understand the unparalleled ubiquity of violent evil amongst blacks and we needn't repeat this scientific fact any more.As usual, the alt-right sphere has done its diligence in covering yet another story of anti-white black violence largely ignored by the mainstream. Of course, I believe these stories must be made public. The facts of race and racially motivated violence against whites must be propagated to the masses. Everyone knows blacks commit more crime, but complacent white suburbia does not understand the level of animus many blacks feel towards whites. In their very own country, whites harbor a hostile minority that views them as the primary source of evil, with this perverse notion dominating mainstream popular culture as well.
Yet, I often feel a little uncomfortable using the personal for political aims. We need individual cases to establish a pattern, but in the end, we should not reduce the couple's memories by pushing political propaganda or making them martyrs for a racial cause. They are unique individuals, not mere political weapons. Taking advantage of such an individual tragedy, affecting individual people and individual families, seems a little invasive and disrespectful of the victims. Further, it mirrors the sort of sterile, Alinsky-type strategy employed by liberals who seek political victory at any cost. For example, at HuffPo, an example of OneSTDV's Law of Black Intellectualism uses the John Anderson racist murder as justification for censuring a white racist society. I ask, has he missed the entire summer of black on white racist beatings and mob attacks, including one this past weekend in Philadelphia?
In essence, I'm criticizing the inclination for race advocates, both left and right, to deal too much in the personal rather than the abstract. I'll illustrate with an example. Race undoubtedly matters as it underlies civilization as a whole. One can not untangle society from its majority demographic. Yet when I think of Western Civilization, I revere the abstract foundational ideals, institutions, and historical traditions of society rather than the racial groups which have supported them. Perhaps a subtle distinction, but nonetheless an imperative one. Instead of considering race a deterministic indicator of value (as in both WNs and liberal creationists), I see race as more of a collective phenomenon. Race is surely intertwined with civilization, but one must earn any corresponding distinctions through action as opposed to nepotistic inheritance.
Race exists and that alone should justify both the moral and practical autonomy of a given group. But I prefer considering race as it connects to a civilization, not to individuals. Thus, in cases like the one discussed, we focus on the pattern of black violence and not the tragedy of these individuals' deaths. Maybe we cede some emotional power underlying our arguments, but by doing so, we do not diminish their individual personhood.
126 comments:
One, I think you are trying to hang on to a liberal/libertarian mindset with this line of thinking.
Mentally, I run into the exact opposite side of the coin, in that what would need to happen to bring America back, would necessarily bring great pain to good individuals within the bad racial groups.
But, being able to accept and deal with imperfect situations is one of the main things that defines being a real conservative.
Instead of considering race a deterministic indicator of value (as in both WNs and liberal creationists), I see race as more of a collective phenomenon.
I've come to this way of thinking as well. Here's how I describe it:
One should be a "civilizationist", not a "racist". That is, one should be in favor of Western civilization, not merely the white race.
However, one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority. A "civilization" is not just a list of ideological, scientific and cultural achievement - its own founders are one of its essential features. They have both shaped and have been shaped by it.
One should note that they would have gotten away with the murder if the guy wasn't so stupid as to take the victims car and park it in front of his house.
In their very own country, whites harbor a hostile minority that views them as the primary source of evil, with this perverse notion dominating mainstream popular culture as well.
We have our k-12 and university education system to thank for this situation.
Worth noting the comments on the article you linked. Not a great deal of liberal guilt in evidence there.
"Instead of considering race a deterministic indicator of value (as in both WNs and liberal creationists), I see race as more of a collective phenomenon."
Mostly I agree with this statement even though, I have come to see race as way more important than I was raised to believe. It just seems that the groups that care only about race tend to overtake the ones that don't care as much.
Anglos tend not to be very ethnocentric and race obsessed and look how well that is turning out for us.
Race is the most important thing because it's a biological extension of our bodies, from which everything else follows. Living among people of various races or among one text that is now not one's own is hell.
There are exceptions, like commenter Gunslingergregi saying "F.U. fascist multicultural America," and living in Indonesia. But for the most part, we need a social ecology of people who look, think, and enjoy themselves similar to us.
When people make cavalier or generous statements about multiracialism they take a white society for granted, and think of a token or two pleasant non-threatening non-whites as the extent of multiracialism.
Not being super ethnocentric does serve its purposes, though, it tends to keep you from being hated.
Leonard Pitts has already covered this. Whites are NOT by any stretch of the imgination an oppressed group.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003731134_pitts03.html
"I have come to see race as way more important than I was raised to believe."
But were you raised in a mono ethnic situation?
Obviously being Irish in Ireland isn't going to be talked up so much compared to other issues because everyone is Irish.
It is when ethnic groups clash that it is an issue.
One should be a "civilizationist", not a "racist". That is, one should be in favor of Western civilization, not merely the white race.
However, one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority. A "civilization" is not just a list of ideological, scientific and cultural achievement - its own founders are one of its essential features. They have both shaped and have been shaped by it.
Fantastic. Captured my position exactly. I think this is a really healthy way of looking at race, society, and individuals.
One, are you South Asian in background?
Interesting question: why are these things so much more prevalent in the Midwest and NE than in the deep South?
Is this business? Is this happening to someone else? If something is important, you make it personal.
That's a huge problem with HBD. The races are different - great. So what? What should we do about it?
Why should whites want to live? Why do you want to live? Emotion! It is key. Men are not robots or computers.
It's easy to make this business right now. But when people start paying for their racial beliefs, then it is emotional. Then emotion is all that matters.
One should be a "civilizationist", not a "racist". That is, one should be in favor of Western civilization, not merely the white race.
IHTG says,
"However, one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority. A "civilization" is not just a list of ideological, scientific and cultural achievement - its own founders are one of its essential features. They have both shaped and have been shaped by it."
Yes, IMHO, that really nails it; as a "NAM" i'm both proud yet properly though no though not unduly deferential to Western Civilization and partial overaall the fruits of economic, technological and artistic advances brought on by the Enlightenment.
Obviously, my preferring this civilizatoinal vs. a purely ethno-nationalist-view is self-serving and self-protective to some degree in my circumstance; but I think those whies who advance a pro-white/pro-race-realist woiuld encounter a lot less resistance and/or misinterpretation if they stressed the civilizational/choice-vs.-predetermined-genetics standards of allegiance more oftne and consistently (if they genuinely feel it, of course); one reason I believe as much, is because even if indeed truths like that fact tha NAMs comprise a way proportionately higher rate of serious crimes ---- say, for argument, 30% amongst NAMs vs. 3% amongst whites ------ the vast majority of NAMs are still among the civil population, and suffer unduly when NAM crime is essentialized onto all NAMs. And perhpas more to the point, making the distinction is a easy and uncomplicated process. So I thnk that's anothe rreason to think in terms of civilizational allegiance-vs.-strict ethno-racial allegiance.
