← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 10821 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2003-10-29
2003-10-29 17:18 | User Profile
Some cataclysmic event will happen in the near future that will bestow racial/Jew consciousness on every White woman, man and child in America, and New White America, after a Hollywood-style showdown complete with prancing horses, big explosions and cool car chase scenes, will spring up. All we have to do is sit back and watch it unfold. Pass the popcorn, please.
The government of the United States will come to a grinding halt in 10 years, fill in the rest.
We will form a coalition with environmentalists and lefties and march to final victory.
Jews will overplay their hand, thus tipping it to Gentiles of all stripes, thus paving the way for their deposition from power.
By calling ourselves "European-American" and demanding "European-American Day" from various mayors across the country, we will ensure a future for our people.
2003-10-29 21:25 | User Profile
As America becomes more Brown and Black, Jews will lose power. Browns and Blacks are not afraid to Name The Jew the way wimpy Whites are. They do not suck up to Zhids the way Joe JudeoChristian does.
In fact, Jews are starting to panic about the end of the Black/Jew alliance.
:holiday:
2003-10-29 21:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]#4 is actually correct. Jews ALWAYS overplay their hand.
As America becomes more Brown and Black, Jews will lose power. Browns and Blacks are not afraid to Name The Jew the way wimpy Whites are. They do not suck up to Zhids the way Joe JudeoChristian does.
In fact, Jews are starting to panic about the end of the Black/Jew alliance. [/QUOTE]
This is why I maintain my position that the utimate goal of the Jews is white enslavement as opposed to white extermination. If the white race goes, the jews would be not far behind, for they would've killed off their main life source.
2003-10-29 23:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]#4 is actually correct. Jews ALWAYS overplay their hand.
As America becomes more Brown and Black, Jews will lose power. Browns and Blacks are not afraid to Name The Jew the way wimpy Whites are. They do not suck up to Zhids the way Joe JudeoChristian does.
In fact, Jews are starting to panic about the end of the Black/Jew alliance.
:holiday:[/QUOTE] My thought also. Despite historian accounts, I think it took a tremendous amount of frustration for Hitler to come into power as he did. People just don't start something like that without cause. The jews can say that happened, but jews somehow can't control that the same drive that gets them into control positions with tiny minorities of a population. Look how far over the edge the ADL has gotten. Some of what they define as "hate" is plain silly. When the ADL's done, any organization that is not a strong supporter of Israel will be condemned. They don't know when to leavewell enough alone.
2003-10-30 16:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Look how far over the edge the ADL has gotten. Some of what they define as "hate" is plain silly. When the ADL's done, any organization that is not a strong supporter of Israel will be condemned. They don't know when to leavewell enough alone.[/QUOTE] It's not just the ADL either; in their arrogance they just don't know how to pick their fights any more. The situation with Mel Gibson's film The Passion is a fine illustration. There is simply no way to spin their opposition to it other than plain old Jewish self-interest. Normally they have an angle, separation of church and state for example, but not so with The Passion. It was a crazy, needless fight to pick when they already have to cover for Iraq and Israel.
When mainstream politicos begin making statements such as ââ¬Åthat sh*ty little countyââ¬Â and ââ¬ÅJews rule the worldââ¬Â you know the Chosen have gone a bridge to far.
2003-10-30 19:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]1. Some cataclysmic event will happen in the near future that will bestow racial/Jew consciousness on every White woman, man and child in America, and New White America, after a Hollywood-style showdown complete with prancing horses, big explosions and cool car chase scenes, will spring up. All we have to do is sit back and watch it unfold. Pass the popcorn, please.
I agree, this is completely laughable. Another silly myth is that there can be some German style National Socialist coup which will then be able to make all White people fall in line by the force of their banners and rallies or something.
- The government of the United States will come to a grinding halt in 10 years, fill in the rest.
Grinding halt? No.. I do think it will slowly decay and implode.
- We will form a coalition with environmentalists and lefties and march to final victory.
lol
- Jews will overplay their hand, thus tipping it to Gentiles of all stripes, thus paving the way for their deposition from power.
Why is this not possible?
- By calling ourselves "European-American" and demanding "European-American Day" from various mayors across the country, we will ensure a future for our people.[/QUOTE]
Nah, but it's a small start in a PR battle to at least get "European Americans" to think about their interests a little.
2003-10-30 20:15 | User Profile
I expected that of the items on my myth list, "overplayed hand" would be the least well-received. Note, I don't disagree that they HAVE overplayed their hand, I just think that 1) they will soon start playing a different hand and 2) most Whites won't be the wiser, either pre or post-game. And, Jews will NEVER overplay their hand to such an extent that a propasphere White would see what was happening. That would require Jewish agents with Magen David-covered uniforms knocking down Sally Soccermom's door and announcing, "Hi, we're Jews, and as Jews, we've decided to take over. We shot your dog and raped your daughter. Your husband was taken prisoner at work, and he's now being tortured, solely on account of his being a Gentile. You, we will put to work cooking kosher food for our soldiers. Just to let you know we're serious, we smashed all your Hummel figurines, dipped your family crucifix in the toilet and burned your family Bible." What I'm saying is that absent instruction, Whites won't see what's going on, so "Jews overplaying their hand" must be accompanied by White racial consciousness.
But even this is doubtful. The Nazis had Jews figured out, and made efforts to educate Germans. That was only half a century ago, a little more. Jews have completely turned the tide, and used the actions against them to their ADVANTAGE today. As Churchill said, Germans are either at your feet or at your throat. This appears to by cyclical, historically.
Personally, I ain't crazy about the pattern. Pissed as I get about Jews and their absolute disregard for our welfare as a people, and much as I fantasize about doing violence to particularly offensive ones, I don't think mass murder and torture every half-century or so is so groovy. NOR do I think that White ignorance about Jews, and the resulting displacement of us, is good either. Obviously. What we need to pursue is generation-to-generation sustenance of awareness about Jewish influence, and exclusion of Jews from our lives, politically if not physically.
2003-10-30 21:40 | User Profile
Well, I don't think the "overplay their hand" reaction will occur while things are still basically comfortable. I don't think anything will happen while things are comfortable. Comfort breeds softness and apathy. I do think small reactions will occur. I think people will begin to get less cowed by the "anti-semite" smear. I think people will start getting annoyed at the more overt nonsense and this will force Jews to tone down on the overt obnoxious behavior. But that's it. My hope is that they are too self-centered to realize they need to tone down.
What we need to pursue is generation-to-generation sustenance of awareness about Jewish influence, and exclusion of Jews from our lives, politically if not physically.
I agree, and I believe I have posted this elsewhere. Instead of fantasizing about the great "revolution" and ropes, we'd be better off trying to get our friends, family, and others to slowly just start thinking and then organizing our personal lives to be more self-sufficient (to stop feeding the machine with cash) and healthy. Save up money and buy a plot of land, arm yourself, have a family, get involved in a community. Sitting around dreaming about lamp posts and NS revolutions will accomplish neither jack nor sh*t.
2003-11-01 01:32 | User Profile
Nationalism can be built upon a nebulous construct like the "White race" but not a scientifically proven entity such as the human race.
Jews invented Leftism; Fourier, Mill, Voltaire, de Sade, Engels, Russell, Kropotkin, Hegel, etc. were always just window dressing.
Homosexuality is a degeneracy inflicted by Jews upon the "White race" even in the ancient Greek city states where there was little or no Jewish influence. Homophobia is a noble Aryan attitude even though it was popularized by Jews in the first place. Jews who are gay or bisexual are really just pretending to be so, even if they believe it. It's a trick to distract attention from the fact that they control the homosexual agenda, even in countries where they have no influence.
Pornography is a Jewish conspiracy even retroactively in every civilization that predated the existence of Jews. Modern nations like Japan where pornography is popular yet Jews essentially nonexistent are also in some Jewish grip, perhaps through some odd form of mind control.
Jews created Christianity as a conspiracy against the "White race" even though many Jewish people are more "White" than was Hitler. Somehow the Jews also have a conspiracy to destroy Christianity despite it being their greatest weapon against "White" people. The apparent contradiction in all this is only a clever ploy to distract from ZOG's greater plan.
2003-11-01 17:51 | User Profile
Why did you re-register under a different name?
2003-11-01 19:31 | User Profile
I disagree about Gentiles tiring of being called "anti-semites" and the like. Like "racism", the more it's used the more they get used to and accept it. I think this is part of the reason the Jews think of them as cattle. Growing up inside a fence, they remain within its bounds after the fence has rotted away. Witness the current generation's TV-induced (fence) teeth-gnashing at "anti-semites" (the rest of the world).
