← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 13656 | Posts: 30 | Started: 2004-05-11
2004-05-11 18:17 | User Profile
I'm pretty sure this one's been thrown out before, but I throw it out once more with the following twists.
You have a historic chance, right here on this discussion board, to settle the matter.
The media right up 'til today keeps saying "white supremacist." I have not seen the media use "white nationalist."
Now, if you don't consider yourself "white" anything, I'm not as interested in what you have to say. This poll is for those of us who would say that they advocate for the group interests of white people exclusively, or first among others.
The choices I will supply are:
White Nationalist
White Supremacist
White Separatist
Pro-White
Feel free to throw up others. But let me know between white nationalist and white supremacist. I would like to encourage the media to use the former, for the reasons that A) white supremacist is not as accurate because most pro-white sentiment isn't about a sense of "superiority" or "supremacy" but about a desire for separation or self-determination and B) "supremacist," whatever accuracy it has advocating for it, is pretty nakedly pejorative.
Ready, set, go.
2004-05-11 19:44 | User Profile
If the idea that Western Civilization is unique (and greater than anything ever created by man) is "Supremacist", then yes Im a "Supremacist".
However, I do not advocate mass killing, looting and plunder of non-white nations or brutal genocide carried out under Bolshevism or Mao. I believe the British Empire was a mistake just as French colonialism was a mistake - mistakes that have consequences for us into the future, which were not foreseen at the time. I also believe that Africa shouldve been left alone. And Slavery was a mistake for which the United States paid for dearly in the Civil War and then post-desegregation.
I believe that the West needs to remain unique - a particular creation of a particular people.
If the illiterates who occupy the mainstream media consider that "Supremacist", they need to see a psychologist.
2004-05-11 20:08 | User Profile
So... I'm putting you down as a white nationalist?
2004-05-11 20:42 | User Profile
Call me an Anglo, a Westerner, White Nationalist, Pan-European Nationalist or simply true Conservative.
2004-05-11 20:44 | User Profile
Might be a good idea for you to have a poll here and see who stands where.
2004-05-11 21:05 | User Profile
The media uses 'white supremacist' simply to mean people who have very extreme pro-white views. What counts as 'extreme'? Well, obviously this will vary, but the standard measure (given the nature of the press) is National Socialism.
Personally, I consider myself a white nationalist, a white racialist, a white partisan, a partisan of the Germanic people, someone concerned to about white demographics--whatever I think is the best way of labelling whatever beliefs I think are relevant to present.
Am I a white supremacist? Well, I certainly believe that whites ought to be supreme in the West. Do I think we are supreme, in the sense of being better than the other races? Yes, this is what I believe, but I am willing to be proved wrong here, and this belief is not playing much of role in motivating my white nationalist agenda. So you can add white supremacist to the list--just so long as it is clear that this is not very central, and does not involve endorsement of the beliefs of all or most other self-described white supremacists (anymore than my being a Christian makes me responsible for what the Vatican does).
2004-05-11 21:59 | User Profile
Cuturally, I consider myself a Western Civilization supremacist.
Politically, I consider myself a White Nationalist in so far as I believe that forming an all White nation somewhere on the globe is the key to our survival.
I regard White Nationalism as White Separatism on a national scale.
2004-05-11 22:29 | User Profile
I would say that we have already formed a white nations--indeed, several of them. Of course, VF is referring to a white nation-state. This is a worthy goal, of course. But I wonder what we are to call partisans of the white nations that already exist--the white racial-cultural nations that are geographically dispersed?
Perhaps we could distinguish between white national-separatists and white racial-nationalists?
2004-05-11 22:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I would say that we have already formed a white nations--indeed, several of them. Of course, VF is referring to a white nation-state. This is a worthy goal, of course. But I wonder what we are to call partisans of the white nations that already exist--the white racial-cultural nations that are geographically dispersed?
Perhaps we could distinguish between white national-separatists and white racial-nationalists?[/QUOTE]
darkstar,
Can you clarify which nations you're referring to when you say several White nations already exist?
In the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, and most of southern Europe, it's clearly not the case that these nations are all white.
Do you mean places like Russia and perhaps the Scandinavian nations?
2004-05-11 23:52 | User Profile
The jewsmedia calls anyone who might point a finger at jewish supremacy a white supremacist. I doubt "white supremacy" ever was or ever will be more than a few dozen ambitious young men.
White supremacy is a joke as far as I'm concerned. I'd call myself a White Separatist or maybe White Survivalist. Whatever it takes to secure our long term survival.
