Internet
The following is a response to “Boris S.,” who is some type of traditionalist conservative, whose commentary about White Nationalism at The Thinking Housewife contains a number of errors which has annoyed me into penning a rebuttal.
(1) Historically speaking, “White Nationalism” has been around in North America in some form since the mid-seventeenth century. It has been called different names (i.e., Free Soilism) at different times.
It is false to say that “White Nationalists” have invented “a totally new form of tribal organization” out of “thin air.” The basic components of their ideology have been in the American bloodstream for generations.
The roots of “White Nationalism” in the United States can be traced back to the colonial practice of English and European settlers defining themselves in racial terms – that is, in terms of complexion and morphology – in order to forge a greater sense of unity in an alien environment filled with hostile Indian tribes and negro slaves.
White Nationalism started out as a pragmatic strategy (one among many others) for conquering the North American continent. Eventually, it evolved into the social and political foundation of the United States … because it worked.
In so many words, “whiteness” (and the hierarchy of rights and privileges based on race) became an integral aspect of Americanism.
It wasn’t until the mid-twentieth century that the various components of traditional Americanism – whiteness, English language, Protestant Christianity, republican ideology – became unglued and the racial fragment of Americanism became the base of a new universalist ideology – this idea of “our race is our nation” – which Boris S. is attacking here as a straw man.
(2) As I explained above, the roots of White Nationalism can be traced back to the English colonization of North America. The fair complexion of the English settlers stood out in stark contrast to the dark complexion of indigenous Indian tribes and negro slaves.
The children of the original American colonists and succeeding generations increasingly began to define themselves in racial terms. They did this for several reasons:
– In order to retain their distinctiveness as Indians and negroes converted to Christianity.
– In order to distinguish themselves from the English parent stock.
– In order to maximize White unity in an alien region in which hostile Indians and slave rebellions posed a serious threat to the survival of the colonies.
– In order to better facilitate the project of conquering and settling North America.
There is nothing remarkable about this type of ethnogenesis. The same process happened to a lesser degree in Australia and New Zealand as well as in European colonies in Africa.
Black slaves in the New World went through a similar type of ethnogenesis. Negroes intermarried and lost their tribal distinctiveness in favor a common racial identity. They also evolved over time into a new people.
This was going on in North America for centuries before anyone ever heard of Adolf Hitler.
Adolf Hitler was a German nationalist. He sought to unite Austria and other German speaking areas with Germany. Hitler also sought in the long term to forge a greater sense of unity among Germanic Northern Europeans: Germans, English, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, etc.
Even an undergraduate in history can discern that National Socialism and White Nationalism are not necessarily the same thing. Hitler’s ethnonationalist inspired attack on Poland and Czechoslovakia makes little sense under the race based paradigm of White Nationalism.
(3) No one can accuse me of being a National Socialist or a Nazi sympathizer. I have quarreled with those people for years.
It is a gross oversimplification of a complex historical process of White racial decline to singularly blame National Socialism for the downfall of Western civilization. A better argument is that the war against Hitler’s Germany was a catalyst that accelerated preexisting trends.
If Britain and America had not been committed to upholding the existing liberal democratic capitalist system, and the international order based on that system, they wouldn’t have responded to Hitler in such a negative way.
It was the clash between their preexisting liberal values and the Nazi version of racialism that caused most Western nations to demonize the latter and eventually to completely rejected their racial identity.
(4) Like any ideology, “White Nationalism” means different things to different people, but to the vast majority of self described “White Nationalists” it means preserving (at a minimum) the traditional racial and ethnic integrity of White nations in Europe and North America.
Defined in this way, “White Nationalism” can clash with this or that religion, this or that style of music, this or that philosophical framework, appreciation and rejection of the modern world, etc.
It is really not difficult to understand. “Boris S.” is willfully trying to misunderstand White Nationalism.
(5) This argument is based on the flawed premise that “revolution” inherently requires the use of violence. The Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s – which dismantled the Jim Crow system in the United States – wasn’t particularly violent and was accomplished legally by working through the political process.
White Nationalists (most of them at least) aim to restore the traditional racial definition of Americanism. The Left is “revolutionary” in that it seeks to dismantle all existing institutions.
