In Arizona, a drive by shooting of an interracial couple already has the liberal blogosphere beating the “hate crime” drum. For the record, the police have specificially said: “we just don’t have enough information to call it a hate crime and isolate a single group.” The suspect, who has been described as white, heavily tattooed, and with a shaved head, allegedly walked up to the victims and asked, “what are you doing with that white woman” before stalking the couple and opening fire. Unlike countless other violent crimes, the preliminary information coming out of this case fits the liberal script of victimology, as with Tawana Brawley or Duke Lacrosse, and has quickly become a source of commentary for exclusively that reason.
Predictably, Jessie Daniels of Racism Review has the bit in the mouth and is running with the story. Although very little is known about the shooting, Daniels has jumped to conclusions on the basis of stereotypes about violent skinheads and prejudice against racially conscious whites males. If the roles were reversed and a black male had shot and killed a white couple after commenting on their race, Daniels would have either 1.) found the incident unworthy of attention or 2.) would be scolding racialists and conservatives for their bigoted assumptions about intrinsically violent black men.
When it comes to crime, this incident is but the latest reminder of the various anti-White double standards we live under. In 2005, 37,460 white women were raped by black men. In 2006, 32,443 more white women were raped by black men. Under Jim Crow, there were only 3,446 lynchings of blacks across the entire period. In 2007, the FBI Hate Crime Statistics show there were 2 forcible rapes and 9 murders; whites were perpetrators of 1 rape and 6 murders classified as “hate crimes”; this out of 90,427 rapes and 16,929 murders in total.
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 20% of White Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. According to the U.S. Census, there were 223,005,483 Whites in America at the time. In other words, around 44,601,096 White Americans disapproved of interracial marriage in 2007, but no one seems to have been murdered on account of that belief. Yet Jessie Daniels insinuates that anti-miscegenation sentiment is inherently violent and leads to murder.* The facts show otherwise. There is no causal relationship between the two.
Why then do anti-racists like Jessie Daniels dwell on so-called hate crimes? Why do they find a handful of obscure crimes to be so significant, but far more common ones (such as black-on-white interracial rape) unworthy of attention? Why do they demand state and federal legislation to penalize some crimes but not others? Why do they always assume the worst about white people; in particular, racially conscious white males?
Jessie Daniels and her colleagues subscribe to an anti-white multicultural worldview. For all their talk of “white privilege,” they are the ones who seek to establish and justify a formal system of privilege that benefits “people of color,” whether it be racial privileges in hiring or special penalties under the law for hate crimes. In the Arizona shooting, a deviant relationship – a privileged relationship, in her mind – was the target of a shooting. She saw it as an affront and an opportunity to further her anti-white agenda. Like every post at Racism Review, it was a dishonest excuse to beat the drum against the hated white man and reinforce the racial guilt complex.
I’ve often said that White Americans live under an inverted version of Jim Crow social etiquette. In the Old South, the lynching of an uppity negro for fornicating with a white woman would have been seen as race justice. Now, it produces just the opposite reaction: every white-on-black crime becomes a cause célèbre. The sacred has been transferred to its historical antipode. The uppity whites are expected to show the customary deference, nod our heads, put our hands in our pockets, agree what a horrible crime and racial failing this was, and acknowledge the need for legislation to prevent such an awful thing from ever happening again.
More on Jessie Daniels and Racism Review later.
Note: High five to the Cap’n for taking the fight to their comments.
* How many black males assault or murder their white spouses of girlfriends per year? If someone could produce the numbers, it would make an interesting comparison.
Where are the Captain’s comments?
How many black males assault or murder their white spouses of girlfriends per year? If someone could produce the numbers, it would make an interesting comparison.
Seems unlikely that information would be readily available.
I did find a study on domestic violence that confirms that interracial marriages are more violent than intra-racial.
http://books.google.com/books?id=az7AGmffTY0C&lpg=PP1&dq=Salber%20and%20Taliaferro&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=interracial%20&f=true
Duke claims that the book says that “the spousal homicide rate among African Americans is 8.4 times more than for whites. The incidence of spousal homicide is 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages compared to intraracial marriages.” but I couldn’t confirm through Google Books.
Like you I thought of Tawana Brawley, and it has my fake hate crime sense tingling.
There have been more hate crime hoaxes where the negro perp blames a “white racist” than there have been assaults/murders of interracial couples by whites as far as I know.
The negro boyfriend was unharmed in the shooting. He also appears to be the only witness.
This will be interesting to follow.
I clicked on the hyperlink: “bit in the mouth.” And it appears Captainchaos’s comment(s) were deleted. Is this true, or did I view the wrong article?
Some of the Captain’s comments are there and it appears, from reading the comments that remain, that some have been deleted since he is referencing comments that aren’t visible.