And yes, I understand that a corrolary to such pro western civilization thought requires a strong Western-European majority; I work in an environment that carries a high percentage of NAM youth on a daily basis, many of whom are in crisis, and I have no illusions of this generation of NAMs (and, for that matter, their white and Asian friends) are ready to pick up the slack and carry on the finest realm of the western tradition, Unlike what many seem to think, myself and other minorities can live with the fact that we may not average out to be amongst the smartest of sub-species and historically are not represented on the vanguard of human inquest and technological advancement.
A lot of the problem is the confusion of interests among race realists, IMHO; there's a difference between engaging in venting and engaging in group-bonding measures, and in deliberating while coming up with strategic political plan and ambition; one activity is a catharisis and is done for personal relief; the other is strategic plan that needs to consider the reaction of others and its odds for success.
last comment is by nikcrit; i submitted early by mistake.
Anonymous,
I'm an American raised outside a big northeastern city. What I meant is that we are have been told how wonderful diversity is and then are told in the same breath we are basically all the same so don't look at anyone differently. It is a very mixed message.
Whites were not hated when they were objectively, and cruelly, racist. No non-White would have dared utter disparaging words about Whites in earshot of White people, when Whites were doing very cruel things indeed, to non-Whites. So that disproves the idea that Whites being less racial (until recently they were VERY racial) makes them less hated. Whites now are very non-racial, and take special pains to avoid offending non-Whites, with the result that they are hated.
I would say it boils down to strength. If you are strong, no one will hate you. They will be too afraid of you. They will seek to curry favor from you, and never ever speak ill of you, for fear of what you might do. This applies to Princes and Nations, as well as peoples. That strength of course can be misused, to guarantee later retaliation if/when strength wanes, but in general all peoples despise weakness and worship strength. So don't ever, EVER be weak.
It's important to deal in abstractions if you want to attract smart people. Smart people realize that no amount of individual "examples" will prove anything. You need to base your arguments on what the big numbers show -- the central tendencies of different groups demonstrated on a huge scale.
It seems crazy in this day and age that we have to constantly reaffirm the obvious, i.e. : race exists.
Jeez.
In other news, the world has been incredibly unfair to Amanda Knox.
Check out the way she gets lynched in the New York Times :
crimesofthetimes.com
ONE: please consider blogrolling and/or following us.
Arturo
In this World there are only two things that truly matter - Family and Race. Make No Mistake, its ALL about race to the others - the diversities, the minorities, the filth from the slime pools of the third world.
No Matter if they just got off the boat or have been here for generations its Always about Race.
Every Race competes for resources and territory with All other Races. There are no prizes or awards for second place in this War...
"But were you raised in a mono ethnic situation?
Obviously being Irish in Ireland isn't going to be talked up so much compared to other issues because everyone is Irish.
It is when ethnic groups clash that it is an issue."
Perhaps it's specifically whites bonding over race than over ethnicity that raises contentions amongst liberals and certain minorities; there doesn't seem to be much resistance toward white Italians celebrating their Italian heritage or Sicilians embracing Sicilian culture; ditto Brits for the U.K., Scots for Scotland,etc. ------ but the rancor begins when they bond under 'white.' However unfair, I think the negative reaction to that traces back to WWII and concepts of 'Aryanhood' and the idea of superiority and inferiorty as doctrine; i think that's unfair but true; in a way, it's a back-handed compliment in that it says we resist you and contest you because we fear you and realize you must be reckoned with (cold comfort, I know).
I mean, I don't know what the perception is within the Asian world, but I wonder if pan-Asian identity prevails, or is it more a matter of Japanese feeling as alienated from the Chinese culturally as they may or may not from, say, white Americans.
Regardless, I'm sure 20th-century history being what it was has a lot to do with the seeming resistance of much of the world to a pan-caucasian identity.
Regardless, I'm sure 20th-century history being what it was has a lot to do with the seeming resistance of much of the world to a pan-caucasian identity.
Actually, it should be the opposite. The first half of the 20th century was marked by nationalistic wars, which ought to suggest that race-solidarity ought to be the lesson-learned: no more wars bethween the French and the German, the Pole and the Russian. Racial pan-European brotherhood would have been the logical solution to ethno-nationalism.
Meanwhile, the second half of the century was a dismantiling of continend-wide racial (racial, not natinal) cohesion by encouraging racial chauvinism and legal protection for non-white minorites where they existed, and importing said minorities where they were hitherto absent. This program is still continuing, though my rational hope is that it will end and reverse itself very unexpectedly.
So no, nothing that happened in the 20th century leads one to the conclusion that pan-caucasian solidarity is a bad thing.
Anglo society was set up to make extended family less important. The nuclear family was always important, but extended family not as much. Things started to break down when we brought people in who are more clannish than we are.
Lara, a lot of the things you say about Anglos seem to apply to nothern US states. The Anglos in the South are very extended-family oriented. It's all about cousins, uncle, grandpa, and so on in country music and in general culture.
Artur,
Where do you get your information? The NY Times has run countless, countless pieces suggesting that KNOX is innocent and is being railroaded.
Here is one among the many;(note: i noticed that many of the commenters chide the Times piece, going on to say that there is evidence against her).
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/an-innocent-abroad/
Whether Knox was railroaded or not, I do not have any idea; the most i'd say is that her profile seems an unlikely candidate for a murderer.
But I do know that I wouldn't value an opinion on the matter from you.
Right. Southern Anglos are a little different, but probably similar in a lot of ways too. I didn't really mean close family members such as grandparents, aunts and uncles so much as family beyond that. Steve Sailer has about Anglo societies being high trust, which is more what I am getting at. I'm not really disputing the importance of family for anyone, it's just that if you don't have such a great family it would be nice if you still had a chance at success.
You probably know Southerners better than I do since I've never been there.
I spend a chunk of my early 20s in eastern TN, western NC, and a bit in AL & GA. I had friends there, and even developed a bit of a local accent. It;s very different than points north.
I think many European cultures are high trust, not just Anglos. When they first arrived to this country they tended to stick together, but through the generations have mixed a lot.
one reason I believe as much, is because even if indeed truths like that fact tha NAMs comprise a way proportionately higher rate of serious crimes ---- say, for argument, 30% amongst NAMs vs. 3% amongst whites ------ the vast majority of NAMs are still among the civil population, and suffer unduly when NAM crime is essentialized onto all NAMs. And perhpas more to the point, making the distinction is a easy and uncomplicated process. So I thnk that's anothe rreason to think in terms of civilizational allegiance-vs.-strict ethno-racial allegiance.
I understand how difficult it must be for the part of the NAM population not committing disproportionate crime to have group generalizations "essentialized". It must suck, but those generalizations are not soley the generalizations of whites. Blacks make the same generalizations about themselves (while also keeping an abiding sense of grievance against whites). So, yeah, it sucks for you. And for those of us not comatose or bludgeoned into thinking or mouthing "diversity is our greatest strength", it's rough too. I mean, those of us who acknowledge group differences don't reflexively hate blacks. But at some point, one makes the calculation that if 30% of the population (as in your guesstimate) is criminal, and the brazenness of this group seems to have increased rapidly in the last couple of years (because they see no backlash, or worse, their actual victims are villainized... Jena for example... Whiskey's right; weakness is despised and exploited), those of us aware of racial differences make the calculation that it's prudent to have as little interaction with the problematic group as possible, which is why we don't buy homes or send our kids to school in NAM neighborhoods if we can at all afford not to. We are in no way at fault for arriving at a calculus that is reasonable and prudent. Of course that sucks for the decent NAMs, but even SWPLs/DWLs make the same calculus when choosing where to live and send their kids to school.
