The Foremost Problem created a post, “The 25 Most Important Pro-White Organizations”. I’m not going to be so bold as to rank the sites by importance, but I do think it would be fun and potentially helpful to list my ten favorite pro-White sites.
Life’s just not that simple. Like it or not, the best and most determined journalist out on the front lines of drawing attention to Whites being victimized by multicult madness is a Jew. While the goyim are content to reshuffle and repackage existing information and ideas, Stix is out there doing original research. He does the difficult and boring work that goes into sharing these powerful stories of people who’ve been repeatedly victimized by their aggressors, then victimized again by the media and government scumbags who try to ignore inconvenient tragedies.
James Edwards is nearly as eloquent, principled, and passionate about defending his people as he is handsome. He plays up his Southern humility and deference as much as he can, but he knows in the back of his mind that he’s our best hope for making a successful seque into mainstream politics. His radio show features nearly every noteworthy White Advocate. His blog offers a nice balance of good reporting and clever commentary.
It’s easy, especially for a geek, to lose touch with the spiritual dimension of our struggle. This Christian Kinist reminds me that we’ve lost far more than just our physical safety and our ability to speak fluent English with the new neighbors. We’ve lost our honor. We’ve lost our heritage. We’ve lost the spiritual core that once bloomed in White Christian Europe.
7. VDare
VDare’s status as a pro-White site is arguable. It features posters who aren’t even White, posters who would like for you to die in the desert for Israel, and posters who actually think that Irish illegal immigration is a serious concern. It doesn’t allow comments and it looks like it was designed by a shaky old man using HTML in Notepad on a 486DX machine running Netscape Navigator on an AOL account during the Clinton Administration. But despite all these sins, it’s among the best pro-White sites out there. It directly engages the daily news beat. It features Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. It’s also the place to go for Steve Sailer, who would be pro-White if it weren’t for his suffering some kind of autistic disorder.
6. TakiMag
Damn you, CaptainChaos! 🙂
I’m a former moderator from here…and yes, I probably deleted your anti-Semitic tirade. It doesn’t belong there. Jared Taylor could have had all the respect in the world but he chose honor, instead. He’s a soft-spoken Ivy League polymath with a nuanced perspective on race and identity who isn’t the least bit nuanced about the primary objective: White Advocacy. The site design is stale and the comments are a bit stifled relative to other forums, but Jared and his organization have awakened countless Americans (including myself) to the importance of preserving our precious racial heritage.
We’ve all ranted to each other about how we need to pioneer and master new media technologies to reach a wider audience. But VOR has actually done it. Their growing list of intelligent and amusing Internet radio shows are attracting new audiences and keeping the rest of entertained. If I were a betting man, I would bet that this site will become the hub of White Advocacy within the next five years.
3. The Occidental Observer / TOQ Online
This collective of pro-White scholars is managed by Professor Kevin MacDonald, but it’s led by the acerbic and imaginative Alex Kurtagic. Tom Sunic, Lasha Darkmoon, Merlin Miller, Kevin Lamb, and other luminaries regularly churn out brilliant essays on the big questions, the big issues, and the big problems. There’s so much overlap in name, style, and quality between TOO and TOQ that they’re both tied for third place, with TOQ offering a lot of great original content in addition to aggregating the best of the pro-White web.
This site offers a weekly skewering of our sorry state of affairs from a Christian Kinist’s perspective. As a web professional, I admire how he has adapted his prose to the medium rather than pretending he’s writing a newspaper article. He’s punchy, direct, often hilarious, and loaded with relevant links, images, and videos. He offers a welcome alternative to the repackaged humanism of contemporary Christian “leaders” and defends White America with the same honor and vigor that Christians once defended Europe.
The martial arts traditions began as collections of self-defense techniques but often devolved into something more like synchronized swimming. It’s the nature of humans to settle into increasingly rigid patterns of behavior, which is what makes Mixed Martial Arts so fun to watch. You can watch the traditions compete with hardly any rules and enjoy the creative energy that goes into fusing the differing styles into systems which are superior to their forebears.
OD is the MMA of White Advocacy, a valuable intersection where respectability and radicalism collide in an open forum. Atheists, neo-pagans, Christian Identity adherents, Kinists, Mormons, and even Jews are included in the fray. Obnoxious philo-Semites and monomaniacal anti-Semites get to the very heart of the Jewish Question while other posters offer targeted activist projects that the visitors to the site can actually use on the street.
The net result is an emergent synthesis of the best ideas, making it a dangerous place for arrogant anti-White activists to peddle their tired shtick. While we’re never going to agree on everything, the wide-open nature of this place makes it my favorite pro-White site.
“Didn’t you mention once that you’re half-Asian?”
I have already been over this several times. I am not half-Asian. That is a vile lie that was spread by an individual posting under my username.
Kulaks,
Yes, I used to be an anti-Semite. The Jewish question is one of the few issues on which I have ever changed my mind. The exact course of my ideological evolution is a subject for another discussion.
White Preservationist,
Show me the evidence that each of the individuals you listed as Jewish is actually Jewish.
Oh wait, you are using a *blog* as a source – LOL. And the blog entry itself is completey unsourced. Never mind.