2003-11-01 21:01 | User Profile
I disagree about Gentiles tiring of being called "anti-semites" and the like. Like "racism", the more it's used the more they get used to and accept it.
I don't see things going this way at all. The first critiques of the "anti-semite" smear I've ever read weren't from Nationalist sources, but leftist sources getting the anti-semite whip sting due to Palestine issues. I don't see Europeans putting up with that junk much longer either. My in-laws and their friends certainly don't. Maybe the X-tian Zionist boobyheads, but they aren't everybody... and Abe Fox-you-out-of-your-money-man certainly pulled a bad move over the Gibson thing.
2003-11-01 21:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Why did you re-register under a different name?[/QUOTE]
Whuh? What is my old name supposed to have been? My mommy gave me this one, and I don't believe in reincarnation...
2003-11-01 22:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]I don't see things going this way at all. The first critiques of the "anti-semite" smear I've ever read weren't from Nationalist sources, but leftist sources getting the anti-semite whip sting due to Palestine issues. I don't see Europeans putting up with that junk much longer either. My in-laws and their friends certainly don't. Maybe the X-tian Zionist boobyheads, but they aren't everybody... and Abe Fox-you-out-of-your-money-man certainly pulled a bad move over the Gibson thing.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you're right about Europeans. In the US though, the "left" is a small minority that's only made to seem equal to the so-called "right" by the inclusion of "minorities". The "white right" otoh is being juiced up with Euro-hatred again. Not all of course, but the majority. It is after all "patriotic", just as the Jews are holy.
The overabundance of Jews and extreme "liberals" in current anti-war news is there to further convince white men how right the latest Jews' war is. And they lap it up. When their sons stop enlisting in the "war on terrorism" I'll believe the light bulb went on.
2003-11-02 00:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Aviva Shamash]Whuh? What is my old name supposed to have been? My mommy gave me this one, and I don't believe in reincarnation...[/QUOTE]
You just sound amazingly like another member we had here. Maybe just a coincidence..
2003-11-02 06:17 | User Profile
First I'd like to say thanks to HL and those that have contributed to his productive thread (save the strawman arguments made by the annoying yet boring Aviva Shamash) for worth while comments.
With respect to HL's myths I should point out that they are very much a part of the American scene which is very racist and negative by enlarge rather then representative of genuine racialism and it's values. An excellent treatment of the problems spoken of here can be found in Bill White's "the pathologies of fringe politics" articles at his website.
With respect to myths one and two: "Some cataclysmic event will happen in the near future that will bestow racial/Jew consciousness on every White woman, man and child in America, and New White America, after a Hollywood-style showdown complete with prancing horses, big explosions and cool car chase scenes, will spring up. All we have to do is sit back and watch it unfold. Pass the popcorn, please. 2. The government of the United States will come to a grinding halt in 10 years, fill in the rest. "
those have small seeds of relevance hidden within the mountain of garbage HL alluded to. Namely that when disastrous policies are implemented on a societal basis the results will eventually be disastrous to those that rule that society. The outcome could cataclysmic like it was for the Austro-Hungarian empire and imperial Germany or it could be a far less dramatic collapse that lacks the disintegration of the state and violent revolution. In either case neither the American paleos or racists would be able to act upon such an opportunity given the numerous fatal weaknesses they both share. Instead, the far more likely result of a systemic crisis is the imposition of a genuinely leftist totalitarianism or a simple fall to third world depravity a la Brazil. If those outcomes are going to be averted prior to whites becoming an anthropological curiosity, and forever irrelavent, in the states the "movement" is going to have to radically change but frankly I don't see that happening.
"3. We will form a coalition with environmentalists and lefties and march to final victory."
This myth has some substance behind it although it's lost on the American racist scene by in large who instead just think that such an event will somehow happen when some racial savior arises. Instead, the reality behind the myth is that genuine racialism has a strong environmentalist component (although lacking the extremism found on fringes of the left) which is an outgrowth of European man's romanticism. Also, the folkish world view is one that recognizes the inherent anti-community nature of modern capitalism and it's natural extension, globalism. Historically, a great deal of NR thought of various types and the movements based upon them have been able to appeal to what I call the "ethical left". Certainly, within the less statist fractions of leftist politics one can find sincere people that are quite suitable for recruitment by genuine, positive nationalists. One does that by promoting ITP style economics and community empowerment. One does not do it by screaming about "niggers", "day of the rope" and Turner Diary style psychopathic weirdness.
Nonetheless, the reality is that what I call the "moral left" is a small subset of that movement of destruction and even in the ââ¬Ë30s it was apparent that traditional proletarian values were dying and hence the right's promotion of "a deconstructionist" view of "socialism as means of transcending class warfare rather then promoting it" which in turn is again suited towards the less statist, more societally focused forms of various NR doctrines. The bottom line of all of this is that while we can, and should, appeal to the best of leftist sentiment no grand coalition will be formed as was in the ââ¬Ë30s at times and we should not lose sight of our traditionalist core in order to appease those that are pathologically opposed to our life affirming weltanschauung.
"4. Jews will overplay their hand, thus tipping it to Gentiles of all stripes, thus paving the way for their deposition from power."
They do and always have over play their hand but if you lack a viable alternative and a competent activist cadre to promote it that fact is irrelevant.
"5. By calling ourselves "European-American" and demanding "European-American Day" from various mayors across the country, we will ensure a future for our people."
That is a rather pathetic delusion. Of course, the promotion heritage is what real racialism is all about and I had earlier ran a thread with no responses about an excellent group that does that in public very capably. They are called Terre et Peuple's (TP - Land and People) and are worth a look.
HL: "I expected that of the items on my myth list, "overplayed hand" would be the least well-received. Note, I don't disagree that they HAVE overplayed their hand, I just think that 1) they will soon start playing a different hand and 2) most Whites won't be the wiser, either pre or post-game. And, Jews will NEVER overplay their hand to such an extent that a propasphere White would see what was happening."
It seems to me that the ultra negative consequences of current public policy being so destructive will awaken people to the extent their perils but without a capable activist cadre armed with a viable ideology such a realization has no practical consequence.
HL: "But even this is doubtful. The Nazis had Jews figured out, and made efforts to educate Germans. That was only half a century ago, a little more. Jews have completely turned the tide, and used the actions against them to their ADVANTAGE today. As Churchill said, Germans are either at your feet or at your throat. This appears to by cyclical, historically."
It seem that the problem was not with what the NSDAP regime did to alert people to the jewish problem but rather that their destruction at the hands of vastly superior forces allowed Germany to be remade into something non German. Jewry did not use actions against them to their benefit but simply used their control over the West to promote atrocity propaganda and use the force of a police state to suppress any dissent.
Churchill's comment is mindless pablum . For most of it's history Germany lacked any ability for self determination, suffered greatly at the hands of the great powers of Europa and never was able to threaten anyone. His comment reflects nothing but war time anti-German bigotry which he himself promoted for political gain as was the pattern in the first world war.
HL: "Personally, I ain't crazy about the pattern. Pissed as I get about Jews and their absolute disregard for our welfare as a people, and much as I fantasize about doing violence to particularly offensive ones, I don't think mass murder and torture every half-century or so is so groovy. NOR do I think that White ignorance about Jews, and the resulting displacement of us, is good either. Obviously. What we need to pursue is generation-to-generation sustenance of awareness about Jewish influence, and exclusion of Jews from our lives, politically if not physically."
I agree fully. Real racialists respect and seek to enhance and preserve genuine human diversity and reduce racial strife which is why they are separatists rather then supremacists/imperialists.
Aviva Shamash said:
"6. Nationalism can be built upon a nebulous construct like the "White race" but not a scientifically proven entity such as the human race."
I say: A nation is not simply all of humanity but it's very nature an ethnographically defined subset sharing a common history, culture and a high degree of genetic similarity. Those things make them different and those commonalies are what built the communities known as nations as well as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. What you are clearly talking about is globalism rather then nationalism. I note you place the term White Race within ironic quotes indicating that you're a subscriber to the insane and baseless notion that race does not exist which is probably why you think nationalism can have meaning for any biped rather then some ethnographic reality.
If you are actually interested in human bio-diversity and the reality of racially differences I'd be delighted to recommend a mountain of sites, books and journals you could learn a great deal from. Note that recognizing that the races are different and that demographics determine the course of history is not the same as hating other races. The desire to preserve the various branches of humanity and the cultures they create is at it's base both humane and life affirming. Those that wish to destroy genuine human diversity via globalism, mass immigration, slavery or out right physical destruction are the enemies of all branches of humanity because such people are the ones promoting genocide while positive ethnocentrism seeks to preserve it.
