Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Friday, February 01, 2008

Samuel Francis

Sam Francis died in 2005. From a memoriam on vdare.com:
With the end of the Cold War, he emerged as a type of white nationalist, defending the interests of the community upon which the historic United States was, as a matter of fact, built. This position, of course, is as legitimate as Black nationalism, Hispanic nationalism, or Zionism. It is, indeed, the inevitable result of multiculturalism that is being imported through public policy.

Although VDARE.COM is not a white nationalist site, we regarded him as an important part of the VDARE.COM coalition. And we will miss him very badly.

The Establishment, left and right, wasn't ready to listen to Sam. The logic of their own policies, however, means that eventually they will be forced to.
It was only some 18 months ago, but the very first bit of Francis' writing I encountered, Poll Exposes Elite-Public Clash On Immigration, had a profound effect on my understanding of the immigration invasion. After a lifetime spent marinating only in the sanitized worldviews of "polite society" I found Francis' explanation of the gap between the elites and the public on immigration both more shocking and yet more sensible than anything I had ever read. Referring to this poll he wrote:
Probably nothing in public life in recent years shows so clearly the vast differences between how elites and the public at large view mass immigration. It goes far to explain why nothing is ever done to control immigration: The people with power and influence don't regard immigration as a threat.

And indeed, why should they? The main problems that mass immigration brings are not those of terrorism but rather crime, job loss, educational chaos, cultural erosion and language barriers. Those are problems that middle class or working class people have to face every day, not those of the ruling class.

Elites, simply because they can afford to isolate themselves from the impact of these kinds of threats, don't feel them and don't see them even when they look at them. They can move to high-security, crime-free neighborhoods and dump their kids in well-protected private schools.

To them, the main impact of mass immigration is that it creates lots of cute little ethnic restaurants and cute little ethnic nannies that allow the up-scale young parents of the ruling class to dine regularly on Nepalese and Ethiopian cuisine.

As for the ethics of mass immigration, the ruling class has long since convinced itself that "we're a nation of immigrants," "the first universal nation," a "proposition country" or a "credal society" that has a duty to let in anyone who wants to come here, and that anyone who opposes mass immigration is a bigot, a nativist, a xenophobe.

The elite has managed to coin an entire vocabulary to demonize and discredit anyone who disagrees with its preferences and interests on immigration.

The poll shows that there is a vast gulf between the elite and the public at large on immigration, but more than anything it also shows that if the American majority that favors reducing mass immigration because they see it as a "critical threat" to themselves and their nation really wants to meet that threat, then they must first remove from power the entire class of "leaders" who are unable to perceive the dangers of immigration even when its dangerous consequences literally blow them out of their own skyscrapers.
One of Francis' most important observations was to recognize our society's ongoing slide into anarcho-tyranny:

. . . a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions—like spying on the bad guys or punishing real criminals—are not performed) and tyranny (in which government performs illegitimate functions—like spying on the good guys or criminalizing innocent conduct like gun ownership and political dissent).

The result of anarcho-tyranny is that government swells in power, criminals are not controlled, and law-abiding citizens wind up being repressed by the state and attacked by thugs.

Ten days ago Jared Taylor's Introduction to Sam Francis’s Essential Writings on Race was, for me, a timely reminder and review of Francis' thoughts. From the links in Taylor's article I've exerpted two that seemed particularly insightful.

From Why Race Matters - The assault on our race and culture must be met in explicitly racial terms, American Renaisance, September 1994:
We see the transfer of power in almost every dimension of public and private life. Thus far, the transfer is more cultural than it is political or economic; it is clear in the rise of multiculturalism, Afro-centrism, and the other anti-white cults and movements in university curricula, and in the penetration of even daily private life by the anti-white ethic and behavior these cults impose. It is clear in the ever-quickening war against the traditional symbols of the old civilization and the elevation of the symbols of the new peoples who aim at their displacement.
It is routine also to display almost all criminals — rapists, murderers, robbers — as whites, though the statistical truth, of course, is that violent crime in the United States is largely the work of non-whites. A few years ago, political scientist Robert Lichter showed in a study that while during the last 30 years, whites were arrested for 40 percent of the murders committed in the United States, on television whites committed 90 percent of the murders.
The erasure and displacement of official cultural symbols and the similar process in elite-produced, mass-consumed popular culture represents the expropriation of cultural norms, the standards by which public and private behavior is legitimized or condemned and a culture defined. While the traditional norms that are being attacked and discarded were almost never explicitly racial, the new norms that are being constructed and imposed are, and they are not only explicitly racial but also explicitly and vociferously anti-white.

This is a calculated tactic aimed at seizing cultural legitimacy and cultural hegemony and ultimately coercive political power on behalf of non-whites at the expense of whites. At the most extreme, the anti-white racialist movement resembles the ideology of German National Socialism. It offers a conspiratorial interpretation of history in which whites are systematically demonized as the enemies of the black race, and a myth of black racial solidarity and supremacy. “Afro-racism” is the ideological and political apparatus by which an explicit race war is prepared against the white race and its civilization, not as part of “rage” nor as a response to “injustice” and “neglect” but, like any war, as part of a concerted strategy to acquire power. It is not confined to blacks but extends also to other non-whites who care to sign up.
Yet the war against the white race and its civilization is not new. It is part of a world-historical movement that began in the late 19th century, perhaps not coincidentally, around the time of the battle of the Little Big Horn, and which the American racialist writer Lothrop Stoddard called, in the frank language of the 1920s, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” and which Oswald Spengler a few years later called the “Coloured World Revolution.”
The fraudulence of the liberalism espoused by the leaders of the racial revolution was clear to Spengler himself. “The hare,” he wrote in his last book, The Hour of Decision, “may perhaps deceive the fox, but human beings can not deceive each other. The coloured man sees through the white man when he talks about “humanity’ and everlasting peace. He scents the other’s unfitness and lack of will to defend himself… The coloured races are not pacifists. They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value. They take up the sword when we lay it down. Once they feared the white man; now they despise him.”

What is happening in our interesting times, then, to summarize briefly, is this. A concerted and long-term attack against the civilization of white, European and North American man has been launched, and the attack is not confined to the political, social and cultural institutions that characterize the civilization but extends also to the race that created the civilization and continues to carry and transmit it today. The war against white civilization sometimes (indeed often) invokes liberal ideals as its justification and as its goal, but the likely reality is that the victory of the racial revolution will end merely in the domination or destruction of the white race and its civilization by the non-white peoples — if only for demographic reasons due to non-white immigration and the decline of white birth rates.
In the universalist world-view, there is neither history nor race nor even species, neither specific cultures nor particular peoples nor meaningful boundaries. Therefore there are no concrete duties to race, nation, community, family, friend or neighbor and indeed no distinctions to be drawn between neighbor and stranger, friend and foe, mine and thine, us and them.