Perhaps we could convince the moderator to summarize the essence of the deleted comments?
I chimed in.
These political pundits are so full of themselves. They don’t even have a cursory knowledge of what they speak about, yet pretend to be authorities because of their political agenda.
Jesse Daniels is like those shrews on The View. That show could be used as a method of torture.
In 2007???? WOW that’s only the year before last!!! GOOD NEWS!
Sounds like there’s plenty of great material out there to start a new white country with, AFTER making sure to get it right this time — Jew-proof, “liberal”-proof, communist-proof, Vatican-proof, mainstream-Episcopalian-proof, clueless-women-voter-proof.
Those 44 million on the land mass of the present United States, kick all the others out — imagine how much land we’d all have!!!! When do we start?
It would be interesting to know how many lynchings were reactions to specific black criminal acts. That doesn’t justify mob lynchings, obviously, but blacks want you to believe lynchings were all random political hate crimes. In most cases, I suspect, given the inherent high rate of black criminality, the white public was taking its own immediate justice against the criminal element in its midst.
And the reality is, the lynchings probably did significantly lower the black crime rate. Unfortunately, their images still fuel the black uprising, under which well over a million white women have been raped, our cities made virtually unliveable, and our prisons overflowing with the small percentage of black criminals we successful bring to justice.
Those 44 million on the land mass of the present United States, kick all the others out — imagine how much land we’d all have!!!! When do we start?
Forty acres and a mule for all of us…
Plenty of whites were also lynched.
Indeed they were Fred! I’m not sure Proze took that into account because if I’m remembering correctly, it was actually under the 2,000 marker for black lynchings when the statistics were broken down by race. I’m willing to admit that I might be wrong on that point but I vividly remember reading it because it made me so angry.
The Poverty of Racialist Thought
By Israel Shamir
Racial theorist Prof Kevin MacDonald has written a piece about film director Roman Polansky’s recent arrest: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Polanski.html#KM As you might expect, KMD has discovered that Polansky is not condemned by Hollywood because he is a Jew, and Jews protect their own. They also like Polansky because his films and his actions have undermined the Whites’ morals and values. Life is simple for Prof MacDonald.
Real life is funnier and more complicated. In 1967, Roman Polansky directed the most anti-Jewish film ever produced in Hollywood, The Fearless Vampire Killers (Dance of the Vampires) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D1jeG6YtLU. In this unforgettable film, the Jewish vampire (1) just smiles at the cross and bites the neck of an innocent blond victim; (2) sends his daughter to ruin a Gentile, (3) steals the coffin of the noble vampire, (4) stays on despite attempts to kick him out, and finally, (5) is a mixture of Mark Chagall and Fiddler on the Roof. Polansky mocks practically every negative trait ever attributed to Jews, and does so hilariously! One would expect that an ethnically conscious Hollywood Jew would hate Polansky’s guts, if anything.
Meanwhile, Goldstone, a Jewish judge, found the Jewish state guilty as charged of war crimes and crimes against humanity, while the ultimate non-Jew, PLO leader, Arafat heir and author of a Holocaust-doubting book, Mahmud Abbas, threw away Goldstone’s judgement in order to get his cut for a second mobile phone network provider in Palestine. I repeat: he did not do this in order to feed the hungry, give water to thirsty or to free prisoners. He did it to allow the relatively wealthy people of Ramallah a choice of mobile providers, and to make something good for himself at the same time. Is being a Jew still relevant nowadays?
If you still think so, the Daily Telegraph published a claim that President Ahmadinejad is of Jewish origin. Until now, this piece of news was regularly forwarded for a couple of years by various Zionists in racialist clothes. Now it is official, being published by a paper of record. (Another paper of the record, the Times, upgraded me to a “Swedish Nazi”). We are sorely missing Hermann Goering, the man that could decide who is a Jew.
But even he did not claim to know who is White. In the above-mentioned piece, and it his other recent texts, KMD speaks of “the Whites”, a group which does not function as he thinks a group should function. They allow their morals and values to be undermined by the Jews in the Jews’ own interests. Whites do not pursue their own group interests. A scientific mind would draw a logical conclusion from such a result. If a whale does not behave like a fish, perhaps it is not fish. If the Whites do not behave like a group should, perhaps they are not a group.
He might as well speak about Redheads, or about people whose name is George, and their values and interests. The Whites of KMD and of other racialists are not a group, they are a granfalloon. “A granfalloon, in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel Cat’s Cradle, is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless”, reports Wikipedia.