I would also point out that this idea that “European Nationalists,” a collection of many different people and groups, have “rejected anti-Semitism,” is nonsense. Some European nationalists are still as openly “anti-Semitic” as the laws in their countries allow. Some can not say what they really think because criticizing Jews is punishable by large fines and/or prison sentences in their countries. Some have made a tactical decision to not mention or take establishment approved public positions on Jews while privately still being “Anti-Semitic” for electoral reasons. Some really have views on Jews that would be acceptable to the philo-Semites here. Finally, some of the supposedly not “anti-Semitic” nationalists in Europe are ideologically like the American Republicans, ie they are not really part of the same movement as the others. — ATBOTL
—
Yes, ‘Yosemote’ thinks so as well –
19 Yosemote on 30 Jun 2009 at 8:48 am
“It’s called Realpolitik. White racialism combined with anti-Semitism has no buyers in Europe or elsewhere. Not after W.W. II. ”
—
“Their motivation is irrelevant: my point is that the philosemitic strategy is working to some extent. Americans white nationalists don’t adopt it, the European nationalists do. Jobling adopts this approach, but he doesn’t create political parties or even does much to popularize his website. Personally I think the truth about the Jews and the Holocaust should be made known at all costs, regardless of the negative publicity it will generate, because truth is a good thing and will be of benefit to mankind. It doesn’t matter if we become further marginalized in the short-term: in the long term, truth will eventually emerge and we will come out on top.
“There is no place for crypto-Semites like Nick Griffin, the Vlaams Belang, Geert Wilders, the Danish Freedom Party, the Northern League of Italy, etc., etc. — such people only serve to divert our attention from the real problem, which is Jewish infiltration into gentile society.”
—
20 Yosemote on 30 Jun 2009 at 8:51 am
“There is a difference between avoiding talk of Jews in propaganda aimed at the masses and adopting a Jew neutral ideological understanding.”
–
“The European nationalists are most emphatically NOT neutral. They are explicitly pro-Jewish. Griffin has said that the Holohoax happened and six million Jews were “murdered” by the Nazis (a laughable statistic). He says that Jewish members are “welcome to stay” and the BNP even has Jewish councillors. He has said positive things about Israel.
“The European nationalists on the continent are even more fanatically pro-Jewish — take, for instance, Geert Wilders, or the Vlaams Belang.
“These people, by welcoming the Jew, deserve to be tried and shot for treason.”
—
30 Yosemote on 01 Jul 2009 at 12:35 am
“Griffin wrote a document entitled “Who Are The Mindbenders.””
–
“He also repudiated that very document, and has said ever since that (1) six million kikes were “murdered” by the Nazis in the Holocaust, (2) Jews are welcome in the BNP, (3) he has a positive assessment of Israel, (4) Jews are not the enemy, but Moslems.
“The truth is that the Holocaust is a hoax, Jews should be EXPELLED not only from the BNP but also from all other political parties and the nation at large, that Israel is an evil apartheid state that oppresses the Palestinians, and that Moslems are our friends and and allies in the struggle against organised Jewry. We are at a time when we should be uniting with the Moslem people, not shunning them.”
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/06/29/guy-white-moderate/#comment-13805
The Germans had moral awareness, yet killed millions of innocent people anyway. … — Who else? 🙁
*
You love every destructive accusation, you deceitful tongue! — Pslam 52:4
—
6 Yosemite on 24 Jun 2009 at 1:17 am
“I agree with you, Captainchaos. And the more I think about it, the more I feel that Mr. Braun is a traitor to our cause. It’s a shame, I used to respect him. There can be NO compromise with the Jewish enemy. Anyone who says otherwise is either a philosemite or an Jewish/FBI infiltrator.”
—
22 Yosemite on 25 Jun 2009 at 9:40 pm
“The only reason why whites support Israel is because Jews are pulling the strings of our politicians, who face political ruin if they refuse to support that apartheid state. There’s no use mincing words over the Jewish question any more. I’ll be quite frank with you: Hitler’s greatest mistake was that he did not commit the Holocaust.”
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2009/06/23/single-jewish-cause/
~
Do not be deceived, my dear brothers. — James 1:16
+ My personal top 10 list of pro-White websites (based on the ones that I visit most frequently whenever I have the spare time):
1 – Occidental Dissent
2 – TOQO, TOO Blog, The Occidental Observer, A3P, and all other associated sites
3 – Majority Rights
4 – WHITE NEWS: AmRen, Western Voices World News [European Americans United], NatAll News, White Reference, White News Now, News From The West, etc (we need more pro-White news sites updated daily)
5 – RADIO: VoR & Political Cesspool (we need many more pro-White internet-radio sites)
6 – VDARE
7 – Rep. Dr David Duke
8 – Age of Treason
9 – HBD Books
10 – PRO-WHITE FORUMS: Stormfront, VNN, Skadi, White News Now, The Phora, etc [I rarely have the time to browse any forums, and I’ve never been a big commenter on forums of any kind]
* HM – Imperium Europa, CofCC, NPI, IHR, Patrick Grimm, Old Atlantic, Cambria, Signals From The Brink, Nation of Cowards, Songlight For Dawn, Lesacre, Cordelia For Lear, Audacious Epigone, Liberal Biorealism, White America, etc etc — plus numerous other racialist and ‘race-realist’ websites that I try to browse when I have some spare time (see the right-hand column on my blog)
Other commenters here…what are your top 10? Or 25?
