PDA

View Full Version : "Why White Nationalism is a Loser" by Robert Lindstrom



infoterror
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005, 05:18 AM
"If a group of people were to gather to complain about the rain, boasting how a few dozen of them would one day violently revolt against the weather and defeat it forever, they would be avoided by normal people who might instead summon mental health professional to help the group.

Further, if this group's activism consisted not of lobbying public officials, consensus building, and scientific endeavors, but instead was limited to symbolic marches and handing out crude fliers proclaiming their hatred for rain, it would be obvious to well-adjusted people that no change would result from the action of this group and that these people had some strange enjoyment for wasting time on a self-defeating mythology.

What makes people similarly suspicious of White Nationalism is that it offers no plan or positive message, instead relegating itself to complaining about things it "hates" while admitting its impotence to do anything effective about its list of grievances.

Its claims that a white nation would be a utopia somehow free of the abundant white trash that has created many of the problems facing white people from unhealthy physical and mental lifestyles. In general, they unabashedly point fingers at others before bothering to get their own house in order.

People who favor Indo-European values and culture approach life differently: they actively support what they appreciate and ignore what is of low character and irrelevant to their goals. There are thousands of ill-conceived and repugnant things in the world, but these only have an audience in the corresponding sort of person.

Talking about low things finds common ground only with a low audience - better people have moved on to better topics instead of beating dead horses that can go nowhere.

It is more valuable to construct and promote what is superior in civilization than to smash down one of the many junk artifacts in our cultural landscape. You can help give someone a pointer in the direction of something that is not junk.

If they are into gutter music, show them the best works of Mozart and Beethoven instead. If they are into the "philosophy" of whatever trendy TV guru is making the rounds, introduce them to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. If they like the "profound drama" of ER or 24, help them discover the genius of Goethe and Shakespeare.

Some people find an outlet in beating video games, imagining themselves as a character in a movie, or plotting impossible scenarios for overthrowing the world. Something about the thrill of fantasy provides an alternative to their frustrated reality.

Others who are activists only care about actual results and have no time for illusions and fantasy. It is up to us to act wisely and most importantly to be truthful with ourselves when working towards our goals."

Source (http://www.nazi.org/community/columns/lindstrom/)

infoterror
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005, 08:28 PM
The dogmas of White Nationalism and its danger for European nationalism
I'm 23, I come from Flanders (Dutch speaking northern half of Belgium) and I consider myself to be a national socialist, a culturalist and a Germanic nationalist. I'm always bothered by the illogical dogmas of 'white nationalism' and the way it threatens nationalism in a European context. I would like to explain that in this thread.

There is NO such a thing as THE white race.

There are several European races of which each have a light skin pigmentation. The most prominent examples are:
- the Germanic race. This group includes Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danish, Dutch, Flemish, Irish and Scottish. Some put the English also in this category
- the Slavic race. This group includes most Eastern-European peoples such as Russians, Poles and Czechs.
- the Mediterranian race. This group includes French, Spanish, Italians and Greeks.
- the Basks. Their origin is unknown, and their language,genetic make-up and culture are all unique.

Other than these 4 races, there are also a few ethnocultural groups that are of mixed origin but also have become a unique ethno-cultural group of their own. Examples are :
- the Lappish : a mix of Mongolian and Germanic
- the Askenazim (the 'jewish race') : a mix of Germanic, Slavic and Mediterranean

Each of these races have its own physical traits, its own culture and its own language. Each of these races is white.

People in immigrant countries (US, Canada, Australia) are a mix of various races or subgroups of a race. This has lead to a dissolution of the differentiation between different white ethnocultural groups. But even black people in the US today often have many features that unquestionably orriginate from a European race and that are non-existing in black Africa.

The differentiation between white and black that we know today in the US, is a result of the era of slavery, when slaves were black and free men were white. Though black people have freedom today, there still is a strong social distinction between the two groups that seperate them. This gap will most likely never be closed in a way that is acceptable for both groups, which is why 'white nationalism' may be a solution for social problems in the US. It however only applies to the US because of its specific situation.

The belief that white people are regarded as one homogenous distinct group is also strengthened in the US by the fact that most immigrants who either profit from welfare or are underpaid - and who thereby destroy American welfare - come from countries such as Mexico and Cuba, which is not regarded as white anymore. This is however different in other countries. We have the same problems with immigrants, but in my country, the Mexicans and Cubans are replaced by Slavs. Your black people are our Turks and Moroccans. Your jews are our Frenchspeaking Walloons, who are most the descendants of a French immigrants and racetraitors.

In Europe, the 'white people' is no homogenous distinct group. Each of the above mentioned races is different from the others genetically and culturally, leading to different problems between these races. But those races themselves too are divided in different subgroups who themselves are divided in subgroups. Every province and even every old city and village has its own identity that goes back hundreds of years. Sometimes there can even be rivalry between these different groups due to ethnoccultural differences.

Americans often don't realize it, but in Europe cultural differences are greater between cities located at 50 miles from one another than differences in the US between cities located at 1000 miles from one another. Racial differences between white people in the US are non-existant, while they are very prominent in Europe. Basing a world view on the situation in the US, is a very narrowminded and wrong thing to do.

