Interview: Robert Lindsay

Robert Lindsay

Robert Lindsay, the most interesting liberal in cyberspace, has done two interviews with Voice of Reason. He used to be a regular commentator on OD in 2009.

Lindsay is notable for his attempt to integrate communism, anti-racism, race realism, and White Advocacy. He is a critic of Zionist Jews and White Nationalism. His rhetorical scatter shot hits targets on both the Right and Left.

Part One:

Topics include:

  • “Liberal race realism”; the definition of racism
  • Critique of White nationalism and positive White identity
  • Immigration and its affects on demographics, the economy, and environment; urban sprawl and destruction of wilderness in California
  • The flaws of libertarianism and Capitalism; Wall Street and financial parasitism
  • Zionism, anti-Semitism vs. rational criticism of Jewish culture and political activism

Part Two:

Topics include:

  • Third Positionism; the A3P Party
  • Fascism and US pro-White politics; US Southern history
  • The bankers who financed Communism; rich socialists
  • Defining fascism; the pathologization of racism
  • A comparison of how Communist and Nazi atrocities are treated and used for political gain
  • Fascism in Israel; whether Zionism is Nationalist or Internationalist
  • Islamic Imperialism
About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Robert Lindsay is a White Supremacist. I saw one of his blurbs, in which he said that the idea of a country full of Mestizos with Whites at the top is not so bad.

  2. I listened to part one. I’m sorry I did. A complete waste of my time. My jewdar was flashing red when he said he had no problem with the FED. Just another banking system don’t ya know.

    He is either an idiot, a liar, or a jew. Probably all three.

  3. check out his pic: didn’t he sing for the Buggles back in the early 80s? ‘Video killed the radio star, Video killed the radio star’…

  4. Typical fork tongued jew-speak:

    “Robert Lindsay is a White Supremacist. I saw one of his blurbs, in which he said that the idea of a country full of Mestizos with Whites at the top is not so bad.”

    First, the antifa part: “Robert Lindsay is a White Supremacist.”
    Second, the counter: “..a country full of Mestizos with Whites at the top is not so bad.”

    A carefully crafted statement that is very typical of this person and it’s ilk. Say something that means nothing but confusion. It is common among the antifa/jew/law enforcement infiltrators.

  5. And. for the record, I don’t trust Lindsay. I think he is a nutjob or subversive. Probably both.

  6. Todd sez: “Typical fork tongued jew-speak:”

    You have a reading-comprehension problem. Lindsay IS a White Supremacist according to the proper meaning of the term. The second sentence of my post explains why.

  7. What is his position on the genocide of the White Race?

    While I’m sure this Mommy Prof. wind up doll can spin the “News and Jews” into an interesting super special change the world we all gotta listen spiel, I really would like to know how one of the smarter anti-white cult kiddies can justify genocide.

    Let me know when that question is breeched.

  8. I have no problem. Your statement is nonsense “Hadding”. And it isn’t the first one that is.

  9. A3P is closing in on being effective. At WV I read one of their press releases about some guy in NH being denounced as a “racist”, pretty close but still quibbling with lefty nuts.

    The first person or org. that can at least try to show it can protect its constituents from the anti-white cult’s weapon word “racist” will garner untold support.

  10. You have a reading-comprehension problem. Lindsay IS a White Supremacist according to the proper meaning of the term. The second sentence of my post explains why.

    Jews technically are so Jewishness and “white” (little doubleyeah) supremacism aren’t exclusive.

  11. Simmons says, “The first person or org. that can at least try to show it can protect its constituents from the anti-white cult’s weapon word “racist” will garner untold support.”

    “Racist” is just another name, label, definition, or description — much like “goy,” “honky,” “guerro,” “bigot,” or “white devil.”

    We go up against name-calling like “racist” all the time. Here’s how:

    http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/slurs9.htm

    It’s a very fast-paced exchange so be ready at all times to attack back.

  12. My Ad-Watch Live! Alert just blocked access to the resisting defamation site as being malicious.

  13. Jews technically are so Jewishness and “white” (little doubleyeah) supremacism aren’t exclusive.

    Obviously, that should read mutually exclusive.

  14. There is quite a bit of unproductive hostility in the comments. Perhaps this is why WN never gets anywhere. Perhaps, WN never gets anywhere due to the character of the people involved, which is, in turn. reflected in their comments.

