Sunday, November 07, 2010

Tim Wise: the sound of your demise is beautiful

Tim Wise is the ugly face of the left. He's a self-styled "anti-racist" activist, with a brimming hatred of whites.

Wise was clearly upset by Republican gains in the mid-term elections. So he wrote an open letter to American whites, in which he takes comfort in the impending demise of white people:

You need to drink up.

And quickly.

And heavily.

Because your time is limited.

Real damned limited.

So party while you can, but mind the increasingly loud clock ticking away in the corners of your consciousness.

The clock that reminds you how little time you and yours have left.

Already there are two big questions to be asked here. One is why Tim Wise hates whites so much. The second is why he thinks that the Republican Party is devoted to the defence of whites.

But, first, here are some more of the charmless thoughts of Tim Wise:

you will lose...

It is coming, and soon.

This isn’t hubris. It isn’t ideology. It is not wishful thinking.

It is math...

The kind of math that proves how your kind -- mostly older white folks beholden to an absurd, inaccurate, nostalgic fantasy of what America used to be like -- are dying.

You’re like the bad guy in every horror movie ever made, who gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass -- even if it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were finally dead this time.

Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie ends.

Our ankles survive.

You do not.

So on to the first question. Why does Tim Wise hate whites?

I think the answer has to do with how left-liberals explain the existence of inequality. Liberals believe that inherited group characteristics, such as our sex, our race or our sexuality, should not matter when it comes to our life outcomes.

That means that liberals take it very seriously if one group appears to be advantaged in any way (in liberal-speak "privileged").

Inevitably, such advantage does exist. So liberals have to explain why advantage exists and how it can be overcome.

To answer that it exists because of differences between groups in talents or interests is not accepted by liberals. Liberals generally assume that talents and interests are spread evenly amongst different groups. To answer that advantage exists because one group forms an historic majority is also considered illegitimate.

The answer generally given by liberals is that group advantage exists because of discrimination by one group against another, motivated perhaps by prejudice or bigotry. Right liberals tend to believe that all groups are capable of such bigotry but that progress and enlightenment will overcome historic injustice.

But there are left liberals who spin the theory a bit further. They hold that one dominant group (men, whites) deliberately created a system of discrimination to uphold an unearned privilege at the expense of the excluded "other".

So the dominant group becomes the barrier to the historic achievement of justice and equality. It becomes the "cosmic enemy" of humanity. So to overcome oppression and inequality you have to set about undermining the dominant group, deconstructing it, bringing it down.

Don't believe me? Listen, then, as Tim Wise continues his rant:

in the pantheon of American history, conservative old white people have pretty much always been the bad guys, the keepers of the hegemonic and reactionary flame, the folks unwilling to share the category of American with others on equal terms.

Fine, keep it up. It doesn't matter.

Because you’re on the endangered list.

And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.

Most leftists don't express the "cosmic enemy" idea as strongly as Tim Wise does. Some do not express it at all (e.g. some of the left-liberals in the men's rights movement). But the beliefs I described above are not that uncommon on the left. They are to be found, for instance, in the whiteness studies courses to be found in dozens of universities. And they explain, too, the more general feeling to be found in modern Western politics that it is somehow progressive for established white communities to be broken up (I've had two principals apologise to me in job interviews for the number of white students at their schools).

As a typical example of the "whites as cosmic enemy" theme, there is the article "Privileged whites" penned by Jennifer Clarke, a teacher at the Australian National University. In this article, Clarke describes Australia as a "regionally anomalous white enclave run largely by white people to our own advantage", in which anti-discrimination laws should be applied more effectively so that "a majority of Australians would no longer be of northern European ethnic heritage".

Tim Wise wants the same sort of solution for the US. He doesn't want an armed pogrom against whites. He just wants them to die out and be replaced by other races:

It's OK. Because in about forty years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it...

Do whatever you gotta do, but remember that those who are the victims of your greed and indifference take the long view.

They know, but you do not, that justice is not for the sprinters, but rather for the long distance runners who will be hitting their second wind, right about the time that you collapse from exhaustion...

Because those who have lived on the margins, who have been abused, maligned, targeted by austerity measures and budget cuts, subjected to racism, classism, sexism, straight supremacy and every other form of oppression always know more about their abusers than the abusers know about their victims...

And they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now -- we are -- your destruction.

And I do not mean by that your physical destruction...

We just have to be patient.

And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well...

Do you hear it?

The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?

Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.

Which brings me to the second question. Wise assumes that the Republicans are a pro-white group.  But this isn't obviously true. The Republican leadership has been keen to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and the party has done little to stem the demographic transformation of the US.

But the left-liberal theory assumes that the system is run in the interests of the dominant group. The theory works better if the Republicans are assumed to be acting in the interests of the white majority (even if there is little evidence that this is so). Therefore Wise portrays a Republican victory as a victory for those who want to keep America as a majority white country.

And what about our response to Tim Wise? First, we have to recognise that Wise is correct about the demographic transformation of the US and its long-term consequences. So we need to continue to build up opposition to open borders in the US and elsewhere.

Second, we need to criticise the liberal assumptions about equality that lead on to hostility against whites. It's utterly wrong for liberals to try to make race and sex not matter in a society. They do matter and should matter.

If, for instance, the Danes are the historic majority in Denmark then of course they will be the "dominant" group. Yes, they will have the "advantage" when it comes to representing the cultural norms of that society or filling most of the positions of power and influence in that society.  But that doesn't represent an illegitimate, immoral privilege. It's a normal aspect of a nation of people maintaining its own existence.

Yes, whites in America have been the "dominant" group in the above sense. Perhaps that does confer an advantage on whites in America in the sense of representing cultural norms or occupying a large number of public offices. But that is a perfectly normal and proper kind of advantage, one that occurs in every living nation, including those in Asia and Africa. What is improper is for liberals, with their abstract, ideological approach to equality, to seek to undermine this kind of "advantage".

Are white Americans privileged in other ways? Yes and no. In terms of income, education and family outcomes, Asian Americans do better than white Americans. It's true that white Americans tend to do better than hispanics and blacks. Liberals assume that talent and interests are spread evenly across groups and that such unequal outcomes must therefore be due to discrimination. But if the problem is discrimination by white Americans toward the excluded other, why then do Asians do so well? Why do they do even better than whites?

We need a better, non-liberal approach to equality. The current one delivers us the absurdity of Tim Wise, an "anti-racist" who treats one particular race as a cosmic enemy and who will not rest until the historic majority is no more.

190 comments:

  1. Even leaving ideology aside, Tim Wise's writing is abysmal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What an atrocious article.

    His basis (re: the elections) is faulty. Minorities ride GOP wave to groundbreaking wins Many of the black and Hispanic conservatives I know voted GOP this time, many for the first time ever. Blacks have historically been anti-immigration, and still are. They tend to get economically and socially decimated by any sharp influx of immigrants. The black middle class (the only part that really votes) tends to be more socially conservative than even white people, and the Democrats have long ignored their political interests.

    The blacks don't see themselves as in the same boat as the immigrants, but rather with the Native Americans, Aborigines, and Maoris. Many of the modern blacks that you see siding with the immigrants are more recent Afro-Carribean immigrants themselves, and not descendents of the original slaves.

    Faced with the choice of being ruled by white people (with whom we share a long history and with whom we are often inter-related) or by Hispanics (who despise us), and increasing number of native black people are realizing where their bread is best buttered.

    And our own population is also declining, so we would be the last to gloat. That's a native problem, not a white problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes its well known that black people don't like Latinos.

    Its an interesting statement because for so long the argument expressed by the left was that fears of "takeover" were paranoid fantasy. The aim was only about being more inclusive and not dramatically changing our makeup. Now when they think they're well established in this direction they think its ok to positively trumpet this as an end? I've head Bill Maher say that the Republicans voters are "white" as if that's a crime.

    This "whiteness" approach as we know doesn't apply to other races. I heard an educated black woman on the radio the other day say that black men had a duty to their "race", specifically said, to marry black women and not go outside it in substantial numbers.

    With these kinds of attitudes from the left its not surprising that there should be so much urgency and noise as expressed in the current politics of the Tea Party and the Republican voters.

    Whilst its true that the Republicans don't always stand up for the interests of the white public, they are still the party that predominantly represents that. So should they stray too far you see movements such as the Tea Party to draw them back or punish them.

    So if the Democrats become the party of Latino's and other minorities, and they're not so minor any more, why would a non ideological white person vote Democrat? It is time for the white working class to get over their aversion to the "business party" and realise that their interests are not well represented on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Alte, a few token Republican candidates of color says more about the Republican party's spinelessness than anything else.

    If you meant to imply that the Black and Hispanic masses are turning Republican, I wonder where you got your evidence. This article says that they voted normally (i.e. Democratic)

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-04/republican-reliance-on-white-voters-holds-risks-commentary-by-henry-olsen.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. We're in a bit of a position where the white lefites may be cutting off their nose to spite their face. We know that they want race not to matter, but I think this is also in part because they know it matters to traditionalists. So in order to stick it to the traditionalists, who would regulate or limit their lives, they're willing to open the doors.

    We also know that to a degree white people don't see themselves in terms of race but class. To be middle class and to go on about your whiteness isn't the done thing, its low brow. Instead money or education is the focus. The poorer whites, however, we know do though. This is seen as due to the fact that they have less money and education. Their status therefore relies more strongly on their whiteness rather than economic factors.

    All of this means that economics, as a reflection of class, is the primary means through which politics in the West is discussed. Rather than race. By suggesting that race is the Republican or Tea Party’s primary element or focus rather than economics, Wise is not only bragging about demographics, but is attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the Tea Party’s/Republican’s economic platform.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jesse wrote,

    "We also know that to a degree white people don't see themselves in terms of race but class."

    Good point.

    I wonder, though, why that is. It certainly hasn't always been that way in Europe, where nationality was once a rallying cry for everyone regardless of class.

    I wonder if upper-class whites prefer to talk about their class because they are, in part, classical liberals: they believe in the primacy of merit. Why brag about something you had nothing to do with (your race)? etc.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bartholomew,

    "I wonder if upper-class whites prefer to talk about their class because they are, in part, classical liberals: they believe in the primacy of merit. Why brag about something you had nothing to do with (your race)? etc"

    Yes I think that has something to do with it. Nonetheless its ok, except amongst the strongly left, to inherent family wealth or be given a favorable environment for education, both of which you're not personally responsible for.

    It could be that we have focused on economic interests so squarely and for such a long time that every other issue has become seen as less important or in the realm of desirability rather than necessity. Additionally until very recently the unchanging nature our racial makeup could be taken for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Spinelessness? I doubt it. Seems more like simple Realpolitik. We've seen over and over that people will choose party over race, and this is more proof of it. I was just pointing out that the political scene is more complicated than he assumes, and will grow more complicated over the years, as the demographics change.

    But the author did mean to imply that:
    (Stated) The Republican voters were all voting against minorities, when this election was mostly about jobs and debt. "It's the economy, stupid."

    (Inferred) That black voters all support the Democrats. Black turnout was down this year. They voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats, as usual, but at a lower percentage than in the last election. In other words, the black vote was not motivated to support the Democrats and those that did vote were more likely to vote Republican than in the previous election.

    Turnout among African Americans was down (from 13% in 2008 to 10%) and they too offered up a somewhat lower percentage of their vote. The rising American electorate (single women, minorities, and the young) that constituted 46% of the electorate in 2008 declined to about 40% in 2010, and again gave Democrats a lower percentage (60% compared to 67% in 2008.)

    It certainly hasn't always been that way in Europe, where nationality was once a rallying cry for everyone regardless of class.

    Really? Didn't the aristocratic and intellectual upper-classes intermarry across national borders, just as they do today? The natural tendency of people is to group themselves with those with which they share the most traits, and race is not the over-riding trait for most people. A black Medici would not have been hanging out with the African servants, but with the other Italian aristocrats. I have more in common with David, a white Australian, than with a black Muslim from the third world.

    I think race does matter more to traditionalists than to liberals, but it still probably isn't item #1 for most of them. And I think most traditionalists do see a difference between native minorities and newer immigrants. Even in the Southwest, the antagonism is directed toward new Mexican immigrants, not those who have been there for generations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alte said,

    "But the author did mean to imply that:(Stated) The Republican voters were all voting against minorities, when this election was mostly about jobs and debt. "It's the economy, stupid."


    We can say as traditionalists, or at least I can, that its ok to vote against minorities. Black people don't have any problem with voting as a block so why can't whites? Nonetheless most white people wouldn't like to have their votes discussed in that way. Certainly this election "was all about the economy stupid", rather than race, and saying that it wasn't is a left wing guilt ploy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One problem the left will find is that they can't do left wing guilt ploys, ie being mean to a minority is like kicking a puppy, and trumpet minority takeovers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. White people don't vote as a block because it seems petty to them, as they make up the majority and wish to concentrate upon more altruistic things than tribal conflict. As their share of the vote declines, their cohesion will probably increase. Probably generally trending Republican because of the aging of their demographic.

    I'm ideologically in the conservative Catholic voting block, I suppose. I don't vote racially, but I suppose I'm a bit nationalistic. I guess I'm mostly a "values voter", but this time it was all about the dollar.

    I put the Church before any other affiliation, including race or nationality.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am a traditionalist, but I am not very interested in race. I am happy being Anglo-Celtic, but I feel plenty in common with Catholics in general. And religious traditionalists more generally.

    It is not my country, so I suppose I can afford not to care, but I don't really care if whites are replaced by hispanics in America. Serves them right for their liberal death wish and failure to reproduce.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Serves them right for their liberal death wish

    David, I agree that it is a liberal death wish, but I think we have to resist this thought.

    What I want to conserve is my "ethny" which is not race alone but also culture, language and religion. In other words, the larger tradition to which I belong.

    It is within the tradition of ethny that we express in the most complete and rounded way all that we are called to be as men and women.

    Our love of people and place, our connection to generations past and future, our determination to maintain and to build on the achievements of our forebears, our responsiveness to the distinct culture bequeathed to us, our sense of family and family heritage and continuity - all of these are experienced most deeply within a longstanding ethnic community.

    It is worth defending as a whole, rather than in part, even during a period of decline.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark

    I admire what I sometimes call "the WASP achievement", and I feel I share in it to some degree, being of British Isles stock; but it seems to me if people won't defend themselves and they allow their culture to be rotted by liberalism, they have lost what the Chinese used to call the Mandate of Heaven.

    It is more important to me that God is served than that nationalism flourishes. I didn't say that national pride and love of one's own kind is a bad thing; just that it is not the first thing.

    I was thinking yesterday, why do I reflexively support the US vs Iran? There is probably more to offend God in modern America than in Iran or Iraq. I suppose America is a powerful Christian country, which is a good thing, but the actions of individual Americans must be very offensive to God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Our societies ideals are still Christian, certainly Christian in heritage. Yet our civilisation is also dominated by secular issues, "social justice", individualism and the materialistic concerns of production, consumption and success on the market. It is a complicated society with many strengths and weaknesses, but it is still our society. I wouldn't live in Iran for anything.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What else is there to be said.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/05/christianity-preaching-children

    ReplyDelete
  17. The hatred that Wise expresses for ordinary White Americans has been gestating since the 1920s. H. L. Mencken and his ilk may have invented the discourse of contempt for the "booboosie," but it was soon co-opted by liberals and the new left. The trick since the beginning has been to convince readers, who were overwhelmingly ordinary White Americans, that they, the readers, were happy exceptions to the rule. Mencken didn't call one of his magazines The Smart Set for nothing. Like a lot of socially insecure young men, I once took this bait and imagined I was a member of the Smart Set. But then, very slowly, it began to dawn on me that the object of all this hatred and contempt was not some imaginary George Babbitt, but rather people just like my grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles. And then one day (it was while reading a Philip Roth novel), the fog of narcissism cleared sufficiently for me to understand that the butt of the joke was me.

    Wise has, of course, gone far beyond ridicule of the White booboosie. He states with refreshing candor a strong desire that we be exterminated. I already knew that people like Wise were talking about my sons and daughter when they fantasized about genocide. He can't quite bring himself to advocate killing Whites, although it's pretty clear that he would not be deeply troubled to hear of Whites dying prematurely, or childless, or at the very least with a crippling sense of shame over the transgressions of their fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I already knew that people like Wise were talking about my sons and daughter when they fantasized about genocide.

