Kicking. Squealing.
I wasn’t around this part of the internet back in 2005, but I came across an online debate between Jared Taylor and Steve Sailer that I found interesting. Commenter icr posited that Jared Taylor isn’t a white nationalist, but Taylor wrote during his exchange with Sailer, “Steve Sailer’s charmingly discursive reply to my defense of white nationalism covers a lot of ground.”
In that exchange, Taylor wrote:
At the same time, I apologize to no one for putting my group first, just as non-whites do. Whites have a duty to their ancestors and an obligation to their children. Duty does not calculate the chances of success, as Mr. Sailer would have us do. Duty calls us to what is right.
My children deserve a country in which they can be proud of their heritage, where their culture is taken for granted, where their history is not treated like a criminal record, where they can be confident their own children will walk in the ways of their ancestors.
What do they say about “deserving”? So many of Taylor’s words are arbitrary and meant to conjure up romantic notions in the hearts of his white followers. Over how large a domain does a white person “deserve” a certain culture and a preservation of a certain heritage? White Nationalists’ goal is impossible. They want to rule over a huge landscape which consists of over 300 million people in a technologically-driven age.
This reminds me of the differences between processes and outcomes. Sailer’s citizenism is concerned with processes – the rule of law, property rights, the freedom of association - while Taylor’s white nationalism is concerned with outcomes which includes a steadfast aesthetic rule.
If we’re talking about the process or the system, this country was not founded on an aesthetic principle. It was founded on processional principles – I assume we’re all familiar with the founding documents. If the rule of law prevails and if the system is sound, it doesn’t really matter which pieces go where. Taylor et al have an eye on the preservation of certain aspects of the culture or the heritage. They want a certain outcome, and they aren’t really concerned with whether or not the system operates fairly and consistently.
This all seems pretty vague as even those within White Nationalism place different value on different aspects of the culture. Their ultimate argument is the rule that white people must always choose white. We should not ever choose idiosyncratically, according to WN’s. As an adult, that’s not a rule I could ever abide by. Even if I might choose those things to which I most closely identify i.e. “white things”, I could never accept such a limitation.
And where is the line? Elvis was the bridge–a white man who could perform and sell black music to the mass market. Would we choose Elvis? Is that a good outcome?
WN seems to start with a solution and then work backwards into the problem.
Well, yeah. Another thing is, how do you define a white person? The one-drop rule? Is Bliss Broyard black? This is racial totalitarianism, and it’s insane.
I’m a citizenist. Count me in. I’m also a constitutionalist. If we could just go back to that document, a lot of our problems would be solved.
You need the dream. You need the sizzle.
No matter how mild or moderate one is, white racial consciousness is THE most taboo thing in the entire world today.
We are asking men and women to resist their early education, the TV, much of the internet, many books, everything except biology. That takes inspiration. Inspiration is more than just logic or reason, it’s not a syllogism or an equation.
Of course, someone must look after the details. There’s plenty of accountants and economists out there. The real work happens behind the scenes. Men who can see the big picture, inspire greatness, put on a show, demonstrate leadership – that is rare. Emotion creates motion.
Ryu,
You rarely make sense. You speak in these romantic terms but never really say anything of substance. I mean, you can talk fuzzy all day long and convince yourself of whatever, but you need to convince me and all the others who aren’t WN that you offer something worth lining up behind.
How do you tell a white person? To begin with, by seeing what they look like. For me personally, the broadest possible definition of white irrespective of cultural factors, is as follows: is an average female of that group sexually attractive to me?
Citizenism assumes a static population mix, with no group imposing its norms on another. This requires good fences, which gets us back to the square-one of 1950.
If we would all just follow the rules, go back to the Constitution, followed the advice of the Founders…! Well, this is just a whole lot of foolishness. Everyone else is gaming the system for all they can. A bunch of shameless card counters, cheats of all sorts, and you don’t want to throw them out of the casino? Try telling La Raza, the NAACP, the ADL, and the rest of them that they should drop their tribal identities, stop agitating for special privileges, throw out the laurels and cash rewards of their victimhood statuses. Yes, I for one am sure that they’ll want the brilliant, golden luster of the good ol’ US of A Constitution, following the law, and all of that jazz. Just give up the titles and heraldry of protected victimhood status, plus all of the plunder that goes along with that. Everyone equal before the law, following the process, order! That sounds heaps better than 13 scholarship offers with a 1.5 GPA and a cushy make work government job.
And Taylor? Yes, just an aesthetic principle he wants…do you think race is only skin deep? I for one am on board with the aesthetic principle. After all, I don’t like the signage in Arabic and Spanish around, or the litter, or homies in doo rags lounging about on the street corner at all hours of the day and night (not selling drugs, I wouldn’t dare suggest that, that would be racis’), and I have a thing for redheads. Swarthy folks don’t produce redheads. I wouldn’t want such beautiful creatures to perish from the earth.
But Taylor isn’t arguing on an aesthetic principle. A way of life, is that a painting or something like that? No, not at all. It’s all encompassing. It’s the painting, but also everything else. And he doesn’t want his children to be told how evil they are, to have their history books read like a criminal record. To be able live the life their ancestors have. Hardly just an aesthetic principle, the interplay of colors and shapes or something like that. Hardly superficial things.
The great integration experiment has failed. Reformulating it, even with acknowledging racial differences, won’t work. We’re past that point. If some poor soul doesn’t want to choose white, well, off to the hood with them! I won’t stop them. But I don’t want the hood to come to me. I don’t wish it on any white person. In fact, I’d outlaw the hood on American soil forever. European, too. Anywhere where there are white folks, no more hood, or barrio, or banlieu, or whatever you want to call it. No more NAM’s, in other words. We could do without the Chinese industrial espionage, too. The Khazars haven’t been too kind to whites, either. Imagine all the white people, living life in peace.
But, but wouldn’t that be white nationalism? So declasse, so lacking in the better refinements, and all that. The dullards and degenerates running the media circus don’t like it, so best spit and shit on it. Well, until a strapping young buck or eight who haven’t read about those inalienable rights and citizenisms beats the shit out of you because you’re white.
I didn’t remember Chuck was a redhead when I posted that, I was thinking more Cintia Dicker and Lilly Cole. Could sound weird without this caveat!
PA—
I would say that the average S.Korean, Japanese and Thai girl are MORE attractive to me than the average American white girl. However, I do think the very prettiest girls and women to me are white.
Colombians and Venezuelans who are mostly white but who have a supcon of Amerindian in them are also very hot looking to me, or many of them are.
It was founded on processional principles – I assume we’re all familiar with the founding documents. If the rule of law prevails and if the system is sound, it doesn’t really matter which pieces go where.
Your second sentence is conditional and your conclusion is predicated upon the conditions being met. The million dollar question for you is what should you do if the rule of law doesn’t prevail and the system is not sound?
The founding documents bear less and less relevance to how we govern ourselves according to a living constitution. Growing wheat for your own consumption puts your activity under the purview of the Feds due to the Commerce Clause. The founding documents were pretty clear about free speech and free association, but if you want to associate freely as a purchaser of labor in the labor market, then you’re in for a nasty surprise.
There are broad forces at work in society and across time which are pushing us all along a direction that most of us wouldn’t choose. Read Amy Chu’s World on Fire. We have free votes, we have a welfare state, we have a free market, we have multiculturalism. That’s the recipe for a toxic brew. The sociological research is pretty clear – there are wealth and income differences across race. The polling data is also clear that racial minorities favor more interventionist government, more wealth redistribution and that they align politically with Democrats because Democrats advocate such policies. In 2010, the Republicans captured the highest share of the white vote. So long as wealth is taken from whites and redistributed towards minorities, the appeal of the Republican opposition to wealth redistribution will grow with whites. The solution to this problem is for racial minorities to be earning incomes which are the equivalent of whites, thus voiding the racial aspect of wealth redistribution. For anyone who adheres to a HBD position, this outcome is very unlikely.
The above sets up a long-simmering tension. Democrats will continually try to equalize outcomes by mandate and by redistribution. The mandates will include further erosion of free association – suing towns and municipalities for not having adequate numbers of minorities resident in town, not enough minorities employed by corporations, not enough physicians who are minority status, etc. meaning that the obvious solution of self-segregation into pocket communities is being choked off. As the demography changes further and we become a minority-majority nation, the costs of maintaining equality of outcome become ever more onerous so more taxes must be raised, more spending must be dedicated towards social programs designed to equalize outcomes, more restrictions on freedom must be imposed to maintain good order and the burden on high income whites and Asians grows and the prospects for their children diminish as they enter a world ruled by a racial spoils system. Another obvious solution to fix this problem is to accept inequality of outcome so long as equality of opportunity is maintained. That will likely have broad appeal to whites and far less appeal to NAMS who are likely living the lifestyle of unequal outcomes. Again, HBD is the root cause. Are Democrats going to be content with a system which produces unequal outcomes. I see no reason to believe that.
So, the three solutions which get us off this road, minority earnings matching white earnings and/or acceptance of unequal outcomes have a very low chance of success and self-segregating into self-governed pockets are all either actively suppressed or are unlikely to arise due to genetics.
This means that your reliance on principle is simply buying you time so that you can stick your head in the sand. There are bad outcomes awaiting us – loss of democracy, loss of Americanism, onerous taxes, racial voting blocs, racial spoils system, and who knows what else. The system is unstable as it’s currently constructed. I’m a fan of Sailor’s citizenism but for that to work a number of assumptions on the rule of law and the basis for governing a society have to be maintained, for it is premised on the notion of equality of opportunity being upheld across all of society even if it produces inequality of outcomes and I’m fairly certain that those on the left side of the outcomes distribution are not going to find solace from knowing that the system was fair with regards to opportunity.
So you’re not really taking the high road, you’re simply posturing that you are because, right now the system hasn’t destabilized sufficiently to warrant any immediate overt actions and your position is predicated upon “things will work out because we follow the principles of the founding documents (which are no longer really applied.)
Doug: east Asian women are attractive. And yet… I spent a year in South Korea. I both like and respect Korea in its entirety. I made very good friends with a number of Korean guys. But — after a few months there, I started feeling what I later identified as a species of sensory deprivation. I needed to be around white people, and especially white women.
Cyprian: I co-sign your entire epic comment. I’ve never seen so many awesome points in one post, except maybe Roissy.
PA: Thanks!
The more I educate myself of different form of political systems, I find myself concluding that even “bad” government models can work as long as the population is homogeneous. Socialism can work in an all white or all asian country, same with a libertarian style government or even a dictatorship. The most important part is keeping the multikult out.
“How do you tell a white person? To begin with, by seeing what they look like. For me personally, the broadest possible definition of white irrespective of cultural factors, is as follows: is an average female of that group sexually attractive to me?”
In the U.S., with its high obesity rates, the answerfor me would be “absolutely not” with respect to all ethnic groups, white women included. If we were to control for obesity, the answer would be “yes” for Eurasians and mestizas (at least those who are more Euro than Amerindian looking).
At any rate, my acceptance of race realism in no way logically entails an acceptance of white nationalism, and I don’t buy Taylor’s “self-defense against the tribalism of non-whites” argument. Humans are indeed tribal, but most people belong to a multiplicity of in-groups based upon a variety of overlapping and sometimes inconsistent factors other than race (e.g., social class, ideology, religion, hobbies/interests, etc). In 2010, 37.5 percent of U.S.-born Asian newlyweds married non-Asians and 36.2 percent of U.S.-born Hispanic newlyweds married non-Hispanics: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/2/ This at the very least suggests that race isn’t the primary criteria for in-group loyalties for those two meta-ethnicities (which doesn’t even account for the number of Asians and Hispanics who married *other* kinds of Asians and Hispanics not of the specific nationality that they belong to).
The Pew study also produced results indicating that different interracial pairings had different average educational income levels, with white/Asian pairings on top. Progressive egalitarians and white nationalists both will find these trends troubling for entirely separate reasons, whereas a race realist with no predisposition toward racial nationalism be quite comfortable with them. Respecting people’s freedom to cluster according to the criteria that they deem relevant is very different than *demanding* that all people cluster according to only one criteria, which may be more relevant to some than to others.
Cyprian, Tango:
I can just as easily oppose many of the mandates and redistributions through libertarianism. None of that requires me to pledge allegiance to the tribe. It seems to me that what makes White Nationalism what it is is the, as I wrote, “aesthetic” qualities. You want to corral others into interacting with whites and favoring whites over other groups.
I happen to surround myself with white people just because it’s easier and because I understand other whites better. But I have no desire to codify that or speak openly about such a choice. I live by no rule that says that I avoid blacks or members of other races out of hand. I just choose it and it just happens that way, but WN’s prefer to do it and then tell everyone else that they should do it too.
Cyprian, if you like redheads and don’t want to see them disappear, then have children with one. But your aesthetic is just that, *yours*. You are trying to generalize your own subjective desire of what you want the people who live within a certain border to look like. This is a very lofty desire especially as seeing you’re one small entity and the domain is so large.
costanza:
“The more I educate myself of different form of political systems, I find myself concluding that even “bad” government models can work as long as the population is homogeneous. Socialism can work in an all white or all asian country, same with a libertarian style government or even a dictatorship. The most important part is keeping the multikult out.”
I don’t think homogeneity is the main issue. A homogeneous nation of Bantus who speak the same language and practice the same religion is probably going to suck. A nation that’s half-Norwegian and half-Japanese will prosper, regardless of the specifics of its economic system, provided that they’ve internalized norms of tolerance toward each other. Heterogeneity only becomes problematic when an ethnically distinguishable group functions has a significantly lower IQ, and thus commands a share of wealth and power far smaller than their share of the population.
PA:
That’s a tautological answer to Jay’s question. It begs the question of exactly how white you are. You’re suggesting that some hidden indicator (ahem) will clue you in to which women are white. But what if you have a different admixture somewhere in your genes, perhaps then your mechanism is cluing you in to someone who is part Caucasian part other races.
“In the U.S., with its high obesity rates, the answerfor me would be “absolutely not”
I expected this piece of nerdology. Yeah, white chicks are ugly in the burn ward too.
Chuck: Roissy’s definition of alpha is tautological too. Many fundamental things in human nature are.
Costanza, I think a non-homogeneous nation that’s half-Norwegian and half-Japanese would probably function fine, whether it adopts libertarianism or social democracy, whereas a homogeneous Bantu nation will probably suck regardless of the specifics of the economic system. Diversity only becomes a problem if there is a significant gap in terms of the IQ of different groups, as each group will then command a share of power and wealth significantly greater or less than their share of the population.
I can just as easily oppose many of the mandates and redistributions through libertarianism. None of that requires me to pledge allegiance to the tribe.
I’m not trying to tell you what to do, I’m simply objecting to your pollyannaism.
Fine, you can object to mandates and redistributionism via your advocacy of libertarianism, but if present trends hold, you’ll be outvoted by those who do favor mandates and redistributionism. You howling into the wind while the force of government does to you the very things that you’re howling about is, what, going to give you solace?
But I have no desire to codify that or speak openly about such a choice.
I get that. What I’m arguing is that a process is underway as we speak. The majority of children in kindergarten last year were NAMs. Will their futures mirror the present of their parents or will their futures mirror the outcomes for whites/Asians? If they want equal outcomes, and they can muster a majority of the vote, then what will your adherence to libertarianism get you? You’re outvoted. The majority wants more socialism and if income patterns continue as they exist today, that will mean a wealth redistribution from whites to NAMS. Perhaps most whites will be willing to endure hardship and reduced opportunity and public corruption and a racial spoils system so long as these burdens buy peace. I don’t know. Personally I don’t relish the prospect of racial spoils systems which are going to harm today’s children more than they harm today’s adults.
I just choose it and it just happens that way, but WN’s prefer to do it and then tell everyone else that they should do it too.
Avowed versus revealed preferences. I don’t see much interest in that debate. You don’t want to avow those preferences. Fine. I don’t care. I’m not chastising your for that, my criticism is the head in the sand aspect of your position where you posture that all will be fine because of adherence to founding principles. Racial voting blocs are toxic but I don’t see a way to avoid that outcome as the market dominant minority becomes targeted to a greater and greater extent by the socialist-favoring majority. Unequal outcomes WITHIN a racial group causes some problems, but no where near what happens when the differences are highly visible BETWEEN racial groups. Wealth redistribution is a bitter pill to swallow when it happens WITHIN racial groups where people are bound together by identity, by culture, by religion, but such redistribution becomes toxic when it happens BETWEEN racial groups. Now what happens is white Democrats belong to a party which, by effect and not design, is targeting whites to bear a heavier burden with respect to taxes and a reduction in opportunity for themselves and their families and children. Pretty soon whites start peeling away from the socialist party because the actual effects of the policies being advocated are racialist. They migrate over to the Republicans who become evermore white.
If you plot out the dynamics, every move seems rational, but the outcome is trouble. Again, the way to derail the train is to upend some of the assumptions. Will Democrats be happy by unequal outcomes characterized by race so long as opportunity is available to all? Are they today? If not today, then why tomorrow?
The system is unstable as it’s currently constructed.
This is correct and it bears repeating. None of the politicians has an incentive to fix it and they all derive benefits from transferring wealth from those who produce it to those who do not, but who can vote, even when dead.
There is only one way it can end.
Taylor correctly understands that the processes implied by Sailer’s “citizenism” are the creation of European peoples and are non-transferable. Without what you call the “aesthetic,” the “processional principles” you speak of have no coherent meaning.
Without a common cultural heritage and conception of the Good–without an aesthetic–the interpretation of law and the Constitution becomes arbitrary, politicized, and inevitably tyrannical.
Chuck, you dismiss Ryu’s “might makes right” as well as Taylor’s “romantic generalities” but then admit you understand Whites better and find it easier to live amongst your own kind. As overused as it is, Kipling’s “The Stranger” perfectly articulates why this is so, and it is that ease and comfort of the familiar and the understandable that most people seek in preferring to live, work, and socialize with their own kind. Of course, this is not merely a racial angle, but also cultural and familial. I had some friends in Singapore, but almost all were other White expats. I loved living in England, but over time I really began to see and muse upon the differences of thought and lifestyle even there and to consider what set me apart as an American, and what really mattered to me, and why. It is all of these minutiae, as well as race, that make one family distinct from another, and one nation, and then one race – and what is race, of course, but family writ large?
I would not say Whites (or anyone else) is “entitled” to a particular spot on Earth. In that sense I agree with Ryu (and with all of recorded human history) that a group is entitled to whatever land it conquers and holds and is prepared to defend. The problem in America, of course, is that many Whites (and all WNs) believe they were given no opportunity to defend their land or determine with whom they chose to share their territory. Add in civil rights legislation overruling constitutionally-guaranteed property rights and freedom of association, and you have today’s BRA. Some lament the hypocrisy (and rightly so) of blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians encouraged to revel in identity politics, where Whites are cautioned of incipient Naziism should they dare even consider their racial commonalities. While I, too, detest hypocrites, I’ve come to believe that the White remnant of America is today so dissolute, so base, and so deracinated that perhaps it does not deserve this land it is unwilling to defend from immivasion. Then, of course, there are some, like yourself, that say those willing to do so are batshit crazy WNs who are stupid and unrealistically limiting your personal choices about whom to live with. Why do you seem to consider only White nations as requiring diversity and integration?
There is only one way it can end.
The unstable system can end in multiple way, not just one, but none of the ways is better than the present or the past. We can do away with voting. We can live with far higher levels of wealth redistribution. We can do away with the right to live where you please, to work where you please.
There are a lot of ways to keep a society functioning if you strip away more and more freedom and impose top-down control in order to quell the discontent of the majority.
“They want a certain outcome, and they aren’t really concerned with whether or not the system operates fairly and consistently.”
This whole “process versus outcome” line is just a bunch of intellectualized abstract nonsense. I’m afraid I can’t help but dismiss anyone who justifies turning a functioning majority white nation into another Mexico with talk of keeping a system “fair” and “consistent” (whatever that means) as mad.
Sheila,
Yesterday you were pretty much defending someone like Alex Linder. Have you read his newspaper? Have you seen his cartoons? Have you heard him refer to blacks – *all* blacks – as “groids”? My stronger remarks were reserved for the Alex Linder types, and this current post is the result of a bunch of you ass-hurt WN types rallying against me seemingly in defense of Alex Linder.
Jared Taylor’s arguments are quite a bit more logical and more nuanced – though he’s still considered an extremist. He still seems to be suggesting a certain set of rules by which white people should select who they interact and socialize with. Now, I don’t usually shop at Wal Mart, but I’d hate to have some authoritarian figure trying to shame me from shopping there.
But to answer your last question “Why do you seem to consider only White nations as requiring diversity and integration?”
As I’ve said several times, the major fault line is the black-white issue. And that’s just something that white Americans have to deal with. Whites brought blacks here against their will. It’s a tough shit kind of thing.
The problem for me is when we shift from arguing for the defense of our borders and our citizenry to the same argument but with the racial component thrown in. I’d prefer “Nationalism” over “White Nationalism”. I do not want to put race, even if it’s my own, as the most important principle, and that’s exactly what White Nationalism is.
anonymoose:
the WN crowd is talking in nothing but abstractions. allow me some room to do the same.
“White” and “nationalist” are two disconsant terms, at least here in America. We were not homogenous from the start. White people entered a land occupied by brown people and we brought even darker people over here to employ as cheap labor. So we can deal with the immigraiton issue and keep the southern border closed (in theory), but we don’t have much room to fully adhere to that “white” part of the WN term because of our actions centuries ago.
So you have grounds to be a nationalist, and you certainly have grounds to be white, but your argument falls apart when you try to combine both terms to use as a political tool here in the United States.
“Why do you seem to consider only White nations as requiring diversity and integration?”
This argument is both tired and dumb. Almost all non-western nations are both multicultural and multiethnic. Those closest to being homogeneous are Japan and Korea (especially North Korea). However, both are becoming less so, particularly South Korea, where 11 percent of new marriages in 2007 being international. Additionally, both countries are heavily criticized by the chattering classes for their racism and lack of diversity. At any rate, I haven’t seen Chuck make any arguments that diversity should be actively encouraged, although he’s also not claiming that it should be abolished.
I can just as easily oppose many of the mandates and redistributions through libertarianism. None of that requires me to pledge allegiance to the tribe. It seems to me that what makes White Nationalism what it is is the, as I wrote, “aesthetic” qualities. You want to corral others into interacting with whites and favoring whites over other groups.
Ah, but I said if they want the hood, give it to ‘em. I just don’t want. No thanks. Not many white people really want to live with NAM’s either. Oh, they might say they do, but they don’t live with them, and they don’t marry them either. It’s not just me, not at all.
As for the aesthetic qualities, well, I’d rather have sinfully ugly Frank Gehry buildings and a pro-white society than Versailles and a horde of nogs and eses and hmong and whatever else. A big aesthetic sacrifice, absolutely. A huge one. I don’t want the savages robbing, raping, killing, desecrating, vandalizing, and generally turning to shit the white societies they live in.
I happen to surround myself with white people just because it’s easier and because I understand other whites better. But I have no desire to codify that or speak openly about such a choice. I live by no rule that says that I avoid blacks or members of other races out of hand. I just choose it and it just happens that way, but WN’s prefer to do it and then tell everyone else that they should do it too.
Well, why not? We’d lose out on a few ethnic restaurants, to be sure, but we’d also lose out on a whole lot of really terrible shit. I don’t make any pretenses about solving vice, sin, bad things, all of that – but I do know America would be better off without the vibrant rainbow coalition of pimps, thieves, junkies, good-for-nothing’s, parasites, and so on and so forth. There’d still be more than a few messes leftism has made for decent people to clean up. I’m not a libertarian. I’m not afraid of the libertarian deist god of natural rights sending me to libertarian hell because I told someone else to do something.
But for fuck’s sake, quit being mendacious and reducing WN to an aesthetic preference. Not wanting to live around people who like polar bear hunting and flash mobbing to an aesthetic preference.
Cyprian, if you like redheads and don’t want to see them disappear, then have children with one.
Such is the plan! If anyone knows Cintia Dicker, Lilly Cole, or another redhead who is similarly attractive, have them drop me a line.
Chuck,
But to answer your last question “Why do you seem to consider only White nations as requiring diversity and integration?”
As I’ve said several times, the major fault line is the black-white issue. And that’s just something that white Americans have to deal with. Whites brought blacks here against their will. It’s a tough shit kind of thing.
You’ve dodged her question. You know that right? Your answer applies to America, but doesn’t apply to the Netherlands, to Canada, to Iceland, etc.
So we can deal with the immigraiton issue and keep the southern border closed (in theory), but we don’t have much room to fully adhere to that “white” part of the WN term because of our actions centuries ago.
OK, but this is too vague as it stands. What does this mean in everyday life? Is it appropriate for the Federal Government to sue your town so that it build low income housing on your high income block in order to foster more diversity in your community because you bear the Original Sin of the founders? Does it mean that your son should be denied admission to a university or not hired for a job because atoning for Original Sin is more important?
White America, as a collective, has to bear the cross for the sins of slavery. OK, got it. How about the sins committed against Hispanics, against Asians, against Arabs, against South Asians, and any and every other group which benefits from diversity mandates? You do realize, I hope, that the “did blacks wrong” rationale for Affirmative Action was thrown out by the Supreme Court in Bakke.
However, both are becoming less so, particularly South Korea, where 11 percent of new marriages in 2007 being international.
Your example doesn’t support your thesis statement. From wikipedia:
Most decisions we make are a matter of heart and mind. Nationalism is definitely strongly of the heart. That means we cannot entirely discuss it in purely rational or objective terms. As Ryu pointed out it is emotion and not logic that truly drives people. In Whiskey’s (at least I think it was his) phrase: “Nobody fought and died for the United Colors of Benneton.”
[and no, that is not a celebration of expansive militarism, I just like the metaphor.]
Indeed nationalists should be wary of entrapment in “define your terms” type of arguments. Such arguments are part of the “Culture of Critique.” The aim of such questions is not to understand but to focus on narrow issues that merely serve to build gotcha moments. Nationalism is not an intellectual movement; indeed most academics tend to shun it (forming their own transnational tribe). In this case the imperfect answer to who is White is “I’ll know it when I see it.” This won’t settle an intellectual argument, but will be good enough for most of those amenable to any kind of nationalist identity.
Using Jonathan Haidt’s framework, I suspect that Chuck is more libertarian (favoring liberty, as a value above others), while nationalists are more conservative (favoring loyalty over others). Most libertarians will never be brought to the side of nationalism precisely because they cannot understand such “stupid tribal” loyalty and resent the encroachment of liberty it may entail (or even appear to entail).
Tango:
I didn’t dodge her question as much as she is ascribing a position to me which I don’t hold and never supported. But I’d assume that the most important Nationalist argument in the Netherlands is the Muslim question. I’d support such a nationalist position, and it’s quite different from the one implied by the American White Nationalist position.
I’m not sure why you think that I make the point about slavery and therefore accept affirmative action or redistribution or certain housing policies. I oppose such things while also not considering myself a White Nationalist. My opposition to those things supercedes racial factors. What I’m suggesting by the slavery thing – and I had assumed that this is a commonly-understood argument – is that we are forced to live in a society that doesn’t give us much room for White Nationalism insofar as that requires an all-white nation from the get-go.
Tangoman, the Vietnamese and Han Chinese are not South Korean. Do you think that continent is one of undifferentiated generic “Asian people”?
Chuck,
‘“White” and “nationalist” are two disconsant terms, at least here in America. We were not homogenous from the start. White people entered a land occupied by brown people and we brought even darker people over here to employ as cheap labor. So we can deal with the immigraiton issue and keep the southern border closed (in theory), but we don’t have much room to fully adhere to that “white” part of the WN term because of our actions centuries ago.’
This strikes me more as a critique of the literal meaning of the term “white nationalist.” I prefer “white advocate.” However, the aims of those who call themselves “white nationalists” are not entirely abstract. In fact, the ethnic interests of white people are actually quite tangible. One only has to observe the relative safety of majority white societies versus those of Hispanics and especially blacks. OTOH, devotion to a supposedly fair and consistent system regardless of that system’s apparent weaknesses or inability to deal with an unforeseen crisis is just slavery to an abstraction. I prefer tangible results over abstractions, like the ability to walk down a side walk without having to be ready to gun down a black person at any moment.