Jews are a white people

The Askenazim (the 'jewish race') is more white than many mediterraneans, who are considered to be 'white' by 'white nationalists'. So if mediterraneans are white, then jews are white too.

You may argue that jews have specific physical features and a different culture. But Germanic people, Slavic people and Mediterraneans all have specific physical features and a culture different from one another. And Askenazi culture really does have a lot of similarities with Eastern-European cultures. I dare you to name one element that is present in all white races but not in the Askenazim......

White nationalism is a danger to European nationalism

White nationalism is a danger to European nationalism, as much as multi-culturalism. Both beliefs are dangerous for the diversity and sovereignty of individual peoples. Does that mean white people shouldn't cooperate beyond the limits of their ethno-cultural background? Of course, not. One should work together with everyone who can help the cause they believe in, whether that's the establishment for a 'white homeland' in the US, a national socialist nation somewhere in Europe or whatever you believe in. I however find it to be hypocritical and illogical to regard racially conscious people with a white skin as allies be default, while regarding racially conscious people with a different skin color as enemies.

I'm willing to cooperate with anyone who can help my cause, regardless of race. I'm not willing to cooperate with anyone who wants my people to assimilate.... whether its assimilation to a broad 'white' nation or to a multi-cultural nation. Hitler despised the Slavs, but he cooperated with the Japanese and the Turks. George Lincoln Rockwell once respected and sought an alliance with Malcolm X, who too believed in the existence of a white homeland (next to a black homeland) in America. Modern 'white nationalism' makes that kind of alliances impossible and forces us to cooperate with other white peoples who may be our natural enemies....

I don't regard any people as subhuman. Each race has its own superior traits and its own inferior traits, just like any individual. There is nothing wrong to feel pride about your superior traits, but you shouldn't hate people of other races because of that.... whatever color they may have.

I believe that ALL races should have the right to live in their own homeland as a distinct group with full sovereignty.... regardless of skin color. My loyalty however lies with the Germanic people, and no other people.

http://www.phora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9671

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2005, 10:55 PM
Borderline off-topic: is it true that the Basques are genetically unique as this guy says?

As for his comments about Lapps being a "mixture of Germanics and Mongoloids"... :icon12:

infoterror
Wednesday, May 4th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Borderline off-topic: is it true that the Basques are genetically unique as this guy says?

http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/000244.html

http://www.raceandhistory.com/worldhotspots/basque.htm

tuddorsped
Wednesday, May 4th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Borderline off-topic: is it true that the Basques are genetically unique as this guy says?

As for his comments about Lapps being a "mixture of Germanics and Mongoloids"... :icon12:

Yep, presumably the Lapps mixed with the 'Germanics' thousands of years before the 'Germanics' even existed. And everyone knows that 'Tat C' in one's genetic makeup is positive proof that one's ancestors looked like Charlie Chan.

*Searches in vain for Massive Sarcasm icon*

infoterror
Monday, May 9th, 2005, 07:34 PM
What a disappointingly ill-educated response. Nitpick at the details, and miss the point.

anonymaus
Monday, May 9th, 2005, 07:53 PM
I always thought Lindstrom had his head screwed on straight, the article echoes what most Nordicists feel in my opinion.

Good read, thanks neoclassical.

RedJack
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 04:27 AM
"- the Germanic race. This group includes Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danish, Dutch, Flemish, Irish and Scottish. Some put the English also in this category"

Where else could you put them in the categories he mentions?:scratch:

Stig NHF
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Well, what he speaks about are mostly just cultural groups. What is the "Germanic race" and what is the "Slavic race". A Serbian isn't very likely to look like a Russian, but they are both "slavs". I wholeheartedly agree about the whole "White race" thing since its just BS, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-slav. If we can't get every race on this good earth to become radical traditionalists then it will be quite hopeless. What is the point of the Indo-Europeans on this planet become traditional again, if there are 10 billion members of the Shudra just outside our borders, they would destroy the planet just as fine without us, or eventually just swarm us. We need to ally ourselves with the high-caste members of the other nations, not turn them away.

Nordhammer
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 08:19 PM
His analogy with the rain was a bit odd, but he makes some good points.

"Further, if this group's activism consisted not of lobbying public officials, consensus building, and scientific endeavors, but instead was limited to symbolic marches and handing out crude fliers proclaiming their hatred ..."

This is true. However, one must realize that people will lose their jobs and be denounced into oblivion if they speak out. One simply cannot be successful in our current socio-political environment and speak out about race. Show me an example of someone who is allowed to do this. There are tremendous pressures involved. Naturally the great majority of people keep their mouths shut and just go on with their daily lives, which in most cases is enough of a work load without worrying about being politically incorrect and be vilified as a racist/anti-semite. Why does more of the lower class speak out? They have less to lose. The rich and successful have much more to lose, so they remain silent or disinterested.