    Lindsay goes on about how ‘what nationalism’ is bad. How it is just ‘white supremacism,’ but has no problem with a ‘positive white identity.’

    A lot of commenters are getting their panties all ruffled at his anti-WN. They are missing an important point.

    Leftists talk about taking words back. Like taking ownership of “fagot” or “bitch” or “nigger.”

    You should make it a project of yours to take back the word ‘White Nationalism.’ Make it mean having a positive white identity.

    How ever you do it, you want to take that word back. And the bitchy comments are not going to do it. Sorry.

  15. Lindsay is notable for his attempt to integrate communism, anti-racism, race realism, and White Advocacy. He is a critic of Zionist Jews and White Nationalism. His rhetorical scatter shot hits targets on both the Right and Left.

    Hunter, merely having an opinion on such disparate points of view can’t be considered an attempt to “integrate” them; it’s all scatter shot. You’ll recall his intemperate wailing as the facts of reality ripped him out of his communistic ,world-bettering womb; the only way he has “integrated” those facts is by deciding they don’t matter to him. When you get down to it he’s just a “slow decliner”: yes, what WNs say tends to be “true,” but so what, it’s not the end of the world, so nothing much of anything should be done about it. The slightest attempt to nudge him towards a specific policy that would at least alleviate some of the difficulties arouses in him an indignant retaliation — to the point it can be considered perseveration — that he will not! be bullied into “fascism, racism and segregation,” that he’s a white liberal dammit, a bona fide anti-racist, and even if white liberals can get silly he’s still damn proud of it.

    Nevertheless, Lindsay is interesting because he’s representative of a prevalent mindset that you are forced to contend with. The essence of this persuasion is that certain facts should be disregarded if the actions they reasonably risk stimulating culminate in excess suffering relative to the good that results from acting on those facts. With the likes of Haddock insisting that those facts must eventually lead one to national socialism, quietly confident that at some point he’ll be able to step in and take over, obstructionists’ concerns are well founded.

    Haddock claims that because a human is a biological organism one’s biological constitution is the most important fact about him. But what does this mean? It can only mean that one’s place in the hierarchy of human “quality” is the most important fact about him. In practise this attitude causes people to tailor their reactions to other people based on their estimate of whether they are superior or not; the more explicit people become about doing so the more pronounced becomes the practise, not uncommonly to the point where — as can be discerned on various HDB or WN boards — some yearn to be ruled by royalty and become depressed and disgusted by the mere existence (occasionally, anywhere on earth) of beings they consider inferior, of lives not worth living.

    Isn’t this true, Haddock?

  16. Jay that has to be done on a wide scale not just our little slice of the world. Till the masses and the follower can feel protected from that slur we will be a small movement. IQ and crime studies won’t alone extract our people from the grips of the anti-white cult.

  17. In response to “you’re racist”, ask:

    “Why can’t Europeans stay in the majority?”

    Undoubtedly you will only receive a racist response, one that belittles people of European descent. Then they are revealed as the true racists.

  18. Hey Lindsay,

    White people can do agricultural work. We don’t need no stinkin’ mestizos!

    I spend the first half of my day on my vegetable and fruit farm, second half doing office work. I was digging potatoes today.

  19. Simmons says, “Jay that has to be done on a wide scale not just our little slice of the world. Till the masses and the follower can feel protected from that slur we will be a small movement.”

    You’re making some very good points. Attacking back does have to be done on a wide scale. If you read what we say, you will note that it is designed to be a “how to book” on how to respond to inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling of all kinds…no deferments allowed in this war.

    The “wide scale” has be be conducted by every interested individual. Name-calling to shut us up will never stop so we each have to adopt techniques to combat it. In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, and multi-national world with a heavy overlay of classism, there will never be anyone who can “feel protected” from any slur.

    It’s up to each of us, working together, to attack back at those determined to silence us.

  20. “Lindsay is notable for his attempt to integrate communism, anti-racism, race realism, and White advocacy.”
    Don’t all liberals do this? They vote for the redistribution of wealth, affirmative action and non-White immigration, and then hire accountants to avoid taxes, live in White neighborhoods, and pay tuition if necessary at White private schools to protect their kids from Dark chaos. Most of them deal with the contradiction by ignoring it, but perhaps Mr Lindsay was kept awake at night by cognitive dissonance, and so has taken on the task of reconciling fantasy with reality.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken, but isn’t a White supremicist someone who is willing to live among non-Whites as long as Whites are on top? I’ve seen that definition posted here, but I don’t know that it’s universally accepted.