Aviva Shamash: "7. Jews invented Leftism; Fourier, Mill, Voltaire, de Sade, Engels, Russell, Kropotkin, Hegel, etc. were always just window dressing."
Reply: your creating a strawman here designed to be knocked down. In part this stems from the fact that people like Mills and Hegel are not at leftists like the others you mention. More to the point is that most racial nationalists instead point out quite correctly the very massive influence of jewry upon Marxism and it's ideological decedents. They do not claim that all forms of leftist thought is solely derived from Jewry as you dishonestly imply. In point of fact, a great many radical European nationalists are in fact socialists (which is a very broad term indeed) and are quite favorably inclined towards Hegel. If you are interested in what racialists real think about non Marxist derived forms of socialism just ask.
In the mean time you could read the threads here on the subject (some of which are quite good) or you could read the following links with an open mind if your actually interested in the subject: [url]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/commun.htm[/url]
Aviva Shamash: "8. Homosexuality is a degeneracy inflicted by Jews upon the "White race" even in the ancient Greek city states where there was little or no Jewish influence. Homophobia is a noble Aryan attitude even though it was popularized by Jews in the first place. Jews who are gay or bisexual are really just pretending to be so, even if they believe it. It's a trick to distract attention from the fact that they control the homosexual agenda, even in countries where they have no influence."
Reply: Another ham fisted attempt resulting in a poorly done strawman fallacy. While I am sure that one can find racists that say such a stupid thing such a position is not a tenet or a myth common to racialism. Instead, what racialists will say is that homosexuality is a deviancy that is promoted disproportionately, but obviously not exclusively, by jews. Obviously no sensible person thinks that homosexuality exists solely because of Jewry although all racialists and conservatives agree that sexual deviancy is a negative trend. Assuming the dubious proposition that your interested and capable of real debate see the thread I just started on the subject or: [url]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/porn.htm[/url]
Aviva Shamash "9. Pornography is a Jewish conspiracy even retroactively in every civilization that predated the existence of Jews. Modern nations like Japan where pornography is popular yet Jews essentially nonexistent are also in some Jewish grip, perhaps through some odd form of mind control."
Reply: Again your dishonestly creating the argument you pretend racialists make rather then address what they actually say. Given the tone of your post it seems likely in the extreme to me that you favour sexual deviancy and porn so I'm not surprised your reduced to such shallow fallacious debate techniques. If i'm wrong you'll have something meaningful to say about: [url]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criporn2.htm[/url] [url]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criporn.htm[/url] [url]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/criporn3.htm[/url]
Aviva Shamash "10. Jews created Christianity as a conspiracy against the "White race" even though many Jewish people are more "White" than was Hitler. Somehow the Jews also have a conspiracy to destroy Christianity despite it being their greatest weapon against "White" people. The apparent contradiction in all this is only a clever ploy to distract from ZOG's greater plan."
Reply: Jews are genetically different then Europeans and even a casual internet search will turn up plenty of material about jewish genetics but given that you don't even think race exists you likely won't be able/willing to absorb such information. On the off chance that your more capable of reason then you appear see: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10801975&dopt=Abstract[/url]
As to Christianity if you look about the posters here you'll note that a great many racialists are in fact Christians and don't hold the view you seem to think they do. You could also read a great deal about racial Christian groups but I doubt you'll bother as addressing facts are clearly not your strength.
Of course a small grain of truth can be implied from your last myth (a myth of anti-racists rather then racialists is what your statement is) in that most racialists and most conservatives are distressed by the promotion of policies by modern Churches that are destructive racially to Occidental societies. As a result, some racialists reject Christianity just the way that perverts, leftists and those that hate Occidental civilization often hate Christianity for failing to not be as ardent about the promotion of their agendas as they want the religion to be. The truth is that racialist have widely divergent views on religion and Christianity as does every other segment of society anywhere in the Western world.
2003-11-02 07:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]First I'd like to say thanks to HL and those that have contributed to his productive thread (save the strawman arguments made by the annoying yet boring Aviva Shamash) for worth while comments. [/QUOTE]
That you would call me boring or annoying certainly seems like a joke since even many of your fellow "'White' racialists" say (with good reason) the same about you. You might want to jettison your long winded style and pompous attitude before pointing the finger at other people.
[QUOTE]I say: A nation is not simply all of humanity but it's very nature an ethnographically defined subset sharing a common history, culture and a high degree of genetic similarity.[/QUOTE]
One problem with this argument is that "White" is hardly an "ethnographically defined subset" unless you are willing to consider the same regarding the human race. The "White race" usually includes swarthy-skinned, hook-nosed Greeks along with Mongoloid Slavs and blonde, blue eyed Nordics. There is absolutely no scientific basis in counting this as a "race" yet rejecting out of hand the scientifically grounded reality of human racialism.
[QUOTE]What you are clearly talking about is globalism rather then nationalism.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm talking about racial nationalism and indeed the only form which is grounded in science. Modern humans are biologically classified as a race or subspecies so human racialism is simply a political recognition of this reality.
[QUOTE]I note you place the term White Race within ironic quotes indicating that you're a subscriber to the insane and baseless notion that race does not exist which is probably why you think nationalism can have meaning for any biped rather then some ethnographic reality.[/QUOTE]
Of course the human race exists but the "White" race is an utterly arbitrary construction. Of course there are genetic variations within humanity but these do not equate to subspecies in their own right. If they did then there would be dozens of "races" within the so-called "white race" alone.
[QUOTE]Reply: your creating a strawman here designed to be knocked down. In part this stems from the fact that people like Mills and Hegel are not at leftists like the others you mention.[/QUOTE]
John Stuart Mill (not Mills) certainly was regarded as a progressive by the Establishment of his day as anyone possessing even a passing familiarity with the subject should know. Hegel was the dominant philosophical influence on Marx and Hegel's dialectic remains extremely important to Marxist thought.
[QUOTE]Reply: Another ham fisted attempt resulting in a poorly done strawman fallacy. While I am sure that one can find racists that say such a stupid thing such a position is not a tenet or a myth common to racialism. Instead, what racialists will say is that homosexuality is a deviancy that is promoted disproportionately, but obviously not exclusively, by jews. Obviously no sensible person thinks that homosexuality exists solely because of Jewry although all racialists and conservatives agree that sexual deviancy is a negative trend. [/QUOTE]
This paragraph is so riddled with inaccuracies that it's hard to decide where to begin. Obviously gay and bisexual racialists do not think that homosexuality is a negative trend. Such racialists do exist (I am one of them, bisexual) and some "white racialists" such as Clark have advocated for gay inclusion in their movement on Alex Linder's website among other places. Obviously Adolf Hitler (not a "white racialist," but at least a German nationalist who believed in a Teutonic "racialism") liked gays enough to allow Ernst Roehm and others in high ranks of government.
As to homosexuality being promoted by Jews, unfortunately my ancient supposed counterparts (my mother was Jewish, so I'm a Jew by your standards even though I reject both Judaism and Zionism) did more than possibly any other group to promote homophobia. Even a quick glance at Hebrew literature as opposed to e.g. Greco-Roman will reveal that the Jews were the most homophobic. Fortunately many Jews today have rejected homophobia along with religious and ethnic chauvinism.
[QUOTE]Reply: Again your dishonestly creating the argument you pretend racialists make rather then address what they actually say. Given the tone of your post it seems likely in the extreme to me that you favour sexual deviancy and porn so I'm not surprised your reduced to such shallow fallacious debate techniques. [/QUOTE]
Being a progressive racialist I do favor sexual and artistic freedom on all levels. In the arena of porn I am most strongly in favor of homemade productions driven by the desire for fun. I support ethical hedonism as espoused by the great Dr. Susan Block among other feminists who realize that sexual freedom is integral to women's pleasure, joy and liberation. Those links you provided toss around a few names but ignore the unavoidable fact that the countries most liberal toward porn have little or no Jews. Denmark (your country, I believe) allows virtually any form of porn including bestiality, scat, and simulated rape yet Jews had and have absolutely nothing to do with this.
[QUOTE]Jews are genetically different then Europeans and even a casual internet search will turn up plenty of material about jewish genetics but given that you don't even think race exists you likely won't be able/willing to absorb such information. [/QUOTE]
It's hard to see how European converts to Judaism are genetically different than Europeans. At any rate you are beginning to sound like the Jewish bigots (particularly among the Hasidim) that believe in a "racial" and mystical justification for Judaism even though this is not supported by science or history. You are claiming that a "people" which includes everyone from dark-skinned Falashas to Arabic Sephardim and European Ashkenazi is a "race". At the same time you reject the obvious fact that modern humans are a subspecies and thus a race in any scientificially meaningful sense of the word. Maybe you and Ariel Sharon should get a room together, you think alike.