    Exactly. He's putting a death wish on my family and my children. You notice he's excluding LIBERAL whites from his genocidal statements.

    I agree with what David says, but I don't agree that we've lost the Mandate. Some of us have, and some of us have not. And the Lord said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." I'm sure He could find fifty and spare us all for their sakes.

    But how are those fifty to be spared when they are being overrun? The conservative Catholic Hispanics are already here, and most of them are native English speakers, or bilingual. They're part of the good Christian stock that built the mighty Southwest. Most of the latest Hispanic immigrants are liberal secularists and fornicators. That is hardly an improvement. Spanish-speaking hedonists are a definite downgrade from English-speaking ones.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Appalling. Surely they will not prosecute him for such drivel, whereas you can rest assured that you would if you dared say the same about blacks. Sorry, I forget it is not even allowed to say ‘blacks’, we must say ‘African-Americans’.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Alte said,

    "Hispanics are already here, and most of them are native English speakers, or bilingual. They're part of the good Christian stock that built the mighty Southwest."

    Wait one minute. If you are to be truly integrated you have to come out against these immigration rates and you can't be disinterested. A strong "Latino's against illegal immigration" would be a powerful voice politically. A "good" immigrant can't be trying to fundamentally change the nature of society.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Its kind of bizarre that he would say that white conservatives are an endangered species. On average they have more kids than white liberals. To throw your arms around the immigrants and say they’re the same as you is an act of desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not only are talents spread unevenly, but different talents are rewarded differently at different times - three examples: computer nerds, athletes and women with high verbal intelligence.

    Computer nerds have recently been doing very well because of the emergence of the arrival of the PC and the Internet, athletes are dong well because of the professionalisation of sports (being good at sports didn't provide much material reward 50 years ago). Finally the arrival of the post industrial service economy has provided lots of jobs for verbally smart women that didn't exist 40 years ago.

    All these changes are due to technology, but left liberals assume that if one group lacks power or money it is always due to social exclusion.

    As far as Time White goes, he is like one of those white South American independence leaders from the 19th Century.

    He only has a modest position in the current white order so he wants to destroy the order of his fellow whites and become an elite in a new post-racial society.

    Of course for the non-white groups he claims to represent it will be a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

    ReplyDelete
  23. A strong "Latino's against illegal immigration" would be a powerful voice politically.

    Hispanics in US more divided over illegal immigrants

    ReplyDelete
  24. Its kind of bizarre that he would say that white conservatives are an endangered species. On average they have more kids than white liberals.

    Yeah, I know. It's only white liberals (his own demographic) who are dying out, not the conservatives of any color. Making babies is one of the things conservatives do relatively well.

    In most European countries it is the same, it's just that a higher portion of the population over there is liberal so the overall population size is declining.

    He's basically written his own epitaph, but the irony is probably completely lost on him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Alte wrote,

    "Black turnout was down this year."

    So what? The point is that black voters overwhelmingly support the Democratic party. Your initial comment implied some kind of change in that trend, and I pointed out that I haven't seen any evidence for this. Saying that Black turnout is a red herring.

    "Didn't the aristocratic and intellectual upper-classes intermarry across national borders, just as they do today?"

    Yeah, good point. I should have said that race has been a rallying cry in the past. They used to call it by different names--Christendom, Europe, etc.--but the meaning was plain enough. When they talked about black-headed Moors, well, they weren't just talking about Islam. See this flag for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maure

    I guess I didn't say "race" because our ancestors didn't say it. They usually had other ways of saying the same thing.

    "A black Medici would not have been hanging out with the African servants..."

    A dark-complected Italian does not a multiracial Europe make. This is another red herring. Simply because you had a few non-white looking aristocrats (do you have any evidence, by the way, for black Medici ancestry beyond the usual ambiguous portraits?) doesn't mean European aristocrats were race-blind. But it's true that they married across national lines.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mark Richardson wrote,

    "What I want to conserve is my "ethny" which is not race alone but also culture, language and religion. In other words, the larger tradition to which I belong.

    Yeah, I think that's an accurate summation.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Alte,

    That article shows that Hispanics are divided on illegal immigrants but not that they are a political voice to oppose it. Summarised it says:

    "It's not that people are angry at the immigrants themselves, but they are concerned over the impact the uproar is having on their lives," Navarrete said. "Its taking a toll."

    So its selfishness to the rescue? You're either with us or against us on this. Its up to the immigrants to show what kind of country they want live in. Saying "leave me alone" is an endorsement of the pro immigrant, change America, position.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A dark-complected Italian does not a multiracial Europe make.

    I never claimed that Europe was "multiracial". My example was merely proof that -- in the rare case where Europeans were faced with someone of the same class but a different race -- they were inclined to treat him primarily according to his class. That would make sense, as they wouldn't know to treat foreign races as some sort of underclass unless they had an underclass populated by foreign races.

    Other examples would be Alexander Pushkin, Alexandre Dumas, George Bridgetower, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, Josephine Baker, the three African popes, Anton Wilhelm Amo, W.E.B. du Bois (who studied at the University of Berlin), and Colin Powell.

    I've always found I am treated better by white people in areas where non-whites are rare, than in those where non-whites form a substantial group. I think most Europeans were more concerned with slaughtering and pillaging their white neighbors, than about what the Moors were doing. The Moors were merely a curiosity or excitement, at least after they were expelled by the Spaniards. Germans are very big on Moors, for example Jim Knopf.

    In short, I think that nationality and ethnicity, rather than race, have usually been in the forefront in Europe because people of other races are simply so rare that they don't really figure into the political world, and are instead seen as mere curiosities. Something to stare at, but not really something worth campaigning over. That is only changing now because of the mass-immigration of other races, and the increasingly global nature of politics.

    So its selfishness to the rescue?

    Yes, of course. All political movements are, at their core, about selfishness and advantageous alliances. They will change their tune when they realize that the newer immigrants are taking the Hispanic natives' positions, and not a moment sooner. White Americans wouldn't complain about increased French-Canadian immigration until or unless it threatened their own well-being, either.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alte said,

    "White Americans wouldn't complain about increased French-Canadian immigration until or unless it threatened their own well-being, either."

    Totally different situation. The French-Canadians are much closer culturally so, while the immediate impact would be relevant, the cultural issues would be presumably less. The Latino's did not make America. They have no claim to America. The only acceptable attitude for an immigrant is gratitude and a desire to fit in. If they start thinking "what's best for Latino's?", they're not really Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jesse,

    The history and demographics of the American Southwest is a bit confusing. It was all Spanish-country (or French country) first (hence the term Reconquistadores) and was later bought or claimed/conquered by the Anglo-German settlers. Many of the whites down there are recent immigrants to those states, while the Tejanos and other native Latinos were there before those whites got there, often for hundreds of years. Furthermore, the Hispanics and native whites there are heavily inter-related, often with family ties spanning the border, so the politics is a bit fuzzy.

    Both the Latino immigrants and the white immigrants are greeted with hostility by the native population. The major difference being that the white immigrants to those states are more interested in assimilating, whereas the Latino immigrants wish to remake the Southwest as a Spanish-speaking barrio rather than preserve the local Anglo-German-Tejano-Indian but English-speaking flavor that the natives cherish.

    In other words, the situation isn't as cut-and-dried as the Australian-Asian one. They were fighting over that territory back-and-forth until 1835. And -- to further complicate things -- often both the immigrants and the natives are "white", or both the immigrants and the natives are "Hispanic". And many times both the immigrants and natives are white Hispanics.

    LOL. Like I said, it's complicated. I lived in Texas for 6 years, during high school.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Alte, have you read "Blood Stained Altars" by a Fr Kelly? I think Tan Books publishes it. Very interesting revisionist history of Mexico, claiming that it was doing well until the socialist secularists took over.

    I feel really quite sad about what has happened to American WASPs. Such clever people, but losing their country because of a failure of nerve really.

    I can't resist saying that the American Episcopalian Church is now run by a woman, which sort of says it all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Alte,

    The 1835 Spanish/Mexican population must have been small. Nothing like the current number of Latino's we're seeing in America.

    If they want to push their 1835 grudge its total weakness for the white population to cave to it. We all know what a crap hole compared to America Mexico is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jesse

    I am not sure that Mexico is a total "craphole" compared with the US. Nice balmy weather, fascinating ecosystems, good beaches, feminine women, great architecture and cuisine.

    From a Catholic point of view, it is, well, Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "the three African popes"

    Alte:
    I'm not going to be able to cite anything authoritative at the moment, but the early North African Church was part of the classical Mediterranean world, not black Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  35. David Colalrd said,

    "I am not sure that Mexico is a total "craphole" compared with the US. Nice balmy weather, fascinating ecosystems, good beaches, feminine women, great architecture and cuisine."

    Lol ok.

    There was a comment recently by a poster saying that men should "go Galt". I didn't know the reference at the time, but I'm sure many of you do and its from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. the idea is that its legitimate for a strong man to withdraw his contributions from a useless society to hasten its downfall. This to me seems a remarkably individualist way of looking at society.

    For me the idea of withdrawing your labour from society seems horrifying because I always felt that to be an individual divorced from your society was to feel largely lost and without purpose. Consequently contributing to it was its own reward. However, not everyone feels that way. We know that America is a much more individualist country, probably than Australia. So if the country has individualism as its ethos does that mean to be a good American is to be individualistic?

    I look at the situation in the US with Mexican immigrants, and from my perspective I'm horrified. I'm sure that many things can be said about Australia and other countries but the idea that a country can accept with general equanimity millions of "undocumented workers" in their country, with many more to come, and a large minority waving the flag of another and demanding dual language rights, seems to me bizarre.

    I realise that Europe has many of the same problems but surely this American quasi acceptance must be the product of large scale individualist thinking. If your country is already diverse and people live fairly individualist lifestyles with individualist goals, large scale immigration probably doesn't affect people's life that much? Consequently that adds to its acceptance.

    Of course I could be totally off course

    ReplyDelete
  36. This article is a good example of why I, despite having traditionalist sympathies, left traditionalism for white nationalism.

    I judge the worth of a movement by its willingness to tell the whole truth. Mark's analysis of liberalism is frequently excellent but I can't help but think that his delicate terminology is ultimately designed to mask telling the full truth, perhaps because it would earn him the title of racist, sexist, homophobe et al. Either that, or he is a little scared of where the truth will lead him.

    My point, with regards to this article, is that liberalism is not the reason for Wise's hatred for whites. Ideology is rarely sufficient to bring up such atavistic emotions. No, the key to understanding his hatred of whites is his jewishness. A visceral hatred of whites and their cultures is part and parcel of jewish life. Wise's just uses Marxist mumbo-jumbo to disguise his motives, just like Freud, Franz Boas etc.

    In fact, I have read a good proportion of this blog and can't recall seeing the word "jew" once. Odd, given that jews have been, for the last half century at least, the main proponents and enforcers of liberalism (left and right).

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Catholics here who seem to be pretending that their faith trumps all other considerations are being naive and, quite frankly, make me embarrased to be a Catholic.

    The Catholic Church is closely intertwined with European culture. If the church had've been established in Lagos instead of Rome, I am sure the Catholic contributors here would not feel quite as passionate about it as they now do.

    It's also worth mentioning, that I have no doubt they would sooner live in a community populated by white atheists than black catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "We know that America is a much more individualist country, probably than Australia. So if the country has individualism as its ethos does that mean to be a good American is to be individualistic?"

    Yes, I would agree with that statement,a an American. I would further add, that in order to be a "good American" one must also be exceptionalist. One must strive to be not only the best AMERICAN he can be, but also the best at what he does, period.

    Those were the ideas that put America on the map,literally. Those were the ideas that had us making some of the best products in the world for a time, and we must rediscover this attitude, even though I am well aware that those from other countries find it insulting and offensive. I will not apologize for it, unlike Obama. Or rather, I will,as soon as the Chinese apologize for militantly enforcing the same attitudes for 100's of years and I can assure you that apology will not be forthcoming.


    What you WILL see from the Chinese is a rise to the top of the global pack for practicing a successful group strategy. People will eventually come to see China as "the land of opportunity".

    "Faced with the choice of being ruled by white people (with whom we share a long history and with whom we are often inter-related) or by Hispanics (who despise us), and increasing number of native black people are realizing where their bread is best buttered."

    I see this over and over, and I have to laugh every time. Nobody in America is "ruled by white people". I am white as a snowflake and grew up in an area that was poor,but the blacks were actually much better off than the whites. If anything, the blacks ruled over us. The only person I rule over is myself, I don't make any national decisions, I don't even make policy decisions at a company or in any group whatsoever. I am in a lower "caste",if you will, than most minorities in this country and no one will extend me any type of assistance because I'm in this "oppressor class" and I'm an obstacle to "social justice" or something.

    Then some asshole tells me I just can't see my "white privilege". It's pretty hard to see when you're 17 years old and breaking into condemned buildings to sleep in old newspapers and the government's giving HUD housing to minorities and women based on their race and genitalia,but not to able white males,I'll say that much.

    Seriously, how the hell am I privileged as a white? Where are all these racist white nationalists who want to give me a handout because I'm a white heterosexual man of Protestant Christian heritage? If you meet any of them tell them to send me a check,because apparently I've been oppressing people my entire life by just breathing, and they forgot to give me my world leader position and millions of dollars cash.

    Obama got his nobel peace prize for being black,though,so these whites who run everything must be serious stuff-ups.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous,

    Thanks for that contribution.

    Bob,

    But not all liberals white or otherwise are Jewish.

    ReplyDelete
  40. In fact, I have read a good proportion of this blog and can't recall seeing the word "jew" once.

    Because I regard an anti-Semitic politics as leading people into a political cul-de-sac.

    Bob, I'll let your comment stand (despite not liking your "visceral hatred" remark), but I'm not going to enter into a debate on this issue or allow such a debate to develop on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I can't resist saying that the American Episcopalian Church is now run by a woman, which sort of says it all.

    Oh, dear. That is very sad. There are many good people in that church, so they must be very frustrated at the way things are developing.

    We have a local Episcopalian church that is becoming Roman, so there is that bright spot, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The 1835 Spanish/Mexican population must have been small. Nothing like the current number of Latino's we're seeing in America. If they want to push their 1835 grudge its total weakness for the white population to cave to it.

    Yes, of course. But that wasn't what I meant.

    Both the original Hispanic and Anglo-German populations were relatively small. It's a hard place to live and doesn't support a large population, because of the lack of water and the harsh climate. The Southwest population has been swelling rapidly lately, because of the immigrants of both races.

    The whites (called "sun birds") didn't move there until after air-conditioning was invented and the rivers dammed up for irrigation, and the Hispanic immigrants came because the influx of wealthy whites (as opposed to the relatively poor but close-knit native ranching and farming population) led to an increase in jobs as construction workers and domestic help.

    They are actually going back over the border now (we have net-emigration from many states), as the construction industry collapses, which is why the anti-immigrant push is losing steam. A lot of the immigrants still moving north are actually reuniting with (legal, often white) family members that are already there. They are more sympathetic figures than the economic migrants, so people are turning their attention to the economy, instead. Immigration is a difficult subject in America, because most Americans are immigrants or the children of immigrants, themselves.

    I was just describing the area's history to point out how complicated the topic is down there. It's actually less of a race issue than a class issue. The wealthier native whites want the Hispanic immigrants to stay because they employ them (such as Meg Whitman did). The poorer native whites (and increasingly, the native Hispanics and other minorities) see those same immigrants as a threat to their own economic livelihood, but see the immigrant whites also as a threat. All of the residential construction has drained the Colorado river and driven many of the natives out of their traditional trades, and the population expansion has run them off of their land and driven house prices up so high that the natives can no longer afford to own a home. They are homeless in their own homeland!

    And now that the economy is suffering, those white newcomers are "skipping town" and abandoning all of those McMansions they built to foreclosure. They came, moved politics to the left and society toward secular hedonism, decimated the local environment, and now they run away and leave an economic catastrophe behind.

    ReplyDelete
  43. We all know what a crap hole compared to America Mexico is.

    Well, parts of America are crap holes, as well. Detroit and many other industrial cities are wrecks, and there are parts of Appalachia (near where I live) where the people live in run-down shacks and trailers and have their teeth rotting in their mouth. It's like a third-world country there. The area I live in is very nice, though. My husband is sometimes quite horrified by the way that poor American people live; there is little such poverty in Germany.

