Previous Story Next Story View Comments Post a Comment Send This Page Date Archives Category Archives

A Reply to Takimag.com

AR Articles on White Racial Consciousness
Twelve Years of American Renaissance (Nov. 2002)
Race and the American Identity (Dec. 1998)
The Morality of Survival (Jul. 1995)
Morality and Racial Consciousness (Jan. 1995)
More news stories on White Racial Consciousness

Jared Taylor, Special to American Renaissance, July 3, 2008

There has been a long and interesting discussion over at Takimag.com on what is being called “white nationalism.” The first to raise the subject was Paul Gottfried, who made many subtle and interesting points to be found here. He noted that although “white nationalists,” among whom he included me by name, are bravely leading the attack on egalitarianism, they “lack a civilization” and are therefore “not likely to carry our society toward a new vision of order.”

I will say, first of all, that I greatly admire Prof. Gottfried. I have five of his books on my bookshelf and have read and profited greatly from all of them. That puts him in select company, along with Richard Lynn, Dickens, Conrad, Trollope and only a few others. It therefore pains me to have to say that despite the respectful interest he takes in what I would prefer to call “race realism,” he does not seem entirely to understand it.

It is flattering, to be sure, but Prof. Gottfried sets for “white nationalism” a far grander task than it ever set for itself: creating or defining a civilization. At its most basic, racial consciousness has as its goal the preservation of a certain people. Its aim is to rekindle among whites what every previous generation until recently so took for granted they did not even give it a name: an instinctive preference for their own people and culture, and a strong desire that they should prosper. I note that every other racial group acts on this healthy instinct and desire. Race realism therefore has no theory of religion, the family, art, or the role of government, except in the very general sense that it expects whites to love, first and foremost, the infinite riches created by European man.

I am glad Prof. Gottfried evoked our mutual friend Sam Francis, and I will do the same. As long ago as 1994 Sam wrote: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.” Sam often said he could not understand any conservatism that did not fight, first of all, to conserve its own biological basis. He saw racial consciousness as a precondition, a form of anterior conservatism, without which nothing from our civilization could be conserved, much less advanced. He believed that only the biological heirs to the creators of a civilization would cherish it and carry it forward.

What race realists find most infuriating about the liberalism of the last half century is not just that it has lost its instinctive appreciation for the culture and people of the West but actively, viciously attacks them. Whites are doing something no other people has ever done in human history. Our rulers and elites welcome replacement by aliens, they vilify our ancestors and their own, they sacrifice our interests to those of favored minorities, and they treat the entire history of the West as if it were a global plague of rapine and exploitation. This is a disease that is killing us, and we must fight it head on.

Race realists have well-considered ideas about all the ingredients Prof. Gottfried would include in “civilization,” but they claim no special authority to define or limit them. Ensuring our survival as a distinct people comes first. Once we have freed ourselves of the unwanted embrace of others, our civilization will unfold in accordance with our own destiny and genius. If our homelands fill up with people unlike ourselves our civilization will be smothered. We do not, therefore, propose a civilization; we work to bring about the only conditions in which our civilization can survive and flourish.

I am curious why Prof. Gottfried pays “white nationalists” the high compliment of expecting them to provide a civilization in the first place. Would he require that libertarians or Catholics, for example, offer us a civilization? No single group or movement can do that. Civilizations arise organically from the collective efforts of an entire people or nation.

Finally, I salute Prof. Gottfried’s desire to save “what remains of our Anglo-American traditions of ordered liberty,” but does he not see the implied race-consciousness in the very phrase he uses? I’m all for Anglo-American traditions, too. I just don’t see any evidence that large numbers of Mexicans or Haitians or Guatemalans or Vietnamese or Filipinos or Chinese or Nigerians or Pakistanis or Cambodians can be taught even to think in terms of Anglo-American traditions, much less help us save them.

In the case of John Zmirak, I fall back on my custom of praising people for the things they are willing to say while refraining from criticizing them for what they are not willing to say. Mr. Zmirak gets high marks. Close the border, he says. Excellent! The reason, he adds, is that diversity is a weakness, not a strength, and a country needs a clear majority. Even better! Abolish all anti-discrimination laws, he says. Very daring! In fact, Mr. Zmirak seems to have stumbled onto the only two policy recommendations American Renaissance has ever made, and these two proposals alone are enough to ban him from respectable society. So just where do we differ?

It sounds to me almost a matter of tactics. Mr. Zmirak seems to be saying that if only those race realists would stop actually saying they prefer the company and society of whites, and just quietly lived in all-white neighborhoods the way liberals do, we could repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If only those pesky race realists would never mention race or IQ, and concentrated only on the potentially divisive impact of Mexican or Muslim immigration, we could close the borders. I assume he is joking.

In fact, Mr. Zmirak and Prof. Gottfried both place far too much emphasis on IQ. IQ has nothing to do with the desire to see one’s people survive and flourish. The North American Indians never got out of the Stone Age until the white man came along, but they want their people and traditions to continue. They hope their descendants will dance the snake dance and purify themselves in sweat lodges for ever, and God bless them for it.

My view is no different. It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better-behaved, better-looking, and superior to us in every way; I still don’t want to be replaced by them. I love the traditions of the West, not necessarily because they are superior but because they are mine, just as I love my children because they are mine, not because they have high IQs.

I agree with Mr. Zmirak that talk of race and IQ is uncivil. “Comparisons are odious,” my Southern ancestors used to say, and would never have dreamed of denigrating their servants. But as I have explained many times, we are forced to talk about IQ in self-defense. We are reproached and punished for the failures of others — especially blacks — and have no choice but to point out the true cause of their failures. We are also filling our country with Third-Worlders who have made wrecks of their own countries. Must we remain silent when we are told that in a generation they will all be fit heirs of the Jeffersonian tradition, and that if they are not, this, too, is our fault?

Mr. Zmirak is afraid that the very fact of IQ leads to brutality. Flunk an IQ test, get your tubes tied. He seems to have forgotten that Greeks and Romans exposed defective newborns and advised their sons to choose their wives as carefully as they bred their livestock. Every language has words for “smart,” and “stupid,” and people recognized retardation long before anyone thought of mental tests. People will or will not cull the herd for reasons that have nothing to do with whether their measures of mental traits are rough or fine.

I couldn’t help laughing at Mr. Zmirak’s characterization of racial consciousness as “rootless.” In American history perhaps only Christianity is a way of thinking that has roots a little deeper and thicker. If racial consciousness had foliage to match its roots it would be an unstoppable force. Show me just about any prominent (or ordinary) American of any time up do about 1940 and I will show you someone whose assumptions about race are likely to be very similar to mine.

I am baffled by Mr. Zmirak’s suspicion that “white nats” somehow want to invade the conservative movement, take it over, and stifle dissent. What is his evidence for that? It is my sad experience that people who impute low motives to others are themselves tempted by those same motives. In this respect I will point out only that Mr. Zmirak seems to want to snuff out discussions of IQ not because race realists are wrong but because what they say is inconvenient.

Finally, Mr. Zmirak finds it unconscionable that Michael Levin, writing in American Renaissance, should find that black behavior is sufficiently different from that of whites to justify whites’ avoiding them. But what is the point of resurrecting freedom of association if we are not to have the right to choose our associates, in Richard Epstein’s classic phrase, “for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all.” Prof. Levin, unlike most whites who hide out in the suburbs, has stated his reasons. If they are not good enough for Mr. Zmirak, he should explain why. I suspect he doesn’t exactly fill his life with black people either. Why not?

Despite Mr. Zmirak’s protestations, I think our views have much in common. If, as a matter of tactics, he find it necessary to huff and puff about “rootless white nats” — well, we live in evil times in which a man can lose his job for saying something he knows to be true. But anyone who wants to close the borders and repeal all anti-discrimination laws has a vision of America very similar to mine, and I am pleased to call him an ally.

(Posted on July 3, 2008)

Previous story Next Story Post a Comment Send This Page Search

Comments

“I couldn’t help laughing at Mr. Zmirak’s characterization of racial consciousness as “rootless.” In American history perhaps only Christianity is a way of thinking that has roots a little deeper and thicker. If racial consciousness had foliage to match its roots it would be an unstoppable force. Show me just about any prominent (or ordinary) American of any time up do about 1940 and I will show you someone whose assumptions about race are likely to be very similar to mine.”

Needs correction:
American of any time up ‘to’ about 1940 and I will show you

Posted by at 5:42 PM on July 3

“I just don’t see any evidence that large numbers of Mexicans or […] Chinese […] can be taught even to think in terms of Anglo-American traditions, much less help us save them.”

Shouldn’t Taiwan be considered a successful republic in the mold of the USA?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html

Posted by at 5:58 PM on July 3

Mr. Taylor you are good. You are really, really good. If I wasn’t already a white nationalist, you would convince me!!!

I was born and raised in NYC and, back then, my neighborhood had many different (exclusively European) ethnicities (I define ethnicity in the historical sense - as nationality - the true meaning of your roots or nation of ancestry not the raped version spewed today) and this is how we defined ourselves among ourselves. When I moved to the DC area in the mid-90’s, I was shocked to find so many whites who did not know their ethnic origin. A guess here or there or a more common “I don’t know”was the response. Perhaps it is the early 20th Century doctrine of instilling in all white citizens a “one America.” This “one America” stripped whites of their origins so it was a great setup for the “60’s revolution.” And looking back, this action is so shocking to us now but back then it had a different meaning and we believed a different outcome. Maybe the forces behind who controls this country is bigger than we think.