As to the white question: Some people have a hard time with this, but it is synonymous with European. Is there a European race? Obviously there is some continuity there despite sub-racial differences and ethnic conflicts. I mean people don't equate inter-European mixing with inter-race mixing. That is the value of white or European. Don't let your enemies define your world for you. Jews and mongrels don't define the word white for me. Anymore than their nonsense about anyone can be English, German, Australian, American, etc.

RedJack
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 08:53 PM
White to me means indigenous to Northern Europe. I grew up in a very Nordic area, even Italians stood out from the crowd when they first showed up here.

Constantinus
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 08:59 PM
I consider the mediterranean race to be white too. A different subrace of white, but white.


The mediterranean race here obviously means the unpolluted subrace, not those filthy creatures you'll find in Sicily or Naples.

RedJack
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:15 PM
LOL, the Italian family I mentioned was from Sicily.

Constantinus
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:17 PM
LOL, the Italian family I mentioned was from Sicily.

That explains it. Most people who complain about Italian immigrants only know Sicilians, but even the real Italians can't stand that scum.

infoterror
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:34 PM
What is the "Germanic race" and what is the "Slavic race". A Serbian isn't very likely to look like a Russian, but they are both "slavs". I wholeheartedly agree about the whole "White race" thing since its just BS, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-slav. If we can't get every race on this good earth to become radical traditionalists then it will be quite hopeless....We need to ally ourselves with the high-caste members of the other nations, not turn them away.

Agreed. Here's the thing: races naturally differentiate into local groups. It's a cascading hierarchy, with race, then tribe, then caste making the different. Tribe includes sub-racial mixture. What we call in shorthand "the Germanic race" applies to the mostly-Nordid Germanic mixture, which includes some Falisch elements.

However, it's important we pay attention to history. These are divergent branches of the same family, separated by thousands upon thousands of generations. They're not equal. I'm not anti-Slav in the same way I'm not anti-gardener, but I recognize the difference between a gardener and a philosopher.

infoterror
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:35 PM
I consider the mediterranean race to be white too. A different subrace of white, but white.

Mixing subraces is a terrible idea.

Constantinus
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Mixing subraces is a terrible idea.

I didn't deny that anywhere.

infoterror
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:38 PM
I didn't deny that anywhere.

Good. You do know that most English are of mixed subrace to such a degree that they're genetically predisposed to be homosexuals (same with Americans, except their genetic predisposition is to attend Jerry Springer filmings)?

RedJack
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:43 PM
Sounds like wishful thinking on your part, Neo. :violent-s

Constantinus
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 09:56 PM
Good. You do know that most English are of mixed subrace to such a degree that they're genetically predisposed to be homosexuals (same with Americans, except their genetic predisposition is to attend Jerry Springer filmings)?

Nonsense of epical proportions.

infoterror
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 11:03 PM
Sounds like wishful thinking on your part, Neo.

Nah, I'm straight, thanks. But go right ahead, yourself!

Ymir
Thursday, August 25th, 2005, 11:30 PM
There is NO such a thing as THE white race.

I agree...but this leaves a big problem for racial politics:


I believe that ALL races should have the right to live in their own homeland as a distinct group with full sovereignty.... regardless of skin color. My loyalty however lies with the Germanic people, and no other people.

What is supposed to happen to those Whites who are mongrels of varying subraces, as many are. They no longer exist within a subrace, and the "white race" is about as narrow as one can define them. Who do these people offer their allegiance too? How can they have their own distinct homeland, if they have no distinct people?

Heidenlord
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 12:42 AM
I agree with this stuff until the nonsense about the english being homosexuals...

Did some english guys beat up the ANUS guys or something?

jcs
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 04:05 AM
What is supposed to happen to those Whites who are mongrels of varying subraces, as many are. They no longer exist within a subrace, and the "white race" is about as narrow as one can define them. Who do these people offer their allegiance too? How can they have their own distinct homeland, if they have no distinct people?
This is the dillema faced by Americans: very few are anything but "Whites," being sub-racial miscegenates; and fewer Americans can identify themselves as anything but "White," having lost their distinct culture.
Your question is one many will have to answer for themselves. Those of us who still know their heritage should be concerned with sub-racial miscegenates only to the extent that such concern is necessary to remove them from our ranks.
"Best wishes, and get the hell away." :D


I agree with this stuff until the nonsense about the english being homosexuals...

Did some english guys beat up the ANUS guys or something?
Some gay guys beat me up. To get back at them, I started to spread the rumor that all gays were English. :P

Seriously, though, I think neoclassical was just trolling.

Stig NHF
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 11:32 AM
Hmm......there are half-indians and half-blacks in the various organizations up here. Of course they can never have children here or anywhere for that matter, but they are of course welcome to support us if they have anything to offer or add. The ones that are half-indian and such can probably move to India and become a part of the high-caste there, so thats not really a problem. The half-breeds in this world will simply move back to origin of their dark parts. When it comes to mixed IE, then I guess in time it will be a question of purification and identity.

Siegfried
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 12:12 PM
the Germanic race. This group includes Germans, Swedes, Norwegians, Danish, Dutch, Flemish, Irish and Scottish. Some put the English also in this category

The English are more Germanic than the Irish and the Scottish. In fact, the Irish and the Scottish are Celtic (though with significant Germanic admixture, both racially and culturally).

