What pathetic excuses for "men" you turds/tards are"
"you fucking tards"
Cyd has no substantive or coherent "message." If you try in vain to engage in substantive debate with him, he drags the level of discourse down into the gutter. When you realize he is an incorrigible mouth breather, he petulantly throws a tantrum and cries that you're ignoring his (nonexistent) "message."
Miggles, have you proven you are even European yet? Last I remember, the moment I accused of such you went on a deletion mission of all your comments throughout OD. Why was that, Miggles?
As is typical of non-Europeans, deception, smokescreens, and strawmen are the norm. Those are not my "messages", Moshe. Those are "color" to the commentary. I would think a Nord could identify the difference. Why can't you, Miggles?
Lothrop Stoddard describes the mentality of the Under Man in The Revolt Against Civilization:
"The Under-Man is unconvertible. He will not bow to the new truth, because he knows that the new truth is not for him. Why should he work for a higher civilization, when even the present civilization is beyond his powers? What the Under-Man wants is, not progress, but regress — regress to more primitive conditions in which he would be at home. In fact, the more he grasps the significance of the new eugenic truth, the uglier grows his mood. So long as all men believed all men potentially equal, the Under-Man could delude himself into thinking that changed circumstances might raise him to the top. Now that nature herself proclaims him irremediably inferior, his hatred of superiority knows no bounds.
"This hatred he has always instinctively felt. Envy and resentment of superiority have ever been the badges of base minds. Yet never have these badges been so fiercely flaunted, so defiantly worn, as to-day. This explains the seeming paradox that, just when the character of superiority becomes supremely manifest, the cry for levelling "equality" rises supremely shrill. The Under-Man revolts against progress! Nature herself having decreed him uncivilizable, the Under-Man declares war on civilization."
He’s delusional that a change of circumstances could put weaklings, retards, and cowards like him and the other non-Europeans pretending to be "Nordics" on top.
Silver's and Cyd's messages of hate are good and should be encouraged.
I prefer to not be associated with Silver as I am 100% European and Silver is not. I am also confident Miggles is not either.
Secondly, WTF is with the "messages of hate"? LOL Has this blog become a PC haven now? There was this round and round discussion on OD forum about which group (SE or NE) had more of the Afrocentric and Multiculturalist mentality. This "hate" crapola does not do the Nordic stance many favors. What's next? References to Haterade?
There was this round and round discussion on OD forum about which group (SE or NE) had more of the Afrocentric and Multiculturalist mentality.
We already know the answer to that question, SEs have more African and West Asian genetic and cultural input. A better question is which group is more preyed upon and indoctrinated by Mediterranean/Jewish propaganda, that's the real difference.
This Cyd creature is a pathological liar and insane troll.
As far as where you fit in the racial mentality spectrum you'd be between nigger and Jew.
It is, it's just another mental exercise for nerds to engage in.
The fact is you either have it or you don't. Either you're a handsome guy with charisma who naturally attracts people including women or you're an ugly nerd who needs a lot of help to try and overcome the poor hand you were dealt. There isn't a lot of room to maneuver there. You can slightly increase your chances, just like anything else, such as working out. But like working out, you don't need some expensive program or personal trainer, you just need to DO IT. Getting women is the same thing, just get out there and do it. Game seems successful because it encourages asocial nerds to get out there and interact with women. That is what is increasing their chances.
I suggest Miggles, though this last comment sounds more like Mark the esteemed cock gobbler from OD, compose himself. His "Nordic" demeanor certainly isn't up to snuff. He is an embarrassment to not only Nords, but Europeans as a whole.
I also demand evidence of my "pathological lying" and "insanity", otherwise a public apology would be in order. That is from anyone with a shred of dignity.
Well, the problem with nerds tends to be their lack of social skills. If they would take showers, shave, wear deodorant, and not become obese, most of them would at least be "average" in appearance. One doesn't need to be a hulk to bed reasonably attractive women.
Most nerds that I know are generally normal looking people with some kind of psychological quirk(s). Commonly, this manifests itself as various types and severity of autism spectrum disorders.
Generally, the greater severity of autism a person has, the more trouble he has with normal social interaction. They have a difficult time understanding the emotions of the people they are interacting with and cannot confidently command a typical social situation. Women see their lack of confidence along with their social ineptitude as a pathology and reject them.
From the nerd POV, Game/PUA is a way to model social interactions as almost like a "program". A nerd can follow a flow chart or graph (he can memorize the steps from a book) but he most certainly cannot charm a woman using his own wits. Although PUA would never work in a traditional culture, in the highly feminized and judaized culture of swingers and one night stands, there are enough women out there with no aspirations and no standards to actually fall for someone using those methods.
I suspect that none of these people would survive an actual marriage, let alone be interested in one. The defining aspect of Game is quantity, not quality.
I don't claim to know everything, but I do recognize that I am atypically solipsistic. Nor am I inclined to argue that the preferences of others are somehow "wrong" and should be changed.
I used to read Vox Day but fell out of the habit lately. A commenter at Mangan's linked to this.
Now: "I don't regret having said those things. In fact, I'm glad I said them."
A couple of weeks ago: "I probably overdid it (to my credibility’s fatal detriment, which cheap-shot artists like the above never fail to remind me)"
There is no contradiction there.
Clearly what was meant was that in retrospect I am "glad" I said those things. That is, despite the toll on my credibility (only in the eyes of totalitarian racialist types like your good self, mind you) there's a silver (hah!) lining to the cloud of controversy they generated.
Silver's and Cyd's messages of hate are good and should be encouraged.
You clumsily stumble across an important point here. The airing of the issues certainly helps your cause; it's the "dynamic silence" that is most harmful. If you really want to turn the ship around you'll engage those who engage you, not hound them off with imbecilic charges of "sanctimonious mendacity" (as though it were someone's "fault" he had an opinion about the circumstances of his birth) -- unless you're content preaching to the choir.
As for Cyd, well, there's a prima facie case for forced sterilization if I ever saw it. Lawl.
"The Under-Man is unconvertible. He will not bow to the new truth, because he knows that the new truth is not for him.
If Stoddard was making a racial case here, he inadvertently reinforces my doubts about any natural intense racial identification -- such as that typically demanded by hard racialists and nationalists -- since he seems to rest that case on "the new truth." ("Vy itz zee science!") I suspect he was merely talking about differences between individuals (not races) and the poster is quoting him out of context.
What the Under-Man wants is, not progress, but regress — regress to more primitive conditions in which he would be at home.
Actually, what "the under-man" wants is, like most people, just to be left the fuck alone to pursue his happiness.
In fact, the more he grasps the significance of the new eugenic truth, the uglier grows his mood.
True, but that's only because the usual purveyors of that truth insist they possess the only correct reading of it.
"This hatred he has always instinctively felt. Envy and resentment of superiority have ever been the badges of base minds.
Though I'm a fierce opponent of standard hard left social views, this is a clear cut case of "blaming the victim."
If Lothrop were alive today I would gladly spit in his face to drive home to him the point that it was his supreme selfishness, his supreme intolerance, his supreme disgust with the slightest manifestation of what the neurons in his brain were configured to interpret as "inferiority" that is responsible for the steady diminishment of the very comity and civility whose lack today he would decry. There is a much simpler social bargain that had he struck it his world would be much different: "You pretend the differences between us are unimportant, and I'll pretend you haven't noticed them."
But that wasn't enough for the Lothrops. They chose to war on the powerless -- and lost.
"One point which should hasten the conversion of public opinion to the eugenic programme is its profound humaneness. Eugenics is stern toward bad stocks, but toward the individual it is always kind. When eugenics says "the degenerate must be eliminated," it refers, not to existing degenerates, but to their potential offspring. Those potential children, if eugenics has its way, will never be. This supreme object once accomplished, however, there is every reason why the defective individual should be treated with all possible consideration. In fact, in a society animated by eugenic principles, degenerates, and inferiors generally, would be treated far better than they are to-day; because such a society would not have to fear that more charity would spell more inferiors. It would also be more inclined to a kindly attitude because it would realize that defects are due to heredity and that bad germ-plasm can be neither punished nor reformed."
I really doubt that being sweeter would have helped Stoddard's work. Where's the substantial argument that this would have helped, as opposed to mere assertion. Stoddard wasn't trying to hammer out a deal with other races and un-brainwash his own deeply propagandified race. That was a different time. He was trying to intensify feelings that his audience already had.
> Actually, what "the under-man" wants is, like most people, just to be left the fuck alone to pursue his happiness.
I'm not too sure about that. Are you familiar with Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment. I tend to agree with it. Life is about status, especially for men. We are just about as willing to tear others down as we are to lift ourselves up. In terms of rank order, both accomplish the same effect.
Actually, what "the under-man" wants is, like most people, just to be left the fuck alone to pursue his happiness.
The racial underman is often trying to move up the racial totem pole. For example, the subcon who whitens his skin, and thinks he can pass as a Southern Euro.
My sentiments exactly -- eugenics is quite the benign science.
So it really makes me wonder why the Lothrops had to wail so much if what they were really interested in was society making a small accommodation with genetic reality. On and on and on they wailed. Civilization was ending; the sky was falling; the was nigh; and it was all the fault of that wretched, ghastly Under-Man.
To that I say, well, just as the punishment must fit the crime, so should the rhetoric fit the resolution.
You don't call your neighbor every name under the sun and threaten his life and livelihood if all you wish him to do is turn down the stereo, which he may well have done with a smile had you simply asked nicely.
No, something much more was going on with the Lothrops. Come on, can anyone seriously imagine a Lothrop dining with an Under-Man or greeting him with a good morning or even so much as congratulating him on that prudent decision of his to limit his procreation? I think the answer is clear: No one could honestly imagine a Lothrop washing the unwashed's feet.
If the point of eugenics is to lift all boats and not merely to raise the tide then attention has to be first and foremost placed on those whose who would undertake the eugenic course, not merely those who'd benefit (have their anxieties lightened) from it. In plain language, fuck what eugenics can do for Lothrop; I want to know what it can do for the Under-Man.
Stoddard wasn't trying to hammer out a deal with other races and un-brainwash his own deeply propagandified race. That was a different time. He was trying to intensify feelings that his audience already had.
That's what I mean. Racial feelings are always "there" but they're seldom as intense as racial ideologues demand they be. It worked in Germany but backfired in America and the wider anglosphere. I don't doubt that a large part of the reason was no one could bring himself to imagine the dispossession that now threatens. But a typically overlooked factor is people's psychological resistance to being bullied into a racial opinion on racial others. I would argue that many of these latter types would have been content to maintain the status quo. It was only when the ideologues pretended to speak for them that they ever began to think deeply about race, with many of them deciding that, "No, I disagree. I refuse to believe that about other humans," etc.
I'm not too sure about that. Are you familiar with Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment. I tend to agree with it. Life is about status, especially for men.
There is that, too, of course. But I contend that a great deal of it is...brace yourself...socially constructed.
Gotta rush. In short, the superiorite, by declaring facts-of-reality x, y and z of singular earthly importance, causes the reaction against himself.
Perhaps the individual in question doesn't consider himself (or his group, however defined) supreme, merely superior to some other. I think the context makes it clear that I had in mind an individual obsessed with distinguishing between superior and inferior at all times, in all settings. Superiorite just plain fits the bill.
Fair enough?
'Course, I was being cute and superiorite isn't really a word and all that, but in my world persiflage and precision trump pomp and punctilio. Para siemp...Always. (Haven't figured that out yet?)
(Lastly, out of habit, I prefer to avoid hearing tiresome, insincere rebuttals along the lines of, "Oh no, we're not 'supremacists.' We don't want to rule over anybody!" A sincere rebuttal would indicate that you are supremacists, but that supremacy doesn't denote a desire to rule over others.)
The racial underman is often trying to move up the racial totem pole.
Yes, although it pays to distinguish between the two or three (by my count) different ways of and motives for doing this.
The first is an attempt to have one's link to the group he considers himself properly associated with recognized by that group. Ties invoked are typically marriage, offspring, culture and history. This doesn't necessarily involve a demand for racial recognition, nor does the absence of that demand necessarily negate the concept of a totem pole.
The other gambit is a more straightforward racial play. Here we find: side-by-side comparisons of phenotypes; the internet phenomenon known as "white-washing" -- posting cherry-picked pics of one's ethnicity in an effort to demonstrate its "whiteness"; desperate resort to genetics studies, occasionally accompanied by an individual's test results ("I passed! I'm fully human!" -- sorry, couldn't resist). The foregoing established, the racial climber often finishes the move by postulating that equality -- complete equality -- begins at the point of his inclusion.
For example, the subcon who whitens his skin, and thinks he can pass as a Southern Euro.
Finally, we have the variant of the direct racial gambit in which the individual has secured a place on the lifeboat and works feverishly to prevent anyone else climbing aboard.
(So which one describes you, Silver? Answer: None of the above. You think you're better than me, or you wanna be better than me? Fine, you're better than me.)
> There is that, too, of course. But I contend that a great deal of it is...brace yourself...socially constructed.
I have no doubt of that. I'm very vaguely aware of, say, the sweeping secularizing-Westernizing trend in Islamia that wound up being reversed by the course of events, and by ideals largely imported from European romantic nationalism. Not that I necessarily think they should become fully Western-secular Kemalists - I don't... as long as they don't blow me up, I would think that the good life for them would probably involve a large helping of traditionalism, which is also what I think Europeans need. No doubt this nationalism is one (limited) cause of our foolish wars in the Near East not going as smoothly as such things went in the days of little Moldbug's heros, and I am glad to scorn Moldbug's neocon neo-colonialism. (Africa might be one place that needs it, but the rest of the world don't.)
I also realize that Europe was once much less nationalistic, though I might question whether the hypo-nationalism of the 1600s or 1100s is really quite as hypo-nationalist as we are usually told it was.
Here's the limitation on this that I would emphasize: you can't just steer anywhere. As I'm sure you agree, you can't (at least not in the vast majority of circumstances) create and maintain a culture of 4-person marriages (2 males, 2 females), which some hippies invented and tried to proselytize as a means of suppressing individual ego. I (perhaps in contrast to you) would go much further and say that the scope of options for socially constructing things is extremely limited. There aren't so many different ways to be hypo-nationalist, hence we nationalism arising repeatedly - we see it in the Hebes vs the Roman Empire (twice), Greeks warding off the Persian Empire, the resilience of the Han culture-ethnonation against Manchu and Mongol dominion, the genocides committed by ancient peoples including the Hebrews, the ethocentrism of the Germanic tribes invading cosmopolitan Rome. The hatred of neighboring peoples - more than just villages hating them each by each, I think - against the plundering Aztecs.
Even when there was no Deutschland or Italia, the longtime lack of which is always adduced in support of hypo-nationalism, there was Prussian identity and nationalism, and there were proud Italian city-states with patriotism and an extremely serious capacity for self-defense.
Similarly, the ressentiment of the weak/dominated can only be avoided in relatively few configurations of ideals, not all of which are available to all peoples at all times. Nationalism, not in itself (as a Platonic form) implying ressentiment, almost always produces it when present in dominated peoples - in such peoples it can very powerfully displace other configurations of thought that suppress ressentiment. Which could be good or bad. But of course there are also other paths to ressentiment.
Hence, nationalism and ressentiment wax and wane, partly in accord with social constuction, but whenever they wane they wax again. When you move away from one of these, you move within certain limited channels, on the surface of a not-so-huge sphere. And if you keep moving, in the same direction or various others (which 'you', a people or civilization always do in the long run), pretty soon you are very likely move back toward what you had departed from. Hence these forces are usually at work somewhere or other on the world scene.
