The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
More Than 1-In-3 Americans Assumed to be Racist
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From SurveyUSA comes news that Americans estimate 38% of their fellow Americans are “racist”. The poll did not ask respondents what percentages of various subgroups they thought were racist. It only inquired about what percentage of Americans on the whole were perceived to be so tainted. The graph shows the average estimate by the subgroup doing the estimating (ie, men estimate 34% of all Americans to be racist, women estimate that 42% of all Americans to be racist, etc):

Though the term is increasingly being supplanted by “white supremacist”–it had to be made explicit to the dunderheads who thought it possible for non-whites to be racist that only whites can be so–there is no accusation that is more socially, economically, and even physically destructive for a person in the current year than to be accused of racism. Yet as we go about our daily lives, our working assumption is that more than every third person we come across is the most horrible thing a person can be. That’s definitely a recipe for civic flourishing!

Blacks assume that over 150 million Americans are racist. On the presumption that racism is only something whites can be afflicted by, this implies blacks see most white people as the worst thing a person can be. Three centuries on and 1-in-4 whites are given the benefit of the doubt. At this rate it’ll only take until the year 2933 for racial good faith to be achieved! Okay, even that’s overly optimistic, since younger people perceive more racism than older people do.

The Democrat figure of 44% is close to the 46% of the popular vote Donald Trump received in 2016. I guess that means every 23rd deplorable gets to go free!

There is one way to effectively end–or at least neutralize–racism. That is the Japanese option. But entertaining such an outlandish idea reveals the person considering it to be even more sinful than the average racist, so it’s obviously out of the question. Never mind that several Japans could fit comfortably within the boundaries of the US. Stop thinking about it, racist.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Polling, Racism 
Hide 254 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Yet as we go about our daily lives, our working assumption is that more than every third person we come across is the most horrible thing a person can be. That’s definitely a recipe for civic flourishing!

    The word “racist” is used in different ways. “Racist” ( as in the most horrible thing a person can be) just means us, White people who object to demographic replacement. The 38% of Americans who are “racist” are only such in the Joe Biden sense, that is, you consciously reject White identity, but every so often, there is a Freudian slip.

    • Replies: @iffen
    you consciously reject White identity

    I don't reject the part of my identity that is white.

    (Some of my best friends are white.) :)

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.
  2. My gosh, if blacks and Mexicans count as Americans, the percentage has got to be a lot higher than 38.

  3. I’m good with the Japanese option.  I literally could not care less what happens to hyphenated-paper-Americans.  Every bit of empathy I once had has been wrung out of me by relentless abuse.  You want to send them to rendering plants?  It’ll do.

    Whatever it takes to get them to see LEAVING as their best option, I’ll take it.  100%. Fed. Up.

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah, I used to not really have a problem with them but I'm getting sick of them lately.

    I'm with you.
    , @Twinkie

    them
     
    There’s the rub. How do you define “them”?

    rendering plants
     
    This net-Nazi fantasy is either mental masturbation or posturing, neither of which is attractive and, worse, is counterproductive.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible? Yeah, I agree it feels damned near that way. But it's still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.
  4. I have my doubts about the Japanese statistics on this topic (I lived and worked in Japan for a few years). I think the fraction of Japanese with Korean ancestry is considerably higher than 0.5%.

    Be that as it may, much of the Japan fetish that many in the alt-right have seem to come from very shallow or even zero knowledge of what the country is actually like.

    • Replies: @BlackC
    The Japanese statistics appear to be a few years old, as they do not address the recent influx of foreigners to slightly over 2% of the population (including permanent residents such as unnaturalized Koreans).

    Furthermore, the statistics do not address ancestry, but rather citizenship/assimilation. For example, an ethnic-Korean (whole or part) or other foreigner who has naturalized and taken a Japanese name is counted in the Japanese category. That said, even the naturalized foreigner percentage is quite small, so Japan is still around 97% ethnic Japanese.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    I don't mean to make claims about Japanese society beyond the nation's super-majority ethnic status and how that renders issues about "racism" inconsequential compared to Western countries.
  5. Excellent survey of projection.

    Those who are actually the least racist assume less racism on the part of others.
    Those who are actually the most racist… well… there you have it.

    • Replies: @95Theses
    Bam! There it is.
    , @WorkingClass
    Excellent survey of projection.

    Indeed! Thank you. You win the thread with that one.
  6. What does ‘racism’ mean again?

    (I keep forgetting.)

    Does ‘racism’ mean that the guilty party (the ‘racist’) believes that there are persistent and measurable human differences (which seem innate) between various human races?

    Hmm. Well. Let’s see….

    This would mean that some races are innately taller, or more athletic than others, correct?

    So far so good.

    Then there’s the matter of behavior patterns.

    And… learning.

    Here’s where the discussion gets hazardous.

    Better proceed cautiously now.

    Wait.

    But we’re all equal in the eyes of God!

    Better?

    Back to the beginning:

    If the working definition of ‘racism’ means that there are substantial and persistent innate differences between various races, which includes intelligence, then my guess is that no fewer than 60% of Americans are ‘racist’.

    Another 20% are unsure or lying.

    And the last 20% are the True Believers.

    No amount of scientific evidence will ever change the minds of the True Believers. And if you attempt to persuade them with scientific data, they will hate you all the more.

  7. @Twinkie
    I have my doubts about the Japanese statistics on this topic (I lived and worked in Japan for a few years). I think the fraction of Japanese with Korean ancestry is considerably higher than 0.5%.

    Be that as it may, much of the Japan fetish that many in the alt-right have seem to come from very shallow or even zero knowledge of what the country is actually like.

    The Japanese statistics appear to be a few years old, as they do not address the recent influx of foreigners to slightly over 2% of the population (including permanent residents such as unnaturalized Koreans).

    Furthermore, the statistics do not address ancestry, but rather citizenship/assimilation. For example, an ethnic-Korean (whole or part) or other foreigner who has naturalized and taken a Japanese name is counted in the Japanese category. That said, even the naturalized foreigner percentage is quite small, so Japan is still around 97% ethnic Japanese.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Furthermore, the statistics do not address ancestry, but rather citizenship/assimilation. For example, an ethnic-Korean (whole or part) or other foreigner who has naturalized and taken a Japanese name is counted in the Japanese category. That said, even the naturalized foreigner percentage is quite small, so Japan is still around 97% ethnic Japanese.
     
    My suspicion is that there is a rather larger fraction of those Japanese with Korean ancestry that are not reported or otherwise hidden. Call them "Crypto-Koreans" if you will.

    Korean ancestry used to be held in great contempt in Japan until relatively recently* and it was not uncommon for potential marriage partners and their families to investigate backgrounds of the partners to ensure there was no hidden Korean ancestry. For that matter, any ethnic Korean who was even remotely successful in his profession or trade was, as a matter of routine, pressured to adopt Japanese names.

    In other words, there was a great deal of incentives on the part of the individuals to not report Korean ancestry and those on the part of the Japanese authorities to under-report any such population.

    *It's all moot now - notwithstanding periodic economic and historical spats - since 1) the Japanese imperial family acknowledged Korean ancestry (and it's long known in outside academic circles that a majority of the most eminent Japanese noble families drew their ancestry from Korea) and 2) cultural exchanges (e.g. the Korean Wave) have dramatically lessened inter-ethnic hostility among the young.
  8. Basically a couple generations back our elites constructed and imposed at gunpoint on the American white population their artificial and arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world. This belief comes from brute political power, and it has no spooky metaphysical foundation in the least.

    By contrast, traditionally racist white American men, and not just white Southerners, usually had no trouble finding white women who wanted to marry them and bear their children; so at the very least racism worked with white people’s flourishing. I find it interesting that white Americans’ fertility began to implode around the time that our elites decided to treat white men as unwanted stepchildren they wanted to dispossess and dispose of.

    And this suggests an experiment that I think modern social science could test: Does racism promote white fertility? That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of “racism.”

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of “racism.”
     
    You're begging the question: do WNs actually show more zest for life? Angry, belligerent skinheads and blackpilled WNs who believe it's all hopeless and just want to watch the world burn seem to demonstrate more of a zest for destruction than a zest for living.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Conservative whites outbreed liberal whites, and conservatives are putatively more racist than liberals, so at a first approximation it seems like that's correct.
    , @Feryl
    Most ethnic groups around the world are seeing declining fertility, except for African-Africans. One out of two ain't bad....Well, maybe it is.

    The Earth's human population has grown exponentially since circa 1800. A big reason eugenics came about as a serious topic was because the more advanced countries were beginning to wonder if too many of the wrong people were living a long time and reproducing at too high a rate. The vast increase in population of many regions is making a lot of people re-think the idea of having a lot of kids.
  9. 1 in 3? That can’t be right. The US is more than 1/3 white, ain’t it?

  10. ‘…there is no accusation that is more socially, economically, and even physically destructive for a person in the current year than to be accused of racism…’

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.

    If, say, you find yourself approaching a group of four teen-age males loitering in your path, would you feel indifferent as to whether they were Asian, white, Hispanic — or Black?

    If you would, you’re a fool.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.
     
    I don't think it's so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race. But it's extraordinarily foolish (and/or mendacious) to insist that only whites are capable of these behaviors.
    , @Mr. Rational

    If, say, you find yourself approaching a group of four teen-age males loitering in your path, would you feel indifferent as to whether they were Asian, white, Hispanic — or Black?
     
    I actually had this situation crop up a few years ago, only it was more like a dozen.  I heard them before I saw them, and given that they were speaking Spanish it was obvious what they were.

    I moved off to one side of the route we were all on and watched them go by.  Head on a swivel.  With my hands in my pockets.  Right hand on the grip of my gun.

    One of them acknowledged me, but if they were bent on causing trouble I was radiating enough of a DFWM aura that they decided to cause it elsewhere.  And that's just fine with me.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Even Jesse Jackson concurs.
  11. You realize that these days, “racist” means refusal to recognize blacks’ exemption from law, right?

  12. If racism wasn’t a natural part of being a human being, they wouldn’t have to repeatedly attempt to flog it out of us.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  13. @Rosie

    Yet as we go about our daily lives, our working assumption is that more than every third person we come across is the most horrible thing a person can be. That’s definitely a recipe for civic flourishing!
     
    The word "racist" is used in different ways. "Racist" ( as in the most horrible thing a person can be) just means us, White people who object to demographic replacement. The 38% of Americans who are "racist" are only such in the Joe Biden sense, that is, you consciously reject White identity, but every so often, there is a Freudian slip.

    https://youtu.be/K1XD1vRjCj0

    you consciously reject White identity

    I don’t reject the part of my identity that is white.

    (Some of my best friends are white.) 🙂

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.
     
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.
  14. Given that a white supremacist is someone who believes “it’s OK to be white”, I’d say the numbers are a bit low.

  15. They should give it up. I’m the only true race-ist.

  16. TheZMan, on his own blog:

    “Since choosing your own team is not only moral, but a moral duty, racism cannot be immoral. It’s the natural result of failing to maintain peaceful separation.”

    Hear, hear. Anyway, I would estimate at least 90% of Americans are racist. The only reason it isn’t 100% yet is because there are still a few rural backwaters where almost everyone is white and has no contact with other races. Less of those places all the time, though.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    "It’s the natural result of failing to maintain peaceful separation.”
     
    If peaceful separation proves to be impossible (and in the U.S. it almost certainly is impossible) then it's a good idea to have a Plan B. If you can't get peaceful separation then somehow you have to deal with the situation you've got (another word for the situation you've got is reality) and try to make it work.

    Wishful thinking and magical thinking are not options.
  17. @Colin Wright
    '...there is no accusation that is more socially, economically, and even physically destructive for a person in the current year than to be accused of racism...'

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.

    If, say, you find yourself approaching a group of four teen-age males loitering in your path, would you feel indifferent as to whether they were Asian, white, Hispanic -- or Black?

    If you would, you're a fool.

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.

    I don’t think it’s so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race. But it’s extraordinarily foolish (and/or mendacious) to insist that only whites are capable of these behaviors.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I don’t think it’s so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race
     
    Playing by such rules, the White race is doomed to extinction, because the mere act of protecting our borders from ethnic outsiders who want to live among us arguably "harms, insults, and damages" them.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Definitions would of course be helpful--which is exactly why the establishment will never articulate them.
  18. @iffen
    you consciously reject White identity

    I don't reject the part of my identity that is white.

    (Some of my best friends are white.) :)

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.

    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    No, not really, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with whites defending themselves against the current anti-white hysteria.

    I agree that it's okay to be white.

    , @dfordoom


    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.
     
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.
     
    So far the only political and organizing value that whiteness has demonstrated is in promoting increasingly monolithic and well-orchestrated Wokeness. Feminists and militant homosexuals are mostly white and they've demonstrated very high political and organizing value. Whiteness has, perversely, been the key factor behind the demonisation of white people.
  19. @advancedatheist
    Basically a couple generations back our elites constructed and imposed at gunpoint on the American white population their artificial and arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world. This belief comes from brute political power, and it has no spooky metaphysical foundation in the least.

    By contrast, traditionally racist white American men, and not just white Southerners, usually had no trouble finding white women who wanted to marry them and bear their children; so at the very least racism worked with white people's flourishing. I find it interesting that white Americans' fertility began to implode around the time that our elites decided to treat white men as unwanted stepchildren they wanted to dispossess and dispose of.

    And this suggests an experiment that I think modern social science could test: Does racism promote white fertility? That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of "racism."

    That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of “racism.”

    You’re begging the question: do WNs actually show more zest for life? Angry, belligerent skinheads and blackpilled WNs who believe it’s all hopeless and just want to watch the world burn seem to demonstrate more of a zest for destruction than a zest for living.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    This study shows that white nationalism attracts quality, successful white people. Scroll down to the graphs on p. 17. Forty two percent of Americans who identify as Alt Right earn $75,000+ a year. A majority of them also live in long-term relationships, comparable to the figure for non Alt Right Trump voters and more than non Trump voters.

    A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

    https://psyarxiv.com/c9uvw

  20. @BlackC
    The Japanese statistics appear to be a few years old, as they do not address the recent influx of foreigners to slightly over 2% of the population (including permanent residents such as unnaturalized Koreans).

    Furthermore, the statistics do not address ancestry, but rather citizenship/assimilation. For example, an ethnic-Korean (whole or part) or other foreigner who has naturalized and taken a Japanese name is counted in the Japanese category. That said, even the naturalized foreigner percentage is quite small, so Japan is still around 97% ethnic Japanese.

    Furthermore, the statistics do not address ancestry, but rather citizenship/assimilation. For example, an ethnic-Korean (whole or part) or other foreigner who has naturalized and taken a Japanese name is counted in the Japanese category. That said, even the naturalized foreigner percentage is quite small, so Japan is still around 97% ethnic Japanese.

    My suspicion is that there is a rather larger fraction of those Japanese with Korean ancestry that are not reported or otherwise hidden. Call them “Crypto-Koreans” if you will.

    Korean ancestry used to be held in great contempt in Japan until relatively recently* and it was not uncommon for potential marriage partners and their families to investigate backgrounds of the partners to ensure there was no hidden Korean ancestry. For that matter, any ethnic Korean who was even remotely successful in his profession or trade was, as a matter of routine, pressured to adopt Japanese names.

    In other words, there was a great deal of incentives on the part of the individuals to not report Korean ancestry and those on the part of the Japanese authorities to under-report any such population.

    *It’s all moot now – notwithstanding periodic economic and historical spats – since 1) the Japanese imperial family acknowledged Korean ancestry (and it’s long known in outside academic circles that a majority of the most eminent Japanese noble families drew their ancestry from Korea) and 2) cultural exchanges (e.g. the Korean Wave) have dramatically lessened inter-ethnic hostility among the young.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Koreans were Kangz?
  21. “That is the Japanese option. ”

    I am one of those who reject any call for any foreigner for any reason. However, the above option doesn’t get you much.

    If 98% of the Asian population is Japanese based on your references they still think that the US ranks 43% four points below that african american and black population at 47%/

    Unfortunately, there’s no definition of “racism”. Under the standard definition the indications of black “racism” would hardly register. However, among the Japanese, Koreans and Latin societies the record is very clear where they stand on color or societal imperial beliefs and practices.

    Again, I stand on the actual meaning of the term, not the made up nonsense since the last executive and used by the same.

  22. “Basically a couple generations back our elites constructed and imposed at gunpoint on the American white population their artificial and arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world.”

    Nonsense.

    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
    Quite accurate, actually.
  23. “The word “racist” is used in different ways.”

    You started well, and the proceeded to some incoherent biased retort. Here’s the working definition of racism.

    The practice of denying another person access to all similarly situated access to life, in our case the provisos in the Constitution. The cause for said denial is usually attributed to some benign or nonactive trait.

    It is generally understood that requires access to power and using that power in application.

  24. @silviosilver

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.
     
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    No, not really, I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with whites defending themselves against the current anti-white hysteria.

    I agree that it’s okay to be white.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    I agree that it’s okay to be white.
     
    But is it okay to stay White?
  25. @Twinkie

    Furthermore, the statistics do not address ancestry, but rather citizenship/assimilation. For example, an ethnic-Korean (whole or part) or other foreigner who has naturalized and taken a Japanese name is counted in the Japanese category. That said, even the naturalized foreigner percentage is quite small, so Japan is still around 97% ethnic Japanese.
     
    My suspicion is that there is a rather larger fraction of those Japanese with Korean ancestry that are not reported or otherwise hidden. Call them "Crypto-Koreans" if you will.

    Korean ancestry used to be held in great contempt in Japan until relatively recently* and it was not uncommon for potential marriage partners and their families to investigate backgrounds of the partners to ensure there was no hidden Korean ancestry. For that matter, any ethnic Korean who was even remotely successful in his profession or trade was, as a matter of routine, pressured to adopt Japanese names.

    In other words, there was a great deal of incentives on the part of the individuals to not report Korean ancestry and those on the part of the Japanese authorities to under-report any such population.

    *It's all moot now - notwithstanding periodic economic and historical spats - since 1) the Japanese imperial family acknowledged Korean ancestry (and it's long known in outside academic circles that a majority of the most eminent Japanese noble families drew their ancestry from Korea) and 2) cultural exchanges (e.g. the Korean Wave) have dramatically lessened inter-ethnic hostility among the young.

    Koreans were Kangz?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, bro. Time for you to start reading some early Korean history--the history of the three kangdoms.
  26. @Colin Wright
    '...there is no accusation that is more socially, economically, and even physically destructive for a person in the current year than to be accused of racism...'

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.

    If, say, you find yourself approaching a group of four teen-age males loitering in your path, would you feel indifferent as to whether they were Asian, white, Hispanic -- or Black?

    If you would, you're a fool.

    If, say, you find yourself approaching a group of four teen-age males loitering in your path, would you feel indifferent as to whether they were Asian, white, Hispanic — or Black?

    I actually had this situation crop up a few years ago, only it was more like a dozen.  I heard them before I saw them, and given that they were speaking Spanish it was obvious what they were.

    I moved off to one side of the route we were all on and watched them go by.  Head on a swivel.  With my hands in my pockets.  Right hand on the grip of my gun.

    One of them acknowledged me, but if they were bent on causing trouble I was radiating enough of a DFWM aura that they decided to cause it elsewhere.  And that’s just fine with me.

  27. The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire uses accusations of so-called “racism” and so-called “anti-Semitism” to attack White Core Americans who call into question the anti-White ruling class’s policies of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and multicultural mayhem and wars on behalf of Israel and race quotas and the outlandish propaganda lies used to hide and obfuscate rampant disproportionate Black criminality.

    I am happy as a clam that the Democrat Party is sullenly moving away from the Russia — Russia — Russia nonsense and moving towards explicit anti-White animosity as a governing principle.

    White Core America must absorb the nasty and vicious anti-White propaganda emanating from the corporate propaganda apparatus and the Democrat Party and parts of the Republican Party and White Core America must prepare the counter-attack against the forces of anti-White animosity.

    Young White Core Americans must prepare themselves to engage in mass debt repudiations — government debt and private debt — in order to bring on a complete and total global financial implosion. The next round of the global financial implosion is on its way anyway, so young White Core Americans might as well use civilizational survival as an excuse to not pay any of the debts odiously accumulated by a corrupt ruling class financial system. Do you all notice all the banker donation cash that banker politician whores Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg are piling up? Plenty of us notice it!

    Ruling class removal is the order of the day in many European Christian nations, and none more so than the USA.

    My response to any bastard who accuses me of so-called “racism” or so-called “anti-Semitism” is to immediately counter-attack from every direction. I will never again vote for any political leader who cringes or blinks when they are accused of this or that involving something called “racism” or “anti-Semitism.”

    I won’t vote for Trump in 2020 because of his weakness and failure on reducing mass legal immigration and deporting illegal alien invader infiltrators, but Trump’s refusal to blink or cringe when he was attacked was certainly one of the reasons I voted for him in the GOP primary and in the general election against baby boomer globalizer boob Hillary Clinton.

    Tweets from 2014:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Your 12/19/14 tweet coincides very well, Charles, with Peak Stupidity theory. Much of that, I would say "manifesto", but let's just call it an "about" page, is in jest, but the serious bit is that the financial crash coming will put an end to many forms of stupidity as THINGS GET REAL.
  28. 1 in 3 Whites are “racist”, eh?

    It’s like this, man…as Whites become a minority, a goal that our friends on the Left rather gleefully crow about,(oddly enough, the Whiter they are, the happier they seem to be about this), then it should be no surprise at all that Whites then begin ACTING like…minorities.

    And those that brand such things can call it whatever they wish…racism, WN,WS, whatever they dream up…and it won’t matter a bit.

    I’m often reminded by such people of the reporter who was phoning in his report during the LA Rodney King riots who was set upon and beaten by a racist mob. This middle-aged White boob kept howling : “But I’m a REPORTER! I’m a REPORTER!” as the crew beat the snot out of him, as though this goof thought he had “magik words” that would cause the set to all of a sudden NOT see him as a middle-aged White man down in the ghetto during a riot.

    Maybe he expected that at being informed he was A Reporter, the natives would step back, fall to their knees and begin worshiping Heap Big Bwanah? Naaaaah…they thumped him but good with their characteristic gusto.
    Peculiarly, its not easy to find a recording of this beat-down, which is a shame, they really SHOULD use it as a teaching aid in Journalism School, along with the Lara Logan/Tarhir Square footage to remind aspiring reporters to never make the mistake of forgetting who and what they are.

    Perhaps one day, it won’t be the pack of Black or Brown teens loitering in the street that causes individual urbanite panic, but the Caucasian ones.
    Or maybe it will be all three cohorts. Won’t THAT be just swell?

    Demography is Destiny and all that….

  29. @silviosilver

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.
     
    I don't think it's so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race. But it's extraordinarily foolish (and/or mendacious) to insist that only whites are capable of these behaviors.

    I don’t think it’s so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race

    Playing by such rules, the White race is doomed to extinction, because the mere act of protecting our borders from ethnic outsiders who want to live among us arguably “harms, insults, and damages” them.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Firstly, I was responding to a post that claimed it's "extremely foolish to not be racist." Let's say Tom claims that white people should not go around calling asians the g-word because that is racist. Would you seriously call Tom "extremely foolish" for this?

    Secondly, I think the most effective way to get white people to agree that some "racism" is acceptable is to indulge their moral sensibilities by affirming that other kinds of racism are not acceptable. If this helps them back into the conclusion that mass multiracialism was a mistake and that whites deserve to live on (rather than die out) and that some racially exclusionary barriers will be necessary to this effect, then why not?

    The only alternative I can see is to affirm that all racism is always acceptable, which is to basically promote some kind of white-makes-right ethic which extremely few whites will ever embrace. Totally self-defeating.
  30. @iffen
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    No, not really, I don't believe that there is anything wrong with whites defending themselves against the current anti-white hysteria.

    I agree that it's okay to be white.

    I agree that it’s okay to be white.

    But is it okay to stay White?

    • Replies: @iffen
    But is it okay to stay White?

    Sure, in our culture that is considered an individual decision. I don't make it for you and you don't make it for me. Fair enough?

    BTW, I'm the real blood and soil believer here. If I had a mixed race grandchild I would love him as much as any other. (Not that I'm wishing for one.)
  31. @Rosie

    I agree that it’s okay to be white.
     
    But is it okay to stay White?

    But is it okay to stay White?

    Sure, in our culture that is considered an individual decision. I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?

    BTW, I’m the real blood and soil believer here. If I had a mixed race grandchild I would love him as much as any other. (Not that I’m wishing for one.)

    • Replies: @Rosie

    BTW, I’m the real blood and soil believer here.
     
    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?
     
    It doesn't work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.
  32. The proper response to the Democratic Party:

    “POST-1965 LEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A VIOLENT GENOCIDAL HATE CRIME…….AGAINST THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY!!!!”

  33. @iffen
    But is it okay to stay White?

    Sure, in our culture that is considered an individual decision. I don't make it for you and you don't make it for me. Fair enough?

    BTW, I'm the real blood and soil believer here. If I had a mixed race grandchild I would love him as much as any other. (Not that I'm wishing for one.)

    BTW, I’m the real blood and soil believer here.

    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.

    • Replies: @iffen
    he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    Kind of what you think related means. My grandchildren are 1/4, more or less, me. You, not so much.

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world.

    Yes it does. I chose Ms. Iffen and presented her to my family. (Actually, she claims that chose is not accurate, she describes it a begging on bended knee.)

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?

    , @silviosilver

    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.
     
    That in itself wouldn't render the grandchild unlovable though. If it were possible to measure, I think we'd find that the frequency and intensity of loving feelings towards grandchildren would be negatively correlated with genetic distance, but it's possible that the differences wouldn't be particularly significant. Unless a person already cares about his racial existence, these "technical" arguments will persuade next to know one.

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.
     
    I agree. Neutral standpoints on this are a facade, even if their proponents sincerely believe in them.
    , @Twinkie

    If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.
     
    You don’t seem to understand genetic similarity vs. ancestry/lineage, and to which concept most people are attached.

    To whom, do you think, would my in-laws like to leave their legacy, “a random white stranger” or their mixed-race grandchildren (their daughter’s children)?

    People who opt for the former over the latter are those who are fixated by an ideology and are not in touch with the natural human inclination toward an organic community, which includes family.

  34. @Rosie

    I don’t think it’s so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race
     
    Playing by such rules, the White race is doomed to extinction, because the mere act of protecting our borders from ethnic outsiders who want to live among us arguably "harms, insults, and damages" them.

    Firstly, I was responding to a post that claimed it’s “extremely foolish to not be racist.” Let’s say Tom claims that white people should not go around calling asians the g-word because that is racist. Would you seriously call Tom “extremely foolish” for this?

    Secondly, I think the most effective way to get white people to agree that some “racism” is acceptable is to indulge their moral sensibilities by affirming that other kinds of racism are not acceptable. If this helps them back into the conclusion that mass multiracialism was a mistake and that whites deserve to live on (rather than die out) and that some racially exclusionary barriers will be necessary to this effect, then why not?

    The only alternative I can see is to affirm that all racism is always acceptable, which is to basically promote some kind of white-makes-right ethic which extremely few whites will ever embrace. Totally self-defeating.

    • Agree: Rosie
  35. @Rosie

    BTW, I’m the real blood and soil believer here.
     
    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?
     
    It doesn't work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.

    he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    Kind of what you think related means. My grandchildren are 1/4, more or less, me. You, not so much.

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world.

    Yes it does. I chose Ms. Iffen and presented her to my family. (Actually, she claims that chose is not accurate, she describes it a begging on bended knee.)

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?
     
    I picked him myself, but that's beside the point.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle
    , @Mr. Rational

    Kind of what you think related means.
     
    If you go back 20 generations, lots of your ancestors will appear in your family tree multiple times.  Probably quite a few even at 10 generations.  Everyone descended from that group is going to be related; I recall reading that average ethnic English are related at about the distance of sixth cousins.

    Now replace half of that pool of ancestors with a set that has no ancestors in common for a thousand generations, maybe ten thousand (sub-Saharan Africans).  That child will be far less related to you than the average person of your ethny on the street.  More to the point, they'll act like it too.
  36. @Rosie

    BTW, I’m the real blood and soil believer here.
     
    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?
     
    It doesn't work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.

    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    That in itself wouldn’t render the grandchild unlovable though. If it were possible to measure, I think we’d find that the frequency and intensity of loving feelings towards grandchildren would be negatively correlated with genetic distance, but it’s possible that the differences wouldn’t be particularly significant. Unless a person already cares about his racial existence, these “technical” arguments will persuade next to know one.

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.

    I agree. Neutral standpoints on this are a facade, even if their proponents sincerely believe in them.

  37. @silviosilver

    That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of “racism.”
     
    You're begging the question: do WNs actually show more zest for life? Angry, belligerent skinheads and blackpilled WNs who believe it's all hopeless and just want to watch the world burn seem to demonstrate more of a zest for destruction than a zest for living.

    This study shows that white nationalism attracts quality, successful white people. Scroll down to the graphs on p. 17. Forty two percent of Americans who identify as Alt Right earn $75,000+ a year. A majority of them also live in long-term relationships, comparable to the figure for non Alt Right Trump voters and more than non Trump voters.

    A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

    https://psyarxiv.com/c9uvw

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Thanks for that link, an interesting read. Alt-right cannot be strictly equated with WN, and that study bears this out, with some 17% of people identifying as alt-right being non-white. The income data referred to household income, so your statement that 42% of alt-righters earn more than $75k is inaccurate, but the general point that they are at least as economically productive as anyone else stands. Differences in long-term relationships between alt-right/Trump-voters and non-Trump-voters could probably be explained by the prevalence of blacks in non-Trump-voter ranks. All in all, there's insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.
  38. @advancedatheist
    This study shows that white nationalism attracts quality, successful white people. Scroll down to the graphs on p. 17. Forty two percent of Americans who identify as Alt Right earn $75,000+ a year. A majority of them also live in long-term relationships, comparable to the figure for non Alt Right Trump voters and more than non Trump voters.

    A Psychological Profile of the Alt-Right

    https://psyarxiv.com/c9uvw

    Thanks for that link, an interesting read. Alt-right cannot be strictly equated with WN, and that study bears this out, with some 17% of people identifying as alt-right being non-white. The income data referred to household income, so your statement that 42% of alt-righters earn more than $75k is inaccurate, but the general point that they are at least as economically productive as anyone else stands. Differences in long-term relationships between alt-right/Trump-voters and non-Trump-voters could probably be explained by the prevalence of blacks in non-Trump-voter ranks. All in all, there’s insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    • Replies: @iffen
    there’s insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    I dunno, it seems to be mixed. Anecdotally we have Rosie's (a WN) admission that she loses a lot of zest after 2-3 times a week, but we don't know how representative she is of that group.