Sigel
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Jews are a white people

The Askenazim (the 'jewish race') is more white than many mediterraneans, who are considered to be 'white' by 'white nationalists'. So if mediterraneans are white, then jews are white too.

You may argue that jews have specific physical features and a different culture. But Germanic people, Slavic people and Mediterraneans all have specific physical features and a culture different from one another. And Askenazi culture really does have a lot of similarities with Eastern-European cultures. I dare you to name one element that is present in all white races but not in the Askenazim......

Shalom neoclassical. My boy! your words brought tears of joy to my eyes. I have spoken to Rabbi Goldberg about your work on this site. He says "why can't we Jews also be Nordicists?"

"My Barmitzva Boys at ANUS are there to make sure we have a foot in every camp. Tell those people at tNP that the elite need to be intellectual, not racial. You know we Jews are a very intellectual bunch", he added with an impish grin.

(searching for an even BIGGER irony smilie)

Nordhammer
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Jews are a white people

The Askenazim (the 'jewish race') is more white than many mediterraneans, who are considered to be 'white' by 'white nationalists'. So if mediterraneans are white, then jews are white too.

You may argue that jews have specific physical features and a different culture. But Germanic people, Slavic people and Mediterraneans all have specific physical features and a culture different from one another. And Askenazi culture really does have a lot of similarities with Eastern-European cultures. I dare you to name one element that is present in all white races but not in the Askenazim......


- the Askenazim (the 'jewish race') : a mix of Germanic, Slavic and Mediterranean


Are these Neoclassical's words or did he paste it from another source? That link doesn't work for me.

Whoever wrote that hasn't read the genetic studies of Jewish lineage. Until the 20th century there had been very little exogamy with Jews, only being about 1 out of 100. Jews are more related to each other, to Turks, to Arabs, and other Middle Easterners. They are not a European race, anymore than the others they're related to are. However intellectual they may be doesn't change their origin.

This false assumption that they're white, that they're victims, that they don't have a hugely disproportionate amount of power in our countries, that they're the chosen people or the brothers of Christians, all contributes to the degeneration of our society. Remove Jewish domination and the shabbos goyim that help them from our societies and you've cured most of the cancer right there.

jcs
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 07:48 PM
This false assumption that they're white
Identifying anything as "white" is false. "White" is a social construct. Along with no longer considering European sub-race x as sharing an identiy with Jews, we must abandon the notion of "whiteness"--as it encourages the identification of Jews with other sub-races, and the identification of all of these sub-races as one race.
Anyone who uses the term "white" encourages an error in perception that leads to miscegenation.


Remove Jewish domination and the shabbos goyim that help them from our societies and you've cured most of the cancer right there.
This could be interpreted in a couple of ways.

The correct way, "Jewish" as metaphor:
The West has become Jewish. Lo, even those of Nordic stock now have hooked noses! We have embraced a Jewish mindset, we are now obsessed with money, and we love our relativism--and have thus declined.

The incorrect way:
Look at the faux target! Look at the scapegoat! If we rid ourselves of Jews, all things will be right with the world!

The "Jewish Problem" is on one hand highly exaggerated and on the other completely ignored. In terms of a Jewish presence, the Jews are not a special case--the presence of any foreign element is harmful. In terms of spirit, few see the problem we face.

Sigel
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Are these Neoclassicalís words or did he paste it from another source?
From page one, second article by an ďallegedĒ bloke from Flanders.

Whoever wrote that hasnít read the genetic studies of Jewish lineage.
Well, I canít help noticing that in just about every article my mate neoclassical pastes up, there is some kind of Ďexonerationí for the Jews.

Why would that be do you think?

RedJack
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 08:35 PM
I dare you to name one element that is present in all white races but not in the Askenazim......

You mean besides the fact that they are NOT jewish?:annoysigr

Sigel
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Identifying anything as "white" is false. "White" is a social construct. Along with no longer considering European sub-race x as sharing an identiy with Jews, we must abandon the notion of "whiteness"--as it encourages the identification of Jews with other sub-races, and the identification of all of these sub-races as one race.
Anyone who uses the term "white" encourages an error in perception that leads to miscegenation.
You have to bear in mind that for many Americans, of mixed European background, "white" is about as close as they can get to any racial identity.
What would you advise your kinsmen to do?


This could be interpreted in a couple of ways.

The correct way, "Jewish" as metaphor:
The West has become Jewish. Lo, even those of Nordic stock now have hooked noses! We have embraced a Jewish mindset, we are now obsessed with money, and we love our relativism--and have thus declined.
I agree that we are on the wrong path.


The incorrect way:
Look at the faux target! Look at the scapegoat! If we rid ourselves of Jews, all things will be right with the world!