Indeed, America’s Whites have nothing in common: neither faith nor origin, nor morals, values, traditions or language. The Catholic editor of Culture Wars, E. Michael Jones, said this a year or two ago, at a meeting in Washington, and has been shunned by paleo-conservatives and white racialists ever since. Peter Brimelow, editor of the racialist vdare website, threw a fit and instructed his lawyers to demand the excision of Jones’s talk from the records and the incineration of his photos because he had denied “the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation”. Jones said:
“We [Americans] have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no we…”
Jones rejected the concept of “whiteness”. “White” is not a relevant classifier outside of the Deep South, he says. For the Poles and the Germans, the Greeks and the Italians in the North, “White was a completely negative designation”. If Chicago’s ethnics became “white” it was only because of migration of the blacks from the South, not because of any racial identity of their own. The struggle for the American soul (the “culture wars” in Jones’ term) is simply not understandable in racial terms. The blacks were ultimately the pawns of other groups, which were just as white as the groups they attacked.
The real nations of America, says Jones, are “Protestants, Catholics and Jews. America far from being some unified nation inhabited by generic Americans turns out to be a lot like the former Yugoslavia, a country made up of three ethnic groups based on three religions each engaged in a form of long-standing covert warfare against each other”. In his view, the Jews made an alliance with the WASPs against the Catholics of the North and against the Southern Whites, and turned out to be the joker in the pack.
I am not sure that the three are sufficient for real-time analysis. There are sizeable new groups – Hispanics, Blacks, South Asians, Chinese – who count in the millions. But even the older groups, WASPs and Catholics, may also turn out to be other granfalloons. Proof? They do not pursue their interests. Their elites do not feel responsible for their lower classes even as much as Jewish elites do. They did not make the grade to become nations even in a very limited Yugoslavian sense. And they never did. American Libertarian Jacob G. Hornberger wrote this panegyric to the good old WASP-ruled America:
“Imagine: No income tax, no capital-gains tax, and no estate tax. For the first time in history, people were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. No economic regulations. No welfare. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or education grants. No immigration controls. People from all over the world were free to come to the United States. No systems of public (i.e., government) schooling.”
It is supposed to have been a lost paradise, but it is not one I would care to regain. For Michael Jones, it was the anti-Christian Jew, obsessed with his revolutionary zeal, who upset this order and brought confusion. Perhaps this order had to be upset, for it was not good for the lower classes. The Jews used it to their advantage, granted; they used the legitimate dissatisfaction of the blacks in the South to their advantage, too – but there was much to that situation that ought to have been repaired in the spirit of genuine compassion. The American fear of socialism and of ‘revolution’ resonate a fear of compassion, which goes much deeper than the color of their skins.
I have a lot of respect for Kevin MacDonald; some of his observations regarding Jews are astute and timely; but his racialist thought is not reality-based, as illuminated above. There are no “whites” in the US as a group, and it does not seem that such a group is in the process of formation. Nothing unites Poles, Germans, Spaniards, Swedes, WASPs, Southerners in Mississippi, Greeks, Arabs, Irish, Persians, children of the Mayflower, recent arrivals from Russia and other whites. The time has come to provide some constructive criticism for KMD’s work, first of all because it is not devoid of merit. The problem is that too many politically engaged people have tried to shame KMD and other racialists, instead of arguing with them and their readers as though they might be reasonable fellow human beings.
Let us absolve KMD and other racialists from the accusation of racism. Racism is a negative attitude to persons considered belonging to a different race. We all know that racism is immoral and shameful. Racialists are not necessarily racists, and present-day American racialists rarely are. They fail as scientists, not as immoral persons. The schism within America is a schism between ‘whites’ and ‘whites’, and different medicine is needed to treat it.
(to be continued)
Gentilshommes,
The sacred has been transferred to its historical antipode. The uppity whites are expected to show the customary deference, nod our heads, put our hands in our pockets, agree what a horrible crime and racial failing this was, and acknowledge the need for legislation to prevent such an awful thing from ever happening again. (Prozium)
“…there is an etiology and a point of infection, and that, for the moment, although the infection is far advanced, it can still be successfully treated: the pathogens — liberal utopians, corrupt careerists, ethnic radicals — are known and localized,…” (A. Kurtagic)
Seems, rather, like the last healthy European (evidently with a rare immunity to slavish memes) was a pagan Saxon warlord.
NN
Subject: John Howard Griffin – an apparent literary fraud
To: jcashill at worldnetdaily dot com
Mr. Cashill:
You have recently come to my attention as a proponent of
the theory that Barack Obama’s “memoir” was
ghostwritten by Bill Ayers, and as an author of a book on
academic frauds, particularly of the Left. I write to you in
that regard to point out what I believe to be an heretofore
unobserved literary and academic fraud, John Howard Griffin.
Ironically, Griffin claimed to have perpetrated a hoax, when
in fact he did no such thing, so his fraud was to claim to
have committed a fraud that was never committed.