In the happyland of universalism, we owe as much to the children of Somalia — indeed, more — than we do to the hapless citizens of Los Angeles, and Marines who could not have been sent from Camp Pendleton to Los Angeles during the riots of 1992 and who are not ordered to prevent violation of the Mexican border adjacent to their own installation in southern California are speedily dispatched to Somalia. Even to invoke “our” identity, our interests, our aspirations is to invite accusations of all the “isms” and “phobias” that are deployed to prevent further discussions and to paralyze the formation or the retention of a common consciousness that might at some point swell up into actual resistance to our dispossession. The principal white response to the incipient race war thus far, manifested in neo-conservative critiques of “Political Correctness” and multiculturalism, is merely to regurgitate the formulas of universalism, to invoke the spirit of Martin Luther King, and to repeat the universalist ideals of equality, integration, and assimilation. The characteristic defense of Western civilization by most conservatives today is merely a variation of the liberal universalism that the enemies of the West and whites also invoke. It is to argue that non-whites and non-Westerners ought to value modern Western civilization as in their own best interests. It is to emphasize the liberal “progress” of the modern West through the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of non-whites, the retreat from imperialism, the achievement of higher living standards and political equality, etc.
Instead of invoking a suicidal liberalism and regurgitating the very universalism that has subverted our identity and our sense of solidarity, what we as whites must do is reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites. The reassertion of our solidarity must be expressed in racial terms for two major reasons. In the first place, the attack upon us defines itself in racial terms and seeks through the delegitimization of race for whites and the legitimization of race for non-whites the dispersion and destruction of the foundations of our solidarity while at the same time consolidating non-white cohesiveness against whites.
Secondly, we need to assert a specifically racial identity because race is real — biological forces, including those that determine race, are important for social, cultural, and historical events. I do not suggest that race as a biological reality is by itself sufficient to explain the civilization of European man — if race were sufficient, there would be no problem — but race is necessary for it, and it is likely that biological science in the near future will show even more clearly how necessary racial, biological, and genetic explanations are to understanding social and historical events more fully.
In 1994 Sam Francis already saw clearly the anti-White regime - that the many slights putative conservatives have alternatively fought, ridiculed, and averted their eyes from are in fact just pieces of an agenda they dare not see as a whole. For recognizing and writing about the racial dimensions of this assault Sam Francis was banished from "polite society".

In An Infantile Disorder, Chronicles, February 1998 he argued for unity in facing the threat, and to set aside distractions such as neo-confederate secession:
But even if secession were possible, it would be a bad idea. Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain in columns in this magazine and many other places for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultiara1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. Today, the greatest immediate danger to Middle America and the European-American civilization to which it is heir lies in the importation of a new underclass from the Third World through mass immigration. The danger is in part economic, in part political, and in part cultural, but it is also in part racial, pure and simple. The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief.

The only prospect of resisting the domination of the ruling class and its antiwhite and anti-Western allies in the underclass is through Middle American solidarity, a solidarity that must transcend the differentiations of region, class, religion, party, and ideology. White Southerners are a vital part of the Middle American core, as are their Northern counterparts, and neither is the enemy of the other. Both regional sections of Middle America face the same threats, experience much the same problems, and ought to be joined in the same political-cultural movement to meet the threat together.
These are observations I find extremely useful as I struggle to understand the West's revolutionary transformation. Francis recognized that race matters. In such a world my kith and kin would be wise to realize: White matters.

UPDATE 13 Feb 2008: From Steve Sailer's review of Francis' book Race and the American Prospect:
In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today, whatever the label we attach to our own age, the Great Taboo is race. The Victorians virtually denied that sex existed. Today, race is confidently said to be "merely a social construct," a product of the imagination, and of none too healthy imaginations at that, rather than a reality of nature.
Sailer, like my commenter Flippityflopitty, is not hostile to White consciousness, but is certainly pessimistic about White nationalism and separatism. In their stead Sailer advocates citizenism, which he describes as being based on the belief that:
Americans should be biased in favor of the welfare of our current fellow citizens over that of the six billion foreigners.
This was the rationale for US immigration policy until 1965. Forty years of influx have pushed the population from 200M to over 300M, growth of more than 50%, most of it non-white and upwards of 10% of it illegal.

Unfortunately, citizenism will not keep the US from becoming a banana republic shithole. In fact, as the invasion continues citizenism, or at least the deracinated sentiments that label aptly describes, has actually lent the transformation credibility. The legal immigration and many amnesties since 1965 have introduced more anti-White citizens.

Just like those who only oppose illegal immigration, citizenists play right into the hands of the open border advocates who have shown great skill in subverting and twisting our laws to their desires. The US senate, for example, brazenly tried to elect a new citizenry last May. They continue to work on behalf of their prospective zitizens by amending all and sundry legislation with bits of stealth amnesty. By hook or by crook they will eventually legitimize the invasion. They will do so by declaring the invaders legal. President Obama will almost certainly do even more for the invaders than Bush has. We will find that the constitution's "separation of powers" has an entirely different meaning when liberal judges are asked to interpret a liberal president's executive orders. If they are even asked.

The dispossession of Whites has so far been accomplished by double-talk and trickery, without plebiscite, without legitimacy. It is becoming a fait accompli, trumping the too-little too-late fearful indignation of deracinated White citizenists. They think White consciousness is folly, doomed to failure. Well what then of their own deracinated, citizenist arguments? Have they not failed? From this point on aren't they likely only to serve the invasion status quo?

Francis' insight is that other groups do not hesitate to advocate policies they believe to be in their own interests, despite the ill consequences for Whites. Whites must recognize this hostility and counter it directly with their own race-conscious advocacy. Duty does not calculate the chances of success. Right and wrong are not determined by the laws of usurpers. The legacy of slavery and forty years of non-white immigration are clear: race trumps citizenism.

Labels: , ,

white

50 Comments:

Anonymous JJ Bjornsson said...

I have been to Latin America(Argentina and Southern Brazil), and the Whites(descendants of Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Scandinavians, Irish, Croatians) there have total cohesion. Why cannot this occur in the USA? Or is this more symptomatic of class as opposed to race?

2/01/2008 09:25:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Class is correlated with race, and I believe in tests of loyalty across time and space the latter generally trumps the former.

I'm not familiar with the history or current situation in Argentina or Southern Brazil. Reading wikipedia I would guess Argentinians' Ladeeenyo identity gives them the insight and cojones to recognize what a amerindian/mestizo influx would do to their nation. Brazil is more complicated. Perhaps the Whites there have cohesion because they don't suffer any delusions or guilt by thinking of themselves as "the majority".

The main problem for Whites in the US is ignorance. While class is openly discussed, concerning race our media, politicians, and schools subject us to all sorts of disinformation and misinformation. Even in southern California most Whites have no idea what Aztlan or reconquista are. We were once the overwhelming majority here but that changed very quickly once the floodgates to non-white immigration were opened in 1965. Again most Whites do not know this.

While we are exposed constantly to non-white aggression, we are lectured that it is nothing but a justified response to White racism. By this thinking the real reason a White can't walk down the street in large sections of any major city without being assaulted is...White racism. Anyone can accuse Whites of whatever nasty thoughts and behavior they like, but to simply speak the truth about non-whites (interracial rape for instance) is taboo.

Short of criticizing jews, racism is the highest taboo for Whites in the US. You can flaunt any number of more traditional taboos, and all sorts of destructive social perversions are explicitly celebrated. Whites however have been conditioned by repeated public crucifixions to go to incredible lengths not only to avoid saying or doing anything that might be construed as "racist", but to actively betray and slander their own kind so as to prove their own anti-White bona fides.

It is unnatural. It's sick. One way or another it won't last. Either Whites here will cast off the brainwashing as I have, or they will become extinct.

2/01/2008 01:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Locutus said...

It is unnatural. It's sick. One way or another it won't last. Either Whites here will cast off the brainwashing as I have, or they will become extinct.