However, one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority.
So, what percentage of the population should be white for it to be the dominant majority? And part of being the dominant majority is recognizing itself as such, and not kowtowing to radical egalitarianism, which breeds resentment amongst underachieving races because they're taught that differences in life outcomes are the result of white racism. When it was much, much safer to be white in America, it was closer to 90% white, and segregated. That's merely historical fact.
The difficulty with the notion that "one should be a civilizationist, not a racist. That is, one should be in favor of Western civilization, not merely the white race" is that when the white accomplishments and achievements that created Western civilization in the first place are diminished in favor of all groups are the same, then non-white groups have no interest in buying into the notion of "a dominant white majority" (and in fact, fight that notion at every step). Ultimately, a dominant white majority is an impossibility, whatever our numbers, when none of the groups (including whites) recognize whites as dominant. That's pie in the sky. Western Civilization is inextricably tied to whiteness. To the extent that it becomes less white, it will less be Western Civ.
My comment was directed at Eye of Hours. If everyone else is going to care only about race then maybe we should too.
one should be a civilizationist, not a racist. That is, one should be in favor of Western civilization, not merely the white race
Yeah, OneStdv surprised me by endorsing this vaguely neoconish assertion. Maybe he's Asian or part-Asian so he;s got a reason for it.
For me, Western Civilization is not just about its achievements. It's also about the look and feel of ordinary people and local cultures, all inextricably tied to whiteness.
I'll "tolerate" the idea of the presence of non-whites where they historically have always been (like blacks in the US) but do not see a reason for more than trace-quantities of non-whites in general as someting desireable.
Just as there is no need for Italian communities in Korea, there is no need for non-whites in Western nations.
The sad thing is that many (most?) whites spurn their own civilizational achievements. Take classical music for example. Most of the students in our top music academies nowadays are East Asian, because East Asians recognize the greatness that is being thrown away by whites and are quite happy to take it up for themselves. The Philadelphia Orchestra, considered by many to be the best in the world, is on the brink of bankruptcy and may very well cease to exist a year or two from now, while China has just created half a dozen new professional symphony orchestras. There may come a time when talented white American musicians will move to China to learn (what was once) Western classical music and vie for a spot in one of China's orchestras. And that will be a sad day indeed for Western Civ.
@nikcrit
"but the rancor begins when they bond under 'white."
And explain how that is any different than the SPLC, the NAACP, La Raza or the ADL.
Lara said,
"And explain how that is any different than the SPLC, the NAACP, La Raza or the ADL."
If you noticed, I said:
" .....but the rancor begins when they bond under 'white.' However unfair, I think the negative reaction to that traces back to WWII and concepts of 'Aryanhood' and the idea of superiority and inferiorty as doctrine; i think that's unfair but true .....
I wasn't suggesting that's a valid excuse; moreso saying that probably explains the resistance in part.
Like PA, I am somewhat surprised by One's endorsement of Western Civilization rather than the race that brought it about. Part-NAM Nikrit seems quite concerned with Whites "bonding" or "venting" about White identity, whereas he is comfortable with the thought of Western civilization being primary in our culture. At another thread, he postulated that he considered a "fair" and workable population mix of perhaps 75% White, 15% black, 10% hispanic, and 5% Asian/other.
As others have written far more eloquently than I, race is family writ large. It's an instinctual, inherent connection - blacks seem to understand its primacy; they certainly circle the wagons whenever one of them is caught far outside of cultural norms. Most Whites want to deny it; indeed, they've been taught to fear it - via the same argument Nikrit mentions - that if Whites identify as a race, they'll all turn into evil NAZIs and slaughter everyone else.
Of course, this is ridiculous to any thinking individual; few are, these days, however, so it's pervasive. When that black mob was chasing the two 13 year-old White kids in Philadelphia, I guarantee they were connected by race - both in the mob's mind, and in their own. At a primal level, when all civilization is destroyed (or its thin veneer easily and quickly discarded by NAMS), race matters deeply. When I read of the poor couple in Tulsa slaughtered in cold blood, it's personal. When I hear of another White woman violated by a black rapist, it's personal. I value Western Civilization highly - the literature, the art and architecture, the scientific and technical achievements. But these things are products of the mind and soul of individual people - from various European locales - and underneath it all is White genetic heritage. One may be uncomfortable with that now; someday it may save his life.
Any society based on theories and hypothetical understanding re the primacy of Western thought will be multi-racial. Perhaps not to the degree Nikrit desires, but most mainstream Whites would immediately list people like Sowell or Malkin. The problem, when it comes down to it, is this sort of society still involves nationhood based on acceptance of a proposition. A black espousing Western civilization may be a potential workmate, but I would wager the vast majority of Whites would not consider him a potential mate. In turn, of course, one then must concede the acceptance of such individuals' mates and children, regression to the mean, and disparate impact. You just start the pot boiling again.
Once you deny race as "a deterministic indicator of value," you've lost your moorings and set yourself adrift on another multicultural sea.
RE:
"However, one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority."
John D,
The above quote was not mine; it was part of the larger quote I originally agreed with and commented upon; (I messed up the font at the start of my comment).
"one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority."
SO IOW there is no Western civilization without whites. That makes race very important.
One,
"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people."
-SF
Like PA, I am somewhat surprised by One's endorsement of Western Civilization rather than the race that brought it about. Part-NAM "Nikrit seems quite concerned with Whites "bonding" or "venting" about White identity, whereas he is comfortable with the thought of Western civilization being primary in our culture. At another thread, he postulated that he considered a "fair" and workable population mix of perhaps 75% White, 15% black, 10% hispanic, and 5% Asian/other."
Somewhat to my surprise, I agree with pretty much the rest of your comment, even though the sobering realities you mention don't exactly put an extra bounce in my step. On a given day, during any given hour, I see examples of what you speak of repeatedly ------ as well as comforting counter-examples; all I can do is hope for the best and take comfort in the fact that I'm an adult who's pretty much settled and at peach with my personal 'me and mine'; therefore able to negotiate these realities with a comfortable and dare-say well-earned distance.
But, just to be clear and for the record: I'm really not personally concerned about whites acts of 'bonding and venting.' Moreso, I was venturing what might cause the concern in others.