Griffin (in case you don’t recall) was the author of
“Black Like Me”, a supposed memoir of a white man
who, with medical assistance, made himself temporarily
appear black, and wandered around the Deep South gathering
impressions for his book, which is presented in the form of
a journal. The journal was first serialized in
“Sepia”, a now defunct magazine for a largely
black readership, then republished as a book. It has been
translated into fourteen languages, and millions of copies
have sold. A web search of “black like me
syllabus” will show that it is widely assigned as
required or supplemental reading in college courses. It is
used most often in courses instructing white students in the
recitation of the racial pieties required of them in these
United States.
After carefully reading that work, and several associated
biographies and an autobiography of Griffin, I have come to
the conclusion that Black Like Me was fraudulent, and that
Griffin never changed his appearance. The whole truth is not
at hand, but it seems he simply imagined what it would be
like to be black, and then falsely said he was able to make
himself black in order to give his story the necessary
verisimilitude. My reasoning is in the case of Black Like Me
is based upon the difficulty of changing races and upon
tell-tale signs of falsification in the work (absence of
corroboration most notably).
Furthermore, Griffin seems to have led a life of lies
beginning long before Black Like Me. He claims to have been
blind for twelve years, and to have miraculously regained
his sight. He claims to have been paralyzed for several
months, and to have miraculously regained the ability to
walk. He writes constantly about himself, and his own
travails, and he is constantly grappling with the Infinite,
and constantly changing himself into different people, all
of whom are morally praiseworthy.
I find his claims to have been blind suspicious as well.
His account of the loss of his sight is full of
inconsistencies, and his story of miraculously regaining his
sight over a decade after he lost it strains credulity. He
claims to have become a renowned animal breeder while he was
blind (along with writing his novels), and he claims to have
become a renowned photographer (presumably not while he was
blind). He claims to have written a journal while blind, and
cites it verbatim to support his claim that he was also
paralyzed part of that time. Blind people can do amazing
things, but I am at a loss to understand how he was able to
type the prose in his “journal” without being able
to see it to edit it – but he says he did.
Griffin would have sunk into obscurity except for the
efforts of a man named Robert Bonazzi, who knew Griffin when
he was alive (he died in 1980 or so), and who married
Griffin’s widow. Griffin was genuinely a writer and a
pianist, and one of his novels was the subject of a Supreme
Court decision. Nothing Griffin did in his life would have
merited the attention he has received, however. Bonazzi has
made an academic career out of keeping Griffin’s name
before the public. Bonazzi is on the faculty at Columbia,
Billy Ayers’ old alma mater. Small world. In any event,
although millions of people have read Black Like Me, I have
never seen any trace of scepticism about the material basis
of Griffin’s statements, either from Robert Bonazzi or
anyone else. Some people like Griffin, and some don’t;
some think he is important, some not; but if anyone thinks
he was a fraud, they have not said so.
There are many unanswered questions, not least of which is
the question of whether Robert Bonazzi and his wife
(Griffin’s widow) were aware of his impostures. It is
clear he had at least one collaborator in the Black Like Me
hoax (a photographer), but it is not clear whether his wife
ever knew. She became his 17 year old bride while he was
“blind”, and I have a hard time believing either
that she would have done so knowing he was a fraud, or that
she could have remained married to him for over a decade,
and borne his daughter, without realizing the truth. But I
do not know.
I don’t have the time now to run down the case point by
point. If you are interested in knowing more about him, ask me, and I can go into more detail.
Sincerely,
Eric F.
FOUR MARINES FACE DEATH PENALTY IN MURDER OF SGT JAN PIETRZAK AND WIFE:
When the perp is White it’s a slam dunk hate crime. When the perp is black some people speculate that maybe there’s a chance that it might have been a bias attack.
When it comes to anti-White literary frauds, it’s hard to top Tim “White Like Me” Wise.
from reading the comments that remain, that some have been deleted since he is referencing comments that aren’t visible.
Yes, they were all posted after this blog post. So unless Prozium can see the future, they have been deleting CC’s posts.
(to be continued)
No need, thanks.
“The Poverty of Racialist Thought
By Israel Shamir”
Shamir tries to confuse the reader and purposely leaves out information for his own agenda.
“But even he did not claim to know who is White. In the above-mentioned piece, and it his other recent texts, KMD speaks of “the Whites”, a group which does not function as he thinks a group should function. They allow their morals and values to be undermined by the Jews in the Jews’ own interests. Whites do not pursue their own group interests. A scientific mind would draw a logical conclusion from such a result. If a whale does not behave like a fish, perhaps it is not fish. If the Whites do not behave like a group should, perhaps they are not a group.”