The "Jewish Problem" is on one hand highly exaggerated and on the other completely ignored. In terms of a Jewish presence, the Jews are not a special case--the presence of any foreign element is harmful. In terms of spirit, few see the problem we face.
Mate, in the USA anything that isn't Native American Indian is foreign. Your "white" community is under threat, so how do you define 'foreign' with this in mind?
If you refuse to accept "white" then how can you justify "black" or "yellow"?
Do you catch my drift? You can go 'phenotype fishing' among the whites, for a cream of the crop or accept an intellectual elite which may contain other admixtures.
Alternatively you could just get real and try to raise the racial awareness amongst the "whites". This does not need to be of the base 'White Power' kind, but people need something to be proud of; a reason to value who they are.
But I'm not American so what do I know?

P.S. Are you an ANUSite?

Nordhammer
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Identifying anything as "white" is false. "White" is a social construct. Along with no longer considering European sub-race x as sharing an identiy with Jews, we must abandon the notion of "whiteness"--as it encourages the identification of Jews with other sub-races, and the identification of all of these sub-races as one race.
Anyone who uses the term "white" encourages an error in perception that leads to miscegenation.

I disagree. You could equally say that European is a social construct, and that Jews claim to be European so you should throw that term out as well.

The term white itself isn't the problem, it's the misuse of it.

I am not opposed to using more specific ethnic identification.


This could be interpreted in a couple of ways.

The correct way, "Jewish" as metaphor:
The West has become Jewish. Lo, even those of Nordic stock now have hooked noses! We have embraced a Jewish mindset, we are now obsessed with money, and we love our relativism--and have thus declined.

The incorrect way:
Look at the faux target! Look at the scapegoat! If we rid ourselves of Jews, all things will be right with the world!

The "Jewish Problem" is on one hand highly exaggerated and on the other completely ignored. In terms of a Jewish presence, the Jews are not a special case--the presence of any foreign element is harmful. In terms of spirit, few see the problem we face.

So your idea is to attack the symptoms without attacking the source of the problem. Revilo Oliver would call that insanity.

Nordhammer
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 09:56 PM
You have to bear in mind that for many Americans, of mixed European background, "white" is about as close as they can get to any racial identity.
What would you advise your kinsmen to do?

There is no difference with white/European American racial identity than in Canada and Australia for example. Since the national identity has been corrupted, what else are we to do to differentiate our racial heritage? We can use specific ethnic terms, but I believe a broader and more inclusive name is necessary as well.



Mate, in the USA anything that isn't Native American Indian is foreign. Your "white" community is under threat, so how do you define 'foreign' with this in mind?

I disagree with this for two reasons: Kennewick man, and Amerindians are not native to our nation, only to the landmass. Let us not forget that the Mongoloids immigrated here in ancient times as well.

At what point in time does one become "native" anyway? I would rather use qualifications based on nation than on the landmass itself.

I do think that the Amerindians deserve a nation of their own and we should carve out some territory for them. As for the rest, they have their own homelands which they can be deported to.

Kalevi
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 10:04 PM
So your idea is to attack the symptoms without attacking the source of the problem. Revilo Oliver would call that insanity.

"The source" is not the Jew. It's America. The only loyalty people have in an American environment is money, and with money you can do anything. So, eliminate the Jews, and in no time you'll find yourself controlled by a new, about equally immoral White elite.

jcs
Saturday, August 27th, 2005, 05:48 AM
You have to bear in mind that for many Americans, of mixed European background, "white" is about as close as they can get to any racial identity.
What would you advise your kinsmen to do?
How unfortunate for them. But that is their problem, and they must find their own answers.
(and sharing nationality with me does not make those who share neither my racial or cultural make-up my "kinsmen."--though I am certainly not apathetic toward them)


Mate, in the USA anything that isn't Native American Indian is foreign. Your "white" community is under threat, so how do you define 'foreign' with this in mind?
By "foreign," I mean alien in blood and culture.


If you refuse to accept "white" then how can you justify "black" or "yellow"?
Again, social constructs. In terms of race/sub-species, "negroid," "caucasoid," and "oriental," and possibly also "australoid."


Do you catch my drift? You can go 'phenotype fishing' among the whites, for a cream of the crop or accept an intellectual elite which may contain other admixtures.
Alternatively you could just get real and try to raise the racial awareness amongst the "whites". This does not need to be of the base 'White Power' kind, but people need something to be proud of; a reason to value who they are.
I do not identify myself with those not of my blood and culture. Peripherally, the actions of those of my more extended race are important, but they are my second cousins and come after my family.
So: I encourage racialism, but want "whites" to identify themselves as members of more specific heritages, as doing otherwise encourages some nonsensical and counterproductive union based on what is most common in all "whites." If people could appreciate their uniqueness more, and rally together as Germanics and Slavs and Celts toward a goal--rather than "Whites" rallying for "White Nationalism" (because the identification of oneself as "White" leads invariably to one promoting "Whiteness")--then I wouldn't have a problem. But how often does this happen?


P.S. Are you an ANUSite?
We are the A.N.U.S.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.

And, no. I post at the ANUS forums and agree with many of prozak's writings, but views at ANUS are quite diverse and a finding common ground with a thinker does not render one a follower of their thought.