Agreed. Though I do prefer the former over the latter. This upcoming economic collapse will no doubt awaken many, many whites. Complacency and financial security were the great Quaaludes of whites. Never wanting to rock the boat due to the fact, individually, people were doing fine and the racial problems were always someone else's problems to fix. We'll see how complacent whites will be when there will be struggles for survival.

2/02/2008 08:10:00 AM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

Tanstaafl,

"Even in southern California most Whites have no idea what Aztlan or reconquista are. We were once the overwhelming majority here but that changed very quickly once the floodgates to non-white immigration were opened in 1965. Again most Whites do not know this."

I would like to expand on this thought by noting that (in addition to being ignorant) many Whites are simply wrong-headed.

There is this implicit assumption amongst "respectable" White folk that just because their race has temporarily abandoned racial nationalism then it will necessarily follow that the latinos, blacks, and asians do likewise in order to create a race-blind rainbow America! How wrong they are...

The idea that we can waltz peacefully into a new racial minority status without their being dangerous repercussions for our people is one of the biggest mistakes the left has ever made. Many on the left see it coming (they aren't ignorant) they have just forgotten about that humanity is captive to certain inherent struggles that mere "political fiat" will never dissolve.

2/03/2008 09:48:00 AM  
Blogger New Sisyphus said...

In my view, there are three things going on here at the same time:

1) Long a problem confirmed to neighboroods like mine in Los Angeles and out Southwestern communities, at some point in the past 4 years the massive influx hit a tipping over point with numbers so large that perviously spared communties in the most unlikely places now find themselves with either a tow-hold population of Latinos or a mature settlement. This is unprecedented.

2) As this issue rises in people's daily lives, the Latino issue has come to be seen as vastly more critical than the Black proplem, which is (for most) easily avoided.

3) The housing crunch and financial uncertainty, not to mention simply the size of the Mexican migrant wave, make it very difficult for avarage White Flight to work, if it can be properly financed.

The end result I can see all around me: People are moving, no away, but to distinct neighborhoods. They use catchphrases like "safe neighborhoolds" and the ever-popular "good schools" to navigate the demands of PC, but everyone knows what they are talking about.

Many of these couples are stretching it with double or triple employment. Most sadly, as the invaders just aver the hill have child after child after child, for which we then have to pay for, our people feel it would be "irresponsible" given their burdens.

I put this all together and I agree with Prozium: the center cannot hold, we are past the age of reform, we are in a revolutionary age. European-men need to prepare for the possibility of taking power and doing everything we can to ensure that this never happens again, even if that means the deportation of millions of White liberal out of our country.

That's the bad news. The good news is that we've got truth on our side. You sit a white man down and talk to him forthrightly and gain his trust and you'll find he is with you 70% of the time. This is our great strength.

But let's not kid ourselves that we're going to able to argue the elite into a change of position. We can't. And THEY will be coming for US in a atmosphere where most will be conviced that it is WE who are anti-American. That is why we must organized now, today.

We have to be able to offer a respectable counter-narrative to their assault, enough to survive the initial blows, which will be screamingly supported by the Latinos and the Blacks.

2/03/2008 11:04:00 AM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

I also agree that Prozium is correct in his ssessment that we are in a revoluationary age and that the time for "reforming the system" has come and gone.

Unfortunately, this truth can be rather debilitating since no one really knows how to engender a revolution.

2/03/2008 01:32:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Skeptical, I agree the wishful thinking of some leftists is unjustified. Unfortunately for us it is not a mistake whose consequences will only be felt by them.

2/04/2008 02:30:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

New Sisyphus, the surge in the metastasization of latinos coincides almost exactly with Bush taking office. They clearly felt comfortable enough on his watch to move about within the country like they never had before. You can clearly see this in schooldigger.com graphs.

I have also noticed the enclavization in southern CA. I'm unfortunately on the wrong side of the border forming in my area. When I move I'm not going to move to a shrinking enclave here, I'm leaving Aztlan and heading east.

We do have truth, but it is losing to PC. Thankfully even most deracinated Whites still exhibit subconscious racial awareness. They can't help it, it's biological. Organizing is dangerous. It also has not worked well so far. More must wake up first. What we can do for now is talk honestly, both online and with those close to us.

2/04/2008 02:31:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

JJB - South America exhibits a different race/class fight. There are numerous "allegations" of prejudice based upon skin color usually on the basis of black-skinned hispanics citing prejudice by light (or lighter) skinned hispanics.

Tan et al - Whites are in power currently but fail to combat the PC-driven legislation and litigation that has strengthened in the last 30 years. This beauracratic titanic fails to institute change to deserving legislation (ie, affirmative action) and does greater injustice by failing to finance changes (ie, immigration enforcement).

reform/revolution - two words that in the US expressively mean the same thing. Revolt by what means? Pitchforks and torches? No, revolution will come when we can find candidates who are not life-time appointments and will not bend committment to the highest bidder.

2/04/2008 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

BTW - Its Black History month. Any chance you can do an appropriate posting?

2/04/2008 11:52:00 AM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

FlippityFloppity,

"No, revolution will come [until] we can find candidates who are not life-time appointments and will not bend committment to the highest bidder."

Ha!

Who will these pro-White candidates be and how will they avoid the media onslaught? And in just what kind of America do you think such a politician would arise?

I doubt we'll ever see such a politician who'll defend us explicitly until the mindset of our race (in the States) radically changes. And that would require a cultural revolution in its own right.

"Revolt by what means? Pitchforks and torches?"

Point taken. The idea that revolution is needed is coming from people that have never known revolution.

I will add that revolution can take several different forms and is by no means a necessarily violent phenomena. Whatever the case may be, I think we can all agree that the contemporary U.S. may need a revolution (of some kind), but the conditions for it probably aren't there yet.

But let's not fool ourselves here, anyone who is seeking a resurgent White racial consciousness is asking for (at the very least) some kind of cultural revolution. And that fact alone makes us all revolutionaries to some degree.

2/04/2008 01:22:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Skep,
If you've read some of my entries you would know Im an anti-racist. That's racism of any kind - particularly government-sponsored racism (ie, affirmative action and voter "rights"). Tan makes austerical references to liberal influence on illegal immigration (through multiculturalism) yet wasnt it was the extreme left that bellowed against NAFTA and everything global on the basis of unfair trade and worker conditions? Many of the left-wing whackos predicted outsourcing and in-sourcing as an eventuality and the rise of aristocracy. OK, even I thought they were whackos (then).

The influence of $$$ incentives on politicians (whether its the payday to the political war chest or the promise of the payday later) is destroying any illusion of representative government (for the people, by the people).

The cultural revolution started 40 years ago and this is the result. If you live in an area overrun by illegals or near the rising tide, you have until the next census to finish your fighting. Between the "new" representation based on demographics for your district and the anticipated redistricting - we can expect that the 10 million temporary visitors (this decade) will equate to 10-20 new latino Congressman. And I have a feeling they wont buy into the kumbaya rainbow community.

The immediate response must be to pressure the feds to close the borders. This can be accomplished, IF, collectively (white nationalists and anti-racists), we contain the rhetoric to closing the borders. There is no reasonable response to counter this logic. Once the border is closed we can take on the 800 lb gorilla and attempt to remove the unwanted guests from our home. This of course will be faced by racism & PC from all directions and may or may not be achievable.

It is during this period I naively hope local and state govts will try to regain control and power over the situation. But this will require some legal organization to spring up and take on all comers - not only the "minority" interests but the federal govt as well. As much as I disagree with several of the issues Tancredo's Judicial Watch fights for, they are a step in a direction I support.

