Saturday, March 24, 2007
White People
Righty: White people created Western Civilization and all its wonders. We built everything of note from the Parthenon to the personal computer. We explored the world from top to bottom, delivered most of it from ignorance and savagery, spread the Gospel, advanced the frontiers of science, discovered cures for dreaded diseases, and founded numerous great nations, including, of course, the United States. White people were designed by nature to rule. Why shouldn’t we band together and resist the steady erosion of our culture by foreign elements? Why is it OK for black people to celebrate black power when we’re not allowed to promote white power? We detect a double standard here, and we’d better do something about it before white societies are completely overrun by hostile dark-skinned immigrants who breed like mosquitoes. White people are already an endangered species, and the world won’t realize it until it’s too late. Self-hating white liberals like Lefty are probably our worst enemy. Two hundred years from now, Lefty, your coffee-colored great-great grandchildren will probably have to visit Iceland or Iowa to see actual specimens of white people.
Lefty: White racism has given us slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism and the Holocaust. Quite a legacy there! White supremacists are almost without exception moronic, malevolent, impotent psychopaths. (How could anyone believe in the notion of white superiority after watching these clowns in action?) What do white people have to celebrate other than a heritage of greed, exploitation, war, materialism and bad dancing (Fred Astaire and a few others excepted)? African Americans and other minorities are entitled to celebrate their cultures because they’ve been the victims of systematic white oppression. They must be given a chance to undo centuries of forced hypnosis that essentially told them "White is right." There has never been a white pride movement capable of divorcing itself from racism. It is a poisonous issue that must be banished from every forum of civilized discourse.
The New Moderate:
The New Moderate must acknowledge Righty’s gripe about a double standard that allows dark-skinned minorities, but not white people, to celebrate their race-based cultures. I must also support Lefty’s contention that every "white pride" movement that has ever existed seems to have been tainted with obnoxious strains of racism. Why can’t white people simply look after their interests without bashing their darker brethren? Until they can, anyone who espouses white power or even white rights will be condemned (and justifiably so) as racist. (It might be that all ethnic "pride" celebrations are essentially racist or chauvinistic, regardless of who is doing the celebrating.)
Why would The New Moderate suggest that white people might want to "look after their interests"? Aren’t we slowly sinking into the bottomless bog of racism here? Stay with me for a moment. If current demographic trends continue unchecked, whites of European ancestry will account for less than half the population in both North America and Western Europe within half a century. In other words, white people will officially be a minority group. This revolutionary shift in population will forever alter the nature of Western societies and their cultures. (Forever is a LONG time, in case you’re not convinced.) It is not unreasonable to assume that the United States will eventually be speaking Spanish as its primary language, or that minarets will be sprouting alongside the abandoned cathedrals of France and England. And there is nothing wrong -- repeat, NOTHING WRONG -- with expressing dismay at this development. In fact, it might be desirable and even heroic to prevent it from happening. We’ve become so sensitized to leftist accusations of racism, and so bankrupt as a civilization, that we’re willing to just roll over and let the forces of history have their way with us.
There is nothing racist about simple self-preservation. I’m not even of European stock (my ancestors were Armenian Christians from the Ottoman Empire), and yet I’d mourn the disappearance of blond hair, blue eyes and freckles from our midst. I’d hate to see fine old languages like Dutch and Danish frittered into extinction. As much as I love Middle Eastern food, I’d never want it to replace the meaty succulence of German cooking or the epicurean delights of French. The New Moderate loves all nationalities in their infinite variety and would be loath to see any of them go the way of the dodo. I’d be just as unhappy if Americans settled en masse in the Middle East, reproduced out of control and festooned the stark landscape with golf courses and endless rows of McMansions.
How can white people "look after their interests"? Definitely not by mobilizing into fascist brigades, spouting racist diatribes or rounding up everyone who doesn’t fit the desired mold. No, if the white residents of North America and Western Europe don’t want to see their societies changed beyond recognition, they should simply do everything in their power to reverse the internal rot that has put them in this melancholy predicament. That means encouraging their own people to work at jobs they’ve been content to assign to immigrants. It means restricting immigration and downsizing the cushy welfare systems that attract foreigners who choose not to work. It means creating a vigorous culture that shuns cheap values and empty materialism. It means daring to sacrifice a little comfort for the scary proposition of having children. You can’t expect a race to survive when it lacks the resolve to reproduce.