I'm also curious about some of the hard verities you seem to proscribe in terms of western culture having to adhere to a certain level of racial purity. My life and family, of course, is a bit more fluid in this dept.; I know and understand how that may or may not work for other Americans, at for themselves personally. But I'm curious how someone who's described oneself as Jewish came to such absolute a position; surely you know that many upon many who come to sites like this one believe with absolute conviction that Jews are not only ideologically alien to western culture's best interest, but also precluded from white-west heritage solely on racial grounds. Personally, I disagree with that view, even though I don't have a solid background in genetics; but I know that outcast view of Jewish race and ethnicity is quite prevalent in the race-realist blogosphere.
@ PA and Sheila:
Yeah, OneStdv surprised me by endorsing this vaguely neoconish assertion. Maybe he's Asian or part-Asian so he;s got a reason for it.
For me, Western Civilization is not just about its achievements. It's also about the look and feel of ordinary people and local cultures, all inextricably tied to whiteness.
I am not Asian.
But my point is no different whatsoever from you wrote. And I've repeated that idea many times before.
I'm merely saying that we should look at race as a collective phenomenon, not an individual one. When I see a group of 50 random white people, you want me to celebrate them merely for being white. I instead would rather celebrate Western civilization as an abstract concept, but also understand that Western civilization does not exist independent of white people as a racial collective (a concept completely anathema to neoconish/multicultural doctrine).
Maybe this is splitting hairs or maybe I'm just not explaining my point well enough.
In sum, race should work one way: individuals coming together to produce something unique and worthy of celebration, e.g. ancient Greece, Enlightenment, America. It should not work the other way around: conferring value to someone merely because they're part of a race. (Though in a way I do this by proposing ethnocentric immigration and population laws, but I don't think of it explicitly, as in I don't like some dumb truck-nuts drunk just because he's white.)
And to reiterate: this "unique something", as in society, can only be accomplished by a particular group, i.e. Jews, Germans, Swedes, Japanese, or American whites.
@ White Devil:
I've referenced that quote multiple times:
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/06/failure-of-colorblind-politics.html
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2011/07/thoughts-on-race-discussions-in.html
If shoulds and coulds were bollocks and nuts, all you queers would be happy.
White proles can be, well, subhuman too:
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/jennifer-petkov-stands-mute-on-assault-charges
I'd imagine WN types would be happy if the person taunted were non-White (I've seen and read such stuff on Stormfront and will be happy to provide links).
Don't sweep shitty prole-white behavior under the carpet.
White folk in Detroit called "Petkov" ain't exactly representative, Eli, you boy.
Don't sweep shitty prole-white behavior under the carpet.
I think the reason why HBD/race-conscious conservative sites (exempting HalfSigma) generally ignore or don't focus on such behavior is that:
a) it's far less common amongst whites.
b) even bad whites can't compare to bad blacks.
c) bad whites are inevitable in a white country, but bad mexicans aren't.
d) the media already spends way too much time reporting these "great white defendant" cases.
So, what percentage of the population should be white for it to be the dominant majority?
I don't think this matters as much as you think (though I suppose it should be over 66%).
As an example, I bring PA's homeland Poland, in which Poles were for centuries a surprisingly low percentage of the population. Nevertheless, they were the dominant group.
Yeah, OneStdv surprised me by endorsing this vaguely neoconish assertion.
Please read the entire comment before you accuse me of ideological heresy.
But I'm curious how someone who's described oneself as Jewish came to such absolute a position;
It's a fairly common sentiment among Israeli Jews that the "non-whites and Muslims are taking over Europe", and that this is a bad thing. Israelis are avid tourists (Jewish wanderlust, perhaps) and we see these things first-hand.
But you're right that I am fairly unique in having taken that sentiment in an intellectual/ideological direction. I suppose that has to do with my personal circumstances.
As for antisemites, I'll admit that at first there was a bit of a thrill in battling it out with them, but they mostly bore me now.
I don't think someone should get all these wonderful traits attributed to them just because they're white. In a completely white society no one would even think that way. I fully admit there are many people of other races who are superior to me in intelligence and accomplishments. It's just when you're talking about large groups people like me are going to fit into American culture more easily. I would never complain about a Christmas tree in a public place or unfair beauty standards because I would never see those things as a problem.
For some reason I thought One was Jewish even though I don't recall him ever saying so.
I guess if this was the United States 200 years ago I would prefer PA and Sheila being in charge of immigration policy. It just makes sense to bring in people that already think like you do, the assimilation process would be easy and the character of the country would remain the same.
As far as pointing out bad prole white behavior, I don't see your point. I wouldn't even want to live in a country where everyone behaved perfectly, it would be boring.
Actually when One used to post over one Chuck's I just thought he was white. Only since reading his blog and seeing him get upset over Pat's comments I started to think maybe he's Jewish. Since he's still pretty agreeable and laid back I'm going to say maybe he's half Jew, half Gentile.
IHTG cites and says:
But I'm curious how someone who's described oneself as Jewish came to such absolute a position - (written by nikcrit.)
It's a fairly common sentiment among Israeli Jews that the "non-whites and Muslims are taking over Europe", and that this is a bad thing. Israelis are avid tourists (Jewish wanderlust, perhaps) and we see these things first-hand.
But you're right that I am fairly unique in having taken that sentiment in an intellectual/ideological direction. I suppose that has to do with my personal circumstances.
IHTC,
That quote of mine you cite was directed to Sheila, not you.(et al: my apologies for the sloppy attribution; During the day, I sometimes use a wireless, full-size keyboard to type text into a smart phone, which I often don't even glance at before posting..... This, I now see, can create problems.)
Most of One's views are in line with a gentile white male's views: the affection for US soldiers, conservative views about sexuality, especially female sexuality, respect for masculinity. I will say that.
Ah, I see.
I'm not sure Sheila can be called Jewish at this point, except in the Bobby Fischer sense.
Nikrit, to clarify, I am genetically Jewish (this is undeniable, and Jews are genetically distinct from other European Whites, whatever they might wish to think). I am not religiously, socially, or culturally Jewish. I am a baptized, believing Christian. I am married to a White, Christian man. My children have been raised as White, Christian Americans. I have no Jewish friends, I don't identify with "is it good for the Jews?" and I don't particularly care for Israel (but I don't see a moral equivalence between the Palestinians and the Israelis - it's more that the only country I identify with is my own - the U.S.). I suppose I have some Jewish characteristics, but whether these are attributable more to genetics or environmental factors, I couldn't say. I don't look exceptionally Jewish (but I'm not a leggy blonde, either). So when you say I describe myself as Jewish, that's inaccurate. The only reason I have chosen to reveal my genetic background online is because I value honesty above most other virtues, and I don't want to mislead other HBD/White nationalist posters. I am aware that a large percentage of White nationalists would not wish me as an ally. As I have indicated before, this is their right and rationally based.
