Tigergate
Dec 9th, 2009 by Hunter Wallace
Tiger Woods and his disgusting affairs with white women happens to be the racial story of the moment. The popularity of this multiracial icon has taken a nosedive. In the black community, it has collapsed. Key sponsers have withdrawn their support.
Black women are using the scandal to air their racial grievances. If Whites had reacted to Tigergate by deploring miscegenation, the MSM and “anti-racism activists” would have exorciated them with charges of “racism.” This incident is the latest reminder of the racial double standards White Americans live under:
- Blacks are allowed a positive racial identity.
- Blacks are encouraged to nurse racial grievances.
- Blacks are encouraged to have racial pride.
- Blacks are allowed to engage in racial politics.
- Blacks are allowed to advocate racial discrimination.
- Blacks are allowed to deplore miscegenation.
Whites are denied all of these things. We are supposed to pretend that “race doesn’t exist.” We give lip service to the myth that “race doesn’t matter.” It is all PC/MC bullshit.
It’s pretty bizarre. After all, Tigger Woods is already mixed and he’s mostly Asian, not black. He doesn’t identify as black either.
Blacks and other non-whites get to air their grievances even when it’s not legitimate, but whites never can. Whites are socially and politically oppressed, not non-whites.
As noted above. he’s part Asian but Japanese and Chinese people aren’t saying anything.
Hunter, you may be a white nationalist. I’m a “white supremacist.” Everyone knows most Blacks are inferior and that’s why everyone gives them a double standard. I would say a Chinese person who spoke out against tiger would be condemned.
1. I think blacks are upset with him not because he likes white girls, but because he went out of his way not to identify as black. They didn’t have much of a problem seeing OJ as one of their own, even with his preference for blondes.
2. I was also surprised to find out that he’s only 1/4 black. His mix appears to be 50% Asian, 25% black, 12.5% American Indian and 12.5% Aryan. That makes his kids, therefore, 9/16th Aryan octoroons. Black does tend to dominate any mix, I would think, but as long as his kids keep marrying white, they should be able to wash out the black by the next generation. Not sure if he has boys or girls, but I would think if its a boy, he’ll take after daddy, if its a girl, after mommy.
3. Regarding a couple of items on your list, racial identity and racial pride. Yes, its true that politically and in our cultural and education institutions blacks are encouraged to have these things and whites are not. But seriously, there is a serious caveat, a serious elephant in the room, an obvious rejoinder that “pro-White advocates ignore,” namely, that whites as a group have a hell of a lot more to be proud of than blacks, and EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, whether “racist” or “non-racist,” or admit it or not. While I understand and accept many of the points made by people who think that whites are “socially and politically oppressed,” I’ve still NEVER met a single oppressed white person who wishes he or she could trade place with a “privileged” black person. Not a single one.
4. On the other hand, the question of why his wife chose to marry him rather than another Nordic or white is a legitimate one, one that whites are unfairly disallowed from discussing in mainstream society. I believe that one of her parents is involved in providing services for immigrants to Sweden, so she was probably raised on anti-racist ideology from the get-go.
We have to keep an eye on miscegenation trends. To my mind, a lot of the extreme white nationalist arguments that I hear, which I seem to find less and less compelling every day, would become much more worthy of consideration if the miscegenation rate begins to rise out of the single digits.
“Black does tend to dominate any mix, I would think, but as long as his kids keep marrying white, they should be able to wash out the black by the next generation.”
Right, and we northern Europeans will destroy our posterity even faster than Brazil or Mexico did.
One or two generations and we can become ‘mexcrement’ just like the ‘Latinos’ are!
Good advice there buddy.
Who cares about golfers?
In other news, Toni Vantonen has white pride tattoos.
http://mma.fanhouse.com/2009/08/31/mma-fighter-toni-valtonen-has-swastika-white-power-tattoos/
“Black does tend to dominate any mix, I would think, but as long as his kids keep marrying white, they should be able to wash out the black by the next generation.”
–
Blackness NEVER gets “washed out”.
Any nation or people that engage in miscegenate with and attempt to amalgamate their negroes is a nation on the path to suicide.
Of course this is the chief reason that race-mixing is promoted by our anti-White “leadership”.
“On the other hand, the question of why his wife chose to marry him rather than another Nordic or white is a legitimate one, one that whites are unfairly disallowed from discussing in mainstream society. I believe that one of her parents is involved in providing services for immigrants to Sweden, so she was probably raised on anti-racist ideology from the get-go.”
I know this one: money, status, fame, and athletic prowess. I doubt there’s a white woman on the planet who wouldn’t marry Tiger, given the chance. Even after this scandal, I doubt many would say no.
http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/tyc/tyc_toc.html
Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization
By Theodore Bilbo
“Blackness NEVER gets “washed out”.
Any nation or people that engage in miscegenate with and attempt to amalgamate their negroes is a nation on the path to suicide.
Of course this is the chief reason that race-mixing is promoted by our anti-White “leadership”.”
Goddamn right. When a person engages in miscegenation their genotype is lost to our people. Period. And mixing with anyone who has receding forehead kaffir genes ought to be strictly verboten for the good of the planet. Eugenics means less chimpanzoids, not more.
“Blackness NEVER gets ‘washed out’.”
Would you let your daughter marry an Italian?
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/5.html
As I said, I prefer Nordic purity myself. Nothing wrong with letting young people know that interracial relationships are usually more difficult and produce more problematic offspring. In this sense, this Tiger Woods incident might even be a little helpful.
re: post 9
should read “when an Aryan engages in…” not “when a person…”
should read “fewer chimpanzoids” not “less chimpanzoids”
The reason liberal whites give blacks a pass on this sort of thing it because it shows that whites are superior. Crude anti-black statements are considered as classless as making fun of a retarded person. As said above “everyone knows this” and it proves your status by ignoring it, or even better, actively denying it.
It works the same with immigration, only those so low in status as to actually have to compete with or live around immigrants would be worried about immigration. If you are a white macho conservative libertarian type, it’s because you are so amazingly talented you have no fear of competition with immigrants.
Money buys segregation and the only blacks or mestizos in the gated community are doing yard work, so the only possible reason to complain about blacks is because you’re poor.
The stereotype that WNs spend all day telling nigger jokes is far more detrimental to the reputation of the white movement than serious commentary on Jews. In some ways your enemy defines you, who do you choose to fight?