[QUOTE]As to Christianity if you look about the posters here you'll note that a great many racialists are in fact Christians and don't hold the view you seem to think they do. You could also read a great deal about racial Christian groups but I doubt you'll bother as addressing facts are clearly not your strength. [/QUOTE]
My point was that even those "white racialists" who normally attack Christianity as a Jewish construct will turn around and tell another audience that Jews are trying to undermine Christianity. Apparently these people are too vacuous or dishonest to recognize the contradiction.
2003-11-02 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Aviva Shamash]One problem with this argument is that "White" is hardly an "ethnographically defined subset" unless you are willing to consider the same regarding the human race. The "White race" usually includes swarthy-skinned, hook-nosed Greeks along with Mongoloid Slavs and blonde, blue eyed Nordics. There is absolutely no scientific basis in counting this as a "race" yet rejecting out of hand the scientifically grounded reality of human racialism. [/QUOTE]
I'll call this Jewish Myth #1: Whites don't exist. Because Greeks have tawnier skin than Swedes, White nationalism is bound to fail.
Response. White exists because people identify that way. It does indeed have elements of "social construct," but that's fine by me. If Greeks and Swedes come together under the same banner to oppose Jews and blacks, great.
2003-11-02 17:45 | User Profile
Must be Raina's GF if it's not Raina.
2003-11-02 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I'll call this Jewish Myth #1: Whites don't exist. Because Greeks have tawnier skin than Swedes, White nationalism is bound to fail.
Response. White exists because people identify that way. It does indeed have elements of "social construct," but that's fine by me. If Greeks and Swedes come together under the same banner to oppose Jews and blacks, great.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Racial Nationalism is composed of ethno (the scientific component based on ancestry) and culture (the social component). Europeans are composed of numerous ethno-cultures - Celts, Anglo, Nordic, Med, Slavic, etc. I don't know of any racial nationalists who want all of these diverse ethno-cultures to be homogenized under one big White EU. Rather, it's a temporary alliance between the European ethno-cultures around the world to keep their independence, sovereignity, and territory. Forcing peoples around the world to shake off their ethno-cultural identities in favor of a globalized ant farm is inhuman and will fail. Communists tried it and failed, but that doesn't stop those influenced by them and who seek profit and power from continuing to try.
2003-11-02 18:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I'll call this Jewish Myth #1: Whites don't exist. Because Greeks have tawnier skin than Swedes, White nationalism is bound to fail.
Response. White exists because people identify that way. It does indeed have elements of "social construct," but that's fine by me. If Greeks and Swedes come together under the same banner to oppose Jews and blacks, great.[/QUOTE] And there's more to it than that -- all those under attack because the Jewish community has classified them as white need to recognize their common interests as "whites" or whatever term of self-definition we choose. But the boundaries of "white" are largely, for practical purposes, determined by our enemies.
2003-11-02 23:01 | User Profile
Add this to the list of myths. There are actually many others I'm sure if I think about it I could dredge up just from this forum.
[quote=Franco]Yes, I understand that they are mainstream and so forth. But if a dozen top paleos Name The Jew at once, it will embolden others. Look at VDARE -- there is no doubt that that KMacD essay about neocons emboldened many of their type.
[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=10811]A Conservative No More - The Triba Politics of Pat Buchanan[/url]
2003-11-02 23:27 | User Profile
Thought of another one.
Myth #? - If we get rid of Christianity, there will be a surge of ethnic identity and pride.
2003-11-02 23:41 | User Profile
Ruffin:
The overabundance of Jews and extreme "liberals" in current anti-war news is there to further convince white men how right the latest Jews' war is. And they lap it up. When their sons stop enlisting in the "war on terrorism" I'll believe the light bulb went on.
And that "anti-Semitic" Weiner-Savage (who's reported incidents himself to the ADL) that the left likes to bitch about so much runs the biggest schtick this side of Tel Aviv while his neocon/CZ listeners are too stupid to see him and the other Jew-cons are just the other side of the same coin.
2003-11-03 00:14 | User Profile
A.S. "That you would call me boring or annoying certainly seems like a joke since even many of your fellow "'White' racialists" say (with good reason) the same about you."
V.O.: Not really. Some VNN style racists (not racialists) don't like what I say or how they say it because I'm not using Linder style quips and endless streams of profanity or my criticism of American style racial hatred. Some paleo - cons don't like my criticisms of that ideology and they don't care for penchant for recommending literature to them. Your boring and annoying because your incapable of honest debate and instead belch well worn propasphere bromides and cliches with no substance to them because your too dim to do otherwise.
A.S.: "You might want to jettison your long winded style and pompous attitude before pointing the finger at other people."
V.O.: Complicated issues require lengthy treatment and a knowledge of the subject matter at hand. You lack those things so post blatantly fallacious dribble. I write for educated adults with attention spans of over 15 minutes and that have the capability to engage in critical thinking. Unfortunately, some lack those things and others question the utility of such an approach as a result. You lack the ability to think critically which is you had nothing to say about any of the links I posted or any worthwhile responses to my refutations of your posts.
A.S.: One problem with this argument is that "White" is hardly an "ethnographically defined subset" unless you are willing to consider the same regarding the human race. The "White race" usually includes swarthy-skinned, hook-nosed Greeks along with Mongoloid Slavs and blonde, blue eyed Nordics. There is absolutely no scientific basis in counting this as a "race" yet rejecting out of hand the scientifically grounded reality of human racialism.
V.O.: One problem with being wholly ignorant of anthropology, history, genetics and being totally incognizant human biological diversity in general is that it leads one to make inane statements like the one above.
For over a hundred years any moderately competent forensic pathologist or physical anthropologist can look at a skeleton and tell you with great accuracy what race ( or sub-species) the deceased once belonged to. Genetic tests have been in common use now for several years that can tell with fantastic precision a person's race/sub-species (even Occidentals) from tissue and blood samples and for decades longer blood tests have existed which provide the same function with less precision.
Of course the science your wholly ignorant of simply confirms what those that lack your very jewish penchant for unreality and perversion note everyday. Employment forms, census data and simply dealing with the world at large allows anyone not willfully blind or congenitally stupid to note that whites do in fact exist as do numerous other races and that they all have produced radically different societies. To claim other wise makes about as much sense as saying that sub-species of dogs don't exist or that if they do they differ only in appearance and that doesn't matter.
Of course your notions that whites don't exist because various European nations look different from each other is rock solid proof that you know nothing about the subject. For starters Slavs do not have large admixtures of Mongoloid genetic material and if you look through the archives here you could find plenty of current research to refute that stupid notion that you give zero support for. I note that you didn't mention anything about genetic self similarity studies the various nations of Europa (Cavalli-Sforza would be a good start for a neophyte like yourself as is Pearson's Heredity and Humanity, Frank Borzellieri Race, Culture and other Taboos & J. Baker's Race) ) or any reference to any data of any sort about any population any where. Of course given your undefendable position that's understandable. If you have the intellectually fortitude (which is about as likely as Bill Gates endorsing Linux) you could read about the multitude of ways that race is real and dramatically impacts all kinds of human traits and behavior by reading the short but excellent "Race, Evolution and Behavior" By Philippe Rushton which you buy for a pittance or get it for free here:
[url]http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/reb.html[/url] If your poverty stricken.
The notion of White Nationalism is naturally not suited to Europa because the various nations their have distinct cultures and histories worth preserving and all have their own nationalist heritages to promote and defend. Those nations are in fact ethnographically defined sub-sets a branch of humanity called white or Occidental. Obviously people live in Europa that have multi-racial ancestries but that in no way means that whites don't exist and more then the presence of hybrids with in various animal species means that sub species don't exist. Edna's second most recent statement on the matter is excellent. In Canada and America where the various branches of Occidental man have freely interbred to such an extent that the sub-racial categories have largely lost their meaning. In the process they too have created their own ethnographical subset within those countries. Anti-white bureaucrats recognize racial differences which is reflected by the creation of affirmative action and the endless need for diversity training and endless bitching about racism. The same is noted by your fellow jews at "Race Traitor" magazine which openly calls for the destruction of the white race as it is by the Congoid rapists that assault 20000 white women each year. Like wise, the FBI notes the reality of race in the form of it's crime statistics as do the racial aliens in the US that victimize whites far more often then whites victimize non-whites. Certainly, the countless jewish, Congoid, Mestizo and Asian lobbies have no problem differentiating themselves from whites any more then the "sensitivity" industry has in promoting racial guilt within whites and hatred for whites by other races. In short, your view is wildly counter factual, utterly lacking in scientific merit and contrary to the lives of everyone that is not purposely self deceived or moronic.