    , @Twinkie
    Stop throwing cold water on this! Do you want WNs to have worse self-esteem (“defeated,” “dispossessed people”) than they already do?
    , @SFG
    You wonder what they thought of as 'alt-right'. A lot of people vaguely on the right who like to think of themselves as 'edgy' probably figured "well, if Hillary hates it, it must be good"...
    , @L Woods
    You are trying way too hard
  39. @silviosilver
    Thanks for that link, an interesting read. Alt-right cannot be strictly equated with WN, and that study bears this out, with some 17% of people identifying as alt-right being non-white. The income data referred to household income, so your statement that 42% of alt-righters earn more than $75k is inaccurate, but the general point that they are at least as economically productive as anyone else stands. Differences in long-term relationships between alt-right/Trump-voters and non-Trump-voters could probably be explained by the prevalence of blacks in non-Trump-voter ranks. All in all, there's insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    there’s insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    I dunno, it seems to be mixed. Anecdotally we have Rosie’s (a WN) admission that she loses a lot of zest after 2-3 times a week, but we don’t know how representative she is of that group.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Anecdotally we have Rosie’s (a WN) admission that she loses a lot of zest after 2-3 times a week
     
    Cut her some slack. She doesn’t have a maid. It’s hard when one is genetically predisposed to gaining weight, has children to feed and take care of, has to negotiate everything with one’s spouse, and is not allowed to get speed pills by heartless doctors. On top of commenting here regularly, of course.
  40. @Mr. Rational
    I'm good with the Japanese option.  I literally could not care less what happens to hyphenated-paper-Americans.  Every bit of empathy I once had has been wrung out of me by relentless abuse.  You want to send them to rendering plants?  It'll do.

    Whatever it takes to get them to see LEAVING as their best option, I'll take it.  100%. Fed. Up.

    Yeah, I used to not really have a problem with them but I’m getting sick of them lately.

    I’m with you.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Yeah, I used to not really have a problem with them but I’m getting sick of them lately.
     
    They constantly rub our noses in our powerlessness to stop White dispossession, don't they?
  41. Targeted Harassment is OK for Black Twitter

    Report

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm lost.
  42. SurveyUSA is less reliable than Avenue Q.

  43. @iffen
    he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    Kind of what you think related means. My grandchildren are 1/4, more or less, me. You, not so much.

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world.

    Yes it does. I chose Ms. Iffen and presented her to my family. (Actually, she claims that chose is not accurate, she describes it a begging on bended knee.)

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?

    I picked him myself, but that’s beside the point.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I picked him myself, but that’s beside the point.
     
    Thus is always the case with net-Nazis: choice for me, but not for thee. Reminds of Richard Spencer reserving the right to himself to allow some Asians girls into the American Reich... which is not altogether without a historical precedent (Hitler overrode Himmler’s objection and allowed part Jewish Emil Maurice to remain in the SS). Emil Maurice was SS member #2 after Hitler.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle
     
    Inter-species competition is different from intra-species competition, because in the latter case, “competitors” can interbreed and have offspring together.
  44. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Yeah, I used to not really have a problem with them but I'm getting sick of them lately.

    I'm with you.

    Yeah, I used to not really have a problem with them but I’m getting sick of them lately.

    They constantly rub our noses in our powerlessness to stop White dispossession, don’t they?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Do you guys hang out at Stormfront and, if not, why not?
  45. There are some serious implications here.

    Even among whites and republicans which notes some 31% which means that of a population of 197,000,000 whites they think 61,070,000 whites are racist. By the classic definition that means the entire black population is outnumbered by just under 1&1/2x more than the entire african american population.

    Let’s face it that is a lot of animosity.

    population: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/06/21/us-white-population-declines-and-generation-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Even among whites and republicans which notes some 31% which means that of a population of 197,000,000 whites they think 61,070,000 whites are racist.
     
    Those Whites just don't agree with the claim that only Whites can be racist, and many probably had blacks in mind.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect that 31% of Republicans are mostly the DR3 types who really think Democrats are the racist ones.
  46. @BlackC
    Excellent survey of projection.

    Those who are actually the least racist assume less racism on the part of others.
    Those who are actually the most racist... well... there you have it.

    Bam! There it is.

  47. @Rosie

    BTW, I’m the real blood and soil believer here.
     
    Not really. If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?
     
    It doesn't work like that in the real world. Someone will choose for someone; the question is who will choose for whom.

    If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    You don’t seem to understand genetic similarity vs. ancestry/lineage, and to which concept most people are attached.

    To whom, do you think, would my in-laws like to leave their legacy, “a random white stranger” or their mixed-race grandchildren (their daughter’s children)?

    People who opt for the former over the latter are those who are fixated by an ideology and are not in touch with the natural human inclination toward an organic community, which includes family.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...To whom, do you think, would my in-laws like to leave their legacy, “a random white stranger” or their mixed-race grandchildren (their daughter’s children)?'

    In my case at least, the response to this has a great deal to do with whether the grandchildren are 'mixed race' as in part Asian or part Hispanic, or 'mixed race' as in part black.
  48. @Mr. Rational
    I'm good with the Japanese option.  I literally could not care less what happens to hyphenated-paper-Americans.  Every bit of empathy I once had has been wrung out of me by relentless abuse.  You want to send them to rendering plants?  It'll do.

    Whatever it takes to get them to see LEAVING as their best option, I'll take it.  100%. Fed. Up.

    them

    There’s the rub. How do you define “them”?

    rendering plants

    This net-Nazi fantasy is either mental masturbation or posturing, neither of which is attractive and, worse, is counterproductive.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    There’s the rub. How do you define “them”?
     
    Whoever's hostile or incompatible.  If they define me as "them", that's what they are to me.  This guy is a "them":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kga2soqvMF0
    This guy understands what's at stake:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VqG_4ADFfQ

    This net-Nazi fantasy is either mental masturbation or posturing
     
    It's an expression of "no quarter"; they've forfeited any right to it.  Where or how they go is no longer of any importance, only "gone" matters.
  49. @Rosie

    Yeah, I used to not really have a problem with them but I’m getting sick of them lately.
     
    They constantly rub our noses in our powerlessness to stop White dispossession, don't they?

    Do you guys hang out at Stormfront and, if not, why not?

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    do you hang out in the lunch room of any sort of tech company? Or have you been to any kind of university?
  50. @Rosie

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?
     
    I picked him myself, but that's beside the point.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    I picked him myself, but that’s beside the point.

    Thus is always the case with net-Nazis: choice for me, but not for thee. Reminds of Richard Spencer reserving the right to himself to allow some Asians girls into the American Reich… which is not altogether without a historical precedent (Hitler overrode Himmler’s objection and allowed part Jewish Emil Maurice to remain in the SS). Emil Maurice was SS member #2 after Hitler.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

    Inter-species competition is different from intra-species competition, because in the latter case, “competitors” can interbreed and have offspring together.

  51. @silviosilver
    Thanks for that link, an interesting read. Alt-right cannot be strictly equated with WN, and that study bears this out, with some 17% of people identifying as alt-right being non-white. The income data referred to household income, so your statement that 42% of alt-righters earn more than $75k is inaccurate, but the general point that they are at least as economically productive as anyone else stands. Differences in long-term relationships between alt-right/Trump-voters and non-Trump-voters could probably be explained by the prevalence of blacks in non-Trump-voter ranks. All in all, there's insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    Stop throwing cold water on this! Do you want WNs to have worse self-esteem (“defeated,” “dispossessed people”) than they already do?

  52. @iffen
    there’s insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    I dunno, it seems to be mixed. Anecdotally we have Rosie's (a WN) admission that she loses a lot of zest after 2-3 times a week, but we don't know how representative she is of that group.

    Anecdotally we have Rosie’s (a WN) admission that she loses a lot of zest after 2-3 times a week

    Cut her some slack. She doesn’t have a maid. It’s hard when one is genetically predisposed to gaining weight, has children to feed and take care of, has to negotiate everything with one’s spouse, and is not allowed to get speed pills by heartless doctors. On top of commenting here regularly, of course.

  53. @EliteCommInc.
    There are some serious implications here.

    Even among whites and republicans which notes some 31% which means that of a population of 197,000,000 whites they think 61,070,000 whites are racist. By the classic definition that means the entire black population is outnumbered by just under 1&1/2x more than the entire african american population.

    Let's face it that is a lot of animosity.

    population: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/06/21/us-white-population-declines-and-generation-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/

    Even among whites and republicans which notes some 31% which means that of a population of 197,000,000 whites they think 61,070,000 whites are racist.

    Those Whites just don’t agree with the claim that only Whites can be racist, and many probably had blacks in mind.

  54. @Twinkie

    If you do have a mixed grandchild, he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.
     
    You don’t seem to understand genetic similarity vs. ancestry/lineage, and to which concept most people are attached.

    To whom, do you think, would my in-laws like to leave their legacy, “a random white stranger” or their mixed-race grandchildren (their daughter’s children)?

    People who opt for the former over the latter are those who are fixated by an ideology and are not in touch with the natural human inclination toward an organic community, which includes family.

    ‘…To whom, do you think, would my in-laws like to leave their legacy, “a random white stranger” or their mixed-race grandchildren (their daughter’s children)?’

    In my case at least, the response to this has a great deal to do with whether the grandchildren are ‘mixed race’ as in part Asian or part Hispanic, or ‘mixed race’ as in part black.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Rosie

    In my case at least, the response to this has a great deal to do with whether the grandchildren are ‘mixed race’ as in part Asian or part Hispanic, or ‘mixed race’ as in part black.
     
    It wouldn't make me any difference.
  55. @Mr. Rational
    I'm good with the Japanese option.  I literally could not care less what happens to hyphenated-paper-Americans.  Every bit of empathy I once had has been wrung out of me by relentless abuse.  You want to send them to rendering plants?  It'll do.

    Whatever it takes to get them to see LEAVING as their best option, I'll take it.  100%. Fed. Up.

    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible? Yeah, I agree it feels damned near that way. But it’s still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible?
     
    If it comes down to armed conflict to even get our CURRENT immigration laws enforced (and it might well), we're not going to have either the funds or patience for the "peaceful" options.  And I would argue that what the PTB currently allow blacks and others to do to Whites already constitutes "horrific crimes against humanity"; the current government's policy on "fair housing" alone meets the UN definition of genocide, long before you get to things like the Knoxville horror, Jessica Chambers and Autumn Pasquale.

    But it’s still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.
     
    Backhoes digging holes which are filled by tree chippers are likelier still.  The question is, who will go into them?  I don't want it to be "us".
    , @EliteCommInc.
    Not impossible with the right leadership.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    A moratorium?

    To little, to late.

    Mr. Rational's ideas might actually work.
  56. @Twinkie
    I have my doubts about the Japanese statistics on this topic (I lived and worked in Japan for a few years). I think the fraction of Japanese with Korean ancestry is considerably higher than 0.5%.

    Be that as it may, much of the Japan fetish that many in the alt-right have seem to come from very shallow or even zero knowledge of what the country is actually like.

    I don’t mean to make claims about Japanese society beyond the nation’s super-majority ethnic status and how that renders issues about “racism” inconsequential compared to Western countries.

  57. @advancedatheist
    Basically a couple generations back our elites constructed and imposed at gunpoint on the American white population their artificial and arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world. This belief comes from brute political power, and it has no spooky metaphysical foundation in the least.

    By contrast, traditionally racist white American men, and not just white Southerners, usually had no trouble finding white women who wanted to marry them and bear their children; so at the very least racism worked with white people's flourishing. I find it interesting that white Americans' fertility began to implode around the time that our elites decided to treat white men as unwanted stepchildren they wanted to dispossess and dispose of.

    And this suggests an experiment that I think modern social science could test: Does racism promote white fertility? That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of "racism."

    Conservative whites outbreed liberal whites, and conservatives are putatively more racist than liberals, so at a first approximation it seems like that’s correct.

    • Agree: advancedatheist
  58. @Colin Wright
    '...there is no accusation that is more socially, economically, and even physically destructive for a person in the current year than to be accused of racism...'

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.

    If, say, you find yourself approaching a group of four teen-age males loitering in your path, would you feel indifferent as to whether they were Asian, white, Hispanic -- or Black?

    If you would, you're a fool.

    Even Jesse Jackson concurs.

  59. @silviosilver

    The irony here is that it is, of course, extremely foolish to not be racist.
     
    I don't think it's so foolish to maintain that people should not be deliberately harmed, insulted or disadvantaged for their race. But it's extraordinarily foolish (and/or mendacious) to insist that only whites are capable of these behaviors.

    Definitions would of course be helpful–which is exactly why the establishment will never articulate them.

  60. @iffen
    Koreans were Kangz?

    Yeah, bro. Time for you to start reading some early Korean history–the history of the three kangdoms.

    • LOL: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    the history of the three kangdoms.
     
    Or was it the history of the three kimdoms?
  61. @216
    Targeted Harassment is OK for Black Twitter

    https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1160927317352493059

    Report

    I’m lost.

  62. @EliteCommInc.
    There are some serious implications here.

    Even among whites and republicans which notes some 31% which means that of a population of 197,000,000 whites they think 61,070,000 whites are racist. By the classic definition that means the entire black population is outnumbered by just under 1&1/2x more than the entire african american population.

    Let's face it that is a lot of animosity.

    population: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/06/21/us-white-population-declines-and-generation-z-plus-is-minority-white-census-shows/

    I suspect that 31% of Republicans are mostly the DR3 types who really think Democrats are the racist ones.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laughing.
  63. @advancedatheist
    Basically a couple generations back our elites constructed and imposed at gunpoint on the American white population their artificial and arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world. This belief comes from brute political power, and it has no spooky metaphysical foundation in the least.

    By contrast, traditionally racist white American men, and not just white Southerners, usually had no trouble finding white women who wanted to marry them and bear their children; so at the very least racism worked with white people's flourishing. I find it interesting that white Americans' fertility began to implode around the time that our elites decided to treat white men as unwanted stepchildren they wanted to dispossess and dispose of.

    And this suggests an experiment that I think modern social science could test: Does racism promote white fertility? That might shed light on why, say, white nationalists show more zest for life than spiritually broken white men who live in terror of accusations of "racism."

    Most ethnic groups around the world are seeing declining fertility, except for African-Africans. One out of two ain’t bad….Well, maybe it is.

    The Earth’s human population has grown exponentially since circa 1800. A big reason eugenics came about as a serious topic was because the more advanced countries were beginning to wonder if too many of the wrong people were living a long time and reproducing at too high a rate. The vast increase in population of many regions is making a lot of people re-think the idea of having a lot of kids.

  64. Americans polled believe that 38 percent of their countrymen are “racist”.

    I can’t see that this number has any meaning except possibly as a measure of the effectiveness of domestic propaganda. Who paid for this poll?

    AE:

    How about a few paragraphs on the business (not the science) of polling especially as it intersects with the projection of propaganda and more generally the business of electoral politics. I understand that there are objective criteria by which to assess the validity of polling results. But can I trust the pollsters? Can I trust their paymasters?

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    Many years ago I worked closely with pollsters for candidates.

    It was very difficult to generate unbaised and meaningful polls even when that was your goal.

    "Good" words make respondents more likely to approve, "bad" words disapprove.

    Even simple tasks like determining name recognition were daunting, particularly if the names could be confused with other people with similar names.

    Lists of issues would often miss major issues (for years "illegal immigration" was not on the list at all, in many polls it still is not or is mislabeled with terms like "migration")

    As a result even minor (and unrealized) bias on the part of the pollsters wildly skewed results.

    Pollsters with an agenda that wanted to create numbers had a large toolkit at their disposal.

    Polls are always misleading and confusing at best.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    SurveyUSA is somewhat unique in that it commissions polls that groups or individuals pay to have commissioned. That's why the questions are so often off-the-wall things never seen or asked anywhere else.

    One (of many, many) reason(s) I love the GSS so much is that it allows me to "smell test" poll results. The GSS is a huge survey that takes several hours over multiple days to complete. They aren't push-polling things. So if the results are radically different than those of the GSS, I'm skeptical.

    During the 2016 campaign, it was clear several polls were oversampling self-identified Democrats, something I posted about multiple times here. Most of the time, though, I don't think I'm being hoodwinked by the results. A lot of the problems, such as they are, are detectable in the wording of the questions, the survey sample, etc.

  65. @Colin Wright
    '...To whom, do you think, would my in-laws like to leave their legacy, “a random white stranger” or their mixed-race grandchildren (their daughter’s children)?'

    In my case at least, the response to this has a great deal to do with whether the grandchildren are 'mixed race' as in part Asian or part Hispanic, or 'mixed race' as in part black.

    In my case at least, the response to this has a great deal to do with whether the grandchildren are ‘mixed race’ as in part Asian or part Hispanic, or ‘mixed race’ as in part black.

    It wouldn’t make me any difference.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Not with respect to white survival it wouldn't, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can't help being people. There's just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn't nearly as true with other races.
  66. @BlackC
    Excellent survey of projection.

    Those who are actually the least racist assume less racism on the part of others.
    Those who are actually the most racist... well... there you have it.

    Excellent survey of projection.

    Indeed! Thank you. You win the thread with that one.

  67. @silviosilver
    Thanks for that link, an interesting read. Alt-right cannot be strictly equated with WN, and that study bears this out, with some 17% of people identifying as alt-right being non-white. The income data referred to household income, so your statement that 42% of alt-righters earn more than $75k is inaccurate, but the general point that they are at least as economically productive as anyone else stands. Differences in long-term relationships between alt-right/Trump-voters and non-Trump-voters could probably be explained by the prevalence of blacks in non-Trump-voter ranks. All in all, there's insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    You wonder what they thought of as ‘alt-right’. A lot of people vaguely on the right who like to think of themselves as ‘edgy’ probably figured “well, if Hillary hates it, it must be good”…

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists, which was conflated with the alt-right. This group clashed with open WNs in protests during 2016-17. It's probably still partly racial though, including both whites and non-whites who dislike blacks but don't really dislike any other races, but who are still willing to make allowances for "conservative" black types (more for show more than from conviction is my guess).
  68. I wouldn’t make too much of calculating what percent of the estimated total # of racists is white, BTW. The fact that (almost) all the numbers were between 33 and 50 suggests the respondents were just estimating random proportions the way people usually do when they don’t have any information–pick a sensible-seeming low-denominator fraction.

    “What percent of people do you think prefer strawberry ice cream to chocolate?” “Well, uh, must be less than half because everyone likes chocolate, but they still sell strawberry a lot too, so–maybe 1/3?”

    “What percent of Americans do you think are racist?” “Well, they talk about racism a lot, so maybe 1/2?” “Or, well, I hear a lot about racism, so there must be a lot, but I think most people are good, so maybe 1/3?”

    “42 percent” probably just means about half picked 1/2 and half picked 1/3. I doubt anyone thought “well, whites are about 3/4 of the population, and 2/3 of them are racist, so that’s 1/2…”

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  69. @SFG
    You wonder what they thought of as 'alt-right'. A lot of people vaguely on the right who like to think of themselves as 'edgy' probably figured "well, if Hillary hates it, it must be good"...

    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists, which was conflated with the alt-right. This group clashed with open WNs in protests during 2016-17. It’s probably still partly racial though, including both whites and non-whites who dislike blacks but don’t really dislike any other races, but who are still willing to make allowances for “conservative” black types (more for show more than from conviction is my guess).

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'A non-racial American nationalist movement exists, which was conflated with the alt-right. This group clashed with open WNs in protests during 2016-17. It’s probably still partly racial though, including both whites and non-whites who dislike blacks but don’t really dislike any other races...'

    This suits me. Generally, I think that if 'we' are ever going be a large enough group to prevail, 'we' have to be selective about what battles to fight.

    So it irritates me to see people exclude Asians, or Hispanics (of the Indo-white persuasion), or Muslims, or Christians. We need to be as tolerant as we can -- and focus on the truly intolerable.

    Other than the fact that they keep coming, there's nothing especially objectionable about Asians or Hispanics. Moreover, they tend to be a lot clearer about just how objectionable black behavior is than a lot of whites. So go for the big tent; make it clear that those already here legally are in -- and would they like to see something done about black crime? That way we can actually do something about the real problems.

    The alternative is that we all wind up in lots of little bickering bands while our handlers play us off against each other. That might not be quite how anybody puts it to themselves, but functionally, that's what's going on now.

    Compromise when you can. Seriously: the graveyard's full of virtuous losers.
    , @iffen
    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists

    And its name would be?
  70. @Rosie

    In my case at least, the response to this has a great deal to do with whether the grandchildren are ‘mixed race’ as in part Asian or part Hispanic, or ‘mixed race’ as in part black.
     
    It wouldn't make me any difference.

    Not with respect to white survival it wouldn’t, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can’t help being people. There’s just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn’t nearly as true with other races.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks.
     
    This white purism is not scientific. Whites can’t be “bred out” any more than East Asians can’t... unless they themselves choose not to procreate.

    By the way, both Europeans and East Asians are hybrid populations. Europeans are Eurasian hunter-gatherers+Anatolian farmers+steppe pastoralists+Siberians and East Asians are Eurasian hunter-gatherers+SE Asian rice farmers+Siberians+steppe pastoralists (with varying proportions).
    , @Colin Wright
    'Not with respect to white survival it wouldn’t, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can’t help being people. There’s just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn’t nearly as true with other races.'

    Ditto. The interesting thing is that this is genetically rational. Blacks split off from the rest of us long before Asians and whites separated.

  71. @silviosilver
    Not with respect to white survival it wouldn't, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can't help being people. There's just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn't nearly as true with other races.

    since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks.

    This white purism is not scientific. Whites can’t be “bred out” any more than East Asians can’t… unless they themselves choose not to procreate.

    By the way, both Europeans and East Asians are hybrid populations. Europeans are Eurasian hunter-gatherers+Anatolian farmers+steppe pastoralists+Siberians and East Asians are Eurasian hunter-gatherers+SE Asian rice farmers+Siberians+steppe pastoralists (with varying proportions).

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    It's not about "purism," you twit. Breeding with non-whites has the same consequences as failing to breed - a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction - a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.)

    And of course the same reasoning applies to east Asians. If every east Asian failed to procreate or procreated with non-east-Asians, east-Asians would cease to exist. It's not rocket science. With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing. The only thing long centuries do is create a false sense of security (when what is required a sense of urgency).

  72. @Audacious Epigone
    Yeah, bro. Time for you to start reading some early Korean history--the history of the three kangdoms.

    the history of the three kangdoms.

    Or was it the history of the three kimdoms?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Way to middle-brow my low-brow aspirations, jerk!
  73. @silviosilver
    Not with respect to white survival it wouldn't, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can't help being people. There's just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn't nearly as true with other races.

    ‘Not with respect to white survival it wouldn’t, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can’t help being people. There’s just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn’t nearly as true with other races.’

    Ditto. The interesting thing is that this is genetically rational. Blacks split off from the rest of us long before Asians and whites separated.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I'm sure that has something to do with it. I must say, there's something strange about it, because Asian faces look extremely different to European faces, almost as different as African faces look. And yet, I can be outnumbered by Asians 10:1 and barely even notice it; whereas if that ratio were reversed with blacks, I'd still feel there's "too many blacks" around for my liking. Heck, if there's even one black in the vicinity I'll become keenly aware of it, whereas I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to one asian (if I even noticed him). Is this "real" though? Or is it just my beliefs about the kinds of behaviors I might expect to encounter from the respective groups? (Ranging from largely feigned geniality mixed with stupid, nagging bs to attempts at intimidating stares all the way to outright violence from the one group; being completely ignored or receiving a polite reply to a comment or question from the other.)
  74. @Twinkie

    since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks.
     
    This white purism is not scientific. Whites can’t be “bred out” any more than East Asians can’t... unless they themselves choose not to procreate.

    By the way, both Europeans and East Asians are hybrid populations. Europeans are Eurasian hunter-gatherers+Anatolian farmers+steppe pastoralists+Siberians and East Asians are Eurasian hunter-gatherers+SE Asian rice farmers+Siberians+steppe pastoralists (with varying proportions).

    It’s not about “purism,” you twit. Breeding with non-whites has the same consequences as failing to breed – a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction – a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.)

    And of course the same reasoning applies to east Asians. If every east Asian failed to procreate or procreated with non-east-Asians, east-Asians would cease to exist. It’s not rocket science. With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing. The only thing long centuries do is create a false sense of security (when what is required a sense of urgency).

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing.'

    Meh. In point of fact, what happens is that new 'races' gradually arise through historical processes that, whatever they might tell themselves, are amalgams of past races who interbred.

    We're all aware of Hispanics -- but they are simply Indians crossed with their white conquerors. Anyone who looks at where the line lay in the eighth century between the Germanic lands and the Slavs to their East will realize that 'Germans' must be as much Slavic as they are German. Go to Spain, and there's a gradient: as one moves south, the people look increasingly similar to Moroccans.

    ...and for good reason. Modern 'Turks' are visually at least as white as modern 'Greeks.' In fact, I'd argue that they're genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The inhabitants of the Faeroes, I think it is, are genetically Norse and Irish; all the male genes are Norse, and all the female genes are Irish.

    ...or close enough. And let's not even think about Italy. The real point is the peoples I've cited above -- Hispanics, Germans, Spaniards, Turks, Greeks, Faeroese (?), Italians -- and many others are all perfectly authentic -- but by virtue of history, not genetics.

    Nobody said 'let's all miscegenate continuously.' But on the other hand it's absurd to appeal to some standard of racial purity that has been more often violated than kept. Genes aren't what makes a people.
    , @Twinkie

    you twit
     
    Don’t be a jackass.

    It’s not about “purism”... a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction...
     
    Sounds like purism to me.

    Again, you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization (as are all major racial groups today). You are sadly uninformed of history and science if you think whites of c. 1950’s are of some magically pure form destined (or supposed) to be preserved through eternity. People hybridize sooner or later.

    a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.
     
    Don’t project. As a former historian, I don’t confuse my (relatively shorter time horizon) preferences with larger historical forces that are beyond families let alone individuals.

    As a relatively short-term social preference, I think maintaining a sizable white majority in the U.S. is desirable, but that is a whole another ball of wax from thinking that any contemporary population is going to be able to resist some degree of hybridization long term.
  75. @silviosilver
    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists, which was conflated with the alt-right. This group clashed with open WNs in protests during 2016-17. It's probably still partly racial though, including both whites and non-whites who dislike blacks but don't really dislike any other races, but who are still willing to make allowances for "conservative" black types (more for show more than from conviction is my guess).

    ‘A non-racial American nationalist movement exists, which was conflated with the alt-right. This group clashed with open WNs in protests during 2016-17. It’s probably still partly racial though, including both whites and non-whites who dislike blacks but don’t really dislike any other races…’

    This suits me. Generally, I think that if ‘we’ are ever going be a large enough group to prevail, ‘we’ have to be selective about what battles to fight.

    So it irritates me to see people exclude Asians, or Hispanics (of the Indo-white persuasion), or Muslims, or Christians. We need to be as tolerant as we can — and focus on the truly intolerable.

    Other than the fact that they keep coming, there’s nothing especially objectionable about Asians or Hispanics. Moreover, they tend to be a lot clearer about just how objectionable black behavior is than a lot of whites. So go for the big tent; make it clear that those already here legally are in — and would they like to see something done about black crime? That way we can actually do something about the real problems.

    The alternative is that we all wind up in lots of little bickering bands while our handlers play us off against each other. That might not be quite how anybody puts it to themselves, but functionally, that’s what’s going on now.

    Compromise when you can. Seriously: the graveyard’s full of virtuous losers.

  76. @silviosilver
    It's not about "purism," you twit. Breeding with non-whites has the same consequences as failing to breed - a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction - a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.)

    And of course the same reasoning applies to east Asians. If every east Asian failed to procreate or procreated with non-east-Asians, east-Asians would cease to exist. It's not rocket science. With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing. The only thing long centuries do is create a false sense of security (when what is required a sense of urgency).

    ‘…With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing.’

    Meh. In point of fact, what happens is that new ‘races’ gradually arise through historical processes that, whatever they might tell themselves, are amalgams of past races who interbred.

    We’re all aware of Hispanics — but they are simply Indians crossed with their white conquerors. Anyone who looks at where the line lay in the eighth century between the Germanic lands and the Slavs to their East will realize that ‘Germans’ must be as much Slavic as they are German. Go to Spain, and there’s a gradient: as one moves south, the people look increasingly similar to Moroccans.

    …and for good reason. Modern ‘Turks’ are visually at least as white as modern ‘Greeks.’ In fact, I’d argue that they’re genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The inhabitants of the Faeroes, I think it is, are genetically Norse and Irish; all the male genes are Norse, and all the female genes are Irish.

    …or close enough. And let’s not even think about Italy. The real point is the peoples I’ve cited above — Hispanics, Germans, Spaniards, Turks, Greeks, Faeroese (?), Italians — and many others are all perfectly authentic — but by virtue of history, not genetics.

    Nobody said ‘let’s all miscegenate continuously.’ But on the other hand it’s absurd to appeal to some standard of racial purity that has been more often violated than kept. Genes aren’t what makes a people.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Germans
     
    Germans of different regions are genetically shifted toward their non-German neighbors. Shocking, I know. In a sense, being German is a constructed identity borne of historical accidents and contingencies that forced disparate peoples through some shared experiences and the political wills of determined leaders into being one people of sorts rather than “ein Folk” strictly based on common descent of ancient peoplehood.

    We are finding out, thanks to genetics, that many nations whom we regarded as historically “homogeneous” are at least in part “imagined communities.”
    , @silviosilver

    Genes aren’t what makes a people.
     
    No, but they are what makes a race.

    I'm perfectly well aware of everything else you've said in this post.

    I just happen to think it's better to go on racially existing - potentially permanently - than to submit to racial extinction.

    Environmentalists feel this way about non-human lifeforms all the time. They become giddy with excitement to know that somewhere in the wilds of the Brazilian interior the Amazonian tree frog lives on. Most of them won't ever lay eyes on the freakin thing. But if you try to preserve a human race - which is just as much a valid biological entity - that you interact with daily, and which for most of us, alongside a common culture, is the seat of human warmth, all hell breaks loose. Brains turn to mush. The simplest logic escapes understanding.

    And who cares if a given group is already hybridized? If it values itself as it now exists, then it should be perfectly understandable if its members want to go on existing in that same way. (Yes, you can get bogged down interminably trying to come up with an airtight definition. That's a fool's errand. A close-enough-is-good-enough ballpark definition will virtually always fit the bill.)

    I get it that not everyone feels this way. But why must those of you who don't deliberately strive so hard to wreck it for those us who do? I don't claim that racial preservation is easy; just that it's worthwhile. And when something is worthwhile, as has been long observed in human affairs, "where there's a will, there's a way."
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    In defense of Silvio-Silver's comment (though the animosity and name-calling wasn't necessary) is this: While the interbreeding going on with whites may have been seen before, etc etc, the problem is that this is happening ALL THROUGHOUT the white (i.e. "Western") world. The interbreeding among Orientals, or dot-Indians, or blacks is the same, except for they have a base of their own people of 2 billion, > 1 billion, and about another 1 billion, respectively, back in their home countries.

    It's really as simple as saying "whites should be able to have a homeland and be left alone there". That would have been Europe, the US of A, Canada, and Australia, until the elites decided they were having none of that about 50 years ago.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Modern ‘Turks’ are visually at least as white as modern ‘Greeks.’ In fact, I’d argue that they’re genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.
     
    The swarthy Greek neighbors who settled next door to my parents in my late teens said as much (academics are a pretty mobile bunch).  The Turks ruled Greece for a long time, and had their way with lots of Greek women.  The results are obvious.

    But I'm told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks.  I had a neighbor much later who was just this type.  Sadly, she never had children of her own; she and her husband adopted two Chinese girls.
  77. @silviosilver
    It's not about "purism," you twit. Breeding with non-whites has the same consequences as failing to breed - a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction - a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.)