The miscegenation thing is also irrelevant, or would be, without Hollywood trying to make it cool for young white women. All men of all races want white women, but white women 99.99% of the time want want men - unless they’ve been brainwashed by Hollywood.
It ain’t blacks in charge of Hollywood.
Miscegenation isn’t irrelevant without Jews. Ancient India, ancient Egypt, Arab countries and South America weren’t brainwashed by Jews. Germanics and Celtics just have a better innate sense of race and purity. There must be laws against it, just like other aberrant behavior that is harmful to society.
Tiger’s mother has primitive Asian facial features that are similar to Negroids.
It’s amazing to me that any white miscegenator can look at their mixed child and not be offended. Her child looks nothing like her.
http://www.blackcelebkids.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/woodsfamily-small.jpg
Personally I think Elin is on the low scale of Swedish female beauty.
Mark, you’re right, but I really just mean in the USA right now, the broad majority of white women are not all that interested in black men, and only through major Hollywood propaganda is it even an issue.
Women are always interested in status and power, so men with status and power will be attractive to women, of course. Right now, this only affects whites in social elites (like the actresses and athletes) and in whites who live in either broken homes or as a minority in their neighborhood. The tiny percentage of white women with black men are write-offs; without the propaganda they would be irrelevant.
I’d be more concerned with white men with Asian women (white wealth going to Asian children), miscegenation with Jews either way, and perhaps mestizos. For me, I have a hard time caring about blacks, or theoretical future white states, instead I’m just thinking in terms of the current conditions.
I’m sure all those black babies the white actresses are adopting will be dumped just like Paris Hilton dumps her puppies, and as for white women with non-white children, they just become the elite of the non-white tribe they joined.
Tactically, highlighting the less than idea consequences of miscegenation to white women - these obviously non-white children - might be a very good “visual aid” in helping them become racially conscious.
“Would you let your daughter marry an Italian?”
Are you sure an Italian would want marry your daughter?
http://racialreality.110mb.com/refuting_rm.html
I support Italian pride. At least they have the guts to express it. There’s a commercial celebrating Italian-American heritage they’re running now on TV.
“Help NIAF Defend the Image of Italian Americans from MTV, NBC, ABC and more…
In the last week alone, these networks aired programs inaccurately depicting Italian Americans as uneducated buffoons, promiscuous party-goers, vain youth completely lacking self-respect, criminals and members of the mafia. Sadly, these depictions remain socially acceptable, even after members of the media have become sensitive to negative stereotypes of other ethnicities.”
” To my mind, a lot of the extreme white nationalist arguments that I hear, which I seem to find less and less compelling every day, would become much more worthy of consideration if the miscegenation rate begins to rise out of the single digits.”
Whoa where have you been buddy? I work on a University Campus and White Women are betraying their race at about a 1 out of 3 rate there! Marriage statistics are not a good indicator of this type of behavior, as it does not monitor all sexual activity.
Now yes many of these White Women will have abortions (thank God for Racialist Margaret Sanger) but still an immense amount of energy is being mis-directed into these dark, disgusting unions, to speak nothing of the demoralizing that occurs to the poor on-lookers trapped in a Zionist Occupied Government!
“Would you let your daughter marry an Italian?”
Sub-racial differences are clearly not the same as straight away racial differences and Racial Ideologues have noted that some types of mixing are beneficial:
“Evola held that the physical mixture of races, particularly between Aryans and races that were ‘alien’ (i.e., non-Aryan), was always hazardous — but mixture between ‘related’ races might produce hybrid vigor.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola#Race
Personally I am glad Baron Evola had taken this sensible stance as it allows an Alpine like myself (German/ Norwegian) to continue a healthy interest in Mediterranean Women (Alyssa Milano and Marisa Tomei are Goddesses!
)
“Blackness NEVER gets ‘washed out’.”
Would you let your daughter marry an Italian?
__
What a silly red herring there, CA.
Look, I am not a Nordicist, nor do I believe that any particular race or ethny is 100% anything, so strict ‘purity’ is a relative concept.
That being said, this does not mean groups should tolerate widespread miscegenation, especially so with blacks, since history has shown their genes have radically altered the phenotype, and psychology, of whomever they have mixed with.
“Whoa where have you been buddy? I work on a University Campus and White Women are betraying their race at about a 1 out of 3 rate there! Marriage statistics are not a good indicator of this type of behavior, as it does not monitor all sexual activity.”
That’s right, it’s difficult to track casual relationships, but they’re certainly much higher than marriages.
Modern whites like to experiment in their youth, but at least most of them have the sense to settle down with a white partner.
“Would you let your daughter marry an Italian?”
Are you sure an Italian would want marry your daughter?
__
Good one Euro.
You gotta get a kick out of the way *some* Nordicists/north Euros (or just smart alecks in general) like to attack and pick on southern Italians, one of the VERY FEW White groups who, as Mark points out, have a pretty good sense of group/ethnic solidarity AND have ‘the guts to express it’.
I wish more of our north Euro brothers would learn a thing or two from the Pisans (and south Euros in general) instead of (sometimes) dumping on them.
“You gotta get a kick out of the way *some* Nordicists/north Euros (or just smart alecks in general) like to attack and pick on southern Italians, one of the VERY FEW White groups who, as Mark points out, have a pretty good sense of group/ethnic solidarity AND have ‘the guts to express it’.” - Z
Telling the truth about the Southern Italian racial origins is not “attacking” or “picking on” them. I happen to like them by and large, in fact. And their racial instincts are very healthy, good for them. Really. But the fact of the matter is that Southern Italy has received Afro-Asiatic and even sub-Saharan African admixture over time. Documented historically, corroborated by genetics.
“Telling the truth about the Southern Italian racial origins is not “attacking” or “picking on” them. I happen to like them by and large, in fact. And their racial instincts are very healthy, good for them. Really. But the fact of the matter is that Southern Italy has received Afro-Asiatic and even sub-Saharan African admixture over time. Documented historically, corroborated by genetics.”
I definately don’t completely disagree with you there, KP.
It is just often exaggerated the total amount of SS and AA gene flow into southern Italy (and southern Europe in general, with the exception of Portugal).
Remember, of course, that a good deal of this was due to the Empirio Romano (Roman Empire), and, like all empires (including the Judaic-American one) foreign presence is just a fact of life.
After all, Britain, France and Holland were empires, and considerable numbers of negroes were brought into their realm (both in the colonies and in the homelands), with a, fairly, good portion of them ‘disappearing’ into the local gene pools.