I suppose White Nationalists are “revolutionary” in the sense that they seek to overthrow the existing elite and the institutionalization of “progressive” norms in American society whereas most conservatives only give lip service to this idea.
(6) White Nationalists have “dealt” with non-Whites in America since 1607. Dealing with them in a White Nationalist America would hardly be anything new.
(7) White Nationalism is “reactionary” in the sense that it is a response to changing racial demographics in the United States.
It is “conservative” in the sense that it seeks to restore the racial basis of Americanism.
It is “revolutionary” in the sense that White Nationalists would like nothing better than to eradicate the existing progressive elite.
(8) I don’t see the restoration of our birthright as Americans under the U.S. Constitution as a “nasty consequence.” Understandably, some people who subscribe to liberal political ideology do see arguments from heredity and tradition in such a negative way.
(9) This is clearly false.
Racial categories were known and familiar to Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Europeans. The American racial tradition stretches back over three centuries.
The real novelty is what is called “anti-racism” or “ethnomasochism.”
(10) The American racial paradigm was around 150 years old when Charles Darwin published Origin of Species and played no role in the American concept of “Manifest Destiny” which was rooted in the older idea of divine providence.
(11) The Dred Scott decision and the U.S. Constitution were written after 1880?
(12) The influx of non-Whites into the United States, Great Britain, Germany and other European countries had everything to do with the repeal of preexisting immigration laws which excluded non-Whites from settling in the West.
That also had everything to do with the demise of racialism in the aftermath of the Second World War.
(13) American industrialization in the 19th century coincided with the Chinese Exclusion Act and the racial hardening of American immigration laws in the decades that followed. It cannot be said to have been caused by industrialization.
Britain and Germany had been “industrializing” for decades and centuries before non-Whites began to settle en masse there after the Second World War.
(14) How is that a problem with White Nationalist ideology? An ethnostate – like any state or legal system – is an artificial construct designed to preserve the racial integrity of any given people.
(12) As a so-called “race materialist,” I do not deny the “common origin” of mankind, unless you are referring to creationism, which is scientifically indefensible.
Traditionally, the West hasn’t used electricity to power machines, but that is hardly an argument against smart phones and computers.
(13) Defending ourselves from racial antagonism by hostile groups that seek our racial dispossession and subjugation in our own lands is hardly immoral by any reasonable standard.
(14) “White Nationalism” is nothing more than a living arrangement. It is not some theoretical sand castle in the air of abstractions like liberalism.
(15) There are plenty of White Nationalist eggheads who are infatuated with that type of airy, abstract nonsense and navel gazing which has never accomplished anything for White people.
Seek and you shall find.
Note: While I am no longer involved in the White Nationalist movement, I remain an expert on the subject.
Yay! I am delighted the site is back up!
The Thinking Housewife has embarrassed herself with her outrageous censorship of Tanaffastal’s contributions to the conversation, and she has now closed comments without properly addressing the subject at all, imho .
I had so much admiration for her. I no longer feel that way.
I got some threats.
It was also nice to take a vacation from blogging. Sometimes fields have to lay fallow.
“(11) The Dred Scott decision and the U.S. Constitution were written after 1880?”
The Dred Scott decision was in 1857 and the US Constitution was written in 1787.
Excellent response, Mr. Wallace. I’m glad to see that you haven’t retired from writing.
If you think white nationalism is a recent invention, without historical continuity , or deep roots, I can also suggest the book Albion’s Seed by Professor David Hacket Fisher.
Note also how Boris argued that were an ethno-state constructed
by white nationalists, that such a “revolution” would require violence at some point.
Conveniently, Boris seemed to forget (perhaps purposefully) that what occurred in this country during the 1960’s, the mainstreaming of multiculturalism with its attendant destruction as well as the rise of second-wave feminism and the consequential collapse of morality, was a “revolution” by any definition. Having lived through that era, I can state without equivocation that said “revolution” was accompanied by violence, although at somewhat restrained levels.
Perhaps in the world according to Boris, some violence is more equal than others.
