White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals
John Savage at Brave New World Watch recently started a series of interesting threads. The Cases That Judge Auster Won’t Hear was related to my last post, Auster and Anti-Anti-Semitism. Auster commented on John's post and also linked to it from Savage Discovers White Nationalism, where he provides 1, 2, 3, 4 windows into his thinking about what he calls "the Jewish issue".Auster's persecution complex is palpable and I daresay hypocritical considering the thoughtless smears he directs toward anyone he deems anti-semitic. The hyperbole he has thrown at me, and now John, and those 4 windows do a decent job of illustrating just that. But this post is not about Auster, or anti-anti-semitism, except to the extent that these things relate to and interfere with White self-determination.
I have gone digging in the weeks since I wrote White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism in an attempt to figure out just what White nationalism means, what jews have to do with it, and why so many jews oppose it. I have come across many interesting sources, some of which I added to the links on the right side of this page. Many of these sources discuss White self-determination and speak frankly about "the Jewish issue" without advocating bellicosity toward jews. I find three particularly informative and insightful.
The first source, Yggdrasil's Library, consists primarily of essays written and posted to the alt.politics.nationalism.white newsgroup in the mid-to-late 1990s. I don't agree with some of what Yggdrasil writes, and I haven't read everything. In places it is dated, and in others prescient. To get a flavor of his thinking I refer you to:
- What is a Race?
- Exploitation
- Race Bias #41 - "What do They Know?"
- Why White Nationalism?
- The Sigmund Freud Card
- Culture Wars #1 - Talking in "Code"
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."Here Bob explains why he repeats this mantra. Here are his thoughts on jews.
"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."
"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."
"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"
"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"
"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"
"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."
"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."
"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
The third source is Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist and author whose interest to me stems from his analysis of jewish culture and thinking, and how they influence Whites. I have not yet read any of his books. What I have read at MacDonald's blog and a few papers is somewhat technical, but his assertions are supported by facts and well-reasoned arguments. Even so he is vilified by anti-anti-semites. For a mild example consider Auster's Is my criticism of Jewish attitudes the same as Kevin MacDonald’s?
Auster writes:
He says that the Jewish people as Jewish people pursue a conscious agenda aimed at destroying European civilization.His correspondent Paul Gottfried writes:
What MacDonald does is assume that nasty anti-Christian behavior engaged in by some Jews is something far more profitable than it is.Auster's accusation projects onto MacDonald the kind of bad faith Auster imagines MacDonald projects onto jews. In other words Auster dislikes MacDonald because he thinks MacDonald dislikes jews. (Which is the same reason he dislikes me.) The point of this is...what exactly? MacDonald may or may not dislike jews. Auster may hate MacDonald, or Whites in general. Does that change the objective truth of their statements? Does that mean the rest of us should be forbidden from hearing any of their statements? I don't think so.
For what it's worth I don't get the impression MacDonald dislikes jews any more than Auster dislikes Whites. In what I've read MacDonald often repeats his belief that jewish group behavior involves large amounts of self-deception. He doesn't believe they have a conscious agenda other than "good is what's good for jews". MacDonald argues from an evolutionary standpoint, which does a better job of explaining the revolutionary tendencies of individual jews than anything I've read by Auster. And speaking of evolution, Gottfried neglects to consider that profit, in evolutionary terms, is measured in survival. Group survival isn't necessarily profitable to the individual worker ants, and it doesn't have to look profitable to them either.
- - -
It is in light of all of the above that I am prompted to write in response to John Savage's thread and its unusual but welcome discussion of White interests vis-a-vis jews. I had already posted some comments there when Must Speak Anonymously wrote:
My beef with Auster is that he’s always saying we can have a particular culture. That culture must involve some hierarchy and inequality. That religion is an essential part of culture, and the content of the Islamic religion is why the Islamic world is illiberal, nondemocratic, and also Anti-Christian and Anti-Western. In other words, culture is more than laws and procedures but also songs, values, folkways, and a sense of kinship. But here in the West that culture must embrace two diametrically opposed religious communities, the content of Judaism, the social tendencies of Jews (particularly nonreligious Jews), the vanguard aspect of Jews with respect to liberalism and a decline in white (Christian) solidarity, and the ways that the Jewish religion and Jews themselves have always been in conflict with Christian and even non-Christian societies is declared beyond the pale, something that cannot be discussed by serious people.I agree. Until and unless anyone, "serious" or not, is free to openly identify and analyze problems it's difficult to agree upon sensible solutions. There are people who want to discuss White interests but are actively discouraged from doing so. This is a problem. Anti-anti-semitism, and anti-racism, and PC in general cause this problem by stifling discussion. PC is the first problem that has to be solved in order to then freely discuss and solve any of the other problems PC masks.
Now I don’t favor some of the more extreme measures counseled here. I don’t quite know what I favor. But I do think these topics should be criticized and discussed by serious people, but they’re not. Instead, we’re subject to a drumbeat, particularly in public schools and universities, about the evil of the West, traditional masculinity, Christianity, etc. Anti-semitism, like racism, is invoked by Jews and their lackeys to stop honest criticism, as if the choice is Treblinka or silence.
In short, our entire culture is under assault, Jews have spear-headed this line of criticism because they carried with them the elitism and anti-authority bent from Russia, and we’re all supposed to pretend this new consensus is the fault of “liberalism” or “modernism” as if it had no authors.
Auster plays a typical game of double standards. He wants us to make sensible generalizations about blacks and Muslims. But he wants us to judge every Jew as an individual, a special case, as anything but the member of a vast group with very different ideas about what America and the West is and should be about. He really thinks all of his critics are too stupid to see this game of double standards. For instnace, on blacks, plenty of people at Amren use the word “nigger,” especially in informal conversations. I don’t usually talk this way, but I don’t run away in horror. But if anyone says something far more mild about Jews, Auster demands Jared Taylor calls in the Thought Police.
He’s ethnically loyal to his parents and family. This is normal enough and even forgivable. But that family is part of a bigger family, and that bigger family everywhere it goes is troublesome, involved with changing values, and generally hated after a time.
After Must Speak Anonymously made the comment above the discussion turned to assimilation, in particular about whether American jews had assimilated, why not, and how to force them to do so. This is based on a premise I find flawed.
Assimilation should be voluntary. I don't wish assimilation forced on anyone. I resent that it is being forced upon my family. We don't want to live in a Latin American shithole, but it is being forced on us. We don't want our lives controlled by a government that has failed in its most basic function, national defense, and has morphed into a "proposition nation" where the proposition is compulsory subsidization of global corporations and invading aliens. I don't want the sweat of my brow seized and used to fund schools that indoctrinate their students that non-Whites, feminism, homosexuality, and abortion are inherently good - and Whites are inherently bad.
These are things many Whites consider wrong, and as I have only slowly and recently come to realize, many jews consider them right. Anyone who wishes can freely discuss how inherently nativist or xenophobic or racist or prone to pogroms or just downright stupid Whites are, but nobody in "polite society" is free to make similar generalizations so flatly critical of non-Whites, including jews. In our ultra-tolerant liberal society such criticism is not tolerated, whether it's true or not. This is a double standard. It is wrong. It must end.
One unmentionable truth is that Whites are not in a position to assimilate anyone else because Whites are in fact the ones being assimilated. We are immersed in the culture of progressive-globalist universalism. It is a culture of lies and contradictions where all men are created equal, but non-Whites are more equal and jews are the most equal of all. Shit is art. Perversion is glorified. Materialism rules. The Holy Global Economy is god. Wrong is right and right is wrong. PC egalitarians inform us that the White race is a mere social construct, even while Whites are openly and consciously blamed, disenfranchised, and displaced. The obvious end, if not the intent, is liquidation. To top it off none of this may be discussed in our craven "polite society" because to do so is "politically incorrect". To those who point out that Whites are complicit in this, well yes I agree many are. There were jews complicit in the Holocaust too. We have a word for such behavior. The word is not "excuse". The word is "treason".
I favor separatism. People who don't want to assimilate or even associate with others, for any reason whatsoever, should not be forced to. I find it disturbing that so many jews infer White separatism as "deport all Diaspora jews to Israel", or worse. Why, if jews have Zion, can they not understand or tolerate the notion of a White Albion? White self-determination, whether separatism or nationalism, is about what's good for Whites, just as Zionism is about what's good for jews. The enemies of Whites will concede only the latter point, or neither, and none of them will squarely face the inconsistency.