Posted by GetBackJack at 5:59 PM on July 3

This is a good, if short, response. Gottfried is always interesting, but his blind spots are glaring. In this case, he misses exactly what Taylor says: that the combination of our Elites importing tens of millions of non-whites and then granting them special rights and government aids (for which we are taxed to death) is pushing us a race to the point of serfdom, in which a tiny group of filthy rich whites are allied with elites they have created out of non-white peoples, who lead their peoples to blame us for everything, in order to keep us - the vast majority of whites - from competing with and replacing them.

Serfs once bound are held dearly, and our Elite masters wish to bind us. Because they do not fear the black masses (seeing them as too poor intellectually and too lacking in work ethic to overthrow the Liberal White Elites), they would be happy to make serfs of us and then make certain that we are bred out of existence: that all white serfs are blurred racially.

Filthy rich Liberal white Elites know what they are doing: their ultimate goal is to bastardize the European race so that they can make their wealth and power permanent. That, necessarily, raises the issue of non-ethnically-European Caucasians playing per capita the largest roles in the cultural and educational processes creating that dystopia.

It is true that ‘white’ is not a culture, but it is also true that there is such a thing as a culture that survives when the people who forged it are exterminated.

The good that hopefully will come from all this is that we all stop with the now outdated ethnic jingoism that led to the mess we are in. Is there much in British governmental tradition that we should admire and wish to save? You bet, but there also is something in modern English culture that played a centrally indispensable role in getting us to this crisis. And because of the size and influence of the British Empire, the major faults of that culture have done more to harm the white world than the major faults of any other European nationality.

We need to be critiquing each of the powerful, major national European cultures that have played roles in this cultural suicide, starting with modern England and America. From those probing examinations we can forge a new pan-European culture, one in which all ethnic, lingusitic, and national identites are respected, if only because we have been forced to realize that we live in a Tolkien world with Orks everywhere and all ‘men’ must stop wishing to rule other ‘men’ in order to prevent being slaughtered by orks and the evil Wizards who manipulate them.

Taylor has more hope for Zmirak than I do. He has great insights, followed by relapses into something close to PC slobbering, especially regarding non-whites. I think Taylor has nailed him well: Zmirak is not so stupid as to imgaine that living in any black neighborhood, much less black run country, could be more than barely tolerable, but he wishes to maintain the fiction otherwise. And I think that in order to keep patting himself on the back as a non-racist, Zmirak would denounce everyone to his right on the subject.

Posted by ole Jake at 6:13 PM on July 3

Admitting that we are race realists is the first step to building a recognizable movement. Conservative folks that reject that label will constantly be confused with the Neo-Conservative imbeciles who regularly work against us. No one wants to be a conservative when that label is completely degraded today.

When whites figure out who they are, they will be able to actually save this civilization. As it stands, young whites have no attachment to their people whatsoever, and that means they do not believe there is anything significant to save.

Posted by O'Cinneide at 6:31 PM on July 3

“I just don’t see any evidence that large numbers of Mexicans or Haitians or Guatemalans or Vietnamese or Filipinos or Chinese or Nigerians or Pakistanis or Cambodians can be taught even to think in terms of Anglo-American traditions, much less help us save them.”

That’s a fetching challenge issued by Mr. Taylor… Let’s not see if they can fit in however. Better yet, lets see if they can adapt to Jeffersons vision in their own countries, and not see how well they can adapt, the way we would see fit for them to, in ours. I’m just not that curious. Well, not about a whole group of them. What can you do with that?

Posted by LHathaway at 6:41 PM on July 3

Jared Taylor your writing and talks are always so clear. You are free from the PC that blinds so many.

“Whites are doing something no other people has ever done in human history. Our rulers and elites welcome replacement by aliens, they vilify our ancestors and their own, they sacrifice our interests to those of favored minorities, and they treat the entire history of the West as if it were a global plague of rapine and exploitation. This is a disease that is killing us, and we must fight it head on.”

Dead on.

But as I have explained many times, we are forced to talk about IQ in self-defense. We are reproached and punished for the failures of others—especially blacks—and have no choice but to point out the true cause of their failures.

Dead on.

Posted by at 6:49 PM on July 3

Gottfried is right.

We need to put “race reaism” on the back burner where it belongs and focus on building a new civilization.

The old cosmopolitan/multiculturalist order is disintegrating.

No one with a mental age above 12-years-old still takes it seriously.

Bushism was a disaster. And Obamania is a joke.

We must be ready with a solution when the old order collapses.

Posted by Bertrand at 7:03 PM on July 3

Perosnally, I agree with Professor Gotfriedgod and others who argue that focusing so much attention on IQ test etc… does not do the race relaist movement any good.

There are more important things such as the self-preservation ofour people that we should be worrying about.

Posted by Aaron at 7:14 PM on July 3

Once again, superlatives fail.

Clear, concise, and unapologetic.

How anyone can not see and believe these ideas to be true is beyond my understanding.

We have a right to survive and thrive as a distinct people just as blacks, Asians, and aboriginals do too.

Other than a variety of spicier foods and some variations of musical forms (both of which I can partake of without having to transform my neighborhood or nation), I don’t believe ‘diversity’ has enriched my life in anyway.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 7:15 PM on July 3

While I agree with pretty much everything Taylor says here, I have to say I think Gottfried has a point. He didn’t mean civilization the way I first thought he did, the way in which Taylor apparently thinks he did; he means civilization in the way the Haredim and the Amish have a civilization. Europeans who would survive DO need a civilization, a group identity that has strong ethnic, cultural, and religious connotations (and a language wouldn’t hurt either), all designed to protect its Ethnic Genetic Interests.

Posted by Svigor at 7:33 PM on July 3

With every article I read by Jared Taylor, my admiration for him grows—and no exception here.

I’ve read articles by Paul Gottfried myself, and typically, to me, he is dead on target. But the notion that “white nationalists” lack a civilization is so patently absurd that I think it reflects the stifling, inescapable attitude of modern academia—people like Gottfried struggle valiantly to throw it aside, but it’s too pervasive in the ivory towers where he lives and works.

What Gottfried, bless his heart, fails to see is what I, and others like me [as in members of the Amren community] intuitively see and recognize as so obvious that we’re surprised we should even have to articulate it: ‘our civilization’ is exactly the one that gave us our heritage, country, and standard of living. We claim the heritage of the West, as surely as I claim membership in the family of my ancestors.

And I don’t mind at all if the less-fortunate heirs of other cultures seek to adopt some or all of mine.

But what even the ‘right-thinking’ academics can’t seem to grasp is my right to avoid the ‘others’, however well- or ill-intentioned they are. I—and you—do not owe anyone an explanation. Our avoidance or acceptance of others on any basis, emphatically including ethnicity, is our own individual business. I—and you—are under no moral obligation to justify it. Life is not a court of law.

I suspect that Gottfried, and Zmirak as well, have been conditioned to forget the phrase “Mind your own business!”. I’ll never be the intellectual that they are, but on the other hand, I doubt they’ll ever be able to honestly adopt my ‘handle’.

Posted by Oops, the brainwashing wore off... at 7:43 PM on July 3

I suspect [Mr. Zmirak] doesn’t exactly fill his life with black people either. Why not?

The difference between a Michael Levin and a John Zmirak is that the latter would probably hold out the possibility of associating with certain blacks. To state forthrightly the reasons why he does not in general fill his life with blacks seems, to a Zmirak, to close himself off, probably permanently, to that possibility, and this possibly because he expects blacks to be so offended by his forthrightness that potential associates would then close themselves off to the possibility.

A Zmirak may not readily form enduring friendships with blacks, but, in the course of his life, he has undoubtedly formed many a rewarding relationship with people not precisely like himself; in Zmirak’s case, with non-Croats, some of them almost undoubtedly less white than himself. Concerning blacks, then, it is a difference of degree, not of kind. If he can take a Levantine Catholic for a friend, why not a Mexican one? Why not a black? The farther a Zmirak moves from what he himself is, the likelihood, and thus frequency, of such relationships diminishes, but he remains resolute that the possibility of forming such relationships must be preserved.

I’m all for Anglo-American traditions, too. I just don’t see any evidence that large numbers of Mexicans or Haitians or Guatemalans or Vietnamese or Filipinos or Chinese or Nigerians or Pakistanis or Cambodians can be taught even to think in terms of Anglo-American traditions, much less help us save them.

In eighteen years of American Renaissance not once have I seen an attempt to define just who is white, just who can be relied upon to venerate and transmit the culture of the white man, though Mr. Taylor’s own pieces hint strongly. The closest American Renaissance has come is to review a work by Richard McCulloch, who does have rather firm ideas about what constitutes a white man. And therein lies the quandary: clearly, large numbers of non-Anglo-Saxons or non-Teutons or, indeed, non-whites, or, if one prefers, “off”-white Caucasoids, have, being able to see something of themselves in that civilization, imbibed traditional American ways (though often imperfectly, and often in ways that have functioned to alter those traditions), and are pained to see that world, which they, like Mr. Taylor, also took for granted, disappearing before their eyes. Mr. Gottfried and, I imagine, Mr. Zmirak are case studies in this “Borderliner’s Dilemma”; what does it profit a man, they are implicitly asking, to save a civilization if, by so doing, he forfeit his place in it?

I know of no easy way to solve this quandary. Wherever lines are drawn, some will always occupuy grey zones, and it is these folks, who are most threatened by the inferred limbo, who seem to be the most vociferous opponents of white identity politics. Perhaps they could, as the author of this post has done, ponder the question of what it profits them to secure their place in an order whose trajectory leads to ultimate oblivion?