  21. This guy posts frequently on American Renaissance and the posts have a tendency to rub people the wrong way. I assumed he was a troll.

  22. “Nietzsche says:

    Jew.”

    My friends, hear me out here. Almost all of you that wish to criticize “Jews,” go about it the wrong way.

    The effective way to attack someone or a people as the Maxists have demonstrated, and the real Nietzsche discussed, is to double them in two.

    I have never met a “Jew.” “Jews” don’t exists. There is no such natural kind. Of course, there are people who identify “Jewishly” and choose to live a “Jewish” lifestyle. They choose to stick with their own and monopolize power for those they classify as Jewish.

    Look, If they could manage it — I am sure you can.

  23. This Lindsay guy is a mixed bag of idiocy. He is a total moron. He obviously recognizes the fact that he prefers a white culture, yet he doesn’t acknowledge that you can’t have a predominantly white culture with diversity/multiculturalism being promoted. It is human nature to want your group on top. The other groups will always look for ways to unseat your group if you’re not careful. It’s called self-preservation. He says all white nationalists are racists. He, obviously, doesn’t know the meaning of either term. He appears to be good at labelling people wrongly just like all liberals!

    He also blames capitalism for all our woes. Is he for real? Free enterprise built this country. It is the only system that rewards hard work and creativity. There is nothing wrong with free enterprise. Free enterprise does not mean greed, theft, deception, exploitation. Those are moral/ethic issues. They even affect socialism. Decay is decay. I hate to tell him that many of the people he thinks are “capitalists” are actually socialists/marxists.

    Then he goes on to say he doesn’t have a problem with the Fed. He says before the Fed, we had ridiculous booms and crashes. Huh? The Depression was with the Fed, the Crash of ’87 was with the Fed, the mess we’re in now is with the Fed! It’s okay for a privately-held corporation to control our money supply???

  24. From his linked website:

    “Personally, I have been described as “otherworldly,”, “beyond highbrow,” “one of those totally out to lunch genius types,” and “off in my own world.” I have a very high IQ, and I’m told that a lot of high-IQ folks are like this.”

    In other words, he’s too smart to have an opinion that makes any sense. But that’s just because he’s smarter than us.

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

  25. Silver said:

    “Haddock claims that because a human is a biological organism one’s biological constitution is the most important fact about him. But what does this mean? It can only mean that one’s place in the hierarchy of human “quality” is the most important fact about him. In practise this attitude causes people to tailor their reactions to other people based on their estimate of whether they are superior or not; the more explicit people become about doing so the more pronounced becomes the practise, not uncommonly to the point where — as can be discerned on various HDB or WN boards — some yearn to be ruled by royalty and become depressed and disgusted by the mere existence (occasionally, anywhere on earth) of beings they consider inferior, of lives not worth living.”

    Interesting position Silver. For my own part, I believe that humans are biological organisms and that that biology shapes how they are. One aspect of how they are is to have a nature, a particular nature. A particular nature shaped and informed by their biology. That only seems natural. Which makes sense since the sense of being natural is a manifestation of the biological form which humans are. Another aspect is that they are social beings. Which is natural and makes sense for the above reason.

    Given that human are naturally socially particular beings, it only makes sense that they create and feel a sense of identity, particularly sociobiological identity. What does this mean? This of course necessarily means that they see themselves as different. And they see different individuals and groups thereof as occupying different existential niches. That is, they see a system filled with different unique individuals and groups as shaped by their biology. What could be more natural then that?

    As for your view, you seem to make some muddled point about superiority. It’s not clear what you mean by “superior”? Yet you talk a lot about it here and elsewhere. Your use of the term is particularly odd given your reference to biology. You suggest that thinking about humanity biologically leads to thinking in terms of a hierarchy of being. (“But what does this mean? It can only mean that one’s place in the hierarchy of human “quality”) Can you point to any contemporary biologist that makes such a claim about animal populations? As you know, or should, biology concerns itself with niches not rank. Horizontal differences, not vertical differences. Can you point to anyone that argues that a frog is “qualitatively” superior to a toad? I imagine not. Yet you argue that biological thinking “can only” lead to this. Are you trying to be serious or playing around? Regardless, you are making a clear categorical mistake.