    Parts of Mexico are quite nice, further south from the border. I know a few Germans who lived in Mexico for a while and they all greatly enjoyed it. One eventually married a Mexican woman and moved there permanently, so I can imagine that it isn't all bad. I know a few German men who moved to South America or Africa, as well. I think if you have money, family/friends, and influence you can live quite well in most countries. You walk around in your own protective bubble.

    The main problem I see with regard to Mexico (or anywhere else, for that matter) is that it isn't Catholic enough. :-)

    I don't see much point in the Catholics from Mexico moving to America, though. That doesn't increase the total number of Catholics. They would be of more use staying where they are and converting their native secularists.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's also worth mentioning, that I have no doubt they would sooner live in a community populated by white atheists than black Catholics.

    All other things being equal, I would prefer the black Catholics, actually. We left Germany, after all, in order to escape a country full of old white atheists and their inevitable decline.

    The entire Catholic Church is trending non-white anyway, so the Euro-centric flavor is waning. I know that the Hispanics in the States have definitely changed the Catholic culture here. Besides, the demographic trends in America point to the possibility that the majority of the population will eventually be non-white Catholics and Pentecostals. White conservatives will probably have a population resurgence thereafter, but there will be a delay as all of the white liberals die off and the population skews non-white for a while. Of course, that could all change quickly due to some now-unforeseen effect.

    I'm not going to be able to cite anything authoritative at the moment, but the early North African Church was part of the classical Mediterranean world, not black Africa.

    Yes, but I am using the American definition of "black" (which includes myself) according to the One Drop Rule.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So if the country has individualism as its ethos does that mean to be a good American is to be individualistic?

    Yes, Americans cherish rugged individualism, which they balance with religiosity and patriotism. Many people moved to America in order to be left alone, so Americans have a national meme of Paleolibertarianism (which is rising up again, with the Tea Party) where we want the government to leave people to themselves as long as they aren't bothering anyone. As Reagan put it: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

    They are also used to massive immigration and are wary of calls for "documentation", as they see government meddling as a loss of their freedom. There is, for example, no national id card. The Arizona immigration statute is not controversial because it would result in increased deporting of the immigrants, but because of the fear of police harassment (asking for ID) of the native Hispanic population.

    And, to be honest, America is just really, really, big and empty. Unlike Australia, most of the land is habitable, so it's simple for someone to quietly isolate themselves, and for no one else to really care. Like the polygamists down in Utah, or the militias in the Midwest.

    I know that there are many illegal immigrants in Maryland, but I rarely see any so I don't really mind them. It becomes different when they reach a critical mass and start making a nuisance out of themselves, though.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nobody in America is "ruled by white people".

    I meant demographically, as in a republic the majority rules. Blacks are viewing immigration through the prism of: do I want a majority of the population to be Hispanic or white?

    Of course wealth is more important than race when determining real power and influence. I'm black but upper-middle class and I am aware that being poor and white would leave me worse off. Black people don't like to admit that publicly though, as that would weaken their argument.

    I am white as a snowflake and grew up in an area that was poor,but the blacks were actually much better off than the whites.

    My parents live in an upper-middle class area that is majority black, and where the whites are often poorer than the blacks. We wanted to move there originally, but couldn't afford to buy a home in the area. There are houses down the street from my parents that cost over $800k.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry, I forget it is not even allowed to say ‘blacks’, we must say ‘African-Americans’.

    No, black has come back into style now.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I meant demographically, as in a republic the majority rules. Blacks are viewing immigration through the prism of: do I want a majority of the population to be Hispanic or white?"

    That's an odd way to view things. All the white people I know are looking at it like: "Why do I have to learn Spanish to read the instructions on my stereo now?" Basically, we're happy to accommodate blacks,latinos,asians, or hyper-jumping space aliens as long as they want to assimilate into American culture. We do not want to assimilate into their culture and shouldn't have to,because we aren't immigrating into the country they're from.

    "I'm black but upper-middle class and I am aware that being poor and white would leave me worse off. Black people don't like to admit that publicly though, as that would weaken their argument."

    I thought that was the case. Black people would make a lot of traction in the great race debate if they would just lay the cards on the table.I realize they're trying to confront a very real group of white racists about some very real select instances of racism, but surely they realize that these cases are the exception to the rule and that white racists are marginalized in the greater white society. Hell, it's practically illegal to be proud of being white, and if you say you are, people make allusions to Adolf Hitler. But people of other races are encouraged to be proud of their ethnic heritage.

    I don't know any white slaveowners or any black slaves, I don't really consider slavery to be my fault because I happen to share the same basic skin tones as the Dutch people who brought slavery here.It also makes me mad that some black people get angry when whites can't tell the specific African or Carribean genetics of individual blacks and then these same people can't tell a white person of Russian,British, Irish, German, or Swedish heritage from a Dutchman.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Alte,

    Its just that such individualism can encourage the retreating into ethnic enclaves and then a casual attitude to overall migration rates. You must have a sense of national ownership on this issue and decide that this is not what you want your country to be.

    In the US you have indiviudalism or rugged individualism tempered by patriotism and religiousity. The rest of the world is increasingly adopting the individualism and ignoring the rest. The US is hugely influential in the culture of the West and if its says that high immigration rates are ok this will influence other countries.

    We just saw what the Tea Party could do in national politics. This was inspired by a desire to cut entitlements, cut taxes, limit the government and balance the budget. Its time for the US to stand up in an equally strong way to protect its culture. Whether as you say America is a land of immigrants or not you have to eventually bite the bullet and say that it should be predominantly Anglo/saxon/celtic white. In other words you can't leave immigration entirely to the economic realm. Sermon over ;).

    ReplyDelete
  50. They would be of more use staying where they are and converting their native secularists.

    I just realized that it was completely hypocritical of me to write that, seeing as how we bailed on Germany.

    Then some asshole tells me I just can't see my "white privilege".

    What, you mean not every white person is living "in the Big House"?

    People compare themselves with their "betters" only. So middle class black people will feel like they are struggling if they are even marginally worse-off than middle-class white people. After all, if you are running a race you won't feel like you have won unless you are faster than the others.

    That is also why women claim they want equality, but crow with satisfaction when they best men in some measurement. They will not feel equal until they are superior. I don't know why that is, but I've observed it often.

    Whether as you say America is a land of immigrants or not you have to eventually bite the bullet and say that it should be predominantly Anglo/saxon/celtic white.

    I like your sermons. We trade sermons. :-)

    But I don't know if I agree with that. Limiting immigration is one thing because it is about national security, white-predominance is another. If they choose not to have children, that is no business of mine.

    Yeah, go ahead and close the border. But closing the border will not solve the underlying problem of missing offspring. I think what will happen is that the word "white" will come to mean something different, and include people it doesn't today. Sort of like in Brazil. I'm already experiencing that change.

    When I lived in the US the first time (about 12 years ago), if I told white people I was black they would look confused for a moment but then just nod. Now they dispute it, and ask me why I'm trying to deny my "white heritage" (a term I had never heard before recently). Sometimes they are even a bit hostile about it, and I've been accused of trying to inflate my own importance that way. Halle Berry and President Obama get similar criticisms about ignoring their "white half".

    I didn't understand the change for a while, until I realized that white people are increasingly feeling like a beleaguered minority, and are eager to swell their numbers to increase their political influence. That is, after all, why blacks are so strangely enthusiastic about the One Drop Rule. There is strength in numbers, and without that rule the number of black people would immediately drop by 20% or more.

    To get back to the OT:
    I bet a large portion of black Republican voters are of mixed race.

    ReplyDelete
  51. bob

    No, I would sooner live in a Catholic community with blacks than an atheist community with whites.

    On balance, I prefer people who are my ethnic group, but their beliefs and religion are very important to me as well.


    BTW the book on Mexico I mentioned is by Francis Kelley and is published by Tan Books: "Blood Drenched Altars".

    ReplyDelete
  52. Alte wrote,

    "Spinelessness? I doubt it. Seems more like simple Realpolitik."

    I suppose cowardice is a difficult charge to prove. But the case for Republican Realpolitik is all but nonexistent. Hispanics and Blacks did not vote as a majority for the Republicans in the last election nor in any other within recent memory. Republicans have no reason to believe they ever will. That Republicans have chosen to cater to minorities anyway means they are either a.) ignorant of the data or b.) afraid of the data. I assumed the latter.

    And one reason, by the way, that minorities won't vote Republicans is simple: a majority of them receives some kind of Democrat sponsored welfare benefit. They have no material reason to vote Republican and so, being politically materialist, they don't.

    "in the rare case where Europeans were faced with someone of the same class but a different race -- they were inclined to treat him primarily according to his class."

    No, they were inclined to treat him as a curiosity. You're quite right that one doesn't campaign against a curiosity. But neither does one identify with him.

    "...that the word "white" will come to mean something different, and include people it doesn't today. Sort of like in Brazil. I'm already experiencing that change."

    But there are significant differences between that country and our own, many in our favor. What in Brazil, exactly, do you find equal to America? How would becoming like Brazil be a sign of US progress or advancement?

    As for a "different" Brazilian definition of white, this confuses the referent with the reference. Just because Brazilians and Americans happen to use the same word "white", doesn't mean they mean the same thing. Yes, they say "white"; yes, we say "white". But when I compare what they're pointing at to what I'm pointing at, I find a significant difference. Don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  53. a majority of them receives some kind of Democrat sponsored welfare benefit.

    Yes, most Americans receive some form of government wealth transfer. But that system is going bankrupt. It might even go belly-up this year, the way things are going.

    I predict that Republicans will turn into a more diverse conservative party. Otherwise, a third party (of the conservative type) will rise up and overtake the Republicans and push them into obscurity. The party leadership sees the writing on the wall, and is positioning the party appropriately.

    How would becoming like Brazil be a sign of US progress or advancement?

    Brazil is behind us, but it is getting its act together, big time. It is advancing rapidly while we are declining even more rapidly.

    But they are making the same mistakes we made, and are pushing feminism, secularism, and hedonism on the populace. Note their new female president, and how outspoken they've been lately regarding the US money supply and debt. They are too cocky, and are not aware of how precarious their advancement is. But their advancement (and that of India) is undeniable.

    But when I compare what they're pointing at to what I'm pointing at, I find a significant difference. Don't you?

    Yes, that was my point. The meaning of the word itself will change, to inflate the numbers. Declining cultures often dilute adherence to cling to power, and there is a long tradition of white-expansion in America.

    Whites are moving from a majority-entitlement position to a minority-persecution position. The difference is palpable. We're at a transition point, when whites begin to feel disadvantaged, but guys like Tim Wise can openly mock them as oppressors with impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Yes, but I am using the American definition of "black" (which includes myself) according to the One Drop Rule."

    Alte -- I don't think Semites have any black blood?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Of course, the thing that makes Australia's immigration policy easier is that we are an island, and a fairly remote one at that. We have no land borders to protect.

    Australia, as I keep saying on blogs, is not just a small version of America. We are not only unique geographically, but our social makeup is different. We have not followed countries like Canada, New Zealand and Britain so far down the socially liberal track. As I have said before, I suspect this is due to our original ethnic makeup being mostly from socially conservative regions of Europe. Also, we are a notably pragmatic people, who have mostly been happy just to do OK. Since we have had few big winners in our history, there is less resentment.

    Many of our folk heroes are indeed white men, but not particularly "successful" ones.

    Also, we are less individualistic. I am quite sure that individualism is a main driver of the intense and endemic American feminism. It is a small step for a woman from thinking "my family alone" to thinking "me alone".

    ReplyDelete
  56. Alte said,

    "Brazil is behind us, but it is getting its act together, big time"

    We'll wait and see. I'm not looking over my shoulder yet.

    On the issue about white persecution that's interesting. Its frequently ridiculed by the left though.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I don't think white people are being truly persecuted, but they are no longer feared, so they are open to ridicule.

    I disapprove either way, of course, because I think it is petty. But I say other petty things, so I won't throw the first stone on that one. People are naturally tribal, and that tends to bring out the worst in them. I have noticed that men are much more tribal than women are.

    Alte -- I don't think Semites have any black blood?

    I don't know. I'm not an encyclopedia. LOL.
    They weren't Semites, they were Christian converts from Roman North Africa (probably Berbers).

    It is a small step for a woman from thinking "my family alone" to thinking "me alone".

    That is true, but I haven't seen any evidence that the statist system does any better in that regard. Faux-independence from men is a natural female inclination, so they'll push for it whatever the reigning political philosophy. I think it's less a result of political conviction than simple wealth. Rich men can afford to spoil their women, and a rich country can do it on a national scale.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well, Alte, I think one can have a happy medium between statism and individualism. I think one reason "gender relations" are healthier in Australia is that while women can get goodies from the State if they have to, they will generally do better relying on a husband who earns well. Most Australian women - studies show - want to have a good earning husband and work maybe part-time themselves.

    Individual careerism is not frowned upon, but Australians don't admire it as much as Americans, in men or women. The adulation for top businessmen in America seems distinctly odd to Australians.

    Australia is a social democracy, but not a socialist country. In terms of the power of the state, I felt much more "put upon" by the state in the brief period I lived in the US than ever in Australia. Maybe it is just that small, homogeneous nations are easy to govern. Although I also think we inherited the British system of Government, which is really good and stable.

    Good point about a nation being able, if rich enough, to indulge its women. Only a very rich country will be bothered to fit out huge battleships to make them comfy for lady sailors.

    I don't know about women being less tribal. Maybe women are more willing to switch tribes, which is what one would expect, evolutionarily. But women, as Vox Day is wont to point out, voted very strongly for Adolph Hitler, so they can be quite nationalist.

    I don't seem to have strong tribal feelings, so I am probably not a good person to comment. My wife, mother and mother-in-law seem more patriotic than me.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Because I regard anti-Semitic politics as leading people into a political cul-de-sac.

    I don't even know what that means. It smacks of obfuscation.

    It is, of course, your blog so you are free to determine the parameters of "acceptable" discussion. I can only presume though, that your interest in the causes of our malaise is an intellectual hobby rather than an attempt to know the truth and actually do something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. No, I would sooner live in a Catholic community with blacks than an atheist community with whites.

    No, David, I didn't say a Catholic community with blacks. I said a black Catholic community, meaning an all black community versus an all white one.

    Here's another test that one can pull on the self-deceiving race-blind religious types, would you rather your daughter marry a black catholic or a white atheist?

    As for Alte, I didn't realise you are part-black yourself, so the question doesn't really apply to you.

    ReplyDelete
  61. bob

    I would rather my daughter marry a black man, who was a Catholic and of good character, than a white atheist. Yes, I think so.

    I would be worried about the cross-cultural issues, but if I felt he loved her, and would make a good Catholic (or even Christian in general) husband, I would not object.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Even in the Southwest, the antagonism is directed toward new Mexican immigrants, not those who have been there for generations.

    Have you ever been to the Southwest? I was born and raised there, and the simple fact is that immigration is not now and never has been a law-and-order issue. "American" Hispanics identify with their illegal brethren the vast majority of the time, and, contrary to your point, the further removed from the Old Country a Latino is, the more romantically he views it. This is why you have 4th, 5th, and 6th generation Mexican immigrants (who have never been past Tijuana themselves) flying the Mexican flag from their businesses and homes. These are the ones who brag the loudest about the imminent brown takeover.

    Any American who tries to ally with the local Hispanics against the invaders is a fool. The methods don't matter if the end result is the same, and in this case, it is the same: colonization. Los Angeles is not a Spanish-speaking dump because of illegal immigration. It's the way it is because of Mexican immigration, legal and illegal. Immigration restrictionism in the United States, while ostensibly color-blind, is a de facto Caucasian movement.

    Considering your circumstances, I guess I can't blame you for trying to spin the facts away from race and into areas where you're more comfortable, but neither can I honor a lie. No restoration of America or the West is possible without a Caucasian majority. In this, the opinion of non-whites, no matter how ostensibly pro-Western, may be very illuminating but is ultimately irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I would rather my daughter marry a black man, who was a Catholic and of good character, than a white atheist. Yes, I think so.

    This is why I take Catholic intellectuals with a big grain of salt. Demographic annihilation is acceptable so long as it helps you into the next world.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Oooh, good topic David! We've been discussing something similar in class this week.

    But women, as Vox Day is wont to point out, voted very strongly for Adolph Hitler, so they can be quite nationalist.