They always did behave as a group, as the historical record shows, until the cultural and political revolution uprooted them from their heritage and tradition. It’s only been since the 1960s that segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were struck down.
“Indeed, America’s Whites have nothing in common: neither faith nor origin, nor morals, values, traditions or language. The Catholic editor of Culture Wars, E. Michael Jones, said this a year or two ago, at a meeting in Washington, and has been shunned by paleo-conservatives and white racialists ever since.”
That’s nonsense, and EMJ has no concern for anything beyond his religion. He openly welcomes non-whites and Jews into his bed as long as they’re good Catholics.
EMJ did not say America’s whites, he said Americans in total, which is true when you count all the non-whites. Of course that version of America is a new one and has nothing to do with its racial and cultural origin.
“Brimelow, editor of the racialist vdare website, threw a fit and instructed his lawyers to demand the excision of Jones’s talk from the records and the incineration of his photos because he had denied “the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation”.”
If that’s true, then congratulations to Brimelow for having some stones. However it is stated clearly on his website that VDare is not white nationalist.
“Jones rejected the concept of “whiteness”. “White” is not a relevant classifier outside of the Deep South, he says. For the Poles and the Germans, the Greeks and the Italians in the North, “White was a completely negative designation”.
The real nations of America, says Jones, are “Protestants, Catholics and Jews.”
Indeed, more evidence that racialism is a product of the South. If not for the South, America may have ended up like Latin America a long time ago.
EMJ is like most intellectuals these days, lost in deep study while the ship is sinking.
Kudos to Dr. Kevin MacDonald for being a better synthesis of the intellectual and the warrior.
Shamir isn’t all wrong (Robert Reis’ post, above). Why else all those neverending wars in Europe between the various white nations & religious versions of white nations? I’m (sort of) looking forward to Part 2 of Shamir’s essay.
Maybe you understand this issue better than I do, but I don’t think Brimelow had a 4-star hissy because EMJones rejected “whiteness”. I don’t know if it’s that simple, what occurred at that meeting. By the sounds of things, EMJ can be considered goofy for other reasons.
In any case: For my part, I don’t need Shamir or any of his kind to tell me who or what to identify with or consider myself a part of. And I’m sure KMcD doesn’t, either. That the various white ethnic and/or religious groups seem unable to unite and work together is irrelevant: we’ve never experienced what we are experiencing now, not to this degree. This is really a new situation that we are in and all bets are off.
Shamir’s context wasn’t about Europe, it was about America. So he is fully wrong in his statements that American whites have never existed or acted as a group.
Obviously the concept of white is an American one. Being a reformation of European ethnics into a new whole to avoid the old ethnic conflicts. Much like how racially similar tribes were formed into European nations.
Outside of his criticisms of Israel, he has little use. He is an anti-racist and pro-miscegenist.
I’m (sort of) looking forward to Part 2 of Shamir’s essay.
YAWWWWWN. To me, there’s nothing less interesting than yet another Jew throwing out a couple of anecdotes to “prove” that Jews aren’t ethnocentric. The only thing that might possibly give it a run for its money in the “worthy of being ignored” department is non-whites explaining why WN can never work.
Indeed, America’s Whites have nothing in common: neither faith nor origin, nor morals, values, traditions or language.
What year is this, 1920? American Whites don’t have a language in common? We don’t have basic morals in common? Values? What?
Assuming Shamir isn’t being purely mendacious, perhaps he’s making the mistake of assuming that the various European-American groups behave like Jews in terms of separating themselves from other white ethnic groups. In my experience, White ethnic groups in the United States tend to freely mix socially and romantically, to a far greater extent than Whites mix with non-Whites. I think regionalism generally divides Whites more than ethnicity in 2009.
we’ve never experienced what we are experiencing now, not to this degree. This is really a new situation that we are in and all bets are off.
Precisely. Even if Shamir is correct, the anti-White racists are essentially forcing a White racial consciousness. Whites are attacked as Whites, discriminated against as Whites, and treated as second-class citizens by the government and the media on account of their Whiteness. Whites of all ethnic groups have to deal with the crime and failing schools that stem from the presence of negros and mestizos. And that’s the greatest reason of all to cooperate politically: our interests have converged.
None of my comments have been deleted and some recent ones are pending acceptance by the moderator. Phrasing one’s objections to the dispossession and looming destruction of our people in the language of a half-witted psychopath is not helpful to our cause.
I thank Prozium, and all others that gave me thanks for my meager effort to speak on behalf of our people in that instance.
If anyone is interested, my comments should be visible (at least they are to me) here:
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/10/04/contexts-podcast-cyber-racism/#comments
And here:
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/10/06/interracial-couple-gunned-down/#comments
What might be helpful to our cause is if foolish White women contemplating entering into an interracial relationship get it into their head that doing so might be harmful to their health.