The epitome of ressentiment comes from Obama's book, as excerpted by Steve lately:
And so he straddles two worlds, uncertain in each, always off balance, playing whichever game staves off the bottomless poverty, careful to let his anger vent itself only on those in the same condition. A voice says to him yes, changes have come, the old ways lie broken, and you must find a way as fast as you can to feed your belly and stop the white man from laughing at you.
A voice says no, you will sooner burn the earth to the ground.
No doubt there is some truth to anti-colonialism, and more than a grain of it at that, but Obama is exaggerating it way out into lala land, and simultaneously into a realm of total impracticality: "something in him still says that the white man’s ways are not his ways, that the objects he may use every day are not of his making." Right, the way forward is to ban foreign technologies in Africa - that would make it as harmonious as the Garden of Eden. Or, don't ban them, but just resent them poisonously every day of your life.
Read the whole passage at Steve's, it's fascinating. When a person expresses pan-destructive urges of this sort, they are deep in the woods of ressentiment. Obviously I don't have a perfect solution for this, I'm just saying that it is a prominent part of the human mind and human life.
> It was only when the ideologues pretended to speak for them that they ever began to think deeply about race, with many of them deciding that, "No, I disagree. I refuse to believe that about other humans," etc.
Sure, you can assert that. But what's the actual proof that that happened to, say, Old-Stock Americans and their like, or to the Greek mind? Maybe that kind of thing contributed to Franz Boas' conversion away from inequalitarianism. But I'm not sure he was part of Stoddard's target audience, and I wonder if his conversion didn't have more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues.
My guess would be that Jewish influence including Boas', plus some endogenous influence from dumb Gentile intellectuals, plus endogenous disgust for Hitler and the war, had far more to do with the general conversion against racialism, than disgust for Stoddard. I admit I've never read Stoddard, but let me pose a rhetorical question: was Stoddard more extreme and more broadly-known than Hitler?
It's not much evidence, but I've seen an American propaganda cartoon from the war, mocking the notion that some people are better than others. Obviously they didn't pause to say 'oh yeah, but we should still preserve our own race in our own lands', since war propaganda isn't the most subtle or refined thing you can find. While White racialism or preservationism sure as hell didn't die in the war, I think it was seriously injured, fatefully injured.
I think you are projecting today onto the past. Large numbers of American Whites in Stoddard's time were totally comfortable with the idea of their being superior to Ameroids, mestizos, Arabs, even Northeast Asians. They also thought they were a good deal more congenial than Yidn, as manifest in some hotels and clubs barring them until, I think, postwar. Whatever you may think of these notions, supremacists were not speaking some foreign language to these people.
While Hitler was objectively a monstrous tragedy, still, I greatly doubt he would still haunt the contemporary mind in nearly the same way, were it not that the brothers of his victims are so potent in what has been the West's leading country, really, since 1918, not 1945.
" “Were CUNY not proactively engaging in affirmative action for Italian-Americans, one would expect to see Italian-American representation in CUNY fall at the same rate as that of whites,” Jennifer S. Rubain, university dean for recruitment and diversity, said in a statement. “That has not happened.” "
Considering they're the largest ethnic group in NY, in addition to being European, it's going to be hard to convince the anti-White establishment of that one.
Modern discrimination is against them, like it is against all Whites especially the WASP founders.
Trying to play the Jewish-inspired ethnic/minority game and pointing their fingers at "racists" is a waste of time.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas, where he spent it on Black whores, he also had to go and insult the poor saps who believed his line of bullshit about being a White Nationalist.
263 comments:
1 – 200 of 263 Newer› Newest»n/a,
I've always enjoyed your blog and regularly come here for inspiration.
Keep up the good work!
OD blogger Reginald Thompson is trying to get Hunter Wallace to ban Mark from OD. Reggie is still accusing Mark of posting the comments at TOO.
Notus Wind,
Glad you enjoy it. Thank you for the kind words.
n/a
Who writes the blog Racial Reality?
Did you write the information on Racial Reality Myths on the White History blog?
"Who writes the blog Racial Reality?"
The person behind the "Racial Reality" website (previously "Racial Myths"). I don't know what else to say. Just some not-terribly-bright, aggrieved S. Euro-identified type who decided to put up a website.
"Did you write"
Yes.
I've always enjoyed your blog and regularly come here for inspiration.
I second that. It's a refreshing change from all the mentally ill degenerates like the HBDers and VNNers. Nordicists are just a better quality of people.
OD blogger Reginald Thompson is trying to get Hunter Wallace to ban Mark from OD. Reggie is still accusing Mark of posting the comments at TOO.
Reginald is a one-man freak show.
Why does Hunter Wallace give a freak like Reginald access to the administrative area of OD?
Hunter even lets Reginald dare him to delete his account.
Adolf Hitler haplogroup E1b1b?
___
Hitler verwant aan Noord-Afrikanen en Joden
BRUSSEL - Hitler was genetisch verwant aan Noord-Afrikanen en Joden. Dat stelt een Belgische journalist na onderzoek van DNA van de voormalige nazileider.
Jean-Paul Mulders bemachtigde DNA bij verwanten van Hitler in Oostenrijk en de Verenigde Staten. Hij kwam daardoor in het bezit van diens Y-chromosoom, dat van vader op zoon wordt doorgegeven.
Hitler bleek tot de zogenoemde haplogroep E1b1b te horen, die in West-Europa zeldzaam is. Deze groep ontstond in het noordoosten van Afrika en verspreidde zich via het Midden-Oosten naar Europa.
E1b1b komt vooral voor bij Berbers en Somaliërs, maar ook bij Asjkenazische Joden, aldus Mulders in het Belgische tijdschrift Knack: ''Je kunt dus, met de nodige relativering, stellen dat Hitler zelf verwant was met de mensen die hij zo minachtte.'' (ANP)
18/08/10 12u17
http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1013/Buitenland/article/detail/506006/2010/08/18/Hitler-verwant-aan-Noord-Afrikanen-en-Joden.dhtml
Did Occidental Dissent break up? Matt Parrot and Kievsky have their own blogs now.
Adolf Hitler haplogroup E1b1b?
That haplogroup is common among Jews, correct?
There is that rumour that Hitler may have been one-quarter Jewish. The story goes that Hitler's grandmother on his father's side worked as a maid in a Jewish household and was impregnated by a Jew there.
All,
Please do not post Reginald's real name here. I've deleted a comment above, which I'll reproduce here with the name removed:
"Reginald Thompson"/[redacted] is a dark, dirty, disgusting, oily, mendacious, repulsive, subhuman swarthoid who clearly lusts after Nordish females. See his Blogger profile where he has a picture of Rachel McAdams: http://www.blogger.com/profile/16971969782630238205
He attacks Nordish preservationism and Nordish preservationists, tries to get Nordish preservationists banned from blogs (e.g. Mark from Occidental Dissent), etc., because he desires Nordish females and sees these actions as a way of lowering Nordish defenses and Nordish male status.
Reginald,
Please stop acting like a bitch.
[Second deleted comment from this thread:]
Speaking of [redacted]/Reginald Thompson/Statsaholic a.k.a. [redacted]/Medginald/Statsaholoco a.k.a. the Portuguese Pervert, the Med Mongrel, the Mendacious Med, the Sub-human Swarthoid, etc.:
“The Black Man’s Gift to Portugal” by R.Smith, c.1970
"Portugal began the Negro slave trade after encountering Negroes in its explorations and forays into Africa. Portugal brought the first Black slaves to Lisbon in 1441, and they continued to be imported in such numbers that by 1550, the population of Portugal was 10 percent Negro.
There was no taboo or injunction against sexual relations with the Negroes, and the Negroes’ blood soon became assimilated into the general population through miscegenation, so that today there are no Negroes, as such, in Portugal.
It should be pointed out that the Negro-White ratio, 1:9, in Portugal in the 1550?s does not represent the final percentage of Negro genes, for the Negro element was rapidly increasing while the White element was declining. The male Whites were leaving Portugal in large numbers – sailing to and settling in the colonies, and marrying the native women (the government encouraged this). Most of the Negro slaves brought to Portugal were adult males. The population was thus unbalanced – an excess of White women and Negro males, and a shortage of White men. Chronicles of the era relate that some Portuguese women kept Negro slaves as “pets”. They also married them.
What you can see in Portugal today is the product of uniform, non-selective mixing of the 10 percent Negroes and 90 percent Whites into one homogeneous whole. In effect, it is a new race – a race that has stagnated in apathy and produced virtually nothing in the last 400 years.
The contribution of this new race to civilization in terms of literature, art, music, philosophy, science, etc. has been practically nothing. Portugal today is the most backward country in Europe. The illiteracy rate is 38 % (U.S., 2.2%, Japan, 1.0%). The infant mortality rate in Portugal is 59.2 per 1000 births (in Sweden, 12.9 percent, U.S., 20.7 percent, France, 20.4%). The workers’ wages are the lowest in Western Europe, the equivalent of a little more than $2.00 a day.
http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Blacks/+Doc-Blacks-Destructive&Dangerous/Blacks&PortugueseDecline.html
So n/a, you wrote Refuting RM back in the day? How much did Kemp have has with you?
Kevin MacDonald: "People of Puritan descent have to accept some considerable responsibility for our current plight and our lack of unity."
n/a said... August 20, 2010 4:32 PM
Reginald,
Please stop acting like a bitch.
Good luck with that. :)
Anonymous said...
Kevin MacDonald: "People of Puritan descent have to accept some considerable responsibility for our current plight and our lack of unity."
People of Latin descent should accept some considerable responsibility for creating a miscegenated Latin America and the mestizo invasion.
racialreality having some fun here: http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/08/that-north-south-italian-iq-gradient.html
you should join the argument. it'll be just like old times
Racial Reality seems particularly perturbed by some of his fellow Latins, Northern Italians, expressing sentiments similar to Nordicists and wanting their own sovereign nation away from their swarthier brethren.
An interesting quote:
"The status of blacks, however, was only one strand in what Progressives called the era's 'race problem.' The Dictionary of Races of Peoples, published in 1911 by the U.S. Immigration Commission, listed the immigrant 'races' within a hierarchy ranging from Anglo-Saxons at the top down to Hebrews, Northern Italians and, lowest of all, Southern Italians—allegedly violent, undisciplined, and incapable of genuine assimilation."
Nordicism has been with us from the beginning.
Speaking of "Racial Reality," in his recent post he tries to chalk up the Northern European Industrial Revolution to potatoes, no doubt in order to obscure and deemphasize the differences in IQ, talent, ability, etc. that likely were involved in Northern European advancement far above and beyond Southern Europe.
http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/07/potatoes-enabled-industrial-revolution.html
Indeed, when Nords are the leaders of civilization it must be potatoes or some resource or luck. When Mediterraneans did in it ancient times they get full credit.
It's amusing that all of these Meds who whine and complain generally live in Nordish countries (Dienekes, RR, Diablo Blanco, Reginald, etc) and desire a Nordish woman. Really they're no better than Jews and non-Whites in that regard.
It's amusing that all of these Meds who whine and complain generally live in Nordish countries (Dienekes, RR, Diablo Blanco, Reginald, etc) and desire a Nordish woman. Really they're no better than Jews and non-Whites in that regard.
More high level discourse here, I see.
I wonder if this is sackless cunt, cock gobbler Mark with the Nordic woman obsession?
Whiskey said...
I can't change the color of my skin. I would be Black if I could, or even Hispanic. Even being Asian would be better than being White.
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2010/08/coverage-of-dc-metro-brawl-and.html
Perhaps Whiskey could "help" his future children by breeding with a shegress.
I'm sure this is just Whiskey trying to be humorous somehow, unless he really does want to be an Asian, lol.
Whiskey is probably Jewish or has a Jewish wife.
Definitely Jewish...no way he has a wife.
If Dienekes desires a Nordish woman, why does he like posting Greek and Italian actresses and models so much?
why does he like posting Greek and Italian actresses and models so much?
Pride. Also, he doesn't want to appear too explicitly lecherous and invasive.
why does he like posting Greek and Italian actresses and models so much?
Pride. Also, he doesn't want to appear too explicitly lecherous and invasive.
You could likewise ask why does he live in California if he's such a Greek nationalist. Just like Mexicans that migrate here illegally and force us to take them yet at the same time display such obnoxious Mexican nationalism.
http://www.vdare.com/awall/100825_memo.htm
Allan Wall has an extremely loose definition of the white race. Just like a lot of race realists and white nats he’s quick to consider everyone who has any European physical features at all as white. In an unbelievable statement Allan Wall writes the following: “In Latin America, there are millions of mestizos and mulattos who are, for all practical purposes, white.”
Wall also says that “many white Americans have some American Indian blood.”
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/1.html#americans
This page refutes Allan Wall on American Indian admixture.
Wall's article links to an article by Steve Sailer, who nonsensically says Latin America's ruling class "is becoming ever whiter" because "mestizos and Indians ... have been exploiting their social ascendancy to marry white women."
By contrast, Lothrop Stoddard wrote in The Rising Tide of Color:
The revolution against Spain had momentous consequences for the racial future of Latin America. In the beginning, to be sure, it was a white civil war—a revolt of the Creoles against European oppression and discrimination. The heroes of the revolution—Bolivar, Miranda, San Martin, and the rest—were aristocrats of pure-white blood. But the revolution presently developed new features. To begin with, the struggle was very long. Commencing in 1809, it lasted almost twenty years. The whites were decimated by fratricidal fury, and when the Spanish cause was finally lost, multitudes of loyalists mainly of the superior social classes left the country. Meanwhile, the half-castes, who had rallied wholesale to the revolutionary banner, were demanding their reward. The Creoles wished to close the revolutionary cycle and establish a new society based, like the old, upon white supremacy, with themselves substituted for the Spaniards. Bolivar planned a limited monarchy and a white electoral oligarchy. But this was far from suiting the half-castes. For them the revolution had just begun. Raising the cry of "democracy," then become fashionable through the North American and French revolutions, they proclaimed the doctrine of "equality" regardless of skin. Disillusioned and full of foreboding, Bolivar, the master-spirit of the revolution, disappeared from the scene, and his lieutenants, like the generals of Alexander, quarrelled among themselves, split Latin America into jarring fragments, and waged a long series of internecine wars. The flood-gates of anarchy were opened, the result being a steady weakening of the whites and a corresponding rise of the half-castes in the political and social scale. Everywhere ambitious soldiers led the mongrel mob against the white aristocracy, breaking its power and making themselves dictators. These "caudillos" were apostles of equality and miscegenation. Says Garcia-Calderon: "Tyrants found democracies; they lean on the support of the people, the half-breeds and negroes, against the oligarchies; they dominate the colonial nobility, favor the crossing of races, and free the slaves."
The consequences of all this were lamentable in the extreme. Latin America's level of civilization fell far below that of colonial days. Spanish rule, though narrow and tyrannical, had maintained peace and social stability. Now all was a hideous chaos wherein frenzied castes and colors grappled to the death. Ignorant mestizos and brutal negroes trampled the fine flowers of culture under foot, while as by a malignant inverse selection the most intelligent and the most cultivated perished.
Is "HBD Talk" http://hbdtalk.wordpress.com/ Richard Hoste's new blog?
Reginald writes:
"Everyone who posts on these sorts of sites is known to the security forces, and any in Country movement to overthrow a Government which has a significant number of conspirators who posted at Anti-Government sites would be instantaneously crushed."
Assuming that's him, it is obvious that Dick Hoiste really is butthurt at all the WN and paleos who are opposed to globalism, immigration, and outsourcing.
Why does he even bother saying he is "pro-White" when it is so transparently obvious that he wants a cultureless utopia of money-grubbing cogelites?
He's the Paul Krugman of HBD, except he's more dimwitted.