Posted by Michael T at 7:45 PM on July 3

Mr. Taylor,

I agree with you regarding freedom of association and closing the Mexican border. You loose me when you fail to realize that Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians will never willingly leave The USA, and Whites will not deport them. Add into the equation that Whites are in no hurry to reproduce and you have a situation where Whites will be a minority. I do not believe it will be a problem provided Western culture is effectively adopted throughout America. There is the problem and it has been cause by White liberals embracing a marxist ideal while sipping their latte’.

The problem is culture not race and the enemy is the White liberal (A great call in your article.) who destroys Western culture trying to replace it with a radical egalitarian ideal. We need to fight against this perverse culture for the good of everyone. We’ll see what happens. I still think your goal of a 90% White country will never happen again, so your efforts would be better placed fighting against liberalism.

Posted by Thompson at 7:53 PM on July 3

Jared Taylor should have his own T.V. Show. I am sincere when i say that one of the greatest minds of the 21st centurt is Jared taylor. Before A.R. and others like it I thought that I must have something wrong with me because I did not want to Patronize and be around minorities. Instead of being ill I found that I was normal. I am sure many others felt this way. Only a nut would want to be displaced by another racial group. take my advice Mr. taylor when i say that if you were to hook Prof. Gotfried to a lie detector test and asked him if he really belived in the equality of the races there is no doubt that he and his ilk would fail the test.

Posted by Superwhite at 8:20 PM on July 3

Treasuring one’s racial identity is indisputably one of the oldest (and unique) Anglo-American customs. This is especially true of Southerners. I get tired of having to explain this to conservatives who blithely invoke “tradition” without understanding its content.

Posted by Bradley Dean Griffin at 8:36 PM on July 3

Splendidly argued, Mr. Taylor. I don’t wish to be guilty of writing a second mash-note to you inside of a week (don’t worry, I only love you for your MIND), so I will just bestow my general approval over everything in this essay; while confining myself to one quote:

“Show me just about any prominent (or ordinary) American of any time up do about 1940 and I will show you someone whose assumptions about race are likely to be very similar to mine.”

And there you have it. Not so long ago, EVERYBODY thought like Mr. Taylor.

And when they did so, the country was unprecedently prosperous and cohesive.

Nowadays, people who think like Mr. Taylor are, as he puts it, “banned from respectable society”: shoved to the sidelines, denied work, publicly vilified, and occasionally even strongarmed out of the room.

And the country is unprecedently divided, demoralized, directionless, and generally going down the tubes.

Coincidence? Hardly.

FORWARD INTO THE PAST!

Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 8:37 PM on July 3

I think it is wrong to simply replace white nationalism with race realism. Race realism, I believe, means something quit different than white nationalism. That is if the words mean what they imply. Race realism, it seems to me, mean being realistic about race. A willingness to buck political correctness. A willingness to acknowledge and openly discuss the IQ issue, crime statistics, etc. A willingness to acknowledge that people of all races actually think about and care about race. Etc.

White nationalism implies … well nationalism. Nationalism is a political position. Paleos, who are regionalist, localist, radical decentralist object to the nationalism which they see as a modern ideological construct. Couldn’t one be a race realist without being a nationalist? Couldn’t one be a racial realist localist, for example?

In my experience, those who self identify as nationalist, generally have certain political position that follow from that and that are in conflict with paleoconservatism. For example, they often have a more favorable opinion of Lincoln and his War. They are less willing to be critical of our national faults adopting a position that is similar to the American exceptionalism of the neocons and the mainstream right. They are often skeptical of federalism and open to centralized (and big government) solutions. They may support populists economic positions that are unconstitutional (SS, unemployment insurance). Etc.

Some paleos are clearly uncomfortable with some of the more in your face racialism and the single-mindedness of some of the commenters, but a lot of the objections to WN on Takimag are not about that. They are about the nationalism.

Posted by Red Phillips at 8:40 PM on July 3

Freedom loving, Republic supporting, capitalists who happen to be white, patriotic, and nationalistic get misrepresented constantly by liberals and white and non-white alike.

We get slandered as nazis who are national socialists seeking revolution when we certainly are not.

The root of this misrepresentation is hate, fear, confusion, and ignorance. Pretty much everything the Democrats are today when it comes to white non-Democrats.

Posted by Unemployed WASP at 8:50 PM on July 3

Zmirak’s piece on Takimag is a good read. He is basically saying “don’t make your battle more difficult than it needs to be by raising highly divisive issues.” I sense that this strategy-oriented approach has some wisdom to it, since we are engaged in a war that involves battles that can be won or lost. However, I agree with Jared’s view that core moral principles need to be expressed. Is this a contradiction?

No. You can be a long-term strategist and a short-term tactician at the same time, using different methods.

Frankly, I want Jared Taylor out there communicating to intelligent whites while at the same time people like Zmirak are out there fending off the liberals and the MSM by engaging them on their own terms.

Posted by Reader-1 at 9:00 PM on July 3

Aaron wrote:

Perosnally, I agree with Professor Gotfriedgod and others who argue that focusing so much attention on IQ test etc… does not do the race relaist movement any good. There are more important things such as the self-preservation ofour people that we should be worrying about. (sic)

IQ is very important. If you don’t want to discuss IQ, or accept the racial realities thereof, then you’re stuck with crazy egalitarian explanations for black academic failure, and in earnest crazy egalitarian solutions which involve lightening your wallet to weightlessness.

Posted by Question Diversity at 9:04 PM on July 3

I for one would like to congratulate Mr. Zmirak on his self restraint. It took him six whole paragraphs before he mentioned Hitler.

Posted by at 9:08 PM on July 3

I’m sorry but Gottfried is right.

When you boil down to its essence, what the problem is, it is one of mobilization. What is the difference between past generations of whites and today’s generation of whites? Past generations of whites were actively and aggressively mobilized toward the end of expansion of our way of life. It was taken for granted that we were so much more important than others that they should make way for us and by God, if they didn’t, we would kill them.

Today, that common sense attitude. That attitude that EVERY civilization that survives, takes for granted, is defined as evil and people who say so are tolerated.

And that is a problem. Because, if we aren’t the ones other should make way for then it naturally follows that we are on the other end of that paradigm and have no right to stand in the way of others who desire what we have. And the other races act like that…..as much as they can get away with. Which is increasingly more….much more. Worse, our own people act as if it is so.

That really is the heart of the “white man’s disease”. It really is as simple as that. We either choose to dominate or choose to be dominated. There is a third way…the way of peaceful coexistence and harmony. The problem is that ONLY whites are capable of it. Other races never have been able to. Never! In other words, the way of peaceful coexistence and harmony is only ever appropriate when dealing with other whites. Never when dealing with non-whites.

The implications of this are harsh and unacceptable for many. We MUST seek to dominate the other races in all things. We must get comfortable with destroying any who dare challenge us. We have to do it. There is no other choice. They will not stand to live any other way with us than either as our slaves or our masters. It is up to us to choose. If we choose to be masters, we can choose to at least be kind masters…..something they would never do…..if they allow us to live at all (which is unlikely for some of the inferior races such as blacks).

This is the secret to getting other whites to give up white guilt and cooperate. They absolutely will not get on board for protecting our way of life. But the same people will happily put on black shirts and force minorities out of their neighborhoods…if you create a movement for this. We know this because they’ve done it before. This is the pattern whites have been willing to follow, in the past to preserve themselves…..dominance. They have never accepted simple segregation and living in peace. That has always ended up like it is now….an excuse to roll over and be a victim….even a slave.

Survival depends on our willingness to define civilization. What it means. Who is allowed to live there etc. No competing ways of life, let alone, competing groups of people, can be allowed. As long as whites show that strength, we are loved, even by those forced to give way. But….when we look on others and define their way as equal and allow them to coexist…THAT incites hatred and violence towards us. Worse….it awakens contempt in our own for our way and our societies.

Think on this. Does anyone respect a coward who gives way and treats others with deference? No. Liberal contempt for our way of life is APPROPRIATE. It’s existence has to do with US, not THEM. Hang a few liberals and ethnically cleanse our lands of blacks, mexicans and muslims. Watch how universally popular that behavior is and how few people have a problem with it.

You cannot convince people of this sort of thing by the merits of one’s arguments. It’s not about that. It’s about having the strength to lead and through leadership, imparting the strength to our people that bestows the right to survive. Our people have lost that because our leaders have lost sight of that. Quite literally, we no longer feel worthy of existence.

That is what underlies….everything. And it is what underlies a solution.

Posted by at 9:08 PM on July 3

Add to race realism this stark reality: We’ve lost.

The multiculturalists control the media, gov’t education and the American psyche. Evidence? Dare convey the truth in any public forum and find yourself tagged with the perennial “racist” label.

Race realists are a minute minority. Subtract the neo-nutsies and the number is smaller still.

Nonetheless we are fortunate to have access to a few venues such as Amren.com. Vdare.com and the National Policy Institute to keep the spark alive.

Posted by (•▼•) Night Owl at 10:22 PM on July 3

“The problem is culture not race and the enemy is the White liberal”

The problem is people who believe that.

Posted by at 10:32 PM on July 3

I find raceless, classless, egalitarian “conservatism” to be rootless and ineffectual. Frankly I don’t understand how someone as obviously intelligent and well read as Dr. Gottfried can imagine that Anglo-American culture can “be preserved apart from the genetic endowments of it’s founders” to quote the late greart Sam Francis, it cannot be.

I live in Southern California and I have observed first hand that as Mexicans increasingly invade my state, it becomes less Anglo-American. I must disagree with Dr. Gottfried’s assertion that White Nationalism lacks a civilization, our civlization is historic European civilization, also called Western Civilization.

