A recent paper by Carsten K. W. De Dreu and colleagues in Science shows that the hormone oxytocin makes people more inclined to help their ingroup (“The Neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans”; Science, June 11, 2010; not available online without subscription). The paper is important for several issues related to group conflict. It begins with the simple statement that more than 210 million people were killed by state action in the 20th century, typically because they were seen in ingroup/outgroup terms. It also cites Darwin’s famous statement that “groups with a greater number of courageous, sympathetic and faithful members, who were always ready to warn each other of danger, to aid and defend each other … would spread and be victorious over other tribes” — a classic argument for group selection. They also cite several studies showing that oxytocin is linked to trust: people with high levels of trust have more oxytocin receptors in their brain, and receiving oxytocin makes people more empathic and generous.
The contribution of De Dreu et al. is to show that all this niceness is reserved for the ingroup — what they call “ingroup love.” Oxytocin increased people’s willingness to contribute to a common fund even though they would lose money in the process. However, it didn’t make them more likely to contribute to a fund where the they would benefit their ingroup at the expense of an outgroup. Oxytocin therefore promotes “ingroup love,” not “outgroup hate.” A second experiment showed that this effect occurred even for people who were not personally inclined toward altruism.
The third experiment is particularly important. Here the game was rigged to distinguish the motives of greed (large upside to non-cooperation if the other person cooperates compared to the downside if they do not cooperate) and fear (large downside to cooperation if the other person doesn’t reciprocate compared to the upside if they do reciprocate).
The greed motive is exploitative: it represents the desire to take advantage of a trusting outgroup; the fear motive is defensive: it represents the desire to protect the ingroup against possible exploitation by a non-cooperating outgroup. Oxytocin activated the fear motive: Under the influence of the drug people were more inclined to not cooperate with the outgroup, especially in the fear condition. In other words, they were defending their ingroup. Oxytocin did not affect greed.
So what does this all mean? First, realize that the ingroups and outgroups in the study are not genetically based, say, on ethnic differences. It would be interesting to see if the ingroup defensive effects of oxytocin would be increased if the ingroup and outgroup were racially homogeneous but of different races. We would also expect that there would be less altruistic donating to the ingroup in the first two experiments if the ingroups were ethnically diverse.
But because ethnicity was not manipulated and groups were randomly constructed, it means that the research is relevant to understanding the biological basis of social identity theory. Social identity research shows that even randomly composed ingroups show ingroup biases — what De Dreu et al. term “ingroup love.” The ingroup and outgroup are like two ethnically-based football teams with different colored uniforms rather than two groups that differ on the basis of ethnicity. I have argued on the basis of several pieces of evidence that social identity mechanisms are an evolutionary adaptation for between-group conflict, and these results certainly provide further support for that.
The results don’t really provide any reason for optimism for White advocacy. We already know that whatever psychological mechanisms we have for loving our racial ingroup are failing miserably throughout the Western world. One reason is that Whites do not identify with other Whites as an ingroup, so they don’t show ingroup love specifically toward Whites. In the experiments, it’s quite clear who the ingroup is, but at least for the last several decades few Whites seem to consider their race as an ingroup. Whereas the experimenters made it very clear who the ingroup was, in the real world we are constantly be told by the media that Whites are not a legitimate ingroup. Once again, “it’s the culture, stupid.”
The result is that Whites do not feel empathy for other Whites who have been victimzed — as noted in a previous blog on empathy research (“Whites lack of empathy for other Whites“). Discussions of the consequences of public policy never mention negative effects on Whites, only the negative effects on other groups. For example, the effects of amnesty are discussed only in terms of what’s good for the illegals as an oppressed, deserving group — not on the long term political and cultural viability of Whites. When public policy results might have positive consequences specifically for Whites, there is enormous anxiety among the chattering class. (This happened not long ago when people realized that tweaking the University of California admission standards to help Latinos and Blacks would likely inadvertently help Whites at the expense of Asians. Asian activists were not happy.) Whites have come to see themselves as an illegitimate ingroup.
The problem with social identity mechanisms is that because ethnicity is not relevant to defining ingroups and outgroups, these mechanisms are manipulable by the wider culture, and that is exactly what we are seeing.
The result is that the most empathic and altruistic among us fail to defend their racial ingroup. I suspect that most Whites with naturally high levels of oxytocin are expending their empathy and altruism on people quite a bit unlike themselves — adopting African babies and other such altruistic acts. And besides the gratification they get from helping others, they also get a great deal of social approval as an added bonus.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Amazing I will follwo this one closely.
“The result is that the most empathic and altruistic among us fail to defend their racial ingroup.”
Some of them think they are – they’ve been wired to think that “racism” is a threat to the group so they attack it like inquisitors after heresy.
“I suspect that most Whites with naturally high levels of oxytocin are expending their empathy and altruism on people quite a bit unlike themselves”
I wonder if the rise of animal rights politics might be related to this as a displacement.
“The results don’t really provide any reason for optimism for White advocacy.”
They need a specific kind of argument. People who come from that background and have that mentality need to figure out how to detach them.
I think the next big breakthrough in pharmaceuticals will be a pill that helps us minimize our distrust of out-groups. A kind of multicultural prozac. I’ve already read a number articles which have even recommended putting such a drug in our water supply.
for the last several decades few Whites seem to consider their race as an ingroup.
Five decades ago in the 1960s, Whites abandoned their last bulwarks of public racial and religious defense. On cue, the moralists of academia and the media put forth a torrent of propaganda demonizing White men as the embodiment of evil.
It became almost universally accepted that Whites are moral monsters such that members of the group could no longer empathize with each other. White females stripped of racial pride and traditional morality would offer themselves in sexual reparation to non-Whites. Most White children would succumb to the self-hate drumbeat if there was no parent or minister able to counter the programming.
Anecdotal observation indicates that Whites can overcome self-hate by (1) separation from the addictive sources of propaganda (TV/radio) and (2) exposure to truths that counter the falsehoods of anti-White propaganda.
in the real world we are constantly be told by the media that Whites are not a legitimate ingroup–once again, “it’s the culture, stupid.” … I suspect that most Whites with naturally high levels of oxytocin are expending their empathy and altruism on people quite a bit unlike themselves — adopting African babies and other such altruistic acts.
The ease with which social identity mechanisms can be manipulated by the larger culture probably also varies according to race. For example, a great effort was made to reform Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, but there was not much result to show for it. Many of the conversos turned out to be just pretending to be Christians, and secretly continued to practice Judaism, along with its nepotisms and ingroup altruism. A modern-day equivalent would be for a White to just be pretending to go along with the anti-White pervasive culture, but in secret to be a virulent White supremacist racist, practicing White ingroup altruism. It’s indicative of the vast racial gulf between Whites and Jews that there aren’t many such White people, if there are any at all. Nor have there ever been, to my knowledge.
Whether contemporary Jews might yield to the more sophisticated propaganda attacks that are in use these days against Whites, if they could be turned around and used against them instead, is an interesting question. MacDonald’s theory of culture suggests that they would, or at least, that there might be some way to reform the culture to achieve this result. But of course, we have no idea what such reforms might look like, and in any case, such an implementation isn’t within our current power to effect. It could be that that is no accident. In India, they say “When the student is ready, the Master appears.” But it may also be true that “When the victim is ready, the weapon to destroy him comes to hand.” For Whites, modern propaganda techniques and the structure of technological civilization itself is that weapon.
Kmac,
” I suspect that most Whites with naturally high levels of oxytocin are expending their empathy and altruism on people quite a bit unlike themselves — adopting African babies and other such altruistic acts. And besides the gratification they get from helping others, they also get a great deal of social approval as an added bonus”
This is that inversion that Leftists have been aiming for. It leads to the cultural Marxist equivalent of perpetual revolution. Basically, you create a new ‘group’ identity (for whites) comprises of others. ‘Us’ is ‘everyone.’
This was what Prof. Mirko Bagaric was getting at when he, in his argument for an open Australia, said:
“Arguments that open migration would lead to cultural dilution are unsound. What for one person represents cultural dilution, for another amounts to cultural enrichment. There is no objective point of reference from which these positions can be set off. They are by definition culturally relevant. Morality, on the other hand, consists of universal principles, which apply to all people equally.”
He just spouting cultural marxism 2.O Cultural Marxism 1.0: Group identity causes people to resist international egalitarianism. Deconstruct groups. Cultural Marxism 2.0: People are groupish. Reconstruct Them-us groups. Our identity is everyone!
It’s rather ingenious.
Paranoid Realist says:
July 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM
I think the next big breakthrough in pharmaceuticals will be a pill that helps us minimize our distrust of out-groups. A kind of multicultural prozac. I’ve already read a number articles which have even recommended putting such a drug in our water supply.
Want to get even more paranoid (or realistic)? The illegal drug “ecstasy” (MDMA, or (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) has this effect, and its in common use among young people these days. It’s my understanding that most of the market is controlled by Jews, and the manufacture is largely done in Israel.
I am beginning to wonder if there was ever a time when social identity mechanisms were working in an adaptive way for the WASP elite.
Did the Jews have a Jeremiah Evarts in 1948?
I always thought that oxytocin was most important in the human female where it somehow bonds the female to the male especially after repeated sexual encounters. The male produces small amounts of the hormone but it serves a different function, namely the regulation of erections. It does not promote pair-bonding in the male.
In my opinion, it’s a stretch to conflate a protein which initiates primitive behaviors involving reproduction with higher order emotions such a in-group altruism.
Oxytocin is basic to our reproductive biology, that is to say, it is essential in the formation and integrity of the human family. I believe Homo sapiens is the only mammal species that has evolved to have a critical role for fathers in provision, protection, and education of their young. A human society that loses its foundational relationships – its most important biological connections between male and female and their children has no basis for extending fellow-feeling to others whose links are more tenuous.
Feminism is a corrupting influence on Western women and by extension the family, community, and ultimately the race.
This quote from Tacitus’ Germania, written two thousand years ago, gives some indication of what we have lost as a people, oxytocin notwithstanding.
The wife does not bring a dower to the husband, but the husband to the wife. The parents and relatives are present, and pass judgment on the marriage-gifts, gifts not meant to suit a woman’s taste, nor such as a bride would deck herself with, but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, a lance, and a sword. With these presents the wife is espoused, and she herself in her turn brings her husband a gift of arms. This they count their strongest bond of union, these their sacred mysteries, these their gods of marriage. Lest the woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble deeds and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which inaugurates marriage that she is her husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him alike both in peace and in war.
How much individual and racial variation is there in oxytocin production and in oxytocin receptors?
Read this article and ESPECIALLY the comments that follow it!
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/97625779.html
Someday,
“I am beginning to wonder if there was ever a time when social identity mechanisms were working in an adaptive way for the WASP elite.”
America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, British Empire.
High levels of group-altruism and group-guilt are potentially immensely powerful motivating tools if there’s a suitably unifying idea that can act as the fuse e.g manifest destiny or Nazism or spreading civilization.
A tendency to group-altruism will exist along a spectrum so groups with high average levels will include individuals like Mr Evarts. Although it is a weakness i still think on balance it’s a good thing as it provides a mechanism for truely healing the world as opposed to defining “heal” as “seek to destroy.”
(However i can understand why others would disagree.)
That motivating power is unfortunately entirely dependent on who is controlling the culture and defining what is “good” and “bad” which means it can be (and is being) used to destroy the western world. In my view however working with that aspect of our nature is the key to getting out of our current mess – somehow.
Wandrin asked “I wonder if the rise of animal rights politics might be related to this as a displacement.” According to the old magazine Instauration the answer is yes. I can’t recall the issue that carried the article but the gist of it was that once individual Whites have lost the struggle for racial survival they go off to save the whale or whatever. So if you want to be active in White survival politics and stay off the radar screen join your local animal rights group. Vivisection does more damage than good anyway so it is not a complete loss and perverts start off with animals, so again it is not a complete waste.
I’d like to read this again and respond later.
But in the meantime, and perhaps only slightly off topic.
Has anyone seen the CNN video (I came across it on Rense.com)
about China Renting White People.
Both the White people were obviously Jewish (I guess they are willing to identify as White as long as it feeds their in-group strategy to insult, demonize, and in this case, demoralize and humiliate their most hated out-group).
But we do nothing.
Also, as far as the above blog article is concerned it would be nice to have specific numbers, stats. Because just the other day I was talking to someone who is developing an interest in all of this and is only in her late 20′s and not from the States, and her response to the information I give her – info that all of us here simply take as given, but the knowlege of which virtually defines and explains our alienation from the majority – is, “But don’t the people – Whites – see it?”
As far as I can tell there are obviously two basic groups among Whites.
1 – Us.
2 – Them. Meaning, those who are clueless, or apathetic, or get it as much as we do but just can’t bring themselves to admit it and risk losing house and home, so to speak.
For me, I have Zero expectations – and not because I feel hopeless, but simply because expectations in a situation like this is simply not healthy and we need to preserve our psychological and emotional health in what promises to be a very trying time. Hell, it already is.
But, I do think that once many – though not all – of these people realize that PC Appeasement (as I like to call it) is not going to work, ie; Will NOT help their IMPLICIT in-group strategy, then we’ll see a turn around and an increase in their involvement.
But that’s just a thought. Like I said, I have no expectations.
And that’s a good thing.
Because expectations are resentments waiting to happen.
And I think it’s better to leave the resentment to those under the influence of a Slave Morality.
Negro body odor, and Jews breath are problems. They can be overcome to a certain extent by deodorent & mouthwashes. Some people claim the Jews’ have a certain body odor too? But, they maybe mistaking the Jews breath for body odor?
Carnival of Souls – great comment! And pretty good movie too.
Wandrin, In the early years New Englanders were wilfully naive about Indians, after a few generations of being massacred the Puritans were virtually forced to treat non-whites as enemies.
However, as soon as it became practicable elite level WASP thinkers and institutions in America showed a tendency to take universalist principles seriously and condemm their fellow whites; Indians even won a Supreme Court judgement which forbade the taking of their land. The actual treatment of non whites which you are thinking of was really the work of Scots Irish like Andrew Jackson. Individuals like Mr Evarts were a harbringer of just how far WASPS would go in their devotion to principles.
Wildlife documentaries infringe animals’ privacy, says report
In Kevin’s – Whites’ lack empathy for other Whites – article he wrote:
“The good news is that as Whites become a minority, ingroup solidarity-and empathy for other
Whites-would be expected to increase”
Makes sense. That natural instinct (Herd Instinct) is bound to kick-in the more our people suffer. It’s probable however, that the Jew-brain has already recognized this potential White-Herd uniting – safety in numbers – so they most likely hope that by the time Whites awaken, unite and fight back, it may be too late: One world Government, NWO will be a fact, and the dreaded UN troops, with no loyalty to anyone but their masters – the One World Government, will be unleashed to crush the White rebellions… or any rebellions.
We MUST defeat these criminals before the NWO comes into effect!
It really all comes down to two critical questions:
01. Can enough Whites awaken and elect a political party that
represents them (pre-nwo) ?
02. How can we awaken the White race if our enemies control the
media ?
I think we all know the truth… but none dare say it.
And before I get shot down as a defeatist, let me add:
We should hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
Americans should never give up their weapons.
“I think the next big breakthrough in pharmaceuticals will be a pill that helps us minimize our distrust of out-groups. A kind of multicultural prozac. I’ve already read a number articles which have even recommended putting such a drug in our water supply.” – posted by Paranoid Realist.
For gosh sakes, we’ve had that drug in our water (most of us) for decades – fluoride. Prozac is based on the fluoride molecule.
Community water fluoridation status by state shows that:
100% of the inhabitants of DC receive fluoridated water; and
2.2% of the inhabitants of Utah receive fluoridated water.
Other states range from 98% to 8.6%.
Further, please consider that a large number of North Americans are on Prozac or prozac-type drugs; just to add insult to (brain) injury – 118,000,000 prescriptions as of 2005. Probably more now.
Everything is biological in origin, including worldview, attitudes and tractability.
“It’s my understanding that most of the market is controlled by Jews, and the manufacture is largely done in Israel.”
Can we get over the paranoia?
THERE ARE TWO FACTORS AT PLAY HERE.
1. FIRST THERE IS LIBERALISM. THIS IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE. INDIVIDUALS ARE DROPPING PAST FORMS OF IDENTITY (RELIGIOUS AND ETHNORACIAL] AND ARE SEEKING NEW FORMS.
2. SECOND THERE IS ETHNOPOLITICS AND POLITICS.
1) is a function of globalization and affluence. Like feminism it is there because there is an opportunity for it. It may be pushed on by 2) or counter-tendencies may be blocked by 2) but that is secondary.
2) Yes the Jewish ethnic identity is more immune to to the corrosive effects of liberalism. But they have worked hard at reconceptualizing themselves. GO READ KEVIN’S WORK. They worked hard at blending liberalism with Judaism — often at out expense. This is why I am suggesting that you — if you have the mental capacity — rethink your identity.
Dedalaus said: “For me, I have Zero expectations – and not because I feel hopeless, but simply because expectations in a situation like this is simply not healthy and we need to preserve our psychological and emotional health in what promises to be a very trying time. Hell, it already is.”
Let me be a a bringer of good tidings:
You current model is a visceral parochialism based on a vague historic identity and a theory on genetic interest. Together this makes it nationalism, in the sense of a “people.” Your are correct that, envisioned this way, your identity is endangered. And envisioned this way, here is little health to be gained in activism and attachment to this identity. It is crumbling. And it is frustrating to see the carnival of nationalists, and the ineffectual attempts.
In large part it is crumbling because, as Kevin points out, it’s easy to manipulate that visceral parochialism, which is the basis of your nationalism. And so it has been manipulated. You just 1) eradicate any sense of historic peopleness and 2) demonize any sense of genetic based preference. This leaves you with a visceral parochialism for whomever you are nearest. (read: integration policy).
But it is more than this. Even if Jews disappeared and you had several nationally syndicated papers in which you could remind people of their historic identity and speak highly of genetic interest, and even if you could repeal all integration laws or secede and gather all people in a state together, you would still have the problem of liberalism, which is a distinct problem. Which is why you need more than a nationalism based on a visceral parochialism with a vague historic identity and a theory of genetic interest.
Affluence + globalism undermined local interest and parochial altruism.