I disagree. You could equally say that European is a social construct, and that Jews claim to be European so you should throw that term out as well.
Well, insofar as a European must be a Europid, that is not the case. But people should not identify themselves as "European," but instead "Germanic," or "Celtic," or "Roman/Latin," or "Slavic." Or, better, some subcategory thereof. I would prefer that everyone identified themselves firstly by their family, then by town, tribe, ethnicity (Germanic, etc.), and THEN that which is common in all Europeans--their European-ness. Then Indo-European (or otherwise in the case of Hungarians, Finns, etc.), then Caucasoid, then as homo s. sapiens.


The term white itself isn't the problem, it's the misuse of it.

I am not opposed to using more specific ethnic identification.
The use of the term as opposed to a more specific ethnic identification is the problem.
But I think we are mostly in agreement here.


So your idea is to attack the symptoms without attacking the source of the problem. Revilo Oliver would call that insanity.
I do not see the Jews as the problem, but the symptom (thus I think you're the crazy one).


I disagree with this for two reasons: Kennewick man, and Amerindians are not native to our nation, only to the landmass. Let us not forget that the Mongoloids immigrated here in ancient times as well.
Outside of my ancestors' homeland, the only morality when it comes to possession of land is: might makes right. I believe that the American Indians probably view(ed) their land as sacred as we (should) view our own homelands, but I'll play cultural relativist to an extent and allow that--with the added stipulation that no one who is not an American Indian should care what they think. If they couldn't protect what they felt was sacred, they didn't deserve it.
(Same with Europe in the present situation. If a people cannot protect what they cherish--or foolishly cease to cherish--they do not deserve it!)


I do think that the Amerindians deserve a nation of their own and we should carve out some territory for them.
I can sympathize with the American Indian tribalist cause, but I would only give them land because: they wouldn't farm or industrialize it to death, most of those who live on any given tract of land are worthless and should have their land taken from them, and if I took that land I would have little use for it myself.
However, altruism should extend only to one's people (protection of one's extended phenotype is, after all, why we have this emotion)--they shouldn't be given land out of sympathy alone. And there should be no feeling that anyone--especially someone outside of one's race--"deserves" their own nation. Again: might makes right; survival of the fittest.

Sigel
Monday, August 29th, 2005, 09:51 AM
I do not identify myself with those not of my blood and culture.
I can understand your sentiment, but I'd like to ask the following.

May I assume you are Germanic? If so there is a certain finite percentage of fellow Americans who are also of this type scattered throughout the USA.
How would you categorize, organize and ultimately unite them?

Many Americans whilst claiming Swedish or Dutch ancestry will also have Scots or Irish blood. How would you classify these people? They are certainly of the same 'culture' as yourself (as this is a wider category than blood).

SiegUmJedenPreis
Monday, August 29th, 2005, 03:06 PM
Good. You do know that most English are of mixed subrace to such a degree that they're genetically predisposed to be homosexuals (same with Americans, except their genetic predisposition is to attend Jerry Springer filmings)?

Please prove that statement...as far as I could see the achievements of these "mixed" nations surpassed those of the so called pure one's.


LOL, the Italian family I mentioned was from Sicily.

Which brings up the next question: Are they considered white?

I find this very offensive to say the least...My grandmother on my maternal side came from Sicily, and she was white.

This kind of logic reminds me of americans who believe everyone from South Africa is black...

RedJack
Monday, August 29th, 2005, 09:19 PM
The entire point of my original post was that Italians looked foreign in this area. I have never been to Sicily, so I can't make any informed comments about the racial make up of that island, but this particular family had jet-black hair and olive skin so I wouldn't call them white. Still European, though.


I grew up in a very Nordic area, even Italians stood out from the crowd when they first showed up here.

jcs
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005, 02:00 AM
May I assume you are Germanic? If so there is a certain finite percentage of fellow Americans who are also of this type scattered throughout the USA.
How would you categorize, organize and ultimately unite them?
I would concern myself with my local community. Global-thinking (I would say "national," but America is too large to be considered a nation proper) and concerning oneself with something almost completely outside of one's control is closely related to the ethical imperialism that is the decadence of this age.
A hierarchy of responsibility: self--family (and friends)--extended family--community (town, city, etc.)--tribe (subrace)--nation--ethnic group (Germanic, Celtic, etc.)--meta-ethnic group (Indo-European)--race (Caucasoid). Concern yourself with your immediate sphere of influence before moving outward.
The only activities I do for the whole is of an intellectual nature (i.e., writing, affirming healthy behavior, and trying to spread good ideas).


Many Americans whilst claiming Swedish or Dutch ancestry will also have Scots or Irish blood. How would you classify these people? They are certainly of the same 'culture' as yourself (as this is a wider category than blood).
Germans don't wear kilts nor listen to bagpipes; Scottish and Germanic culture, though being closely related, differ substantially.
The subject of mixed Celtic and Germanic ethnicity has actually come up often on a folkish heathen board. "I have Irish and Swedish ancestry. Which gods should I worship?" The general consensus: if you have more Germanic blood than Celtic, you should identify with Germanic culture and Germanic practices, yet still have knowledge of your Celtic heritage (and vice versa); that is, you should be knowledgable about your entire heritage, but only embrace one aspect of it.
If there is no dilution of culture, a small mixture of two tribes so closely related is no concern. However, I worry that in America there are so many people of mixed ancestry that the result of an acceptance of these mixed folk into a more pure society would be far from negligible.