We are righting to preserve what is left of the greatest civlization the world has ever known, European civlization. The idea that our civilization can somehow be preserved or adapted to another race is entirely without historical precedent and in my opinion a fanciful dream.

Posted by Charles Drake at 10:42 PM on July 3

When it comes to race, John Zmirak is a neocon. His hit pieces on racialists read like David Frum’s “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” so I was not surprised when he praised Frum in one of his more recent entries.

Posted by Paleoconservative in Virginia at 11:02 PM on July 3

John Zmirak’s hit pieces on racialists read like David Frum’s “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” so I was not surprised when he praised Frum in one of his more recent entries.

That said, I think Zmirak “gets it.” He just needs to think outside the PC box.

Posted by Paleoconservative in Virginia at 11:09 PM on July 3

Eloquent response by Mr. Taylor, as expected. On Mr. Gottfried’s point about lacking a civilization, white racial loyalty is not only a defense of a way of life; it’s also (in the form of race realism) an offensive weapon against liberalism. Intellectual traditions — and liberalism *is* a tradition, even if it claims to be an expression of timeless truth — collapse when they are unable to explain reality satisfactorily by their *own* standards. If the biological reality of race differences can eventually be forced into the media, then liberals will eventually discover that Franz Boas and Gunnar Myrdal have no answer to these scientific findings. As a result, liberalism of the post-World War II variety will be severely weakened. And race realists don’t need a civilization or a tradition or anything else to bring that about.

Posted by Ploni Almoni at 11:47 PM on July 3

The “elites” who would have white European culture fade into oblivion are going to have another problem when the mulitcultural utopia they envision turns on them.

Do they think for a minute that the vast numbers of immigrants from Mexico will not fight until they succeed in absorbing the South into their own nation?

Do they think for a minute that the vast number of immigrants from Islamic countries are not going to fight for their own rule of law? The Muslims despise our “American” culture (created by the “elites”) that is spiraling into depravity. They will not tolerate this Godless, “multicult” hodge-podge for any longer than they must.

Nature is the stronger force and long before this experiment of blending into disappearance of the seperate races and disparate ethnicities can occur, ethnic nations will form and seperate themselves, tearing assunder this once great European empire.

Posted by at 11:57 PM on July 3

It’s not merely an issue of “our way of life”, it’s a matter of our very lives!

Posted by W.D. at 12:30 AM on July 4

It is such a curious-and sad-thing, that Mr. Taylor is an entirely rational, clear, honest speaker (not the least bit dependent on charisma, or tainted by hubris), yet he is branded widely as a charlatan, while the USA may soom be presided over by Barrack Obama, the epitome of arrogance, plattitudes and deception. (Well, what recent president isn’t all that)?

Taylor just calls it as he sees it. What he sees is not easy to swallow. Obama calls it any way that will get him more power, and would tell any lie to any number of people. Oh, God, and his people! His followers are distinctly like cult victims. I know so many of them, and it is pittiful to see. They swoon, they prattle, they wag their tounges and act as if they’re drugged, all wide-eyed and gushy. They love this man in an unnatural, perverse way. They really want a messiah. Funny so many of them are athiests, or Buddhists, etc.
But Taylor? he just tells the truth, and those Obamanites…they’d stone Taylor like a bunch of ancient Christians whom the liberals despise so virulently.
How ironic; how sad.

Posted by at 2:42 AM on July 4

“We’ve lost.” (Posted by (•▼•) Night Owl at 10:22 PM on July 3)

Not yet. And let’s see what a few years of President Obama (if we are so blessed or cursed) may do for white consciousness. Things could get very primordial very quickly.

Posted by H. Dumpty at 4:02 AM on July 4

“In eighteen years of American Renaissance not once have I seen an attempt to define just who is white…” (Posted by Michael T at 7:45 PM on July 3)

Like someone said of pornography, I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.

Persons in the grey areas have to figure out their own best course, I guess.

Posted by H. Dumpty at 4:09 AM on July 4

A characteristically excellent piece by Mr. Taylor. Twenty years of racial reading and activism have certainly honed his analysis of this most important of issues.

And yet, there is a lacuna in his thinking (or possibly, merely writing), that I pointed out in a letter to AR many years ago, in the mid-90s, and which has been broached by some respondents above. Specifically, if what Sam Francis said in 1994 is true (and it most certainly is), how will we preserve our race (and far more difficultly, our (Western) civilization), if whites should lose their demographic majorities in their historic homelands? I have asked this question of Thomas Fleming and others at the Chronicles magazine website at least a dozen times, and despite many slurs hurled my way, NEVER received a single answer. Would Mr. Taylor like to offer one?

I am not a supporter of the totality of the neo-Nazi ideology of the late Dr. William Pierce, but I do believe he was correct (and still far ahead of his time) in pointing out that our race WILL NOT survive without our own legally defined and racially homogeneous territories. So the REAL question Taylor needs to address is: which is the more odious: the death of the West / extinction of the white race, or the violent (because it will, practically, have to be violent) removal, through expulsion or extermination, of non-whites from historically white territories? Formulating an ethical justification for racial cleansing is the supreme intellectual task of all Occidental preservationists, one, I might add, only very tangentially related to hereditarianism, IQ, the ‘color of crime’, etc.

Posted by Leon Haller at 6:34 AM on July 4

If white nationalism is about, as Jared Taylor claims, the genetic and cultural preservation of persons of European stock then 1) why did Europeans leave Europe to occupy and settle in areas all over the globe where other peoples live, thereby coming in potential genetic and cultural contact with them, and 2) if those extra-European settlements were established in error then why doesn’t Mr. Taylor not recommend that all Europeans return to Europe and just draw up the drawbridge. After all there’s plenty of space for all Europeans given the vast expanses of Eurasia?

Posted by OCCAM at 8:47 AM on July 4

Thank you for this well-expressed response, Mr. Taylor. There was a long and interesting Comments thread on the link posted to it at Takimag, which I find has been deleted: must have contained too much embarrassing honest opinion, or something.

Posted by Prisoner of Berkeley at 9:42 AM on July 4

“Shouldn’t Taiwan be considered a successful republic in the mold of the USA?”

Maybe in terms of government and economy, but surely “Anglo-American traditions” consist of more than just democracy and capitalism.

Posted by at 10:28 AM on July 4

“why did Europeans leave Europe to occupy and settle in areas all over the globe where other peoples live, thereby coming in potential genetic and cultural contact with them”

To expand mercantile and political influence, exactly the same motives behind every such expansion. That what these whites did should be of benefit to them was hardly at issue: worrying about the role of “white nationalism” in European expansion is merely stupid. It’s both anachronistic and irrelevant. Of course ethnic and national interests were the animating ideas. Do you believe English or Portuguese had or ought to have had some silly abstract notion about “human rights” or disinterested, altruistic idealism in their heads when they founded colonies in the New World? I doubt such ideas ever inspired arabic slave raids or amerind scalping parties.

“if those extra-European settlements were established in error then why doesn’t Mr. Taylor not recommend that all Europeans return to Europe”

Their establishment was not an error, and this is something Taylor neither says nor implies. You really don’t seem to read very carefully. These settlements were of great benefit to whites; their current jacobin governance is detrimental to whites. That is the issue.

Posted by Cassiodorus at 11:18 AM on July 4

Something I find interesting - I followed the link to Zmirak’s blog entry, and read his post. He mentions that it would be a bad thing to bring up the IQ differences between the races, yet not once does he even attempt to refute those differences. There’s a little bit of realism in his thinking in that he doesn’t dispute the reality of biological differences, but it’s buried behind the irrational fear of Fascism. Too bad.

There are some comments above about labels (race realists, White Nationalists, etc.). Personally, I prefer the labels “race realist” in that I like to think realistically about race (i.e. - blacks are less intelligent, more crime-prone, etc.); and “White separatist” (even though there is a negative connotation in today’s society with that term), in that I long for us to have our own homelands that aren’t perverted with the presence of non-Whites. In fact, I like the idea of every European country being for the most part ethnically homogeneous as well (i.e. - Germans in Germany, English in England, etc.). After all, ask any “free Tibet” thinking liberal - everyone is entitled to their own homeland, right? Why not Whites?

I live in a brand-new housing development right now (I’m renting, fortunately), which is mostly White. However, there are a number of blacks scattered in my area. If I was buying a house instead of renting it, I would have driven through this neighborhood, taken one look at the 3-4 black or mixed families on my block and the several others in the general neighborhood, and said no way. Already there is one black guy two doors down who plays that noisy rap stuff (wish I could use a stronger word) and it makes me sick. It’s only a matter of time before it becomes more widespread, and that’s not somewhere I want to live. That’s called freedom of association. I want to live among my own people, where the loudest noise I hear is the occasional lawn mower or children playing, and the music I hear is Classical, Country, or White Rock. If that’s not White separatism, then just what is it? And is that really such a bad thing?

Posted by Jim S at 12:13 PM on July 4

TakiMag should have allowed Taylor a response on their website after Zmirak attacked him by name. I’m sure AR would allow a response by Zmirak. Shame on the cowardice of Richard Spencer.

In fact, would Zmirak accept a one-on-one debate with Taylor in front of the Robert Taft Club?

Or would he rather hide behind a keyboard and spin dubious tales of how he confronted “rednecks” and “skinheads’ (all unnamed) in the past?

Posted by Boone Pultz at 1:10 PM on July 4

One of the most annoying things about the white nationalism debate on TakiMag is that it offers no perspective from a white nationalist.