You can not fight the above. Rather, Re-envision your group as an exclusive identity in which you, as an individual, participate. Get that mental model in your mind. It is not just a sitting around at the bar with Jack and Joe and the ties that comes from that. It is not feeling groupish or tribal with Joe. It is an existential act. It is a philosophy, a seeing yourself, and life history, in relation to a transhistoric identity of which only a privileged number of the worlds population has the potential to participate.
Again — this is in spirit with our ways and time. But it requires a mental re-framing. After you re-frame it, liberalism will be ideologically irrelevant. As will critiques on the historic and genetic nature of this identity. Identities are Ideas. The exist whether or not there are participants. They can not be false. They can only be unpopular.
But now that you are secure in your identity, now that you know it is untouched by the crudeness of Liberal yammering and yapping, you can bring others into it. Since there are genetic boundaries to your identity, presumable you just need a breeding population. This isn’t that hard. And there is something rewarding about working to realizing this identity.
Chuck says:
July 2, 2010 at 12:22 PM
“It’s my understanding that most of the market is controlled by Jews, and the manufacture is largely done in Israel.”
Can we get over the paranoia?
THERE ARE TWO FACTORS AT PLAY HERE.
1. FIRST THERE IS LIBERALISM. THIS IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE. INDIVIDUALS ARE DROPPING PAST FORMS OF IDENTITY (RELIGIOUS AND ETHNORACIAL] AND ARE SEEKING NEW FORMS.
2. SECOND THERE IS ETHNOPOLITICS AND POLITICS.
1) is a function of globalization and affluence. Like feminism it is there because there is an opportunity for it. It may be pushed on by 2) or counter-tendencies may be blocked by 2) but that is secondary.
2) Yes the Jewish ethnic identity is more immune to to the corrosive effects of liberalism. But they have worked hard at reconceptualizing themselves. GO READ KEVIN’S WORK. They worked hard at blending liberalism with Judaism — often at out expense. This is why I am suggesting that you — if you have the mental capacity — rethink your identity.
Here we see again that, when they can’t refute a point, MacDonald’s coterie of admirers immediately resort to bizarre personal attacks. With all due respect, these are not arguments and, if anything, tend to discredit MacDonald’s supporters, making them all look like fools by association. I notice too, Mr. Mental Giant, that although you for some strange reason seized upon my remark to quote, you did not respond to the point. Is there or is there not a link between Jews, Israel, and MDMA production and distribution? If you have evidence that there is not, I think presenting it calmly would serve you better than coming across like a peevish, blustering buffoon. For my part, I’m retaining an open mind on the matter, but the link I gave seems pretty incriminating.
Is there or is there not a link between Jews, Israel, and MDMA production and distribution?
Subverting the host population by corrupting the youth has served as an effective means of gaining power for virtually every known historical instance of Jewish diaspora.
Kevin,
My thanks for a very interesting and useful reference.
Carnival of Souls says: “Here we see again that, when they can’t refute a point, MacDonald’s coterie of admirers immediately resort to bizarre personal attacks. With all due respect, these are not arguments and, if anything, tend to discredit MacDonald’s supporters, making them all look like fools by association.”
No, it’s you that makes a “blustering buffoon” of yourself, by making bizarre attacks on all Kevin MacDonald’s supporters.
Daybreaker says:
July 2, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Carnival of Souls says: “Here we see again that, when they can’t refute a point, MacDonald’s coterie of admirers immediately resort to bizarre personal attacks. With all due respect, these are not arguments and, if anything, tend to discredit MacDonald’s supporters, making them all look like fools by association.”
No, it’s you that makes a “blustering buffoon” of yourself, by making bizarre attacks on all Kevin MacDonald’s supporters.
Now here’s another guy with a personal attack instead of an argument. Thanks for illustrating what I said all over again, DB.
Doh!
Keep ‘em coming. You’re hilarious.
This is my favorite kind of article, and excellent commentary by Dr. MacDonald — real information, real science.
What we need is direct racial studies of exactly this sort of thing (blasphemy!). A hormone level can easily change with just a few genes being modified by selection pressures. Hormones, neurotransmitter levels, brain size and structure (Bruce Lahn’s microcephalin genes, or the Fox P2 language gene come to mind…etc etc) can all be affected by single genes. There are different levels of thousands of genes in the different races and also 200 genes approx in each of the big 3 races that code for important things and also are non-overlapping or unique to the race entirely. I think that we would find many genes titrating levels of such chemicals differently in different races. Further, many genetic and other studies currently being done on diverse college groups,etc get their results muddled and outright confounded by racial differences. We are losing information, losing resolution in the research. It is bad science not to separate racial groups for study. They might be opposite on a given trait, then it would be masked by the opposites cancelling each other out, or even an effect existing only in one race getting it’s statistical significace lowered to the point it is not registering as a real effect.
Even though we would find different levels of various chemicals, and genetic differences, the really and truly thing that is important is WHERE THE PHENOTYPE IS HEADED. Humans construct our cultures — which then construct us. We carry our cultures on our backs in a way– like turtles or hermit crabs. Ever see a hermit crab out of it’s shell? it is shaped like the shell in back, and built for living in the shell. We extremify ourselves in whichever direction our culture is shaping us, whichever direction we are headed in our method of coping with life and competition. Even Winston Churchill, who I consider to be mostly buffooon, said “we shape our buildings, and our buildings shape us”. The Destiny of the race is inherent in its cultural structures. Genes work together toward goals within the organism much like races do together over time (many genes and features of the dolphin morphed toward their new mamalian life under the sea once they were pressured to move in that direction–starting off from some creature able to go farther into the sea… ). However, races of mankind are behavioral, cultural, interactive. Races are spread-out bodies, or what E.O. Wilson calls “superorganisms”. The races of man were splitting off genetically before multiculturalism at approximately 200 times the rate that chimps split off from humans some 2 million years ago. We were under presssure, the races were under pressure. I think a lot of it comes from pressures from the genes within a group that is isolated, but also from intergroup competition. Whites were more isolated, so our pressures were probably more from nature, and from within (such as the “moral punishment” Dr. Macdonald has spoken about, and our weaker ethnic solidarity) and our racial seed group probably left Africa for GOOD REASON — i’m thinking for the same sorts of reasons whites flee to the suburbs… we were already different, like the first mammalian creature headed toward dolphinhood. We fled to survive. African genes are genocide machines to us, and the genes of those who left SAW THIS — even if subconsciously.
That brings me to the idea that most cross-generational genetic conflicts and construction of culture are largely subconscious. Our behaviors constitute a superorganism — which has as one of it’s defining features that the group exhibits characteristics that are collectively much more intelligent than any individual. This is obvious with ants or termites, but much less so with humans because it is US — and we are the ones who are blind. We are chained in caves peering at shadows (as Plato put it). Only by learning about evolution (and religion — see my book) were we beginning to be freed from those bounds. We were becoming a new species, and everywhere begining direct, conscious eugenics. In the Bible, it says that we see things of heaven as though “through a glass darkly” and the aim of religion is to shape our people to be less animalistic and more thoughtful to move toward higher things. Most religions are attempts at eugenics, so are systems of law — whether conscious or not. Far from being “immoral”, eugenics IS morality and morality IS eugenics. The idea of Jews trying to destroy us is quite valid — and of the fact that Jews do not even know they are doing this, it is in their genes — across generations. Their destructions are seen only dimly as well. Their religion is to destroy others. Ours is to uplift ourselves, and to merely keep others out while doing so so that they cannot destroy us. We are a sort of living religion in my view — and all our culture and advances are toward the same goal (including our naturally emerging eugenics at one time).
I think the basis for MOST of our problems is that we can be manipulated — especially the white race. My theory is that we are more open to being affected by the environment, we see more, see more meaning — providing levers for our manipulation to other races. We are more open and truth-seeking (requires freedom and openness) and trusting too. other races, fresh from the trenches of inter-group competition, are full of weapons to destroy other genotypes. we are open and honest about our defenses — we use direct warfare. Other races are entirely shaped to destroy other patterns of genes much more than we are. I am not even sure we are shaped to do this at all… I think our kind of gene sparked all the true upward / higher truth religions of the Earth after we left Africa at some time. The buddha was supposed to have had light skin and blue eyes…
I liked these commets especially:
Carnival of Souls says:
“The ease with which social identity mechanisms can be manipulated by the larger culture probably also varies according to race.”
and:
“Want to get even more paranoid (or realistic)? The illegal drug “ecstasy” (MDMA, or (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) has this effect, and its in common use among young people these days. It’s my understanding that most of the market is controlled by Jews, and the manufacture is largely done in Israel.”
Yes, I heard this too — it is true. I wonder if it is not part of their destruction seen “through a glass darkly” — the anti-religion. The religion of genocide. Subconscious. They have an uncanny knack for seeing and exploiting weaknesses — particularly in western civilization-builders and the MINDS of civilization-builders. Jews have exclusive genetics with all the markers of rapid evolution into a unique niche — genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs, etc (13 of them I think) are usually from intense selection pressures finding “dirty” solutions to problems, like Sickle-cell anemia gives resistace to malaria or other such heterozygous advantages. We know now from research coming out this month that the Tibetan people underwent rapid, massive selection enabling them to live at high altitudes over just the LAST 3000 YEARS! I think it is no coincidence that Jews have genes shaped over the last 5,000 + years — roughly coinciding with the rise of civilizations as modern city-state superorganisms. Depots of wealth which they as a cohesive ethic superorganism themselves hunt and gather by using the blindness of the people in these truth-seeking and civilization-building superorganisms against them.
This S Fowler quote of Tacitus:
“The wife does not bring a dower to the husband, but the husband to the wife. The parents and relatives are present, and pass judgment on the marriage-gifts, gifts not meant to suit a woman’s taste, nor such as a bride would deck herself with, but oxen, a caparisoned steed, a shield, a lance, and a sword. With these presents the wife is espoused, and she herself in her turn brings her husband a gift of arms. This they count their strongest bond of union, these their sacred mysteries, these their gods of marriage. Lest the woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble deeds and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which inaugurates marriage that she is her husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him alike both in peace and in war.”
WOW… it sure is different today — imagine if the wife actually lit up and built up her husband to do great things like he was built to do today… Things would change real quick. Men are the change-agents of society. Keep us down and you suffocate the fire of our survival.
We can brook some immigration from other races, though if it is too much we will fall — like Stalingrad, at some point it is over, even though you still fight and hope. What will really make it over for us is to mix with other races. Their drives and propensities destroy ours, move in other directions. Since there is no place to hide or isolate anywhere anymore, we will be gone forever. Unique circumstances brought us about, and the chances of them happening in the same way again are nil. Not going to happen. We have to save ourselves now. I believe this is the final battle of good and evil, sight and blindness. Creation and destruction. The real deal. Hopefully 2012 will be the end of the world — their world, and the beginning of ours. Our race appears to be a living religion. It is indeed time to wake up from the dust of the Earth and read the book of life.
Genes are just another body part – and like all body parts they need full and proper nutrition (minerals, the dust of the earth referred to in Genesis) in order to behave correctly, to properly and fully express themselves.
We are mineral deficient. We can become as the creator intended by feeding our bodies, which includes our genes.
Steven Romer wrote: WOW… it sure is different today — imagine if the wife actually lit up and built up her husband to do great things like he was built to do today… Things would change real quick. Men are the change-agents of society. Keep us down and you suffocate the fire of our survival.
Denatured women are the destructive agents of society. The male/female complement is the archetype of human existence.
An unfortunate corollary of that is those whites who find it easiest to perceive the necessity of defending their racial ingroup tend to be egoistical and self-centered. To be successful a nationalist movement will have to go beyond their natural constituency and appeal to the self sacrificing ‘Amy Biehl’ tendency among whites.
As important as our neuro-chemical functioning is in our behavior, it is the mind – our ability to form essential concepts and an overview – that holds us together as family, tribe, and race.
Hi. Don’t forget, racial loyalty is just one of the many loyalties people of any background have to commit to. Loyalty to family (at least among whites) usually trumps any other loyalty. One’s level of income and standard of living are usually rationalized as being for the benefit of one’s family and therefore important, yet these two things are potentially at risk (to some degree) when commiting the current cultural heresy of public pride in the white race. Not an excuse, but just reiterating the old Econ. 101 concept of fallacy of composition – if everyone else is standing up at the ball game, your not gonna see a damn thing unless you stand up too. That’s one perspective…
Stated another way, however (and actually more in line with my thinking), you could say that whites are addicted to affluence (like most other Americans). This is mostly a boomer phenom…it’s NO coincidence that civil rights coincided with post WW2 wealth. The allure of nice houses, wide screens, boats and Harley Davidsons have an almost anesthetic effect on them, and they will grovel at the feet of the liberal elite rather than give these things up, convincing themselves that affirmative excess is the “fair” thing to do.
You can blame blacks and jews for a lot of things, but lack of white courage isn’t one of them.
Great insight here, Kmac, Dedalus, Steve Romer and others. The foibles and weaknesses of Whites, the innate and instilled deficiencies, are what we need to look at, in order to be able to realistically deal with them. These are the fatal racial flaws that the alien out-groups latch onto, in order to mind alter us into White Slavery, with a genetic dead end.
It’s good to see comments by Steven Romer on this blog. I read his book “The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent To God” a few years ago and found it truly visionary. I wish he would write some feature articles for TOO or TOQ.
MacDonald: “We already know that whatever psychological mechanisms we have for loving our racial ingroup are failing miserably throughout the Western world. One reason is that Whites do not identify with other Whites as an ingroup, so they don’t show ingroup love specifically toward Whites.”
I discount drugging for this (Jews are probably some of the most medicated people on the planet, but still extremely ethnocentric), and blame Leftism/cultural Marxism AND White money worship, which today have synthesized into the globalization movement.
And whereas the lefties and political Jewry have set out to sabotage and poison Christianity and Western Civilization deliberately, and the money-worshippers have merely done so as a by-product of their amorality, the results have been the same. In fact, I might hazard that money-worship has done MORE damage to the West than Leftism via pursuits like importing cheap labor (Black slaves, Hispanic illegals), opening up the borders to expand the American marketplace, peddling dysfunctional behavior to advertise and sell a product, sexing up the culture to sell product, using their capital to insert amoral politicians who will dance on their strings (and whose existence in the seats of power has all sorts of other dysfunctional policy manifestations)…I could go on and on.
Interestingly, one reason the Jews are so ethnocentric today is because they are relatively tiny in numbers. Why is this, given that they are one of the oldest continuous ethnicities on the planet? Perhaps its because in addition to being self-involved narcissists, they have also always been money worshippers, which has resulted in a lot of peeling off, and a lot of epic blowback against their insane greed, which has resulted in the culling of their numbers.
And think about this: Whites such as Stalin, FDR, Churchill, and Hitler are responsible for more White deaths than probably all non-White races combined in the history of man. And if the White Bushcons had gotten their way, we would be dying in droves in the Middle East in WWIII against Islam today.
Whites who are serious about preserving their race will take a holistic approach that examines all the factors contributing to their current pathetic state and punish both the treacherous Left and the treacherous Right that has put them there; otherwise, they’re just spinning their wheels.
You think that Hitler was responsible for millions of White deaths? He was gambling that his Nazis would win the war, that’s all. I would say that Germany was between a rock and a hard place and the Nazis had no choice but to try to get rid of the looming bolshevik threat. Germany lost. These things happen.
Can anyone here suggest what might have happened if Hitler and his govt had tried to be nice guys? I say it’s six of one and 1/2 a dozen of the other. They and we would have ended up in the same place as we are today, except the route would have been a little different. We are our own worst enemies and the tribalists are merely taking advantage. Hitler or no Hitler, war or no war.
Hitler was a gangster, just like Stalin and the Bolsheviks. In fact, he originally planned to ally with either the British or the Russians against one or the other (and did ally with Stalin for a short period in the division of Poland). I’ve written that Nazism was merely the antithesis of Bolshevism, but should caveat that with not the “true opposite”, but rather the relative opposite within the moral relativism of statist-gangsterism, meaning in part that while the Bolsheviks had a murderous anti-Christian fetish, the Nazis then adopted an anti-Jewish one.
And whether or not the Germans were pushed into war, or arrived there of their own free will and in pursuit of national greatness and growing space does nothing to change the truth of the statement that “Whites such as Stalin, FDR, Churchill, and Hitler are responsible for more White deaths than probably all non-White races combined in the history of man.”
What were the White pathologies that brought about the rise and mass support of these ruthless and merciless gangsters and a state of affairs that killed so many Whites? Yes, Germany got a raw deal following WWI — a raw deal at the hands of ruthless Whites, some of whom were collaborating with ruthless Jews. But why are post-Christian Whites so ruthless, and ruthlessly willing to collaborate with Jews? It’s usually due to White power-madness and greed.
This is where a generalized Christian consciousness HAS to come into play to prevent White greed and ambition from turning the components that comprise Western Civilization against one another — a state of affairs encouraged and facilitated by political Jewry, Leftists, and greedy White globalists.
I don’t want to sound grandiose, but I’m talking about the creation of entire Western Civilization cultural conciseness that punishes and expels subversives, saboteurs and self-serving gangsters. White consciousness is but one component of this. A return in America to Constitutional principles would be another step.
I really don’t see a return to White gangsterism in reaction to ethnic gangsterism ever getting our civilization where we want to be, long term. Hitler loved the concept of German culture, but hated the concept of civilization. I view White gangsterism is at odds with Western Civilization.
Some might argue we don’t have time for that; I argue we can’t afford to make the same mistakes as were made in WWII again. If we do, Whites, Western Civilization and Western Christianity are finished forever.
“Whites such as Stalin, FDR, Churchill, and Hitler are responsible for more White deaths than probably all non-White races combined in the history of man.”
You seem to be saying that Whites are their own worst enemy, because you are comparing raw numbers killed. Your reasoning process appears to be that we can identify our greatest threat by who caused the most deaths. By this logic, heart disease is far worse a threat to Whites than people like Stalin, FDR, Churchill, Hitler, as well as Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, abortion and more, because it has killed so many more Whites than all of those causes combined.
Comparing raw numbers of Whites killed is not very useful though, it gives us a very myopic picture of what threatens White survival. The fact is that the White population has always easily been able to replace the losses it incurs from wars and disease, both of which are simply a facts of life. The existential threat is the loss of the homeland to other ethnic groups. Without a homeland and borders, our people will go extinct – and Western Civilization will vanish with them.