We need more pro-White sites, including: a reliable/reputable pro-White message board run by the right people, a centralized pro-White wiki, a centralized Judeoskeptical wiki which clearly and extensively documents the Jewish Problem, a live chat site or sites (text + voice), a de-centralized non Jewish-controlled (Facebook) invitation-only pro-White social networking site, more internet-radio sites as mentioned above, a basic archive or bibliography site which lists thousands of pro-White reference books/articles/links, among other types of sites.
We have plenty of stuff to do — so let us do it, let us stop getting so bogged down in the mere blogosphere.
I recommend volume 2 of Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together”. If you are unable to read Russian or French, unfortunately the only two languages in which this book is currently available, please see the serialized summary in “The Occidental Quarterly”.
It is available in German as well.
Yosemite makes some strong points I think. Anti-semites need to be respectfully challenged, not demonized. As do philo-semites, and others, like Wikitopian, who fall somewhere between the two. Occidental Dissent seems to be just about the only place where this sort of dialogue happens, which is one of the things that makes it great. Note to anti-Semites: writing “Yosemite, are you Guy White?” is a weak rebuttal.
I hadn’t ever listened to Reason Radio, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Some of you guys need to stop with the insanely long comments. That’s what hyperlinks are for, you don’t need to cut and paste entire chapters.
@NeoNietzsche
Regarding potential influence of White Russian propaganda on your sources:
1. The American Hebrew – The chauvanism of the left wing Jew who wrote this is more likely to have provided fodder for White Russian propaganda than to have been influenced by it.
2. Mr. Summers – Subjective impression of a man on the scene, at a time when the White Russian movement was in its infancy and White Russian propaganda obviously couldn’t circulate freely in Moscow.
3. Robert Wilton – If the materials provided by the Soviet Press are referenced in Wilton’s footnotes, and preserved in libraries, this is obviously a source which is completely free of White Russian propaganda.
4. Winston Churchhill – May very well have been influenced by White Russian propaganda. More importantly, Churchhill is engaged in special pleading on behalf of British support for Zionism. In my opinion, he overlooks the importance of Stalin, Dzerzhinsky and Bukharin.
@Reginald – Feel free to copy my poste. I am honored.
@Yosemite – I notice you haven’t responded to my poste (#85)
“Also, it doesn’t matter if Jews were not the public-face or main leaders of Communism; as always, they were the meddling bureaucrats, bankers, traders, lawyers, and ‘political advisers’ behind the scenes with the real power. ”
You forgot to mention that the secret police were often top heavy with Jews throughout Communist East Europe. Stalin used revolutionary Jews to set up the Soviet satellites after Yalta. The intelligence services continued to be staffed by Jews after congenital Judeo-Bolsheviks like Ana Pauker (in Romania) were replaced. Poland’s secret police was run for years by Jakub Berman who couldn’t believe he was getting the axe when Stalin cracked down on Zionists. There were no nationalist historians left in any of those countries after the iron Curtain was lifted. The interbellic and post war history of East Europe has been written by Holocaust centric Jewish academics like Tony Judt. Not Jewish not an expert…on anything.
White Preservationist,
Thanks for the support. We don’t always realize how we sound to each other.
As I posted in #91, are you familiar with nationalsalvation.net or whiterabbitradio.net? Robert Whitaker is a genuine asset.
You’re missing the point entirely. I’m tired of restating it. If you cannot understand that dilution of ethnic identity is not the same as dilution of racial identity, then I can’t help you. I’m sure its blazingly obvious to everyone else here.
While it is legitimate to criticize American liberalism in many regards, the facts remain that it was through Jewish efforts that the cultural milieu was pushed away from the edge of white racial consciousness in the liberal context towards where we are today.
It may very well be the case that had the Jews not interfered that something similar would have happened (but by no means is that a guarantee either), but the facts as they are point the finger at them.
Actually, the Boasian subversion occurred before WWII. Allied propaganda combined with the fatigue and horror of war, not any particular atrocities, is the main reason why mainstream thought changed after WWII.
Behavioralism and psychology in general really has little (arguably, somewhat perhaps) to do with the radical social changes that occurred in America regarding race.
I don’t really care what you’re talking about; I only care about the issue of whether or not Jews were the brains and power behind bolshevism and the subsequent atrocities. The problem with counting is that you take no regard to the types of people you are counting: lumping in the average partisan who joins with the thinkers, administrators, leaders, and so forth is quite a wrongheaded approach. Jews were vastly overrepresented in the high echelons of bolshevik leadership.
You should change your name here to “Jewish Assent”.
Regarding the list of “THE RULING CLASS OF THE USSR 1936-1939”, being allegedly “unsourced”:
?????? ????? – ????? ? ?????? ? ? ????, ???-????? 1967, ??????????? 1994.
+ + +
And re “…fooled by White Russian propaganda”:
HA HA HA! Good one!
Since Cyrillic seems to come here as a bunch of question marks:
Andrei Dikiy, Evrei v Rossii i v CCCR, NY 1967, Novosibirsk 1994.