Ensuring the U.S. remains a majority white nation is also a goal with tangible benefits. Historically, ethnically homogenous nations have been more successful than multicultural/multiethnic ones. From the Holy Roman Empire to the USSR, nations whose fabric consisted primarily of devotion to mere abstractions have been failures. I predict that as the U.S. becomes even more heterogenous it will not prove to be the exception.
Chuck
I’m not sure why you think that I make the point about slavery and therefore accept affirmative action or redistribution or certain housing policies.
You made a point to distinguish African Americans from other racial groups due to their unique history. The pertinent aspect of that history is slavery and their forced relocation. I thought it was plausible that you were implying that that history put a special burden on whites that extended beyond the notion of “we all have to come to terms with continued co-involvement.” So your position, I take it, is that it’s fine to allow inequality of outcome to fester and do nothing, because by living with the results whites have met their moral obligation. Is that a fair description of your position or am I still misunderstanding your position?
The flaw that I see in your position is that it is dependent on law and on voting strength in order to bring it to fruition. The Justice Department is suing towns for not having enough Hispanics elected to council, they’re suing towns for lack of diversity, so even though you disagree with this actions, they’re legal, thus satisfying your first condition in your OP, and they’re popular with minorities, who are gaining voting power, slowly but surely, due to demographic trends. This means, despite your protestations of opposition to these policies, that they are being implemented at present and, if assumptions hold true, that they will also be implemented in the future and that it is likely that the frequency and reach of these policies will expand. If you live your life today by exercising your freedom, how will you live your life in the future when that exercise of freedom is denied to you? Look at the moaning, groaning, and bitching taking place in Marin County, Westchester County, and other liberal strongholds when they have to swallow their share of the medicine. These towns are filled with people doing what you are doing, they’re self-segregating, and the power of government is being directed against them to prevent their exercise of this choice, the same choice that you value highly in your life.
So, I’m still at a loss as to where you’re coming from. I see you advocating a principle but the principle, as I read it, it divorced from an analysis of the consequences which fall out from the principle being applied.
I agree with anon666 and Chuck for the most part. People have a lot of identities. I’m not only white, but I’m also college educated (graduate degree), multi-lingual, rather nerdy, a little libertarian and SWPLish, and an avid runner and biker. There are a lot of white Americans I have little to nothing in common with. In fact, there are Blacks and Asians with whom I have more in common than many white Americans.
Now, I’m not a big fan of multiculturalism (as many leftists view it) and modern American liberalism, but I think WN is silly. I like modern American culture for the most part, e.g. the protestantation of religions, the free market system, etc.. However, I think the US should look out for its own interests and the interests of its citizens (all of them) first and foremost, for the most part. I like Sailer’s citizenism
Anecdotally, most WNs I’ve encountered both in real life (very few) and online have been pretty stupid. They’re too essentialist, i.e. they believe things like all blacks are stupid and violent (they’re not), that loyalty is only to other white people no matter what, etc.
Do you think that continent is one of undifferentiated generic “Asian people”?
Of course not. I just found your position disingenuous. You addressed claims about diversity in America by pointing to diversity in Korea. The claims being made with respect to America are not directed at Swiss immigrants, Dutch immigrants, Danish immigrants, etc but your example of Korean immigrants is predicated upon same-race immigrants, not immigrants from Kenya, Namibia, Yemen, Algeria, Pakistan, etc.
You’re pointing to diversity on one metric – nationality, and claiming that this is the same as diversity on a different metric – race. That’s just sophistry on your part and not an attempt to engage on the issue.
Using Jonathan Haidt’s framework, I suspect that Chuck is more libertarian (favoring liberty, as a value above others), while nationalists are more conservative (favoring loyalty over others). Most libertarians will never be brought to the side of nationalism precisely because they cannot understand such “stupid tribal” loyalty and resent the encroachment of liberty it may entail (or even appear to entail).
South Africa under Apartheid was the last state in the world to practice White Nationalism as a state ideology and in order to sustain it for as long as it was it required a massive curtailing of liberties of whites as well as blacks. The state owned all radio stations and television wasn’t even allowed until 1976. Military service was required for all white males. In order to function, a WN state would need massive state powers that most white Americans would be totally unwilling to give it.
@Average Man
“There are a lot of white Americans I have little to nothing in common with.”
As a white American, I would say I have a lot in common with most white Americans. That is not wishful thinking, so much as personal experience.
Sparks,
Surely the fact that SA was minority rule and an international pariah against whom far more influential nations conspired against by funding and encouraging rebellions might have something to do with it’s authoritarianism?
There are a lot of white Americans I have little to nothing in common with. In fact, there are Blacks and Asians with whom I have more in common than many white Americans.
I myself am an old-line cognitive elitist, so I understand and share this position, but this mostly just side-steps the issues, rather than addresses them. Your viewpoint is entirely dependent on you being able to self-segregate and form associations freely, thus removing your from the aspects of society that you don’t want to engage with. You know, like buying a $3 million house in Marin County so that you can enjoy the company of blacks, whites, Asians, South Asians, who are from the same social and educational strata that you inhabit and then you find that the apparatchiks in the Department of Justice don’t like this and they force the construction of some nice section 8 housing right in the middle of your neighborhood so that poor minorities can also benefit from the excellent schools, excellent governance, excellent low crime environment you’ve created for yourself.
You see, at one time, people of “good conscience” railed against the government forcing segregation on people. It was thought that government using force to implement segregation was a bad thing. That view has now morphed into declaring it evil for people to freely exercise their freedom in such a way that self-segregation results. Lack of diversity now requires federal involvement to remedy.
So, where does that leave people like you and Chuck who value your ability to self-segregate and thus avoid the problems that you don’t want to confront?
“I happen to surround myself with white people just because it’s easier and because I understand other whites better. But I have no desire to codify that or speak openly about such a choice. I live by no rule that says that I avoid blacks or members of other races out of hand. I just choose it and it just happens that way, but WN’s prefer to do it and then tell everyone else that they should do it too. ”
Fucking hilarious! WNs don’t HAVE to tell anyone else to do it, they’ve already made that choice themselves. Ever heard of “White Flight”? “I don’t purposely avoid blacks, it just sort of happens that way…” Get real.
I think that might be the difference between a higher class white person, like myself, and a higher class non-white person. I can look at a down and out white American, and maybe hate the way they act (laziness) and look (obesity), but I’d still feel like they’d treat me fairly.
Surely the fact that SA was minority rule and an international pariah against whom far more influential nations conspired against by funding and encouraging rebellions might have something to do with it’s authoritarianism?
Certainly, but given that 35% of the American population are minorities (and growing), a WN American state would have to deal with them in a similarly authoritarian fashion. Also, a WN state would absolutely be a pariah to the rest of the world.
@Average Man
“I like modern American culture for the most part, e.g. the protestantation of religions, the free market system, etc.”
I don’t. The culture in the United States is crap. The protestantation of religions(not sure what this is exactly) basically just means no one will ever go church. The free market system is out of control, and fattening up and junking up the country.
Ah, finally.
That is true. A WN state must have a strong military. Mandatory military service from everyone. Much like Israel. In fact, Israel offers a good example, with some exception.
Sparks is not mentioning that South Africa exchanged WN authoritarianusm for a black genocide of whites. But hey, at least they have TVs. One for the safe-room too no doubt.
“Certainly, but given that 35% of the American population are minorities (and growing), a WN American state would have to deal with them in a similarly authoritarian fashion.”
Therefore, genius…. it’s best to keep America solidly white. Thay at least would be my take-away from your argument.
Certainly, but given that 35% of the American population are minorities (and growing), a WN American state would have to deal with them in a similarly authoritarian fashion. Also, a WN state would absolutely be a pariah to the rest of the world.
An authoritarian state that clamped down on the multicult and leftism would be better than the degenerate shithole of a country we’ve got now. Considering how we’re moving toward an authoritarian police state anyways (police drones, anyone?), I’d rather have one that exists to undo the peculiar blessings of diversity than one that exists to spy on me in case I have any hatethoughts and tax me at astronomically high rates to pay for a bastard brood of orcs and goblins.
Pariah state is questionable, since the USA is the witch hunter in chief when it comes to High Crimes Against Diversity, the Chinese don’t care about the ever so tenderly delicate sensibilities of effete diversity worshipping geldings, and if the Europeans care, they’re too busy imploding to do much about it.
One point you make here is kind of lateral, about ruling over 300 million. We of course the WN’s can’t, no one can . The USG is able to kind of boot on the face of the aging US for now but at the cost of crippling society and making us go from healthy to dying ..
It occurs to me that given the divisions in our society, maybe its just too big and the various separatists are right .The US would better served going the way of the former Czechoslovakia or USSR and splitting into smaller more homogeneous states.
In such a scenario everyone wins, WN’s can get a turf Liberals another and so on, let the best men win.
As for Sparks point, well yes a WN nation would be loathed. It would probably by nature have to be a ruthless, authoritarian regime willing and able to use WMD’s if attacked . They’d have to learn from SA’s mistakes to prevent exactly what PA said and what amounts to genocide of a culture and replacement by barbarians
That not all that important, North Korea is despicable a failure as their systems are is still there chugging along and a more market focused society would have far less troubles feeding itself . Israel is a nation like that in many ways as well . It probably would be poorer than say Europe but given that most WN’s are already poor, it might be a good trade off for them.
If said nation became a research haven taking a laissez faire policy toward research they might even be able to leverage themselves a higher standard of knowledge than the likely inhabitants would allow at first.
It would not be a pleasant place to live and I am not sure though I am sympathetic to their views I’d wish to live there but its doable. I’d like a 90-10 White/Other Moderate Liberal City with broad based wealth to live in myself. I just don’t think such places have existed for 30+ years in the US though …
Heck as long as there is a split is no reason other parts of the country can’t break off either and if Bloomberg thinks NY can be Singapore on the Hudson, no reason he can’t try –
The assumption that we need the empire is whats killing us, voluntary separation beats any kind of collapse in scale or totalitarianism …
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. You’re willing to clamp down hard on personal freedoms in order to maintain a certain low threshold of multiculturalism or other stuff that doesn’t adhere to the supposed tastes and preferences of white people even though this country is already home to a vast number of cultures – not to mention a now-endogenous population of blacks. Or, you know, the other option would be to learn how to live with this reality (the world is not perfect, alas) while also working to limit immigration.
Have any of you thought about the costs of this? What such a battle would look like? This is why I have little use for the argument – it’s all pie in the sky.
Look, I’m against using section 8 housing to dispense criminals (not that all section 8 users are criminals, the majority aren’t), and I’m for immigration restriction (not completely cutting things off, but one more like Canada’s that favors high skilled immigration over low skilled), but a lot of WN arguments like, “An authoritarian state that clamped down on the multicult and leftism would be better than the degenerate shithole of a country we’ve got now” when describing the US are nonsensical. Is life in the US really that bad? Seriously! Is your life really that bad here in the US?
I feel like I’m talking to radical leftists sometimes. They too have a similar view of the US as a terrible place to live, but for different reasons.
Look, I’m against using section 8 housing to dispense criminals (not that all section 8 users are criminals, the majority aren’t), and I’m for immigration restriction (not completely cutting things off, but one more like Canada’s that favors high skilled immigration over low skilled),
These programs lower your quality of life, right? Well, they increase the quality of life or the power base of those who favor these programs, right? When you get out-voted in a democracy by those who favor these programs, do you really think that your howls of protest about a section 8 development right next door to you are going to sway public officials, officials who believe that they’re on a mission from god to eradicate self-segregation where ever they see it and bestow upon the heathens the benefits of glorious diversity?
How does the power base of the Democrats expand by implementing a high skilled immigration policy? Such immigrants would like be net tax contributors to society, therefore likely opposed to increasing welfare redistributionism. Why do you think that the Democrats aren’t jumping on such a policy now? They love the enlargement of voting blocs where said voters require more and more redistribution which allows for hiring more good liberals to be the kind benefactors of government largess.
Why is there talk of some hypothetical white nationalist nation?
There are already about 15 countries that are at least 98% white. That Europe brings in Arab immigrants and does nothing to assimilate them is a bad idea, but there are still a number of countries that are almost entirely white, even if that was not their stated goal, mostly in Eastern Europe. Those are the nearly pure white nations….. so why pine for something that does already exist in a practical sense?
Even US states like Idaho and Wyoming are almost entirely white. Just live there……
Some notes:
1. Has anyone looked at the political profiles of whitopia cities like Seattle and Portland? ‘Nuff said.
2. Given that Israel is being put forth as an ideal model for a WN nation (goodness knows why, have you seen what 20% of Israel’s citizenry is? But for now let’s handwave that away) why would that leave a utopian nation? Let’s also handwave away their neighbors. That still leaves the massive divide between the secular Jews and the Haredi population. What, did you think that a racially homogemous nation still can’t be diverse and riven with conflict? If anything a WN nation would soon develop the same problem. Israel was founded on the proposition that it was to be the Jewish homeland, hence the Haredi have every right to come in, despite the fact they live in a parasitical manner by having far more children than they can support, dedicate their lives solely to religious study instead of economic activity and refuse to serve in the military. But being Jews they use their electoral clout to maintain their status and create a seperate social and extra-legal system for themselves. Try being a secular Jew and drive around a Haredi neighborhood on a Saturday, frex. Now you can’t tell me that there isn’t a whole bunch of WN subgroups who would be first in line into a WN nation who wouldn’t act like the Haredim once they’re there. Who gets to define the nation? Jared Taylor-like pragmatic secular technocrats? Christian Identity types from the American South? Odinist Hammerskins from central California and the Rockies? Or are you planning on just letting “acceptable” white people in? Well then, the entire national proposition falls apart then. Bottom line, there is no utopia anywhere.
3. The idea that is North Korea would be better off with a free market is nonsense. Yes, it would be better off, but it wouldn’t resemble the ethinically pure “cleanest people” North Korea we know and love as detailed by B.R. Myers study. Free market means free exchange of ideas and goods across borders. Even if you make laws saying no non-whites may settle in the borders of your country, you still have to let businessmen and companies in and out for goods to be exchanged. Hell, there are already European and Chinese businesses doing work there, but are hobbled by the fact they can’t leave Pyongyang or go anywhere or do anything without government minders following them everywhere.
4. I’m not hostile to the idea of splitting up the nation (given where I live and my ethnic identity). I just think it’s a romantic pipe dream, and when you think about it rationally we’d all be fairly economically worse off because of it. Nor do I ever see anything like that happening in my lifetime.
Nikos:
Because those 98% pure white nations don’t see themselves as “white” nations. They see themselves as “Polish” nations or “Slovakian” nations. To allow mass unregulated immigration of foreign whites to them would be as culturally destructive as mass unregulated immigration of Mestizo peasants to the USA. Perhaps even worse since they weren’t founded on principles of free association and have no means of culturally assimilating a mass amount of people who don’t share a common, faith, language and heritage. Hell, the tiny Tartar minority in Poland still hasn’t assimilated even though they’re white as their neighbors at this point and they’ve been there since the 1600s.
Spike,
Correct. So that is a pretty strong argument against the feasibility of white nationalism, is it not?
Nationalism has to be around a common language, or at least a common religion at a minimum.
Pingback: Chuck, “Citizenism”, and the Proposition Nation | Deconstructing Leftism
As above. I don’t want my country (Australia) to become majority Italian or Greek anymore than I want it to become majority Chinese or Asian, Even Irish immigration into Australia has changed the country enormously (the decline of the Anglican Church and the growth of the Catholic Church). White is too broad a term, it’s like Oriental Nationalism – should Koreans then accept mass Chinese immigration into Korea?
Epizelus,
You might find it interesting that the American definition of ‘white’ in official government docs is very, very broad. It includes the Middle East, North Africa, and even South Asia in some cases.
That sounds weird, but the history behind it is funny. Even stranger, there is even a recent leftist push to classify Orientals as ‘whites’, so as to deliberately conceal their economic success. Too many government agencies profit from ensuring that blacks continue to believe that their failure is due to overt white oppression. When Asian success disproves this, the easiest solution is to make Asians ‘disappear’ into white statistics…
Muslims and Hispanics are also grouped into ‘whites’ in order to make white crime rates look worse, which makes black crime rates, while still higher, less conspicuous.
It’s illegal for that 20% of Israeli citizens to marry or procreate with the other 80%, drive on certain roads, or go to certain neighborhoods, attain many political offices, lead social institutions or hold high military rank. Israel is pretty effectively segregated, and not self-segregated. Let’s handwave that away though.
Yeah I think you probably could, as Israel’s issue with the Haredim is considerably more unique than most intra-ethnic group divides. Israel could easily redefine “Jewishness” and there is some political will among the far-right to do that (forcing the orthodox into military service, and requiring oaths of fealty to the nation’s rulers as a requirement of citizenship; a constitutional check on democracy). It’s probably not going to happen, but it’s actually something that has been floated in public, which says a lot.
Lots and lots of other countries haven’t had any problem sending Jewish parasites packing throughout history. A proposed all white community would not necessarily have to include Irish pikers, because, ‘hey they are white we must cater to them!’
Most white Americans are opposed to State power because it is not perceived to be “Of the people, by the people, for the people”. Regardless you are totally off-point because South Africa’s issue was its attempt to rule black Africans, which isn’t what white nationalists propose.
South Africa and parts of the segregated US south had the issue where blacks didn’t have their own ‘separate but equal’ society; they had 2nd class citizen status in a white society. That isn’t what white nationalists (or advocates, or separatists, et cetera) advocate. They advocate separatism.
You wouldn’t need shock troopers to make sure that the massive minority population took the proper routes to their white owned business because it wouldn’t be legal to import a foreign, ethnically dissimilar workforce in the first place. The position isn’t to create New Sparta with mestizo Helots lorded over by militaristic whites. The South Africans should have sent their black locusts packing. They aren’t native to the area, and only came there en masse when the white man built the infrastructure for civilization. The landlords wanted their cheap labor though, so a compromise between those rentiers and the farmers and laborers was struck. Learn the lessons of history, and don’t compromise next time.
But it was an all white nation from the get-go. It was explicitly left to, and established for the posterity of the founders. Immigration was restricted specifically to white people of good moral character, determined by those same founding members.
George Mason’s contribution to the founding documents and principles of the US were that to gain suffrage one had to show evidence of the permanent common interest with and attachment to the community. That is the “get-go”. You can’t reasonably find any evidence of the permanent common interest and attachment to the national community by blacks (or really any other minority group).
The importation of slaves wasn’t something that the democratic state decided on either. In fact one of its first acts was to outlaw the importation of new slaves. It’s not even a moral responsibility that the state can said to have inherited. If you want to foist off blacks as some inheritance let England be responsible for all time for their ex-colonial property.
Nothing is morally or justifiably required of white people in regards to blacks though. Whites in America didn’t choose to be born into some hereditary reciprocal relationship any more than American blacks ancestors chose to come here. We owe nothing to blacks just because of who our respective ancestors were. If some inherited relationship exists at all, whites should expect some kind of social gratuity from each generation of American-born blacks as thanks for being sparred a life of African squalor.
Surely as a libertarian, committed to non-violence you are familiar with the concept of the state’s authority being bestowed by the consent of those it governs. That’s not what you are proposing though. You are describing some inborn reciprocal responsibility for whites and blacks to share the same country (which says absolutely nothing about Asians, Jews, mestizos, et cetera; and is also really downplaying the status quo where all responsibility is born by whites, and none is expected of blacks at all).
Some duties may exist in order to pay for and pay forward for the succor of civilization and culture, and the price it expects of its beneficiaries to maintain itself. That sort of civic minded ethic necessitates that society actually be beneficial for those it expects to be duty-bound to contribute in some meaningful way for a sufficient portion of its members. That’s not ‘making the best of a bad situation’ in just accepting that the bulk of white people and black people born in America will forever be enmeshed, and doomed to share a single ill-fitting civilization for all time due to some increasingly distant historical footnote.
I can commiserate with the idea that a white ethnostate is a loony pipe dream, but that’s not really arguing for or against so much as it is arguing best uses of mental resources. I’d say as much of a pipe dream as it may be, it’s probably more likely to come about than a return to an 18th century ideology; especially in our soon-to-be majority-minority country.
I can sooner believe that a significant portion of the coming white minority will develop notions of secession than will all of our new caught sullen people suddenly start agreeing with the idealistic notions old dead white men, and accept universal moral principles at their own material detriment and white peoples benefit. For the latter to come about we’d at least have to stop teaching them that whites are a uniquely evil race of subhumans sometime in the near future, which isn’t going to happen.
Kyle:
You touch on it later, but did the founders not think about the consequences of slavery? I guess in their minds slavery would have existed into perpetuity. So you’re right that it was an all white nation, but your argument is assuming the prevailing norms of the 18th century while ignoring the developments since then. Your only out here is to suggest that blacks should have remined slaves and, thus, non-citizens and property.
You’re trying really hard to avoid a truth that you can’t escape. It doesn’t really matter how or why blacks were brought here. And nowhere have I written that whites owe blacks anything. What I’ve written is that blacks and whites exist within the same country and it’s a relationship we have to deal with and which we cannot run from. And the way I interpret WN is that every single relationship with a white is better and more virtuous than every single relationship with a non-white. I know too many piece of shit white people to ever swallow that pill.
When I reject WN I reject arbitrary rules in the name of culture that are meant to limit, out of hand, my tastes, preferences, relationships, choices, and thereby, freedoms. I’ll pass on that.
The argument about having saved someone from squalor through slavery is bullshit of the highest order. I’m always surprised when very intelligent people like yourself make the argument. You’re trying to valorize a degrading act. No need to overly demonize the institution – it was a historical norm – but no need to try to paint it as some sort of favor given to blacks. It’s all post hoc justification to try to undermine the point that we currently exist within one nation and that people of these races will interact with each other. They have no obligation to either interact or not interact. We don’t need PC multikult but we also don’t need WN.
I’m saying that whites and blacks do share the same country, and I deny the rule suggested by WN types who, instead of letting individuals choose their associations or their cultural stylings for themselves are beholden to these stultifying rules.
Non-Jewish citizens can’t obtain high political offices in Israel? Like this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Joubran
Or this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majalli_Wahabi
Can’t obtain high military rank? Like this guy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imad_Fares
Can’t marry gentiles? Like this woman?
http://joi.org/bloglinks/Q&A%20With%20Einat%20Wilf%20_%20Israel%20_%20Jewish%20Journal.htm
I really need not say anything more.
Portland is whitopia no more:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/category/oregon/
MMMM . . . what’s that smell? It smells like “Strange New Respect.” Unless you’re willing go into the full ass-sucking grovel mode you’ll never be accepted by TPTB, Chuckster. But it’s your soul, it’s up to you to put a price on it. As to your main point, what’s happening to whites all over the world is genocide by the political left, the murder victim doesn’t have an obligation to justify his existence to the criminal trying to butcher him. He doesn’t have to come up with a perfect utopia and answers to every question before he is allowed to resist his murder. Imagine making the arguments you make above to a Jew or Pole in Nazi occupied Poland. It’s surreal. “Even if I might choose those things to which I most closely identify i.e. ‘white things’, I could never accept such a limitation.” WTF would that mean if you lived in Detroit? WTF would it mean if the whole country becomes Detroit? It’s simply an evasion of reality. It brings to mind the quip from Winston Churchill when asked what are we fighting for – “If we stop, you’ll find out.”
Two of the examples are Druze, a tiny religious sect of 100,000 that has allied with the Jews since 1948. They are the only non-Jewish minority drafted into the IDF. From what I understand, Jews who want to marry non-Jews have to go outside the country to do the deed. But it’s only a one hour plane trip to Cyprus.
People who want details of the Israeli Apartheid system should probably visit the left-wing Jewish site,
Mondoweiss.
It’s not my only out. White women were citizens yet didn’t have suffrage. Universal suffrage wasn’t in the blueprint and it is a bad idea. If blacks have no real stake in the welfare of the nation except for their parochial ethnic interests then they can’t be entrusted as voters. There is also the options of real segregation or separation where blacks have their own contiguous but not overlapping nation.
[Chuck: Then your complaint a la Moldbug, Hoppe, et al, is against democracy. Why, then, the concern with "white" nationalism? I say, lay down the institutions you want, which hopefully allow some sort of freedom of association, and let the chips fall where they may.]
Why can’t we run from it? What is the actual argument here? So you absolutely don’t agree with consent of the governed then? Whites and blacks exist within the same country and will for all eternity and can never be changed regardless of the will of whites or blacks? How does this actually make sense.
[Chuck: I guess you're right if we're now talking about a group of white people branching off and forming their own nation-state. I don't see how that would actually be successful and independent of the U.S. Such a nation will require trade, and it will require trade with the U.S. This will diversify the nation to some extent. Also, unless you care to run a heavy propaganda state, the children will eventually liberalize. I haven't thought that deeply about what such a nation would look like (and WN is ultimately nothing if nationhood is not its end-goal), but I seriously doubt whether any of the people who say they want one would actually like to live there. I have a hard time believing that some of the independent thinkers that visit this blog would actually fall in line with that. Would you, Kyle?]
White nationalism is a rather collectivist so single relationships don’t play into things except as being symbolic of some greater trend. It’s also extremely fringe, which can’t be understated enough, so there is very little room for moderation as will all fringe political entities. There is a difference between the personalities that dominate the fringe and any potentially realistic implementation of their ideas.
There is this internal mainstream conservative debate between paleolibertarian leaning elements and more hardline traditionalists. Both are correct though, regarding their view of early America. The paleolibertarians are looking more closely to the ideology of those personalities and ideologies of those founders, and the traditionalists are looking at a more street level view of how most Americans lived their lives and what they believed in.
Guys like Alex Linder or Harold Covington will never be personally politically important and their anti-social instincts are basically irrelevant to how the adoption of various planks of their ideology would actually come out in practice when synthesized with the opinions and desires of more realistic, altruistic and moral universalist white Americans.
This isn’t just a white nationalist thing. It’s even your thing. You want to impose the arbitrary rule that whites and blacks must coexist in the same country regardless of any potential political will to separate.
[Chuck: As mentioned above, it gets down to tactics. The difficult thing here is that the areas of the country that are most prone to this WN bent are the ones that are most highly populated with non-whites. Thus the desire to separate. So how's that going to work out? Or will the whites set up shop in another lily-white area and then fight for independence there? If so, will they truly be motivated? I wonder how high is your bar for this potential political will to separate. If a small group just declares that they want to separate from the U.S. should they be allowed to do it? It must, then, come down to the use of physical force. Ryu's "might makes right" principle. The term I've been using so far is "aesthetic principle." There's probably a better term for it, but I intend it to mean a separation based upon a desire to not be around people with black skin. This is a non-political issue even though we are talking about a redrawing of political lines. The founding of such a nation will be unique. It will be the first nation whose core principle is the color of its constituents. All of the rules and laws follow from that starting point. If we're talking about arbitrariness then that sounds pretty arbitrary to me.]
It’s already the political reality of the USA. You are accustomed to all of the arbitrary rules that limit out of hand your tastes, preferences, relationships, and choices. Those freedoms continue to erode and the primary driving force of that erosion is the ever increasing top-down pressure to enforce “diversity”.
This smorgasbord of available options you imagine to be available to you has its own opportunity cost. We are all paying for those cheap chalupas in other ways. Those hidden charges we have budgeted for seem less significant psychologically than the sticker shock of massive social change.
I’m doing no such thing. I’m not advocating slavery. The thing is, all of those involved with the degrading act are long dead. I said if there is any inherited relationship between blacks and whites it would be thus. I also said I don’t believe there is any inherited relationship at all. I don’t actually believe blacks should thank whites for things that happened before both of their lifetimes and neither is responsible for because no one saved anyone from anything because it is all ancient history. I likewise don’t believe that whites have any responsibility regarding blacks at all, including sharing a country.
[Chuck: Whites do have an obligation to share *this* country. You can't escape that fact. If whites want to set up another country and enforce those laws, then they can try.]