    Of course, you are correct that White Nationalists and most other normal people do think in terms of superiority. They think it’s great being themselves, and don’t loath that. For example, I think that being me is great. It’s much better than not being me — even given what problems I have. Since being you is, by definition, not being me, I am rather delighted that I am not you. As such being me is a much superior state then being you — for me; and enjoying being me is only natural. It is me being comfortable with myself as the creature I am, was, and will be. I also think being Western is great. It’s much superior for me than being non-Western. My guess is that the other people here think being who they are, that is being their own particular social beings is also Great. And they don’t celebrate the idea of being forced to become other because that might offend people who either don’t have their own ways. Or some other nonsenses.

    Westerns are “supremacists” for wanting to stay Western or live in a Western nations. And Joe is supremacist for not wanting me to fuck this wife. Because he thinks them being them is better. And wants to keep me out.

  26. Robert Lindsay is a warning, a warning that merely informing people of the facts undergirding our cause is insufficient. Lindsay is informed of these facts, yet he goes in an entirely different direction with them. It’s just like with “game”, with hard data about innate differences in behavior patterns between the genders serving as nothing more than ammunition in the war to score. I’m not accusing Lindsay of having motives so crass. In fact, he’s a bit of the opposite. He’s a modern idealist, an ideologue, lacking an appreciation for the cardinal importance of tribe, tradition, and transcendence in determining our destinies.

  27. “Robert Lindsay is a warning, a warning that merely informing people of the facts undergirding our cause is insufficient”

    No doubt. The situation has progressed. Numerous people have been denatured and renatured. Establishing what their nature was is not enough.

  28. Hunter Wallace said:

    Lindsay isn’t Jewish.

    With all due respect Mr. Wallace, Lindsay may not be “Jewish” but still a Jew. Google crypto jew. They come in all colors, races, religions, and names.

    His accolades about his genius IQ at his blog are pathetically humorous and just more evidence of his jewiness.

  29. Hello, a few comments in response to the queries.

    First of all, I am not a Jew, crypto or otherwise. I have traced my family ancestry back to the year 1000 in Europe. We are 100% European.

    On one side, we begin in 1000 in Catalonia, move to Provencal France (very early proto-Protestants), then to Provencal Italy (speaking Provencal), then to Switzerland, then to Baden-Wurttemburg in Germany, then to the US in 1740.

    On the other side, English going back to Eleanor of Acquitaine, also Welsh and Scottish. To Eleanor in Central France, then to Charlemagne, then to Lombard Italy. Came to US on 2nd Mayflower boat.

    100% White except we are related to Pocahontas as a First Family of Virginia. So I am 1/3,000 Amerindian.

    I am not a Jew, but I am pretty Jewified. I also wanted to be a Jew, and I still do, but I don’t want to convert. My last gf was a Jew. OTOH, I am pretty Jew-wise. I take the “We are all Jews now” position about American Whites. White Gentile Americans are thoroughly “Jewified.”

    Silver’s comment that I am a Slow Decliner is correct. Matt’s comment that I am a liberal ideologue is also correct. Discard’s comment about my views and those of White liberals in general is right on the money.

    My position re: the Jews is similar to Igor Alexander’s at VNN: The Jews are simply not worthy of all of this attention we give them. Who thinks Jews are the most important thing on Earth? Jews do! And so do anti-Semites. The anti-Semites are as bad as the Jews. Screw that. Screw em. Screw the Jews. They’re just a pissant little tribe, the heck with em.

    My position on the “genocide of the White race” is I don’t care. I love my people, but I don’t care if we go extinct, and I’ll be long dead anyway. However, individual White tribes have the right to decide their own future, to their own self-determination. And the question ought to be put to White nations about whether they wish to be race-replaced. Let’s debate it! I have no solution to the predicament, as you put it, of our race, none, zero. So I’m a Slow Decliner, correct.

    I am not pro-race mixing for others, but more that I just don’t care. It matters nothing to me, and I’ve been dating non-White chicks my whole life. In fact, I don’t mind multiculturalism, because it means all sorts of exotic chicks to grab. I get bored of Wonder Bread.

    Yeoman’s comment is correct. I am a long-term Asiaphile yellow-fever guy. I’ve dated scores of Asian chicks.

    Interview transcript.