Many people have felt compelled to uproot and flee the unhealthy consequences of the "diversity" that totalitarian liberals, including a preponderance of jews, have seen fit to force on us. I advocate a nation where force is used toward a different goal: protecting Whites. I see many practical problems with creating and maintaining such a nation, but I do not accept that it is immoral or impermissible to discuss the exclusion of anyone, for any reason, whether it's jews, latinos, muslims, blacks, asians, lepers, eskimos, or totalitarian liberals. I would move to such a nation immediately, no matter where or how small, and would have much less cause to complain. I would happily pay my taxes and urge my progeny to serve in the government and the military, all things which I will not do under the current anti-White regime.
Labels: john savage, kevin macdonald, lawrence auster, paul gottfried, robert whitaker, white nationalism, yggdrasil
posted by Tanstaafl at 1/07/2008 03:44:00 AM
66 Comments:
Tanstaafl, actually I rather hope for separatism as well. But it seems most people would be more open to initially taking an assimilative approach. Upon realizing that Jews are a disruptive minority, their first thought wouldn't be, "Let's kick them out," it would be, "Let's make them like us." What I've said is that any sort of awakening, especially after it leads to legal discrimination against Jews, would probably cause most Jews to leave spontaneously. They think America is anti-Semitic now, even though there are really very few who realize what's going on. If they had to cope with palpable discrimination regularly, they would feel threatened and leave.
That's just my rationale for considering the proposals I've raised. You may be right after all.
My approach, I'm sure you'll say, does leave the difficulty that Jews could pretend to "assimilate", while secretly continuing to undermine America. But there are plenty of other places they could go where they wouldn't even be subject to suspicion. I think they would prefer leaving to falsely pretending to assimilate.
There are both separatisits and asimilists among us. Some of the past "complaints" lodged on this and other blogs has been entire towns dominated by latinos - even the major advertisements on the retail shop windows in Spanish instead of English. Your separtism has begun and your at the wrong end of the stick.
This separatism has been clear in New York for centuries with predominantly jewish, irish, italian, black, hispanic, chinese, japanese, etc. enclaves and towns throughout the tri-state area. Does anyone complain when the signs in "spanish" harlem are in spanish, chinese in chinatown, polish in greenpoint?
This concept of assimilation assumes what? What minimum standards must you comply with to be considered an "assimilated" minority? Assimilation has been the governments' (plural on purpose since our govt changes continuously) misguided attempt to distribute wealth AND voting power amidst the masses.
Most minorities desire and do prefer separatism. Whether you are "pushed out" or follow the "white flight" - the result is the same - separatism. There are many jewish enclaves that have successfully barred non-jews from their neighborhoods. BB's anglo-saxon methodology would be plausible in this function (using the church as the go between to maintain the demographic make up of the community) - but do you really want to be a white enclave of 10,000 in a sea of non-whites?
The primary phase should not be identify the enemies or tackle the PC police - it's close the friggin' borders. And that's an acheivable short term goal.
john, my point is that coercion breeds resentment breeds violence. I support forced separatism rather than forced assimilation for the same reason I'd force a troublesome housemate to leave rather than behave how I like. Pretense is a problem, but my ethics here flow from the golden rule and the attempt to minimize coercion and violence.
If the housemate were stronger then I'd rather leave than have him tell me how to behave.
flippityflopitty, your advice to focus on closing the border rather than ending PC is problematic. The problem is to stop our liquidation we have to do far more than "secure the border", which by the way has become the new disingenuous euphemism of choice for Republican candidates who want to look "tough on immigration". What a crock.
We have to reverse the flow of aliens. Drastically. We have to force out our unruly and burdensome housemates. And yet look at how PC hobbles even the relatively mild holding action of securing the border. As long as PC stands we will never secure our border, and for sure we'll never secure our nation, our house.
OK fine. So then I'll leave the house. But the problem with that is there isn't any place else to go. The West is uniformly ruled by a totalitarian liberal minority, and outside the West the cultures are just as alien and anti-White as the one being forcing on us here.
We are heading for gulags or revolution. Perhaps both.
The history of Political Correctness is that it was coined in Soviet Russia in the early 1920's. But the problem is not just the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church in its Social Doctrine which is the mirror of Communist ideology is also a culprit. Without Rome, there can not be any movement. At Taki's Drawer, there was a discussion in the comment section about non-European immigration into European countries like Australia and America. The Catholics did not like that one bit. The Jews have gotten to the Catholics as well. Here is the link:
Best post yet. Bookmarked. Thank you for the effort... much to consider.
Tanstaafl,
A very powerful, well-written blog entry!
Your transformation into the mindset of the White warrior is practically complete. Imagine what would be possible if every free White person in America thought like yourself. There would literally be no limit to what could be done. Flushing the Latrinos down South of the Border would only be the first step.
Isn't it amazing how risible and ridiculuous our political discourse becomes once you can finally see through the anti-White matrix?! Over the Christmas holiday I had family members telling me how "so-and-so" would "control the border" and "get tough on illegals". Not to mention the fact that many of them were not nasty racists and were (in fact) pro-legal immi[-vasion]. It was revolting.
Our current politics is nothing more than an anti-White media spectacle that I can only gaze upon with horror. It certainly makes one pine for the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Let me emphasize - Primary Phase. If we do not close the borders, there's no point to evictions, there's no point pointing fingers and there's no point calling for anti-white racist recognitions. Its like fixing a broken sewer pipe without stopping the flow - the thing just wont seal.
Get the current nimrods in government to seal all borders and entry into the country. Push kafka-esque security measures on people entering the country.
Once this is reasonably achieved (can I ask for more than this?) - you can try any social engineering experiment you want [I would argue eviction is the next phase]. And keep in mind, that liberal "minority" is a majority. You cant count the non-voting (or mis-voting) in a majority.
The crock and the "so and so's" is what and who we have to work with. What's the point in blogging and/or talking if its followed by inaction. Get a better candidate on the local level and keep the pressure on whoever is in office.
We are fighting $$$$. That leaves only a grass roots option.
flippityfloppity,
I am of the opinion that the borders will never be secured so long as the current anti-White tripe monopolizes American political discourse. In other words, securing the border is conditioned upon a significant number of White Americans breaking through the anti-White matrix and actively demanding sovereignty & control of their country or else...
Unfortunately, I just don't think that an aracial "citizenist" mindset will do the trick. After all, the media can just continue to divide aracial Whites with the propagandistic line that we are a part of a nation of immigrants! So, in my estimation, racial cohesion amongst Whites is the ticket to getting some semblance of our country back. RudyMcRomney "conservatism" will only continue our slow decline much less "close the border".
You Said: "The crock and the "so and so's" is what and who we have to work with. What's the point in blogging and/or talking if its followed by inaction."
Well, I've supported and donated to the Ron Paul campaign. But I have no illusions that even if he was elected (as unlikely as that is) I doubt he'd actually curtail the current massive legal non-White immigration to the U.S. (much less actually deport the current invaders).
Honestly though the best work I can do is to help as many White Americans break through the anti-White matrix as soon as possible. We can't yet form a significant political movement since we're currently too isolated and small in number. Like others I borrow heavily from the material I read on the internet in my attempts to reach other Whites. So, that's what I do.
"... for family and personal well-being as being a higher priority than extended kin, ethnic or racial interests." - or aracial "citizenist" interests.
sk -
I may disagree with the "racial" argument - but, I do not want you to drop your line if you believe in it. We share goals - and I fully understand the white-anti-white sentiment is a functional part of the solution. Without this dynamic its a big barking dog with no teeth.
What I am saying is "spreading the word" isnt enough. Particularly when the "word" you are spreading will be dispelled by the masses and a scant few may pick up and support the cause. Sadly, the only real means we have is to work the system FROM BOTH SIDES.
Our representatives work off sound bites and polls. We need to rally beyond the "save whitey" cause and expose the problems on many platforms. If there is any hope of influencing government (starting with border security & shutdown), it will not be by sending Ron Paul $1,000.00 - it will be by supporting representatives on the local, state and fed levels who share a common thread.
We cannot change this monstrosity overnight - we can accomplish a single goal. Get the word out on a single "aracial" issue and press ALL your politicians.
Dont stop blogging. Dont stop thinking. But work the other side - one goal at a time.
Close the friggin' borders.
flippityflopitty,
Since we're both trying to get to the same place I also would not discourage you from taking the path you deem the most successful.
However, I remain skeptical of any attempt to build up a local, grassroots political movement which serves as an advocate for measures designed to "save Whitey" (i.e. "close the border", "deport the illegals", "end affirmative action", etc.) but is also aracial in tone. For one reason, the aracial citizenist advocacy of "save Whitey" measures has been one of the main appeals of the modern GOP to White Americans and this hasn't prevented the party from being co-opted (and controlled) by the anti-White "other" who are content to promise us such things in the election season and then proceed to abandon us during their tenure in office.