Racial Reality seems particularly perturbed by some of his fellow Latins, Northern Italians, expressing sentiments similar to Nordicists and wanting their own sovereign nation away from their swarthier brethren.
That's a typical "racial reaction." You see it all across (immature, net-based) European nationalisms, people from one part of the country going laughable lengths to attempt to distinguish themselves from people from another part on the basis of utterly trivial racial distinctions. Admittedly, there is something to the Italian case, but it has more to do with economics than race; as a racial movement, it is utterly doomed. (If anything, the racial case harms the economic/historical/cultural case.) Anyone can visit the useful Anthrocivitas forum and seek out poster Heraus' "local" threads and quickly realize there's nothing like the nordish homogeneity in N. Italy that WNs emphasize. Nothing like it at all.
Allan Wall has an extremely loose definition of the white race. Just like a lot of race realists and white nats he’s quick to consider everyone who has any European physical features at all as white. In an unbelievable statement Allan Wall writes the following: “In Latin America, there are millions of mestizos and mulattos who are, for all practical purposes, white.”
Like a lot of people who prefer to focus on immigration restriction he probably thought he could artificially contain racial sentiment. Perhaps realizing he can't, he took an explicit racial position that conveniently includes his Mexican spouse. Now, he's correct in a broad sense (a nordicist would say in a degenerate sense) -- I mean, it's just true that a person can occasionally have substantial negroid ancestry yet display a European(ish) phenotype. The thing is, not only is that not remotely acceptable from a nordicist or traditional white American point of view, it's not nearly enough for a political movement; all it can leave you with, when all is said and done, is the deplorable latin-style racialism that wastes time and mental energy sneering at people it hasn't a hope in hell of divorcing itself from, indirectly abetting the efforts of anti-racists. That said, nordicists are absolute fools not to attempt to take advantage of such racial sentiment. Sure, such a pan-"white" movement is nonsense, but you'd be far better off helping to redirect such people than to, in effect, dissuade them (by sneering at them, or promising to "get" them etc).
Wall's article links to an article by Steve Sailer, who nonsensically says Latin America's ruling class "is becoming ever whiter" because "mestizos and Indians ... have been exploiting their social ascendancy to marry white women."
It's possible Sailer just says this get his view across under the radar. But it's equally possible he just doesn't get it himself, just doesn't get that mixing will eventually lead to extinction, that "racial average" is "racial destiny." Obviously what he describes can only go on for as long as whites are being produced somewhere. Sailer can rail against the "you can't say that, it's true!" ethic but he's clearly not immune to it -- just try introducing this all-important topic into one of his threads. (To some extent the resistance is understandable. Talk of the effects of admixture is dominated by the very crudest of racialists, revulsion-ridden supremacists to the bone. That will have to change.)
I don't know about you but I'm not too worried about being polite and catering to the sensibilities of others when my life or the extinction of my people is on the line. I'm much more concerned about survival and what is true. Especially when our ideological and racial enemies are incredibly hostile and disrespectful to us.
But it's equally possible he just doesn't get it himself, just doesn't get that mixing will eventually lead to extinction, that "racial average" is "racial destiny." Obviously what he describes can only go on for as long as whites are being produced somewhere.
Elites tend to be lighter and if it's a racially mixed population they tend to be more White or Caucasoid. However the key point is White homelands must be preserved. That a mulatto or mestizo ruling class dominates a more Amerindian or Negroid population is meaningless, but for some like Sailer this somehow means we're winning.
Here is Sailer's explanation:
In Mexico, white conquistadors interbred with Indian women to produce mestizos. Let's assume that in 1519 the Spaniards and the Mexican Indians were equal in IQ and other significantly heritable traits that aid economic success. I'll follow Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies) in stipulating that the conquistadors won solely because by luck they had the guns, germs, and steel on their side, and that the only reason they had superior technology was because Spain was less isolated than Mexico.
Now, imagine a conquistador and his Indian woman have two sons in the 1520s. These two mestizo brothers grow up and go out in the world to seek their fortunes. One is smarter, and he strikes it rich. The other wasn't so lucky in the genetic lottery, and he becomes poor. The rich son has a wide variety of potential wives to choose from. Like most men, and like almost all Mexican men, he is more attracted to blonde women, and thus marries one. (If you aren't familiar with the depths of Mexico's blonde obsession, try watching Spanish-language TV shows. Almost all the women on Mexican TV look like Finns.) His impoverished brother, in contrast, cannot attract a blonde wife. So he marries an Indian girl.
Then, the brothers have children. On average, the smarter, richer brother's kids, who are 3/4 white, are smarter than their underprivileged 1/4 white cousins. They're smarter not because they are whiter, but because their father had more smartness genes than their uncle. This trend continues: in both families, the smartest, most energetic, and most ruthless sons marry the blondest wives, while the blondest daughters marry the husbands with the most Right Stuff. Repeat for another dozen and a half generations. By 2000, this pattern could lead to the most European-looking people being the most naturally formidable, even if they weren't when they arrived in 1519.
http://www.isteve.com/HowLatinoIntermarriageBreedsInequality.htm
The assumption is that the number of non-whites that assimilate into the elite is small enough that they are "locally overwhelmed" by the whites, even if whites are a minority overall.
That's from here: http://www.isteve.com/HowLatinoIntermarriageBreedsInequality.htm
Nordicist is probably right about negrophile Sailer:
Nordicist said... March 4, 2010 5:52 AM
Steve Sailer clearly gets off on the thought of white women with non-white men. I wouldn’t be surprised if he visits the same interracial porn sites that Razib Khan frequents.
Anonymous said... March 6, 2010 5:06 AM
In the late 90s on his [Sailer's] HBD online discussion group, the topic of porn and the HBD aspects of porn would come up sometimes, and he'd always bring up and talk about Lexington Steele. It was like he was obsessed with him or something.
Reginald says that:
"For better or worse my academic career consisted primarily of home schooling, and included little post-secondary education due to my parents having been religious fundamentalists who disapproved of higher education."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yydUG6deLdIJ:onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/12/sunday-linkfest-tiger-birthers-knox.html+onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/12/sunday-linkfest-tiger-birthers-knox.html&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se
Sailer is a bit of a sensationalist.
I would argue that North America is more blondist than Mexico, and Mexico's TV starlets certainly don't look like Finns. Just because a mestiza dyes her hair blonde doesn't make her White or Nordic.
Yes, the elites and the media stars are more White on average, because they need taller, more attractive people, more Caucasoid less Mongoloid. However the Mongoloid strain is seen easily in the vast majority of them.
Sailer seems to get a kick out of these miscegenist fantasies of his, he's a bit of an interracial conquistador himself. In the end he's just another degenerate and part of the problem.
Sailer:
Interracial marriage between whites and East Asians in California has indeed worked largely as advertised, bringing these two races quite close together. Since Asians tend to have slightly higher IQ's and significantly better work ethics than whites, white-Asian weddings have contributed to racial equality.
Now, there is plenty to be said for getting hitched to a Mexican lady. They tend to make better mothers, homemakers, and cooks than the leggy blonde careerists who, however, are so much more in demand in Southern California.
Silver is being slightly harsh on those rougher racialists. But his point is that their brand of racialism won't be a best-seller anytime soon. Things like marketing matter hugely, and life and power are hardly matters or truth only.
For example, Nazism seems to be utter garbage (overall, that is) on the truth level. But I'm even more interested in what a liability it is to white preservation here and now.
Realistically, the vast majority of whites will never become preservationists for the hyper-rational and hyper-independent minded reasons many of us did. As Nietzsche wrote, the average person doesn't find reason very convincing.
It is wise to appear to fairness, something that makes a particular impact on peoples' minds when they are not faced with near-term existential threats. (Hence, in part, the victory of the left over the past 200 years, many of which victories were good.) "Africa for the Africans, China for the Chinese, White countries for everyone" is a powerful emotional appeal. Or, a little edgier, "viva the White race for 200 more years, the Vietnamese and Arab races for another 20,000." Some consider this whining - whatever. It's first and foremost just a direct appeal to preservation.
It seems apt to be effective. I couldn't care less whether it is plaintive, and I don't think that question has much to do with effectiveness in reality.
Lasha Darkmoon has an article on Jews and Prostitution
Why is Soren Renner treated like such a guru at Majority Rights?
I'm sure Soren is genuinely intelligent even though he seems to be vapid as far as having coherent ideas goes. MR has a clique of people who seem to be of the "autistic spectrum" type and they are rather self-congratulatory of each other. These sort of people have a need to prove themselves to the world or each other.
I'm sure Soren is genuinely intelligent even though he seems to be vapid as far as having coherent ideas goes. MR has a clique of people who seem to be of the "autistic spectrum" type and they are rather self-congratulatory of each other.
Soren ruins those interviews he conducts. They're almost unbearable. His last two interviews were with Matt Parrott and Jim Bowery. Both Parrott and Bowery sound like normal people with intelligent things to say but they kept getting interrupted and the interviews were littered with weird utterances and digressions by Soren.
For example, Nazism seems to be utter garbage (overall, that is) on the truth level. But I'm even more interested in what a liability it is to white preservation here and now. - Rob S
I don't understand this statement at all. Are you talking about "neo-Nazism" or the actual phenomenon of National Socialism? Because if it's the latter, I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.
National Socialism was aimed at national independence and self-sufficiency, and sustainability of life. It was utterly biocentric in it's philosophy, so I find the statement that it was "garbage on the truth level" frankly ridiculous. What's more, most of it's Culture was based on concepts grounded in European tradition, i.e. authority, honor, family, etc.
Where's the evidence that Silver's 'brand' (which is really just plagiarized from McCulloch)is any more acceptable. Of course that doesn't stop Silver from blaming everyone else for poisoning the discourse. Elin discovered that when there is no trust there is no love. Putnam, much to his chagrin, discovered diversity breeds mistrust. In other words, contra Silver there ain't no love. People just endure.
Rob S,
Silver is being slightly harsh on those rougher racialists. But his point is that their brand of racialism won't be a best-seller anytime soon. Things like marketing matter hugely, and life and power are hardly matters or truth only.
Harsh racialism continues to make it difficult to discuss race (and racial objectives) matter-of-factly. Steve Sailer's blog has been very effective at allowing such discussion to take place -- "heretical" observations seem entirely routine. (Unfortunately Sailer gets 20 thousand readers, Huff Post 20 million, so the work isn't quite yet done.) Specifically as regards the long-term effects of admixture, few things do so much to categorize racialism as a mere "hate movement" than piling on admixed individuals, for example, the treatment here meted out to Reginald (something I've curiously been spared. Come on, you can do better!).
Nazi-symp,
It was utterly biocentric in it's philosophy, so I find the statement that it was "garbage on the truth level" frankly ridiculous.
The fact that it was so relentlessly biocentric in its philosophy is why it was"garbage on the truth level." Few people throughout human history have viewed human life in "utterly biocentric" terms; nor do very many express any sort of yearning to; nor is there much reason to believe those who do so live any better than than those who don't. Biocentrism: right philosophy; wrong species.
Anon (Desmond?)
Where's the evidence that Silver's 'brand' (which is really just plagiarized from McCulloch)is any more acceptable.
Where's the evidence that it is less?
And what have I "plagiarized" from McCulloch? If your only familiarity with his work is The Racial Compact you know very little about that ultra-racialist. In fact, you, with your pained racial loathing and despair, have much more in common with him than I.
My attitude towards your kind can be summed up by the (slightly amended) lyrics to the Electric Light Orchestra hit Livin' Thing:
It's a livin' thing
It's a terrible thing to lose
It's a giving thing
What a terrible thing to lose
Beyond that, nordicism gets my support because I can't see any other engine for a racial reordering. I can't see anyone else taking it up (in sufficient numbers) by themselves. We'll just continue to aggregate and admix and (in the long run) live poorer lives for it. It's not so much that I'm horrified by the prospect, it's just that I think race-centrism is that much more attractive. Your reasons differ, true, but your natural allies (at least for a time) are those who feel as I do.
Lengthier comment was lost, so quickly:
- "Harsh racialism" continues to make it difficult to discuss race intelligently as well as matter-of-factly. Steve Sailer's blog has enabled people to do so -- "heretical" observations are commonplace and entirely unremarkable. He has 20 thousand readers while Huff Post has 20 million, so clearly the work isn't quite done.
- Re biocentrism. Few people demonstrate any great yearning to view themselves as solely biological units. There isn't much reason to believe those who do so live any better than those who don't. Biology can teach us more about ourselves than we'd otherwise know, biocentrism: right philosophy, wrong species.
- Desmond, I haven't "plagiarized" anything. Your racial loathing and despair has much more in common with his views (which you'd know if you read his books) than do mine.
Soren ruins those interviews he conducts. They're almost unbearable. His last two interviews were with Matt Parrott and Jim Bowery. Both Parrott and Bowery sound like normal people with intelligent things to say but they kept getting interrupted and the interviews were littered with weird utterances and digressions by Soren.
They are unbearable. He's very scatterbrained and eccentric. In addition he's combative with the interviewer. There's nothing to be gained by listening to him other than a headache.
MR has a clique of people who seem to be of the "autistic spectrum" type and they are rather self-congratulatory of each other.
Bullseye. In addition to autism it includes the mental disorder spectrum, racial hybrid spectrum and alternative sexual lifestyle spectrum.
Unlike Silver, McCulloch is a man with an honest love of his people. There is no contempt and loathing for a culture that is too alien to be embraced. Either that or he's lying. LOL
Hunter Wallace's latest droolfest over Glenn Beck's march and the comments following it are nauseating.
Hunter Wallace's latest droolfest over Glenn Beck's march and the comments following it are nauseating.
The comments are certainly a snoozefest. These types of conversations and rants have been going on for years. The same whining and waiting for doomsday crowd.
I live with someone who watches Beck nightly, so I've seen his show a lot. It's hard to believe that anyone in his right mind could consider Glenn Beck to be good for Whites. Probably half of Beck's material is devoted to attacking racialism, talking about "Black founding fathers" and other such nonsense, worshiping Martin Luther King, defending Israel, etc. Immigration is rarely a topic of his show, and like Lou Dobbs he seems to take the position that unlimited immigration is just fine as long as it's legal. He's probably worse than Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, on the whole. He is a sign of our situation getting worse, not better.
The fact that Beck has attracted a large following of White people means nothing as he will certainly not lead these people in a productive direction.
The Hunter Wallace saga is heating up
Is "HBD Talk" http://hbdtalk.wordpress.com/ Richard Hoste's new blog?
Looks like it. Good find.
Ha, Matt Parrot nailed Hunter in that blog. I'm guessing it's another 4 or 5 days before Hunter changes his tune yet again.
The problem with white nationalism is that the conditions for solidarity and loyalty to a common cause simply don't exist. The result of this is movement cliques, movement personalities, and movement drama. It's less about individual personalities than it is about human nature and sociology.
I don't really expect any of this to change until there is a lot more hurt in the world for whites. Until then, you might as well get out the popcorn and enjoy the show - that's all there is to see.
Well, I won't pretend to be more learned than you. To be honest I am a beginner, just now reading my first big book on the Reich and the war, Prof Adam Tooze's book, which I highly recommend.
I realize that the blockade of Germany-Austria in the Great War is said to have killed 600,000. So I understand how Germany was therefore basically a dependency of the Western Allies.
I'm familiar with the German peasants getting smacked in the globalized grain market, Nazi doctrine that this would lead to lower birth rates, Versailles as a punitive treaty, the French occupation of the Ruhr Valley, inflation and severe balance of trade problems, peasant overcrowding and severe work schedules, half-domination of the whole national elite by Ashkenazim, and the attempted expansion of bolshevism into Italy, Germany, etc.