So, lets remember to have a sense of proportion when we examine these topics.
CA: “To my mind, a lot of the extreme white nationalist arguments that I hear, which I seem to find less and less compelling every day, would become much more worthy of consideration if the miscegenation rate begins to rise out of the single digits.”
Less compelling?
I’m sure you’ve heard of the “magic” of compound interest. Modest percentages add up big time, over time. The rate of miscegenation today is no different. If it continues, it is more than enough to mongrelize the white population into Brazil North, and it won’t take that long to get there.
Of course such an outcome would only be hastened by your attitude of, essentially, *breed the black out of them.* This is ludicrous on so many levels. Not to mention that it is a game that whites couldn’t win even if we were foolish enough to try, being a tiny minority with largely recessive genes. No, we aren’t going to breed the black out of them. We either preserve ourselves, or they will breed our genes out of existence. It’s pretty much that simple.
Right now we are the white frog being boiled slowly, but our would be murderers are turning up the heat. Will we succumb, or jump? That’s the question. Truth be told, if we jump at this point, then losing those “early adopters” of miscegenation could be seen as a good thing. Who wants an early adopter miscegenator in the gene pool? I certainly don’t. Just detritus, no great loss.
But if allowed to continue, even at the current rate, the definition of “white” will steadily shift toward what is in fact not white at all, and more and more white families will have one or more non-white members. The early adopters will have successfully mainstreamed the slow motion genocide of our people. This will create painful difficulties for us and make our success all the more elusive.
The take home point is simple: we are in a race against time, and our very survival as a people is at stake. Cavalier attitudes and *breed the black* out of them nonsense isn’t going to solve the problem, in fact it will only encourage it.
“…Cavalier attitudes and *breed the black* out of them nonsense isn’t going to solve the problem, in fact it will only encourage it.”
__
As a matter of fact, this was the early twentieth-century Marxist boiler-plate argument to “solve” the “negro problem”, often proposed by “cultural anthropologists” like the Jewish radical Franz Boas.
Interesting that there is no sense of shame or hypocrisy on their part (the Boasians, not necessarily Crypto-Aryan) that what they are advocating and admitting to is negro inferiority.
Imagine a White conservative advocating for such a position???
“As a matter of fact, this was the early twentieth-century Marxist boiler-plate argument to “solve” the “negro problem”, often proposed by “cultural anthropologists” like the Jewish radical Franz Boas.”
The goal of our enemies is to exterminate us, one way or the other. They will use any excuse, no matter how contradictory:
Solve the (inferior) negro problem by miscegenation!
Gain intelligence or other beneficial traits from (superior) non-whites through miscegenation!
You will get hybrid vigor by miscegenation!
You will prove that you are open minded with miscegenation!
You will be adhering to true conservatism through miscegenation!
You will be adhering to true liberalism through miscegenation!
You are patriotic, and non-whites are your fellow Americans, so you should miscegenate!
You hate America and really want to show it what’s what, so miscegenate!
Nothing will really change, so miscegenate!
Everything will change and the world will be a better place, so miscegenate!
I claim to like white nationalists, so miscegenate!
I hate white nationalists, so miscegenate!
And so on and so on ad infinitum and ad nauseum.
It does not matter the question, the answer is always the same with those who are attempting to murder us: miscegenate. Anything they can do to get a white bedded down with a non-white in order to destroy the white’s family line. The non-white is merely a tool, an instrument. The white is the target.
As an addition to the above, I’ll say this: if and when eugenics gets going in a big way, you can bet your bottom dollar that Jews/leftists will say, “Hey, now we can breed intelligent and capable blacks. Surely you’ll want to miscegenate with them now!”
Again, their answer will ALWAYS be for whites to miscegenate. They will always be looking for a reason, any reason. This is why I’m so hestitant to base our claims on intelligence or what not, because these sorts of things are slender reeds (sure, most blacks are as dumb as dirt, but what about those precocious asians? Surely you’ll want to miscegenate with them!).
I want my people preserved simply because they are my people, I don’t need any other reason. I don’t need to rationalize it, I just want to resist the murdering bastards. We must develop an iron clad belief in our right to preserve ourselves, come what may and no matter what. Otherwise the enemy will seek, and inevitably find, his opening.
Most negroes the world over are narcissistic, bottom-feeding losers who wish they were White.
Consider:
*Sosa is symptomatic of global self-hatred *
“The term, “colorstruck,” was injected into mainstream black vernacular by Harlem Renaissance author Zora Neale Hurston, whose 1925 play Color Struck, addressed the idea that black Americans judge each other based on the lightness or darkness of skin color.
“When an African-American refers to someone as being “colorstruck,” it means that the person shows preference for lighter skinned blacks. The preference for lighter hues can be applied to dating relationships, marriage and even preferences for seeking friendship or fellowship. The worst kept secret in black America is the fact that many of our organizations from fraternities and sororities to social clubs and houses of worship are colorstruck. In fact, many families still struggle with issues of skin color and hair texture among themselves.
“Conventional wisdom among African-Americans points to slavery as the root of skin color issues. Many are familiar with the house negro/field negro mentality, as spoken of by Malcolm X, referring to the notion that slave masters allowed lighter skinned slaves to work in the house, while dark skinned slaves toiled in the fields.”
[...]
http://www.examiner.com/x-7361-Houston-Black-Culture–Traditions-Examiner~y2009m11d13-Sosa-is-symptomatic-of-global-selfhatred
We must develop an iron clad belief in our right to preserve ourselves, come what may and no matter what. (Trainspotter)
A “right” granted by whom?
“God”
Ourselves?
“Nature”?
Our enemies?
Do I need to spell out the implications of this question for our bourgeois, crypto-liberal, anti-Nazi “mainstreamers”?
Trainspotter — “Right now we are the white frog being boiled slowly, but our would be murderers are turning up the heat.”
Hard to see how this is an apt analogy. There are more (pure) white people in the world today than there were a hundred years ago, and their miscegenation rate is in single digits.
One legitimate concern I will admit to is that affluent, intelligent whites are breeding below replacement rates. It’s a serious and tough problem. Mass conversion of large numbers of whites to Mormonism would do the trick as well as any. As a more reasonable alternative, however, I agree that instilling racial pride and sense of genetic self-interest in whites would be a most salutary development. As I said, its a tough problem, but I still think it can be solved without waging war against jews and non-whites.