The gods have always favored the hardy over the refined, in nations as well as individuals. The nations of the West (and especially Western Europe) are looking dangerously anemic right now. It might be that today’s white-dominated societies won’t survive in any form unless they receive an infusion of vitality from darker-hued populations. If those populations absorb Western values along the way, the darkening of Europe and America might actually be something to celebrate. But if those alien populations continue to multiply while remaining hostile to their host societies, the entire West can look forward to joining the Hittites, Babylonians, Phoenicians and Carthaginians in history’s dustbin.
Summary: White people of European stock have a right to look after their interests, especially in light of current demographic trends in the U.S. and Western Europe. Unfortunately, virtually every "white rights" movement has been laden with racism. What to do? Western societies need to shun decadence, depend less on foreign labor, and resolve to reproduce!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Great analysis. What a relief to see more and more people rejecting PeeCee dogma whereby whites - and only whites - have no right to express otheir group interests.
PeeCee religious doctrine goes something like this:
“If you go against your group interests while black you’re an uncle tom, if you do so while white you’re open-minded. Amen. If you express group interests while black you’re standing up for your people, if you do so while white you’re racist. Amen.”
The PeeCee fundamentalists and pro-minority bigots that infest government, academia and media keep telling us there is a problem with white people and white countries. The problem, it appears, is that they are too racist. They keep saying this problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says there is a problem with asian people and that this problem will be solved by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this problem with white people and white countries is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this problem with black people and black countries and this problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a problem with black people being too racist, I am talking about MY race hatred of black people?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of demographic extinction against my people, white people, the pro-minority bigots and chauvinists agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white racists.
Anti-racist has become a code word for anti-white racist.
http://mantra7777.blogspot.com
Guess what? It occured to me that you are a normalist, though you may not know it.
We're Normalists and We Believe in Normalness.
Fred Scrooby (majorityrights.com)
It is still apolitical common sense that France should not become an Islamic republic and that California should not be re-occupied by Mexico. To see both of those things requires nothing other than apolitical common sense. That and the rest of the above is normalness. There’s no such thing as white nationalism. It’s redundant. What there are are various pathologies manifesting as narcissism, the absence of a social conscience, dishonesty, stupidity, cultural illiteracy, and so on, against which normal people react.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 11:23 PM | #
White nationalism is the name for White opposition to our ongoing dispossession.
Posted by Rnl on Saturday, September 9, 2006 at 10:53 PM | #
Whan a burglar enters your home at night to take away your property do you come up with a special name for yourself vis-à-vis him? “Property Defender,” maybe? Do you say, “I’m something called a ‘Property Defender,’ therefore I oppose burglary”? Or do you say, “Some son-of-a-bitch-bastard came into my home last night and stole my stuff”?
I say the second.
Notice that making up a special name for yourself—a special name for normalness—implicitly concedes legitimacy to, in this case, the burglar, as if burglary was normal so a special name was needed to distinguish your kind of normalness from his. But burglary isn’t normal. There’s only one normalness. He need the special name of burglar, not you. Are you going to start calling yourself an “unburglar”? Of course not. Why not? Because normal people going about their business need no special name. They’re normal.
What it comes down to, I think, is I concede nothing to the other side in terms of legitimacy. Nothing whatsoever. Absolutely zero. I’m going to call myself by some special name for opposing something that has absolutely no legitimacy of any kind whatsoever, zero?
--------------------
What do you think?
mantra: I'm totally in agreement with you when it comes to the double standard imposed on white people. Take the Imus fiasco, for example. When Redd Foxx said "Ain't nothin' on earth uglier than a 90-year-old white woman," it was supposed to be harmless humor. (And I did think it was funny at the time.) But we're simply not allowed to reciprocate. What Imus said was cruel because it was aimed at a small group of young women who played their hearts out and showed a lot of class. So his remarks were totally unwarranted. But I have a feeling that if some black commentator had riffed about a white women's team -- let's say he called them "skinny sluts with no butts" -- he probably would have received a slap on the wrist at most. There are two reasons for this: the long, sad history of persecution against blacks (legitimate enough) and the more insidious practice, especially among liberals, of excusing blacks from normal civilized standards of behavior. The liberals don't even realize how racist it is to set up separate (and lower) standards for nonwhites. They think they're being magnanimous.
As for the "normalist" argument... I agree up to a point that, for the most part, you and I are simply standing up for common sense. For example, it defies common sense to legitimize Spanish as an unofficial second language in the U.S. Every other immigrant group has learned English and moved onward and upward. Yet all our product packaging now is littered with bilingual (and sometimes trilingual) information. It's mindboggling.
Where I hesitate to go along with the "normalists" is that I suspect some of them are using it to justify granting "normal" status to whites and, at least by implication, "abnormal" status to everyone else. This could be a slippery slope to wild-eyed white supremacist thinking.