+ + +
Re Yosemite & “Whites Unite”:
Good work trying to make Whites appear stupid. Anybody in this internet day and age who tries to deny the Judaic nature of the USSR is obviously stupid or a liar. Or as you Jews like to say: “A Denier!”
@ Whites Unite
@NeoNietzsche
Regarding potential influence of White Russian propaganda on your sources:
“An article in a 1907 issue of the respected American journal National Geographic reported on the revolutionary situation brewing in Russia in the years before the First World War: ‘ The revolutionary leaders nearly all belong to the Jewish race, and the most effective revolutionary agency is the Jewish Bund W. E. Curtis, “The Revolution in Russia,” The National Geographic Magazine, May 1907, pp. 313-314.”
Would you speculate, in this instance, that the Czarist political police were the source for this baseless and defamatory report by a presumably anti-Semitic agitator?
That’s a looong list. ???????? ??-?????? :
http://lib.web-malina.com/getbook.php?bid=1751&page=51
@ Whites Unite
How do we explain the confluence of diplomatic assessments:
“The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution.”
David Francis, American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the Revolution (Francis, D. R. (1921). Russia From the American Embassy. New York: C. Scribner & Sons. p.214.)
British government report bluntly states that Jews control international Communism:
“There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews.”
(National Archives, Dept. of State Decimal File, 1910-1929, file 861.00/5067)
US Consul General Summers and US Consul Caldwell, had this to say:
“Jews prominent in a local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing […]”
(State Department document 861.00/1757; sent on 2 May 1918, from Moscow by US Consul General Summers.)
The first report, sent from Omsk on 1 March 1919, contains the following paragraph:
“Fifty per cent of Soviet Government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type… ”
(State Department document 861.00/2205; sent from Vladivostok on 5 July 1918, by US Consul Caldwell.)
“[…] it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type… ”
The second report, dated 9 June 1919, and sent from Vladivostok, said that in 1918 of the:
“384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”
(State Department document 861.00/2205)
Both documents from: U.S. National Archives. (1919). Record Group 120: Records of the American Expeditionary Forces, June 9.
????!!!
???????? ??-??????!!!
@NeoNietzsche – The confluence of diplomatic assesments has its ultimate roots in the fact that Jews were, indeed, massively overrepresented in the early Bolshevik regime.
I think that the specific evidences you cited (from “The American Hebrew”, Summers and Wilton) were NOT influenced by White Russian propaganda. Churchhill overstated his case somewhat to win support for Zionism: clearly some non-Jews other than Lenin (Stalin, Dzerzhinsky) had very real influence at the highest levels of leadership in the early Soviet Union.
The same is true in the abortive post WWI revolutions: Many of the most crucial personalities were ethnic Jews (Rosa Luxembourg, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kun), but others were not (Karl Leibknetch).
Donald,
“The problem with counting is that you take no regard to the types of people you are counting: lumping in the average partisan who joins with the thinkers, administrators, leaders, and so forth is quite a wrongheaded approach. Jews were vastly overrepresented in the high echelons of bolshevik leadership.”
Again, sir, as I made abundantly clear, I was referring exclusively to Jews in the HIGH ECHELONS OF BOLSHEVIK LEADERSHIP. The percentage of Jews within the HIGH ECHELONS OF BOLSHEVIK LEADERSHIP was around 20 percent at the time of the Bolshevik revolution – exactly what you would expect based on their population size within urban areas. You keep repeating that I was talking about the percentage of “little Jews” in the movement, when from the beginning I explicitly stated that I was talking Jews in the highest positions of leadership.
NeoNietzsche,
All you are doing is quoting people making the assertion that the Bolshevik revolution was Jewish, without providing the evidence on which they make that assertion.
@NeoNietzsche – I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other about the 1907 National Geographic article, without first researching it in depth.
It is undeniable that the Bund was a far-left, exclusively Jewish political party. Solzhenitsyn documents the mass transfer of allegiance from the Bund to the Bolsheviks in 1921.
Yosemite,
You haven’t answered MY post (#86), because you can’t!
Yosemite,
Since the Jews were 20% of the literate, urban population, shouldn’t we expect them to constitute 20% of other political movements?
Why, then, were they so UNDER-represented in humane political parties such as the Octobrists, Cadets, and Right SRs?
“You haven’t answered MY post (#86), because you can’t!”
I haven’t answered every post in this thread because every time I check for new posts, there are dozens of new replies to me by different individuals. I’m sorry, but I haven’t the time to answer everyone. I’ll answer as much as I can in the fifteen or so minutes I devote to this website every day.
@Akira – Greetings, Russian friend.
Please don’t list me together with Yosemite. We have nothing in common.
See my poste #86. I contend:
1. Jews were massively overrepresented among the most important Bolshevik leaders.
2. After the death of Lenin, it was the Jews among the most important leaders who demanded a bloodthirsty policy. On the other hand Bukharin, a Russian, favored a humane policy.
I only addressed the issue of “White Russian Propaganda” because NeoNietzsche asked my opinion on the topic. If you carefully read my poste (#111), you will see that I do NOT think the sources he cites are compromised.