Many Jews, typically, would use this sort of argument to "shame" me into returning to their fold. You know you've heard this sort of thing before: "You may deny your Jewishness, but others will never let you forget it so you might as well be on our side." It's hardly surprising that Jewish IHTG would compare me to Bobby Fischer (i.e. genetically Jewish and anti-semitic, and also a crazy, paranoid recluse). Sorry, but my political, religious, and cultural views and my ethno-nationalism are deeply and sincerely held, and whether or not others consider me Jewish or accept me or not is not going to change this. I'm not going to run screaming for the schtetl because certain posters at Storm Front think I should be gassed. Obviously, I disagree, but it doesn't change anything. I separated myself from any sort of Jewish identity at a fairly young age; the forces that shaped me as an adult have nothing to do with Judaism, and everything to do with Western European culture and Christianity. That's what I identify with, that's what I value, that's what made America what it was, and that's what I want to preserve.
nikcrit,
Think of it this way, who criticizes you for identifying with and acting white? I'm guessing it's almost always black people.
"So when you say I describe myself as Jewish, that's inaccurate."
I recall you roughly saying earlier what you just said in your last comment re. your Jewish attributes; I was just a bit reckless in saying you "described" yourself as such. (e.g., my bad, etc.)
cullye@PA and Sheila
OneSTDV is Jewish. That might explain why he's taking this middle-of-the-road approach.
Lara said,
"Think of it this way, who criticizes you for identifying with and acting white?"
No one, as I look black (I'm more the Lenny Kravitz than Nicole-Richie-type-mulatto, if that doesn't sonund too ridiculous.... . though, more seriously, it's true: when I go to the various schools, kids in poor-neighborhood black schools will mimic my voice like it's a 'nerdy-white' voice; but, when going through middle-class, majority-white K-8's in my district, the kids invariably, will say, "Hey, Mr. 'Nikcrit,' whaaat's happpening," affeting their best middle-class white Snoop Dogg impersonation; so i guess it's true that racial conceits and perceptions are very relative to their sources.)
One is not Jewish.
He writes too to the point and pragmatically, like a 5 paragraph essay. He deals in reality, and does so as efficiently as he can. And, he's the best there is in the HBD at it.
Jews write with an avalanche of words that mean nothing. Dissimulation and all that.
Plus, Jews are usually funny (haha not queer).
One isn't funny at all, even when he does his Onion satire style posts.
I think half white/half Asian was the best guess, but he says he's not.
Laotian!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR1y23acJD8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLEDC77CB53AC75060
"I think half white/half Asian was the best guess, but he says he's not."
I think that better describes Camlost. I was sort of hoping he'd chime in at some point on this topic.
But come to think of it, he's probably still lamenting the collapse of the Atlanta Braves last night! (Poor Guy; has to live in the city that hosts both the Falcons and the Braves! Ouch!)
Our host is of Southern European descent.
Our host is of Southern European descent.
At last, mystery solved. OneSTDV is a Turk looking for admission into the EU.
Only since reading his blog and seeing him get upset over Pat's comments I started to think maybe he's Jewish.
Yes, it certainly seems to indicate that but it may also indicate a status seeking sort of thing. It's fairly common to demonstrate one's intellectually based so called "race realism" by being aggressively assertive of non race realism when it comes to Jews. Matter of a fact I believe it's mandatory - just ask HS and IHTG (notice all the acronyms for names?).
Getting semi regular commenting rights at Austers is a give away that you're either a) a Jew or b) Jew worshipping.
The first rule of HBD is that race is real and that Jews are both white and uniquely Jewish and race has nothing to do with it. If you forget that then you're out!
Other indications are class based distinctions when regarding white people (and white should never be capitalised - that's a big no-no). When arguing for a white racial identity one must always differentiate themselves from "prole" whites. This is very important. It's a type of race realism come class based religion where there are whiter whites who constitute a brahmin class, the superior ones.
They are white but not white, whiter than white without being white. They have transcended such corporeal distinctions and have entre into the Lord's Temple. The rest of us must take our shoes off before entering, if at all. Oh, and pay the mental jizya: You can be white so long as you acknowledge that Jews are also white and simultaneously distinctly Jewish.
It's hard to get your head around and the inability to get there demonstrates prolishness. Poor old Jared Taylor battles with it daily.
Hey OneSTDV, why don't you just state your ethnic and religious composition? I must admit the anticipation is kind of exciting though so perhaps it should remain a mystery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qO66Rmi1Mw
LOL, there's a lot of truth in Pat's description, though his resentment is misplaced.
BTW, for the record, IHTG is just an abbreviation of "Israeli Hi-Tech Guy".
If One is Jewish he should be upfront about it. An Italian would never be ashamed of being Italian.
Pat's comment is true for how higher class Gentiles relate to Jews. I was always slightly surprised when I'd be with less classy person who would very clearly state that so and so is a Jew.
The one group that I believe will keep Jewish power in check are Catholics. They just seem to be better at standing up to them than Protestants have been.
Resentful!? Moi!?
That's something my Mum would say - and does dammit.
I resent her for it.
OneSTDV: "Yet when I think of Western Civilization, I revere the abstract foundational ideals, institutions, and historical traditions of society rather than the racial groups which have supported them."
Yes, it is Western Civilization that we need to save from the lunatic and hateful leftists who want to destroy us. We need to be pragmatic and realistic about this.
@ Lara
I'm Catholic, and no, I do not "worship" Jewish People in the manner certain Christian Zionists do. It's kind of ironic since I've been told on numerous occasion that I " Have a Jewish Look" ( Eastern European Ashkenazim type )even thought I'm fairly tall & leggy, fair-haired and complexioned.
As far as the Western world remaining white, I totally agree, although I'm open to certain types of immigrants; South East Asians & certain South Asians are generally a more desirable presence than some other types.
That might explain why he's taking this middle-of-the-road approach.
I'm not seeing how this is "middle-of-the-road": celebrating Western Civilization's ideas as standalone concepts, yet inextricably linked to whites as a race; advocating a 85%+ white America; championing 1950's style conservatism.
I merely reject the notion that race should be conferred upon individuals. We should view race as a collective effort instead.
Here's a sports analogy:
-The Patriots are the best football team and every single player is necessary for that success, even the special team backups. Maybe they're replaceable, but the Pats wouldn't quite be the Pats without them. And they serve a vital, necessary purpose. But just because they happen to play on a championship team with football gods like Tom Brady and Bill Belicheck doesn't mean the special team backups are also football gods. In the end, the Pats and all the players on the Pats are champions, but only a few of them go to the Hall of Fame. You don't get into the Hall of Fame just because you played with Tom brady on the pats, but you still do get a championship ring.
Get it?
We've progressed to the point where irrational Jew-hatred, and a paranoid insistence that you are surrounded by Jews, is being called "race realism."
"We've progressed to the point where irrational Jew-hatred, and a paranoid insistence that you are surrounded by Jews, is being called "race realism.""
There has been no progression. This is how the race realist blogosphere has always been. Alas.
Actually, it has gotten better in recent years with the addition of rational, non-hating young blood like OneSTDV, GLP and Unamused.
"I'm Catholic, and no, I do not "worship" Jewish People in the manner certain Christian Zionists do."