My feeling is that there shouldn't be a "white rights" movement; it would always reek of racism and fascism, and would undoubtedly alienate political moderates. (As with any movement, the fanatics would probably commandeer the ship.) But I feel strongly that the nations of Western Europe, for example, should individually deal with their disturbing demographic trends, restrict immigration drastically, and rally support for their language and traditions. If they keep relying on "guest workers" to perform their undesirable jobs, they'll be paying an extremely high price several decades down the road (or even sooner).
I don't think there's any master plot to force whites to intermarry and lose their whiteness. In fact, in Europe at least, segregation seems to be imposed by both sides. But if the original Europeans keep failing to reproduce, they'll eventually find themselves reduced to minority status and dealing with Islamic law to boot. The ultimate irony is that European liberalism could be unwittingly ushering in a long dark age of brutal illiberalism. Maybe they deserve it, but I'd still hate to see it happen.
Thanks for the thought-provoking posts.
Thank you for your comprehensive reply.
I believe the main reason the various minority lobbies are so aggressive and, let's face it, oftentimes obnoxious, is the lack of a contrasting and therefore moderating force.
The reason they always get their way is because they're pushing against a vacuum.
Should we form lobbies that explicity assert our group interests I don't think the situation would reverse, i.e. it's our turn to always get our way.
Rather, I think the push and pull and give and take of universal (everyone allowed) identity politics would lead to a more balanced situation.
The mainstream view would settle somewhere between the opposing forces.
Which, incidentally, would be the moderate position :)
A fascinating discussion. We at Resisting Defamation applaud your reasoned model. We promote a now 16-year-old effort against the campaign of defamation that directs both the dominant media culture and the corporate entertainment culture to defame, demean, and denigrate young Americans of European origins. We do our part in Northern California.
http://www.ResistingDefamation.org
"Why can’t white people simply look after their interests without bashing their darker brethren?"
I agree with this at least in theory. We should be able to promote and preserve ourselves without bashing anyone else. However in reality I doubt that TPTB or other races will ever let that happen. There is no "nice" way to preserve ourselves because the world at large will never go along with it. Take the current "illegal" immigration problem in the US. Does anyone here think a majority mestizo population will not alter both the culture and the "rights" of Whites and also further hasten our demise? Do you think that a majority mestizo population will not hesitate to be "racist"? Further do you think they will really give a crap about your "rights as a minority? Does it really matter if they are legal or illegal from that standpoint? What I mean is legal or illegal they almost exclusively feel the same way. If citizenship is "granted" to all the illegals then what? Do you think that the Whites in America can then alter the course by saying we "Whites" have a right to self preservation? What would be the almost universal response? Can we convince others our our right? I have high doubt that any of these can be accomplished without a certain demonization, just as they currently do to Whites. All advancement of the Black/Hispanic/Asian population or causes has come about by demonizing Whites. Either thourgh selectivly pinpointing of certain history or by yelling racist to any objections raised by Whites. The only way all this multicultural movement crap and PC politics has been allowed to happen both in the US and Europe is by demonization of Whites. I certainly don't advocate Hitler or the KKK but without an "enemy" how do we realistically get from A to Z? I am open to Ideas but I think anyone who thinks we can get their either intellectually(convincing) or by being nice is deluding themselves. We are truly at war for our race and time is not our friend.
Wow... we have a hot topic here. To mantra's latest post I'd reply that I'm against lobbying in general. If we didn't have such strong lobbies representing minorities, white Americans wouldn't constantly be put in a defensive postion. (See my separate post on lobbying.) But in the real world, lobbying seems to be here to stay. I have a feeling whites will have to wait until they're a minority before they can form a cohesive interest group that isn't dismissed as fascist. The Nazis and KKK, damn them, have really discredited the concept of white rights for a long time to come. And especially in our PC era, the idea would never fly. In principle, though, I think you're right that the "push and pull" of opposing lobbies would result in justice.
To Bo Sears I would say that your approach sounds reasonable; that is, instead of starting a "white rights" group, you could oppose unreasonable antiwhite ideologies and politics with an antidefamation group, the way the Jews and other vocal minorities do. I'll have to check out your site when I get a chance.
To Ernest I would say that, while I sympathize with your distress over the rise of a mestizo majority, we also have to remember that the U.S. is, uniquely among nations, a collection of immigrants. (Europe is a different story.) How do we decide whose culture gets to be the dominant one? Should Anglo culture be enshrined forever because it was the culture of the founding fathers? I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you can see the point. I think the one legitimate tool we have at our disposal is to establish English as the official language of these states. The ethnic composition of the country will keep changing, as it already has since the days when America was predominantly WASP, but at least the English-speaking culture would be preserved. I wouldn't want to see a race war down the line, just as I wouldn't want to see Anglo culture extinguished. Other than establishing English, the only thing we can do is keep reproducing!