Furthermore, nearly all Americans are continuously conditioned (via public education, television, movies, political discourse, music, etc.) from childhood through adulthood to associate anything that indirectly "saves Whitey" with ultra-racialist Nazi Germany. Ergo, aracial citizenist attempts to "save Whitey" at some point bump into comparisons with the Third Reich (from the media) and trigger a near unconscious conditioning in White Americans that makes them "all bark and no bite" in order to avoid the hateful Nazi/KKK/Hitler label.
One more element to consider is that as the American (and in fact the world) population has continued to swell our society has developed more efficient, technologically driven mechanisms that provide for the population via economies of scale. The power behind such vehicles that make use of these economies of scale is much more consolidated and outside the control of the White yeoman. Hence, large agribusinesses replace smaller more independent farms and the ultra-efficient retail giant Wal-Mart replaces smaller locally run stores in many American cities (even in more rural locations). These changes (necessary to sustain a larger population) have had the disorienting effect of breaking White America's local communal ties making aracial organization against the anti-White efficiently organized "spectacle" much more difficult.
Because of the above reasons I recommend firmly grabbing the bull by the horns in a way that seeks to systematically break the anti-White conditioning, which associates the advocacy of anything that "saves Whitey" with Nazis/KKK/Hitler/slavery/Jim Crow. Such a movement would not only be powerful but is (more importantly) possible since it directly appeals to the natural (powerful!) survival instincts in many ordinary Whites.
I will be the first to admit that breaking the anti-White conditioning in our White brethren can be quite difficult but it can be done since we have in our corner latent forces of nature (survival instincts) and the truth (non-White dominated regions are shit holes). These powerful tools can (theoretically) be successfully marshaled into a kind of movement that can break the anti-White conditioning. And once the anti-White conditioning is broken we'll finally have a bite to go along with our bark.
A great example of an aracial citizenist attempt that has become more bark than bite (in order to avoid the Nazi/KKK/Hitler/Racist label) is www.alipac.us
ALIPAC's attempt to "close the border" and "deport the illegals" is couched in language that is only against illegal immigration but is in fact all for mass legal immigration (theoretically once the amnesty bill finally passes ALIPAC members will be contented to the fact that at least the illegals are now "legal"). Organizations like this have had some success stopping Congressional attempts at amnesty but they are impotent to the cause of reversing the third-worldization of America, which will require something far more radical than an implicit attempt to "save Whitey" that is stricken with the fear of being labeled "racist".
As a footnote, my current conclusion on these organizations was not formed by a lack of trying to work within them myself.
I agree with skeptical. I arrived where I'm at by working within "aracial" anti-immigration lines. It was all I knew, and all I thought proper, because I was deracinated. But what finally dawned on me was that the anti-immigration effort was hamstrung by the ever-present "nativist", "xenophobe", "racist" smears. Derailed and stymied by accusations that "all you care about is Whites". It didn't appear that way to me, but it got me wondering if it was true.
Whether or not the accusation was true, I could see it was hypocritical. The loudest voice in favor of open borders is Latinos. They organize along ethnic/racial lines, and they base their arguments on what's good for "the race" and "our people".
What I also eventually noticed was that the media and anti-racists made virtually no criticism of Latino ethnocentrism, even though they see White racism everywhere. I began to see that jews are an even more powerful, more ethnocentric group that favors open borders and that they have great influence in the media and politics. I saw that this is not generally known, certainly not to deracinated whites. I saw it is taboo to discuss jewish power, especially if you criticize its wisdom. I began to see the "anti-White matrix". And it made sense once I realized that many people I had thought were White didn't see themselves that way at all. Not just white-skinned Latinos, but white-skinned jews too.
There are three common arguments for Whites to reject group interests: that such ideas spring from knuckdragging ignorance, that there is no such thing as "White", and that Whites don't need such ideas because we are a powerful majority. None of them is true.
The biological basis for group affinity is perfectly natural. This fact and it's consequences are unavoidable. Obviously it goes deeper than skin color. It is ignorance that makes it possible for Whites to deny the reality of race, to fracture into ethnic subgroups and deny that we also form a larger whole. Ignorance keeps us from seeing that other even more geographically and genetically diverse groups unapologetically pursue their own interests, and that those interests conflict with ours. It is ignorance to believe that Whites are powerful or a majority. We are a minority in this world. Our nations are being invaded by third-world non-Whites because we are not powerful. We are faced with liqudation because we are ignorant that it is happening.
Whites have a right to nations where we are a true majority and where we can pursue our own interests. Yes, as desmond jones says, there will be class and ethnic divisions. There will be poverty and crime. But there will be no more anti-White propaganda, and there will be no more guilt-tripping to justify helping other groups at the expense of Whites. No more racial animus. To argue that we had such an arrangement and it failed neglects to consider that we have the capacity to learn from past mistakes.
Talking about these things is the only way to wake other Whites up, for the benefit of all of us. Hopefully it is not too late. But as I have said, Duty Does Not Calculate the Chances of Success.
But there will be no more anti-White propaganda, and there will be no more guilt-tripping to justify helping other groups at the expense of Whites.
With all due respect Mr. T. there will be. Whether it's the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, the Polish Heritage Club of Madison or the Catholic church there will always be this "all men are created equal" meme that has served to disconnect blood from soil.
I belong to the Polish club because I am the grandchild of immigrants who left not a nation but a homeland over a hundred years ago. Poland was partitioned among other nation-states. We were, and I consider myself to be, Polish. Yes, in my estimation, I am both an American and a person of Polish descent.
Why do I categorize myself in this way? When I was 8 years old, someone disparaged my language, my culture, and my people on a bus in Chicago because my mother and I were speaking Polish. I refused to think then, and to this day don't believe, that being an American required me to speak only English and to disown my relatives who fought wars for this country, worked at dangerous jobs to feed us, and paid taxes.
So, I belong to my Polish club, eat my Polish food, celebrate my holidays in a Polish manner, and carry the banner of my ancestral land in my heart.
April 10, I marched with people whose immigrant status causes some of my co-nationals to squirm. They are called by various names -- Hispanics, Latinos, Chicanos.
Some of them, who have come to the United States without prior approval of our governmental agencies, are branded as criminals, shiftless people who absorb U.S. citizens' monies for their existence. Marchers bore hand-printed signs that read "Soy trabajador, no ratero" -- "I am a hard-worker, not a freeloader" -- and "My Dad is my hero, he isn't a criminal." Their speeches in English and Spanish espoused social justice for all.
Who was the evil, hate-filled someone? It's been almost a century since this woman's ancestors arrived in the US and yet the resentment, for native Americans, runs as deep as if it were yesterday.
In effect, the disproportionate impact of Jewish interest groups grew in relation to their alliance with not just the non-white groups, blacks, yellows and browns, but also minority white groups, who saw an opportunity to support their ethnic interest at the expense of the native founding people. It's why "whiteness" is not a starting point, IMO. Mass Polish immigration to the UK or mass Romanian immigration to Italy is as displeasureable for the native working class as mass Indian immigration. There must be more to it than just separateness and whiteness.
Supposing the worst (well, within the separatist context). Suppose that the politics plays out that the border doesn't get closed, immigrants from latin America, Somalia, the mideast, and elsewhere continue to arrive, and the white population drops to half or less of the total (and of that half or less, there'll be a good fraction that still insist everything's ok and all people are equal/same and being American is a propositional matter and racism is evil). What then?
I have been thinking for a while that identifying areas where immigration doesn't seem to penetrate much could be useful. West Virginia and Newfoundland are two such. Of course the economies aren't as rich as, for instance, the tech corridors, but that's precisely what helps insulate them.
Before I post my thoughts: your posts are of monumental importance, Tanstaafl; thank you for joining the fearless in openly broaching this subject - perhaps the most important for White survival.
I have thought of separation in the past. I have even discussed such an idea, some years ago, with a person who I greatly admire. Following a page out of Atlas Shrugged he believed that we could simply break off from the rest of the United States, perhaps without announcing it or making much noise, to simply up and go our separate way.
I have convinced him otherwise.
The war in Yugoslavia was not remotely the concern of the United States or most European powers for that matter; it was a "family affair".