And another point in passing – there is no 4000 year old Judaic history as Boris and the generally Unthinking Housewife are so fond of claiming, as are so many others. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox faiths farther east as well as the Arabic Muslims knew (and know – though generally denied now) full well that what passed and passes as “Jews”are Central Asian Khazarians who converted to that so-called faith from polytheistic animism in the late 700’s A.D. Prior to that point there had already been economic interaction between these groups, and the conversion to Talmudism by the Khazars was for political convenience. The adoption of that belief system gave them a monotheistic faith to counterbalance those of their erstwhile competitors.
More than that, in somewhat private conversation amongst the “Learned Elders”, even the Judaists themselves do not claim a heritage that could be considered “Biblical.” As an example, this Rabbinically-penned passage from the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia is instructive: “It would be a mistake to assume that our roots are of the Israelites of the Old Testament, but, rather, our roots are in Phariseeism.” If one can lay their hands upon the 1980 “Jewish Almanac”, there is an entire chapter devoted to “Identity”, where again the “Learned Elders” deny any actual relationship to the Israelite peoples.
Historically these people are not noted for their honesty (caricatures are generally based on some sort of truth), but when in communication with each other they state thus and such, a prudent individual should consider their statements as accurate. Add to that the literary works that deny Biblical roots by Judaists Dr. Arthur Koestler, Dr. Shlomo Sand and Benjamin Freedman amongst many others, perhaps those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear” should pay due attention.
Alas, we would rather believe a lie.
Actually, I think The Thinking Housewife did a good job on the blog comments: she let her own definite judgment stand, instead of allowing conversation to proliferate as if we were giving “Boris” some kind of legitimacy.
I really have no idea how you can claim to that she did a ‘good job’ when she chopped Tan’s comment and manhandled (ha!) the entire conversation!
Hunter “Lazarus” Wallace is back and sharper than ever! This is a good day. 😀
You picked a good sap, a pretentious one, to pummel here, HW:
What kind of “traditionalist conservative” writes something like this? [Quote from Boris] “The diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950” [End quote from Boris]. Between this, and the philo-Semitism, the legitimizing of Jewish identity while concurrently delegitimizing and pathologizing of all white-racialist concerns, one is led to conclude that…… No, I will not say it. 😀
I am a little confused by the numbered-list format of your post, though, HW. It sounds like you are responding point by point, but I don’t see where Boris wrote a series of numbered points.
I am glad you wrote a response to that thread. I read it and was (almost) annoyed to write a rebuttal also, though I have not been writing much lately.
It seemed to me that ‘traditionalists’ avoid the fact that our parents, grandparents, and all earlier generations had racial attitudes that are shunned these days by most ‘conservatives’, traditionalist or otherwise. It’s bizarre to argue as some do that WN views are some aberration and not consonant with our traditional culture. How can one be ‘traditional’ and still insist that postmodern race-denialist standards are better than those of past generations? It doesn’t wash.
The confusion regarding ‘supremacist’ and ‘nationalist’ ideas sometimes seems like deliberate obfuscation, an attempt to conflate the two, and to tar the latter with the same brush.
-VA
I remain a supporter of the Thinking Housewife. She is astute enough to know how destructive feminism has been, and connects race-realism to maintenance of hearth and home, which is her main theme. She has rejected anti-Semitism, ho-hum. She is an ally up to a point, and should not be made an enemy.
She has revealed herself here:
“If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.”
Hot on the heels of that gem, her latest post is a retraction of her earlier recommendation to support a new website called ‘ Faith and Heritage’ http://faithandheritage.com/
Why you ask?
Oh, because of ‘anti-semitism’, of course………
I don’t know where you are at on your journey, but for me, a “White” woman openly proclaiming to the world that she would freely CHOOSE to die in a multi-cult hell rather than live in a Jew-free White ethnostate is certainly not someone I consider an ally of any stripe.
I will still read her blog, as I do Auster’s, but not for the reasons I used to, that’s for sure.
There’s a little bit of a difference between the founding fathers and what we call white nationalism. The founding fathers were racially conscious, but they don’t resemble today’s white nationalists.
-Based on nationality, and not based on Jewishness, some Whites were preferred to others. At first German immigration was resented, then later Slavic and Southern European immigration was slowed down by quotas. Were they white? Yes, in a Jim Crow sense they were white. But there was an internal white hierarchy which placed British at the top, Germans in the middle, and Slavs/Arabs/Southern Euros at the bottom.