Do you know anyone competant to translate Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together”? I could make it a best seller here in America. Even if the books had to be printed in some other country, I could arrange a network of distribution.
NeoNietzsche,
All you are doing is quoting people making the assertion that the Bolshevik revolution was Jewish, without providing the evidence on which they make that assertion.
Have you done otherwise with regard to your thesis? Please direct my attention, if so.
And I do recognize the less-than-optimum basis of the (let us call it) “behind Communism” thesis.
I am not sure how we might “provide the evidence” unless we can consult Wilton’s “Soviet Press sources” disclosing information against interest so-to-speak. Perhaps someone here has access to that dispositive documentation.
Soviet sources otherwise are intrinsically suspicious, and the reports of diplomats are impressionistic. It is not clear, however, why various diplomats, having no professional interest in other than their authentic impressions, would converge upon the same depiction of irregular events, in the one instance, before and during the episode. Is it all just collusion in an explosion of self-indulgence in generally-enjoyed anti-Semitic outbursts, requiring but a flimsy pretext for its ignition? Their confidential reports seem odd, inappropriate, and unsatisfying as media for the expression of such.
Yo, Semite:
You can’t reply because you’re probably too busy engaging in cognitive infiltration on other WN sites.
“You can’t reply because you’re probably too busy engaging in cognitive infiltration on other WN sites.”
This is just another example of the irrational paranoia that antisemitism can engender. Whilst conspiracies may add some meaning and significance to your petty existence, not everyone who disagrees with you on the Jewish question is a Jewish infiltator.
“This is just another example of the irrational paranoia that antisemitism can engender. Whilst conspiracies may add some meaning and significance to your petty existence, not everyone who disagrees with you on the Jewish question is a Jewish infiltator.” @yo-Semite
__
I guess you would be an *EXPERT* on this one, huh slick!
==
6 Yosemite on 24 Jun 2009 at 1:17 am
“I agree with you, Captainchaos. And the more I think about it, the more I feel that Mr. Braun is a traitor to our cause. It’s a shame, I used to respect him. There can be NO compromise with the Jewish enemy. Anyone who says otherwise is either a philosemite or an Jewish/FBI infiltrator.”
==
Thanks Whites Unite,
I’ll put it up on Monday.
Z,
People change their views as they experience the world and new information becomes available to them. Yes, I used to be an anti-Semite. A deeper examination of history and science convinced me that I was mistaken in my former views. But I’m not a philosemite. I don’t believe that Jews should have ever been allowed to enter the United States, along with the Irish, the Germans, and other non-British white minorities.
Whites Unite,
Yes, sorry, I see your overall argument. Just the phrase “White Russian propaganda” makes me laugh. As if anybody cared what White Russians said or thought or did.
You’re wasting your time arguing with the likes of Yosemite. Anybody who can’t see, or who denies, the Judaic nature of the USSR, the NKVD, the “Russian” Revolution, international communism, etc, must be stupid or a liar.
Look at this idiocy:
“I don’t believe that Jews should have ever been allowed to enter the United States, along with the Irish, the Germans, and other non-British white minorities.”
Why on Earth would the U.S. only allow Britons entry, and not French (who had settled New Orleans, North Dakota, etc), the Dutch (New York, etc), Russians (Alaska), and so on? On what basis? Germans not “allowed” to settle in the U.S.? That’s just stupid. And Irish are British. Certainly more British than the Anglo-Saxons. Or does he mean just English? If not, then why Scots but not Irish? Scots are from Ireland. And there are millions of Irish, and Scots, in England. Jews could well be excluded because their culture, society, creed, mindset is dedicated to destroying all other nations/cultures. On what basis should Danes or Serbs be barred entry? Because of their food or the way they dress? To even debate with such an idiot would be demeaning. I mean, this is a whole new depth of idiocy at work. Or just another troll.
Akira,
“Why on Earth would the U.S. only allow Britons entry, …”
Because colonists constituted the founding and core ethnic stock of the United States. The founding fathers were overwhelmingly of British stock.
” And Irish are British.”
Great Britain refers to the island in which the nations of England, Scotland, and Wales are to be found. It does not include Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain
“Jews could well be excluded because their culture, society, creed, mindset is dedicated to destroying all other nations/cultures.”
As I have demonstrated, the Jews aren’t out to get us Anglo-Saxons; certainly no more than the Irish. In any event, I would have opposed Jewish immigration to the United States – but only on the same grounds that I would have also opposed Irish and Italian immigraiton. Jews are not one of us.
“On what basis should Danes or Serbs be barred entry?”
Because they don’t belong to the founding ethnicity, especially the Serbs and other Slavic groups.
“I mean, this is a whole new depth of idiocy at work.”
I’m not alone. Wilmot Robertson his classic racialist work, The Dispossessed Majority, also advocates an Anglo-centric white nationalism. He also criticised the Irish. Carleton Putnam was of the same opinion. H.P. Lovecraft was also opposed to the importation of Irishmen, Germans, and Italians into American society. I am far from alone.
(I really wish there was an edit function.)