2/05/2008 06:44:00 AM  
Blogger Hibernia Girl said...

Tanstaafl: ...the surge in the metastasization of latinos coincides almost exactly with Bush taking office.

In case you haven't already seen them, Steve Sailer has written quite a lot on the Bush family-Mexican elite connection. Here are just a couple:

El Andar Probes Bush Family's Mexican Contacts

The Bush Betrayal: Maybe He’s Not Thinking But Feeling—Family Feeling, Mexican Style

2/05/2008 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger New Sisyphus said...

On the issue of reform vs. revolution:

To say, as I do, that there is no possibility of peaceful political reform is not to say that one cheers violent revolution or wishes for catastrophe; it is merely a diagnosis. When one imagines the scope of change that would be required to roll back what is currently occurring, one quickly realizes that the matter is revolutionary by nature. I’m shocked that people have a problem with this, especially since the elite and our own political leaders quite obviously are of the same view. It doesn’t take much searching to find statements to that effect. For example, here is President Clinton, speaking to the graduating class of 1998 at Portland State University:


“But now we are being tested again by a new wave of immigration larger than any in a century, far more diverse than any in our history. Each year, nearly a million people come legally to America. Today, nearly one in ten people in America was born in another country; one in five schoolchildren are from immigrant families. Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. [Applause] Within 5 years, there will be no majority race in our largest State, California. [Applause] In a little more than 50, years there will be no majority race in the United States. [Applause] No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.”


When, 10 years ago, the President himself can declare the current situation unprecedented in the history of the world and the time of European-American majority approaching its end, I think it’s unexceptional for European-Americans to conclude, 1) we’re history and 2) our leaders are all for that.

2/05/2008 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

The one-world immigration invasion zealots have no grounds to characterize anyone else as revolutionary or extreme.

Wanting to stop the accelerating progressivist-globalist churn isn't extreme. I want society to return to sanity. I want an end to the Universal Revolution. It is based on the false premise that people are identical interchangeable cogs, and is in fact a socio-political-economic pyramid scheme benefiting a caste at the top which most certainly does not see themselves as having anything in common with the cogs.

2/05/2008 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Portland State University - another predominantly white place that has no idea where ground zero is and what the real impact is. [applause]

There is no turning back with the exception of the illegals. They will outbreed the white population unless the non-whites achieve the same socio-economic condition(-ing) as the spawn-impoverished whites.

Super Tuesday is looking more like Super Amnesty. At least the elitist Clinton wont give them driver's licenses until she anoints them with legal residence.

2/06/2008 06:39:00 AM  
Blogger New Sisyphus said...

Tanstaafl -

Your statement:

Wanting to stop the accelerating progressivist-globalist churn isn't extreme. I want society to return to sanity. I want an end to the Universal Revolution. It is based on the false premise that people are identical interchangeable cogs, and is in fact a socio-political-economic pyramid scheme benefiting a caste at the top which most certainly does not see themselves as having anything in common with the cogs.


is very, very well said. I think that is just about as close to a one-paragraph platfrom for the nationalist right that one could hope for.

Perhaps, as a tactical matter, we should consider simply stating what we are for rather than what we are against and then see who opposes in fact.

Would not that be more productive than deciding in advance?

2/06/2008 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

New Sisyphus,

The essence of conservatism that most of us here, many of the lemmings who voted for McCain, and even alot of liberals share is that we favor many things that are under constant attack. Family, peace, safety, beauty, reason, truth, justice, stability, ... The problem with simply defining what we are for is that that alone does not protect those things from attack. That the attacks are often disguised and indirect makes us look like aggressors when we counter-attack or even just attempt to reveal the true aggressors.

If we shorten my one-paragraph platform to a single sentence the issue is more clear:

I oppose the progressivist-globalist revolution which is destroying the things I value.

Or even more succinct...

Stop the revolution.

There is an important distinction between revolution and counter-revolution, even though as you point out both may involve violence. The distinction is a moral one - it is the difference between naked aggression and self-defense. The radicals attacking and transforming our society want us to forget that distinction. We must not.

I agree with Prozium that "conservativism" has failed, "reform" is now discredited and quixotic. Even so we should reject the labels "extremist" and "revolutionary" as the smears they are, very much like "racist" and "anti-semite". All these labels are an attempt to intimidate, marginalize, dehumanize, and ultimately silence and defeat us. Noting their sources however, as you rightly point out, does help identify our enemies.

2/06/2008 11:46:00 AM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

Tanstaafl,

You wrote:

"I agree with Prozium that "conservativism" has failed, "reform" is now discredited and quixotic. Even so we should reject the labels "extremist" and "revolutionary" as the smears they are, very much like "racist" and "anti-semite". All these labels are an attempt to intimidate, marginalize, dehumanize, and ultimately silence and defeat us. Noting their sources however, as you rightly point out, does help identify our enemies."

We should never embrace the language of our enemies (such as "racist", "extremist", and "anti-semite"), which have only served as cynical rhetorical devices used to beat White minds into orthodoxy.

However, as you just admitted, there really aren't any mainstream avenues of political expression left for patriots such as us. The "conservative movement" really is the moderate's attempt to convince our countrymen to restore our nation through sound political representation. But, and unfortunately for us, they haven't proved sufficiently successful in their efforts to reach the public. Proof positive is John McC[amnesty] wrapping up the GOP nomination in a party dominated by conservatives.

So, although it may not beneficial to advertise ourselves as such (especially in the early stages), the remaining cards White Americans like us have left to play are revolutionary in nature. Furthermore, this is not necessarily a bad thing since the revolutionary spirit is a defining attribute of the historical American character. After all, the people who wrested this country from England are still known today as the "American Revolutionaries".

The revolutionary label may at first seem off-putting but it can become a rallying cry later on. Like it was for earlier Americans.

2/06/2008 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

You will call your selves patriots and revolutionaries, the opposing side will call you insurgents. More labels, more word play. There is little need for titles for movements and followers. Decrying yourselves "conservatives" says one thing : NO CHANGE. The American revolutionaries did not have conservative values - they were the ultimate liberal-progressives of the time - representation for the people by the people? Who are these rebels daring to oppose Parliament and the Crown?

You are looking for more than "No Change". But in the effort you are going beyond recognition and attacks on racism by non-whites (much of which is government-sponsored) by supporting racism for whites. You assist their racism by promoting THEIR class/race/religion as a separate entity worth fighting for.

The more you associate race with issues, the more your opponents will rally behind the PC teflon shield and call you racists while embracing their own torted racist acts.

Its mutually assured destruction.

2/07/2008 07:23:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Skeptical,

the remaining cards White Americans like us have left to play are revolutionary in nature

Actually we don't have that card yet. White people, as things are now, are not going to revolt. Perhaps the mood will change if the economy collapses. Even then the general tendency for Whites to be well-behaved and law-abiding will not serve us well, especially relative to the more insular and predatory races that have infiltrated our society. In other words, we're losing ground now, what makes anyone believe we won't lose ground faster when civility breaks down?

What we need first and foremost is a change of mind. Whites need to see themselves as Whites. To recognize that anti-racism, multiculturalism, diversity, and political correctness are, in fact, anti-Whitism. To see that their interests as Whites are as legitimate and defensible as any other group's interests. And to be relentless and fearless in sniffing out anti-White sentiments and opposing them, just as any other cohesive group does for themselves.