Stalin and Beria were from Georgia which is much closer to Teheran and Kabul than Moscow or Kiev and had been annexed to Russia only maybe 60 years ago
Very few in the Bolsheviks elite were Russians, as is well known the NKVD was NOT a Russian dominated entity, the concentration camps of the Gulags were NOT set up by Russians (look at the chiefs like Berman…), the commando that killed the entire Romanov family children included did NOT have a single russian
But it is true that Hitler wanted a “Vernichtung” war against Russians and Ukrainians, that he treated them as basically slaves and an inferior race and this alone costed him the war, against the better advice of his generals that wanted to treat them more humanely to have them fight with them
Hitler energized the “aryans” and defeated for a while the jews and went close to victory, but he was not a champion of the “white race” because he also hated the Slavs more than anything and foolishly thought he could submit 200 millions people of the USSR by terror
The Nazi treated the ukrainians and the russians savagely, let 3 millions prisoners of war die in the camps which were mostly as white as the germans
Hitler was not a “white nationalist”
“You seem to be saying that Whites are their own worst enemy”
I’m saying that White greed and gangsterism has historically had some seriously deleterious effects, and may well be the final mistake/nail in the coffin enemies of the West (including White leftists and Zionists) are waiting for. Corporatist-driven and Marxism-modeled “end of history” globalist ideology is one contemporary example of the threat that White greed poses to Western Civilization.
“Your reasoning process appears to be that we can identify our greatest threat by who caused the most deaths. By this logic, heart disease is far worse a threat to Whites”
Heart disease kills all races more or less equally.
“The existential threat is the loss of the homeland to other ethnic groups.”
Absent explicit and implicit anti-White political ideology, in conjunction with a strong Western Civilization ethic that secures its borders and explicitly acknowledges the honorary place of White and Christian culture in formulating it, other ethnic groups merely exist in proximity, but pose no existential threat. It’s anti-White politicization and internal ethnic nationalist and identity movements like the Israel lobby and La Raza that automatically turn other groups into a threat, because these groups are politicized, indoctrinated into grievance, assembled by the Left into a block, and then leveraged and rabble roused against Whites and Western Civilization.
It’s also mostly-White, elitist international movements like borderless globalism that are responsible for the kind of mass dilution that threatens to totally displace and dispossess Whites.
Again, cultivating a Western consciousness in conjunction with expulsion and suppression of a few key political ideologies and subversive ethno-nationalist hostiles lobotomizes the threat without having to resort to extreme, destructive, and anti-Western wholesale race expulsion and warfare.
“I’m saying that White greed and gangsterism has historically had some seriously deleterious effects, and may well be the final mistake/nail in the coffin enemies of the West (including White leftists and Zionists) are waiting for. Corporatist-driven and Marxism-modeled “end of history” globalist ideology is one contemporary example of the threat that White greed poses to Western Civilization.”
The threat to White America, and thus Western Civilization, is the replacement and dispossession of European Americans by importing millions of non-Whites, to the point where European Americans will become a minority by 2042 in the US (earlier if/when amnesty passes), and a tiny minority by the end of this century, only to decline from there. Immigration (legal being more important than illegal) is absolutely key here, it is the root of the problem. I dont think that you understand this.
You are correct that there is a globalist, internationalist agenda, which we can refer to as “White Greed”, the desire for increased wealth at the expense of ultimately destroying traditional America. But “White Greed” has been a minor player in the immigration debates. Consider the 1965 law: this led to our predicament. Read Prof. MacDonald’s essay about who was behind it. It wasnt large corporations. Similarly, the pushers of the Reagan amnesty, and the opponents of California’s proposition 187 were not primarily the international corporations, and they are not leading the Obama administration’s legal fight against Obama’s lawsuit. While they want open borders, they are not spending significant resources to achieve that, and do not have the political influence to make much of an impact. If you dont know who the major players are, it would be beneficial for your understanding if you would read up on this.
“Absent explicit and implicit anti-White political ideology, in conjunction with a strong Western Civilization ethic that secures its borders and explicitly acknowledges the honorary place of White and Christian culture in formulating it, other ethnic groups merely exist in proximity, but pose no existential threat.”
You are an intelligent individual, but you sound almost like an innocent child here, lacking a recognition of the reality of ethnic conflict. Ethnic conflict is UNIVERSAL, its wired in the human brain, it pervades history through all times and places, its older than humanity itself, found through the animal kingdom. When in the same territory, different ethnic groups WILL strive and compete against each other for dominance. This dream of harmony between ethnic groups “if only” they were respectful, and “if only” they didnt act hostile is simply naivete on a scale that leaves one breathless.
The idea that other ethnic groups can be made to simply recognize the primacy of Western Civilization and the centrality of White ethnicity in America is even more naive. Why should any ethnic group permit the dominance of an alien one within their territory? Why should Chinese care about pale-faced foreigners like George Washington, Alfred the Great and their alien language and culture? In the Chinese mind, they have much better heroes, and a superior culture and heritage. The same with the Hispanics and every other group.
Ask yourself why La Raza is so attractive to Hispanics. The answer is that it appeals to their natural desire to have their own culture and nation, that is ruled by people that look like them, that are in the same ethnic family. This is a fundamental, normal and basic human desire that every ethnic group has. Outlaw La Raza, and another group will rise to take its place to fulfill that basic human desire. There is a reason why every stable nation is based on a shared ethnicity, which is even more important that language and culture.
Even your suggestion that Western Civilization and White culture should have an honored place in America is a very aggressive stance, tied to the realities of ethnic conflict (your own belief that your culture is superior). Why should your culture be honored at all by others if your ethnic group is a minority? If Hispanics rule America, why shouldnt their language be spoken, why shouldnt their history be taught in schools, why shouldnt their holidays be celebrated?
And if you think a Hispanic America will give a rat’s ass for your culture, language and heritage, your naivete is so overwhelming, there is probably little hope for you.
“All is race, there is no other truth” – Benjamin Disraeli. Greedy corporations and gangsters are bit players in the game to displace Whitey.
Chris Moore,
“And think about this: Whites such as Stalin, FDR, Churchill, and Hitler are responsible for more White deaths than probably all non-White races combined in the history of man.”
What Andrew said…
plus we’re in a war of extinction now. White people as a whole race have never been in a war of extinction before and the people driving this war of extinction aren’t white.
“In fact, I might hazard that money-worship has done MORE damage to the West than Leftism”
jews don’t openly advocate jewish racial interests except among themselves. They wrap their racial interests up in an idealogy that can appeal to non-jews as this provides both camouflage and willing helpers. Economic marxism and later cultural marxism, which led to left-liberalism and the multicult, are wrappers around a jewish racial strategy aimed at destroying other people’s nations.
Economic globalization and open-borders libertarianism are just a “right-wing” version of exactly the same thing, a jewish racial strategy aimed at destroying other people’s nations wrapped up in an idealogy that appeals to a section of their victims – in this case the rich.
The bulk of the white population are stuck between those who’ve been conned by the “left” anti-nationalsim and the “right” anti-nationalism with currently no way out.
“I really don’t see a return to White gangsterism in reaction to ethnic gangsterism ever getting our civilization where we want to be, long term.”
I agree that the ideal way out would be a civilized one based on a recognition of suppressed reality. Ethnic gangsterism as you put it without a firm moral, scientific and rational foundation will be under siege from day one.
@ Andrew: “You are correct that there is a globalist, internationalist agenda, which we can refer to as “White Greed”, the desire for increased wealth at the expense of ultimately destroying traditional America. But “White Greed” has been a minor player in the immigration debates. Consider the 1965 law…”
Here are some more contemporary examples. Amnesty for an estimated 12 million illegals was backed by the Bush administration and many elements within the GOP, and would have passed under Republicans but for a grass-roots rebellion. Now what forces do you suppose were at work to make this happen? Was it only Jews, who mostly don’t even vote Republican, pulling GOP strings, or was it White Corporatists and elitists pushing a globalist-agenda working hand-in-glove with their (mostly White) corrupt GOP cronies? Here’s another example: the Reagan administration granted amnesty to an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986. And how many millions more additional Hispanic American citizens, many of whom now comprise the base for La Raza today, did that result in?
And you say I’m naive? Take off the flowery glasses.
Additionally, it was White corporatists, globalists, and Judeo-Christians, along with Jewish Zionists, who lied us into the Iraq war, and have been pushing for WWIII against Islam ever since, which if successful will cost additional tens of thousands more White lives, and likely a multiple more.
Now these are all difficult problems that we are stuck with today due to the naivety of previous White generations vis-a-vis Leftists, political Jewry, neocons, Judeo-Christian Zionists and elitists White avarice and greed. But you only want to address perhaps three out of five of the problems on the list, and keep the Achilles heel of treacherous Whites wide open.
Additionally, the view that all of this can only ultimately be sorted out through some sort of racial reductionism and fracturing instead of through a cultural and intellectual imposition of Western values, ethics and thought on all people who desire to dwell in the West is itself anti-Western, anti-Christian, and politically naive.
@ Wandrin: “The bulk of the white population are stuck between those who’ve been conned by the “left” anti-nationalsim and the “right” anti-nationalism with currently no way out.”
I totally agree, which is why I advocate libertarian nationalism as a step in the right direction consistent with the free-enterprise yet extremely patriotic traditions of the Founders.
“Here are some more contemporary examples. Amnesty for an estimated 12 million illegals was backed by the Bush administration and many elements within the GOP”
You see the GOP’s attempt to pass amnesty as a prime example of “White Greed”, as after all, Bush, Rove, McCain et al were White people, and were in favor of it. But lets dig a little deeper. Bush was no mastermind, he was essentially a dupe, an inexperienced, poorly informed reformed alcoholic with a speech disability. Bush had gathered about him very experienced, very intelligent individuals with very specific agendas who provided the guidance that appealed to him and his “compassionate” world vision. And who were his learned counselors? Almost all were neocons, devotees of a Jewish-dominated political philosophy that revolves around open borders, low taxes, high social spending, and above all, Israel’s security. The rise of this group makes for quite a tale, and involves the political destruction of a host of old-style conservatives.
“Now what forces do you suppose were at work to make this happen? Was it only Jews, who mostly don’t even vote Republican, pulling GOP strings, or was it White Corporatists and elitists pushing a globalist-agenda working hand-in-glove with their (mostly White) corrupt GOP cronies?”
The leaders, stringpullers, financiers and media arms of Neoconservatism (those advising Bush) are primarily Jewish. The editors of influential magazines such as the Weekly Standard (Kristol), think-tank theorists (Perle) as well as ubiquitous columnists and pundits (Krauthammer, Brooks) were the idea-men, not Bush. They packaged their ideas in a way that touched the heart of their compassionate shill. They were providing the drive behind the amnesty bill, in opposition to the vast majority of the Republican base. Whatever support was provided by international corporations was ancillary. A major international corporation like GE may be in favor of amnesty, but it doesnt really affect their bottom line. If they want cheap labor, they can find it plentiful overseas, they are not dependent on the horde of illegals clamoring for citizenship (corporations also do not like to get involved in controversial causes like Amnesty, which alienates legions of customers).
“Additionally, it was White corporatists, globalists, and Judeo-Christians, along with Jewish Zionists, who lied us into the Iraq war”
Corporations and Judeo-Christians were not the main drivers behind the Iraq war. Once again, this was a Neocon project. There were several high ranking Jewish Neocon policy makers in the administration, such as Wolfowitz and Perle, who led the gullible president by the nose, while the media arm went into propaganda mode (in concert with Israel’s public relations army). The suggestion that “White Greed” and wealthy corporations were a significant special interest behind the war is preposterous. The war was primarily Jewish-driven, for the purpose of increasing Israel’s security (unlike you, those Jews have a fierce love for and allegiance to their people, and will do anything to protect their peoples’ homeland). Zionist Christians supported the war (they were led to believe they were freeing the world from another Hitler), but again, were not the impetus behind it. I refer to Wandrin, who noted that Jews “wrap their racial interests up in an idealogy that can appeal to non-jews as this provides both camouflage and willing helpers”.
If I could somehow get two things through to you, they would be:
1) There is a powerful ethnic group within the US that has a well-defined agenda (a group with 11% of the Senate, soon to have 1/3 of the Supreme Court, provides half of the financing for the Democrat party and much of the Republicans as well, with huge media ownership and cultural influence). They are engaged in the standard “us against them” ethnic conflict that is part of the human condition. A central weapon in that conflict is immigration, with the goal being the displacement of the White majority, with the intent to make America safe for their people.
2) Ethnic conflict is normal and natural. The displacement of Whites from Zimbabwe, the suppression of the Kurds in Turkey, the subjugation of the Tibetians by the Han Chinese and hundreds of other ethnic conflicts currently in progress worldwide are examples of what happens when multiple ethnic groups attempt to share the same living space. Its heavily written about throughout sociology, is genetically based and is unavoidable. The idea of a multicultural utopia created through libertarianism, where all races can live in peace and harmony, is an idealistic dream. It reminds me of the movie Bambi, where all the fluffy, cute forest critters live and play together in joyful bliss. Unfortunately, this is not the way the real world works.
I am sympathetic to your arguments, have made some of them myself, and agree with much of what you said to a point. I am as unsympathetic to organized Jewry as anyone (see http://www.judeofascism.com ), and in no way believe organized Jewry is being scapegoated.
But history shows that an easily corrupted White elite has a long track record of Faustian bargains with the Jews. (See Ginsburg’s ‘Fatal Embrace, Jews and the State’). Additionally, the military industrial and war-profiteering Complex is not a conspiracy theory, but is real. Eisenhower warned of it decades ago, and it’s grown exponentially since. Israel is the explicit, sub-text, and even metaphorical causus-belli behind so much military spending and warmongering today, it’s obvious that the Complex is doing everything it can to aid and abet Zionist Jewry. This means shoving to the front of the GOP dupes like Bush, and promoting warmongering neocons and their ideas at every opportunity.
Additionally, the modern, borderless, multi-national corporatist and international finance system and its Statist Trojan Horses (shorthand: globalist ideology) has some systemic flaws that are totally inconducive to sustaining Western culture and race, so while expelling Jewish nationalism to Israel where it belongs would be a huge step, unless we address the corrupting forces in our system and the greed that led to their rise in the first place, we are spinning our wheels.
“The idea of a multicultural utopia created through libertarianism, where all races can live in peace and harmony, is an idealistic dream.”
I don’t believe such a dream is possible without a strong and confident White, Western, and Christian culture with defined borders leading by example, and slapping down and expelling ethnic nationalist movements that arise to usurp power. That said, I enjoy and appreciate the contributions that foreign cultures can bring to the West, and historically contributed to Western Civilization, and America. (The Chinese, for example, have dwelled in America for over a century without forming ADL, JDL, SPLC Israel lobby-type political agitation groups). It’s the rabble rousing and politicization of many of these cultures, usually by opportunistic Jews and ruthless White leftists, that turns them into a political threat to Whites, Christianity and Western Civilization.
The point I’m trying to get across is that White homogeneity in and of itself is not the be all and end all, is not even really feasible in the modern world and thus is utopianistic itself, and would likely almost immediately be betrayed by treacherous, money-hungry Whites or by nihilistic White Leftists under our current corrupt system.
In my opinion, what Whites should be working for is White consciousness and respect, and forming a voting block that secures the borders and punishes those politicians who succumb to Faustian bargains, be it on behalf of Zionism, globalism, leftism, money-worship or any other anti-Western, anti-Christian ideology, and that re-establishes a healthy social and cultural respect for Western Civilization and its heritage.
If this fails, then I think a race war will take care of itself.
In emphasizing the role of Whites in the decline of America, I think you underestimate the influence of the media and culture in setting the agenda and forming peoples’ attitudes. Media organs such as the Wall Street Journal, FOX News, Newsweek, Time Magazine, US News & World Report and the New York Times, etc. are extremely powerful attitude-shapers and public opinion formers. All of those organs, and the mass bulk of US media from news to entertainment, is heavily Judaized. Turn on the most popular conservative or liberal news program right now, and you will likely see a Jewish pundit informing us on how we should interpret the latest events. This is another extremely important root of the problem, that would be dramatically reduced in a homogenous White ethnostate.
Secondly, your emphasis of White greed and money-worship as a cause of the decline is probably overblown. Most elite Whites are strongly motivated by principles and abstract ideas, its not simply hunger for wealth. That is a primary reason why there is so little corruption in the economic life of White nations. Open-borders advocates like Bill Gates are busily giving away their wealth to save the world. Neocon Cheney surrendered millions of dollars of his Halliburton retirement terms to help smooth the way for his and Bush’s election, it was a serious financial loss (but worth it as an opportunity to save the world from WMDs). Globalists like Rockefeller are not primarily pushing their vision of a NWO for money, their internationalist actions do not result in greater profits. They do it for their vision of a utopia (you yourself, with your own visions of a utopia and adherence to high-minded libertarian principles should be able to identify with them, you are peas in a pod, though with different visions).
While there is White greed, mercenary White international corporations and so forth, that is not the central force at the levers of political power and media influence in the US. This is a completely manageable force in the US, easily outweighed by White public opinion in normal politics (see Arizona, where large businesses opposed their new law, with little effect). White greed is the mouse in the room, while the Semitic political machine is the gorilla, and the Jewish media apparatus is the elephant.
“The point I’m trying to get across is that White homogeneity in and of itself is not the be all and end all”
An ethnostate, like Japan for the Japanese, China for the Chinese, Ukraine for the Ukrainians, etc., is the only truly fair, workable, lasting type of nation. Every people deserves to have their own homeland, and must have it to survive as a people, and for their culture to survive. Racial homogeneity is absolutely critical to the survival of the Japanese as a people, as well as their culture, for example. Ethnically heterogenous nations like South Africa are doomed over the long term, one ethnic group will inevitably dominate the other, and one will eventually be displaced (ethnic conflict and all that, with demonization/scapegoating, political suppression, ethnic cleansing, and/or genocide all highly predictable elements in the process).
“is not even really feasible in the modern world and thus is utopianistic itself, ”
I think that you are in a state of denial when it comes to the US. The US is irretrievably broken. Your obstinate refusal to recognize the impossibility of a multiethnic state is a key factor in your inability to grasp this. In the long term, the US will disintegrate, like every other multiethnic state has. The slightly socialistic policies of Obama are just a hint at what system the US is becoming. The bankruptcy of Hispanicized California is just a subtle sign of what is in store for the rest of the nation as it transforms into Meximerica. The eventual reckoning with the national debt, the busting of social programs and the socializing of the US, in conjunction with the creation of a babble of bickering ethnic groups through immigration, all ultimately doom this political entity.