That's why I don't think we need anymore Evangelical Christians in the White House. Mainline Protestants would never buy into the notion the Jews are God's Chosen People and they are indifferent to Israel. Mainline Protestants are turned off by any religious fanaticism which may be why we have always gotten along well with more secular Jews, although we seem to have trouble standing up to them. I really do think Catholics, with centuries of history between them and Jews, know how to deal with them the best.
Oh gawd, really Unamused, must we go through that trite argument for the ten millionth time? That Canter's Deli line has really gone past its used by date, mate.
Ok, I'll patronise you, what are examples of "...irrational Jew-hatred, and a paranoid insistence that [we] are surrounded by Jews, is being called "race realism."?
On the other hand, Unamused seems to be embracing his small bit of Juden, Jewdom, Jewish...ness, and Judas, lately.
Well, randomly calling other people on the internet Jewish without any evidence would be one example. I've gotten called a Jew on a few occasions. by paranoid anti-Semites, even though I'm not Jewish in any way, shape, or form. (I'm from an Italian Catholic family.)
The really baffling thing about the anti-semitism on the right is that it proves too much. If the Jews were responsible for everything they are accused of, they really would be a master race and we would have no choice but to acquiesce to their machinations.
I've only been posting regularly the last few days, and I have already been accused of being a "moby" and a negro troll.
But, I don't flip out and start calling people names and bring my people to do the same.
I just chuckle or smirk or post something else awesome.
Matt,
Why does criticism of blacks, Jews, Muslims and gays all have a special word assigned to it whereas criticism of everyone else is just plain old criticism?
WASP is apparently a derogatory term and most WASPs actually refer to themselves that way.
"-The Patriots are the best football team and every single player is necessary for that success, even the special team backups. Maybe they're replaceable, but the Pats wouldn't quite be the Pats without them. And they serve a vital, necessary purpose. But just because they happen to play on a championship team with football gods like Tom Brady and Bill Belicheck doesn't mean the special team backups are also football gods. In the end, the Pats and all the players on the Pats are champions, but only a few of them go to the Hall of Fame. You don't get into the Hall of Fame just because you played with Tom brady on the pats, but you still do get a championship ring.
Good analogy, IMHO, specifically stating: greatness is a collective effort, even though the various elements making for that effort may not be equal in power or effect; still, those positive elements of varieties are not to be confused with elemental liabilities to greatness, which also come in various shades and stripes.
(What's lacking in One's example is his CHOICE for a football metaphor; The GB Packers provides a much more clear and concise example of NFL supremacy. :))
The GB Packers provides a much more clear and concise example of NFL supremacy. :)
Up until the 2nd half of last week's game, I would have disagreed.
But Aaron Rodgers is really showing himself to be an all-time great and I'm not exaggerating. I do think though that we're in a goldern era for QBing, even if we look past the rule changes. Brady, Manning, and Rodgers are unboudtedly all-time greats and would dominate in any time period.
I don't get your NFL analogy here OneSTDV. What is it attempting to prove?
Gridiron is an interesting study though in how race, in a specific environment creates a unique culture.
Gridiron is uniquely American, something which indicates a specific culture that arose from race shared with Europe.
Points about Gridiron:
* One player alone dominates the game - the QB. Other codes like Leageu, Union, Soccer, Ozzie Rules, Gaelic football etc do not share this emphasis on one player.
* Specialised teams one for defense, one for attack, one even for special teams.
* Specialised roles within the specialised 3 teams.
* Stop-start play to gain a fixed amount of territory with a maximum amount of attempts to get there.
* emphasis on explosive play rather than fluidity to gain the down.
There's way more but thinking about Gridiron, it's nature and evolution its a tangible expression of the unique racial type of Americans within the unique environment of America.
Only one race created the game and played the game but of course now it is open to all and, with the advent of professionalism being undermined yet still it expresses the culture and racial type of America.
The NFL seeks out racial types for certain positions. IQ itself plays a big role in that players need understand the complexity of the plays.
Could you explain your Patriots example further please?
Re. the Jew thing and paranoid whatever (not directed at OSTDV but generally like Unamused et al): is it paranoid to note that in NFL the coach/es and quarterback are major influences upon success or defeat?
If I get the worst coach ever and the most shithouse QB going and shove them in an otherwise fantastic team what would you say the team's prospects are? I'd say Buckleys and none.
So of course a minority can have a major impact upon the overall team's prospects. It's not paranoid nor delusional to say so, fact is, it is paranoid and delusional to say the opposite!
Do you really think the 49ers would have one so many playoffs if they didn't have Joe Montana?
Sorry for the typos. In a bit of a rush.
The sports analogies are good as they take things to neutral territory.
One thing about the Patriots is that anyone can play for the Patriots now yet the Patriots were meant to represent a region and its people.
The same happens in Oz with our games. Teams like mine Parramatta are supposed to represent the Parramatta people but now with salary cap and professionalism teams are not representative at all.
Yet people want this representative factor. Thus the success of a series here called "State of Origin" where QLD and NSW play each other in 3 games for the title of best state and the players must be from that state.
International Test matches no longer have their cache as players can be poached. People want their teams to represent their regions and the success of State of Origin and Union Internationals is testament to that.
Some teams that are otherwise ordinary suddenly become world beaters because they bond on their identity. Thus Samoa or Tonga for example can beat or go very close to bringing down a powerhouse playing far beyond what each player would be valued on paper.
One should be a "civilizationist", not a "racist". That is, one should be in favor of Western civilization, not merely the white race.
However, one of the defining characteristics of Western civilization is a dominant white majority.
Or rather, the extent to which a civilization is to be considered "western" is the extent to which it is White? Or at least, flip it around and make it a limiting factor: a civilization can be no more "western" than it is White.
Not being super ethnocentric does serve its purposes, though, it tends to keep you from being hated.
Lara hints at a wider truth: all of the "problems" of ethnopatriotism are external. In short, they usually boil down to "if you pursue your own interests, we will smash you."
Leonard Pitts has already covered this. Whites are NOT by any stretch of the imgination an oppressed group.
What are the odds I'm going to find the word "Jew" anywhere in that article? Roughly zero? Just sayin' talking about the oppression of Whites without mentioning Ashkenazis is like talking about basketball without talking about blacks; Pitts cannot even address the issue without putting his job at risk.
Most Whites want to deny it; indeed, they've been taught to fear it - via the same argument Nikrit mentions - that if Whites identify as a race, they'll all turn into evil NAZIs and slaughter everyone else.
The fact is, this is White tribal identity. Nobody really seems to want to acknowledge this dirty little secret, but it's true. Whites know, for example, to expect a-racism, anti-racism, "color-blindness," etc., from one another; they see the white skin, and they expect tribal conformity. They know not to expect these things from non-Whites; they see the non-white skin, and therefore, no expectations.
I'm merely saying that we should look at race as a collective phenomenon, not an individual one. When I see a group of 50 random white people, you want me to celebrate them merely for being white.
Nope. I'm about as die-hard ethnopatriot as they come in HBD-circles, and I'm telling you flat-out, nope.
I instead would rather celebrate Western civilization as an abstract concept, but also understand that Western civilization does not exist independent of white people as a racial collective (a concept completely anathema to neoconish/multicultural doctrine).