    They thought Hitler was hot, that's why. They used to swoon over him like he was a pop-star because of his aggressive rhetoric and maniac self-confidence, and he always had beautiful women fighting over him and killing themselves when he rejected them. Women like watching men fighting on their behalf, especially if they're wearing sexy uniforms and using scary machinery, so they tend to be warmongers.

    Women don't care about the message, they just vote for whoever makes them tingle the most. Their ostensible tribal loyalties are a side-effect of their loyalty to a particular man in the tribe. They switch tribes when they latch onto another man. More empty vessel stuff.

    Your wife is patriotic because of you and her father. I'm also more patriotic than my husband, on his behalf. Women will often protect their men's interests even more enthusiastically than their own.

    I have a book about rhetoric where they talk about Bushisms. Bush would actually say whole paragraphs of gibberish that just repeated core phrases that he knew would appeal to his audience (specifically his female conservative audience). He actually cultivated the habit, because it worked so well. Compassion, belief, safety, protection, trust, family, etc. He wasn't actually saying anything concrete or offering solutions to problems (political rhetoric), he was just talking about values (ceremonial rhetoric).

    Obama did something similar with is aloof-alpha-male posturing and hope-and-change rhetoric. If you listen to his speeches, which are loaded with ceremonial rhetoric and are absolutely mesmerizing with his amazing voice and rhythm (women respond well to musical patterns in speech), you will note that he never mentions concrete actions. It is all "yes, we can" (with me as leader), we are one nation (with me as leader), the oceans will rise (with me as leader). Add a few surfing photo ops, and footage of him dancing with his wife and cuddling his kids, and you have a presidential campaign.

    Look at this last election. No discussion of the issues, just pure ceremonial rhetoric. Very us-versus-them and "We have hotter men. No, we have hotter men, and their men are losers. No, our men are hotter and they're better leaders." Expect politics to become ever-more tingle-based and less dialectic-based, as women become the target group for all campaigns.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Most Australian women - studies show - want to have a good earning husband and work maybe part-time themselves.

    It was the same here and in Germany for a long while. But the women kept pushing for "goodies from the State" and those eventually outweighed what the average working stiff could provide. It's a slippery slope.

    Demographic annihilation is acceptable so long as it helps you into the next world.

    Religions (including liberalism, which is a sort of secularist religion) are slowly replacing race/ethnicity as chief allegiance, as national ties weaken and the world becomes more globalized. Traditional Catholics are already a relatively small tribe, so we would be less inclined to further dilute our own influence by splitting down by nationality, race, ethnicity, whatever. We need everyone we can get, and membership is quite onerous, so we'll be loathe to cannibalize ourselves.

    I suppose that is religious Realpolitik, the same as in Islam.

    Have you ever been to the Southwest?

    I lived in Texas for 6 years, and my parents lived there for 14 years. My sister still lives there, so I'm there visiting a lot. Perhaps Texas is unique because of its strong Tejano culture, thriving economy, and good relations at the border (until recently, with the drug wars).

    Isn't California already minority-majority?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Even the title of his book was hot: "my fight". That just screams: I am the greatest! Any ladies who would like to be mounted should now form an orderly line. He complimented them all of the time; all that Aryan beauty and Mother Cross stuff was pure pedestalization. His dismissive treatment of other men was obvious; he saw the male competition as mere cannon-fodder.

    Don't tyrants always go for the women first? I wonder if that is how it is going to go down in the States now. I'm hoping one of the Pauls will take over, but if they don't it will probably be an authoritarian despot.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Jesse,

    Vox thinks it will be India rather than Brazil. My money is on the BRICs, as a group. China just downgraded our debt. It's countdown time to insolvency.

    Sidenote: It's frustrating that we're in different time zones because I feel like I'm talking to myself. Then I wake up and have 6 responses. It's sort of odd, like corresponding through the mail.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Alte said,

    "Expect politics to become ever-more tingle-based and less dialectic-based, as women become the target group for all campaigns."

    Its funny because in Australia we've had two nerd Pm's in a row. Howard then Rudd. Today we have more of a studly opposition leader, Abbott, and much was made of his fitness, iron man challenges and photos of him in Speedo's etc.

    I'm thinking of recent US politics and you had Edwards, hot, Romney, hot, Kerry, not hot, Mccain, too old. Looks in politics does give me the shits though. You can hardly blame politicians like Bush for stuffing up if they're elected on a beauty contest basis. As for that great speaker Obama. His speeches were total rubbish. I'm glad its all coming back to bite him now.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Alte said,

    "Vox thinks it will be India rather than Brazil."

    From the perspective of Australia our focus is on China and India. We don't really know that much about South America but they still seem to be still gradually fighting their way out of their socialist/feudal slump.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Alte:

    "Traditional Catholics are already a relatively small tribe, so we would be less inclined to further dilute our own influence by splitting down by nationality, race, ethnicity, whatever. We need everyone we can get, and membership is quite onerous, so we'll be loathe to cannibalize ourselves."

    Precisely. It goes with being in a Catholic (universal) Church. I like Haitians better than, say, Norwegians, because the former are Catholics. I am not, I hope, a bigot, as I have lots of Protestants in my family, and I think they formed my character a great deal. But the most important thing for me is that I and my family can practise our Faith in peace, and hopefully prosperity.

    I even think along the lines, sometimes, that I am grateful for the Evangelicals in America, because they vote for Republicans, who then protect the West, including Catholics. The modern power of America safeguards the safety of the Vatican. Which is irony for you.

    I suppose I prefer people like me on balance: white anglo-celtic men. But religion tends to trump that - so I feel closer to Alte, because she is my kind of Catholic, than I do to say Nancy Pelosi or the late Ted Kennedy. To use American examples.

    It is complicated by actual moral behaviour though. I preferred John Howard, a Protestant, to Paul Keating, an ostensible Catholic, because I thought Howard was more socially conservative and a better kind of man. Likewise, I very much disliked Malcolm Turnbull, despite his ostensible Catholicism, because he voted anti-life.

    On nerdy PMs. Some women probably find Tony Abbott sexy because he is a fairly good looking, fit guy. But my wife admitted to being turned on by his "retrograde" attitudes to women. Some women just like "authoritative" men. The media will tell you that John Howard was unsexy, but some women find straight, businesslike men attractive; and regard the more photogenic men as himbos and male airheads (e.g. John Edwards).

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hot = Putin (Super Plus Ultra Hot), Obama, McCain, Wulff, Abbott, Clinton, Haider (when he was alive), Paul the Younger (the older really is just too old), Blair, Sarkozy

    I'm not saying I like their politics, just paying homage to their general hotness and tingle-inducing potential. I don't like the pretty-boys like Edwards and Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Alte

    Your point about feeling like you are conducting a conversation by mail rather than in real time, applies to us Australians nearly all the time. This blog is an exception, not being US-based.

    I calculate that the time where you live is about 9.00 pm, so you are still up, but pretty soon all you Americans are tucked up in bed, and things go real quiet in the blogosphere.

    Yes, I would have guessed you would like Putin. You seem to like the real hardasses. My wife tends to like big, cuddly, "authoritative" men, like Inspector Gently on the BBC.

    Alte, you need to ask yourself, would I find these guys attractive (Blair, Abbott, etc.) if they were not powerful. I think Putin just looks tough (and smart). He would lead some kind of gang, just from the look of him; but Blair looks like a schoolmaster, and Abbott like a rowing coach or something.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Oh dear, I think that Putin is the worst kind of criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Jesse,

    Of course he's a criminal, but
    he looks like Daniel Craig, he's smart, he's sexy, he speaks fluent German, and he's ex-KGB. Have you seen him walk? Walk is pronounced "swagger" in Russian, LOL. My German aunt and I used to drool over him when he came on the nightly news. Eastern European hotness personified, in my opinion.

    C'mon, Jesse. If you see an attractive women do you wonder if she's been keeping an active prayer life? Or do you just think, "Wow, she's hot."? It's not like I want him to give me a lecture on the catechism, or anything.

    David,

    I probably wouldn't go for them without their position (as you note, I prefer the intimidating testosterone-oozing types like my husband), but I would probably put them in the "cute and nerdy" category with Geithner and Wulff. But even if I think that such a man is attractive, I end up gravitating to the hard-asses anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Alte,

    Is the devil attractive? You probably shouldn't answer that ;). If I see a girl who's stunning, and then is a bitch then that's pretty much it. Now maybe if I was super dominant or whatever then I could be with her and be immune to her "poison" but aside from that no way. If you see the super heros, Batman for instance, sure he cracks onto Catwoman, but that is to bring her over not just to have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Just one quick note: Mexico is approaching a failed state status. In border cities, such as Juarez, there are gun battles that last for up to an hour between rival drug gangs. There are also broad daylight killings of police. Tijuana, Juarez and Matomoros have all seen over 100 police officers killed each this year, from local cops to Federal investigators. Some were shot in their front yard.

    It isn't what it was 20 years ago, or even 10. Most uni's in Texas have banned travel even into border areas.

    ReplyDelete
  77. David, in response to Bob wrote

    "I would rather my daughter marry a black man, who was a Catholic and of good character, than a white atheist. Yes, I think so."

    Are there a shortage of Catholic white men of good character? I'm not sure what Bob thought this question would reveal. Anyway, Ken Ham has been pushing this line for a while, and it's certainly false among the more conservative churches, where the sex balance is pretty even.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Alte wrote,

    "Yes, most Americans receive some form of government wealth transfer."

    The article you linked referred to social security benefits and government jobs (e.g. teachers, soldiers, BMV clerks, etc.).

    soldiers = welfare queens?

    social security = housing vouchers?

    Really? Whether or not the military/social security/public schools are a bad idea, the fact remains that their employess do some kind of work for their bread.

    I don't believe you were ignorant of this distinction. So why are you attempting to conceal it?

    ReplyDelete
  79. As for Ron Paul, what a thin whiny voice, uber nerd. I've never heard his son speak.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous said,

    "Mexico is approaching a failed state status. In border cities, such as Juarez, there are gun battles that last for up to an hour between rival drug gangs."

    Great so Mexico is a failed state. I would suggest that love of la familia and the Catholic church (these problems in Mexico aren't that recent) isn't enough.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Alte, how can I put this?

    The body matters.

    Its sex matters;
    Its parentage matters;
    Its race/ancestry matters;
    Its age matters;
    Its IQ matters;
    Its fitness matters;
    ...and so on.

    Notice that the Left attacks the meaning of every part of the body, though in piecemeal fashion.

    Notice that God has given meaning to every part of the body. When the Left makes war against the body, it makes war against its Creator.

    Defending the role of heritage in society isn't about tribalism/Hitler/etc. any more than defending the role of sex in society is about wife-beating.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Alte - "
    I don't know. I'm not an encyclopedia. LOL.
    They weren't Semites, they were Christian converts from Roman North Africa (probably Berbers)."

    I ventured Semites because of the Punics. It's all speculation about probabilities, the wiki entry which I just looked at says "They may have or not have been descendants of Roman Colonists, Punic or native Caucasian Berbers, as this is not recorded."

    ReplyDelete
  83. Bartholomew and others

    I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. Please don't put words in my mouth. Of course, there are white men of good Christian character. Of course, I would prefer - ceteris paribus - that my daughter marry within her own broad ethnic group. But good Christian character would be the first thing I would hope for. Other things are not unimportant, just less important.

    I think it is usually best if people marry their own kind. I married a girl of my religion and of similar background and ethnicity. But I can certainly imagine, say, marrying a Vietnamese girl, if she were a good Catholic and there was nobody I liked better of my own ethnic group.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Religions (including liberalism, which is a sort of secularist religion) are slowly replacing race/ethnicity as chief allegiance, as national ties weaken and the world becomes more globalized. Traditional Catholics are already a relatively small tribe, so we would be less inclined to further dilute our own influence by splitting down by nationality, race, ethnicity, whatever. We need everyone we can get, and membership is quite onerous, so we'll be loathe to cannibalize ourselves.

    So you and Catholics who think like you (certainly not all and possibly not the majority) are all for the demise of the West. Good to know. Here's what I think of that.

    Traditionalists need to be extremely cautious in allying with right-leaning non-whites. In my experience, when you scratch the surface of a "conservative" black you almost invariably find a liberal who has no desire to return to Caucasian hegemony. They are, in fact, quite hostile to such an idea.

    I've never known a black conservative to accept, for instance, genetic racial differences, particularly when it comes to IQ. Do you accept these differences, Alte? Can you?

    Illustrating this fact for the benefit of my fellow traditionalists has been my primary goal in discussions with you and I'm grateful to you for obliging. In this and other discussions, you have frantically attempted to parry the racial aspect of virtually all the problems that plague the modern West. Your comments are, in my opinion, proof that your struggle is simply not our struggle and never will be.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I like Haitians better than, say, Norwegians, because the former are Catholics.

    So, would you rather live in Haiti or Norway?

    While I generally prefer Catholics to secularists, the question should be a no-brainer: Norway wins, hands down. As far to the left as it is, Norway is at least a functional society. But if your religion has such a hold on you that you would actually prefer to live in Haiti, that would be a fascinating insight.

    Alte, how can I put this?

    The body matters.


    Norwegians can be re-converted to Catholicism. Haitians, on the other hand, will never produce a 1st World country. Heritage is destiny.

    Great so Mexico is a failed state. I would suggest that love of la familia and the Catholic church (these problems in Mexico aren't that recent) isn't enough.

    And the fact that this isn't blatantly obvious to everyone speaks to a profound divorce from reality.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I would rather live in Haiti. Warmer, and I could get to a Catholic Church.

    The Norwegians will never become Catholics again (apart from the small Norwegian Catholic Church, of course). Catholic nations that turn Protestant seem to eventually secularise.

    I don't care how well Norway functions as an economy, or Sweden, they are dull, boring, depressing nations. And they will probably eventually succumb to Islam.

    Traditional and Conservative Catholicism has vigour because people who adopt it tend to reproduce themselves, which is more than most Westerners seem to be capable of these days.

    But all this discussion is beside the point if one believes in God and an afterlife, because that becomes the central issue of life: not the economy, or race, or IQ.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Pat,

    Mark was quite clear that anti-semitism wasn't going to be a topic of discussion.

    Van Wijk,

    Lets say on average blacks are less intelligent than whites, does this mean that two people who confront each other, one being black and the other white, should make an immediate assessment of the other and say, you're black I'm white, that's that? Certain black people can be more intelligent than white people, certain whites can be more intelligent than blacks. Saying to someone or the other that you're this, you're that, the IQ scores are down, seems awfully deterministic and not very productive.

    A focus solely on intelligence also ignores the fact that firstly raw intelligence isn't enough, many lefties are very smart, and also that a simple IQ rating isn't conclusive, intelligence is something that can be fostered and honed through diligence and hard work.

    If se say we don't want Mexicans in the country because they're less intelligent, an answer can be put forward that we need less intelligent people to fulfill certain tasks. If we on the other hand say that we don't want Mexicans on mass because they're a cultural threat, for whatever reason, that should be sufficient justification to shut the door.

    Its not my business to follow closely, or even necessarily greatly care, what goes on in Haiti because they are not of my culture.

    ReplyDelete
  88. David Collard said,

    "I would rather live in Haiti. Warmer, and I could get to a Catholic Church."

    And you'd need a lot of security or you'd be robbed and murdered.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Is the devil attractive?
    Hmm.... That would depend. Does he look like this? Just kidding!

    If I see a girl who's stunning, and then is a bitch then that's pretty much it.
    The "bitch shield" is just a shit test, and women will drop it the minute they find someone hot enough. It's just a method women use to keep the number of admiring approaches down to a bare minimum.

    Just one quick note: Mexico is approaching a failed state status.
    That's true. Things have gotten really bad down there.

    Jesse, Mexico isn't Catholic anymore, it's secularist-socialist.

    Are there a shortage of Catholic white men of good character?
    Yeah, I wondered the same thing. As if there weren't enough to go around, or something. No devout Christian would prefer to live in a country surrounded by a bunch of atheists, not least because they'd probably eventually try to curtail his religious practices and indoctrinate his children with rabid secularism. Purely hypothetical.

    If the question were: Would you prefer to live in a country surrounded by mostly Christian white people or mostly Christian black people?, then of course we would prefer the former. Which is why we are here, obviously.

    I wouldn't move to Scandinavia, even if it were Catholic (unless I had no other viable options). Too dark in the winter, and very cold.