“Because colonists constituted the founding and core ethnic stock of the United States” should read “Because British colonists constituted the founding and core ethnic stock of the United States”
“People change their views as they experience the world and new information becomes available to them. Yes, I used to be an anti-Semite. A deeper examination of history and science convinced me that I was mistaken in my former views.”
Yosemite, who are the historians and scientists that cured you of “the irrational paranoia of anti-semitism”?
It is important that the Jewish-Bolshevik take over of Russia not be viewed in isolated terms. Jews are the great master of lies, manipulation and subversion, and they understand how to take over and then promote Jewish interests by using non-Jews as cannon fodder. The dynamics of the Bolshevik revolution are really not that different in principle from what we see today with disproportionately Jewish neocons banging the drums for war in the middle east in order to advance Israel’s interests, while non-Jews do the dying on the ground. Fortunately, we live in the United States, so Jews have not yet been able to achieve their goal of establishing an American equivalent of the CHEKA or NKVD, so people like us don’t have to worry about the late night knock on the door, at least not yet.
What a moron this Yo Semite is (or the Jew in the woodpile).
— “the U.S. only allow Britons entry … The founding fathers were overwhelmingly of British stock. … the nations of England, Scotland, and Wales … us Anglo-Saxons”
Since when are Scots, Welsh — or even the English — “Anglo-Saxon? Typical American Idiot.
No Scots and Welsh and English Vikings and Huguenots are “kosher Anglo-Saxons” to Yo Semite, but Bretons, Galacians, Germans, Danes, Swedes, and Normans fail the ethnic-purity standard?
Four of the “founding fathers” came directly from Ireland, two from Scotland, one was a West Indies Jew. The majority of the rest were also fully or partly Irish. French and Germans had no part in the founding of the United States? Are these “Anglo-Saxon” names? : Broom, Clymer, Gilman, Gorham, Morris, Blair, Carroll, Ingersoll, Spaight, Brearly, McHenry, McClurg? Shays and Shattuck? Fitzsimons, a purely British name, and an Irishman.
Broom? From Foulque comte d’Anjou et de Tours et du Maine, ‘roi’ de Jérusalem.
Morris = O’Muirgheasa
Clymer was Cornish, i.e, British, not Anglo-Saxon.
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer? Swedish.
Pierce Butler? From County Carlow.
William Paterson? From County Antrim.
William Molineux? Anglo-Saxon? Paul Revere, son of Apollos Rivoire? Surely not French!? “O, The Horror!”
Alexander Mac Ranald McDougall the Hebridean? About as far from Anglo-Saxon as possible in Great Britain. From the Isle of Islay.
Daniel Morgan? Welsh. Patrick Henry? Irish.
Great Britain and Ireland were Celtic and Orthodox Christian, and St Columcille’s compatriots were well-established in Great Britain, long before the first “Englishman” or Germanic heathen even showed up.
All Irish are “British”, geographically, and most Irish are closer to the ancient British [Brythons, Brythonic Celts — not Gaels — who also colonized Brittany] ethnically than the English are; and Ireland is in fact a British Isle. But these terms are not used in the sense of “British” being the equivalent of citizenship or territoriality related to The United Kingdom.
The most ethnically “British” population would be the Welsh, who are Celts, not “Anglo-Saxons (who don’t exist) but this idea of British is largely meaningless since they have been in the minority for a millennium. The Scots and Manx are descended from Irish settlers. Irish, Manx, Scots, Cornish, and Welsh are Celts. Of course many of them have Germanic backgrounds and many English have Celtic backgrounds. Especially in the cities you’d have a hard time finding “pure” “races”. The real differences are in local cultures, economic conditions, language, history and so on. Even in the countryside of Ireland many Irish people could very well have Viking or English or even Spanish backgrounds generations ago. Just as most English are more Celtic and Roman and Viking and Norman and French than they are Angles or Saxons.
In Irish the British Isles (including Ireland) are called Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha.
The largest island is Great Britain (Bhreatain Mhór), which is part of the United Kingdom. The second largest British Isle is Ireland (Éire).
Irish settled in Great Britain centuries before the Angles, Saxons or Vikings or Normans did.
Yosemite,
It’s not so much the paranoia that is the problem; it’s the obsession with Jews. They have this vision of some fat, yarmulked kike sitting on a mountain of cash, pulling all the strings and costing them their race, and it’s like all they can think of is revenge fantasies against him.
Jewish influence in a nutshell is this: Jews, for a variety of reasons, find it next to impossible to be pro-white; they are therefore either determinedly anti-white or racially neutral, which, in the long run, amounts to the same thing. To the extent that Jews wield significant influence in society, existing anti-white trends are exacerbated and any resistance to those trends finds itself frustrated. Of course, a great deal of that is simply reactionary. Jew hears, “Hey Jew, we’re gonna get you, you kike bastard. You’ve been kicked out of every country in Europe and this time we’re gonna get you for good!” well what the hell is the Jew supposed to think?