I don't see what you're getting at by counterposing the two preceding quotes. I understand both quotes, and apart from the "rather," I agree with them. Where's the beef?
In sum, race should work one way: individuals coming together to produce something unique and worthy of celebration, e.g. ancient Greece, Enlightenment, America. It should not work the other way around: conferring value to someone merely because they're part of a race. (Though in a way I do this by proposing ethnocentric immigration and population laws, but I don't think of it explicitly, as in I don't like some dumb truck-nuts drunk just because he's white.)
Better. Yes, I value Whites above non-Whites. They're closer to me than non-Whites. Same as with family. I don't love my family above less-related folks simply because we throw better barbeques. I love my family more because they're mine.
Your example about loving some dumb truck-nut because he's White is taking your eye off the ball. "Love" seems tendentious here. Stick to "value," you'll have fewer miscommunications that way. That dumb truck-nut could sire the next Harvard grad; he carries the seed of western civilization. You already acknowledge that western civilization would not be western civilization if we replaced all the Whites with Blacks, Browns, Sepias, etc.
But you do seem to have highlighted a genuine difference here, at least of degree. How long have you been thinking about HBD and "White advocacy," for lack of a better term? Don't expect to be in the same place 5 years from now, if your answer is less than 10 years. That aside, if I had to choose between western civilization and my race, I'd choose my race, every time. Same way my enemies would choose western civilization every time. Because, given my race, western civilization will inevitably re-constitute itself. Take away my race and its civilization dies, never to return.
I'd imagine WN types would be happy if the person taunted were non-White (I've seen and read such stuff on Stormfront and will be happy to provide links).
Don't sweep shitty prole-white behavior under the carpet.
I don't see what sweeping poor White behavior under the carpet has to do with the price of tea in China. Or a couple of "WN types" either.
I merely reject the notion that race should be conferred upon individuals. We should view race as a collective effort instead.
Here's a sports analogy:
-The Patriots are the best football team and every single player is necessary for that success, even the special team backups. Maybe they're replaceable, but the Pats wouldn't quite be the Pats without them. And they serve a vital, necessary purpose. But just because they happen to play on a championship team with football gods like Tom Brady and Bill Belicheck doesn't mean the special team backups are also football gods. In the end, the Pats and all the players on the Pats are champions, but only a few of them go to the Hall of Fame. You don't get into the Hall of Fame just because you played with Tom brady on the pats, but you still do get a championship ring.
How does this relate back to your contempt for the truck-nut guy? Is he on the team or not?
Well, randomly calling other people on the internet Jewish without any evidence would be one example. I've gotten called a Jew on a few occasions. by paranoid anti-Semites, even though I'm not Jewish in any way, shape, or form. (I'm from an Italian Catholic family.)
I can characterize about 1% of the philo-Semites I've argued/debated with over the years as relatively forthright and honest (low bar here). So what?
The really baffling thing about the anti-semitism on the right is that it proves too much. If the Jews were responsible for everything they are accused of, they really would be a master race and we would have no choice but to acquiesce to their machinations.
Same could be said of Anglo-Saxons, Blacks, Whites, Christians, Muslims, Commies, Nazis, etc. WTF is your point?
WASP is apparently a derogatory term and most WASPs actually refer to themselves that way
Not this Anglo-Saxon. In fact, I've recently taken to the habit of referring to Ashkenazis as SAPs in response to "WASP" being thrown around: Semitic Ashkenazi Pseudoreligionists. "Semitic" is redundant, so it corresponds to "White"; Ashkenazi is the actual identifier, so it corresponds to "Anglo-Saxon"; "Psuedoreligionists" is the identified group's actual religion, so it corresponds to "Protestant," and is also redundant. "SAP" isn't quite as insulting as being compared to a stinging insect, but it'll do.
The really baffling thing about the anti-semitism on the right is that it proves too much. If the Jews were responsible for everything they are accused of, they really would be a master race and we would have no choice but to acquiesce to their machinations.
I failed to respond to the second part of your point, about acquiescing to the master race's machinations. I should, since it doesn't really depend on Ashkenazis being guilty of everything they're being accused of (a bar set so high everybody would get a pass).
Well, maybe. But I tend to think that Ashkenazi power, while very real and quite dominant, is also extremely fragile. It depends on acquiescence, in fact. The moment a critical mass of Whites wake up to it, game over. Which is why Ashkenazis fight so frantically at the slightest resistance; they know, subconsciously or not, how fragile their position is. They know nipping it in the bud is the whole fight.
I have to admit that there's an element of simple rebelliousness in my ethnopatriotism; I take an explicitly ethnopatriotic stance in part because my enemies forbid it. Because they have no problem with "western civilization," but they definitely have a problem with ethnopatriotism.
It's a "stiff-necked" thing. Ashkenazis should certainly be able to understand this.
But ultimately, it's down to EGI. Not that you have to read Salter to understand EGI - I certainly haven't. It's just an inevitable consequence of embracing HBD; I am what I am. My race is part of me, every bit as much as species, sex, nationality, religion, culture, etc. Man is an animal. Ethnopatriotism is simply a logical extension of that.
if I had to choose between western civilization and my race, I'd choose my race, every time.
As I said, that choice would be a logically invalid one. The two are intertwined.
WNs portray the white race as the aloof master and creator of a perfect, crystalline Western civilization. The slightest presence of non-whites ruins it, so its purity must be safeguarded constantly.
I think this is a silly way of looking at things. White people are as much a product of their civilization as they are its producers. The basic function of a Western civilization is that white people should thrive in it. The amount of non-whites doesn't really matter here - 10% or 30%, who cares? As long as whites can thrive, then that's a good Western culture in my book.
If they aren't thriving, then something is broken.
Now, you might argue, yes it's broken and to fix it we need to start kicking out non-whites, who have brought in their own invasive cultures. You might be right, but I don't see that as the proper model for a civilization under all circumstances. Most of the great nations throughout history have been multiethnic but not multicultural.
Maybe Whites can accept loyal American Jews in the way the Corleone family accepted Tom Hagen. They always knew he wasn't Sicilian and wasn't exactly like them, but he was still allowed to be part of the family.
I agree, though, White Gentile and Jew need to be separated out when we discuss these large group trends. Christianity and Judaism are not similar nor compatible. The whole identity of being Jewish is not being a Christian.
Catholics and Protestants have certainly had their difference, but our religions are basically the same. Judaism is as different from Christianity as Islam, a totally foreign religion.
Protestants just didn't want to answer to Rome.
The moment a critical mass of Whites wake up to it, game over.
You guys really need to get over this fantasy that if every single person suddenly knew that "OMG JEWS DID REVOLUTION 1917 AND IMMIGRATION ACT 1965!!!!1", that they would immediately rise up and kick their Jewish professors out of the universities and throw their TVs out the window.
It won't happen, man.
We'll just send them to Israel. Isn't that what it's there for?
IHTG,
Are you an American or an Israeli?