Naturally, I'm not mad that Nazis ripped up Versailles, re-armed, and suppressed Ashkenazi power. I'm a little irritated that they suppressed the Ashkenazim to the extent that they couldn't live normal lives, then started a giant unwinnable war whose horror was easily predictable (unlike the case with the First War), then offed 10 million unarmed people. I'm not a total pussy, and I couldn't care less if Nazis had merely zapped, a la Franco, several thousand implacable Reds who were spilling blood themselves and craving more. If only. But what instead happened was not only immoral, but turned into a gigantic liability for European civilization. Surely it had a lot to do with American Nords yielding largely to Ashkenazim. And of course, there's Generalplan Ost, which remained on paper, but sought to take care of inferior Eastern people of the like of Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy.
If I was Hitler I would bide my time after repudiating Versailles. Since I have a food security problem, I'll stockpile hard grains in mile-hi silos (which they did do, to some extent at least). Being worried about the population and the race, I'll pay cash bounties for bearing children, especially superior children (was there ever any positive eugenics anywhere in the West, speaking of incentives rather than just encouragement?). And of course, I would build the biggest possible military, pushing farther and farther by the decades, in order to discourage micromanagement from Britain and America.
[continued]
Basically, the Goods pursued by the Nazis not only didn't happen, but were never likely to happen. The downsides of what they did - even if we speak amorally - were always very likely.
For example, I've heard it said that French industry depended largely on British coal; hence Germany was not able to marshal serious production capacity from Vichy France. Was that so impossible to predict? I know that fighting France wasn't even part of Hitler's optimal plan, but it was predictable and similar things prevented him from marshaling other conquered industrial capacity.
Of course I respect Blood and Soil in their essence, and Germany's wish to be as independent as possible from the Anglophones, but the ways of going about it were foolish, the race/birthrate views/fears of the Nazi agrarians were unconvincing, etc.
Had I lived then, I probably would have been a fascist at least up to '39, in hopes that fascism would mellow out into a mixed and traditionalist monarchy before anything totally screwed up happened. Maybe that would have happened if Mussolini had had the upper hand instead of Hitler. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and absolute monarchic power in the modern sense seems to tend toward these trainwrecks rather strongly - there's Mao and the bolshies besides fascism, and there are others.
I plan to study a lot more, and maybe I'll change my mind, I'm severely open-minded (I was raised elite-Dem, both at home and in almost my whole millieu, and at the age of 22 I was well to the left of the Dems though not highly political). But I doubt I'll change my mind on this all that much.
98% of whites are less open-minded than me, and have been trained totally endlessly to view Nazism as Hell and the Devil, a view which is not entirely inapt though certainly tilted toward Ashkenazi interests. I think there would have to be a large and bitter (not low-grade) war for years before whites could even begin to listen (rightly or wrongly; in my view wrongly) to a rehabilitation of Nazism. I hope such a thing will never happen, but instead Whites will come to a preservationism that is much more conciliatory towards the interests of foreigners, and will geographically separate from non-whites in a 'fraternal' way, which gets us all of our chthonic continent back, but not necessarily all of the land on other continent
> I don't really expect any of this to change until there is a lot more hurt in the world for whites
Part of the deal is that many current WNs have intransigent personalities on average, for obvious reasons. They took up a philosophy from the number-one most 'illegitimate' books or subcultures of our time, and again and again found all legitimated claims, as well as their 'legitimacy' itself, to be wanting. Eventually, as WN grows, the psychological traits of the average WN will become increasingly typical of Homo sapiens europae, and thus less fractious.
> Where's the evidence that Silver's 'brand' (which is really just plagiarized from McCulloch)is any more acceptable.
It's not that much more acceptable now, but it probably will be tomorrow.
It's hard for me to be 100% certain, though; I'm not an aspie but I admit my social intuitions are subnormal. I can clearly recognize the need for 'marketing' (leadership) in WN rather than just truth and logic, but I personally can't make any notable contribution out how to do the leadership, I am not equipped for that though I wish I was.
So maybe someone else can post in detail about why Nazism is bad marketing.
The Hunter Wallace saga is heating up
They're just showing what despicable people they are, something I knew for a long time. I credit Hunter for lasting as long as he did with that pack of jackals.
I'm disappointed with Lena.
Matt should quit being deceptive, he parted because he made a choice to be with that clique of misfits and homosexuals, not because of Hunter's alleged past.
Who is Matt to give Hunter some ultimatum, to force Hunter to renounce something of his alleged past. That's like something the Jews would do, always forcing someone to apologize and grovel. A friend doesn't do that especially when the mob is attacking him. It's beyond petty.
The problem with white nationalism is that the conditions for solidarity and loyalty to a common cause simply don't exist.
IMO, the loss of ethnicity and history is a big part of it. Remember that American racialism began as Anglo-Saxonism. The White nationalism many advocate for today is like Americanism, it's an idea that is said to belong to all "Whites" however broad one defines that, it has no ethnic or historical memory. This is not sufficient motive. Germany succeeded because it was for Germans. The South succeeded as much as they did because Southerners are a distinct cultural entity, not merely a geographic location. White just isn't personal enough.
Matt should quit being deceptive, he parted because he made a choice to be with that clique of misfits and homosexuals, not because of Hunter's alleged past.
I had actually been planning to quietly depart ever since his radio show bragging about his participation in a klan rally and his puff piece promoting the klan.
Who is Matt to give Hunter some ultimatum, to force Hunter to renounce something of his alleged past. That's like something the Jews would do, always forcing someone to apologize and grovel. A friend doesn't do that especially when the mob is attacking him. It's beyond petty.
I didn't ask him to "renounce his past"; I asked him to renounce phishing - in private. I don't think that's too much to ask. I regret that I only really understood the whole episode because of the mob attack and the detailed information that came from that.
In hindsight, I probably should have just bit my tongue and moved on. I convinced myself that I had some sort of obligation to the people I had persuaded to trust him. Maybe I do, but all I ended up accomplishing with my remarks was adding to the dogpile.
I plan to study a lot more, and maybe I'll change my mind, I'm severely open-minded (I was raised elite-Dem, both at home and in almost my whole millieu, and at the age of 22 I was well to the left of the Dems though not highly political). But I doubt I'll change my mind on this all that much.
I'm also terminally open-minded. The problem is that all the various worldviews contain an element of truth, so it's possible to find yourself endlessly cycling through them. Nevertheless, some worldviews have a closer affinity to truth than others. With respect to racialist (ie race-based) worldviews, I discern two basic strains.
There is the extremist, "nazi," version which is characterized by visceral racial revulsion, intolerance of inferiority (which it perceives as everywhere encroaching), despair for the future and regret for the past (including for what might have been); claiming to detect racial conflict in all activities and at every point history, it proposes a militaristic and uncompromising 'rebirth' which will root out traitors and ensure preservation of racial interests by their ongoing expansion.
The milder, more moderate strain accepts the findings of racial science, considers racial differences socially and sociologically meaningful and would center social policy on their importance (an importance it is willing to establish by debate and consensus); it considers racial sentiment surmountable and regards that outcome as socially progressive without succumbing to the temptation to believe racial differences can thus be rendered meaningless, or that rendering them meaningless results in improvement or increased happiness; it proposes racial separation and cooperation as the solution to racial conflict and beyond that emphasizes the social gains that would be reaped as the primary incentive, rather than focusing on the dysfunction to be endured by a prolongation of the status quo.
Silver 'discerns' (LOL) two basic strains of racialism because it supports 'his' puerile notion of good and bad. Black hat 'Nazis' and some ephemeral group of white hat good guys, like a game of cowboys and Indians, shoot it out at Beaver Nazi creek. LOL. Silver, of course, always saddles up with the a posse of good guys to clean up the West, especially that dastardly nefarious Jones gang. (LOL)
It's a good trick. It allows him to be mendacious in the service of good. Sure it's unsavory and hateful, but that too is part of the revulsion he feels toward those evil Nazis and serves the cause of good.
Here's Silver at his best, spitting bile upon the Nazis in the aid of goodness, moderation and temperance. LOL.
“Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”
“I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.”
“Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen.”
“And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to.”
“If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it...more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”
“I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.”
“I intend to see to it that WN fails.”
“Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”
“I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.”
In reality, racialism is more like a continuum, which includes the aracial as well. Probably more like a bell curve that has significantly shifted over the last century.
Silver 'discerns' (LOL) two basic strains of racialism because it supports 'his' puerile notion of good and bad. Black hat 'Nazis' and some ephemeral group of white hat good guys, like a game of cowboys and Indians, because it suites his world view. Silver, of course, also saddles up with the a posse of good guys to clean up the West, especially that dastardly nefarious Jones gang. (LOL)
It's a good trick. It allows him to be mendacious in the service of good. Sure it's unsavory and hateful, but that too is part of the revulsion he feels toward those evil Nazis and serves the cause of good.
cont'd...
Here's Silver at his best, spitting bile upon the Nazis, in the aid of goodness, moderation and temperance. LOL.
“Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste? Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you? Even now. Especially now. They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin. Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl. But think of the progeny of such unions. Darker skin AND more caucasian features. Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT. Face it white boy, your end is nigh.”
“I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do.”
“Yes, let’s cut to the chase here. I’m a Paki British citizen.”
“And you can bet I’ll join forces with the Jew boys to carry you fellows beyond the point of no return. In fact, verily I believe you’re almost there and that I couldn’t prevent it even I wished to.”
“If I were to impregnate a white girl (which I will, be sure of it...more if I can, now that I have added incentive)”
“I am of the opinion that miscegenation is set to gather steam. I have no doubt, actually. “Race-replacement” is a non-issue for me. I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.”
“I intend to see to it that WN fails.”
“Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African “colored”. I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved “blonds”. But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with “that wog”.”
“I suppose I’m not too different to Alon Ziv, then: no, I’d never take one for myself, but it’s nice that some whites do.”
In reality, racialism is more like a continuum, which includes the aracial as well. Probably more like a bell curve that has significantly shifted over the last century or two.
Of interest as well, it is never the Nazi that wants the other guys women. n/a posted about brothels in the South being almost devoid of Negros. The Poles brought to work in Nazi labor camps were accompanied by Polish women. Hungarians and Greeks say the threat to the safety of their women came not from the Nazis but from Ivan and his Asiatics hordes.
And yet it is a common theme of progressives like Silver...
Silver is a miscegenist Paki that fantasizes about debasing White women then tries to lecture White men on racialism? What a sick bastard.
And yet it is a common theme of progressives like Silver...
Progressive is another of those nonsense words. More like an invader and thief who wants something that doesn't belong to him and might find himself on the business end of a gun.
Silver's view alienates him from truth. He is like the Islamic terrorist (not that he bombs or intends to blow-up anything) but that he polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies himself with the “good.” He "divides his worldview into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates himself on the “right” side of
the World. Self-elected to the call of racial realism, he is righteous. Righteousness, as a state of Being, begets its own kind of ecstasy.
Oh for the love of God, those (initial) reactions are perfectly normal. You shitheads spend untold hours moaning on race forums about "the Jews" "genociding" you so, fuck ya, obviously anyone wanting to get under your skin is going to push precisely those buttons.
The encouraging thing is that those reactions can be moved past with greater understanding -- an understanding a shithead like you won't lift a finger to provide, of course.
What's with the lol-ing about my having "discerned" two basic strains of racialism? No one knocked on my door to inform me about them so, well, I "discerned" them. Or is it simply not true? I'm imagining it, am I? LOL. What a clown you are.
Do you really think you're doing so yourself any favors by "accusing" someone of being a paki, as though there were any thing wrong with that? The real point of racialism, the one that the average person could most easily accommodate himself with, is that differences are real and meaningful, which means that some populations simply aren't compatible with others if the goods that derive from "racial living" are to flow. The point isn't to zero in on hierarchies like a good little aryan beauty worshipping nutzi -- because the vast majority (white and non-white) are going to continue to consider such an intense focus sick and twisted. (Which it is, embarrassing the objects of your veneration vastly more often, I would guess, than it converts them to your ideology.)
Silver's view alienates him from truth.
There are many truths in this world. Focusing on some of them may alienate us from others, but so what? That's human life. Even allowing that I am alienated from whatever truth you have in mind, how am I any worse off for it? What does being "alienated" from it even mean? That I don't place that truth front and center and worship at its altar? So what? It's true that one day you're going to be dead. Does that mean you should center your every life activity around that fact? And that not doing so means you're "alienated" from the fact that you'll one day be dead? And if it does, again, so the fuck what?
He is like the Islamic terrorist (not that he bombs or intends to blow-up anything) but that he polarizes the World and spontaneously classifies himself with the “good.” He "divides his worldview into believer and non-believers, good and evil, truth and lie, justice and injustice, and invariably locates himself on the “right” side of
the World. Self-elected to the call of racial realism, he is righteous. Righteousness, as a state of Being, begets its own kind of ecstasy.
I see. Wow. You picked up all that from the fact that I take an opposing view to nazi-types on the meaning of race. Impressive. Does the same apply to any one person who vehemently disagrees with any one other on some topic?
There are many truths in this world. Focusing on some of them may alienate us from others, but so what? That's human life. Even allowing that I am alienated from whatever truth you have in mind, how am I any worse off for it? What does being "alienated" from it even mean? That I don't place that truth front and center and worship at its altar? So what? It's true that one day you're going to be dead. Does that mean you should center your every life activity around that fact? And that not doing so means you're "alienated" from the fact that you'll one day be dead? And if it does, again, so the fuck what?
Ahahaha what it this.
Silver (Shouldn't it be Bronze?) goes from attacking Whites and declaring war by way of miscegenation, to now pontificating on how virtuous he is and attempting to preach to us the correct way to go about racialism. You can't make this stuff up.
If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
Silverfish has had several changes in persona. JWH/Ted Sallis/etc. documented all of this on his (now defunct) blog a couple years ago. This really infuriated Silverfish to the point where it became a personal vendetta of his to smear him non-stop for months on end. That behavior really sealed the deal as far as my view of his motivations.
Even if Silverfish has some legitimate arguments to make with some aspects of racialism/racialists, his past behavior is indicative of the bitter resentment of an anti-racist, not that of a critic from some sort of milder race-realist POV. A race-realist wouldn't post that sort of garbage, even as a troll.
Silverfish would have us believe that his current persona, that of someone who is on our side but merely has a set of "concerns"* is genuine and comes from altruistic racial motivations.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
Would someone please explain what the "new philosophy" Guessedworker and others at Majority Rights say they're creating is all about?
Sex and the Jews: Letter to a Jewish Correspondent
Dr Lasha Darkmoon
August 29, 2010
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Darkmoon-Jews&Sex.html
Fred Scrooby: "There is a glaring north-south gradient to Euro-female miscegenation with nonwhite men. Go from, say, Sicely to Sweden: I’d bet you’d travel the length and breadth of the Island of Sicely without finding one single instance of a Sicilian girl letting an African Negro male so much as verbally address her let alone come in the slightest physical contact with her, while in Sweden you’d travel the length and breadth of the country without finding one single instance of a Swedish female who’d be unwilling on principle to sleep with an African Negro."
Jewby says the "exception" of the Kardashian sisters is explained by them being "half a mixture of Scottish and Dutch" and that they "may have had one of these rare genetic events where nearly all the ancestral traits come from just one parent, in their case the north parent. That would certainly go a long way toward accounting for it scientifically."
Scooby is a Jew? And Silver a "bronze"? Are there any white writers actually white?
If this isn't a sign we should give up, I don't know what is.
Scooby is a Jew? And Silver a "bronze"? Are there any white writers actually white?
Just another sign of the times and how dire the situation is.