A.S.: "No, I'm talking about racial nationalism and indeed the only form which is grounded in science. Modern humans are biologically classified as a race or subspecies so human racialism is simply a political recognition of this reality."
V.O.: Having effortlessly proven that your totally wrong about race combined with the undeniable reality that nations do share all the things in common I mentioned it's obvious that you are clearly promoting globalism. Because your promoting the obvious falsehood that the subspecies (commonly called races) don't exist or lack meaning so we should all belong to one "nation" in which all bipeds on the planet will belong. It is obvious already that your intellectually and/or psychologically incapable of dealing with physical reality and are wholly ignorant of any science relating to these subjects but that's to be expected from stereotypical jewish pervert such as yourself.
A.S.: John Stuart Mill (not Mills) certainly was regarded as a progressive by the Establishment of his day as anyone possessing even a passing familiarity with the subject should know. Hegel was the dominant philosophical influence on Marx and Hegel's dialectic remains extremely important to Marxist thought.
V.O.: Your grotesque and epic ignorance of ideology is shocking. That Hegel's dialects influenced Marx does not make Hegel left wing and Marx's devotees are interested in the dialectics of Marx rather then those of Hegel whom they have often dismissed as a reactionary. What was regarded as progressive by the establishment during the life of Mill does not define a leftist and your quibbling over a minor typo reflects your pettiness just as your abyssic ignorance of philosophy is reflected in the inanities found in your posts. A more significant point is that your initial claim that a tenet of racial nationalist was that jews invented leftism is still totally without substantiation. That you said absolutely nothing that challenged my response to your moronic blather is noted as well.
A.S.: "This paragraph is so riddled with inaccuracies that it's hard to decide where to begin."
V.O.: In fact you never begin and didn't even attempt to address the information in the links I provided which trashed your position while buttressing mine. That simple reality points to your intellectual vacuity no matter your banal protests to the contrary.
A.S.: "Obviously gay and bisexual racialists do not think that homosexuality is a negative trend."
V.O.: Given that homosexuals that identify themselves as white racialists are extremely rare and given that no pro-homosexual white racialist group of any size exists anywhere in the world that statement is about as meaningful as talking about opinion on some issue among geologists that believe the earth is flat. If you doubt me on this try taking a poll of the members here to see what portion of self described white nationalists are anti-homosexual or try the same on any forum that caters to white racialists.
A.S.: "Such racialists do exist..."
V.O.: As do self described Catholics that worship Baal and self described scientists that believe in astral projection. That wildly contradictory positions are held by some does not in any way mitigate their illogical and indefeasible nature.
A.S.: "..(I am one of them, bisexual)"
V.O.: My suspicion about you correct. Of course given that you plainly stated you don't believe a white race exists you clearly are not a white racialist. Instead, you promote mindless piffle about their not being races and the notion that as all humans are essentially the same we should have one "nation" for all of humanity which again points to the fact that you're dishonest in your use of language and an intellectual cripple.
A.S.: and some "white racialists" such as Clark have advocated for gay inclusion in their movement on Alex Linder's website among other places."
V.O.: That someone named Clark wrote to VNN and argued for the inclusion of sodomites in the movement in no way detracts from what I said let alone demonstrate that homosexuality is somehow compatible with white racialism.
A.S.: Obviously Adolf Hitler (not a "white racialist," but at least a German nationalist who believed in a Teutonic "racialism") liked gays enough to allow Ernst Roehm and others in high ranks of government.
V.O.: Damn your stupid. Hitler had Roehm killed and made homosexual conduct illegal and punishable by execution. If you dig through Leland Gaunt's posts for a while you could even find the actual legal citation.
A.S.: "As to homosexuality being promoted by Jews.."
V.O.: The links I posted demonstrated that within the Western world jews do disproportionately promote homosexuality. You never even mentioned anything from any of them, and I doubt you read at all, so the reality that you have a totally untenable position is blindingly obvious.
A.S. : "...unfortunately my ancient supposed counterparts (my mother was Jewish, so I'm a Jew by your standards even though I reject both Judaism and Zionism)...."
V.O.: If you had read the link I gave you about jewish genetics (or did even a cursory search via google) it would be obvious that jews are genetically distinct from their host populations. Yes you are racially a jew and your thoughts expressed show you to be a stereotypical one.
A.S.: "...did more than possibly any other group to promote homophobia. Even a quick glance at Hebrew literature as opposed to e.g. Greco-Roman will reveal that the Jews were the most homophobic."
V.O.: First of all homophobic is a bogus concept conceived by perverts like your self to stigmatize people that reject you socio-pathology. Phobia means fear and I don't know of anyone that fears pathetic perverts like your self although I am revolted by them and their impact upon society.
A.S.: "Fortunately many Jews today have rejected homophobia along with religious and ethnic chauvinism."
V.O.: Translation - I was right that jews are not largely opposed to homosexuality and the above is a subtle capitulation recognizing that jews are disproportionately in favour of promoting it.
Raising the matter of ancient Greece has no bearing on your falsely claiming that white racialists view homosexuality as an invention of jewry or that it never existed in societies free from jewish influence which you never even attempted to support. Instead, I have demonstrated that within the modern Western world jews have disproportionately promoted that perversion. The reality that the overwhelming consensus of opinion of among those that view themselves as white racialists is that sexual deviancy has had a negative impact upon Western society is as clearly true as your pathetic arguments to the contrary are patently false to anyone that knows anything about white racialism of any form. Again, feel free to start a poll asking the members here if homosexuality is consistent with and acceptable to self described white nationalists.
A.S.: "Being a progressive racialist I do favor sexual and artistic freedom on all levels."
V.O.: Being a self caricature of an ultra PC jew pervert that doesn't even think that the white race exists your not a racialist of any sort as you banal piffle clearly proves.
A.S.: "In the arena of porn I am most strongly in favor of homemade productions driven by the desire for fun. I support ethical hedonism as espoused by the great Dr. Susan Block among other feminists who realize that sexual freedom is integral to women's pleasure, joy and liberation."
V.O.: A failed attempt at addressing the reality that your initial statement was factually wrong and an excellent example of a straw man fallacy. Also noted is that you still have not provided a single iota of evidence for your original assertion.
A.S.: Those links you provided toss around a few names but ignore the unavoidable fact that the countries most liberal toward porn have little or no Jews."
V.O.: Those sources showed that jews do have disproportionate involvement in the porno industry in America and you have said absolutely nothing to even attempt to challenge a single statement made in any of those writings.
A.S.: "Denmark (your country, I believe) allows virtually any form of porn including bestiality, scat, and simulated rape yet Jews had and have absolutely nothing to do with this."
V.O.: In point of fact I am a Faroer. Another fact is that jews in Danmark are a major force within the porn industry and prostitution inspite of being a very small portion of the population just as they are in America, Britain and Russia. Again, I note the total absence of any argument from but just baseless assertions and misrepresentations of the positions of racialists.
A.S.: "It's hard to see how European converts to Judaism are genetically different than Europeans."
V.O.: If you read the link I gave you'd know your wrong. I could of course provide more facts that disprove your delusions but given that you've proven you can't read, reason or debate I can't see the point but I'll do so anyway.
A.S.: "At any rate you are beginning to sound like the Jewish bigots (particularly among the Hasidim) that believe in a "racial" and mystical justification for Judaism even though this is not supported by science or history."
V.O.: Given the reality of jewish genetics you argument is wholly without merit. A.S.: "You are claiming that a "people" which includes everyone from dark-skinned Falashas to Arabic Sephardim and European Ashkenazi is a "race"."
V.O.: Here you demonstrate the down side of spouting off on a topic your wholly ignorant of. Again, if you wish to speak of something with some relevance you need to know a little bit about the literature. You don't and it shows. Given your unmotivated to look into a matter before forming an unsubstantiated opinion on it I'll give a few starting points to look into: [url]http://home.att.net/~eugenics/mac.htm[/url] , [url]http://home.att.net/~dysgenics/jew.htm[/url] and [url]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/[/url] . Jews have unique genetic ailments as I am sure any one with even a passing familiarity with the subject knows. Less well known but discovered with minium effort are the following studies: [url]http://www.genetichealth.com/BROV_Gen_Dis_in_Ashk_Jews.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.hfnj.org/genetics.htm[/url] [url]http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/article.asp?key=2225[/url] [url]http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.08.17/genetic3.html[/url] I suggest that you briefly scan the genetic research prior to making such absurd claims. A decent start would be [url]www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstract.html[/url] , [url]http://www.jeffsarchive.com/index2.htm[/url] , [url]http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring/eugenics.htm[/url] , [url]http://www.yucommentator.com/archives/v62i6/news/cohengene.html[/url] , [url]http://www.judea.ru/show_topic.php3?topic_id=93[/url] , [url]http://eserver.org/bs/33/newitz.html[/url] Another good source of information on the topic is THE SACRED CHAIN: The History of the Jews By Norman F. Cantor. Harper Collins Publishers (New York, 1994). A decent article on the matter is here: [url]http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html[/url] , [url]http://www.xenith.com/articles/jewish.html[/url] and some more here: [url]http://www.jewishgen.org/Rabbinic/links/gen.htm[/url] , [url]http://www.assyrianfoundation.org/genetics.htm[/url] .