Lara's last comment: Spot on. The Jews are oh, so concerned with any non-White race having its own homeland and celebrating its own culture EXCEPT for Whites. They can have their homeland, and pay for it themselves, and defend it themselves. No more American money or explicit American support unless (and this will be rare if ever) it is truly in our national interest. All the Jews who consider support for Israel or "Is it good for the Jews?" an important position for an American candidate (and in reality this is about 98% of all American Jews) should relocate where they can legitimately agitate for and finance their own issues and candidates, and stop infecting the American body politic.
Your point about Judaism being alien to Catholicism and Protestantism is also excellent, and is one reason I refuse to call myself a "Hebrew Christian" or "Messianic Hebrew." I believe that in Christ "I am a new creation" and I have turned my back on those old untruths (repentance means a turning).
Not to start another thread/conflict, I feel compelled to add (as an evangelical Protestant) that I personally see certain similarities between traditional/orthodox Jewish practices and certain older/medieval Catholic ones (woman being unclean/traditional baths/churching after childbirth and works-based faith/indulgences). However, I explicitly do consider Catholicism/Protestantism as utterly united at their root: the belief in Jesus Christ as Savior, and the belief that this New Covenant has superseded the old, Mosaic one, and that's what truly matters.
It is just that Jews talk about Israel being so important because us American Christians could turn bad at any time and start killing them. That doesn't sound to me like the mentality of someone who has bought into this country heart and soul. If you want someone to be a good citizen it helps if he doesn't have his eye always cast on another country. David Brooks wrote an article saying while Israel inspires him he doesn't want to live there and I'm guessing a lot of American Jews feel the same.
Catholicism is more ritualistic and Orthodox churches very much are. Protestants really aren't. It isn't nearly as big of a conflict between being Protestant or Catholic as it is between Christian or Jewish. When I've attended Catholic masses the prayers, liturgy and hymns are mostly the same. I prefer traditional Protestant Churches personally, but there isn't much to it anymore. I'm still not allowed to take communion when I visit a Catholic Church, but that's really just symbolic. I think people who are half Christian/half Jewish really have to choose one or the other, though. Their whole identity is wrapped up in it.
People talk about race and Jews are racially different to some degree it seems, but I think the biggest problem getting them to assimilate is their religion.
When I see pictures of the middle east the Sephardic Jews look exactly like Palestinians to me, which makes me think the whole thing is just a typical middle eastern conflict and Americans need to stay the hell out of it.
As I said, that choice would be a logically invalid one. The two are intertwined.
As I've said many times before.
WNs portray the white race as the aloof master and creator of a perfect, crystalline Western civilization. The slightest presence of non-whites ruins it, so its purity must be safeguarded constantly.
[...]
You guys really need to get over this fantasy that if every single person suddenly knew that "OMG JEWS DID REVOLUTION 1917 AND IMMIGRATION ACT 1965!!!!1", that they would immediately rise up and kick their Jewish professors out of the universities and throw their TVs out the window.
It won't happen, man.
You seem to be the one trading in fantasies.
Maybe Whites can accept loyal American Jews in the way the Corleone family accepted Tom Hagen. They always knew he wasn't Sicilian and wasn't exactly like them, but he was still allowed to be part of the family.
It would be a good analogy if Hagen was the chief of police, or something.
You seem to be the one trading in fantasies.
LOL, no I'm not. Most WN rhetoric (implicitly or explicitly) assumes that the white race is this fragile flower that needs to be isolated and protected from the mean nasty non-white world.
Not just on the national level, but also on the personal, genetic level - ie, paranoia about people's non-white ancestry and, insanely, seeing miscegenation as an even greater sin than mass immigration of non-whites.
They don't seem to realize that the mark of a healthy people is that they can thrive in the presence of others. If you need to be quarantined, you're already terminally ill.
"the mark of a healthy people is that they can thrive in the presence of others"
Whites used to do that but much of it is now against numerous federal laws.
"assumes that the white race is this fragile flower"
This coming from one of God's Chosen People
"miscegenation as an even greater sin than mass immigration of non-whites."
There are entire Jewish organizations devoted to keeping Jews from marrying Gentiles.
"paranoia about people's non-white ancestry"
How is that any different than Jewish paranoia of Christianity?
I don't like to be rude, but will you please stop it with the endless one-liner comments? Gather your thoughts before posting.
Yippee! Another installment of Svigor's endless treatise!
IHTG,
Okay, no problem.
LOL, no I'm not. Most WN rhetoric
Oh, okay, we're going to dredge up "most WN rhetoric" then.
Okay. Most Ashkenazi rhetoric assumes that Whites are barbarians waiting to happen. That if we're allowed to think or behave the way Ashkenazis think and behave, they'll inevitably act out THE HOLOCAUST!!! Part Deux. That we all secretly wish to hang Blacks en masse. That we're not quite as human as Ashkenazis, and so don't deserve the same rights.
You really want to get into paranoia here?
They don't seem to realize that the mark of a healthy people is that they can thrive in the presence of others.
Ashkenazis don't seem to realize that everyone's as human as they; that the mark of a healthy people is affording others the same rights you afford yourselves.
If you need to be quarantined, you're already terminally ill.
Says the guy from the group with an ethno-state.
Yippee! Another installment of Svigor's endless treatise!
I saw you were looking forward to it, and I didn't want to disappoint.
Word verification is "bordat." ;)
LOL, no I'm not. Most WN rhetoric (implicitly or explicitly) assumes that the white race is this fragile flower that needs to be isolated and protected from the mean nasty non-white world.
LOL. Ashkenazis have their hands around the stem, pulling as hard as they can to get the roots up and out of the soil. But those crackers pointing that out and trying to stop it, they're "paranoid" 'n' shit.
Says the guy from the group with an ethno-state.
Whoosh!
Thanks for proving my point - one out of four people in my ethnostate isn't Jewish.
(Interestingly, Israel's most fertile people are those most likely to have daily interactions, often unpleasant, with non-Jews - settlers in the West Bank, or "black hats" in East Jerusalem)
Anyway, I don't think that's relevant. I hope you won't consider my comments here an expression of Jewish hostility - if anything, they're more a critique of modern white nationalism from the point of view, of the older "white supremacist", Sam Francis-style patrician school.
I am totally convinced of the superiority of Christianity over Judaism and Islam. For instance in my church part of the sermon was about Dutch Jews being hidden from Nazis and we spend a lot of time thinking about others. The whole point of Christianity is that you are one this earth to serve other people.
I also remember reading an article about a British man traveling in Africa. He wasn't religious, but he was very surprised to note the difference in behavior between Christian Africans and non Christian Africans. The non Christian ones were hostile, suspicious and really superstitious. The Christian ones were friendly and welcoming and would greet an outsider with a handshake and a smile.
The British journalist who wrote the article was an atheist and had no agenda in saying this, it was just what he observed.
I'm working on a piece on "White Privilege" and I'd appreciate any thoughts interested folks could add:
Call for Comment: White Privilege
Post a Comment