I suppose proportionality is another concern: there may be more whites, but there are a hell of a lot more non-whites as well. Best bet is policies to increase living standards and bring women’s rights and birth control to Africa, South America and Asia. Neocons and libs are right on this, although some of their specific recommendations in this direction (imperialism, shipping jobs to 3rd world) are obviously very destructive practices for white nations to engage in right now.
Chuck U. Farley77 — “(thank God for Racialist Margaret Sanger)”
The pill has probably done more to keep intelligent whites from breeding at replacement levels than anything else.
The wiki entry on the Pill indicates that vast majority of the scientists involved in its development were non-Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#United_States
Certain measures may serve as stopgaps and temporary dikes, but separation and territorial integrity are necessary conditions for racial preservation over the long term. While immigration is the biggest problem at this time, in the long term even low rates of miscegenation will inevitably lead to mongrelization.
” The pill has probably done more to keep intelligent whites from breeding at replacement levels than anything else.”
I wasn’t posting about the pill, but about abortion. Every White Woman who aborts a mischling fetus is doing the work of the Gods! This option must be open to White Women who make the mistake of hooking up with Tyrone.
Also when one takes into account that negroes have an abortion rate 3X that of Whites and mestizos have a rate 2X that of Whites one can see that perhaps hundreds of thousands of White lives have been saved from POTENTIALLY CRIMINAL (colored) fetuses being aborted! That Black Criminal got sucked down a drain instead of being born to murder Whites!
(If you want some statistics to back up these claims just ask, I can provide the links)
NN “A “right” granted by whom?”
Your question seems to assume that a right to fight for one’s preservation is “granted” by someone or something. That it comes to us from above, or below, or whatever. I believe this assumption to be false.
The general rule is that life seeks to preserve itself. I don’t need “grants” in order to seek the survival of myself or my people, just as other living things do not require such grants. When I look around and see other living creatures, they do not appear to wait around and discuss such grants. Instead, they seek to survive and perpetuate themselves.
The struggle for life is eternal. Yet, as a practical matter, humans differ from other living creatures. In the human capacity for reason, there is a damn big downside. A human being can accept ideas that lead to his failure to fight, his failure to preserve himself. That is happening right now to a considerable extent, as whites have accepted a moral and philosphical bill of goods that has largely disarmed them.
Most whites still pursue survival at the micro level, having families and so forth. But the white tribe(s) has been intellectually and morally disarmed, thus encouraging the proliferation of competing tribes. The result is a deteriorating macro racial environment where whites are increasingly harried, birth rates are falling, and sense of purpose is replaced with sense of dread. This, when they are not being assaulted, raped or murdered outright. Wealth is taxed and transferred to competing tribes, jobs are reserved for racial competitors, culture is displaced and distorted. Whites are degraded and demeaned in the popular culture, and in academia. In short, whites are made more and more uncomfortable as the society is less and less geared to them, and more and more geared to their racial competitors.
The conditions for our survival become progressively worse at the macro level, ultimately harming our ability to survive and prosper at the micro level. This process is already well underway. Naturally, our enemies encourage us to ignore the macro and instead focus on the micro: “Don’t be a loser! Don’t blame others for your problems! Maybe go to a Tony Robins seminar!? There is a great self-improvement section at Barnes and Noble.”
Anything to distract whites from the macro battle that, ultimately, swamps the micro and makes it futile. Good luck with “I’m alright, Jack!” in a collapsing culture.
Now, as a matter of strategy and tactics, one might address the issue of rights “granted.” Some have concluded that a new religion is required in order to instill in whites their “duty” to preserve themselves. There have been experiments in this direction, most famously with Creativity. Others seek to spread the knowledge of genetic interests, and hope to convince people that way. Others seek to take Christianity itself back, for example with Christian Identity. Those are just a few of many possible strategies. Which is best, from a purely practical point of view? Well, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it?
I do not presume to answer that question here. Instead, I make a far more modest point, but one that I think is important: our right to survive should not be contingent on slender reeds such as IQ. There are, obviously, intelligent non-whites. If IQ is all that matters, why not miscegenate with them?
Instead, our position should be much more basic, elemental and unassailable. Primitive, really. We seek to survive, and those who oppose our survival are murderers. Those who facilitate our survival are our friends. That’s it.
As I see it, that’s the goal. That’s the mental/emotional state we want and need. The much more difficult question of how to get there, and discussions of rights “granted,” is purely a matter of tactics and strategy.
That’s right, it’s difficult to track casual relationships, but they’re certainly much higher than marriages.
Modern whites like to experiment in their youth, but at least most of them have the sense to settle down with a white partner.
Actually, if you look at Inductivist’s blog he shows through social survey data that the rate tracks the interracial marriage rate pretty closely.
Svigor,
You wrote: “Actually, if you look at Inductivist’s blog he shows through social survey data that the rate tracks the interracial marriage rate pretty closely.”
I would appreciate it if you could provide a link to the post that you are referring to. I’m really skeptical of what you say.
It’s nothing new, really. Apparently, Tiger falls well short of the Dipper’s claim to fame. The difference is, the Dipper was never expected to act white.
The Brown Bomber was also well known for his relationships with white women (Sonja Henning and Lana Turner), but Cassius Clay, apparently didn’t do white.
Your question seems to assume that a right to fight for one’s preservation is “granted” by someone or something. That it comes to us from above, or below, or whatever. I believe this assumption to be false.
Then you would wish to use a term other than “right” (a term that implies a material entity responsible for granting/enforcing such, or is misused toward suggesting the existence of some sort of “karmic” transcendent moral dimension and agency that sees to the imaginary ultimate administration of the same effects, for the comfort and motivation of morons.)
That is, unless the latter imposture is indeed what you intend to perpetuate, as do those who speak foolishly of “human rights”.
Now, as a matter of strategy and tactics, one might address the issue of rights “granted.” Some have concluded that a new religion is required in order to instill in whites their “duty” to preserve themselves…. Those are just a few of many possible strategies. Which is best, from a purely practical point of view? Well, that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it?
I do not presume to answer that question here.
Fair enough - but you have changed the question to one of “duty” rather than of “rights” - and without having properly dealt with what is implied by the latter term as you continue to employ it. The notion of “right” has force only by virtue of the implicit belief in a grant by an agency, material or metaphysical, with which an opponent must deal in terms of consequences, and by which prospect he is weakened or disarmed, and you, contrariwise, strengthened and fortified with righteousness. Otherwise, the notion is just so much verbal vapor. If you say that one needs no such grant in order to fight for one’s existence, you merely confuse the issue and contradict yourself, by suggesting, implicitly, as above, that “Nature” grants you your right to fight, as you declare, in the same breath, that you need no such grant.