Forgive my harsh language in #22 above, but framing our objections to the genetic destruction of our race as “bestiality” will not do. It cedes the moral high ground to our opponents. It dehumanizes other peoples when it is precisely their dehumanization of us, and our peoplehood as being definitive of our unique humanity, that we seek to combat. The key to victory is to have won the moral victory, if only in the minds of our own people, which is really whom we wish to convince.
E. Michael Jones:
“Mr. Brimelow had apparently calmed down by Monday because missing from his blog entry was the hysteria which characterized his e-mails in the immediate aftermath of the conference. It is a rare and disedifying sight to see a grown man so consumed by fear, but here was Peter Brimelow absolutely petrified. And what was he afraid of? That someone might have photographed him standing next to E. Michael Jones! In the immediate aftermath of the conference, Mr. Brimelow professed to be appalled by my talk, which is his right. The really funny part came later in the same communication when he announced that “I can’t be associated with anything in which that speech is featured [or] . . . to be in any photographs or material of any kind in which Jones is present.” (I had to edit his original text because fear evidently rendered his syntax incoherent.)
Now that is serious fear. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late to do anything about it. On page 2 of a brochure handed out by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation on the day of the conference, there we are—Peter Brimelow and I—cheek by jowl, pictures and all, right next to each other. It’s not quite the usual press club deal with the two of us arm in arm the one receiving a plaque from the other, but you got the impression that Peter Brimelow felt this was career-ending material, and there wasn’t a damn thing that Peter Brimelow could do about it. Hence, the terror.”
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-e-michael-jones-anti-semite.html
Admiral: sure enough. It doesn’t take much to stampede the herd.
So what am I to think of Jones? He’s an anti-Semite, but not pro-White. What kind of wilderness that must be! He can take comfort in all his tan Catholic brothers.
But even he did not claim to know who is White. In the above-mentioned piece, and it his other recent texts, KMD speaks of “the Whites”, a group which does not function as he thinks a group should function. They allow their morals and values to be undermined by the Jews in the Jews’ own interests. Whites do not pursue their own group interests. A scientific mind would draw a logical conclusion from such a result. If a whale does not behave like a fish, perhaps it is not fish. If the Whites do not behave like a group should, perhaps they are not a group.
He might as well speak about Redheads, or about people whose name is George, and their values and interests. The Whites of KMD and of other racialists are not a group, they are a granfalloon. “A granfalloon, in Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel Cat’s Cradle, is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless”, reports Wikipedia.
Indeed, America’s Whites have nothing in common: neither faith nor origin, nor morals, values, traditions or language. The Catholic editor of Culture Wars, E. Michael Jones, said this a year or two ago, at a meeting in Washington, and has been shunned by paleo-conservatives and white racialists ever since. Peter Brimelow, editor of the racialist vdare website, threw a fit and instructed his lawyers to demand the excision of Jones’s talk from the records and the incineration of his photos because he had denied “the idea that race matters or that America was ever a nation”. Jones said:
“We [Americans] have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no we…”
Jones rejected the concept of “whiteness”. “White” is not a relevant classifier outside of the Deep South, he says. For the Poles and the Germans, the Greeks and the Italians in the North, “White was a completely negative designation”. If Chicago’s ethnics became “white” it was only because of migration of the blacks from the South, not because of any racial identity of their own. The struggle for the American soul (the “culture wars” in Jones’ term) is simply not understandable in racial terms. The blacks were ultimately the pawns of other groups, which were just as white as the groups they attacked.
If Whites don’t exist, why the heavy state legal machinery to identify and discriminate against them? Why the continual abuse in the media?
Two White behaviors shows the truth against Catholic fantasies and jewish lies:
1) the vast majority of whites, when it relocates, moves to a Whiter area than the one it leaves
2) despite decades of the most intense propaganda ever leveled at a people, Whites marry Whites well over 90% of the time.
But the best way to show jew Shamir and Jones are wrong is what that old thing called a thought experiment.
Open the least attractive American state to Whites, that is to say, make it, by law, Whites only. You’ll see the biggest land rush in human history.
Finally and parenthetically, jew Shamir’s lie that racialists “shunned” E. Michael Jones is the reverse of the truth (funny how converting to Christianity doesn’t change Shamir’s racial proclivity for lying, not that EMJ will notice, ha). I and VNN are practically the only ones who discuss E. Michael Jones, routinely – in order to respect and rebut him, and to relish with laughter his subverted institution’s ridiculous claim it can convert jews like Shamir into humans by sprinkling water on them.