    And of course the same reasoning applies to east Asians. If every east Asian failed to procreate or procreated with non-east-Asians, east-Asians would cease to exist. It's not rocket science. With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing. The only thing long centuries do is create a false sense of security (when what is required a sense of urgency).

    you twit

    Don’t be a jackass.

    It’s not about “purism”… a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction…

    Sounds like purism to me.

    Again, you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization (as are all major racial groups today). You are sadly uninformed of history and science if you think whites of c. 1950’s are of some magically pure form destined (or supposed) to be preserved through eternity. People hybridize sooner or later.

    a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.

    Don’t project. As a former historian, I don’t confuse my (relatively shorter time horizon) preferences with larger historical forces that are beyond families let alone individuals.

    As a relatively short-term social preference, I think maintaining a sizable white majority in the U.S. is desirable, but that is a whole another ball of wax from thinking that any contemporary population is going to be able to resist some degree of hybridization long term.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Sounds like purism to me.
     
    Supposedly, whites once inhabited India. Is there anyone in India you'd actually call white today? Are you being a mere "purist" if you answer "no"?

    Or is it simply the case that with too much hybridization you eventually reach a point where the original stock can no longer be said to exist?

    Would you like it if Korea was mixed with so many blacks that it eventually came to more closely resemble the population of today's Haiti than today's Korea? And if that happened, would you honestly still regard that population as "Korean"?

    Alternatively, what if Korea was mixed with so many Chinese that it eventually came to resemble the population of today's Shanghai more than today's Korea? Might it be easier to still regard that population "Korean"? What is the difference between the two cases, any guesses?
    , @Mr. Rational

    you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization
     
    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.  Others observably cannot; when the conquistadors sired babies on indio women, their genetic legacy never achieved the heights observed back in the old country even when they adopted the language.  That hybridization may be a success on some level, but as an attempt to pass on the civilization it is a total failure.

    (The first time I wrote this comment, I finished my observations and when I posted I was told I was "posting too much in this thread" and my comment deleted unrecoverably.  It would be okay if this was declared at the time I clicked the "Reply" button; to do it after expending a bunch of time and work and to destroy the product of that work is unforgiveable.)

  78. @Colin Wright
    'Not with respect to white survival it wouldn’t, since whites can be bred out of existence just as effectively by Asians and hispanics as by blacks. But, eh, people can’t help being people. There’s just something about mixing with blacks that wounds the soul in a way that isn’t nearly as true with other races.'

    Ditto. The interesting thing is that this is genetically rational. Blacks split off from the rest of us long before Asians and whites separated.

    I’m sure that has something to do with it. I must say, there’s something strange about it, because Asian faces look extremely different to European faces, almost as different as African faces look. And yet, I can be outnumbered by Asians 10:1 and barely even notice it; whereas if that ratio were reversed with blacks, I’d still feel there’s “too many blacks” around for my liking. Heck, if there’s even one black in the vicinity I’ll become keenly aware of it, whereas I wouldn’t pay the slightest attention to one asian (if I even noticed him). Is this “real” though? Or is it just my beliefs about the kinds of behaviors I might expect to encounter from the respective groups? (Ranging from largely feigned geniality mixed with stupid, nagging bs to attempts at intimidating stares all the way to outright violence from the one group; being completely ignored or receiving a polite reply to a comment or question from the other.)

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    East Asians and Europeans may look different, but there is much convergent evolution, ranging from physical (light skin color) to social (agriculture, urban living, etc.) that are not shared by sub-Saharan African-descended populations.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Is it race first, though?

    Thinking through it myself, the first thing that causes me to start tracking someone is sex, then some combination of race and age. An unknown 20 yo white male pings my radar harder than a 65 yo black male does, and certainly harder than a 65 yo black female does.
  79. @Colin Wright
    '...With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing.'

    Meh. In point of fact, what happens is that new 'races' gradually arise through historical processes that, whatever they might tell themselves, are amalgams of past races who interbred.

    We're all aware of Hispanics -- but they are simply Indians crossed with their white conquerors. Anyone who looks at where the line lay in the eighth century between the Germanic lands and the Slavs to their East will realize that 'Germans' must be as much Slavic as they are German. Go to Spain, and there's a gradient: as one moves south, the people look increasingly similar to Moroccans.

    ...and for good reason. Modern 'Turks' are visually at least as white as modern 'Greeks.' In fact, I'd argue that they're genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The inhabitants of the Faeroes, I think it is, are genetically Norse and Irish; all the male genes are Norse, and all the female genes are Irish.

    ...or close enough. And let's not even think about Italy. The real point is the peoples I've cited above -- Hispanics, Germans, Spaniards, Turks, Greeks, Faeroese (?), Italians -- and many others are all perfectly authentic -- but by virtue of history, not genetics.

    Nobody said 'let's all miscegenate continuously.' But on the other hand it's absurd to appeal to some standard of racial purity that has been more often violated than kept. Genes aren't what makes a people.

    Germans

    Germans of different regions are genetically shifted toward their non-German neighbors. Shocking, I know. In a sense, being German is a constructed identity borne of historical accidents and contingencies that forced disparate peoples through some shared experiences and the political wills of determined leaders into being one people of sorts rather than “ein Folk” strictly based on common descent of ancient peoplehood.

    We are finding out, thanks to genetics, that many nations whom we regarded as historically “homogeneous” are at least in part “imagined communities.”

  80. @silviosilver
    I'm sure that has something to do with it. I must say, there's something strange about it, because Asian faces look extremely different to European faces, almost as different as African faces look. And yet, I can be outnumbered by Asians 10:1 and barely even notice it; whereas if that ratio were reversed with blacks, I'd still feel there's "too many blacks" around for my liking. Heck, if there's even one black in the vicinity I'll become keenly aware of it, whereas I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to one asian (if I even noticed him). Is this "real" though? Or is it just my beliefs about the kinds of behaviors I might expect to encounter from the respective groups? (Ranging from largely feigned geniality mixed with stupid, nagging bs to attempts at intimidating stares all the way to outright violence from the one group; being completely ignored or receiving a polite reply to a comment or question from the other.)

    East Asians and Europeans may look different, but there is much convergent evolution, ranging from physical (light skin color) to social (agriculture, urban living, etc.) that are not shared by sub-Saharan African-descended populations.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    But just how much does that explain though? I know next to nothing about evolutionary taxonomy, but I'm pretty sure canines diverged from the human line well before gorillas did. And yet I like dogs vastly more than I like gorillas.
  81. @Colin Wright
    '...With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing.'

    Meh. In point of fact, what happens is that new 'races' gradually arise through historical processes that, whatever they might tell themselves, are amalgams of past races who interbred.

    We're all aware of Hispanics -- but they are simply Indians crossed with their white conquerors. Anyone who looks at where the line lay in the eighth century between the Germanic lands and the Slavs to their East will realize that 'Germans' must be as much Slavic as they are German. Go to Spain, and there's a gradient: as one moves south, the people look increasingly similar to Moroccans.

    ...and for good reason. Modern 'Turks' are visually at least as white as modern 'Greeks.' In fact, I'd argue that they're genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The inhabitants of the Faeroes, I think it is, are genetically Norse and Irish; all the male genes are Norse, and all the female genes are Irish.

    ...or close enough. And let's not even think about Italy. The real point is the peoples I've cited above -- Hispanics, Germans, Spaniards, Turks, Greeks, Faeroese (?), Italians -- and many others are all perfectly authentic -- but by virtue of history, not genetics.

    Nobody said 'let's all miscegenate continuously.' But on the other hand it's absurd to appeal to some standard of racial purity that has been more often violated than kept. Genes aren't what makes a people.

    Genes aren’t what makes a people.

    No, but they are what makes a race.

    I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post.

    I just happen to think it’s better to go on racially existing – potentially permanently – than to submit to racial extinction.

    Environmentalists feel this way about non-human lifeforms all the time. They become giddy with excitement to know that somewhere in the wilds of the Brazilian interior the Amazonian tree frog lives on. Most of them won’t ever lay eyes on the freakin thing. But if you try to preserve a human race – which is just as much a valid biological entity – that you interact with daily, and which for most of us, alongside a common culture, is the seat of human warmth, all hell breaks loose. Brains turn to mush. The simplest logic escapes understanding.

    And who cares if a given group is already hybridized? If it values itself as it now exists, then it should be perfectly understandable if its members want to go on existing in that same way. (Yes, you can get bogged down interminably trying to come up with an airtight definition. That’s a fool’s errand. A close-enough-is-good-enough ballpark definition will virtually always fit the bill.)

    I get it that not everyone feels this way. But why must those of you who don’t deliberately strive so hard to wreck it for those us who do? I don’t claim that racial preservation is easy; just that it’s worthwhile. And when something is worthwhile, as has been long observed in human affairs, “where there’s a will, there’s a way.”

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @iffen
    I get it that not everyone feels this way. But why must those of you who don’t deliberately strive so hard to wreck it for those us who do?

    @Rosie

    But is it okay to stay White?


    Sure, in our culture that is considered an individual decision. I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?
     
    Individualism.

    It's a "white" thing.

    , @Colin Wright
    'No, but they are what makes a race.

    'I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post...'

    As you may note, I clicked the 'agree' button in response.

    I think my point is that less qualified clarion calls for racial purity, while perhaps rhetorically and emotionally satisfying, (a) are logically indefensible, (b) susceptible to quick defeat in the market place of ideas, and (c) politically self-defeating in that they alienate a great many people who would otherwise be allies.

    To put it differently, I can't abide blacks. Everyone else I can live with -- and think it's wise to at least attempt to do so.

    ...

    N.B., nothing in the above should be read as arguing for permitting continued immigration. I said you're a good person; I didn't say you could move into my house.
  82. @silviosilver

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.
     
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.

    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.

    So far the only political and organizing value that whiteness has demonstrated is in promoting increasingly monolithic and well-orchestrated Wokeness. Feminists and militant homosexuals are mostly white and they’ve demonstrated very high political and organizing value. Whiteness has, perversely, been the key factor behind the demonisation of white people.

    • Replies: @iffen
    So far the only political and organizing value that whiteness has demonstrated is in promoting increasingly monolithic and well-orchestrated Wokeness.

    LOL
  83. @Twinkie

    you twit
     
    Don’t be a jackass.

    It’s not about “purism”... a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction...
     
    Sounds like purism to me.

    Again, you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization (as are all major racial groups today). You are sadly uninformed of history and science if you think whites of c. 1950’s are of some magically pure form destined (or supposed) to be preserved through eternity. People hybridize sooner or later.

    a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.
     
    Don’t project. As a former historian, I don’t confuse my (relatively shorter time horizon) preferences with larger historical forces that are beyond families let alone individuals.

    As a relatively short-term social preference, I think maintaining a sizable white majority in the U.S. is desirable, but that is a whole another ball of wax from thinking that any contemporary population is going to be able to resist some degree of hybridization long term.

    Sounds like purism to me.

    Supposedly, whites once inhabited India. Is there anyone in India you’d actually call white today? Are you being a mere “purist” if you answer “no”?

    Or is it simply the case that with too much hybridization you eventually reach a point where the original stock can no longer be said to exist?

    Would you like it if Korea was mixed with so many blacks that it eventually came to more closely resemble the population of today’s Haiti than today’s Korea? And if that happened, would you honestly still regard that population as “Korean”?

    Alternatively, what if Korea was mixed with so many Chinese that it eventually came to resemble the population of today’s Shanghai more than today’s Korea? Might it be easier to still regard that population “Korean”? What is the difference between the two cases, any guesses?

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Supposedly, whites once inhabited India.
     
    You need some basic understanding of population genetics. "Whites" did not once inhabit India. Indian population today is basically (and very broadly-speaking) a hybrid population of very ancient hunter-gatherers + Dravidians + proto-Indo-Aryans + later Mongol-Turkic-Persian arrivals. Bangladeshis are also more shifted toward Southeast Asians.

    Where your confusion originates is the fact that steppe pastoralists (proto-Indo-Aryans) are ancestral components to both South Asians and Europeans. What you think of modern "whites" - Europeans - came into being roughly 5,000 years ago or so.

    I recommend that you read Razib Khan's blog for a while.

    the original stock can no longer be said to exist
     
    What "original stock"? Your terminology suggests that you don't understand the origins of the modern races. Whites didn't have some sort of an unblemished original stock that has been tarnished by admixtures. That's Nordicist nonsense that has been disproven by genetic studies. To repeat, modern whites are a blend of several migrations (of varying degrees), and display traits from these different groups (blue eyes likely from the Eurasian hunter-gatherers, lighter skin from Levantine agriculturalists, etc.). Blondness seems to have originated a few thousand years ago in NE Europe and went through a sudden sweep.

    Would you like it if Korea was mixed with so many blacks that it eventually came to more closely resemble the population of today’s Haiti than today’s Korea?
     
    First of all, what happens to Korea is of relatively little concern to me since it is not my country (I wish it well, but my concern is with MY country, the United States of America). Second, what you suggest is reduction ad absurdum. Last, South Korea has a state ideology of globalization and its population is likely to be increasingly mixed (already at least 10% of the births are of children who have at least one non-Korean parent).

    Might it be easier to still regard that population “Korean”?
     
    Genetically-speaking both Japanese and Koreans are roughly 2/3 Southeast Asian rice farmers and 1/3 Siberian hunter-gatherers. They've always been hybrid populations.

    What you are referring to is relatively short-term admixtures of modern political nationalities. While I do believe further population admixtures are historically inevitably, obviously from the perspective of the contemporary individuals and societies, a gradual process is much more preferable and less disruptive than sudden influxes, which tend to engender tension and conflict.

    To repeat, for that reason (and many others), I support immigration-restriction in the United States and advocate implicit white majoritarianism.
  84. @Twinkie
    East Asians and Europeans may look different, but there is much convergent evolution, ranging from physical (light skin color) to social (agriculture, urban living, etc.) that are not shared by sub-Saharan African-descended populations.

    But just how much does that explain though? I know next to nothing about evolutionary taxonomy, but I’m pretty sure canines diverged from the human line well before gorillas did. And yet I like dogs vastly more than I like gorillas.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I’m pretty sure canines diverged from the human line well before gorillas did. And yet I like dogs vastly more than I like gorillas.
     
    Dogs (and domestic cats) have been through many thousands of generations of selection for traits that humans like and/or find useful.  Gorillas, not so much.  Is it any wonder that you like animals which have been bred to be likeable?
  85. @Audacious Epigone
    I suspect that 31% of Republicans are mostly the DR3 types who really think Democrats are the racist ones.

    Laughing.

  86. @silviosilver
    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists, which was conflated with the alt-right. This group clashed with open WNs in protests during 2016-17. It's probably still partly racial though, including both whites and non-whites who dislike blacks but don't really dislike any other races, but who are still willing to make allowances for "conservative" black types (more for show more than from conviction is my guess).

    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists

    And its name would be?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    Alt-lite?
  87. @dfordoom


    I reject whiteness as the supreme political and organizing value.
     
    I think you refuse whiteness any political or organizing value, well short of supreme.
     
    So far the only political and organizing value that whiteness has demonstrated is in promoting increasingly monolithic and well-orchestrated Wokeness. Feminists and militant homosexuals are mostly white and they've demonstrated very high political and organizing value. Whiteness has, perversely, been the key factor behind the demonisation of white people.

    So far the only political and organizing value that whiteness has demonstrated is in promoting increasingly monolithic and well-orchestrated Wokeness.

    LOL

  88. @silviosilver

    Genes aren’t what makes a people.
     
    No, but they are what makes a race.

    I'm perfectly well aware of everything else you've said in this post.

    I just happen to think it's better to go on racially existing - potentially permanently - than to submit to racial extinction.

    Environmentalists feel this way about non-human lifeforms all the time. They become giddy with excitement to know that somewhere in the wilds of the Brazilian interior the Amazonian tree frog lives on. Most of them won't ever lay eyes on the freakin thing. But if you try to preserve a human race - which is just as much a valid biological entity - that you interact with daily, and which for most of us, alongside a common culture, is the seat of human warmth, all hell breaks loose. Brains turn to mush. The simplest logic escapes understanding.

    And who cares if a given group is already hybridized? If it values itself as it now exists, then it should be perfectly understandable if its members want to go on existing in that same way. (Yes, you can get bogged down interminably trying to come up with an airtight definition. That's a fool's errand. A close-enough-is-good-enough ballpark definition will virtually always fit the bill.)

    I get it that not everyone feels this way. But why must those of you who don't deliberately strive so hard to wreck it for those us who do? I don't claim that racial preservation is easy; just that it's worthwhile. And when something is worthwhile, as has been long observed in human affairs, "where there's a will, there's a way."

    I get it that not everyone feels this way. But why must those of you who don’t deliberately strive so hard to wreck it for those us who do?

    But is it okay to stay White?

    Sure, in our culture that is considered an individual decision. I don’t make it for you and you don’t make it for me. Fair enough?

    Individualism.

    It’s a “white” thing.

  89. @iffen
    A non-racial American nationalist movement exists

    And its name would be?

    Alt-lite?

    • Replies: @SFG
    From what I've seen they mostly call themselves 'New Right'. I get the sense it's a lot more vague with little discipline and, not being overtly racial, just kinda fade into the mainstream right at this point.
  90. “No, but they are what makes a race.

    I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post.

    I just happen to think it’s better to go on racially existing – potentially permanently – than to submit to racial extinction.”

    Here’s the problem, genes don’t make different races, They provide a variance on looks, susceptibility to varying diseases . . . but at the end of the say French woman mating with Alaskan Eskimo male is going to produce a human child. There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback

    • Replies: @Rosie

    There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback
     
    It's not about better or worse.
    , @Colin Wright
    'Here’s the problem, genes don’t make different races, They provide a variance on looks, susceptibility to varying diseases . . . but at the end of the say French woman mating with Alaskan Eskimo male is going to produce a human child. There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback'

    I've idly wondered about that. What are the effects of miscegenation between genetically distant groups? For all I know, they could be positive.

    ...one thing's for sure: few would think it advisable to check, from a career standpoint.

    Something I've noticed: the appearance of the offspring jumps all over the place. They can look like mom, look like dad, or look like some more or less improbable mixture. Geert Wilders would be a good example of one of the less happier possible outcomes, in terms of personal appearance. I know a couple with two children where the mother is Hispanic and the father white. Their daughter is shorter -- actually shorter than her mother -- but more or less 'white' in appearance. The son is this giant Hispanic. Nice enough -- but decidedly non-white in appearance. Just tall.

    , @Colin Wright
    '...There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback.

    Equally, there's no guarantee of an absence of a better or worse anything. Moreover, there's no reason to think that the results from one cross would hold good for all possible crosses. Breeding a Japanese to a Norwegian could have wonderful results; breeding a white Australian to an aborigine could be a recipe for catastrophe.

    At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that more recent research keeps demonstrating that 'nature' beats 'nurture' -- that is to say, even things as improbable as TV watching are more a function of genes than upbringing. So if your Eskimo/Frenchwoman cross didn't come out well, it may indeed be the genes rather than the fact that you raised him in Barrow rather than Paris.
  91. @silviosilver
    Thanks for that link, an interesting read. Alt-right cannot be strictly equated with WN, and that study bears this out, with some 17% of people identifying as alt-right being non-white. The income data referred to household income, so your statement that 42% of alt-righters earn more than $75k is inaccurate, but the general point that they are at least as economically productive as anyone else stands. Differences in long-term relationships between alt-right/Trump-voters and non-Trump-voters could probably be explained by the prevalence of blacks in non-Trump-voter ranks. All in all, there's insufficient evidence in that study to support the contention that WNs display a greater zest for life.

    You are trying way too hard

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I'm not as smooth as you, I guess. But if you're willing to teach me, I'm willing to learn.
  92. @L Woods
    You are trying way too hard

    I’m not as smooth as you, I guess. But if you’re willing to teach me, I’m willing to learn.

  93. “Those Whites just don’t agree with the claim that only Whites can be racist, and many probably had blacks in mind.”

    I suspect that it might just the opposite. They don’t think they are “racist” but that many other are.

    It is an educated guess that they were thinking about populations of their own hue if white and white if of another shade.

  94. @Charles Pewitt
    The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire uses accusations of so-called "racism" and so-called "anti-Semitism" to attack White Core Americans who call into question the anti-White ruling class's policies of mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration and multicultural mayhem and wars on behalf of Israel and race quotas and the outlandish propaganda lies used to hide and obfuscate rampant disproportionate Black criminality.

    I am happy as a clam that the Democrat Party is sullenly moving away from the Russia -- Russia -- Russia nonsense and moving towards explicit anti-White animosity as a governing principle.

    White Core America must absorb the nasty and vicious anti-White propaganda emanating from the corporate propaganda apparatus and the Democrat Party and parts of the Republican Party and White Core America must prepare the counter-attack against the forces of anti-White animosity.

    Young White Core Americans must prepare themselves to engage in mass debt repudiations -- government debt and private debt -- in order to bring on a complete and total global financial implosion. The next round of the global financial implosion is on its way anyway, so young White Core Americans might as well use civilizational survival as an excuse to not pay any of the debts odiously accumulated by a corrupt ruling class financial system. Do you all notice all the banker donation cash that banker politician whores Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg are piling up? Plenty of us notice it!

    Ruling class removal is the order of the day in many European Christian nations, and none more so than the USA.

    My response to any bastard who accuses me of so-called "racism" or so-called "anti-Semitism" is to immediately counter-attack from every direction. I will never again vote for any political leader who cringes or blinks when they are accused of this or that involving something called "racism" or "anti-Semitism."

    I won't vote for Trump in 2020 because of his weakness and failure on reducing mass legal immigration and deporting illegal alien invader infiltrators, but Trump's refusal to blink or cringe when he was attacked was certainly one of the reasons I voted for him in the GOP primary and in the general election against baby boomer globalizer boob Hillary Clinton.

    Tweets from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/545946257160962048?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/460870452328804352?s=20

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/608296269178634241?s=20

    Your 12/19/14 tweet coincides very well, Charles, with Peak Stupidity theory. Much of that, I would say “manifesto”, but let’s just call it an “about” page, is in jest, but the serious bit is that the financial crash coming will put an end to many forms of stupidity as THINGS GET REAL.

  95. @EliteCommInc.
    "No, but they are what makes a race.

    I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post.

    I just happen to think it’s better to go on racially existing – potentially permanently – than to submit to racial extinction."

    Here's the problem, genes don't make different races, They provide a variance on looks, susceptibility to varying diseases . . . but at the end of the say French woman mating with Alaskan Eskimo male is going to produce a human child. There's no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback

    There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback

    It’s not about better or worse.

  96. @silviosilver

    Genes aren’t what makes a people.
     
    No, but they are what makes a race.

    I'm perfectly well aware of everything else you've said in this post.

    I just happen to think it's better to go on racially existing - potentially permanently - than to submit to racial extinction.

    Environmentalists feel this way about non-human lifeforms all the time. They become giddy with excitement to know that somewhere in the wilds of the Brazilian interior the Amazonian tree frog lives on. Most of them won't ever lay eyes on the freakin thing. But if you try to preserve a human race - which is just as much a valid biological entity - that you interact with daily, and which for most of us, alongside a common culture, is the seat of human warmth, all hell breaks loose. Brains turn to mush. The simplest logic escapes understanding.

    And who cares if a given group is already hybridized? If it values itself as it now exists, then it should be perfectly understandable if its members want to go on existing in that same way. (Yes, you can get bogged down interminably trying to come up with an airtight definition. That's a fool's errand. A close-enough-is-good-enough ballpark definition will virtually always fit the bill.)

    I get it that not everyone feels this way. But why must those of you who don't deliberately strive so hard to wreck it for those us who do? I don't claim that racial preservation is easy; just that it's worthwhile. And when something is worthwhile, as has been long observed in human affairs, "where there's a will, there's a way."

    ‘No, but they are what makes a race.

    ‘I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post…’

    As you may note, I clicked the ‘agree’ button in response.

    I think my point is that less qualified clarion calls for racial purity, while perhaps rhetorically and emotionally satisfying, (a) are logically indefensible, (b) susceptible to quick defeat in the market place of ideas, and (c) politically self-defeating in that they alienate a great many people who would otherwise be allies.

    To put it differently, I can’t abide blacks. Everyone else I can live with — and think it’s wise to at least attempt to do so.

    N.B., nothing in the above should be read as arguing for permitting continued immigration. I said you’re a good person; I didn’t say you could move into my house.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    As you may note, I clicked the ‘agree’ button in response.
     
    Well, thanks. Nice to know I'm not completely radioactive.

    If you're still listening, then, here's another point in favor of at least trying for racial preservation.

    As individuals, we all know we're going to die. It's inevitable. But that doesn't mean we're indifferent between dying today and dying in fifty years. We understandably try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

    I don't see why it should be any different racially. Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners. If you know that the train you're on is going to go off a cliff, you'd do anything to get off it. Even if it was barreling along at 100mph you'd still take your chances jumping off, rather than riding it to certain doom.

    As you note, done rashly, attempts at white preservation can very easily backfire. I get that. My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made - and I mean concessions that would actually help, that would not be in vain. (Btw, if anyone can detect more than slight hint of Richard McCulloch in these remarks, they are not wrong. I have been hugely influenced by his work, even I disavow vast reams of it.)

    In this respect, the very worst mistake WNs make is presenting whites as awesome, near-perfect, supermen, and everyone else as worthless worms. Not only is that daft, there's probably no surer way of uniting the rest of the planet against white interests. If WNs remain the sole spokesmen for white interests, then history, I'm sure, will show that the whites who tried the hardest to save their race, did the most to seal its fate.
  97. @EliteCommInc.
    "No, but they are what makes a race.

    I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post.

    I just happen to think it’s better to go on racially existing – potentially permanently – than to submit to racial extinction."

    Here's the problem, genes don't make different races, They provide a variance on looks, susceptibility to varying diseases . . . but at the end of the say French woman mating with Alaskan Eskimo male is going to produce a human child. There's no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback

    ‘Here’s the problem, genes don’t make different races, They provide a variance on looks, susceptibility to varying diseases . . . but at the end of the say French woman mating with Alaskan Eskimo male is going to produce a human child. There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback’

    I’ve idly wondered about that. What are the effects of miscegenation between genetically distant groups? For all I know, they could be positive.

    …one thing’s for sure: few would think it advisable to check, from a career standpoint.

    Something I’ve noticed: the appearance of the offspring jumps all over the place. They can look like mom, look like dad, or look like some more or less improbable mixture. Geert Wilders would be a good example of one of the less happier possible outcomes, in terms of personal appearance. I know a couple with two children where the mother is Hispanic and the father white. Their daughter is shorter — actually shorter than her mother — but more or less ‘white’ in appearance. The son is this giant Hispanic. Nice enough — but decidedly non-white in appearance. Just tall.

  98. @iffen
    he or she will be less related to you than a random White stranger.

    Kind of what you think related means. My grandchildren are 1/4, more or less, me. You, not so much.

    It doesn’t work like that in the real world.

    Yes it does. I chose Ms. Iffen and presented her to my family. (Actually, she claims that chose is not accurate, she describes it a begging on bended knee.)

    Who chose Mr. Rosie for you?

    Kind of what you think related means.

    If you go back 20 generations, lots of your ancestors will appear in your family tree multiple times.  Probably quite a few even at 10 generations.  Everyone descended from that group is going to be related; I recall reading that average ethnic English are related at about the distance of sixth cousins.

    Now replace half of that pool of ancestors with a set that has no ancestors in common for a thousand generations, maybe ten thousand (sub-Saharan Africans).  That child will be far less related to you than the average person of your ethny on the street.  More to the point, they’ll act like it too.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That's odd.

    I don't know the names or birthdates of any of my 6th cousins.
  99. @EliteCommInc.
    "No, but they are what makes a race.

    I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post.

    I just happen to think it’s better to go on racially existing – potentially permanently – than to submit to racial extinction."

    Here's the problem, genes don't make different races, They provide a variance on looks, susceptibility to varying diseases . . . but at the end of the say French woman mating with Alaskan Eskimo male is going to produce a human child. There's no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback

    ‘…There’s no guarantee of better or worse anything based on genes that is not impacted more by whether said child is raised in Paris or the Alaskan outback.

    Equally, there’s no guarantee of an absence of a better or worse anything. Moreover, there’s no reason to think that the results from one cross would hold good for all possible crosses. Breeding a Japanese to a Norwegian could have wonderful results; breeding a white Australian to an aborigine could be a recipe for catastrophe.

    At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that more recent research keeps demonstrating that ‘nature’ beats ‘nurture’ — that is to say, even things as improbable as TV watching are more a function of genes than upbringing. So if your Eskimo/Frenchwoman cross didn’t come out well, it may indeed be the genes rather than the fact that you raised him in Barrow rather than Paris.

  100. @Colin Wright
    'No, but they are what makes a race.

    'I’m perfectly well aware of everything else you’ve said in this post...'

    As you may note, I clicked the 'agree' button in response.

    I think my point is that less qualified clarion calls for racial purity, while perhaps rhetorically and emotionally satisfying, (a) are logically indefensible, (b) susceptible to quick defeat in the market place of ideas, and (c) politically self-defeating in that they alienate a great many people who would otherwise be allies.

    To put it differently, I can't abide blacks. Everyone else I can live with -- and think it's wise to at least attempt to do so.

    ...

    N.B., nothing in the above should be read as arguing for permitting continued immigration. I said you're a good person; I didn't say you could move into my house.

    As you may note, I clicked the ‘agree’ button in response.

    Well, thanks. Nice to know I’m not completely radioactive.

    If you’re still listening, then, here’s another point in favor of at least trying for racial preservation.

    As individuals, we all know we’re going to die. It’s inevitable. But that doesn’t mean we’re indifferent between dying today and dying in fifty years. We understandably try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

    I don’t see why it should be any different racially. Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners. If you know that the train you’re on is going to go off a cliff, you’d do anything to get off it. Even if it was barreling along at 100mph you’d still take your chances jumping off, rather than riding it to certain doom.

    As you note, done rashly, attempts at white preservation can very easily backfire. I get that. My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made – and I mean concessions that would actually help, that would not be in vain. (Btw, if anyone can detect more than slight hint of Richard McCulloch in these remarks, they are not wrong. I have been hugely influenced by his work, even I disavow vast reams of it.)

    In this respect, the very worst mistake WNs make is presenting whites as awesome, near-perfect, supermen, and everyone else as worthless worms. Not only is that daft, there’s probably no surer way of uniting the rest of the planet against white interests. If WNs remain the sole spokesmen for white interests, then history, I’m sure, will show that the whites who tried the hardest to save their race, did the most to seal its fate.

    • Replies: @Toronto Russian

    Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners.
     
    You're too pessimistic. When non-white groups undergo demographic transition they become less fertile than whites. Black Brazilians by 2010 had fewer children than any other race including Asians. In the 1980s they had most of all and whites were the last.
    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/stranger233/57419558/15137/15137_900.png

    Among the children born since 1996, the share of whites grew and the share of others except Native Indians shrank.
    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/stranger233/57419558/15542/15542_900.png

    In 2019, Jamaica has lower birthrate than Japan and Barbados lower than Italy.
    https://stranger233.livejournal.com/46641.html

    Cuba has lost in number of blacks and mixed and gained in whites between two latest censuses, but it may be just a result of ambiguously brown people telling they're white in greater numbers (it's fashionable there).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made

    Rhetorically this is fairly easy, isn't it? Miscegenation 'dilutes' both sides engaging in it. Say you want ethnic, cultural, racial, and linguistic conservation.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    WNs make...presenting whites as awesome

     

    Well...the population of the entire* World wants to evacuate their homelands and immigrate to a white nation. Why is that?