Israel knows that your wrong and if you bother to look into the matter of genetic warfare and Israeli efforts to develop pathogens that kill only Arabs rather then their branch of Semites if you do so can save your self further embarrassment. A decent start is a story carried by London Times in November 1998 although another good source is:
[url]http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/vredeslijst/2001/000195.html[/url] [url]http://www.isnet.org/archive-milis/archive98/nov98/0647.html[/url] as is [url]http://www.faem.com/letters/h1104a.htm[/url] and [url]http://www.panmacmillan.com/PlagueWars/PDFs/PW_C34pp372_376.pdf[/url]
As you couldn't muster the courage to read the last link on the matter I posted I have put the information here but somehow I think it's a safe guess that you'll not read it or the study as a whole let alone have anything to say worth reading about it.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6;97(12):6769-74.
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes.
Hammer MF, Redd AJ, Wood ET, Bonner MR, Jarjanazi H, Karafet T, Santachiara-Benerecetti S, Oppenheim A, Jobling MA, Jenkins T, Ostrer H, Bonne-Tamir B.
Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA. [email]mhammer@u.arizona.edu[/email]
Haplotypes constructed from Y-chromosome markers were used to trace the paternal origins of the Jewish Diaspora. A set of 18 biallelic polymorphisms was genotyped in 1,371 males from 29 populations, including 7 Jewish (Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian) and 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. The Jewish populations were characterized by a diverse set of 13 haplotypes that were also present in non-Jewish populations from Africa, Asia, and Europe. A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.
PMID: 10801975 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A.S.: ââ¬ÅMy point was that even those "white racialists" who normally attack Christianity as a Jewish construct will turn around and tell another audience that Jews are trying to undermine Christianity. Apparently these people are too vacuous or dishonest to recognize the contradiction.ââ¬Â
V.O.: What point you intended to make doesnââ¬â¢t matter because the reality is that what you said is something you didnââ¬â¢t and canââ¬â¢t support because it was factually wrong and fallacious. Your latest attempt to change the subject from the indefensibleness of your position is shown by your raising a separate yet equally unsupported position that this new assertion is somehow a tenet of white racialism. Also noted yet again is your unwillingness to consider what I said but seeing that your incapable of doing so that is understandable.
A.S.:ââ¬ÅAt the same time you reject the obvious fact that modern humans are a subspecies and thus a race in any scientifically meaningful sense of the word.ââ¬Â
V.O.: Given that you canââ¬â¢t refute anything I have said itââ¬â¢s expected that you continue to wildly misrepresent what I do say. The various races (or sub-species if you will) of humanity a biological reality whose interactions are societally significant and often extremely negative no matter how much you wish it were not so. Iââ¬â¢ve proven as much although anyone moderately attuned to the physical world can discover as much by simply living. Only the willfully stupid or those adhering to contra factual flights of fancy see things other wise.
A.S. ââ¬ÂMaybe you and Ariel Sharon should get a room together, you think alike.ââ¬Â
V.O.: Not really. He believes in oppressing and destroying other races via imperialism while I reject those things and support self determination for all peoples.
Hereââ¬â¢s a book review that you should give an honest reading to, but wonââ¬â¢t, that could help straighten out your muddled and uniformed blather you falsely presume is thinking:
Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean
Michael Levin
Praeger, Westport, CT, 1997415 pages, ISBN: 0-275-95789-6 $60.00 US
Reviewed by Matt Nuenke [email]nuenke@ix.netcom.com[/email]
This book will certainly be ignored by the press due to its explosive treatment of intelligence and affirmative action. Part of the Praeger Press series Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence (edited by Seymour Itzkoff), it is the most thorough treatment of race and intelligence to date: an all encompassing combination of science and moral philosophy asking 'what do we, as Americans, owe those who blame us for their own failure?' Levinââ¬â¢s unequivocal answer is 'nothing.'
If anything, whites are owed for all they have done for blacks. From the Civil War where whites died to free blacks, to the current enormous sums of money whites pump into the failing black community, whites have given more than anyone could expect and have received little in return but condemnation from those they have tried to help. This observation and its treatment by Levin is enough in itself to make this book a must read for anyone interested in racial justice.
In 1995 the American Psychological Association, in response to Herrnstein and Murrayââ¬â¢s The Bell Curve (Free Press, 1994), published the report " Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns." They report that blacks indeed score below whites on IQ tests, that these tests are unbiased, and that they correlate strongly with social outcomes. However, the APA was unwilling to speculate why the difference is so constant and repeatable over time and by test method. Levin does not suffer from the same timidity. He goes into detail, outlining how and why it must be mostly genetic rather than environmental.
Levin elegantly dismembers the arguments for an environmental cause such as malnutrition, institutional racism, test bias, etc. He thoroughly covers all of the stale and easily disposed of arguments put forth by the left, and he makes the case that not only are blacks less intelligent, but they vary on a number of other traits. He asks the simple question: where is the evidence that blacks exhibit high intelligence?
Levin's most important contribution to the race debate is his refutation of the blame placed on white America for black failure. Often it is alleged that there is no reason to raise the point that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. However Levin points out elegantly that, if whites are charged with holding back blacks then whites must be allowed to defend themselves, and much of this book provides just such a defense. If whites are charged with causing black failure, where is the proof?
The liberal press has been very effective in shaming whites, and blaming black behavior on whites. It seems, without proof, that whites have been found guilty of all that ails black society, and they have not defended themselves because of the very nature of their tolerance and concern for the less fortunate. But their patience runs thin. Levin argues that if the evidence is presented, it is easily recognized that it is not white America but the innate nature of blacks that accounts for black failure.
Clearly, with the costs that whites have suffered from black on white crime, at ten times that of white on black crime; with the transfer of billions of dollars from whites to blacks to pay for programs to try and make them whole only to fail over and over again; with the blight and destruction of once prosperous urban centers, now crime ridden and in decay; with white children going with less education while funds are directed toward less educable black children; with whites being denied college education because they are displaced by less qualified blacks; with white neighborhoods less protected because affirmative action has forced less qualified black police and firemen to displace more qualified whites: surely enough is enough and whites will not be bled anymore. All of the racial bitterness and misunderstanding, this reviewer believes, can be laid at the feet of liberal do-gooders who, along with equality, desire a world unequivocally fair. Nature, unfortunately, is not so designed and neither is the genetic makeup of groups. So the racial tension that persists in America, long after the majority of whites accepted the equality of opportunity as espoused by Martin Luther King, persists because whites have been telling blacks that they would end up just like them once racism was over. Equality of outcomes requires that groups be absolutely equal, but genetic dissimilarities cause disparate outcomes.
The accusation that whites hold blacks back has now turned desperately to a demand for compensation for the damage done. If equal opportunity requires that equal results be earned, and that end is not met, then blacks will go for the quick buck. But the evidence is just not there. Whites owe nothing more because whites have done nothing wrong. What has been done 'for' blacks to date has been done only because whites have unilaterally tried to help them beyond anything deserved because of injustices. Any injustices done have been adequately paid many times over.
Levin not only summarizes the data showing why the differences between races and groups is genetic but he also lays a firm foundation explaining the philosophy of science that is the foundation for such claims. The reason for believing that IQ is genetic between races is that it is genetic between individuals, and no other explanation has been found to account for the race differences. Science works on the principal of parsimony, the simplest answer is the one accepted unless it can be displaced by a better one. The genetic explanation has everything going for it, while environmental explanations have been a recurring failure when put to the test. The three best-documented environmental interventions, aimed at showing how enrichment can raise IQs, have all been failures (the Perry Preschool, Milwaukee, and Head Start projects). In every case, any increase in the children's ability to perform better on tests (teaching to the test) faded away as they got older. Intelligence could not be altered but followed its own genetic trajectory.