Heidenlord
Tuesday, August 30th, 2005, 03:39 AM
Germans don't wear kilts nor listen to bagpipes;

Correct me if I am wrong but I could of sworn that i read somewhere a long time ago that the bagpipes weren't only played in Scotland. If my memory serves me correctly the Swedes have a version of them also, although smaller I think.

Well I just looked it up and found some links you might be interested in.


The Highland Pipes are only one of the over thirty different kinds of bagpipes that have appeared throughout the world. The Spanish, French, Italians, Germans, Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, Tunisians, Indians, Greeks, and a myriad of other cultures have developed bagpipes of their own. These bagpipes have any number of drones, up to eight coming out the top, bottom, or side of the bag. Among the more famous bagpipes outside the British Isles are the Spanish Galicia which is like the Scottish bagpipe as far as the bag and air supply, but only have one drone. The French Musette which has keys on the chanter and a bellow to keep the bag full. And the Zampongno from Italy which has two chanters.

Bagpipes (http://www.regalmusic.com/bagpipehist.htm)


Scottish and Germanic culture, though being closely related, differ substantially.
The subject of mixed Celtic and Germanic ethnicity has actually come up often on a folkish heathen board. "I have Irish and Swedish ancestry. Which gods should I worship?" The general consensus: if you have more Germanic blood than Celtic, you should identify with Germanic culture and Germanic practices, yet still have knowledge of your Celtic heritage (and vice versa); that is, you should be knowledgable about your entire heritage, but only embrace one aspect of it.

Personally, I wouldn't waste much time worrying about it although I agree with the spirit of what you are saying. Anyone who has read the sagas or the history of Julius Ceasar's campaign through Gaul quickly realizes that while there were boundries between the Celtic and Germanic worlds there certainly was a lot of mixing between the two.

∆meric
Friday, September 30th, 2005, 04:38 AM
[QUOTE=jcs]This is the dillema faced by Americans: very few are anything but "Whites," being sub-racial miscegenates; and fewer Americans can identify themselves as anything but "White," having lost their distinct culture.
Your question is one many will have to answer for themselves. Those of us who still know their heritage should be concerned with sub-racial miscegenates only to the extent that such concern is necessary to remove them from our ranks.
"Best wishes, and get the hell away."


The White population of America is about 200 million out of a population of about 297 million. Base on ancestries reported in the last census I would estimate the nordish population to be at least 150 million. White Americans do not have a sense of cultural identity in the way Europeans do because of our history. For most of our history we have defined ourselfs by what we are not (Negro, Indian, Mexican, etc). Also our government purposely decided that the American indentity should be based a a civic creed (democracy) and not on blood. Those of English descent especially are not aware or acknowledge an ethnicity. About 40 million whites did not list an ancestry on the last census (2000). Practically all of these all predominately of English descent. At least 1/3 of the American population is of predominately British origin. This includes those claiming English, Welsh, Scots-Irish, Scottish or American. Many persons claiming German and/or Irish are also part English but do not claim it as English is sort of a none-ethnicity for many. With those claiming Dutch & Scandinavian& German, the Nordish portion is somewhat over half of the total population. A large number of Poles & some Italians are Nordish. White Americans are miscegenates only in the sense that they are a mixture of different Nordish types. As a settler nation there may not have been a enough time for stable blended types to emerge. Media images are not a fair way of judging American Whites. The media in this country is dominated by jews with most major entertainment executives being Jewish or sometimes Italian. They tend to exaggerate the proportion of the non-nordish & non-white population. Many American have believed that whites have been a minority in this country for years because of media images.
Many non-nordish whites tend to be concentrated in the larger metropolitan areas, so Nordish-Americans dominate most of the American (rural) landmass. America has the largest pool of nordish genes in the world. Things are bad, but there is hope here. I think America is probably the White nation most likely to set its racial house in order (end non-white immigration, repatriate non-whites, repeal "civil rights legislation", end integration, etc). Europeans will never do any of the things necessary to ensure the survival of the White race in Europe because they are too "civilized".

Sigel
Friday, September 30th, 2005, 08:40 AM
I think America is probably the White nation most likely to set its racial house in order (end non-white immigration, repatriate non-whites, repeal "civil rights legislation", end integration, etc). Europeans will never do any of the things necessary to ensure the survival of the White race in Europe because they are too "civilized".
Theyíre about level pegging IMHO. I would love to see any nation pave the way and set an example. If this were America, Iíd be happy as people tend to be influenced over time by prevailing U.S. Philosophy.
Your comments on the lack of English roots of many Americans was interesting and I think accurate. Americans who take interest and pride in their European roots are keen to talk about their Irish, Scottish, German, Polish, Dutch or Swedish ancestors but Iíve never yet met a single American who has said that his bloodline was English.
One could almost come to the conclusion that no Englishman ever set foot on American soil!