    *correction: surveys show only have would want to immigrate.
  101. @Mr. Rational

    Kind of what you think related means.
     
    If you go back 20 generations, lots of your ancestors will appear in your family tree multiple times.  Probably quite a few even at 10 generations.  Everyone descended from that group is going to be related; I recall reading that average ethnic English are related at about the distance of sixth cousins.

    Now replace half of that pool of ancestors with a set that has no ancestors in common for a thousand generations, maybe ten thousand (sub-Saharan Africans).  That child will be far less related to you than the average person of your ethny on the street.  More to the point, they'll act like it too.

    That’s odd.

    I don’t know the names or birthdates of any of my 6th cousins.

  102. “I know a couple with two children where the mother is Hispanic and the father white. Their daughter is shorter — actually shorter than her mother — but more or less ‘white’ in appearance. The son is this giant Hispanic. Nice enough — but decidedly non-white in appearance. Just tall.”

    But hispanic is not a race. It’s a cultural dimension. Whitesness is a color variant. As is indicative of the commentary by an article posted yesterday , whites in Latin America are dominant in the power and wealth structure. That’s not by virtue of nature but by historical consequence — environment and circumstance.

    I have been watching a program on the Dark Ages and its world order is dictated by environment. brown skin is not even indicative of being hispanic as many brown skinned citizens and native americans would attest.

    I am not contending that whites intermarry or breed or that blacks do the same — but instead that is we get to the populations of youth soon enough, we can ameliorate a lot of the concerns we have about morality and intelligence.

    Note: No one who thinks importing other cultures is going set the US a rights either doesn’t really care or support the US as a nation or is deeply naively misguided, ignoring history.

  103. @Twinkie

    them
     
    There’s the rub. How do you define “them”?

    rendering plants
     
    This net-Nazi fantasy is either mental masturbation or posturing, neither of which is attractive and, worse, is counterproductive.

    There’s the rub. How do you define “them”?

    Whoever’s hostile or incompatible.  If they define me as “them”, that’s what they are to me.  This guy is a “them”:

    This guy understands what’s at stake:

    This net-Nazi fantasy is either mental masturbation or posturing

    It’s an expression of “no quarter”; they’ve forfeited any right to it.  Where or how they go is no longer of any importance, only “gone” matters.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Whoever’s hostile or incompatible. If they define me as “them”, that’s what they are to me.
     
    Your statement suffers from some definitional problems to say the least. Using "they" to define "them" is tautology, not definition.

    The only concrete thing I am getting from you, especially in light of the snapshots of the videos you linked, is that you are not keen on blacks.

    It’s an expression of “no quarter”; they’ve forfeited any right to it.
     
    Just a friendly advice - I suggest you keep genocidal thoughts to yourself.
  104. Since Trump is doing away with the Endangered Species Act, white preservationists need to just go ahead and give up, you’re not going to get any help from him.

  105. @Audacious Epigone
    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible? Yeah, I agree it feels damned near that way. But it's still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.

    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible?

    If it comes down to armed conflict to even get our CURRENT immigration laws enforced (and it might well), we’re not going to have either the funds or patience for the “peaceful” options.  And I would argue that what the PTB currently allow blacks and others to do to Whites already constitutes “horrific crimes against humanity”; the current government’s policy on “fair housing” alone meets the UN definition of genocide, long before you get to things like the Knoxville horror, Jessica Chambers and Autumn Pasquale.

    But it’s still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.

    Backhoes digging holes which are filled by tree chippers are likelier still.  The question is, who will go into them?  I don’t want it to be “us”.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    No major racial/ethnic group in the US is breeding at replacement anymore, not even Hispanics. Africans in America don't breed anything like Africans in Africa. Stop immigration and the total population becomes older, mellower, less violent, and less tolerant of violence.

    There will always be a few dangerous pockets, but they're easily avoidable for the vast majority of people. Increasingly more time will be spent plugged into the virtual world, so space constraints need not be a big concern in most of the country, either.

    There may be war, but there doesn't have to be, especially if immigration is stopped.
  106. “Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners.”

    There’s hardly a call to be pessimistic. The answer is nationalism. Now clearly this president has compromised to the extent that nothing he says on restricting immigration has value, unless it is backed up policy and action. Green cards — good grief.

    And according to Miss Coulter, this president continues to hire illegal immigrants.

    https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-suggests-trump-charged-employing-undocumented-migrant-workers-1453864

    But citizens must make it abundantly clear that enough is enough and was enough 20 years ago. And here is where i part company with a lot of christians who would prefer to bend the Bible into political document for unwise ends of charity when millions here need the same.

    —————————-

    And what a disaster to move conservatives out of the fields that till young futre citizens

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/radical-indoctrination-coming-to-a-public-school-near-you/

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    A conceptual double-helix type of model, ha! There won't be any understanding of an actual double-helix, of course.
  107. @Colin Wright
    '...With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing.'

    Meh. In point of fact, what happens is that new 'races' gradually arise through historical processes that, whatever they might tell themselves, are amalgams of past races who interbred.

    We're all aware of Hispanics -- but they are simply Indians crossed with their white conquerors. Anyone who looks at where the line lay in the eighth century between the Germanic lands and the Slavs to their East will realize that 'Germans' must be as much Slavic as they are German. Go to Spain, and there's a gradient: as one moves south, the people look increasingly similar to Moroccans.

    ...and for good reason. Modern 'Turks' are visually at least as white as modern 'Greeks.' In fact, I'd argue that they're genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The inhabitants of the Faeroes, I think it is, are genetically Norse and Irish; all the male genes are Norse, and all the female genes are Irish.

    ...or close enough. And let's not even think about Italy. The real point is the peoples I've cited above -- Hispanics, Germans, Spaniards, Turks, Greeks, Faeroese (?), Italians -- and many others are all perfectly authentic -- but by virtue of history, not genetics.

    Nobody said 'let's all miscegenate continuously.' But on the other hand it's absurd to appeal to some standard of racial purity that has been more often violated than kept. Genes aren't what makes a people.

    In defense of Silvio-Silver’s comment (though the animosity and name-calling wasn’t necessary) is this: While the interbreeding going on with whites may have been seen before, etc etc, the problem is that this is happening ALL THROUGHOUT the white (i.e. “Western”) world. The interbreeding among Orientals, or dot-Indians, or blacks is the same, except for they have a base of their own people of 2 billion, > 1 billion, and about another 1 billion, respectively, back in their home countries.

    It’s really as simple as saying “whites should be able to have a homeland and be left alone there”. That would have been Europe, the US of A, Canada, and Australia, until the elites decided they were having none of that about 50 years ago.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    That's the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it's only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, "anti-racists"!
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It could be quixotic naivety on my part, but if there really does start to be a push for immigration into East Asians countries like Japan, South Korea, and China from countries other than those (and some SE Asian countries) and these countries refuse it, SWPLs may begin to stop automatically associating immigration restrictionism with whiteness.

    We rhetorically say "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone", but to a close approximation, the only place anyone really wants to go are white countries. That's changing now, but perceptions will lag behind reality. Still, in a generation, more Africans may be heading northeast than due north or across the Atlantic.
  108. @Colin Wright
    '...With respect to racial survival, just because the process may take centuries to play out changes nothing.'

    Meh. In point of fact, what happens is that new 'races' gradually arise through historical processes that, whatever they might tell themselves, are amalgams of past races who interbred.

    We're all aware of Hispanics -- but they are simply Indians crossed with their white conquerors. Anyone who looks at where the line lay in the eighth century between the Germanic lands and the Slavs to their East will realize that 'Germans' must be as much Slavic as they are German. Go to Spain, and there's a gradient: as one moves south, the people look increasingly similar to Moroccans.

    ...and for good reason. Modern 'Turks' are visually at least as white as modern 'Greeks.' In fact, I'd argue that they're genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The inhabitants of the Faeroes, I think it is, are genetically Norse and Irish; all the male genes are Norse, and all the female genes are Irish.

    ...or close enough. And let's not even think about Italy. The real point is the peoples I've cited above -- Hispanics, Germans, Spaniards, Turks, Greeks, Faeroese (?), Italians -- and many others are all perfectly authentic -- but by virtue of history, not genetics.

    Nobody said 'let's all miscegenate continuously.' But on the other hand it's absurd to appeal to some standard of racial purity that has been more often violated than kept. Genes aren't what makes a people.

    Modern ‘Turks’ are visually at least as white as modern ‘Greeks.’ In fact, I’d argue that they’re genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.

    The swarthy Greek neighbors who settled next door to my parents in my late teens said as much (academics are a pretty mobile bunch).  The Turks ruled Greece for a long time, and had their way with lots of Greek women.  The results are obvious.

    But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks.  I had a neighbor much later who was just this type.  Sadly, she never had children of her own; she and her husband adopted two Chinese girls.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks...'

    Those are probably actually Slavs, genetically. The interior of Greece was settled by Slavs in the Dark Ages.

    Modern 'Greece' is a very recent and somewhat artificial creation. As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito's partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That's because unlike the Greeks, Tito's guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.

    Worsening matters, the 'Turks' themselves were no longer particularly Turkish by the time they reached Greece -- three hundred years after they'd irrupted into Anatolia. Of course in the meantime they'd been vigorously interbreeding with all the indigenous Greek and non-Greek peoples of the peninsula.

    And finally, the Ottoman Turks were big on people-moving. Want to pacify an area? Move the troublesome locals five hundred miles away and move in some loyal colonists. The attitude of both groups will be improved.

    So it's all pretty well-mixed by now. Ataturk was born in Salonika, and if I recall aright, his father came from around Athens. Conversely, I've got pictures of very pleasingly white-looking young mothers from around Konya -- up on the Anatolian plateau.

    However -- and this is a fairly important point -- nothing in all this demonstrates that to be 'Greek' isn't an authentic identity. It's very authentic -- food, religion, popular history, cultural attitudes -- Greeks are indubitably Greek, for better and for worse. It's just that it's bilge to define that identity genetically. They're Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings -- or whatever -- if you want to go by blood. But that they got there by a hundred different roads is secondary. They're all there now -- and are exactly who they are.

    , @Twinkie

    The swarthy Greek neighbors who settled next door to my parents in my late teens said as much (academics are a pretty mobile bunch). The Turks ruled Greece for a long time, and had their way with lots of Greek women. The results are obvious.
     
    That's not what happened. Anatolia, especially on the coast (e.g. Pontus) was heavily populated by Greeks before the Turkish conquest and most of those Greeks converted and assimilated into the Turkish culture over time. So many "Turks" are genetically identical or very similar to the Greeks. Modern Turks are very, very distant from the Turkmen (though they do have Asian affinities) and are mostly descended from the conquered.

    But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks.
     
    That's more Nordicist nonsense. Modern Greeks have a strong Slavic genetic component.

    You, too, would benefit from reading Razib Khan's blog where all the latest population genetic findings are reported along with his highly informed commentary.
  109. ” So if your Eskimo/Frenchwoman cross didn’t come out well, it may indeed be the genes rather than the fact that you raised him in Barrow rather than Paris.”

    As i have stated as nauseum. I am a conservative. So my next reference should not be mistaken for some liberal bias anymore than my acknowledgement of the social construction of our country regarding color.

    Candidate Kamala Harris is considered liberal and according to many part of the dangerous social shift “anti-white”.

    Yet contrary to the claim her tenure as prosecutor was as “law and order” motif despite being in liberal CA. Now shouldn’t her skin color have contradicted such positioning. if in fact, the inheritance of “race” as noted by color was predominant then her proclivities should have been far more lenient than and catering to people of color. but that is not what her record reflects. Not only did she not cater to blacks, she was as eager as any to prosecute low hanging fruit.

    In complete contradiction as to how the rhetoric surrounding race should have predicted.

  110. @Audacious Epigone
    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible? Yeah, I agree it feels damned near that way. But it's still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.

    Not impossible with the right leadership.

  111. @Achmed E. Newman
    In defense of Silvio-Silver's comment (though the animosity and name-calling wasn't necessary) is this: While the interbreeding going on with whites may have been seen before, etc etc, the problem is that this is happening ALL THROUGHOUT the white (i.e. "Western") world. The interbreeding among Orientals, or dot-Indians, or blacks is the same, except for they have a base of their own people of 2 billion, > 1 billion, and about another 1 billion, respectively, back in their home countries.

    It's really as simple as saying "whites should be able to have a homeland and be left alone there". That would have been Europe, the US of A, Canada, and Australia, until the elites decided they were having none of that about 50 years ago.

    That’s the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it’s only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, “anti-racists”!

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    That’s the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it’s only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, “anti-racists”!
     
    You don't think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?

    And East Asians are embarking on demographic suicide with more enthusiasm even than whites. Check out the fertility rates in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Is that the fault of anti-racists?

    Given a choice between consumer goodies and children most people, of all races, will choose consumer goodies.

    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.
  112. @Mr. Rational

    Modern ‘Turks’ are visually at least as white as modern ‘Greeks.’ In fact, I’d argue that they’re genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.
     
    The swarthy Greek neighbors who settled next door to my parents in my late teens said as much (academics are a pretty mobile bunch).  The Turks ruled Greece for a long time, and had their way with lots of Greek women.  The results are obvious.

    But I'm told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks.  I had a neighbor much later who was just this type.  Sadly, she never had children of her own; she and her husband adopted two Chinese girls.

    ‘…But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks…’

    Those are probably actually Slavs, genetically. The interior of Greece was settled by Slavs in the Dark Ages.

    Modern ‘Greece’ is a very recent and somewhat artificial creation. As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito’s partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That’s because unlike the Greeks, Tito’s guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.

    Worsening matters, the ‘Turks’ themselves were no longer particularly Turkish by the time they reached Greece — three hundred years after they’d irrupted into Anatolia. Of course in the meantime they’d been vigorously interbreeding with all the indigenous Greek and non-Greek peoples of the peninsula.

    And finally, the Ottoman Turks were big on people-moving. Want to pacify an area? Move the troublesome locals five hundred miles away and move in some loyal colonists. The attitude of both groups will be improved.

    So it’s all pretty well-mixed by now. Ataturk was born in Salonika, and if I recall aright, his father came from around Athens. Conversely, I’ve got pictures of very pleasingly white-looking young mothers from around Konya — up on the Anatolian plateau.

    However — and this is a fairly important point — nothing in all this demonstrates that to be ‘Greek’ isn’t an authentic identity. It’s very authentic — food, religion, popular history, cultural attitudes — Greeks are indubitably Greek, for better and for worse. It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically. They’re Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings — or whatever — if you want to go by blood. But that they got there by a hundred different roads is secondary. They’re all there now — and are exactly who they are.

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito’s partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That’s because unlike the Greeks, Tito’s guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.
     
    They weren't "Tito's guerillas." They were aided by Yuglosav communists, but the movement was homegrown. Slavic speakers were fighting for a somewhat different cause (ie a separatist cause) than their Greek communist comrades, and by the end of the war they made up a majority of the fighters, but the leadership structure was mostly Greek. Some of my own ancestors were involved in that conflict (which alone should put paid to the notion that I'm any kind of racial purist, lol).

    It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically. They’re Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings — or whatever — if you want to go by blood.
     
    So no room for any contribution from "original" Greeks to that mix, eh? Come off it. They didn't just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of outsiders.

    Anyway, I think you contradict yourself. A "slavo-turko-levantine" people can still be genetically defined, and it would still exclude waaaay over 95% of the world's population, so do you mind telling me just what problem you would have with such a definition?
    , @dfordoom

    However — and this is a fairly important point — nothing in all this demonstrates that to be ‘Greek’ isn’t an authentic identity. It’s very authentic — food, religion, popular history, cultural attitudes — Greeks are indubitably Greek, for better and for worse. It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically.
     
    Any genuine identity has to be based to a very large extent on culture.

    Since we're well on the way to having a single global mono-culture any real sense of ethnic identity is going to vanish.

    The danger for the elites is that without ethnic/cultural identity people will still look for some kind of identity. The elites are hoping that such identities will be based on a choice of which sexual depravity to embrace rather than class.
  113. @silviosilver

    As you may note, I clicked the ‘agree’ button in response.
     
    Well, thanks. Nice to know I'm not completely radioactive.

    If you're still listening, then, here's another point in favor of at least trying for racial preservation.

    As individuals, we all know we're going to die. It's inevitable. But that doesn't mean we're indifferent between dying today and dying in fifty years. We understandably try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

    I don't see why it should be any different racially. Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners. If you know that the train you're on is going to go off a cliff, you'd do anything to get off it. Even if it was barreling along at 100mph you'd still take your chances jumping off, rather than riding it to certain doom.

    As you note, done rashly, attempts at white preservation can very easily backfire. I get that. My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made - and I mean concessions that would actually help, that would not be in vain. (Btw, if anyone can detect more than slight hint of Richard McCulloch in these remarks, they are not wrong. I have been hugely influenced by his work, even I disavow vast reams of it.)

    In this respect, the very worst mistake WNs make is presenting whites as awesome, near-perfect, supermen, and everyone else as worthless worms. Not only is that daft, there's probably no surer way of uniting the rest of the planet against white interests. If WNs remain the sole spokesmen for white interests, then history, I'm sure, will show that the whites who tried the hardest to save their race, did the most to seal its fate.

    Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners.

    You’re too pessimistic. When non-white groups undergo demographic transition they become less fertile than whites. Black Brazilians by 2010 had fewer children than any other race including Asians. In the 1980s they had most of all and whites were the last.

    Among the children born since 1996, the share of whites grew and the share of others except Native Indians shrank.

    In 2019, Jamaica has lower birthrate than Japan and Barbados lower than Italy.
    https://stranger233.livejournal.com/46641.html

    Cuba has lost in number of blacks and mixed and gained in whites between two latest censuses, but it may be just a result of ambiguously brown people telling they’re white in greater numbers (it’s fashionable there).

    • Replies: @silviosilver

    You’re too pessimistic.
     
    If the all the whites in America mixed with all the non-whites in America until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, would the resultant racial type be white or non-white?

    If all the whites in England circa 1900 mixed with all the non-whites in England until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, the resultant racial type would be indubitably white (indubitably English, too).

    Why? Because the "racial average" of England circa 1900 was white, and indubitably English.

    The "racial average" of today's is England is perhaps still "white," but it would not be indubitably English.

    The "racial average" of today's America is non-white, and growing non-whiter with each passing year.

    Racial average is racial destiny. It's the racial type that your country's population is progressively breeding towards creating. If your country's racial average isn't white, your country's racial destiny isn't white.

    From a racial perspective, America's destiny is a whiteless wasteland.

  114. @WorkingClass
    Americans polled believe that 38 percent of their countrymen are "racist".

    I can't see that this number has any meaning except possibly as a measure of the effectiveness of domestic propaganda. Who paid for this poll?

    AE:

    How about a few paragraphs on the business (not the science) of polling especially as it intersects with the projection of propaganda and more generally the business of electoral politics. I understand that there are objective criteria by which to assess the validity of polling results. But can I trust the pollsters? Can I trust their paymasters?

    Many years ago I worked closely with pollsters for candidates.

    It was very difficult to generate unbaised and meaningful polls even when that was your goal.

    “Good” words make respondents more likely to approve, “bad” words disapprove.

    Even simple tasks like determining name recognition were daunting, particularly if the names could be confused with other people with similar names.

    Lists of issues would often miss major issues (for years “illegal immigration” was not on the list at all, in many polls it still is not or is mislabeled with terms like “migration”)

    As a result even minor (and unrealized) bias on the part of the pollsters wildly skewed results.

    Pollsters with an agenda that wanted to create numbers had a large toolkit at their disposal.

    Polls are always misleading and confusing at best.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It was very difficult to generate unbaised and meaningful polls even when that was your goal.
     
    Apart from anything else it's impossible to reduce most issues to something that can be easily measured. If you ask people if they favour immigration restrictionism quite a few people will answer Yes. But that includes people who think a million a year is too many but 800,000 a year would be just fine. It also includes people who think that 100,000 a year would be ideal. And it includes people who think zero would be the right number.

    If you ask people if they regard China as a threat quite a few would say Yes. But does that mean that they seriously see China as a military threat, or merely an economic threat?

    If you ask people if taxes should be reduced the Yes answers would include people who think a slight reduction would be great. It would also include libertarian nutters who don't think they should pay any taxes at all.
  115. @Toronto Russian

    Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners.
     
    You're too pessimistic. When non-white groups undergo demographic transition they become less fertile than whites. Black Brazilians by 2010 had fewer children than any other race including Asians. In the 1980s they had most of all and whites were the last.
    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/stranger233/57419558/15137/15137_900.png

    Among the children born since 1996, the share of whites grew and the share of others except Native Indians shrank.
    https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/stranger233/57419558/15542/15542_900.png

    In 2019, Jamaica has lower birthrate than Japan and Barbados lower than Italy.
    https://stranger233.livejournal.com/46641.html

    Cuba has lost in number of blacks and mixed and gained in whites between two latest censuses, but it may be just a result of ambiguously brown people telling they're white in greater numbers (it's fashionable there).

    You’re too pessimistic.

    If the all the whites in America mixed with all the non-whites in America until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, would the resultant racial type be white or non-white?

    If all the whites in England circa 1900 mixed with all the non-whites in England until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, the resultant racial type would be indubitably white (indubitably English, too).

    Why? Because the “racial average” of England circa 1900 was white, and indubitably English.

    The “racial average” of today’s is England is perhaps still “white,” but it would not be indubitably English.

    The “racial average” of today’s America is non-white, and growing non-whiter with each passing year.

    Racial average is racial destiny. It’s the racial type that your country’s population is progressively breeding towards creating. If your country’s racial average isn’t white, your country’s racial destiny isn’t white.

    From a racial perspective, America’s destiny is a whiteless wasteland.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    If the all the whites in America mixed with all the non-whites in America until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, would the resultant racial type be white or non-white?
     
    That's not going to happen. The whole "Americans are going to race-mix and are all just going to be brown mush" idea turns out to be quite off the mark.

    This is from the New York Times in 1998: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/13/magazine/l-the-beige-and-the-black-750441.html
  116. @Colin Wright
    '...But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks...'

    Those are probably actually Slavs, genetically. The interior of Greece was settled by Slavs in the Dark Ages.

    Modern 'Greece' is a very recent and somewhat artificial creation. As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito's partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That's because unlike the Greeks, Tito's guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.

    Worsening matters, the 'Turks' themselves were no longer particularly Turkish by the time they reached Greece -- three hundred years after they'd irrupted into Anatolia. Of course in the meantime they'd been vigorously interbreeding with all the indigenous Greek and non-Greek peoples of the peninsula.

    And finally, the Ottoman Turks were big on people-moving. Want to pacify an area? Move the troublesome locals five hundred miles away and move in some loyal colonists. The attitude of both groups will be improved.

    So it's all pretty well-mixed by now. Ataturk was born in Salonika, and if I recall aright, his father came from around Athens. Conversely, I've got pictures of very pleasingly white-looking young mothers from around Konya -- up on the Anatolian plateau.

    However -- and this is a fairly important point -- nothing in all this demonstrates that to be 'Greek' isn't an authentic identity. It's very authentic -- food, religion, popular history, cultural attitudes -- Greeks are indubitably Greek, for better and for worse. It's just that it's bilge to define that identity genetically. They're Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings -- or whatever -- if you want to go by blood. But that they got there by a hundred different roads is secondary. They're all there now -- and are exactly who they are.

    As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito’s partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That’s because unlike the Greeks, Tito’s guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.

    They weren’t “Tito’s guerillas.” They were aided by Yuglosav communists, but the movement was homegrown. Slavic speakers were fighting for a somewhat different cause (ie a separatist cause) than their Greek communist comrades, and by the end of the war they made up a majority of the fighters, but the leadership structure was mostly Greek. Some of my own ancestors were involved in that conflict (which alone should put paid to the notion that I’m any kind of racial purist, lol).

    It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically. They’re Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings — or whatever — if you want to go by blood.

    So no room for any contribution from “original” Greeks to that mix, eh? Come off it. They didn’t just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of outsiders.

    Anyway, I think you contradict yourself. A “slavo-turko-levantine” people can still be genetically defined, and it would still exclude waaaay over 95% of the world’s population, so do you mind telling me just what problem you would have with such a definition?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'So no room for any contribution from “original” Greeks to that mix, eh? Come off it. They didn’t just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of outsiders.'

    You must be Greek.

    No -- you're right. Greeks as in classical Greece are actually who I meant by 'Levantine Maritime People.' One of the oddities of the ancient world in translation is that 'Greece' is now the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula -- and we define the inhabitants as 'Greeks.' Much of what we now call 'Greece' consists of regions that were only on the periphery of the classical Greek world.

    My impression at least is that the classical Greeks were the people clustered around the Aegean coasts -- more or less equally on all three sides. Coastal Anatolia was just as much 'Greece' as was the Peloponnesus -- and of course many of the islands were centers of Greek civilization. However, Greeks really weren't much of an inland people.

    There's obviously a considerable overlap between ancient Greece and the modern state in many respects. But to see the one as the simple and direct descendant of the other is not especially accurate.

    , @Colin Wright
    'Anyway, I think you contradict yourself. A “slavo-turko-levantine” people can still be genetically defined, and it would still exclude waaaay over 95% of the world’s population, so do you mind telling me just what problem you would have with such a definition?'

    They could be genetically defined -- but you might have difficulty formulating a definition that clearly excluded, say, a current inhabitant of Izmir who is quite sure he's a Turk.

    Still, I wouldn't object to the definition. I imagine 'Greeks' could easily be defined so as to exclude Eritreans, and even to clearly distinguish them from most Syrians.

    I would insist, though, that the important aspects of Greek identity -- good and bad -- are not genetic, but religious, cultural, and historical. An inhabitant of modern Syracuse whose bloodlines have somehow remained pure for the last 2300 years would nevertheless be considerably less 'Greek' than someone who might be -- just to pull some numbers out of a hat -- genetically 50% Slav, 20% Turkic, 10% Germanic, and only 20% genuine ancient Greek.
  117. “It’s not about better or worse.”

    Well, it is not as if blacks are forcing inter color relations by whip, ball and chain, I think that ended with slavery.

  118. @silviosilver

    As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito’s partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That’s because unlike the Greeks, Tito’s guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.
     
    They weren't "Tito's guerillas." They were aided by Yuglosav communists, but the movement was homegrown. Slavic speakers were fighting for a somewhat different cause (ie a separatist cause) than their Greek communist comrades, and by the end of the war they made up a majority of the fighters, but the leadership structure was mostly Greek. Some of my own ancestors were involved in that conflict (which alone should put paid to the notion that I'm any kind of racial purist, lol).

    It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically. They’re Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings — or whatever — if you want to go by blood.
     
    So no room for any contribution from "original" Greeks to that mix, eh? Come off it. They didn't just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of outsiders.

    Anyway, I think you contradict yourself. A "slavo-turko-levantine" people can still be genetically defined, and it would still exclude waaaay over 95% of the world's population, so do you mind telling me just what problem you would have with such a definition?

    ‘So no room for any contribution from “original” Greeks to that mix, eh? Come off it. They didn’t just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of outsiders.’

    You must be Greek.

    No — you’re right. Greeks as in classical Greece are actually who I meant by ‘Levantine Maritime People.’ One of the oddities of the ancient world in translation is that ‘Greece’ is now the southern tip of the Balkan peninsula — and we define the inhabitants as ‘Greeks.’ Much of what we now call ‘Greece’ consists of regions that were only on the periphery of the classical Greek world.

    My impression at least is that the classical Greeks were the people clustered around the Aegean coasts — more or less equally on all three sides. Coastal Anatolia was just as much ‘Greece’ as was the Peloponnesus — and of course many of the islands were centers of Greek civilization. However, Greeks really weren’t much of an inland people.

    There’s obviously a considerable overlap between ancient Greece and the modern state in many respects. But to see the one as the simple and direct descendant of the other is not especially accurate.

  119. @silviosilver

    As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito’s partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That’s because unlike the Greeks, Tito’s guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.
     
    They weren't "Tito's guerillas." They were aided by Yuglosav communists, but the movement was homegrown. Slavic speakers were fighting for a somewhat different cause (ie a separatist cause) than their Greek communist comrades, and by the end of the war they made up a majority of the fighters, but the leadership structure was mostly Greek. Some of my own ancestors were involved in that conflict (which alone should put paid to the notion that I'm any kind of racial purist, lol).

    It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically. They’re Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings — or whatever — if you want to go by blood.
     
    So no room for any contribution from "original" Greeks to that mix, eh? Come off it. They didn't just vanish into thin air upon the arrival of outsiders.

    Anyway, I think you contradict yourself. A "slavo-turko-levantine" people can still be genetically defined, and it would still exclude waaaay over 95% of the world's population, so do you mind telling me just what problem you would have with such a definition?

    ‘Anyway, I think you contradict yourself. A “slavo-turko-levantine” people can still be genetically defined, and it would still exclude waaaay over 95% of the world’s population, so do you mind telling me just what problem you would have with such a definition?’

    They could be genetically defined — but you might have difficulty formulating a definition that clearly excluded, say, a current inhabitant of Izmir who is quite sure he’s a Turk.

    Still, I wouldn’t object to the definition. I imagine ‘Greeks’ could easily be defined so as to exclude Eritreans, and even to clearly distinguish them from most Syrians.

    I would insist, though, that the important aspects of Greek identity — good and bad — are not genetic, but religious, cultural, and historical. An inhabitant of modern Syracuse whose bloodlines have somehow remained pure for the last 2300 years would nevertheless be considerably less ‘Greek’ than someone who might be — just to pull some numbers out of a hat — genetically 50% Slav, 20% Turkic, 10% Germanic, and only 20% genuine ancient Greek.

  120. @Twinkie

    you twit
     
    Don’t be a jackass.

    It’s not about “purism”... a failure to produce white offspring.

    (Actually, it has worse consequences, since the offspring it produces will be racially and culturally less alien to the next generation of whites, meaning that whites will be more likely to breed with them, which simply hastens the process of white extinction...
     
    Sounds like purism to me.

    Again, you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization (as are all major racial groups today). You are sadly uninformed of history and science if you think whites of c. 1950’s are of some magically pure form destined (or supposed) to be preserved through eternity. People hybridize sooner or later.

    a process that race-mixers like yourself are, for understandable reasons, loath to admit the reality of.
     
    Don’t project. As a former historian, I don’t confuse my (relatively shorter time horizon) preferences with larger historical forces that are beyond families let alone individuals.

    As a relatively short-term social preference, I think maintaining a sizable white majority in the U.S. is desirable, but that is a whole another ball of wax from thinking that any contemporary population is going to be able to resist some degree of hybridization long term.

    you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization

    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.  Others observably cannot; when the conquistadors sired babies on indio women, their genetic legacy never achieved the heights observed back in the old country even when they adopted the language.  That hybridization may be a success on some level, but as an attempt to pass on the civilization it is a total failure.

    (The first time I wrote this comment, I finished my observations and when I posted I was told I was “posting too much in this thread” and my comment deleted unrecoverably.  It would be okay if this was declared at the time I clicked the “Reply” button; to do it after expending a bunch of time and work and to destroy the product of that work is unforgiveable.)