Then there are the old theories relating intelligence to brain size. These theories, around for over a hundred years and based on several methodologies, had been so ridiculed and laughed at over the last twenty years that it seemed finally settled. But then along came new scientific tools such as PET and MIR and it turns out that there is in fact a high correlation between brain size and intelligence. So how do the environmentalists refute this claim? Nutrition is the same between whites and blacks in the U.S., so why the difference in brain size, and especially gray matter? Gould has been a proponent of the theory that there was not enough time over the last 30,000 years for significant genetic differences to develop between the races. In fact, the black white brain-size difference of 86 cubic centimeters could have easily occurred, from climatic pressures in the last 30,000 years, as evidenced from New World fossils. It has never been necessary for new smart genes to mutate, only for natural selection to redistribute the smart genes differently under different environments. [p. 125]
The evidence for genetic differences between American whites and blacks is real, robust, and has not deviated from the single standard deviation reported over the last 100 years. So how does the argument for an environmental causation hold up to scrutiny? Well, the most ardent current scholar of the theory that blacks, unlike other minorities, are disproportionately less intelligent because they have suffered from slavery, is Ogbu. His argument makes the claim that slavery caused blacks to 'act less like whites' and in essence 'act stupid.' Had they not been enslaved they would act more intelligently. But persistence is as important as the facts, and the press has lent a helping hand to the apologists making the theory acceptable to many who have not been exposed to the ongoing debate in academic journals. Only the environmental side is presented by both conservatives and liberals alike.
If very slight differences in genes can vary the intelligence of siblings, certainly they can vary significantly between groups of people. The number of genes need be only slight, and it is only the frequency of many genes that determines the smart from the dumb, not some unique gene that evolved in some groups and not in others. [p. 122] Chimpanzees and humans share 98.4% of their genes, and different human groups such as blacks and whites share 99.84%. But how much does it take? Dogs have a similar closeness in genes, and yet we all know that breeds of dogs, equivalent to human races, vary radically in intelligence, personality, temperament, and behavior. If we can get such radical differences in a short time of breeding for certain traits in dogs how similar is this to thousands of years of human isolation in radically different environments selecting for different intelligence and behaviors.
Unlike beauty, which is nice to have, intelligence is not just a desirable trait, it is also a trait that makes a nation, group or individual more successful. There is just too much evidence that intelligence counts for a lot, making technology and advancement possible. Without it we would not be what we are, or be discussing this very topic; we would still be in the Stone Age unable to create a written language. In fact, no written language was ever developed by sub-Saharan Africans for this very reason. With an average IQ of somewhere around 70, a written language was not possible. [p. 117]
So why is there such a denial of intelligence by those interested in improving race relations? Because they are not willing to let the truth be known because they themselves believe that all human value is linked to human intelligence, which it is not. Intelligence "just is," like the long neck of a giraffe. It is a useful tool, and especially useful to modern man. It may not have been all that useful to everyone however in more primitive environments such as Africa. Other attributes, like running fast, may have been selected for instead of intelligence. So why all the name calling?
Levin goes into great detail in explaining the illogical and circular arguments used by the main defenders of racial equality in intelligence, including: calling anyone who discusses the issue a "racist" and denial of "intelligence" as a measurable trait. With regards to the denial of "intelligence," Levin does a splendid job of showing how absurd it is to blame whites for stunting black intelligence while claiming that there is no such thing as intelligence.
Since advocates of affirmative action want to categorize by race then it is fair game to expand upon differences and state what they really stand for, as indicators of where one has evolved and the traits that evolutionary processes have bequeathed upon the group identified by racial characteristics. No one judges others because of skin color, but because of what is indicated by that information. We are not frightened of a very well dressed, extremely tan Italian coming down the street. What we are frightened of is what we recognize as a male that is African American and from experience belongs to a group that based on available data is by nature violent. Human nature includes trying to protect oneself and using all available information to improve the odds of survival. We all instinctively feel safer in a brand new car than one that is all beat up and rusting out. We base these odds on available evidence that it is more likely that an old car will fail than a new one. And it is more likely that someone of African descent, because of evolution, is more prone to violence than say an Asian, even though we do not know either individual personally. As humans, we process all information available to improve our odds against a hostile environment.
There are a large number of traits that are highly heritable, and thus we would expect to find them expressed in different proportions according to the environment that each group evolved in: neuroticism, impulsiveness, emotionality, positive emotionality, negative emotionality, activity level, extroversion, sociability, sense of well-being, social potency, achievement orientation, alienation, aggression, stress reaction, altruism, cautiousness, constraint, control, following rules and authority, traditionalism, dominance, emotional reactivity, job satisfaction, work values, comfort, autonomy, and so on.[p. 100] And crime is the most notable when it comes to traits we ascribe to people who evolved in Africa - they are violent. As civil rights kicked-in over thirty years ago, blacks became more violent as opportunities opened up for them. This would indicate that as the environments for blacks and whites became more similar, their behaviors diverged from whites. Blacks, when given the opportunity to possess guns, turned to violence. Even though the press paints a picture of white violence against blacks, the truth is very different. If blacks are in fact the same as whites in intelligence, proneness to violence, and other behavioral attributes, then there is no diversity in trying to achieve diversity. This is a circular argument. If the only difference is skin color, then it should make little difference if an employer hires a well-tanned Italian over a light-skinned African American. Since they are alike in every way, there really is no diversity if they act just alike.
It is interesting that the very reason that whites have given up so much to try and help blacks is the very nature of their high intelligence and morality. [p. 55] It takes intelligence to see injustice and to understand others not like oneself, and that moves so many whites to do so much for minorities. Now that very nature is denied and is being turned against those who have been the most benevolent. One only has to look at the Jews, also white, but of much higher intelligence on average, and also much more aware of injustice, to see the correlation of intelligence with empathy. The Jews, even though they are by far the most prosperous and intelligent group identified to date by psychometric studies, have been the most liberal. It is ironic now that blacks hate them even more than gentile whites. Has compassion gone so far as to be unjust in itself when the benefactor of charity turns against those wanting to help? Many scholars have written about glaciation and its effect on Eurasians, pushing them into separate niches from sub-Saharan Africans, including selection for intelligence. That is, in a climate where storing food and providing shelter is not as important there will not be evolutionary pressures to increase intelligence for use in planning, hunting, storing food for winter, making clothes, etc. Levin expands this theory to help account for why blacks are so different from whites as well as explaining why they are not in any way pathological or less fit because they are not as moral.
Morality has been a favorite subject of behavior geneticists, in that reciprocal altruism must be explained in terms of evolutionary theory because of its persistence in all cultures. Even the Nazis had a highly developed structure of morality, or obedience to the principles of the Aryan family and fitness. They just stopped their concern at the genetic border between Aryans and everyone else, with an exceptional hate for Jews because of Jewish success. But morality is not good or bad itself - it is a biological trait that allows humans to be subjugated to the rules of the culture. The morality or indoctrinability of humans is not necessarily a good thing. We may be better off without it but we can't change. It is as much a part of us as sex, love and war. And like all traits, some have more of it than others.
Levin explains lucidly that blacks are only pathological in comparison to white norms. [pp. 167-87] Since they evolved in an environment that was less demanding of cooperation for group survival, either between sexual partners or hunting parties, they have fewer qualms about a readiness for violence, drug use, reliance on public assistance, illegitimacy, lack of ambition, etc. It is not that one race has a trait and another is without it, but that different races or breeds of people naturally have higher levels of some genes than others do if they evolved in a different environment. This is a basic principle of evolution. Finally, they are also not less fit because of their behavior. Quite the contrary, as a group they have a higher fertility rate than whites or Asians in America, making their behavior in terms of evolutionary success more fit than others. But this strategy is a success only because of the genetic propensity of the white majority towards caring and benevolence toward the underclass of any race. It would not be effective in Africa, where everyone would try to get a free ride. One of the reasons that the willingness of whites to continue supporting black failure, while getting nothing in return, is coming to an end is the realization of whites that this caring is not appreciated. This is where whites must take a stand and say no more. Charity must at a minimum be appreciated by the recipient of the benefits in order to sustain it. Many blacks are either incapable of understanding how they get aid from whites, or choose not to give any credit to whites for the benefits they have received. As Levin explains, this is a form of racism at its cruelest. Jews, according to MacDonald (see bibliography) have a highly evolved morality as well as intelligence, thanks to their own peculiar and successful evolutionary strategy. It has also been apparent that they have been at the forefront of the civil rights movement, sacrificing more than any other group to help blacks. And yet this reviewer has never heard or read of any black that has come forward with special thanks for the Jewish participation. Blacks heap abuse after abuse upon Jews, and yet Jews continue to support, defend, champion and give of themselves to help blacks.
Levin's combination of philosophy and science is at its best when he points out the flaws in other scholar's logic. The results are pure entertainment. Why Race Matters is the best book to date to explain why investigation into race differences was forced upon whites who had no choice but to defend themselves. If affirmative action and racial shakedowns were not occurring on a daily basis, with an increase in white-male bashing, a defense would be unnecessary. Finally, this book is an excellent summary of both the genetic and philosophical arguments in defense of white and Asian culture.
Bibliography:
Herrnstein, Richard and Murray, Charles (1994) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life
MacDonald, Kevin (1994) A People That Shall Dwell Alone
Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A. (1997) Darwinism, Dominance and
Democracy: The Biological Basis of Authoritarianism
2003-11-03 03:17 | User Profile
[B]Myth #? - If we get rid of Christianity, there will be a surge of ethnic identity and pride.[/B]
Yes, I'll go along with this. Christianity is too deeply ingrained. We need to work around it. Besideswhich, applied in proper racial context, maybe it ain't so bad.
2003-11-03 22:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Edana]Thought of another one.
Myth #? - If we get rid of Christianity, there will be a surge of ethnic identity and pride.[/QUOTE]That almost makes sense, if the myth is confined to what passes for Christianity today.
However, there is another, contrary myth, that states that if we repent and go back to some mythical golden age of religion (the medieval Catholic Church, the "primitive" Christian Church, or even some pagan religion) we will return to our racial (or ethnic; same thing) pride and awareness.
"Religion" as a social phenomenon is a product of life as it is lived, not as a mere byproduct of an ideology or program. So it's rather more important to get whites working and living together as a conscious society or community; do that, and religion, or some alternative to religion, will take care of itself. There's no need to either get rid of religion, or to impose religion.
2003-11-03 22:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln] 3. We will form a coalition with environmentalists and lefties and march to final victory.
Not sure who makes this claim. I do think though that white nationalism needs to be much, much broader politically, if it is to be a truly white nationalist movement, and not just a backwards, reactionary conservative movement of a tiny splinter group of whites. Nationalists in Europe understand this better than we do; they certainly see ecology and various non-right wing political ideas as being acceptable, maybe even integral, to a nationalist point of view.
1, 2 and 4 derive their "myth" status from assuming we will sit around and wait for the inevitable. Obviously this is a prediction designed to appeal to those who prefer to do nothing. How can the Jews overplay their hand, for instance, if no one bothers to point this out to anyone? It's the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon: everyone will pretend the new clothes are spiffy, until someone publicly admits that the Emperor is naked, and then the spell is broken. We aren't at that stage yet, but when we are at that stage, we will have to speak up, and not assume that someone else will.
2003-11-05 03:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]We aren't at that stage yet, but when we are at that stage, we will have to speak up, and not assume that someone else will.[/QUOTE]
Yes, in part. I have become convinced that we simply must act NOW. We must speak out. Ain't gonna happen otherwise.
2003-11-05 05:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Not sure who makes this claim. I do think though that white nationalism needs to be much, much broader politically, if it is to be a truly white nationalist movement, and not just a backwards, reactionary conservative movement of a tiny splinter group of whites. Nationalists in Europe understand this better than we do; they certainly see ecology and various non-right wing political ideas as being acceptable, maybe even integral, to a nationalist point of view.
1, 2 and 4 derive their "myth" status from assuming we will sit around and wait for the inevitable. Obviously this is a prediction designed to appeal to those who prefer to do nothing. How can the Jews overplay their hand, for instance, if no one bothers to point this out to anyone? It's the "Emperor's New Clothes" phenomenon: everyone will pretend the new clothes are spiffy, until someone publicly admits that the Emperor is naked, and then the spell is broken. We aren't at that stage yet, but when we are at that stage, we will have to speak up, and not assume that someone else will.[/QUOTE]
Excellent posts by grep14w.
You should see my first post in this thread about ecological issues which has always been a concern of all Eurocentrics. I will also say that those of us concerned about Occidental renewal simply can't afford to not actively court traditionalistic Christians although I feel it very bad to have religion as a litmus test. In any case, look over my first post in this thread and give me any insights you happen to have.
Best regards,
V.O.
2003-11-05 22:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]Yes, in part. I have become convinced that we simply must act NOW. We must speak out. Ain't gonna happen otherwise.[/QUOTE] Let me elaborate a bit. Everyone has different ideas about what it means to "act now". Some thought they had to go out and rob banks, assassinate people, etc., and they got squashed, because the time wasn't right, and in any case the tactics were wrong.
There's a time and a place for everything. Obviously this isn't the time for violent revolution. But it isn't necessarily the time for other types of political action, either.
It's not going to do any good speaking out publicly if it means losing one's job, wife, or family. If one has to make such sacrifices, it must be in exchange for achieving real results, and that is unlikely at this stage in the game.
There are many other ways to make contributions that don't involve "in your face" public political activism.
But things will change and opportunities will emerge. I think there are things that can be done to make us better prepared for these future opportunities. And by this I don't mean traditional political activism, handing out leaflets, etc. These have their place but aren't fundamental. There's a thread on Stormfront, where Yggdrasil reveals his "true identity", which touches on this theme.
2003-11-05 22:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=triskelion]If those outcomes are going to be averted prior to whites becoming an anthropological curiosity, and forever irrelavent, in the states the "movement" is going to have to radically change but frankly I don't see that happening. Well, since the collapse isn't going to happen overnight, we still have time to prepare for it.
This myth has some substance behind it although it's lost on the American racist scene by in large who instead just think that such an event will somehow happen when some racial savior arises. Instead, the reality behind the myth is that genuine racialism has a strong environmentalist component (although lacking the extremism found on fringes of the left) which is an outgrowth of European man's romanticism. Also, the folkish world view is one that recognizes the inherent anti-community nature of modern capitalism and it's natural extension, globalism. Historically, a great deal of NR thought of various types and the movements based upon them have been able to appeal to what I call the "ethical left". Certainly, within the less statist fractions of leftist politics one can find sincere people that are quite suitable for recruitment by genuine, positive nationalists. One does that by promoting ITP style economics and community empowerment. One does not do it by screaming about "niggers", "day of the rope" and Turner Diary style psychopathic weirdness.
Nonetheless, the reality is that what I call the "moral left" is a small subset of that movement of destruction and even in the ââ¬Ë30s it was apparent that traditional proletarian values were dying and hence the right's promotion of "a deconstructionist" view of "socialism as means of transcending class warfare rather then promoting it" which in turn is again suited towards the less statist, more societally focused forms of various NR doctrines. The bottom line of all of this is that while we can, and should, appeal to the best of leftist sentiment no grand coalition will be formed as was in the ââ¬Ë30s at times and we should not lose sight of our traditionalist core in order to appease those that are pathologically opposed to our life affirming weltanschauung. [/QUOTE]There really wasn't any such "grand coalition" of left and right, just temporary alliances, and a lot of switching of "sides" and changes in opinions, evolution of ideologies, etc.
"Left" and "right" don't really exist as coherent belief systems, anyway; they are just two very broad political tendencies which society happens to divide itself into at any particular moment in time. These change over time, such that today's conservatives are in fact supporting political beliefs that were once "leftist", for instance.
I see no problem with appealing to many on the left whose tendencies run close to ours, and I don't see any problem ditching those "conservative" elements which simply don't match our actual interests and beliefs.
In fact, thinking in terms of "left" and "right" has become a serious impediment to realizing any kind of practical white nationalist politics. Thinking in terms of evolutionary group psychology explains politics much better than "left" and "right".
2003-11-07 04:35 | User Profile
I'm not talking about knocking over Brinks trucks. But I am talking about speaking out. For God's sake, what else are we going to do? If you're afraid to take the risk that someone will not like you, abandon a relationship with you or even fire you, you are simply not prepared to do what needs to done. If you lose relationships, you can find others. If you are fired, you can find other work or go on the ol' welfare system. Tom Metzger is. He's eating and not in prison, thank you. Maybe you don't consider TT the model here, but I'm just saying.
Sam Francis, A. Linder might want to know, is looking slim(mer) and trim(mer) these days. I haven't seen Joe Sobran begging for scraps, either. People are standing up in public to question Jewish influence, and they are not being shot.
We're not up against something that lends itself to "right times." I truly believe that we are deluding ourselves with visions about some mystical future time when people will be receptive to our message. We must [I]make[/I] that time come. I think it's lazy and cowardly not to.
This is not a happy thought for me. I am not a rash person who relishes the thought of catastrophics. But I am extremely upset about what Jews and white traitors are doing to us as a people, and I can't sit by and watch it happen. So I will proceed in my own way, ensuring always that I push myself.
In other words, my natural cowardice is being overtaken by my righteous indignation.