-American historical colonial racialism was very friendly to Jews. The Franklin prophecy was created by people who want to rewrite history. Benjamin Franklin never said anything against Jews, and George Washington welcomed Sephardic (not Ashkenazi) Jews in a synagogue. Many American colonialists were religious dissidents. Quakers, Amish, Mennonites – so it’s easy to find common cause with Jews against the Church of England and Catholicism.
-Under many situations in Jim Crow Law, non-negroid Arabs were classified as Whites. Do you really think your average stormfronter would be comfortable with that? Granted I follow real racial science, but white nationalists are identitarians who would not feel comfortable with the idea that people outside of Europe can still be biologically white.
-Indians from South Asia were non-whites by a court decision. Henrich Himmler had a boner for Indians though because they spoke “Aryan” languages. So white American history is different from national socialism of course. But today’s white nationalists are often influenced by Hitler, no reasonable person could deny that.
-American historical colonial racialism did not mark a territory and remove all non-whites. What it did was really created a vertical hierarchy 0f races. A black person could live right next to a white person, but often (but not always) in the status of being a slave. There were free blacks as well. Indians were moved west, but you could just as easily argue that Stalin was a Georgian nationalist for moving Muslims.
-Whiteness was used to assign privilege, but white privilege is not similar to Judaism. It’s more based on the concept of being capable or incapable of assimilating. Judaism is based more on religious tradition. Your average Zionist does not think of Jews racially even though biology proves that Jews can be placed into particular Caucasoid racial types. Your average Zionist would point out that they accept Ethiopian Jews as Jews, as well as converted Jews.
Hail,
I was being lazy. I wrote that response late at night. Tried to respond to his major points.
I don’t have a problem with The Thinking Housewife. The response above is to a commentator there.
Mary,
That’s an insightful observation.
It is generally in line with just about any and all criticism of Auster and his followers: their priority is “fighting anti-Semitism,” not preserving our civilization.
They would quite literally rather see Western civilization die under multiculturalism than for Jews to be inconvenienced in any real way. A Western country that isn’t “good for the Jews” is not worth saving for them.
It depends upon what you mean by “anti-Semitism.”
Personally, I think there is a Jewish problem. I also think the West would be better off without its resident population of Jewish agitators. At the same, I don’t believe all Jews fall into that category, if that makes any sense.
I say better off because the decline of our civilization goes much deeper than that. It would certainly ameliorate the crisis, if those people were to relocate to Israel, but simply deporting the Jews isn’t a magic bullet that will solve all our problems.
I don’t believe in murdering or brutalizing anyone.
Hunter, glad to see you active again. I’ve only read this post, so far, and think you are being VERY PRODUCTIVE by producing this kind of thinking in public.
The disagreements I’ve had with you in the past were all about whether what you wrote was PRODUCTIVE, in a sense of clarifying things rather than either obfuscating or causing UNNECESSARY internal conflicts. Of course, that leads to asking the question, if there’s an internal conflict, just what is the THING that it’s internal to. You point at that “thing” when you write …
““White Nationalism” is nothing more than a living arrangement. It is not some theoretical sand castle in the air of abstractions like liberalism.”
I completely agree with this, but encourage you to realize that even a “living arrangement” has a form, some borders, and some type of “integrative principles” that keep it from flying apart. It has “bindings”, otherwise it doesn’t have any “is-ness”.
This “living arrangement” does have a component of “myth” as a part of its bindings. Sometimes these myths sound abstract, and some are in fact abstract. But abstract or not, they do serve as a mythic commonality that undergird the understanding of the “thing” they bind.
Those who create, re-create, remember, recollect, reconfigure, and re-present this mythic substrate that forms a ground for the “White living arrangement”, are an essential part of the “living arrangement’s” very existence.
Maybe your focus on the “materialist” aspects of “Our Thing” have made it harder for you to see the importance of the “meta-materialist” aspects which are at least as important as the “material” ???
Well put.
Hunter,
The phrase “white nationalism”, in my opinion, is unnecessary and unhelpful. When people use the term “white nationalism” in the USA, it usually refers to people of Celtic and Germanic descent(but sometimes includes other European caucasian ethnic groups in the USA). Why not just use the proper ethnic terms for that group of European Americans? Those people of Celtic and Germanic descent should organize themselves by their ethnic identity just like Jews, Hispanics, blacks and different Asian groups do.