    It's not that I think race doesn't matter. Obviously there are measurable differences between the races. What I think is that race isn't the thing that matters most to me when choosing my mate or acquaintances. The body is important, but I am not a body with a soul, I am a soul in a body. The soul comes first, the body thereafter. I would have to repudiate core Catholic doctrine to promote the opposite, which I am not willing or interested in doing.

    I don't believe you were ignorant of this distinction.

    Paying farmers to not farm, the elderly not to work, or (most) government workers to not seek more productive employment, is simply another form of welfare. If you are speaking purely of "welfare", then I'd have to see your statistics that the majority of the people receiving the benefits do not, or have not, worked and paid into the system at some point. Most of the adults receiving food stamps, housing assistance, extended unemployment payments, free lunches, or disability payments are working and paying taxes while receiving those payments.

    I am against all forms of federal welfare, both of the Republican and Democratic sort. That Republicans and Democrats tend to vote for the party that provides them with their favorite form of welfare, is not something that I (as a registered Republican) would gloat over. The state should be shrunk by at least 60%, across the board and including DoD. No welfare or warfare state for me, please.

    As for Ron Paul, what a thin whiny voice, uber nerd. I've never heard his son speak.

    As if that mattered. He's hot because of his political fortitude, not anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  90. So you and Catholics who think like you (certainly not all and possibly not the majority) are all for the demise of the West.

    Firstly, may we all please note that most Catholics are not traditionalists, and many self-described Catholics aren't even Christians? Secondly, you are confusing things. For traditionalist/conservative Catholics, Catholicism is the West. Every move away from Catholicism and her traditions, back to the Reformation period, is a break with the West. Our views on when the "decline of the West" began go back to Martin Luther's disobedience. Even in my ancestors' main ethnic groups (Irish, Bohemian, and Bavarian), Catholicism is the defining basis for their traditions and culture. I cannot be traditional without putting Catholicism first, because Catholicism is the basis of my traditions.

    I've never known a black conservative to accept, for instance, genetic racial differences, particularly when it comes to IQ. Do you accept these differences, Alte? Can you?

    I accept the evidence of it at face value, and it does not bother me in the least. Do you think I now have to declare that I am too stupid to reside in America because I am black? I have yet to see what that particular comparison is supposed to mean in the concrete.

    If stupidity were a reason to segregate people, then we would have to chuck out the majority of white people, as well. Most people -- of all races -- are relatively stupid. Your point?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Pat Hannagan (12:22) said;

    "Bob may inadvertently make anti-semitic comments and end up in a political cul-de-sac, and since Mark wants his readers to avoid such a situation, wouldn't it be best if Mark lets his readers know what exactly constitutes anti-semitism?"

    Bob's comments were not inadvertent and were the thrust of his statement. The reader's can use their common sense in making comments and by looking at past threads you can see that this isn't an issue in practice. I'll keep this short because it was stated that this was not to be the subject of this thread and any detailed discussion by me would invite a counter response. I would not consider it anti-semitic to state that Wise was Jewish and looking at past posts commentors have made such comments.

    The point I think is that being Jewish, or largely deracinated Jewish, might explain the origins of an individual's political or social outlook but not why their idea's have received traction in the political sphere. Liberals and the left aren't made up exclusively of any one racialy derived group and regardless of someone’s motivation the liberal or left conclusion remains the same, that an individuals race shouldn’t essentially matter and that a white culture which would seek to exclude or dominate members of other races should be criticised and attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Alte (4:18) said,

    "Just one quick note: Mexico is approaching a failed state status.

    That's true. Things have gotten really bad down there.

    Jesse, Mexico isn't Catholic anymore, it's secularist-socialist."

    There was no Mexican golden age. They've been a form of dysfunctional society forever.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Alte said,

    "The "bitch shield" is just a shit test, and women will drop it the minute they find someone hot enough. It's just a method women use to keep the number of admiring approaches down to a bare minimum.”

    I don’t consider someone to be a bitch or not by how friendly they are to me or how attracted they are to me but by their moral goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I'm loath to walk away from an argument but as this is Mark's site I'll guess I have to.

    If you think that this comment:

    "No, the key to understanding his hatred of whites is his jewishness. A visceral hatred of whites and their cultures is part and parcel of jewish life"

    isn't anti-semitic than your comments can't be taken sincerely.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I don’t consider someone to be a bitch or not by how friendly they are to me or how attracted they are to me but by their moral goodness.

    Oh, okay. I misunderstood.

    But really? I mean, you couldn't bring yourself to just hit it once or twice? I mean, if fornication weren't an immoral thing to do. Just hypothetically speaking. Maybe I just know a lot of really horny guys, but I don't think so.

    (We are totally derailing the thread, but this is interesting and Mark hasn't told us to shut up yet.)

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well, obviously anti-liberal and anti-feminist statements are allowed on a traditionalist blog, or he'd have nothing to write about.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Van Wijk,

    "Norwegians can be re-converted to Catholicism. Haitians, on the other hand, will never produce a 1st World country. Heritage is destiny."

    I wonder what that means: "Heritage is destiny". It sounds like you're saying there is no soul, there is no mind, there is only the body, and the body alone makes us who we are. Have I misunderstood you?

    Man is soul, mind and body in a single whole (maybe a metaphor for the trinity?). Would you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  98. I would rather live in Haiti. Warmer, and I could get to a Catholic Church.

    David, you are either deluded or a liar.

    These sort of comments reinforce the arguments of the atheists that faith blinds one to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Jesse wrote,

    "If we on the other hand say that we don't want Mexicans on mass because they're a cultural threat, for whatever reason, that should be sufficient justification to shut the door."

    Well said. I think it would also be true to say that mass mestizo immigration is a racial threat, which is also sufficient justification to shut the door.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Alte (8:52) said,

    "But really? I mean, you couldn't bring yourself to just hit it once or twice? I mean, if fornication weren't an immoral thing to do. Just hypothetically speaking. Maybe I just know a lot of really horny guys, but I don't think so."

    Lol Alte, I don't know. Of course a part of you would. We're getting into the realm of hostility to women here. If a woman has such power that they can make you do things you otherwise wouldn't or that you'd be ashamed of then guys will resent women. If women know that they can make a guy do anything then women will think men are lame. Being a "horny" guy I don't think is such a thing to brag about if it means that you're nothing but an inflated sex drive and if this is promoted it indicates an adolescent culture. Am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  101. For traditionalist/conservative Catholics, Catholicism is the West.

    So, does that mean that England is out of the West and Haiti is in?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Alte

    Which email? I have trouble with the home one. Is it something you could leave at my website?

    BTW, Jesse7, writing off an entire nation like Mexico as a flop is quite unreasonable. By what standards? I wasn't joking earlier: the country has many good features. Poor socialist government seems to have been part of the problem.

    Also, the USA doesn't look so good these days itself.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I passed up sexual opportunities with some "hotties" when I was young, Alte and Jesse7. A man will put something before the love of women if he values it highly enough. That is what priests do. And married men are supposed not to take up sexual opportunities other than their wife - and I have done this a couple of times - passed them up I mean.

    I notice pretty girls, but I don't want to sleep with them necessarily. A man has to learn that he can't do that. And if he does, I don't believe it will lead to happiness. The Roissys of the world are storing up trouble for themselves.

    bob, if I could live with a modicum of safety and had an OK job, I would not mind living somewhere like Haiti. I wouldn't want to live somewhere like Norway, where it is freaking cold, the people are Protestants-turning-into-PC-idiots, and there is effectively no Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  104. David Collard said,

    "By what standards? I wasn't joking earlier: the country has many good features. Poor socialist government seems to have been part of the problem."

    Mexico has many admirable qualities but its also dysfunctional. You can't blame everything on socialist governments. I defy you to point out a Mexican period of success.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Jesse7

    You are thinking like an economist. Man does not live by bread alone. Russia, Ireland, Poland, and Mexico, may never have been perfectly functioning societies, but they have produced something of lasting cultural value.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I spent a short period in Denmark. I liked the Danes a lot. And there was a Catholic Church. So maybe that would be OK. But I had a funny experience there, and this was over ten years ago. I was spoken to by two refugees, a man and his wife, from Iran. They seemed lovely people, but of course they have now been followed by many more Muslims. So I don't know how long Denmark will keep its identity.

    ReplyDelete
  107. David Collard,

    I'm inclined to agree with Bob, man and the West don't live by Catholicism alone.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I'd prefer Haiti, too. Once they'd rebuilt, of course. I really don't like the cold. I fantasize sometimes about moving to Tanzania. I had a colleague from there once, and he showed me the most beautiful pictures. Or India.

    So, does that mean that England is out of the West and Haiti is in?

    Hmm... That's an interesting question that I have never thought of before. I suppose places like the BRIC countries will be the next hot-spots of civilization, followed by the Afro-Caribbean nations (in maybe 75 years). Christian civilization has already been created, now one just has to transplant it to stable and growing populations.

    Of course they won't be "the West" though, as the West is a defined place. The West will be aging and declining in that time, and will rise up again afterward from younger, fitter stock. I suppose that's how I see it all happening, if I had to give an informed prediction.

    Of course a part of you would.

    Yeah, but that's what I meant. I wouldn't actually sleep with a guy like Putin because I have some sort of standard. I don't hop into bed with every guy I think is hot, and I can control myself.

    But not sleeping with them doesn't mean that I don't still think they're hot. There are a lot of guys I think are hot that I would never sleep with because they're creeps. But they're hot creeps.

    So I guess my question is: Is it possible for a woman to be a "hot bitch"?

    David, I sent it to the netspeed address. No, I can't post it online as it contains personal information that I'd rather not share with a wider audience.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I'm inclined to agree with Bob, man and the West don't live by Catholicism alone.

    Hmm... Yes, this is true, of course. But "the West" is rather portable nowadays. It is possible to live a Western lifestyle and communicate with Westerners anywhere with a decent infrastructure and sound government. But for Catholicism you need flesh-and-blood communion with other Catholics.

    Although I've moved around and traveled a lot, so I'm a bit of an adventurer. As has David. My husband was recently offered a position in Oz recently, but he turned it down because the kids are doing so well with their schooling now. I was tempted, but the flights to visit our relatives would be horrendously long.

    ReplyDelete
  110. OK, Alte, I'll look for it on Netspeed. I hope you and your family are well. My wife just celebrated her 50th birthday.

    Is it possible for a woman to be a "hot bitch"? Not in my opinion. A man's performance in every respect with a woman depends on his confidence. A "bitch" is likely to destroy that.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I don't care how well Norway functions as an economy, or Sweden, they are dull, boring, depressing nations.

    And in Haiti you'd get all the enriching diversity and culture you could possibly swallow. You're welcome to it.

    does this mean that two people who confront each other, one being black and the other white, should make an immediate assessment of the other and say, you're black I'm white, that's that?

    Not at all. You're speaking on the individual level. I work with blacks and otherwise have to deal with them on a daily basis, and we generally treat each other cordially. But we cannot treat all blacks (or Asians, or Mestizos, or Indians) as individuals and expect to survive as a nation. America's black community produces staggering levels of violence and dysfunction, wildly out of proportion to its numbers. Black gun crime is indirectly responsible for the passage of draconian gun laws, which in turn produces more dead white people. IQ was merely the example I had closest to hand; it is one factor among many. As you and Alte pointed out, there are many low-IQ whites, but for some reason they lack the pathological violence we see among blacks, so there is something besides IQ at work here.

    We can accept these factors without denying blacks their fundamental humanity.

    I wonder what that means: "Heritage is destiny". It sounds like you're saying there is no soul, there is no mind, there is only the body, and the body alone makes us who we are. Have I misunderstood you?

    Bartholomew, I believe I've answered this question in my response to Jesse. If I have not, let me know and we'll hash it out further.

    My point regarding Norway vs Haiti was that Norway is of the West and Haiti is not. I refuse to lose the hope that my European cousins can one day return to the fold. Haiti may be Catholic as all get out, but Haitians are not my people. I wish them all the success in the world, in Haiti, and without access to my tax dollars.

    My overriding concern is for the survival of Caucasian people in the West, and it seems that globalist Catholics stand against this goal, or are at least indifferent to it. They are no friends of mine.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Van Wijk said,

    "it seems that globalist Catholics stand against this goal, or are at least indifferent to it. They are no friends of mine."

    Its not good enough, in my opinion, for white Catholics to jump off one successful horse, White European civilisation, for a new one, global Catholicism, because the old one is slowing down.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Jesse7

    You are still thinking like an economist. Of course I prefer, as I have already said, people of my own kind. But even more important to me are people's beliefs and faith. And their moral actions.

    Whom should I identify with, as an Anglo-Celtic man living in Australia? I am lucky that Australia has not turned into a PC hellhole so far, and it is possible for me and my family to live quite well here. We are safe, we can practise our faith, and I can lead my family as a Catholic husband and father.

    But Australia is showing some worrying signs of social decay; and other places where people like me live are even worse. I admire the American achievement, but it has given the world radical feminism, affirmative action, raunch culture and abortion on demand as concepts in the last few decades. Other Western nations are not much better. Even Catholic countries of European type are well on the way to social insanity. Look at Quebec or Spain, or even Ireland. All going down the same gurgler as the rest. Social decay.

    Why should I not look for hope among Christians in Africa or Latin America? It was African Anglicans who took the lead in debating the Californian Episcopalians who wanted the worldwide Anglican Communion to endorse homosexual "marriage".

    And, BTW, Western civilisation has been a success because of Christianity. Christianity, or at least its traditional form, promotes strong families and birthrates. No people, no civilisation.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Firstly, may we all please note that most Catholics are not traditionalists, and many self-described Catholics aren't even Christians? Secondly, you are confusing things. For traditionalist/conservative Catholics, Catholicism is the West.

    Then it seems I am correct in stating that "traditionalist" Catholics are at odds with traditionalist conservatives.

    I have no problem with the notion that some Catholics believe traditionalist conservatism to be at odds with their religion, just as I accept that you yourself are not a traditionalist. But for some reason you post at a traditionalist website where you frequently engage traditionalists. It should be made plain that the globalist Catholicism you propose is anathema to what we are trying to achieve. Religion is the ultimate big tent, and it cannot account for culture. Since culture is vitally important, your Catholicism uber alles philosophy has a gaping hole in it.

    Even in my ancestors' main ethnic groups (Irish, Bohemian, and Bavarian), Catholicism is the defining basis for their traditions and culture.

    I don't think you can ascribe your Catholic globalism to the Irish, Bohemians and Bavarians. All three of those peoples have fought wars over national concerns, often against their fellow Catholics. I seriously doubt that that the Irish would welcome a massive influx of Bohemians into their country, much less Haitians.

    If stupidity were a reason to segregate people, then we would have to chuck out the majority of white people, as well. Most people -- of all races -- are relatively stupid. Your point?

    See my response to Jesse and Bartholomew above. Most people of all races are relatively stupid, but there is a wide discrepancy in the way they behave. The Dutchman can go to South Africa and flourish, but the Zulu who emigrates to the Netherlands remains a savage. As Jesse, Bartholomew and I agree, a people can be shut out of a country if they are culturally alien. Speaking for myself, I question whether some non-white peoples who have historically been a part of America from very early on are in fact able to assimilate into the American nation. The fact that after nearly four centuries blacks remain a problem population gives credence to that argument.

    ReplyDelete
  115. But even more important to me are people's beliefs and faith. And their moral actions.

    Haiti is Catholic and Norway is secular, yet you'll undoubtedly be physically safer in Norway than in Haiti. Rape, murder and theft seem to be fairly high on the "moral action" list of your fellow Catholics. You continue to wear blinders.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Van Wijk:

    "Haiti is Catholic and Norway is secular, yet you'll undoubtedly be physically safer in Norway than in Haiti. Rape, murder and theft seem to be fairly high on the "moral action" list of your fellow Catholics. You continue to wear blinders."

    A difference is that Haitians as Catholics believe that killing is wrong, but Norwegians as secularists believe that abortion is a good. That matters to me.

    Also, we are using extreme examples. Most Catholic countries, even Black Catholic countries, are not as badly off as Haiti. You would only need to go next door, to the Dominican Republic.

    And white secularists have engineered some total hellholes themselves: the Soviet Union for example. And white Christians produced the recent Balkan debacle.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Pat Hannagan said,

    "If the Caucasian people survived by converting to Islam, even though the traditional West will cease to exist as a result, you'll be happy I assume since it is merely race only that matters?"

    It seems you're needlessly picking a fight.