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.
     
    Some obvious questions...

    For example:

    What is "Western Civilization"? Which countries/peoples belong to it?

    Are, say, Russians and Greeks whites? If so, are they a part of, and can maintain, the said Western civilization?

    What about Finns? Whites? Western?
    , @Twodees Partain
    Yes, that has been happening to me a lot lately, even after only one previous post on a thread. It does make one want to limit replies to short blurbs. Maybe it's a WP feature that RU could turn off. If so, i'd like it if he did turn it off.
  121. @silviosilver

    Sounds like purism to me.
     
    Supposedly, whites once inhabited India. Is there anyone in India you'd actually call white today? Are you being a mere "purist" if you answer "no"?

    Or is it simply the case that with too much hybridization you eventually reach a point where the original stock can no longer be said to exist?

    Would you like it if Korea was mixed with so many blacks that it eventually came to more closely resemble the population of today's Haiti than today's Korea? And if that happened, would you honestly still regard that population as "Korean"?

    Alternatively, what if Korea was mixed with so many Chinese that it eventually came to resemble the population of today's Shanghai more than today's Korea? Might it be easier to still regard that population "Korean"? What is the difference between the two cases, any guesses?

    Supposedly, whites once inhabited India.

    You need some basic understanding of population genetics. “Whites” did not once inhabit India. Indian population today is basically (and very broadly-speaking) a hybrid population of very ancient hunter-gatherers + Dravidians + proto-Indo-Aryans + later Mongol-Turkic-Persian arrivals. Bangladeshis are also more shifted toward Southeast Asians.

    Where your confusion originates is the fact that steppe pastoralists (proto-Indo-Aryans) are ancestral components to both South Asians and Europeans. What you think of modern “whites” – Europeans – came into being roughly 5,000 years ago or so.

    I recommend that you read Razib Khan’s blog for a while.

    the original stock can no longer be said to exist

    What “original stock”? Your terminology suggests that you don’t understand the origins of the modern races. Whites didn’t have some sort of an unblemished original stock that has been tarnished by admixtures. That’s Nordicist nonsense that has been disproven by genetic studies. To repeat, modern whites are a blend of several migrations (of varying degrees), and display traits from these different groups (blue eyes likely from the Eurasian hunter-gatherers, lighter skin from Levantine agriculturalists, etc.). Blondness seems to have originated a few thousand years ago in NE Europe and went through a sudden sweep.

    Would you like it if Korea was mixed with so many blacks that it eventually came to more closely resemble the population of today’s Haiti than today’s Korea?

    First of all, what happens to Korea is of relatively little concern to me since it is not my country (I wish it well, but my concern is with MY country, the United States of America). Second, what you suggest is reduction ad absurdum. Last, South Korea has a state ideology of globalization and its population is likely to be increasingly mixed (already at least 10% of the births are of children who have at least one non-Korean parent).

    Might it be easier to still regard that population “Korean”?

    Genetically-speaking both Japanese and Koreans are roughly 2/3 Southeast Asian rice farmers and 1/3 Siberian hunter-gatherers. They’ve always been hybrid populations.

    What you are referring to is relatively short-term admixtures of modern political nationalities. While I do believe further population admixtures are historically inevitably, obviously from the perspective of the contemporary individuals and societies, a gradual process is much more preferable and less disruptive than sudden influxes, which tend to engender tension and conflict.

    To repeat, for that reason (and many others), I support immigration-restriction in the United States and advocate implicit white majoritarianism.

  122. @silviosilver
    But just how much does that explain though? I know next to nothing about evolutionary taxonomy, but I'm pretty sure canines diverged from the human line well before gorillas did. And yet I like dogs vastly more than I like gorillas.

    I’m pretty sure canines diverged from the human line well before gorillas did. And yet I like dogs vastly more than I like gorillas.

    Dogs (and domestic cats) have been through many thousands of generations of selection for traits that humans like and/or find useful.  Gorillas, not so much.  Is it any wonder that you like animals which have been bred to be likeable?

    • Agree: Twinkie
  123. @Mr. Rational

    you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization
     
    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.  Others observably cannot; when the conquistadors sired babies on indio women, their genetic legacy never achieved the heights observed back in the old country even when they adopted the language.  That hybridization may be a success on some level, but as an attempt to pass on the civilization it is a total failure.

    (The first time I wrote this comment, I finished my observations and when I posted I was told I was "posting too much in this thread" and my comment deleted unrecoverably.  It would be okay if this was declared at the time I clicked the "Reply" button; to do it after expending a bunch of time and work and to destroy the product of that work is unforgiveable.)

    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.

    Some obvious questions…

    For example:

    What is “Western Civilization”? Which countries/peoples belong to it?

    Are, say, Russians and Greeks whites? If so, are they a part of, and can maintain, the said Western civilization?

    What about Finns? Whites? Western?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    What is “Western Civilization”? Which countries/peoples belong to it?
     
    It might be more accurate to speak of western civilisations. Italian civilisation was not the same as English civilisation. There were various groups and sub-groups of western civilisations with considerable overlaps and quite marked differences.

    There's also the problem of western civilisations outside of Europe. Most people would probably regard Australia as a civilised nation, but is there an Australian civilisation? Is it just a hybrid of various European civilisations? Does it have any distinctive qualities?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It's one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.
  124. @silviosilver

    You’re too pessimistic.
     
    If the all the whites in America mixed with all the non-whites in America until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, would the resultant racial type be white or non-white?

    If all the whites in England circa 1900 mixed with all the non-whites in England until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, the resultant racial type would be indubitably white (indubitably English, too).

    Why? Because the "racial average" of England circa 1900 was white, and indubitably English.

    The "racial average" of today's is England is perhaps still "white," but it would not be indubitably English.

    The "racial average" of today's America is non-white, and growing non-whiter with each passing year.

    Racial average is racial destiny. It's the racial type that your country's population is progressively breeding towards creating. If your country's racial average isn't white, your country's racial destiny isn't white.

    From a racial perspective, America's destiny is a whiteless wasteland.

    If the all the whites in America mixed with all the non-whites in America until everyone had the exact same genetic profile, would the resultant racial type be white or non-white?

    That’s not going to happen. The whole “Americans are going to race-mix and are all just going to be brown mush” idea turns out to be quite off the mark.

    This is from the New York Times in 1998: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/13/magazine/l-the-beige-and-the-black-750441.html

  125. @Twinkie
    Do you guys hang out at Stormfront and, if not, why not?

    do you hang out in the lunch room of any sort of tech company? Or have you been to any kind of university?

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    do you hang out in the lunch room of any sort of tech company? Or have you been to any kind of university?
     
    No. Yes.
  126. @Audacious Epigone
    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible? Yeah, I agree it feels damned near that way. But it's still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.

    A moratorium?

    To little, to late.

    Mr. Rational’s ideas might actually work.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    No, they won't, because almost no one supports them within the US and absolutely no one supports them outside of the US.
  127. @silviosilver
    That's the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it's only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, "anti-racists"!

    That’s the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it’s only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, “anti-racists”!

    You don’t think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?

    And East Asians are embarking on demographic suicide with more enthusiasm even than whites. Check out the fertility rates in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Is that the fault of anti-racists?

    Given a choice between consumer goodies and children most people, of all races, will choose consumer goodies.

    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    There's no doubt that the change from a conservative society to one of materialism and fun over everything else, including child-raising, is a part of the problem. I could put some small part of the blame on the treehuggers' warnings that the planet is getting overpopulated*.

    The main problem for America, though,has been the big increase in the cost of family formation, or to put it iSteve's way, a decrease in "affordable family formation". A big portion of that is the large-scale immigration, both legal and illegal, that is a one-two punch: Jobs are harder to find, and the when found, they don't pay enough to raise a family on. Hence, both parents must work (even then it's tougher), and this is a thing that works out great for both the IRS and the Socialists/Commies as they absolutely HATE HATE HATE the nuclear family. Even with both parents working, for the responsible, one or two kids may be all that can be raised "right".


    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.
     
    Since you don't even know what capitalism means, I'll just ignore that idiocy. It's the welfare state that has hit affordable family formation as much as immigration. Paying for other people's kids' schooling, healthcare, lunches and breakfasts, and other people's housing, food staples, and electric bills takes money, a serious amount of money. Your Socialism is nothing but organized cuckdom, DforDoom, as you force hard-working white people (along with many of other races/ethnicities) to pay for the lazy and irresponsible. Nice going, assholes!

    .

    * Because of the materialism, and some heeding those warnings by environmentalists, overpopulation would not have been a problem, other than via mass immigration from the places that are now extremely overpopulated due to our help. Due to western charity in the form of medical advances, especially to Africa and India, it's now a dysgenic situation for the world. Then there is the welfare state here that has caused a dysgenic situation WITHIN the US too.

    , @Rosie

    You don’t think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?
     
    You didn't ask me, but absolutely not. I don't really see all that much materialism among Whites, certainly not young ones. It seems to me this ought to be empirically testable.

    For example, do we know how often people replace appliances not yet broken? I can tell you I celebrate when an appliance breaks down, because then I can buy a new one without feeling guilty about it. I suppose that is a type of materialism, but I have my reasons. Right now, I've got it in for my washer and dryer. They take forever.

    https://pics.me.me/laundry-washing-30-minutes-drying-6o-minutes-putting-away-46620981.png
    , @Twodees Partain
    "If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism."

    Not everything can be blamed on capitalism, y'know. My opinion is that the decline in birthrates is due to the deliberate poisoning of the population with bromine, flouride and adjutavants in vaccines, as well as chemical drug treatments that don't even alleviate symptoms, let alone address root causes of disease.
  128. @WorkingClass
    Americans polled believe that 38 percent of their countrymen are "racist".

    I can't see that this number has any meaning except possibly as a measure of the effectiveness of domestic propaganda. Who paid for this poll?

    AE:

    How about a few paragraphs on the business (not the science) of polling especially as it intersects with the projection of propaganda and more generally the business of electoral politics. I understand that there are objective criteria by which to assess the validity of polling results. But can I trust the pollsters? Can I trust their paymasters?

    SurveyUSA is somewhat unique in that it commissions polls that groups or individuals pay to have commissioned. That’s why the questions are so often off-the-wall things never seen or asked anywhere else.

    One (of many, many) reason(s) I love the GSS so much is that it allows me to “smell test” poll results. The GSS is a huge survey that takes several hours over multiple days to complete. They aren’t push-polling things. So if the results are radically different than those of the GSS, I’m skeptical.

    During the 2016 campaign, it was clear several polls were oversampling self-identified Democrats, something I posted about multiple times here. Most of the time, though, I don’t think I’m being hoodwinked by the results. A lot of the problems, such as they are, are detectable in the wording of the questions, the survey sample, etc.

  129. @Twinkie

    the history of the three kangdoms.
     
    Or was it the history of the three kimdoms?

    Way to middle-brow my low-brow aspirations, jerk!

  130. @Colin Wright
    '...But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks...'

    Those are probably actually Slavs, genetically. The interior of Greece was settled by Slavs in the Dark Ages.

    Modern 'Greece' is a very recent and somewhat artificial creation. As late as World War Two Greek guerrillas faced the embarrassing phenomenon that in the north, Tito's partisans often enjoyed much more success than they did. That's because unlike the Greeks, Tito's guerrillas spoke Slavic dialects similar to what the peasants spoke.

    Worsening matters, the 'Turks' themselves were no longer particularly Turkish by the time they reached Greece -- three hundred years after they'd irrupted into Anatolia. Of course in the meantime they'd been vigorously interbreeding with all the indigenous Greek and non-Greek peoples of the peninsula.

    And finally, the Ottoman Turks were big on people-moving. Want to pacify an area? Move the troublesome locals five hundred miles away and move in some loyal colonists. The attitude of both groups will be improved.

    So it's all pretty well-mixed by now. Ataturk was born in Salonika, and if I recall aright, his father came from around Athens. Conversely, I've got pictures of very pleasingly white-looking young mothers from around Konya -- up on the Anatolian plateau.

    However -- and this is a fairly important point -- nothing in all this demonstrates that to be 'Greek' isn't an authentic identity. It's very authentic -- food, religion, popular history, cultural attitudes -- Greeks are indubitably Greek, for better and for worse. It's just that it's bilge to define that identity genetically. They're Slavo-Turko-ancient Levantine maritime people-somethings -- or whatever -- if you want to go by blood. But that they got there by a hundred different roads is secondary. They're all there now -- and are exactly who they are.

    However — and this is a fairly important point — nothing in all this demonstrates that to be ‘Greek’ isn’t an authentic identity. It’s very authentic — food, religion, popular history, cultural attitudes — Greeks are indubitably Greek, for better and for worse. It’s just that it’s bilge to define that identity genetically.

    Any genuine identity has to be based to a very large extent on culture.

    Since we’re well on the way to having a single global mono-culture any real sense of ethnic identity is going to vanish.

    The danger for the elites is that without ethnic/cultural identity people will still look for some kind of identity. The elites are hoping that such identities will be based on a choice of which sexual depravity to embrace rather than class.

  131. @silviosilver
    I'm sure that has something to do with it. I must say, there's something strange about it, because Asian faces look extremely different to European faces, almost as different as African faces look. And yet, I can be outnumbered by Asians 10:1 and barely even notice it; whereas if that ratio were reversed with blacks, I'd still feel there's "too many blacks" around for my liking. Heck, if there's even one black in the vicinity I'll become keenly aware of it, whereas I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to one asian (if I even noticed him). Is this "real" though? Or is it just my beliefs about the kinds of behaviors I might expect to encounter from the respective groups? (Ranging from largely feigned geniality mixed with stupid, nagging bs to attempts at intimidating stares all the way to outright violence from the one group; being completely ignored or receiving a polite reply to a comment or question from the other.)

    Is it race first, though?

    Thinking through it myself, the first thing that causes me to start tracking someone is sex, then some combination of race and age. An unknown 20 yo white male pings my radar harder than a 65 yo black male does, and certainly harder than a 65 yo black female does.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Thinking through it myself, the first thing that causes me to start tracking someone is sex, then some combination of race and age.
     
    I do tend to notice class and other cultural markers. If someone is wearing sandals and has just walked out of a vegan eatery and is wearing a Save the Whales T-shirt I'll back away slowly being sure not to make eye contact. If a woman has blue hair and nose piercings and is wearing an All Men Are Rapists T-shirt I'll start to run.

    Place and circumstances also affect my reaction. In some parts of southern Sydney a group of young Muslim men would cause me to be cautious. But a Muslim family doing the shopping in my local supermarket doesn't bother me, even if the woman is wearing a burqa. There are some around here but they don't cause any trouble so I assume them to be harmless.
  132. @silviosilver

    As you may note, I clicked the ‘agree’ button in response.
     
    Well, thanks. Nice to know I'm not completely radioactive.

    If you're still listening, then, here's another point in favor of at least trying for racial preservation.

    As individuals, we all know we're going to die. It's inevitable. But that doesn't mean we're indifferent between dying today and dying in fifty years. We understandably try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

    I don't see why it should be any different racially. Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners. If you know that the train you're on is going to go off a cliff, you'd do anything to get off it. Even if it was barreling along at 100mph you'd still take your chances jumping off, rather than riding it to certain doom.

    As you note, done rashly, attempts at white preservation can very easily backfire. I get that. My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made - and I mean concessions that would actually help, that would not be in vain. (Btw, if anyone can detect more than slight hint of Richard McCulloch in these remarks, they are not wrong. I have been hugely influenced by his work, even I disavow vast reams of it.)

    In this respect, the very worst mistake WNs make is presenting whites as awesome, near-perfect, supermen, and everyone else as worthless worms. Not only is that daft, there's probably no surer way of uniting the rest of the planet against white interests. If WNs remain the sole spokesmen for white interests, then history, I'm sure, will show that the whites who tried the hardest to save their race, did the most to seal its fate.

    My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made

    Rhetorically this is fairly easy, isn’t it? Miscegenation ‘dilutes’ both sides engaging in it. Say you want ethnic, cultural, racial, and linguistic conservation.

  133. @dfordoom

    That’s the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it’s only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, “anti-racists”!
     
    You don't think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?

    And East Asians are embarking on demographic suicide with more enthusiasm even than whites. Check out the fertility rates in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Is that the fault of anti-racists?

    Given a choice between consumer goodies and children most people, of all races, will choose consumer goodies.

    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.

    There’s no doubt that the change from a conservative society to one of materialism and fun over everything else, including child-raising, is a part of the problem. I could put some small part of the blame on the treehuggers’ warnings that the planet is getting overpopulated*.

    The main problem for America, though,has been the big increase in the cost of family formation, or to put it iSteve’s way, a decrease in “affordable family formation”. A big portion of that is the large-scale immigration, both legal and illegal, that is a one-two punch: Jobs are harder to find, and the when found, they don’t pay enough to raise a family on. Hence, both parents must work (even then it’s tougher), and this is a thing that works out great for both the IRS and the Socialists/Commies as they absolutely HATE HATE HATE the nuclear family. Even with both parents working, for the responsible, one or two kids may be all that can be raised “right”.

    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.

    Since you don’t even know what capitalism means, I’ll just ignore that idiocy. It’s the welfare state that has hit affordable family formation as much as immigration. Paying for other people’s kids’ schooling, healthcare, lunches and breakfasts, and other people’s housing, food staples, and electric bills takes money, a serious amount of money. Your Socialism is nothing but organized cuckdom, DforDoom, as you force hard-working white people (along with many of other races/ethnicities) to pay for the lazy and irresponsible. Nice going, assholes!

    .

    * Because of the materialism, and some heeding those warnings by environmentalists, overpopulation would not have been a problem, other than via mass immigration from the places that are now extremely overpopulated due to our help. Due to western charity in the form of medical advances, especially to Africa and India, it’s now a dysgenic situation for the world. Then there is the welfare state here that has caused a dysgenic situation WITHIN the US too.

  134. @Justvisiting
    Many years ago I worked closely with pollsters for candidates.

    It was very difficult to generate unbaised and meaningful polls even when that was your goal.

    "Good" words make respondents more likely to approve, "bad" words disapprove.

    Even simple tasks like determining name recognition were daunting, particularly if the names could be confused with other people with similar names.

    Lists of issues would often miss major issues (for years "illegal immigration" was not on the list at all, in many polls it still is not or is mislabeled with terms like "migration")

    As a result even minor (and unrealized) bias on the part of the pollsters wildly skewed results.

    Pollsters with an agenda that wanted to create numbers had a large toolkit at their disposal.

    Polls are always misleading and confusing at best.

    It was very difficult to generate unbaised and meaningful polls even when that was your goal.

    Apart from anything else it’s impossible to reduce most issues to something that can be easily measured. If you ask people if they favour immigration restrictionism quite a few people will answer Yes. But that includes people who think a million a year is too many but 800,000 a year would be just fine. It also includes people who think that 100,000 a year would be ideal. And it includes people who think zero would be the right number.

    If you ask people if they regard China as a threat quite a few would say Yes. But does that mean that they seriously see China as a military threat, or merely an economic threat?

    If you ask people if taxes should be reduced the Yes answers would include people who think a slight reduction would be great. It would also include libertarian nutters who don’t think they should pay any taxes at all.

  135. @Mr. Rational

    Instead of committing horrific crimes against humanity, we could simply enforce existing immigration laws and enact a moratorium on immigration. Sound impossible?
     
    If it comes down to armed conflict to even get our CURRENT immigration laws enforced (and it might well), we're not going to have either the funds or patience for the "peaceful" options.  And I would argue that what the PTB currently allow blacks and others to do to Whites already constitutes "horrific crimes against humanity"; the current government's policy on "fair housing" alone meets the UN definition of genocide, long before you get to things like the Knoxville horror, Jessica Chambers and Autumn Pasquale.

    But it’s still a lot more likely than the rendering plant option.
     
    Backhoes digging holes which are filled by tree chippers are likelier still.  The question is, who will go into them?  I don't want it to be "us".

    No major racial/ethnic group in the US is breeding at replacement anymore, not even Hispanics. Africans in America don’t breed anything like Africans in Africa. Stop immigration and the total population becomes older, mellower, less violent, and less tolerant of violence.

    There will always be a few dangerous pockets, but they’re easily avoidable for the vast majority of people. Increasingly more time will be spent plugged into the virtual world, so space constraints need not be a big concern in most of the country, either.

    There may be war, but there doesn’t have to be, especially if immigration is stopped.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    No major racial/ethnic group in the US is breeding at replacement anymore, not even Hispanics. Africans in America don’t breed anything like Africans in Africa.
     
    They're still outbreeding Whites (because Whites are forced to pay them to breed) and the breeding is grossly dysgenic; the worst among them like Angel Adams have ten or more hood rat pups while the "talented tenth" may have one, or in the case of black women with both intelligence and standards, none (I knew one such; her White husband eventually dumped her for a White girl and her bitterness was obvious).

    Whites are still bearing a huge burden and with barely half of kindergarten-aged children in the US being White it is only going to get worse unless there are expulsions or other removals.
  136. @EliteCommInc.
    "Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners."


    There's hardly a call to be pessimistic. The answer is nationalism. Now clearly this president has compromised to the extent that nothing he says on restricting immigration has value, unless it is backed up policy and action. Green cards --- good grief.

    And according to Miss Coulter, this president continues to hire illegal immigrants.

    https://www.newsweek.com/ann-coulter-suggests-trump-charged-employing-undocumented-migrant-workers-1453864


    But citizens must make it abundantly clear that enough is enough and was enough 20 years ago. And here is where i part company with a lot of christians who would prefer to bend the Bible into political document for unwise ends of charity when millions here need the same.

    ----------------------------

    And what a disaster to move conservatives out of the fields that till young futre citizens

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/radical-indoctrination-coming-to-a-public-school-near-you/

    A conceptual double-helix type of model, ha! There won’t be any understanding of an actual double-helix, of course.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    Laugh.

    Charlamagn didn't have a clue what a double helix was yet, he manged to rule a kingdom for 30 years in relative peace. The mongols, the romans, germans, englanders, french, us citizens . . . and others nearly the entire 20th century managed without knowledge of a double helix . . .

  137. @Twinkie

    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.
     
    Some obvious questions...

    For example:

    What is "Western Civilization"? Which countries/peoples belong to it?

    Are, say, Russians and Greeks whites? If so, are they a part of, and can maintain, the said Western civilization?

    What about Finns? Whites? Western?

    What is “Western Civilization”? Which countries/peoples belong to it?

    It might be more accurate to speak of western civilisations. Italian civilisation was not the same as English civilisation. There were various groups and sub-groups of western civilisations with considerable overlaps and quite marked differences.

    There’s also the problem of western civilisations outside of Europe. Most people would probably regard Australia as a civilised nation, but is there an Australian civilisation? Is it just a hybrid of various European civilisations? Does it have any distinctive qualities?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    It might be more accurate to speak of western civilisations. Italian civilisation was not the same as English civilisation.
     
    They're different societies, but they share science, literature, music and all the other things that make both middle and high culture.  This makes them ONE civilization.
  138. @Achmed E. Newman
    In defense of Silvio-Silver's comment (though the animosity and name-calling wasn't necessary) is this: While the interbreeding going on with whites may have been seen before, etc etc, the problem is that this is happening ALL THROUGHOUT the white (i.e. "Western") world. The interbreeding among Orientals, or dot-Indians, or blacks is the same, except for they have a base of their own people of 2 billion, > 1 billion, and about another 1 billion, respectively, back in their home countries.

    It's really as simple as saying "whites should be able to have a homeland and be left alone there". That would have been Europe, the US of A, Canada, and Australia, until the elites decided they were having none of that about 50 years ago.

    It could be quixotic naivety on my part, but if there really does start to be a push for immigration into East Asians countries like Japan, South Korea, and China from countries other than those (and some SE Asian countries) and these countries refuse it, SWPLs may begin to stop automatically associating immigration restrictionism with whiteness.

    We rhetorically say “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone”, but to a close approximation, the only place anyone really wants to go are white countries. That’s changing now, but perceptions will lag behind reality. Still, in a generation, more Africans may be heading northeast than due north or across the Atlantic.

    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
    The Asian countries aren't dumb enough to let them come.
  139. @Audacious Epigone
    Is it race first, though?

    Thinking through it myself, the first thing that causes me to start tracking someone is sex, then some combination of race and age. An unknown 20 yo white male pings my radar harder than a 65 yo black male does, and certainly harder than a 65 yo black female does.

    Thinking through it myself, the first thing that causes me to start tracking someone is sex, then some combination of race and age.

    I do tend to notice class and other cultural markers. If someone is wearing sandals and has just walked out of a vegan eatery and is wearing a Save the Whales T-shirt I’ll back away slowly being sure not to make eye contact. If a woman has blue hair and nose piercings and is wearing an All Men Are Rapists T-shirt I’ll start to run.

    Place and circumstances also affect my reaction. In some parts of southern Sydney a group of young Muslim men would cause me to be cautious. But a Muslim family doing the shopping in my local supermarket doesn’t bother me, even if the woman is wearing a burqa. There are some around here but they don’t cause any trouble so I assume them to be harmless.

  140. @EliteCommInc.
    "Basically a couple generations back our elites constructed and imposed at gunpoint on the American white population their artificial and arbitrary ideology which defines racism as the most horrible thing in the world."

    Nonsense.

    Quite accurate, actually.

  141. @Audacious Epigone
    It could be quixotic naivety on my part, but if there really does start to be a push for immigration into East Asians countries like Japan, South Korea, and China from countries other than those (and some SE Asian countries) and these countries refuse it, SWPLs may begin to stop automatically associating immigration restrictionism with whiteness.

    We rhetorically say "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, white countries for everyone", but to a close approximation, the only place anyone really wants to go are white countries. That's changing now, but perceptions will lag behind reality. Still, in a generation, more Africans may be heading northeast than due north or across the Atlantic.

    The Asian countries aren’t dumb enough to let them come.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  142. @Audacious Epigone
    No major racial/ethnic group in the US is breeding at replacement anymore, not even Hispanics. Africans in America don't breed anything like Africans in Africa. Stop immigration and the total population becomes older, mellower, less violent, and less tolerant of violence.

    There will always be a few dangerous pockets, but they're easily avoidable for the vast majority of people. Increasingly more time will be spent plugged into the virtual world, so space constraints need not be a big concern in most of the country, either.

    There may be war, but there doesn't have to be, especially if immigration is stopped.

    No major racial/ethnic group in the US is breeding at replacement anymore, not even Hispanics. Africans in America don’t breed anything like Africans in Africa.

    They’re still outbreeding Whites (because Whites are forced to pay them to breed) and the breeding is grossly dysgenic; the worst among them like Angel Adams have ten or more hood rat pups while the “talented tenth” may have one, or in the case of black women with both intelligence and standards, none (I knew one such; her White husband eventually dumped her for a White girl and her bitterness was obvious).

    Whites are still bearing a huge burden and with barely half of kindergarten-aged children in the US being White it is only going to get worse unless there are expulsions or other removals.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The dysgenic trends among blacks in the US really are staggering. Among white men, they don't really exist at all, and they're pretty modest among white women. The money is going to run out. A reduction in the size of the welfare state will ameliorate things somewhat.
  143. @dfordoom

    What is “Western Civilization”? Which countries/peoples belong to it?
     
    It might be more accurate to speak of western civilisations. Italian civilisation was not the same as English civilisation. There were various groups and sub-groups of western civilisations with considerable overlaps and quite marked differences.

    There's also the problem of western civilisations outside of Europe. Most people would probably regard Australia as a civilised nation, but is there an Australian civilisation? Is it just a hybrid of various European civilisations? Does it have any distinctive qualities?

    It might be more accurate to speak of western civilisations. Italian civilisation was not the same as English civilisation.

    They’re different societies, but they share science, literature, music and all the other things that make both middle and high culture.  This makes them ONE civilization.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Rosie

    They’re different societies, but they share science, literature, music and all the other things that make both middle and high culture. This makes them ONE civilization.
     
    Agree. Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it. Civic nationalism always collapses into multiculturalism.
  144. @Twinkie

    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.
     
    Some obvious questions...

    For example:

    What is "Western Civilization"? Which countries/peoples belong to it?

    Are, say, Russians and Greeks whites? If so, are they a part of, and can maintain, the said Western civilization?

    What about Finns? Whites? Western?

    It’s one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It’s one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.
     
    Ancient Greece is "a central part of Western civilization" because of retconning by modern Western Europeans.

    "The West" as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.*

    The idea of the West was further cemented when the Anglo-Americans rose to hegemony and coopted the same (hence the Roman motifs of so many of our American emblems) and saw themselves as pitted against an eastern (and partly Asiatic) power in the form of the Soviet Union.

    The Germans themselves were always ambivalent about this latter-day Anglo-American idea of the West and frequently referred to themselves as something in-between, of Mitteleuropa.

    *The ancient Greeks were a part of the eastern Mediterranean-Levantine-Middle Eastern cultural and economic oikumene of the ancient times. Then the Romans who dominated the "Mare Nostrum" claimed the former as their intellectual forebears. In turn, the Germanic peoples did the same with the Romans, and the Anglo-Americans (who are, in the main, not actually Germanic, but Brythonic in origin) did the same with the Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung.

    So with "the West," there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks (and even from the river civilizations of the Middle East according to some) that are disconnected from the biological reality. This is in contrast with, say, the Chinese civilization in which intellectual origins and genetic continuity are much more consistent and concrete and much less imagined.

    Finally, there is a tendency among WN-types of conflating "whites" with "the West." This is not historically, factually accurate. (Ethnic) Russians are white, but they have never been of the West and did not play any significant role in constructing, either philosophically or materially, what we today call the West.

    P.S. I keep getting the message to "slow down" when I try to comment. What gives?
  145. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    A moratorium?

    To little, to late.

    Mr. Rational's ideas might actually work.

    No, they won’t, because almost no one supports them within the US and absolutely no one supports them outside of the US.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    almost no one supports them within the US and absolutely no one supports them outside of the US.
     
    The only reason they're not supported across the West is that the enemedia have suppressed even the atrocities, let alone the rampant crime committed by the NAMs.  But with Trump's FEC looking into Goolag and Faceborg, the suppression algorithms are likely to land a bunch of people under indictment and companies under cease and desist orders.  That sets the stage for the mother of all preference cascades.

    Buy popcorn.  Buy popcorn futures if you have some money to invest (joke).

  146. @Mr. Rational

    No major racial/ethnic group in the US is breeding at replacement anymore, not even Hispanics. Africans in America don’t breed anything like Africans in Africa.
     
    They're still outbreeding Whites (because Whites are forced to pay them to breed) and the breeding is grossly dysgenic; the worst among them like Angel Adams have ten or more hood rat pups while the "talented tenth" may have one, or in the case of black women with both intelligence and standards, none (I knew one such; her White husband eventually dumped her for a White girl and her bitterness was obvious).

    Whites are still bearing a huge burden and with barely half of kindergarten-aged children in the US being White it is only going to get worse unless there are expulsions or other removals.

    The dysgenic trends among blacks in the US really are staggering. Among white men, they don’t really exist at all, and they’re pretty modest among white women. The money is going to run out. A reduction in the size of the welfare state will ameliorate things somewhat.

  147. @Audacious Epigone
    No, they won't, because almost no one supports them within the US and absolutely no one supports them outside of the US.

    almost no one supports them within the US and absolutely no one supports them outside of the US.