I don’t use the term “White Nationalism” anymore.
If I used the term “White Nationalism” to describe my views in public, I would have to spend at least 50 percent of my time explaining to my audience how I am not a Hollywood Nazi they saw on a television show like “Nazi America: A Secret History.”
It is an unnecessary obstacle to communication. I would rather talk about substantive issues like immigration and affirmative action. It is easier to do that without conjuring up negative stereotypes in the mind of your target audience.
I agree Hunter, and although I know there are some very delicate lines yer walkin these days, I think yer doing good work.
I am glad yer back 🙂
Because we aren’t German-Americans or Dutch-Americans, but White Americans, culturally and historically? Hispanics are a fusion of dozens of nationalities into one identity, because their lived reality in America is one of being Hispanic, not of being Panamanian or Puerto Rican. Asians in America are even going to the absurd length of pulling in Desis and Japs under the same umbrella identity of “Asian”. It’s not like the media is going to give that a pass, unless, of course, we agree to limit the extent of our celebration of our impotent parochial novelty identity to pinching one another and getting drunk.
Re Mary:
Her latest post is a retraction of her earlier recommendation to support a new website called ‘ Faith and Heritage’. Why you ask? Oh, because of ‘anti-semitism’, of course………
So, if anyone — whether they agree 90, 95% on all other matters — if anyone strays anywhere near criticism of Jews, they have touched a third rail and are now ideological enemies of hers. I’m afraid, then, she really is — as Tanstaafl argues — putting concern for Jews over concern for Whites. Any rational assessment would conclude this.
In this way, she is very politically-correct, reminiscent of the crowd at Gates of Vienna.
Tanstaafl
I credit Tan 100% for his tireless work in helping dim bulbs like me to understand the gravity of what we are dealing with here.
I am amazed that people would still consider her an ‘ally’ after what she –so proudly, I might add– proclaimed about herself and her agenda via this little episode.
Good article and there are a good many who are not involved with the white nationalist community I understand the reasons for it.
I have been motivated by white expression for decades since the mid 1970s and there have been times I moved out of the circle or when there was no circle towards more meaningful opportunites to advance my core beliefs.
I look towards groups such as the A3p, BNP, LePens Front, and othere for a future for my grandchildren. I hold a place in the WN community to give dirtection to the young who are lost in degeneracy and need a hand in grasping the real arguments of the Mantra.
One need not illustrate the history of American racial nationalism to dispel the illusion that WNs “created WNism out of thin air.” The statement is absurd on its face. Animals have been looking out for their own kind since before they crawled out of the muck.
The truth is that analogues of racial nationalism have informed man throughout his history, that leftist nuts created “multiculturalism” and “diversity” and enforced race-suicide out of thin air, and that racial nationalism and ethnopatriotism are essentially the equivalent of codifying “water’s wet” and “the sky is blue” in response to the idiots running around enforcing “water’s dry” and “the sky is green” on everyone.
And enforcing on everyone (white) is the key phrase here. Ethnopatriots are content to be left alone, to live and let live. It’s the liberals who (in their typically racist fashion) insist that ever white person, everywhere, acquiesce.
“If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.”
That’s what she wrote, but all I “hear” is, “I choose slavery over freedom.” I don’t understand (non-Ashkenazi) people like that. Nothing to discuss with people like that IMO.
I’m afraid, then, she really is — as Tanstaafl argues — putting concern for Jews over concern for Whites. Any rational assessment would conclude this.
Yep. Sorry, but you break out any one white nationality or ethnicity and substitute it for “Jews” in her statement, and I’m still going to choose the white ethnostate without hesitation (unless of course, the nationality or ethnicity was mine 🙂 ). Why in hell would Ashkenazis being excluded be a deal-breaker?
Mary,
“I am amazed that people would still consider [Thinking Housewife] an ‘ally’”
Well, we all begin as dogs of Mr. Pavlov when it comes to the “Jewish Question”. It is not easy to break out.