Instead, I make a far more modest point, but one that I think is important: our right to survive should not be contingent on slender reeds such as IQ. There are, obviously, intelligent non-whites. If IQ is all that matters, why not miscegenate with them?
Google: “regression to the mean” and “IQ”. And, yes, survival should not be so contingent. And I again point to the unfortunate use of the term in question.
Instead, our position should be much more basic, elemental and unassailable. Primitive, really. We seek to survive, and those who oppose our survival are murderers. Those who facilitate our survival are our friends. That’s it.
And there’s that unfortunate phrase, again, with which you embarrass yourself by dogmatizing simplistic formulations.
Why are those who “oppose our survival” designated by you as “murderers” rather than merely as “killers”? Because, of course, you wish to sneak in a moral/ethical/legal dimension to your formula, for the sake of sloganeering and propagandistic/hortatory impact, without considering, for your reader in this venue, whether this departure from an accurate formulation is appropriate. And then you seal your dogma ex cathedra as usual.
I will grant you, however, that the more accurate formulation - “might makes right” - does lack the requisite motivational impact you are seeking for those that are presently might-less.
“Then you would wish to use a term other than “right””
Your lack of reading comprehension, semantic quibbles and other assorted hangups are your problem, not mine. I’ll use the terms that I determine most effectively convey my meaning. Your failure to comprehend my meaning is not something that I care to rectify.
“Fair enough - but you have changed the question to one of “duty” rather than of “rights” - and without having properly dealt with what is implied by the latter term as you continue to employ it.”
No, I didn’t change the question. I was discussing a variety of issues, some discrete and some related. You are misrepresenting, as usual.
“Otherwise, the notion is just so much verbal vapor. If you say that one needs no such grant in order to fight for one’s existence, you merely confuse the issue and contradict yourself, by suggesting, implicitly, as above, that “Nature” grants you your right to fight, as you declare, in the same breath, that you need no such grant.”
I explained this in the post above. Your poor reading comprehension is not my problem. Your misrepresentation and trolling, on the other hand, is a problem.
“I will grant you, however, that the more accurate formulation - “might makes right” - does lack the requisite motivational impact you are seeking for those that are presently might-less.”
You reveal with your sophomoric objections that you understand nothing of what I wrote. For you, it’s just more costume clowning, more trolling.
Go away, troll.
I suppose that the ranks will always need to believe that the entrails are propitious or that Gott mit uns.
“I suppose that the ranks will always need to believe that the entrails are propitious or that Gott mit uns.”
I addressed this very point in my earlier post. Naturally, you attempt to appropriate the notion for yourself. Here’s a hint: none of your sophomoric objections are original. I’m sure that most if not all of the posters here have heard them many times…from sophomore year on. So drop the “Woe is poor little me, these benighted beings just don’t get it.”
It’s boring to hear it again, and annoying when a sophomoric wannabe/costume clown puts it forth as if he is playing light unto the poor benighted masses, when the truth is anything but.
Again, go away troll. You and Mark certainly can stink up a joint. Another thread down the shitter, but then again, that was the purpose all along, eh?
“Cassius Clay, apparently didn’t do white.”
There is an old article from Attack!, available in the book The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard, in which Pierce heaps praise on Ali for his anti-miscegenation stance. Respects him enough to call him Ali, rather than Clay.
“Otherwise, the notion is just so much verbal vapor. If you say that one needs no such grant in order to fight for one’s existence, you merely confuse the issue and contradict yourself, by suggesting, implicitly, as above, that “Nature” grants you your right to fight, as you declare, in the same breath, that you need no such grant.”
I explained this in the post above. Your poor reading comprehension is not my problem. Your misrepresentation and trolling, on the other hand, is a problem.
Your “explanation,” again, merely involved modification of the concept/terminology to be employed - as I suggested - but without recognition or cessation of the earlier impropriety. In this instance, you switched to reference to “a moral and philosophical bill of goods” which is perfectly in order as to the general case, but is unresponsive as to the point, without reference and explanation as to “rights” therein.
The overall problem is that when you use the term “rights” as you do, and in a quite conventional fashion such as I well understand, you are engaged in form of self-deception and misrepresentation that is inadvisable where the claim of the White-wing is as to strict adherence to the truth and a realistic conceptualization of reality (at least amongst ourselves). You have this unpleasant habit of violating that implicit compact with dogmatic distortions that complement your characteristically thoughtless aspersions.
“I suppose that the ranks will always need to believe that the entrails are propitious or that Gott mit uns.”
I addressed this very point in my earlier post. Naturally, you attempt to appropriate the notion for yourself.
To the contrary, I was granting you a point.
Here’s a hint: none of your sophomoric objections are original. I’m sure that most if not all of the posters here have heard them many times…from sophomore year on. So drop the “Woe is poor little me, these benighted beings just don’t get it.”
And yet you address this company in terms that should thus have been discarded long ago while displaying a blithe and shameless innocence as to the impropriety involved.
But correct my misimpression by agreeing with what you allege are my merely repetitive qualifications of your usage. [You have this interesting evasion technique whereby you seemingly contradict a proposition by fraudulently switching its claim of substance to one of mere originality. And here's a hint: the "hinting" is another embarrassing, low-brow device.]
NN, I addressed this in the post above. Anticipating your sophomoric objections (which amusingly you think of as original, though we’ve heard them all before), I explicitly renounced the baggage about rights that you keep harping on. That, in fact, was one of the major themes of the post. I knew exactly where your sophomoric/trollish mind was headed and, sure enough, you didn’t disappoint. You’re still at it, now misrepresenting my position, since I didn’t play along with your childish script.
I made my position abundantly clear to the point where someone with reasonable reading comprehension and/or honesty would be able to understand it. Which of these do you lack?
Go away, troll.
Let’s keep this thread civil.
I explicitly renounced the baggage about rights that you keep harping on
uh… no - you didn’t - not even implicitly [recall your improper use of "murderers," at the last of your remarks]. But I’ll take this as a grudging and formally dishonest concession of my point in substance [regarding which, of course, I made no claims as to originality].
Certain measures may serve as stopgaps and temporary dikes, but separation and territorial integrity are necessary conditions for racial preservation over the long term.
I’m not sure about this. The Jew has neither. Superiority and dominance are all that is required. Hell, group consciousness is enough.