There will probably be no race war, just an old-fashioned breakup of a larger entity into different territories, much like we saw in the multiethnic Soviet Union. This is probably the best scenario for all concerned.
As a side note, it just absolutely amazes me that you can stubbornly cling to your utopian, libertarian, multicultural vision of the US in the face of the real world screaming madly that its a fantasy. Do you really think that a majority non-White US (which is now inevitable within a few decades) will be anything other than a giant, deteriorating Brazil? That the low-IQ third worlders will revere your marble statues of Plato and Locke? That the dark hordes will learn to love Whites and honor their civilization, and be converted to libertarian philosophy?
For goodness sakes, you cannot be so blind. Non-Whites vote 70-80% democrat, they love big government programs and are recipients of massive wealth transfers. I hate to break it to you, but they have no love for Whitey, they see him as an oppressor, the cause of the world’s evils, a criminal. For them, the dead white males are nothing to celebrate, but to hate. You think Whites are demonized now? Just wait a few decades when the minorities are in the drivers seat politically.
You are a testament to the fact that our silly, wide-eyed dreaming White brethren are ever willing to buy into marvelous fantasies. The White South Africans dreamed that beautiful multicultural dream, no doubt the White Zimbabweans as well. They dream it today in the nations of Europe, enthusiastically inviting millions of non-Whites, particularly Muslims into their previously White ethnostates. I understand that this is something that is very difficult/impossible to overcome, we have been spoonfed the fantasy since earliest childhood. For most, there is probably no way to wake the dreamer (maybe spending a week in South Africa or some other multicultural paradise would help though). Anyway, if the dream is more comforting, soothing and enjoyable than reality, than maybe its best that you continue to enjoy the fantasy for your own mental health and well-being.
Andrew,
you correctly lay most of the travails that plague this country and are leading to its decline, bankruptcy and breakup on the Jewish influence. I do as well, with the caveat that there are plenty of Whites who have let their “inner Jew” run amok (probably also largely as a result of the Jewish influence). So perhaps we can agree that if the country is to be saved, expelling Jewish nationalism lock, stock and barrel is crucial.
But you also seem to suggest that even if we did that, the country isn’t salvageable (even though it managed to bring all manner of ethnicities and denominations together pretty well for 150-odd years before Jewry and Leftism were allowed to poison the well).
If America takes the right steps, maintains its White and Christian majority (which hopefully can be re-invigorated after decades of Jewish and Leftist demoralization) and re-establishes and maintains an explicitly Western identity, it can exist healthfully for another 150 years, at least. America broke up the Commies, broke up the mafia, and it can break Zionism.
Or do you believe it was always destined to fracture regardless of the Jewish influence due to its multi-ethnic character? Where do you draw the line on the ability of any multi-ethnic, pluralistic society to survive long term? Where do you think we’d be today if Jewish nationalism was deported to Israel the first time it bared its fangs, or never allowed to get a foothold here in the first place?
Its probably useful to understand that a multiethnic nation is an oxymoron, as even the word nation comes from natio, meaning race/breed. To remain together in a political/territorial unit, people must have “glue” that holds them together. The glue includes a common history, culture and language. Even fairly small differences in culture, religion and language are significant obstacles to national unity, as we see in the former Yugoslavia or even Quebec. But a common ancestry and ethnicity is more important than any of those. Our desire to be among those who are like ourselves genetically is extremely powerful, we see it in White Flight around the world (even in Scandinavia), where all races self-segregate. We see it in psychological studies where young children asked to classify pictures of people always do so by race first, and in brain scans, where photos of people from other races cause the “fear” part of the subjects’ brains to activate. Other studies show there is little trust in multiethnic communities, etc.
Different ethnic groups simply dont get along together. Can you name one successful multiethnic nation that has stood the test of time? There are none that have lasted. They can only exist when held together by force (such as the Soviet Union or Habsburg Empire). Different ethnic groups form very unstable societies, with deep divisions that are always under the surface. Even in the West, multiethnic societies require stringent limitations on speech (its illegal through Europe to disparage another ethnic/religious group, upon pain of imprisonment), because even a few ill-chosen words can ignite the powder keg.
Although in the past the US has contained other ethnic groups, they were always highly segregated, and lived apart. Not counting Blacks, the population was always about 95% White (Hispanics were a tiny population prior to the 1960s). The 2-3% of the population of Native Americans lived on their reservations, far away from Whites. And the major non-White group, the Blacks, were not full participants in the nation. Even after slavery, Blacks were segregated and controlled, essentially a separate people and nation. There were anti-miscegenation laws, Jim Crow laws and widespread discrimination and exclusion. While this all may not seem very nice, it was actually an unprecedented tolerance of an alien ethnic group on the part of the majority, that is extremely rare in history. The laws of ethnic conflict held full sway in the US, one group was dominant over the other (and the earlier periods of the US are full of Indian massacres of Whites, as well as ethnic cleansing operations against the Indians).
In other words, America since its founding was a White ethnostate. I have all kinds of politically incorrect quotes by Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Lincoln and others that show them to be hard-core White Nationalists. The first immigration law limited citizenship to “free, white persons”. There were various immigration laws passed that banned East Asians, when they attempted to immigrate in the 1800s. There was no Black History month or Hispanic Heritage month, no one celebrated Cinco de Mayo. Other races were regarded as inferior, there were standard accepted caricatures of them (blacks as strange-looking doofuses, Mexicans as lazy and thieving, asians as slanty-eyed, buck-toothed and sneaky). This is all completely normal, every ethnic group regards itself as special, and better than the others in every way. Even New Guinea tribesmen living in the most abject conditions feel themselves superior to all other groups, its a sign of a healthy people.
So essentially, its a myth that the US was ever a multi-ethnic, pluralistic society prior to the 1960s. It has always been White-dominated. Even by 1970, we were still something like 87% White. Even as that percent declined in the 80s and 90s, the vast majority of the voters and elected officials remained White (the old farts and fogies voted in large numbers). It hasnt been until Obama’s era that Whites are actually feeling the pinch of their loss of power, and the Tea Party movement and other signs indicate they dont like it one bit.
While we may wish it differently, the principles of ethnic conflict hold true in all places and all times, and are simply a fact of humanity. Can you name 2 different ethnic groups in any nation in the world today with significant numbers that get along together and dont desperately want to separate? Can you name such a situation that has ever existed in history? I can name a thousand examples of ethnic conflict past and present. The ethnic Chinese dominated Indonesia a decade ago, but are now being expelled by the natives. Look at Turkey, forcing out the White Greeks not so long ago, or the forced division of Cyprus between Greek and Turk, or what happened to the Armenians a century ago. Iraq certainly isnt a poster child for the blessings of multiculturalism. Neither is Japan, the tiny minority of Koreans there have a raw deal, and the mostly-White Ainu are even more screwed there. The different tribes of Africa are busily slaughtering each other at regular intervals. And on and on, across every continent and nation through human history.
Here in the US, do you relish the idea of your taxes raised to pay for the social problems of Blacks or support “hard-working” Hispanic families? (They think its a grand idea). I suppose you personally have decided to live in a mostly non-White neighborhood, because you enjoy living cheek to jowl with Pakistanis, Vietnamese and Nigerians. No? You live in a mostly White neighborhood and all your best friends are White? And your church congregation is almost all White as well? And you wouldnt send your children to a mostly Black or Hispanic school? Im shocked, truly shocked, especially after your professed desire to live in a multicultural paradise.
If the Jews were deported, it wouldnt change the basic facts of human nature, and the impossibility of a multiethnic state. Every ethnic group wants to live among its own kind. And every people wants, and should have, its own nation-state, with a government that represents its interests, and a society that reflects its culture and heritage. A multiethnic, pluralistic society is essentially a Frankenstein monster, an abomination of nature, a freak that was never meant to exist, and causes only unhappiness for the people that have to live with it.
While Whites will give lip service to multiculturalism, when they actually have to experience it they find it a nightmare. Whites will tolerate some diversity, but they want to dominate, to have their culture, heritage, heroes and language placed above all others. Every ethnic group feels exactly the same way, and any group that does not has lost the will to survive, and is probably unfit to survive.
“Where do you draw the line on the ability of any multi-ethnic, pluralistic society to survive long term? ”
This is the realm of sociologists, but I imagine that to be stable, a nation must have a dominant majority ethnicity, at perhaps 80% of the population. The lower the majority, the more unstable the nation. Certainly a nation with no majority, consisting of highly differentiated, conflicting groups has insufficient glue to remain intact, and can only fail, eventually splitting up into more homogenous, manageable and united parts (or resulting in more nasty and tragic methods of achieving racial homogeneity).
Let me start off with a compliment. You state and back your case well and articulately, and have a legitimate perspective that should be available to more people. You should definitely have your own blog. I would be a reader.
Now to the meat.
America has long assimilated all manner of disparate immigrant ethnic groups, from Mediterranean Italian Catholics to North Sea Scandinavian Lutherans, and everyone in between. Don’t be so unpatriotic.
Canada has managed to hold onto French speaking Quebec for some 150 years.
Wikipedia says today’s Russia is comprised of 160 ethnic groups speaking 100 different languages, spanning from Europeans to North Asians.
And those are just three quick examples.
As I indicated above, America’s primary problem today is a lack of assimilation, which is facilitated and encouraged by Jewish nationalists who don’t want to be singled out for refusing to assimilate, and maintaining a state-within-the-state, and by Lefties who seek to rabble rouse and politicize the different ethnicities, assemble them into a political coalition, and pit them against the White majority.
If Christianity was re-invigorated, Marxism was again harassed and repelled they way it used to be, and Jewish nationalism was repatriated to Israel, this wouldn’t be a problem.
In previous posts, you lay out the case that Jewry has been totally detrimental to the American cause. But in your last post, you state: “If the Jews were deported, it wouldnt change the basic facts of human nature, and the impossibility of a multiethnic state.”
So essentially, your letting Jewish agitators and Jewish nationalists off the hook by suggesting their actions have merely accelerated the inevitable — which itself is a classic Jewish self-congratulatory stance on how they are a kind of leavening agent unto the world.
You’ve succumbed to your “inner Jew.” Don’t be so anti-Christian.
Yes, in the end, every country is destined to breakup, and the world will be consumed by the sun. Our responsibility as Americans is to perpetuate our way of life as long as we can. This means dealing with the Jewish question pronto, and it means working towards assimilation instead of following the Jews into their fanatic tribalism, which has long been a plague unto humanity.
“and it means working towards assimilation instead of following the Jews into their fanatic tribalism”
Pro white genocide or anti white genocide. That’s all there is.
You’re pro.
“and it means working towards assimilation instead of following the Jews into their fanatic tribalism”
Either you believe white people have a right to exist – with all that follows from that belief – or you don’t.
Pro white genocide or anti white genocide.
@ Chris Moore
Your concern seems to be more about saving “Western civilization” than saving the White race. But it’s far from clear, to me at least, what you mean by Western civilization. For example, you decry and depict “state gangsterism” as opposed to Western civilization. Yet, from the time of ancient Greece and Rome, the West has known little but various forms of “state gangsterism”. Indeed, what distinguishes a state from a gang is its claim of monopoly on the use of force, and in that regard it is merely the biggest gang of all. Apparently, what you mean by “Western civilization” is actually a rather narrow subset of what has gone on in the West over the course of the last 2000 or 3000 years or so. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to consider it identical with individualism, “freedom”, and Constitutionalism, along with what I will call, for lack of a better term, “Christian values”, specifically the values widely held among the American elites at the time of the American Revolution. Yet in the ordinary meaning of the term, “Western civilization” is far more than this, incomparably more. It would even include state gangsterism and many other models diametrically opposed to what you want to defend. So to an extent I think you are flying under false colors here.
Also, your anti-racist version of racial nationalism doesn’t satisfy, and I think you have dealt with the meat of Andrew’s argument by ignoring it. He’s saying that tribalism is part of the human condition, and there’s no way around it. There’s no reason to expect that simply trying harder to assimilate all races into a common White Christian culture is going to work. He’s also saying that Whites need a separate living space of their own in order to assure the preservation of their genetic uniqueness. If your method of imposing a common culture on all races present in the geographic region called America could be made to work, it would eliminate any basis for maintaining separation of the races. In short, it would be the death of the White race. If you think that’s an acceptable price to pay then I have to wonder why you are posting here since, unless I am gravely mistaken, the most fundamental premise of this website is that the White race should be preserved.
I think history proves that Andrew is correct in stating that multiracial (or multiethnic) empires always founder. But that said …
@ Andrew
Why would you possibly believe that separating the White race into its own geographic space is workable as long-term solution? I think Chris Moore was right when he doubted the feasibility of a return to White homogeneity in our modern world. You can’t just arbitrarily turn back the clock and expect people to go along with it. While you’re correct to state that multiracial empires are unworkable and always break up, hasn’t it occurred to you that the current state of affairs is a direct result of what racial nationalism has evolved into, and must evolve into? States agglomerate themselves into empires as they venture out into the world at large. They form alliances and engage in wars of conquest. That’s what they do; it’s their raison d’être. The racially homogeneous White Europe of the 19th century has dramatically changed as a direct result of the expansions of those nations that made it up, and the same could be said of America. Surely, there were many causes for these changes, not just the activities of Jews. Commerce, the quest for resources, the forging of alliances, and the absorbing of alien populations for economic and military advantage — these are important causes too.
Also, above, you discount White participation in these changes. You repeat Dr. MacDonald’s by now somewhat threadbare argument that principled and compassionate Whites were hoodwinked by Jews into letting non-Whites into their living space, with the implication that but for Jews, it would never have happened. Perhaps so, but one wonders why he can assert with such conviction that it is principled and compassionate on the part of Whites, but greed and “evolutionary strategy” on the part of Jews? After all, the Jews also claim to be operating under the sway of universal moral principles. Couldn’t it be that both parties are deceived as to their own true motives? The White elites may say that they are allowing their living space to be invaded out of compassion, but they definitely are profiting from it as well. If they weren’t, we can expect it would quickly be brought to a halt. I would suggest that perhaps deceiving themselves as to their own compassion and high principle is their own “evolutionary strategy”. It could be that it’s a foolish one, but only future events will be able to determine that for sure.
@ Interested Observer: I think the idea that the WASP elites benefit from invasion is an oversimplication. Any theory has to deal with the Anglo defense culminating with the 1924 immigration law, which was in the main supported by WASP elites. The collapse of this period of ethnic defense is what has to be understood, and my theory and evidence is presented most completely in my review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo America:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kaufmann.html
“and it means working towards assimilation instead of following the Jews into their fanatic tribalism”
By this I didn’t mean getting Whites to assimilate/mate with non-Whites (they can if they want to; most won’t); I meant getting non-Whites to assimilate into the Western ethic generally, and the traditional American ethic specifically. And by “following the Jews into their fanatic tribalism” I meant essentially we shouldn’t view the world in the paranoid, xenophobic and hostile way the Israelis and Jewish Zionists do, nor degrade into money-grubbing and swindling as a survival strategy, as many Whites are currently doing.
It appears to me many Whites are in danger of turning ethnocentric not in a the positive Western sense of “We’re a great people and can accomplish great and good things, and can incorporate all manner of people into our way of life,” but rather in the cringing and grasping Jewish sense of “The Other is evil and wants to steal from us or kill us for plunder; we must cling to each other and our gold no matter what happens. They’re all out to get us!”
This is not a healthy mentality; this is not a White mentality.
“If your method of imposing a common culture on all races present in the geographic region called America could be made to work, it would eliminate any basis for maintaining separation of the races.”
In a healthy civilization, there will always be more than enough White bloodlines to preserve the race, and some racial mixing on the margins will also ensure that a certain demographic has a foot in both camps, which will buffer and defuse non-White hostilities.
Whites right now are demoralized and dispirited due to decades of being hammered by organized Jewry, by the left, and by our own modern money-grubbing/money-worshipping/materialistic culture, which puts the Almighty Dollar and materialism higher than the priority of raising large, happy, healthy families. Many kids today are viewed as an expensive, ungrateful, cheeky pain in the ass by their shallow, money-grubbing parents, and many are. This would change in a healthy, confident country and civilization with proper schools and religious instruction.
“Let me start off with a compliment. You state and back your case well and articulately, and have a legitimate perspective that should be available to more people.”
Well, thank you for your kind words. Although you are a stubborn cuss, you are much more open-minded than most. By all rights you should have been calling me a nazi, racist, hating bigot a long time ago.
“You should definitely have your own blog. I would be a reader.”
If you are interested in reading what I have been involved in writing, you would benefit greatly from Chapter 2 of America Besieged! (http://hoosiernation.us/america_besieged). Its a free, downloadable e-book, and its absolutely critical if you want to understand our American predicament.
“America has long assimilated all manner of disparate immigrant ethnic groups, from Mediterranean Italian Catholics to North Sea Scandinavian Lutherans, and everyone in between. Don’t be so unpatriotic.”
This is very true. If you want to consider German Lutherans, Swedish Methodists and English Episcopalians disparate ethnic/cultural groups, then America achieved quite a bit of assimilation of different races, religions and cultures. With this proven assimilative prowess, there are those that would suggest that our nation can easily do the same with Turkestani Muslims, Hmong Pagans and Jamaican Rastafarians, and be one big happy family, celebrating the strength of our fabulous diversity together in joyful harmony.
The only problem is that almost all the assimilation was done by European Christians, highly related ethnic groups with extremely similar cultures and religions. You can assimilate a German and an Ango-Saxon, who have almost identical DNA (the Anglo-Saxons came directly from Northern Germany in 500 AD). Christians of each different stripe can have unity, their differences consist of minor points of interpreting the Bible.
But there is a vast chasm between different races, not to mention different non-Western cultures and non-Christian religions. A blue-eyed, blond Swede does not trigger a biological fear response within the amygdala of a green-eyed, brown-haired Scotsman. But both instinctively fear a woolly-haired, black-skinned African, or a brown-skinned, dark-eyed Mestizo (and vice versa, to an even stronger degree). This is the basis behind White Flight. Tens of millions of White families have fled, and flee today, neighborhoods that begin to darken. A hundred thousand White Californians flee that multicultural hell-hole annually. You probably have little sympathy for them, though you will do the same, and incur all the financial and emotional costs if and when the non-Whites begin to colonize your neighborhood. This behavior pattern among Whites is as predictable as birds flying south for the Winter.