Even after suffering a terrible series of attacks (for killing exactly 0 Americans), the Serbs were still not left in peace; now their most holy of lands is to be given to a mahommedan enemy. Why? They are (majority) White Christians who - if not for American interference - would have thoroughly defeated the mahommedans (in this case "white" as well, but like "white" jews hold NO allegiance with Whites). Horrible atrocities and true "ethnic cleansing" have taken place in Kosovo, including the desecration (sh*tting on the Altar, for example) of virtually all remaining Orthodox Christian Churches. I ask, if Serbs did that to a mosque, particularly if they murdered and raped and desecrated an entire province that once was almost exclusively mahommedan, how many kilotons do you think the US would send to Beograd? My guess is 250 or so.
So...if Whites attempted a separatist movement in the United States, one with real legs and a real chance of succeeding, in light of the fact that America was willing to destroy a nation and crush a people who had not slain one single American in anger and who represented ZERO threat to the powers that be in American business and government, how long until the entire force of the military, FBI, BATF, SWAT units, ordinary police, as well as groups that may be unknown at this time, is brought out against the successionists?
If Whites carved a viable nation out of this one, in West Virginia or Montana, Maine or Alaska, it would be attacked and annihilated without mercy, with most of those fervently supporting the annihilation being whites themselves . I hate to be pessimistic; I believe that we must keep making others aware, perhaps someday (we need it SOON) we will know exactly what is the best road to take. Until then we must be aware, and prepare for the worst. Sadly, I do believe we will come to know that "worst" long before this is all over.
- B.D.
Sk -
I was well on my way to giving up and looking for a new torch to bear when those damned liberal new yorkers did a funny thing. They actually told Gov. "My way or the Highway" Spitzer not to pursue licenses for II's. And then another funny thing happened - Spitzer backed down.
The "everything's ok" crowd needs a wakeup call. Its a multi-front war and we are going to need this crowd to win.
Also, with regards to "whiteness" - many latinos consider themselves "white". DJ makes a valid and I believe a critical point in how separatism doesnt stop with white vs. non-white. Language, culture and religion are concurrent with the separatism you call for.
Im sticking with legal vs. illegal.
Anonymous said:
Before I post my thoughts: your posts are of monumental importance, Tanstaafl; thank you for joining the fearless in openly broaching this subject - perhaps the most important for White survival.
How fearless are you really? You're all posting either anonymously or with pseudonyms.
Its like the KKK wearing hoods over their heads.
If you really want change, stand up with your head held high and say what you want.
desmond, it seems to me that people like the pole whose story you recount are able to feel that way specifically because they don't see themselves as White first and foremost. And that is because our academy, media, and govt work so hard to accomplish that. What if that were not the case?
Mass Polish immigration to the UK or mass Romanian immigration to Italy is as displeasureable for the native working class as mass Indian immigration. There must be more to it than just separateness and whiteness.
There is a difference. Poles and Romanians are at least Europeans, whereas Indians are more different genetically and culturally. That said I support the UK or Italy excluding whoever they want. The "UK", BTW illustrates the flexibility of inclusion/exclusion. If the English, Welsh, Scots, and Irish who have historically fought tooth and nail can come to think of themselves collectively, for their collective good, then so can "Whites".
Anti-racist liberals say they are trying make all humans seem themselves as humans first. What they are actually doing is encouraging everyone to hate Whites. Not Anglo-Saxons. Not Poles. Not Romanians. Whites. Our enemies have identified us. We can ignore the threat. Or we can join and face it.
anonymous, I understand your point. Given the propaganda and immigration trends if Whites continue to be ignorant and divided by factional fighting then we are doomed. Which is why exposing the propaganda and reversing immigration is critically important. I agree it is not enough for long term survival.
Along with Serbia I'd cite the West's treatment of Rhodesia and South Africa. Again, these things happen specifically because there is no pan-White loyalty. If we play along with the anti-racists, or fracture into individual ethnicities that are exterminated one by one, we are doomed. That's why I reject both of those paths.
I agree that as things stand we will not be able to split off a White nation peaceably. I have read about the Order. Pro-White organizations, especially militant ones, are like lightning rods. The way forward is more distributed. Individual awareness. Whites who wake up have a duty to wake up others. The system's anti-White lies are so deep that pointing them out has the same effect as dispensing red pills. Not everyone will accept them. And even if many do it may not suffice. But we must try. I can't live with the multicultural lies. No one who is White can.
flippityflopitty, how far is the legal vs illegal argument getting you?
katrina, I don't consider myself fearless. In fact I think I'm a coward. And a moron to have been so misled for so long. I am however aware that a "head held high" voicing politically incorrect thoughts has a tendency to get pounded down. What difference does it make to the truth if the person who speaks it is anonymous? What kind of insecure and fascist system can't stand criticism from cowardly anonymous morons?
Tan
The Irish do not consider themselves any part of the Commonwealth - and Indians are former members and english-speaking to boot.
Im sure you've all looked into:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_main
This is the way your govt works. If you choose to ignore these methods - you are as effective as the "everything's ok" crowd and will face the continued daunting demographic changes:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee/c7/cngplan1/newtextdocument.html
{california as example - but you get the picture]
White activism alone will lead to a dead end. Im not saying change your stripes, keep your "hoods on" [that's for Katrina] for your belief but fight the other front as well - side by side with non-whites against the whites and non-whites who oppose you.
Frankly FF, I don't see any non-whites that are on my side. If they are racially aware they are for themselves and their kind. In case you haven't noticed those who are half-white and half-something-else tend to side with something-else. Being something-else means they can celebrate their diversity and join in on bashing Whites, instead of being bashed.
Do you not agree that the current regime is anti-White? The anti-racist rhetoric and "Whiteness studies" isn't aimed at white-skinned-latinos or white-skinned-jews. It's aimed at Whites, and that includes the ones who don't even see what's going on.
I agree with Tanstaafl that there aren't any non-whites, except for a mere handful, who are on our side. It may be that some Hispanics consider themselves 'white' but the evidence of our eyes tells us that the vast, vast majority of Latino immigrants of recent years have little to no European ancestry, and they do not consider us gringos as friends but as prey.
As for the legal vs. illegal tack, that is an absolute dead end; what happens if and when amnesty is passed and all the 20 or 30 or 40 million become legal, by the stroke of a pen? Problem solved? Everybody knows the problem goes beyond legal status. But everybody is just afraid of voicing their concerns about the racial and cultural aspects so they hide behind the legalistic concerns.
katrina I notice does not post under her full name but then I suppose she is not voicing a politically incorrect opinion. I blog under a pseudonym for a reason, which I have written about. I am honest in my personal life about my views; in no way do deceive anybody about where I stand, although obviously I have to refrain from expressing all my thoughts in certain situations as we all do.
Is it cowardly to use a pseudonym? Our Founding Fathers, who were no cowards, wrote many of their best essays in anonymous or pseudonymous pamphlets. Discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.
And no matter how brave we care to be, we have loved ones who may be affected by the 'controversial' opinions we express, and why expose them to the possible consequences of our dissent? There have been instances of controversial bloggers being harassed and stalked by readers who think politically incorrect bloggers should be silenced. The internet is a place where it is foolish to put one's personal information out there for all to see and use.
Thank you VA. I didn't mean to imply that everyone who uses a pseudonym is a coward. Just me.
Tanstaafl, no problem. I was not directing my comments at you but at katrina, actually.
-VA
VA you are absolutely correct about using pseudonyms. It has not proven difficult for miscreants to find out the identity of a blogger and to destroy him or at least make his life hell. There are dangerous persons who wish to silence us at all costs . These do not mind "stooping" to threats and slander.
It would be very, very easy for an enemy - be he leftist, neocon-liberal, etc - to lure out a blogger by resorting to the "you're a coward unless you use your real name, address, religion, list of references, hat size, etc" accusation. Then that person would be mercilessly hounded and possibly harmed. Particularly for the questions asked by Tanstaafl et al. If their simple asking of a question can elicit such fury, what might they have to endure if their identity is known? This is why I reject the "coward" notion and pronounce them courageous. Most "anonymous" bloggers still won't dare tackle these problems. They're content to remain behind the looking glass.
Excellent analogy with the Founding Fathers, BTW.
W. (B.) D.
Tan - If your side is being racially aware you are white - then you are right, the aracial crowd is not on your side. If your side is "stop the madness of illegal immigration and give me my country back" then you would be surprised to know there are many non-whites on your side.
Now you know the thoughts of all (or most) of the half-somethings? Call PT Barnum or President Bush - Im sure they could use a man with such talents.
I agree there is a significant anti-white sentiment in our country promoted by the PC crowd (furthered by the enabling self-loathing, guilt-stricken everything is ok crowd).
(frankly? Have you been less than honest before?)