2004-05-12 01:21 | User Profile
I mean the Germanic nation, the Celtic nation, the Anglo-Saxon nation, the Slavic nation, the Netherlandic nation, the Gaulic nation, etc.
Nation: 'A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality.' Nation ultimately refers back to birth. That nation refers to nation-state is rather recent development.
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]darkstar,
Can you clarify which nations you're referring to when you say several White nations already exist?
In the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rhodesia, and most of southern Europe, it's clearly not the case that these nations are all white.
Do you mean places like Russia and perhaps the Scandinavian nations?[/QUOTE]
2004-05-12 13:00 | User Profile
Yes, it is very true that God has granted our White race to have dominion over the world.
Genesis 1 23. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. [U]And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.[/U]
Under the fostering hand of the Godly White race, nations were found to flourish. As there has been an upset of the Godly balance by the ungodly, we have seen strife that has not been seen before on such a scale as to be worldwide in trouble and discontent. Non-white nations are in turmoil, Jews influence and direct American foreign policy against Muslims and Arabs. Jews influence and direct American domestic policy against those of us that love and serve Jesus Christ. Judeo-Christian churches are spiritual whorehouses that align themselves with the Jesus Christ hating Jews. America has turned away from Godly racial segregation and turned towards ungodly integration and has caused many to sin the sin of tolerance, as pointed out in 1 Kings.
1 Kings 11
America has followed strange gods of tolerance. America has been under the influence of Jews since the 1930's. America has repealed the laws against racial miscegenation and homosexuality, due to Jewish incitement and ungodly, anti-christian influence. The negro and other non-whites are set up very high as our White race is fallen very low.
And when people like me say that it wrong for America to be subverted in such fashion, myself and people like me are called "bigot", "White supremacist", "hater".
I would like to see constitutional values authored by our founding fathers, restored. What would you call me?
2004-05-12 15:28 | User Profile
Yes, I am a white supremacist. After working and living with negros for over 12 years in the city of Detroit, there is no longer any doubt in my mind that the negro race did not develop genetically over thousands of years like the white race has.
If any of you will like to state more than just opinions, there is a wonderful book that documents the achievements of the various human races over the last 2,800 years.
[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006019247X/ref=pd_sim_books_5/102-0912547-9348940?v=glance&s=books[/url]
Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 by Charles Murray (Author)
The book will show that 97% of all the greatest human achievements came from the Europeans and their decendents.
Golfball gave the Biblical sources and Charles Murray will provide you with the factual data. There is no doubt as to the supremacy of the white race.
2004-05-13 14:31 | User Profile
I would define myself as a White Supremacist.
I do not beilieve at all in the notion "Seperate but equal". One who recognizes the differences and uniqueness in racial culture cannot entertain the theory of social equality. I understand that "White Supremacy" has become associated with extremism, violence and single minded fanaticism, but it is more harmful to deny your culture and heritage while hiding under a new Zog Approved umbrella label.
Unfortunately I believe in my experience many people that have used the label "White Nationalist" or "White Racialist" have used the labels for the sake of being nonoffensive. Clearly that does not go for every White Nationalist/White Racialist. I believe the definitions can go hand in hand as well as side by side. Of course many readers of this board can just chalk this post up to the rantings of a White Supremacist, I know how so many of you can not bear to be associated with the term.:D
2004-05-13 14:44 | User Profile
Deb, By no means does "seperatist" imply that those wishing to live seperately from third worlders regard then as equals. It only means they do not go about advocating being the rulers of other races. Supremacist is a more threatening label to give yourself than seperatist. I don't see any benefit in putting ourselves in a corner by making threats we can't carry out. We need some degree of cooperation with other gentiles if we wish to remain somewhat free from the real Master Race.
2004-05-13 16:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=travis]Deb, By no means does "seperatist" imply that those wishing to live seperately from third worlders regard then as equals. It only means they do not go about advocating being the rulers of other races. Supremacist is a more threatening label to give yourself than seperatist. I don't see any benefit in putting ourselves in a corner by making threats we can't carry out. We need some degree of cooperation with other gentiles if we wish to remain somewhat free from the real Master Race.[/QUOTE]
Both terms, supremacist and separatist, are both non-threatening terms. A supremacist knows that he comes from a superior race. A separatist only wants to live among his own peers. Neither terms imply any threats of any kind. I consider myself both a supremacist and separatist.
In our modern economy, we will need to have some form of cooperation with all other races in order to aquire the raw materials that we will need. But that does not imply that we must allow other races to live within our civilizations.
This also does not mean we must rule over them. If the negro want to have the things we have, he will have to create products that we are willing to trade with him for. If he is incapable of doing this, then his kind must die out. It makes no sense to rule over them. Why would we want to do that? Once the negro sees that he is incapable of surviving without a superior race (Asian or European), he will freely submitt to any terms in order to survive.
I have to leave now. Just keep in mind that if we are to suceed, we must never be apologetic for being a superior race or for wanting to be seperate from inferior races. Open your eyes and look at what has happen to all of our once white cities and towns. Are we better off with diversity?
2004-05-13 19:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The negro is more than capable of surviving without the White Man. What he is incapable of is maintaining even a semblance of an industrial or post-industrial society when left to his own devices. If the white man were to permanently cut the negro loose (or disappear), the negro would simply revert to the same neolithic (upper stone age) way of life that he persued for tens of thousands of years before he encountered a civilized human being. Of course, a hunter-gatherer or primitive agricultural lifestyle can't support the same population numbers that a modern society can, so there would be significantly fewer people in Africa.
The only people on the world who cannot survive without the white race are the Jews. As a parasitic people, they need a wealthy society with enough economic overhead in order to fluorish in the type of professions they excel at (financial speculation, the entertainment industry, etc). They also need a society where some level of superficial integration and crypsis is possible. While Eastasian society is wealthy enough to support them, crypsis in Japan or Korea is out of the question.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for clearing up my post. I did not mean to imply that ALL negros will die out without the access to the white's modern technologies.
One only need to look at today's Zimbabwe to see the results of the negro society without the industry of the white people. Two-thirds of the nation is on the brink of starvation. Yet, our dimwitted politicians send billions of pounds of food to save people who will eventually starve anyways.
2004-05-13 20:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]The scientific, technological, and cultural achievements of whites are far ahead of what any colored race has produced, and even the much-vaunted achievements of non-whites (Jews, some Asian immigrants) usually takes place in the context of Western institutions rather than in their own native lands.[/QUOTE] AY,
We are in august company with the likes of Charles Murray.
2004-05-14 13:58 | User Profile
Alright. If there are some folks who concede that "white supremacist" is an accurate label for them, that complicates an appeal to the media to call us white nationalists instead. But I think it's advisable nevertheless, for reasons suggested above. "White supremacist" is a label used by the media NOT to accurately describe us, even if there is some accuracy there, but to denigrate us. It is clearly pejorative in tone. THAT is why it's a bad term. Kind of like "racist" that way. I know a guy who protests "racist" in favor of "racialist." Even though a racialist is just a British racist.
Though I hardly think "white nationalist" is a neutral or "PC" term, as someone said above. "White nationalist" is still pretty damn dangerous.
2004-05-14 15:41 | User Profile
Yes, this label should generally not be accepted, coming from the media, because they apply it without evidence or reason to reduce all pro-white views to the view that whites are or should be supreme.
2004-05-14 16:27 | User Profile
Right. It conjures an image of an ignoramus who wrongly thinks he's better than everyone else, and wants to stand on the backs of poor blacks with his slave-master boots on, cracking a whip and laughing to expose a snaggle-toothed grin.
And, as noted on VNN, you can pronounce it with evil hissing of the esses. Sssssupremassssisssst.
2004-05-14 16:43 | User Profile
Since we're on this subject, check out the following story recently printed by the Houston Chronicle:
[url=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2561372]Ex-Klansman Duke working for 'white rights' group[/url]
No loaded terms there, no sir.
2004-05-17 10:00 | User Profile
I am a Euro-Folk Separatist or Eurofolkist, an Ethnic Nationalist and PaleoConservative.
2004-05-17 15:19 | User Profile
I appreciate the creativity of "Eurofolkist," but that just doesn't have sticking power. Most folks probably don't know what that means.
Jews have obviously been quite successful operating under a hundred different names (communist, socialist, neoconservative), none of which are as accurate as "Jews." Should we attempt to emulate this? Or do we need one name to stick? This day and age seems to require it, but maybe that is by design. The group so named can be targeted for destruction.
Maybe a name will appear as the movement takes off. Does lack of a name prevent expansion, or encourage it? I don't want to be a "white supremacist" or a "neo-Nazi" because I just don't like the sound of those. "White nationalist" is pretty good, though I wouldn't put that on my resume while hunting for a regular job in town. Maybe I don't even know what I want to be. I am a "person concerned about or opposed to the dispossession and displacement of white Americans as the demographics of this country change," but that too is pretty unwieldy.
One problem, as noted on nationalvanguard.org recently, is that "we" don't even know who "we" are: Whites? (lower case) whites? Caucasians? Euro-Americans? Persons of European descent? This "we" problem melds into the political label problem.
Has anyone ever wondered whether a successful "white nationalist movement" might start to attract some questionably "white" people?
2004-05-17 17:44 | User Profile
I agree, we don't necessarily need one name. People will get the idea quick enough, if one of any number of names is used. Sure, some of them have some bad connotations, but the main thing is not to get caught by labels -- just reject ideas that you don't believe in, that are trying to be stuck on you.
2004-05-17 21:44 | User Profile
I think myself as an white nationalist. And next word or two of races: There are studies from group intelligence, and east asians are really more intelligent than average whites, average white intelligence is about 100, in most standard scales, average east asian is about 110-115, average negro btw. about 70 and average latino 80-85. Jews are most intelligent group. But whites have broadest spectrum, more retarded people, more geniuses than any race.
There are reasons for this kind racial differencies. Modern genetic studies tell that worlds non-negro population descenended from group of only 1000 people. Why? Because of harsh conditions of ice-age Middle east which was port to world at that time. You are closer relatives to aborigines of Australia than any negro in Africa.
The survinving in harsh climate of ice-age Middle east and Europe and Asia needed very much intelligence, and that developed our capabilites to maximum.
I personally think that east asian race and white race and now nearly extinct indian race are equally capable to create civilications. The differences come from conditions and history. China was worlds most developed place in year 1000AD, but it was centrally governed entity, with little of freedom. Europe was mostly so in 100AD, only random developments in history made Europe to what it is now. If Roman Empire had whitstanded and Chinese Empire not, then there would be shattered Europe-like China, with modern civilisation, and there would be backward unified Europe like modern China. Empires don't be good to freedom and innovations.
African negroes are more different than anybody of rest of us. They are more primitive human species. I would say Homo Sapien Africanus. They are not developed. And they are not capable of creating and keeping up civilisations.
2004-05-17 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]"White nationalist" is pretty good, though I wouldn't put that on my resume while hunting for a regular job in town. Maybe I don't even know what I want to be.[/QUOTE]
The Jewish neocons would not be nearly as successful as they are today if they went around 10-30 years ago calling themselves Jewish Nationalists or Jewish Supremacists -- even though Jewish Supremacists is what they are.
Thus, I think the success of the Jews suggests that we should avoid using the word to "White" in our propaganda and activism materials.
Obviously, no matter what label we use, unabashedly advancing the interests of White race will be our agenda, but that's not the point. The point is to learn from our enemies.
That said, the label that I am gravitating towards right now is "European Community."
I think this label has two main advantages:
1) The label does not use the term "White." Our opponents have invested 50 years and billions of dollars in demonizing the word "White" by attaching it to the word "supremacist." Why use it when European will do just as well?
2) There is a natural continuity between the phrase "European community," and phrases like "the Black community," "the Asian community, "the Latino community," etc. These phrases are used every day in newspapers, on television, on the web, and on the news. People are therefore used to hearing about ethnic communities and have been conditioned to think that there is nothing wrong with discussing the political interests of say the "Black community."
Thus, I think that by using a phrase like "European community," we can make it harder for our enemies to paint us as "supremacists," because other racial groups identify themselves as "communities" all the time.
And at the same time we can also get some mileage out of the fact that people have already been conditioned to believe that communities are OK for everyone but Whites.
Assuming we play our cards right in the public square, even Joe Sixpack or Sally Soccer Mom might begin to wonder at some point why it's "racist" to talk about European communites when people talke about the Black community all the time.
2004-05-18 00:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]I appreciate the creativity of "Eurofolkist," but that just doesn't have sticking power. Most folks probably don't know what that means.
[/QUOTE]
I am a [B]Euro-conservationist[/B].
2004-05-18 00:40 | User Profile
I don't think we want to model ourselves on what Jews have done. Being 'respectable' is pointless. The Queen is not going to invite us 'round for tea.
Likewise, there is no point in eschewing 'white' for 'Europeans.' Europeans are Europeans, American whites are something else.
'The white community' is just fine.
2004-05-18 21:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I don't think we want to model ourselves on what Jews have done. Being 'respectable' is pointless. The Queen is not going to invite us 'round for tea.
Likewise, there is no point in eschewing 'white' for 'Europeans.' Europeans are Europeans, American whites are something else.
'The white community' is just fine.[/QUOTE]
I also agree with Paleoleftist when he says that he is a Euro-conservationist.
As for me, I still like to use the term "white supremacist". No jew or political correct fool is going to define the term for me.
On the plus side, using the term white supremacist weeds out many undesireables from my life. :)