Part of their assimilation and corrupting process is their attempt to become White and join us.
Like everything else the very definition of White has been moved to the left. It was once Northern European, now it is Mediterranean including North Africa and the Middle East.
Scrooby Jew, like other Jews and non-Whites, likes to gloat over Nordish women being debased by non-White men, like himself. After all he wouldn't have been born if not for miscegenation.
Do we really need to compare scores here, Southern Europe is historically awash with miscegenation from North Africa and the Middle East, continuing on to creating an entire miscegenated continent in South America.
I don't know about you but I don't consider people like these at the bottom of this webpage to be my people (apparently Northern Italians don't either LOL). I wish them no ill will and may they thrive in their own country.
Like everything else the very definition of White has been moved to the left. It was once Northern European, now it is Mediterranean including North Africa and the Middle East.
Who, besides maybe Hoste, considers North Africans and Middle Easterners to be White?
Well, VDare considers Mexicans with Native American admixture to be white.
Who, besides maybe Hoste, considers North Africans and Middle Easterners to be White?
The US government, Pan-Aryanists and most people consider Jews to be White.
Put them in a suit, give them a haircut and don't let them tan and presto a Lebanese like Tony Shalhoub is considered White.
The US government, Pan-Aryanists and most people consider Jews to be White.
Put them in a suit, give them a haircut and don't let them tan and presto a Lebanese like Tony Shalhoub is considered White.
With all the negroes and mestizos running around, even a shitstain can start looking "white."
I regard them as white. I guess "Caucasian" is better. I think Sailer does as well.
I regard them as white. I guess "Caucasian" is better. I think Sailer does as well.
You and Sailer aren't White Nationalists. "Caucasian" is such a broad term as to be practically meaningless for our purposes. A nation comprised of Northern Europeans is not the same thing as a nation comprised of Southern Europeans, let alone one comprised of Arabs or Armenians, despite the fact that they're all comprised of "Caucasians."
If you don't want to fuse with 'them' (Southerners or Arabs), then you might as well call them something different than what you call 'us' (us in the narrow sense of the smallest unit that is highly important to preserve).
What is decisive underneath is whether or not you want to fuse with one or more 'thems'. It seems that TGGP, despite not being mesmerized by the usual propaganda, doesn't care one way or another. That is, as long as we mainly outbreed with high-IQ conscientious types, he doesn't care if we completely forfeit all our northern phenotypes such as regard for women, largely different artistic and philosophical tastes, different manners and social forms, and our own flipping faces including his own and his mother's, which go back millennia. What can I say, but [rude witticisms that I might as well not say].
Silverfish has had several changes in persona.
I've had what could at most be called a few (no more than two, really) changes of heart -- although a clear majority of unbiased observers would describe it as change of opinion. That's the most normal thing in the world, and you'd think that would be welcomed, it being the whole point of debate and everything, but nothing's ever so simple in the frantic phantasmagory of my critics' minds.
The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth. I don't think much of him as a person, that's true. But it's his ideas about race and genetics that I've reserved my ire for, not him personally. Some "vendetta." If he can't respond to his critics with anything else but invective that's his problem.
If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
I don't how you can say that with a straight face. (Actually, I do. "I'm white, I'm mad, and I'll say whatever I damn well please." Or as I put it, "white makes right.")
I'm not deceived, Desmond(?). I'd have had little to say about race (besides standard antiracist objections) were it not my discovery that legions of your pals are running around the internet more or less intruding into parts of the world that essentially have no use for them. Remember, "accidental dissent."
That said, now that I think there is something to say about race beyond the standard antiracist mumbo-jumbo I most certainly will say it. I'm not "preaching" to you (especially not to you), you nincompoop. It's blindingly obvious that I'm taking what amounts to a 'natural position' on race, one that a reasonable interested party would assume on his own accord, without coaxing, upon having examined the facts. Notice I say a position. Plenty of others would, of course, see it your way. Fine, let them. But you can be sure I'll do my damndest to encourage those who don't to stand up to you on your own terms rather than cede the battle. (We'll fight them in the comments; we'll fight them in the forums; we'll fight them in the blogs; we'll never give up!)
What is decisive underneath is whether or not you want to fuse with one or more 'thems'. It seems that TGGP, despite not being mesmerized by the usual propaganda, doesn't care one way or another. That is, as long as we mainly outbreed with high-IQ conscientious types, he doesn't care if we completely forfeit all our northern phenotypes such as regard for women, largely different artistic and philosophical tastes, different manners and social forms, and our own flipping faces including his own and his mother's, which go back millennia. What can I say, but [rude witticisms that I might as well not say].
TGGP is a Jew. So is Fred Scrooby (by matrilineal descent from both grandmothers), though he claims to identify as German. The "Ted Sallis" referred to above is some kind of Italic.
None of this is uncommon. If you're surprised by it it confirms that you're a newcomer to the 'scene.' Fact is, for whatever reason, many other kinds besides your own seem to think they have something important to say about white racial issues. Most of it, as you can probably tell, is pure bs. Then on the other hand you have the militants on your side who claim that any moment now they're going to rise up and run every non-nord out of the US. Well, there is decades of that sort of hysteria on record. None of it has ever panned out or even come close. You sure you want to follow in those failed footsteps?
Silverfish has had several changes in persona.
I've had what could at most be called a few (no more than two, really) changes of heart. That's the most normal thing in the world, and you'd think that would be welcomed, it being the whole point of debate and everything, but nothing's ever so simple in the frantic phantasmagory of my critics' minds.
The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth. I don't think much of him as a person, that's true. But it's his ideas about race and genetics that I've reserved my ire for, not him personally. Some "vendetta." If he can't respond to his critics with anything else but invective that's his problem.
If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
I don't how you can say that with a straight face. (Actually, I do. "I'm white, I'm mad, and I'll say whatever I damn well please." Or as I put it, "white makes right.")
I'm not deceived, Desmond(?). I'd have had little to say about race (besides standard antiracist objections) were it not my discovery that legions of your pals are running around the internet more or less intruding into parts of the world that essentially have no use for them. Remember, "accidental dissent."
That said, now that I think there is something to say about race beyond the standard antiracist mumbo-jumbo I most certainly will say it. I'm not "preaching" to you (especially not to you), you nincompoop. It's blindingly obvious that I'm taking what amounts to a 'natural position' on race, one that a reasonable interested party would assume on his own accord, without coaxing, upon having examined the facts. Notice I say a position. Plenty of others would, of course, see it your way. Fine, let them. But you can be sure I'll do my damndest to encourage those who don't to stand up to you on your own terms rather than cede the battle. (We'll fight them in the comments; we'll fight them in the forums; we'll fight them in the blogs; we'll never give up!)
Silverfish the Bronze concern troll babbles again, telling us evil white racists what the proper form of racial salvation is.
Accidental dissent indeed.
Is TGGP a Jew? He sure writes like one - he trolls the entire HBD-sphere and always has some inane philo-Semitic comment anytime anyone posts anything even mildly critical of Jews. By contrast, I've never seen him admit that any criticism of Jews has any merit whatsoever - yet he frequents many blogs where criticism of Jews is one of the main topics. That strikes me as quite strange. He poses as some disinterested moderate on the issue of Jews, yet is 100% pro-Jew all the time. TGGP has claimed to be of Scottish and Irish descent, but I somehow suspect he's about as "Scots-Irish" as our ol' pal Whiskey.
In Mala Fide and (especially) OneSTDV are also possible cryptos. They're basically kosher versions of Roissy and Steve Sailer, respectively. Whenever there is a discussion of race or Jews at a site like iSteve or Mangan's, OneSTDV is always right there to divert the topic to the Muslim threat to the West, and how the media is supposedly pro-Muslim and downplaying Islamic terrorism, and Muslims Muslims Muslims Muslims Muslims. In general, anyone obsessively focused on Muslims who is not some sort of Christian fundamentalist is likely a member of the tribe, posing as a White.
Is TGGP a Jew?
Irish
I think OneSTDV is Greek or something.
OneSTDV is a Jew I can smell from a mile away. Who else can think Buchanan loves Muslims? And notice he's the only HBD blogger who Auster likes.
Even if someone isn't Jewish, they can be a Jewish extended phenotype.
>The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth. I don't think much of him as a person, that's true. But it's his ideas about race and genetics that I've reserved my ire for, not him personally.
Silver,
What's wrong with Sallis's ideas about race and genetics?
>If he wanted to be of some purpose he should convince his swarthy brethren to stay in their own countries and mate with their own kind. Preach to them not us.
Serbian and Greek immigration is a major issue?
>None of this is uncommon. If you're surprised by it it confirms that you're a newcomer to the 'scene.' Fact is, for whatever reason, many other kinds besides your own seem to think they have something important to say about white racial issues. Most of it, as you can probably tell, is pure bs. Then on the other hand you have the militants on your side who claim that any moment now they're going to rise up and run every non-nord out of the US. Well, there is decades of that sort of hysteria on record. None of it has ever panned out or even come close. You sure you want to follow in those failed footsteps?
Everyone sucks, got it.
I can understand Silver not liking the crazy Nordicists who seeth at the Serbs.
But why doesn't he vibe on his fellow Balkanite Ted Sallis?
I don't see what's morally wrong with Ted's positions, though I haven't really read much of his work.
>TGGP is a Jew. So is Fred Scrooby (by matrilineal descent from both grandmothers), though he claims to identify as German.
So you know what the word "matrilineal" means?
>OneSTDV is a Jew I can smell from a mile away. Who else can think Buchanan loves Muslims?
I admit that was strange.
OneSTDV also seems to like the military, for whatever reason.
>Serbian and Greek immigration is a major issue?
Silver is Pakistani.
TGGP's a Nord, and he rarely speaks against White preservation or its theses. He's merely neutral-ish and reads here out of curiosity and because he considers n/a rigorous. I don't think he has the psychological traits to easily become racialist, so I thought I'd try and hard-sell him.
In fact he claims to be a pluralist secessionist or break-up artist. I believe he would sunder the USA into numerous nations, and give guys like us our own zone. Obviously the pleasingness or displeasingness of this would depend on the size of the zone.
Mala Fide strikes me as an aggressive philo (and blunt-stupid misogynist) who tries to use 'marketing' tactics against criticism of the very best ol' pals and benefactors of Northern Civ, the Jews. No - all our troubles come from White women!
When has TGGP raised this topic - I've only seen him defend Jews in the comments to Mencius Moldbug's hilarious 'Why I am not an anti-semite', in which MM blithely admitted (30,000 words into his post) that he's never read any serious Jew-critical material.
TGGP is at least semi-amenable to reason. He might come around in time. (Personally I started caring about my own people very slowly and gradually.) Mala Fide in contrast is a jack-off would-be demagogue.
> were it not my discovery that legions of your pals are running around the internet more or less intruding into parts of the world that essentially have no use for them.
Yeah, it's terrible that they try to save their 2,500-year-old civilization from being wiped out along with its people. How intrusive.
On the other hand, it's not desirable to you to return to (and be subject to) Pakistan. So what's your brilliant plan?
I'm not sure space is a huge issue in the long run. Populations are going to decline in most places. Obviously an interventionist regime could alter this. There is plenty of reason to alter it toward slower decline and and a shallower bottom. But is there an obvious benefit from having total fertility *above* replacement?
Some places still have serious population growth and will for a good while yet, and if there were a new nation for Westernized non-whites, you might have to watch out for conquest from such places.
What do you say of Europe? What exactly do whites have to do to "deserve" to live on their own small chthonic continent without being admixed?
Yes, I'm Irish. TUJ claimed I was half-jewish at one point, but I have no Jewish ancestry. If you don't believe me you can ask Chip Smith, who knows my real name, to confirm my Irish background.
I'm basically an elitist and so relatively philo-semitic because Jews are high IQ and seem to have developed a functional civilization in Israel. I think Whiskey is an idiot and Mencius spouts nonsense on a lot of related issues, so in that context I try to push back against them. I found Yuri Slezkine persuasive, but I haven't read books Lindemann, Cuddihy or MacDonald. I do have the last's trilogy on my computer in pdf, but I tend to be slow in getting around to reading those compared to dead tree versions.
Silver since you've changed so much, and love us moderate White pres types so much, I'm sure you're all over the net pointing out that Sarrazin is, in fact, extremely distant from Nazism.
Is anyone else having their comments moderated or rejected at Occidental Dissent?
Silverfish the Bronze concern troll babbles again, telling us evil white racists what the proper form of racial salvation is.
I'm not telling you anything. You can as militant as you like. It'd be nice if you could extend the same courtesy to those with no interest in militancy (per se).
I can understand Silver not liking the crazy Nordicists who seeth at the Serbs.
Nordicists are obviously correct about the racial dimensions of who they are, and what their minimal political objectives are. I don't hold anything against them for that. (Though even if I did, what difference would that make? "Hey I hate you and we'd better off parting ways" and "hey I love you but we'd be better off parting ways" amount to the same thing)
But why doesn't he vibe on his fellow Balkanite Ted Sallis?
I was under the impression that he's Mike Rienzi/JWH. (ie no 'balkanite.')
What's wrong with Sallis's ideas about race and genetics?
There's nothing "wrong" with them in the sense that if applied (ie enforced) they wouldn't work. Just like there would be nothing "wrong," in the sense of "it wouldn't work," with, say, exterminating every nigger in Africa if applied. But just as in in the case of the reductio ad absurdum (I hope) his ideas won't be applied because they fail so utterly to touch anything in the human spirit.
Look, it'd be one thing if he broached genetic tests as a useful addendum (though I disagree with that too). But he goes on to claim he some ability to be able to pinpoint "genetic interests" through their use and erect a whole life philosophy around their application -- "ultimate interests" etc. Sounds nice on paper, perhaps. But the second you start thinking how it would translate to the real world the shortcomings become obvious.
So you know what the word "matrilineal" means?
Well, don't I? Or is this some kind of "my, what a big word" jab?
Silver is Pakistani.
Sigh.
(Not that there's anything wrong with it, btw. Not in my worldview.)
RobS,
Yeah, it's terrible that they try to save their 2,500-year-old civilization from being wiped out along with its people. How intrusive.
Firstly, I'm not a paki, you twit. (Again, not there's anything wrong with that.) I'm Serbian and Greek. I "posed" as a paki for one whole post on MR three years ago, just curious to see whether the commentariat there would address me in terms as abusive as those they normally bandied about. (I was very green at the time. Answer: yes, they sure would.)
The point about your pals intruding in regions where their philosophy is neither wanted nor needed has to do with them stoking the flames of racial indignation in countries across southern and southeastern europe.
What do you say of Europe? What exactly do whites have to do to "deserve" to live on their own small chthonic continent without being admixed?
Well, if the entirety of the european subcontinent is their concern then I'd say they're at least 2000 years too late to worry about admixture. The most appropriate answer to your query then would be to restrict their sphere of concern to that subcontinent's northern, or northwestern, realms, where the degree of admixture has not yet progressed so far as to indelibly etch itself onto the constituent ethnic fabrics.
Silver since you've changed so much, and love us moderate White pres types so much, I'm sure you're all over the net pointing out that Sarrazin is, in fact, extremely distant from Nazism.
I've got a better suggestion. Since you're so committed to your cause, why don't you take the time to digest what are clearly some winning responses to racial issues instead of the loser horseshit you've clearly been fed. An example of loser horseshit is, bwahahah, not even the Italians themselves consider those people (southerners) their kin, bwahahah. That's only true in racialist, hard-right circles. For the rest of the population it's as near a non-issue as you'll find. It's a complete loser response, yet one that racialists utterly revel in. Then they wonder why so many people look askance at them and their nutty worldview. (The Jews!! Gotta be!)