Desmond,where are those quotes from?Have you got a link?
Sorry, it was race/history/evolution notes blog, not Inductivist:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-data-on-racial-mixing.html
The percent of white females in this sample who report any black sex partner, by hair color:
Black 8.2%
Brown 5.0%
Blond 3.9%
Red 3.9%
So, I suppose it depends on which white women we’re talking about, since the black-white intermarriage rate is around 3.5% IIRC.
More:
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/miscegenation.html
http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html
Daniel’s right, culture is sufficient to ensure racial preservation. In fact, in some ways it’s superior to separation and territory. The latter, without the former, can lead to racial decadence, or if you prefer, racial naivete. It’s racial naivete that’s gotten us into this mess. I.e., if I had to choose between a racially aware white race living in multiracial societies, and a racially naive white race living in homogeneous societies, I’d choose the former.
Ok, off topic but relevant to this site I feel, particularly from a UK perspective, and in response to an earlier post:
In the UK in 2004 approximately 200,000 human fetal abortions were carried out.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369
an interesting graph…. births rose to 3 per family in the 60’s until the advent of the contraceptive pill and the abortion act of 1967 when births dropped to a low of 1.65 in 1977.
‘The overwhelming majority of abortions (95% in 2004 for England and Wales) were certified under the statutory ground of risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the pregant woman’.
If we believe the excuses made up by the abortionists to justify such figures and each termination, if it was not for their good work we would have approximately 190,000 women each year either physically or mentally scarred just by having a child! How ridiculous! And when you check out the stats for 2008, ‘live’ births - at a total of 710,000 would indicate that somewhere in the region of 20% (less as you have to consider immigration since 2004) of all ‘live children’ are ‘terminated’ due to these unfit mothers.
It is not the threat of immigrants taking control of birth rates in the UK which is the issue …. it seems white men are very capable of producing babies.. but the ease of which young, white, vulnerable women are able to kill the very things that they were born to produce all in the name of being… a decent responsible woman.
Have a look at some of the stats…. scary
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4117574.pdf
If anything, it is worse when white men do it (see the post linked to above).
(from a comment I linked to, in a previous post that’s awaiting moderation)
I have to disagree with that. If anything, it’s worse when white women do it. Women are the cradle of a race, not men. Women have strict limits on lifetime fertility, not men. Largely theoretical, since modern white men rarely exceed a woman’s limits on fertility, but he did say “if anything.”
I have to disagree with that. If anything, it’s worse when white women do it. Women are the cradle of a race, not men.
Not to mention there is more genetic drift on the Y chromosome and, women tend to bring their little half-niglets into the broader white culture after daddy bounces and stick em with us.
Hunter: “Let’s keep this thread civil.”
Agreed, but when a liar like NN is involved, civility only benefits the troll/liar. This guy trashes thread after thread, to the detriment of newbies and interested readers. I kept my first response to him devoid of any insult whatsoever, a civil status quo that he quickly remedied with lies, insult and misrepresentation. It’s certainly true that my patience was exhausted more quickly due to his behavior on other threads, so I could see early on what he was up to. What follows is yet another lie/misrepresentation:
NN: “uh… no - you didn’t - not even implicitly [recall your improper use of "murderers," at the last of your remarks]. But I’ll take this as a grudging and formally dishonest concession of my point in substance [regarding which, of course, I made no claims as to originality].”
LOL! I did no such thing, and in no way concede your “point.” Might makes right - wow, that’s great, NN. Powerful stuff, thanks for sharing. Here is the problem: might makes right can justify Johnny taking Timmy’s lunch money, merely because he is stronger than Timmy. I’m not justifying that at all. I speak of something entirely different. Because you are a cretin, you are incapable of making the relevant distinctions. And your claim that I used the term murderers “incorrectly” is simply absurd. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel in Trollville, aren’t we?
It’s not important that you understand, I couldn’t care less. However, you are not entitled to lie about and misrepresent my position without being called on it, and to have what you really are pointed out. That I do care about.
“The reason liberal whites give blacks a pass on this sort of thing it because it shows that whites are superior. Crude anti-black statements are considered as classless as making fun of a retarded person. As said above “everyone knows this” and it proves your status by ignoring it, or even better, actively denying it.
It works the same with immigration, only those so low in status as to actually have to compete with or live around immigrants would be worried about immigration. If you are a white macho conservative libertarian type, it’s because you are so amazingly talented you have no fear of competition with immigrants.
Money buys segregation and the only blacks or mestizos in the gated community are doing yard work, so the only possible reason to complain about blacks is because you’re poor.”
Very lucid analysis,Parler.
Parler, I think your analysis is sound, as far as it goes. The status yearnings of whites have been discussed by many, including Sailer and Yggdrasil. It has also been parodied by some, as in Stuff White People Like.
But this particular brand of status yearning is woefully short sighted. The demographic changes are now affecting public policy in a big way, something the status yearners always denied would happen. The demographic shift is also grinding under it many of our formerly cherished institutions, from public schools (that the rich can buy out of) to health care (which even most of the status yearners can’t buy out of, excepting the truly well to do. Status yearners, for the most part, go to the same hospitals as everybody else. This might be less true in New York City or similar environs, but in most of the country it seems to be the case).
As I understand it, McCain would have won the presidency if America had the same demographic balance in 2008 that it had in 1992 - if you hold everything else equal. Now, there might not be many differences between the two major parties, but there are some. Somehow, I don’t believe the status yearners quite counted on the demographic change altering the occupant of the White House, not to mention numerous other important offices…but it has. At the end of the day, the status yearners didn’t believe that immigration could effect them personally. They were wrong, and we’re just getting started. The party has barely begun, as only the first round of drinks has been served.
For the liberal status yearners, they at least have the benefit that the demographic changes are pulling the country in their prefered direction. But for the “macho libertarian?” LOL! What a maroon! The demographic trends push the nation further and further away from the libertarian’s stated political objectives, but macho boy still can’t figure it out. The liberals laugh at these clowns, and rightfully so. We should too. They should be treated as mangy dogs to be kicked around.
Point is, the status yearners are, fundamentally, short sighted jackasses. This is ironic, because such types love to look down on the lower orders…as being short sighted jackasses. I suspect the delicous irony here is lost upon them, as the typical status yearner is not nearly so bright or learned as he may imagine himself. His talent for making money may far exceed his talent at understanding the big picture.