VA - I would agree with your statement(s) for the southwest (particularly border states). You hit on an important point:
"recent years" - the problem with immigration is what has occurred recently - the illegal immigration dominated by latin americans. There are additional non-whites (asian, black, carib) and whites (eastern european, irish) entering illegally as well "contributing" similar problems in the major cities. Why accept them?
Amnesty? Ive been spot on about amnesty - NO! Ive been trying to remind Reagan-philos of his treacherous act in Amnesty Part One - instead of closing the door and kicking people out, he put his foot in the door and let even more in (with alot of help from Congress and the Judiciary).
Illegal vs. legal is simply how you commence residence in this country - if you entered illegally or overstayed your welcome you should be gone. We need to stop illegal immigration immediately. Shut off the sewage line before trying to fix it. I would go further to say stop legal immigration until the illegal problem is fixed.
Katrina - without pseudonyms we would lose FF, VA and Tan and have Joe, Bob and Curly. I see no benefit to that.
Amnesty Part One invokes the idea that there is a Part Deux expected. Re-phrase: The Great Amnesty.
Flippityflopitty makes good sense.
In 1924, Gompers (a British Jew) wrote to Congress in support of the restrictive immigration act then being considered, and ultimately enacted, saying,
"Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength. One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages. The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."
By framing his resistance in this manner, Gompers places the racial burden on his opponents. This is the Dobbs method. It's not about race it's about the middle-class. Thus La Raza, or the Irish Immigration Reform Lobby are the racists because clearly the only reason they must support illegal immigration and then subsequently mass legal immigration is to advance the interests of their ethnic/racial group.
It pits "Americans" against ethnic groups who don't care about the diminishing wages, standard of living of Americans. The "us" becomes aracial and the "them" becomes racial. In addition its a strategy that can be carried to limit legal immigration as well. Mass legal immigration will have the same deleterious effects upon the "American" middle class as mass illegal immigration. Then down the road, if freedom of association can be re-established or just allowing natural segregation to occur you can potentially accomplish your goals, only on more of a neighborhood level.
The other approach is the strategy the Irish employ. Immigration is good, but why are my people being restricted? The Boston Globe writes in March, 2007 that...
Even as Irish influence in cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco waned with the influx of other ethnic groups, Boston remained the last of the big American cities thought of as Irish. But the Irish ancestral makeup of the city shrank 27 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the US Census, and will continue to shrink, given current immigration trends.
According to the Globe the collapse of a distinct Irish ethny, in America in general, and more specifically in Boston, is a bad thing. Why is the gov't discriminating against Irish immigration?
Interestingly, earlier in the article, the write lauds the fact that...
In one generation, Boston was transformed from an overwhelmingly Protestant city in which most of the inhabitants traced their ancestry to England, to a largely Roman Catholic city in which thousands had roots in Ireland. The Irish came to dominate Boston and the metropolitan area -- first its politics, then its commerce -- like no other ethnic group, putting their stamp on a place that is universally regarded as the most Irish city in America.
Ergo, displacing WASPs is something to celebrate, however, displacing the Boston Irish is something to denigrate. Maybe WASPs should scream for their fair share of immigrants. If the Irish can do it, without reproach, why can't the English? And how about the Germans, Poles, Italians etc.? If the nation needs immigration, why does it discriminate against European ethnic groups?
Katrina's comment bothers me. She has a point: writers who actually stand in their own names behind unpopular views merit extra respect. However, some of us have families to support. Katrina knows of the price our families would pay if we gave our true names, and she also knows how unjust that price would be. We are neither politicians nor journalists, only citizens. We make our livings in other lines of work. Would Katrina really impose on us the choice of surrendering either our livelihoods or our right to speak? Because, for some of us, that is the choice.
If Katrina really does not like the pseudonyms, she might focus her effort on creating a culture in which such pseudonyms were unnecessary.
However, at bottom, Katrina is right. The failure to sign one's real name is a sign of prudence; and the line between prudence and cowardice is not always easy to discern.
Changing the subject, Tanstaafl:
History is nonlinear. It brings many surprises and does not lend itself to neat solutions. Is there anything wrong with the plan of halting immigration (illegal and legal), letting things settle for a few years, and then deciding if further action is necessary?
Let me tell you why I ask the question. I fully agree that some Jews are highly unpleasant, but I don't know how many. I can only go by my own experience which, unfortunately, does not help your case. I like the Jews I happen personally to know. I would be lying to you if I said the same of blacks, for example; I wish that I did like them, but I don't. You may view this as irrelevant and you may be right, but, anyway, it's where I come from. In my youth thirty years ago I had a Jewish roommate who is still a friend of mine; an old Army buddy was married to a Jewish girl; a Jewish kid and I worked on our Boy Scout badges together; etc. I have never lived in New York City, West Palm Beach, or any other great center of American Jewry, but as far as I can remember I have had only one unpleasant Jewish experience in my entire life---there was this brainy Jewish kid in high school who routinely went out of his way to embarrass you in front of the teachers---but that was it, and it was a long time ago. As far as I know I have no Jewish neighbors at the present time, but in any case mine is not a background that tends to make one anti-Semitic.
When black men are roaming around causing mayhem, when Mexican kids are spray-painting walls and stop signs, when Muslims with every manner of bizarre habit seem to be sprouting like mushrooms in a country in which such people and habits were wholly unknown forty years ago, am I wrong to ignore the Jews and to worry about the ethnic groups that actually seem to be causing the problems? American Jews seem to hold some unhelpful opinions but they seem to pose zero threat to steal, vandalize and rape what is mine. Anyway, if it is a matter of unhelpful opinions, then my own, larger ethnic group---Christian whites---supplies far more of it than the Jews do.
Of course there exist counterarguments to every one of these points. Naturally I know who Herbert Marcuse was, nor do I think it an accident that anti-Semitism seems to arise wherever Jews live. But do you see what I am getting at? I don't want to be anti-Semitic. Is it really necessary that I be? Jews are imperfect but they have been in this country for a long time, and there seems no danger that they will demographically take it over. Am I short-sighted or merely prudent to focus on the other, darker-skinned ethnics who seem to pose the immediate problem?
Please recall that I was and remain one of those who defended your reputation against Auster. The question is not to harangue you; it is an honest question.
And, sorry, Katrina. I must pseudosign,
Howard
Off topic - What's going at Vanishing American?
Tan, I was leaving a comment which became too long and which sidelined the discussion which is ongoing. I agree with Desmond Jones when he says that, "Whether it's GM, Coca-Cola or Walmart supporting affirmative action or Western Union's Charlie Fote, an Italian-American, establishing a 10 million dollar fund to support immigrants, the issue of business/political elites must be addressed. Separation alone doesn't accomplish it."
Too little attention is being paid to this issue and any attempt to resolve race issues must deal with the corporate issues. I'll let you know when I have posted remarks I had planned to make.
Howard J. Harrison, I am sympathetic to your thoughts. They are similar to my own, short one recent insight.
Concerning wanting or finding it necessary to be anti-semitic, I'm afraid that whole line of thought is a pitfall. I am no longer concerned whether blacks or latinos call me a racist. If anything it demonstrates their own "racism" and their recognition of me as a racial enemy. I will not huddle in a corner nibbling my nails because of their name-calling. I will do what I can to defend myself.
Likewise, but moreso, with anti-semitism. If you really think about the bigoted assumptions built into that epithet, the racial discrimination it assumes and the special status it accords a particular race, then you will recognize how baldly hypocritical that slur is.
For my part I have been called a racist, and now an anti-semite, because I have been able to not only discern my enemies, but also call them out. Many in the mob crying "racist" and "anti-semite" are simply brain-washed sheep. They have been imprinted from birth with illogical and inconsistent equalitarian values that they cannot now help but echo. There are some who lead the cries however, the ones intelligent enough to consciously distort and exaggerate the thoughts and ideas of supposed White "racists", even while they obscure and diminish the same sentiments in non-Whites. These people are evil. They are enemies. They prove such in their deeds and actions.
You ask whether it is more prudent to focus on darker-skinned enemies. And in answer I would agree with what ben tillman said. No. If dogs chronically shit in your yard and bite your kids, do you focus on the dogs? Do you ignore the neighbors who favor importing dogs and letting them run wild? Until recently I argued for fences and never thought such anti-social neighbors could exist. But they do, and they are rich and powerful. I never dreamed they were motivated to do what they do by their own collective group interests. But they do, and they are proud of it. In challenging these enemy neighbors what I've gotten in response is A) denial, B) attacks against my sanity and character, and C) called stupid names like anti-dogist and anti-neighborist.