TGGP, my mistake.
Silver: I've had what could at most be called a few (no more than two, really) changes of heart. That's the most normal thing in the world, and you'd think that would be welcomed
"Changes of heart," right... from a raving miscegenist non-White lunatic who revels in fantasies of defiling White women to now pretending to be a virtuous racialist who somehow managed to change his race as well to White.
Silver: The fellow above you says "you can't make this up" but you just did. Everything you said about me having some "vendetta" against "Ted Sallis" is cut form whole cloth.
That was a different person and you're taking statements out of context and fallaciously trying to refute them.
I can see that you have a profound mendacity and I don't know what your game is but I don't trust you one bit and as such it's not worth reading what you have to say.
Missed this earlier:
"You and Sailer aren't White Nationalists. "Caucasian" is such a broad term as to be practically meaningless for our purposes. A nation comprised of Northern Europeans is not the same thing as a nation comprised of Southern Europeans, let alone one comprised of Arabs or Armenians, despite the fact that they're all comprised of "Caucasians." "
Correct, I'm not a nationalist of any sort and don't have a particularly high opinion of it, though I'm rather tolerant of it. Like Keith Preston, I think people should be able to form polities on whatever basis they wish and that the United States is altogether too large to accommodate the divergent interests within. And yes you can use whatever terminology you like for "our purposes, including making "white" mean "albino". I go for parsimony. If I want to refer to a more narrow subset I can say "northern european". And yes a nation of one is not a nation of another, a nation of English isn't a nation of Germans either. Depends on your purpose.
Also, Silver, on what basis did you conclude I was Jewish? Like I said, TUJ had made a similar claim for reasons unknown to me.
In Mala Fide claimed his ancestry is "French-Canadian, Anglo-Canadian, Italian, Polish and a bit of Algonquin Indian" in this thread. Maybe, or maybe he's pulling a Whiskey.
Has OneSTDV ever stated his own ethnic/ancestral background?
"Has OneSTDV ever stated his own ethnic/ancestral background?"
Half-Greek, half-Romanian
In Mala Fide claimed his ancestry is "French-Canadian, Anglo-Canadian, Italian, Polish and a bit of Algonquin Indian"
"Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that such differential birth-rates imply for America problems more complex even than those in Europe; because, whereas in Europe they involve mainly shifts in group-intelligence, in America they mean also changes of race with all that that implies in modifications of fundamental national temperaments, ideals, and institutions. And that is precisely what is taking place in many parts of America to-day. New England, for example, once the prolific nursery of the ambitious, intelligent "Yankee stock," which trekked forth in millions to settle the West, is fast ceasing to be Anglo-Saxon country. In Massachusetts the birth-rate of foreign-born women is two and one-half times as high as the birth-rate among the native-born; in New Hampshire two times; in Rhode Island one and one-half times — the most prolific of the alien stocks being Poles, Polish and Russian Jews, South Italians, and French-Canadians. What this may mean after a few generations is indicated by a calculation made by the biologist Davenport, who stated that, at present rates of reproduction, 1,000 Harvard graduates of to-day would have only fifty descendants two centuries hence, whereas 1,000 Rumanians to-day in Boston, at their present rate of breeding, would have 100,000 descendants in the same space of time."
Lothrop Stoddard, The Revolt Against Civilization
"Changes of heart," right... from a raving miscegenist non-White lunatic who revels in fantasies of defiling White women to now pretending to be a virtuous racialist who somehow managed to change his race as well to White.
Geezus, white politics really does bring the raving nutters out of the woodwork doesn't it?
Listen feller, I don't give a goddam about "being White" and I know of very few people of my background who do, either. "Whiteness" when its present, and whatever degree it's present in, is essentially incidental to their view of themselves and their in-group. What I care about is race. A society constructed around a racial core. Racial living, in the sense of having secured the race question it can once again become insivible. "Preservation," too, but that tends to occur naturally a side-effect; it's not something I feel an urge to rush and check the stats on to see "are we being preserved?" -- it being that technically a race can fade into and out of preservation based on various factors, kinda like Michael J Fox's character in Back to the Future.
As for whether you "trust" me or are interested in my opinion, why in the world would you imagine I care? Go strum your gee-tar or something, like a real White Man.
That was a different person and you're taking statements out of context and fallaciously trying to refute them.
I know it was a different person, you maroon. The point remains. Fallacious, schmallacious, I refuted them decisively, fair and square.
Teeg, dunno. Just a sense I had based on various things you've said, like calling n/a here your "favorite antisemite," which if you've talked race long enough will strike you as a jewy kind of thing to say.
I don't have anything in the way of "nationalist" feelings either. I think it'd be a recipe for disaster for Europe. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the sight of those paki koranimals waving the "Freedom Go To Hell" placards doesn't inspire an urge to mow the worthless pieces of shit down I think there's something wrong with you; who today but the nationalists speaks out against them? I'd rather it was liberals denouncing koranimalism but if they refuse to I'll support anyone who will. (I'm not suggesting I'd actually follow through and mow them down. But saying it captures perfectly the supreme contempt I have for them.) Similar thing with race. I'd prefer it was liberals making the case-for-race but if they won't do it I'll support the only people who will, the lovable White Nationalists.
Silver, I suppose I've picked up some of the Jewish style of humor. As Slezkine said, we've all become a bit Jewish throughout the century.
I initially planned on having some of those numb-skulls in the banner for my blog (combined with Normal Rockwell's "freedom of speech" painting and some of the Westboro Baptists), but I'm terrible at image manipulation and changing the header with even an unmodified image ended up giving it the wrong dimensions. Sure, they disgust me (for their illiberalism and disrespect for their host country) and I think if they don't like our ways they should get the hell out and back to the shithole they crawled out of. I don't have fantasies of extermination though, just separation.
"Has OneSTDV ever stated his own ethnic/ancestral background?"
Half-Greek, half-Romanian"
Once again the odd behavior and anti-White/anti-Nordish ravings come from a quasi-European swarthoid. You will know them by their words and deeds.
Another case in point is this Silver creep. Why is he here?? To be a concern troll and pretentious twit?
Oh yes, we Nordicists are so militant when we observe the truth, yet Silver goes on to express his urge to "mow the worthless pieces of shit down." Just more mendacity from the anti-White Paki turned Serbian-Greek pro-White knight of virtue. He's definitely one of the most insane people you will come across on these blogs.
Silver,
More later, but people (including you) said you were Pakistani, and I had yet to see you say otherwise, so there was nothing unreasonable or inimical in my assuming that you were.
> instead of the loser horseshit you've clearly been fed. An example of loser horseshit is, bwahahah, not even the Italians themselves consider those people (southerners)
I doubt you know all about my views. If you want to object to my views, adduce something I've espoused instead of something you apparently acknowledge that I haven't said. Why did you quote my assertion that Sarrazin's statements are extremely distant from Nazism, thus implying it was 'loser horseshit'? If that is your view, feel free to lay it on out, rather than (or prior to) veering into other things.
> has to do with them stoking the flames of racial indignation in countries across southern and southeastern europe.
That's sounds like potentially a quite legitimate point, though I know nothing about it. I had assumed perhaps hastily that you were talking about them poking proselytically into non-racialist anglophone internet areas.
I do know about the Austro-Hungarian and Nazi atrocities in Serbia and I wonder whether you might have those on your mind or your heart in some degree.
> Just a sense I had based on various things you've said
Sounds like a great basis for making an unconditional statement of fact, that he 'is a Jew'. Are your other inferences and beliefs equally solid?
Hunter Wallace is "simply 'too good'" for white nationalism.
RobS,
More later, but people (including you) said you were Pakistani, and I had yet to see you say otherwise, so there was nothing unreasonable or inimical in my assuming that you were.
I said it once three years ago in an obscure post on an obscure blog which I highly doubt you ever read. I'd never have said it if I realized it was going to be this difficult to live it down. (As I said, I was very green. Little did I know there as many mudslingers among the Honorable Aryans as anywhere else.)
I doubt you know all about my views. If you want to object to my views, adduce something I've espoused instead of something you apparently acknowledge that I haven't said. Why did you quote my assertion that Sarrazin's statements are extremely distant from Nazism, thus implying it was 'loser horseshit'? If that is your view, feel free to lay it on out, rather than (or prior to) veering into other things.
Trust me (hehe). I can tell when a racial point is loser horseshit. The general vibe you give off is you've been imbibing the loser horseshit. I could be wrong but that's how I call it.
With respect to Sarrazin, use your brain: what on earth would you expect me to make of his comment? That it's worlds away from "nazism" goes without saying. You don't need me to tell you that. As for why I'm here and not on the liberal blogs defending him, that's because there are by now...well, I won't say legions, but a sizable number of "race-realists" out there, many of them far more articulate than I, doing just that.
I do know about the Austro-Hungarian and Nazi atrocities in Serbia and I wonder whether you might have those on your mind or your heart in some degree.
More so WWII in general. My father did lose two uncles in summary executions and I was taught a lot about the wartime experience by my parents (though not a thing about the racial aspects, fwiw). I was horrified by war from the youngest. A substitute teacher in the 1st grade (might have been 3rd; same schoolroom) taught us about ships called "destroyers" and described their function. I was distraught -- ships designed to kill people? Our 3rd grade teacher (name Green; Jew? heh) covered the events of wwii in class one day and I was hooked/haunted. The war's logic (as I constructed it) played on my mind for years afterwards. Here you not only had this enormous war, which is bad enough in itself, but hey it happens, that's life, but all of it resting on this disgusting racial premise -- one I was, it felt, constantly reminded of: "Ya fuckin' dago!" etc and which remained an everpresent threat to reemerge. So then you get on internet and find out that yes it is a threat, and not only that, horror of horrors it seems the bastards have a point. Not a complete point, mind you. But enough of a point to warrant some serious thinking.
Oh yes, we Nordicists are so militant when we observe the truth,
What "truth" do you imagine I'm challenging?
And I didn't accuse you of being militant, dickhead; if anything, I urged it. The point I'm making is all your "militancy" (you and whose army, you miserable fool?) will be for naught without a widespread public interpretative framework of any actions you undertake.
Look at "The Order." Those were brave actions; foolhardy, but brave. Even heroic. But who knows of them? And of those who do know, 99% consider them vile acts, not honorable.
yet Silver goes on to express his urge to "mow the worthless pieces of shit down."
Race and culture, while somewhat related, are two different things. Taking a hard line against animalistic buffoons whose stated life purpose is to bring down the very order that makes tolerance possible is an entirely different matter to taking a hard line against someone solely for his race -- like you taking a hard line against lil ole me, for instance. :)
Just more mendacity from the anti-White Paki turned Serbian-Greek pro-White knight of virtue. He's definitely one of the most insane people you will come across on these blogs.
Dickhead, that you would compare a kneejerk emotional reaction -- one which 99% of people would understand -- to a thoughtfully considered and painstakingly constructed comprehensive worldview only demonstrates what a thoroughgoing dickhead you are. Now go strum that geetar.
Rob,
Sounds like a great basis for making an unconditional statement of fact, that he 'is a Jew'. Are your other inferences and beliefs equally solid?
You got me. Thing is I made a couple of posts critical of Jewish views which clearly implicate him as a Jew on his blog to which nothing in his reply corrected my implication. (Though to be honest I can't recall what those replies were, or if I even ever read them.) Rush to judgment in any case.
I do know about the Austro-Hungarian and Nazi atrocities in Serbia and I wonder whether you might have those on your mind or your heart in some degree.
Dude, I grew up absolutely haunted by WWII and the possibility of the spirit animating its actors reemerging. Heck, I even freaked out when our 1st grade teacher described the ship class "Destroyer" to us -- what, these things are designed to kill people? I went home distraught. That was before I knew a thing about WWII.
As for the "loser horseshit." Look, I can just tell it's what you've been imbibing. It doesn't matter how "right" you are. The antiracist view isn't totally wrong, and the sliver of truth it contains is sufficient to perpetuate antiracist politics because so many people want to believe it. Ultimately, one wouldn't be too wrong to conclude "all is persuasion; there is no other truth."
teeg,
Sure, they disgust me (for their illiberalism and disrespect for their host country) and I think if they don't like our ways they should get the hell out and back to the shithole they crawled out of. I don't have fantasies of extermination though, just separation.
I don't harbor "fantasies." I was just describing (in what I thought was luridly appropriate detail) the level of annoyance their primitive hostility generates. Of course, meekly requesting they piss off is futile, which really drives home the point conservatives make that modern liberalism is "suicidal" -- there's just no one it can say no to.
I recall the moment awareness of this perplexing reality first dawned on me some fifteen years ago (though being 19 I was easily able to put it out of mind). I saw this Salafi board the train bedecked in islamorags from head to toe, carrying some shepherd's staff (no shit), with his wife and ten (count 'em, ten) little turdlings in tow. If it wasn't for his wife sporting the traditional islamic ninja suit you could be forgiven for their thinking they were part of some nativity play. They really were quite the sight.
Anyway, I said to myself Jesus Christ, WTF? Then I immediately stopped myself: nope, you just have to tolerate it, I said to myself; you just have to; that's the core principle our society is built on.
(cont'd)
Now, fast forward fifteen years and a more introspective and self-honest me will tell you that I stopped myself the way I did not because I thought for one moment any actual good came out of tolerating (ie enduring) the presence of those shitheads, that there was anything tolerant-worthy about them, that is, if one tolerated their ghastly aspect one might uncover a gem hidden beneath. No, I didn't think that for a second.
What I did think for a fleeting moment but long enough to recognize it is that if I don't at least make a show of tolerating these people, the *three guesses who* will be able to not tolerate me. And that was it. My brain wasn't willing to think any further than that, for genuine fear of what it might find.
The point then is this: if you're unwilling to formulate (and enforce!) even the most timid of exclusion-principles -- and if you can't attack Islam, then there's nothing you can attack, for nothing else is remotely as disagreeable -- then we really are all fucked and it's just a matter of time. All of us are fucked. You, me, the jews, "the nazis", the whole lot of us.
But then I ask myself this: if you're going to the trouble of thinking all that, then why not just take one more step and go the whole hog: race? It might be psychologically easier to attack Islam, but the logistic difficulty of packing off muslims doesn't differ much from the logistical difficulty of packing off races, so why not take that extra psychological step?
Rob,
Re "loser horseshit." The point is to encourage average folks to talk about race politically. Not just to sound off about "niggers" or "illegals" or whatever. Plenty of people already do that yet wouldn't dream of being pursuing pro-white politics. For reasons well-understood it's considered "too extreme," and that impression is only reinforced by the kind of absolutist rhetoric I deride as "loser horseshit." Good luck getting people to agree with you in in five seconds flat that, why, yes, you know, every single non-white in America is a vile, vile non-white piece of scum that cannot be gotten rid of soon enough. Most people carry way too much pro-Other baggage -- even if they don't have much to do with other kinds in their day-to-day lives -- for it to be swept away by soundbite absolutism.
The trick is to concede as much ground as necessary but secure agreement that despite everything positive that could be said about racial others, about multiracial society etc we (ie you; or, eventually, as I see it, anyone with an interest in race) have to pursue our racial interests. That's the essential point. The sine qua non of racialism. In my opinion "loser horseshit" fails to achieve it. Badly.
Paki Silver,
Don't you have a blog, why must you post page after page of your "loser horseshit" ramblings here? Such an attention-seeking troll. Get a life, dude. Seriously, it will be better for you and everyone else.
My friends, America is not a white country. We have the same right as all Americans here. And while Europe may be different, as the population changes that will become an Islamic continent.
Please open up your hearts and understand that as the prophet taught, all the races of man are equal before God. Can anyone deny that it is through his providence that our numbers are increasing?