Jews hate Christ. Jews hate God. Jews are Anti-Christ. Jews are Christ-Killers. Jews tried their best to destroy Russia because Russians tried to limit their power, because Russia was the greatest Orthodox Christian nation in the world. Jews did, and do, and try to destroy Christian nations. This is just their primary target. Ultimately Jews and their Noachide Slavemason puppets want to destroy every nation on Earth except their own, since their cult ‘teaches’ that they will rule over all the world under their messiah, and we all (Black, White, Asian, Amerindian, Muslim, Christian, whatever) are inhuman “supernal dirt”. Jews have been kicked out of scores of territories because they INEVITABLY subvert and destroy. It’s their culture. It’s what they do. And part of that is introducing or exacerbating every division, and slaving, and pimping, and dope-pushing, and pornography, and witchcraft, and superstition, and anything that serves to destroy a nation, a people, a tribe, a state, or anything at all that isn’t Jewish.
That is what Jews are, and what they do.
#136 Yosemite
Yosemite,
IMO Wikipedia does not always have accurate information.
British is a nationality (as in place of birth, passport). Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, AND Northern Ireland. The ethnicities are English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish (mostly Catholic) and/or Scots-Irish (mostly Protestant). The Scots-Irish are basically descended from Scotsmen who emigrated to Ireland because “The Crown” granted them land rights over the native Irish and they then intermarried/bred with the locals (Irish). The Irish/Scots-Irish of Northern Ireland are British, nationality-wise. The modern-day English are Anglo-Saxon (a minor tribe spawned from Angles (Denmark) and Saxons (Germany) of which both belong to the major tribe Teutonic. The Irish, Scottish, and Welsh belong to the Celtic tribe although it is believed that some early Scots were of Teutonic origin.
We white Americans are American only by nationality (place of birth, passport).
During the 1800’s and 1900’s, the American South had a greater population of Celts than Anglo-Saxons. And, there probably was more Celtic and Teutonic stock in the pioneers than “Anglo-Saxon.” Ditto with Texas (until fairly recently)!
We whites are just not loyal to each other as a race. We place ideology over race. We place religion over race. With whites, belief trumps blood.
Re Yo Semite’s comment:
“Jew hears, “Hey Jew, we’re gonna get you, you kike bastard. You’ve been kicked out of every country in Europe and this time we’re gonna get you for good!” well what the hell is the Jew supposed to think?”
First of all, who cares what Jews think?
Secondly, anyone writing or saying such an ignorant and hateful thing (esp. anonymously, online) is more than likely either a Jew (such as the pedophile Nazi Jew Frank Cohen/Collin/Joseph; or the SS Founder and prison-mate of Hitler, Emil Maurice, Nazi Party member No. 2), or their agent or tool.
Stating facts is neither ignorant nor hateful.
“Hey Jew, we’re gonna get you, you kike bastard. You’ve been kicked out of every country in Europe and this time we’re gonna get you for good!”
Should be:
Jew’s always go too far and bring misery on their own heads, which they also delight in. They have been kicked out of many, many places because they are societal poison and always exploit their host, or because they plot their own “persecution”. One day they will face extinction or, probably more likely, they will bring about another, final, world war.
Guys,
Please don’t take ‘yo-semite’ seriously at all.
He is, if not an agent provacateur, someone who obviously does not make coherant sense, and who wishes, ABOVE ALL, to promote intra-White friction and animosity in the hope and desire to spread dissension among Us.
SO essentially, when yo-semite saw that his calls encouraging violence towards Jews wasn’t working around here, with his stupidity being ignored by the intelligent men and commentators who read and post on this site — he ‘disappeared’ for a while and recently reemerged with his new angle that if a White American is not of ‘pure’ 100% percent “Anglo-Saxon” stock (whatever the heck that really means) — well then, they are somehow just as illegitimately “un-American” as ‘der Juden’ (whom he now loves).
Again, only someone who hates Whites would not only promote such a stupid idea, but one that is totally unrealistic as well. As some have correctly pointed out, many, many Whites in America have various European nationalities in their family tree, some of which, like the Dutch in Nieuw Amsterdam and Nieuw Nederlands, or the French , have long pre-dated the founding of the Republic, and are part of America’s oldest established families.
Remember this when dealing with the deceitful and the dishonest –
My experience shows that those who plant trouble and cultivate evil will harvest the same. — Job 4:8
Joanne Dee,
Finally, a relatively intelligent post that is actually worthy of my time in responding to.
“IMO Wikipedia does not always have accurate information.”
In this instance Wikipedia is correct. The term ‘British’ has always referred to the inhabitants of Great Britain, not those of Ireland. Britain and Ireland have always been regarded as two separate islands. I should know, for I was born and raised in England and this is what I was taught all my life.
“Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, AND Northern Ireland. “
Like many Americans, you confuse Great Britain with the United Kingdom. These terms, though overlapping in meaning, are not synonymous. ‘Great Britain’ refers to the island itself – which does not as a matter of definition include Ireland. ‘United Kingdom’ refers to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. To the extent that Northern Irishmen are of Scottish or English descent, to that extent they are British in the racial sense. But a considerable proportion of the population is indigenous to Ireland and therefore cannot be regarded as British.
“The Scots-Irish are basically descended from Scotsmen who emigrated to Ireland because “The Crown” “
True. I agree with you about Northern Ireland. They are to some extent racially British, though Northern Ireland itself is not a part of Britain in the geographic sense.
“The modern-day English are Anglo-Saxon (a minor tribe spawned from Angles (Denmark) and Saxons (Germany) of which both belong to the major tribe Teutonic.”