“Canada has managed to hold onto French speaking Quebec for some 150 years.”
Two European-White, Christian areas, and even they have difficulty remaining unified based on ethnic/cultural differences. Dont you realize that in 1995, Quebec separation failed by just a hair? According to Wikipedia, independence was defeated by a very narrow margin of 49.42% “Yes” to 50.58% “No”. This tells me they arent that happy together.
“Wikipedia says today’s Russia is comprised of 160 ethnic groups speaking 100 different languages, spanning from Europeans to North Asians.”
But we are talking about “ethnic groups” in the sense of the vast majority all being Whites who are just a little bit different from each other culturally, and almost identical genetically. I suppose you didnt read a little further in Wikipedia, which states that “Ethnic Russians make up 78% of the total population”, very similar to the 80% ethnic majority that I mentioned previously. Of the rest, Georgians and Ukrainians (other large minorities) are very similar to Russians, and assimilable. Almost all the Asiatics live far away from the Whites in their own provinces. Russia gives a great deal of autonomy to other races and cultures. But Russia is not multicultural. In all Russian areas (over almost all their territory), there is only one culture taught in schools, only 1 language, only 1 history. Russia is an example of a completely dominant majority ethnic group, which completely dominates the culture, politics, the economy and everything else.
“And those are just three quick examples.”
Unfortunately, your quick examples appear to have not passed muster. I encourage you to investigate further in the attempt to find a successful multicultural nation, though some might claim that your quest has about the same chances as discovering the existence of Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman.
“As I indicated above, America’s primary problem today is a lack of assimilation”
Why should another group assimilate? Why should any ethnic group surrender its precious heritage, history and culture? You dont seem to be particularly eager to give up yours (but you certainly will in a Meximerica, so dont get too attached).
“which is facilitated and encouraged by Jewish nationalists who don’t want to be singled out for refusing to assimilate, and maintaining a state-within-the-state”
As I mentioned before, a nation is a people. The Jewish nation is the Jewish people, it doesnt matter what piece of real estate they live in, they could live in Russia or Turkey or America or the Moon. As long as they are a people (meaning their genepool is intact), they are a nation.
While I am not a fan of Jews, this is one of the things that they do right – they have the fiercest possible loyalty to and love of their tribe. America is not simply a chunk of territory, with a particular language and ideas. The real America, the genuine America, the America that has value, is the race, the people, the folk. If American Whites were deported to the Gobi Desert, if they adopted entirely different language, customs, mannerisms and culture, and every bit of their history was forgotten, but their race was preserved, and survival ensured, then they would have saved what was truly of value.
I will ask for your patience as I make a simple analogy. The territory of America and its customs and so forth is like a house. A house is a fine thing, and the American house is truly a masterpiece of architecture, a veritable Versailles or Taj Mahal among nations. But ultimately its just a house. The real value is the family that resides in the house. If the house burns down, or is lost to the bank or whatever, it doesnt truly matter, as long as the family survives – they are the great treasure (and if they lose their house, they can eventually build another one, a better one). The White race is essentially a large, highly related ethnic family, of infinite value. The land territory of the United States and its customs are only of worth to the degree that they serve that people.
An America without Whites would not be the real America, it would be a sad parody, with the fascade and trappings, but not the substance. To truly understand why this is, you need to understand ethnic differences and human accomplishment. You must read Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 of America Besieged!, which are not long, and are full of information that I think you will find fascinating.
“If Christianity was re-invigorated, Marxism was again harassed and repelled they way it used to be, and Jewish nationalism was repatriated to Israel, this wouldn’t be a problem.”
I support and respect Christianity, appreciate the benefits it brings to our society and would certainly like to repel Marxism and repatriate our Jewish friends to their homeland. But those things in themselves would not save the traditional, true America that I love.
“So essentially, your letting Jewish agitators and Jewish nationalists off the hook by suggesting their actions have merely accelerated the inevitable — which itself is a classic Jewish self-congratulatory stance on how they are a kind of leavening agent unto the world.”
There was nothing inevitable about the US failing. Had its immigration policies remained what they had been since the founding, had there been no flood of non-Whites, the nation could have survived a thousand or more years.
“Yes, in the end, every country is destined to breakup, and the world will be consumed by the sun.”
An ethnostate can last millenia, and it is the only type of nation that can. The best example of this is Japan, which has essentially existed for at least 3000 years. Thousands of years before the Japanese arrived there, it was populated by Whites, a very hairy, bushy-bearded people known as the Ainu. The Japanese people were originally Chinese invaders who (surprise, ethnic conflict rears its head again) drove out (ethnically cleansed, actually genocided, standard ethnic conflict tactics) the inhabitants, and took the land for their own. Since that time, the Japanese have remained racially homogenous, all modern Japanese are directly related to their invader ancestors. Their traditions, language, culture and everything else ultimately date back to the time of the founding. Political systems have changed over time, wars have raged, disease has ravaged, but the nation remains.
And Japan is a wonderful place. There is no affirmative action, race riots, racial politics, culture wars or any of the incredible discord and conflict that are inevitably the pathetic plight of a multicultural nation. Japan has peace and unity, everyone is agreed on what language, customs and so forth are best. Naturally the Japanese think they are the finest people on earth, who have built the greatest nation ever created.
That was once what America had, and what Whites could again create if they had their own ethnostate. Their ethnostate wouldnt be that of Japan, it would be something that reflects their own traditions, heritage and genetic uniqueness. That is the White Nationalist dream.
“Our responsibility as Americans is to perpetuate our way of life as long as we can.”
I guess thats a main point where we differ. I am not so concerned with the “way of life”, I care about the survival of the people.
“This means dealing with the Jewish question pronto, and it means working towards assimilation instead of following the Jews into their fanatic tribalism, which has long been a plague unto humanity.”
Assimilation of non-Whites, even if it could be done, would result in eventual miscegenation and the destruction of what is most valuable, which is the race. If you dont understand the information in Chapters 2&5, you will be grossly cheating yourself of essential information on the topic of race, and you will remain unable to grasp why this is so important and central to the questions at hand.
Andrew: “The territory of America and its customs and so forth is like a house.”
Now, it has become more like a hotel.
Interested Observer,
The White elites may say that they are allowing their living space to be invaded out of compassion, but they definitely are profiting from it as well. If they weren’t, we can expect it would quickly be brought to a halt. I would suggest that perhaps deceiving themselves as to their own compassion and high principle is their own “evolutionary strategy”.
Whatever the strategy is, it certainly involves fear of being made a target by the dominant arbiters of “morality.” Regarding profit, White elites have more to lose from their own displacement by Jews than to gain from the temporary exploitation of low-wage immigrants. Neither Christian nor pre-Christian Western morality requires displacement of Whites by non-Whites. So where did this idea of compassion originate? It must have come from the chief enforcers and greatest beneficiaries, Jewish elite.
@Interested Observer
“Why would you possibly believe that separating the White race into its own geographic space is workable as long-term solution?”
You ask a fair question, and lets be honest, there is very little support for separation in present-day America. There is no major political movement that advocates this currently, and we can probably consider the idea to be within the “Unthinkable” range of the Overton Window in public opinion. So, is all hope lost?
Lets not be hasty. Bear with me while I argue that a future White ethnostate in North America is in fact the most likely outcome.
First, lets clarify that we are likely talking about long-term processes and events, that lay perhaps 30, 40 or more years into the future. While we cannot know for certain what the world of 2040, 2050 or 2060 will look like, we can make some reliable predictions. For example, I can very confidently predict that China will almost certainly be the #1 economic power, based on the fact of their average IQ (about 103) and 1.1+ Billion population, combined with a largely free enterprise economy. Barring some horrendous event from the latest disaster movie, China’s per capita GDP will eventually reach something near the standard level for East Asians. This is essentially written in stone. And just as certain, I can predict that Black Africa as a continent, with much greater resources and a bigger population than China, will remain as backward as ever by 2050, with their average IQ of 70 (although colonization by China and others is probable). These predictions are based on trends (economic growth) as well as predictable human behavior (economic success based on IQ, as per “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” by Lynn).
Below, I will identify 10 significant trends and relevant human behavior patterns that are in play with regard to a future White ethnostate in North America. I will then offer a conclusion on how I believe these will ultimately interact and combine to create that ethnostate by around 2050 (give or take a decade or 2).
1) Immigration. The Census predicts that by 2050, the US will be minority White (this will probably happen sooner). Its very unlikely that anything will happen with limiting immigration any time soon (there is a powerful pro-immigration lobby). In any case, Whites are this year a minority of children, so the writing is on the wall.
2) Economic Crisis. The primary wealth producers and taxpayers in the US are the White babyboomers, busily keeping our economy afloat today. But they are beginning to retire, becoming wealth consumers rather than producers. Current projections show the entitlement mess becoming unsustainable by 2040 or so. The national debt will have risen to the point where even the interest simply cannot be paid. The possibility that the congress would or could do something to head off disaster by acting decades in advance is probably near 0%. Thus we are going to have a really nice, big, super-sized economic crisis, involving difficult-to-solve structural problems, and whose effects will rock the economy for decades thereafter. This in itself requires pages to explain, but we just need to be aware of 3 important developments:
A) High Taxes: We will be looking at probably double the tax rate of today. Even the most deracinated Whites hate these with a passion.
B) Economic Pain: This is the usual high unemployment, lower wages, lost businesses and so forth, but it will be on a scale far above anything seen in a normal recession, and will last for a very long time.
C) Hyperinflation: This comes from monetizing the debt, and means lost savings and retirement funds, and goods (especially housing) are generally unaffordable (Hyperinflation being a primary instigator of German nationalism prior to WW2).
3) Racial separation based on geography. Whites are “voting with their feet” throughout the nation, with White Flight, moving to ethnic enclaves. While in 2050 the US will be minority White, large areas of the nation will be almost all-White, particulaly the Northwestern part of the nation. Hispanics will be concentrated primarily in California, Texas and the Southwest, with Blacks in the South.
4) Ethnic Strife. The multiracial nation will contain significantly more division within it than we see today. Battles over what is taught in schools, affirmative action controversies and so forth will be many times greater than currently. The small incidents like Obama’s beer summit, which cause such a ruckus, will be much more common. This creates a significant motivation for separation/divorce.
5) Wealth distribution: In the US today, there is an annual wealth redistribution of about 1.5 Trillion (national, state and local level combined). Much of this involves wealth transfers from workers to the retired, but at least half a trillion of this is direct wealth transfers from Whites to non-Whites, consisting of items such as the unearned income tax credit, food stamps and a hundred other govt programs. This creates a strong financial incentive for Whites to separate.
6) Crime. Although there is significant non-White crime against Whites today, overall crime rates are low, so its not a pressing issue. The Hispanic violent crime rate is 3X the White, and the Black violent crime rate is 9X the White. By 2050, the amount of crime Whites face will have risen dramatically, with the rise in Hispanic and Black populations by many tens of millions, combined with the crime-growing effects of a bad economy. Add to this the significantly reduced spending on law enforcement/criminal justice that result following economic crises, and the non-White against White crime problem will have risen to something that is very serious, and front-and-center in peoples’ minds.
7) Diametrically opposed Political Ideologies. Its old hat that Republicans receive over 90% of their votes from Whites, while Blacks vote 90+% Democrat, Hispanics 70% so, and Asians 65% so. In a few election cycles, it will be virtually impossible for a Republican to be elected president, and their numbers will be in a state of perpetual decline (much like in California, where a White minority population has caused Republicans to be almost a non-factor in the legislature). This essentially means the disenfranchisement of Whites. Of course, they will ignore that for as long as they can politely do so. But after this state of affairs has existed for multiple decades, I am confident that it will become a widely known fact, discussed on talk radio and elsewhere, forming a significant wedge between Whites and non-Whites.
8) Alien Government. The Obama Administration’s health care proposal is a very gentle and mild version of Socialism, but has generated a great deal of White anger, as we see in the Tea Party movement. That health care bill is but a sign of what is to come, especially when demographic trends mean the Democrats achieve electoral supremacy. Non-Whites, particularly Blacks and Hispanics, are strongly in favor of Socialist/redistributive policies (with good reason, as they are overrepresented among the poor who receive the largesse). Mexico provides us with an important glimpse into the future of American public policy, which is something strongly abhorrent to Whites. They see it as counter to the constitution, and every principle America was founded on. But mostly, they hate having to shell out their hard-earned cash and bestow it on others, particularly those that are from an alien ethnic group (see Robert Putnam’s research). This will be another major source of ethnic friction.
9) Ethnocentrism. Every ethnic group likes its own kind and wants to live around tribe-mates. Even Whites do, although their instincts in this regard are less strong than others (particularly Middle Easterners). I dont want to revist all the psychological studies, but for our purposes, we should recognize that there is this strong ethnic preference. Yes, its implicit on the part of Whites today (while being explicit for Hispanics and Blacks). But it exists, at least on a subconscious level. This makes unity based on ethnicity subconsciously very, very attractive. It means that a WN political movement can smolder for a long period of time, apparently going nowhere, and then burst wildly into flame, because it is so instinctively appealing. WN movements are currently springing up around Europe, and have the same potential here as well.
10) Xenophobia. The other side of the coin of ethnocentrism, every ethnic group subconsciously fears the “other”. Its also genetically based, and makes separation and WN political movements attractive. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is the basic driver behind White Flight.
So, we have our Utopian Multicultural States of America (UMSA) by 2050, experiencing severe economic crisis, where Whites are suffering real economic pain (the standard conditions where ethnically-based nationalism thrives). Add to that the constant pinpricks of ethnic strife, always protests, complaints, scapegoating, the demand for reparations from evil Whitey and so forth. Add to that political disenfranchisement, a shrinking Republican political party (the White party), and the obvious reality of race-based politics. Add to that the anger and sense of loss, a general feeling that traditional America is being subverted, as the US enters its third-world socialist phase. Add to that the ever-increasing high tax burden (the cause of revolt for America’s founders, which is an important part of the national culture and history). Add to that the continual sight of non-Whites beating, raping, robbing and murdering other Whites on the news, as well as peoples’ every-day experiences with non-White crime (many times what we get today). Add to that the powerful subconscious psychological factors of ethnocentrism and xenophobia.
In those circumstances, what is the most likely response by the White population going to be? Maybe they are docile, and polite, and fear breaking social taboos by uttering socially unacceptable ideas. Maybe they have been indoctrinated with the blessings of multiculturalism, and are loyal to an intact America. But humans can only put up with so much, and I would argue that the multicultural superstate will simply be intolerable. At some point in a bad marriage, normal people seek a divorce, regardless of whatever social consequences there are. When Whites’ subconscious desires are combined with real economic pain and political subjugation, the most likely outcome is a fiery political movement that calls for separation. We saw that in the former Soviet Union, almost in Quebec (separation failed by less than a percentage point) and elsewhere.
Because the USMA will be generally divided ethnically along geographic lines, a separation will be very feasible, and there are a range of different scenarios in which separation might occur. I envision something similar to Quebec’s nationalism based on their ethnic and cultural differences (similar to the experience of Czecholovakia or the breakaway ex-Soviet republics). The creation of an ethostate does not require all Whites to succeed. 20% of Whites (30-40 million) should be more than enough, with the territory being 5 or so contiguous states. The form of the separation might be autonomy for those states, while officially remaining in the union.
The America of 2050 will be a very, very different place than the America of 2010, a creature that has mutated far beyond the traditional America that Whites have an allegiance to. White Nationalism makes all the sense in the world, everything known about human nature and history supports it, and it taps into deep and powerful human instincts and desires. While secession is at the unthinkable stage of the Overton Window today, public opinion changes over time. “Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come”.
You were talking about Quebec & the rest of Canada here:
“Two European-White, Christian areas, and even they have difficulty remaining unified based on ethnic/cultural differences.”
It’s worse than that. Francophones, as they are called, hate the Anglophones (everybody else) even in other parts of Canada. In some French sections of non-Quebec Canada, the Francophones identify with Quebec, which they consider a separate nation and don’t consider themselves Canadians.
When the postal code system came out decades ago, the official short form for Quebec was “PQ” (Province of Quebec). This was causing some hostile postmen to throw away mail with the offending “PQ” instead of delivering it. So Canada Post changed it to “QC” (Quebec). Just Quebec – not Province of anything.
admin says:
@ Interested Observer: I think the idea that the WASP elites benefit from invasion is an oversimplication. Any theory has to deal with the Anglo defense culminating with the 1924 immigration law, which was in the main supported by WASP elites. The collapse of this period of ethnic defense is what has to be understood, and my theory and evidence is presented most completely in my review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo America:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Kaufmann.html
Another way to approach the difference between 1924 and 1965 and to understand the reason for the collapse would be to take a look at the diverse groups that came out in support of immigration restriction in 1924, in order to find out why the same coalition could not be put together again in 1965. Vilja Lehtinen at the University of Helsinki, Finland has written a paper titled “America Would Lose Its Soul”: The Immigration Restriction Debate, 1920-1924 which is a useful adjunct to your article, available here. It goes into quite a bit more detail than you do about groups other than the WASP elites who supported the 1924 Act. Immigration restriction in 1924 actually had quite a broad base of support, including some from business, labor, and patriots worried about the possible dual loyalties and anti-government sentiments of immigrants, among others. Even Blacks supported restriction. Let’s also recall that this Act was passed only a few years after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, lurid accounts of which ran in the popular American press. The First Red Scare and the Palmer raids were still fresh in everyone’s minds and nourished public xenophobia. “Americanism” became the order of the day. Taking these things into account, it seems to me the WASP elites were at least as worried about the threat to economic and social stability represented by immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe as they were about any racial differences, and likely more so.
Therefore, I think describing the interval 1924 – 1965 as a period of WASP ethnic defense and leaving it at that is somewhat misleading. The 1924 Act was at best only partly racial, and probably at least as much motivated by economic considerations. It deliberately wasn’t cast in racial terms, even though racial theories played a part in mustering support for it, because racism was already beginning to lose prestige among the elites. Indeed, as you point out in CoC, a number of legislators who supported it were at pains to deny any racial motive, and especially any anti-Semitic motive. Also, the fact that immigration of non-Whites from any country in the Western Hemisphere was not subject to quota under the Act argues against seeing it as primarily racially or ethnically motivated. An unlimited number of non-White immigrants from points south was perfectly acceptable. Because they were economically useful to business, they were exempted.
However, by 1965, the same coalition could not be put together to preserve the restrictions. A concern for “Americanism” had lost prestige with the fall of Joe McCarthy, and communism and anarchism were no longer perceived to be the imminent threats to the WASP elites they seemed to be in 1924. Boom economic times and the progress of automation also worked to diminish labor’s power and generally acted to make labor less concerned about competition from immigrants. The defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII acted simultaneously to discredit racial theories and to enhance the prestige of racial egalitarianism among WASP elites. It seems to me that these developments, entirely unrelated to Jewish evolutionary strategizing, contributed mightily to the collapse of restrictionist sentiments in 1965.
“While you’re correct to state that multiracial empires are unworkable and always break up, hasn’t it occurred to you that the current state of affairs is a direct result of what racial nationalism has evolved into, and must evolve into?”
In light of the fact that almost every European nation was basically an ethnostate since the first nation state there was formed way back when, I cant see how racial nationalism somehow must result in multiracial empires. Even during Britain&France’s imperial era, they were fixated on racial purity. Britain was happy to rule India, but few Indians were permitted to live in the mother country, and those that did were expected not to mix with Whites.
“States agglomerate themselves into empires as they venture out into the world at large. They form alliances and engage in wars of conquest. That’s what they do; it’s their raison d’être.”
It would probably be more precise to say that “some” nations form into empires. There are plenty of very old nations that never did. The US hasnt been involved in gathering imperial territory for 150 years. Thus, I dont see this as something that is inevitable, especially in the post-nuclear age, where warfare carries unprecedented risks.
“Surely, there were many causes for these changes, not just the activities of Jews. Commerce, the quest for resources, the forging of alliances, and the absorbing of alien populations for economic and military advantage — these are important causes too.”
I dont think “the Jews” are to blame for every war, imperial conquest, race-mixing incident or natural disaster in history. At various times there have been influential Jews that have had an impact on world events. When that is happened, its a fair subject for historical analysis (Jews do tend to have a disproportionate influence on events in the countries in which they reside).
“Also, above, you discount White participation in these changes. You repeat Dr. MacDonald’s by now somewhat threadbare argument that principled and compassionate Whites were hoodwinked by Jews into letting non-Whites into their living space, with the implication that but for Jews, it would never have happened.”
I am not sure Dr. MacDonald’s argument is as “threadbare” as you suggest. On the contrary, there seems to be quite a lot of thread, he provides a powerful argument that, to my knowledge, no one has been able to refute, though there are many eminently qualified Jewish scholars who are very angry at the professor, and one would think they would be eager to tear apart his arguments once and for all, were they able to.
“one wonders why he can assert with such conviction that it is principled and compassionate on the part of Whites”
A good question. As a previous poster has mentioned, we need to explain why an ethnic group that has survived remarkably well for 75,000 years, acting innumerable times to protect its ethnicity from outsiders, suddenly turns about and invites them in. This is remarkably maladaptive and species-destructive behavior. If you understand US immigration policy since the founding, which was highly exclusionary of non-Whites, especially in light of the 1924 law, the question of why the about face occurred should be especially intriguing.
Hopefully, we can accept that every ethnic group has different inherited traits, each having evolved in a different habitat. Africans not only have black skin, but numerous other genetic behavioral traits when compared to Asians, for example (less ability to delay gratification, less conscientiousness, etc.) In an Ice Age environment, it was advantageous for Europeans to be less ethnocentric, and more conscientious. For whatever reason, people with those traits survived much better in a bleak environment, and their descendants naturally inherited that DNA and all of its associated traits. Two traits that mark Europeans are a higher level of compassion and an adherence to abstract principles. These do not mean Europeans are “better” somehow. In fact, those traits are probably a severe liability in our present modern environment, a fatal flaw that could ultimately destroy the race.
Lets look at a few examples. The two wealthiest Europeans, Gates and Buffett, are giving away almost their entire fortunes to non-Whites. The abstract principles of giving to the poor and helping mankind through philanthropy are like opiates for them. Contrast that with non-White billionaires, who are not only much less philanthropic, but almost always help their own kind (they have a strong sense of ethnocentrism). Bush was the same way, he was so proud of himself after putting 15 Billion in the budget for aid to Africa, he wept. In his state of the Union speech on the eve of the Iraqi invasion, what were the devices of persuasion that appealed to Americans? It was primarily “make the world safe for democracy”, an abstract principle. It was certainly not a cold calculation of cost vs. benefit. You wont see East Asians or other ethnic groups adopting black children, but Europeans are extraordinarily eager to do so, and the nation gushes when a prominent actor or politician does. Thats compassion that is as rare as hens teeth in non-White nations, even wealthy ones like Japan. Clearly, this inordinate compassion and addiction to abstract principle are both European traits.
“but greed and “evolutionary strategy” on the part of Jews? After all, the Jews also claim to be operating under the sway of universal moral principles. Couldn’t it be that both parties are deceived as to their own true motives?”
The ethnocentric and coldly realistic behavior of Jews is legendary. You wont see a whole lot of compassion for the Palestinians by Israelis for example. Jewish ethics center around “Whats good for the Jews”, and this is quite obvious in Jewish magazines and publications.
The Jewish desire for non-White immigration is not a matter of evil, sneaky devils rubbing their hands and plotting the destruction of mankind. Rather, this is fundamentally tied to their desire for security. Is it out of the realm of possibility that Jews wish to be safe in America? Its useful to understand that Jews have a long history, and its a tragic one. They have been kicked out of here, kicked out of there, victims of pogroms, massacres and internments. Why they have been given the boot so much is a completely different topic. But in their minds, its the result of gentile perfidy, irrational hatred and racism by the Europeans, which is always an underlying threat. The historic America was completely dominated by White Europeans, the very same people that had been so brutal to the Jews in the past.
This was an ever present danger to Jewry (as they saw it), and after Jewish misery in WW2, the existence of a White majority (with most having German roots) was almost intolerable. For the Jewish community, it was vital that security be obtained through a multi-racial, multi-cultural nation.
See Earl Raab, “about half of the American population will soon be non-white…We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country…We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”
In 1965, no Europeans were clamoring for non-White immigration, and a change to their culture and way of life. They liked their America just fine. So why was such a revolutionary change in immigration possible? Who were the special interests behind it? Who had something to gain? Dr. MacDonald’s paper makes a powerful case that it was the organized Jewish community, that this was something they had spent tremendous resources and energy pushing for many decades. Its available at http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ABERNET3.PDF
“The White elites may say that they are allowing their living space to be invaded out of compassion, but they definitely are profiting from it as well. If they weren’t, we can expect it would quickly be brought to a halt.”
You assume that White elites will always act in their interests. Does Bill Gates support open borders because he thinks it lines his pocketbook, and doesnt care about others? And I suppose anyone is free to suggest halting immigration in our current political environment? They wont be denounced as racists, and get the Trent Lott treatment? For every White elite that profits from immigration, there are three that are harmed by it through crime, non-White voting patterns, loss of job and university admission prospects for their children, etc.
“I would suggest that perhaps deceiving themselves as to their own compassion and high principle is their own “evolutionary strategy”.
Seeing that Whites have been a distinct genetic group for at least 75,000 years (and a very successful one), and evolutionary strategies are typically very old (unsuccessful ones usually mean an ethnic group is wiped out), the extremely maladaptive behavior of an ethnic group allowing itself to be displaced and dispossessed is almost certainly not an evolutionary strategy. Your suggestion indicates that you would benefit from additional study of evolutionary psychology.
“It could be that it’s a foolish one, but only future events will be able to determine that for sure.”
The Shakers had a maladaptive practice of not having intercourse, but we didnt need to wait until they died out to realize it was maladaptive. If Whites suddenly developed a new custom of shooting themselves in the head, would we need to wait until they had all committed suicide to realize that this was not a very good evolutionary strategy? It should be fairly obvious to anyone with common sense that allowing your race to be dispossessed in its own homeland is an incredibly bad idea. Should Korea suddenly invite millions of Nigerians to come on over to displace them? I assure you, it would not have happy consequences, but fortunately the Koreans are not so stupid or insane to ever do such a thing.
Congratulations, Andrew, on your very articulate, well reasoned and historically factual postings. Your assessment of the likely scenarios for the future, as regards the dwindling White population, and the prospects for an evolving White nationalism, are spot on.
To sum up your presentations and general thesis, and for the sake of brevity, I would say that Whites everywhere are headed for deep trouble, and are likely to react to their dilemma only under severe duress. Yes, I see it coming too. The hostile, alien dominated media will make their ethnic awakening and organization very difficult and prolonged. By which time, of course, they are going to be in for a battle royale to survive. The shrunken White ethno-states that are likely to evolve, are going to be facing a very dark and hostile world, that will most likely be in a state of resource shortages and depletion, and environmental meltdown. These are the racial cards that we are being dealt, so we’ll have to try to build a strategy accordingly.
Your book, America Besieged, is indeed essential reading for White leadership cadres.
Andrew writes:
It would probably be more precise to say that “some” nations form into empires. There are plenty of very old nations that never did. The US hasnt been involved in gathering imperial territory for 150 years.
It’s hard to know what to say to someone who refuses to recognize the existence of an American empire, even as he is predicting its break up. The US has its troops stationed all over the world, in up to 156 countries. While some of these are just detachments, major garrisons are stationed in Europe, Korea, Asia, and Japan. It is currently engaged in aggressive wars of conquest and resource acquisition in Iraq, Afghanistan, and maybe soon in Iran. Through the simple expedient of erasing its southern border, it is in the process of effecting a demographic merger with Mexico and the rest of Latin America. What other name but empire can describe this?
Even though you seem determined to misunderstand or avoid it, my point was that nations evolve into empires such as this with the according to the same historical laws that govern the devolution of multiracial states, which are themselves empires. It should be obvious, I hope, that this cyclical nature of the historical process doesn’t mean that all nations are destined to lead an empire themselves, but it does mean that those that are too small or too weak to lead must follow. They inevitably become part of some other country’s empire.
In the instant case of a White American rump state such as you envision, formed from 4 or 5 states split off from the current US, I would expect it to be quickly subsumed into some other country’s empire. Even if one could be formed, the idea of its persisting for any length of time seems to me to be highly unlikely. Pressures of resource acquisition would force this, just as they always have in the past. In this world, the big eat the small; the powerful always try to gain even more power. But lead or follow, the cycle would begin all over again.
@Observer
“It’s hard to know what to say to someone who refuses to recognize the existence of an American empire, even as he is predicting its break up. The US has its troops stationed all over the world, in up to 156 countries. While some of these are just detachments, major garrisons are stationed in Europe, Korea, Asia, and Japan.”
You appear to be saying that the presence of troops is proof the US is an “empire”. When we speak of “empire”, we usually mean one polity which has subjugated others, such as Rome having conquered Greece, ruling it directly for Rome’s benefit. Typically, the conquered province is under the thumb of the imperial power, politically and economically.
The US has troops in many places, as you noted, with large numbers in Germany and South Korea. Apparently, you would suggest that Germany and South Korea are part of our “empire”, we have subjugated and rule them like the Assyrians of old. This seems to be a troublesome assertion.
“It is currently engaged in aggressive wars of conquest and resource acquisition in Iraq, Afghanistan, and maybe soon in Iran.”
As we add Iraq to our vast “empire”, we have ensured they are a Democracy (as far as that can be created in a muslim tribal society), and bestowed upon them billions of dollars to rebuild, and will have spent 1-2 trillion on the project when its all said and done. And what treasure trove of resources have we acquired? The opportunity to buy a few tens of billions of dollars of oil at market prices? With Iraq’s oil resources being further developed by our friends the Chinese? There are no significant interests for the US in Iraq, security or otherwise, and the US is purposefully ending up with only marginal political control of that nation. There is nothing material being gained, quite the opposite – its a massive financial black hole for the US. Im afraid the evidence tells us that this was no war of conquest. There certainly are beneficiaries of US military adventurism, who have a powerful lobby here in the US, but we need not get into that, as its an entirely different subject.
“It should be obvious, I hope, that this cyclical nature of the historical process doesn’t mean that all nations are destined to lead an empire themselves, but it does mean that those that are too small or too weak to lead must follow. They inevitably become part of some other country’s empire.”
I agree with you that in past human history, there was a push for empire. Nations did tend to expand as far as they were able, at times gathering up other peoples within their dominion. But I disagree with you that it is inevitable that smaller nations must be absorbed by larger ones, or that this must result in the destruction of race. Europe provides us with a well-documented history of a continent that has gone through all different phases of civilization. Many areas of Europe have remained quite stable. Lets look at Denmark, for example. The Danes were there during the Roman Empire. They were there during the early middle ages, still there during the late middle ages. They were there during the Renaissance and the englightenment. They were there through World War 1, through World War 2, through the Cold War, through the hippy 60s and 70s. In fact, they are still there, pretty much the very same people, whose ancestors were fishing and fighting when Ceasar was gallavanting around with Cleopatra. During that entire time, there were many different political bodies and rulers, at times the Danes were ruled by other powers, or subsumed into larger kingdoms. But for most of that time, the Danes were ruled by co-ethnics. And their future would be fairly secure far into the future if they could just manage to keep their borders secure from alien ethnic groups.
The Scots and Dutch are other examples who are still there, though they spent less time independent than the Danes. Other peoples have survived as well, even when they were usually ruled by others, such as the Poles, Armenians, Koreans and Phillipinos. The point is that although there are periods of dominion by outsiders, it is very possible for a people to remain intact, surviving as an ethnic body, which is the ultimate goal.
“In the instant case of a White American rump state such as you envision, formed from 4 or 5 states split off from the current US, I would expect it to be quickly subsumed into some other country’s empire.”
I am not sure why a North American state could not follow the example of the Swiss or other small European states, remaining independent. This is especially the case as it would be surrounded by other democracies, the voters of whom are majority women, and tend to be squeamish about hurting others, especially babies. According to your logic, Canada, with little in the way of military forces, should have been subsumed into someone’s empire a long time ago. Certainly all the tiny little Carribean states should have (after they had gained their independence), or the land-rich South American ones, who have the finest soil and resources, relatively small populations, and only the most marginal militaries. And if you would suggest that they are part of the US “empire”, it would be interesting to hear your explanation of why nations like Venezuala are such feisty troublemakers for us (or is that part of the plan somehow?).
“Even if one could be formed, the idea of its persisting for any length of time seems to me to be highly unlikely. Pressures of resource acquisition would force this, just as they always have in the past. In this world, the big eat the small; the powerful always try to gain even more power. But lead or follow, the cycle would begin all over again.”
The experience of dozens of small countries through history runs counter to your argument.
“Through the simple expedient of erasing its southern border, it is in the process of effecting a demographic merger with Mexico and the rest of Latin America. What other name but empire can describe this?”
I can think of a few choice words to describe this. Idiocy is one word that comes to mind. You seem to think this is some planned strategy, that our incredibly capable, intelligent and wise leaders yearn for the long-planned merger with wealthy and mighty Mexico, thus helping ensure that the US remain the world’s top superpower, as it will then have a tremendous supply of poverty-stricken, flea-infested migrant workers, corrupt politicians and murderous drug lords to lead us into a new era of glorious prosperity. I guess I am somewhat less confident in the strategerizing abilities of our elites than you are.
” It should be obvious, I hope, that this cyclical nature of the historical process doesn’t mean that all nations are destined to lead an empire themselves, but it does mean that those that are too small or too weak to lead must follow. They inevitably become part of some other country’s empire.”
If we were having our discussion in the year 1300, or even 1700, you would have a strong case. Looking around at all the imperial conquest going on these days, and how many great empires there are, I would say your analysis applies better to earlier historical periods.
“In the instant case of a White American rump state such as you envision, formed from 4 or 5 states split off from the current US, I would expect it to be quickly subsumed into some other country’s empire. Even if one could be formed, the idea of its persisting for any length of time seems to me to be highly unlikely.”
I suppose that warlords such as Hillary Clinton would be leading the invasion of the new ethnostate, dressed like General Patton, along with a legion of liberals roused by a bloody thirst for dominion. Or, I suppose the US would tolerate China invading mainland North America to set up a satellite state here. That all seems quite unlikely. If Quebec had achieved its independence, the US and Canada had promised to respect it, and the most likely scenario would have been recognition in the UN, and it would be a fact of life that we would then have 3 White North American democracies instead of 2, with little changing except the maps redrawn a bit.
“Pressures of resource acquisition would force this, just as they always have in the past. In this world, the big eat the small; the powerful always try to gain even more power. But lead or follow, the cycle would begin all over again.”
I suggest you take out a globe, look at all the tiny countries there are out there, and count up the ones that have been eaten by large states in the past 50 years, even the resource rich ones. Not a whole lot of eating going on. And how do you explain Kuwait? A small, resource-rich nation subsumed into a larger one, just like you would predict. But it didnt seem to go very well for the subsumer. I suppose you would suggest that Kuwait is now a province of the US, though its hard to see how we rule that nation, they have a native government, get top dollar for their oil, a sizeable stipend for storing military equipment, and lots of cash from contracts to supply items to Iraq. An unusual imperial agreement, to say the least.
Anyway, if places like Kuwait and Japan are a provinces in our American Empire, being a province seems like a pretty good deal. They get to have a democracy, keep their ethnicity, get great trade terms and their security ensured through defense agreements. I think a future White ethnostate in North America could live with that just fine.
@Observer
“Another way to approach the difference between 1924 and 1965 and to understand the reason for the collapse would be to take a look at the diverse groups that came out in support of immigration restriction in 1924, in order to find out why the same coalition could not be put together again in 1965.”
You dont seem to consider why there was this massive push to open the flood-gates for non-White immigration in 1965. You seem to think that in politics, things just “happen”, without some very strong political force behind them. But in reality, politics obeys something similar to Newton’s laws, where it takes a great deal of energy and force to make anything happen, and without which nothing occurrs. This is especially the case when we are talking about a major piece of controversial legislation.
The congress, presidency and administration are all filled with extraordinarily strong personalities, who agree on little, and all have their own goals and agendas. Its a huge undertaking to get over half of the Senate and House to pass a bill, then get the president to sign it. If you doubt that, come up with your own initiative and try to get it passed, and see how far you get.
The force pushing a bill can come from many sources. Sometimes its strong international pressure. Was this the case in 1965? No, other major nations could have probably cared less about our immigration policy, they were probably mainly interested in trade and security matters. Sometimes the political force pushing legislation is the result of a campaign promise, where a newly-elected presidential contender must make good. Did someone run on a platform of promising to open the gates to non-Whites, to the rousing approval of the American public? No, and hell no, that would have been a certain way to lose the election. Sometimes the force comes from great popular support by the voters. Of course, we know that wasnt the case, polling was strongly against the 1965 bill (almost 60% against according to Auster).
Usually the political force behind a bill comes from a consortium of special interests, and this was almost certainly the case in 1965. To determine who those special interests were, its very useful to examine the public record, sources of campaign donations, speeches given in public, major media articles and so forth. So what special interests were pushing the bill? Big business, eager to import poor third-worlders in to purchase their products? Little evidence of that, and there were little profits to be had in the time horizons that businesses plan for (3-10 years). Environmentalist groups, eager to bring in new environmentalists to help save the planet? Not really, they arent in favor of hordes of new citizens trampling on the grass in the National parks.
Then what special interests were cheerleading this massive revolutionary change in immigration policy, spending the untold financial resources, providing the media support, engaging in the political arm-twisting, deal-making and incentives, and doing everything else required to achieve the Herculean task of getting a major, unpopular piece of legislation passed through Congress? Que bono, who stood to benefit, who had an agenda to open the gates?
Lets look at a few of the top supporters and try to figure out what they had in common.
Jacob Javits, New York Senator, author of “Lets Open the Gates”. Congressman Emanuel Cellar, fighting relentlessly for open immigration for 40 years prior. Leo Pfeffer, president of the American Jewish Congress, prolific author of books and articles demanding open immigration. Norman Podhoretz, another influential writer. This is just a tiny sample of a massive sea of enthusiastic immigration advocates who share something in common. And what is that commonality? Its an ethnic thing, specifically, they were all of the Jewish persuasion.
The evidence tells us that open immigration was a long-sought goal on the part of organized Jewry, a project which they had started upon their very arrival in America in the late 1800s. The 1965 bill representing the culmination of decades of constant effort. Organized Jewry pulled out all the stops to make it happen, placing its substantial political power behind the legislation to realize a long-held dream.
This exhuberance for all things immigration-related lasts to the present day. Virtually anyone who is anyone in the Jewish community (with a few exceptions) is an immigration advocate, whether they are democrats, republicans, anything in between or to the left or right.
“Therefore, I think describing the interval 1924 – 1965 as a period of WASP ethnic defense and leaving it at that is somewhat misleading. The 1924 Act was at best only partly racial, and probably at least as much motivated by economic considerations.”
You seem to neglect the massive popularity of writers such as Stoddard and Grant at that time, for whom race was central.
“However, by 1965, the same coalition could not be put together to preserve the restrictions.”
You seem to completely ignore the question of why a coalition was needed for defence in the first place. Why was there an offensive launched against the restrictions, and who was behind it? The American people were certainly not demanding a change, quite the opposite. It appears that you would greatly profit from reading Dr. MacDonald’s article on Jews and immigration, and pondering the significance of special interests as prime movers in American politics.
Re the question of the American Empire profiting/benefiting from its far flung bases and invasions, the main motive is not resource acquisition, but rather to protect and enforce the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which sustains our ability to borrow, print and spend with abandon. Even the left-liberals understand this, which is why Obama is escalating in Afghanistan . (So much for liberal “humanitarianism”; just like the Bushies were, they’re engaged in wholesale fraud, bullying and slaughter — all to feed their spending habits and ideological pretensions.)
Andrew, your view of the supposedly sovereign states of Western Europe that have dwelled underneath the American defense umbrella since WWII (which has allowed them to pay for their socialist programs) and which have meekly asked “how high” every time America said “jump,” is absolutely precious.
It’s not unlike your fantasy of American coolie Japan as a “sovereign” White nationalist model.
Grow up.
“Whites do not identify with other Whites as an ingroup”
There aren’t as many people who identify themselves primarily as white as you imply. Mormons, Evangelical Christians, Muslims, and White Catholics mostly identify themselves in terms of their religion. Police, fire and military mostly identify themselves as being part of those organizations. I suspect that is true for professions like medicine, teaching, and a few others. A collapse of government finances might change that as many of those professions are governmental. Whites are also divided by cultural group, for example Hispanic whites.
What you call whites, really white protestants, were in decline probably from the 1850s when large numbers of Catholic immigrants started coming.
Why would a white Catholic identify more with a Muslim white than with other Catholics? While I think race exists, I think you give too much weight to race at the expense of other attributes. I do not see this as manipulation in the sense you do.
Andrew tends to write very long, almost stream-of-consciousness replies. Clearly, concision isn’t his forte. Dissecting these various straw men and assorted misconstructions on a point-by-point basis would be a very tedious exercise that would certainly bore most readers of this blog, including me, so I’ll just confine myself to a few remarks in reply. In no particular order:
1. With respect to Dr. MacDonald’s argument about what he characterizes as the period of “ethnic defense” by the WASP elite that led up to America’s 1924 Immigration Act, and which Andrew parrots again here, my major contention is that this era can’t be adequately understood without examining the role international Bolshevism, anarchist movements, and the labor disturbances of the 1920′s played, and what effect these sociological currents could have reasonably been expected to have had on the WASP elites observing them. Dr. MacDonald’s account doesn’t even mention these things, and I think that’s a serious omission. Surely, he ought at least to examine the extent to which individual self-interest could have motivated the WASP elites to pass the 1924 reform. If they were anything like our current crop of White elites, they were not necessarily acting on a racial basis of “ethnic defense”, and many of them even said they were not. Perhaps we should believe them.
2. Andrew complains that I underestimate the popularity of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. Not at all. I am merely saying that, having seen what just happened to the elites in Russia, there’s reason to suspect the American WASP elites acted more from a well-considered fear for their own safety and financial interest than from racial motives.
3. Andrew doubts that there is any such principle or law of historical development that would cause individual nation states necessarily either to found their own empire, or become a vassal state in some other country’s empire. This is a strange view, since nowadays most states contain more than one ethnicity and/or race. Andrew readily agrees and advances the point himself that such states are inherently unstable, but where does he think they come from in the first place if there is no such principle that causes them to form?
In reality, the principle that causes them to form is the same principle that Dr. MacDonald refers to in his discussion of evolutionary theory. Just as a cohesive group such as the Jews will almost always be able to defeat individuals working alone, cohesive groups of nations working for a common goal will also almost always defeat individual nations. This is one principal root of the powerful tendency towards centralization we see everywhere in modern technological societies. In today’s world, nation states simply can’t retain complete independence, and they lose progressively more of it with the passage of time. A discerning observer can see that this outcome is built into the structure of reality itself.
4. Andrew doubts that there is an American empire because some nominal independence is retained by subjugated, vassal states such as Germany or Japan. In his view, an empire isn’t really an empire unless control is total. But this is clearly erroneous, since various degrees of home rule have been characteristic of empire since ancient times. In fact, the Romans were expert at this. Techniques of control have somewhat changed and become more subtle over the past 2000 years, but the key thing to notice, and what is still true, is that vassal states are never allowed to do anything that might seriously threaten the central power. What’s prohibited can be anything from the development of “weapons of mass destruction”, to exporting “terrorism”, to the abandonment of the dollar as reserve currency, or literally anything else that might motivate the central power to exert its veto power. For example, we note that neither Germany nor Japan have been allowed to rebuild their militaries, nor has either been allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and seen in this light, the reason is obvious: Such action would create rival centers of power. It would be destabilizing, and lead back to the status quo ante. Chris Moore might point out that neither country wants to engage in such activities, because that leaves them with more money to spend on social welfare programs, but surely the art of ruling an empire lies, to a great extent, in getting your rivals to want what you want them to want.
5. Andrew complains that Iraq can’t be part of the American empire because he thinks the venture has cost taxpayer money. Evidently he thinks that having physical control of the world’s second largest proven reserves of oil isn’t worth a dime. It’s hard to argue with such breathtaking financial ignorance, but if we are inclined to try, we should observe that while it’s true that having an empire is expensive, a hallmark of our times is the socialization of expense and the privatization of profit. So a loss of taxpayer money isn’t the issue, but rather the relative state of engorgement of the American military industrial complex. So long as it is fat and happy, the state is happy too. Also, in geopolitical terms, the venture would probably have been worth its cost to the state even if the only benefit was that it kept the Chinese from acquiring that resource for their own use. Empires must not only constantly grow, they must keep other empires from growing too. This is also built in, just a fact of life.
6. None of these ideas stand in direct opposition to Dr. MacDonald’s thesis of Jewish cultural influence causing problems for European Whites. They are entirely compatible with his scholarship, and are meant to illumine and enhance, not refute. The problem though is that, in reading Dr. MacDonald’s works, although he himself says in a place or two that there are causes other than the activities of Jews involved in producing the current deplorable state of our race, he doesn’t systematically examine any of them. He never attempts to balance the Jewish influence against any other influences, and sometimes doesn’t even mention what the other influences are. This can and does lead to the impression of a sole Jewish cause, which then itself suggests that if the Jewish cause can be removed or checked, then none of the bad things would have happened. But this, I think, is erroneous, and I believe a fair examination of the evidence and the arguments I’ve made can show as much.
7. Finally, I would like to address this idea of White “compassion” and high principle being exploited by Jews. Above, I suggest that this might be part of the White evolutionary strategy. Andrew ridicules this idea and says that such compassion and high principle on the part of Whites is maladaptive when applied to outgroups. But the ability to pretend to be compassionate and to have high principles has always been useful, and is especially necessary for the elites nowadays. It was, in large part, White compassion that provided the pretext for taking the Americas away from its indigenous populations. Whites told themselves they were justified in what they were doing because they were civilizing the savages, and introducing them to Jesus. Likewise, nowadays it would be impossible to sell the people on sacrificing the lives of their sons and daughters, and their public treasure, for an ignoble cause such as aiding the growth of empire, or enriching the military-industrial complex, or stealing a natural resource from some other nation. But they might well do so to stop “human rights violations”, or to stave off a threat to those poor Jews in Israel, who, doesn’t everyone know, are so persecuted and oppressed. In this way these consummately White racial characteristics are still adaptive. Such hypocritical compassion and high principles provide a convenient excuse for soft men to perform the hard, bloody tasks that self-interest and the interest of empire often requires.
“Andrew tends to write very long, almost stream-of-consciousness replies.”
Thank you, I try.
” Dissecting these various straw men and assorted misconstructions on a point-by-point basis would be a very tedious exercise that would certainly bore most readers of this blog, including me”
Dont worry, there is no one reading this except for you, me and a pimply teenager who accidentally clicked here while looking for online games.
“Dr. MacDonald’s argument about what he characterizes as the period of “ethnic defense” by the WASP elite that led up to America’s 1924 Immigration Act…my major contention is that this era can’t be adequately understood without examining the role international Bolshevism, anarchist movements”
These were also widely understood to be Jewish intellectual movements, see Ford’s “International Jew”, etc. Churchill wrote in 1920, “There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.”
“Surely, he ought at least to examine the extent to which individual self-interest could have motivated the WASP elites to pass the 1924 reform.”
Primarily self-interest in the sense of preserving their culture, nation, ancestry, as opposed to material self-interest. Your average Congressman or person of influence responsible for passing the bill had very little tangible financial/material interest to be gained by passing the restrictions.
“If they were anything like our current crop of White elites”
The elites of Teddy Roosevelt’s era were nothing like Bill Clinton or Bush. Completely different eras, completely different personalities, completely different ideologies and concerns. You may as well compare French warrior leader Charles Martel with his future libertine successor Francois Mitterand.
“I am merely saying that, having seen what just happened to the elites in Russia, there’s reason to suspect the American WASP elites acted more from a well-considered fear for their own safety and financial interest than from racial motives.”
Undoubtedly, Russia was a concern, and this concern played its part. But as it was widely known among elites that Russia’s story was strongly related to race (ie Jews playing their game of ethnic conflict), the concern about Russia is part and parcel of WASP ethnic defense.
” Andrew doubts that there is any such principle or law of historical development that would cause individual nation states necessarily either to found their own empire, or become a vassal state in some other country’s empire.”
This “law” is more of a “tendency”. Laws hold true in all places at all times. Your assertion that this is a law is easily disproved by a quick glance at the world map, and the histories of small states throughout the world post-WW2. I would say that the history of at least 80% of nations in the post war period violate your law.
“Andrew readily agrees and advances the point himself that such states are inherently unstable, but where does he think they come from in the first place if there is no such principle that causes them to form?”
Not everything happens because it is part of some “principle” of political science. Ethnostates are much, much more common than multiracial ones, and always have been.
“This is one principal root of the powerful tendency towards centralization we see everywhere in modern technological societies. In today’s world, nation states simply can’t retain complete independence, and they lose progressively more of it with the passage of time. A discerning observer can see that this outcome is built into the structure of reality itself.”
Yes, there is a tendency toward centralization, and yes, nations are more interdependent in our era. This doesnt change anything. If what you say was a principle, wouldnt this have meant that China would expand ever outward, bringing more and more territory under its control? But this hasnt happened, when such attempts have been made (such as in Vietnam), they have failed, as ethnic and cultural differences are too powerful. In fact, the current state of the world is artificial, formed by the sole superpower status of the US. As the US declines, the world will revert to its normal state (nations organized along ethnicity/culture, multiracial empires being temporary states that eventually fall apart).
“Andrew doubts that there is an American empire because some nominal independence is retained by subjugated, vassal states such as Germany or Japan.”
Oh, come on, silly. You must be fully aware that “empire” is wild hyperbole when applied to America, which is no more an empire than Obama is an emperor. America may be the most powerful nation in the world, and Obama is the most powerful person, but the nation and its leader have strictly limited options available to them. Yes, the US has influence, and has various tools to persuade other nations toward various actions. But this is assuredly no “empire”, with “subjugated, vassal states”. All our armed forces and bases and weapons give us very limited influence and power in the world. Everyone knows that the US public supports using them only in what they believe are the most urgent defence-related circumstances. The volunteer army we have would absolutely not obey orders to attack Germany, Japan or any of the other “vassals” unless there was a clear and present threat. The world knows this, including our “vassals”.
“What’s prohibited can be anything from the development of “weapons of mass destruction”, to exporting “terrorism”, to the abandonment of the dollar as reserve currency, or literally anything else that might motivate the central power to exert its veto power. ”
I see, we can veto other nations from obtaining WMDs. I guess you havent noticed that North Korea acquired them and daily thumbs its nose at the the “empire”, with little in the way of repercussions. India and Pakistan obtained them without any real consequences, even South Africa had them for a time.
Nations around the world, from big to small daily ignore the requests and demands of the “empire” in foreign affairs. Venezuela, provider of 10% of our oil, goes about humiliating the US in the UN and in the councils of South America. The US has done nothing and there isnt much we can realistically do to that nation that wouldnt harm and weaken our position even more. At the drop of a dime, our “subjugated vassal” Japan can move into China’s camp. The few bases that the US has over there mean little. See Okinawa, the Japanese are about to kick us out of there. Thats very similar to our previous “vassal state” of the Phillipines, giving the US a swift kick in the ass and evicting us from Subic Bay in 1991, even though we begged and pleaded to stay, and offered heavy financial incentives.
” neither Germany nor Japan have been allowed to rebuild their militaries, nor has either been allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and seen in this light, the reason is obvious: Such action would create rival centers of power.”
So India and China are free to develop weapons, China is permitted to create a rival center of power, but no one else? Our “empire” could have easily have squashed China at some earlier point, but did not. If Japan decided that it wanted to rebuild its military, cut its defense ties with the US and create an Asian bloc (something that is a future possibility), what would the US response be? An invasion? With its volunteer army? Or launch an economic embargo? When the US is economically dependent on Japan? Those are not realistic options. The US would do what it did in the case of Venezuala: wring its hands then sit on its hands.
“Andrew complains”
Sorry to air my gripes, Im a grumpy old curmudgeon, apparently.
” that Iraq can’t be part of the American empire because he thinks the venture has cost taxpayer money.”
A complete and utter military fiasco, causing the US to lose great prestige, and costing 1-2 Trillion, overextending the military, destroying a Presidency. This is your example of our style of imperial conquest? A real empire could never be so inefficient and bungling.
“Evidently he thinks that having physical control of the world’s second largest proven reserves of oil isn’t worth a dime.”
And what would happen if Iraq decided to follow Iran’s path? Iran is another instructive example of what the US does when one of its “subjugated vassals” decides to give us the bird. We would do exactly what we did in Iran’s case, which was bluster a bit and then realize we were screwed. The US is subject to international law, by our own design. If we were to violate such law on a significant scale, we have much to lose. For one thing, Germany, Japan or China could destroy our economy overnight by selling off their stock of dollars.
” It’s hard to argue with such breathtaking financial ignorance…So a loss of taxpayer money isn’t the issue, but rather the relative state of engorgement of the American military industrial complex.”
1-2 Trillion is just a drop in the bucket, I guess.
” Also, in geopolitical terms, the venture would probably have been worth its cost to the state even if the only benefit was that it kept the Chinese from acquiring that resource for their own use.”
I suppose you havent heard that China will be developing Iraq’s resources?
“None of these ideas stand in direct opposition to Dr. MacDonald’s thesis of Jewish cultural influence causing problems for European Whites. They are entirely compatible with his scholarship, and are meant to illumine and enhance, not refute.”
Thats why you refer to Dr. MacDonald’s thesis as “threadbare”, which I “parrot”. You are just a little bit disingenuous, Im afraid. The terms that you use indicate that although you are (I think) really trying to be reasonable and logical, you completely disagree with his work, and thats completely legitimate, completely fair. But honesty is a great virtue in discussions, and I think you could use a little more of it. You are free to speak your mind, give your counter-argument, let fly with the evidence and attempt at refutation.
“This can and does lead to the impression of a sole Jewish cause”
Not sole cause, but the prime mover. To recognize the tremendous abilities and influence of the Jews is no insult. They wield vast influence in American politics. No less than 14 Jewish Senators (all liberals), and over half of the financing of the Democratic party comes from Jewish sources. The president’s 2 top advisors (Axelrod and Emmanuel) are Jewish. And thats nothing new. Clinton’s cabinet was half Jewish (Burger, Cohen, et al). They heavily populate Republican administrations as well.
“Finally, I would like to address this idea of White “compassion” and high principle being exploited by Jews.”
Adherence to principle and compassion are double-edged swords. As ethnic traits, they are both towering strengths and devastating weaknesses. The foundation of the US was only possible because of Washington’s strict adherence to principle, involving honesty, integrity and dedication on an almost mythical level. On the downside, we have those who will permit their very own people, kinsmen and relatives, to be dispossessed and destroyed as a people in the name of equal rights, freedom and Democracy. Compassion for others is incredibly beneficial for national unity, but can be ultimate death of a people when applied to outsiders.
” But the ability to pretend to be compassionate and to have high principles has always been useful, and is especially necessary for the elites nowadays.”
I see. In your mind, most elite Whites are just pretending. Its just an act. Bush’s tears when talking about the hardships of life in Africa, and his rapturous joy when revealing he was sending over billions of taxpayer dollars, was all an act?
” It was, in large part, White compassion that provided the pretext for taking the Americas away from its indigenous populations. Whites told themselves they were justified in what they were doing because they were civilizing the savages, and introducing them to Jesus.”
You dont seem to realize that your statement indicates exactly the opposite of what you intend. Whites HAD to convince themselves that their actions were good, that they were just, that they were adhering to righteous principles. Whites MUST have this justification in their own minds to engage in a major course of action, it is a genetic trait. It wasnt a case of pretending, most of them honestly did believe they were doing right. Do you really think all the Christians that go to church and fervently believe in Christ’s teachings of loving they neighbor are just faking it?
This is in contrast to other ethnic groups. Jews are doing something very similar to the Palestinians that early Americans did to the Indians, but the difference is that the Jews fully understand that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal, and they are all for it. Jews do not need to be convinced that their actions meet high standards of principle, and are compassionate. On the contrary, Jews are acting, as always, in their own best interests, doing “whats good for the Jews”. Jews arent unique in that regard, just about every ethnic group operates the same way, with Whites being very atypical in the importance of needing to justify their actions by principle, and feeling compassion for everyone, including outgroups.
“Likewise, nowadays it would be impossible to sell the people on sacrificing the lives of their sons and daughters, and their public treasure, for an ignoble cause such as aiding the growth of empire, or enriching the military-industrial complex, or stealing a natural resource from some other nation.”
Once again, you acknowledge that Whites can only engage in these things if they are convinced that it is being done according to high standards of morality and adherence to principle. And once again, you unwittingly support Dr. MacDonald’s thesis.
“In this way these consummately White racial characteristics are still adaptive.”
A characteristic can only be adaptive if it is ensuring the survival of a species long-term. Would you suggest that giving away your homeland to others will increase the survival prospects of your offspring? If Kangaroos invite rabbits into their habitats to consume the resources and reproduce there, would you think the Kangaroos were exhibiting adaptive behavior? Cant you see that many generations down the road, Kangaroo survival would be threatened? Such behavior is by definition, maladaptive.
” Such hypocritical compassion and high principles provide a convenient excuse for soft men to perform the hard, bloody tasks that self-interest and the interest of empire often requires.”
Regardless of the ultimate consequences of Whites’ actions, the compassion and high principles that motive them are very real. There is no pretending going on for most Whites. They honestly believe, and their beliefs drive them. This is the whole point, that compassion and acting on principle are inherited traits for European peoples, which everything you have written supports. It should be obvious how compassion can be used, and has been used, to manipulate people to doing things not in their interests. Likewise, for idealistic, abstract principles. Leaders in organized Jewry quickly realized this, they are quite intelligent and perceptive. And it should come to no surprise that they exploited these weaknesses opportunistically to achieve their political agenda and goals in regard to immigration.
“Andrew, your view of the supposedly sovereign states of Western Europe that have dwelled underneath the American defense umbrella since WWII (which has allowed them to pay for their socialist programs) and which have meekly asked “how high” every time America said “jump,” is absolutely precious.”
Im glad I was able to provide amusement.
“It’s not unlike your fantasy of American coolie Japan as a “sovereign” White nationalist model.”
There was indeed a time when the European nations ate the crumbs from the US’s fingers, and the Japanese licked the dust from our feet in submission. That was after the war, when the US was easily the world’s leader in everything, undamaged from the conflict, with wealth approaching 40% of the world’s GDP, while both Europe and Japan lay in ruins.
It was a time when the US was strong and united, its economy based on sound policy, its leaders pursuing the interests of the founding Christian majority. That America was indeed a “shining city on a hill”, that had even eclipsed Athens, the Democracy that inspired its creation. In many ways, the America of that time did rule the world.
We no longer live in that time. The idea that we are the true powers behind Japan and Europe is a quaint and hopeful one, there are probably British who remember the empire, and believe just as strongly as you that they rule Canada, Australia and India still. But just like you, they are dreaming about a time that has long since passed.
Japan now holds the mortgage to the US, with vast holdings in currency, real estate and business. You may think they are coolies with rickshaws, but with a flick of their fingers they would drop an atom bomb of their own on our economy by selling their holdings of dollars, instantly breaking us with hyperinflation.
The influence of the US is strictly limited, we have some sway with other nations due to the size of our economy, and the size of our military, but much of our influence is tied to our moral leadership. Like our share of the world’s GDP, this declines each year.
I thing most of the White elites who engineered and implemented Manifest Destiny doctrine knew the natives were getting a raw deal, but didn’t care as racism was the order of the day; some of the White masses whom they gave the land to and settled it believed they were doing God’s work, others no doubt knew it was pure and simple a land grab but pretended to believe it was destiny, or engaged in self-deception.
The current situation with the Jewish elite who are still pushing Zionist expansionism seems to be similar one of elite ruthlessness and rank ambition and racism among the main instigators, and religiosity and self-deception of the Jewish masses who are either settlers or rank and file supporters of the Zionist enterprise. The “Jewish security” argument has worn thin, although plenty of average Jews still seem to believe that too, or pretend to.
A big difference is that racism isn’t the order of the day anymore, so the Jews are starting to run into deep difficulties with the rest of the world outside the U.S., and with the U.N.
—–
The fact that America is running its Empire poorly and half-heartedly only proves that Americans, while ambitious, aren’t really imperialistic by nature. In some ways, America fell into its imperial role with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s then that the Jewish neocons looked around and said “hey, the world is ours for the taking. We can help our cousins in Israel, solidify U.S. uni-polar domination, shore up the petro-dollar and dollar as reserve. Let’s invade the Middle East!” The best laid plans of mice and men…the outcome is that the project has actually helped to destroy the position of the U.S. both domestically and internationally, likely irreparably so in terms of being the world’s sole superpower. People say if we didn’t do it, China or Russia would have. But if they did, they would have destroyed their own countries in the process just as we have. And you can bet we would have been arming “the terrorists” to see that it ended just that way.
I think it’s prototypical that as things are starting to get really nasty for the American imperial project, Jews are taking a larger role in leadership of the country and are pushing the hard-line at home and abroad. For example, Joe Lieberman is constantly pushing authoritarian domestic legislation, and the neocons are currently holding the GOP’s feet to the fire to keep it from going wobbly about the U.S. Middle East aggression. This does not bold well for the country, as Jewish elite always tend to overreach, and then instead of admitting they’re wrong, double down out of hubris or desperation. The Jewish elite modus-operandi also seems to be to risk everything and implicate as much of their own community as possible in their actions to force the entire collective to go balls to the wall for the elite’s schemes. I think more and more average Jews are catching on to this treachery, but most are still either hopelessly manipulated or hopelessly arrogant.
—–
It’ really hard to imagine a scenario where some White nationalist block shears off or secedes from the U.S., is granted or takes sovereignty, and goes about its merry business quietly and peacefully, or is allowed to. It could happen if current trends aren’t arrested and reversed, but over time the forces that Interested Observer describes would take affect, it would join an alliance for trade and security, and eventually it would probably invade and occupy its neighbors for those same reasons, or because it fell under the sway of an ambitious leader who felt his neighbors were there for the taking.
Dont worry, there is no one reading this except for you, me and a pimply teenager who accidentally clicked here while looking for online games.
Well, you hope so anyway.
Your average Congressman or person of influence responsible for passing the bill [i.e., the 1924 Immigration Act] had very little tangible financial/material interest to be gained by passing the restrictions.
So these moneyed, elite WASPs weren’t worried about ending up like the Tsar and his family? That’s what needs to be shown. Since you claim to have this information that Dr. MacDonald strangely neglected to include in his discussions of the topic, I suggest you forward it to him immediately. But of course you have don’t have it. This is just another of your empty assertions.
In my opinion, the rich and powerful individuals making up the WASP elite class should be assumed always to vote first and foremost according to their class interests and self-interests, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
But this [i.e., the US] is assuredly no “empire”, with “subjugated, vassal states”.
Gee, that’s funny. I seem to recall little incidents at Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki that had something to do with forcible subjugation. There was also an affair of some note at the conclusion of which Germany and Japan officially became vassals. I think it was called “World War II”, if memory serves. Heard of it? I understand it made all the papers.
The US has done nothing and there isnt much we can realistically do to that nation [i.e., Venezuela] that wouldnt harm and weaken our position even more.
The CIA has engineered many a coup to overthrow various tinpot dictators in Latin America, as Chavez is doubtless aware. And remember Noriega and how he ended up? I’m sure Chavez does. Chavez knows he serves more or less at our pleasure, and you take his macho posturings too seriously. From Washington’s point of view, the important thing is that he continues to sell his oil to the US for our increasingly worthless dollars. Not continuing to do that was Saddam Hussein’s biggest mistake, and one of the main reasons he was deposed.
[The Jews are] Not sole cause, but the prime mover.
To know that, a thorough examination would have to be made of other possible explanations, and a proportion of responsibility assigned to each. But that doesn’t happen much, either here or in Dr. MacDonald’s work.
Do you really think all the Christians that go to church and fervently believe in Christ’s teachings of loving they neighbor are just faking it?
As Dr. MacDonald reminds us, Andrew, the best liars are self-deceived; the best pretenders pretend so well that they even convince themselves. Just as you are doing here, with your pretensions of superior morality.
A characteristic can only be adaptive if it is ensuring the survival of a species long-term.
Since only future events will tell who or what survives, no one can know for certain what current behavior is adaptive.
Would you suggest that giving away your homeland to others will increase the survival prospects of your offspring?
The Jews prospered for thousands of years without a homeland. It turned out to be a boon to them and basically made them everything they are. As the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.”
Im glad I was able to provide amusement.
Yeah, you’re a million laughs, but you can’t carry a show on your own. Where’s the main act, I wonder?
@Observer
“So these moneyed, elite WASPs weren’t worried about ending up like the Tsar and his family?”
I am sure that they were shocked and appalled by events in Russia, and they took this into consideration in their decision making. However, when reading about the debate and who said what, in conjunction with known racialist attitudes of the day, as well as the rationale for the exclusion acts of the late 1800s (an important part of the legal framework influencing the debate), which were explicitly all about race, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that race played a huge part in the 1924 restrictions, overshadowing fears of Communists or petty material interests on the part of individual congressmen.
” That’s what needs to be shown. Since you claim to have this information that Dr. MacDonald strangely neglected to include in his discussions of the topic, I suggest you forward it to him immediately. But of course you have don’t have it. This is just another of your empty assertions.”
My assertion is based on simple common sense. Its very difficult to know if you will personally benefit from increased immigration or not. Any effect is likely to be very marginal for any particular person. I suppose if you were from New York, where many of the immigrants might be expected to settle, you could make a reasonable analysis on the material gain or loss you would experience. But for the vast majority of the Congress, from all around the nation, from all different backgrounds and occupations, there was probably very little material effect, and even that was basically undeterminable for most. John McCain supported amnesty a few years ago. Was this because he stood to personally benefit? Its hard to see how he could predict that. We would have a few million Mexicans initiating a citizenship program, most of which would be living far from him. Would his businesses or financial holdings grow from it, or would he gain some other material benefit? Would he stand to lose due to higher crime rates and low-income people living around his many properties, thus lowering their value? Those things would all defy prediction, and any changes that did occur was likely to be negligible for him. (I dont think this had much to do with his decision, it was more likely based on the compassionate desire to “bring hard-working people out of the shadows” and make the nation fairer and more just).
“In my opinion, the rich and powerful individuals making up the WASP elite class should be assumed always to vote first and foremost according to their class interests and self-interests, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.”
A good rule of thumb, but there are instances where legislation is a matter of national importance that tends to overshadow standard provincial interests. For example, the Congress was faced with the question of war in 1917. Most congressmen were probably not voting based on whether their stocks would go up or if their businesses would prosper or not from war. They were voting on whether they thought the war was best for the nation (or were caught up in nationalistic fervor). Immigration is a matter with similar national importance.
“Gee, that’s funny. I seem to recall little incidents at Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki that had something to do with forcible subjugation. There was also an affair of some note at the conclusion of which Germany and Japan officially became vassals. I think it was called “World War II”, if memory serves. Heard of it? I understand it made all the papers.”
During WW2, we did subjugate Japan and Germany. I think it would be fair to characterize both nations as “subjugated vassals” at the end of that war. However, I think we were talking about the year 2010, the war having been over for decades, and the world having changed quite a bit. To consider them “subjugated vassals” at this point is probably a little behind the times. The expectation that the US would unleash another WW2 on them if they displeased us or attempted to become rivals is probably unrealistic.
“The CIA has engineered many a coup to overthrow various tinpot dictators in Latin America, as Chavez is doubtless aware. And remember Noriega and how he ended up? I’m sure Chavez does.”
This is a good point. The US is certainly a superpower, and its far-flung military possessions and capabilities give it various options in carrying out its foreign policy goals. I think that my view of the US (a strong state with options significantly limited by domestic and international opinion) would be close to conventional political scientists such as Mearsheimer. Your view appears to differ substantially on what options are available to the US, and the level of US influence internationally, as well as its goals (all imperial in nature). We can probably agree to disagree on that.
“[The Jews are] Not sole cause, but the prime mover.
To know that, a thorough examination would have to be made of other possible explanations, and a proportion of responsibility assigned to each. But that doesn’t happen much, either here or in Dr. MacDonald’s work.”
Hopefully, you would agree that Jewish political and media influence is and was quite substantial. And hopefully, you would also agree that open immigration is and has been an important goal for the Jewish community, and that naturally Jewish interests use their influence in the pursuit of their goals. With this in mind, a strong, well-argued and persuasive case has been made that Jews were the prime movers behind opening the gates to immigration. It seems that the alternative explanations you have offered would best be characterized as speculation, without a great deal of evidence provided in support. I think that everyone, including professor MacDonald, would appreciate a well-argued, evidence-based research paper attempting to counter his thesis, which would initiate a quality debate on the subject. This is perhaps a project you should consider. Until then, the “maybe it was this” hypothesizing does not seem to add much of value to our knowledge of US immigration history.
“As Dr. MacDonald reminds us, Andrew, the best liars are self-deceived; the best pretenders pretend so well that they even convince themselves. Just as you are doing here, with your pretensions of superior morality.”
I have tried to characterize compassion and principle-based behavior as inherited traits. There is a great body of research that indicates personality traits are strongly inheritable. Based on the observation of how Europeans behave in comparison to non-Europeans, there appears to be a number of personality differences, which are genetic in nature. I have not suggested that I personally have a superior morality. To be honest, I do believe that my ethnic group is better, superior, smarter, more attractive and more moral than every other group. All groups feel the same way about themselves, of course.
As far as lying and pretending goes, I think we have identified another fundamental divergence in how we see the world, and how we interpret peoples’ behavior. Whether I am completely correct (as I believe), or way off the mark (as you believe), these are my honest and sincere opinions, backed up with what I see as facts. I am unable to see where I have lied myself into believing my lies, or have been pretending something for so long I have become convinced of it. That seems to be sociopathic behavior, and not a common trait of any ethnic group. The argument that this is an evolutionary strategy of White elites is quite unconvincing.
“Would you suggest that giving away your homeland to others will increase the survival prospects of your offspring? The Jews prospered for thousands of years without a homeland. It turned out to be a boon to them and basically made them everything they are. As the saying goes, “No pain, no gain.””
I think that the Israelis understand as well as anyone that secure borders and ethnic purity are crucial for a people’s survival. The Jewish niche diaspora strategy is an extremely risky one, completely unsuitable for a much less ethnocentric ethnic group like Europeans. Anyway, I think that suggestions like it might be beneficial to lose one’s homeland (or that White elites self-deceive as an evolutionary strategy) have more to do with your unique sense of humor than being serious. I have noticed that when you post under your other names, you like to pitch out a crazy-sounding idea, see who tries to knock it down, and then try to convince them you are correct. I think your enjoyment comes from seeing just how silly of an idea you can persuade someone to adopt (making them seem like an utter fool). You have a trademark penchant for repeating a line of argument over again after its been completely shot down (that can be annoying), which is sort of your calling card. Anyway, thanks for an enjoyable discussion, you have many interesting and original ideas that I have never heard before.
One thing I have noticed is how unconventional white women will no longer have any fondness for unconventional white men. All of their interest, sympathy or understanding is given to negroes or other non whites and any man who thinks differently (I am not talking perverts or Apple branded hipsters) is screwed. Women seem either very dour nowadays towards white men, and any girl who one might find interesting or exciting is open to interracial relationships before giving a guy who is a bit out there a chance. To understand what I am talking about watch American Graffiti where the ditzy gal likes the goofball because he is fun.
“I have noticed that when you post under your other names, you like to pitch out a crazy-sounding idea, see who tries to knock it down, and then try to convince them you are correct. I think your enjoyment comes from seeing just how silly of an idea you can persuade someone to adopt (making them seem like an utter fool). You have a trademark penchant for repeating a line of argument over again after its been completely shot down (that can be annoying), which is sort of your calling card.” – Landrew
To the contrary, IO cleaned your clock on everything except the question of North American breakup and the viability of white ethnostates. Even there his arguments were penetrating, strong, committed, and stand unfalsified. It’s clear his background includes intelligence/strategic analysis and was probably acquired in the military. You could only babble and split hairs in response, which is unfortunate for I agree with you on those matters.
Dr. Mac has provided excellent information on the jewish contribution to our demise, but has neglected the WASP angle. WASP greed, malfeasance, and self-deception must be honestly addressed and not swept under the rug.