Silver I have significant overlap with you on the issues, but you're fantasizing that I intemperately hate non-whites or non-Nords - most-likely because I made some hardly-extreme remarks about S Euros and why I don't want Nordish to fuse with them. I certainly like Southerners and hope they one day eclipse even classical Hellas.
By and large I agree with you that on balance niggerological or kikeological rhetoric doesn't advance White preservation.
Said,
I have a Koran with your name written on it. It's going on the bonfire tomorrow.
I'll make one for Silver too.
Said Al-Jabari said... September 10, 2010 10:34 PM
My friends, America is not a white country. We have the same right as all Americans here. And while Europe may be different, as the population changes that will become an Islamic continent.
Please open up your hearts and understand that as the prophet taught, all the races of man are equal before God. Can anyone deny that it is through his providence that our numbers are increasing?
I'm sure this is a real Muslim and not a Jewish troll.
TGGP said...
Silver, I suppose I've picked up some of the Jewish style of humor.
You have a sense of humor?
I have a Koran with your name written on it. It's going on the bonfire tomorrow.
Very brave of you. Are you calling the news stations? I'm guessing not, and you have about as much courage as the pastor in Florida, who thankfully has come to his senses.
Allah has filled us with his spirit, and we are braver than you because our God is the true one. That is why we don't fear death, while Westerners have no prinicples and are unwilling to die for their beliefs.
In the end, you will be converted to Islam and know the peace and joy that me and my brothers on a daily basis. And you will thank the Arabic people and their prophet for completing your lives.
Rob,
The game-changing realization is this: status quo means consigning yourselves to a slow extinction. That forces you to consider just how likable are these people who commit you to a course of racial transmogrification? In my opinion, it all hinges on people deciding that as much as they might like certain racial others, the experience of them isn't so divine it's worth submitting to extinction over.
The main problem (for me) I see here is far too many people who by rights shouldn't have been too concerned about race (per se) running around madly trying to "prove" their whiteness, as though it had always been central to their identity, when that's not remotely the case. To some extent it's understandable and forgivable, but they should be encouraged to see race in its proper context, not lied to or attacked; hence the need for refining racial rhetoric.
Al-Tabs, America mightn't technically be a "white country" any longer. But it's the furthest thing from an islamic one, as I pray you'll discover before long.
Btw, I heard korans burn better if you piss on them first.
Silver, I don't recall any particular comments of that sort, but on the other hand I don't recall you commenting that much at all. And I get what you mean by kneejerk thought.
Honestly, I'm not particularly worried about Islam as an American. If I were a European maybe, but their numbers aren't that great and they don't seem to have formed the same sort of ghettos with a large rejectionist subculture (those "freedom go to hell" signs were in England, I believe). Hispanics will swamp them. The southern border is the main thing to focus on.
I don't have kids or feel a strong connection to anything larger than myself. I don't give much thought to what happens after I die. But I think I've got a long life ahead of me and I'd prefer that the country not go to shit. If I'm lucky maybe seasteads will provide a new America for Americans.
Silver the sanctimonious mendacious bastard:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_lq_and_the_jq/P100/#c62535
"I, as most other serbs, most other greeks, most other s. italians tend not to have very much to do with [germanics]—save for picking up their relatively easy women."
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/are_jews_white_revised/#c48662
"Now, I myself? In the interests of full disclosure, no, I doubt I would ever find myself betrothed to a Negro or an Asian. I’ve had short term relationships with both, including with one rather stunning South African "colored". I was never particularly interested in Nordic girls. I never raved about or craved "blonds". But now, I think in the interests of fighting WN, I’m simply going to have to procreate with a Nordic blond. Pardon the immodesty, but I’m a rather attractive male specimen, so the one I ultimately select will be a hot little number—the kind I’m sure will make WNs puke at seeing such a beauty with "that wog"."
Silver is right about that mentally deranged, idiotic, effeminate, sycophantic mischling Scrooby Jew, but his pompous hypocrisy and anti-Nordish rants particularly against our women are disgusting.
You can see how weak and pathetic a lot of these Mediterranean males are as they attack our women. They have no honor in their souls.
The Jew Mencius Moldbug continues his propaganda campaign of absolving Jews and blaming Anglo-America. This is TJB (typical Jewish behavior) of course.
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/09/bacevich-part-i.html?page=1
"It's simply a fact that urbanized Eastern European Jews around the world were widely tuned into this radio channel, and were famous for participation in radical republican movements. Many of my own ancestors fit this profile. Thus it was not at all difficult for a Hitler (or his many Teutonic predecessors in anti-Semitism, eg, Karl Lueger) to associate Judaism with Bolshevism - or to interpret the aggressive diplomacy of Britain and America with subversive control by fantastic and secretive Jewish interests."
"Thus the indubitable decline of Central Europe from pre-1914 conditions (eg, as described in the introduction Stefan Zweig's World of Yesterday) could be plausibly and unambiguously blamed on the Jews as a nation. While this didn't happen to be an accurate assessment of historical causality, it was close enough to reality to convince all but the most sophisticated citizens of the world, and even many of those. WW2 was an ideological war, and all the ideas in the conflict are traceable, directly or through reaction, to the export of Anglo-American democracy."
Re previous posts.
I can understand you'd be upset or angered. But how is it that it doesn't register in your brain that those rants were nothing more than the reflexive reactions of an organism feeling itself under attack? It's incredible, absolutely incredible, that anyone could ignore that factor.
Now, as it happens, I don't regret having said those things. In fact, I'm glad I said them. Because it demonstrates that the transition that is possible if the issues are framed the right way.
You can keep hammering away in the tradition of the idiot William Lucifer Pierce school, whose infiltration and manipulation are by now second nature to your opponents, and then sit there with your mouths gaping in astonishment when people continue to write you off as complete kooks, or you can learn to hold your piece and connect with the reality people experience.
That reality is that the vast majority don't feel anything like the revulsion you do. Nothing even close to it. Nor is that revulsion something that arises necessarily as a consequence of "racialization." It's a matter of perception more than anything else, just like whether someone finds a work of art beautiful or not is a matter of perception. And perception is multi-faceted, so it's not at all surprising that some people are attracted to (even widely divergent) racial others. I mention this because it seems to me that revulsion is the dividing line between the most intense, nationalistic racialists and the more moderate variety. You guys want, and ludicrously expect, racial identification at the click of the fingers. Well, you've never gotten that and you're not going to get it.
On sanctimonious mendacious bastard Silver:
"You sanctimonious mendacious bastard. This whole thread has been about you dripping venom on every Nordicist's desire to preserve their own people. You've couched every effort in that vein as hateful, simply because it excludes you. Of course it's not about hate, it's about survival of traits that have taken thousands of years to develop. However, you, like so many of your "ilk" can't recognise that because you could care less about anybody but yourself. You don't even care about your own people. Serbia's only a place of refuge if your maudlin "poor me" sentimentalities are ineffective. God help those Aussie Anglos that hang with you. You're nothing but an emotional Vampire sucking out their life force, their natural desire to survive as a unique entity."
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/oddos_bodkin_or_not_to_mince_words/#c50972
Mendacious SOB can't stop lying
Now: "I don't regret having said those things. In fact, I'm glad I said them."
A couple of weeks ago: "I probably overdid it (to my credibility’s fatal detriment, which cheap-shot artists like the above never fail to remind me)"
But how is it that it doesn't register in your brain that those rants were nothing more than the reflexive reactions of an organism feeling itself under attack? It's incredible, absolutely incredible, that anyone could ignore that factor.
About the only thing Paki Silver has said that makes sense. It is remarkable how moronic and dense some/many Nords can be regarding this point. For example "uber Nord Anonymous" claims:
You can see how weak and pathetic a lot of these Mediterranean males are as they attack our women. They have no honor in their souls.
A lot? What 2, 3, 4? Maybe it is the pathetic excuses that pass for men that "a lot of Nords" are that cause your women to flock to more masculine men? Yes, I think that is it.
> I don't have kids or feel a strong connection to anything larger than myself
That's pathetic. But maybe you were born that way. Especially since you show little interest in art (which is pretty related to these sort of things), and are much too keen to be made this way by the usual propaganda.
But since you basically know everything, no doubt you can see how important these things are to the large majority of people.
Has it ever occurred to you that future scientists may revivify you? Not if the world goes to heck, even if well after your death. Of course I realize that fundamental physics may already be in a cul-de-sac basically, but you never know.
Maybe it is the pathetic excuses that pass for men that "a lot of Nords" are that cause your women to flock to more masculine men? Yes, I think that is it.
The raving maniac shows up again. It is a typical reflection of your self-delusion that you would try to "refute" anonymous's point by proving him right. You're like a negro who responds to someone saying negroes are more violent than whites by threatening to beat the "racist" up.
The raving maniac shows up again.
Wrong Clouseau, Columbo, Miggles or whatever other bumbling investigator you may consider yourself. But then, typical of Nords with the focus on the messenger while ignoring the message.
It is a typical reflection of your self-delusion that you would try to "refute" anonymous's point by proving him right.
It was sarcasm you fucking tard! lmao It was meant to show the utter stupidity of the comment. Thank goodness we have you geniuses to save the world!
However, it is astonishing, as if right on cue, that your lack of humor when under perceived attack brings home Paki Silver's point quite clearly.
Cyd, you're not fooling anyone.
Cyd the queer Filipino midget is trolling again.
These swarthy savages need to get a life and leave Nords alone.
LOL
Let me repeat for the Miggles/tards...
But then, typical of Nords with the focus on the messenger while ignoring the message.
What pathetic excuses for "men" you turds/tards are. I certainly am not a Filipino and have no idea what n/a was referring to, though I am 100% confident he was not referring to me, you fucking tards.
Cyd's arrogance, conceitedness, and presumptuousness are extremely out of place given his severe cognitive shortcomings. However, why would anyone expect any different from someone as self-deluded and lacking in self-awareness as Cyd?
We've seen how he responds to anything you say: with a barrage of nonsensical abusive vulgarity.
Attempting to engage in rational discussion with Cyd is an exercise in futility. The only thing you can do with someone of his ilk is ignore and quarantine him.
Oh goody, the old "let's ignore him so he'll go away" act! LOL
Let me repeat:
But then, typical of Nords with the focus on the messenger while ignoring the message.
What is Cyd's "message"?
"What a bunch of sackless cunts"
"sackless cunt Anonymous"
"Nord warriors"
"You'd best get back to what you are good at and that would be licking Hunter's ass"
"sackless cunts"
"Fanboy, Cock-Gobbler Supreme"
"I wonder what kind of ugly mug, along with a concomitant existence, this pathetic troll must have"
"It is remarkable how moronic and dense some/many Nords can be"
"uber Nord Anonymous"
"you fucking tard"
"Let me repeat for the Miggles/tards"
"What pathetic excuses for "men" you turds/tards are"
"you fucking tards"
Cyd has no substantive or coherent "message." If you try in vain to engage in substantive debate with him, he drags the level of discourse down into the gutter. When you realize he is an incorrigible mouth breather, he petulantly throws a tantrum and cries that you're ignoring his (nonexistent) "message."
Miggles, have you proven you are even European yet? Last I remember, the moment I accused of such you went on a deletion mission of all your comments throughout OD. Why was that, Miggles?
As is typical of non-Europeans, deception, smokescreens, and strawmen are the norm. Those are not my "messages", Moshe. Those are "color" to the commentary. I would think a Nord could identify the difference. Why can't you, Miggles?
Lothrop Stoddard describes the mentality of the Under Man in The Revolt Against Civilization:
"The Under-Man is unconvertible. He will not bow to the new truth, because he knows that the new truth is not for him. Why should he work for a higher civilization, when even the present civilization is beyond his powers? What the Under-Man wants is, not progress, but regress — regress to more primitive conditions in which he would be at home. In fact, the more he grasps the significance of the new eugenic truth, the uglier grows his mood. So long as all men believed all men potentially equal, the Under-Man could delude himself into thinking that changed circumstances might raise him to the top. Now that nature herself proclaims him irremediably inferior, his hatred of superiority knows no bounds.
"This hatred he has always instinctively felt. Envy and resentment of superiority have ever been the badges of base minds. Yet never have these badges been so fiercely flaunted, so defiantly worn, as to-day. This explains the seeming paradox that, just when the character of superiority becomes supremely manifest, the cry for levelling "equality" rises supremely shrill. The Under-Man revolts against progress! Nature herself having decreed him uncivilizable, the Under-Man declares war on civilization."
Silver's and Cyd's messages of hate are good and should be encouraged.
Good description of MGLS, Lothrop.
He’s delusional that a change of circumstances could put weaklings, retards, and cowards like him and the other non-Europeans pretending to be "Nordics" on top.
But it’ll never happen.
Silver's and Cyd's messages of hate are good and should be encouraged.
I prefer to not be associated with Silver as I am 100% European and Silver is not. I am also confident Miggles is not either.
Secondly, WTF is with the "messages of hate"? LOL Has this blog become a PC haven now? There was this round and round discussion on OD forum about which group (SE or NE) had more of the Afrocentric and Multiculturalist mentality. This "hate" crapola does not do the Nordic stance many favors. What's next? References to Haterade?
A good essay on game at Majority Rights. PF utterly dismantles the Roissyites.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/game_is_beta/
A good essay on game at Majority Rights. PF utterly dismantles the Roissyites.
There was this round and round discussion on OD forum about which group (SE or NE) had more of the Afrocentric and Multiculturalist mentality.
We already know the answer to that question, SEs have more African and West Asian genetic and cultural input. A better question is which group is more preyed upon and indoctrinated by Mediterranean/Jewish propaganda, that's the real difference.
This Cyd creature is a pathological liar and insane troll.
As far as where you fit in the racial mentality spectrum you'd be between nigger and Jew.
I personally think that Game is beta, here’s why:
1. Loss of life
It is, it's just another mental exercise for nerds to engage in.
The fact is you either have it or you don't. Either you're a handsome guy with charisma who naturally attracts people including women or you're an ugly nerd who needs a lot of help to try and overcome the poor hand you were dealt. There isn't a lot of room to maneuver there. You can slightly increase your chances, just like anything else, such as working out. But like working out, you don't need some expensive program or personal trainer, you just need to DO IT. Getting women is the same thing, just get out there and do it. Game seems successful because it encourages asocial nerds to get out there and interact with women. That is what is increasing their chances.
I suggest Miggles, though this last comment sounds more like Mark the esteemed cock gobbler from OD, compose himself. His "Nordic" demeanor certainly isn't up to snuff. He is an embarrassment to not only Nords, but Europeans as a whole.
I also demand evidence of my "pathological lying" and "insanity", otherwise a public apology would be in order. That is from anyone with a shred of dignity.
Well, the problem with nerds tends to be their lack of social skills. If they would take showers, shave, wear deodorant, and not become obese, most of them would at least be "average" in appearance. One doesn't need to be a hulk to bed reasonably attractive women.
Most nerds that I know are generally normal looking people with some kind of psychological quirk(s). Commonly, this manifests itself as various types and severity of autism spectrum disorders.
Generally, the greater severity of autism a person has, the more trouble he has with normal social interaction. They have a difficult time understanding the emotions of the people they are interacting with and cannot confidently command a typical social situation. Women see their lack of confidence along with their social ineptitude as a pathology and reject them.
From the nerd POV, Game/PUA is a way to model social interactions as almost like a "program". A nerd can follow a flow chart or graph (he can memorize the steps from a book) but he most certainly cannot charm a woman using his own wits. Although PUA would never work in a traditional culture, in the highly feminized and judaized culture of swingers and one night stands, there are enough women out there with no aspirations and no standards to actually fall for someone using those methods.