Of course we need to defend ourselves against the dogs. But to excuse the rich and powerful neighbors who love the dogs and hate us would be insane.
I will go further - just focus on the enemies regardless of skin color or creed. You will receive the "appropriate" moniker according to the enemy - it pretty much boils down that the only enemy unable to slap you back with a slur is the male whites aged 18-50.
If they call you anti-neighborist - you automatically apply for the "well, you're an f'in shit-neighbor".
"...apply for the "well, you're an f'in shit-neighbor" REPLY.
apologies for the omission
I understand being afraid of crazies. I can almost guarantee that I am the only one here who has, in the last two weeks, been contacted by the jewish anti-defamation league and been explicitly told to stay off _this_ site. Christ, I'm not even weighing in with anything more than questions and the occasional smart-ass comment. After getting _the_ e-mail, I did a little research and the best I can discern - the e-mail was legit.
Would I change the fact that I use my real name? That I've mentioned personal facts in these and other blogs that allow the Jewish Anti-defamation league find me? No. Absolutely not. Its ok for me to question - to discuss. If I felt as strongly about any topic as you seem to feel about this one. I would stand proud and refuse to live in fear...and I would lose my job - but it pays for shit anyway.
I like this blog. I happen to personally know some of the people on it and hold them in high regard. However, I often see calls to organize and to affect change. Your cries for change will go unheard if not done honestly. Do you really want change or do you want to just talk about it?
As far as I know, there were no pseudonyms or anonymous signers on the Declaration of Independence.
--katrina
Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. Do you believe in free speech? Then speak freely. Do you love the truth? Then tell it. Do you believe in an open society? Then act in the open. Do you believe in a decent and humane society? Then behave decently and humanely. -Adam Michnik.
He who does not have the courage to speak up for his rights cannot earn the respect of others.
Author: René G. Torres
katrina,
I am sorry to hear about the ADL personally contacting you. That has to be unnerving.
However, the pro-White (or White Nationalist) movement is currently disorganized and relegated to the very fringe of societal thinking. Ordinary White citizens have been conditioned to the point that they'll turn every which way in an attempt to save their country before they give themselves over to a White Nationalist approach. At the moment, pro-White peoples who would seek to make a stand have no active "movement" to fall back on for support.
Currently, anyone who dares to speak the truth will have to endure the consequences alone with only his wits and resources to aid him. And need I remind anyone around here of the difficulty in even learning about the truth and the powerful taboos that have been put in place to prevent people from finding it.
I am an ordinary White man (as I would imagine Tanstaafl to be as well). As an academic/scientist I am the farthest thing away from all the traditional pro-White stereotypes. You will never find me in Klan Robes, Jackboots, or some such costume. I don't tattoo my body with ancient runes or any other such thing. When people like me turn to White Nationalism it means something is afoot.
And this isn't the 17th or 18th century either, where independent communities of White farmers can provide and support each other when one of them takes a stand. I am a highly trained cog in a complex interdependent scheme, which makes money for those committed to "diversity". How are people like me supposed to disconnect from modern society and continue to be able to pay our bills? We are living in the early 21st century and must respect the concomitant limitations that come with our time.
In an attempt to end this rambling comment, I would like to simply say that there currently is no active "movement" that individuals can rely upon. White Nationalism exists as a proto-movement and as a powerful thought that hasn't yet taken physical form. For many the thought is still too radical to their liking and they aren't prepared to think in ways that manufactured society has designated "evil". Our numbers remain too small and too thinly spread out. Perhaps if the whole of us were concentrated in North Dakota we'd able to take action this instant, but such isn't the case. And for that reason we need to wake others up and to increase our numbers so that we can have a legitimate mainstream movement that can effect change.
Once 10-30% of White American turns to [b]explicit[/b] White Nationalism (instead of 2-5%) then we'll have something to work with. But until then the anti-White system can continue to play whack-a-mole with those willing to stand alone.
I can almost guarantee that I am the only one here who has, in the last two weeks, been contacted by the jewish anti-defamation league and been explicitly told to stay off _this_ site.
Or else?
Seriously, that sounds rather illegal. What did the ADL -- if it was the ADL -- say?
Skeptical speaks for me. We live in the real world, in which I have children and grandchildren, not only myself, to think of. In my youth when I wore the uniform of the U.S. Army (I did nothing special; I merely served), my life maybe was my own to risk. No longer.
Besides, when you're badly outnumbered, guerilla warfare is what works. None understood this principle better than our own forebears, the rank-and-file American revolutionaries of 1775--1781. If Katrina thinks that I would do more good for the nationalist cause by going out in a Timothy McVeigh-style blaze of glory, well, she and I think differently. But actually I suspect that Katrina just thinks that I should speak my mind in my own name, and damn the costs.
There is a long, sordid tradition of people who like to volunteer others for sacrifice, in war and otherwise. Katrina, aren't you flirting with this now? Surely you are not suggesting that pseudonyms were immoral! Ungallant, yes; but immoral? I am blessedly neither a politician nor a journalist, merely a citizen. When you are married and have children (if you are not and have none already) and your husband determines to be gallant at your expense, then you and he can discuss the proper balance of courage against prudence. Until then, what more can I say to you in the matter? You are entitled to deprecate my views, or Skeptical's, or Tanstaafl's, or Vanishing American's, at any rate of discount that seems fitting to you. In the meantime, however, we shall keep beating our drums from the cover of the woods, whether our style and rhythm suits you or not.
Personally, though, I think that you might show a little more empathy, and cut us a little slack. Our nation is shabbily being stolen from us. We are trying to recover her before she has gone beyond recall, for your sake no less than for our own.
Howard
I am among the first to hope that I am wrong, but how are we to know this person is not attempting to "shame" us into revealing personal information that could lead to great harm to ourselves and our families?
Good point A@11:09
An ADL mole perhaps?
katrina is not a mole. She is a friend. I know her personally.
katrina, would you do us a favor and post the body of the email, minus any personal information?
Katrina
A few years ago I submitted an editorial to the local paper disparaging the voter turnout in a school budget vote (granted, it had an anti-district tone). Although all the comments I heard were supportive, my wife was miffed because ner perspective was when I stick my neck out I stick out hers and the necks of my children.
When the rank and file discussion can include emotional rants (similar to a discussion over a few beers) that throw any remnant of PC to the wind (I believe that is one of the major points at this blog) - the very last thing I need is to be put on someone's list for public distribution.
There are plenty of kooks out there. This is not cowardice, its both sensible and sensitive to those that are attached to me.
Why is voting done behind a curtain?
It would appear the ADL is not too supportive of free speech. I hope you will post the email.
I appreciate this discussion more than its several contributors may realize. The discussion has clarified several points of confusion or vague thinking on my part.
I cannot deny that Katrina has a point, but Flippityflopitty is right in my view. If he and I wanted to run for public office, then we would rightly have to publish our own views in our own names. The mainstream American press also has a long tradition of requiring editors to write in their own names. If Flippityflopitty and I wanted to be politicians or reporters, then that is a discussion we would have with our respective families before making that choice. We are however just citizens. No career benefit accrues individually to us when we are right, but we can surely pay the price when someone thinks that we are wrong.
I like my neighbors and work associates. I get along with them. I seek no conflict with them. The majority of them are traditional Americans but among them are a few immigrants, homosexuals, unwed mothers, etc. They seldom ask me my political views and when they do, I deflect the questions, because I want to continue to get along with them. If this is moral cowardice in Katrina's view or anyone else's, I am sorry, but that is the way it is.
Really, that is the way it ought to be in civil society. There is a place for private citizens to engage in politics. This is the place. If it ever came to an actual civil war---and may it please God that it never does---then I would fight on the side of the nationalists; but until then I am not going to alienate real people in my real life who never asked me to go political on them.
Tanstaafl,
Given the popularity of the topic, you might consider collecting your thoughts and posting them on the subject of "coming out" as pro-White in an anti-White world.
Auster on MacDonald: He says that the Jewish people as Jewish people pursue a conscious agenda aimed at destroying European civilization.
Auster has either completely misread or misunderstood MacDonald. As you point out in your post, nowhere does MacDonald say or suggest that the evolutionary strategy of the Jewish people (as a sub-population within the West) is a conscious one. That's the fantastic part of it -- it's not conscious at all -- just a set of behaviours that have been selected for (in an evolutionary sense) because they have worked for Jews as a sub-population.
ALL populations and sub-populations will have their own sets of behaviours particular to them -- pretty much none of them are conscious behaviours.
The fact that Auster can't, or won't, understand MacDonald's argument is prolly because he himself is Jewish.