    The only reason they’re not supported across the West is that the enemedia have suppressed even the atrocities, let alone the rampant crime committed by the NAMs.  But with Trump’s FEC looking into Goolag and Faceborg, the suppression algorithms are likely to land a bunch of people under indictment and companies under cease and desist orders.  That sets the stage for the mother of all preference cascades.

    Buy popcorn.  Buy popcorn futures if you have some money to invest (joke).

  148. @Audacious Epigone
    A conceptual double-helix type of model, ha! There won't be any understanding of an actual double-helix, of course.

    Laugh.

    Charlamagn didn’t have a clue what a double helix was yet, he manged to rule a kingdom for 30 years in relative peace. The mongols, the romans, germans, englanders, french, us citizens . . . and others nearly the entire 20th century managed without knowledge of a double helix . . .

  149. @Mr. Rational

    It might be more accurate to speak of western civilisations. Italian civilisation was not the same as English civilisation.
     
    They're different societies, but they share science, literature, music and all the other things that make both middle and high culture.  This makes them ONE civilization.

    They’re different societies, but they share science, literature, music and all the other things that make both middle and high culture. This makes them ONE civilization.

    Agree. Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it. Civic nationalism always collapses into multiculturalism.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it.
     
    I am engaging in a Socratic conversation, because neither Mr. Rational and you seem to understand the history behind how the idea of "the West" rose. See my response to AE above.

    "Divide and deconstruct"? That's some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.
  150. @dfordoom

    That’s the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it’s only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, “anti-racists”!
     
    You don't think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?

    And East Asians are embarking on demographic suicide with more enthusiasm even than whites. Check out the fertility rates in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Is that the fault of anti-racists?

    Given a choice between consumer goodies and children most people, of all races, will choose consumer goodies.

    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.

    You don’t think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?

    You didn’t ask me, but absolutely not. I don’t really see all that much materialism among Whites, certainly not young ones. It seems to me this ought to be empirically testable.

    For example, do we know how often people replace appliances not yet broken? I can tell you I celebrate when an appliance breaks down, because then I can buy a new one without feeling guilty about it. I suppose that is a type of materialism, but I have my reasons. Right now, I’ve got it in for my washer and dryer. They take forever.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    I found this:

    https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/household-press-centre/home-renovations-drive-sales-of-major-household-appliances-12-increase-in-sales-2010-15

    Consumers are willing to upgrade for energy or water savings, but not "smart" features, which actually sound kind of retarded. That inventory-checking feature would be nice if it could tell me what I have in the pantry. That sounds impossible, but stranger things have happened!
  151. Rhetorically this is fairly easy, isn’t it? Miscegenation ‘dilutes’ both sides engaging in it. Say you want ethnic, cultural, racial, and linguistic conservation.

    I like diversity in the sense that I like it that there are lots of different ethnicities, cultures, races, and languages. I’d like them all to survive. That doesn’t mean that I want large numbers of them in my country.

    I dislike assimilation. I think it’s sad that the Italians and Greeks who came to Australia in the 50s have lost their cultural identity almost completely. They’re now just generic white Australians. That’s depressing.

    • Replies: @iffen
    They’re now just generic white Australians. That’s depressing.

    Some people are always saying that white people hating themselves is the problem.
  152. @Rosie

    You don’t think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?
     
    You didn't ask me, but absolutely not. I don't really see all that much materialism among Whites, certainly not young ones. It seems to me this ought to be empirically testable.

    For example, do we know how often people replace appliances not yet broken? I can tell you I celebrate when an appliance breaks down, because then I can buy a new one without feeling guilty about it. I suppose that is a type of materialism, but I have my reasons. Right now, I've got it in for my washer and dryer. They take forever.

    https://pics.me.me/laundry-washing-30-minutes-drying-6o-minutes-putting-away-46620981.png

    I found this:

    https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/household-press-centre/home-renovations-drive-sales-of-major-household-appliances-12-increase-in-sales-2010-15

    Consumers are willing to upgrade for energy or water savings, but not “smart” features, which actually sound kind of retarded. That inventory-checking feature would be nice if it could tell me what I have in the pantry. That sounds impossible, but stranger things have happened!

  153. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    do you hang out in the lunch room of any sort of tech company? Or have you been to any kind of university?

    do you hang out in the lunch room of any sort of tech company? Or have you been to any kind of university?

    No. Yes.

  154. @Mr. Rational

    Modern ‘Turks’ are visually at least as white as modern ‘Greeks.’ In fact, I’d argue that they’re genetically the same people. The division is in their minds, not in their blood.
     
    The swarthy Greek neighbors who settled next door to my parents in my late teens said as much (academics are a pretty mobile bunch).  The Turks ruled Greece for a long time, and had their way with lots of Greek women.  The results are obvious.

    But I'm told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks.  I had a neighbor much later who was just this type.  Sadly, she never had children of her own; she and her husband adopted two Chinese girls.

    The swarthy Greek neighbors who settled next door to my parents in my late teens said as much (academics are a pretty mobile bunch). The Turks ruled Greece for a long time, and had their way with lots of Greek women. The results are obvious.

    That’s not what happened. Anatolia, especially on the coast (e.g. Pontus) was heavily populated by Greeks before the Turkish conquest and most of those Greeks converted and assimilated into the Turkish culture over time. So many “Turks” are genetically identical or very similar to the Greeks. Modern Turks are very, very distant from the Turkmen (though they do have Asian affinities) and are mostly descended from the conquered.

    But I’m told that if you get up into the Greek highlands, you actually see blond, blue-eyed original-stock Greeks.

    That’s more Nordicist nonsense. Modern Greeks have a strong Slavic genetic component.

    You, too, would benefit from reading Razib Khan’s blog where all the latest population genetic findings are reported along with his highly informed commentary.

  155. @Mr. Rational

    There’s the rub. How do you define “them”?
     
    Whoever's hostile or incompatible.  If they define me as "them", that's what they are to me.  This guy is a "them":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kga2soqvMF0
    This guy understands what's at stake:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VqG_4ADFfQ

    This net-Nazi fantasy is either mental masturbation or posturing
     
    It's an expression of "no quarter"; they've forfeited any right to it.  Where or how they go is no longer of any importance, only "gone" matters.

    Whoever’s hostile or incompatible. If they define me as “them”, that’s what they are to me.

    Your statement suffers from some definitional problems to say the least. Using “they” to define “them” is tautology, not definition.

    The only concrete thing I am getting from you, especially in light of the snapshots of the videos you linked, is that you are not keen on blacks.

    It’s an expression of “no quarter”; they’ve forfeited any right to it.

    Just a friendly advice – I suggest you keep genocidal thoughts to yourself.

  156. “I dislike assimilation. I think it’s sad that the Italians and Greeks who came to Australia in the 50s have lost their cultural identity almost completely. They’re now just generic white Australians.”

    But if you leave one society to join another. it is reasonable and preferable that you align all with the new society. The careless importation of so many foreigners in the name of who knows what is rendering what makes the country a country meaningless.

    Here is one of the most diffuse description of conservatism that I have ever run across:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/what-is-principled-conservatism/

    In it the author suggests that a conservative axiom — does not seek to limit immigration. I nearly choked on the 175 years of US history that makes it clear otherwise.

    If you are not willing to die to what you held before that hinders your embrace of the US — then you are a problem. hispanics, Muslims, and a few others are a problem in spades.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But if you leave one society to join another. it is reasonable and preferable that you align all with the new society. The careless importation of so many foreigners in the name of who knows what is rendering what makes the country a country meaningless.
     
    That's why I'm anti-immigration. Immigration leads to assimilation. It's one of the many reasons immigration is a bad idea, for everyone.
  157. @EliteCommInc.
    "I dislike assimilation. I think it’s sad that the Italians and Greeks who came to Australia in the 50s have lost their cultural identity almost completely. They’re now just generic white Australians."


    But if you leave one society to join another. it is reasonable and preferable that you align all with the new society. The careless importation of so many foreigners in the name of who knows what is rendering what makes the country a country meaningless.

    Here is one of the most diffuse description of conservatism that I have ever run across:

    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/what-is-principled-conservatism/

    In it the author suggests that a conservative axiom -- does not seek to limit immigration. I nearly choked on the 175 years of US history that makes it clear otherwise.


    If you are not willing to die to what you held before that hinders your embrace of the US --- then you are a problem. hispanics, Muslims, and a few others are a problem in spades.

    But if you leave one society to join another. it is reasonable and preferable that you align all with the new society. The careless importation of so many foreigners in the name of who knows what is rendering what makes the country a country meaningless.

    That’s why I’m anti-immigration. Immigration leads to assimilation. It’s one of the many reasons immigration is a bad idea, for everyone.

  158. @Audacious Epigone
    It's one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.

    It’s one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.

    Ancient Greece is “a central part of Western civilization” because of retconning by modern Western Europeans.

    “The West” as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.*

    The idea of the West was further cemented when the Anglo-Americans rose to hegemony and coopted the same (hence the Roman motifs of so many of our American emblems) and saw themselves as pitted against an eastern (and partly Asiatic) power in the form of the Soviet Union.

    The Germans themselves were always ambivalent about this latter-day Anglo-American idea of the West and frequently referred to themselves as something in-between, of Mitteleuropa.

    *The ancient Greeks were a part of the eastern Mediterranean-Levantine-Middle Eastern cultural and economic oikumene of the ancient times. Then the Romans who dominated the “Mare Nostrum” claimed the former as their intellectual forebears. In turn, the Germanic peoples did the same with the Romans, and the Anglo-Americans (who are, in the main, not actually Germanic, but Brythonic in origin) did the same with the Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung.

    So with “the West,” there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks (and even from the river civilizations of the Middle East according to some) that are disconnected from the biological reality. This is in contrast with, say, the Chinese civilization in which intellectual origins and genetic continuity are much more consistent and concrete and much less imagined.

    Finally, there is a tendency among WN-types of conflating “whites” with “the West.” This is not historically, factually accurate. (Ethnic) Russians are white, but they have never been of the West and did not play any significant role in constructing, either philosophically or materially, what we today call the West.

    P.S. I keep getting the message to “slow down” when I try to comment. What gives?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    “The West” as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.
     
    "You didn't build that" was risible when Obama said it.  It's no less so coming from a Filipino.

    The people who adopt and advance something—they are legitimate owners too.

    , @dfordoom

    So with “the West,” there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks
     
    Also medieval civilisation was not a continuation of the ancient classical civilisation. It was a whole new civilisation with a radically different mindset and radically different cultural values. The two civilisations had very little in common. And medieval civilisation was not just classical civilisation with Christianity added on.

    The European civilisation that developed after the Reformation was a whole new civilisation with a radically different mindset and radically different cultural values. It had little in common with either classical or medieval civilisations.

    We are not the heirs of classical Athens. Our way of understanding the world would be incomprehensible to them.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I don't know what the admixture between Gaul, Britania, Germania, Rome, Macedonia, and Egypt over the last 2,500 years. There was obviously some, but I don't think civilization primarily by biology. Constantine started in Britain and ended up in Turkey, presaging Western Civ's transition from Rome to Christendom.

    My working definition (which I'm happy to have corrected), is Ancient Greece->Rome->Christendom (including Crusader territory)->Enlightenment->Some combination of industrialization and liberal democracy. The biological circumference of Western Civ expanded with each transition, but in the last one it seems like it has expanded too fast and is now bursting.
  159. @Rosie

    They’re different societies, but they share science, literature, music and all the other things that make both middle and high culture. This makes them ONE civilization.
     
    Agree. Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it. Civic nationalism always collapses into multiculturalism.

    Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it.

    I am engaging in a Socratic conversation, because neither Mr. Rational and you seem to understand the history behind how the idea of “the West” rose. See my response to AE above.

    “Divide and deconstruct”? That’s some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    • Replies: @iffen
    “Divide and deconstruct”? That’s some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.
    , @Anounder
    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.
  160. “That’s why I’m anti-immigration. Immigration leads to assimilation. It’s one of the many reasons immigration is a bad idea, for everyone.”

    I have no issues with an ethic that states we should be more self sustaining.

    laughing.

    I have been whining about a five year moratorium since just after 9/11. But if people come here they must give up whatever it was they had before if it causes conflicts of interests. And why I also make the observation about how incredibly unwise it was to turn away those departing slavery, eager to make the only country most of them had ever known their own —-

    the country’s choice to make that difficult was damaging in both directions.

  161. The idea that you can ask a typical black or Hispanic person about percentages seems wrong. Ask your black friends what percentage is one third or one fifth. They probably won’t know. Mexicans are only a little better, even though their word for percent literally means “per hundred” in Spanish. I have seen countless times Hispanic school teachers put the percent sign after a student’s score on a test, when there isn’t a base of one hundred. So five out of ten is written “5%.”

  162. @dfordoom

    Rhetorically this is fairly easy, isn’t it? Miscegenation ‘dilutes’ both sides engaging in it. Say you want ethnic, cultural, racial, and linguistic conservation.
     
    I like diversity in the sense that I like it that there are lots of different ethnicities, cultures, races, and languages. I'd like them all to survive. That doesn't mean that I want large numbers of them in my country.

    I dislike assimilation. I think it's sad that the Italians and Greeks who came to Australia in the 50s have lost their cultural identity almost completely. They're now just generic white Australians. That's depressing.

    They’re now just generic white Australians. That’s depressing.

    Some people are always saying that white people hating themselves is the problem.

  163. @Twinkie

    It’s one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.
     
    Ancient Greece is "a central part of Western civilization" because of retconning by modern Western Europeans.

    "The West" as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.*

    The idea of the West was further cemented when the Anglo-Americans rose to hegemony and coopted the same (hence the Roman motifs of so many of our American emblems) and saw themselves as pitted against an eastern (and partly Asiatic) power in the form of the Soviet Union.

    The Germans themselves were always ambivalent about this latter-day Anglo-American idea of the West and frequently referred to themselves as something in-between, of Mitteleuropa.

    *The ancient Greeks were a part of the eastern Mediterranean-Levantine-Middle Eastern cultural and economic oikumene of the ancient times. Then the Romans who dominated the "Mare Nostrum" claimed the former as their intellectual forebears. In turn, the Germanic peoples did the same with the Romans, and the Anglo-Americans (who are, in the main, not actually Germanic, but Brythonic in origin) did the same with the Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung.

    So with "the West," there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks (and even from the river civilizations of the Middle East according to some) that are disconnected from the biological reality. This is in contrast with, say, the Chinese civilization in which intellectual origins and genetic continuity are much more consistent and concrete and much less imagined.

    Finally, there is a tendency among WN-types of conflating "whites" with "the West." This is not historically, factually accurate. (Ethnic) Russians are white, but they have never been of the West and did not play any significant role in constructing, either philosophically or materially, what we today call the West.

    P.S. I keep getting the message to "slow down" when I try to comment. What gives?

    “The West” as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.

    “You didn’t build that” was risible when Obama said it.  It’s no less so coming from a Filipino.

    The people who adopt and advance something—they are legitimate owners too.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    “You didn’t build that” was risible when Obama said it. It’s no less so coming from a Filipino.
     
    Who is a Filipino?

    The people who adopt and advance something—they are legitimate owners too.
     
    I agree, which is why non-white Americans who assimilate, maintain, and build upon America are also legitimate owners of America. I refer to the Founding Fathers of the United States as “our Founding Fathers” to my children (and others) even though only my children are genetically related to them.
  164. None of the great civilizations practiced “assimilation” what they had was:

    1. Absorption of acceptable elements of the conquered complete with co-opting cooperative elites.

    2. Segregation as in Moorish Spain and India.

    Murica is just filthy.

  165. @Twinkie

    Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it.
     
    I am engaging in a Socratic conversation, because neither Mr. Rational and you seem to understand the history behind how the idea of "the West" rose. See my response to AE above.

    "Divide and deconstruct"? That's some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    “Divide and deconstruct”? That’s some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.
     
    America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interests to keep it together. That was fair when we were 90% of the population, but no longer. I take my own side, but I'm not interested in deciding who can or cannot be American. That ship has sailed. America belongs to the multiculturalists now.
    , @Twinkie

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.
     
    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.
  166. @Twinkie

    Twinkie is attempting to divide and deconstruct, I assume, because he cannot help it.
     
    I am engaging in a Socratic conversation, because neither Mr. Rational and you seem to understand the history behind how the idea of "the West" rose. See my response to AE above.

    "Divide and deconstruct"? That's some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.
     
    If fact no state in history prior to the late 18th century would have had the foggiest notion of what you mean by heritage.

    It's worth pointing out that ideas like national self-determination and nation states based on ethnicity are in historical terms very modern ideas.
  167. @iffen
    “Divide and deconstruct”? That’s some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.

    America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interests to keep it together. That was fair when we were 90% of the population, but no longer. I take my own side, but I’m not interested in deciding who can or cannot be American. That ship has sailed. America belongs to the multiculturalists now.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I’m not interested in deciding who can or cannot be American. That ship has sailed.

    The fat lady has not yet sung. Sometimes she's in the wing warming up, that's all.

    You need to care about Americans; who they are and who they are not.
  168. “America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interest”

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don’t require having violated the Constitution.

    My comments should not be construed or twisted to suggest I support: deliberate dysfunctional behavior.

    —————————————
    “So five out of ten is written “5%.””

    Not being critical here or facetious — you mean the decimal point or the missing zero marker. I have issues with math. It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately. Laugh. That’s more than enough to remember, but I remain humbled by math as I am my proof reading.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don’t require having violated the Constitution.
     
    That's just it. Holding this multicultural polyglot together requires precisely that White people's constitutional rights be disregarded and systematically violated a la Charlottesville.
    , @Anounder
    Repeat After Me: The Founding Fathers didn't want non-Whites to mass immigrate into the country and be citizens.

    Also Repeat After Me: Non-Whites serve their race more than they listen to some piece of paper made by dead White Men. They don't want to be your brother and don't see you as kinsmen. You can accept that and plan accordingly or just stay in denial that a society with no ethnic core to racial core can last without falling into chaos absent of heavy-handed rule.

    , @Mr. Rational

    It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately.
     
    You remind me of an ex-girlfriend of mine who was being systematically mis-taught algebra in community college.  The course basically taught her to put numbers in a formula in her graphing calculator to get "the answer".  The idea of working out an expression to get the unknown as a function of the known quantities wasn't even present in anything she showed me.  Algebra isn't the calculation to get a number; that's arithmetic.  Algebra is the transformation of expressions to get the desired form.  A second-semester example is taking ax² + bx + c = 0 and using the method of completing the square to derive the quadratic formula.

    I doubt that even the instructors could answer the question, "how do you come up with the formula in the first place?"  I wouldn't be surprised if they had been systematically mis-taught too.

    The rubber meets the road when it comes time to create something like a spreadsheet.  You throw numbers into cells which provide inputs to calculate the value of other cells.  If you don't know how to create the formulas for those calculated cells, you are screwed; you effectively can't automate the calculation process even if you know how to use "the formula" on your fancy-schmancy calculator.  "Algebra" taught that way is educational malpractice, and all the victims should be able to get their tuition and book costs back plus pay for their wasted time.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don’t require having violated the Constitution.

     

    Muh Constitution.


    Representatives...shall be apportioned ...by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

     

  169. @EliteCommInc.
    "America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interest"

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don't require having violated the Constitution.


    My comments should not be construed or twisted to suggest I support: deliberate dysfunctional behavior.

    ---------------------------------------
    "So five out of ten is written “5%.”"

    Not being critical here or facetious --- you mean the decimal point or the missing zero marker. I have issues with math. It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately. Laugh. That's more than enough to remember, but I remain humbled by math as I am my proof reading.

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don’t require having violated the Constitution.

    That’s just it. Holding this multicultural polyglot together requires precisely that White people’s constitutional rights be disregarded and systematically violated a la Charlottesville.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  170. @EliteCommInc.
    "America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interest"

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don't require having violated the Constitution.


    My comments should not be construed or twisted to suggest I support: deliberate dysfunctional behavior.

    ---------------------------------------
    "So five out of ten is written “5%.”"

    Not being critical here or facetious --- you mean the decimal point or the missing zero marker. I have issues with math. It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately. Laugh. That's more than enough to remember, but I remain humbled by math as I am my proof reading.

    Repeat After Me: The Founding Fathers didn’t want non-Whites to mass immigrate into the country and be citizens.

    Also Repeat After Me: Non-Whites serve their race more than they listen to some piece of paper made by dead White Men. They don’t want to be your brother and don’t see you as kinsmen. You can accept that and plan accordingly or just stay in denial that a society with no ethnic core to racial core can last without falling into chaos absent of heavy-handed rule.

  171. @Rosie

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.
     
    America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interests to keep it together. That was fair when we were 90% of the population, but no longer. I take my own side, but I'm not interested in deciding who can or cannot be American. That ship has sailed. America belongs to the multiculturalists now.

    I’m not interested in deciding who can or cannot be American. That ship has sailed.

    The fat lady has not yet sung. Sometimes she’s in the wing warming up, that’s all.

    You need to care about Americans; who they are and who they are not.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You need to care about Americans
     
    Why?
  172. @EliteCommInc.
    "America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interest"

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don't require having violated the Constitution.


    My comments should not be construed or twisted to suggest I support: deliberate dysfunctional behavior.

    ---------------------------------------
    "So five out of ten is written “5%.”"

    Not being critical here or facetious --- you mean the decimal point or the missing zero marker. I have issues with math. It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately. Laugh. That's more than enough to remember, but I remain humbled by math as I am my proof reading.

    It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately.

    You remind me of an ex-girlfriend of mine who was being systematically mis-taught algebra in community college.  The course basically taught her to put numbers in a formula in her graphing calculator to get “the answer”.  The idea of working out an expression to get the unknown as a function of the known quantities wasn’t even present in anything she showed me.  Algebra isn’t the calculation to get a number; that’s arithmetic.  Algebra is the transformation of expressions to get the desired form.  A second-semester example is taking ax² + bx + c = 0 and using the method of completing the square to derive the quadratic formula.

    I doubt that even the instructors could answer the question, “how do you come up with the formula in the first place?”  I wouldn’t be surprised if they had been systematically mis-taught too.

    The rubber meets the road when it comes time to create something like a spreadsheet.  You throw numbers into cells which provide inputs to calculate the value of other cells.  If you don’t know how to create the formulas for those calculated cells, you are screwed; you effectively can’t automate the calculation process even if you know how to use “the formula” on your fancy-schmancy calculator.  “Algebra” taught that way is educational malpractice, and all the victims should be able to get their tuition and book costs back plus pay for their wasted time.

  173. @iffen
    I’m not interested in deciding who can or cannot be American. That ship has sailed.

    The fat lady has not yet sung. Sometimes she's in the wing warming up, that's all.

    You need to care about Americans; who they are and who they are not.

    You need to care about Americans

    Why?

  174. “That’s just it. Holding this multicultural polyglot together requires precisely that White people’s constitutional rights be disregarded and systematically violated a la Charlottesville.”

    You have yet to answer the matter. You have yet to identify the constitutional right was violated that was singularly against people of white skin.

    It is my understanding that one person ran over another and both parties were white. I am not sure what right at Charlottesville was violated unique to whites. Statues in the park are paid for by public monies and members of the public both black and white are voicing their views over their meaning.

    Perhaps had blacks not been so politically correct that conversation could have occurred sooner. I am sure you are not advocating that black citizens should sit and been quiet to public policies that effect their lives and existence, even if they are symbolic. It’s a very very tough argument to make that blacks did not contribute to the state in questions, existence, maintenance and financial well being.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You have yet to answer the matter. You have yet to identify the constitutional right was violated that was singularly against people of white skin.
     
    You're being quite ridiculous here. Charlottesville officials attempted to revoke the permit duly acquired by White protesters and then simply stood down as antifa sabotaged the legal rally that they were unable to prevent through legitimate process: the heckler's veto. The police chief was demoted or fired or something, but no matter. I'm sure he'll have a very soft landing courtesy of TPTB, pension intact.

    The message has been sent, loud and clear. No self-assertion by White men will be tolerated. They are not entitled to be heard, on any matter regarding multiculturalism or the details of its implementation.


    I am sure you are not advocating that black citizens should sit and been quiet to public policies that effect their lives and existence
     
    The heart of the matter. Any self-assertion by Whites, even a protest against the demolition of monuments to their ancestors, is deemed an existential threat to non-Whites, perhaps not without reason. In any event, the upshot is that Whites must be required, for the sake of public order, "to sit and be quiet to public policies that affect their lives and existence."

    When once the government sets out to elect a new people, the old people must be ruthlessly repressed to ensure elite safety and the smooth continuation of the agenda.

  175. @Mr. Rational

    “The West” as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.
     
    "You didn't build that" was risible when Obama said it.  It's no less so coming from a Filipino.

    The people who adopt and advance something—they are legitimate owners too.

    “You didn’t build that” was risible when Obama said it. It’s no less so coming from a Filipino.

    Who is a Filipino?

    The people who adopt and advance something—they are legitimate owners too.

    I agree, which is why non-white Americans who assimilate, maintain, and build upon America are also legitimate owners of America. I refer to the Founding Fathers of the United States as “our Founding Fathers” to my children (and others) even though only my children are genetically related to them.

  176. ” Algebra isn’t the calculation to get a number; that’s arithmetic. Algebra is the transformation of expressions to get the desired form. A second-semester example is taking ax² + bx + c = 0 and using the method of completing the square to derive the quadratic formula.”

    Sure there are mathmatical categorical distinct applications:

    geometry
    algebra
    physics
    computational

    and others are all part of the family under the umbrella of math. I understand that those engaged in these fields might like to consider them more than math. But in reality whether one uses a calculator pen paper or a chalk board — it remains math.

    Note the following:

    University of Kansas Math courses

    http://mathematics.ku.edu/alt-upper-level-courses

  177. @EliteCommInc.
    "That’s just it. Holding this multicultural polyglot together requires precisely that White people’s constitutional rights be disregarded and systematically violated a la Charlottesville."

    You have yet to answer the matter. You have yet to identify the constitutional right was violated that was singularly against people of white skin.

    It is my understanding that one person ran over another and both parties were white. I am not sure what right at Charlottesville was violated unique to whites. Statues in the park are paid for by public monies and members of the public both black and white are voicing their views over their meaning.

    Perhaps had blacks not been so politically correct that conversation could have occurred sooner. I am sure you are not advocating that black citizens should sit and been quiet to public policies that effect their lives and existence, even if they are symbolic. It's a very very tough argument to make that blacks did not contribute to the state in questions, existence, maintenance and financial well being.

    You have yet to answer the matter. You have yet to identify the constitutional right was violated that was singularly against people of white skin.

    You’re being quite ridiculous here. Charlottesville officials attempted to revoke the permit duly acquired by White protesters and then simply stood down as antifa sabotaged the legal rally that they were unable to prevent through legitimate process: the heckler’s veto. The police chief was demoted or fired or something, but no matter. I’m sure he’ll have a very soft landing courtesy of TPTB, pension intact.

    The message has been sent, loud and clear. No self-assertion by White men will be tolerated. They are not entitled to be heard, on any matter regarding multiculturalism or the details of its implementation.

    I am sure you are not advocating that black citizens should sit and been quiet to public policies that effect their lives and existence

    The heart of the matter. Any self-assertion by Whites, even a protest against the demolition of monuments to their ancestors, is deemed an existential threat to non-Whites, perhaps not without reason. In any event, the upshot is that Whites must be required, for the sake of public order, “to sit and be quiet to public policies that affect their lives and existence.”

    When once the government sets out to elect a new people, the old people must be ruthlessly repressed to ensure elite safety and the smooth continuation of the agenda.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Charlottesville officials attempted to revoke the permit duly acquired by White protesters and then simply stood down as antifa sabotaged the legal rally that they were unable to prevent through legitimate process: the heckler’s veto.
     
    I agree with you here. No matter how disagreeable one might find of any group, it has a right to assemble peacefully and speak, and to be heard. Political biases must not lead government officials to favor one group or another in this matter, period. Any attempt to interfere with this right violently should have been dealt firmly by the law enforcement.

    In any event, the upshot is that Whites must be required, for the sake of public order, “to sit and be quiet to public policies that affect their lives and existence.”
     
    In this, I disagree. The people in charge in Charlottesville were mostly whites. This isn’t so much nonwhites repressing whites as one faction of whites marginalizing another faction of whites.

    In my view, neither of these factions represents the interests of whites at large, let alone the country as a whole.
  178. @iffen
    “Divide and deconstruct”? That’s some chutzpah from someone whose constant rhetoric is utterly divisive on who can and cannot be Americans.

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.

    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.

    • Replies: @iffen
    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.

    sad tragedy

    What other kind of tragedy is there?

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you, I emphathically say that you have captured the true essence of tragedy arising from our little circle of life, perhaps the elucidation of tragedy on a larger scale.

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the "fold" so to speak.

    As you frequently comment, and with which I concur, all is not lost.
  179. @Rosie

    You have yet to answer the matter. You have yet to identify the constitutional right was violated that was singularly against people of white skin.
     
    You're being quite ridiculous here. Charlottesville officials attempted to revoke the permit duly acquired by White protesters and then simply stood down as antifa sabotaged the legal rally that they were unable to prevent through legitimate process: the heckler's veto. The police chief was demoted or fired or something, but no matter. I'm sure he'll have a very soft landing courtesy of TPTB, pension intact.

    The message has been sent, loud and clear. No self-assertion by White men will be tolerated. They are not entitled to be heard, on any matter regarding multiculturalism or the details of its implementation.


    I am sure you are not advocating that black citizens should sit and been quiet to public policies that effect their lives and existence
     
    The heart of the matter. Any self-assertion by Whites, even a protest against the demolition of monuments to their ancestors, is deemed an existential threat to non-Whites, perhaps not without reason. In any event, the upshot is that Whites must be required, for the sake of public order, "to sit and be quiet to public policies that affect their lives and existence."

    When once the government sets out to elect a new people, the old people must be ruthlessly repressed to ensure elite safety and the smooth continuation of the agenda.

    Charlottesville officials attempted to revoke the permit duly acquired by White protesters and then simply stood down as antifa sabotaged the legal rally that they were unable to prevent through legitimate process: the heckler’s veto.

    I agree with you here. No matter how disagreeable one might find of any group, it has a right to assemble peacefully and speak, and to be heard. Political biases must not lead government officials to favor one group or another in this matter, period. Any attempt to interfere with this right violently should have been dealt firmly by the law enforcement.

    In any event, the upshot is that Whites must be required, for the sake of public order, “to sit and be quiet to public policies that affect their lives and existence.”

    In this, I disagree. The people in charge in Charlottesville were mostly whites. This isn’t so much nonwhites repressing whites as one faction of whites marginalizing another faction of whites.

    In my view, neither of these factions represents the interests of whites at large, let alone the country as a whole.

  180. @Twinkie

    Rosie is worried about divided and deconstructed whites (which is the starting point for her fantasy anyway) while you are concerned about a divided America.
     
    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.

    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.

    sad tragedy

    What other kind of tragedy is there?

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you, I emphathically say that you have captured the true essence of tragedy arising from our little circle of life, perhaps the elucidation of tragedy on a larger scale.

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the “fold” so to speak.

    As you frequently comment, and with which I concur, all is not lost.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    What other kind of tragedy is there?
     