Except we do have an obligation to interact. Blacks aren’t capable of producing the necessary outcomes to make having them as countrymen a beneficial proposition, or following the necessary processes to at least consider them virtuous actors in sufficient numbers to engender any feelings of loyalty for the lot, nor do I believe they are capable of reciprocating any true loyalty I could theoretically feel due to what are probably evolutionary quirks.
Sharing a country that actually works towards the commonweal of its members in a sensible way, and promotes civic virtue via some kind of deontological system, while simultaneously incorporating blacks would basically amount to some kind of white supremacist society.
Civilization requires a complex system of obligations from its participants. Blacks, even should they not be willful free-riders as they currently are, would be unwilling free-riders in other circumstances, and sharing a country with them that attempts to operate at a level that is satisfactory to whites necessitates that blacks societal burdens be carried by others more capable. It’s not sustainable, and the alternative of forcing the burden on blacks regardless of the acceptance of the fact that they can’t carry them, and regardless of that outcome isn’t any less unconscionable than simply expecting them to live up to the standard of civilization that they themselves are capable of producing.
Possibly more importantly, if we did basically expect blacks to sink or swim trying to live up to white standards while publicly admitting that it is established fact that they aren’t actually capable of parity in performance with whites, we must also accept that our own individual underperforming kin must also sink or swim regardless of the will of the community to say otherwise should we wish to maintain that deontological ‘rule of law’, process-based ethic.
Before it gets put forward I don’t draw a distinction between private insurance schemes and public ones. It’s all a part of society, regardless if it is a part of the state. “Free association” is too often just an attempt to skirt category violations of libertarian deontological ethic of equality before the law . That you can maintain equality before the “law” by farming out various social institutions to extra-legal actors is a technicality.
US already is an authoritarian state based on leftism and multiculturalism-see Paul Gottfried’s trilogy on the managerial-therapeutic state. However, like in the latter days of the USSR, you’ll probably be fine if you keep your head down and mouth only govt approved opinions. Remember the Patriot Act and NDAA and the militarized, federalized police forces with their now ubiquitous SWAT teams can be used against any perceived enemy of the regime regardless of ideology. Recall also that the American Empire and Permanent Warfare State were created by FDR and Truman. Ike’s farewell rant shows that GOP only became full-fledged members under Nixon. But I do think the USG has become too hip to the techniques of repression to carry out any more calculated and pointless domestic slaughters like Ruby Ridge and Waco.
I may be a bit overstating the case since I moved to Costa Rica ten years ago and they’d have to shoot me to bring me back to the US.
Thanks. Wilf is also married to a German atheist, not an Israeli Muslim.
There are Arab military commanders in the IDF that command predominantly Arab units, but not in any kind of position equivalent to the Joint Chiefs. They’ll never be calling any shots regarding the direction of the country or even have significant input.
Whatever, goalpost mover. You said that those who are not part of the 80% couldn’t achieve those positions or do those certain things. Christian Arabs and Druze aren’t part of the 80%. Nor are German atheists for that matter. Besides, you really don’t think a Jewish woman marrying a German man would be much more tolerated in Israel than one marrying an Arab? Besides, even if you can’t get a religious or civil marriage in-country, you can just move to an urban neighborhood in Tel Aviv where no one gives a shit and votes for the Labor Party and live under the “common-law marriage” status. Either way you got caught saying shit that was factually incorrect and are currently trying to pretend that you didn’t say what you said.
Interesting fact, while I was looking up the whole legal status of intermarriage in Israel, I came across an interesting factum about that guy Avigdor Lieberman you were going on about. While he’s hard as hell on the Arabs, he actually wants to break the ultra-orthodox hold on the rabbinical courts just so he can get more toenail Jews from Russia legally recognized as Jewish and thus able to immigrate and marry and have Israeli children. That’s rather akin to a white nationalist inviting in mestizo peasants because their great-grandfather was European.
What a curious debate. Our (Whites) racial beer goggles are like Kryptonite to Superman.
Race cannot be defined for Whites because it’s too fluid? The shorelines of Earth are fluid as well, therefore there is no way to determine what is water and what is land. I don’t know about you, but I have no trouble whatsoever in making the distinction between the sea and solid ground and while some nitwit is willing to debate the land v. water issue ad nauseum not everyone is going to regard that as prudent when the water level is rising rapidly.
Do you think you can find this kind of debate on any Black interest blog? They may be quibbling over mocha vs ebony, but they have no problem identifying one of their own (think Obama whose White genetics count for naught, dropped down the memory hole). He’s one of them, not one of us and they support him in a monolithic racial block without apology, without debate because they know he stands with them.
The vast majority of you need to pull your head out of your fourth point of contact live in the real world. Your race is your nation and your skin is the uniform. You can point out the 1 out of 10,000 exceptions to it all day long, but there’s a reason we call them exceptions, not the rule.
If you don’t understand the profound differences of race and it’s impact on living conditions- beyond the surface veneer- you don’t know much. If you prefer to live in a creedal versus a tribal nation, you’d better pull on your speedos and grab a floaty, especially if you are identifiable as one of the alleged oppressor majority/soon to be minority members.
You may not care about race, but most of humanity clearly does.
@Chuck
“The argument about having saved someone from squalor through slavery is bullshit of the highest order.”
True. Descendants of slaves are materially better off in the United States, but have been robbed of having their own country, populated by their own people, and with their own culture. Diversity has hurt them.
My grandparents visited Latvia years ago. They said everyone who lived their was proud to show off their beautiful country. I don’t feel that way about the United States. It doesn’t feel like it’s my country.
I don’t quite believe that. I haven’t read anything by Paul Gottfried, but while I decry many things the US government does (e.g. Iraq War, Patriot Act, militarization of police, etc.) I don’t think the US is an authoritarian state based on leftism and multiculturalism. I think that some minor multiculturalism already exists and has existed in the US for some time (see Albion’s Seed by Fischer), and that immigrants, for the most part, assimilate to US norms (especially concerning religion). I think that compared to real authoritarian states like the USSR and Nazi Germany, the US is rather different.
I certainly don’t think life in the US is all that bad for most people. In fact, more people want to immigrate than to emigrate.
It’s funny how the far right and far left are so similar in some ways. If I were to ask a leftist acquaintance of mine, he might say that the US is already an authoritarian state based on fascism and racism and that life is horrible here.
Chuck, are you genuinely surprised that race realists tend to be ‘white preferrers’, to coin a neutral phrase? Or are you doing some kind of Charles Johnson LGF repositioning thing?
Nikos, Greeks are usually considered white, but you will always be a dago as long as you keep that chip on your shoulder.
@Epizelus
“Even Irish immigration into Australia has changed the country enormously (the decline of the Anglican Church and the growth of the Catholic Church).”
This is exactly what has happened where I live. Catholics have completely taken over. I like them and don’t feel different from many of them, but it is still a loss.
That’s why I’m amazed when Catholics express any type of persecution. Are you kidding me?
*express feeling any type of persecution (most of them don’t, to be fair)
“Chuck: Roissy’s definition of alpha is tautological too. Many fundamental things in human nature are.”
great truths often distill as tautologies.
re: WN, i get the impression a lot of anti-wns are people who think it means “i won’t be able to date who i want”. if that’s the impression that wn’s are leaving amongst those on the fence, then they need to refine their message. people should be free to love whom they want without undue restriction.
but as cyprian mentioned above, a race is more than the sum total of its melanin content. racial differences cover ground from aesthetics, to mental prowess, to conscientiousness, to personality, to everything that enables a person to say “hey, these people over here are more like me than those people over there.”
cultures spring from, and are maintained by, the seed corn of the progenitors’ biological endowment. an america that is, say, half-amerindian, no matter how dutifully you coerce the government to adhere to high-minded libertarian principles, is not any longer going to be america as she has been for 200 years. she will be less america and more mexico. and objectively speaking, that is a bad thing, especially for white americans, and perhaps even for amerindian-americans.
there isn’t an economic model in the world that can defeat human nature. and there isn’t a drone army of superficially dissimilar human natures that can march lockstep into the harmonious throes of the weepiest equalists’ wet dreams. this knowledge is what used to be known as common sense. today, it’s known as verboten. that should tell you all you need to know that the WNs, as weird and iconoclast and socially inept a bunch they may be, are onto something.
I’ve responded to Kyle in-comments above.
Heartiste: even then, if Mexican immigration were limited and illegals were rounded up and taken back, WN’s still wouldn’t have their Valhalla. Slavery ensured that.
WN’s posit a pipe dream and then pine for it, getting off on both the romantic notion and the fact that the dream can’t and won’t be realized.
There is a certain type of innocent racial or ethnic supremacy that comes from having a preference for your own people – a sense that you and yours is better in a “youthfully arrogant” kind of way (H/T to occidentalist). For non-whites, this is taken for granted, it may be openly expressed and it is often encouraged. (Just ask TNC what he thinks about his people). Yet, these same attitudes in whites, though they may feel them deep down and they usually live their lives according to these preferences, causes people to recoil in horror if they are openly expressed. A taboo as deep as this means that there is a corresponding instinct that is being powerfully suppressed, and as we know from basic psychology, this type of suppression often involves neurotic defense mechanisms . . . ie with GZ-Martin case is a classic form of projection – white liberals projecting their own racial anxieties onto someone else: “Look everyone! HE’S THE RACIST! There’s the bad guy! Punish HIM!”
Jared Taylor is right: it is natural and healthy to have a group sense and group interests, and this is how humans have conducted their affairs throughout history. But he fails to realize that white nationalism is so unpalatable because the last time it was attempted in earnest the results were so horrifying and destructive that no one wants to go back there. Make no mistake, one of the primary aims of progressive project since WWII has been a near complete and thorough dismantling of white consciousness and careful subversion white supremacy. I’m not saying this as a paranoid white nationalist “the Joos are genociding us!” It was a strategy used by minority groups to protect themselves from us organizing and becoming too powerful . . . not saying this is a bad thing that’s just the historical dialectic in place at the moment (http://bit.ly/Ij5yeO). So whites will continue to flee to whitopias, put their kids in white schools, and prefer to watch movies featuring white people, ect. . . but they must never say WHY that preference exists and they must also deny that such a preference even exists.
Chuck–
Non Hispanic Amerindians haven’t been a problem for whites since about 1900. Buying up and importing black slaves was the greatest long term mistake America has ever made. But we are stuck with their descendants. We just shouldn’t allow in any more mass numbers of NAM’s, due to their large tendency to be tax eaters rather than net taxpayer, and due to their much greater rates of committing crime, particularly blacks buy Mexicans and Central Americans as well.
someone from above: “We were not homogenous from the start.”
in practice, we were. the country was not built by indians. it was created, built, expanded and maintained by white euros. indians were either killed, marginalized, shunted away or attritted. later, as the usa grew, the proportion of homogeneous nw euro whites far exceeded that of indians, resulting in a de jure as well as de facto homogeneous culture. later, sw euro whites joined in, the concentric circle of genetic relatedness enlarged a little (with some growing pains), but the country held together because the ethnic differences were small enough that the new, overlapping venn diagram could be accommodated.
“White people entered a land occupied by brown people”
technically not true. evidence recently emerged that an iberian euro settled north america before asiatic indians ever came here. but that is a minor quibble intended only to win insipid games of gotcha with snarky liberals. not that there’s anything wrong with that.
“and we brought even darker people over here to employ as cheap labor.”
as the happy-go-lucky bachelor might tell his engaged buddy about to be married: big mistake. nevertheless, it is possible to advocate a sort of WNism (lite, if you will) that recognizes african blacks were brought here against their wills, have been here since the start, and are thus a part of the fabric of the nation and can’t be waved away, while still holding mutually compatible views that the importation of further genetically/culturally distant peoples unnecessarily tears apart the foundations of the nation and destroys the human capital that is intrinsic to its livability, success and dominance.
sensible immigration policy and demographic management is really a question of numbers and origin. it is not a black and white (heh) “my way or the highway” strict code of conduct enforced by a department of homogeneity. it’s simply an honest awareness that groups of people differ, and some groups differ a lot in many important ways, and that immigration should favor those from nations not too genetically or culturally distinct from the once-heavily germanic/anglo american populace, with allowances for a smaller pool of high quality immigrants from non-nw euro regions, with the pool shrinking the further you get from the origin source of the american people.
i would expect nothing less from any other country in the world.
There is a reason that White Nationalism is mostly American. In America its possible to have a greater ethnic solidarity than national solidarity. Its possible for “White” to be enough and that its somewhat unique to the US shared mostly with Israel where to some degree Jewish is enough.
Other nations have some of this, Australia maybe but its mostly a US thing.
As for White immigration being less than good, well yeah. Aside from the slaves the US was politically altered very early and not necessarily for the good by the mass immigration of Germans (my people BTW) who are as White as all get out. I wouldn’t blame any nation for not wanting to be altered.
It kind of feeds back to the idea of diversity, real diversity comes from smaller homogeneous polities, We need smaller nations with less internal diversity and more of them. Ironically its the ultimate multicultural world with real diverse nations and border areas with interesting mixes .
The thing is though most politicians are operating like crack heads, addicted to power and prestige, again natural as an evolved response to organic success but a real menace to everyone. Since the “hit” of power is greater the more you control, they’d rather be a smaller fish in a bigger more aggressive pond than be a modest fish in a small pond even if that means being some minor functionary vs prime minister. They won’t give up the turf most times.
The Left claims to kind of want real diversity but its the diversity of the psychiatric gulag shopping mall not the real diversity of hundreds of ideas, many they’ll find abhorrent. They want everywhere to be different outside but the same outside. So we are stuck.
As for the US, ts still materially better for some people than the least developed powers but its a terrible mess. What causes the desire to immigrate is the fact that everyone who isn’t actually here sees the US as it was not as it is. Its no longer a 1st rate society and in fact unless you are wealthy its a borderline dystopia compared to just 30 years ago
Fact is we have the worst distribution of wealth in the developed world, half the population is poor (which in the US does NOT mean a nice house and car its means chronic insecurity and a 2nd hand life) we have 40 million people who need government aid to eat, the worlds highest incarceration rate, massive use of legal and illegal drugs, high unemployment crumbling infrastructure and cities that are growing unsafe again , a nascent police state and a school system that simply can’t teach well regardless of ethnic mix.
Its bad enough the Mexicans are heading home in droves and I suspect others will soon follow. That can be a good outcome but a bad motivator if you ask me.
if the various peoples didn’t see the US as it looked say during the time the Beach Boys were hip or thinking it was like TV they’d pity us.
That isn’t literally what I said, since we were talking in the vaguest possible terms. When you reference “the 20%” in Israel I assumed like any normal person you meant the Israeli Arabs, who are 99%+ of that 20%.
What you literally did was point out to some extreme outlier in the minority population. It’s exactly equivalent to me rebutting the claim of minority oppression in America by pointing out black athletes, entertainers and rich Asians.
Yes I do, and so does any sane person. What do you think an Ashkenazim is? Half of the fucking Israeli ruling class have parents and grandparents that speak German. Do you really think that Israeli’s give a fuck about emasculated modern Germans as much as they do about their own domestic minorities whose literal cousins they are effectively at war with? Just like white Americans hate Koreans, because of the war, and its just as taboo to marry a Korean as it is a negro, right? Of course you don’t actually think that, but you’ll put forward whatever duplicitous argument that you think will float.
It’s actually nothing like that at all, and you know it, but hey it sounds clever to you so why not write it an post it even though it is total nonsense? How Jewish do you have to be to have Israeli citizenship? How Jewish is Avigdor Lieberman himself? According to the Haredi he’s 0% Jewish because he’s not Haredi. According to pretty much everyone else, 100%. Lieberman considers those Russian Jews Jewish because he is a Russian Jew (as in born and raised, native speaker of Russian) that bases Jewish identity on something different than the Haredi do.
The equivalent would be if some white politician wanted to advocate importing his fellow whites from his native Albania, or Italy, and another group of whites didn’t want to extend the mantle of ‘whiteness’ on to Muslims or mediterraneans. This no doubt would happen, and has happened in American history, but there certainly isn’t any equivalent to a WN wanting to import 1/16th European indigenous central Americans that don’t even consider themselves white.
Those Russian Jews are just as Jewish (or not Jewish) as Lieberman himself who only wants to import more people like himself that will then bestow upon him additional electoral power, and not a one of them base their identity on either strictly racial purity, or religion. You might have a point if you had some contingent of Guatemalans somewhere that consider themselves whites, that had a bloc of said brown-skinned people inexplicably among white nationalists that other white nationalists consider white for some reason that were agitating for the inclusion of people just like the themselves to also be considered white. I’d say that if such a situation existed, these brown-skinned Guatemalan white nationalists would have a pretty solid argument going for them.
Israeli policy considers Lieberman sufficiently Jewish, and Lieberman wants all of those people just like him to be considered Jewish as well. There is no irony, or contradiction, or inconsistent element with this that you imagine exists (which you don’t imagine it, but you imagine you can fool people because you think you are more cunning than you are.)
The Israeli far-right don’t like the Haredi, so I don’t even know what kind of “gotcha” you are trying to throw out there, since I think your ‘research’ into that was mostly provided by me in my comments on the subject. That is by retyping the things I’ve already written myself you aren’t offering me any new information, but thanks for trying.
I’ll respond to Chuck’s reply later tonight.
Uh, they *are* Arabs. Just as much as the Maronites, Melkites and Druze in Lebanon are. Just because the Israeli Druze like to do the Taqiyya thing doesn’t negate their Arabness, and Christian Arabs don’t deny they’re Arab, even in Israel.
As for Lieberman, he wants to let anyone who can claim even the minutest amount of Jewish descent into Israel. That the people he’d be letting in don’t know the slightest thing about Judaism, don’t know Hebrew, and have been either Orthodox Christian or Communist atheist for generations and regarded themselves as ethnic Russians and Ukrainians until it was personally advantageous to dig up their great-grandfather to possibly fall under the Laws of return to Israel. In other words, by blood and by culture, they’re not Jewish. I stand by my comparison that it’s like a WN letting in mestizo peasants because he hates blacks and the mestizo peasants are willing to pretend they’re white for the economic benefits.
Anyways, you didn’t even address the main point about *why* I brought up the Haredi. Namely that the dedicated elements of the WN movement are diverse as well. Who gets to define who is white? The Jared Taylor “Jews are white too” group, or the strict Nordicists who would exclude anyone of descent south of the Alps and Pyranees and east of Translyvania? Who would define the culture of the WN nation? The secular technocrats like AmRen, the Southern Christian Identity movement, or the Neopagan Odinists of the West Coast and Rockies?
I think most people are race realists. The liberals I know are race realists. White nationalists are different, and can seem like loose cannons.
Also you got a lot of nerve to say I’m pulling arguments out of my ass, man. That’s the teacup calling the china plate white, there.
I think a lot of white nationalists are just looking for a fight. Maybe modern life is too mundane and tame for them.
“Who gets to define who is white?”
think of concentric circles of genetic relatedness, and then get back to us without your all-too-predictable libtard squid ink muddying the waters.
Spike, you know what sucks the most? Your fucking attitude.
Not that it’s different than that of any brown, any mischling, any talented-tenth black in a white society. In sum, your attitude is no appreciation. No affection. No gratitude. Nothing but churlish arrogance, entitlement, and contempt for whites. For SWPLs. For WNs. For proles. For yuppies. Yeah, sure, you have “appreciation” for the Western Canon. But it’s a loveless, abstract sort of appreciation of a consumer.
Is it so goddamned hard to pause for a moment and think about how every white human on this planet, from Shakespeare and Newton on through a hotel cleaning said in Ohio is a contributor, by their very existence, to a habitat that nurtures the very civilization you are given unconditional hospitality in?
This is not just about you, but about every guest we take in without complaint and ask nothing in return.
Spike, since jews are White, and Ethiopian jews are jewish, does that mean Ethiopians are White? Also, same thing with Kaifeng jews. Perhaps if one converts (but to which sect?) one becomes White by virtue of being jewish. Oy vey, vat a conundrum!
PA:
My attitude in addressing Kyle and Ryu is an artifact of how they address me and construct their arguments with me. Respect is a two way street, and due to our past history, I still respect you, and I’m chalking up what you said to inflamed passions rather than actual held beliefs about my character. If you want to have a conversation with me about the topic sans vitriol, I would prefer to take it to private messages, or someplace where it’s not part of a public forum where others can constantly feed in their own two cents. I really do think any possibility of a nuanced conversation here died soon after Chuck posted the initial posting.
15 million germans weren’t a permenant burden for eastern europe. They were dumped into a starving and bombed out germany, and millions starved as a result. If it is the price of peace(and it usually is) ethnic cleansing is basically going to happen.
Well, would it be so difficult to approach Ryu and Kyle with an attitude of “I see where you guys are coming from.”
PA,
Spike can flip the question on them then. It’s a typical internet argument in that arguing about civility is futile.
But this all got started because I wrote a post about the paranoia of Alex Linder, a hardcore piece of shit unrepentent hate-monger, and drew cat calls from the commentariate because I called him and his type “stupid”, for lack of a better word. Some people got their feelings hurt in his defense. But that guy is indefensible.
PA:
I’ve stated I do get where WNs are coming from in the past. Shit, I come from a race of people who don’t even know their own damn language anymore, are a small minority in their own homeland and have but a handful of pure-blooded members left. It sucks, man, I wouldn’t wish that shit on any nationality. It sucks to know you really can’t do anything about it, either. Hell, it took me awhile to accept that I’d either have to be in a loveless relationship, or dilute the blood even more than it already is. You already know what my choice was.
I don’t really want to go into a detailed even-handed discussion of WN here, as I’ve stated previously if you want to talk about it with me, I’d rather do it elsewhere. Suffice to say my approach to Kyle and particularly Ryu is due to the tone taken in past debates at In Mala Fide. In short, yes I do understand the motivations behind WN. I can see why some people would want it, and they should be allowed to have it to a certain extent. Yes, I have some opinions of how it’s currently expressed. If WNs want to disregard those opinions because I’m not white, then that’s their choice, for whatever reason. But I don’t feel under any obligation to respectfully address certain individuals when in the past those individuals were unwilling to do the same. In short I talk to Ryu and Kyle the way I do because they’ve been assholes to me, not because they’re WNs.
Pingback: To go mainstream or not to go mainstream « Foseti
Fair enough Spike. I take back lumping you in with the arrogant browns, mischlings, and talented-tenth blacks. I have contempt for many of them but historically I’ve liked and thought well of you.
I have not followed this particular debate for very long here, but nothing that JT mentioned is beyond our reach; as well, the discourse on WN is flawed from the start, for the most part, as many today have no conception of what WN’sm, in its nascent stage, actually was. In its infancy, WN’sm covered many things, including Political, philosophical, and racial matters which, today, seems to have been given a wide birth, and less attention to the fundamental principles of true WN’sm, as put forward by the early progenitors.
It is apparent that a rifts are occurring, not because there are fundamental issues with the policies of WN’sm, but because no one is actually debating these principles.
A good start would be here: http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-The-Twenty-First-Century/dp/1463562217/ref=lp_B002MG6O0A_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1335831672&sr=1-2
“Looking back over the past several decades, the evolutionary growth of this concept has taken many forms, it has been taught and re-packaged by sincere and not so sincere individuals; it is claimed as their own by millions of those of Western stock; it has its supporters and detractors, it has its philosophers and ideologues; it has its ‘public figures’, its scientific proselytes, and it has its martyrs. In short, the concept of White Nationalism has become all things to all people who seek to protect and serve the larger good – that is, their Folk – yet the divisions of interpretation and practice are as removed from themselves, as it ever seems to be.
The cacophony of voices, some of which see clearly, but have no telling numerical audience, the others, morphing their own world-vision into what they would call ‘white nationalism’, are usually those who have first access to the media, creators of their own websites, or have publishing financing for their individual efforts, are now disagreeing both publicly and privately on just what White Nationalism means and, more importantly, who or what will lead the next generation into the future.
Implicit in this conversation is the development of a whole set of constructs, of psychological changes in both individuals and institutions which make up the political and governmental bodies of the West, and carried to these bodies by a relatively unorganized and, for the most part, unprofessional body of adherents, fighting for scraps left by the internecine, and juvenile wars of its practitioners. This development has causual aspects, which cover many areas of human psychology: Intra-personal contact, intra-tribal survival mechanisms, and supra-national and intra-national hegemony, which helps to form or destroy these interrelationships. These interrelationships, these feelings of national inspiration, are millennial within the framework of specie and specie survival; the West, however is, or has become, quite obtuse when faced with this truth.
The White Nationalist, on the other hand, sees clearly through this fog of deceit, mischaracterization, and blatant lies which ever seek to confine their aspirations, hopes, dreams and fulfillment as a unique and sovereign people.
This fog of deceit and mis-characterization often comes from the very rank and file of the white nationalist milieu, which has exponentially grown in the last generation. This is not their fault, as children and novices must be taught by experience and proper mentorship by those who have gone before them; this is a long process, but falls within the acceptable duration period of less than two generations. So why do we have such divergence of opinion? One answer is that the focus of distinct ideological imperatives, of motivations and tactics have strayed from a singular strategy of revolutionary thought, namely, that the ‘old order’, or the traditional conservative mentality has failed in its attempt at conserving anything approximating a Western American race-culture.
The collective nature of tribe, people, folk-ways, and identifiable culture has been allowed to pass from us by the very nature, which seems to identify us as unique individuals. Individualism, taken to an extreme, has separated us from ourselves. This was and is the original message of White Nationalism.
In the beginning, this milieu of disparate nationalism began to congeal, taking on the corporate manifestations of a fledgling movement: Within its ranks comprised elements of Racialists, religionists, political revolutionaries, historiographers, constitutionalists, scientists, educators, as well as the deracinated, naïve, and counter-revolutionary opposition within our own ranks. Instead of a firm and committed series of evolutionary steps, white nationalism is now headed by confused and pale imitations of those original concepts, which has inexorably led us to a place, which we were already at, some thirty years ago. ”
pgs. iv,v.
http://www.amazon.com/Frank-L.-DeSilva/e/B002MG6O0A/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1
It seems, at the outset, that all our ‘isms’ are, once again, promoting dissension and conflict when, these battles have already been won; we need to sharpen our own awareness, and focus on a Future, not on the egos and what passes as intellectual momentum.
As marginalized and dysfunctional as the current movement is, WN offers the only truly sustainable solution for whites. It’s easy to pick out a particular WN and criticize him or her, but at the end of the day that’s a red herring. It’s the WN answer that matters, not a particular messenger.
That answer is that we require our own nation, exclusive and homogenous. That means national sovereignty, living under our own laws, with our own civic, cultural and private institutions. That means our own universities, our own media institutions, businesses large and small, down to our own bars. Our own habitat. If the idea of lots of pretty white girls, good schools and beautiful all-white towns and cities gives you the vapors, fear not! You won’t have to live there. You can always muck around in the multiracial sewer of whatever is left of the United States. Bon appetit!
It would be nice to be able to restore the United States as a whole, but that ship has long since sailed. Today, there are well over 100 million non-whites in the country. These non-whites have already, just in the brief time that they have had real numbers, transformed the nation dramatically, and we ain’t seen nothing yet. We are only at the very beginning of the transformation process.
Yet the so called conservative imagines that things can be turned around…even though the country moves inexorably to the left, and conservatives do nothing but lose. As one in a million of examples, just in the last twenty years or so we’ve witnessed Martin Luther King basically supplant Washington and Jefferson as the most iconic and revered of Americans. Yet the poor, dimwitted conservative once imagined that it made no difference if you filled up America’s classrooms with literally tens of millions of non-whites.
Um, yes it does. The non-whites are going to worship their own heroes (and now “conservatives” are joining in with them in a mighty irony of history; these days nobody fellates MLK like “conservative”).
The non-whites (well, really a hostile and alien elite) are going to teach their own narrative of America – not just to their kids, but to yours. In fact, they have already redefined our national “story,” who we are, where we came from, where we are going. What we are and what we are supposed to be. The “conservative” has conserved absolutely nothing. Yet the dimwitted tard is still completely at sea, understanding absolutely nothing. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
The libertarians are no better. Trapped by the false premise of human equality, they just can’t understand why blacks and mestizos are such statists. It’s a real brain teaser, so I sympathize with their difficulty.
Here’s a hint: the IQ differentials are such that in any true libertarian free market, the blacks and browns are going to consistently occupy the lower strata of society. That’s nothing but a recipe for seething resentment and hatred, not to mention an endless stream of votes for big government statists who will impose wealth transfers from whites to non-whites. And what’s even more amazing, so dense are the purist libertarians, they would have an open borders policy allowing unlimited immigration of ever more blacks and browns: i.e. constituents for socialism and fully funded government services. A purist libertarian society would last no longer than the time it would take for low IQ blacks and browns to swamp the place. After all, government has no right to stop them.
How can one take a philosophy seriously that is literally incapable of protecting itself for so much as fifteen minutes? Southern California and Orange County in particular used to be hotbeds of libertarianism. Now? Swamped by the brown tide, it’s becoming solidly Democrat. Does the libertarian learn anything from experience or reality? Nope. Not a single thing.
So we end where we began: at least the WN idea of sovereign ethnostates is sustainable and sensible. At least the idea itself comports with reality, as opposed to constant failure conservatism and delusional libertarianism. Of course, that leaves the problem of actually achieving a separate nation, and that’s going to be a bitch. But at least the objective makes sense, and it’s not like new nations haven’t been created before. It’s happend a lot just in the lifetimes of most people posting here.
The Maronite Christians fought fiercely against the PLO and against Muslims. They have normally sided with Israel but the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon may have disillusioned them somewhat.. Prior to that they were well known for carrying out the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982. So their Arab language did not prevent them from allying with Israel and massacring fellow Arabs who were Muslim.
Historically, ethnic identity in the Levant is based on confession. I understand that when the Turks genocided the Armenians it was based on confession. Aside for any Armenians who may have converted to Islam, the few Catholic and Protestant (American missionaries at work) Armenians were spared.
Trainspotter:
Your first sentence is a non-starter. Is there one single solution for whites? All whites? No. What is essentially going on is that you and other WNs are trying to wrangle up troops – bodies for your war or taxpayers for your polity. You make all sorts of *aesthetic* appeals and other arguments to convince people that they should operate under the WN banner. Even for race-conscious whites, you’d have to go further to convince them to submit to this hegemonic regime.
I guess the important thing is that he doesn’t expect them to align with the Arabs or with African asylum seekers. Most immigrants don’t come to Israel knowing Hebrew and the vast majority of Jewish Israelis are non-religious seculars who are either secular nationalist or just postmodern consumerist “last men.”
CR: “Your first sentence is a non-starter. Is there one single solution for whites? All whites? No.”
That’s a distortion. I never claimed a single solution for “all” whites. In fact, I think it best if liberal whites live by their own words. They claim diversity is so grand, let them live by it. That’s just my personal opinion, not a WN litmus test. In any event, I made it clear in my post that the white ethnostate would only be for those who want to live there. We want to go our way, you guys (assuming you genuinely disagree with us) go yours. While I think whites who want to remain in a multiracial dystopia are foolish, that’s their call.
CR: “What is essentially going on is that you and other WNs are trying to wrangle up troops – bodies for your war or taxpayers for your polity.”
That’s fair. Of course we are. We want to popularize the idea, just as the idea of Israel had to be popularized before it could take physical form, just as independence had to be popularized before there was a United States. Nothing new under the sun here.
CR: “You make all sorts of *aesthetic* appeals and other arguments to convince people that they should operate under the WN banner.”
True, but a little slippery. What’s wrong with beauty? Modern America is a profoundly ugly place. Its art is terrible, as is its music and architecture…and that’s just for starters on a very long list. So yes, I’d be willing to wager that the white ethnostate would be easier on the eyes, and that’s worth something. But there is also a great host of other reasons for an ethnostate that have nothing to do with aesthetics. Like, I don’t know, not having our people raped, robbed and murdered at ridiculous levels? Not having to exist as a tax slave for the ever growing legions of blacks and browns, with a goodly portion of that tax money going to enforcement agencies that discriminate against us. Not having to look over our shoulders and whisper things that are true, but will reduce us to a breadcrumb if overheard, and about a thousand etceteras.
CR: “Even for race-conscious whites, you’d have to go further to convince them to submit to this hegemonic regime.”
Come on, Mr. Rudd. What is so ominously hegemonic about a people having their own land? If you don’t want to live there, you don’t have to. There will be no exploitation of non-white labor, because only whites will live there. The white ethnostate will exercise precisely zero hegemony over any non-white, or any white who doesn’t want to live there. This seems to be an example, intentional or not, of demonizing whites. Lots of other peoples have their own homelands, but somehow it is sinister and scary for whites (some) to want the same thing.
trainspotter:
there is nothing inherently hegemonic about people *wanting* their own land. but there is something hegemonic about maintaining a nation based upon one common factor as arbitrary as skin color. it’s all pie in the sky idealism. the entire issue is a non-starter and it’s not feasible. at least one shoe will have to drop – some sort of censorship or the limitation of out-migration. i wonder if those aspects of the nation would be advertised up front as much as the Valhalla landscape that is usually touted as the big draw.
because, in truth, there are plenty of de-facto white “nation-states” speckled all through the countryside of this nation. and what’s happening there, in general? the white people are leaving. the smart ones at least. they are willing to take on a bit of diversity for the ability to experience a certain type of culture or hold a certain kind of job. now, they may limit their exposure to other races by moving to the white part of town or a whitopia, but they aren’t holding, as a defining principle, the avoidance of people of other races.
“but they aren’t holding, as a defining principle, the avoidance of people of other races.”
‘i have always thought men’s actions the best interpreters of their thoughts.’
– locke
in practice, we were. the country was not built by indians. it was created, built, expanded and maintained by white euros. indians were either killed, marginalized, shunted away or attritted. later, as the usa grew, the proportion of homogeneous nw euro whites far exceeded that of indians, resulting in a de jure as well as de facto homogeneous culture. later, sw euro whites joined in, the concentric circle of genetic relatedness enlarged a little (with some growing pains), but the country held together because the ethnic differences were small enough that the new, overlapping venn diagram could be accommodated.
A favorite maxim of Heartiste/Roissy is that diversity plus proximity equals war. Northern Europeans, the ethnic base of the early United States, were frequently at war in Europe (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World Wars I & II). Why were these ethnic groups warring in Europe while co-existing in the United States?
“Citizenism” sure has taken off over the last seven years, hasn’t it? I’m getting rich selling all those “I am a Citizenist” bumperstickers you see everywhere these days.
Heartiste:
even though many whites move to the suburbs, ex-urbs, and whitopias, a lot of whites move from the country to the city and even those who do try to surround themselves with whites enjoy living with a bit of racial diversity.
self-segregation is an observable phenomena. economist thomas schelling wrote some good material on it. but we’re talking about a hard-and-fast rule. a rule that is the central component of a nation-state. this is a discussion about the degrees to which someone wants to ensure racial homogeneity in their lives. what are they willing to give up in order to enjoy that? i believe that very few would be willing to give up all that much. moving to the suburbs and taking in diversity in teaspoons rather than melting pots is the choice. but the transition from that self-segregation to a completely different nation is not seamless. the question that should inform the entire debate is, how would such a complete fissure occur? it is a radical notion and blood would be shed. and even then you’d be fighting for the right to live in a totalitarian regime.
This is equally true of plenty of Zionist-lite American Jews that actually do have Israeli citizenship, and it is equally true of plenty of secular Jews born and raised in Israel. Fact of the matter is a huge chunk of Israeli citizens are cosmopolitan secularists that don’t have a huge stake in the country. A tiny fraction of Zionist radicals founded the country, and most of the Jews that settled the country in the same generation that it was founded aren’t any different than those Russians.
By blood most Ashkenazim aren’t very Jewish, if you are talking about their number of generations distance from their middle eastern ancestors, and by culture they are overwhelmingly cosmopolitan atheists (which is now defined as “Jewish culture”). Every Jewish actor in the US can be said to be ‘culturally Jewish’, and ‘ethnically Jewish’ despite being greater than 50% Germanic, and not having unbroken lines of matrilineal descent, but Russian peasant Jews can’t. One group has money and power in Israel and the US, and the other has less in Israel and none in the US, and that is the only meaningful distinction between those Jews and these Jews.
I can’t blame current Israeli’s for not wanting to let in a bunch of foreigners; poor Russians no less, but the justification for keeping them out for not being Jewish enough is lame, and disingenuous considering who they do consider Jewish enough.
even though many whites move to the suburbs, ex-urbs, and whitopias, a lot of whites move from the country to the city and even those who do try to surround themselves with whites enjoy living with a bit of racial diversity.
self-segregation is an observable phenomena. economist thomas schelling wrote some good material on it. but we’re talking about a hard-and-fast rule. a rule that is the central component of a nation-state. this is a discussion about the degrees to which someone wants to ensure racial homogeneity in their lives. what are they willing to give up in order to enjoy that?
It strikes me that the upper class seeks to avoid white proles almost as much as they do urban blacks. West Virginia is a lot more homogeneous than Fairfax or Park Slope, but no one’s clamoring to move there.
Trainspotter:
It is hard to know whether it is intentional. Highly influential and visible people have been lying about and distorting our ideas for a long time. The disinformation has clearly had an effect.
Chuck Rudd:
I skimmed the articles fast. It is possible I missed it, but I did not see where Taylor put forward the notion that Whites must always choose Whites as WNist’s ultimate argument. And you give no citation, quote or other supporting evidence for the statement. Is the statement based on Taylor’s or another WNist’s words, speeches, books or other writings?
Lew,
If a person is a white nationalist then that is their ultimate end. They are saying that they want a sovereignty where choosing non-white is not an option. And I’ll have to say that much of the reason for the lack of clarity is due to WN’s not having thought out nor laid out their proposition.
I appreciate the debate, which has been mostly amicable, but after this I’ll call it a day.
CR: “but there is something hegemonic about maintaining a nation based upon one common factor as arbitrary as skin color.”
Our differences involve far more than skin color. We are a people, an ethnic group. You can quibble with that, but tribes form as they form. We see ourselves as the descendents of the indigenous peoples of Europe – and that’s precisely what we are. We are not unusual or unique in seeing ourselves this way. The Founding generation, in one of their first acts, limited immigration and naturalization to free white persons, a policy that was followed with very limited exception up until the 1960′s. Unfortunately we lost our country, and are now increasingly living as strangers in a strange land. All too often, a stroll in modern America seems like something out of the Star Wars cantina scene. If you feel at home in that, fine. I don’t. Many don’t.
Our enemies know who we are as well. Their anti-white propaganda is aimed at us, their set asides exclude us, their discriminatory laws have little trouble shifting benefits toward themselves and away from us, and the violent non-whites with racial grudges have little difficulty figuring out who is who. They know their white boys, and white girls too. The biggest taboo in our society is advocating for whites as a group. You can challenge the establishment on abortion, gun rights, taxes, or pretty much anything else. But a positive white identity is verboten. If you push it, you’re done. They’ll reduce you to a breadcrumb if possible. You might want to think about why that is. You seem to fear a totalitarian regime…but in many ways you’re already living in one.
And yet we know who we are, and those who hate us know who we are. In reality, everybody knows who we are. But somehow, when we promote a way forward it becomes, “Who are you? You don’t exist, it’s just about melanin content! How arbitrary and silly.” Surely you see through that.
Of course, we know why this is. They don’t want us to go our own way. Instead, they want to feed off of us. They want to tax us, they want our women. They want our young men as cannon fodder for their wars, fighting for a system elite that hates them. And who would the SWPL crowd look down upon, and gain status points off of, if racially conscious whites said goodbye to the multiracial cesspool, and moved to the White Republic instead? If they had such an option, it would be so much harder to beat up on them and spit in their faces. That would well and truly suck.
The idea of us going our own way terrifies them, but that’s exactly what we are going to do. You’ve got to understand this much, Mr. Rudd: the anti-whites ENJOY what is going on, what is being done to whites. It’s clear they derive real pleasure from it. And why shouldn’t it when they’ve got the system on lock down?
CR: “it’s all pie in the sky idealism. the entire issue is a non-starter and it’s not feasible. at least one shoe will have to drop – some sort of censorship or the limitation of out-migration.”
Different tribes have been breaking off from other tribes for as long as there have been humans. Again, tribes form as they form. In the modern world, numerous new nations have been created just in the span of the last few decades.
CR:”because, in truth, there are plenty of de-facto white “nation-states” speckled all through the countryside of this nation. and what’s happening there, in general? the white people are leaving. the smart ones at least.”
They aren’t nation states, either de facto or de jure. They are subjected to the same anti-white propaganda, discriminatory policies, taxes, monetary policy, insane foreign wars, and cesspool culture as anywhere else. The people there are required to adhere to the multicultural party line, just like anywhere else. Positive white identity is officially taboo, K-12 and beyond. White identity for purposes of instilling guilt is fine. In fact, what is left of small town white America exists under the legal, cultural and economic hegemony (knew we could find a good use for that word) of alien, hostile elites who by and large despise them.
An actual nation would have its own civic insitutions (universities and so forth) that are supportive of its people, not opposed to them. The white spots that you are talking about only stay that way because they are either extremely high dollar areas where most people can’t afford to live, or on the other hand are extremely lacking in jobs. The latter keeps non-white migration low, true, but it also requires many of the young to leave. You can’t blame people for going where the jobs are under the circumstances that currently prevail, and that says very little, if anything at all, about their racial attitudes. Certainly it is in no way, shape or form a repudiation of the ethnostate.
“a lot of whites move from the country to the city and even those who do try to surround themselves with whites enjoy living with a bit of racial diversity. ” – They are gentrifying the cities and driving the undesirables out. Diversity on their terms isn’t what I’d call diversity, and it certainly isn’t what is being foisted on the rest of the country.
“Why were these ethnic groups warring in Europe while co-existing in the United States?”
America is bigger than western Europe, and was empty at the time, as opposed to a small, overcrowded continent. If you didn’t like your neighbors, there was a frontier to travel to.
“It strikes me that the upper class seeks to avoid white proles almost as much as they do urban blacks. West Virginia is a lot more homogeneous than Fairfax or Park Slope, but no one’s clamoring to move there.”
On the flip side, no one is moving them around the country, or demanding better schools for them,etc. The land they are on is quite marginal, were it otherwise they’d have been evicted a long time ago.
Chuck Rudd:
I am a white nationalist so that you know. I don’t agree that what you say is necessarily true, and for a very good reason that bears repeating. As Trainspotter pointed out above, if WNists ever do manage to get what they want, some sort of living space for “whites only,” anyone who feels the need to “choose non-White” would still have most of the globe to choose from. This is pretty basic.
Speaking only for myself, I would put it this way: WNists ultimate argument is that there should be a place in the world where Whites can choose White if they want to because right now they can’t.
The question is: how many White people would want to if they could? What are your thoughts on this? Given self-segregation and white flight patterns, it would likely be a lot. Just as a thought experiment, imagine it is decided tomorrow that four out the 50 states will be designated “White only” going forward. If that were to happen, again given the evidence of white flight patterns, I suspect we’d see the biggest traffic jam in the history of the world pile up very quickly.
A percentage of White people, and probably many more than you seem to think, might want to choose Whites only, for many reasons, if they could. But they can’t, and this is the main problem WNists are trying to solve and a factor in the social landscape you and others seem to be ignoring. Many Whites might want to choose White for aesthetic reasons, or for the women, or to get away from the crime, or to avoid being subjected to affirmative action and other forms of anti-White discrimination, or to avoid living in a society that devalues young White men and hence relegates young White men to ever lower status relative to Blacks and others, or simply to avoid living under the liars who rule this culture and constantly bombard the public with ideas like race and gender are social constructions.
Now, with those things said, I agree with you completely that WNs have not laid out their propositions very clearly. Part of the reason for this is that American WNism is a work and movement in a progress. As of yet, there is no text, body of writings or school of academic thought that lays out the main propositions. That will change in time.
CR: “If a person is a white nationalist then that is their ultimate end. They are saying that they want a sovereignty where choosing non-white is not an option. And I’ll have to say that much of the reason for the lack of clarity is due to WN’s not having thought out nor laid out their proposition.”
Guess I’ll make a quick exception, but this really is it.
I truly don’t get this as a stumbling block. The proposed white ethnostate is just that…a white ethnostate, a form of protected habitat if you will. I have no problem if other people want the same for themselves, or not.
If you are white and don’t want to live there for whatever reason, don’t. If you live there and don’t want to remain…then leave. If you would rather live in a multiracial society, you’re free to go to one (assuming they will have you, of course; the sovereignty of other peoples should be respected as well). How does this “force” you to always choose white? It clearly doesn’t.
In effect, the only limitation that the proposed white ethnostate inherently imposes upon its citizens is this: you can’t import non-whites into our society, whether as workers or for any other reason. If we allowed that, then of course we would go right back to becoming a multiracial society again, which is precisely the thing we wanted to avoid.
In other words, no citizen would have the unilateral power to convert us into a multiracial society, thereby unilaterally imposing all of the problems of multiracialism upon us. Think about it: why should one person have the power to unilaterally impose such a thing upon their fellow citizens?
That’s it. That’s the only inherent limitation. Anything else is up to the people themselves, but that’s the only limitation that is inherently required. So yes, if you insist upon importing non-whites into an all white society, the white ethnostate is probably not for you. But since the overwhelming majority of whites have no desire to do such a thing, it’s a rather minor limitation in exchange for the tremendous benefits that they would get and the meaningful freedoms that could be restored. Not to mention being able to have a real future as a people again. There are laws against stealing and murder too, but I don’t regard these as an insufferable limitation upon my liberty, as I have no intention of doing such things.
In any event, their choice entirely, but that’s the deal…each person can take it or leave it. Plenty would take it in a heartbeat. And, I grant, plenty would not. So be it.
How does that lack clarity? It’s quite cut and dry.
Trainspotter:
How would such a thing come into existence? Where would it exist? And is it reasonably sustainable? Personally, I’d be one of those people who’d choose not to live in such a place, but I also don’t think it would survive. And I don’t think that a WN has any grounds to set up shop within the borders of the U.S. so they’d have to find another locale. This creates a whole other set of stumbling blocks.
How would such a thing come into existence? Where would it exist? And is it reasonably sustainable?
These questions are arguments from ignorance. To put them into perspective, consider the counter-factual back in 1952, let’s say. The US is in an immigration moratorium and nascent multiculturalists are advocating for the white population to be reduced to less than 50% and also arguing that this will be a popular position with the general public. Critics would likely have raised the same objections that you raise – That would never happen, That could never happen. How could it be brought about. Why would it be popular? and so on.
As to the how, simple. Follow the examples of the counter factual. Back then you get Ted Kennedy sponsoring a bill in 1965 and stating “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.” A classic case of sleight of hand – promise one thing and deliver another. A lack of imagination in the critics is not the limiting factor for any proposal.
Personally, I’d be one of those people who’d choose not to live in such a place,
I probably wouldn’t either, for today I mean, but 10 years ago I wouldn’t have believed that the government would be taking pro-active measures to eradicate voluntary self-segregation, so my confidence that present conditions will persist into the future are not as solid as they once were, further I have no crystal ball which will reliably tell me what I can expect with respect to redistribution, with respect to racial and ethnic set asides, or whether the rise of a Millet system is in the works and if so will it be combined with massive redistributionism in order to equalize outcomes.
The issue that bothers me the most is the effort to eradicate self-segregation. This is gaining both popular and legal legitimacy. I have no love for WN but I absolutely rebel against forced desegregation – think school busing on scale which spans society. If equalization of outcomes is goal #1 (look at how that has now become the primary mission within the education sector) then freedom gets thrown under the bus and then the question, hypothetical as it is, becomes “Better to stay or better to go?”
And I don’t think that a WN has any grounds to set up shop within the borders of the U.S. so they’d have to find another locale.
This is a legalistic argument. The same could probably have been said for Yugoslavia, for Czechoslovakia, for the Quebec question, for pre-47 India. The conditions of today give no determinative insight with respect to the questions and solutions of tomorrow.
To take another tack – regional gentrification. Or open and wide-scale violation of employment law with hiring done through asset-less subcontractors and focused on targeted regions which simply becomes a strategy variant of the current illegal alien self-deportation scheme – no work, no reason to stay in a state.
Yet another tack – the libertarian Free State project. Voluntary migration. Look at how liberals have changed the demographics of Manhattan and Portland.
Back to your legalistic objection. If people want something badly enough, they’ll most often get it.
I don’t know how that is going to work out. I don’t have a specific battle plan and neither does anyone else really. There is no consensus anywhere on details. I’d say most white nationalists don’t foresee themselves occupying the role of the current USG along with all of its’ territorial assets. I don’t think any WNs (and the rogue’s gallery of fellow travelers like myself) have any desire to rule over all whites in North America regardless of their desire to be so ruled, much less all whites everywhere.
I imagine it would “work out” much like it did for the Zionists in Israel; not great, but at least its’ something.
How high should the bar be for political will be to deny people the ability to live communities of their own creation more or less unfettered by the dictates of hostile outsiders? Right now it already does come down to physical force in keeping the country together. Do you think that if it was known that the government wasn’t capable of deploying men with guns anywhere in the country that there aren’t an abundance of people ready to exploit such weakness? The political will to oppose the government exists. The catch is that you don’t need the will to just oppose it, but oppose it militarily.
It’s not an aesthetic principle because the impetus for that desire isn’t based on simply not liking the way things appear. Even if the question is about aesthetics, well as the saying goes, beauty isn’t only skin deep.
Also the commitment to an ethnostate isn’t just about race, but ethnicity, which implies a lot more than simple aesthetics or arbitrary biological groupings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
It wouldn’t be the first such nation at all. From our frame of reference no countries existed prior to the 17th century. That’s the height of European colonialism and imperialism though. That’s when and where the modern state was forged, and what we have now as a definition are those features are the elimination of traditional nations altogether.
The modern state isn’t based on notions of nationality that existed for most of history. The mold that the modern state conforms to isn’t that of a nation at all, but an empire. Sometime prior to the idea that the rulers of England should have rule of their English subjects as well as half of Africa and Asia it would have been absurd to believe that some subcontinental could spontaneously become “British” by swapping out flags.
Lots of countries don’t have that imperial governing ethic, where the ruling class is a separate entity from its’ subjects altogether and therefore any group of people is potentially subject to their rule. This is some peculiar Western notion that there exists an abundance of people that shouldn’t be able to govern themselves, for the sake of freedom and liberty no less, that much of the rest of the world doesn’t share. In reality most nations historically and today are based almost entirely on ethnicity.
Now most of them indeed aren’t big on ethnic jingoism like American WNs, true, but there is an reason for this. I’m to tired to note which author noted this, but I generally concur with the observation: that majority population, the paragons of any particular society aren’t actually very patriotic. The specific example was the Scots fighting with more zeal for 85% English Britain than the English themselves seemed to. WNs have a high stake in defining white identity above and beyond other whites, because American national identity roughly conforms to the latter groups norms but not the former.
Like you noted most WNs live in more diverse parts of the country, and as is popularly noted ‘anti-racist’ apparatchiks tend to steer very clear of non-whites. White racism and ‘anti-racism’ are both different pillars of divergent white ethnic identity. The former have little ‘white privilege’ and institutional bias working on their behalf, and hence have something to gain by fostering ethnic solidarity (which to be clear is a mostly subconscious phenomena); while the latter have an abundance of ‘white privilege’ and actually control the institutions.
A country with a healthy sense of self, whose rulers and subjects view themselves as a single people won’t expend any energy on crowing about their superiority, worthiness, deserts et cetera like WNs do. That’s because WNs are insecure; and I don’t mean that in a pejorative way. They are insecure as point of fact. They have no assurances like say Hungarians do about the Hungarianness of their posterity, or even the vague sense that they are the masters of their own fate. It’s probably not even thought about very much because so much assurance exists.
To get back on topic, some form of “White Nationalism” was the de facto ethic of America for much of its history. It was such a part of the status quo that it didn’t gain a name until it was gone. It’s like if I invented an ideology that was opposed to the existence of roads, and I successfully campaigned and achieved my anti-road agenda and all roads were gone from the US. The people who then wish to regain their recent ancestors, or older relatives ability to drive non-ATV vehicles wouldn’t be coming up with some unprecedented, completely novel political movement obsessed with instituting roads. The idea that roads are useful and should exist is in fact so old, and their existence was so assured that there never needed to be a label for road-traveling peoples or well formed arguments for the existence of roads.
There were Africans in 14th century England, and Jews in lots of places, and that resulted in very homogeneous countries until very recently. Some diversification isn’t an issue. A robust ethny can absorb some small amount of immigrants, and allow access to guests for tourism and trade under the right conditions.
I’m not sure that is true. “Liberalization” of the variety that seeks to demographically alter the country seems to have required an abundance propaganda, and a lot of heavy-handed action from a hostile elite contrary to the wishes of their constituencies. This kind of ‘liberalization’ seems to be something that really only seems to have afflicted very few people, and only very recently.
More than half of Gen Yers consider concerns over minority oppression overblown and racism against whites as a significant problem according to some polls I’ve seen, and that generally comports with my anecdotal experiences with young whites. It takes a lot of hard work on the part of our social ‘betters’ to enforce the progressive orthodoxy. I think that the milder brands of ‘white nationalism’ require less maintenance and activism among the young than the prevailing ideology of Gawker Media and Reddit.
We are all obviously products of our environments to some extent, and most of my thought on the subject are in the longterm. I personally enjoy the debauchery and frivolity of the modern world, but I don’t think I’m particular enriched by the experience and that I’d have been particularly unsuited to, or stifled had I been born in some other time or place than here and now. I’m sure I’d miss things given any radical change, but I don’t know I’d yearn for something more if I never had it in the first place. It’s hard to say exactly what extent I’m shaped by the environment of course. Maybe I couldn’t deal with it; I don’t know.
I do know that I’m not satisfied with the status quo though, and that the prospect of bringing up white children in America without abundant wealth, and connections to the ruling class (ie actual white privilege) seems a rather bleak prospect, and even if I gained those things for myself I’d have too much racially conscious ‘survivor’s guilt’ for my less successful fellow travelers.
I know that I currently live in a culture that rather vigorously enforces an orthodoxy that is contrary to my best interests based on my ethnicity, so I’m still wiser to accept vigorous enforcement of an alternative orthodoxy that is concordant with my interests even if a more agnostic approach is something I’m more suited to.
I believe agnosticism in regards to existential arguments is basically impossible though, so its’ not a real alternative. That kind of stance only comes about from having the upper-hand in said existential argument. The best alternative from a liberal stance would be a less-vigorous enforcement of a vaguely defined orthodoxy; but I believe that this is also more likely to occur in a more homogeneous environment where the bulk of the desired conformity exists from the ground up instead of the top down.
I’m not against democracy per se, as in opposing democratic institutions as a matter of principle. Republicanism isn’t synonymous with universal suffrage though. As for let the chips fall where they may, I’ve got no problem with that. Like Hoppe though I think you’d wind up with a lot of places where you can’t so much choose your neighbors, as much as your neighbors choose you.
That freedom of association necessitates the power of associations to define the terms of membership. The local Homeowner’s Association sets limits on what color you may paint your fence and how high it may be. In Hoppe’s ‘stateless’ world the Homeowner’s Association can set limits on which color friends may be present in your home, and in what quantity.
I’m pretty confident given unfettered freedom the chips would indeed fall that way in a lot of places. Put more broadly: actual freedom to associate however people wish doesn’t require those people to hold all forms of liberty as the highest moral values.
I can’t escape it, but I don’t think it is as strong a statement as you think it is. Whites do have to share this country, but they didn’t in the past, and they might not necessarily have to do so in the future. You are describing the current reality and not demonstrating that there can’t possibly be any deviation from the status quo on this issue. Things were very different in the past in the country that existed then and they might be very different in the country as it will exist some time from now.
It’s not inconceivable that we’ll have a white Senator representing the interests of blacks at the federal level as the head of the African-American Affairs Bureau rather than the Black National Caucus, as the representatives that blacks elect will only be concerned with the operation and liaising of the African-American reservations.
Not to say that this is my proposed solution, or that I find it likely, but it obviously has precedent. Our obligation to “share” this country with blacks is no greater, and I’d say a hair’s breadth less than our obligation to share it with Native Americans. Which we do share it. We just share it with blacks much, much more than the natives. Things change though.
I honestly don’t know dick about Alex Linder, VNN, and know little about Stormfront, the Phora, et cetera. I can commiserate with not finding the company among many white nationalists of the Internet very appealing, and being put off by their anti-social personalities. I don’t have any particular bone to pick with Alex Linder because I don’t really know him. I have a feeling I know his type, and I’ve got no reason to come to their defense, and that hasn’t been my purpose.
Mainly I find the discussion interesting which is why I bother expending this much energy on it, but I also take some exception to what I view as a pedantic critique. On one hand you are calling out the Alex Linder types for their paranoia, general weirdness, undue zeal et cetera, which is not only a critique of the form they take, but is also a critique of a very specific type of individual/subgroup. Which isn’t a problem in itself, except that you seem to implicate the substance with the form of VNN-style OTT activism.
I view it as the kind of argument (which is common, and no doubt I’ve used it myself without introspection) that is a very circuitous and clever ad hominem. You aren’t attacking Alex Linder and those who engage in similar antics exclusively, so much as you are attacking ideas that Alex Linder didn’t even originate with Alex Linder’s crackpot status.
I have my criticisms of libertarianism and many of the more prestigious libertarian thinkers but when I disagree I try to find something to say about the philosophy, thought process without resorting to beating libertarians over the head the weirdness of Murray Rothbard and his child-slave markets or Ayn Rand’s rape fetishism. These points can be relevant, but only discussions of the pathologies of the thinkers/promoters of a philosophy that can be separated from the philosophy itself as much as can reasonably be done. Just like we can acknowledge the validity of some Game principles while also acknowledging that a lot of the pioneers were potential kooks, and some of their advice for netting ‘positive’ outcomes need to be examined through the lens of that potential kookiness.
Incidentally there has been very little discussion into the kookiness of white nationalists rather than arguments over the (de)merits of WN itself, and I think that is because the critique isn’t fundamentally about how kooky white nationalists are but is instead about how kooky white nationalism is, and those arguments aren’t perfectly synonymous. There is a lot of discussion about the futility of white nationalism, and the personality issues of white nationalists among white nationalists and fence-sitter pro-whites (people like myself that are white nationalists but don’t call ourselves white nationalists because ‘all’ white nationalists are kooks).
That’s not what this seems to have been about though. Alex Linder just seems to have been the well poisoning segue into a tangential critique, and that’s why I don’t take it as merely butthurt over you attacking one of my idols, or out of some sense of loyalty to Linder. Some others may be butthurt, I can’t say, but I’d guess at least some others drew a similar vibe from your comments. Rather that vibe was intentional I can’t say, so don’t take the accusation too personally if I’m reading the situation wrong.
Well, yeah. Another thing is, how do you define a white person?
Why do people become so obtuse as soon as defining Whiteness comes up. The gov’t has no problem deciding who’s White, when it comes to sending YT to the back of the line.
The one-drop rule? Is Bliss Broyard black? This is racial totalitarianism, and it’s insane.
Defining Whiteness is racial totalitarianism? I think your response is insane.
I’m a citizenist. Count me in. I’m also a constitutionalist. If we could just go back to that document, a lot of our problems would be solved.
I’m a Constitutionalist, too. But words, documents, laws…they come, and they go. Your blood, your race, your ethnicity – they’re permanent. You can’t change them. They’re a real foundation, unlike ideas, which exist only in the ether.
I mean, you think Whiteness is too fuzzy, but “citizenism” and “Constitutionalism” are rock-solid? That’s just laughable. They’re fucking words, man. Air passed over the tongue and lips. A few neurons firing.
Ryu,
You rarely make sense. You speak in these romantic terms but never really say anything of substance. I mean, you can talk fuzzy all day long and convince yourself of whatever, but you need to convince me and all the others who aren’t WN that you offer something worth lining up behind.
Chuck, no we don’t. I don’t give a shit what you line up behind. Okay, that’s not completely true – I welcome all true allies and compatriots. But I don’t need you for shit. If you’re okay with your ancestors looking more like Mexicans or Chinese or blacks than like you, I’m okay with that, too. Just don’t expect me to “line up behind” you.
If we would all just follow the rules, go back to the Constitution, followed the advice of the Founders…! Well, this is just a whole lot of foolishness. Everyone else is gaming the system for all they can. A bunch of shameless card counters, cheats of all sorts, and you don’t want to throw them out of the casino?
Precisely. Ideas have to be shared to have power. The sorts of ideas in the Constitution have no traction at all outside certain western European peoples.
Try telling La Raza, the NAACP, the ADL, and the rest of them that they should drop their tribal identities, stop agitating for special privileges, throw out the laurels and cash rewards of their victimhood statuses. Yes, I for one am sure that they’ll want the brilliant, golden luster of the good ol’ US of A Constitution, following the law, and all of that jazz. Just give up the titles and heraldry of protected victimhood status, plus all of the plunder that goes along with that. Everyone equal before the law, following the process, order! That sounds heaps better than 13 scholarship offers with a 1.5 GPA and a cushy make work government job.
Right. Aracial Whiteness is simply unilateral surrender. Only idiots honor their committments to treaties banning flamethrowers, chemical weapons, nukes, whatever, when their enemies are mass producing them and employing them on the battlefield, wholesale. It’s rank stupidity.
If some poor soul doesn’t want to choose white, well, off to the hood with them! I won’t stop them. But I don’t want the hood to come to me.
Precisely. That’s all we need from Rudd & company; the recognition of our God-given Freedom of Association, and Right to Property. That’s all we demand, rather; this is not negotiable.
I couldn’t be less interested in forcibly integrating libtards, citizenists, or anyone else into my camp. On the contrary: ideally, we’ll have high fences to keep the DWLs out.
I would say that the average S.Korean, Japanese and Thai girl are MORE attractive to me than the average American white girl.
I’d say that’s nuts, but hey, more power to you. There’s no accounting for taste.
Doug: east Asian women are attractive. And yet… I spent a year in South Korea. I both like and respect Korea in its entirety. I made very good friends with a number of Korean guys. But — after a few months there, I started feeling what I later identified as a species of sensory deprivation. I needed to be around white people, and especially white women.
Yellows are bland.
The more I educate myself of different form of political systems, I find myself concluding that even “bad” government models can work as long as the population is homogeneous. Socialism can work in an all white or all asian country, same with a libertarian style government or even a dictatorship. The most important part is keeping the multikult out.
Creating and preserving that homogeneity, and population viability, is the only non-negotiable, hard and fast imperative of a nation/government. A people can repair any other problem in government, but there’s no coming back from race-replacement.
Respecting people’s freedom to cluster according to the criteria that they deem relevant is very different than *demanding* that all people cluster according to only one criteria, which may be more relevant to some than to others.
Sounds like you’re implying that ethnopatriotism, or White Nationalism, require the latter.
Wrong. I’m an ethnopatriot, and I’ve only ever demanded the former, and opposed the latter.
I can just as easily oppose many of the mandates and redistributions through libertarianism. None of that requires me to pledge allegiance to the tribe. It seems to me that what makes White Nationalism what it is is the, as I wrote, “aesthetic” qualities. You want to corral others into interacting with whites and favoring whites over other groups.
Wrong. I want everyone to have acknowledged his God-given Freedom of Association (the right to decide for himself with whom to form neighborhoods, communities, schools, churches, businesses, contracts and institutions).
You might say this is libertarianism. Wrong. It’s “racism.” And libertarians don’t have what it takes to achieve the preceding goal. Libertarians would waffle on this, and do everything else on their agenda, from opening the borders to legalizing pot. That’s the opposite of my priorities.
I just choose it and it just happens that way, but WN’s prefer to do it and then tell everyone else that they should do it too.
Obviously, as a libertarian, you’re obsessed with finding ways to make this into a story about ethnopatriots dying to suppress your rights. This is why I don’t trust libertarians. They’re too full of shit. Too ideological – too in love with words, rather than the men who speak them. They crap their pants when the libtards come at them screeching “RACIST!!!” No balls. That’s why my politics are explicitly “White”; so there’s no mistake as to whose interests I’m serving (my own). Anything that isn’t explicitly “White” will cave to the libtards screeching “RACIST!!!”, IMO.
Jared Taylor [...] seems to be suggesting a certain set of rules by which white people should select who they interact and socialize with.
I don’t care what Taylor’s suggesting. I’m demanding that I have the right to select who I interact with. The libertarian obsession with finding a way to characterize their opponents as rights-tramplers isn’t going to work on me.
As I’ve said several times, the major fault line is the black-white issue. And that’s just something that white Americans have to deal with. Whites brought blacks here against their will. It’s a tough shit kind of thing.
Could you be more specific? Which of our rights have to be trampled because Yankees insisted on invading the south and imposing their will?
The problem for me is when we shift from arguing for the defense of our borders and our citizenry to the same argument but with the racial component thrown in. I’d prefer “Nationalism” over “White Nationalism”. I do not want to put race, even if it’s my own, as the most important principle, and that’s exactly what White Nationalism is.
But I’m not demanding you become a WN, any more than you’re demanding I become a libertarian. I’m demanding that you acknowledge and support my right to put my race first.
“White” and “nationalist” are two disconsant terms, at least here in America. We were not homogenous from the start. White people entered a land occupied by brown people and we brought even darker people over here to employ as cheap labor. So we can deal with the immigraiton issue and keep the southern border closed (in theory), but we don’t have much room to fully adhere to that “white” part of the WN term because of our actions centuries ago.
Again, you’re being vague. Which of our rights have we ceded, according to your principle of collective, inherited guilt?
Ah, but I said if they want the hood, give it to ‘em. I just don’t want. No thanks.
Exactly. And Chuck doesn’t seem to give a shit what you actually said. He seems to want to argue with someone else, someone who makes arguments he prefers countering.
Using Jonathan Haidt’s framework, I suspect that Chuck is more libertarian (favoring liberty, as a value above others), while nationalists are more conservative (favoring loyalty over others).
For a guy favoring liberty, he’s sure doing a good job avoiding the subject. And I suspect, like most libertarians, he’d rather whistle past the graveyard of the most egregious affronts to liberty that are going on right now, than address them.
Most libertarians will never be brought to the side of nationalism precisely because they cannot understand such “stupid tribal” loyalty and resent the encroachment of liberty it may entail (or even appear to entail).
I call bullshit. Libertarians fall down precisely where their values are most tested. This is about their cowardice, not a genuine ideological difference.
I’m not sure why you think that I make the point about slavery and therefore accept affirmative action or redistribution or certain housing policies. I oppose such things while also not considering myself a White Nationalist. My opposition to those things supercedes racial factors. What I’m suggesting by the slavery thing – and I had assumed that this is a commonly-understood argument – is that we are forced to live in a society that doesn’t give us much room for White Nationalism insofar as that requires an all-white nation from the get-go.
Stop thinking of a Nation in terms of borders and a flag at the UN. A Nation is at least as much a people as a State. Men have the right to think, act, and live as a Nation. There is no more fundamental right. Libertarians who don’t put this issue front and center are hypocrites.
Tangoman, the Vietnamese and Han Chinese are not South Korean. Do you think that continent is one of undifferentiated generic “Asian people”?
No, he thinks the comparison you made was specious, which it was.
Anecdotally, most WNs I’ve encountered both in real life (very few) and online have been pretty stupid. They’re too essentialist, i.e. they believe things like all blacks are stupid and violent (they’re not), that loyalty is only to other white people no matter what, etc.
Relatively speaking, most everyone I meet is stupid. As for libertarians and SWPLs, I find most of them to be cowards. I find most nerds to be hopelessly spineless and effeminate.
South Africa under Apartheid was the last state in the world to practice White Nationalism as a state ideology and in order to sustain it for as long as it was it required a massive curtailing of liberties of whites as well as blacks. The state owned all radio stations and television wasn’t even allowed until 1976. Military service was required for all white males. In order to function, a WN state would need massive state powers that most white Americans would be totally unwilling to give it.
So, what you’re saying is, WNism has an infinitely better record, on the ground, than libertarianism. Gotcha. P.S., it was better than what followed.
You see, at one time, people of “good conscience” railed against the government forcing segregation on people. It was thought that government using force to implement segregation was a bad thing. That view has now morphed into declaring it evil for people to freely exercise their freedom in such a way that self-segregation results. Lack of diversity now requires federal involvement to remedy.
Right:
Segregation was big gov’t trampling Freedom of Association in the name of…
Integration is big gov’t trampling Freedom of Association in the name of…
But, I’d be willing to bet that libertarians today show more disapproval of long-dead segregation, than they do for alive-and-well, and expanding, integration. Because they’re cowards.
Certainly, but given that 35% of the American population are minorities (and growing), a WN American state would have to deal with them in a similarly authoritarian fashion. Also, a WN state would absolutely be a pariah to the rest of the world.
WN state as pariah is what I like to categorize as an external negative; “if you do it, your enemies will smash you.” This always sounds to me like the kind of thing a slavemaster would say to an uppity slave: “boy, if you go talking about freedom, you’re gonna wind up swingin’ from a tree.” I don’t suppose even the slavemaster is deluded enough to believe he’s really proven the freedom is a bad thing.
The large minority population has a similar ring to me. But as I’ve said, I’m not really interested in “dealing” with them. That’s kinda the whole point; I want to stop the gov’t from forcing me to “deal” with them.
Therefore, genius…. it’s best to keep America solidly white. Thay at least would be my take-away from your argument.
Right. It was a mistake to turn America 35% non-White in the first place. Putting gold plating on it won’t make it any less of a turd.
It would not be a pleasant place to live and I am not sure though I am sympathetic to their views I’d wish to live there but its doable.
Absurd. In a ceteris paribus comparison of multi-culti vs. all-White America, the latter looks far better for Whites, hands down.
What I’ve written is that blacks and whites exist within the same country and it’s a relationship we have to deal with and which we cannot run from.
What does this mean?
And the way I interpret WN is that every single relationship with a white is better and more virtuous than every single relationship with a non-white. I know too many piece of shit white people to ever swallow that pill.
What does this have to do with anything? Really. What’s next, a skinhead stole your girl?
When I reject WN I reject arbitrary rules in the name of culture that are meant to limit, out of hand, my tastes, preferences, relationships, choices, and thereby, freedoms. I’ll pass on that.
I don’t give a shit about your tastes, preferences, relationships, and choices. But don’t try to conflate that disinterest with a disinterest in your Freedoms. I very much want your Rights and Freedoms protected. How about reciprocating?
The argument about having saved someone from squalor through slavery is bullshit of the highest order. I’m always surprised when very intelligent people like yourself make the argument. You’re trying to valorize a degrading act. No need to overly demonize the institution – it was a historical norm – but no need to try to paint it as some sort of favor given to blacks.
Slavery (in America, anyway) was the best thing to ever happen to a large population of blacks. Or rather, having that as their history is the greatest boon ever bestowed on a large population of blacks. Period, full stop. Africa is filled with blacks dying to take on that history of degradation.
I’m saying that whites and blacks do share the same country, and I deny the rule suggested by WN types who, instead of letting individuals choose their associations or their cultural stylings for themselves are beholden to these stultifying rules.
And you ignore the arguments from ethnopatriots (“WN types”) who just want their Rights and Freedoms acknowledged and supported. Because making common cause with such dirty types would be ideologically consistent, but socially unpleasant. Par for the libertarian course, sadly.
(and WN is ultimately nothing if nationhood is not its end-goal)
Equivalent: Judaism/Jewishness is ultimately nothing if nationhood is not its end-goal.
great truths often distill as tautologies.
re: WN, i get the impression a lot of anti-wns are people who think it means “i won’t be able to date who i want”. if that’s the impression that wn’s are leaving amongst those on the fence, then they need to refine their message. people should be free to love whom they want without undue restriction.
I agree. I don’t have the slightest interest in restricting who people date, or associate with. What I’m interested in is smashing the barriers to men (even White men!) creating the communities and institutions they want. If blacks want to create a community where their women are forced to leave if they want to bear a non-black’s children, that’s their business. And you can fill in any race, creed, or religion here in place of “black.” Just as the hypothetical black woman has the right to date, marry, and bear children with whomever she wishes, the hypothetical black community has a right to choose its genetic future.
there is nothing inherently hegemonic about people *wanting* their own land. but there is something hegemonic about maintaining a nation based upon one common factor as arbitrary as skin color. it’s all pie in the sky idealism. the entire issue is a non-starter and it’s not feasible. at least one shoe will have to drop – some sort of censorship or the limitation of out-migration. i wonder if those aspects of the nation would be advertised up front as much as the Valhalla landscape that is usually touted as the big draw.
You need to stop smoking whatever if you think a White ethnostate’s problem would be outmigration. That’s just nuts.
because, in truth, there are plenty of de-facto white “nation-states” speckled all through the countryside of this nation. and what’s happening there, in general? the white people are leaving. the smart ones at least. they are willing to take on a bit of diversity for the ability to experience a certain type of culture or hold a certain kind of job. now, they may limit their exposure to other races by moving to the white part of town or a whitopia, but they aren’t holding, as a defining principle, the avoidance of people of other races.
White Flight.
even though many whites move to the suburbs, ex-urbs, and whitopias, a lot of whites move from the country to the city and even those who do try to surround themselves with whites enjoy living with a bit of racial diversity.
And Homo Sovieticus loved the Party. You’re starting to sound a little stretched, here.
How about give people the choice, first, and THEN assess their decisions? It’s totally absurd to say people love diversity when they have it forced on them by law.
what are they willing to give up in order to enjoy that? i believe that very few would be willing to give up all that much. moving to the suburbs and taking in diversity in teaspoons rather than melting pots is the choice. but the transition from that self-segregation to a completely different nation is not seamless. the question that should inform the entire debate is, how would such a complete fissure occur? it is a radical notion and blood would be shed. and even then you’d be fighting for the right to live in a totalitarian regime.
Now you’re back to the slavemaster argument: “You keep tryin’ to read them books, and I’m gonna have ta whip you, boy. Blood will be shed; that’s the inevitable consequence of education.”
It’s disingenuous, to say the least.
It strikes me that the upper class seeks to avoid white proles almost as much as they do urban blacks. West Virginia is a lot more homogeneous than Fairfax or Park Slope, but no one’s clamoring to move there.
If it were prosperous, it would be overrun with non-White parasites, like every other prosperous White area. Then, we’d be hearing from the Sparks of the world how diversity=prosperity.
Meanwhile, back on Earth: ceteris paribus, people prefer homogeneity.
If a person is a white nationalist then that is their ultimate end. They are saying that they want a sovereignty where choosing non-white is not an option. And I’ll have to say that much of the reason for the lack of clarity is due to WN’s not having thought out nor laid out their proposition.
I’ll concede that rank, ubiquitous libertarian cowardice and hypocrisy on these issues doesn’t mean libertarianism itself is inherently cowardly and hypocritical, sure. Maybe they just need to think through and lay out their proposition.
Speaking only for myself, I would put it this way: WNists ultimate argument is that there should be a place in the world where Whites can choose White if they want to because right now they can’t.
But Chuck is desperate to find something else to disagree with, he’s made that much very apparent. He’d rather talk about externalities, or what he imagines to “inevitably follow on from these beliefs,” etc.
The question is: how many White people would want to if they could? What are your thoughts on this? Given self-segregation and white flight patterns, it would likely be a lot. Just as a thought experiment, imagine it is decided tomorrow that four out the 50 states will be designated “White only” going forward. If that were to happen, again given the evidence of white flight patterns, I suspect we’d see the biggest traffic jam in the history of the world pile up very quickly.
Bingo. Given a ceteris paribus (insofar as that’s possible in the real world) choice, over time, Whites would flee to a WN State in the millions.
A percentage of White people, and probably many more than you seem to think, might want to choose Whites only, for many reasons, if they could. But they can’t, and this is the main problem WNists are trying to solve and a factor in the social landscape you and others seem to be ignoring. Many Whites might want to choose White for aesthetic reasons, or for the women, or to get away from the crime, or to avoid being subjected to affirmative action and other forms of anti-White discrimination, or to avoid living in a society that devalues young White men and hence relegates young White men to ever lower status relative to Blacks and others, or simply to avoid living under the liars who rule this culture and constantly bombard the public with ideas like race and gender are social constructions.
Right. I try to skip past the myriad reasons WNs want what they want, and get right to the heart of the matter: the injustice of being denied our God-given Freedom of Association and Right to Property. Basically, I think of us as the thin edge of the wedge in the fight against tyranny; if TPTB can take away our rights in the name of “anti-racism” and “anti-discrimination,” then those rights are destroyed. Because a Right is not a Right if you no longer have the right to offend with it. If it’s so conditional.
How would such a thing come into existence?
As peacefully and equitably as possible. Use your fucking imagination, Chuck.
Where would it exist?
In as viable a location as is feasible. Use your fucking imagination, Chuck. God gave you a brain. Use it.
And is it reasonably sustainable?
Compared to what?
Personally, I’d be one of those people who’d choose not to live in such a place, but I also don’t think it would survive.
Why not?
And I don’t think that a WN has any grounds to set up shop within the borders of the U.S. so they’d have to find another locale.
Why not? That’s how the U.S. got started in the first place. The Founders are down with it, I assure you.
This creates a whole other set of stumbling blocks.
The stumbling blocks are externalities. Slavemaster doesn’t want his slaves getting uppity. We know this stuff already. We want some good objections, Chuck. Some objections that aren’t offensive to the minds of free men. Or men who would be free, anyway.
The issue that bothers me the most is the effort to eradicate self-segregation. This is gaining both popular and legal legitimacy. I have no love for WN but I absolutely rebel against forced desegregation – think school busing on scale which spans society. If equalization of outcomes is goal #1 (look at how that has now become the primary mission within the education sector) then freedom gets thrown under the bus and then the question, hypothetical as it is, becomes “Better to stay or better to go?”
Y’know, we’ve had quite a lot of ink spilled by this point; has Chuck held forth on the wicked fascist-ness of our current regime, yet? Did I miss the part where he condemned the current trampling of our God-given Freedom of Association and Right to Property, by our gov’t? I did only skim a few posts, so I might have missed it.
This is a legalistic argument. The same could probably have been said for Yugoslavia, for Czechoslovakia, for the Quebec question, for pre-47 India. The conditions of today give no determinative insight with respect to the questions and solutions of tomorrow.
It was certainly fucking true of America in 1774.
Back to your legalistic objection. If people want something badly enough, they’ll most often get it.
One million Whites each contributing 1k per year to a war chest would be 1 billion a year to buy off our pols. 1 billion a year would, at the very least, totally change the American political landscape.
It’s a good thing nobody told George Washington his ideas “werent’ feasible,” that they were “pie in the sky” “idealism.” He probably would’ve folded like a cheap tent and gone home to cry to mommy, lol.
spike:
“A favorite maxim of Heartiste is that diversity plus proximity equals war. Northern Europeans, the ethnic base of the early United States, were frequently at war in Europe (Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, World Wars I & II). Why were these ethnic groups warring in Europe while co-existing in the United States?”
first, check your premises. the civil war was as much about ethnic fault lines as about slavery or economic vision. see: albion’s seed. second, degree of diversity matters. a german and a dane are going to find they have a lot more in common than a german and a congolese, especially if they are thrust into a new land together. third, you’re forgetting the second part of the equation: the proximity of european nations — a much denser continent than the usa — aggravates its inherent diversity in a way that US states don’t. fourth, in fact there is a war between whites, via words instead of weapons. see: your comment about WV above. white internecine hatred has been the political order of the day since belief in diversity became the primary status signaler.
steve:
““Citizenism” sure has taken off over the last seven years, hasn’t it? I’m getting rich selling all those “I am a Citizenist” bumperstickers you see everywhere these days.”
the sticker cannot hold.
chuck:
“even though many whites move to the suburbs, ex-urbs, and whitopias, a lot of whites move from the country to the city and even those who do try to surround themselves with whites enjoy living with a bit of racial diversity.”
enlightened whites may profess liking the *idea* of diversity, but in practice they hate it. those whites who move to the city are moving into white enclaves. i’m sure you’ve seen those maps of various american city demographics showing how starkly the races segregate themselves. and you don’t even need to go to cities to see this in action; college campus cafeterias — havens of liberalism and open-mindedness — segregate more starkly than white proles and their black neighbors. when you say some whites like living with a bit of racial diversity, that “bit” you are speaking of is vanishingly small in reality, the total opposite of how infinitely large it looms in their heads and op-ed pieces.
anyhow, it’s an academic point that should have little bearing on a nation’s immigration policy. for those whites who like a healthy dollop of vibrant non-whiteness, there’s always the option to emigrate (the mississippi delta is a train/plane/automobile trip away!). which, if you think about it, is the more moral choice than foisting a personal pique onto a population that doesn’t DE FACTO welcome it, and on a nation that would cease functioning the way it has for 150 years if the blood and soil changed to someone else’s blood and soil.
(and, yes, the US, despite its pretensions, is a bloodnsoil nation.)
“this is a discussion about the degrees to which someone wants to ensure racial homogeneity in their lives. what are they willing to give up in order to enjoy that?”
i’ve yet to meet a person who genuinely enjoys diversity qua diversity. that is, i doubt there are many people who get a sincere thrill up their intellectual legs, a widening of their psychological horizons, and a bursting of their hearts just be being around people who look different. that would be, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking weird.
more likely, people say they enjoy diversity because, besides the obvious status signaling to lord it over their moral lessers, they are expecting a certain kind of entertainment from the other. perhaps a more jivey sense of humor, or a quirky personality, or creative heft. but then they don’t follow up on their desires; all those sanctimonious snarkmeisters invariably stick to their own kind. and guess what they find out? those wonderful differences of personality, humor, quirkiness and intellectualism can be found RIGHT WITHIN THEIR OWN RACE! how convenient!
me, personally, i couldn’t give a rat’s ass about diversity qua diversity. i pick and choose my friends of whichever race based on how entertaining they are to be around, and how much character they have. a loyal friend is a prize worth almost as much as a good woman. if some of them happen to be non-white, no prob. if all of them happen to be white, also no prob.
“i believe that very few would be willing to give up all that much. moving to the suburbs and taking in diversity in teaspoons rather than melting pots is the choice.”
i don’t know what WNism advocates, but a sensible immigration policy, whatever your ideological leanings or personal threshold of exhilarating diversity, should not include leaving the borders unmanned for 50 million amerindians to cross over, creating a second underclass in the process and critically dissolving national bonds of trust and bonhomie. (see: putnam, or just trust your eyes and ears.)
“it is a radical notion and blood would be shed. and even then you’d be fighting for the right to live in a totalitarian regime.”
like i said, i don’t keep up with the latest in WN news, but it seems to me a false dichotomy between “sensible immigration policy” and “blood shed for a totalitarian regime”. it’d be a huge improvement if we would just close the southern border, institute an immigration moratorium for about 50 years (something which the US has already done, and which coincided, not coincidentally!, with its greatest epoch), and coerce as many of the newly arrived mexicanos to head back home as possible. then, when the dust has settled, reengage by most favoring immigration from europe, with less immigration from more genetically and culturally distant lands. not sure where totalitarianism enters the picture, since you’d have to argue that 1924-1965 USA was totalitarian based on such a hyperbolic reading.
TangoMan:
Can I ask why you have “no love” for WN? I’m genuinely curious because I see comments like yours all the time across the race realist/HBD cluster of blogs and Web sites, astute analysis of that runs counter to the egalitarian mainstream, but with hostility toward WN invariably thrown in.
It is not my intent to challenge you but simply to get an idea of how you formed your conclusions about WN. For example, did you form them by reading Jared Taylor? Someone else? The Stormfront web site? Comments from WN on the blogs? You mention “forced desegregation.” I’m pretty sure Taylor has never proposed such a thing. If he has, I’m pretty sure it’s not his first or preferred solution.
As a WN myself, I do not seek forced desegregation. I seek a peaceful divorce for Whites who see compelling reasons to separate (you alluded to some). Peaceful separation could be accomplished many ways (again, you alluded to a few). Unfortunately, the powers-that-be are determined to impose forced integration across society,so other options have to be considered, including “forced desegregation.” But, “forced desegregation” would not be necessary if the integration were not forced in the first place.
I’m not sure why we even need much immigration. I understand not wanting a population to get stagnant, but we are a big country and I don’t see that being a problem for a while. One of the nice things about the United States is that it has so much open land and wilderness.
If you’re okay with your ancestors
Whups, I meant descendants, obviously. Proofreading is fundamental.
Pingback: Diverse Linkage « Chateau Heartiste
“[Chuck: Whites do have an obligation to share *this* country. You can't escape that fact. If whites want to set up another country and enforce those laws, then they can try.]”
They, Chuck?
http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/user_photos/crudd-597645492-100.jpg
anon, you really don’t understand my point? “they” as in those whites who want to set up another country. i’m white, but i’m not one of those whites.
here i am What’d I miss?
looks like you guys FINALLY got this whole “wn thing” solved
Sure saved me a lot of writing
here i am, so, what’d I miss
looks like you guys finally got
this whole “wn thing” all figured out
glad – It sure saved ME a lot of writing
Lew,
I’m genuinely curious because I see comments like yours all the time across the race realist/HBD cluster of blogs and Web sites, astute analysis of that runs counter to the egalitarian mainstream, but with hostility toward WN invariably thrown in.
The hostility towards WN stems from the same root that Chuck mentions – the fixation on race as the unifying principle. That has direct negative consequences for me for it puts a number of people (family and friends) I know on the wrong side of the dividing line. Back in Gene Expression’s group days we used to get traffic and comments from WN boards and used to redirect incoming links from them to inter-racial porn sites. Oh the fun. The point of that was that the comments used to be militantly pro-white on a blog run by two South Asians and the comments were not focused on HBD. That kind of sours me on WN.
Now as with most things, there are gradations of sophistication, there are variations on belief, and also we see quite often that a movement’s most fervent believers are often their worst ambassadors. WN are attracted to HBD like flies to shit and this does HBD no favors but the issue of WHO believes in a proposition doesn’t tell us anything substantive about the validity of the proposition and so, in principle, the right of people to form their own community is something I support in the abstract, meaning that a pure white society that WN dream about is fine with me. My problems with the movement come a little further downstream from the abstract.
Despite my distaste for WN as represented by its most dedicated ambassadors, there may come a time when I would find it a more reasonable alternative compared to a society fixated on race and fixated on eradicating racial differences and fixated on creating equality of outcomes and fixated on blaming whites for their all powerful hate and unmeasured discrimination against the majority who are not achieving to the same levels as whites, Jews and Asians.
I’m a cognitive elitist rather than a WN. My objections all focus on the Discrimination Assumption. I have no problem with a multiracial society forged together via a melting pot, rather than through multiculturalism, where there isn’t such a wide variance on talent and outcome. Give me that society and freedom to associate without restriction and without massive redistribution and I’ll be fine. That’s not the reality of present and barring some miracles in gene therapy that won’t be the reality for a long, long time, if ever, so the the future looks to be one of whites becoming a market dominant minority, being outvoted by the minority majority and more wealth redistribution, more racial set-asides, less opportunity due to racial quotas, more demonization, more aggressive policies to force integration and the more of this that develops the more, I believe, that WN will gain adherents and that will be aided by displacing the current ambassadors and most vocal supporters with people less doctrinaire who can champion the notion of voluntary self-segregation as being a fundamental human right and who are not completely fixated on 100% whiteness as a unifying principle.
Some of this push back is already occurring. The measures to make illegal university admissions which privilege race indicate to me that whites are looking to create a race-blind society. I fully approve. The problem is that people are not gaming this out. What will be the consequences of such a move? We already saw how black admissions to UCLA dropped to only 10 black students being admitted the year after this measure was implemented. The counter move was to implement holistic admissions. If the “equal opportunity mission” becomes wide-spread then very stark dividing lines will emerge on career, income, wealth and race. Will that be a tolerable outcome for Democrats? I mean, if the equality of opportunity is there and it results in massive inequality of outcome, does anyone believe that the equal opportunity solution will be kept in place by a majority who is not benefiting as they expected they would now that they are the majority? So if there is discontent, then what is the counter-move? Play the game – map out the moves and counter moves.
It should also be noted that the whole WN mission could split into different factions. There is no limiting principle at work here which mandates that only one community break away. There could be the 100% white community for the people who are motivated by the principle of preserving a culture that is 100% white and there could be other communities where whites might constitute 85% say and there is some other unifying principle which binds the community together. To clarify, by break-away I don’t necessarily mean secede, a break away could be achieved by forcing a legal show down on the issue of freedom of association or it could be achieved by the forcing the feds to willfully refuse to enforce laws dealing with restrictions on the freedom of association, (eg. who would have thought that a nation would willfully choose not to enforce it’s borders?)
My motivation for participating in this thread was not to advance the WN project but to highlight what I see as bad trendlines, the likely responses and outcomes that follow and the implications which arise. With all of the usual caveats (means, SD, individuals, etc) economic power will concentrate in a white/Asian minority and political power will concentrate towards a Black/Hispanic majority. As Black/Hispanic outcomes don’t improve to match white levels, even with a political majority in their corner, the Discrimination Assumption will gain more adherents and then even more active measures will be undertaken to equalize outcomes and this process will get worse and worse as the demographic balance shifts. I hate the prospect of living in that world or leaving such a world for my kids to live in. So, with that being a likely outcome, the rationale for a WN movement picks up some legitimacy. As I pointed out above, there are some ways that I see the trends being disrailed, but I simply don’t see Democrats willingly rejecting what are their key unifying principles – redistribution, racial voting blocs, forced integration, etc. They’re going to keep putting the pressure on because they’re true believers, like the alligator carrying the hare on it’s back, they’ll do what they do because it’s in their nature. Liberals being liberals will simply push the pressure up to the point where society cracks in some fashion and then all bets are off.
The term citizenism was coined by Steve Sailer. What he meant by it was acting in immigration policy and other things in the best interests of the largest number of current voting citizens, rather than just whites. That nonetheless leads him to want to greatly restrict mass immigration legal as well as illegal of any groups that haven’t done particularly well in this country, including most definitely NAMs. One way of doing that would be to have a point system which only lets in the bright and or highly skilled and some numbers of wealthy like Canada, but unlike Canada cut way back on refugee and asylum immigration, 90% of which to rich countries like the US and Canada is a scam to get in really for economic reasons.
TangoMan: Thanks very much for that response. I appreciate it. It has given me a better understanding of the hostility to WN in HBD circles. I had a feeling some of it had to do with poor ambassadors invading the HBD sites. Your comment confirmed this. Beyond that issue, you also said a lot worth chewing on when it comes to the topic in general (citizenship, WN, race, HBD, trends, etc.).
PA—
The 1924 immigration law, so hated by Jews and the Catholic Church, if not so much most lay Catholics, was actually a citizenism law. Contrary to what those pressure groups implied and still imply it didn’t restrict immigration only to original or early founding stock Anglos and Germans. It let in a reduced and limited number of immigrants allocated on the basis of the percentage of the population originally from particular countries in the prior census or maybe it was the 1910 census, since it took a while from the early drafting of the law to get it passed.
Why not just bring back freedom of association and let people discriminate for any reason, or for no reason. It’s nobody else’s business with whom or why I associate or sell (my private property) to. They let the market determine the balance between WN and “Citizenism”.
The agenda of many white nationalists of either having certain parts of the country reserved exclusively for whites and others for blacks and Hispanics, or bringing back 1950’s style Southeastern segregation is wildly unrealistic.
Not quite as unrealistic would be rolling back some of the furthest reaches of desegregation law and regs and affirmative action and related programs.
I’m for rolling back affirmative action, all measures to increase diversity (as inherently discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sex), all disparate impact tests for supposed discrimination (which assumes all protected groups are of equal ability to the highest performing groups when scientific assessment has shown they aren’t for whatever combination of reasons), most of the fair housing act prohibiting private preferences in who one will rent or sell property to, and most definitely section 8 which places NAM’s getting government assistance in middle middle class and affluent white neighborhoods, raising crime rates, lowering property values, and hurting school learning environments.
I’m for stopping making closing gaps between NAMs and whites and Asians school priority number one and returning to making school excellent esp. for the upper quarter priority number one.
I’m for cutting back on spending so much money on Pell grants and other government subsidies including federal student loans to students who will probably drop out of college, or do very poorly in a not very good one.
I asked this on an earlier thread but no one answered.
Does Jared Taylor consider it anathema for whites and E. Asians to marry and have kids?
Is he opposed to all E. Asian and S. Asian immigration?
I’m going to add one more point to the discussion which no one has yet addressed, not here and not anywhere else I’ve seen this discussion play out. What is the root cause at play here? Most would point to the rising NAM population and the declining white population and the tension which results from this. It’s my contention that this analysis doesn’t accurately identify the independent variable, which is not the rising NAM population. The true independent variable is the viewpoint and behavior and expectations of women.
Immigration has skyrocketed in order to grow a population which is not growing from internal growth and the replacement population isn’t coming from Europe because Europeans don’t find it worthwhile to emigrate. We need population growth in order to fund our social welfare system. If we can’t grow our own future taxpayers, then we simply take what we can get.
Women’s liberation made a tragic miscalculation back in the day – in their quest for equality they advanced a reform agenda which simply took the male default for society and made it so that women could participate as full equals. Another path could have been taken, one which stressed family formation and having more kids (likely with increases in social welfare spending – helping young families get started and payback coming later in life via higher taxes) and then women would take off on their career paths later in life and society would have been reformed to allow a faster rise through the employment ranks for late-starting women. Still quotas and set-asides but ones focused and implemented differently. The end goal – giving women equality and a fair shake and so on would still be the same but the family formation sacrifice wouldn’t have been on the table. Today, a woman in search of a career is launching that career during her time of peak fertility. That’s a nutty way to “design” a system.
If we took the 1965 population demographics and kept up with the baby boom child birth habits, then the need for importing population via immigration would not be seen as necessary for societal and fiscal stability.
This same problem will affect the break-away WN project. If your population doesn’t remain stable or is declining and you have some type of social welfare state which is built on the pay-as-you-go model, then you’re either going to face deprived people in old age as the welfare system falters or you’re going to have to import new people.
The system which governs a society needs to be stable and below replacement level birth rates are a serious instability to introduce to a society. The fixes create new problems, as we see before us.
One other point – the distaste for quotas and affirmative action shouldn’t be as bad for women as they are for race and ethnicity, for when a woman is aided by such a program, the benefits usually fall onto individual families. So, broken down, if I am disadvantaged by a program which elevates a woman ahead of me, my family is aided by such a program when my wife gets the benefit. It becomes a wash. When a black man gets an unearned advantage, my family doesn’t benefit at all. So a fast track for women who’ve finished with their role of mother isn’t so distasteful to me. I know that this rubs libertarians the wrong way, but a society needs to find a balance between all competing principles and between stabilizing cultural practices.
I’m for rolling back affirmative action, all measures to increase diversity (as inherently discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or sex), all disparate impact tests for supposed discrimination (which assumes all protected groups are of equal ability to the highest performing groups when scientific assessment has shown they aren’t for whatever combination of reasons), most of the fair housing act prohibiting private preferences in who one will rent or sell property to, and most definitely section 8 which places NAM’s getting government assistance in middle middle class and affluent white neighborhoods, raising crime rates, lowering property values, and hurting school learning environments.
OK, you’re for all of these things. That’s great. I assume that this would make you like society more. Now game it out. Put yourself on the other side. If you’re benefiting from all of these measures, wouldn’t you exercise your influence to stop Dooug1111 from doing these things?
Now what is Doug1111′s next move when the greater number of voters oppose these measures and stop them before they’re hatched, and then for good measure and just because they can, they double down on them? Now what? The ball is in your court.
TangoMan,
Do you really think recent immigrants are going to care about elderly Americans? They will see them as a burden. I suspect immigration has more to do with people wanting to bring in more people like themselves than anything.
Anon666
Yes but I can’t think of any non western nation which has become much more multicultural and multiethnic by their elites voluntarily letting immigrate mass numbers of different races from their own predominant one since WWII. Instead they’re multi ethnic because they’re they were created as nations by white colonialists who included several ethnicities in the same colony for economies of scale and other purposes, or one group conquered other ethnicities but didn’t wipe them out (the Han Chinese in southern China), or they’re multi ethnic and multi cultural because white colonialists imported different ethnicities of laborer esp. after the end of slavery – Trinidad, Malaysia, others.
There is often a good lot of conflict along racial and ethnic lines in these countries.
TangoMan–
I said that I for those things not that that many of them will likely occur. The coming change in voters is depressing. It will take longer than people think since many Latinos are illegal immigrants and can’t legally vote and aren’t that disposed to, and since their population is very youth tilted. But it’s coming.
I think there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will throw out affirmative action and after that disparate impacts tests for job discrimination. Logically if those two go other things do too.
It’s conceivable to me that Romney might roll back Section 8 housing aggressiveness.
But the longer term prospects are I think as you painted them in your last long comment.
Doug,
Northeast Asia already has a girl shortage. Do you really think it’s fair to take away more of them?
TangoMan—
It’s not a wash. It encourages divorce and divorce theft, in which men especially with young children get ass raped financially, get kicked out of the house which they often don’t get full half value for, lose most contact with their kids, are forced to pay sky high rates of child support=also stealth alimony as a percentage of their after tax income particularly when he’s a strong earner in a high tax state.
It also encourages female careerism and late or no family formation.
Chuck Rudd—
No, they knew that a battle over slavery was coming when they drew up the Constitution. The northeaster states wanted slavery prohibited but they wanted the southern states in the union more so they compromised. For instance there’s a provision in the Constitution that bars any law prohibiting the import of slaves from abroad until 1808. The south wanted it forever, the north wanted no such bar at all. Promptly when 1808 rolled around the north got such a law through Congress.
The founders knew slavery was a looming problem for the country. There are many quotes on it you don’t hear anymore, because they are not politically correct.
I think there’s a good chance the Supreme Court will throw out affirmative action and after that disparate impacts tests for job discrimination. Logically if those two go other things do too.
I really don’t see that happening. With respect to AA, the SC might remove race as a factor in admissions and then the counter move for universities would be to declare that everyone above a minimum qualifies and that they will chose from that large pool in order to construct the class demographics that they wish to matriculate. There is ALWAYS a counter move which advances the Left’s goals. If they have to throw merit out of the window in order to preserve their fetish for diversity, they’ll do it, or they’ll do it so that all of the mandated guidelines don’t reflect merit and then they can informally choose on merit alongside race and sexual orientation and whatever else is floating their boat.
Disparate impact laws are getting stricter and enforced more rigorously so I can’t see any basis in trends which are going to weaken those laws.
Keep in mind that these types of measures are designed to equalize outcomes, so the Left is not going to unilaterally disarm no matter how much some people object to this abridgment of their freedom.
Do you really think recent immigrants are going to care about elderly Americans?
My point was that immigration is a tool used to provide young taxpayers who will fund the elderly in a system built on pay-as-you-go financing. I agree that, to speak in broad terms, a brown and young population is not going to be looking very kindly on their high taxes which are used to support an old and white population.
Tangoman–
Obama’s EEOC is getting much stricter and more vigorous in it’s application and extension by regs and practice of those laws. But the Supreme’s are getting more and more skeptical of the application of disparate impact. See the New Haven case. There was a recent case before the court where oral argument was a week away involving it’s application to housing where the city trying to overturn that specific application of disparate impact was convinced by the ACLU and NAACP to withdraw it’s case before the Supremes because those organizations feared the Supremes might throw out disparate impact in a broad ruling of wide applicability.
Tangoman–
No elite universities won’t do that but they will try to get around it. Many think they’d move to AA on the basis of parental income and wealth, which would keep a good lot of blacks but also a good lot fewer.
The founders wrestled with the consequences of slavery. Their inability to resolve the matter led to the 3/5ths compromise***, which set the stage for the US Civil War before the ink was dry on the Constitution.
The 3/5ths compromise is a good example of the political dynamic that TangoMan alludes to above, re:
This exact dynamic played out during the debate over slavery. The people who economically benefited from slavery used their political muscle to keep slavery in place.
People with political power are always going to use that power preserve and enhance their benefits, even if those benefits must come at the expense of others, or at the expense of justice, fairness, or policy that best serves the collective public good. In turn, this fact suggests, among other things, that affirmative action and other preferences will never be dismantled, nor is an immigration policy based on HBD findings ever likely to see the light of day.
As NAM become an increasingly larger percentage of the population, their power to shape law and policy to their benefit are also going to increase. Instead of using their power to abolish affirmative action or create sensible immigration policy founded on HBD findings, they are much more likely to use their power to make more and more outrageous demands.
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise
Is there no one here who can answer my question on what Jared Taylor’s views on a couple of things above, here?
http://glpiggy.net/2012/04/29/citizenism-versus-wn/#comment-38388
Is there no one here who can answer my question on what Jared Taylor’s views on a couple of things above, here?
In his book, White Identity, Jared Taylor details Asian racial identity within the US and catalogues a litany of Oriental misdeeds. The model minority has a penchant for industrial espionage on behalf of the motherland, although they don’t engage in street level crime like the brothers and the eses.
The American Renaissance archive contains most back issues of the magazine, so you should go looking there in order to familiarize yourself with his thought (nothing beats going right to the source).
among other things, that affirmative action and other preferences will never be dismantled, nor is an immigration policy based on HBD findings ever likely to see the light of day.
That’s my reading of the tea leaves. To address Doug1111′s point, the AA process, I believe, will morph into something that we see with fire department hiring standards – a low threshold must be passed and then some selection of candidates from that pool of candidates who passed the threshold. This is what we’re seeing with Holistic Admissions. For the elite institutions, they’d qualify everyone at some low point on the scale (low enough to insure that enough NAMS qualified to be admitted into the pool) and then, having 40,000 applicants who’ve qualified, they’d chose their 500 NAMS and then they’d select the very best 1,500 of the remainders. The strict qualification is targeted at the first gate of entry – that’s the objective and race neutral barrier. After that the elite institution can claim that it is following a holistic process.
As for immigration policy, as I noted far above, why would Democrats favor a very selective policy which tried to entice immigrants who would soon become net tax contributors to society? All that would do is set these new immigrants against the Democrat redistribution apparatus and thus weaken their base of power.
I share Lew’s opinion – this is classic rentseeking behavior. When you have power you use it to better the welfare of yourself and your group. It takes rare individuals and rare cultures to resist that temptation (Washington stepping down from power) and I see no evidence that we’re importing people from cultures where this value is upheld.
I’ve referred to by beef with WN, but the above dynamic highlights my beef with guys like Chuck – they rest their hat on airy-fairy wishful thinking and then claim that they’re satisfied with their positions. Chuck may actually believe that his insistence on following libertarian principles will make his life in the future comfortable and enriching, but I don’t see him refuting the trends that have been spelled out by many in this thread, I don’t see him countering with different paths that could be followed, I don’t see anything but willful blindness and pretending that all will be well if we only wish hard enough and follow libertarian principles.
Chuck Rudd—
The first time I saw this argument it was being made by former far left Ramparts editor who turned into a neo conservative race realist (an unusual combination), David Horowitz. However he made it in a more sophisticated fashion. That is he said slavery was no boon to the slaves themselves in most cases no doubt, but their ancestors having been brought here as slaves was a boon to current generations of blacks, who are the best off blacks in the world on average. Blacks would not have otherwise have migrated to America in large numbers certainly before the 1960’s and much of the sixties wouldn’t have happened if there hadn’t been lots of blacks living under segregation in the SE states. It’s a counter to blacks forever moaning that it’s the legacy of slavery that has held blacks back together with often ineffable white “structural racism”, “white privilege” and white oppression.
Tangoman–
That’s even more a quota than the current affirmative action / diversity practices. That would never pass muster with the SCOTUS.
Fire departments do that in response to EEOC application of disparate impact, which the court has become very skeptical of.
You seem to broadly share my goals in this area. I take it you see no solution.
So the country is going to go down the toilet and there’s nothing we can do about it?
CyprianKorzeniowski–
I have looked around there some and saw nothing on it. I don’t want to spend huge amounts of time there. Figured somebody here on this thread had already.
The most salient point here was made by Hardscrabble Farmer.
Do you think you could find a group of liberals, anywhere, engaging in long drawn-out debates over their aims, goals, values, definitions, etc.? They don’t have the honesty or the introspection. They just join together in monolithic blocs, and leave their differences aside on the issue. And look at all the differences they leave aside!
This is obviously a huge part of why we’re fucked.
That’s even more a quota than the current affirmative action / diversity practices. That would never pass muster with the SCOTUS.
If an institution purposely imposes a subjective standard for admissions, then it can’t be held accountable for not following an objective standard. All the admission’s committee need say is “we chose applicant #14356 because in his essay he wrote that he liked to save bunnies from animal shelters. No one else wrote something so unique in their admission’s essay and we believe that he would add a diverse experience to the class of 2035.” Done and finished. A subjective decision has been made.
So the country is going to go down the toilet and there’s nothing we can do about it?
You’ve got guys like Chuck who want to self-segregate and then you have apparatchiks in the Justice Department who are dead set on making sure that Chuck doesn’t threaten the coming glory of Aquarius.
What could save the day is the “slowly boiling frogs” dynamic. Guys like Chuck slowly, year after year, modify their expectations and come to accept the burdens and lack of freedom as the new normal – their everyday world and expectations get reset to accept every more repression. The familiar is always more favorably viewed than the unfamiliar especially if jumping from the familiar to the unfamiliar comes with significant risks.
But generally, yes the country is going down the toilet because there are two competing visions at play and there is no happy compromise. One group wants to live their life as they please and keep the fruits of their own labor and the other group wants to stop the first group from living the life that they please and they want to appropriate a good portion of the fruits of labor produced by the first group because those fruits are de facto proof that they were gained through immoral ways and thus should be distributed to the victims of the first group. Yeah, a little hyperbolic, but boiled down to it’s essence, I believe that this is the fundamental dynamic in play over the long term.
Lol “citizenism” what fucking nonsense. Without racial ties to a group the only thing holding this country together is the pursuit of monetary gain and when the inevitable collapse comes you’ll see how quickly your beloved egalitarian state implodes into balkan tier violence(we’re already well on our way with the grossly disproportionate race related crimes against Europeans in this nation, all hidden from sight by the corrupt jewish media). Besides, who the fuck wants to tie their existence and efforts to a corrupt stagnating nation state that doesn’t value you at all. If you wanna see your beloved multiculturalism in action just take a walk through any black neighborhood and see how long it takes before something bad happen.
“So, broken down, if I am disadvantaged by a program which elevates a woman ahead of me, my family is aided by such a program when my wife gets the benefit.”
If a single woman gets the benefit it raises the status of what she’ll accept in a husband, which is not a win for the common man.
“The 1924 immigration law, so hated by Jews and the Catholic Church, if not so much most lay Catholics, was actually a citizenism law.”
It also restricted immigration to replacement rate, so if more recent immigrants left than those who had been here longer then the country would swing back towards the Western European population. And it fullfilled its objective of keeping our institutions mostly ours, in both the short and long run.
Interesting you touch on this subject. I was watching a program recently about immigration and they had a Sudanese and Sudanese people in the audience talking about their experiences. What a bunch of fuckknuckle imbeciles they were. Grievance list possibly longer than the NJ Turnpike against the host nation its people. Send them back to that toilet they came from if they don’t here.
I’ll respond in general terms to at least a few of the objections that I’ve seen.
First, as to the claim that having a white nation amounts to “racial totalitarianism,” I can only shake my head. What a total inversion of reality. Is Japan a totalitarian society? Is any country “totalitarian” simply because it exists for the benefit of the particular people that make it up? The allegation is absurd. There are de facto ethnostates all over the world. Some are basically free societies, some aren’t. Again, all a white ethnostate would be is a protected habitat for its white citizens. Anybody is free to leave.
In fact, one of the major problems with diversity is that it requires more and more government intrusion to make it work. Freedom of speech is curtailed, because speaking the truth about blacks and browns can cause economic or violent retaliation. Public policy has to proceed on the false premise that everyone is the same, even though this premise is obviously untrue. The policy results are disastrous, and massive amounts of money are squandered accordingly. We’re rapidly going to find out that we can’t afford it.
Under diversity, the law has to be geared to the lowest common denominator. For example, whereas a low crime white community (which is to say almost all white communities) can get by with little more than Andy Griffith and Barney Fife, instead we now have an increasingly militarized police force seemingly posted every ten feet or so, metal detectors and officers in our schools, etc. Why should peoples that can handle more freedom have to spend their lives in an Orwellian surveillance state? Further, why should a people that, left to themselves, create safe streets and public spaces, have to live in fear? Why should they have to pay artificially inflated home prices (another form of “white tax”) just to get in a safe neighorhood with decent schools, when that was available to pretty much all whites just a generation or two ago? Hell, I even feel sorry for white criminals. It’s one thing to be thrown in prison with other white criminals, but today a white convict is thrown into a multiracial lion’s den. In many ways, it’s worse than a medieval torture chamber. We’re so progressive, aren’t we?
As to the idea that a white ethnostate need not be absolutist, and could in fact tolerate some non-whites living in it: My answer to that is yes, it could, in theory. But is it worth it? Once you are allowed to bring in non-whites, you’re creating an entire host of people that are going to be, in effect, second class citizens. That’s a recipe for societal stress and strife down the road, not to mention all of the problems that we face today. Why do it?
Why open the door to economic exploitation of non-whites (at the expense of the white working class, of course). It should also be obvious that if you fill the classrooms with ten or twenty percent non-whites, that is going to necessarily alter the way our own history, our story, is taught. I for one do not want an unfair society that is degrading to non-whites. But I have also seen what diversity does, and it is extremely degrading to whites. What is being done to white children in particular amounts to child abuse.
Diversity is not sustainable. As a society, we’ve destroyed literally thousands of formerly good neighborhood schools through integration. That’s not sustainable. Forking over hundreds of billions of dollars in transfer payments while our infrastructure crumbles and ambitious projects like a real space program are dropped is not sustainable. Spending tens of thousands of dollars per inmate to incarcerate massive numbers of criminally inclined blacks and browns is not sustainable. See Putnam’s research on the effects of diversity on societal trust and levels of civic engagment. It wasn’t so long ago that the typical American trusted and respected his fellow American. I don’t think that’s true anymore, and we can see the entire social fabric coming apart. You can’t operate a First World society with low trust levels.
The whole point of the white ethnostate is that it would be entirely sustainable. The laws, taxes, educational system, etc., can be geared to a particular people, and what that particular people needs and can handle. In contrast, right now what we are trying to do is run a First World society with an increasingly Third World population. One might as well try to run a research lab with special ed kids. It’s not going to work. It’s already begun to stop working, and we’re just at the beginning of the transformation process.
“So many of Taylor’s words are arbitrary and meant to conjure up romantic notions in the hearts of his white followers.”
All right, I get it now. Took me a while.
You’re going mainstream. But you’ve said “racist” things in the past. You’ve associated with “racist” people. So now you’re covering your ass. You’re just going to say whatever it takes to convince people you’re not “racist.” Then you can make money or advance your career or whatever.
Sort of like how leftists will say whatever it takes to gain power, to further their careers, to promote the system that gives them money, etc.
Wow Unamused, did you come up with that theory all on your own?
http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/to-go-mainstream-or-not-to-go-mainstream/
“Wow Unamused, did you come up with that theory all on your own?
http://foseti.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/to-go-mainstream-or-not-to-go-mainstream/”
If many people are having the same idea independently is that corroboration or not?
Christopher,
My response is this: I don’t care. I really don’t. If people perceive me as going mainstream, oh well. I don’t know any of these people besides through their online comments. And they are assuredly more mainstream when they aren’t behind the computer. Truth of the matter is that I’ve always opposed WN and I fear that too many people think that I don’t. The truth has stayed the same, but I’ve not talked about it because I’ve had no good reason. People started coming to this blog a lot more after I started documenting blacks attacking whites en masse last summer. Trayvon Martin helped increase the readership. But a lot of those readers have been under the wrong impression. It’s my fault for not showing them from the get-go that I’m not as extreme as they want me to be.
If you believe the following (which I have come to believe):
“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”
then the survival of such quaint Western notions as “the rule of law, property rights, the freedom of association” are in fact bound up inextricably with the the survival of the “genetic endowments of its creating people”.
“White Nationalists’ goal is impossible.”
The goal is preservation of the unique and praiseworthy aspects of Western civilization which would not exist if White people didn’t invent it. This preservation may in fact be impossible at this point, but for the effort to be glibly labelled “dumb” is offensive.
At the core, this is in fact about freedom of association, which includes the freedom to exclude from that association those who would harm that association.
“It’s my fault for not showing them from the get-go that I’m not as extreme as they want me to be.”
I think that’s the essence of it. You’ve for some time had (without noticeable push-back) many incoming links from (and references in comments to) unabashedly race realist and White nationalist sites for some time now. This has driven traffic to you. (“People started coming to this blog a lot more after I started documenting blacks attacking whites en masse last summer.”)
So at the same time that you start having articles published at a site with a (relatively) larger audience you repudiate (as no longer congenial) many who helped bring you the traffic which likely helped establish your new gig.
But appearances can be deceiving.
Christopher–
Like almost all the long time commenters here Chuck is a race realist to one degree or another. He’s just not like most of us long timers anyway, a white nationalist much less stormfront type supremacist.
The country would be nicer if it was mostly white. I can’t justify the pain and suffering that would result from making that happen. I support efforts to try to keep it majority European from this point forward.
I think States’ rIghts would be the way to go at this point.
“You’re going mainstream. But you’ve said “racist” things in the past. You’ve associated with “racist” people. So now you’re covering your ass. You’re just going to say whatever it takes to convince people you’re not “racist.” Then you can make money or advance your career or whatever.”
If he continues to support even the policies he does, he’ll be declared racist regardless. I sympathize with not wanting the severe disruption that a civil war would cause. That is going to suck no question about it. Returning this country to sanity would be more than enough for just about everyone, but that is not going to happen.
Lew
Can I ask why you have “no love” for WN? I’m genuinely curious because I see comments like yours all the time across the race realist/HBD cluster of blogs and Web sites, astute analysis of that runs counter to the egalitarian mainstream, but with hostility toward WN invariably thrown in.
I’ll answer even though the question wasn’t asked of me.
There are two things that put me off of WN: the disproportionate number of authoritarians; the national socialism take-care-of-you-from-cradle-to-grave doesn’t appeal my paleocon sensibilities. The other thing is the disproportionate number of female pussy worshipers. White women are wonderful, I know, but Jesus…
I’m not white anyway so I guess it doesn’t matter.
Lara:
“The country would be nicer if it was mostly white. I can’t justify the pain and suffering that would result from making that happen. I support efforts to try to keep it majority European from this point forward.”
“White nationalism” is not a binary. There are steps short of war. The one small step is to restore freedom of association. People naturally self-segregate. We need to remove the legal, financial, and social impediments to doing so.
One example is the “Orange Crush Festival” on Tybee Island, Georgia (h/t SBPDL). Every year, residents and store owners are subjected to copious amounts of theft, property damage, litter, and other abuses and general depravity.
There’s apparently only one bridge onto the island. Imagine that Tybee Island retained enough sovereignty that there were no legal, financial, or social impediments to them closing the bridge to all but residents and invited guests coincident with the festival.
Of course, that’s not the world we live in now, but it could be again.
“There are two things that put me off of WN: the disproportionate number of authoritarians; the national socialism take-care-of-you-from-cradle-to-grave doesn’t appeal my paleocon sensibilities.”
What is White nationalism anyway?
In the weakest sense, it is the promotion of changes to culture and policy that tend to increase the proportion and influence of people of European descent in historically European countries.
That’s a big tent.
It includes people like Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, Pat Buchanan, and Peter Brimelow (among others), none of whom could reasonably be labelled authoritarian or Nazi.
@E
“The other thing is the disproportionate number of female pussy worshipers. White women are wonderful, I know, but Jesus…”
Let me put this into perspective. There are a lot of white women out there and so this isn’t as wonderful a message to white women as you think. We still consider each other our greatest competition. Also, a lot of these guys are social conservatives, which means they want white women to marry a beta provider and have children. (not being treated like a princess)
I hate being put on a pedestal either personally or as a group, but this isn’t as prevalent among WN as it may seem.
I don’t like WN’s hostility towards E. Asians and S. Asians in America no matter what they’re like, or intermarriage between them and white guys (which is the direction it by far most often goes). I don’t want massive hordes of Asian immigration but a trickle, less than we have now, seems fine to me. Too many H1-b visas though. Unfair to our STEM guys, and no I’m not one.
For that matter I don’t like WN’s hostility towards all blacks no matter what they’re like or all legally here Hispanics. I agree I don’t want any more NAM immigration except for rare exceptions, because I want to keep the US majority white. That may be impossible now unless we do a whole lot of deporting and cause self deporting among illegal Latino immigrants (whether they have minor children born in the US or not.) Even if not possible I want to keep it as close to majority white in the future as possible.
I sympathize with not wanting the severe disruption that a civil war would cause. That is going to suck no question about it. Returning this country to sanity would be more than enough for just about everyone, but that is not going to happen.
I just watched an episode from the second season of Star Trek: Voyager (Tuvix that actually managed to present a reasonably intriguing moral dilemma. Two members of the crew were fused into one, “hybrid” being in a transporter accident. It took a few weeks for the eggheads to figure out how to separate them. By that time, the hybrid had gotten used to his new self, and the crew had gotten to know and respect him. He refused to undergo the reversal procedure; he didn’t want to die.
I think of this as the “fait accompli” justification; “what’s done is done.” But, like the Tuvix scenario, I don’t see how this really holds water; the hybrid came into existence via a misdeed, without which he would not exist. So it is with the status quo in America. That Tuvix must suffer in order to right the wrong that created him is regrettable, but cannot stand in the way of righting that wrong.
For a more concrete analogy, consider receiving stolen goods. If your father gave you something he stole, it is regrettable that you have to suffer a loss in order to return the property to its rightful owner, but that in no way makes the property yours, or changes the fact that it must be returned.
In short, the blame falls on liberals – it is their actions that have made the suffering necessary. They should have considered the consequences of their actions more carefully.
The only consideration should be how to right the wrong while minimizing suffering. Something about liberals’ attitude tells me they’d rather up the stakes and burn bridges than cooperate in this.
Svigor–
Svigor–
What are you advocating actually be done? How remotely feasible is it?
“Wow Unamused, did you come up with that theory all on your own?”
Yup. But it’s more like an observation.
I bet Svigor’s favorite ST character is Tuvok.
Btw, Tuvix wasn’t created by misdeed, it was by accident.
has the discussion ended already?
I know I’m coming late to the game here, but this is a really thought provoking discussion that concerns the future of an entire nation (if not all the west), and I wanted to add my thoughts into the fray. First and foremost, I think White Nationalists deserve credit for recognizing that race (or more accurately, genetics) plays an overwhelming and undeniable force in shaping one’s intelligence, behavior, and social aptitude. Anyone who acknowledges the empirical evidence for evolution and genetic inheritance should realize the implications for human society. Different breeding groups over time will develop unique traits that are genetically inherent, and given long enough will produce new species. Further, the institutions which made this nation one of the world’s most prosperous and successful nations in history is a result of the people (White Americans) who created and administered them, and the nation must reflect this genetic lineage if it wishes to maintain these institutions. While I believe this is true, I don’t think that genetics alone(1) plays a role in an individual’s ability to prosper in a society, though it can give someone a huge advantage. For instance, a European being raised in a European society is much more likely to be naturally capable of adapting to the society than, say, an African. I know this is splitting hairs and does not apply to the vast majority of cases, but this is an important point I will address later. For now, let’s agree that genetics play a major role on the outcome of societies.
As others here have rightly pointed out, the more the demographics of this country shift away from the white majority, the less our institutions will reflect our interests and the more openly we will be disenfranchised. This in and of itself is a perfectly good reason for people to want to break off and not be forced into that kind of economic servitude. I think it’s fair, and perhaps natural for people to want to associate with their own kind, and I don’t believe it’s anyone’s business to refuse that right to anyone. I’m not sure if the pressures from a multicultural society will bring about eventual balkanization into different ethnic states, though I am fairly convinced that White Nationalists tend to see this process as the panacea to all of society’s ills. Even after a White Nation is achieved, there are major issues which need to be addressed concerning the longevity of said nation. While I applaud the effort to enlighten people on race issues and educate people about the potential dangers of living in a society with large numbers of NAMs, I think there should be a concerted effort in thinking about how we got in this situation in the first place.
I have noticed that White Nationalists (not all, but for the most part) tend to blame all of the White man’s problems on Jews. Yes, I would agree that the Jews are disproportionately represented in politics, finance, overwhelmingly in the media(2), and most positions that have an influence on society. They also tend to champion policies which are destructive to Whites, while at the same time beneficial to them. This does not make them evil conspirators against the White man; it makes them a rational group of people that is looking out for their best interests like every other group. The Jews are a smart race of people with a high mean IQ, so it is only natural that they are able to rise to positions of power and influence. Considering their history and world population, it’s also understandable that they may have no love for the White man, and make policy that’s geared towards their own survival. Jews may play a role in our current woes, but blaming them makes Whites sound like the Blacks who cry racism when they don’t get their way. We need to accept that our current situation is our fault, and until we realize that we will never understand what brought us into our current mess, or build a society that can be sustainable.
The forefathers were an energetic and intelligent group of people, but they were imperfect and unable to foresee the events of history. Our basic freedoms come from the declaration of independence, stating that people are given their rights from God, and not a monarch. Our nation started out as a Protestant nation of Europeans, and our values and society reflected that. Protestant values place an emphasis on the equality (not by today’s standards but to a degree unheard of at the time) of individuals under god, and a view of women as pillars of morality. I believe it was these two cultural values that eventually led to society being the way it is today. While I’m not so naïve to suggest that the US started out as a democracy as opposed to a republic with white landholders holding all the voting power, the protestant rhetoric of the equality of men eventually opened the floodgates for men to vote based on age instead of IQ or ability. Compounding this was the notion that women are bastions of morality and sensibility, and women’s suffrage was eventually granted as well. These factors allowed for large numbers of voters who possessed little or no understanding of politics, economy, foreign policy, or any of the most important aspects of administration on a national scale. Voters then could more easily be controlled by sensationalism and fear, and less by rationality. Without an educated and powerful electorate, it was easier for the central government to operate without having to answer to powerful representatives after it was elected. With women’s suffrage, a huge influx of voters diluted the power of the representative electorate even further. Women think less rationally(3) and more emotionally compared to men, and are thus much more susceptible to sensationalism and empathetic pleas as a whole. Women, who vote overwhelmingly for liberal candidates(4) would eventually shift the political apparatus of the country further and further to the left.
As our liberalizing society enjoyed previously unknown levels of prosperity during the 50s and 60s, it no longer seemed just to bar other races from full participation in society. Out of sympathy for Kennedy’s death, most of his extreme liberal policies were pushed through the house during the Johnson presidency. These policies included abolishing immigration limitations which sought to keep the US as a majority Western European nation, along with the abolishment of policies that allowed organizations to choose members or associate with people of their choosing based on ethnicity and a multitude of other factors. Not only did the immigration reform allow for huge numbers of other ethnicities to populate the country, the new non discriminatory acts allowed them political power as well. As time went on, whites were increasingly marginalized in power.
1) http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory
2) http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19
3) http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ
4) http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-04-19/women-vote-obama-romney-abortion-economy/54418180/1
I bet Svigor’s favorite ST character is Tuvok.
Tim Russ (he’s Tuvok, right?) did a pretty good job in the role. I generally want to backhand all Vulcans. But I wanted to backhand Tuvok less.
Btw, Tuvix wasn’t created by misdeed, it was by accident.
Big diff.
What are you advocating actually be done?
Survive.
How remotely feasible is it?
I don’t know. But it beats the alternatives.
On a more practical note, I think we should get a few million hard-core would-be survivors, and see where the thing goes from there.
I’m less into “how do we survive?” than I am into “GDit, survive, people!”
has the discussion ended already?
I think Chuck has made for the hills, if that’s what you mean.
The Jews are the world’s most racist and cohesive group, a smart race of people with a high mean IQ, so it is only natural that they are able to rise to positions of power and influence.
FTFY.
Jews may play a role in our current woes, but blaming them makes Whites sound like the Blacks who cry racism when they don’t get their way. We need to accept that our current situation is our fault, and until we realize that we will never understand what brought us into our current mess, or build a society that can be sustainable.
Our fault, as in, trusting Jews. I can get behind that.
Berto, weren’t you just peddling the same line of bullshit at Mangan’s?
So, Berto,
do you agree then that we have to abolish the right to vote and the right to have important political, financial, public positions to the following categories of people:
1) minorities with a grudge against the majority – Jews, Blacks, etc.
2) women – more irrational and left-leaning than men
3) men who doesn’t have a profession, a property and a means to survive by themselves.
And then we come back to what was the norm in the Western societies for centuries: only men who belong to the ethnic majority and who qualify as productive, respected citizens should have a say in the matters of the city and should hold positions of public importance.
(continued) This wouldn’t have been an issue so long as the white majority continued to reproduce at a faster rate than the other groups. Unfortunately, the traditional American family was destroyed by feminism and women entering the workplace. While I personally think it’s wrong to restrict women from entering the workplace if they wish to, feminism glorified careerism among women. Women increasingly entered into higher education and careers during the peak years of their fertility, decreasing the amount of children they could mother over the course of their lifetime. This also decreased the ability of women to find men at equal or higher educational status compared with them, making it less likely for women to find an acceptable partner. Exacerbating the issue was the sexual revolution, which increased the number of lifetime sexual partners women had before marriage, and dramatically increased the likelihood of divorce. With many women holding off marriage until later in life when they were no longer attractive, many women were unable to become married. The ones who did marry were having less children, and marriages were increasingly ending in divorce before the end of a couple’s fertility. The state intervened in the system of divorce law, granting women a large portion of a man’s wealth and entitlement to the children in divorce proceedings. With the sexual liberation of women, and the increasing likelihood for divorce, the incentive for marriage was becoming less favorable to men. Ever since the 1970s the divorce per marriage rate has been increasing, and the marriage rate has been dropping. Without marriage, people have less incentive to create a family together. When combining these forces, the white birth rate has dropped well below replacement level.
Without a political identity and with the destruction of the white family, whites are in the situation they are today. I think many people understand today that whites have failed to maintain their identities and our culture no longer represents the culture of our ancestors. I believe we are responsible for the situation we’re in today. Not only that, I am disappointed at the behavior I see in many of the white people my age. I often observe very little regard for family and elders, self advancement as a virtue, instant gratification over planning, convenience over trust. I see white men and women letting themselves become obese with no respect for their bodies or themselves. I see a lot of cynicism for religious and political institutions that allow them the freedoms they enjoy. While whites in general tend to be kinder and more civil compared to NAMs, especially further out from the big cities, there seems to be a serious cultural depression in the white community. If you ask me, whites have lost their integrity as a group and no longer represent the values that people would be willing to rally under. This is one of the reasons I believe it will be difficult for most people, especially upper class society, to associate whites as the main dividing factor when considering a post nation.
If you recall earlier, I mentioned that I believed genetics were not exclusively responsible for success in a society. Anthropological evidence of the trends in human adaption over the course of civilizations suggests that culture and environment, along with genetics play a major role in shaping the direction of evolution of individuals in a given society. In other words, given enough generations within a society or environment, an individual will adapt genetic traits that are advantageous to living in said society or environment. Due to this, I believe that small numbers of exceptional minorities would not greatly determine the fate of a nation negatively. With that in mind, I think Americans seem to identify much more with class than race in today’s society. Consider that because the US is an economic powerhouse which encourages entrepreneurialism, we attract the elite from other societies and this contributes greatly to our status as a world power. It’s true that most of the successful people in our country are white, and that has a lot to do with both our high IQ levels and share of the wealth. However, larger numbers of our upper class are increasingly made up of minorities, especially NE and SE Asians. It’s due to this reason that I believe most people in our society will see class, education, and culture as dividing issues much sooner than they will race. A lot of these minorities hold values which are closer to the values of conservative whites compared to liberal whites. With the increasing feminism, obesity, and lack of family values possessed by metropolitan white women, white men are increasingly opting to choose minorities from conservative cultures as mating partners. For instance, do you think a large number of white men would prefer a family oriented, chaste, loving, and devoted SE Asian bride with an 80%+ chance of marital success over an overweight, demanding, sexually liberated White bride with a <50% rate of marital success? An increasing number of them do, and it’s unlikely that most of these decisions are due to brainwashing by their elite. These men can see that they are more likely to live happy lives with strong families and shared values with their spouse. This kind of situation is becoming increasingly more common and will continue as long as reproductive and cultural trends continue in our country. It’s due to this reason that I think most people, even after becoming racially conscious won’t be so keen to create a nation based on racial distinction alone. Many exceptional immigrants, along with favorable minorities possessing high IQ from East Asia will likely be included in the future of this nation due to their contributions to society. More likely, I think a post-multicultural nation will be based on more arbitrary definitions for merit, such as IQ, wealth, and other indicators of success or potential success. As for what will happen to the large minorities of Black and Amerindian Americans, I cannot say.
“do you agree then that we have to abolish the right to vote and the right to have important political, financial, public positions to the following categories of people:
1) minorities with a grudge against the majority – Jews, Blacks, etc.
2) women – more irrational and left-leaning than men
3) men who doesn’t have a profession, a property and a means to survive by themselves.
And then we come back to what was the norm in the Western societies for centuries: only men who belong to the ethnic majority and who qualify as productive, respected citizens should have a say in the matters of the city and should hold positions of public importance.”
Yea, for the most part. Though I think that IQ and success are better limiting factors, at least politically compared with genetics. Any change will likely be slow and marginal. Given our GDP per capita and the high standard of living, I find it very unlikely any major political changes will happen to the country within our lifetimes. I don’t think we’ll have the power to abolish the vote to anyone during this time. Bar massive economic collapse or civil war I don’t think the rules on voter participation will change. Just for fun though, if I had it my way, I think voting should be representative of the best and brightest of the nation. Restrictions would allow only certain people the ability to vote. Certain minimum qualifications would be males who are:
-landowners
-business-owners
-people above a certain IQ
-military veterans
or something along the lines of that. This would prevent most undesirable political groups from participating in government and encourage political stability.
Berto
I have noticed that White Nationalists (not all, but for the most part) tend to blame all of the White man’s problems on Jews. Yes, I would agree that the Jews are disproportionately represented in politics, finance, overwhelmingly in the media(2), and most positions that have an influence on society.
It is not the disproportionate role in politics, finance, or media, but the disproportionate role anti-white, anti American laws, policies and cultural trends. Politics and media is simply the vehicle to peddle the garbage.
They also tend to champion policies which are destructive to Whites, while at the same time beneficial to them. This does not make them evil conspirators against the White man; it makes them a rational group of people that is looking out for their best interests like every other group. ,
Conspiracy, coincidence…the end results the same right?
The Jews are a smart race of people with a high mean IQ, so it is only natural that they are able to rise to positions of power and influence. Considering their history and world population, it’s also understandable that they may have no love for the White man, and make policy that’s geared towards their own survival.
Yes…perfectly understandable, and it should be understandable that people react with antisemitism.
“Though I think that IQ and success are better limiting factors, at least politically compared with genetics.”
“Certain minimum qualifications would be males who are:
-landowners
-business-owners
-people above a certain IQ
-military veterans”
All the limiting qualifications should be made inside the group that represents the ethnic, genetic, historical and cultural majority of a country, the group that can represent better the traditions and interests of an ethnicity. Because if you apply IQ and success as limiting factors, then you can have a hostile or, at best, indifferent minority ruling your people, like an East-Asian-Jewish elite deciding the fate of a Western nation or, like today, George Soros deciding the course of politics in America. And then we will come back where we started. Yes, only successful men should have a say in the political matters of the city, but successful men who represent and are loyal to the ethnic composition of a country.
Which was the norm in Western society for centuries: minorities and women were kept away from positions of power, as groups. Of course, from time to time, you can have a few of them holding positions of leadership and influence, but only individually and if they prove 100% their worth, in exceptional situations, like Joan of Arc
Otherwise, it’s another recipe for disaster.
So, it’s not only genetics, but it’s also not only IQ+success. Leadership, in a sane country, should be (and it was, traditionally) a mixture of GENETICS+SUCCESS+TRADITION/HISTORY.
Any immigration is going to bring in both males and females. Maybe foreign women are better than American women, but foreign men are often preferred as workers to American men. It’s a tradeoff. Because Americans like to move around, I think we should allow a little immigration from countries who are willing to let Americans come live and work there. There should be some benefit to the average person rather than just big business.
This is a good “conversation” in the John Derbyshire (not the Eric Holder) sense.
Somebody commented upstream:
How can one take a philosophy seriously that is literally incapable of protecting itself for so much as fifteen minutes? Southern California and Orange County in particular used to be hotbeds of libertarianism. Now? Swamped by the brown tide, it’s becoming solidly Democrat. Does the libertarian learn anything from experience or reality? Nope. Not a single thing.
So we end where we began: at least the WN idea of sovereign ethnostates is sustainable and sensible. At least the idea itself comports with reality, as opposed to constant failure conservatism and delusional libertarianism. Of course, that leaves the problem of actually achieving a separate nation, and that’s going to be a bitch. But at least the objective makes sense, and it’s not like new nations haven’t been created before. It’s happend a lot just in the lifetimes of most people posting here.
And that, for me, is the heart of the issue. Classically liberal society simply has no means to protect itself. Liberal nations will eventually be conquered by illiberal peoples.
The rule of law, freedom of contract, property rights, enumerated powers, these were thought up by Anglo-Celt peoples. Nobody else–not even all Anglo-Celts–understands them or desires them. If you set up a common law, minarchist society–or even just organize a Ron Paul meet-up–it’s going to be mostly white people. So if you want your free market, common law society, you will have to take some positive action to maintain a white market-dominant majority. The Swiss vote on their neighbors; people draw up restrictive covenants; families disinherit certain marriages. I’m not buying the parade of horribles of eugenics police and Klansmen that libertarians seem to think would be required.
The issue doesn’t seem urgent at this point because we are in a time of transition. There’s still enough discretionary wealth for a nuclear-armed central state to keep everybody pretending we can all just get along. But the trendline is clear: Propositional Nationhood is on the way out, all over the planet. We have the “conversation” now on the details involved in letting people go their separate ways, or our grandchildren have it with shooting wars over water rights.
Anti-Gnostic–
Like where? I don’t see it on it’s way out anywhere in the first world.
Chuck–
I’d be interested to hear your position on immigration, illegal and illegal.
I think we should cut down considerably on legal immigration, letting in only the very most talented, stop letting in the parents of immigrants and from them the brothers and sisters of them. I think we should cut way back on refugee asylum immigration which some lawyers knowledgeable in the area and willing to talk about it estimate is 90% fraudulent to effect economic migration. And besides, why shouldn’t they have to go to their neighbors and why should we have to shoulder so big a share of the world’s problems. No thank you.
I think the current levels of immigration esp. when we have north of 8% unemployment is wrong, and as well that it depresses the wages of middle class and working class American citizens, which haven’t risen in real terms for more than 20 years.
*illegal and legal
doug1111 – you can start with the blow-up of the USSR. Then there’s the Balkans, the Baltics, the UK, the de facto partition of Iraq, sectarian violence across the Middle East, separatist movements in Spain and Italy, resurgent nationalism in France, Greece, Holland, Hungary.
Norway and Sweden parted ways not so long ago. The Czechs and Slovaks even more recently. Belgium won’t exist in a few years.
America itself remains a deeply segregated society. Imagine what it would look like if freedom of association were actually restored.
To add to A-G’s list, Austria is a de facto white ethnostate with extremely restrictive immigration (requiring what amounts to a six figure buy-in to settle there) policies, little to no ‘white guilt’ issues hampering a healthy sense of non-propositional patriotism, and a strong right of center political culture dedicated to preserving that status quo.
There is also the potential faltering and break up of the EU.
As far as I see things the propositional model has already dissolved. The USA isn’t based on a creed or proposition as those who compose the country aren’t required to adhere to or even learn that proposition. What we have now with our “proposition” is a rent-seeking Deep State that rules over various disparate peoples that have nothing in common and have no desire to have anything in common, which is much closer to Populares Roman Imperialism (or the British Empire) than the Federalism/classical liberalism, or civic nationalism or any other ‘libertarian’ paradigm.
Anti-Gnostic–
The examples you gave are ones in which different regions of a larger country with some sense of ethnic, racial or religious separateness, broke up into separate countries, they weren’t ones where races were all jumbled up together all over the country with the exception of a few places (Idaho, Wyoming, etc.). Even during segregation the races were all jumbled together at least by cities and counties if not usually in the same neighborhoods even in the North.
Separate regions of the country for different races is simply an extremist white nationalist pipe dream that’s never happened before here, and will never happen again. It would require massive forced ethnic cleansing which would make the Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian ethnic cleansing look like a garden party, which only a miniscule number of white American favor or are likely to ever favor, and is favored by an even more miniscule percentage of Americans of other races.
Would I like Section 8 housing invasion of white neighborhoods to end and lots of changes to the fair housing act, sure. Would I like all forms of affirmative action and the EEOC’s statistical disparate impact test for job discrimination to end (which in effect imposes quotas), yeah. Would I like the fairy tale of being able with just more effort and creative experimentation with yet another new program to close all sorts of racial “gaps” to end, and for schools of education, teachers and administrators to get back to having as the number one schools goal of learning excellence for those capable of it, or for all students to be taught to the best of their different levels of ability, yeah.
But this WN separate areas of the country for different races is never ever gonna remotely happen and it stupid to expend energy on something like that. I wouldn’t really want all Asians or all Hispanics to disappear either. I mean Colombians like Sofia Veranga can be hot.
Never? Never ever? Not even remotely?
The only thing holding “America” together is a nuclear armed bureaucracy and artificially low interest rates. Take away those, and your multicultural fantasies about 99th percentile Colombian models disappear before you can say blood is thicker than water. Try going to the local cantina and swooping their most nubile prospective mates at that point.
The main point of my original comment, and the others on this thread is this: your choices boil down to a free market/common law society on the one hand, and multiculturalism with a powerful centralized state on the other. The Propositional Nation is just not sustainable, and the evidence for that is literally the entire march of history.
You might put it this way: anarcho-capitalism is coming, whether the anarcho-capitalists actually want it or not.
For every hot Columbian model, there is a Columbian man willing to do your job for half the pay.
Lara–
We always spell things named Columbia in the US with a middle u. The Colombians use a middle o.
Thanks Doug, I remember that now.
Artificially low interest rates are nothing. It is the nuclear armed bureaucracy that is the problem.
The former finances the latter.
Doug,
Go read a little about Asian American assimilation on View From the Right.
Anti-Gnostic—
Artificially low interest rates? You’re a wacko. That’s a policy of fiscal stimulus and inflating our way at least partly out of a looming debt crisis. Pluses and minuses. Big minus that it could be considered necessary due to profligate government (and lets be honest, household housing and other) spending.
Never mind nuclear. I seriously doubt that any American President would ever authorize nuclear warheads detonated on American soil or that the American military would ever obey such an order. But regardless we don’t even need to get remotely close to there.
How about national guard and if needs be Federal waiver of passé comitatus US military use of tanks, machine guns, howitzers and mortars, as well as attack helicopters, predator and surveillance drones, the NSA signals intelligence spying network. The conventional military force of the US is overwhelming.
As I said whacko. A delusional one. Go sell stupid elsewhere.
Lara–
Yeah I’ve read some of Auster on that. It’s pretty weak. Mainly around Asian (Chinese) industrial espionage and also military spying. Well I haven’t read that but there’s been some of that.
First I don’t think it’s all that widespread from what I’ve seen. Second I think our leftists are mostly to blame or anyway also to blame and the issue would be way smaller if they weren’t. That is I think all Chinese and other prone to do it Asians (on the basis of experience/history) SHOULD be racially/ethnically profiled as higher risk to be security threats and watched more. They sure as hell do that sort of thing in China.
Besides Lara, E Asian girls are very good for white STEM guys, who are important for our future, to have as an alternative. Makes them want to go there much more. Gives white girls competition for those guys especially. I actually think this is pretty big, especially in tech mecca California.
*monetary stimulus
Lara,
For every hot Columbian model, there is a Columbian man willing to do your job for half the pay.
Typical pampered Amero-slut who knows she can’t handle foreign competition.
Columbian women would be preferred over you, as would Asian women.
Lara,
I think we should allow a little immigration from countries who are willing to let Americans come live and work there.
Almost all the world’s countries allow this, including all 5 of the countries that send the most immigrants to the US (Mexico, China, India, the Philippines, and Russia). An American who wanted to live in any of those countries (for whatever reason) is not barred in any way.
What do you think your ‘idea’ actually changes?
Nikos,
Calm down. I was trying to make a point about how immigration brings in both genders. Also, the fact that sometimes showing loyalty can be a sacrifice, but it might be worth it to you in the long run. Doug is a high level attorney, so it doesn’t apply to him, but a lot of American men have been replaced by hispanic laborers. It’s very true in landscaping.
None of those countries you mentioned is taking in significant numbers of young American workers. That is who is relevant, not a few retired older people who emigrate. European countries are very strict at letting Americans work. I once was told there was no way I’d ever get a job in France.
My mother has a good friend who is Greek. She told my mom Greeks are the worst as far as preferring one and other, and sticking together. I recently had a granite countertop installed, and five Greek men showed up at my house. They must like working with each other.
Doug 1111, we should stop immigration from Asian countries until the American immigrant populations there reflect parity. E.g., no more Chinese until they allow an equal percentage of Americans into China.
AKA, reciprocity.
Separate regions of the country for different races is simply an extremist white nationalist pipe dream that’s never happened before here, and will never happen again.
Asserting it won’t make it so. Your atrophied imagination is not a law of physics.
It would require massive forced ethnic cleansing which would make the Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian ethnic cleansing look like a garden party
Again, asserting it doesn’t make it so.
Would I like Section 8 housing invasion of white neighborhoods to end and lots of changes to the fair housing act, sure. Would I like all forms of affirmative action and the EEOC’s statistical disparate impact test for job discrimination to end (which in effect imposes quotas), yeah.
All of these things would result in a lot of what you call “massive forced ethnic cleansing.”
But this WN separate areas of the country for different races is never ever gonna remotely happen and it stupid to expend energy on something like that. I wouldn’t really want all Asians or all Hispanics to disappear either. I mean Colombians like Sofia Veranga can be hot.
Now you’re fighting two straw men at once. Massive, forced ethnic cleansing for ethnic regions on the one hand, and “disappearing” ethnic groups on the other.
For every hot Columbian model, there is a Columbian man willing to do your job for half the pay.
And 200 boring, bland, unremarkable, below-average Colombians.
Almost all the world’s countries allow this, including all 5 of the countries that send the most immigrants to the US (Mexico, China, India, the Philippines, and Russia). An American who wanted to live in any of those countries (for whatever reason) is not barred in any way.
What do you think your ‘idea’ actually changes?
Not good enough. Reciprocity is good enough: a Chinese population of American immigrants as large as the American population of Chinese immigrants, in terms of percentage of the host country. E.g., if America is 5% Chinese immigrant, China must be 5% American immigrant. Cut off all immigration from China until parity is achieved.
One thing that gets me about immigration-boosters is their low standards. They’re far too ready to smile at a mess of pottage.
Actually, that would be a lower bounds for reciprocity. There should be some metric to correct for quality of life, too. E.g., Chinese who come here get the right to bear arms. Americans who go to China do not. Free speech, religious freedom, etc. Then there’s America’s open economy. Lower population density. Etc. Everything that makes America a more attractive destination for Chinese than China is for Americans, essentially. These things should be corrected for. My guess is that an order of magnitude difference in the percentages in question would not be unrealistic, after this correction.
There is one sure way of making Chuck a WN: bring Obsidian back.
Svigor,
Nice to see you getting around a bit. Let’s forget about Chuckie and kosher conservatives for a second. No doubt you’ve done that dance before and you know how it ends.
Come to mindweapons in ragnarok sometime. If you allow me, I might even convince you to study STEM an hour each day. You’ll profit alot more from study than this sort of thing. I also used to do these 100 comment threads.
Svignor–
Why don’t you say more comprehensively what your version of WN concrete policy proposals would be, aside from on immigration? I about never see that when WN’s go to non WN alt.right, race realism friendly sites. Afraid it would be too unpopular, even among alt.right leaning or there conservatives?
PA,
There is one sure way of making Chuck a WN: bring Obsidian back.
True. Obsidian had a knack of attacking even the whites who were against WNs. Obsidian did more for the WN cause in the manosphere than any white-skinned person did..
Ryu,
If you allow me, I might even convince you to study STEM an hour each day.
It is admirable that you help low-functioning white guys study high school-level subjects and get their GEDs.
But advanced study of STEM subjects is more likely to make a white person pro-Asian, rather than anti-Asian. Since STEM guys are ostracized by women, they socialize with other STEM guys based more on common interests and personality than race.
If you allow me, I might even convince you to study STEM an hour each day.
Your life will improve more if you spend that hour studying/practicing Game each day.
There are very good reasons for not discussing concrete plans with people who are not 100% for whites.
No one understand everything on the first try. You won’t see the big picture in one reading. If someone isn’t loyal, they can run off to the enemy and get a nice payday.
You’re talking about giving the gold of WN to people who can’t even decide if they are white, or if they would like to live with other whites. It’s the same as any other organization. You make a commitment, do the grunt work and in time you earn a place. No one is going to hand you the keys just because you’re white. There are already 500K real WNs in the US.
here are already 500K real WNs in the US.
I would have thought there were more. 500K out of 150M white adults is just 0.33%. A negligible number..
There are more whites than that who have paid money to attend a Star Trek convention (although the two groups overlap a lot).
I would have thought there were more. 500K out of 150M white adults is just 0.33%. A negligible number..
How many self-declared capitalists were there in the Soviet Union before Communism went down?
How many suicide bombers and terrorists are there in the ranks of Islam?
These numbers don’t tell us much of interest.
This topic is toxic to a person’s social status, so we should always expect that avowed preferences are going to seriously diverge from revealed preferences. This applies in the reverse to. Lots of people will avow that they are opposed to WN but then they’ll reveal their preferences by where they buy homes, who they socialize with, where they send their kids to school.
If you want to perform a Gedankenexperiment then pretend that these WN folks have pulled off their mission and created a white homeland and that this new nation is stable, meaning that there isn’t a counter-revolution about to undo this achievement. Of the people within the borders, how many will decloak now that it is safe to do so (capitalists decloaking in Russia after is was safe to do so), how many whites will leave and move across the border to a multicultural US, and how many whites would find either an overt or covert reason to move to the new nation? Of course there are no right or wrong answers to such an experiment, but your answers can probably be informed by the revealed preferences of people that you see about you.
Every white person under the sun is a WN if you go by what they practice in thier personal life rather than what they preach. To borrow a STEM concept, that’s a lot of potential energy.
I don’t think that’s a discouraging number. How many marines, SEALs or Delta Force are there in the US? The average football game you’ve got 100 people on the field, 50 million sitting on their ass watching. WNs need to be the people on the field, not spectators.
National socialism began with 4 people I believe. 15 years later they ran the country. Similar with Lenin and Castro. Quality over quantity.
The big problem is to stop focusing on this beginner junk like interracial violence and convincing WNs to start building communities. Building skillsets, something seperate and our own.
Every white person under the sun is a WN if you go by what they practice in thier personal life rather than what they preach.
No. Replace ‘WN’ with ‘Race Realist’ in your sentence and it is vastly closer to being correct.
Most white people have no problem with interracial marriage (particularly if the other party is something other than black), Asian neighbors, Hispanics who are 40% white, etc. Therefore…
About 70% of whites are Race Realists.
As Ryu indicated, under 1% are WNs…
As doug111 said, most WNs are attempting to compress the relatively large gap between race realism and WN. The gap is large, as shown how Chuck, doug111, and myself just don’t want to go to the WN side, even among people on this thread.
So, Ryu, under your optimistic vision of how a small number of WNs is quite acceptable at this stage….
….What is your vision for the non-whites in America?
Amicable discharge and repatriation? Expulsion? Genocide? What?
Would blacks receive a different program of treatment than Asians? Or the same?
Also, exactly where do you draw the line between white and non-white, since the definition has changed a lot over the years? The average Hispanic is 40% white, but some are 20% and some are 70%. What fate will you decide for which ones?
I don’t care what the nonwhites do, so long as it doesn’t affect whites. With all the things happening to our race, we don’t need to devote mental horsepower to them. You should be more concerned with your family, whites, are treated. Stop trying to save the world, try and save yourself.
My primary concern right now is motivating whites. We need to square ourselves away before we worry about the other. If you really care about numbers, the number of freedom fighters in Iraq was 10K.
The numbers are irrelevent, it’s quality that matters. If a man can’t devote 1 hour a day to studying, how will he ever create an ethnostate? That’s why we harp on giving up kid’s stuff.
Once you hear all this junk about blacks, mexicans, asians – you have to decide to do something. Doesn’t have to be some illegal thing. But I can’t give you the will to act. We can show evidence for 1000 years. You could spend your life on this computer doing that.
I’m not going to debate who is white. That has been done millions of times. That is a dead end.
I can understand why white people prefer Asians to other whites. They are better behaved, smarter and more refined than a lot of white people. However, they are a separate and proud race. I’m not sure they feel the same way about you. I doubt Asian men enjoy seeing white men and Asian women together.
High class southern white Americans once felt affection for black people. They thought blacks were on their side more than many other whites. That didn’t turn out to be the case.
I noticed something about the hispanic jockey who one the Kentucky Derby yesterday. After he won, people came up to congratulate him. While he was gracious with the white people who congratulated him, when another hispanic man came up to him, his reaction was different. He almost seem to share the victory with him.
Why don’t you say more comprehensively what your version of WN concrete policy proposals would be, aside from on immigration? I about never see that when WN’s go to non WN alt.right, race realism friendly sites. Afraid it would be too unpopular, even among alt.right leaning or there conservatives?
I actually started to jump through hoops for you, and typed out a bunch of stuff in response. Then I realized, if you want that stuff, you can type it out. That’s what your brain is for. It’s should be easy, for someone with a three-digit IQ to come up with all kinds of ethnopatriotic policies, if that’s what he wants.
Ethnopatriotism is not a policy, or a set of policies. It’s a mindset. It starts with an interest in ethnic survival and cohesion, and works outward from there. The specific policies that follow depend on the situation on the ground.
All I’m interested in is creating that mindset in as large a fraction of the population as possible. I’ll let others worry over policy, it’s not my bag.
Nikos, it’s okay buddy, the feeling’s mutual: we don’t want you, either. You’re not invited. I don’t want your genes in our gene pool, or your personality in our meme-pool.
I’m really not sure that people like Doug and Nikos are willing to accept that I don’t know what should be done, on every subject. That I’d prefer a few million White ethnopatriots get together, gather their best minds, and have them come up with solutions. I think they’d rather imagine some nefarious plan, lol. I mean, it’s our people who should make these decisions, and our people who will have to live with the consequences, so why should I be the one to lay out the specific plan?
Try and see it from my perspective, for a moment. Just because I’m saying, “hey, let’s kick the British out and make this our country,” I’ve got to map out the whole war? And answer for any atrocities that might be committed by the Continental Army, to boot?
Svigor,
Nikos, it’s okay buddy, the feeling’s mutual: we don’t want you, either. You’re not invited. I don’t want your genes in our gene pool, or your personality in our meme-pool.
Oh, that’s a loss……
As they say, white nationalists have black IQs.
You are off to a good start by alienating whites like me, who, unlike you, have actual first cousins in Europe. Chuck (a growing media voice) and doug111 (a smart man) are others you can ill afford to alienate as you create your utopia of low-IQ whites that Ryu is helping to gain a high-school education.
At least Ryu, if nothing else, is polite and respectful. I’ll give him that.
Ethnopatriotism is not a policy, or a set of policies. It’s a mindset.
Sure. And ethno-patriotism is NOT white nationalism. Whites have many different languages, cultures, and cuisines.
Nationalism has to be around a common language, to work.
A French or Italian person would rather eat Thai food or even Mexican food, than Polish food, btw (as would most people).
Pingback: More White Nationalist Idiocy and Lying | Robert Lindsay
My mom was talking to a woman from Cameroon recently. She came to the United States with the idea that we had a really strong society and culture. She is disappointed by the lack of cohesion in this country, since it was always held up as such a good example to her.
“And ethno-patriotism is NOT white nationalism”
This is true. Until people identify as Americans only and nothing else, it won’t happen.
What this thread reveals is that high IQ whites despise lower IQ whites. They feel more kinship with their cognitive peers in other racial groups than within their own race. This is not reciprocated to nearly the same extent in other racial groups: high IQ Jews still have a sense of kinship with lower IQ Jews, same with Han Chinese, same with African-Americans. Groups with strong in-group loyalty tend to persist and reproduce themselves.
The white cognitive elite hope somehow, someway to reproduce themselves by convincing other racial groups to adopt their globalist, deracinated worldview. That is their last hope, as I think even they realize their ultimate fate is as tax fodder for larger and larger numbers of net tax-consuming immigrant populations who, unlike them, have a strong sense of group interest.
As much as I don’t care for Nikos’s hostility, I do have to give him credit for at least not going on about being a Greek American. He seems to at least want to identify as an American.
What this thread reveals is that high IQ whites despise lower IQ whites. They feel more kinship with their cognitive peers in other racial groups than within their own race
The comments in this thread don’t necessarily show what you claim. Just as likely is that the attributes that define elite status have more to do with attitudes, behavior, viewpoints, lifestyles, values and such and less to do with racial background. Therefore, there is a greater degree of homogeneity expressed across many features in the microcosm of elite society than the homogeneity that is expressed within a racial group. Recognition of this doesn’t automatically imply that the white elites despise the white commoners.
Whatever the avowed or revealed preference of elites with respect to the issue of WN has no bearing on what said elites might prefer for groups that are lower than the elites. A person of elite status can recognize the fundamental instability of multiculturalism as an organizing principle for society and yet not jump on board with 100% white all the time, every time, now and forever, type of society. The way to square the circle is to recognize that the problems with multiculturalism and with a multracial society stem from issues with scale. Examine the case on the margin – a society which is all white, say 100,000,000 people in size, and they admit 1 person who is Asian or black. is societal stability now destroyed and is this society now on the same path as multicultural societies? Now scale up that society so that it’s say, 3% non-white and all 3% of those people are from the elites. We see this play out today with “model minorites” where there are no real headaches associated with dysfunction, bending the law to create equal outcomes, and such.
Even with the inclusion of elite minorities, the issue could calcify across generations where inter-marriage doesn’t take place, so the race issue persists or immigration policy could allow non-white immigrants of elite status to enter society. Or the reverse could happen – intermarriage could slowly wipe out the race classification within the elite tier of society and immigration could prevent non-whites from immigrating, meaning that the race issue at the elite level will not be exacerbated and could, in fact, with inter-marriage, vanish in a few generations or at least diminish is scale.
Or you could be correct and white elites do despise white commoners.
It’s hard to tell without asking them.
As much as I don’t care for Nikos’s hostility, I do have to give him credit for at least not going on about being a Greek American. He seems to at least want to identify as an American.
Yep.
One small point, though. I did not indicate that I was of Greek parentage, but rather of Southeastern Europe as a whole. So I could be from Greece, Romania, the Yugoslav countries, etc. A minor point.
Yes, the idea of America is what I am about. Just about all second-generation Asians I meet also want to identify as Americans, and I would heavily defend them against anyone who sought to exclude them. doug111 said something similar above….
What this thread reveals is that high IQ whites despise lower IQ whites.
Not despise. But I would rather socialize with Asians or Cuban Hispanics in my profession, than with low-iQ whites who struggle to pass their GED despite Ryu’s encouragement that they learn high-school STEM subjects.
same with African-Americans.
High skilled immigrants from Africa (doctors from Ghana, etc.) *hate* black Americans. They are very aware of the huge tax that BBW Americans get imposed on this skilled immigrant blacks.
Nikos, your snobbery is an ugly thing.
First off, sorry Berto. I didn’t realize someone else was using the name and I understand it’s been your call sign for far longer, so I changed my wordpress name to make things easier.
I think TangoMan has a close approximation of the typical perceptions at play among racially conscious whites in our society. There’s not necessarily a racial blindness among the white cognitive elite with respect to the rest of society. Despite what anyone says, most people will segregate themselves to communities with similar values and levels of wealth, which normally entails certain racial environments. At the same time, America is very much a class obsessed society, and people separate themselves based on merit, success, and earning potential, often above racial distinction. Most practical people recognize that there is a certain racial element at play, and that certain genetic groups with higher testosterone levels, lower IQ levels, and low historical precedence for civilization building will not represent their interests. These groups are garnering more and more attention from political groups due to their growing demographics. Their predilection for high taxes and large central government tends to bring successful minorities and whites closer together in an “us vs. them” mentality instead of alienating minorities in general. There is also recognition for the most successful nonwhite groups who have little or no negative impact on their own lifestyle. Considering that Indians and Chinese are more wealthy per capita than whites, it is clear that they have flourished in this culture and it would be against their interest to actively work against it. They contribute low crime rates and in general represent normal tax-paying model citizens. It’s undeniable that hostile states, namely China have exploited this perception and actively recruited agents to commit corporate and military espionage within our institutions. In this case I think most people would agree that ethnic profiling would be an intelligent option in regards to national security. This isn’t to say that it’s a universal trend among successful non-white ethnic groups and that anything short of a fully white nation will function successfully. Indians, Koreans, and Japanese have extremely low crime rates per capita, are in high earning brackets of society, and are not actively engaged in any corporate espionage by any demonstrable ways. I’m not saying that there should be unchecked immigration from these countries to here, but a society that limits in certain people on a basis not solely rooted in genetic alone would likely be perfectly stable.
While genetics are an undeniable factor in the success of a society, I think it’s overly simplistic to believe that they are the sole determination of success, or a genetic pre-destiny if you will. There may be some societies which are genetically too far-removed from groups that have produced effective societies. I don’t believe western style democracy will work in any society, mainly sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east. After multiple colonial endeavors and investment these areas continue to lag behind in progress.
At the same I believe that certain groups, given the right conditions can play beneficial roles in society given the right cultural conditions. Take for instance South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore. While a lot of these countries maintain ethnic uniformity, they also have increasingly taken on western religions, lifestyles, and beliefs. Singapore is a particularly interesting country. A former English colony, english is the national language and the political system is represented through common law. It has the lowest rate of political corruption in Asia. Even though the ruling majority is Han Chinese, they often posture against China over oil possessions in their naval borders and utilize western defense agreements for their military technology. In this case it seems that the Anglo system of common law plays a larger political force on their society than their ethnicity. Cases like these suggest to me that there are more fundamental factors at play besides race alone, namely IQ and culture.
PA,
I’m not sure why Nikos is getting called out for his snobbery when plenty of the WN supporters here are just as snide if not more so. He’s mostly been pointing out something which I would support – there are minorities who are more desirable as countrymen and neighbors than some whites.
Chuck,
PA just doesn’t like what I said about Polish food. Polish food is not as bad as British food, if that makes him feel better.
But the truth remains that if a French, Italian, or Greek person could not get his own cuisine, then he would rank Thai, Mexican, Indian, Ethiopian, etc. cuisines as more palatable than Polish cuisine. As would most other people (including most Poles).
Bigos, Kabanos, and Kotlet Schabowy are not exactly what makes cookbooks fly off the shelves, or the Food Network stay in business.
So much for ‘ethnopatriotism’ as a basis for white nationalism.
Wrong, my Greek friend. I want it known that everything east of the Oder and west of the Bug is bad bad bad. Bad food, ugly landscale, borign history, and ugly girls.
BTW… dance? did you say, dance, my boy?
Nikos:
I dunno, I do like Pirogies. They’re pretty good. And some pastries that my friend’s grandma made were pretty delish. It beats Filipino food, which you can only find appetizing if you’re born into it. Even then there’s still shit no Filipino actually genuinely likes, like Balut.
PA:
I dunno, pointing at Zorba the Greek as an example of Greek suck is sorta like pointing at Josef Pilsudski as an example of Polish suck. It’s an awesome novel and character, and Pilsudski is an awesome national hero. (Speaking of, did you know there’s Pilsudskis in Japan? Josef’s brother married an Ainu woman and the descendants are still around the Tokyo area. Odd historical factum).
Zorba the Greek is one of my favorite movies ever. If you dig through Chuck’s archives, you will see that two years ago I urged him to name his cat Zorba. Remember: Greek is great. Whatever is between the Oder and the Bug is bad bad bad, best avoided.
Josef’s brother married an Ainu woman and the descendants are still around the Tokyo area
I had no idea. One of my late grandparents (born circa 1910) loved Pilsudski. A huge part of what he loved about post-communism is his official rehabilitation. I’ll have to look into his Japanese lineage. Though I’d respect it more if it were Korean.
Roman Dmowski was Pilsudski’s rival in a way back in the day, and in a sense he was more prescient.
1) I am not necessarily of Greek parentage. I merely said Southeastern Europe, which could mean my parents are from Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania, Romania, or even Moldova, rather than just Greece.
2) As Lara seems to understand, I am an American first and foremost (born in the USA, baby!). I don’t think PA quite understands what it means to be an American. I suspect that he thinks that even 2, 3, or 4 generations in, the old-world country is still the only identifier, which is why he is puzzled about the unpopularity of white nationalism.
3) If saying truthful things about the unpopularity of Polish cuisine gets PA this worked up, he really should not read what Roosh said about Poland after spending 2 months there. Roosh’s description of male betatude in Poland was brutal (don’t look for it, PA; you may not like what you find). I actually think Roosh was sort of sadistic to talk about how he wrecked a lot of Polish girls such that they would no longer find local Polish betas acceptable.
Spike,
I didn’t mention Filipino at all. Where do you get that from? Polish food is not the worst in the world, merely in the bottom 5 or 6, out of, say, 50 major cuisines. As I said, British food is even worse.
PA:
You ought to try the novel, it’s even better. It even has some stuff that’s germane to the topic at hand that’s not in the movie. It really shaped my views on ethnic nationalism, though I think many here would disagree with it (it’s fairly subtle as well). It’s what led me back home again.
PA:
Not part-Japanese, part-Ainu, though by now they probably have more Japanese blood quantum than Polish or Ainu. It’s just the two native minorities in Japan tend to identify with their minority aspect, not to mention they don’t look Japanese, particularly the Ainu.
Never heard of Dmowski, sounds like he was fairly correct except for the bits about the Catholic church.
Nikos: I’m part Filipino, I brought it up because bar none, they have the worst national cuisine in the world. It’s like they took Spanish cooking methods, Southern Chinese ingredients and American spices to come up with such bizarre and unappetizing dishes. I like some of it, but you’ll never see a non-Filipino at a Filipino restaurant not looking vaguely distressed.
Nikos, you’re wrong: Polish food is the worst in the world. You had your fair warning.
And Roosh is right. Furthermore. I am the number one beta representative of my ancestral homeland. Doesn’t it show through every one of my comments? And yet… I am happy. How about you? does sniping at anonymous internet characters make you feel better? I hope it does. It must suck being so butthurt.
Lara, why do you comment at the Spearhead when you are so roundly despised there?
My father in law is Polish American. I also know some other Polish Americans. From what I’ve observed the men are hard working and physically tough. They aren’t really womanizers, though. They are probably similar to other Northern European males in betaness.
Also, probably comparable to NE Asians. Not wimpy, but can get p whipped.
Obsidian,
I don’t comment at Spearhead often. Sometimes my comments get nice responses.
I see Nikos and Spike as favoring citizenism over white nationalism. That is far preferable to someone who refuses to assimilate.
Nikos –
Well you picked one hell of a Greek screen name for anyone to believe you aren’t of Greek origins. Could be Macedonian I suppose, or a Greek Cypriot. In fact I’m hard pressed to think of a more Greek sounding first name. Maybe Stavros, or Aristotle.
I think second generation or more East Asians and whites tend to get along just fine, especially the smarter half or quarter of each, and I suppose the degree of getting along goes up from there in more elite circles. Still whites and East Asians on average even at elite levels probably get along a little better with each other.
I don’t dislike lower middle class whites and I would sure as hell rather deal with them by and large than lower middle class blacks, though individuals matter. I think a whole lot of the problems with blacks these days in this country is the resentment of whites (“white privilege”, the supposedly “enduring oppressive legacy of slavery and Jim Crow”, white “racism”, “institutional racism”, and so on, that lefty whites have taught them, or taught the black female school teachers who’ve taught them that.
I’m also just fine with mostly white Hispanics, especially the women. Heh. Heavily Amerindian Hispanics seem kind of alien to me, though not so much trouble, outside of LA. Btw it’s interesting how much better behaved Mexican Americans seem to be in Texas compared to LA. They may be whiter in Texas, not sure. But I’d also imagine the much more conservative, not making excuses for minorities attitude of Texans probably effects that that difference as well.
You may be a Kwan if you think there are other ethnicities besides the Euro demographic which identify as ‘American’.
The Euros do so identify because the American state was culturally and intellectually their project – warts and all. Euro Americans do not wait for permission to freely associate as a community and build the White demographic. If they want to have families (and by this I mean more than 1 or 2.5 children), if they want to enjoy the lifestyle that White people like as a community and participate in the kind of economy that White people build, but they are living someplace that is getting Detroited by whatever demographic is your profile of the barbarian horde – then they leave.
And especially they are not going to send their children to some school with a PC curriculm where the Whites are racially bullied by groups who are able to learn their victim entitlements (and little else). White families with daughters who want to play an elite sport or learn concert violin, study a classical language, higher maths and medicine are not going to make those daughters sit through hours of PC baloney science learning about climate change and gender ideology and how to submit to a cavity search in the libtard school.
My favourite example of this crapola was a history of science class focused on the conservation of water as a scarce and precious resource in a world undergoing climate change. And blah blah. A boy aged 12 yrs (yes of German descent) pointed out to the teacher that it would be be v simple to design and build a machine that would convert humidity in air to water and run it off a solar generator for the whole community like the Romans did with stone round towers and aquaducts.
This libtard said it wasn’t possible and spent at least a half an hour reassuring the Blacks who commented – dat be stoopud rayciss. And all the rest of it.
Families with children being subjected to the crap that White children are subjected to in these PC libtard Kwan schools are doing what Whites have always done – strike the tents, pack up the skins, the kyacks, the tools, the livestock and go. They will find someplace more congenial; they learn new skills, create new businesses and networks, set up home school – as Whites are wont to do.
This doesn’t mean the community forbids others to come, but those others have to be able to culturally assimilate. A racially realistic and aware White community which has a majority demographic and control of its political structures will find many creative and legal ways to move out the xenos who have no capability or intention of contributing but have fastened themselves onto the community as race hustlers or victim entitlement scammers or White guilt trippers or predators on the community, its economy, its lifestyle and women.
For the Euro American demographic there is great disturbance in the Force. A bit like Darth Vader’s family crisis. His son, his ex-droid, his future son in law and his futur son in law’s Wookie are all coming to rescue his daughter. Stay tuned.