Similarly, Steven Pinker (also Jewish) is extremely critical of MacDonald referring to his work as unscientific. Pinker won't even read MacDonald's works! How scientific is that?!
On using a pseudonym...
...I prefer the term, nom de guerre.
;-)
It appears at least some Jewish intellectuals pursue a conscious agenda.
‘The Jews,’ he says, ‘will be compelled by anti-Semitism to destroy among all peoples the idea of a fatherland.’ Or, I secretly thought to myself, to create a fatherland of their own."—Theodor Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 196.
Greetings,
As for pseudonyms and anonymous identifiers, you all make good, solid arguments. I respect that.
I saddens me though that you feel this way and that it may, in fact, be true. I would like to mention that if you discuss these views in front of your children - and if they are still in school - your children will share your thoughts with other children and their teachers. Sometimes kids share these things on purpose - sometimes inadvertently. My point is, your identity may be revealed to your community by the people close to you. If maintaining your anonymity is as crucial as you articulate (well, I might add), then please take it from someone who hears it all from students and other parents each day. There are no secrets. Its my opinion that if you fear your safety, maybe its not the blogs that are the most dangerous.
As for the e-mail: I can't post it - I deleted it. For a while, I thought I would forward it to Tan but was advised by my other half to ignore it. Tan, if you want to verify its existence, you are welcome to contact me or my other half. OR maybe you can tell me what I can do to undelete my e-mails or download it off the server again. It hasn't been that long.
I'll paraphrase what it said. Please note that I believe the same person who sent me the e-mail posted to this blog and the same night she sent me the e-mail. She used similar terms and writing styles. I believe her post was the one where she referred to people as fuckwits and encouraged everyone to enjoy celebrating a jew or something to that effect.
The e-mail was short and sweet. It said. Stay off Age of Treason. We are watching it and hundreds of others like it. Do not ever read it or post to it again. Then she said something about the people on the site being fuckwits. She signed her first and last name, the name of her organization - I think I remember that she was the president. She listed her address and e-mail address.
One last thing:
skeptical said...
Tanstaafl,
Given the popularity of the topic, you might consider collecting your thoughts and posting them on the subject of "coming out" as pro-White in an anti-White world.
I love nothing more than a good "coming out" party. I'll bring the Clay Aitken CD's.
Katrina, I don't get why it's important to you to get others to 'out' themselves, or why you cast doubt on the courage of those who post anonymously.
People in authority no doubt do watch and monitor politically incorrect blogs and forums. And they surely have IP numbers and so on. So using a pseudonym will not prevent them from knowing who is who.
But the fact is, there are plenty of malicious liberals and leftists (and neocons too) who take it on themselves to harass people with politically dissident opinions. Even just some nobody who has no government position or authority can make your life pretty darn miserable, via harassing e-mails and threats. Some of these people are obsessive enough to track you down in person, or to find out phone numbers, etc. It is just plain foolish to make it easier for them to harass and intimidate. Even on a non-political blog or forum, nobody with good sense will publicize their name and regular e-mail unless they like to take chances. How many times have all of us heard that it is crazy to put one's full name and identifying information on the internet? It's just plain common sense. It has nothing to do with hiding or not hiding.
Some politically incorrect forums and blogs have been hacked and taken down by malicious leftist types. At the very least they will porn-spam you or commit other such unpleasant pranks. Who in their right mind would chance that?
There is just no compelling reason to leave oneself open to that kind of attack. And since you don't say you are in agreement with these controversial ideas expressed here, why is it important to you to have us identify ourselves openly?
Howard, I appreciate your position, and that you are able to remain calm, objective, and rational in the face of a challenge to your views. More power to you, but I do not believe that either your candor or your desire for liberals to change will produce a favorable response. Perhaps some of your close jewish friends will discuss your concerns honestly with you. In private. More likely your failure to shun me will only expose you yourself to smears.
I suggest you give more thought to the "are jews White" question, because it is key. Anyone who helps create, propagate, protect, or exploit the fundamentally anti-White regime of political correctness and ethnic-glorification identity politics, even while they dispute the reality of race and suppress any expression of White genetic interests, is not White - I don't care what color their skin is.
Skeptical, yes I think I will. I have a few other topics already in the pipeline, but after that...
Hibernia Girl, thanks for stopping by. I enjoy your blog, even though your news from Ireland is mostly bad. The invasion of Ireland demonstrates that the West's immigration problems are not for lack of fencing. We will not be saved by "securing our border". Our only hope is to reject multiculturalism and the pernicious "celebrate diversity" drivel that has convinced us to surrender our homelands to the Turd World.
Auster's mischaracterization of MacDonald is part and parcel of the multiculti lies. He is part of the problem. Europeans and jews have been entwined in the West's longest running attempt at multiculturalism. Two thousand years of symbiosis and parasitism. Despite all their universalist rhetoric jews have not only not assimilated, they have accumulated wealth and power that belies their egalitarian rhetoric. Europeans are in decline, jews ascendent. MacDonald is one of the few critics who speaks plainly in trying to explain this. But as with all multiculturalism, the totalitarian liberals permit only happytalk and lies.
Desmond, Herzl's words bring to mind MacDonald's quote of Earl Raab:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be
non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond
the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about
half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our
population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against
bigotry more practical than ever.
The most sincere thing any self-righteous jew could do to demonstrate their "opposition to bigotry" would be to repudiate their own. Instead Raab uses his to justify his hatred for Whites. He condemned me and mine as Nazi-Aryans and was celebrating our demise before we even knew who he was or what he was doing. He and anyone who thinks like him can call me whatever names and delude themselves with whatever circular reasoning they want. I recognize them as aggressors. They are enemies.
Katrina, you're not obeying the ADL's commands. You must realize of course that this act of defiance is retroactive evidence that was already used against you in 1993 when Earl Raab judged you and your family potential Nazi-Aryans who would best be kept in check by millions of mestizos. How does it feel to be a White Nazi wannabe? I see a gulag in your future.
Can I ask whether anyone here, aside from Desmond, understands the degree of ethnic connectedness necessary to motivate a post-liberal renewal?
This is one of two great and intractable problems confronting pro-white activism in America. The topic arises at MR pretty regularly, as Desmond knows. I am highly impressed with Tanstafl's burgeoning insight into what ails us. I would be very interested to see how he assays the problems ahead.
This comment has been removed by the author.
anonymous - its not personally important to me for people to out themselves. It just my personal belief that if something is so important to you that you feel you need to affect change - you cannot do it anonymously. A lot of people on this site made good points about why they choose not to ID themselves. As far as I'm concerned, its a conversation that's over. I'm looking forward to the Tan's next entry.
Tan,
I knew it! I thought I was going to hell but you're right, its the gulag for me!
Love, White Nazi Wannabe (WNW) - my new pseudonym.
GuessedWorker,
You posed the question:
"Can I ask whether anyone here, aside from Desmond, understands the degree of ethnic connectedness necessary to motivate a post-liberal renewal?"
As I said in an earlier comment on this thread, if we could ever get 10-30% of White America in our camp then momentum will take care of the rest.
Once a White racial movement in America reaches critical mass then it will become too big for the media alone to stop, and the rest of unawakened White America will have the opportunity to be a part of the something that won't easily be marginalized. In this estimation our only problem is numbers (they're currently too small).
Much like the "Civil Rights Movement", it can all happen very quickly. And I can guarantee that if a revival of White racial consciousness ever hits America again we may all be witness to a spectacle of historical importance that would profoundly impact Europe.
P.S. I'm still giggling at Auster's misinterpretation of "tanstaafl"!
:-p
skeptical: Once a White racial movement in America reaches critical mass then it will become too big ...
No, that's the illusion of inevitability, predicated on the belief that the true abomination of diversity will drive people into survivalist politics.
But awareness to the abomination is not enough. A White Flight version of political resistance, no doubt underpinned by a Tayloresque race realism, is, fundamentally, only protest politics. Something else - actually two things - must bind people together into a racial political movement. One is a coherent revolutionary philosophy, something one might expect to be manufactured sometime, but certainly does not exist now. The other is ethnic connectedness. The very term "White" acknowledges that no such ethnic connectedness exists, and this is a profound but generally ignored difficulty.
Since Tan is, to use English criminal slang, on his toes at the moment, I am just lighting the obstructions that he will run into any time now. We need some mighty talent to find a response to them, and I'm just a-wondering how far he can go.
GuessedWorker,
Racial conflict and struggle is an American psychological constant that will not go away simply because the media and the left wish it so.
A major psychological subtext underneath the facade of our culture is of unexpressed White rage that has been held in check for decades (in some people the grievances go back 150 years to the Civil War).