Furthermore, the status yearnings of the modern day jackass can’t explain why elites in other times and places resisted immigration so vociferously. What changed? It doesn’t occur to him to ask this question. Apparently, the status yearning jackass is as ignorant of the past as he is short sighted about the future.
For my own version of “status yearning”…it should be affect and not effect. lol
The hypocrisy and double standards on race by the mainstream media is evident in a case like this. Black women blame white women for “stealing” their men. Successful black men are portrayed as innocent and unwitting victims being set upon by opportunistic white women. Blacks are using this incident to air their racial grievances and the media is willingly obliging them.
If whites want to talk about the lack of taste and racial loyalty of white women who cavort with Tiger Woods or other black men then we’re racist ignoramuses who should sit down, shut up and know our place in Barack’s new America.
Lots of interesting conversations occurring lately on the blog “The Thinking Housewife” - http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/
Here is a good recent comment from over there:
Related to my last comment, also check out “The Feminization of Race” on that website - http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/12/the-feminization-of-race/
Not to spam this thread, but the recent comments and threads on this blog are well worth reading; for instance, read the comments in the post “The Golfer’s Wife” - http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/12/the-golfers-wife/ - “In the entry on Mrs. Tiger Woods, M., a male reader, states that he is indifferent to the personal sufferings of the famous golfer’s wife. Her choice of a husband was a form of betrayal that angers him “on a very deep, existential level.” The reader’s comment illustrates something that many white women refuse to acknowledge: Miscegenation offends white men at the core of their being.”
On that comment thread an all-too-common ‘Christian perspective’ is expressed by Rita:
WP,
Why are SO MANY NW Euro women such proverbial dipsh-ts on any social issue that has even a whiff of controversy to it,
AND…
requires a modicum of courage to recognize and attempt to understand and deal with it???
Would appreciate your feedback.
“I’m not sure about this. The Jew has neither. Superiority and dominance are all that is required. Hell, group consciousness is enough.” - Danielj
I agree with you completely here. MacDonald would have us believe that the Jew has become what he is today by consciously directing his evolution throughout history. If that is the case, why should it be impossible for us if the Jews themselves were capable of it? Whites are now a diaspora people, we might as well begin acting accordingly. One flaw in the gringos is their general tendency not to stick together but who says we cannot remedy that by ourselves, eh? Has it ever been tried? No. We don’t do ourselves any damage by attempting it.
White Preservationist,
I find that blog fascinating. Thanks for pointing it out.
I don’t take “pollution” to mean racial impurity, I believe it means polluted from sin.
A deliberate misreading, or at least, willfully ignorant reception thereof.
Yahweh doesn’t say “kill the sinning Amaleks,” he says “kill the Amaleks.” It’s possible he meant that all the Amaleks were wicked, but that means the distinction between Amalek and “wicked” is gone, and we’re back to racial judgement.
MacDonald would have us believe that the Jew has become what he is today by consciously directing his evolution throughout history.
Quote?
If that is the case, why should it be impossible for us if the Jews themselves were capable of it? Whites are now a diaspora people, we might as well begin acting accordingly. One flaw in the gringos is their general tendency not to stick together but who says we cannot remedy that by ourselves, eh? Has it ever been tried? No. We don’t do ourselves any damage by attempting it.
This I agree with. It’s always been my position that we should be working toward this as our worst-case fall back plan, regardless of whatever else we’re doing. Jews were created by a specific environment, an environment that is being replicated on a global level.
Whoops, took Rita’s comment out of context, obviously.
Re:#62 Commenter ‘Z’ — I believe that organized Jewry has been consciously and deliberately targeting White women because women (of all races) are by and large more gullible and open to be influenced by degenerate Jewish ideas, ideas which they become enamored with and then attempt to pass on to White men; organized Jewry uses their controlled mass-media (TV, Hollywood movies, magazines, etc), Marxist university environments, and so on to influence or even ‘brainwash’ White women as an attempt to weaken and ultimately subvert White racial cohesion and ideals; I recently wrote a blurb on this topic on my blog:
Notice how many White women these days are TV-addicts, shopaholics, regular moviegoers, far-leftist feminists after returning from their Marxist colleges, pro race-mixing, pro-homosexual, pro-immigration, and so on? This isn’t a coincidence — organized Jewry is undermining White women in order to easier subvert White men through them. As an old Cheyenne saying goes: “A nation is never defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground.”
+ White Kinism, White Cooperationism, White Collectivism, White Nationalism: the next steps in White racial evolution - http://whitesurvival.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/im-still-around-plus-a-list-of-future-topics-i-will-hopefully-write-about-here/
Greeting All!,
I wil toss in a few comments on that blog - but I can guarantee you all the Rita has NEVER EVER EVER had ot deal with living AS a White woman, in a Non-White majority.
“It is just often exaggerated the total amount of SS and AA gene flow into southern Italy (and southern Europe in general, with the exception of Portugal).” - Z
Why don’t you historians and stats experts pass along some verifiable data for the rest of us to analyze before you make finite conclusions. The Iberian nations suffered Moorish invasion that altered some of the racial mix in Spain and only a tad of southern Portugal. Black immigration to Portugal was kept pretty low in most of Portugal. The problem is that the native Celtic/Portuguese population still remains small because it’s a tiny country that was heavily degraded by catholic universalism and a poor ability to shift from an agrarian to industrial economy. Some of you confuse poverty with racial type. The home of the great Celt Viriathus from Central to Northern Portugal is entirely populated with a white stock and the only image of blacks is what is seen on american television channels…
As for pure nordics, you were easily conquered by the romans and I really can’t think of any significant empires built by your kind. The greatest european empires remain those built by mediterranean and medo/alpine racial profiles. Most of the nordic and anglo-saxon immigrants to america are still misfits who could not conquer europe and have now been conquered by jews and mongrels. As far as I can tell the nordic race is way too weak to survive. It saddens me, but it’s true…..
Norther Europe was never part of the Roman Empire, unless you mean England.
“northern”
The British and American empires dwarf their Mediterranean counterparts.