    David Collard said,

    "And, BTW, Western civilisation has been a success because of Christianity. Christianity, or at least its traditional form, promotes strong families and birth rates. No people, no civilisation."

    Its not only Christians who manage to reproduce. I would suggest that Christianity has been one of the elements of the West's success.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Christians don't just reproduce, they move around and spread their faith - or they did until PC killed missionary activity in many cases. The only comparable creed is Islam, in that respect.

    Modern cultures is increasingly Gnostic, with its hatred of the sexual differences, conception, children and the family. There are people seriously arguing now that it is better not to have been born, and that man is a plague on the Earth. Pure gnosticism. Heresies come and go, but the Church remains, to combat them.

    ReplyDelete
  119. David Collard said,

    "Also, we are using extreme examples. Most Catholic countries, even Black Catholic countries, are not as badly off as Haiti. You would only need to go next door, to the Dominican Republic."

    The point still stands that the Haitian and Dominican cultures are substantially different to ours, in spite of their Catholicism, and that black populations have higher crime rates than white ones. On the point about the Balkans and Russia, I don't think anyone is saying that the culture of the white nations is monolithic.

    ReplyDelete
  120. David Collard,

    I don't think there's a single person here who thinks that the Church shouldn't exist, that it should be endlessly weakened, or that the spread of Christianity hasn't been a benefit to mankind and the West. Nonetheless we have a culture that draws on many sources and not just Christianity. A pure embrace of globalist Christianity to the exclusion of national and other cultural concerns has the potential to seriously undermine our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Jesse7:

    "On the point about the Balkans and Russia, I don't think anyone is saying that the culture of the white nations is monolithic."

    What about the cultures of the Balkans or Russia is exceptional among white nations? Whites are perfectly capable of barbarism that makes blacks look like amateurs.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Tim Wise is probably playing what Steve Sailer has described as the white status game: who can be the hippest. He is a self-hating white. I don't think his Jewishness, if he is a Jew, has anything to do with it.

    On the point raised by Jesse7, we are mostly men here. Can we please be logical? I didn't say that race and culture have no value. I simply said that, for me, faith and values come first. I would rather marry a Philippina Catholic than an Australian secular feminist, for example.

    Also, since when did Catholicism, or Christianity in general, erase national differences? I would indeed like to see the whole world Catholic, but I would still like to see national culture and character preserved: Italian Catholics would not resemble German Catholics, who would not resemble Brazilian Catholics and so on.

    My Catholicism does not ignore racial or sexual differences, or even attempt to. I do not confuse a Russian man with a Maori woman, for example. God loves them both, but they are not necessarily "equal" in every sense. Equality is a liberal, Enlightenment idea. There is no equality in the traditional Christian worldview, other than the equality that we all have souls to save.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Pat

    Recent popes have been liberals, in many respects. JPII was the worst in this regard. Benedict is an improvement, but yes they do tend to overdo the social gospel. It is a phase in the Church's history. One reason I identify as a Traditional Catholic to some degree these days, is that I want to draw on the entire teaching tradition of the church. I think this is the point you are making in part.

    My feelings on Jews have changed a bit over time. I am less philosemitic than I once was. I was brought up to like Jews, my mother having known lots of Jews in the Caulfield area of Melbourne as a child. I don't have strong feelings about them either way really.

    I think Wise is just a dick. I don't know what xxxx means in your comment, but "dick" fits. Quisling is another word that comes to mind. Nobody really likes a suckup, whether it is someone like Tim Wise or a mangina.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Pat Hannagan,

    Assuming that this article was made by someone else, a non-Jew, it could easily have been done so Where would your analysis go then?

    ReplyDelete
  125. "Why do you run from defining anti-semitism Jesse? Seriously. I think if you honestly examine your difficulty and fear of doing so you may have an epiphany on the subject."

    Rubbish. I "run" from defining it because that was not be the issue of this thread. So you do your examination of people's backgrounds and boom there's your answer. Except as we said not all Liberals are Jewish so its not much of an answer.

    I haven't seen a Jewish focused thread on Mark's site in the past nor I suspect will there likely to be one in the future. That's not just because attacking Jews is discredited, its also because it is largely irrelevant in this day and age. Time to update your politics. Irreligious Jews are strongly represented amongst the left and Liberals. Unfortunately for your analysis, however, they are not the only people there.

    You claim you're a white nationalist. Yet so far your primary focus is on talking about Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Why don't I just pull a similar statement from a non-Jew? Then we can all scratch our heads as to why he's attacking whites.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I would suggest that Christianity has been one of the elements of the West's success.

    Indeed. Our Catholic friends would do well to remember that the West was born in Greece, not Vatican City. To argue that Christianity represents the whole of the West is both specious, in that it denies the fundamental contributions of pagan Greece and Rome, and needlessly insulting to the memory of those men who killed and died to preserve our heritage at places like Marathon, Thermopylae, and Zama.

    On the point about the Balkans and Russia, I don't think anyone is saying that the culture of the white nations is monolithic.

    Which is why we differentiate between Eastern and Western cultures. Russia is an Asiatic country.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Pat Hannagan said,

    "I am a White traditionalist and I want for us what Wise wants for Jews."

    Jolly good. On the point about looking up a non-Jewish piece I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to find, I'd probably start with the Guardian. One of the joys of being a commentator on a blog, as to running my own site, means I'm spared from having to do research, so I'll leave off for now. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that it would be hard to find though.

    But on finding said article we can then do the background thing. Maybe the writer will be black, or gay, or have a grudge against the establishment, or be the product of divorce, or be clinically depressed, or think that the whites have gone astray and deserve what they get, or be a communist and think that the only way forward to post racial politics is to end the white numerical advantage, or think that there is cache in adopting such a position. The reasons why someone might be a Liberal are endless, (although generally predictable). Nonetheless, once arriving at Liberalism the message is the same. Race shouldn't matter, the domination of white people is potentially/actually unjust. So since every Liberal sings from the same song sheet, maybe its more efficient to politically focus on Liberalism, rather than people's racial background?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Jesse, that's an excellent comment. But I'd request no further replies to PH. I know from experience that if I provide any kind of forum there'll be no end to it. That's why I'm simply deleting comments from PH.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I know from experience that if I provide any kind of forum there'll be no end to it.

    Yes, I've seen this game played out as well. He oh-so-innocently asked for a definition of AS, but no answer would satisfy him, and the thread would devolve into endless wrangling and haggling in an effort to justify his Jew-obsessed worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I'm not going to second guess Mark and this will be my only comment on this. I realise that the topic was not directly related to the thread, but it also wasn't a million miles away from it. I don't think the Jewish concerns are rational but it has been a present or background issue in right wing politics since the war, consequently its probably not unhelpful to talk about it. All a leftie has to do is suggest anti-semitism or racism and we all hit the dirt apologising and I for one am tired of it.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Jesse,

    If I give a platform of any sort, every discussion from here on in will revolve around one topic alone. I have attempted such discussions many times previously, they are never edifying.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Tim Wise believes that the Republican victory on Tuesday was some pro-white victory. He doesn't understand how both the Republican and Democratic parties have been changing demographics and undermining the Caucasian majority in the USA (and what unrestricted unassimilating immigration has done to change Europe). All you have to do is read his white guilt liberal party book ''White Like Me''. He believes that Tea Parties want to take America back to the 1950's (or the 19th century) because conservatism is about being old and the past and liberalism is all about change, tolerance, multiculturalism, equality, civil rights/human rights, autonomy, diversity and progression in his beliefs. Also I disagree with Alte that minorities are socially conservative. Most of the younger generational ones tend to be moderate or libertarian on social issues rather than liberal like say San Francisco which has just banned happy meals (and other examples of social liberalism). The reason many individuals are turning indifferent towards homosexual issues is because they don't hate or love homosexuals. They just don't care. Homosexuals are just like anybody else and they don't deserve special treatment. Contrary to what Tim Wise says if there is some collapse it will be not just of neoconservatism but it will also be of liberalism in the USA (following it's economic collapse). It won't be because Americans are old hillbillys that have nostalgia for 1950's and are bigoted racist, sexist, homophobic uneducated extremist Nazilike fascistic Bible thumpers. Instead it will be because Americans have moved on and liberalism (especially the civil rights movement aspect) has done it's course.

    ReplyDelete
  134. http://bentleyvanguard.com/2009/11/12/npletter-to-the-editor-tim-wise-2/

    ReplyDelete
  135. As you and Alte pointed out, there are many low-IQ whites, but for some reason they lack the pathological violence we see among blacks, so there is something besides IQ at work here.

    Please provide evidence of race-based differences in crime rates, when socio-economic factors and reporting+sentencing discrepancies are accounted for. There might be a statistical difference, but your ideas of a race-based pathology would not be supported.

    Mass unemployment and the welfare state has broken down black families, increased substance additions, fueled domestic violence and abuse, and made young men apathetic at best about the rule of law. The same is increasingly happening in white families across the country, but I would not throw that in their face.

    Its not good enough, in my opinion, for white Catholics to jump off one successful horse, White European civilisation, for a new one, global Catholicism, because the old one is slowing down.

    But that is not what we are doing. You are putting words in our mouth, and being very unfair, which is out of character for you. We were asked (through sly manipulation and bizarrely-fabricated scenarios) whether we value our religion higher than our ethnicity and we answered with a solid "Yes!".

    How can any Christian -- of any denomination -- answer differently? Are you lukewarm? Are you attempting to build some sort of earthly utopia? Is not our highest calling to serve God and spread the faith? Earthly goals take second place and that is righteous.

    Are you really going to dispute that? Are you really going to ridicule us for truly believing what we profess?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Whites are perfectly capable of barbarism that makes blacks look like amateurs.

    How true. My own family fought in support of a Western regime that practiced bayoneting babies, turned men into lampshades, and raped, burned, and pillaged its way across Eastern Europe within living memory. Americans dropped the bomb. The slaughter in Dresden and Hamburg was unprecedented. They're still digging up mass graves filled with defiled women and executed children in Kosovo.

    You'll spare me the sanctimony. Western barbarism is simply better-organized, more scientific, and highly effective. That does not make it less barbarous.

    I support the West because I am Western. I support Germans because I am German. I do not do it because I think Germans are innately superior to everyone else. I am not interested in ideas of racial supremacy that do not hold up to scrutiny. I do not have to hate on everyone else to be proud of who I am.

    Our Catholic friends would do well to remember that the West was born in Greece, not Vatican City.

    It was the Catholic Church that preserved the classics for the ages, in the first place, and our intellectual tradition is built upon them. The Catholic Church is the main reason that Latin hasn't completely died out, and they are the largest organization to promote the Greek and Roman classics, which is why such classics have spread around the world in the wake of the Church.

    You know that, so I can only assume that you were being facetious.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Then it seems I am correct in stating that "traditionalist" Catholics are at odds with traditionalist conservatives.

    I never claimed to be a conservative, only a traditionalist. In fact, I have specifically stated a number of times that I am not a conservative, but a libertarian of sorts. I have not exactly been hiding that fact.

    Conservatives are interested primarily in preserving the status quo. I am completely dissatisfied with the status quo and am interested in a return to traditionalism founded upon the core social doctrines of solidarity and subsidiarity. I am not interested in reversing things to 1950 (or whenever) because I see that era as the beginning of the end, not some ideal to be recreated or whose legacy should be preserved.

    I am here as a Christian and an anti-feminist, not because I am interested in joining some sort of global race-war. A war which, I believe, completely misses the point that it is secularism and socialism that has caused our decline. Why would I promote the advancement of socialistic atheists just because they are white? I would consider them part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  138. The greatest famine in human history took place under Mao and the Chinese were long derided as primitive rice-paddy farmers intent on slaughtering and starving each other, but look at them now. America has gone groveling to India and awaits her own decline. Britain once ruled the world, and now they are mostly confined to a dreary, rainy island full of curry shops.

    The Japanese also once claimed that racial superiority was the basis of its growth... until the growth stopped. Now they have walled themselves in and wait to die out, while patting each other on the back and congratulating themselves on their innate racial superiority.

    Do you want to end that way, or do you want to take a clear-eyed look at why we are dying out, and how to reverse the trends in time to catch ourselves on the downslope? It is not too late, and closing the borders is only a tiny first step in the right direction.

    Heritage is not destiny. Heritage is heritage, and that is all. Civilizations rise and fall, and ours is now falling. That does not mean that I don't hope it will rise again later, but it does mean that I understand that things can change rapidly because of demographic shifts and technological advancements. I am a scientist by training and by temperament, and I will deal with the facts on hand. The facts do not look good.

    I cherish my Western heritage. It is the only heritage that I have, it is closely aligned with my religious faith, and I am rightly proud of it. There is much to be proud of and much to honor and preserve. But that does not mean that I am going to pretend to be blind to the social diseases afflicting the West and claim some sort of racial superiority over others. That is a fine line that I am simply not willing to cross, and a delusion that I will not adopt.

    I think we should close the borders. We gain little or nothing from the influx of non-Western immigrants, and they further weaken our ability to reform ourselves because their presence lowers social cohesion. But that was not what you are asking me to say, is it? You are asking me to say that mass immigration is the problem, when I believe that it is merely a symptom of our larger decay.

    Mark is a conservative, but he also strikes me as a realist and as someone brave enough to look the totality of problems directly in the face and suggest viable solutions. That is why I respect him and write here. I may not always agree with him, but I do understand that he sees the whole pattern of what is going on with a unique clarity.

    Are you that brave? Or do you just want to close the borders and wait to die, while congratulating yourself on not being a negro? As Tim Wise's article documents, there are plenty of people out there who would cheer such a decision and wait patiently and happily for your demise. The problems the West are facing are not limited to racial heterogeneity, and will not be solved by racial homogeneity. Race is not the main problem, therefore race cannot be the main solution.

    ReplyDelete
  139. And now the improbable has become reality, and I have run out of words on this subject. And this one really did take so long to write that it's delayed my entire schedule for the day.

    But now you know exactly where I stand and exactly how I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Alte,

    I think mass immigration is the problem now. I don't think that its the cause of our problems but it doesn't just have the potential to undermine social cohesion it has the potential to undermine a coherent meaning of the west. A culture I don't think can survive without something more tangible to underlie it. The reason why children of immigrants are often liberal/libertarian, rather than traditionalist is because traditionalism, which was based in their home country, does not present a coherent picture of the world to the children who now live in the new world. Similarly western concepts will not ring true to people if there are not people who live in the Western countries who identify primarily with that concept.

    How can a truly liberal/libertarian country survive? (I'm using libertarian in the left sense) These people won't want to fight for the country. They'd be generally unwilling to help their fellow man in difficulty, and their entire political outlook would revolve around themselves or attenuated abstract ideals. If you can't have an ethnic majority for people to identify with then they are forced to identify with themselves, then you have a fully liberal society.

    If my rhetoric was hard it was only to emphasis the absolute importance of this point. We on the right have to lead this, it can't just be another issue we have on the list. Also as you know time is of the issue with this point.

    Alte said,

    "Is not our highest calling to serve God and spread the faith? Earthly goals take second place and that is righteous."

    No they don't for me. I am here on this earth and I have a responsibility for it and I will be judged on how I went at the end. Given that it is of the highest priority to defend my culture and my society.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I am aware that time is of the essence in the immigration debate, and of course we should stop the massive bleeding before beginning operation on the patient that is our society. I have never denied that. But I think that will all be irrelevant very soon, judging from the state of the markets. You are worried about sharing the pie, but very soon there will be no pie left to share.

    Given that it is of the highest priority to defend my culture and my society.

    Well, then that is the difference between our philosophies. I do not consider liberal secularists to be members of my culture. I do not want them in my society, and I think they are a plague upon the West. I consider them to be Marxists who are leading my culture to decline and civil war. The fact that there are now non-whites enjoying the chaos they created does not negate the fact that they created the chaos.

    They are robbing my children of their cultural and monetary inheritance. Their being white is simply not enough to make up for that. They are the members of the Culture of Death, like this Mr. Wise. That is not my culture any more than the Nazis were my culture just because they were German. White does not make right; not now, not then, not ever.

    Blood may be thicker than water, but if your brother cuts your throat you will still bleed to death.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Pat Hannagan,

    Give it a rest, if you want to post you have to be respectful to the host otherwise its just an irritation.