It’s a common belief, promoted by supporters of mass Third World immigration and Anglophobic bigots alike, that the English are relatively recent immigrants to what is now England, and that the Celts are the true indigenosus population of Britain. This belief is entirely erroneous. The latest genetic and historical evidence suggests that the English have been in England for thousands of years, and have spoken an ancestral form of the English language for the entire period, and are just as much indigenous to Britain as the so-called Celtic population. The English language was spoken in what is now England long before the Anglo-Saxon invasions. I know this is contrary to mainstream teaching about English history, but it is nevertheless true.
“During the 1800’s and 1900’s, the American South had a greater population of Celts than Anglo-Saxons.”
A common assertion in white nationalist circles, but for which there is no real evidence. Even if true, it doesn’t disprove my point. The ‘Celtic’ element in the early history of the United States was generally Scottish, not Irish. And the Scottish are more closely related to the English than they are to the Irish. Indeed, the Irish are not truly Celtic to begin with. They are a pre-Aryan palaeolithic remnant population that adopted the language of their aristocratic Celtic conquerors many centuries ago. They are genetically separate from the English and the Scots. The Irish are not ‘white’ if by ‘white’ you mean a Caucasian of Indo-European descent, which is a commonly accepted definition. They have more in common racially with the Basque of Spain than the English or Scottish.
Joanne,
I agree with your overall point, that Britons, British, American Settlers, Texans etc. are all mixed up Germanics, Celts, and so on; and much of Anglo-America is more Celtic than Germanic.
Two points though:
1. “The modern-day English are Anglo-Saxon.” Even if you’re only talking about Whites in England, they are very unlikely to be “Anglo-Saxon”. They are almost all some mix of Gael, Briton, Angle, Saxon, Norman, French, Norse, Dane, and many are at least partly Jewish, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, etc. in background.
And for the sake of clarity:
2. “Great Britain is made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.” No. That’s The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain is the island of England, Wales and Scotland. The term GB is used colloquially for the UK, but has no official political meaning. It’s a geographic entity: the island of Great Britain. The other British Isles are Man, Wight, Iona, Ireland, etc. Northern Ireland is officially a province of the United Kingdom, and therefore “British”, under the British Crown, but is in no way any part of Great Britain.
And I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but the basis of Scottish ethnicity is the Irish settlement of Scotland c. 6th century. Scots Gaelic is, like Manx, a dialect of Irish. Of course, over the centuries Scots have become, esp. in border regions and in the outlying islands greatly “mixed” with Norse, English, Icelanders, and so on. All leading back to the main point: Whether one believes that a state has a basis in shared faith or culture, or on an ethnic or racial basis, talk of “pure races” or “Anglo-Saxon America” or whatever is nonsensical, and serves to distract from genuine matters of debate. If someone, like you, is interested in “White unity” (a fiction of course, but you’re free to dream), then artificial (or even real) divisions between Poles and Celts and Germans, for example, are destructive. If someone believes that a nation is bound together by common culture or overlapping cultures, or a shared faith or confession or creed, then it’s important to be clear about what those cultures or faiths or creeds are.
The Jew in the woodpile:
“The Irish are not ‘white’”
Wow.
Kulaks,
“who wishes, ABOVE ALL, to promote intra-White friction and animosity in the hope and desire to spread dissension among Us.”
The desire to keep the Anglo-Saxon countries from being overrun by foreigners, including non-British Europeans, is entirely justified. There is nothing objectionable about the desire to preserve the British race and to secure a future for British and British-descended children. Just as I grant the right of Germans to keep Germany pure and undefiled, without being overwhelmed by millions of British or Italian immigrants – in the same manner, Britain, America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand should remain in the hands of the British founding population, and should impose an immediate halt to all non-British immigration.
Is there some computer in Herzliya that just spouts out this garbage on command? Anything to confuse and distract.
The Jew in the woodpile:
“the English have been in England for thousands of years, and have spoken an ancestral form of the English language for the entire period”
How the fuck could anybody have spoken “an ancestral form of the English language” in any part of the British Isles before the 5th century, when prior to that everyone spoke a Celtic language, or Latin, or Pictish, or some other lost language, and when English is based on Germanic languages which have only been spoken in the British Isles for less than 1400 years, mixed with Norman-French vocabulary, i.e. post-1066?
Sounds like typical Jewish propaganda “British Israelite” > “‘Christian’ Identity” > “Anglo-Saxon Israelite” > “Black Anglo-Saxon Israelite” Jew-spew mind-fuck bullshit.
Some Jap by the name of ‘Akira’ wrote,
“Since when are Scots, Welsh — or even the English — “Anglo-Saxon? Typical American Idiot.”
1.) I am not American. I have never even been to America. I was born and raised in Britain. I currently reside in a Commonwealth country.
2.) I never claimed that the Scottish and Welsh are Anglo-Saxon. What a preposterous assertion to make. But like many Anglo-Saxonists, I do use ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘Anglo’ as a shorthand term for those English-speaking countries in which the majority of the founding inhabitants were of Britsh descent and in which the ethnocultural core was Anglo-Saxon, which is commonly used abbreviation.