We need a revolution of mind before any physical revolution is possible. With the proper mindset we never would have come to this pass. Our forefathers can be excused for not properly evaluating an unprecedentedly awful future. We are now living that future, staring into the demographic abyss. We have no such excuse. Spread the word.

2/07/2008 10:09:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

flippityflopitty,

The more you associate race with issues, the more your opponents will rally behind the PC teflon shield and call you racists while embracing their own torted racist acts.

Its mutually assured destruction.


I think I understand your argument. Further above you call yourself an anti-racist. I don't think you are what that label generally means. Google anti-racism or Noel Ignatiev. Anti-racists are anti-White, and I know you're not hostile to Whites.

What you want is for all race-based advocacy and identity politics to stop, for all "racism" to be delegitimized. You wish for a race-agnostic, colorblind, deracinated society. In this you are like the majority of educated Whites. I myself would have agreed entirely up until this past year.

I see at least two major problems with this deracinated position:

1) It opposes human nature. Affinity for kith and kin is inborn. We can make systems of justice that compensate for this fact, but we cannot eliminate it. Propagandistic education and media have suppressed the impulse in Whites, and only Whites, but even so it remains latent and expresses itself unconsciously.

2) Dictating how others should think is ethically and morally untenable.

People have every right to bond together, for whatever reasons, for their mutual benefit. Jews, asians, latinos, and blacks all do so, without any harassment whatsoever from "polite society". In fact their self-advocacy is celebrated. It is much easier for Whites to demand that they too have a right to advocate and celebrate themselves then it is to attack every other group. That strategy has been a disaster for Whites and has only reinforced the anti-racist portrayal of Whites as aggressors.

As far as mutually assured destruction goes, I'd prefer that to the assured destruction Whites alone face under the status quo.

2/07/2008 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

Tanstaafl,

I completely agree, we are currently in no position to "do" anything since there is no White racial consciousness to work with. The revolution of the mind (and spirit) must precede anything else.

I do believe that actions of a revolutionary nature are all that's left for us. But I did not mean to imply that we were ready for such a thing. Of course, we're just about the furthest thing from it...

2/07/2008 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Just more labels. I googled anti-racist and the hits are all over the place - from "roots in the abolitionist movement" to "antiracist - a blog to uncover anti-semitism and anti-zionism". Ignatiev is no anti-racist - he's anti-white racism. And he theorizes the only way America can be free of the white racist politics is to be a race traitor - yeah, great line of sheet Iggie.

Aracial, deracial, agnost-racial, race-transparency - pick a label - you get my objective.

"1) It opposes human nature. Affinity for kith and kin is inborn"

So much of "civilzed society" opposes human nature. Man is adaptive - many "educated whites" and non-whites alike look beyond race - is education the problem/soultion?

Kith and kin - more words: Old english, latin, high german or common use today? Anglo-saxons dont count me into their kin so where does the whiteness end and begin? Ive posted the wisdom of my friend before - He hates and distrusts all equally until they give him reason not to.

"2) Dictating how others should think is ethically and morally untenable."

Im not dictating "thought", Im suggesting "tactics" not "tact". An anonymous posting requires no PC and is a valued forum - but, a real world solution in this country requires tact and compromise to accomplish the objectives. The objective is what's at stake, yes?

"Stop the revolution."

It will be a short "revolution" if you try to maintain a "white only" lifeboat. Choose your issue and identify those opposed as your enemy - it may fall on racial lines, but dont identify race to the issue - stick to the issue. If the issue is racial discrimination - address it as "ethically and morally untenable". Non-white racism should be met with same disdain as white racism.

2/08/2008 10:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Anon1138 said...

I'm surprised that tanstaafi wastes any of his time responding to you flippityflopitty.

You waffle on endlessly, splitting hairs over this and that but I can't figure out what your position is.

I suspect your just a time waster.

2/08/2008 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Anon1138,

I know FF. His intentions are good. His flipping and flopping spring from his skepticism and humility.

Any worldview should be able to stand criticism and doubt. FF represents mainstream Whites who are critical and doubtful that race matters. If anything he's more willing to hear and argue with what he doesn't like than the typical mainstream White is.



FF,

Can you see that once you agree to the anti-racist agenda there is no such thing as anti-Whitism? Think about it. It's like agreeing there are no color crayons and then getting upset that the pink crayons tend to get thrown away. What pink crayons?

All anti-racism, even your egalitarian brand, defies reality. Accepting its premise is like putting blinders on. Whites have unilaterally put those blinders on. It keeps us from seeing attacks on Whites as such and undermines our objections to such attacks.

2/09/2008 10:17:00 AM  
Anonymous anon1138 said...

OK tanstaafi, maybe your right and I'm wrong.

Can flippityflopitty tell me what he/she thinks of these race and IQ videos on youtube?

Are they valid or just a load of scientific racist nonsense?

2/09/2008 02:41:00 PM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

FlippityFloppity,

You said:

"It will be a short 'revolution' if you try to maintain a 'white only' lifeboat. Choose your issue and identify those opposed as your enemy - it may fall on racial lines, but dont identify race to the issue - stick to the issue."

Race-blind ideological advocacy has been the strategy of the modern GOP since the defection of the Southern Democrats. And where has it gotten us? Who could doubt the fecklessness and weakness rife in the modern "conservative" movement?

Sorry, but your approach has already been tried and has failed. Whether you want to admit it or not, it is time for something different.

2/09/2008 10:07:00 PM  
Anonymous silver said...

Tanstaafl said:

Can you see that once you agree to the anti-racist agenda there is no such thing as anti-Whitism? Think about it. It's like agreeing there are no color crayons and then getting upset that the pink crayons tend to get thrown away. What pink crayons?


Anti-racism sits comfortably with advocating for black causes.

If you wished to, though, you could apply the no-pink-crayons logic to blacks: Let's pay the poor to forego children; there can't be any "disparate impact" because there's no such thing as race; let's just do the right thing for the country as a whole.


As for FF, cutting to the chase, he has reservations about WN because he's not anglo-saxon. He'd rather throw in his lot with blacks and mestizoes and drag everyone down with him than risk anglo rejection. Same old story, really.

The simplest way to avoid that complication is to get "majority rights" (the concept, not the blog) on the public agenda: the historic white majority has a right to survive, and how can that survival be secured. Most everything else can flow from that.

2/10/2008 02:46:00 AM  
Anonymous anon1138 said...

Silver wrote:
"As for FF, cutting
to the chase, he has
reservations about
WN because he's not
anglo-saxon."

Ah, I understand now. FF wants to enjoy the benefits of an all White society but still cling to the utopian multi-cultural dream. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

LOL.

2/10/2008 04:41:00 PM  
Anonymous skeptical said...

silver,

"As for FF, cutting to the chase, he has reservations about WN because he's not anglo-saxon."

I have a hard time believing this since most White Americans aren't wholly anglo-saxon either.

Old Stock Anglo-Americans typically have a mixture of anglo-saxon, celtic, and germanic ancestry while many turn of the century European immigrants have (in addition to the preceding) latin, and slavic origins as well.

2/10/2008 05:19:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

As Ive stated in previous posts Im Irish-Italian-German-English (in that order of %) and some previous postings on AS heredity have indicated my Irish-Italian blood kicks me out of the club. I dont bear any weight on my bloodline but consider myself simply "American" - white by chance.

Anon- how is discussion and peeling back the onion wasting time - would you prefer rah! rah! white power - lets beat up non-whites and let the games begin! What happened to the good ol' days of my grandfather when we didnt have to share bathrooms, water fountains or counters based on skin pigment?

Race and IQ - I guess you buy into being subservient to the Az Jews because of their superior IQ?

Skeptical - Where did it get them? Lets emphasize - The conservative movement HAD control of the Congress, the Presidency and were one dead Justice from the Judiciary. Their "aracial" modernist policy didnt do them in - they got drunk on power and instead of using 9/11 as a defining moment they pushed an imperialistic ideology, instead of pushing fiscal conservatism they did something far worse than tax and spend - they borrowed to the hilt and spent, instead of closing the borders they outsourced and in-sourced jobs and are promoting an EU-esque North American block. Not to mention the wonderful Bush privatization efforts - what wonderful response the Fed has with FEMA, building border fences, prescription drugs, etc. - and so competitively priced as well!

Dare we fail to mention bankruptcy - those evil poor blacks and hispanics who declare bankruptcy and dont want to pay credit card or medical bills - screw them! But when an airline, energy company or car manufacturer want to go chapter 11 and reneg on pension and benefits - by all means lets have a federal bailout. How about throwing money at the banks for selling bad loans so people dont lose the houses they should never of had in the first place? (OK thats a Democrat congress doing that).

Those crazy liberals were against NAFTA and globalization when Clinton started pushing it - and who helped Clinton get it (and the open borders policy) rolling - conservatives.

And how about the former pope of conservatism - Saint Ronald and The Great Amnesty? Can you say "veto"?

What does WN and the "all-white society" bring to the table? A lot of talk and a lot more lawsuits. And who has been winning the lawsuits - illegal aliens despite the fact that they have no voting rights our voting system is based upon demographics. So hola to your reps in So Cal and Texas next census.

So dont try to organize constructive arguments and solutions [like lets concentrate efforts on closing the borders] - keep waving your white flag.

2/11/2008 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Tan
Anything pro-race in America is either anti-white or the "racism" general PC variety. I agree the deck is stacked against whites who promote the white race. My point has been Ive seen what "race" awareness has been successful in doing - getting illegal immigrants successful lawsuits against municipalities. Every time an illegal alien gets rounded up he just cries out "racism" and some how wiggles free - why? Because most II's are latino and most law enforcement personnel cant contain their racist diatribe even when its for shits and giggles and they dont have any sense of "race".

This only adds fuel to II's anti-white racist policies and supports their contention that they need protection from the white racist majority.

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/NEWS02/802070370

"Further, the judge found evidence of a "racial appeal" that marred political campaigns. He cited an anti-Hispanic flier circulated during the 2007 mayoral race."

This "racial appeal" is what is going to screw Port Chester out of winning a potential Supreme Court decision and give voting rights and representation back to the citizenry - for whom it was intended.

Show me where white-racism has helped change flawed govt policy in Modern America.

2/11/2008 08:04:00 AM  
Anonymous anon1138 said...

FlippityFlopitty wrote:

"As Ive stated in previous
posts Im Irish-Italian-German
-English"


Then you are White.

"Anon- how is discussion and
peeling back the onion wasting
time - would you prefer rah!
rah! white power - lets beat
up non-whites and let the games
begin!"


That's not what I'm talking about. I read one of your posts, get to the end of it and think... eh??? Try reading it again and usually give up. Maybe it's just me being a thicko or lazy.

"Race and IQ - I guess you
buy into being subservient to
the Az Jews because of their
superior IQ?"


Straw man. I can accept the IQ findings without buying into the concept of being a slave. To me those findings fit the way the world seems to function.

"Skeptical - Where did it
get them? Lets emphasize -
The conservative movement
HAD control of the Congress,"


You still labour under the delusion that who we vote for actually runs the show?

"instead of using 9/11 as a
defining moment they pushed an
imperialistic ideology"


What were they supposed to do to create a defining moment out of 9/11 then? Arrest themselves and some Zionists?

2/11/2008 09:45:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Let's work backwards -

On 09/12/2001 the border should have been closed. National ID cards should have been mandated - does it fix the 20 million illegal alien problem - no, but its a start.

And visitors should have been required to provide DNA at the "golden door".

The show and delusions - White Nationalism serves up what? More hatred for the non-whites to beat us up in court on? So why bother voting when the fix is in? If the $$$ controlled by Jews (not your reference) really controls all the strings, how do you envision whooping up an audience to counter them? They'll throw your 1st Amendment Rights in the shitter and call you a kooky klansman. Who do you think legislates appropriations to the traitors - your representatives. $$$$ controls the show and its monocolor - green.

Straw men - IQ denotes what? Potential. So if I take good racial stock and stick them in front of a playstaion for ten years - what's all that IQ potential going to turn out? A crack head in Harlem (or for those PC-minded people - a meth-head in Eureka). Does poverty shape potential? Diet? Family life? Or should we just give people IQ tests and dictate their future? (I think we do that one already)

Onion-peeling - maybe you think I buy into the kumbaya-social-engineering-everybody is essentially good (christian) folks. I dont. Everyone generally harbors distrust for everyone else. Civilization is an attempt to moderate the distrust enough to work together for a better way of life. Kith & kin? I know families with members that would stab each other in a heartbeat and you want me to rally on the basis race? Wasting time would be to try to convince you not to distrust (and I would be lying thru my teeth in the process). I dont want an aracial society - I want an aracial govt (expanding the concept to religion et al).

White by chance- But if I was half chinese and didnt give a rats ass what my roots were - could I claim white-hood? Does a 3rd generation latino have less standing in the country than a founding father descendant (white or black)? How about a descendant of a spanish/indian californian who waived the American flag and fought with Fremont? And the 1st generation Irish mothers or black English fathers?

Majority rule - does that mean California whites should not share power any longer and yield to the non-white majority?

2/11/2008 11:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

As Ive stated in previous posts Im Irish-Italian-German-English (in that order of %)

This is the problem with white multiculturalism (aka white nationalism). It leads from the above position to this:

White by chance- But if I was half chinese and didnt give a rats ass what my roots were - could I claim white-hood? Does a 3rd generation latino have less standing in the country than a founding father descendant (white or black)? How about a descendant of a spanish/indian californian who waived the American flag and fought with Fremont? And the 1st generation Irish mothers or black English fathers?

It's a flat out denial that race/ethnicity matters. You cannot be half Chinese and deny the genetic influence. Are the Chinese different than the Nordics? Are the Latinos, with little European blood and virtual no Northern European blood different? Is Mexico, Venezuela, Jamaica and Brazil, maybe 1% European, different from the US? What is a "black" Englishmen?. If you were a third generation South African does that make you a Zulu?

If you are content with an America that resembles Brazil, where even your Irish/Italian genetic uniqueness is bred out, then race/ethnicity does not matter.

2/11/2008 03:58:00 PM  
Anonymous silver said...

Skeptical said:

I have a hard time believing this since most White Americans aren't wholly anglo-saxon either.

Old Stock Anglo-Americans typically have a mixture of anglo-saxon, celtic, and germanic ancestry while many turn of the century European immigrants have (in addition to the preceding) latin, and slavic origins as well.


What I meant was that whites who don't fit the "Old Stock" profile and who argue against WN do so because of in/out concerns.

Certainly many of the "New Stock" consider themselves out and out WNs.

FF:

Show me where white-racism has helped change flawed govt policy in Modern America.

The Immigration Act of 1924.

That's the kind of thing a nation racially conscious of who it is can do.

The problem you have now is most whites do not see themselves (positively) as part of the white race and/or believe that acting in their racial best interests is immoral. Obviously remedying this state of affairs is the first order of business.

As for the exclusion of non-whites, this certainly pains many a white. But the point is multiracialism wasn't a good idea right from the beginning and it is still not a good idea today; as a form of social arrangement, it is vastly inferior to racial homogeneity. Whites have had multiracialism thrust at them and shoved down their throats. They did not elect it. Thus protesting it cannot be seen as immoral.

Furthermore, FF, I agree with anon that your posts ramble and the point you wish to make is difficult to discern. You seem to string together series of questions for rhetorical effect -- to befuddle? -- without realising that those questions have coherent answers from a WN perspective. It would be in your interest to avail yourself of those answers.

2/11/2008 04:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

The Immigration Act of 1924.

That's the kind of thing a nation racially conscious of who it is can do.


It's the kind of thing an ethnically conscious nation can do. And something WN's oppose.

For instance, in England,

"A boy of ten who claims to have been attacked by a Slovakian woman with an iron bar could be charged with inciting racial hatred, it emerged last night.

Jake Stedman admitted that the woman hit him after he threw a berry at her and told her to 'go back to her own country'."

A WN reaction;

"This boy no doubt has all the making of a future welfare-scrounging, drug taking career petty criminal.

Anti-Slovakian racism is anti-Aryan racism. He didn`t have the intelligence or the balls to direct his venom against legitimate targets."

2/11/2008 07:52:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

The Immigration Act of 1924 restricted immigration. It didnt call to segregate races or ethnicities. As Ive stated, I want immigration to cease (which evolved from illegal immigration to cease). I recognize that until we have a system that controls the in-flow, we cannot tolerate any visitors who wish to stay.

Maybe I'm confused - WN's are calling for more than immigration control and removal of the invaders (which I additionally agree with but may disagree on the methods) - they are calling for social engineering that segregates by race. Whites here - and we dont give a shit where the non-whites go as long as it isnt here.

DJ - Im not denying genetics - we are what we are by chance. But your genetics do not dictate your culture, language or sense of nationalism. A 3rd generation black englishman is obviously not "anglo-saxon" but is he a Briton? Is he willing to spill blood for the queen? I apologize for the annoying rhetorical questions and they are not meant to be confusing.

There has been a multitude of postings that point out the acts of racism BY non-whites which I have recognized and Tan's point has been to make more people aware of it. What I disagree with is the tactic to promote white racism (or prejudice) to counter the non-white racism. The two main reasons I oppose it are 1) it excludes (and creates an enemy where there wasnt one) a large aracial faction of the population of varying races and ethnicities who support many of the things you stand for; 2) the non-whites have cornered the anti-racism market - a good example of this is Obama - he can be Mr. Aracial (and believe and live an aracial life) but if there is even the slightest hint of racism ("fairytale" - this is racism?) the knee jerk reaction favors the "minority". This goes beyond the polite society and is ingrained in our current government institutions including legal precedents to back it up. (ie, my ramblings regarding current municipalities under siege from illegal aliens lawsuits) The point is the "race" card will always be anti-white, when whites try to play it they always lose the hand.

Silver - "acting in their racial best interests". What exactly is this (not rhetorical) - you can provide a link if the summary is too long. "racial homogeneity" - separate countries, voting districts, school districts, public bathrooms or what? There have been prior postings that "we tried the multi-culturalism thing its time for something new" - WN is nothing new - this pre-existed and created the left-wing knee jerk reaction in 1965.

2/12/2008 07:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

Flip,

It didnt call to segregate races or ethnicities.

Races already were segregated, in large part. Plessy v. Ferguson. Exclusive covenants ran with realty title and many US states upheld anti-miscegenation laws.

social engineering?

Look at a US ancestry map based on the 2000 Census. It's evident that de facto segregation exists. It's a natural default position.

But your genetics do not dictate your culture, language or sense of nationalism.

Of course they do. Isn't that the issue with Jewish groups? Each ethnic/racial group evolved traits that enhanced their survival in the environment they inhabited. Canada's Afghan fatalities amount to ~80. Of those, two are non-white, though the non-white population in Canada is ~20%. US fatalities in Iraq (and probably the Stan) are also disproportionately white.

1) it excludes (and creates an enemy where there wasnt one)

There already is an enemy. La Raza, the ADL and the NAACP to name but three of the thousands, nay tens of thousands, of US NGOs that target white racialism.

Marcia Clark discovered in the OJ trial that race trumps gender, however, the Clinton's thought they knew better. After all Bill was the first black president.

Despite the rhetoric, IMO, Yancey is probably closest to the truth.

"Yancey, a sociologist at the University of North Texas, provides compelling evidence that supports the (unstated) hypothesis that the color line of the twentieth century will remain firmly entrenched in the twenty-first. Using as his point of departure the popular projection that whites will soon be a minority group, Yancey opens his book by arguing that whites will remain the majority despite the growing populations of Latino/as and Asian Americans. How can the increase of Latino/as and Asian Americans enforce, rather than disrupt, the color line? Simple. By 2050, according to Yancey, most Latino/as and Asian Americans will be white."

2/12/2008 03:19:00 PM  
Anonymous anon1138 said...

FlippityFloppity wrote:
"DJ - Im not denying genetics - we
are what we are by chance. But your
genetics do not dictate your culture,
language or sense of nationalism."


Your genetics do, to some degree, dictate your culture, language and sense of nationalism.

How else can you explain black "culture" in America? There are some 5th generation black Americans who STILL don't talk with one of the many understandable US accents? Why can't they assimilate? Racism perhaps?

Here we see some black "culture".

Here we see some black "language".

Here we see some black "nationalism".

2/12/2008 04:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Desmond said:

It's the kind of thing an ethnically conscious nation can do. And something WN's oppose.


Yes, you're right. With respect to to the 1924 Act, my reading of it is that at the time many racial (as opposed to "ethnic") arguments were employed, and FF specifically asked for an instance of what "white racism" has ever achieved.

As for WN, yes, it's at best incomplete. But it is a good way to get the issues out there.

2/12/2008 06:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whites will become the minority much sooner than 2050. Already, according to the Census Bureau, 45% of the children under age 5 are non-white. Put that statistic together with estimates of 1-2 million foreigners flooding into the US every year, the high birth rate of Muslims and Mexicans, and add in observations about gross inbreeding in large cities such as Houston (about 50% of the customers at a typical Toys-R-Us in Houston are mixed-race), and you have a white minority by 2020. And don't forget the NAFTA superhighway and the SPP, which effectively merges Mexico with the US. Our minority status is guaranteed. It's a done deal, the die is cast.

But do the "white" Jews care? Do their lackeys in the media care? Does the white leadership care (don't tell me THEY don't know)? Ya, right. This situation is exactly what the Jews have all been preaching at least since the late 1800's. Their push of the 1965 Immigration Act has paid off very handsomely. Communism (a Jewish-invented and Jewish-led ideology) is the most effective tool for disempowering and killing whites ever invented.

The Jewish religion tells Jewss that they are destined to rule the world. Maybe and maybe not. But, according to Vanity Fair, it seems that just now, they do. The VF list shows that at least 50-60 of the 100 most powerful people in the world are Jewish. It is becoming more know that Jews control all major media, most of the world banking systems, most of American Academia, most of the American legal system, ad nauseam. Jews have assured themselves (they think) the effective neutering of all opposition by stealing whites' country and handing it to the invaders. Who knows this who could keep their temper? Whites, tell everyone you know about this situation. It's your duty to your fellow man, your ancestors, and to your children. And, white man, you ain't worth spit if you are afraid of speaking the simple truth to your friends and relatives.

2/13/2008 06:23:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

DJ - we talked about exclusive realty rights before and we both agree constitutionality is subjective and changes with the justices. if you have de facto segregation (what are you worried about? except...) then you cant be looking for more than me - removal of govt-sponsored racism (ie, affirmative action, integration, ignoring the immigration problem).
Genetics - c'mon, if you take a jewish orphan and put him with a white irish catholic family in gloucester does he start speaking yiddish after reaching puberty?

Disproportionate fatalities: no answer, according to recruitment numbers - race is right in line with recruitment.

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda05-08.cfm

I could make some anti-white jug-head remark but I dont think its appropriate (damn, did I write that?).

"The enemy where there wasnt one" are the people (white and non-white that Ive spoken to) that do not support illegal immigration or bringing in refugees, are concerned the school districts are being swamped by ESL students, are seeing housing costs (rental and purchase) accelerate, are seeing property (aka school) taxes grow at exponential rates, and hate seeing the new squeegee guys (aka day laborers) on street corners.

2/13/2008 07:28:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Anon - see last remark re: j-Jew/i-Irish catholic. Also, consider black (crack-head mom after pregnancy) orphan switched at birth with white upper-class anglo. [that would make a funny movie] How many white kids do you see that talk and act black? [rhetorical]

Any - "Whites will become the minority much sooner than 2050." YES! and if we do nothing about the border and the invaders we are all toast - white & non-white (welcome to the turd world). Immigration must CEASE! Our govt has done nothing since the Great Amnesty, nothing since 9/11 and nothing since Lou Dobbs picked up the weakly lit torch. If we stand by and wait for the White (its the j-Jews fault) Nationalists to rise up, we may as well buy our Rosetta Stone now.

Se habla ingles?

2/13/2008 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Anon1138,

Great links. Alarming. The first two videos reinforce my support for separatism, de facto or de jure. The intellectual in the last video doesn't seem to have considered separatism, which nullifies the exploitative nature of his accusations of racism. His claim that "White supremacists" are "deceitful" demonstrates just how dangerous it is for Whites (generally separatists) to allow themselves to be confused with jews (generally integrationists).



FF,

"The enemy where there wasnt one" fails to consider that most such people are already enemies, or are likely to become enemies once they have more of their own brethren to side with. If telling people what you honestly want and believe makes them your enemy, then they are already enemies.

Your argument against White consciousness (which you call racism) is based on a belief that it is counter-productive. You couldn't be more wrong. White consciousness has been in decline for decades, and it is during that time that the dispossession, displacement, and dehumanization of Whites has accelerated. The negative image of and reactions to White "racism" that you see are produced by the propaganda of the anti-White regime. You are blaming Whites for the lies told by their enemies.

Of course the immigration invasion should end. The deracinated arguments ("I'm against illegal immigration!", "uphold the law!") aren't working. Obama will legalize all the invaders and invite millions more. Doesn't that bother you? Francis' saw almost 15 years ago (see the original post) that the basis for the immigration invasion is anti-Whitism, and thus it must be confronted as such. Today that is even more clear. Clear enough that even a deracinated White like myself can now see. Those who name me an enemy based on that honest and openly-stated opinion have identified themselves as enemies. Better to know who they are than to delude myself that they are friends.

2/13/2008 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I added an update to the original post linking more Francis, and with criticism for Sailer/FF's deracinated citizenism.

2/13/2008 04:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Desmond Jones said...

if you have de facto segregation (what are you worried about?

Fertility rates. Even w/o immigration, some groups will grow faster than others and thus desire to encroach on designated property.

Genetics - c'mon, if you take a jewish orphan and put him with a white irish catholic family in gloucester does he start speaking yiddish after reaching puberty?

No, however, I'll suggest s/he is predisposed to speak Yiddish, i.e. learn it more easily than the I/C siblings. Put it this way. Is s/he more likely to be an alcoholic?

Disproportionate fatalities:

http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx

Whites are 75% of fatalities while 66% of the population. Blacks are 9% of the fatalities while 15%(?) of the population.

"The enemy where there wasnt one" are the people (white and non-white that Ive spoken to) that do not support illegal immigration

If true, where do groups like the ADL get all their money? Does it fall from the sky?

Stephen Steinlight, the Jewish immigration revisionist:

“The white ‘Christian’ supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration (Europeans being defined as Nordic or Anglo-Saxon), a position re-asserted by Peter Brimelow, must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change.”

Maybe the Jews, who share your concerns, re; schools taxes, squeegee kids, will accept an Irish/Italian Christian as a non-supremacist white, however, it's doubtful.

Good luck with that though. :)

2/13/2008 04:19:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

White consciousness or white racism, its discrimination (showing preference or bias). And please lets not lecture on the "lies of the enemies" - Im not a self-flagellating "lets pay reparations for our great-great grandfathers unholy work".

Though I disagree on a personal level with white-ism over citizen-ism, you are dismissing the need for immediacy based upon some "higher calling". "White consciousness has been in decline for decades ... dehumanization of Whites has accelerated." How long do you think white consciousness is going to take to bloom? At 500K+ illegal non-whites entering the US annually - we dont have time to wait. The Constitution works against you when the population shifts continue. You cant wait to wake up the comatose patients.

If you cant live with lying to the world about your racism (aka discrimination aka bias) your white consciousness flag-waving will be as successful as Samuel T. Francis' for the last 15 years - monikered as a racist and not taken seriously. In the meantime 20 million more latinos will pour into the southwest and inner cities.

We have three candidates (sorry Huckster et al better luck next quadrennial) who support comprehensive reform aka amnesty. That means the only hope is to have a do-nothing congress do-nothing for four years on the invader issue. Right now we can press these same lame representatives to fulfill the 911 commission requirements for border enforcement (use their own criticism of Bush against them). We can press our local govts to get local enforcement cross-trained with ICE and our county seats to create detainment centers for deportation.

But you are going to have to swallow some white consciousness and lie to these racism-conscious (lawsuit-fearin') rabbits.

"Better to know who they are than to delude myself that they are friends."

And Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

These rabbits run the show - by the time the STFrancis' take power the white population will near extinction (or at least have no voting majority). All the polls support border controls - the real problems (aka stupidity aka "reform") begin when our reps try to pile on the invader problem and pork.

We've lost time (I was asleep but now Im awake) Do we have to wait for another 9/11 to give us the oppty to close the borders?

2/13/2008 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

DJ - Loving v. Virginia; Brown v. BOE - you need to get a law on the books and then face the legal scrutiny? (need I stress you need to trust legislators to pass a law that will survive the scrutiny) good luck with that!

Again I have no response to the casualty stats unless you can shed light - isnt every individual loss equal? Thats more a practical look at the sacrifice as opposed to some moral or religious view.

There is no doubt we face enemies. Lets work to close the source of the [current] problem and debate the social engineering aspects later. [I am not suggesting to stop thinking, change thought, etc. but to concentrate current efforts in closing the border and evicting invaders]. If you believe we cannot close the door except through the rise of white-isms, then time is not on our side and large swaths of America will be lost.

2/13/2008 09:40:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home