Anecdote relating to interracial violence. I used to post at a non-political site with a political section. One of the guys was going on about his daughter and the fine upstanding (nigger) gent she was shacking up with. I posted some facts on interracial crime, and warned him that very likely some double plus ungood could come of it, and a responsible father would warn his daughter. He didn’t spit back, he said he was unaware of the facts I linked to, but was sure his daughter, as a grown woman, could make adult decisions.
What happens? The other day he reported that the nigger beat his daughter within an inch of her life, killed her bastard unborn baby, ripped off tongue and ear, fractured face multiple times, along with many other broken bones, requests prayer from all concerned, which are duly forthpouring. Because the site operator is a superannuated wigger liberal who tolerates all manner of personal abuse against conservatives but no factual rebuttal vs fags, jews, muds, he goes apeshit at the ONE poster (not me) who, amidst the heaved prayers, hinted at the underlying racial truth the fellow is now all too painfully aware of. The operator calls the guy a “coward” for not stating bluntly that white women don’t belong with niggers. Of course, if the poster did that, the operator would ban him.
Great world, let me tell you, and Christianity is no solution. Praying never has and never will solve any human problem. Thinking leading to conclusions leading to action is what we need. If it weren’t so, you’d read articles not about ”hate’ crime’ but about real crime and they’d establish the context, thereby suggesting the solution. Instead, the few times you read articles about real crime, they focus entirely on blacks as victims.
“…and Christianity is no solution.”
Agreed. Christian ethics, especially the parts about non-violence and ‘turning the other cheek,’ definitely will act as a drag on White activists in coming years, unless we convince White Christians otherwise. Even if the effort fails I suspect they will soon get the message, as the projectiles start flying.
Re: White racial consciousness. I’m yet to meet a white who doesn’t know he’s white or has any trouble whatsoever differentiating himself from being black or anything else. No confusion whatsoever. Among ourselves, we’re very open about it for the most part. Moreover, whites have never had a problem expressing white consciousness when it comes to where they live, send their children to school, etc. We don’t make a big thing about it – we can’t – but we all know.
Unlike others, particulary jews and blacks, whites have always had a healthy, nonobsessive racial consciousness. Survival now necessitates its arousal.
“Captainchaos
Phrasing one’s objections to the dispossession and looming destruction of our people in the language of a half-witted psychopath is not helpful to our cause.”
Who are you referring to?
Correct, and a very instructive, important thought experiment. Think about it.
Comment from one of the linked sites:
Coz says:
Wow….
I met Kelley and Jeffrey about 2 years ago at Sunset bowl when I owned a pro shop there. They used to bowl there quite often.
I tried to help her out during some tough times she was having and ended up getting burned when she bounced a check for 1200.00 that I cashed for her. (Still have the bounced check)
I feel sorry for the young son she has….
What a waste…
Posted On: Wednesday, Oct. 7 2009 @ 9:43AM
Mark, he was referring to you.
Great world, let me tell you, and Christianity is no solution. Praying never has and never will solve any human problem.
Christianity doesn’t exactly make the claim to be a political solution.
You don’t know that prayer has ever solved any human problem.
Theonomy, on the other hand, does claim to be an all encompassing moral and political solution and its case is most eloquently, cogently and thoroughly laid out by one of the greatest “systematizers” to have ever lived who went by the name of Rousas J. Rushdoony and who founded The Chalcedon Foundation. Theonomy claims to apply Christianity to the civil and political realm coherently and contain an entire ethical system around which to rally a nationalist polity.
danielj, I wasn’t talking to you.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but obviously this guy is mentally warped.
What a strange reaction to a fellow ideologue. I can only surmise that he comes from VNN, as dimwitted anti-social behavior is par for the course over there.
“Forgive my harsh language in #22 above, but framing our objections to the genetic destruction of our race as “bestiality” will not do. It cedes the moral high ground to our opponents.”
No one framed genetic destruction as bestiality, you obviously have a severe comprehension problem.
Miscegenation was once classed among other paraphilia, such bestiality, homosexuality, pedophilia and others. It was considered an unnatural act and against the law. How in the hell does citing that “cede moral high ground??” What utter nonsense. It does the exact opposite. Perhaps you think it’s normal behavior then.
This coming from a guy who posts incoherent ramblings under the cartoonish name CaptainChaos. Yeah, you’re really taken seriously by people.
Newsflash, CaptainScumbag, you aren’t going to win people over at Racism Review. Do you have any clue what kind of people are over there?? White women with mulatto children, anti-white feminist lesbians, and other assorted degenerates. Yet, you want to attack people who are on your side. What a freak.
danielj, I wasn’t talking to you.
I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt
I know. I was attempting to diffuse the situation.
You mean defuse.
The way you phrased it sounded provocative, not defusing at all, not that you could.
Yes I did mean that.