  30. We know your Kosher game Lindsay. What you left out was the bit about your Ashkenazi Mother’s bloodline…..LOL!

  31. The anti-white pro-genociders will not have a happy peaceful dotage, they will be wanted for their crimes.

  32. Lindsay,

    My position re: the Jews is similar to Igor Alexander’s at VNN: The Jews are simply not worthy of all of this attention we give them. Who thinks Jews are the most important thing on Earth? Jews do! And so do anti-Semites. The anti-Semites are as bad as the Jews. Screw that. Screw em. Screw the Jews. They’re just a pissant little tribe, the heck with em.

    Lindsay’s is a classic liberal I-hate-reality style of argumentation. The above paragraph reminds me of a woman I once heard say, “You know why there’s so much violence in society? Because we’re always talking about it! Think about it: how many times in your day do you mention something to do with violence? My friends and I decided we are going to eliminate every mention of violence from our speech!” You hear something like that and you can’t help but think geezus, the inmates are running the asylum.

    Anyway, sure, Lindsay, Jews just love it when people discuss their influence on society — on culture, on cinema, on journalism, on politics, on immigration, on foreign policy etc. They love it when people talk about these things. There’s nothing they love more that that. You can see how depressed they become when no one’s talking about them. That’s why the ADL’s forever agitating for greater free speech and greater education on Jewish influence. Last I heard they were working hard to replace the old children’s Teapot song with a new version that celebrates Jewry.

    I’m a little Hebrew,
    short and stout.
    Here are my purse strings,
    here is my clout.
    Antisemites get me steamed up,
    so you see,
    I lock them all in prison,
    and throw away the key.

  33. Silver said: “Anyway, sure, Lindsay, Jews just love it when people discuss their influence on society — on culture, on cinema, on journalism, on politics, on immigration, on foreign policy etc. They love it when people talk about these things.”

    In the above, Lindsay never said Jews love or want the attention of others. He said Jews rather love themselves (and it shows in what they write). And he said Jews are not worthy of attention from others.

  34. Lindsay,

    You obviously researched your lineage so the past is important to you. At the very least, you wanted to know from where you came. Why not care about where you’re going? Why is the future not important? All those that came before you survived famine, war, plague, and every other misery imaginable or you wouldn’t be here. Pay hommage to your ancestors and your tribe, care about your future, its future, and go find a traditional white woman to help you.

  35. Chuck,

    You’ve misunderstood me.

    You suggest that thinking about humanity biologically leads to thinking in terms of a hierarchy of being.

    No. I take issue with the claim that one’s biological constitution is the most important aspect about one. I assert that such a claim can only be interpreted to mean one’s place in place in some hierarchy (inter and intraracially) is “the most important aspect” of a person, because the importance of biological metrics can only be meaningful in comparison to others.

    Given that human are naturally socially particular beings, it only makes sense that they create and feel a sense of identity, particularly sociobiological identity. What does this mean? This of course necessarily means that they see themselves as different. And they see different individuals and groups thereof as occupying different existential niches. That is, they see a system filled with different unique individuals and groups as shaped by their biology. What could be more natural then that?

    All quite natural, I agree. But Haddock’s claim that one’s biological constitution is the most important aspect of a person doesn’t seem to me to flow naturally from this at all.

    Do people naturally treat each other as though their respective biological constitutions are the most important thing about them? I would argue that they place varying degrees of importance on it but in extremely few cases do they ever act as though it’s the most important thing.

    Remember, peoples encountering each other didn’t have access to the results of intelligence tests or statistical arguments regarding civilizational achievement. So their assessment of others’ biological constitution would have been restricted to physical appraisal.

    Certainly the determination of whether others are the same tribe or nation has played a prominent role in history, but this is an assessment related to much more to difference than to an attempt to ascribe quality (although the latter has occasionally occurred). People have acted as though this assessment (of difference) is the most important thing about the other but history also teaches us that this difference has just as often been surmounted as smaller groups combine to form larger groups.

    And then one has to consider what degree of importance humans attach not to what is biologically inherited but to what is acquired — language, religion, allegiance. It seems obvious to me that each of this has played at least as prominent a role in the assessment of the other as have biological qualities.

    Finally, I said before that humans traditionally have not had access to information like the results of intelligence testing, but it could, nevertheless, be argued that humans have exhibited the intense degree of interest in other humans that would later on lead to designing intelligence tests, and if this is so then that would tend to provide confirmation for the assertion that humans naturally treat each other as though their biological constitutions are the most important thing about them.