White peoples in the Midwest have slowly lost their great cities in Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago to Black barbarity and chaos. White peoples in the West and Southwest are not only losing their cities but also their living space to a brown tide of Latin American peasants (and the gangs that their children produce). White peoples in the South (of course) have lost much of their Southern culture not to mention their previous struggle for independence and self-determination.
These grievances, and the subtext of White rage they produce, have been successfully held in check by a unified, centrally controlled, anti-White mass media and economic prosperity. If one or the other goes then White rage in America will finally be able to express itself with a righteous indignation. As I said we could have a real spectacle on our hands.
In America much of our society has already been wrecked. The forces that are driving White people to racial nationalism are much more powerful then annoyances of diversity.
Skeptical,
Steam does not a steam engine make.
A steam engine, in this case, would pull the nationalist train. However, there is no nationalism in WN. The mouth forms the sound of the word, and the lungs drive air over the vocal chords. But no meanings from actual nationalism enter into the process.
WN is the belief that modernity can be changed just by activism. WN holds that white men and women can be freed from the pursuit of individual freedom, while offering nothing in individualism's place.
It would be something, at least, if WNs comprehended that post-revolution America was the child of classical liberalism, and they, as modern Americans, are the children of the long, liberal process. But they don't.
And hanging over all this is the dread fact that white America is spread too thin genetically to coallesce politically.
GuessedWorker,
Your comments are astute. There is a need for a new revolutionary philosophy as well as a self-awareness amongst the American populace of their place in the liberal dialectic that we are a product of. All that would certainly help to galvanize our collective energies.
But how do you reconcile your concerns for the creation of this philosophy with with existence (and subsequent resistance) of the Old Confederacy? What about the like of William L. Yancey, an American leader of the Southern secessionist movement, who baldly stated, "Our master 'idea', is that ever White man is the equal of every other White man. The second idea is that the negro is the inferior race."? The Old Confederacy was about nothing more sophisticated then Southern White self-determination. If such was sufficient a little over a hundred years ago why should human psychology be any different today? I don't know of the Old Confederacy making any philosophical headway in reconciling man's individuality and desire for liberty with the responsibilities of a societal collective, do you?
One last thing, you said:
"And hanging over all this is the dread fact that white America is spread too thin genetically to coalesce politically."
I must confess ignorance and say that I am not sure what you're concerned about here. White America is (more or less) racially unified under the moniker of "White". What the media has recently used to divide is the "Nation of Immigrants" narrative, which emphasizes our ethnic origins over our racial solidarity. But there is little question that the Irishmen in Massachusetts, the Poles in Chicago, the Germans up North, the Swiss out West, and the Saxons in the South are all White.
Perhaps you could elaborate for me.
Guessedworker, I enjoy Majority Rights, the quality and level of debate is high. I'm glad you stopped by several posts ago and alerted me to it. I welcome your question and concerns. I will try to address them. Regarding ethnic connectedness I am optimistic. Skeptical and I see things similarly, and yet we have never met and barely interacted. I agree that the biggest problem we face is the idea that our problems are intractable. It seems to me that if anything about our situation is malleable and surmountable, surely it is a self-defeating meme such as this.
Hibernia Girl, thank you for those links. As Steve Sailer might suggest, it helps to view the burgeoning genetics/race debate through the lens so many of its participants wear: is it good for jews? It is my opinion, and evidently a common theme of many Whites, that debate and truth are good for Whites. One of the many things wrong with the anti-white culture assimilating us is that we get too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
Skep,
It appears that you answered the question.
"But there is little question that the Irishmen in Massachusetts, the Poles in Chicago, the Germans up North, the Swiss out West, and the Saxons in the South are all White."
The Old South was ethnically homogeneous. It was blood ties that linked the South. Ethnic nationalism, as opposed to Northern civic nationalism, bound the Confederacy to the soil. Mass immigration of other Europeans, 1846-1860, with the possible exception of DC, Baltimore and New Orleans, left the South untouched.
Somewhere between Jefferson and Lincoln, the ethnic nationalism of the North, majority English , overwhelmingly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, was broken.
We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.
[From "Electric Cord" Speech (1858), in Lincoln, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, ed. Roy P. Basler (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 499-500.]
Skeptical,
It wasn't my purpose here to write chapter and verse of, respectively, the philosophical and kinship deficits in American WN. I just wanted to see whether Tan has moved onto this ground yet. Anyone who wants to follow the issue at MR can do so.
However, I will of course, answer the points you have raised.
"The Old Confederacy was about nothing more sophisticated then Southern White self-determination."
The vestiges of conservatism in the American South disappeared between 1865 and the mid-1930s. The vestiges of Conservatism in England disappeared in the years between 1832 and 1902. The rest, in both countries, has been the "psychology", as you put it, of individualism and egalitarianism.
Prior to the establishment of the Western liberal ideological milieu, it was perfectly possible for politics to be "about nothing more sophisticated than Southern White self-determination". Such conservatism was notoriously NOT a philosophy. It was a matter of instinct. And, yes, the same instincts, as they corrolate to adaptive living, are present in us today and for all days.
Nonetheless, this natural
conservatism is perhaps not a default to which we may collectively decamp from the maladies of liberalism. I have thought so in the past, but I am reviewing this conclusion in a fairly comprehensive and radical way. I won't explain everything here because it would not be appropriate.
On the question of kinship, or connectedness, and WN, it should be apparent to all who have observed the traditional left-liberalism of the Irish and Italians - or just Catholics - in America, and of the Irish again and the Ukrainians (Desmond?) in Canada, that there is much more at work here than just being "white".
What's going on is the promotion of group EGI (ethnic genetic interests). While the Anglo majority stands as a defining medium for contrarian white ethnies competition will rule the day. It is a delusion to expect cooperation to inherit the morrow.
GuessedWorker and Desmond,
You both raised some great points about ethnic solidarity and the difference between the ethnies that constituted the Old Confederacy and today. Yes, these are different times.
And, yet, Tanstaafl and I (along with many other Americans) probably agree on a great many things without being bound together in an agrarian culture of "blood and soil". So, to my mind, the jury is still out on just how much ethnic solidarity is required.
GuessedWorker wrote:
"Nonetheless, this natural
conservatism is perhaps not a default to which we may collectively decamp from the maladies of liberalism. I have thought so in the past, but I am reviewing this conclusion in a fairly comprehensive and radical way. I won't explain everything here because it would not be appropriate."
I would love to see you outline your views on this matter at MajorityRights.com [a great website to go to for everyone reading this]. For the moment, I feel that as a society we could decamp to such a conservative stance but perhaps I am being naive here.
Thank you for the exchange.
guessedworker: On the question of kinship, or connectedness, and WN, it should be apparent to all who have observed the traditional left-liberalism of the Irish and Italians - or just Catholics - in America, and of the Irish again and the Ukrainians (Desmond?) in Canada, that there is much more at work here than just being "white".
What's going on is the promotion of group EGI (ethnic genetic interests). While the Anglo majority stands as a defining medium for contrarian white ethnies competition will rule the day. It is a delusion to expect cooperation to inherit the morrow.
I've devoted a few posts on my blog to genetic relatedness and its connection to things like altruism (or lack of it), corruption, nepotism, etc. -- i.e. that the level of genetic relatedness between individuals in any given group affects the levels of corruption, etc., in that group.
I've mostly been interested in the Muslim world and the type of paternal cousin marriage that many Muslim societies practice. My interest in the topic was triggered by Randall Parker's post "Consanguinity prevents Middle Eastern political development" in which he describes how institutionalized cousin marriage has led to the tribalistic natures of societies of the Middle East and which prevents them from having democratic and functioning nation-states the way we're used to in the West.
I think the inverse must also be true -- because northern Europeans and, later, Anglo-Americans did/do not inbreed in any significant way, institutions such as altruism towards all members of society, democracy, personal freedoms, etc., were/are able to thrive.
The thing about the Irish is, we have been inbreeding quite a bit -- up until very recently. Not to the same extent as the Middle Easterners, but we are proud of all our "clans", etc. (Up until the early medieval period when the Catholic Church banned cousin marriage in Ireland, cousin marriage or inbreeding was the norm. It was not the same type of cousin marriage as Middle Easterners practice, though.)
This is why you get the Irish promotion of EGI in the States (you should try following Irish politics sometime -- what a mess!).
Until these groups start "outbreeding" more, the EGI problem will remain.
How to apply this genetic relatedness knowledge to the problems in the States, I don't know. :-|
Post a Comment
<< Home