    Alte,

    I am not hoping for or betting on colapse. White athetists might be mistaken but they are still of my culture.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I'm sure he's fine with you commenting but not in this manner or tone. He's obviously not on now and when he comes back all these posts will be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Please provide evidence of race-based differences in crime rates, when socio-economic factors and reporting+sentencing discrepancies are accounted for. There might be a statistical difference, but your ideas of a race-based pathology would not be supported.

    So you think that blacks are unfairly targeted by the police and given longer sentences by judges based on their race? I knew were weren't a conservative, but it's frankly bizarre that someone who is in total agreement with the left regarding racial crime would post here. Anyway, here you go. Here's the salient point: "The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic."

    Mass unemployment and the welfare state has broken down black families, increased substance additions, fueled domestic violence and abuse, and made young men apathetic at best about the rule of law. The same is increasingly happening in white families across the country, but I would not throw that in their face.

    Here we have the libertarian argument (It's the welfare state!) and the liberal argument (Whites do it too!). Blacks commit violent crime far out of proportion to their numbers (in America, that's over half of violent felonies while being only 15% of the total population), and they do so in every Western country they are found in. Sub-Saharan Africa is perpetually awash in wanton violence. Left to their own devices, blacks will never create 1st-world countries, and neither can they maintain them.

    I do not have to hate on everyone else to be proud of who I am.

    It's a common liberal trait to assume that hatred must be the motivation when discussing obvious racial differences. Love motivates me; love for my culture, my heritage, and my people. For decades we've been told that we are evil and that all our good works are likewise evil. We've been told that all people are fundamentally equal and to state that there are differences between the races is bigotry. Those days are coming to an end, and your approval is not required.

    It was the Catholic Church that preserved the classics for the ages, in the first place, and our intellectual tradition is built upon them.

    You simply cannot be that dense. The Church did preserve the teachings of the Greeks and the Romans, and I give them much credit for that, but they had to have something to preserve in the first place, didn't they? You deny the contribution of ancient pagans at your peril.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Pat

    I agree with you about Bolt, and even Tim Blair. They are not real conservatives, to my mind. They are at best right wing liberals. Bolt is pro-homosexual, and they are both pro-feminist, at least when it serves their rhetorical needs. Note the way they play the feminist card to attack Islam.

    Strangely, Tony Abbott is probably a better true conservative than almost anyone in the media. And John Howard was quite good.

    The media toss in a right wing liberal and think they have balance. I am pretty much a social conservative, with some left views on the environment, Aborigines (to some extent) and few other things, including some aspects of social welfare. But I don't do the antiSemite thing. I am a "race realist" but I don't dislike Black people or Yellow people or whatever. I admit to feeling more comfortable surrounded by people like me though. I believe that good fences make good neighbours.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Hear, hear, Alte! I'm sorry but I can't agree with the belief that race overrides all. The modern white community is living proof of that.

    Creating a strong and cohesive society is about cultivating a homogenous system of beliefs and values-- it has nothing to do with skin colour. So many young Asians who have been brought up in the West find themselves shocked, confused and worst of all rejected when they attempt to move back to their "home country." The problem is a difference in culture-- not a difference in race.

    I believe that the only reason immigration is a problem is because of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism encourages ethnic segregation and a "honeycomb effect." If the policy was integration or assimilation I don't think we'd have nearly so many issues to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  147. I was just watching the ABC, our BBC, and I saw a newsish show aimed at kids or teenagers. They started out with an examination of nuclear power, detailing the pro's and cons but giving a very good insight into the techonology and ended with the statement "it might be time to harness the power of the atom again" or some such thing. Then they did a piece on medical teams working in Afghanastan. Focusing on the job and its technical aspects in a fascinating way, without any ghastly music to highlight the horrors of war or suggesting the activities were unjust, and ended with the statement "Good job". I never would have thought to see that in Australia in this day and age, and on a young person's program as well.

    We need greater sense in our societies and an appreciation of what we do and not to focus endlessly on injustices nor engage in selfishness with an overall feeling of social despair. Given that I do not think that leftists or liberals are evil but mistaken, inconsistent or incorrect in their focus.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous said,

    "So many young Asians who have been brought up in the West find themselves shocked, confused and worst of all rejected when they attempt to move back to their "home country." The problem is a difference in culture-- not a difference in race."

    What other people do in their countries is not a reflection of us. The asian person would go back to their home countries because they would feel a tie to it.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I support the West because I am Western.

    You've shown that you don't support the West. You support the Catholic Church because it is your West; you've tried to pour the West into the cistern of the global Church and claim that the mixture is the West. You're playing games. We're talking about two different entities, and you know that very well.

    I never claimed to be a conservative, only a traditionalist.

    Right, a traditionalist Catholic, aka a globalist Catholic. And the views of globalists are antithetical to those of conservatives, even if the former happen to be anti-feminists. I wanted this point to be made plain and I'm satisfied that it has been.

    I am here as a Christian and an anti-feminist, not because I am interested in joining some sort of global race-war.

    No one is inviting you to join anything, just as no one here is planning to start or even hoping for a race war. But if the United States dissolves in the next few years, some form of race war is likely to happen. We've seen miniature versions already in Los Angeles and New Orleans. Understand that liberal Caucasians are virtually alone in their insistence that race is a dangerous myth. Everyone else actively agitates for their own tribe. The United States is comprised of many nations living within a single border. I'm an advocate for my own nation and no one else's. Libertarianism is a farcical philosophy, and I don't expect it to survive its first serious collision with reality.

    But that does not mean that I am going to pretend to be blind to the social diseases afflicting the West and claim some sort of racial superiority over others. That is a fine line that I am simply not willing to cross, and a delusion that I will not adopt.

    You're projecting. We're talking about race and culture because that is the subject of the thread. Accusing me of casting aside all social diseases because I'm obsessed with race is disingenuous. If that were the case, I'd identify as a white nationalist.

    Peoples who are well adapted to live and prosper in their own countries have been imported en masse to my country, and the results have been disastrous. I've stated many times that I wish for my people and our culture to survive in our own lands, and this will not be possible if we are inundated with peoples of alien cultures; yes, the government has let them in, and even invited them in many cases, but that doesn't mean they are not part of the problem. You read that and think "White Supremacy!" because you are not a conservative. You deny the importance of race and culture not because they are not important, but because it is part and parcel of libertarian dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Anonymous,

    Integration is not consistent with the numbers we are receiving now nor with liberal individualism that says everyone should be able to do their own thing.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Love motivates me; love for my culture, my heritage, and my people.

    Bullocks. I hear the same racist garbage coming from blacks, but they cherry-pick their own favorite issues. They can spend hours ruminating on penis size, physical prowess, and white infertility and frigidity. Each side trying to prove their own innate superiority while only pointing out that Asians are fittest to rule over us all. It is a farcical discussion that I am not interested in engaging in, regardless of which side is currently speaking.

    If that were the case, I'd identify as a white nationalist.

    I fail to see any difference between their rhetoric and yours. According to you, black people are dumb, oversexed criminals, and need to be removed from the country in order to found a White Utopia consisting largely of white people who arrived here after most of the black people did.

    Sounds like same-old, same-old to me. How do you differ?

    You read that and think "White Supremacy!" because you are not a conservative.

    No, I say that because I was born and raised in a country that tried that before. I say that because my own family was forced from their homes at gunpoint and made to walk hundreds of miles on foot, while leaving their livelihood behind. Forgive me if I do not find the idea of committing such on act on others particularly appealing.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Integration is not consistent with the numbers we are receiving now nor with liberal individualism that says everyone should be able to do their own thing.

    They weren't denying the need for immigration controls, or a reform of the political and social systems. They were saying that racial homogeneity is not enough to solve the West's decline, and offering an example to support that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  153. If the German experience shows us nothing else it shows us the lengths people were willing to go to protect their society/tribe. The backbone of the German army was made up of Christians and they must have known that what they were doing was unconscionable.

    In such a circumstance to ask whether they were motivated by love or hate is irrelevant, the outcome is similar. To ignore these forces or to wish them away is not helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  154. To quote Anonymous,

    "I believe that the only reason immigration is a problem is because of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism encourages ethnic segregation and a "honeycomb effect." If the policy was integration or assimilation I don't think we'd have nearly so many issues to deal with."

    The ONLY problem stated is the attitude of the immigrants and the national attitude or expectation shown to them. I was simply stating that when numbers reach high levels integration stops becoming an effective strategey and if the overall social attidude is of liberalism/individualism then that is contrary to such a strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  155. If the German experience shows us nothing else it shows us the lengths people were willing to go to protect their society/tribe.

    No, it shows us the lengths people are willing to go to steal from their neighbors and rape their women. That is not noble self-defense, but animal tribalism.

    They were not fighting to protect their country, nor did they even pretend that was their goal. They were after Lebensraum. Fair enough; everyone enjoys expanding their territory. But let's not assign noble aspirations to their atrocious behavior in the attempted genocide of the Slavic race. The war with the Allies was a polite skirmish in comparison to the absolute carnage in the east.

    There is only so much that one can blame on the body. I could commit adultery and blame it on my instinctive urges, or I could rise above that and control myself. At some point the soul has to take over direction, or we are merely animals.

    I was simply stating...
    Oh, okay. I agree then.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Jesse, I agree with your points and I am by no means in favour of mass immigration because, as you said, it is simply too unmanageable. I just think that (to paraphrase Alte) political and social reforms are more important than racial homogenity. There are a lot of immigrants who frankly shouldn't be here-- of course they are detrimental to society. But I also know so many non-white Australians who love this country and want to work hard to see it succeed. Compare this to the (mostly young) white liberals you see around at uni campaigning for Islam and refugees and who-knows-what-else. Which is more beneficial? I know which I'd prefer.

    ReplyDelete
  157. One more thing:

    The asian person would go back to their home countries because they would feel a tie to it.

    What they feel is that they should have a tie to their home countries because this is what multicultural rhetoric dictates. But these countries aren't their home countries-- they haven't been born there, they haven't grown up there, and most of them haven't even been there. So when they do finally "go back" they find that it's as alien and foreign to them as it is for any other Australian, and they realise that they don't belong in that society; regardless of their race.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Bullocks.

    LOL. I thought it was bollocks.

    According to you, black people are dumb, oversexed criminals...

    Why do blacks commit violent crime so out of proportion to their numbers, Alte? Why do they single out white women for rape? You have no answer to these questions other than to call me a racist, which makes you a liberal in my book (or liberaltarian if you prefer).

    ...and need to be removed from the country in order to found a White Utopia consisting largely of white people who arrived here after most of the black people did.

    Now we've achieved the trifecta: It's the government's fault, Whites do it too, and now They were here first. The trouble with the last argument is that once begun, it never stops. Most nations were built on conquest; someone was always there first. The Indians were here when we arrived as well, but the settlers didn't let that stop them. Perhaps it would have been better if they'd stayed in Europe? Of course, if they had you wouldn't have a country to be proud of, and since you directly benefit from the conquest of Indian land, it seems you have a moral dilemma. You can't have the fat without the calories.

    ReplyDelete
  159. I consider secession to be the most effective vehicle for preservation, as discussed here. Divide the country into two or more parts, one operating (hopefully) under conservative principles and the other under a greatly expanded welfare state, and non-whites, who are overwhelmingly on the left, will flock to the "blue" state. Those few genuinely conservative minorities who want to remain with us can do so, with the understanding that we will remain the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Anonymous,

    I know what you mean about the white liberals and of course many immigrants love the west. Whenever talking about immigration I say Western countries should be "predominantly" white but never exclusively.

    On the issue with Aisan immigrants, I think they might be genuinely confused because they're not quite Western and not quite Eastern. Are they just like us (white westerners) because they were born here? In many ways yes but not all. This is a bit of an unusual historical environment where large numbers of immigrants are arriving and it’s not entirely clear how the Western world will or should receive them. The left and the liberals try to tell us that our backgrounds shouldn't matter and that the new culture is a-racial but I don't think we all quite accept that in our bones.

    It might also be advisable to ratchet down the tone a little. I think we've all stated our cases and made some good points and there’s no need to be excessively personal.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Van Wijk said:

    "I consider secession to be the most effective vehicle for preservation, as discussed here. Divide the country into two or more parts, one operating (hopefully) under conservative principles and the other under a greatly expanded welfare state, and non-whites, who are overwhelmingly on the left, will flock to the "blue" state. Those few genuinely conservative minorities who want to remain with us can do so, with the understanding that we will remain the majority."

    No.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I have no moral dilemma because I am not suggesting that the Indians (or any other citizens) be deported. I also benefited from slavery and sexual abuse, but I do not promote that either. Some things are just wrong. The fact that my ancestors engaged in it does not make it right now. Morality is not relative.

    I do not care if you are a racist; that is your own business. But I think you are wrong to conflate your racist views with conservatism. Go ahead and call me a liberal. You are free to do so, and I am free to roll my eyes at your doing so.

    Why do blacks commit violent crime so out of proportion to their numbers, Alte?

    I don't know. You tell me, since your obviously the resident expert on black people. It must be our criminal nature. Next time I rape a white woman, I'll think about my motives and report back.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Anonymous,

    Yes Multiculturalism does say to embrace your heritage but only in your private time. Officially the state and the country are seen as now a-racial.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Even if Blacks are more inherently violent on a personal basis than whites, men are also inherently more violent than women. Why blame Blacks but not men?

    No race has a monopoly on violence.

    ReplyDelete
  165. But I think you are wrong to conflate your racist views with conservatism.

    Race-realism is certainly part of conservatism. If you want to dismiss race-realism as racism, that's your prerogative, but the truth isn't just going to evaporate.

    Go ahead and call me a liberal.

    If the shoe fits...

    No.

    Okay. Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  166. A nation isn't something that you divide up like a property settlement.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Alte,

    I'm going to uni now and the number of foreigners there is truly remarkable. Most of them are international students but by no means all. This is the future. Its not good enough to let the numbers wash in or out on the economic tide. Any political movement that doesn't but this agenda at the top of its list, I'm not interested in. Anything that doesn't recognise this as an issue I'm not interested in. We all have to be grown up, not be offended because of our backgrounds, nor seek to downplay this issue because of our backgrounds.

    If liberals aren't having kids then they're not going to be much of a political force in the future. Immigrants on the other hand do have kids. The idea that the West will crash and then rise up again on the crest of a religious revival I think is fanciful.

    ReplyDelete
  168. I just read an article in The Australian headlined, "Self-doubt emerges to test US mettle", arguing that the rapid oscillation in political directions in the US is indicative of a broader lack of confidence in where the country is headed. In unsettled periods a return to basics is always called for. The West could certainly benefit from a return to basics.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Van Wijk,

    You are not promoting race-realism but racial supremacy.

    As for your succession plan:

    1) We already tried that and it ended in a civil war.

    2) We already have red states and blue states, and the minorities are pretty evenly split between the two. What makes you think dividing the country up differently would produce a different result? You would have to drive them out and create millions of refugees.

    3) The racial-purity motivation behind such a split would be obvious to everyone. The non-whites caught on the red side would be well aware that they had just been demoted to second-class citizens. If not in law, then in practice. The men would chafe under their own demotion, but they would not stand for the resulting abuse of their women. Any non-white -- no matter how sympathetic to conservative values -- who remained in the red state would have to be completely insane.

    We all have to be grown up, not be offended because of our backgrounds, nor seek to downplay this issue because of our backgrounds.

    Was that directed at me?

    The West could certainly benefit from a return to basics.

    Of course, but that does not seem to be what we are going to get. Rather, we are going to get civil strife, rape and pillaging, and authoritarian rule. The US is going to be become a dictatorship, in reaction to the increase in violence, now that it is already a banana republic. Only dramatic reform will prevent that, but it seems that nobody has the stomach for it.

    There are millions of unemployed and retired people in America, but do you see any of them complaining or protesting their plight? They are passive like sheep, waiting for the slaughter.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Alte

    There is some inconsistency in your last comment. Do you think Americans will be passive or start to become more disorderly? Do you really think that America will become a dictatorship?

    ReplyDelete

  171. You are not promoting race-realism but racial supremacy.


    Is every effort to maintain the historic majority indicative of "racial supremacy" in your view?

    1) We already tried that and it ended in a civil war.

    Yes, and the wrong side won. That fact does not make the victors justified morally. No one wishes for a civil war, but if the choice is between a civil war/violent revolution and annihilation, whether because of federal aggression, a Camp of the Saints scenario, or both at once, the choice is an obvious one. It's possible that a civil war is already inevitable. Many in the militia movement are already talking about it.