    Well, humans have had a lot to say about each other, that’s for sure. And those who’ve reached conclusions about the other have often acted as though those conclusions are of supreme importance. But the number of people who have done so has always been a tiny minority. And though the number of people who’ve been prepared to act on the conclusions that tiny minority has reached has been much greater, it has tended to be balanced, I would argue, by those who have disregarded it — after all, how else have so many disparate groups merged throughout history?

    In conclusion, no I don’t think it’s natural at all that humans consider each others’ biological constitutions the most important facet of their being.

    Of course, humans are capable of treating each other as though our biological constitutions are the most important thing about us. That’s what Haddock would have everyone do (or at least have his people do). I obviously argue against that, and I argue against it not only because it is unnatural but also because of its tendency to induce despair — completely unnecessary despair.

  36. Chuck,

    He says it the interview.

    Well…when you get into anti-Semitism, you are basically falling into the Jews’ trap because the Jews want you to be an anti-Semite! That’s the way I see it. Now, personally, I don’t think the Jews are very important!

    The only people who think Jews are important are:

    1. Jews.
    2. Anti-Semites.

    I don’t think that Jews deserve all this attention that we are giving them. They’re just this little pissant tribe, and I don’t think they are deserving of all this interest and obsession. When you go anti-Semite, you’re giving the Jews what they want. You’re telling the Jews that they are important, when they are not!

  37. Silver:

    1.”Jews want you to be an anti-Semite!”

    2.”Anyway, sure, Lindsay, Jews just love it when people discuss their influence on society — on culture, on cinema, on journalism, on politics, on immigration, on foreign policy etc.”
    .
    Your conclusion (2) still does not follow. Though, in light of the above statement (1) it makes more sense. I think you are thinking the logic goes like this: “Jews want people to be anti-Semites. Anti-Semites make a big deal about Jews and point out their influence. Therefore it would follow that Jews want people to make a big deal about them and point out their influence.” You counter by saying: “Jews don’t want people to point out their influence. Ergo. Jews don’t want people to be anti-Semites.”

    For what it’s worth, let me offer a possible alternative solution: Jews — meaning something like the ADL –wants the type of anti-Semite that cannot articulate that the concerns is their negative influence. That is: they want the type of anti-Semite that comes across as anti-Jewish, per se, so they can use this to makes excuses for silencing discussion about the their negative influence. (They don’t want Mearsheimers or rational “anti-Semites”; they do want raving loons, so they can shut the rational ones up.)
    …..
    “No. I take issue with the claim that one’s biological constitution is the most important aspect about one. ^I assert that such a claim can only be interpreted to mean one’s place in place in some hierarchy (inter and interracially) is “the most important aspect” of a person, because the importance of biological metrics can only be meaningful in comparison to others.”^
    .
    Again, and that’s a ridiculous assertion. You are making a categorical error. Let me explain since I have seen this logic elsewhere.

    Imaging if I said: 1. “Vanilla ice cream is different from cherry vanilla ice cream” and 2. “I prefer Vanilla ice cream”

    In doing so, I am clearly noticing chemical differences between types of ice cream. And I am making evaluations on the basis of those differences. Do we agree? Does it follow that I am seeing those types of ice cream located in some place along some mythical hierarchy of ice cream-ness?”

    No. It follows that I taste a difference between vanilla ice cream and non-vanilla ice cream and I prefer the taste of vanilla ice cream to other types. Where are you coming up with the idea of hierarchy? Does recognizing that vanilla ice cream is my favorite, mean I think butterscotch is 3.4 ranks below butter pecan in ice cream-ness?

    What about this: I prefer cats to dogs. Do I think cats rank above dogs in mammal-hood?

    What about this: I prefer my family to yours, because mine are more related. Do I thinking my family ranks above yours in human-ness?

    What am I missing? (You are confusing: I myself prefer. It is preferable in itself. There is a rank and order of preferable things in the world.)
    …..

    “Finally, I said before that humans traditionally have not had access to information like the results of intelligence testing, but it could, nevertheless”
    .

    My guess is that you see discussions of racial differences, IQ, and white ethnnationalism together and you conclude that whites nationalists prefer whites because they have a higher IQ or something, and because they think that people with a higher IQ are more valuable or worthy. If that’s the case, how do you explain their disinclination to Asians and Jews?