JoeG:”As for pure nordics, you were easily conquered by the romans…”
Nah man, go back and learn the history — the Romans never managed to conquer Germanic and/or Nordic Northern, Central, or Eastern Europe; see the map of the greatest extent of the Roman Empire - http://armenian-history.com/Nyuter/HISTORY/ArmeniaBC/Roman_Empire_map.png
The Germanic tribes of Central Europe, tribes who were primarily (but not totally) Nordic, actually played a main part in bringing down the Roman Empire, especially raids by Germanics and Nordics from the foggy sylvan north and central areas of Europe, regions which proved impossible for the Romans to ever conquer or even subdue; an excerpt from Cochran & Harpending’s book THE 10,000 YEAR EXPLOSION: from Chapter 5 “Gene Flow,” section of that chapter ‘Blue Eyes’ —
Thus the spread of blue, green, and gray eyes from the area surrounding the Baltic Sea all across Europe, to North Africa, and even as far east as modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
“As for pure nordics, you were easily conquered by the romans and I really can’t think of any significant empires built by your kind. The greatest european empires remain those built by mediterranean and medo/alpine racial profiles. Most of the nordic and anglo-saxon immigrants to america are still misfits who could not conquer europe and have now been conquered by jews and mongrels. As far as I can tell the nordic race is way too weak to survive. It saddens me, but it’s true…..”
__
Joe,
Yeah, I think most of the guys here are right regarding the history of the northern Europeans, particularly the Germanic peoples and their offshoots, like the ‘Angel-Sachsiche’ — Anglo-Saxons.
Tell ya the truth, for full disclosure, I myself am a WOP, but I have absolute love and respect for my northern European brothers, cause they are good men who created beautiful, orderly civilizations that makes me proud of being an American (aside from the current generation of Judeo-Bolshevik ugliness that has desecrated this magnificent country).
But we as White men will recover, and I am honored to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these fine, to put it into blogger Old Atlantic’s termonology, ‘Founding Stock Americans’ (FSA’s).
I was all over this great country Joe, and served in the Army with these guys, and they are in so many ways the ’salt of the earth’, particularly the Southern guys.
They deserve our respect.
Glad to have you aboard here Joe! Benvenuto!
The Northwestern European countries have contributed more to Western Civilization than the rest of Europe. And as HW said, the British and American empires dwarf Ancient Greece and Rome. Moreover, the patricians, who were the ruling class in Rome, were Nordic:
http://www.white-history.com/refuting_rm/9.html
Here’s the quote about the Roman patricians straight from Carleton Coon’s classic work The Races of Europe:
“[T]he movements from the north introduced Nordics of two varieties; the classic Hallstatt type, and the Keltic Iron Age type which was later to form the basic racial element among the Roman patricians. Further invasions from the north, of Kelts and of Germans, had only local influence.”
http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/12-07.htm
Carleton Coon was one of the greatest anthropologists of the 20th century.
You can read The Races of Europe online here:
http://carnby.altervista.org/
But the fact of the matter is that Southern Italy has received Afro-Asiatic and even sub-Saharan African admixture over time. Documented historically, corroborated by genetics.
Eh, this is a bit misleading. I feel lame doing a disembodied match-up with this thing, but let’s go back to the distribution map:
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
It’s obvious there’s plenty of J and E3b, the Arab and Berber genes, going around Italy. We see western, central, southern Africa dominated by ExE3b; close enough, but neither is really “sub-Saharan”. “Afro-Asiatic” is grandfathered in from old school racialism. “African” would be just fine, or to preserve what I assume you mean by “Asiatic”, à la Leese, go with Hamito-Semitic, what the hell.
Of course it’s fine to point this stuff out, but it’s as much obfuscation to put these people down, Italians or Maghrebis, as partial “sub-Saharans”, i.e. niggers. That said, I feel like a white nigger in any case.
Remember, of course, that a good deal of this was due to the Empirio Romano (Roman Empire),
The Iberian nations suffered Moorish invasion that altered some of the racial mix in Spain and only a tad of southern Portugal.
And that’s how the leopard got his spots.
“The Germanic tribes of Central Europe, tribes who were primarily (but not totally) Nordic, actually played a main part in bringing down the Roman Empire, “ - WP
It is worth noting that what was called the Roman Empire by the 5th cent. was Roman in name only. It had been overrun by migrant Levantines and Hamito-Semites (to please Uh) by the 3rd cent. who turned it into a plutocratic oligarchy, by those days the Imperial dynasty was Syrian and a large segment of Rome’s Senate was drawn from North Africa and the Levant. Ultimately the Aryan Romans had been too inclusive in their social policies (and didn’t have enough children) during the later empire, one of the reasons for their downfall to be sure. To blame Germanic tribes for “destroying” it is not accurate, by those days it was a rotting carcass anyway.
Hunter: “Let’s keep this thread civil.”
Agreed, but when a liar like NN is involved, civility only benefits the troll/liar. This guy trashes thread after thread, to the detriment of newbies and interested readers. I kept my first response to him devoid of any insult whatsoever, a civil status quo that he quickly remedied with lies, insult and misrepresentation. It’s certainly true that my patience was exhausted more quickly due to his behavior on other threads, so I could see early on what he was up to. What follows is yet another lie/misrepresentation: …
It is now evident that there are serious problems with the exercise of intellect and the maintenance of composure in Trainspotter’s responses, to which there seems to be no palliative. Since correction of Trainspotter simply evokes progressively more intemperate and radical inversions or conversions or self-contradiction of and in the cases involved, I will not bother further with his instruction.
I have judged his correction important in view of his dogmatic and mistaken formulation of objectives and perspectives regarding which he preempts objection (”that’s it,” in multiple instances). Thus he betrays what appears to be a mini-fuhrer complex mixed with more mundane difficulties, if I am permitted a small portion of the license in ad hominem that he has already appropriated to himself, above.
If others in the venue would like to defend or amend his remarks, I would be pleased to pursue the issue. Otherwise, I will regard the gallery as satisfied with my own. One never quite knows the status of Trainspotter’s lesson-learning, given his habit of eventually conceding the point and then denying having done so.
So, as to the point at issue, I reproduce a brief exchange from “superhuman”:
[Mark I.:]
Sometimes I think the bulk of pro-whites are not different from the “liberte, egalite, fraternite” crowd.
[NN:]
Thus the journalistic cultivation of reaction to the “unfairness” of it all in whites who have “rights” merely reinforces the (unrealistic) shared liberal premises of any such implicit controversy. Just as “denying” the Holocaust, in an attempt directed at denying victim status to international Jewry, implicitly concedes the victimological argument that “victims” have (nonsensical) transcendent moral claims on all others. The result: more proto-anarchistic liberal fatuity endorsed and the maintenance of the present general ideological regime.
[...] Contrast with the media’s regard for Whites holding comparable views on race-mixing. Via Occidental Dissent. [...]