Divergence from “Jews are our superiors and are eternal victims who can do no wrong; We must support Jews at all costs; Criticism of Jews is Evil, etc., etc.” is unsettling to the average person. It makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and they become reflexively, irrationally philo-Semitic — e.g. the statements you quoted from her.
What I mean is, it’s not necessarily a matter of blaming her, any more than Pavlov blamed his dogs for making the floor all wet with their saliva at every bell ringing.
Svigor wrote:
Why in hell would Ashkenazis being excluded be a deal-breaker?
Tugging on that thread a little harder, how about this: “Why in the hell would anyone want to exclude Ashkenazim?”
A. Mental Pathology on Part of anti-Semite
B. ‘Scapegoating’
C. Jealousy of Superior Nature of Ashk.
D. Being ‘pro-Islamic’
E. All of the Above
This is the full gamut of possibilities, to the people of Thinking Housewife’s disposition.
Matt Parrott- I know you use that term. I don’t. I will never refer to myself as a “white american”. I have a distinct ethnic and racial identity. I am the product of Germanic and Celtic people. Those two very similar tribes have their own ethnicity, race, language, law, literature, clothing, architecture, native religion, etc. You use your term and I will use mine.
Svigor wrote:
“If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.”
That’s what she wrote, but all I “hear” is, “I choose slavery over freedom.”
Or, to invert the famous line from Zapata:
“I would rather die on my knees than live on my feet!”
To recap:
1.) Semites of the Jewish religion can and should have an Ethnostate which is very-much “European-Christian-free” and “Arab-free”**. Any attacks on this Semitic Ethnostate or its Diaspora must be violently suppressed, the levellers of such attacks demonized, ostracized, and jailed where possible.
2.) Racial-Europeans wishing to construct an Ethnostate to preserve themselves, which would exclude Semites, are so evil, that Thinking Housewife would rather commit national-cultural “suicide” (to use her word) than offend a small group of Semites by excluding them.
(** — It is Arab-free in spirit, there is a token Arab minority with no power. If every Palestinian had right-of-return, Israel would be supermajority Arab, of course. In effect, Israel _is_ a state which “identifies itself as proudly Arab-free in its constitution”.)
That’s what she wrote, but all I “hear” is, “I choose slavery over freedom.”
What do you imagine people like her “hear,” Svigor, when they encounter your sort of reasonable “anti-semitism” (ie Jews are just people, who can be criticized like anyone else)? Something like, “Let’s just get our foot in the door and then we’ll reveal what were all about”?
If you refuse to communicate (“it’s impossible”) with people with who, right or wrong, experience that sort of foreboding then you really are making it hard on yourself.
Phil,
You’re welcome to use whatever term you want, and cleave to whatever archaic identity you prefer. You’re welcome to learn how to juggle, celebrate your Celtic heritage, collect stamps, or play poker. I don’t wish to stand in the way of that. In fact, I celebrate my Hoosier heritage, teach my cats how to fetch, and am learning to play the harmonica.
The very fact that this regime doesn’t consider celebrating Celtic heritage subversive tells you everything you need to know about how relevant it is to the real identity we have and the real fate we share. You’re welcome to wear a kilt, drink mead, read the Havamal, or whatever else keeps you occupied while you’re being persecuted and dispossessed for being a White American.
The Thinking Housewife defends Lawrence Auster, censors Tanstaafl, claims that Jews are essential to Western Civilization and states that she would rather see Western Civilization die that live in an all White nation that excludes Jews. Whatever her talent, and she does come across as quite right, her mind has clearly been poisoned by Jewish influence beyond hope of recovery.
Lew,
You have been around a while. We both know that many times here on OD and elsewhere, certain people have given Jared Taylor flak for refusing to take a stand on the JQ. (That anger, I think, is sorely misguided energy).
As you point out, Thinking Housewife goes far beyond Taylor’s calculated aloofness on the JQ. She takes a strong stand on the JQ. A strongly philo-Semitic stand, literally claiming to wish death (“suicide”) before dishonoring the certain small group of Semites that has produced such great minds as Sontag, Ignatiev, Tim Wise, Theodore Kaufman, Ilya Ehrenburg, and so many of similar beliefs vis-a-vis Europeans. Yet T.H. receives much less flak, the level of flak a Jared Taylor — i.e. someone otherwise-valuable but wrong on the JQ — should receive.
The question becomes, why has Taylor been the long-running target of a group of malcontent trolls, whereas T.H. seems to receive a more measured (sensible) reaction?
A plethora of White nationalists blame Jews for their problems, but as I research and read about history, this past month I noticed a strange pattern of egalitarianism and individualism in Whites. Jews are a problem, they are ~60% of the problem facing Whites today. The other 40% comes from White liberals and traitors. From the days of Greek Hellenism to Roman pagans to modern-day European Christendom….Whites have always tried to bring in other tribes and nations into their culture and way of life. The Greeks forced their culture onto other people. The Roman Empire conquered other people and spread Roman traditions often forcibly and violently. Christianity is just an extreme form of egalitarianism.
By naively believing that every person on the planet is interchangeable, a fatal flaw of Communism as well, they cause endless discord and violence.
I believe that people shouldn’t be forced to convert to another religion, or forced to assimilate, every people who consider themselves a people have a right to exist (this includes whites, Asians, Latinos, Africans, Muslims, redheads, Buddhists, Jews, etc.). People cannot merely assert a “right,” no one merely asserts that they have a right to exist, and expect everyone to abide by it. A nation only exists if she has the power back up her existence. For example, laws are enforced by the police or military. Without police or military, laws are useless.
I don’t believe atheistic materialism will ever replace Christianity or Islam. There has to be a new religion that gives people spiritual and moral guidance, but the religion must have restrictions on proselytizing. We can create a new religion for Whites only, and one that emphasizes a high birthrate as essential for our future survival. We have an abundance of intellectual literature, but why can’t someone write a religious book?
As for Israel, the country is unsustainable, the Communist/liberal Jews and Zionist Jews will tear themselves apart. There is a lot of friction between the secular Jews and the Orthodox Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are already a minority, and the non-white Jews will outbreed the Ashkenazis, thus lowering the overall IQ of Israel dramatically.
The high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews (they claim at 115) is a myth propagated by biased media and academia. Guess which group is overrepresented in these two institutions? The financial and corporate success of Jews lies in their tribal nepotism and self-aggrandizement. In Israel, the average Ashkenazim IQ is only 105, with Sephardim at 80.
http://sq.4mg.com/IQIsraeli.htm
Economically, Israel is bankrupt because it is a socialist country.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm
The goal of White Nationalists today would be to contain Israel, and prevent immigration of Jews into the West. The Orthodox Jews are the demographic wellspring of Judaism, they are the ones having the babies, the liberal Jews can’t sustain themselves demographically over the long-term. If we are to have any permanent success, I suggest we nullify Orthodox Judaism.
I think it’s that hedging annoys people. Many people who oppose the libel and slander towards Jews that comes out of typical wn drama whores likewise view Taylor’s hedging as a negative.
http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-laura-wood-thinks.html
🙂
Iceman, I suspect you are right about that.
Many people dislike a fencer-sitter… from both sides of the fence. Still, Jared Taylor is probably more effective for refusing to touch the “JQ”, which a good deal of others waste countless man-hours discussing ad-naseum.
It is false to say that “White Nationalists” have invented “a totally new form of tribal organization” out of “thin air.” The basic components of their ideology have been in the American bloodstream for generations.
Who cares? That is how the Roman Empire was founded.
The rumor is that Jared Taylor has a Jewish wife. If he isn’t up front about it like Tan (or like I am about my partially Italian ancestry) then he deserves what he gets.
The Thinking Housewife might be a housewife but it is now clear she can’t think. At least about one issue. Anathema I say!
The Thinking Housewife might be a housewife but it is now clear she can’t think. At least about one issue. Anathema I say!
Well, whether she likes it or not, this blogpost of hers has now become a very valuable ‘teaching moment’ in our fight for sanity. It has proved an extremely effective way of showing our snoozing fellows the dangerous kinds of people who dot the White landscape.
This has been my second big ‘aha’ moment in the last few weeks that happened as a result of seeing some ‘allies’ in an entirely new light, and both happened as a result of things they (perhaps knowingly, perhaps not?) revealed about their true motivation. It is a lesson I won’t soon forget.