    What makes you think dividing the country up differently would produce a different result? You would have to drive them out and create millions of refugees.

    Try to stay with me. Secession means a complete break from the federal government and the creation of a new country with its own constitution; it's not some form of gerrymandering within the old system. I agree that there would necessarily have to be a massive flux in population. I think most people would pull up stakes voluntarily and move to whichever republic best suited their interests as they understand them. Why would you wish to stay in a country that stood against everything you believe in?

    3) The racial-purity motivation behind such a split would be obvious to everyone

    Again you indulge in Nazi-speak. I'll ask again, are those who wish to maintain the historic majority Nazis to you?

    The men would chafe under their own demotion, but they would not stand for the resulting abuse of their women.

    Elaborate on this. It sounds like you're talking about mass-rape.

    Any non-white -- no matter how sympathetic to conservative values -- who remained in the red state would have to be completely insane.

    It would seem that the preservation of the historic majority, when plainly and openly stated, would not be terribly desirable for many minorities; it states in fact that we remain more numerous and with the majority of political power, forever. Yet this is what I and many conservatives stand for. If that makes nonwhites "chafe" or feel like second class citizens, they have the alternative to go where they feel more welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Only dramatic reform will prevent that, but it seems that nobody has the stomach for it.

    What reforms do you advocate, and how do you see The End playing out if they are not enacted?

    (Your banana republic link is dead, btw.)

    ReplyDelete
  173. New banana republic link. Sorry about that.

    David,

    I think Americans are passive for now, and largely oblivious to the manipulation and fraud going on in the markets. They can tell something is wrong, but they don't know what so they just start yelling at each other while the banksters liquidate our country's remaining wealth. Once they wake up to the reality of what is going on, they are going to be VERY ANGRY and demand "political action", which will lead to creeping dictatorship. A Patriot Act II, perhaps.

    So I think immigration is a very important issue, but I think the coming (very soon, from the looks of things) financial collapse is going to push every other reform to the back for the majority of the populace. Immigration will come back to the forefront soon, but probably not until after the collapse has been fully digested. Until then, everyone's just going to be watching the crashing stock market and struggling to buy food and oil with worthless currency. It's like the whole country has been temporarily put on hold. There's this sense that the nation is waiting.

    Is every effort to maintain the historic majority indicative of "racial supremacy" in your view?

    No, I meant your comments about black people being oversexed criminals. Obviously that's a value-judgment, so I think it's fair to say that it was a statement of your own perceived racial superiority.

    I don't really know what to think of you. I think you're racist, but a lot of people are racist and I obviously have my own prejudices. You keep talking about "exposing me" when I'm just repeating things I've said a million times before. It's interesting to debate you, but I am under the impression that you are always arguing in bad faith.

    Yes, and the wrong side won.

    Oddly, I agree with you. Power should be divested to the states, and the mass-slaughter that occurred during the Civil War was unwarranted. I think slavery is wrong, but so did a lot of Southerners. I think it would have been abandoned soon, anyway.

    On the other hand, they had the wolf by the ears, and struggled to extricate themselves from the shady business. I suppose it's like abortion today. Most people agree that it's a problem, but it just keeps on keeping on, regardless.

    It sounds like you're talking about mass-rape.

    No, it sounds like I'm talking about a return to a situation where non-white women were consider less valuable and were therefore more likely to be harassed and abused. Not because there are necessarily more men who wish to abuse them, but because those men can then act with relative impunity. It is generally that way anywhere there is racial strife, as one sees with the abuse of Christian women by Muslims today.

    Again you indulge in Nazi-speak.

    Cultural difference. Okay, the "segregationist motive".

    It would seem that the preservation of the historic majority, when plainly and openly stated, would not be terribly desirable for many minorities

    But that's not what you're talking about. This isn't about "preservation", this is about driving American-born citizens out of their homes by purposefully making them feel unwelcome in their own country. That's very antagonistic and not as morally-neutral a change as if Australia closed its borders and kicked out the immigrant non-citizens. It's more akin to Australia telling the Aborigines to pack up and leave.

    You keep floating over that distinction, but I think it is a significant one.

    ReplyDelete
  174. No, I meant your comments about black people being oversexed criminals. Obviously that's a value-judgment, so I think it's fair to say that it was a statement of your own perceived racial superiority.

    I posted facts, backed by statistics. Those statistics being what they are, white Americans are fully justified in wanting as little contact with black people as possible. Citing statistics and taking appropriate action is a value judgment only to someone suffering extreme denial; this is not a value judgment. It's reality. I don't think you've fully digested what these facts mean, but I suppose I shouldn't expect you to. Perhaps you feel that you cannot accept them without condemning yourself.

    It's interesting to debate you, but I am under the impression that you are always arguing in bad faith.

    Fair enough. I think that you and I are not on the same side, and since you're convinced I'm a racist (and therefore irrational) I can see why you would not trust my motives. My word that I truly believe everything I say will not convince you, and I wouldn't care to give it anyway.

    On the other hand, they had the wolf by the ears, and struggled to extricate themselves from the shady business.

    Some of the similarities with our modern circumstances are striking, but there are also myriad differences. I think the truth of holding a wolf by the ears is that the longer you hold on, the hungrier (and more desperate) the wolf gets. But let go too soon and the wolf will have enough strength to overpower you.

    Not because there are necessarily more men who wish to abuse them, but because those men can then act with relative impunity.

    There are many aspects of the plan that I didn't go into because it would take far too long, and this isn't the appropriate place anyway. I will say, as I said in the original article at VFR, that in the hypothetical new republic the franchise must be restricted in such a way that the left can never again gain power. Those who do not have the franchise should have their civil rights preserved. Exactly how that would work out is getting too far into the fog at this time.

    Obviously, if the Caucasian majority is to be explicitly maintained, there must be a smaller number of minorities. It is therefore implied that there is something undesirable about those minorities, so perhaps the very idea of a permanent Caucasian majority will make nonwhites feel like second class citizens. I'm not sure I see a way around that.

    This isn't about "preservation", this is about driving American-born citizens out of their homes by purposefully making them feel unwelcome in their own country.

    When 100,000 Mexican peasants can cross the border and be made citizens at the whim of an ambitious politician, citizenship ceases to have any but the most technical meaning. Citizen or no, the status quo is not working. A new way is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  175. No, I meant your comments about black people being oversexed criminals. Obviously that's a value-judgment, so I think it's fair to say that it was a statement of your own perceived racial superiority.

    I posted facts, backed by statistics. Those statistics being what they are, white Americans are fully justified in wanting as little contact with black people as possible. Citing statistics and taking appropriate action is a value judgment only to someone suffering extreme denial; this is not a value judgment. It's reality. I don't think you've fully digested what these facts mean, but I suppose I shouldn't expect you to. Perhaps you feel that you cannot accept them without condemning yourself.

    It's interesting to debate you, but I am under the impression that you are always arguing in bad faith.

    Fair enough. I think that you and I are not on the same side, and since you're convinced I'm a racist (and therefore irrational) I can see why you would not trust my motives. My word that I truly believe everything I say will not convince you, and I wouldn't care to give it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  176. On the other hand, they had the wolf by the ears, and struggled to extricate themselves from the shady business.

    Some of the similarities with our own circumstances are striking, but there are also myriad differences. I think the truth of holding a wolf by the ears is that the longer you hold on, the hungrier (and more desperate) the wolf gets. But let go too soon and the wolf will have enough strength to overpower you.

    Not because there are necessarily more men who wish to abuse them, but because those men can then act with relative impunity.

    There are many aspects of the plan that I didn't go into because it would take far too long, and Mark's blog isn't the appropriate place anyway. I will say, as I said in the original article at VFR, that in the hypothetical new republic the franchise must be restricted in such a way that the left can never again regain power. Those who do not have the franchise should have their civil rights preserved. Exactly how that would work out is getting too far into the fog at this time.

    Obviously, if the Caucasian majority is to be explicitly maintained, there must be a smaller number of minorities. It is therefore implied that there is something undesirable about those minorities, so perhaps the very idea of a permanent Caucasian majority will make nonwhites feel like second class citizens. I'm not sure I see a way around that.

    This isn't about "preservation", this is about driving American-born citizens out of their homes by purposefully making them feel unwelcome in their own country.

    When 100,000 Mexican peasants can cross the border and be made citizens at the whim of an ambitious politician, citizenship ceases to have any but the most technical meaning. In the face of a low-level culling (which promises to ramp up significantly during and after the coming collapse), length of residence and roots in the country is likewise unpersuasive. The status quo is not working. A new way is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  177. The USA will most likely break into two countries after the economy collapses (kind of like Czechoslovakia dividing into Czech Republic and Slovakia). Americans are already divided into likeminded communities. This happens not just on a state level but on county levels and neighborhoods.

    http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0618689354

    Lawrence Auster has written on secession a year ago or so.

    ReplyDelete
  178. This kind of writing belongs in the dark horror section of a bookstore.

    The point is, whites in fifty years will be able to use the same tactics that are presently being used against them. They will seek reparations for mis-guided social policies which marginalized them in urban centres.

    In other words, this guy needs to understand the notion of karma. Of course, if we aren't allowed our handups, then we could bring a s#$tstorm of civil unrest.1

    ReplyDelete
  179. @ Alte You have first-hand knowledge of the latino-white situation in the south, I will grant you that.

    However, even up here in Ontario, there is a similar conflagrance of ethnicities, under the mantra of multiculturalism. Having experienced what you have, on some level, I would have to say that you are too optimistic.

    When two races rub up against each other, the lower classes degrade into camps, and higher ones wall themselves off. This is the natural progression when society evolves.

    Some kind of co-existence may appear down the road, but if you look a, say, Toronto and surrounding region, the neighbourhoods based around ethnicity have become more and more visible.

    Imagine the high school where these races advance and decline based on PC rules, and you can see how animosity can build.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Citizenship should be restricted to those born on US soil to parents who are legal residents or citizens, and those born on foreign soil to a US citizen.

    since you're convinced I'm a racist (and therefore irrational) I can see why you would not trust my motives.

    Of course we don't agree on everything, that was obvious from the start. That was not it. It was the way you respond to things I write with "Gotcha!" As if you are an actor performing for an audience, rather than engaged in a serious discussion. I do not think you are irrational or I would not bother to converse with you at all.

    ReplyDelete
  181. The point is, whites in fifty years will be able to use the same tactics that are presently being used against them.

    The trouble with this notion is that the liberalism that gives rise to minority grievance lobbies is built on White Guilt. Nonwhite groups unabashedly agitate for their respective tribes. If and when whites become the minority, you will not see a seamless transition from majority to aggrieved minority; the new majority will not just forget how evil Caucasians are. The end will look more like Rhodesia and South Africa, a low-level genocide.

    Added to which is the fact that when nonwhites become the majority, any Western country in question will rapidly lose first-world status.

    Of course, if we aren't allowed our handups, then we could bring a s#$tstorm of civil unrest.

    One of the many reasons for hope in America is that we are a heavily-armed society, and right-leaning people have most of the guns.

    As if you are an actor performing for an audience, rather than engaged in a serious discussion.

    You must admit that a Catholic anti-feminist libertarian German black woman posting at a traditionalist conservative website is something of an anomaly. I think taking you for an ally would be an easy mistake to make. I can recall only one other time when you and I have engaged each other, so I wasn't clear on all of your positions (though I don't doubt that you've been stating them over and over again). Once those positions became clear, I wanted to illustrate that you are not an ally. I don't soft-pedal debating people who I know are not on my side. Perhaps that's a character flaw, but it's served me well so far.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Van Wijk said,

    "I don't soft-pedal debating people who I know are not on my side. Perhaps that's a character flaw, but it's served me well so far."

    I think that that is an unwarranted accusation. For you to accuse Alte of not being on your side you have to accuse the Catholic church too, and probably other churches as well, because her positions are consistent with them. Its possible to have genuine disagreement and not whittle down your base of broader agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  183. I think that that is an unwarranted accusation. For you to accuse Alte of not being on your side you have to accuse the Catholic church too, and probably other churches as well, because her positions are consistent with them.

    Alte is a globalist Catholic who puts the global Church before the West. Your comments in this thread indicate that you are in at least partial agreement with this assessment. If her views are in sync with the Catholic church, then it seems that the current incarnation of the Church (Vatican II) is, in fact, not an ally. This logically follows from the many comments in this thread, including your own, so I find your latest comment a bit strange. Perhaps I'm missing something?

    Lawrence Auster touched on one destructive aspect of Vatican II here. It cannot be denied that many churches have enthusiastically embraced liberalism.

    I hold with Catholics like Laura Wood, whom I very much respect and admire. The problems with Vatican II have been an ongoing discussion at her website. So it seems that one can be a Catholic and not hold to a globalist agenda. At any rate, there seems to be a growing schism within the Church itself. One side supports the West, the other does not.

    ReplyDelete
  184. I agree with the general thrust of your argument but I would still consider Alte and the majority of the Catholic church to be an ally.

    ReplyDelete
  185. So it seems that one can be a Catholic and not hold to a globalist agenda.

    What globalist agenda are you talking about? If you mean that it is possible to be a good Catholic and not promote the spread of Catholicism, then no it is not possible. If you mean that it is possible to be a good Catholic and promote the spread of Catholicism and a respect for national traditions and borders, then yes it is possible. It is not possible to promote or agitate for race-wars or citizen expulsions and be a good Catholic, that much is for sure (because of the Just War doctrine, which goes back to the Roman era).

    ReplyDelete
  186. What globalist agenda are you talking about?

    I was thinking specifically of the following statements (emphasis mine):

    Religions (including liberalism, which is a sort of secularist religion) are slowly replacing race/ethnicity as chief allegiance, as national ties weaken and the world becomes more globalized. Traditional Catholics are already a relatively small tribe, so we would be less inclined to further dilute our own influence by splitting down by nationality, race, ethnicity, whatever. We need everyone we can get, and membership is quite onerous, so we'll be loathe to cannibalize ourselves.

    The entire Catholic Church is trending non-white anyway, so the Euro-centric flavor is waning.

    For traditionalist/conservative Catholics, Catholicism is the West.

    I suppose that's less of an agenda than it is, at the very least, indifference to the survival of traditional Western societies. These comments and the general thrust of the others you made in this thread (you also stated that you would prefer a nation of black Catholics to a nation of white atheists) tell me that you wouldn't fret over the replacement of traditional Western nations, so long as those people who do the replacing are Catholics.

    It is not possible to promote or agitate for race-wars or citizen expulsions and be a good Catholic...

    I suppose that since talking about the racial aspects of crime statistics equates to racism, it follows from that twisted logic that talking about a possible race war following the country's dissolution equates to agitating for a race war. Honestly, I don't think you're able to comprehend what is happening to my people at the hands of non-whites. I don't think you want to comprehend it.

    ReplyDelete
  187. it follows from that twisted logic that talking about a possible race war following the country's dissolution equates to agitating for a race war

    It is an inevitable outcome, so let us not be naive. The one follows directly from the other, so they should both be taken into account.

    tell me that you wouldn't fret over the replacement of traditional Western nations, so long as those people who do the replacing are Catholics

    No, that is not true. It is that I am more concerned that the West is becoming atheistic than that there are non-white people residing there. Athiest nations always kill themselves off very quickly, so anyone who values the West should be adamantly against both mass immigration and the spread of atheism.

    But you are free to believe what you wish. We are now merely going round-and-round in circles and boring everyone else to tears.

    ReplyDelete
  188. It is an inevitable outcome, so let us not be naive. The one follows directly from the other, so they should both be taken into account.

    So one follows inevitably from the other as night follows day. I'm sure Jean Raspail will be shocked to learn that he was agitating for a race war when he wrote his famous novel, rather than desperately trying to bring his nation out of somnolence in order to prevent one.

    To keep from being racist agitators, should we simply ignore what's going on in places like America and South Africa?

    It is that I am more concerned that the West is becoming atheistic than that there are non-white people residing there.

    A Caucasian atheist can be brought back into the fold. If he cannot, his children can. But the West is a Caucasian invention; it cannot be created anew or maintained by nonwhites. Therefore, while atheism is certainly a threat, it is less of a threat than racial dissolution. Staunchly Catholic Haiti will never be a Western nation so long as it is inhabited by Haitians.

    We are now merely going round-and-round in circles and boring everyone else to tears.

    At this point, I doubt anyone else is reading.

    ReplyDelete