I found the new moderate position of looking for interests of white people being supported by a soft way of racism. I think that is because there is a confusion in the issues of culture with race (western vs."white"). Western values are not inherently white; of course, non-white people can have western values (e.g. Brazil). Therefore, there is not reason to believe that a culture of a non-white people as majority means decadence or the dead of western values.
Self-preservation is about preservation for individual persons, not for a population of people with a particular variation of a phenotype; aka, the ill defined term "race".
Sure, populations of organisms, including humans, change over time, it is a biological fact. The same could be said for cultures. However, that does not mean that a "race" (i.e. white people) will dissapear. For instance, you will find genes and phenotypic traits for, say, hitites in current humans. White people will not dissapear. Thus, again, the argument on self-preservation does not make sense.
On the other hand, cultures change over time. But, to argue that we should be concern because one "race" will become minority is racism. Again, people with clear skin is not the only with western values. Additionally, people that speaks spanish also have western values. You do not need to speak english to follow western values. Also, it might not be even a real concern given that the majority of second generation Mexican-americans, major immigration group, do not properly know or want to use spanish.
To assume that a society of people from other "race" in the majority would not care for the interest of white people is a judgment based on prejudice on race, especially when the non-white people share the same western values. The right and duties of human beings are the same, regardless of phenotypic differences, according to western values.
Fercho,
So you are saying there is no such thing as race? Sorry, but that claim has been debunked so many times that I don't care to cover it again. Suffice it to say that if you look outside the leftist academic circles you will find that the scientific reality of race is irrefutable. See: Sociobiology, population genetics, anatomical studies, and so forth. And please don't cite Gould or any of those fellows, they are known for their agenda-posing-as-science.
Also, there is not any doubt that non-whites have demonized and attacked whites. Shall we just accept this and take the abuse? Isn't it racism for non-whites to demonize and punish us merely for the color of our skin or for "what our ancestors did"? Is it "justice" to make the asinine claim that whites are the only demographic "capable of racism"?
I'm afraid your viewpoint is racist itself - racist against whites. By allowing the double standard you are guilty of the same you accuse racists of. Do please try to be consistent.
Chris,
I appreciate your answer.
I said that race is an ill-defined term, at least from a scientific point of view. I am really surprised you still think this is debunked when the data and the scientific consensus is pretty clear. For instance:
"Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races' (Box 1). The social or ethnoancestral groups of the US and Latin America are not 'races', and it has not been demonstrated that any human breeding population is sufficiently divergent to be taxonomically recognized by the standards of modern molecular systematics. These observations are not to be taken as statements against doing research on demographic groups or populations. They only support a brief for linguistic precision and careful descriptions of groups under study. Terms and labels have qualitative implications." You can see the complete article, in a respected science journal, here http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html
It is pretty straightforward. Genus: Homo; Species: Sapiens; Subespecies: Homo sapiens sapiens. You will not find the term "race" in biological classification and you will not find other subespecies more than the already defined H. s. sapiens. Please cite scientific discussion showing otherwise. Emphasis on SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION. I do not care for ad hominen attacks on particular scientists or straw mans such as "lefty academic circles". I prefer to discuss ideas based on real data (BTW, the article I just cited has nothing to do with Gould).
To say that "there is not any doubt that non-whites have demonized and attacked whites." is very troubling. Without other context than the phrase itself, that is a ludicrous generalization. Yes, and of course, some non-white people is racist. However, to assume that "all" non-white people demonized and attack whites is just racist and a demonization of the non-whites that are non-racist. I hope you did not mean all non-white people. That kind of generalized racial profiling spirit of the entry on the blog is exactly what moved me to make the comments I made.
I fail to see how the points I made may support a racial "revenge" against whites. All the opposite. As I said, western values, such as freedom, were thought for all humans, not just for some "races" or for use for revenge. To demonize someone for the color of the skin, beliefs, historical roots, etc. is plainly wrong. No discussion there. Of course, people from all times and societies had fell on this evil behavior and that´s unacceptable. It is not relevant where the attack is coming from (black, hispanics, muslims, whites, etc.), it goes against our human condition, moral and values.
Finally, no double standard. It is very clear, I hope. Demonizing or attacking is evil, does not matter from which human being is coming. Being consistent is precisely treat all Homo sapiens sapiens as human beings with the same rights and responsabilities.
Post a Comment