    Tragicomedy or comic tragedy? There have been terrible things that happened to me that I found, in a roundabout way, funny - a series of compounded misfortune that made me at least chuckle and say “God has a sense of humor.”

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you
     
    Whaaaat? Why?

    all is not lost.
     
    It never is until the last of us draws breath. At least that’s what they taught me in training.
    , @Rosie

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the “fold” so to speak.
     
    True. There is nothing you can say, nor anyone else for that matter, to make me stop wanting White people to give on existing. One either cares about it or not.
  181. @iffen
    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.

    sad tragedy

    What other kind of tragedy is there?

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you, I emphathically say that you have captured the true essence of tragedy arising from our little circle of life, perhaps the elucidation of tragedy on a larger scale.

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the "fold" so to speak.

    As you frequently comment, and with which I concur, all is not lost.

    What other kind of tragedy is there?

    Tragicomedy or comic tragedy? There have been terrible things that happened to me that I found, in a roundabout way, funny – a series of compounded misfortune that made me at least chuckle and say “God has a sense of humor.”

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you

    Whaaaat? Why?

    all is not lost.

    It never is until the last of us draws breath. At least that’s what they taught me in training.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Whaaaat? Why?

    Surely you jest.

    Which, of course, would be completely out of character for you.

    But, perhaps not, now that I think about it.

    , @iffen
    It never is until the last of us

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?
  182. @Twinkie

    What other kind of tragedy is there?
     
    Tragicomedy or comic tragedy? There have been terrible things that happened to me that I found, in a roundabout way, funny - a series of compounded misfortune that made me at least chuckle and say “God has a sense of humor.”

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you
     
    Whaaaat? Why?

    all is not lost.
     
    It never is until the last of us draws breath. At least that’s what they taught me in training.

    Whaaaat? Why?

    Surely you jest.

    Which, of course, would be completely out of character for you.

    But, perhaps not, now that I think about it.

  183. @iffen
    That’s not all. I wish her well (despite our online disputes) and want her family well, but she doesn’t even recognize me and mine as fellow Americans. And the sad tragedy of it is that a sizable fraction of the people she calls “we” and “us” (whites) view her as a horrifying deplorable and likely don’t wish her well.

    sad tragedy

    What other kind of tragedy is there?

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you, I emphathically say that you have captured the true essence of tragedy arising from our little circle of life, perhaps the elucidation of tragedy on a larger scale.

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the "fold" so to speak.

    As you frequently comment, and with which I concur, all is not lost.

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the “fold” so to speak.

    True. There is nothing you can say, nor anyone else for that matter, to make me stop wanting White people to give on existing. One either cares about it or not.

    • Replies: @iffen
    wanting White people to give on existing

    We are here for the duration. We will determine the results of the 2020 election. The exact % between the woke whites and the un-woke in 3 or 4 swing states will determine the 2020 election results. We are white, hear us roar!

  184. @Rosie

    It is clearly above my pay scale to be able to reach people like Rosie and bring them into the “fold” so to speak.
     
    True. There is nothing you can say, nor anyone else for that matter, to make me stop wanting White people to give on existing. One either cares about it or not.

    wanting White people to give on existing

    We are here for the duration. We will determine the results of the 2020 election. The exact % between the woke whites and the un-woke in 3 or 4 swing states will determine the 2020 election results. We are white, hear us roar!

  185. “The heart of the matter. Any self-assertion by Whites, even a protest against the demolition of monuments to their ancestors, is deemed an existential threat to non-Whites, perhaps not without reason. ”

    Excuse me. There’s no evidence that the any permit was blocked or even attempted to be blocked because the advocates were white. You’ll have to do better than make that accusation and proceed as it it were fact. I find the idea so dubious, that it requires some substantiation.

    Furthermore, the police chief was not terminated for because he favored one side over the other. he simply made a peculiar choice not to interfere —–

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/us/charlottesville-police-al-thomas.html

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gydd3y/charlottesville-police-chief-told-cops-to-let-them-fight-when-nazis-came-to-town

    https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2017/12/02/charlottesville-police-chief-let-fight/

    Your rendering of the circumstances are incorrect.

    As for your suggestion that white people are expected to sit down and be quiet — that’s how you feel. But there is no official government or even ethos or policy that advocates any such practice. Bow there is some indication that some quarters have advocated that whites be still having silenced the voices of nonwhites, uniquely blacks for a good part of the country’s history. But that is not what your comments reflect. They reflect a direct posture of silencing whites in the public square – outright — and even Charlottesville, rejects the notion. Charlottesville is not the rallying cry for whites to rally around, in my view.

    ———————

    Again, you have yet to provide an iota of evidence that whites are either out of power, influence are forced to do anything agaisnt their stead in violation of the Constitution. All communities consider the manner in which “free speech” is engaged. That is the process to petition and receive permission and direction. In this case they got permission and little in the way of direction about conduct. And as indicated by the record liberal or not — the counter demonstrators got no more support.

    • LOL: Rosie
  186. The answer to increasing white population is as simple as

    “Go ye therefore and multiply”

    There’s no law against it.

  187. “The heart of the matter. Any self-assertion by Whites, even a protest against the demolition of monuments to their ancestors, is deemed an existential threat to non-Whites, perhaps not without reason. ”

    If whites alone made the state, built the state, maintained the state without aide of others in state or out of nonwhites, in this case primarily blacks, then maybe your perspective would make sense. But since the case remains that the states south were also built by blacks — then they and others are entitled to a view on the meanings of public symbols.

    You seem to be arguing that whites alone built the state and as such all others should be still. Your hurdle is that whites did not build the state and the ancestors you speak representing soley whites as a right is unreasoned. It by definition says that other voices have no accounting despite being contributors to all things state.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    You seem to be arguing that whites alone built the state and as such all others should be still.
     
    Why does it always come to this?

    I said nothing of the sort, of course, but my insistence on free speech for Whites necessarily means I oppose it for everyone else, I guess.

    White men totally not being repressed by the state:

    https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_43/2616546/181024-richard-spencer-mc-910_625d5904bad2bdaa6747f4bcde241892.nbcnews-fp-1024-512.JPG
  188. @Twinkie

    What other kind of tragedy is there?
     
    Tragicomedy or comic tragedy? There have been terrible things that happened to me that I found, in a roundabout way, funny - a series of compounded misfortune that made me at least chuckle and say “God has a sense of humor.”

    Leaving aside my trepidations that arise when I exchange comments with you
     
    Whaaaat? Why?

    all is not lost.
     
    It never is until the last of us draws breath. At least that’s what they taught me in training.

    It never is until the last of us

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?
     
    My question exactly.
    , @Twinkie

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?
     
    People who hold U.S. citizenship currently, in the context of the country. Those who hold traditional values - for lack of a better term - in the political context.
  189. @EliteCommInc.
    "The heart of the matter. Any self-assertion by Whites, even a protest against the demolition of monuments to their ancestors, is deemed an existential threat to non-Whites, perhaps not without reason. "


    If whites alone made the state, built the state, maintained the state without aide of others in state or out of nonwhites, in this case primarily blacks, then maybe your perspective would make sense. But since the case remains that the states south were also built by blacks -- then they and others are entitled to a view on the meanings of public symbols.

    You seem to be arguing that whites alone built the state and as such all others should be still. Your hurdle is that whites did not build the state and the ancestors you speak representing soley whites as a right is unreasoned. It by definition says that other voices have no accounting despite being contributors to all things state.

    You seem to be arguing that whites alone built the state and as such all others should be still.

    Why does it always come to this?

    I said nothing of the sort, of course, but my insistence on free speech for Whites necessarily means I oppose it for everyone else, I guess.

    White men totally not being repressed by the state:

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    White men totally not being repressed by the state:
     
    A tiny, minuscule fraction of white men, if your photographic link is to be any kind of evidence.
  190. @iffen
    It never is until the last of us

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

    My question exactly.

  191. Murica will end drowning in filth and twerking. Serves it right. It really should have never been made.

  192. “I said nothing of the sort, of course, but my insistence on free speech for Whites necessarily means I oppose it for everyone else, I guess.”

    First you speak of ancestors as though only whites have ancestors as contributors, and if that were the case I think you would have room to talk ancestors in purely white terms. But that is not the case, yet you persists. The clear indication is that blacks have no voice regarding how said ancestors are to be understood.

    Second, that whites have a right to “free speech” is not an issue by the record. In fact, the choice of the police not to interfere alotted both sides such free speech that the speech was expressed via nonverbal acts of violence — that said violence led to arrests is not an indication that whites were singled out in violation of the constitution.

    Third the choice of the police cheif makes some sense — as he did not want the police embroiled in a political anti-white- pro-antifa or counter protestors vs. white nationalist brouhaha. Given the issues regarding the police in such matters, the chief preferred to stay out it or that his position on whiteness was to cause.

    Fourth, your photo is indicative of the kind of mess your incorrect advocacy breeds.

    ““Police provided the Klan safe passage out of the park, while a community member called to the police, ‘Do your job, and protect us.’ Today and every day, the police were there to protect white supremacy,” the group said in a statement provided to The Daily Beast.”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-klan-protesters-arrested-in-charlottesville-as-kkk-and-antifa-pledge-rematch

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor — more importantly there’s no evidence he was arrested for being white.

    It does not even indicate an arrest.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    You are a ridiculous cuck.
    , @Rosie

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor — more importantly there’s no evidence he was arrested for being white.
     
    Imagine being this utterly clueless.

    I guess there's no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either. If the cops did anything to stop it, that would be "supporting White supremacists."

    http://www.davidduke.com//images/jared-taylor-attacked-by-jewish-sponsored-marxists.jpg

  193. @EliteCommInc.
    "I said nothing of the sort, of course, but my insistence on free speech for Whites necessarily means I oppose it for everyone else, I guess."


    First you speak of ancestors as though only whites have ancestors as contributors, and if that were the case I think you would have room to talk ancestors in purely white terms. But that is not the case, yet you persists. The clear indication is that blacks have no voice regarding how said ancestors are to be understood.

    Second, that whites have a right to "free speech" is not an issue by the record. In fact, the choice of the police not to interfere alotted both sides such free speech that the speech was expressed via nonverbal acts of violence -- that said violence led to arrests is not an indication that whites were singled out in violation of the constitution.

    Third the choice of the police cheif makes some sense -- as he did not want the police embroiled in a political anti-white- pro-antifa or counter protestors vs. white nationalist brouhaha. Given the issues regarding the police in such matters, the chief preferred to stay out it or that his position on whiteness was to cause.

    Fourth, your photo is indicative of the kind of mess your incorrect advocacy breeds.


    "“Police provided the Klan safe passage out of the park, while a community member called to the police, ‘Do your job, and protect us.’ Today and every day, the police were there to protect white supremacy,” the group said in a statement provided to The Daily Beast."

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-klan-protesters-arrested-in-charlottesville-as-kkk-and-antifa-pledge-rematch

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor -- more importantly there's no evidence he was arrested for being white.

    It does not even indicate an arrest.

    You are a ridiculous cuck.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You are a ridiculous cuck.
     
    He’s trying to engage you in a debate based on evidence and logical argumentation (with some of which I disagree) while you inevitably degenerate into ad hominem. Only the best people.
  194. @EliteCommInc.
    "I said nothing of the sort, of course, but my insistence on free speech for Whites necessarily means I oppose it for everyone else, I guess."


    First you speak of ancestors as though only whites have ancestors as contributors, and if that were the case I think you would have room to talk ancestors in purely white terms. But that is not the case, yet you persists. The clear indication is that blacks have no voice regarding how said ancestors are to be understood.

    Second, that whites have a right to "free speech" is not an issue by the record. In fact, the choice of the police not to interfere alotted both sides such free speech that the speech was expressed via nonverbal acts of violence -- that said violence led to arrests is not an indication that whites were singled out in violation of the constitution.

    Third the choice of the police cheif makes some sense -- as he did not want the police embroiled in a political anti-white- pro-antifa or counter protestors vs. white nationalist brouhaha. Given the issues regarding the police in such matters, the chief preferred to stay out it or that his position on whiteness was to cause.

    Fourth, your photo is indicative of the kind of mess your incorrect advocacy breeds.


    "“Police provided the Klan safe passage out of the park, while a community member called to the police, ‘Do your job, and protect us.’ Today and every day, the police were there to protect white supremacy,” the group said in a statement provided to The Daily Beast."

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-klan-protesters-arrested-in-charlottesville-as-kkk-and-antifa-pledge-rematch

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor -- more importantly there's no evidence he was arrested for being white.

    It does not even indicate an arrest.

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor — more importantly there’s no evidence he was arrested for being white.

    Imagine being this utterly clueless.

    I guess there’s no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either. If the cops did anything to stop it, that would be “supporting White supremacists.”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I guess there’s no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either.
     
    Is there? If so, please present some.

    The picture seems to indicate there is some sort of an altercation, but what evidence is there that Jared Taylor is being attacked for being white? If some random white person were to be walking by, would he have been attacked as well?

    By the way, I don’t think provocateurs should be attacked (because it is morally and legally wrong and because it’s what they want in order to claim victimhood), but as a practical matter such people will be involved in more altercations than ordinary people.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    When and where is that picture from?
  195. @iffen
    It never is until the last of us

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

    Who is this us that you speak of, Kemo Sabe?

    People who hold U.S. citizenship currently, in the context of the country. Those who hold traditional values – for lack of a better term – in the political context.

  196. @Rosie

    You seem to be arguing that whites alone built the state and as such all others should be still.
     
    Why does it always come to this?

    I said nothing of the sort, of course, but my insistence on free speech for Whites necessarily means I oppose it for everyone else, I guess.

    White men totally not being repressed by the state:

    https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2018_43/2616546/181024-richard-spencer-mc-910_625d5904bad2bdaa6747f4bcde241892.nbcnews-fp-1024-512.JPG

    White men totally not being repressed by the state:

    A tiny, minuscule fraction of white men, if your photographic link is to be any kind of evidence.

  197. @Rosie
    You are a ridiculous cuck.

    You are a ridiculous cuck.

    He’s trying to engage you in a debate based on evidence and logical argumentation (with some of which I disagree) while you inevitably degenerate into ad hominem. Only the best people.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    He’s trying to engage you in a debate based on evidence and logical argumentation
     
    Using false-to-fact claims in the process.

    Rosie has him pegged.  I don't know why I ever un-ignored him.  Maybe it's time he went back on ignore.
  198. @Mr. Rational

    you seem not to understand the genetic history of whites. They are a product of several waves of hybridization
     
    Whites as they were constituted up to recently are the only peoples capable of creating and maintaining Western Civilization.  Others observably cannot; when the conquistadors sired babies on indio women, their genetic legacy never achieved the heights observed back in the old country even when they adopted the language.  That hybridization may be a success on some level, but as an attempt to pass on the civilization it is a total failure.

    (The first time I wrote this comment, I finished my observations and when I posted I was told I was "posting too much in this thread" and my comment deleted unrecoverably.  It would be okay if this was declared at the time I clicked the "Reply" button; to do it after expending a bunch of time and work and to destroy the product of that work is unforgiveable.)

    Yes, that has been happening to me a lot lately, even after only one previous post on a thread. It does make one want to limit replies to short blurbs. Maybe it’s a WP feature that RU could turn off. If so, i’d like it if he did turn it off.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'll pass it along. Occasionally the same happens to me, though the comment still ends up posting.
  199. • Replies: @Rosie
    And I'm sure this won't have a chilling effect, intended or not, on White men's freedom of speech.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/08/14/kamala-harris-proposes-red-flag-law-that-would-target-white-nationalists/
  200. “I guess there’s no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either. If the cops did anything to stop it, that would be “supporting White supremacists.”

    Hmmmm . . .

    or they could have been accused of supporting the counter protestors . . . hence the reasoning to avoid getting in the middle.

    The second photo doesn’t provide any evidence that the state is involved in any way. But in either case, there needs to be some content about the circumstances at play.

    Young lady, this is not me attempting to agitate you. This is me saying you don’t have any supporting evidence that the state is process of uniquely denying whites their constitutional rights. It is not even done in response to some legitimate claim of redress. And what is interesting in your presented evidence is that the players are all white based on the images.

    Apparently you have no idea just how far out I am among blacks or liberals in general if you mistake my positions based on data for some manner of catering to liberals on anything. If only I did, my life would be so much materially better off.
    sigh and sigh

    Laugh.

    At any rate . . . I stand where I came in

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The second photo doesn’t provide any evidence that the state is involved in any way. But in either case, there needs to be some content about the circumstances at play.
     
    Indeed, the state was not involved in any way. The authorities did nothing about this outrage. They never do anything to defend White men's free speech rights.

    You appear to believe that the state has no obligation to protect dissidents. What was that you were saying about the Constitution?

    Of course, this is purely academic, because we know it doesn't apply to Whites, but...

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

    Apparently you have no idea just how far out I am among blacks or liberals in general if you mistake my positions based on data for some manner of catering to liberals on anything. If only I did, my life would be so much materially better off.
    sigh and sigh
     

    You shouldn't bother. Everything you say just boils down to conventionally liberal multiculturalism anyway.
  201. @dfordoom

    That’s the great racial tragedy in the early 21st century: two billion Africans, two billion east Asians, two billion south Asians, two billion mixed/miscellaneous, but not two billion whites. And it’s only going to get much, much, much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

    Thanks, “anti-racists”!
     
    You don't think the blame should be assigned to selfish white people who chose consume goodies and status in preference to having children?

    And East Asians are embarking on demographic suicide with more enthusiasm even than whites. Check out the fertility rates in South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Is that the fault of anti-racists?

    Given a choice between consumer goodies and children most people, of all races, will choose consumer goodies.

    If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.

    “If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.”

    Not everything can be blamed on capitalism, y’know. My opinion is that the decline in birthrates is due to the deliberate poisoning of the population with bromine, flouride and adjutavants in vaccines, as well as chemical drug treatments that don’t even alleviate symptoms, let alone address root causes of disease.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    “If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.”
     
    Not everything can be blamed on capitalism, y’know.
     
    Of course not everything can be blamed on capitalism. But a lot can.

    I don't necessarily advocate abolishing capitalism, but I think it needs to be rigidly controlled to minimise its negative effects.
    , @iffen
    Don't forget the power of chem-trails.
  202. http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/08/14/will-the-tuck-cuck/”

    Mr. Tucker’s comments needed more support than it’s just a tool to exploit whites. It might hep top have defined what he meant.

  203. On another note:

    I really enjoyed this reminder of what helps define US culture.

  204. @Rosie
    More on White men not being repressed:

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/08/14/will-the-tuck-cuck/

    And I’m sure this won’t have a chilling effect, intended or not, on White men’s freedom of speech.

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/08/14/kamala-harris-proposes-red-flag-law-that-would-target-white-nationalists/

  205. @EliteCommInc.
    "I guess there’s no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either. If the cops did anything to stop it, that would be “supporting White supremacists.”


    Hmmmm . . .


    or they could have been accused of supporting the counter protestors . . . hence the reasoning to avoid getting in the middle.

    The second photo doesn't provide any evidence that the state is involved in any way. But in either case, there needs to be some content about the circumstances at play.

    Young lady, this is not me attempting to agitate you. This is me saying you don't have any supporting evidence that the state is process of uniquely denying whites their constitutional rights. It is not even done in response to some legitimate claim of redress. And what is interesting in your presented evidence is that the players are all white based on the images.

    Apparently you have no idea just how far out I am among blacks or liberals in general if you mistake my positions based on data for some manner of catering to liberals on anything. If only I did, my life would be so much materially better off.
    sigh and sigh

    Laugh.

    At any rate . . . I stand where I came in

    The second photo doesn’t provide any evidence that the state is involved in any way. But in either case, there needs to be some content about the circumstances at play.

    Indeed, the state was not involved in any way. The authorities did nothing about this outrage. They never do anything to defend White men’s free speech rights.

    You appear to believe that the state has no obligation to protect dissidents. What was that you were saying about the Constitution?

    Of course, this is purely academic, because we know it doesn’t apply to Whites, but…

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

    Apparently you have no idea just how far out I am among blacks or liberals in general if you mistake my positions based on data for some manner of catering to liberals on anything. If only I did, my life would be so much materially better off.
    sigh and sigh

    You shouldn’t bother. Everything you say just boils down to conventionally liberal multiculturalism anyway.

  206. @Rosie

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor — more importantly there’s no evidence he was arrested for being white.
     
    Imagine being this utterly clueless.

    I guess there's no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either. If the cops did anything to stop it, that would be "supporting White supremacists."

    http://www.davidduke.com//images/jared-taylor-attacked-by-jewish-sponsored-marxists.jpg

    I guess there’s no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either.

    Is there? If so, please present some.

    The picture seems to indicate there is some sort of an altercation, but what evidence is there that Jared Taylor is being attacked for being white? If some random white person were to be walking by, would he have been attacked as well?

    By the way, I don’t think provocateurs should be attacked (because it is morally and legally wrong and because it’s what they want in order to claim victimhood), but as a practical matter such people will be involved in more altercations than ordinary people.

  207. @Herbert West
    TheZMan, on his own blog:

    “Since choosing your own team is not only moral, but a moral duty, racism cannot be immoral. It’s the natural result of failing to maintain peaceful separation.”

    Hear, hear. Anyway, I would estimate at least 90% of Americans are racist. The only reason it isn’t 100% yet is because there are still a few rural backwaters where almost everyone is white and has no contact with other races. Less of those places all the time, though.

    “It’s the natural result of failing to maintain peaceful separation.”

    If peaceful separation proves to be impossible (and in the U.S. it almost certainly is impossible) then it’s a good idea to have a Plan B. If you can’t get peaceful separation then somehow you have to deal with the situation you’ve got (another word for the situation you’ve got is reality) and try to make it work.

    Wishful thinking and magical thinking are not options.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    If peaceful separation proves to be impossible (and in the U.S. it almost certainly is impossible) then it’s a good idea to have a Plan B.
     
    Plan B:  Separate using as much violence as necessary to make it happen.

    Plan C:  Accept the genocide-in-progress and go extinct.

    I've got ideas for ways to bring about Plan A.  I'd start with permanent restrictions on the movement of certain classes of criminals*.  There was a murder the next county over a year or two ago.  The county is overwhelmingly White; the victim was black and had travelled from a majority-black city on the other end of the state.  One of the two charged in his murder was also black.

    None of the news coverage mentioned if either victim or perps had criminal records, but I have no doubt that they did and that the blacks started their criminal careers in said majority-black city.  Forbidding such criminals from travelling without permission or taking up residence where they have no business being would almost certainly have made this crime, if not impossible, occur where these clowns lived and not in a mostly-peaceful zone.

    * This would have to include things like lease terminations and evictions for harboring such criminals outside their designated home areas.  Treat them as public nuisances, and put some teeth into social disapproval of girls hooking up with "bad boys", or at least certain classes thereof.
  208. @Twinkie

    It’s one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.
     
    Ancient Greece is "a central part of Western civilization" because of retconning by modern Western Europeans.

    "The West" as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.*

    The idea of the West was further cemented when the Anglo-Americans rose to hegemony and coopted the same (hence the Roman motifs of so many of our American emblems) and saw themselves as pitted against an eastern (and partly Asiatic) power in the form of the Soviet Union.

    The Germans themselves were always ambivalent about this latter-day Anglo-American idea of the West and frequently referred to themselves as something in-between, of Mitteleuropa.

    *The ancient Greeks were a part of the eastern Mediterranean-Levantine-Middle Eastern cultural and economic oikumene of the ancient times. Then the Romans who dominated the "Mare Nostrum" claimed the former as their intellectual forebears. In turn, the Germanic peoples did the same with the Romans, and the Anglo-Americans (who are, in the main, not actually Germanic, but Brythonic in origin) did the same with the Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung.

    So with "the West," there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks (and even from the river civilizations of the Middle East according to some) that are disconnected from the biological reality. This is in contrast with, say, the Chinese civilization in which intellectual origins and genetic continuity are much more consistent and concrete and much less imagined.

    Finally, there is a tendency among WN-types of conflating "whites" with "the West." This is not historically, factually accurate. (Ethnic) Russians are white, but they have never been of the West and did not play any significant role in constructing, either philosophically or materially, what we today call the West.

    P.S. I keep getting the message to "slow down" when I try to comment. What gives?

    So with “the West,” there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks

    Also medieval civilisation was not a continuation of the ancient classical civilisation. It was a whole new civilisation with a radically different mindset and radically different cultural values. The two civilisations had very little in common. And medieval civilisation was not just classical civilisation with Christianity added on.

    The European civilisation that developed after the Reformation was a whole new civilisation with a radically different mindset and radically different cultural values. It had little in common with either classical or medieval civilisations.

    We are not the heirs of classical Athens. Our way of understanding the world would be incomprehensible to them.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Is Scholasticism not a fusion of medieval Europe and ancient Greece? Aquinas bridges the two into a single figure, doesn't he?
  209. @Anounder
    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.

    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.

    If fact no state in history prior to the late 18th century would have had the foggiest notion of what you mean by heritage.

    It’s worth pointing out that ideas like national self-determination and nation states based on ethnicity are in historical terms very modern ideas.

    • Replies: @Anounder
    Nope. Go look up the etymology of the nation. It's connected with bloodlines.

    After you do that, go look up indigenous myths around the world. Whether Athenian, Roman, or Apache they all claimed descent from a patriarch or clan. The obvious implication being that proper belonging depended on your heritage. Not following a Dead White Man's piece of paper.
    , @Talha
    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.

    Peace.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?
  210. @dfordoom

    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.
     
    If fact no state in history prior to the late 18th century would have had the foggiest notion of what you mean by heritage.

    It's worth pointing out that ideas like national self-determination and nation states based on ethnicity are in historical terms very modern ideas.

    Nope. Go look up the etymology of the nation. It’s connected with bloodlines.

    After you do that, go look up indigenous myths around the world. Whether Athenian, Roman, or Apache they all claimed descent from a patriarch or clan. The obvious implication being that proper belonging depended on your heritage. Not following a Dead White Man’s piece of paper.

  211. @Twodees Partain
    "If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism."

    Not everything can be blamed on capitalism, y'know. My opinion is that the decline in birthrates is due to the deliberate poisoning of the population with bromine, flouride and adjutavants in vaccines, as well as chemical drug treatments that don't even alleviate symptoms, let alone address root causes of disease.

    “If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism.”

    Not everything can be blamed on capitalism, y’know.

    Of course not everything can be blamed on capitalism. But a lot can.

    I don’t necessarily advocate abolishing capitalism, but I think it needs to be rigidly controlled to minimise its negative effects.

  212. @dfordoom

    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.
     
    If fact no state in history prior to the late 18th century would have had the foggiest notion of what you mean by heritage.

    It's worth pointing out that ideas like national self-determination and nation states based on ethnicity are in historical terms very modern ideas.

    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.
     
    But there is a reason we call it a "conquest." Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection. Doom is wrong. Nationalism is not new. What is new is the idea that strong nations are duty-bound to recognize the sovereignty and identity of weaker ones. That's it.
  213. @Talha
    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.

    Peace.

    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.

    But there is a reason we call it a “conquest.” Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection. Doom is wrong. Nationalism is not new. What is new is the idea that strong nations are duty-bound to recognize the sovereignty and identity of weaker ones. That’s it.

    • Replies: @Talha
    Doom isn’t wrong.

    But there is a reason we call it a “conquest.”
     
    And his point is actually connected to the fact that the idea of conquest not being a legitimate foundation for the idea of a nation is also a relatively recent phenomenon, which you may have pointed out in other terms.

    It’s all tied together in the concepts we call “modernity” and “progress”.

    The concept of heredity defining a people is much more tied to things such as tribe and clan. This one cannot escape.

    Peace

    , @dfordoom

    Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection.
     
    So why weren't the English trying to kick out the foreign Norman invaders and restore a native English king? Why did the Egyptians accept being ruled by a foreign Macedonian ruling elite for three hundred years? Why did the Roman Empire survive for so long? Why didn't the Hungarians fight to regain their independence from the German Hapsburgs? Why don't the Bretons want to break away from France? Why did the Poles elect so many non-Polish kings? Why do the Russians consider the German Catherine the Great to be one of the greatest of Russia's rulers? Where did the Arab Empire come from? Why aren't the British bothered by having a German royal family? Why did Hungarians, Croats, Italians and Walloons fight for the German Queen-Empress Maria-Theresa? Why did the subject peoples of the Roman Empire fight for Rome?

    Until the 18th century states came into existence by conquest or by dynastic manoeuvres, in other words marriage. Nationalism did not exist. The concept did not exist. States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.
  214. @Rosie

    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.
     
    But there is a reason we call it a "conquest." Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection. Doom is wrong. Nationalism is not new. What is new is the idea that strong nations are duty-bound to recognize the sovereignty and identity of weaker ones. That's it.

    Doom isn’t wrong.

    But there is a reason we call it a “conquest.”

    And his point is actually connected to the fact that the idea of conquest not being a legitimate foundation for the idea of a nation is also a relatively recent phenomenon, which you may have pointed out in other terms.

    It’s all tied together in the concepts we call “modernity” and “progress”.

    The concept of heredity defining a people is much more tied to things such as tribe and clan. This one cannot escape.

    Peace

    • Replies: @iffen
    It’s all tied together in the concepts we call “modernity” and “progress”.

    The proscription on the use of ad hominem is relatively new.
  215. @Twodees Partain
    "If you want to find something to blame for plummeting birth rates you might like to take a look at capitalism."

    Not everything can be blamed on capitalism, y'know. My opinion is that the decline in birthrates is due to the deliberate poisoning of the population with bromine, flouride and adjutavants in vaccines, as well as chemical drug treatments that don't even alleviate symptoms, let alone address root causes of disease.

    Don’t forget the power of chem-trails.

  216. @Talha
    Doom isn’t wrong.

    But there is a reason we call it a “conquest.”
     
    And his point is actually connected to the fact that the idea of conquest not being a legitimate foundation for the idea of a nation is also a relatively recent phenomenon, which you may have pointed out in other terms.

    It’s all tied together in the concepts we call “modernity” and “progress”.

    The concept of heredity defining a people is much more tied to things such as tribe and clan. This one cannot escape.

    Peace

    It’s all tied together in the concepts we call “modernity” and “progress”.

    The proscription on the use of ad hominem is relatively new.

  217. @Twinkie

    You are a ridiculous cuck.
     
    He’s trying to engage you in a debate based on evidence and logical argumentation (with some of which I disagree) while you inevitably degenerate into ad hominem. Only the best people.

    He’s trying to engage you in a debate based on evidence and logical argumentation

    Using false-to-fact claims in the process.

    Rosie has him pegged.  I don’t know why I ever un-ignored him.  Maybe it’s time he went back on ignore.

  218. “Indeed, the state was not involved in any way. The authorities did nothing about this outrage. They never do anything to defend White men’s free speech rights.

    You appear to believe that the state has no obligation to protect dissidents. What was that you were saying about the Constitution?”

    Laugh.

    No the police were obligated to ensure that the two groups behaved civilly or at least maintained some safe distance from each other. As I noted from the start. it was a peculiar choice not to interfere despite my understanding. They did have a mandate to prevent as well as interfere.

    The fact that counter protestors were arrested as well the unite marchers. Your assumptions about what I believe have no merit. My positions are stated quite plainly. If you have any data that suggests that I don’t support due process you are welcome to advance it.