A Catholic like John Zmirak or a libertarian like Justin Raimondo would find it strange if Jared Taylor attacked them on the doctrine of papal infallibility or the efficacy of the gold standard. Yet these geeks think nothing of offering blathering opinions on issues they know very little about.

Posted by Boone Pultz at 1:22 PM on July 4

It seems to me that the difference between a Race and it’s Civilization is: Potential and what is made of that potential. It’s easier to think of with the analogy of the countless people gifted with high intelligence that died as children or even in their mother’s womb. What they would have done with their potential will never be known. Flags in the basement that were never unfurled.

A Race needs ground to grow on if we are ever to know what kind of civilization it would produce. It could remain a blank sheet of paper: maybe high quality paper, but a dead end, unfulfilled. The intrinsic value of a Race is not just the past, but what might be in the future, unknown; and empty, if not given a chance. The strongest arguement for White survival is what Civilization we might make from our potential. Taking a gamble it could be a good or even a great thing. No certainties; we could create a hell on earth.

If all Mexicans were send back to Mexico tomorrow, they would still have all of Mexico to work out their racial fate, their Civilization, as far as the eye can see. The same is true of Africans in Africa, Arabs in the Middle East, and the Chinese in China. But without a homeland, Whites would become an interesting antique; a good start, but the sad, haunting frustration of what might of been.

There’s a danger of nihilism; not the old fashion nihilism: amorality, believing in nothing, but the nihilism of interchangeability, the feeling that a people can always be replaced by another people that are more or less as good in their own way; what difference does it make? The consciousness that refines oneself out of existence, and leaves the world to the stupid that still believe in something, however small.

Faith is required,defined as acting with conviction, without knowing, but with evidence.

Posted by Patrick2 at 1:28 PM on July 4

“We must be ready when the old order collapses.”

The US Constitution would work fine for me, but we’d have to do something about career politicians and career judges.

Heck; part of me would like to be Minister of Internal Security of the North American Empire, but that sort of thing gets out of hand very quickly, and I wouldn’t really like the job very much. The retirement plan would probably be quite unpleasant as well.

At our best, we *are* talking about what we want. Our countries are hurting us in the developed West. We want that to stop.

One thing I would like to see is the elimination of unelected officials who are entitled to make “rulings” as if these were treaties or laws.

We don’t even all agree on what we want. One friend I made here considers Amerinds “caucasoid”, and so doesn’t mind me as a tomahonkey, but figures the proper place for my wife and daughter is in Japan. I would like us to be able to stay, provided the country is restored to Constitutional rule.

This site has long reminded me of a modern version of the Comittees of Correspondance” that preceeded our first Revolution, so we are doing this already.

Tom Chittum, author of “Civil War Two” doesn’t think there’s going to be enough left of North America to be worth living in. How do we avert that?

If you were President of a new US, with the Western world looking to you - as they will be hurting as well - what would you do? What would you want someone else to do?

Posted by Michael C. Scott at 3:31 PM on July 4

It is my belief that as America becomes a more racially splintered, and heavily impoverished, Balkans style mess, calls for secession in small white homogeneous pockets like New Hampshire and Vermont will start to sound like less of a joke and more of a realistic and attractive way forward for struggling Americans. We could—I believe—with enough energy and motivation, have a series of mini states from which we could begin rebuilding within our lifetimes without any bloodshed, violence or ugly turmoil.

Posted by AJ at 4:12 PM on July 4

AJ wrote:

I predict that this ball will get rolling when big American cities want to become independent city-states, because they’ll be tired of financial outflow, or conservative policies imposed by the American central government. I could easily see, e.g. Chicago or New York very soon demanding independence because of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision enshrining an individual right to own guns. Once that happens, what’s good for the Chicagograd goose will be good for the Alabama gander.

Posted by Question Diversity at 4:25 PM on July 4

In my humble view, Jared Taylor was much too kind to Professor Paul Gottfried.

(1) The professor played the strawman game at the very beginning of his essay by limiting all the new white awareness (we’re not just Americans any longer), white defense (anti-defamation, anti-uncontrolled immigration), white liberation (return of the freedoms of contract & association), white nationalism (one dominant demographic per nation), race realism (paying attention), and white separatism (anti-integration, localism, freedom of association) to the single category of discourse, “white nationalism.” This was a remarkably unfair and discourteous effort to put all the diverse white American peoples who are discovering that they have an identity other than only American (thanks to multiculturalism) in the single category of white nationalist. By setting up this target category of discourse, the professor freed himself from having to compare and contrast to the huge range of responses making up the new white awareness.

(2) The professor contrasted whites seeking “victimhood” with whites seeking “pride” in IQ scores. Both are ridiculous to the needs of our times. He actually quoted David Horowitz, no friend of ours, mocking us for seeking to put our claims in terms of victimization! And he went on to endorse the IQQ (IQ Question) as one which could provide the basis for “white pride.” Both these concepts are risible.

(3) The professor’s game was to seem just supportive enough of our new white awareness to throw cold water on the entire enterprise. Can you imagine anyone thinking that our new white awareness requires a culture or civilization? We are a culture and civilization.

And his further imagining that new white awareness seeks to overtake paleo thought, ideology, and structure is risible. Who would want such self-centered and unduly prideful men as his buddies at TakiMag? What is there in the paleo movement that does not already exist in the “citizenism” tentacle except diversion from our own unfolding of our future? It is the paleos who lack coherence, culture, and civilization hanging out, as they do, on the far fringes of unnatural ideology.

(4) The professor and his buddies on TakiMag are completely unaware of the various groups and group ideologies that surround us among people of color. TakiMag doesn’t just argue for our throwing our weapons down, they literally lack insight into the nature of our society which features, most plainly, the fact that “white folks” include paleos as well as us. They don’t understand that, when their ideas are presented to African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latino-Americans, these people see only white folks advocating the advancement of white status, white power, and white supremacy. That is, all the not-so-refined reasoning by the professor and his buddies on TakiMag cuts no ice in the multiculture. When you’re white, you’re white, and your finely spun ideological points designed to manifest your upper class status over and above lower income and lesser educated white Americans are jokes to the people of color in our society. TakiMag writers don’t get that they are who they are, and words don’t change it no matter how much they run and hide.

Posted by William Denvers at 5:09 PM on July 4

I demur.

It seems to me to be a basic error to think that true White racial consciousness is an intellectual choice freely made by some and not by others.

With more research on genes, I expect that we’ll find there is a genetic basis for what seems a choice: a racialist gene or genes—call it a gene variant.

What percentage of the White population has the gene variant,if in fact such exists, would need to be determined, and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that such a gene variant has correspondences within the organism that may be more easily seen.

With proper mating (which might be called “improper mating” by those who hate Whites),the gene variant should be able to be spread in the White population.

Posted by HJ at 5:51 PM on July 4

If “our” Civilization is killing us then it is by definit-
ion not our’s anymore so to hell with it. Maybe we can even fin-
ish it off someday. Very soon now, Jacob Burkhardt’s “Terrible
Simplifiers” will be here. When everyone White knows something
has to be done but doesn’t know what, they will know. When every-
one White knows what has to be done, but is afraid to do it, they
will lead. Are you ready to make yourself available to them when
they come? Check yourself. Deep inside you know what needs to be
done but you and I are not strong eneough to do it. They will
bring out the best in us while saving our lives and culture. How?
Because they see the essence and not the superfulous compexities.
And for them, seeing and doing aren’t two different things. Are
they obtuse? No, they let other men deal with the details. Their
uniquesness and gift to us is their capacity for simplicity and
synthesis when appropriate.

Posted by Lacocoon at 6:10 PM on July 4

“It is my belief that as America becomes a more racially splintered, and heavily impoverished, Balkans style mess, calls for secession in small white homogeneous pockets like New Hampshire and Vermont will start to sound like less of a joke and more of a realistic and attractive way forward for struggling Americans. We could—I believe—with enough energy and motivation, have a series of mini states from which we could begin rebuilding within our lifetimes without any bloodshed, violence or ugly turmoil.

Posted by AJ at 4:12 PM on July 4”

Pathetic.

The entire continent of North America - from California to Alaska- is a white homeland.
Giving up most of it and retreating into little ethnic pockets in Vermont and New Hampsire and praying that non whites will leave us alone is defeatism at it’s worst.

At our current epoch, there is no earthly way that we are going to avoid violence or bloodshed.

Posted by Tallyman at 6:24 PM on July 4

White Anglo-American Civilization is a distinct, unique, clearly defined culture, worth perserving at all costs.

To ANY idiot who believes Western Civilization, created only by European Whites is expendable, or worse, that Whites have no culture, here is the answer.

From City Journal:

“…..The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy—are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing….”

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_snd-west.html

Such notions gave rise to the freest, richest nation ever seen on the planet. No other people have created such a culture.

Non-Whites will NEVER understand the greatness of what Whites have created and which we believe MUST be saved for ourselves, our people, our future generations.

The alternative is unthinkable—tyranny and chaos.

Posted by BonBon at 6:45 PM on July 4

Question Diversity: American cities once were centers of wealth creation. The ideas and products flowing from them made America the strongest, wealthiest, and most creative nation on Earth. Now, without manufacturing, they are financial black holes, sucking in the resources of the hinterlands to sustain their growing populations of worthless consumers. The needs of diversity have brought intellectual stagnation. They have no idea how to get themselves out of the mess they’re in, except to raise taxes on the productive areas outside the cities. Chicago would no more declare itself independent of Illinois than Al Sharpton would move to Zimbabwe, far from the White fools and cowards he preys upon. Look at how New Orleans squatted helplessly in its own dung after Hurricane Katrina, waiting for the White man to save the day. I’d love to see these social cesspits disassociate themselves from us, but they’re no going to.

Posted by Schoolteacher at 7:11 PM on July 4

“Shouldn’t Taiwan be considered a successful republic in the mold of the USA?” That depends on what “mold” you’re talking about. Taiwan enjoys ‘Western’ conveniences and ameneties, but would you entrust our Western racial heritage to Taiwanese?

Posted by P Norman at 7:23 PM on July 4

On June 22, “He’s Pregnant. You’re Speechless.” appeared in the New York Times. It discussed the story some may have heard of a “man” having a baby. The “man” is actually a person born female who has had some medical procedures to look like a man, and is living as a “man.” Apparently this person has been legally declared a male.

Some people pointed out the obvious that is was a woman, not a man, having a baby. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, a professor at the City University of New York graduate school of English, calls that a phobic response. So people who can see the obvious and state it are characterized as having irrational fear. Go figure.

We are living in a era when it seems that most people will deny reality. Pity the poor souls brave enough to speak the truth, they will be made to suffer. We have this happening regarding race. Jared Taylor speaks the logical and plainly visible truth, and he is mischaracterized and maligned for it.

I’m not hopeful for the future when people like Paul Gottfried can’t get it right. If the intelligent can’t get it, how much hope is there for the poor ignorant fools running around loose on the streets?

Posted by Cogitator at 8:07 PM on July 4

We should be discussing how to reclaim our entire nation rather than what sections of it we can claim and which sections we can distribute among the non-Whites on our (once majestic) shores. From the north to the South, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the country is OURS, and although some of you might find it unrealistic, it is a FACT. I resent this entire idea of sectioning off parts of OUR land to allow non-Whites to live amongst themselves when the better solution would be to return them to their native continents, and I firmly believe that the vast majority of White people (after receiving sodium pentathol) would agree. NO SECTIONING OFF OF THE USA; IT IS ALL *OURS*.

Posted by at 8:57 PM on July 4

8:57

I am with you all the way on your comments. The choice will come down to deporting a large number of post-1965 non-whites or the complete racial dispossession of Native Born White Americans within the borders of America. Post-1965 non-whites will inherit the most lethal military infrastrsucture ever known to mankind.

I do not by into the assumptions that one has to make in order to come to the conclusion that Native Born White Americans won’t throw a large number of post-1965 non-whites out of OUR America. Native Born White Americans will participate in the current game as long as they believe that there sons and daughters have a future in this country-middle class home,safe neigborhood,midddle class income. Without this, young White Males will be unmarriable. When this happens, the situation will become very explosive. The traitors who created this problem will wish they were never born.

So it really comes down to whether you believe the Republicans and Democrats can deliver the goods to large population of young Native Born White American Males. Who among us here really beleive this nonsense?

Posted by Jupiter at 10:18 PM on July 4

You mention that cities were once sources of wealth creation. That is true. Detroit was once a thriving city. Now it runs a 400 million deficit every year. Without the rest of the state and federal government to bail it out year after year it would collapse. Moreover, GM and Ford were once powerhouses of manufacturing, now they are on the verge of bankruptcy just like Detroit. Tourists are sometimes shocked at our increasingly third world cities.

Posted by at 10:38 PM on July 4

Aren’t white nationalists just about the only white people around who still have some sort of civilizational drive i.e. a sense of an identity and way of life that is rooted in the past, and is capable of bearing a sense of permanence (as Kenneth Clark of “Civilization” would have it)?

Posted by at 11:16 PM on July 4

I think all healthy people want more people like them around them. You marry a woman because she complements you, unless you’re a freaky liberal and then you marry as weirdly as possible, and are baffled when your kids spend their days warming the seats in the short bus. You expect the same from your community.

I would prefer the old America: anglo-Germanic, moral but not dogmatically Christian, with enough in common that it was a mostly middle-class nation. Instead, we have a wide divergence in IQs including among whites, and confusion as to national identity.

The reason for liberalism’s support of this is simple: cognitive dissonance justifies persecution mania, which justifies paranoid retribution. They have got hold of a bad mental meme and it’s causing them to act suicidally for us all because they’re miserable and have low self-confidence.

Posted by Vijay Prozak at 12:12 AM on July 5

C - R = ?

Civilzation minus Race Equals . . . what?

Leftists think that race isn’t important, so civilizatin minus race is still equal to civilization. I’m wondering what the real answer is.

Posted by Reader-1 at 12:44 AM on July 5

Seems to me the real culprit is the liberal sickness that started about 1965 while Lyndon Johnson was in power. The US has gone downhill ever since.

The Democrats have always tried to appeal to the “workers”, the poor, the minorities, the unions etc, because there are so many of them. They simply pander. If there were a tremendous base of pedophiles I guarantee you they would be pushing for more lenient sentences to win them over.

It is democracy that has run amuck. Democracy without sense or order. Soon all these “minorities’ will have the voting power to vote themselves better benefits from the elites (anyone who works for a living, owns property or has money in the bank).

Democracy is becoming the new communism. Control of the masses.

Change, migrate or die. Now is the time to consider change, revolutionary change.

Posted by Lucas M at 1:13 AM on July 5

There are wonderful quality’s to all peoples of the earth,interesting customs, interesting individuals, excellent examples of humanity in every reach of the globe. However to say the European white peoples have no culture or distinct “civilization” is perhaps to confuse the remarkable diversity among them with the idea that they completely lack cohesive identity. Whether Thales or Pericles,Socrates or Caesar,whether the Roman Law “give to each man what is his own”,the Renaissance Davinci MichelAngelo, The English Magna Carta All the philosophers,British French German Nordic,Whether we note the unusual success of so many expances globaly of European peoples in colonies or invention’s coupled with high stantards of living…. You cannot honestly say there is nothing singular here. Jealousy or the desire to undo the white identity may make this claim but not honesty. As Jared states, it is vulgar to compare each others genetic worth,IQ etc. but it is the non whites that force this ugly discussion to the surface by pushing themselves on whites, by disallowing the normal freedoms of association alla birds of a white feather.

Posted by Euro Man at 1:46 AM on July 5

It seems to me some here(and elsewhere of course)continue to misunderstand Mr. Taylor and what exactly he is trying to say. The inclusion in his piece regarding the need to “defend ourselves” is critical to understanding this. Whites, either directly or indirectly, are under attack - often from our own kind, but just as frequently from those unlike us, whose sense of resentment is as powerful as their sense of entitlement.
It is not enough to simply defend “culture” or “traditional beliefs” or the like, as many Conservatives and such choose to do. In fact, going that route leaves out the most critical componenet of all - race! There would be no western culture(s), no western ideas and ideals without our White ancestors.

We race-realists(I still dislike that designation - as all sensible people are and should be race-realists)are not playing a “victim” game - we ARE the collective victim of a cynical and mendacious campaign to deny reality itself, in order to create a politically motivated utopia, a fantasy world! Our very history as a people is under attack - the dead cannot defend themslelves, not should we claim one is playing the “victim” if we move to defend our forebears.

Putting race-realism on the back-burner as someone suggested only plays into the hands of the enemies of White people. While I agree that obsessing about race is hardly productive, avoiding or ignoring it, when it plays such a crucial role in so many areas and aspects of life is foolishness. We don’t point to IQ differences to insult people - we point to it to explain realities that millions pretend not to see; we point to it to defend ourselves against baseless accusations of “institutional racism” and similar nonsense; we point to it
because we don’t fear the truth and we don’t necessarily fear “offending” someone, if the truth and reality is an offense to them. There are greater “sins” than upsetting non-white sensibilities. Racial-suicide comes to mind as an egregious one…

Posted by HH at 5:50 AM on July 5

OCCAM,
you do have a good point.Whites had no more justification in invading and colonizing Africa than the semitic Arabs or mongolian Turks ever did, yet we never hear about the consequences of Arab domination and enslavement of black Africans that characterizes the northern half of the continent so strongly.

Posted by Kenelm Digby at 8:25 AM on July 5

There are many good coments here, and I will respond to a couple of ideas raised. First, anyone who thinks the matter began, or even began to get out of control, in the 1960s is out of touch with cultural history. The Warren Court, FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln (foolishly ready to slaughter whites by the hundreds of thousands in order to have a Union for white men) followed by Reconstruction were all 100% indispensable to the 1960s; in fact, I would assert that once you have those, all the worst of the 1960s was absolutely inevitable.

White imperialism ruins white cultures, slowly. That happens because when whites go to other lands they come into direct contact with polluted and perverted cultures, and over time increasing numbers of whites are seduced by the cultural perversions. No national culture ever got polluted by conquering and ruling Poland or Ireland or Portugal or Serbia or Greece or Italia or Gaul, but all Europeans were significantly polluted by conquering and ruling blacks and even East Asians.

Democracy on a scale larger than the city-state and in any society that is not largely homogenous necessarily becomes one in which wolves convince sheep to vote to give wolves the right to protect the sheep. The allied states of America began NOT as a democracy, but as a Confederation of independent states, which kept all democratic action on a much smaller scale the Lincoln-forged centralized democracy could ever allow.

Blacks would never leave the US, or the West. They are not stupid regarding self-interest, and they know that they are, as a race, parasites who if lacking a profitble host will revert to utter savagery: see Haiti, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Uganda, Detroit, Newark, etc, ad infinitum.

But that is but half the problme. If not for whites who wish to use blacks - to make those whites richer and more powerful - we would have no real black problme even with them here. White Elites, back to the Liberals of antebellum New England, have used blacks as their pawns and weapons to strike at ‘other’
whites they wish to smash beneath them.

Just as blacks will never voluntarily leave to get away from what they say is our irredeemable racism that forces them to fail endlessly, white Liberals will never allow any of us with good sense to secede from any governmental entity they control. White Liberals, like blacks, are innate Totalitarians who cannot rest if they do not control us so they use governmental force to smack us into ‘accepting’ their whims as eternal goodness defined. All of ‘us’ (whether specifically we are white nationalists, Southern nationalists, Catholic Traditonalists, Orthodox Slavic nationalists, Royalists, etc.) would allow secessions of all groupsn that wanted out in order to have what we want, but ‘THEY’ do not allow secession. They will always have periods in which they say they want us to secede, but the moment we try, they will wrap themselves in the flag and start slaughtering us in the name of the sacredness of the Liberal nation they rule with spiked iron fists.

Posted by ole Jake at 10:21 AM on July 5

“we ARE the collective victim of a cynical and mendacious campaign to deny reality itself, in order to create a politically motivated utopia, a fantasy world!”

I thought they were trying to build a nightmare for whites

Posted by at 11:29 AM on July 5

P.S. Firefox users can use the “Nuke Anything Enhanced” extension to remove offending text and return the page to normal.

Posted by Svigor at 2:15 PM on July 5

tallyman wrote: “At our current epoch, there is no earthly way that we are going to avoid violence or bloodshed.”
______
Wrong. Whites have been legally defanged. We’re going to knuckle under to whatever the invaders require us to do. Even the massive die off of good manufacturing jobs hasn’t sparked a revolution. We’re going to be politically marginalized and then become extinct. Already we’ve lost our will to reproduce.

Posted by at 2:44 PM on July 5

Needs correction:
American of any time up ‘to’ about 1940 and I will show you

Posted by at 5:42 PM on July 3

> As I sometimes point out, Christianity is not really a European tradition as it is based on Middle-Eastern rooted beliefs, culture and history. It was a Hellenized Jew who invented Christianity. Further, there is nothing in Christianity (The New Testament) that extols the follower to think in nationalistic, racial or tribal terms. In fact, just the opposite. What is curious about the Western cultural tradition is that it has been suppressed by Christianity for so many hundreds of years that hardly any Western Whites realize it. The fact is that we were conquered long ago by a foreign culture and mixed it with older traditions that are rarely recognized today. This is one of the chief reasons why “multiculturalsim” and “diversity” has been able to gain traction in the West. Another chief reason would be the international capitalism that has turned on its modern inventors.

Today, we follow this mistaken Western tradition of undoing ourselves in the practice of multi-cultalism and diversity. We may have been co-oerced by blacks and others, but most non-whites groups are simply seizing the opportunities our foolishness - and greed presents to them.

I do find it mildly entertaining to note the reports of immigrants returning home, having missed out on this round of economic boom-times. They go home to cultures they love, while we sold our own out for temporary economic gain.

Posted by Whiteplight at 3:09 PM on July 5

White civilization, or the sum of White Achievement, is simply too complex to understand without a lifetime of study. Who really has time for that? One of the largest libraries in the Midwest is simply throwing away all books (tens of thousands) created before 1978, and I have the honor of picking out the really good ones from the recycling bins. It has been such an experience that I cannot fathom someone knowing all Roman, Greek, or Anglo history or grasping it’s full consciousness. The books can convey the history of the White Civilization but I doubt that Mr. Godfrey has read 10,000 books. Maybe the books are our civilization when the power goes out in ‘09. Obama 08/Bankruptcy 09.

Posted by Lars at 4:40 PM on July 5

I saw some people took my post negatively. I was not saying that we surrender 95 percent of the North American land mass, I was just saying take 5 percent and turn those areas into a peaceful, prosperous homeland and others will copy the model. Use those seeds to grow a mighty oak. You have to offer people an attractive alternative to the path that our society is headed down

Posted by AJ at 5:59 PM on July 5

2) if those extra-European settlements were established in error then why doesn’t Mr. Taylor not recommend that all Europeans return to Europe and just draw up the drawbridge.

Occam, with the liberals clearly in charge such a suggestion is impractical. But if Jared Taylor were in charge, I bet he would suggest an exchange of black immigrants in America for white settlers in Africa. I know whites in Zimbabwe would jump at the chance to come to America, but I doubt blacks in America would voluntarily relocate to Zimbabwe.

Posted by at 6:35 PM on July 5

“but I doubt blacks in America would voluntarily relocate to Zimbabwe.”

Ha! You can bet there’s be a sudden shortage of those claiming to be “African Americans”.

Posted by at 11:15 PM on July 5

A terribly biased article about ‘White nationalists’ was recently posted on the left-wing AlterNet website: http://www.alternet.org/immigration/89745

I recommend that some of you all go to that article and comment if you have the time and energy in order to try and set the record straight. However, knowing how many of these ‘progressive’ websites like to censor/delete comments to try and halt an open and honest debate, good luck. Just be civil, polite, and rational and your comments might have a good chance of staying.

Posted by Z at 6:30 AM on July 6

Many people here need to realize that race/ethnicity must ALWAYS trump politics, as there is simply too much petty political bickering sloshing about amongst modern-day Whites/Europeans and this is extraordinarily divisive on both the micro and macro levels.

Race/ethnicity is literally in our blood and is so incredibly basic and primordial, while political systems/theories are a dime a dozen and (by comparison) a fairly recent development in human history. In other words, race/ethnicity is very deep while political beliefs are extremely shallow.

In the past, under which humans evolved from a biological and anthropological/evolutionary standpoint, there was only one ‘political party’ — that of blood ties and kin-groups, common ancestry, and the tribe/clan.

For example: if you build a house it needs a good, solid foundation first and foremost if it is to be a strong and sturdy structure. White nationalists believe that Whites/Europeans should define this foundation as a strong sense of ethnic/racial consciousness and group cohesion amongst Whites/Europeans, and I agree. Whites/Europeans should realize that we need to all live within the same house, all of us upon this strong foundation in order to protect our basic ethnic genetic interests — we should also realize that it’s tolerable if we inhabit separate rooms and hold differing (cultural, political, or religious) viewpoints as long as we all still live in the same house and continue working together at the basic ethnic/racial level.

First and foremost, people of White/European descent need to use race/ethnicity as THE major focal/rallying point (the foundation; i.e., we all live under the same roof), and only after we are united as a racial/ethnic community can we then splinter in to political groups (i.e., inhabit separate rooms).

Whites/Europeans can be conservative or liberal, green or red, anarchist or fascist, etc. — as the Western tradition has shown us, diversity of opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints, along with constructive criticism, is healthy and natural because there is always room for social, economic, and political improvement. But let Whites/European only splinter by political beliefs and affiliation AFTER they have first been united by their basic ethnic/racial ties and common White/European heritage. This is the key to a successful White/European nationalist movement.

Posted by Zsidozas at 8:12 AM on July 6

Speaking of (F)alter Net, there was a weird character who showed up at the CofCC National Conference two weeks ago in Florence, Alabama. He claimed he was writing a book about immigration, and obviously since he bought a ticket, we let him in. As it turns out, he was with Falter Net, and a few days ago wrote his opinions. Obviously he gets a few points of fact substantially wrong. And no, no URL from me. I’m not about to help those kooks.

Posted by Question Diversity at 10:21 AM on July 6

*** UPDATED VERSION OF MY PREVIOUS POST ON 6 JULY @ 8:12 AM ***

—-

Many Whites/Europeans need to realize that ethnicity/race must ALWAYS trump politics, religion, economics, and all other cultural constructs, as there is simply too much petty bickering among modern-day Whites/Europeans and this is extraordinarily divisive on both the micro and macro levels.
Race/ethnicity is literally in our blood and is incredibly basic and primordial (i.e., biological), while political/religious/economic systems, beliefs, and theories are highly variable and are (by comparison) a fairly recent development in human history. To put it simply, race/ethnicity is very deep while political/religious/economic beliefs are (by comparison) extremely shallow. Many cultural constructs (such as politics and religion) are in general based on abstract and theoretical principles (i.e., they exist only in the intellectual or the emotional realm), while ethnicity/race is clearly based in the physical-biological world, otherwise known as the real world. This is an important distinction to understand and explains why ethnicity/race as a physical-biological reality always has and always will trump abstract socio-cultural constructs.

In the past, under which humans evolved from a biological and anthropological standpoint, there was only one ‘political party’ since the ’state’ or ‘nation’ as we have come to know it had not yet come in to being — the only ‘political party’ during the vast bulk of human history was that of blood ties and kin-groups, links formed by a common ancestry, the ethnically/racially based tribe or clan. Religion is perhaps more complicated because religious systems seem to pre-date political systems, though it is highly probable that religious systems were/are often precursors or forerunners of political systems in many cultures.

An analogy: if you build a house it needs a good, solid foundation first and foremost if it is to be a strong and sturdy structure. White/European nationalists, racialists, and race realists believe that Whites/Europeans should define this foundation as a strong sense of ethno-racial consciousness and group cohesion amongst Whites/Europeans (a kind-of ‘White/European universalism’ or ‘Pan-Europeanism’). In order for the White nationalist or racialist/race-realist movement to be successful, Whites/Europeans should realize that we all need to live as harmoniously as is possible within the same house (i.e., in our combined nation-states), all of us living upon this strong foundation in order to protect our basic ethnic/racial genetic interests — we should also realize that it’s tolerable if we inhabit separate rooms (i.e., hold differing cultural [political/religious/economic] viewpoints) as long as we all still live in the same house and continue working together at the basic ethnic/racial/genetic level at all costs. This is why ‘ethnic/racial nationalism’ and the concept of the ‘ethnostate’ is so vital but has largely been forgotten, ignored, or shunned by Whites/Europeans in the post-WWII era (much to our detriment).