That was because I didn’t finish my comment.
Woops. Sorry.
Mark,
I did ask to be forgiven for the harshness of the language I applied. I’ll not ask again. But I stand by my implicit point that the linguistic and ideological terrain we must navigated is hostile, and as such must be navigated with care.
“No one framed genetic destruction as bestiality,”
“Miscegenation was once classed among other paraphilia, such bestiality, homosexuality, pedophilia and others. It was considered an unnatural act and against the law.”
I suppose I could have been more clear, it is the reflexive perception of the liberal reader to conflate all of these various things into one category of ‘sin’ which they believe those that rail against it believe ought to be punished in the harshest manner possible – even unto torture. Their reaction is hysterical, yet it does evoke the sympathy of many. The less provocation given in that direction, the less reasonable, and yes, the more hysterical, the liberal reaction to being challenged will be perceived by more or less neutral observers.
“This coming from a guy who posts incoherent ramblings…”
I try to use rhetoric to move the interlocutor. Perhaps it is only a reflection of my own tastes. Hit or miss. The age has been so vulgarized as to make it mostly ineffective, and apparently you are not immune.
Moreover, the prospect of an ethnostate for Whites on the North American continent is morally viable in the present zeitgeist because of a wish for peaceful separation and self-determination. It is imperative that the public perceive all ill intentions and a willingness to do violence as adhering to the liberal establishment and not with separatists. The mention of the criminalization and punishment of certain acts will leave the public with the impression that it is not separation which we want, but to gain power and lord it over them. That may be hard to swallow, but it is palpably the truth; that will be the perception made to obtain by the media establishment. And truly, if separation is achieved, what does it matter what others do, let their own lives collapse under the weight of their degeneracy.
Captain: Hear! Hear!
I wish I would have phrased my comment at that blog in similar fashion. I started typing in anger and haste unfortunately and this blasted British keyboard isn’t making matters any better. I can’t wait to get home again!
Go second my opinion over there with what has become a characteristic type of elegance I’ve come to expect of you there Boss. You could just cut and paste the last comment with a few minor revisions.
CC,
You never addressed me directly.
Your apology was framed in a general manner to your readers that was merely self-serving.
The harshness wasn’t my primary objection, it’s that it’s all untrue.
In addition that audience is completely wrong for whatever impact you hope to make. It’s like Obama going to a Klan rally.
To sum up, I don’t accept your self-serving apology, your unprovoked insults and misrepresentation of what I posted are completely untrue and outrageous, and your pretentious posturing is annoying.
If you gave at least as much respect to your compatriots as you do your enemies, you would do much better.
If you want to see vulgar look to your own posts. You are the one who apologized.
If you gave at least as much respect to your compatriots as you do your enemies, you would do much better.
This actually has a bit of truth in it.
I’m stepping out of this one though as I have respect for both parties involved.
Mark,
My apology was general because it was directed to others than you alone. I do take your point however about the need to show more respect. I will try to do so in future. No hard feelings, I hope.
80% of white Americans approve of interracial marriage but only 5-7% of all marriages are interracial. Just like school integration most whites are in favor of it just as long as it doesn’t involve them or their children.
Kudos to the white man who shot the interracial couple. Blacks celebrate when one of their own ruthlessly torture and murders a white person, so all is fair in war.
“Kudos to the white man who shot the interracial couple.”
Hence my general apology. Yet the question still stands, Is this the message we want to take “Into The Light?” In my experience, it does not work, just turns people off. Obviously our issues must be forced into the mainstream of discourse, otherwise there will be no ethnostate, and if the idea becomes tainted with that kind of imagery, you can stick a fork in it right now. ‘Myth…myth…we need some myth.’ What really would that be but a skeleton of positive imagery that people can project their hopes and dreams on to? ‘Won’t it be great when…’
We won’t get to “won’t it be great when” without an intervening violent upheaval. It might seem that a white ethnostate could be established relatively peacefully, but that doesn’t take into consideration our enemy. It may be perfectly reasonable to ask for our own land where we can be safe and live our own way. Reasonable, that is, to a decent white person.
What’s unreasonable is the jews. They hate us and want us dead. There’s no appeasing them.
Until you understand what the jews are and what they want you will pursue one mirage after another, most of them planted by the jews.
What is this advocacy of non-violence if not the logical extrapolation of the liberal pacifist myths promoted by jews during the Cold War to soften us up for judeo-communist takeover?
The same goes for the law and order myths (coming from the other side of the jew rainbow spectrum) promoted by Frank Meyer and other jews at National Review.
Only the taboo concepts that you’ve been taught to fear and despise will save us from enslavement and death. Fight the jew, even if it requires killing, or let the jew kill you. That’s the choice the jew has left to us.