    For what it’s worth, let me offer a possible alternative solution: White nationalists prefer whites because those people are seen as their people, and this sense of people is both cultural and biological. They have this preference whether those white people are, on average, smart, dumb, or weird. The reason they talk about racial differences and IQ, is not because this is the basis of their preference, but because they are trying to defend the people they care about. And in the climate of Liberal-egalitarianism, where they are accused of being the cause of any unwanted disparity, this is necessary.

  38. The pharisaic, rabbinical nucleus of the Jewish tribe have a vested interest in there being a certain basal level of anti-Semitism in the host population. Wolves, and fear of wolves, keep the sheep huddled up close to the shepherd. One would do well to watch the documentary Defamation, which is available on torrent. One would also do well to read Controversy of Zion, by Douglas Reed. Reed expands on that same theme, portraying Jewish folk as largely victims of their elites who collude with host elites to keep them in line.

    http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

    I can’t help but feel that Lindsay’s protestation that Jews are insignificant smacks of dissimulation. Or perhaps what you’re seeing is more of a coping mechanism that he’s used to work his way out of his earlier monomaniacal obsession with Jewry. I never reached the point of having the kind of psychotic fits he describes, but i think many of us have reached a point of being a little too focused on the topic, walking ourselves back to a more balanced perspective.

  39. “Certainly the determination of whether others are the same tribe or nation has played a prominent role in history, but this is an assessment related to much more to difference than to an attempt to ascribe quality (although the latter has occasionally occurred). People have acted as though this assessment (of difference) is the most important thing about the other but history also teaches us that this difference has just as often been surmounted as smaller groups combine to form larger groups.”

    Let’s look at this the other way.

    Preferring presupposed making distinctions. Which presupposes that there are differences. If there are differences, variety, it’s possible to have preferences.

    So the question is: Is it ok to prefer this to that. When it comes to people: is it ok to prefer him to her on the basis of biology, even if the differences are small?

    What would it mean to say that it’s not ok? That the person saying this does not prefer others making decisions on the basis of biology, but rather prefers them to make no decisions, or to make decisions on the basis of something that THEY prefer?

    Is there a big difference in preferring on the basis of ideology as opposed to preferring on the basis of biology?

    If one is going to prefer, does it matter if the difference is big or not. Is it wrong to choose this wife to that, because both girls are pretty similar?

    “You can’t pick her because all women are basically the same and favoring is bad!”

    That’s a bunch of nonsense, and you know that there are people out there spouting it with all seriousness.

  40. Robert Lindsay said:
    “Who thinks Jews are the most important thing on Earth? Jews do! And so do anti-Semites. ”

    Well, it’s hard not to notice that Jews have amassed almost total political power in the U.S. which they use to to the detriment of white people. It’s only natural discuss and analyze this trend on a regular basis. Don’t forget that Jews are obsessed with Nazis and even to this day churn out movies about them so they can be killed over and over on the silver screen.

    Lindsay said:
    “My position on the “genocide of the White race” is I don’t care. I love my people, but I don’t care if we go extinct, and I’ll be long dead anyway.”

    Spoken like a deracinated white man and Jew wannabe. Saying you love your race but don’t care if it goes extinct is like saying you love your wife but could care less if she died tomorrow.

    Robert has always been a bit of an enigma as a liberal race realist. He doesn’t harbor a disdain for white people like most white liberals. While I think some of his positions on race are flawed and illogical I have no personal animus towards him.

  41. Saying you love your race but don’t care if it goes extinct is like saying you love your wife but could care less if she died tomorrow.

    Ha. Good one.

  42. “Reed expands on that same theme, portraying Jewish folk as largely victims of their elites who collude with host elites to keep them in line.”

    It sounds like you support this take. So does that mean that if you’re a “victim of elites” you’re excused? Or does this simply apply to Jews?

    Also, if our elites promote fears of a socialist Obama or Gore and drive people into the neocon camp, are those neocons forgiven for the consequences of their actions? Like if they huddle like sheep for protection around an elite who decide to kill a couple of million brown folks in the Middle East? Are those neocon sheep victims as well? Is anyone responsible for their actions or beliefs? Or only the elites who force us all to “huddle” one way or the other? Or do Jews have a special status with regard to their elites that make them less able to discern right from wrong and therefore less culpable when they fail to do so? Do they have a special “dispensation” Matt?

    Just curious. Are they God’s chosen people?

Comments are closed.