    I am not going to back off the expectation that you provide evidence that there is a federal case to deny whites the right of free speech or expression. All of your examples simply fail that simple test. Your personal attacks are your choice, but they do not address the issues.

    And no one, but no one thinks I am a liberal. No one is forcing you to hang out with blacks or anyone else. Though attempts to violate the constitution to do avoid the same is not sustainable. You want statues of whites and whites alone as you think they are your descendents, though the evidence indicates that whites have unique and distinct lineages and histories all their own — fine.

    No public monies.

    But if you want them to exist on a public space, the public regardless of any color might have an opinion.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    I am not going to back off the expectation that you provide evidence that there is a federal case to deny whites the right of free speech or expression.
     
    So in other words, you expect them to announce from the megaphone in so many words that they are conspiring against White men's free speech rights.

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iTiLOY4hrCo/UAzWuB8NBII/AAAAAAAADXI/j1MBcvJiwQo/s1600/Three+Wise+Monkeys+Hear+No+Evil+See+No+Evil+Speak+No+Evil+Body+Language+Nonverbal+Communication+Expert+Expert+Speaker+Speaker+Dr+Jack+Brown+Dr+Jack+Brown+Las+Vegas+Southern+California.jpg
  219. You are welcome to dilineate the unique aspects of white culture that do not exist or have never existed among others of a different hue.

  220. And further any aspect of said culture than cannot be practiced by people of other colors.

    Again, as noted previously, people of one color who choose not to mix with people of other colors is not an issue for me.

  221. @dfordoom

    "It’s the natural result of failing to maintain peaceful separation.”
     
    If peaceful separation proves to be impossible (and in the U.S. it almost certainly is impossible) then it's a good idea to have a Plan B. If you can't get peaceful separation then somehow you have to deal with the situation you've got (another word for the situation you've got is reality) and try to make it work.

    Wishful thinking and magical thinking are not options.

    If peaceful separation proves to be impossible (and in the U.S. it almost certainly is impossible) then it’s a good idea to have a Plan B.

    Plan B:  Separate using as much violence as necessary to make it happen.

    Plan C:  Accept the genocide-in-progress and go extinct.

    I’ve got ideas for ways to bring about Plan A.  I’d start with permanent restrictions on the movement of certain classes of criminals*.  There was a murder the next county over a year or two ago.  The county is overwhelmingly White; the victim was black and had travelled from a majority-black city on the other end of the state.  One of the two charged in his murder was also black.

    None of the news coverage mentioned if either victim or perps had criminal records, but I have no doubt that they did and that the blacks started their criminal careers in said majority-black city.  Forbidding such criminals from travelling without permission or taking up residence where they have no business being would almost certainly have made this crime, if not impossible, occur where these clowns lived and not in a mostly-peaceful zone.

    * This would have to include things like lease terminations and evictions for harboring such criminals outside their designated home areas.  Treat them as public nuisances, and put some teeth into social disapproval of girls hooking up with “bad boys”, or at least certain classes thereof.

  222. @EliteCommInc.
    "Indeed, the state was not involved in any way. The authorities did nothing about this outrage. They never do anything to defend White men’s free speech rights.

    You appear to believe that the state has no obligation to protect dissidents. What was that you were saying about the Constitution?"


    Laugh.


    No the police were obligated to ensure that the two groups behaved civilly or at least maintained some safe distance from each other. As I noted from the start. it was a peculiar choice not to interfere despite my understanding. They did have a mandate to prevent as well as interfere.


    The fact that counter protestors were arrested as well the unite marchers. Your assumptions about what I believe have no merit. My positions are stated quite plainly. If you have any data that suggests that I don't support due process you are welcome to advance it.

    I am not going to back off the expectation that you provide evidence that there is a federal case to deny whites the right of free speech or expression. All of your examples simply fail that simple test. Your personal attacks are your choice, but they do not address the issues.

    And no one, but no one thinks I am a liberal. No one is forcing you to hang out with blacks or anyone else. Though attempts to violate the constitution to do avoid the same is not sustainable. You want statues of whites and whites alone as you think they are your descendents, though the evidence indicates that whites have unique and distinct lineages and histories all their own -- fine.

    No public monies.

    But if you want them to exist on a public space, the public regardless of any color might have an opinion.

    I am not going to back off the expectation that you provide evidence that there is a federal case to deny whites the right of free speech or expression.

    So in other words, you expect them to announce from the megaphone in so many words that they are conspiring against White men’s free speech rights.

  223. My position is that you demonstrate you claim. Photos of people simply is insufficient.

    And contrary to your suggestion, I would not reject circumstantial scenarios that might build support for your claim. And you have yet to meet that lower threshold of support. Hint: look at what is happening on college campuses — there is some room that at some institutions what you claim is taking place.

    However, those scenarios do not indicate policies or any formal procedure. And protesters who have so engaged have been arrested, jailed and or fined.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    Use proper reply links so it's obvious WHO you are responding to, idiot.
  224. “So in other words, you expect them to announce from the megaphone in so many words that they are conspiring against White men’s free speech rights.”

    No. I think the case regarding “white privilege” and speech by those who make it surprisingly out in the open. The case as I understand it is that white have held dominion over free speech so as to stifle that of others.

    • Replies: @Rosie

    The case as I understand it is that white have held dominion over free speech so as to stifle that of others.
     
    Why are you here? You are literally no different from a typical Huffpost liberal, anti-White and all.

    However, those scenarios do not indicate policies or any formal procedure.
     
    You remind me of apologists for black crime who insist that we should only care about crimes against Whites if it can be shown to be part of some grand conspiracy, as if that makes the victim any less dead.
  225. @EliteCommInc.
    "So in other words, you expect them to announce from the megaphone in so many words that they are conspiring against White men’s free speech rights."

    No. I think the case regarding "white privilege" and speech by those who make it surprisingly out in the open. The case as I understand it is that white have held dominion over free speech so as to stifle that of others.

    The case as I understand it is that white have held dominion over free speech so as to stifle that of others.

    Why are you here? You are literally no different from a typical Huffpost liberal, anti-White and all.

    However, those scenarios do not indicate policies or any formal procedure.

    You remind me of apologists for black crime who insist that we should only care about crimes against Whites if it can be shown to be part of some grand conspiracy, as if that makes the victim any less dead.

  226. “Why are you here? You are literally no different from a typical Huffpost liberal, anti-White and all.”

    It’s not a bias to simply rest on the data. Many years ago, I simply stopped fighting the data that ran counter to what I thought I was supposed to embrace as a conservative. It has cost me. But it’s been worth the price — to be free to think and operate with integrity on issues has proved invaluable to coaching an teaching —-

    and as importantly able to take liberals on head to head.

    If you can find a single comment in which I defend anyone’s criminal, unethical or immoral behavior you are welcome to present it.

    You’ll notice that the ever so attractive Mrs Ariana Huffington, is not here embracing my thoughts, neither is any other liberal black, green, or white.

    And Mr. Unz knows well, that he is free to give me the boot as he so wishes.

    Still waiting for your case supported by data.

    As for your personal opinions about me —-

    Opinions vary, but are generally irrelevant to the issue(s).

  227. “Whites if it can be shown to be part of some grand conspiracy, as if that makes the victim any less dead.”

    There is no doubt that some number of blacks have acted out against whites soly on the color of whiteness. I have never argued otherwise.

    I think a review of our exchange will demonstrate that I am more inclined to specific charges of some anti-white bias as larger conspiracies need a greater analytical and data store. The larger conspiracy assail is one that you seem to be making.

    Note: I did provide some assistance in where you might be able to fashion a case . . . though devoid of policy and evidence of arrests, etc. counter your overall point.

  228. @Twinkie

    It’s one of those funny things where ancient Greece, especially Athens, is obviously a central part of Western Civilization, while modern Greece is at best on its periphery.
     
    Ancient Greece is "a central part of Western civilization" because of retconning by modern Western Europeans.

    "The West" as such is a relatively modern construct that germinated with the Catholic-Orthodox schism and came fully into being with the Renaissance, during which the descendants of the Germanic invaders that took over what was once the Roman Empire rhetorically claimed the intellectual inheritance and glories of past civilizations, to which they were not biological heirs.*

    The idea of the West was further cemented when the Anglo-Americans rose to hegemony and coopted the same (hence the Roman motifs of so many of our American emblems) and saw themselves as pitted against an eastern (and partly Asiatic) power in the form of the Soviet Union.

    The Germans themselves were always ambivalent about this latter-day Anglo-American idea of the West and frequently referred to themselves as something in-between, of Mitteleuropa.

    *The ancient Greeks were a part of the eastern Mediterranean-Levantine-Middle Eastern cultural and economic oikumene of the ancient times. Then the Romans who dominated the "Mare Nostrum" claimed the former as their intellectual forebears. In turn, the Germanic peoples did the same with the Romans, and the Anglo-Americans (who are, in the main, not actually Germanic, but Brythonic in origin) did the same with the Germanic peoples of the Völkerwanderung.

    So with "the West," there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks (and even from the river civilizations of the Middle East according to some) that are disconnected from the biological reality. This is in contrast with, say, the Chinese civilization in which intellectual origins and genetic continuity are much more consistent and concrete and much less imagined.

    Finally, there is a tendency among WN-types of conflating "whites" with "the West." This is not historically, factually accurate. (Ethnic) Russians are white, but they have never been of the West and did not play any significant role in constructing, either philosophically or materially, what we today call the West.

    P.S. I keep getting the message to "slow down" when I try to comment. What gives?

    I don’t know what the admixture between Gaul, Britania, Germania, Rome, Macedonia, and Egypt over the last 2,500 years. There was obviously some, but I don’t think civilization primarily by biology. Constantine started in Britain and ended up in Turkey, presaging Western Civ’s transition from Rome to Christendom.

    My working definition (which I’m happy to have corrected), is Ancient Greece->Rome->Christendom (including Crusader territory)->Enlightenment->Some combination of industrialization and liberal democracy. The biological circumference of Western Civ expanded with each transition, but in the last one it seems like it has expanded too fast and is now bursting.

  229. @Rosie

    And that photo does not indicate that the man in question was a member of Unite the right or counter protestor — more importantly there’s no evidence he was arrested for being white.
     
    Imagine being this utterly clueless.

    I guess there's no evidence this guy (anyone know who he is?) is being manhandled for being White, either. If the cops did anything to stop it, that would be "supporting White supremacists."

    http://www.davidduke.com//images/jared-taylor-attacked-by-jewish-sponsored-marxists.jpg

    When and where is that picture from?

    • Replies: @Rosie

    When and where is that picture from?
     
    Years ago, somewhere in Canada if I'm not mistaken. Canada doesn't have absolute free speech as in the First Amendment, but I'm pretty sure speech vigilantism would not be tolerated against anyone but a White man.
  230. @Twodees Partain
    Yes, that has been happening to me a lot lately, even after only one previous post on a thread. It does make one want to limit replies to short blurbs. Maybe it's a WP feature that RU could turn off. If so, i'd like it if he did turn it off.

    I’ll pass it along. Occasionally the same happens to me, though the comment still ends up posting.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Thanks. The last time that happened to me, the comment was posted as well.
  231. @dfordoom

    So with “the West,” there is an imagined continuity from the ancient Greeks
     
    Also medieval civilisation was not a continuation of the ancient classical civilisation. It was a whole new civilisation with a radically different mindset and radically different cultural values. The two civilisations had very little in common. And medieval civilisation was not just classical civilisation with Christianity added on.

    The European civilisation that developed after the Reformation was a whole new civilisation with a radically different mindset and radically different cultural values. It had little in common with either classical or medieval civilisations.

    We are not the heirs of classical Athens. Our way of understanding the world would be incomprehensible to them.

    Is Scholasticism not a fusion of medieval Europe and ancient Greece? Aquinas bridges the two into a single figure, doesn’t he?

  232. @dfordoom

    No nation in history before modernity ever denied heritage as a way to determine who can belong in said nation.
     
    If fact no state in history prior to the late 18th century would have had the foggiest notion of what you mean by heritage.

    It's worth pointing out that ideas like national self-determination and nation states based on ethnicity are in historical terms very modern ideas.

    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?
     
    If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European I think you'd be shocked by their cultural alienness. If you tried to explain your modern worldview to them they'd be mystified and horrified. Try explaining modern views on political sovereignty to someone who thinks that sovereignty comes from a king anointed by God.
  233. @Rosie

    Especially empires or nations that were entirely run by a minority elite that simply took over. They kept functioning even as the torch passed to the new rulers. The Norman conquest of England and replacement of the ruling land-holding elite comes to mind.
     
    But there is a reason we call it a "conquest." Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection. Doom is wrong. Nationalism is not new. What is new is the idea that strong nations are duty-bound to recognize the sovereignty and identity of weaker ones. That's it.

    Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection.

    So why weren’t the English trying to kick out the foreign Norman invaders and restore a native English king? Why did the Egyptians accept being ruled by a foreign Macedonian ruling elite for three hundred years? Why did the Roman Empire survive for so long? Why didn’t the Hungarians fight to regain their independence from the German Hapsburgs? Why don’t the Bretons want to break away from France? Why did the Poles elect so many non-Polish kings? Why do the Russians consider the German Catherine the Great to be one of the greatest of Russia’s rulers? Where did the Arab Empire come from? Why aren’t the British bothered by having a German royal family? Why did Hungarians, Croats, Italians and Walloons fight for the German Queen-Empress Maria-Theresa? Why did the subject peoples of the Roman Empire fight for Rome?

    Until the 18th century states came into existence by conquest or by dynastic manoeuvres, in other words marriage. Nationalism did not exist. The concept did not exist. States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.

    • Replies: @Talha
    I know when I visited my wife’s relatives in Sweden, I learned that they were historically German mercenaries and that their move into Scandinavia (first Norway and then Sweden) was a relatively new one of less than a couple of centuries ago. But they considered themselves as Swedish as anyone else there and they disliked Germans (my wife’s grandfather was drafted into the Swedish navy during WW2 and they were always ready in case Germany decided to pull the same deal as it had done in Norway). In fact, I would say that I easily liked Germans more than her family did.

    in other words marriage
     
    Big time. In another thread, I mentioned how Alexander arranged a wedding between 80 of his officers and Persian noble women. There were Christian armies fighting along Turks in multiple battles against other Christians because that prince or king was the brother in law of the Sultan/Caliph.

    States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.
     
    A great example of the contrast between now and then is the relationship between the Turks and the Kurds. The Kurds were some of the most loyal subjects of the Ottoman caliphs, but that all changed to mostly animosity between the two peoples now:
    “...the Kurdish population had immense regard for the Caliph and saw him as a fatherly figure...Especially among the Kurds, the caliphate had been held in high esteem. When, at the outset of the First World War, the Sultan in his capacity of Caliph or supreme leader of all Orthodox Muslims proclaimed a jihad, most Kurds rallied to the call. The large sums that had been spent by Russians in an attempt to buy some Kurdish chiefs’ loyalties were of no avail, nor could emotional appeals by Kurdish nationalists complete agains the Caliph’s word…As Van Bruneissen observes, it was not until this supra-ethnic bond was severed with the elimination of the caliphate that ‘more or less nationalist-inspired revolts’ began to emerge among the Kurds.”
    Longing for the Lost Caliphate: A Transregional History (Princeton Univ. Press)

    It should also be noted that even when a nation was one general ethno-linguistic group, it was often that it was held together by one dominant clan or tribe (or even city) imposing its will on the rest and keeping them together as a “nation” - so in this regard, the idea that someone was exerting force upon others as subjects is a moot point for these situations.

    Peace.
    , @Rosie
    I don't deny that subjects can be bought off. Certainly Imperial rule that allows for broad local autonomy is more acceptable than totalitarian repression, but the fact remains that subject peoples will attempt to regain their independence when a realistic opportunity presents itself. Like all forms of oppression, imperialism is costly.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The history of the Roman empire is one of many proto-nationalist uprisings against Roman rule, especially in the north, but of course also in the middle east involving every UR reader's favorite people.
  234. @Audacious Epigone
    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?

    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?

    If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European I think you’d be shocked by their cultural alienness. If you tried to explain your modern worldview to them they’d be mystified and horrified. Try explaining modern views on political sovereignty to someone who thinks that sovereignty comes from a king anointed by God.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European..."

    That reminds me of a joke,

    An ancient Athenian, a medieval European and a Viking walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, "Get the fuck outta here."
    , @Mr. Rational
    I'm pretty sure you're right.

    We've had multiple revolutions in ways we current-peoples barely understand.
    , @Anounder
    https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2018/10/10/disowning-the-greeks/

    See also this blog.
  235. @EliteCommInc.
    My position is that you demonstrate you claim. Photos of people simply is insufficient.


    And contrary to your suggestion, I would not reject circumstantial scenarios that might build support for your claim. And you have yet to meet that lower threshold of support. Hint: look at what is happening on college campuses --- there is some room that at some institutions what you claim is taking place.


    However, those scenarios do not indicate policies or any formal procedure. And protesters who have so engaged have been arrested, jailed and or fined.

    Use proper reply links so it’s obvious WHO you are responding to, idiot.

  236. @Audacious Epigone
    I'll pass it along. Occasionally the same happens to me, though the comment still ends up posting.

    Thanks. The last time that happened to me, the comment was posted as well.

  237. @dfordoom

    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?
     
    If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European I think you'd be shocked by their cultural alienness. If you tried to explain your modern worldview to them they'd be mystified and horrified. Try explaining modern views on political sovereignty to someone who thinks that sovereignty comes from a king anointed by God.

    “If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European…”

    That reminds me of a joke,

    An ancient Athenian, a medieval European and a Viking walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, “Get the fuck outta here.”

    • LOL: Talha
  238. @dfordoom

    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?
     
    If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European I think you'd be shocked by their cultural alienness. If you tried to explain your modern worldview to them they'd be mystified and horrified. Try explaining modern views on political sovereignty to someone who thinks that sovereignty comes from a king anointed by God.

    I’m pretty sure you’re right.

    We’ve had multiple revolutions in ways we current-peoples barely understand.

  239. @dfordoom

    Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection.
     
    So why weren't the English trying to kick out the foreign Norman invaders and restore a native English king? Why did the Egyptians accept being ruled by a foreign Macedonian ruling elite for three hundred years? Why did the Roman Empire survive for so long? Why didn't the Hungarians fight to regain their independence from the German Hapsburgs? Why don't the Bretons want to break away from France? Why did the Poles elect so many non-Polish kings? Why do the Russians consider the German Catherine the Great to be one of the greatest of Russia's rulers? Where did the Arab Empire come from? Why aren't the British bothered by having a German royal family? Why did Hungarians, Croats, Italians and Walloons fight for the German Queen-Empress Maria-Theresa? Why did the subject peoples of the Roman Empire fight for Rome?

    Until the 18th century states came into existence by conquest or by dynastic manoeuvres, in other words marriage. Nationalism did not exist. The concept did not exist. States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.

    I know when I visited my wife’s relatives in Sweden, I learned that they were historically German mercenaries and that their move into Scandinavia (first Norway and then Sweden) was a relatively new one of less than a couple of centuries ago. But they considered themselves as Swedish as anyone else there and they disliked Germans (my wife’s grandfather was drafted into the Swedish navy during WW2 and they were always ready in case Germany decided to pull the same deal as it had done in Norway). In fact, I would say that I easily liked Germans more than her family did.

    in other words marriage

    Big time. In another thread, I mentioned how Alexander arranged a wedding between 80 of his officers and Persian noble women. There were Christian armies fighting along Turks in multiple battles against other Christians because that prince or king was the brother in law of the Sultan/Caliph.

    States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.

    A great example of the contrast between now and then is the relationship between the Turks and the Kurds. The Kurds were some of the most loyal subjects of the Ottoman caliphs, but that all changed to mostly animosity between the two peoples now:
    “…the Kurdish population had immense regard for the Caliph and saw him as a fatherly figure…Especially among the Kurds, the caliphate had been held in high esteem. When, at the outset of the First World War, the Sultan in his capacity of Caliph or supreme leader of all Orthodox Muslims proclaimed a jihad, most Kurds rallied to the call. The large sums that had been spent by Russians in an attempt to buy some Kurdish chiefs’ loyalties were of no avail, nor could emotional appeals by Kurdish nationalists complete agains the Caliph’s word…As Van Bruneissen observes, it was not until this supra-ethnic bond was severed with the elimination of the caliphate that ‘more or less nationalist-inspired revolts’ began to emerge among the Kurds.”
    Longing for the Lost Caliphate: A Transregional History (Princeton Univ. Press)

    It should also be noted that even when a nation was one general ethno-linguistic group, it was often that it was held together by one dominant clan or tribe (or even city) imposing its will on the rest and keeping them together as a “nation” – so in this regard, the idea that someone was exerting force upon others as subjects is a moot point for these situations.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    To extend all the way back to ancient Greece again, the Delian League is a perfect example of that last paragraph.
  240. @dfordoom

    I see a continuity extending all the way back to Sparta, Corinth, and Athens. No?
     
    If you got together in a bar and had a few drinks with an ancient Athenian and a medieval European I think you'd be shocked by their cultural alienness. If you tried to explain your modern worldview to them they'd be mystified and horrified. Try explaining modern views on political sovereignty to someone who thinks that sovereignty comes from a king anointed by God.
  241. @dfordoom

    Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection.
     
    So why weren't the English trying to kick out the foreign Norman invaders and restore a native English king? Why did the Egyptians accept being ruled by a foreign Macedonian ruling elite for three hundred years? Why did the Roman Empire survive for so long? Why didn't the Hungarians fight to regain their independence from the German Hapsburgs? Why don't the Bretons want to break away from France? Why did the Poles elect so many non-Polish kings? Why do the Russians consider the German Catherine the Great to be one of the greatest of Russia's rulers? Where did the Arab Empire come from? Why aren't the British bothered by having a German royal family? Why did Hungarians, Croats, Italians and Walloons fight for the German Queen-Empress Maria-Theresa? Why did the subject peoples of the Roman Empire fight for Rome?

    Until the 18th century states came into existence by conquest or by dynastic manoeuvres, in other words marriage. Nationalism did not exist. The concept did not exist. States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.

    I don’t deny that subjects can be bought off. Certainly Imperial rule that allows for broad local autonomy is more acceptable than totalitarian repression, but the fact remains that subject peoples will attempt to regain their independence when a realistic opportunity presents itself. Like all forms of oppression, imperialism is costly.

  242. There is only one solution. Whites need to establish a separate homeland on this continent. The whites who love diversity can continue to live in America. Whites who want their people to continue to exist and want self-determination need to separate.

    There is no other solution. Nonwhites will always see whites as racist even as they come here in massive numbers.

  243. @silviosilver

    As you may note, I clicked the ‘agree’ button in response.
     
    Well, thanks. Nice to know I'm not completely radioactive.

    If you're still listening, then, here's another point in favor of at least trying for racial preservation.

    As individuals, we all know we're going to die. It's inevitable. But that doesn't mean we're indifferent between dying today and dying in fifty years. We understandably try to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

    I don't see why it should be any different racially. Racially, the status quo is terminal. If nothing changes, whites are goners. If you know that the train you're on is going to go off a cliff, you'd do anything to get off it. Even if it was barreling along at 100mph you'd still take your chances jumping off, rather than riding it to certain doom.

    As you note, done rashly, attempts at white preservation can very easily backfire. I get that. My attitude is that any concessions that can be made to various non-white groups that can help win white preservation a critical measure of support very much should be made - and I mean concessions that would actually help, that would not be in vain. (Btw, if anyone can detect more than slight hint of Richard McCulloch in these remarks, they are not wrong. I have been hugely influenced by his work, even I disavow vast reams of it.)

    In this respect, the very worst mistake WNs make is presenting whites as awesome, near-perfect, supermen, and everyone else as worthless worms. Not only is that daft, there's probably no surer way of uniting the rest of the planet against white interests. If WNs remain the sole spokesmen for white interests, then history, I'm sure, will show that the whites who tried the hardest to save their race, did the most to seal its fate.

    WNs make…presenting whites as awesome

    Well…the population of the entire* World wants to evacuate their homelands and immigrate to a white nation. Why is that?

    *correction: surveys show only have would want to immigrate.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I think that is in the early stages of changing wrt Asia.
  244. @EliteCommInc.
    "America already is divided. Whites have long been expected to magnanimously set aside their particular ethnic interest"

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don't require having violated the Constitution.


    My comments should not be construed or twisted to suggest I support: deliberate dysfunctional behavior.

    ---------------------------------------
    "So five out of ten is written “5%.”"

    Not being critical here or facetious --- you mean the decimal point or the missing zero marker. I have issues with math. It took me forever to get that math has no meaning outside of the formulas and that its simply a matter of knowing the formula, plugging in the correct variables and calculating them accurately. Laugh. That's more than enough to remember, but I remain humbled by math as I am my proof reading.

    Identify those particular ethnic interests that don’t require having violated the Constitution.

    Muh Constitution.

    Representatives…shall be apportioned …by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

  245. “Muh Constitution.”

    Your reference makes absolutely no sense to our exchange.

    First, that reference actually violates the principles of the Declaration for which the country was founded. It made it legal to make people (slaves) property of other persons and the rhetorical games the founders used actually violate the spirit of the constitution itself.

    Second, you might want to attend the 13th and 14th amendment which made the ownership, of persons otherwise called property a violation of the constitution.

    Consequence, no human being (men) *mankind” (humans) should ever been slaves in the US and the previous amendments sought top correct that.

    You are digging this hole much deeper.

    Fourth, those amendments empowered the lower and middle classes to challenge the social class structure to better assert their citizenship in full. The fact that the lower and middle class whites did not ensure the same for black citizens is unfortunate.

    However, you have yet to demonstrate a single instance in which a policy has sought to deny whites free speech in violation of the constitution. You have however, made it clear that you will engage in gymnastics to contend make a case for which there is not evidentiary support.

  246. ““Muh Constitution.”

    Further, the reference in question denoting indenturing other humans is not unique to the US, or the colonies.

    What is unique for the colonies is that the clause you reference is a violation of the very reason the country was established in the first place. The case that you have successfully made is that the country in contradition of the principles and spirit of the cause for revolution . . .

    ” . . . that all mean are created equal . . . and endowed by their creator . . .”

    That incomplete contradiction of those principles and in violation of the law in spirit engaged in a rhetorical gymnastics (apparently not unique to you) to deny men (humans) (persons) the very right they claimed for themselves an in so doing set in motion the moral and legal contradictions that remain disasterous even after the civil war.

    The only thing you have succeeded in doing is demonstrating that whites are more than willing to forge a lie to deny others their rights in principle and create laws to further that end. And yet as indicated in the content of both the declaration and the constitution there is no unique case against whites — however, the record is clear that whites have so engaged against others, and interestingly enough against blacks.

    Despite my efforts to provide you same aide, you have pursued a course that makes your claims even harder to demonstrate. In fact, you have laid the foundations for which liberals, democrats, libertarians and others make their case against not only whites, but the country itself.

  247. “idiot.”

    Opinions vary.

  248. @silviosilver
    Alt-lite?

    From what I’ve seen they mostly call themselves ‘New Right’. I get the sense it’s a lot more vague with little discipline and, not being overtly racial, just kinda fade into the mainstream right at this point.

  249. correction:

    “Despite my efforts to provide some aide, you have pursued a course that makes your claims even harder to demonstrate.

  250. @Audacious Epigone
    When and where is that picture from?

    When and where is that picture from?

    Years ago, somewhere in Canada if I’m not mistaken. Canada doesn’t have absolute free speech as in the First Amendment, but I’m pretty sure speech vigilantism would not be tolerated against anyone but a White man.

  251. “Years ago, somewhere in Canada if I’m not mistaken. Canada doesn’t have absolute free speech as in the First Amendment . . .”

    Despite the noted flaws in the photo to the the discussion,

    your use of a photo that has no relation to the US Constitution or to our discussion is deeply disappointing.

    Canada . . . nor the US has an absolute right of free speech . . . but even in Canada your argument fails as does that photo.

    good grief.

  252. @dfordoom

    Subject peoples have always been aware of, and resented, their subjection.
     
    So why weren't the English trying to kick out the foreign Norman invaders and restore a native English king? Why did the Egyptians accept being ruled by a foreign Macedonian ruling elite for three hundred years? Why did the Roman Empire survive for so long? Why didn't the Hungarians fight to regain their independence from the German Hapsburgs? Why don't the Bretons want to break away from France? Why did the Poles elect so many non-Polish kings? Why do the Russians consider the German Catherine the Great to be one of the greatest of Russia's rulers? Where did the Arab Empire come from? Why aren't the British bothered by having a German royal family? Why did Hungarians, Croats, Italians and Walloons fight for the German Queen-Empress Maria-Theresa? Why did the subject peoples of the Roman Empire fight for Rome?

    Until the 18th century states came into existence by conquest or by dynastic manoeuvres, in other words marriage. Nationalism did not exist. The concept did not exist. States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.

    The history of the Roman empire is one of many proto-nationalist uprisings against Roman rule, especially in the north, but of course also in the middle east involving every UR reader’s favorite people.

  253. @Talha
    I know when I visited my wife’s relatives in Sweden, I learned that they were historically German mercenaries and that their move into Scandinavia (first Norway and then Sweden) was a relatively new one of less than a couple of centuries ago. But they considered themselves as Swedish as anyone else there and they disliked Germans (my wife’s grandfather was drafted into the Swedish navy during WW2 and they were always ready in case Germany decided to pull the same deal as it had done in Norway). In fact, I would say that I easily liked Germans more than her family did.

    in other words marriage
     
    Big time. In another thread, I mentioned how Alexander arranged a wedding between 80 of his officers and Persian noble women. There were Christian armies fighting along Turks in multiple battles against other Christians because that prince or king was the brother in law of the Sultan/Caliph.

    States were united by loyalty to a king or emperor even if the kingdom comprised a multiplicity of ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages.
     
    A great example of the contrast between now and then is the relationship between the Turks and the Kurds. The Kurds were some of the most loyal subjects of the Ottoman caliphs, but that all changed to mostly animosity between the two peoples now:
    “...the Kurdish population had immense regard for the Caliph and saw him as a fatherly figure...Especially among the Kurds, the caliphate had been held in high esteem. When, at the outset of the First World War, the Sultan in his capacity of Caliph or supreme leader of all Orthodox Muslims proclaimed a jihad, most Kurds rallied to the call. The large sums that had been spent by Russians in an attempt to buy some Kurdish chiefs’ loyalties were of no avail, nor could emotional appeals by Kurdish nationalists complete agains the Caliph’s word…As Van Bruneissen observes, it was not until this supra-ethnic bond was severed with the elimination of the caliphate that ‘more or less nationalist-inspired revolts’ began to emerge among the Kurds.”
    Longing for the Lost Caliphate: A Transregional History (Princeton Univ. Press)

    It should also be noted that even when a nation was one general ethno-linguistic group, it was often that it was held together by one dominant clan or tribe (or even city) imposing its will on the rest and keeping them together as a “nation” - so in this regard, the idea that someone was exerting force upon others as subjects is a moot point for these situations.

    Peace.

    To extend all the way back to ancient Greece again, the Delian League is a perfect example of that last paragraph.

    • Agree: Talha
  254. @Hippopotamusdrome


    WNs make...presenting whites as awesome

     

    Well...the population of the entire* World wants to evacuate their homelands and immigrate to a white nation. Why is that?

    *correction: surveys show only have would want to immigrate.

    I think that is in the early stages of changing wrt Asia.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS