PDA

View Full Version : What is White Nationalism? A Definition



friedrich braun
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 03:22 AM
White Nationalism: an Introduction

Note: this author encourages debate of his facts and figures and welcomes a good challenge. See the Home page for contact details


White Nationalism is racial nationalism for white people. White Nationalists believe that white people should have an identity as a group (or meta-group) sharing a relatively common genetic and cultural heritage, and work towards common interests. These include, inter alia, advocacy for policies favored by a majority of white people, and the establishment of advocacy blocs to promote issues important to white people, similar to advocacy groups already existing for other racial groups such as the NAACP. Specific policies may include defending the teaching of European history and culture in schools, opposition to affirmative action and similar policies on the basis that they discriminate against white people, anti-discrimination laws on the basis that they abrogate the right to freedom of association, and the like.

White Nationalism is currently a minority political-cultural movement, but it is experiencing rapid growth according to some outside observers such as Professor Carol Swain, author of Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America (for more White Nationalism in the words of White Nationalists, see One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race). Professor Swain's theory is that as identity politics play an ever-increasing role in American public life and the interests of whites are displaced in favor of those of non-whites, White Nationalism will enjoy a correspondingly greater appeal to white people. The mass dissemination and decentralization of information made possible by the Internet are seen by observers and White Nationalists alike as vital enabling factors of this growth.


The Impetuses of White Nationalism

One of the major driving forces behind White Nationalism is a reaction to what White Nationalists see as a broad-based assault on group identity among European-derived peoples throughout the world, an assault that has been gaining momentum since World War II. They perceive as prevalent a double-standard in western civilization that allows, even encourages racial and ethnic nationalism among non-whites, and suppresses and pathologizes it among whites. They also perceive widespread bias in the media, particularly with regard to reporting of the racial aspects of crime.


Open-borders Immigration

Another driving force is the nearly universal phenomenon in western civilization of the increasing demographic displacement of its founding peoples. In America, tens of millions of non-whites have immigrated as a result of the 1965 Immigration Act, and tens of millions more have immigrated illegally, mostly Mestizos from Mexico and Central and South America. As a result, the demographic composition of America has changed dramatically in favor of non-whites. Prior to 1965, America was approximately 90% White. As of 2004, America is approximately 65% white. Studies of the demographic trends predict that by 2050, America will be less than 50% white. In Europe the trends are less clear due to the widespread taboo on collecting racially relevant data, but the overall directions seem to be the same.

Whites in America and Europe have shown in poll after poll and survey after survey that by a wide margin they view the open-borders immigration policies in a generally negative way, ranging from trepidation to outright hostility. White Nationalists believe that the problem will continue until the stranglehold of political correctness is broken and whites are allowed to express openly their ethnic interests in controlling the demography and nature of immigration and in opposing the collective corporate interest in low-wage labor and the liberal interest in non-white voters.

For more on immigration from a White Nationalist perspective, see White Nationalism and Immigration (forthcoming).


White Flight

Closely related to the immigration issue is the issue of "white flight." It is well known among demographers that "white flight" has been concomitant with black civil rights and desegregation. As whites find themselves increasingly unable to assert their own ethnic interests in determining their living environments, they have increasingly fled areas inhabited by non-whites. Legislative measures to prevent even this defensive brand of "racism" are not unknown.


Varieties of White Nationalism


American White Nationalism

America is part of the West, and as both a political and cultural order, is not "based on a creed" or "derived from a proposition." America is neither a "universal nation" nor an "experiment" concocted by ideologues. America is the unique and irreplaceable product of centuries of specific racial, historical, and cultural identities. America and its cultural and political identity will endure only so long as the identities that created it and sustain it endure, and when they die, America will die. We do not wish this to happen and will work to ensure it does not.

-- The Editors, The Occidental Quarterly, A Statement of Principles.


This quote in particular, and the Occidental Quarterly's Statement of Principles in general, go a long way towards capturing the essence of American White Nationalism. White Nationalists believe that western civilization is a product of the peoples who created it, rather than a product of luck or happenstance.

American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens are two leading examples of the more mainstream White Nationalist institutions in the United States. The National Alliance [1] is the foremost explicitly White Nationalist advocacy group in the U.S.A. Some critics of mainstream conservativism in the United States claim an undercurrent of White Nationalism exists in right-wing politics (i.e Willie Horton, Pat Buchanan, Pete Wilson) - a charge most conservatives bitterly contest.


European White Nationalism

In Europe, the prospects for White Nationalism are at once brighter and gloomier than in the U.S.A. On one hand, European parliamentary systems (and to a lesser extent the lack of white guilt over slavery and colonialism) have allowed moderately White Nationalist parties to make significant gains in government. Several "far" right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms often characterized in the media as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism. On the other hand, the generally stronger European trend toward acceptance of socialism and statist power (in the form of "racial hatred" and "hate speech" laws) have had a chilling effect on the more explicit forms of White Nationalism popular in the U.S.A.


White Nationalism vs. White Separatism

Many White Nationalists support white separatism, the belief that white people should be allowed to live separately from non-whites, either in separate all-white nations, in separate white enclaves, or in communities within existing multiracial nations. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of white separatists (and separatist White Nationalists) do not seek to enforce an across-the-board separation of the races, and recognize that forcing a large population of anti-ethnocentric whites to live in a white separatist state would doom that state to failure. Most white separatists welcome a parting of the ways between anti-ethnocentric whites and ethnocentric whites. In fact, a great many White Nationalists and white separatists identify the white anti-racist ruling class of the western world (characterized as safely ensconced in its limousines whilst traveling between its all-white gated communities and its cloisters) and white anti-racists in general as their most powerful political enemies.

Critics of racial separatism almost universally assert that violence, indeed genocide, will inevitably result from any attempt to form a racial nation within the current borders of a multiracial nation. This assertion cannot withstand scrutiny. There is a whole host of legislative means that governments could employ to encourage ingroup immigration and outgroup emigration. "Tax segregation" could earmark all taxes for social welfare (including publicly funded schools, health care, pension plans, social security, etc.) from a group to be used only for and by that group, thus derailing the current parasitic gravy train present in the U.S.A. (a form of disparate impact curiously ignored by western media), or social welfare and government programs could be denied to outgroups altogether. Tax rates could be increased for outgroups. Tariffs, fines, levies, duties, and tolls of all kinds could be imposed on or higher for outgroups, tax breaks could be withheld, etc. ad infinitum. A comprehensive set of policies of this kind would rapidly serve to compel outgroups to seek greener pastures, in nations amenable to multicultural multiracial bliss.

Racial segregation is as inevitably genocidal as racial integration - less so if one views enforced integration (and its concomitant miscegenation) as a form of genocide. One often overlooked benefit of racial separatism is that it provides for a state relatively free of racism. White separatists are fond of pointing out that "white privilege," "institutional racism," and supposedly endemic white racism and exploitative behavior would be largely eliminated in a white separatist state.


White Nationalism vs. White "Supremacism"

White Nationalism is linked in the minds of many to white "supremacism". Many modern White Nationalists explicitly deny being white supremacists, arguing that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage, including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as racial supremacists do. Many of their critics charge that White Nationalism is simply white "supremacism" in disguise.

There is of course an exceptionally easy litmus test for distinguishing between White Nationalists and white supremacists: white supremacists are by definition unable to accept at face value any data that evince non-white superiority (e.g. relatively higher East Asian or Ashkenazi Jewish average IQ, lower East Asian propensity for violent crime, West African dominance in short distance running, etc.).

Critics of White Nationalism (or, more accurately, those who smear White Nationalism - honest criticism is hard to come by in the mainstream media) often tar all White Nationalists with the same brush, conflating a wide range of thought and opinion with into a single demonized "group," when in fact the lion's share of White Nationalist thought is not currently generated by National Socialists or the likes of the Aryan Nations, but by conservatives such as found in the links section below.


White Nationalism and Race

Race & Identity

White Nationalism, unlike egalitarianism, argues that race is real and entails significant human group differences in behavioral genetics and social identity. [2][3] White Nationalists believe that these differences lead to inevitable conflicts of interest between racial groups living in the same society. They argue that multiracial and multicultural societies are inherently less stable than monoracial and monocultural ones, and that the only way to minimize ethnic and racial conflict is to minimize ethnic and racial differences within nations. To White Nationalists, race is nation - they believe that a healthy nation is one based upon a common culture and heredity, rather than simply on borders and laws. Many White Nationalists reject the label of "racist" in favor of "racialist" or "racial realist" due to the popular misconception that racism requires racial hatred. [4]

Contrary to popular belief, White Nationalist beliefs concerning race are informed by modern science. Steve Sailer [5] is one excellent example of a journalist whose writing reflects racial realism [6] [7]; Jon Entine is another. White Nationalist beliefs are also informed by the work of scholars like J. Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Jensen, Steve Pinker, John Hartung, Richard Herrnstein, Charles Murray, Vincent Sarich, Frank Miele, Christopher Brand, Michael Levin, and many others.

The racial left often asserts that racism is a morally bankrupt belief system that bases identity on surface racial differences like skin pigmentation, that "racism is based on skin color." This assertion approaches the status of mantra in the public consciousness. In truth, there is no basis for the idea that White Nationalists elevate surface racial differences beyond their proper domain. Racial realists in general see these surface differences essentially as markers for race, not as the important substance of race. On the other hand, social identity theory tells us that these surface differences are socially very important in and of themselves.[8][9][10][11][12][13]


Definition of White

White Nationalists generally define whiteness more narrowly than is common in the vernacular. In the latter, white is taken as coterminous with Caucasoid, but many White Nationalists hold a definition of whiteness that is narrower in terms of genetics and also employs cultural and historical criteria: one oft-cited rule of thumb is that a white person is a "descendant of European Christendom." Only a small minority of White Nationalists use strictly genetic criteria, without cultural distinctions. Jews and Muslims are rarely considered white by White Nationalists, even if they appear to be European, mostly for historical and cultural reasons: many White Nationalists argue that both groups are already represented by their own forms of racial nationalism and group identity, and that those forms conflict with White Nationalism. Others exclude them based on the "descendants of European Christendom" cultural-genetic criterion. Even among White Nationalists, the question "who is white?" is a source of much controversy.


Racial Hatred

Racial hatred, while certainly present among White Nationalists, is not a requirement of White Nationalism. Love of one's own race is required, not hatred of another's. The idea that White Nationalists hate all non-white races simply because they are different is an overwhelmingly false one. White Nationalists, following their belief that race and ethnicity are vitally important human categories, tend to form their judgements of non-white races on a case-by-case basis, rather than base them on the currently popular equalitarian assumption of equivalency. Accordingly, there is a much greater tendency among American White Nationalists for animosity towards blacks and Jews than towards east Asians. European White Nationalists tend to view Middle-Easterners and Arabs as a greater threat to the integrity and stability of their native lands than Americans do, and often view Jews as a relatively lesser threat.

White Nationalism represents a rejection of the political correctness dominant in public life in western societies, and as a result the "thought crimes" among White Nationalists are much more apparent than among the rest of society. In other words, White Nationalists openly express feelings and thoughts that many whites feel and think, but are afraid to express because of dominant taboos.


White Nationalism and Jewry

The issue of "the Jewish question" as seen by most White Nationalists is a complex one. Historically, Jewry has opposed White Nationalism. One reason for this is the connection most Jews perceive between White Nationalism and the Jewish holocaust of World War II, but this is insufficient as a complete explanation because Jewish opposition to white non-Jewish ethnocentrism existed long prior to Hitler's Germany. Contrary to what many people believe, White Nationalists see Jewry as more than a religious body. They see Jewry as a group with cultural, ethnic, religious, national, and racial [14][15] connotations, and this view is echoed by the beliefs of many of the founders of Zionism. There are nearly as many White Nationalist views of Jewry as there are White Nationalists to hold them, however there are many common threads to those beliefs.

The work of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald is held up by many White Nationalists as the best current explanation of Jewry's significance to ethnocentric whites. Professor MacDonald's theses on Judaism as evolutionary strategy are too complex to engage here - his work on this subject is contained largely in three books (summaries and reviews can be found at his Website):


A People That Shall Dwell Alone
Separation and Its Discontents
The Culture of Critique

Although the above works are recommended for their comprehensiveness, Professor MacDonald has also penned the first two parts of a planned three part series called Understanding Jewish Influence, which may serve as an introduction of sorts:

Part I: Background Traits for Jewish Activism
Part II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism
See also: Thinking About Neoconservatism


To put it succinctly, most White Nationalists see Jewry's interests and goals as contrary to and in competition with their own, and reject Jews as potential White Nationalists based on cultural and historical arguments, if not on racial ones. They see Jewry as generally opposed to their desire for white racial and cultural awareness and solidarity. On the other hand, there is no monolithic White Nationalist position concerning Jews. Some, like Jared Taylor, classify Jews as white and make no distinction between the two.

One key example of this conflict of interest can be found in the immigration debates carried on in America from the fin de siecle up until the passage of the 1965 immigration act, in which Jews played a dominant role. [16][17] [18](PDF) [19][20] Other examples include largely Jewish movements and ideologies such as Critical Theory, the Frankfurt School, Freudian Psychoanalysis, and Boasian Anthropology.


Race & Crime

The non-white propensity for violent crime is a source of much concern to White Nationalists, both in Europe and in the U.S.A. Although the subject is verboten in the public arena, the statistics are readily available in the United States through the Department of Justice. Blacks, and to a lesser degree mestizos, are significantly more prone to violent crime than whites. Blacks are roughly eight times as likely to be convicted for murder as whites [21], and this trend holds true for violent crime in general. Liberals eager to justify their belief in human group interchangeability explain this away by arguing that poverty motivates crime, and that poverty afflicts a greater proportion of the black population than the white. The numbers do not bear this out - when normalized for socioeconomic factors, the numbers still show that blacks are several times as prone to violent crime as whites. White Nationalists argue that the discrepancy is due largely to heredity - that blacks, with their relatively low average IQ and impulse control, and relatively high aggressiveness, are inherently more predisposed towards violent crime than whites. Anti-racists respond by saying that the correlation between race and crime does not prove causation. Racial realists counter that race has predictive value, independent of any discussion of causation.

Given the emerging science pointing to a genetic influence on propensity for violence, and the nature of Darwin's theory that demands different gene frequencies among populations, it is reasonable to assume that the races do indeed vary in their average inborn predispositions toward violent behavior. [22][23][24] Readers interested in saving time analyzing the violent crime data vis-a-vis race can also reference The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Violence in America. [25] Also of interest is this study (PDF), which shows that white criminals are sentenced to death at a higher rate than black criminals.


Media Bias

White Nationalists perceive racial bias and double-standards as pervasive in public life in western society. An excellent example of a double-standard related to this one can be found in the Wichita Massacre [26]. When three white men (Shawn Berry, Lawrence Brewer, and John King) dragged a black man (James Byrd, Jr.) to his death in Jasper, Texas in 1998, the story caused a months-long nationwide media frenzy and even inspired a 2003 TV movie.* When two black men (Reginald and Jonathan Carr) murdered three white men (Brad Heyka, Aaron Sander, and Jason Befort) and two white women (Heather Muller and Ann Walenta) after committing a variety of sex crimes against them (including sodomy and rape) in December of 2001, the story got no further than local media outlets in the region.

It could be argued that the distinction between the two cases is that in the former there is explicit evidence of a racial motive, and in the latter there is not. This is not the case with Ronald Taylor, a black man who murdered three white men and injured two others specifically because of their race in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in March of 2000. [27] That case received all of a single day of "media frenzy." Nor was it the case with Clifton McCree who murdered five white people in February of 1996 in Fort Lauderdale Florida, referring to his victims as "racist devils" (that last tidbit is was not reported by the major outlets). [28][29]

* "Curiously," typically, the following tidbit managed to fly under the mainstream media radar:


John King became famous for dragging a black man to death in Jasper, Texas, in 1998. He became a byword for white “racism,” but with some luck and savvy he could have turned the tables and made the case one of black brutality. Before he killed James Byrd, he had just spent 21 months for burglary in one of Texas’ toughest prisons, the Beto Unit. He was 5 feet 7 inches tall and weighed only 140 pounds when he was sentenced, and reportedly had no pronounced racial views. He emerged covered with white-power tattoos. His lawyer said rape by blacks had deeply affected Mr. King, but that he rarely talked about it.

Hard Time, by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, Apr. 2002.


The mass media constantly and rhetorically asks (often via the old "man on the street technique" - that is, ask fifty people the same question and air the three replies you like, regardless of how well they represent the answers overall) "why the hate?" Perhaps such omissions explain why the question is so constant and so rhetorical; answers are unwelcome. For more on prison rape, and how blacks and Hispanics systematically rape whites in the American prison system, see No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, published by Human Rights Watch.

More on the issue of interracial violent crime can be found in the article 'Hate Crimes' Not Big Problem in Race Relations, originally published in The Washington Times. It is difficult to reconcile the extraordinary public interest in the crimes of the Manson cult, the son of Sam, and serial killers in general with the relatively unknown "Zebra Killings" in San Francisco in the early 70s, in which a cult of black supremacists took more than seventy lives, targeting their victims because they were white. The popular misconception that whites are overrepresented in the ranks of serial killers is especially frustrating to White Nationalists, in light of the double-standard in question. According to two articles published in The New York Times, black are overrepresented in the ranks of serial killers:

"Blacks compose about 12 percent of the American population and there have been two studies of blacks as serial killers," said Scott Thornsley, an assistant professor of criminal justice administration at Mansfield University in Pennsylvania. "One study indicates that 13 percent of serial killers are black and the other says that about 16 percent of American serial killers are black."


http://svyatoslav.50megs.com/WNISM.HTML (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsvyatosl av.50megs.com%2FWNISM.HTML)

Stig NHF
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Quite a good post I must say. Something every IE person should read, but maybe a little too "conservative" and too little revolutionary.

cerebro
Wednesday, May 17th, 2006, 11:21 PM
It is very seldom that the issue of White Nationalism is ever approached with a serious, critical eye. The intellectual mainstream of the modern West has not been able to formulate any rejection of this political movement which doesn’t depend upon an explicit denial of the reality of racial differences and an implicit attitude of superiority towards those who are so philosophically unfashionable as to espouse racist views. Unfortunately, racial differences are of enormous importance, and parochial condescension towards racism falls into the exact same pattern of thought which characterizes racism itself: denigration of the other. This renders the typical opposition to racism, and to the organized White Nationalist movement, invalid. What, then, should be said of White Nationalism?

Any objective analysis of nationalist thought must accept the reality of race from the outset. While most physical differences are of trivial importance and serve only as visible markers for racial identification, the psychometric differences—namely, IQ differences—are of great importance from a wide variety of viewpoints, be they social, economic, psychological, cultural, academic, religious, or otherwise. The American Black-White gap in IQ is well known and well studied, being roughly 16 points between US Whites and US Blacks (who average in the neighborhood of 20% White ancestry), but each racial group has a signature average IQ which appears under worldwide analysis, and results in different outcomes for members of these groups, not only because of their own individual scores, but because of the IQ of those with whom they interact with and grow up amongst.

Many discussions of IQ actually contain implicit attacks on nationalism on account of these persistent differences in IQ between racial groups, and several objections are often raised regarding the use of IQ to measure intelligence, especially between racial groups. Test bias and environmental factors are often brought up as a means of explaining away these differences. Yet, claims of "Eurocentric bias" are irrelevant for tests which use lines, dots, and squares to test for pattern recognition, and claims of "discrimination" depressing the test scores of racial minorities is equally absurd, given the existence of East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews who outscore mainstream Euros in IQ, and the further fact that Blacks outside of Western nations score even lower in IQ than their counterparts in America. And factor analysis carried out by Professor Rushton has recently shown that the heritability of intelligence test questions rises as the Black-White gap rises—in other words, the more an IQ test question taps into innate genetic potential, the better Whites do in comparison to Blacks.

Although this result sometimes comes as a surprise to those who grew up sheltered by modern bioegalitarian propaganda, even a cursory analysis of related information shows that genetic gaps in average IQ are rather obvious. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by twin and adoption studies, IQ is predominantly a genetic phenomenon, deriving the overwhelming majority of its variance in the general population directly from genetic sources. Individual Blacks living in America have always done poorly even in the wake of desegregation and with Affirmative Action to tip the scales in their favor, while individual East Asians and Jews have always done well even when suffering from discrimination themselves. And the fact that equatorial nations have never risen above primitive tribalism even after stimulation from contact with developed nations further demonstrates the reality and importance of intelligence even without the need for IQ tests.

But the results of the tests themselves are enlightening: Richard Lynn, in his 2005 book, " http://forums.skadi.net/images/ldm_icons/doc.gif Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Approach (2006) (http://forums.skadi.net/local_links.php?action=jump&id=373&catid=16) " provides data showing that East Asians score an average of 105 for IQ, Whites an average of 100, Amerindians an average 87, Africans an average of 67, and Australoids an average of 62. Notice that these last two groups, Africans and Australoids, average below 70—the threshold for mental retardation in White society. Presuming an average IQ for most chimpanzees somewhere near 25 (which roughly corresponds to the mental development of a European 4-year-old), this suggests that the difference in intelligence between native Australians and native Japanese is comparable to the difference in intelligence between Australoids and chimps. Of course, this does not mean that Australoids are evolutionarily midway (or some sort of "missing link") between the East Asian and the chimpanzee; all three groups have been evolving to cope with the pressures and difficulties of life in their own natural habitats for as long as they have existed. But it helps to put in perspective the staggering scope of racial differences in mental ability, and drives home the futility of the suggestion that race is somehow unimportant.

Knowing then that race is of strong importance, it remains to be discussed why White Nationalism is, or is not, a reasonable response to this fact. My contention is that it is not. Although the primary goal of White Nationalism is never stated explicitly, it can be summed up quite nicely as "the preservation of the white phenotype." While the "14 words" as spoken by David Lane are often taken as an explicit statement of purpose, the words, "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," can’t explain the nationalist party line. After all, "our people" could easily survive in the midst of another people, just as "our genes" could easily survive in mixed form. Yet above all else, White Nationalists hate and fear the thought of racial mixing; this is why they propose separation from other races on the large scale, in order to prevent individual acts of miscegenation which may result in the dilution of their bloodline. There is no greater sin against White Nationalism than miscegenation; those who "racemix" are flatly defined as traitors. Obviously, then, the goal of White Nationalism is not to secure the existence of their people or the future for their children, but to preserve their phenotype; they do not want it to die out or be diluted.

Leaving alone the need for some justification of this goal, the goal itself is pure fantasy. Evolution waits for no one. Genetic drift, random mutation, and differential fertility exert an unremitting pressure on every species that lives—or, stated another way, the only species that remain static are dead. Just like languages and cultures, living species are in a continual state of change. Dysgenesis provides a perfect example of this: even if White Nationalists were able to wave a wand and send every non-White (and every White of suspicious pedigree) to the moon, in about 200 years at current rates of change, Whites will have taken on the psychological characteristics of modern Blacks, with an average IQ of around 85. Even with strict social controls in place which could stave off this dysgenic erosion of intelligence, change would still occur—other traits such as Extroversion and Neuroticism have shown massive increases over the past half-century of approximately a full standard deviation; this is the equivalent of all the Whites in America, who once had an average "EQ" and "NQ" of 100 in the 1950’s, now possessing an average EQ and NQ of 115.

The massive change to Extroversion and Neuroticism over the past half century may be from environmental causes; and in fact the change in these traits is too large to be entirely due to genetic causes. But this makes them no less important. The psychological makeup of the White race has been radically altered, at least in America—Whites today are not the same as Whites of yesterday. And it is only by pretending that they are that modern White Nationalists can draw inspiration from German philosophers or Roman statesmen who are separated from modern Whites by oceans of time and space.

This brings us to a further problem of White Nationalism: sorting out friend from foe. Many nationalists would rather define ingroup and outgroup by their country of origin; others by their racial subgroup; others by their religion; still others would like to include all Whites and all Asians beneath the umbrella of pan-Eurasian nationalism. To expect that Whites can abandon their loyalties to state, church, and subrace, as well as their ties to groups outside of the white race (except for their pets* (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chil drenofmillennium.org%2Fheroes%2Flykaios2 .htm%231)) is ridiculous—it isn’t possible. Even forgetting for a moment the question of whether they really ought to try this, the descendants of Europe have a very diverse background, including three major language groups (Germanic, Romantic, Balto-Slavic), two surviving pagan traditions (Greek and Icelandic), three branches of modern religion (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), and a host of other variables too numerous to name. To brush these aside as transient or meaningless is desperately naïve; the Weinachtsbaum is still decorated in German winters, while Russia still takes the bear for its mascot—both of these traditions arise from pagan belief systems still taken to heart after hundreds of years. Old antagonisms between English and French are remembered since 1066; old friendships between the Serbs and the Russians run just as deeply.

And the obvious lack of racial and cultural solidarity among White racists themselves is striking. Nordicists vie with Roman Empire enthusiasts, Asatruar butt heads with Christians, and numerous arguments abound as to who is, and is not, "White." And the cultural discontinuity within the White Nationalist community is merely one side of the inherent ethnocentrism which marks the movement; the other aspect of this ethnocentrism can be seen in the rhetoric used by various camps which would be meaningless outside of the particular culture from which it originated. Affirmative Action, for instance, is often opposed by White Nationalists of American extraction on the grounds that it is "racist" and "discriminatory;" likewise Jewish power is opposed on account of its "unfairness." Many White Nationalists living in America will even go so far as to claim that they are "preserving ethnic diversity" and "fighting against the genocide of their people," in defense of their "right to exist." Invoking concepts like "ethnic diversity," "genocide," and "rights" may serve a useful propagandistic purpose, but when statements like these are used in actual debate, they merely demonstrate how intellectually impoverished the White Nationalist worldview is if it must resort to the rhetoric of its political opponents in its own defense.

Given the pronounced overlap between American White Nationalist and mainstream American thought, part of the criticism of White Nationalism also inevitably a criticism of modern Western ideology. The arrogant theorizing of Westerners today is depressingly common and pathetically simple to argue against simply by asking "why." Why is racism bad? Why is discrimination bad? When one group succeeds and another fails, is that unfair, and why is that bad? Is preservation good? Why? Is preservation better than progress, which most politicians and scientists seem to be struggling toward? Why is genocide wrong? Is it wrong to eliminate AIDS, as doctors are struggling to do now? What are "rights," and where do they come from?

Thus far, there has been no explanation for the legitimacy of the concept of "rights;" where is the justification for the right to smoke, the right to dance, or the right to float upside down over the Atlantic Ocean, let alone the right to exist? The imperative to "preserve diversity" and the condemnation of "genocide" invoked by White Nationalist rhetoricians are also characterized by the same lack of justification, arrogant for its presumption that justification is unnecessary: "Others must argue; I pronounce Truth." It is only within the context of modern American culture, where such "Truths" are seldom questioned, that they carry any force. White Nationalism tries to be a universalist philosophy in order to smooth over the glaring cultural divides, but its practitioners are still tribalists.
But even if the two problems of remaining racially static and preventing fragmentation were surmountable, the true test of White Nationalism is in asking "why" of White Nationalism itself. Why is preservation of the White genotype good, and the loss or change to this genotype bad? This cuts to the heart of the issue by demanding justification for the moral claim which serves as the foundation for White Nationalist thought. Without justification, this moral claim is no better than its opposite, which says that the preservation of the White genotype is evil, and that this genotype must be altered or destroyed. Yet this opposite claim does have justification—this is the conclusion of the religion of Millennium. A fully detailed discussion on Seeker morality would take up too much space for this essay, but a brief outline should suffice:


It is moral to do good; this is a tautology. But what is good is not obvious: for any moral claim there exists a moral counterclaim which could also be true, and, if so, would falsify the initial claim. Therefore, it is moral for a person seek to discover what is good, in order to do it.
In order to discover what is good, a person must be willing and able to question his current viewpoint; he must be self-doubting. He must also be willing and able to sort through other viewpoints (or pieces of other viewpoints) which may be superior to his own; he must be objective. And the only way to do this is with reason, since other means of judging between possibilities are subjective.
Accepting and applying these conclusions is morally good; having confused ideas about good and evil will prevent a person from doing good, so those who live their lives outside of Millennium are doing the wrong thing; they are immoral (to a greater or lesser degree). But our own actions influence them and their beliefs; we are therefore partially responsible for their morality or immorality. Therefore, we should do what we can to encourage morality on the part of others.
Intelligence is genotypic in origin. And the intelligence of other people directly affects their morality, not only in their ability to apply the Method (point 2) but their ability to understand why they ought to (point 1). Since our choices can have an effect on our ethnie’s genotype, we have a responsibility (point 3) to change the genotype of our society to encourage intelligence, and thereby, moral behavior.
The preservationist goal of White Nationalism is directly at odds with the eugenic imperative of Millennium—an imperative with rational, philosophical justification. If a White Nationalist asks "why" to point 4, the discussion delves into points 3, and then into point 2 and finally point 1, which is self justifying insofar as it begins with a tautology. This argument may not be perfect—the principle of Self Doubt reminds us that no matter how valid it may seem, there may be some error. But White Nationalism cannot even provide a chain of reasoning with the appearance of validity; asking "why" to the claim that the White genotype should be preserved returns a null result.

The closest any justification for White Nationalism can come is based on the average traits of Whites; they are creative, caring, noble, intelligent, beautiful, and so forth. But - do Whites really have these traits, on the average? In many cases, the traits can’t be defined, and when they can be defined, there are other races with a greater share of one or more of these traits.
Assuming that Whites really do exemplify these traits, then are these traits really desirable and worth preserving? Why? Justification once again is lacking.

But if these traits are desirable, and the White race possesses them more than any other race does, then that only means that the White race is only worth preserving insofar as it possesses these traits. This argument leads directly into a variation on point 4 of the Seeker argument, above; it is the traits which are of value, not the race which carries them! The result is eugenism, which calls for the alteration of the White genotype, not White Nationalism, which calls for the preservation of the White genotype.

In conclusion, then, White Nationalism is a not only a hopeless philosophy on account of the unworkability of its goals, but it is an immoral philosophy which confuses good and evil. If White Nationalism survives, it may eventually alter itself into something more reasonable by forming an endogamous breeding group with its own culture, language, and religion which cultivates those traits which are of value not only to the aesthetic judgment of nationalists but to encouraging genuinely moral behavior. And, the budding subculture of White Nationalism with its National Socialist iconography, peppy slogans, Internet slang, and shared heroes, suggests the possibility for a genuine culture to someday arise, while the lack of an anti-eugenic attitude among nationalists—an attitude which pervades mainstream thought—allows even for the future development of a eugenic ideal. Until that time, however, White Nationalism remains a quixotic and unjustifiable philosophy which wouldn’t have any power at all were not for the concerted efforts of a liberal elite to stamp it out entirely.


* White Nationalists are notorious for their attachment to pet dogs. Why this is is a matter for some speculation; very likely it stems from conservative values assigned to dogs for their ability to hunt and guard property.

http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/lykaios2.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chil drenofmillennium.org%2Fheroes%2Flykaios2 .htm)

Dagna
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 08:50 PM
I believe I can understand the anti-WN attitude. WNs know little about culture. White is not a good way to define ourselves. My skin is pinkish, not white. Skinheads give any kind of nationalistic movement a bad name. They are violent and like to get drunk at concerts. They love to hate and bully others. They are not the kind of people I would welcome with open arms if I ran a nationalist forum.

Amorsite
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 09:06 PM
WNs know little about culture.

Care to explain to me Dagna, how any of these intellectuals "know little about culture"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce

Anyone who believes WN is not a serious movement simply knows nothing of it or does not understand it.

Dagna
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 09:19 PM
Care to explain to me Dagna, how any of these intellectuals "know little about culture"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FKevin_B._MacDonald)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FJared_Taylor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FWilliam_Luther_Pierce)

Anyone who believes WN is not a serious movement simply knows nothing of it or does not understand it.
These threee examples are of famous people with careers, I don't believe the average WN is like Kevin MacDonald. It would be like saying all WNs are paedophiles because Kevin Strom is one.

I am an American so I know more about WN than you believe I do. If you are a Germanic preservationist, then WN is not a serious movement for the preservation of Germanics. I am not against non-Germanics but we German-Americans are different from the Slavics and Mediterreneans. We have even less in common with Armenians-Americans and Albanian-Americans. WN is also destructive to these peoples as well as to the Scandinavians, Dutch etcetera because it strips them from their language and culture as they assimilate into a White-American, English-speaking mass. I am a German-American who does not speak German fluently and understands it at a less than basic level. I do not wish to see my Germanic kin suffer the same consequences.

Amorsite
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 09:20 PM
These threee examples are of famous people with careers, I don't believe the average WN is like Kevin MacDonald.

And of "famous" people who have endorsed WN or actually promote it. Sure the average WN is not like them, but then every movement consists of intellectuals and the mob.

Why are you reducing all WNs to the lowest denominator?


I am an American so I know more about WN than you believe I do. If you are a Germanic preservationist, then WN is not a serious movement for the preservation of Germanics. I am not against non-Germanics but we German-Americans are different from the Slavics and Mediterreneans. We have even less in common with Armenians-Americans and Albanian-Americans. WN is also destructive to these peoples as well as to the Scandinavians, Dutch etcetera because it strips them from their language and culture as they assimilate into a White-American, English-speaking mass. I am a German-American who does not speak German fluently and understands it at a less than basic level. I do not wish to see my Germanic kin suffer the same consequences.

Perhaps you do not know as much about it as you think you do then.
WNism aims for the preservation of all different white types. It is more of an alliance than any attempt at integrating and eroding identities. No WN is forced to subrace-mix. WN does not promote nor encourage intermarriage between europeans leave aside noneuropean caucasoids.

Dagna
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 09:27 PM
And of "famous" people who have endorsed WN or actually promote it. Sure the average WN is not like them, but then every movement consists of intellectuals and the mob.

Why are you reducing all WNs to the lowest denominator?
Because it is the masses that matter.

Perhaps yo do not know as much about it as you tink you do then.
WNism aims for the preservation of all different white types. It is more of an alliance than any attempt at integrating and eroding identities. No WN is forced to subrace-mix. WN does not promote nor encourage intermarriage between europeans leave aside noneuropean caucasoids.I believe I know more than enough. Several of my ex-boyfriends as well as some family members were/are involved in the "movement". If it were simply an alliance it would not be called "nationalism". I am not talking about sub-racialism which I find as destructive and as silly as WN, I am talking about different ethnicities and cultures. Go to Stormfront, the largest WN community and suggest that Germanic-Mediterrenean unions are wrong and they will censor or ban you for being anti-white. Oh yes, not to mention I have heard that WNs believe that the Australian-Lebanese fights were inter-Aryan conflicts. :rolleyes:

Amorsite
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Because it is the masses that matter.

No it isn't. The mass will always be pretty much the same. The issue at stake here is why WNisn would be inherently "ignorant" so that all their supporters fall in such cathegorization. And as it seems you couldnt prove it is.



I believe I know more than enough. Several of my ex-boyfriends as well as some family members were/are involved in the "movement". If it were simply an alliance it would not be called "nationalism".

It is an alliance of people with something in common (their race).


Go to Stormfront, the largest WN community and suggest that Germanic-Mediterrenean unions are wrong and they will censor or ban you for being anti-white.

I disagree with this particular Stormfront policy, but then again Stormfornt is a privately owned site and I assume they decide what is best to do with their brandwith and what direction the forum should have. Stormfront has no monopoly in deciding what is WN and what not either.



Oh yes, not to mention I have heard that WNs believe that the Australian-Lebanese fights were inter-Aryan conflicts. :rolleyes:

I wasnt aware that Middle Easterns counted as white in WN. But then I could pick any forum claim by anyone from almost anywhere to prove almost anything.

Dagna
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 09:49 PM
No it isn't. The mass will always be pretty much the same. The issue at stake here is why WNisn would be inherently "ignorant" so that all their supporters fall in such cathegorization. And as it seems you couldnt prove it is.



It is an alliance of people with something in common (their race).



I disagree with this particular Stormfront policy, but then again Stormfornt is a privately owned site and I assume they decide what is best to do with their brandwith and what direction the forum should have. Stormfront has no monopoly in deciding what is WN and what not either.



I wasnt aware that Middle Easterns counted as white in WN. But then I could pick any forum claim by anyone from almost anywhere to prove almost anything.
Ricky Roma, you can believe what you wish about WN. Yes, many Middle Easterners are Caucasion, some are Medish. North Africans are also considered white by the Census Bureau, I believe. Yet I don't believe I feel any sense of kinship towards them. I believe that race is not enough, culture and language matter too.

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 10:11 PM
"White nationalism" in the tradition of William Pierce is a valuable asset for American whites who are becoming threatened by the blacks coming out of their ghettoes and the hispanics coming out of Mexico. The problem, however, exists when these people try to transplant their ideology to Europe and act like all of Europe used to be one homogenous whole without any racial diversity.... which is as insane as multi-culturalism.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that many American "white nationalists" are morons... but so are many people who call themselves "nazis", "racialists", "nationalists", ... Yet, in each of these three categories (which overlapse), you find very intelligent and educated people. It's no different for anarchists, communists, liberals, republicans, ... Every ideology seems to consistute of a large segment of morons, a fairly small number of intellectuals and an even smaller number of geniuses. "white nationalists" are not an exception in any way.

And besides all that... doesn't Kevin MacDonald take distance from "white nationalist" views? He does like to show up at lectures of "white nationalist" organisations, but his website clearly states he has no affiliation with such views whatsoever.

Amorsite
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 10:30 PM
"White nationalism" in the tradition of William Pierce is a valuable asset for American whites who are becoming threatened by the blacks coming out of their ghettoes and the hispanics coming out of Mexico. The problem, however, exists when these people try to transplant their ideology to Europe and act like all of Europe used to be one homogenous whole without any racial diversityNo prominent WN ever claimed that. And noone is forcing WN into Europe. Europe has more subracial rather than "racial" diversity (spaniards can marry belgians and have kids who resemble either nationality, the same doesnt hold true for nonwhites).



.... which is as insane as multi-culturalism.No it isnt. It is a sane policy to recognize the racial similarity of different european countries while trying to preserve each. WN supports the former but does not condemn the latter.




And besides all that... doesn't Kevin MacDonald take distance from "white nationalist" views? He does like to show up at lectures of "white nationalist" organisations, but his website clearly states he has no affiliation with such views whatsoever.Yes he does, but the main concern of some of his works (ie the preservation of the interests of US whites as a group), as well as his outspoken support for policies that favor US whites as a group clearly class him as WN regardless of what he is willing to admit to the liberal establishment.

Jäger
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 10:46 PM
Europe has more subracial rather than "racial" diversity
"Subrace" is a political motivated fighting word, scientifically the European races are just that, races.

Amorsite
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 10:49 PM
"Subrace" is a political motivated fighting word, scientifically the European races are just that, races.
That's because White is no true race to begin with, it is just a grouping of races based on similarities.

That's simply not correct, even if you dont see Aurignacians and CMs as belonging to the same racial group, it is clear that each group has great internal morphological similarity .

Never seen an Alpine with Mediterranean children?

Ever seen a Mongoloid/Negroid with Mediterranean or CM children?


(meant to quote not thank)

IlluSionSxxx
Thursday, October 25th, 2007, 11:55 PM
No prominent WN ever claimed that. And noone is forcing WN into Europe. Europe has more subracial rather than "racial" diversity (spaniards can marry belgians and have kids who resemble either nationality, the same doesnt hold true for nonwhites).

Do you have anything to back you up there?


No it isnt. It is a sane policy to recognize the racial similarity of different european countries while trying to preserve each. WN supports the former but does not condemn the latter.

White nationalism ignores the differences between different white ethno-cultural groups by portraying the entire white world as one big happy family. Maybe that's more or less the case in North-America or Australia, but definitely not in Europe. In Europe, we're strongly divided by culture and ethnicity and those differences are as natural, as real and as valuable as the differences between a Congolese pygmee and a Nordic German.



And besides all that... doesn't Kevin MacDonald take distance from "white nationalist" views? He does like to show up at lectures of "white nationalist" organisations, but his website clearly states he has no affiliation with such views whatsoever.

Yes he does, but the main concern of some of his works (ie the preservation of the interests of US whites as a group), as well as his outspoken support for policies that favor US whites as a group clearly class him as WN regardless of what he is willing to admit to the liberal establishment.

Although I own a copy of The Culture of Critique, I must admit that I haven't thusfar had the oportunity to read his work. Nevertheless, I did understand that MacDonald was driven first and foremost by science rather than a political agenda.


Never seen an Alpine with Mediterranean children?

Ever seen a Mongoloid/Negroid with Mediterranean or CM children?

There are blue-eyed couples with brown-eyed children. That doesn't mean that blue eyes aren't genetic.

Most Europeans are a mixture of different racial groups, because of various historical migrations. Therefore, many Alpines have drops of Nordic and/or Mediterranean blood and vice versa. That's why an Alpine with Mediterranean children is possible. If you have two people of 100% Alpine genes, their children will inevitably be Alpine too.

Amorsite
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:01 AM
Do you have anything to back you up there?


It is you who has to prove such intention exists among white nationalists in the first place.


White nationalism ignores the differences between different white ethno-cultural groups by portraying the entire white world as one big happy family. Maybe that's more or less the case in North-America or Australia, but definitely not in Europe. In Europe, we're strongly divided by culture and ethnicity and those differences are as natural, as real and as valuable as the differences between a Congolese pygmee and a Nordic German.

I would rather say they want all europeans to get along among themselves. I think it is a good estrategy at least for the moment given the present situation.




Although I own a copy of The Culture of Critique, I must admit that I haven't thusfar had the oportunity to read his work. Nevertheless, I did understand that MacDonald was driven first and foremost by science rather than a political agenda.


And how does this mean he cannot have any political opinions? Surely something must have motivated him to cover that particular topic

Here you can read some articles by him

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/index.htm



Most Europeans are a mixture of different racial groups, because of various historical migrations. Therefore, many Alpines have drops of Nordic and/or Mediterranean blood and vice versa. That's why an Alpine with Mediterranean children is possible. If you have two people of 100% Alpine genes, their children will inevitably be Alpine too

No that is plain wrong. Two alpine homozygotes cannot have med children, even if one has a slight med influence.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:08 AM
It is you who has to prove such intention exists among white nationalists in the first place.

I was referring to your claim that spaniards can marry belgians and have kids who resemble either nationality, while the same doesnt hold true for nonwhites.

IMO, the difference between race and sub-race is mostly a matter of semantics. Further, I have encountered numerous "white nationalists" who just want to unite all "white" people and who don't think anything of the inherent differences between them.


I would rather say they want all europeans to get along among themselves. I think it is a good estrategy at least for the moment given the present situation.

There's a difference between getting along and ignoring differences. I also think it's a good idea to get along with "Muslem fundamentalists" and Japanese nationalists, but I would never want to ignore the differences that separate me from them and see us as all one big happy family.


And how does this mean he cannot have any political opinions? Surely something must have motivated him to cover that particular topic

Maybe, maybe not. At least officially, he is not politically motivated to write what he writes.


No that is plain wrong. Two alpine homozygotes cannot have med children.

Exactly my point.

By the way, this topic has been moved to this thread. (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=2282&page=2) We better continue the discussion over there.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:11 AM
That's simply not correct, even if you dont see Aurignacians and CMs as belonging to the same racial group, it is clear that each group has great internal morphological similarity .

Never seen an Alpine with Mediterranean children?

Ever seen a Mongoloid/Negroid with Mediterranean or CM children?

(meant to quote not thank)
Jäger is right. Europids, Negroids and Mongoloids are called the "major races". There are many Europid races like the Nordic race which is divided to different subraces (according to v. Eickstedt Teuto-Nordic, Dalo-Nordic and Fenno-Nordic).

Amorsite
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:22 AM
I was referring to your claim that spaniards can marry belgians and have kids who resemble either nationality, while the same doesnt hold true for nonwhites.

IMO, the difference between race and sub-race is mostly a matter of semantics. Further, I have encountered numerous "white nationalists" who just want to unite all "white" people and who don't think anything of the inherent differences between them.


Differences among subraces can be picked up by classification and have long been studied. I assure you that in most cases a half-belgian half-spanish guy who takes after the belgian part will not be spotted as exotic in belgium.



There's a difference between getting along and ignoring differences. I also think it's a good idea to get along with "Muslem fundamentalists" and Japanese nationalists, but I would never want to ignore the differences that separate me from them and see us as all one big happy family.


Yes there is but
1) these differences arent so big in the first place.
2) white nationalism doesnt demand ignoraing them (once again)




Maybe, maybe not. At least officially, he is not politically motivated to write what he writes.

That arguement would be stronger if being a suscriber of WN didnt cause such a social and academic stigma.

You can read his opinions though, and they are pretty in line with white nationalism.

Also watch him here 24 minutes


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2663823862772617262&q=kevin+macdonald+line+in+the+sand&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

"Europeans are not gonna benefit from this as a group and we are giving up control of our country to other people, that there is a huge problem with this..."


Exactly my point.

No it isnt, Im trying to illustrate to you that even though Meds and Alpines are morphologically and genetically different, they can have offspring of the other type in the majority of cases. The same doesnt hold true for nonwhites.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:29 AM
Difference among subraces can be picked up by classification and have long been studied. I assure you that in most cases a half-belgian half-spanish guy who takes after the belgian part will not be spotted as exotic in belgium.

What makes you so sure that a half-belgian half-congolese who takes after the belgian part will by default be spotter as exotic?


Yes there is but
1) these differences arent so big in the first place.
2) white nationalism doesnt demand ignoraing them (once again)

The differences are large enough for me to be able to spot a Dutchman among a bunch of Belgians by mere body type and facial type. And on white nationalism, I think we use different definitions here. It seems like we're mostly discussing semantics.


That arguement would be stronger if being a suscriber of WN didnt cause such a social and academic stigma.

You can read his opinions though, and they are pretty in line with white nationalism.

Common sense is pretty much in line with white nationalism, if you look at it from an American perspective.


No it isnt, Im trying to illustrate to you that even though Meds and Alpines are morphologically and genetically different, they can have offspring of the other type in the majority of cases. The same doesnt hold true for nonwhites.

I'm simply not convinced there is a significant difference between intermixture between different white races and intermixture between one white race and a non-white race.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:56 AM
There is a world of difference between international marriages between white Europeans and miscegenation. The latter phenomenon is a form of sexual perversion and the offspring will be racially alien to Europe. Miscegenation should be criminalized.

I support White Nationalism in the form espoused by Jared Taylor in America because the vast majority of modern Germanics there have no aversion of mingling with white non-Germanics. Whites generally belong to the same White American culture and I would say that white Americans constitute a (weak) nation. Germanic Americans are not a nation and therefore Germanic nationalism in America is an impossible concept.

In Europe the situation is different. The concept of "whiteness" is not sensible in Europe because all Europeans and Germanics are white. Jews and some other Semites are also white. I am willing to tolerate intermarriages between European nations although they are somewhat undesirable if the foreign partner is alien to the racial variation of Germanic countries. For example, I wouldn't wish that a Swedish woman married a swarthy Portuguese man. Marriages to non-European Europids should be shunned because of their cultural and racial incompatibility.

European patriots should just call themselves nationalists and forget about "white nationalism". European nationalism should still not degenerate to Stirpes-like ignorance of race and senseless demands that every nation should stay "pure" and all international marriages should be condemned.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:05 AM
There is a world of difference between international marriages between white Europeans and miscegenation. The latter phenomenon is a form of sexual perversion and the offspring will be racially alien to Europe. Miscegenation should be criminalized.

I guess you've never been to Poland. Poles are a mixture of various European ethnicities and they're pretty damn ugly in comparison with the more racially pure inhabitants of neighboring countries. Intermixture between different European ethnicities could be just as devastating as intermixture between certain European ethnicities and non-European ethnicities. Askenazi Jews are an example of a mixed breed that is mostly European.

On the other hand, there are examples of intermixture between eg. Europeans and Asians or Europeans and Africans that delivered beautiful and intelligent creatures as a result.

Make no mistake... intermixture between whites and non-whites should be prevented. I just feel the same about intermixture between different white ethnic groups.


European patriots should just call themselves nationalists and forget about "white nationalism". European nationalism should still not degenerate to Stirpes-like ignorance of race and senseless demands that every nation should stay "pure" and all international marriages should be condemned.

Absolutely ! !

Amorsite
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:09 AM
What makes you so sure that a half-belgian half-congolese who takes after the belgian part will by default be spotter as exotic?

The answer to that is simple, a half-congolese wont resemble a belgian




The differences are large enough for me to be able to spot a Dutchman among a bunch of Belgians by mere body type and facial type. And on white nationalism, I think we use different definitions here. It seems like we're mostly discussing semantics.

They arent always so recognizable. Im sure there are many dutchmen you missed.


Common sense is pretty much in line with white nationalism, if you look at it from an American perspective.
White nationalism is that whites as a group have their own ethnic interests too, that is EXACTLY what MacDonald advocates in the video :

I quote him further: "we europeans should be concerned that our future will be as a minority group.. but even raising european ethnic interests is a big big taboo... you cant even raise the possibility that europeans even have ethnic interests... its a taboo topic... and everybody else has ethnic interests which are legitimate."



I'm simply not convinced there is a significant difference between intermixture between different white races and intermixture between one white race and a non-white race.

:eek: Never seen any Americans or Argentines of mixed euro background who look like a part of their ancestry?

Wehrwolf
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:16 AM
My primary problems with a 'white nationalist' system lay within;

1. It's assertion that we should worry about 'whiteness' and negate the major differences existing between countries.

2. The idea that whites are equal and of the same quality.

3. That generally the current system is alright, we just need no immigration (as well as moving non-whites overseas) alongside your typical republican beliefs (insert whine about freedom and Nascar).

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:29 AM
The answer to that is simple, a half-congolese wont resemble a belgian

Why is it impossible for a half-congolese half-belgian to resemble a belgian who takes (almost) entirely after the belgian? I've seen pictures of perfectly white children who were the offspring of a black and a white parent.


They arent always so recognizable. Im sure there are many dutchmen you missed.

Of course... The point is that even peoples as close as Flemish and Dutch peoples are distinct enough to set them apart in many cases. For Flemish and Norwegians or Flemish and Finnish, the difference is of course much greater.


White nationalism is that whites as a group have their own ethnic interests too

White nationalism identifies nation with whiteness. This marginalises sub-etnic traits among whites.


:eek: Never seen any Americans or Argentines of mixed euro background who look like a part of their ancestry?

Never seen an Asian with European traits?

Look at these Indian Bollywood stars :

http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL650/4399547/9302121/246694136.jpg


http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL650/4399547/9302121/246689905.jpg

http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL650/4399547/9302121/235766408.jpg



Further, compare Nehru (a prominent Brahmin) with a typical Nordic look:

http://media.radiosai.org/journals/vol_03/10OCT01/images/FeatureArticles/sarvodaya/nehru.jpghttp://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20061220ho_nordicposter_230.jpg


What about minister Yashwant Sinha? Let's compare him with George Orwell.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Yashwant_Sinha_IMF.jpg/200px-Yashwant_Sinha_IMF.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yashwant_Sinha_IMF.jpg) http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/orwellbbc.jpg

It is often stated that Indian Brahmins descended from Aryan invaders in a long forgotten past. Even though their caste obviously intermixed, the Aryan (Nordic/Alpine) traits are still clearly visible among many individuals in the upper castes of India.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:37 AM
http://pic16.picturetrail.com/VOL650/4399547/9302121/246689905.jpg


By the way, please note that even though her name sounds British, she is entirely of Brahmin origin. Wikipedia states on the name Jaitly/Jaitley :


Jaitly like Celina Jaitly or Arun Jaitly, is a surname from India and its surrounding regions. This is a Saraswat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswat) Brahmin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin) caste and has five subcastes, also called the Panch Jati or "The five families"(Jhingan, Mohle, Jaitly, Trikha, Kumaria).
Jaitlys are from Amritsar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar), Lahore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore), Rawalpindi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawalpindi) areas. Mostly the gotra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotra) of Jaitly is Vatsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatsa), in the lineage (pravaras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravaras)) of the sage Brahmarishi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmarishi) Bhrigu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhrigu).
The early 20th century book by H. A. Rose, "A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province" summarized the variety of families and tribes of Vedic origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period) at the time. The Jaitly, or Jetley family is one of the five families that constitute the "Panjzati." The late 19th Century book by Jogendra N. Bhattacharya, "Hindu Castes and Sects" also gives the historical details of this Brahmin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin) family.
The "Panjzati" are the highest order of Brahmins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmins) in the Punjab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_region). The other families being: Mohle, Jhingan, Trikha and Kumaria. The "Panjzati" were also known as the purohits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purohit) (chief Brahmins and royal courtiers) of the Dhaighar Khatris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatris) and have had very close relations with the Khatris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatris) of the Punjab for many millennia.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:44 AM
I guess you've never been to Poland. Poles are a mixture of various European ethnicities and they're pretty damn ugly in comparison with the more racially pure inhabitants of neighboring countries. Intermixture between different European ethnicities could be just as devastating as intermixture between certain European ethnicities and non-European ethnicities. Askenazi Jews are an example of a mixed breed that is mostly European.
Source?
To my knowledge, Poles are not of particularly mixed ancestry. I don't share your subjective opinion about the ugliness of Poles. Surely, Germanic girls are generally prettier but Poles compare favourably to e.g. Finns.



On the other hand, there are examples of intermixture between eg. Europeans and Asians or Europeans and Africans that delivered beautiful and intelligent creatures as a result.
And you call yourself a National Socialist?

Hitler said:

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

Mulattos are indeed such monstrosities. No "intelligent and beautiful" mulattos exist.

White/Yellow hybrids are not any kind of improvement from the parent races. Preservation of racial purity is in the interest of both races.



Make no mistake... intermixture between whites and non-whites should be prevented. I just feel the same about intermixture between different white ethnic groups.
In fact, intermixture between Germanics was actively encouraged by the German state in the early 1940s if German soldiers started relationships with foreign women who could raise the racial level of the German nation.

If two healthy, normal Europeans happen to love each other and want to marry the state cannot intervene. Sexual perversion is another matter.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:54 AM
Why is it impossible for a half-congolese half-belgian to resemble a belgian who takes (almost) entirely after the belgian? I've seen pictures of perfectly white children who were the offspring of a black and a white parent.
This must be a joke. Even quadroons have always negroid traits. Mulattos have no resemblance to their white parent.



Of course... The point is that even peoples as close as Flemish and Dutch peoples are distinct enough to set them apart in many cases. For Flemish and Norwegians or Flemish and Finnish, the difference is of course much greater.
I am astonished how you can even claim that you are able to separate a Dutchman from a Belgian but you think that mulattos are white. :D:rolleyes:



Never seen an Asian with European traits?

Look at these Indian Bollywood stars :
Those Bollywood stars are Europids. What is your point? Europid/Mongolid mixing is still unacceptable and Indians are culturally incompatible to Europe.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:55 AM
Source?
To my knowledge, Poles are not of particularly mixed ancestry.

If you look at the history of Poland, you'll notice that the current inhabitants are a mixture of Polish, Ruthenian, German, Czech and other ancestry.


I don't share your subjective opinion about the ugliness of Poles. Surely, Germanic girls are generally prettier but Poles compare favourably to e.g. Finns.

I don't know about Finns, but I've lived for three months in Poland and I can definitely compare with German, Dutch, French or Belgian girls. Poles themselves told me how pretty Ukranian girls are supposed to be.



On the other hand, there are examples of intermixture between eg. Europeans and Asians or Europeans and Africans that delivered beautiful and intelligent creatures as a result.

And you call yourself a National Socialist?

I'm not saying I support such intermixtures. In fact, I clearly said I don't.

I just spotted people of mixed race that happen to be attractive and intelligent. They aren't all mongrels, like eg. South-American mixtures between natives and Spanish.


Hitler said:

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."

Mulattos are indeed such monstrosities. No "intelligent and beautiful" mulattos exist.

Halle Berry is a mixture of English and African blood. Most people would consider her to be quite attractive.

http://www.faniq.com/images/blog/halle_berry.jpg

But again... I do not support such mixtures. Don't get me wrong here.


White/Yellow hybrids are not any kind of improvement from the parent races. Preservation of racial purity is in the interest of both races.

I never said otherwise. Your putting words in my mouth.


In fact, intermixture between Germanics was actively encouraged by the German state in the early 1940s if German soldiers started relationships with foreign women who could raise the racial level of the German nation.

Pretty much all Germanic countries consist of mostly Alpine and Nordic racial types. There are probably greater ethnic differences between a Bavarian and a Prussian than between a Belgian and a Dutchman, although in both cases the etnnic differences aren't relevant for a eugenic program.


If two healthy, normal Europeans happen to love each other and want to marry the state cannot intervene.

So you would not object to a marriage between a Greek and a Norwegian but you would object to a marriage between a Frenchman and an Indian Brahmin? That's quite hypocritical IMO.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:58 AM
Most 'white nationalists' are proud and knowledgeable of their specific cultures.

The two subsets of white nationalism which match your descriptions are 'pan-aryans', which base their ideology on biology alone, obsess over subrace and adore obscure anthropologists from the early 1900s, and accept muslims and other middle easterners (though not jews, for some reason).

Also there are the skinheads who are more of a music/style scene, some of them are intelligent, many are ignorant thugs though.

A lot of WNs are intelligent/successful people, but they keep their heads down in order to keep their jobs and position in society, the people who present the public face of WN are the jerry springer types with nothing to lose, which is because a witch hunt is launched any time a moderately successful person says something 'politically incorrect', they even forced the guy who discovered DNA into retirement because he mentioned there are genetic differences between racists.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 01:58 AM
This must be a joke. Even quadroons have always negroid traits. Mulattos have no resemblance to their white parent.

That's plain rubbish.


I am astonished how you can even claim that you are able to separate a Dutchman from a Belgian but you think that mulattos are white. :D:rolleyes:

you're putting words in my mouth again.


Those Bollywood stars are Europids.

Those Bollywood stars are 100% of Indian origin. The only European blood they have in their vains is the blood of Aryan invaders from a long forgotten past. It is very unlikely that any of them managed to preserve their Aryan blood for 100%, yet some look strikingly European.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Most 'white nationalists' are proud and knowledgeable of their specific cultures.

They're proud of it, yes. But, like Rassenpapst, they see no problem with intermixture between eg. Greeks and Norwegians or Poles and French. For me, that's just as avoidable as intermixtures between Europeans and non-Europeans... whether it's cultural or racial intermixture.


The two subsets of white nationalism which match your descriptions are 'pan-aryans', which base their ideology on biology alone, obsess over subrace and adore obscure anthropologists from the early 1900s, and accept muslims and other middle easterners (though not jews, for some reason).

Actually, the 'pan-aryans' are as obsessed about their nationallity as they are about theur subrace.

Loddfafner
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 02:22 AM
On skinheads: skins are a lot like puppies (sometimes wagging their tails, sometimes snarling and biting) only some of them are smarter.

On WN: while I am glad that there is some effort to speak on behalf of the dregs of the white race, on the whole the organized WN movement has set back the cause of cultural preservation.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 02:31 AM
That's plain rubbish.
You are talking rubbish when you claim that mulattos can look "white". They don't ever look even remotely European.



you're putting words in my mouth again.
You claimed that you can "spot a Dutchman among a bunch of Belgians by mere body type and facial type". Yet you can't spot a mulatto?



Those Bollywood stars are 100% of Indian origin. The only European blood they have in their vains is the blood of Aryan invaders from a long forgotten past. It is very unlikely that any of them managed to preserve their Aryan blood for 100%, yet some look strikingly European.
Because they are Europids.



So you would not object to a marriage between a Greek and a Norwegian but you would object to a marriage between a Frenchman and an Indian Brahmin? That's quite hypocritical IMO.
This is what a typical Indian Brahmin looks like:
http://www.indtravel.com/welcome/graphic1/nehru_3.JPG

(Nehru)

Surely, Brahmins are different from Greeks. Very few Indians could pass for Southern Euros. Those Indians are still culturally very different from Europeans.

Flash Voyager
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 02:55 AM
It's too USA-centric for my taste.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 04:38 AM
They're proud of it, yes. But, like Rassenpapst, they see no problem with intermixture between eg. Greeks and Norwegians or Poles and French. For me, that's just as avoidable as intermixtures between Europeans and non-Europeans... whether it's cultural or racial intermixture.

Most prefer a mate of their own type. Organized WN sites to try to prevent this point of view from being expressed to avoid offending southern Europeans though.




Actually, the 'pan-aryans' are as obsessed about their nationallity as they are about theur subrace.

Well yes, most of them are actually 'med supremacists'


on the whole the organized WN movement has set back the cause of cultural preservation.

Largely it has, because few competent people want to give up the potential for a normal middle class life to run a group which will be in the crosshairs of a powerful segment of society. Instead, it has been losers who would be nobodies who end up running most WN orgs. Hopefully the internet and loosely organized social networks will allow a sensible version of preserving western civilization to be advanced, and leave behind the conspiracy theory cranks, attention whores, occult weirdos, and violent drunks who have dominated the 'nationalist' scene in the past.

Talan
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 08:37 AM
Any racialist movement fails to acknowledge that genetic splicing and replication are soon to be realised. As a first-order nationalist, my immediate ancestors are all that matter.

Jäger
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 09:27 AM
That's simply not correct, even if you dont see Aurignacians and CMs as belonging to the same racial group, it is clear that each group has great internal morphological similarity.
Yes, that's why they are grouped, their similarity stems from the fact that they lived in similar environments.


Never seen an Alpine with Mediterranean children?
I have, this is simply due to the fact that the Alpine was not "pure", he was mixed, two pure Alpines will always produce pure Alpines, that's exactly part of the definition of race.


Ever seen a Mongoloid/Negroid with Mediterranean or CM children?
Yes, Black and white twins (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=377839&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5)
It's a question of mixture and the way inheritance works, not a racial feature.

United Faith
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 09:41 AM
I've been active on Stormfront and some other White Nationalists for awhile now.

I agree with what you say about Skinheads (the original poster). However, you are wrong in saying they know nothing of culture.

Sure, they may not be as knowledgeable as soon here. That is mainly because they spend their time trying to create change, and if I may say so, most members here are what Stormfronters seem to love calling "keyboard commandos". In that all you do is talk about problems but don't want to contribute to fixing it.

I also find it quite selfish how most here only care about Germanic homelands, culture, and heritage.

My perceptions may be wrong since I have not been here long but that's how members here strike me.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 10:47 AM
You are talking rubbish when you claim that mulattos can look "white". They don't ever look even remotely European.

In the following picture, the two adults both have a white mother and a black father. The two kids are their twin children. Note how one of the twins inherited the black genes from its grandparents while the other one inherited the white genes from its grandparents.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/02/twinsGR210206_450x300.jpg


You claimed that you can "spot a Dutchman among a bunch of Belgians by mere body type and facial type". Yet you can't spot a mulatto?

When two mulattoes have children, that's still a mulatto, right? Well, in the case of the family in the picture above, I would definitely not be able to distinguish the white-skinned girl from a European girl. She even has blue eyes.



Those Bollywood stars are 100% of Indian origin. The only European blood they have in their vains is the blood of Aryan invaders from a long forgotten past. It is very unlikely that any of them managed to preserve their Aryan blood for 100%, yet some look strikingly European.Because they are Europids.

Again, they're Brahmins.



This is what a typical Indian Brahmin looks like:
http://www.indtravel.com/welcome/graphic1/nehru_3.JPG

(Nehru)The only thing that really sets Nehru apart from Europeans, is the tone of his skin. Many elderly Germans have traits similar to the way he looks in that picture.

Besides, compare Nehru as a young man with a typical Nordic look (I already posted this) :

http://media.radiosai.org/journals/vol_03/10OCT01/images/FeatureArticles/sarvodaya/nehru.jpghttp://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20061220ho_nordicposter_230.jpg


Or take a look at minister Yashwant Sinha. He's another prominent Brahmin. Then compare him with George Orwell.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Yashwant_Sinha_IMF.jpg/200px-Yashwant_Sinha_IMF.jpg (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FImage%3AYashwant_Sinha _IMF.jpg) http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/orwellbbc.jpg


Surely, Brahmins are different from Greeks. Very few Indians could pass for Southern Euros. Those Indians are still culturally very different from Europeans.

Sure. I'm just saying that intermixture of European and non-European blood doesn't necessarilly look very non-European. In some cases, they look very European.

... and again, I'm not promoting racial mixing here. I'm actually pleading against mixing between different European ethnic groups ! !


Yes, Black and white twins (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dail ymail.co.uk%2Fpages%2Flive%2Farticles%2F news%2Fnews.html%3Fin_article_id%3D37783 9%26in_page_id%3D1770%26in_a_source%3D%2 6ct%3D5)
It's a question of mixture and the way inheritance works, not a racial feature.

Looks like you beated me to that picture :D

Wehrwolf
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 10:58 AM
I've been active on Stormfront and some other White Nationalists for awhile now.

I agree with what you say about Skinheads (the original poster). However, you are wrong in saying they know nothing of culture.

Sure, they may not be as knowledgeable as soon here. That is mainly because they spend their time trying to create change, and if I may say so, most members here are what Stormfronters seem to love calling "keyboard commandos". In that all you do is talk about problems but don't want to contribute to fixing it.

I also find it quite selfish how most here only care about Germanic homelands, culture, and heritage.

My perceptions may be wrong since I have not been here long but that's how members here strike me.


The issue does not lay with their lack of 'knowledge', but their intelligence and beliefs. Frankly most of them aren't fit to live; Exhibit 1 (http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=2) Exhibit 2 (http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=51) Exhibit 3 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=412926) Exhibit 4 (http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=45) Exhibit 5 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/global-warming-good-thing-whites-431949.html)

They simply don't want to change anything significant, all they want is a 'white world'. This includes such ridiculous modern notions as freedom, equality and materialism. People's mindsets don't change a single bit, they just fix a 'problem' (global warming, immigration, sexism, animal cruelty etc) and praise themselves for a job well done when nothing has even occured. They'll probably jump on the next bandwagon when something else arises, but still be unable to comprehend why such things constantly pop up in the current age.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 10:59 AM
In the following picture, the two adults both have a white mother and a black father. The two kids are their twin children. Note how one of the twins inherited the black genes from its grandparents while the other one inherited the white genes from its grandparents.
That case is very, very rare. Furthermore, as the child grows it will still be easily distinguish it from a white person.

A good example is Boris Becker's daughter who is 1/4 black and blonde-haired:
http://www.javno.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2007/m02/x35131397291712298.jpg
Does that girl look "white"?



When two mulattoes have children, that's still a mulatto, right? Well, in the case of the family in the picture above, I would definitely not be able to distinguish the white-skinned girl from a European girl. She even has blue eyes.
Mulattoes of the second generation can sometimes have European traits, mulattoes of the first generation never.



Again, they're Brahmins.
Do you know what is an "Europid"? You do not make sense.



The only thing that really sets Nehru apart from Europeans, is the tone of his skin. Many elderly Germans have traits similar to the way he looks in that picture.

Besides, compare Nehru as a young man with a typical Nordic look (I already posted this) :

Or take a look at minister Yashwant Sinha. He's another prominent Brahmin. Then compare him with George Orwell.
They are Northindids. This race is alien to Europe.



Sure. I'm just saying that intermixture of European and non-European blood doesn't necessarilly look very non-European. In some cases, they look very European.

... and again, I'm not promoting racial mixing here. I'm actually pleading against mixing between different European ethnic groups ! !
Why so because different European ethnic groups share same racial elements?

United Faith
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:09 AM
The issue does not lay with their lack of 'knowledge', but their intelligence and beliefs. Frankly most of them aren't fit to live; Exhibit 1 (http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=2) Exhibit 2 (http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=51) Exhibit 3 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=412926) Exhibit 4 (http://www.freeyourmindproductions.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=45) Exhibit 5 (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/global-warming-good-thing-whites-431949.html)

They simply don't want to change anything significant, all they want is a 'white world'. This includes such ridiculous modern notions as freedom, equality and materialism. People's mindsets don't change a single bit, they just fix a 'problem' (global warming, immigration, sexism, animal cruelty etc) and praise themselves for a job well done when nothing has even occured. They'll probably jump on the next bandwagon when something else arises, but still be unable to comprehend why such things constantly pop up in the current age.

All the successful parties like the NDP and Front National (France) are much more White Nationalistic than "I want to preserve Germanic heritage but I won't do anything to help".

Wehrwolf
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:12 AM
The case of a mixed-raced child looking the same as European is of course, very rare. But it does happen. The case of a mixed-european looking exactly the same as one from a singular location/country occurs as well, but frankly I think it somewhat rare. If you put a nordic Swedish person with a nordic Norwegian they'll probably look quite similar, but a Norwegian with a Greek will almost never look Norwegian. Furthermore mixed European groups will create individuals that often do not have the personality/abilities/attitude/perspective that are typical of a individuals from a single area. These may be subtle changes, but should become immediately obvious to somehow that knows the character of their community. If an individual looks basically the same as one from a group, and thinks like the group, it probably belongs in the group.

Huzar
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:14 AM
I support White Nationalism in the form espoused by Jared Taylor in America because the vast majority of modern Germanics there have no aversion of mingling with white non-Germanics. Whites generally belong to the same White American culture and I would say that white Americans constitute a (weak) nation. Germanic Americans are not a nation and therefore Germanic nationalism in America is an impossible concept.


That's the point.




I am willing to tolerate intermarriages between European nations although they are somewhat undesirable if the foreign partner is alien to the racial variation of Germanic countries. For example, I wouldn't wish that a Swedish woman married a swarthy Portuguese man.


Oh, you mean the marriage between that Portuguese soccer player (Pinto ?) and a swedish woman ?

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:16 AM
Oh, you mean the marriage between that Portuguese soccer player (Pinto ?) and a swedish woman ?
Luis Figo and somebody? Figo is a millionaire sportsman so he is a special case.

Wehrwolf
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:19 AM
All the successful parties like the NDP and Front National (France) are much more White Nationalistic than "I want to preserve Germanic heritage but I won't do anything to help".


They aren't white nationalists, they are much more directed at nationalism. Secondly just because something is successful doesn't mean it is good. People need more than just a decrease in immigration to rebuild a shattered civilisation.

IlluSionSxxx
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:23 AM
That case is very, very rare. Furthermore, as the child grows it will still be easily distinguish it from a white person.

It all depends on how strong the black genes are in comparison to the white genes. Most of the time, yes, you can distinguish a black-white intermixture from a white person. The same is true for a mixture between a North-European and a South-European, though.... and that's exactly my point.

From my point of view, the difference between intermixture between different white ethnic groups and intermixture between a white ethnic group and a non-white ethnic group is largely artificial. Both are racial intermixtures and both are avoidable.

By the way, you mentioned Hitler in a previous post. Do you really think he would have supported Germans mixing with Czechs or Greeks? If you think so, you have no idea what you're talking about. Hitler was a German nationalists and he wanted Germany for Germans. He was not a white nationalist, although Germans are - of course - white.


Mulattoes of the second generation can sometimes have European traits, mulattoes of the first generation never.

Mulattoes of the first generation can have European traits, but I'm not sure it it's possible for them to have ONLY European traits.


Do you know what is an "Europid"? You do not make sense.

According to common racial classifications, Afghans and Middle-Easterners are Europids too. The definition of "Europid" is very different from the definition of "white" used by white nationalists and streches way past the European-Asian border.

An example of different Europid types (Meyers Blitz-Lexikon, 1932) :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/LA2-Blitz-0263Cauc.JPG/800px-LA2-Blitz-0263Cauc.JPG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/LA2-Blitz-0263Cauc.JPG)



They are Northindids. This race is alien to Europe.

They're a mixture of Asian and European phenotypes as a result of ancient Aryan migrations. The SS Ahnenerbe was especially interested in the racial make-up of these people for their research on the Aryan migrations.



Sure. I'm just saying that intermixture of European and non-European blood doesn't necessarilly look very non-European. In some cases, they look very European.

... and again, I'm not promoting racial mixing here. I'm actually pleading against mixing between different European ethnic groups ! !

Why so because different European ethnic groups share same racial elements?

No they don't. A Dinaric white or a Nordic white are both racially and culturally completely different.

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/images/p39f5.jpg
http://racialreality.110mb.com/subraces_files/p38f2.jpg
Two dinaric types



http://racialreality.110mb.com/subraces_files/p29f1.jpg
http://racialreality.110mb.com/subraces_files/p27f1.jpg
Two nordic types

United Faith
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 11:24 AM
They aren't white nationalists, they are much more directed at nationalism. Secondly just because something is successful doesn't mean it is good. People need more than just a decrease in immigration to rebuild a shattered civilisation.

Okay. Both WN and the Althing community are Nationalists. What I'm saying is that, overall, those parties associate themselves with WNs. The NDP has even said that they are influenced by it.

Succession doesn't make it good, true. But the NDP and Front National are good. :D

Jäger
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:07 PM
That case is very, very rare. Furthermore, as the child grows it will still be easily distinguish it from a white person.
Indeed, it's because of recessiveness, it could be possible that she is fully white (phenotypically) though, just theoretically speaking. This is questionable, although possible.

Boris Becker's daughter is different in that, that her father is "white" makes it not possible to say that she didn't inherit any "Black" characteristics from her dark mother. If both parents are dark though, it is save to say that a "white" child inherited the "white" characteristics of both.

And maybe Boris just dropped his Armenoid in her, which makes her look even more foreign :D

Boche
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:23 PM
You also can't put every skinhead in one corner. I know one who just looks and dresses like one ( I dislike the look of skinheads tough) , but doesn't act nor think like one. He knows alot about Culture and Preservation than many on this forum and is all the way a nice guy.

But i agree that the Majority of "Skinheads" are stupid but really good as canon-fodder, if you understand what i mean. ;)




Gruß,
Boche

Blood_Axis
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:34 PM
I know one who just looks and dresses like one ( I dislike the look of skinheads tough) , but doesn't act nor think like one. He knows alot about Culture and Preservation than many on this forum and is all the way a nice guy.

I met a few skinheads of that kind throughout the years, and they all grew out of the 'skinhead' lifestyle eventually, or withdrew from skinhead groups and kept to themselves.

It's only a matter of time. :)

Viriathus
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 12:54 PM
You also can't put every skinhead in one corner. I know one who just looks and dresses like one ( I dislike the look of skinheads tough) , but doesn't act nor think like one. He knows alot about Culture and Preservation than many on this forum and is all the way a nice guy.

I don´t like to see the term "Skinhead" in coherency with nationalism. The authentic Skinhead subculture have nothing to do with politics. The term "Skinhead" was adopted by neo-nazis since the mass media begins to call them so. Traditional Skinheads are mostly educated people and not like the stereotype of the drunk, bawling Naziskin. Btw. i also met some naziskins who where educated and which i could discuss in a normal way but i guess this is uncommon.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 05:34 PM
It all depends on how strong the black genes are in comparison to the white genes. Most of the time, yes, you can distinguish a black-white intermixture from a white person. The same is true for a mixture between a North-European and a South-European, though.... and that's exactly my point.

From my point of view, the difference between intermixture between different white ethnic groups and intermixture between a white ethnic group and a non-white ethnic group is largely artificial. Both are racial intermixtures and both are avoidable.
Ethnic group is not a race. For example, a minority of both German and French nations is of the Nordic race.



By the way, you mentioned Hitler in a previous post. Do you really think he would have supported Germans mixing with Czechs or Greeks? If you think so, you have no idea what you're talking about. Hitler was a German nationalists and he wanted Germany for Germans. He was not a white nationalist, although Germans are - of course - white.
Yes, Germans were allowed to marry Czechs or Greeks. Rudolf Hess was half-Greek, btw.

The plan was to germanize the racial compatible 50% of Eastern Slavs which would have meant a huge infusion of Slavic blood to the German nation.



Mulattoes of the first generation can have European traits, but I'm not sure it it's possible for them to have ONLY European traits.
They have no resemblance to the European parent whatsoever and are just Negroid.



According to common racial classifications, Afghans and Middle-Easterners are Europids too. The definition of "Europid" is very different from the definition of "white" used by white nationalists and streches way past the European-Asian border.

An example of different Europid types (Meyers Blitz-Lexikon, 1932) :
Yes, the Indian Brahmins you mentioned belong to the same Europid major race as Europeans. Your point?



They're a mixture of Asian and European phenotypes as a result of ancient Aryan migrations. The SS Ahnenerbe was especially interested in the racial make-up of these people for their research on the Aryan migrations.
Yes. Indians are still racially alien to Europe. The phenotype of an average Ashkenazi Jew is more European.



No they don't. A Dinaric white or a Nordic white are both racially and culturally completely different.
? What kind of systematic cultural difference exists between Dinaric and Nordic Germans?

Jäger
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 05:57 PM
The plan was to germanize the racial compatible 50% of Eastern Slavs which would have meant a huge infusion of Slavic blood to the German nation.
This was not the plan, it was a plan, by a guy who was thrown out of the party and sentenced to death, Heinrich Himmler, and the 50% was mere speculation.
If Hitler would have let Himmler put his plans through is another question, however it was not a Nationalsocialist doctrine, as you said yourself in another thread there was the possibility that the phenotype is more or less a variation of a more common gentic heritage.

Some geneticists argued that the Nordic racial traits of some Germans are a result of random recombinations and an Alpine German person could also possess a "Nordic" German soul (mental characteristics).
This would however more or less implies that an Ethnic group is a race, doesn't it?

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 06:09 PM
This would however more or less implies that an Ethnic group is a race, doesn't it?
That idea leads to some very dangerous political interpretations. It was popularized in the 1960s by the anthropologist Israel Ehrenberg to the extent that the concept of race was abandoned.

Jäger
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 07:57 PM
That idea leads to some very dangerous political interpretations. It was popularized in the 1960s by the anthropologist Israel Ehrenberg to the extent that the concept of race was abandoned.
I find it strange, to say the least, in which context you have brought it up then.

Rassenpapst
Friday, October 26th, 2007, 08:03 PM
I find it strange, to say the least, in which context you have brought it up then.
Alfred Rosenberg:

"Spiritually, politically and militarily, the foundation will have been laid for the emergence of a new aristocracy. It will be seen that by an
inner necessity such men are, by physical appearance, 80 % Nordic. The fulfilment of these values is directly linked with the highest values of the blood. With some others, the genetic picture predominates over the individual appearance and is revealed only through deeds. It would be superficial to go to work with foot rules and cephalic indices in order to evaluate the individual. But confirmation of a life devoted to the service of the nation is of the greatest concern. However, with an upbreeding of the race, a Nordic ideal of beauty will emerge."

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 08:17 AM
I don´t like to see the term "Skinhead" in coherency with nationalism. The authentic Skinhead subculture have nothing to do with politics. The term "Skinhead" was adopted by neo-nazis since the mass media begins to call them so. Traditional Skinheads are mostly educated people and not like the stereotype of the drunk, bawling Naziskin. Btw. i also met some naziskins who where educated and which i could discuss in a normal way but i guess this is uncommon.

I wouldn't say that, a good portion of the whole skinhead/hardcore/punk rock subculture is pretty damn trashy, with rampant violence and substance abuse. FSU for example is probably more violent than any group of 'naziskins'. At least most WP skinheads have something in their favor that they are somewhat interested in politics and their heritage in addition to being violent drunks with trashy girlfriends, whereas the trad skins are just violent drunks with trashy girlfriends.

Anyways, you shouldn't judge an entire ideology just because some members of a youth/music subculture have adopted that ideology, or at least some symbols derived from it.

IlluSionSxxx
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 11:16 AM
Ethnic group is not a race. For example, a minority of both German and French nations is of the Nordic race.

In my opinion, ethnic group prevails over race. Every ethnic group is a unique mix of specific races that thereby seperates itself from other ethnic groups by both ethnic and cultural features. Mixing different ethnic groups has the same result as mixing inherently different races, however to a lesser degree.

Personally, I don't even support mixing Prussian with Bavarian blood or Flemish with Dutch blood... even though both belong to the same ethnic group, the same historical nation and the same culture. In an age where you can drive 100 km in less than an hour, though, it would be almost impossible to maintain such principles. Although I found a girlfriend from my area, we moved ourselves away 100 km from my home, thereby abandoning the tradition on my father's side of the family to stay within the same village or its immediate area.

The Third Reich ignored real racial differences between Germans, only because culture united them as a people.


Yes, Germans were allowed to marry Czechs or Greeks.

I must say that I'm not an expert with regards to the Nuremberg race laws, but I guess it was indeed legal to marry Czechs or Greeks. Racial hygiene issues have always been specific towards Jews. That doesn't mean, however, that intermarriages with Greeks and French were supported.


Rudolf Hess was half-Greek, btw.

... and Savitri Devi was half-Greek half-French and married an Indian Brahmin. Yet, she still managed to become one of the most influential post-war national-socialists.



Mulattoes of the first generation can have European traits, but I'm not sure it it's possible for them to have ONLY European traits.

They have no resemblance to the European parent whatsoever and are just Negroid.

From a genetic point of view, that makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that a mixture of a poodle and a German sheppard will have no traits of a German sheppard but only of a poodle :rolleyes:


Yes, the Indian Brahmins you mentioned belong to the same Europid major race as Europeans. Your point?

[...]

Yes. Indians are still racially alien to Europe. The phenotype of an average Ashkenazi Jew is more European.

There aren't of pure Europeid stock. Neither are Mediterraneans, for that matter. PE Keuchenius (Dutch national-socialist biologist) describes in his book Bloed en Mythe als Levenswet (transl: Blood and Myth as primal laws) how Greek and Roman civilisation declined as a result of Jewish capitalism and racial dillution. During the high days of classic Greece and Rome, both nations were inhabited by mostly Alpine and Nordic types as statues from that era clearly indicate. The current Mediterranean population is a mixture with African and Middle-Eastern elements.


? What kind of systematic cultural difference exists between Dinaric and Nordic Germans?

The Dinaric type is an Eastern-European (Slavic) type. German Dinarics are an intermixture between Germans and Slavs. The cultural different is probably similar to the cultural difference between Bavarians and Prussians. They're real, but the differences are often ignored because shared language and history have united them as a people and made them focus on the similarities.

Technically, Dutchmen and Flemish are Germans too. As the official German language is constructed based on High German dialects, the official Dutch language is constructed based on Lower German dialects. Both are just variations of the same language, though. It's no wonder the term "Dutch" is so similar to the term "Deutsch". In fact, the Dutch language was still referred to as Nethergerman language (and the German language as High German language) up until halfway the 19th century. Yet, in spite of the Dutch and Flemish belonging to the German people from various points of view, Hitler was reluctant to include them as part of the German people because they had been seperated by official language and history.

I'm afraid that issues on race and ethnicity aren't as black and white (literally!) in Europe as they are in the US.

IlluSionSxxx
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 11:19 AM
Alfred Rosenberg:

"Spiritually, politically and militarily, the foundation will have been laid for the emergence of a new aristocracy. It will be seen that by an
inner necessity such men are, by physical appearance, 80 % Nordic. The fulfilment of these values is directly linked with the highest values of the blood. With some others, the genetic picture predominates over the individual appearance and is revealed only through deeds. It would be superficial to go to work with foot rules and cephalic indices in order to evaluate the individual. But confirmation of a life devoted to the service of the nation is of the greatest concern. However, with an upbreeding of the race, a Nordic ideal of beauty will emerge."

What are you implying with this quote, which you probably took from Der Mythus den 20. Jahrhunderts?

SineNomine
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 01:45 PM
There aren't of pure Europeid stock. Neither are Mediterraneans, for that matter. PE Keuchenius (Dutch national-socialist biologist) describes in his book Bloed en Mythe als Levenswet (transl: Blood and Myth as primal laws) how Greek and Roman civilisation declined as a result of Jewish capitalism and racial dillution.
What the hell are you on about? 'Jewish capitalism'? Meds not being of Europid stock? Where did you pick up this nonsense?

Jäger
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Alfred Rosenberg:
"Spiritually, politically and militarily, the foundation will have been laid for the emergence of a new aristocracy. It will be seen that by an
inner necessity such men are, by physical appearance, 80 % Nordic. The fulfilment of these values is directly linked with the highest values of the blood. With some others, the genetic picture predominates over the individual appearance and is revealed only through deeds. It would be superficial to go to work with foot rules and cephalic indices in order to evaluate the individual. But confirmation of a life devoted to the service of the nation is of the greatest concern. However, with an upbreeding of the race, a Nordic ideal of beauty will emerge."
This is different in that it is no scientific formula, and it doesn't contradict racial theories in the least, I am still puzzled why you have brought up Israel Ehrenberg (from the 60s) in relation with the abandonment of a racial ideal in NS Germany.
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=11571#post11571

Elgar
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 02:53 PM
I believe I can understand the anti-WN attitude. WNs know little about culture. White is not a good way to define ourselves. My skin is pinkish, not white. Skinheads give any kind of nationalistic movement a bad name. They are violent and like to get drunk at concerts. They love to hate and bully others. They are not the kind of people I would welcome with open arms if I ran a nationalist forum.

That is a huge generalization.

Are you really suggesting that all white nationalists look like this?

http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/program/porady/1125006772/foto/02.jpg

The truth is that WNs are like anybody else. In my experience they tend to come from poorer backgrounds precisley because poor people are the first to fall victim to multi-racialism and multi-culturalsim, the wealthy move away - it's called 'white flight'.

Now, I'm not sure what it's like where you are, but round by me the 'schemes' are rough and violent - guys walk pitbulls and rottweilers, are covered in tattoos, have shaved heads and are fairly handy - because that's imperative to survival.

The far-right in Britain also have a skin-head, yobbish image precisely because they were attacked by gangs of so called 'anti-fascists'. The far-right has in the past had links with football hooligans, because I suppose these lads are territorial, partisan and good at fighting.

Now if you are not a white nationalist/separitist, how will you ensure that Germanic ethnicity survives? With mass-immigration and miscegenation, it won't. Simple.

Now, however, the whole thing is affecting the middle-classes and white-nationalism or ethno-nationalism is changing - the shaved-headed thug is already unacceptable in the BNP, for example. Any mention of violence will lead to expulsion.

Viriathus
Saturday, October 27th, 2007, 03:31 PM
I wouldn't say that, a good portion of the whole skinhead/hardcore/punk rock subculture is pretty damn trashy, with rampant violence and substance abuse.
Im just talking about the tradional Skinhead subculture. Not about hardcore followers or punkers. This is a completely another subject.
I don´t know how many (true) Trads you met in live and what experiences do you have with them. But i speak from my own experience and i know that it is a untroubled movement. I guess the people you probably refer to are the Oi! Skins. Bald punks. :D


FSU for example is probably more violent than any group of 'naziskins'. FSU? Never heard before...


At least most WP skinheads have something in their favor that they are somewhat interested in politics and their heritage in addition to being violent drunks with trashy girlfriends, whereas the trad skins are just violent drunks with trashy girlfriends.
Who said that traditional Skinheads are not interesting in politics or heritage? :rolleyes:
I just mentioned that the movement have not a political orientation. And again what you meaning are OI´s... There are worlds between these two movements.



Anyways, you shouldn't judge an entire ideology just because some members of a youth/music subculture have adopted that ideology, or at least some symbols derived from it.
Well, through my eyes are these violent and drunk naziskins a shame for the nationalist movement. And I say this as a non-nationalist!