I’ve met Jared Taylor’s wife and she didn’t look or act Jewish to me.
Everyone involved in the White Nationalist movement is accused of being an SPLC operative, a Mossad agent, or a Jew at some point or another.
The difference between Taylor and TTHW in my mind is that Taylor deserves the benefit of the doubt from White advocates and this housewife blogger doesn’t. Taylor has a 25 year record of fighting for White interests in public. Tayor is also on cordial terms with Don Black and other WNists who take a harder line on the JQ and doesn’t wring his hands over associating with them.
TTHW, meanwhile, takes a very aggressive philo-Semitic stance, censors and denounces true WNists, aligns herself with that serpent Laurence Auster, and would rather see Western civilization die than continue into the future without Jews. She also has no record of real-world White activism that I know of that would earn her any benefit of the doubt.
I am not sure why Riley, HW, and Matt Parrot think highly of this woman. I had never heard of TTHW until HW wrote this article, but if TTHW is a blogger with significant or growing influence in pro-White circles, she needs to be classified with Laurence Auster as someone who should be attacked and exposed just as the writer Tanstaafl did.
iceman
“There’s a little bit of a difference between the founding fathers and what we call white nationalism. The founding fathers were racially conscious, but they don’t resemble today’s white nationalists.”
If it’s true that the bulk of White people aren’t naturally *primarily* ethno-centric then group forms of racial consciousness will only arise as a reaction to specific experience. White settlers created a racial consciousness towards Indians because they had experience of Indians. White settlers in some parts of America created a very stong racial consciousness vis a vis Blacks because they had a lot of experience of Blacks (while other White settlers in other parts of America didn’t develop as strong a consciousness because the numbers were much smaller).
If threat level from diversity is (difference x numbers) then you would expect the founding fathers to not have developed a racial consciousness towards Arabs and Jews at that time because the numbers were too small. When the numbers and experience of difference increased past the threshold there was an attempt to develop a broader racial consciousness but this was successfully blocked.
WN is an extension of the founding father’s racial consciousness beased on extended experience.
Svigor
“I don’t understand (non-Ashkenazi) people like that. Nothing to discuss with people like that IMO.”
It’s like Gremlins. People like her have been convinced that Jews are the persecuted victims of centuries of abuse like some abused orphan puppy that has been beat by its owner for years and she is going to defend the poor mite from the wicked Nazis, little knowing that behind her the poor mite is about to pour a glass of water over its head and turn into a ravening monster that wants to kill her family.
The way to deal with people like her is to try and undermine their faith in the media version of reality first and then if successful reset their sympathy dial so it’s not pointing at 100% philo-semitic i.e it’s Jewish media that promotes diversity, it’s diversity that creates 30,000 rapes a year and it’s the cover-up by Jewish media that prevents anything being done to stop it.
Boris S. has been around the pro-white blogosphere for a while. He is one of these pseudo pro-white Jews who puts Jewish interests first. His peers include Sabril, The Undiscovered Jew, Israeli Water Engineer, Half Sigma and some others I can’t recall right now(I don’t put all pro-white Jews in that category).
The main thrusts of these people are denying and/or defending Jewish domination of elite institutions, denying that Jews favor other Jews and form ethnic patronage networks, denying that Jews are ethnocentric, denying that Jews are overrepresented among anti-white activists, denying that Jewish anti-white activists are motived by Jewish identity, denigrating Northern Europe people as “savages who lived in caves,” claiming that whites need Jews and that Western civilization would be nothing without them and trying to redirect WN from fighting race replacement to fighting Muslims and Arabs.
Their favored styles of argumentation are passive-aggressive snarking, ignoring questions and valid criticisms of their claims and repeated demands that others provide ever greater mountains of evidence to back their claims, which they simply ignore.
If you read what they say carefully, you often get the impression that they don’t have a problem with whites being dispossessed, as long as Muslims and maybe blacks are kept under control.
Hunter,
I hope that the name”Tea Party”has a historical reason related to the Boston Tea Party, colonists WASP’s disguise of Indians preparing to pounce, I hope, two certainties about this movement of hope and justice, are racist , anti-Semitic and educated.
One way or another the day of the Jewish quarter are counted, not even a matter of logic but of time.