First and foremost, people of White/European descent need to use ethnicity/race as THE major focal/rallying point (the ethnic/racial foundation; i.e., we all live under the same roof), and only after we are united as a cohesive ethno-racial macro-community can we then amicably, peacefully, and cooperatively split in to many political, religious, economic, and/or otherwise culturally-specific micro-communities (i.e., inhabit separate rooms within the same overall structure).

Taking the wide view, Whites/Europeans are conservatives and liberals, reds and greens and blues and browns, anarchists and fascists, etc. We are Christians and Neopagans, Deists and Taoists, agnostics and atheists, or whatever else we wish to religiously profess. Some are capitalists whilst others are socialists, and many are a bit of both. As the Western tradition has shown us, having differing opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints (along with engaging in constructive criticism) is perfectly healthy and natural due to the fact that there is always room for social, economic, religious, and/or political improvement in any and all societies and cultures.

Let Whites/Europeans splinter by political beliefs, religious affiliation, economic preferences, and/or cultural specifics only AFTER we have first been strongly and permanently united by our basic ethnic/racial ties, united above all of the cultural bickering by our common White/European genetic/biological or ethno-racial background. With all of that in mind, I believe that a non-partisan form of pan-Europeanism based upon a broadly shared ethnic/racial genetic heritage rather than political parties, religious groups, economic systems, or other divisive and variable cultural constructs is the key to a successful White/European nationalist movement.

Posted by Zsidozas at 11:22 AM on July 6

• “It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better-behaved, better-looking, and superior to us in every way; I still don’t want to be replaced by them.”

• “I just don’t see any evidence that large numbers of Mexicans or (…) or Cambodians can be taught even to think in terms of Anglo-American traditions, much less help us save them.”

I agree with those 2 points. Besides, if you support immigration of dissimilar people, what is the point of asking them to learn your traditions? You should either refuse third-world immigration or allow third-world immigrants to remain themselves. And if white people disappear, there is no reason to wish that our substitutes will imitate our former ways. We could just as well ask people who live in Africa and India to imitate us. But why should we do that? They won’t become us.

White people who don’t show any racial consciousness and say racial replacement is a good thing for the West remind me of this comment I read on Steve Sailer’s blog:
“I’d like to improve my lot; I should give my house, wife, and kids to Bill Gates - then I’d be a billionaire!”

Posted by Stubborn Limpet at 2:46 PM on July 6

Zmirak says in Takimag:

“Absent the mass influx of nationalistic Mexicans and aspiring Islamists, we’ve got it pretty good here. American blacks—our fellow citizens, whose ancestors picked our crops and fought in our wars—are the least of our problems. And as the heirs of a group which not so long ago really was oppressed by our government, their well-being is also in some sense our responsibility. Unlike illegal aliens, we actually owe them something.”

So Zmirak, the so-called conservative, thinks “we”—whoever that is—owe something to the “blacks”, that’s where he goes wrong for me. In a free society, I don’t owe anything to anybody except to keep my word and not steal from or oppress my neighbors. This idea that I “owe” something to the descendants of the africans who were sent here hundreds of years ago by their fellow africans—who “traded” them for kegs of rum and trinkets, is ridiculous. All that is in the past, and the croplands they supposedly helped “pick” were burned and destroyed by Lincoln’s Army along with their white inhabitants, whose descendants were then enslaved by the victorious federal government. Today the blacks want to consolidate white slavery in America by implementing a complete program of anti-white laws and taxes, and THIS is the sorry state of affairs that white people, at least some of them, are trying to stop, even though it may be too late. It kills me that Zmirak says, ‘except for the Mexican and Muslim invasion, white people have it pretty good here’—this is just plain crazy. “Pretty good here?”—tell that to the elderly white people who are being forced out of their homes by property taxes that soar every year so that the anti-white public schools bureaucracies can continue to expand; tell that to the white people who are being crushed by income taxes to feed the anti-white federal government that denies them the right to equal treatment in the job market. “Pretty good here”—Zmirak you are way out of line, and you are not a conservative.

Posted by John Dougherty at 4:07 PM on July 6

John Zmirak asks why we must dredge up the topic of IQ differences among races. Michael Levin gives the answer in his book, “Why Race Matters”:

The topic of racial variation is admittedly disturbing, and in an ideal world might be passed over in silence, but accusations against whites have made such discretion impossible. The right of the accused to present his case includes the right to raise issues that distress his accuser. A plaintiff demanding damages for a broken leg cannot ask at the same time that his leg not be talked about, nor take offense when the defendant presents evidence that the injury was congenital. By claiming harm he opens up the question of why his leg is game. Claiming racial harm has opened the topic of racial differences.

I consider myself to be a race realist rather than a white nationalist. But keep up the anti-white discrimination, continue an immigration policy designed to make whites a minority, and you’ll see white nationalists springing up like mushrooms.

Posted by WR the elder at 8:52 PM on July 6

“…and turn those areas into a peaceful, prosperous homeland and others will copy the model. Use those seeds to grow a mighty oak. You have to offer people an attractive alternative to the path that our society is headed down”

I understand what you’re saying but the problem is that these people are incapable of copying successful models.

One of the things that drives me mad is the push to get black kids into suburban schools because suburban schools are now better (just as white public schools used to be better).

Instead of wasting money and resources moving kids around, why not just study the successful models of suburban schools and apply them to urban schools?

The answer is that they can’t and they know it. White schools work because they’re white not because they’re perfect systems. When blacks are introduced, failure spreads.

I apply this to other things such as blacks demanding to live in white neighborhoods or to work in white businesses. The models of white success can not be copied by blacks. That’s why even when blacks are introduced to a white school or a white neighborhood, blacks say ‘this doesn’t work for us. You have to teach blacks with black teacher and black centered curriculum’.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 11:08 AM on July 7

White nationalists never built a civilization? Prior to the 1960’s, almost all White Western nations followed a white nationalist policy. Countries like Sweden were still mostly homogenous, and were nearly crime-free unlike today.

America itself was also primarily white in those days, with an immigration policy that did not favor non-whites. Whatever their political beliefs? White Western nations were built by White Westerners, and in the long-run, that says it all. These days, credit is given to everyone but whites. For example, blacks today often insist they built America, and are even responsible for it’s landmarks and infrastructure. And many Hispanics often claim Whites are unwilling to toil and do hard work for low pay.

Few take the time to look at old footage of the men who constructed the Hoover dam, or the Golden gate bridge. The men responsible for this dangerous work, were all hardworking depression era white men, risking their lives to put food on the table for their families.

Whites have always been an industrious lot, who built civilizations so great, they attract non-whites from all over the world. Unfortunately, these civilizations are being handed to them, even though their ancestors played no role in their development.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Taylor, who once again gave an excellent rebuttal.

Posted by at 12:24 PM on July 7

“It doesn’t matter if immigrants are smarter, better-behaved, better-looking, and superior to us in every way; I still don’t want to be replaced by them.”

Didn’t those in favor of ‘integration’ (even places where there was already integration), and those in favor of immigration reform, and the Civil Rights act, didn’t they Insist whites were not being displaced? And they insisted anyone who stirred up such fears was ignorant, and evil. Of course, anyone who Said such ‘wrong’ things Did need to be replaced. Now that all those things the naysayer said might happen, have all come to true, and the integrationist vision proven false; the naysayers (truthsayers now) are still considered ignorant and evil. The bar constantly shifts.

I do disagree with the notion that non-whites aren’t good enough to replace us in a proper enough manner. What if the racists are right however? What if they just need a little help in order to replace us? I would have to say; a large percentage of the population feels they benefit each time one of us is replaced. In South Africa integration is carried out by what has been termed ‘intellectual slavery’: where a black person in the party always has to be in charge and the visual representative of diversity while behind the scenes whites perform much of necessary work.

I don’t really believe the ‘racists’, or the diveritoids, but I do believe in white preservation, a homeland for whites, and whites as victims, and that usually makes me the biggest racist of all. Something worse than even a racist.

Whites may be completely replaced, but there’s also the possibilty non-whites may decide they want to keep some of us around, for whatever benefits they feel they derive from us. Without a continuous supply of whites, they would be unable to continue to enjoy the benefits. In that sense the ‘racists’ could be right, at the same time those in favor of diversity are right.

Perhaps it will be one big party for them.

Posted by LHathaway at 2:53 PM on July 7

“Unlike illegal aliens, we actually owe them something.”

We’ve been taking care of them for decades now. How much longer are we expected to do it?

Posted by at 8:44 PM on July 7

“If white nationalism is about, as Jared Taylor claims, the genetic and cultural preservation of persons of European stock then 1) why did Europeans leave Europe to occupy and settle in areas all over the globe where other peoples live, thereby coming in potential genetic and cultural contact with them, and 2) if those extra-European settlements were established in error then why doesn’t Mr. Taylor not recommend that all Europeans return to Europe and just draw up the drawbridge. After all there’s plenty of space for all Europeans given the vast expanses of Eurasia?

Posted by OCCAM at 8:47 AM on July 4”

White Nationalism is newer than this. There are not a few cases where the Europeans settled and mixed with the natives. Obviously, these were not White Nationalist-minded people.

With the invasion of Europe by non-White immigrants, the White races of Europe are indeed beginning to self-destruct. White Nationalism has arisen because the luxury of miscegenation is not longer affordable. Either we begin to replenish our nations or we will be replaced.

Posted by Thrasymachus at 8:59 PM on July 8

Home Top Previous story Next Story Send This Page Search