I suspect that none of these people would survive an actual marriage, let alone be interested in one. The defining aspect of Game is quantity, not quality.
The record speaks for itself.
I also demand evidence of my "pathological lying" and "insanity"
Every single thing that comes out of that deranged mind of yours.
Do everyone a favor and stop posting, or better yet kill yourself. The world is better off without you I guarantee it.
I don't claim to know everything, but I do recognize that I am atypically solipsistic. Nor am I inclined to argue that the preferences of others are somehow "wrong" and should be changed.
I used to read Vox Day but fell out of the habit lately. A commenter at Mangan's linked to this.
Mendacious SOB can't stop lying
Now: "I don't regret having said those things. In fact, I'm glad I said them."
A couple of weeks ago: "I probably overdid it (to my credibility’s fatal detriment, which cheap-shot artists like the above never fail to remind me)"
There is no contradiction there.
Clearly what was meant was that in retrospect I am "glad" I said those things. That is, despite the toll on my credibility (only in the eyes of totalitarian racialist types like your good self, mind you) there's a silver (hah!) lining to the cloud of controversy they generated.
Silver's and Cyd's messages of hate are good and should be encouraged.
You clumsily stumble across an important point here. The airing of the issues certainly helps your cause; it's the "dynamic silence" that is most harmful. If you really want to turn the ship around you'll engage those who engage you, not hound them off with imbecilic charges of "sanctimonious mendacity" (as though it were someone's "fault" he had an opinion about the circumstances of his birth) -- unless you're content preaching to the choir.
As for Cyd, well, there's a prima facie case for forced sterilization if I ever saw it. Lawl.
Lothrop,
"The Under-Man is unconvertible. He will not bow to the new truth, because he knows that the new truth is not for him.
If Stoddard was making a racial case here, he inadvertently reinforces my doubts about any natural intense racial identification -- such as that typically demanded by hard racialists and nationalists -- since he seems to rest that case on "the new truth." ("Vy itz zee science!") I suspect he was merely talking about differences between individuals (not races) and the poster is quoting him out of context.
What the Under-Man wants is, not progress, but regress — regress to more primitive conditions in which he would be at home.
Actually, what "the under-man" wants is, like most people, just to be left the fuck alone to pursue his happiness.
In fact, the more he grasps the significance of the new eugenic truth, the uglier grows his mood.
True, but that's only because the usual purveyors of that truth insist they possess the only correct reading of it.
Lothrop,
"This hatred he has always instinctively felt. Envy and resentment of superiority have ever been the badges of base minds.
Though I'm a fierce opponent of standard hard left social views, this is a clear cut case of "blaming the victim."
If Lothrop were alive today I would gladly spit in his face to drive home to him the point that it was his supreme selfishness, his supreme intolerance, his supreme disgust with the slightest manifestation of what the neurons in his brain were configured to interpret as "inferiority" that is responsible for the steady diminishment of the very comity and civility whose lack today he would decry. There is a much simpler social bargain that had he struck it his world would be much different: "You pretend the differences between us are unimportant, and I'll pretend you haven't noticed them."
But that wasn't enough for the Lothrops. They chose to war on the powerless -- and lost.
Stoddard again:
"One point which should hasten the conversion of public opinion to the eugenic programme is its profound humaneness. Eugenics is stern toward bad stocks, but toward the individual it is always kind. When eugenics says "the degenerate must be eliminated," it refers, not to existing degenerates, but to their potential offspring. Those potential children, if eugenics has its way, will never be. This supreme object once accomplished, however, there is every reason why the defective individual should be treated with all possible consideration. In fact, in a society animated by eugenic principles, degenerates, and inferiors generally, would be treated far better than they are to-day; because such a society would not have to fear that more charity would spell more inferiors. It would also be more inclined to a kindly attitude because it would realize that defects are due to heredity and that bad germ-plasm can be neither punished nor reformed."
Silver..."a solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg that looked like he was waiting for a vacancy in the Trinity" (Mark Twain). Lawl
I really doubt that being sweeter would have helped Stoddard's work. Where's the substantial argument that this would have helped, as opposed to mere assertion. Stoddard wasn't trying to hammer out a deal with other races and un-brainwash his own deeply propagandified race. That was a different time. He was trying to intensify feelings that his audience already had.
> Actually, what "the under-man" wants is, like most people, just to be left the fuck alone to pursue his happiness.
I'm not too sure about that. Are you familiar with Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment. I tend to agree with it. Life is about status, especially for men. We are just about as willing to tear others down as we are to lift ourselves up. In terms of rank order, both accomplish the same effect.
Actually, what "the under-man" wants is, like most people, just to be left the fuck alone to pursue his happiness.
The racial underman is often trying to move up the racial totem pole. For example, the subcon who whitens his skin, and thinks he can pass as a Southern Euro.
Re "Stoddard again:"
My sentiments exactly -- eugenics is quite the benign science.
So it really makes me wonder why the Lothrops had to wail so much if what they were really interested in was society making a small accommodation with genetic reality. On and on and on they wailed. Civilization was ending; the sky was falling; the was nigh; and it was all the fault of that wretched, ghastly Under-Man.
To that I say, well, just as the punishment must fit the crime, so should the rhetoric fit the resolution.
You don't call your neighbor every name under the sun and threaten his life and livelihood if all you wish him to do is turn down the stereo, which he may well have done with a smile had you simply asked nicely.
No, something much more was going on with the Lothrops. Come on, can anyone seriously imagine a Lothrop dining with an Under-Man or greeting him with a good morning or even so much as congratulating him on that prudent decision of his to limit his procreation? I think the answer is clear: No one could honestly imagine a Lothrop washing the unwashed's feet.
If the point of eugenics is to lift all boats and not merely to raise the tide then attention has to be first and foremost placed on those whose who would undertake the eugenic course, not merely those who'd benefit (have their anxieties lightened) from it. In plain language, fuck what eugenics can do for Lothrop; I want to know what it can do for the Under-Man.
RobS,
Stoddard wasn't trying to hammer out a deal with other races and un-brainwash his own deeply propagandified race. That was a different time. He was trying to intensify feelings that his audience already had.
That's what I mean. Racial feelings are always "there" but they're seldom as intense as racial ideologues demand they be. It worked in Germany but backfired in America and the wider anglosphere. I don't doubt that a large part of the reason was no one could bring himself to imagine the dispossession that now threatens. But a typically overlooked factor is people's psychological resistance to being bullied into a racial opinion on racial others. I would argue that many of these latter types would have been content to maintain the status quo. It was only when the ideologues pretended to speak for them that they ever began to think deeply about race, with many of them deciding that, "No, I disagree. I refuse to believe that about other humans," etc.
I'm not too sure about that. Are you familiar with Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment. I tend to agree with it. Life is about status, especially for men.
There is that, too, of course. But I contend that a great deal of it is...brace yourself...socially constructed.
Gotta rush. In short, the superiorite, by declaring facts-of-reality x, y and z of singular earthly importance, causes the reaction against himself.
"superiorite"
What's wrong with 'supremacist'?
What's wrong with 'supremacist'?
Its imprecision.
Perhaps the individual in question doesn't consider himself (or his group, however defined) supreme, merely superior to some other. I think the context makes it clear that I had in mind an individual obsessed with distinguishing between superior and inferior at all times, in all settings. Superiorite just plain fits the bill.
Fair enough?
'Course, I was being cute and superiorite isn't really a word and all that, but in my world persiflage and precision trump pomp and punctilio. Para siemp...Always. (Haven't figured that out yet?)
(Lastly, out of habit, I prefer to avoid hearing tiresome, insincere rebuttals along the lines of, "Oh no, we're not 'supremacists.' We don't want to rule over anybody!" A sincere rebuttal would indicate that you are supremacists, but that supremacy doesn't denote a desire to rule over others.)
The racial underman is often trying to move up the racial totem pole.
Yes, although it pays to distinguish between the two or three (by my count) different ways of and motives for doing this.
The first is an attempt to have one's link to the group he considers himself properly associated with recognized by that group. Ties invoked are typically marriage, offspring, culture and history. This doesn't necessarily involve a demand for racial recognition, nor does the absence of that demand necessarily negate the concept of a totem pole.
The other gambit is a more straightforward racial play. Here we find: side-by-side comparisons of phenotypes; the internet phenomenon known as "white-washing" -- posting cherry-picked pics of one's ethnicity in an effort to demonstrate its "whiteness"; desperate resort to genetics studies, occasionally accompanied by an individual's test results ("I passed! I'm fully human!" -- sorry, couldn't resist). The foregoing established, the racial climber often finishes the move by postulating that equality -- complete equality -- begins at the point of his inclusion.
For example, the subcon who whitens his skin, and thinks he can pass as a Southern Euro.
Finally, we have the variant of the direct racial gambit in which the individual has secured a place on the lifeboat and works feverishly to prevent anyone else climbing aboard.
(So which one describes you, Silver? Answer: None of the above. You think you're better than me, or you wanna be better than me? Fine, you're better than me.)
> There is that, too, of course. But I contend that a great deal of it is...brace yourself...socially constructed.
I have no doubt of that. I'm very vaguely aware of, say, the sweeping secularizing-Westernizing trend in Islamia that wound up being reversed by the course of events, and by ideals largely imported from European romantic nationalism. Not that I necessarily think they should become fully Western-secular Kemalists - I don't... as long as they don't blow me up, I would think that the good life
for them would probably involve a large helping of traditionalism, which is also what I think Europeans need. No doubt this nationalism is one (limited) cause of our foolish wars in the Near East not going as smoothly as such things went in the days of little Moldbug's heros, and I am glad to scorn Moldbug's neocon neo-colonialism. (Africa might be one place that needs it, but the rest of the world don't.)
I also realize that Europe was once much less nationalistic, though I might question whether the hypo-nationalism of the 1600s or 1100s is really quite as hypo-nationalist as we are usually told it was.
Here's the limitation on this that I would emphasize: you can't just steer anywhere. As I'm sure you agree, you can't (at least not in the vast majority of circumstances) create and maintain a culture of 4-person marriages (2 males, 2 females), which some hippies invented and tried to proselytize as a means of suppressing individual ego. I (perhaps in contrast to you) would go much further and say that the scope of options for socially constructing things is extremely limited. There aren't so many different ways to be hypo-nationalist, hence we nationalism arising repeatedly - we see it in the Hebes vs the Roman Empire (twice), Greeks warding off the Persian Empire, the resilience of the Han culture-ethnonation against Manchu and Mongol dominion, the genocides committed by ancient peoples including the Hebrews, the ethocentrism of the Germanic tribes invading cosmopolitan Rome. The hatred of neighboring peoples - more than just villages hating them each by each, I think - against the plundering Aztecs.
Even when there was no Deutschland or Italia, the longtime lack of which is always adduced in support of hypo-nationalism, there was Prussian identity and nationalism, and there were proud Italian city-states with patriotism and an extremely serious capacity for self-defense.
Similarly, the ressentiment of the weak/dominated can only be avoided in relatively few configurations of ideals, not all of which are available to all peoples at all times. Nationalism, not in itself (as a Platonic form) implying ressentiment, almost always produces it when present in dominated peoples - in such peoples it can very powerfully displace other configurations of thought that suppress ressentiment. Which could be good or bad. But of course there are also other paths to ressentiment.
Hence, nationalism and ressentiment wax and wane, partly in accord with social constuction, but whenever they wane they wax again. When you move away from one of these, you move within certain limited channels, on the surface of a not-so-huge sphere. And if you keep moving, in the same direction or various others (which 'you', a people or civilization always do in the long run), pretty soon you are very likely move back toward what you had departed from. Hence these forces are usually at work somewhere or other on the world scene.
The epitome of ressentiment comes from Obama's book, as excerpted by Steve lately:
And so he straddles two worlds, uncertain in each, always off balance, playing whichever game staves off the bottomless poverty, careful to let his anger vent itself only on those in the same condition. A voice says to him yes, changes have come, the old ways lie broken, and you must find a way as fast as you can to feed your belly and stop the white man from laughing at you.
A voice says no, you will sooner burn the earth to the ground.
No doubt there is some truth to anti-colonialism, and more than a grain of it at that, but Obama is exaggerating it way out into lala land, and simultaneously into a realm of total impracticality: "something in him still says that the white man’s ways are not his ways, that the objects he may use every day are not of his making." Right, the way forward is to ban foreign technologies in Africa - that would make it as harmonious as the Garden of Eden. Or, don't ban them, but just resent them poisonously every day of your life.
Read the whole passage at Steve's, it's fascinating. When a person expresses pan-destructive urges of this sort, they are deep in the woods of ressentiment. Obviously I don't have a perfect solution for this, I'm just saying that it is a prominent part of the human mind and human life.
Italians want more affirmative action at CUNY
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/nyregion/15italians.html?_r=1&hp
> It was only when the ideologues pretended to speak for them that they ever began to think deeply about race, with many of them deciding that, "No, I disagree. I refuse to believe that about other humans," etc.
Sure, you can assert that. But what's the actual proof that that happened to, say, Old-Stock Americans and their like, or to the Greek mind? Maybe that kind of thing contributed to Franz Boas' conversion away from inequalitarianism. But I'm not sure he was part of Stoddard's target audience, and I wonder if his conversion didn't have more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues.
My guess would be that Jewish influence including Boas', plus some endogenous influence from dumb Gentile intellectuals, plus endogenous disgust for Hitler and the war, had far more to do with the general conversion against racialism, than disgust for Stoddard. I admit I've never read Stoddard, but let me pose a rhetorical question: was Stoddard more extreme and more broadly-known than Hitler?
It's not much evidence, but I've seen an American propaganda cartoon from the war, mocking the notion that some people are better than others. Obviously they didn't pause to say 'oh yeah, but we should still preserve our own race in our own lands', since war propaganda isn't the most subtle or refined thing you can find. While White racialism or preservationism sure as hell didn't die in the war, I think it was seriously injured, fatefully injured.
I think you are projecting today onto the past. Large numbers of American Whites in Stoddard's time were totally comfortable with the idea of their being superior to Ameroids, mestizos, Arabs, even Northeast Asians. They also thought they were a good deal more congenial than Yidn, as manifest in some hotels and clubs barring them until, I think, postwar. Whatever you may think of these notions, supremacists were not speaking some foreign language to these people.
While Hitler was objectively a monstrous tragedy, still, I greatly doubt he would still haunt the contemporary mind in nearly the same way, were it not that the brothers of his victims are so potent in what has been the West's leading country, really, since 1918, not 1945.
From Italian-Americans article:
"
“Were CUNY not proactively engaging in affirmative action for Italian-Americans, one would expect to see Italian-American representation in CUNY fall at the same rate as that of whites,” Jennifer S. Rubain, university dean for recruitment and diversity, said in a statement. “That has not happened.”
"
Italians want more affirmative action at CUNY
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/nyregion/15italians.html?_r=1&hp
Considering they're the largest ethnic group in NY, in addition to being European, it's going to be hard to convince the anti-White establishment of that one.
Modern discrimination is against them, like it is against all Whites especially the WASP founders.
Trying to play the Jewish-inspired ethnic/minority game and pointing their fingers at "racists" is a waste of time.
Re#12 - Sephardic Jews, not native Portuguese, are the people who ran and profited the most from the African slave trade.
Same in Spain and Latin America. The Iberian Jews were the ones who masterminded the trade in African slaves.
Hunter Wallace's new name is "John Pelham"
Hunter Wallace is truly a piece of shit.
It wasn't bad enough that he took money from White Nationalists and used to go to the Bahamas, where he spent it on Black whores, he also had to go and insult the poor saps who believed his line of bullshit about being a White Nationalist.
Post a Comment