Heidenlord
Friday, September 30th, 2005, 02:05 PM
Theyíre about level pegging IMHO. I would love to see any nation pave the way and set an example. If this were America, Iíd be happy as people tend to be influenced over time by prevailing U.S. Philosophy.
Your comments on the lack of English roots of many Americans was interesting and I think accurate. Americans who take interest and pride in their European roots are keen to talk about their Irish, Scottish, German, Polish, Dutch or Swedish ancestors but Iíve never yet met a single American who has said that his bloodline was English.
One could almost come to the conclusion that no Englishman ever set foot on American soil!

Hey I'm partially descended from the English. So you can say that you've met one now.

RedJack
Friday, September 30th, 2005, 07:26 PM
Your comments on the lack of English roots of many Americans was interesting and I think accurate. Americans who take interest and pride in their European roots are keen to talk about their Irish, Scottish, German, Polish, Dutch or Swedish ancestors but Iíve never yet met a single American who has said that his bloodline was English.
One could almost come to the conclusion that no Englishman ever set foot on American soil!

I've spoken with Canadians who could care less that they are of English descent, but anyone whose great grandaddy once saw an Irishman will go to great lengths to claim a connection. :scratch:

RoyBatty
Saturday, October 1st, 2005, 04:04 AM
Hehe, the Oirish rock! *hic*

I'm part Irish meself (and Protestant, lol :D )

beowulf wodenson
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 12:12 AM
White to me means indigenous to Northern Europe

That's my definition as well, in the case of Americans like myself, the descendents of colonists and settlers from Northwest Europe, especially England.
I do not ascribe to the whole "White race" singular thing but white races. White Americans are in essence an amalgation of similar sub-racial groups that call the British Isles, and Northwest Europe home which blended to create a new ethnic type, the White American.
The term 'White' is indeed an American concept to classify descendents of the North European settlers apart from the natives, negroes, mestizoes, etc. and is really only applicable to us, though increasingly useful for you Europeans as your nations are increasingly host to alien populations.
"White America" is not a monolithic whole, but composed of populations characterized by differing national/ethnic heritage, ancestry, and customs. An Anglo-Southerner from Georgia isn't the same as a Yankee from New Hampshire(we fought a war to prove that,lol), nor a Swede dairy farmer from Minnesota though we all call ourselves White Americans. That said, we Americans desperately need some popular concept of common racial kinship and destiny if we are to survive into the next century.

Thruthheim
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 02:43 AM
English Not Germanic? :confused: :speechles
The English are an amalgamation of many Germanic tribes, maybe more so than any other Germanic nation? Maybe that's why the Anglo-Saxon is a stabilized blend.

I always thought the equivalent to Slavic and Latino, was Nordic.- Not the largely linguistic/cultural term of Germanic.

Weg
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 04:47 AM
:laugh: This thread stater is a good damn comedian.

Sigurd
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Indeed, Weg, indeed. ;)

Siegfried
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 01:03 PM
I always thought the equivalent to Slavic and Latino, was Nordic.- Not the largely linguistic/cultural term of Germanic.

Slavic and Latino are also largely linguistic/cultural terms, while Germanic folk are definitely more of a genetic unity than the Slavs are.

GreenHeart
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Good. You do know that most English are of mixed subrace to such a degree that they're genetically predisposed to be homosexuals (same with Americans, except their genetic predisposition is to attend Jerry Springer filmings)?

Haha, what a joke... :lol00002:

You can't be serious. :icon12:

GreenHeart
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 06:36 PM
I myself am an American although I am now living in Germany. I have to agree that Americans are NOT homogenized like most Europeans like to think. From region to region there are HUGE differences between the kinds of people who live there, even from town to town. Probably much more so than most of Europe. The cities are generally speaking, made up of new immigrants like eastern europeans and nonwhites, plus blacks who have been in the US as long as any white people have. New immigrants segregate themselves from the blacks, and the other nonwhites tend to segregate themselves blacks as well. This certainly has its reasons.

Alone in my own home state I could draw out a complicated ethnic map, where each "ethnic" group is concentrated, and I can tell you which towns or cities you want to stay far away from because of who lives there and makes it a horrible place to live. In the US you simply won't find nordish people in big cities. I don't blame them I wouldn't want to live in a place like that either. Populations tend to segregate themselves in the US, even though it's actually illegal to do so. In any given town which has a sizable amount of nonwhites, the nonwhites live in one area, and everyone else lives together in another area with people belonging to their own general ethnic group. If other ethnic groups move in, in any significant number, the nordish white people move somewhere else. It has been going on like that forever, in the US. My ancestors moved out of Detroit when it started getting bad, my parents moved away from Flint as soon as they were able for a small nordish town out in the country. Simply put, Americans of all colors tend to have some kind of racial awareness. It's only natural, everyone wants to be among their own kind. The only people who don't move away when the ethnic make up of towns or cities change are those people who are too poor to move away. My dad works an hour away from his home, because no place closer is suitable for them to live, while my mom works 15 minutes away because property near where she works is too expensive. It is ridiculously expensive there because mostly only nordish people live there. This town is one of the blondest I have seen in the US. You can be sure that wherever there are a large concentration of blond nordish people in the US, and many stores to shop at, the schools will be better if not the best, and the property values will be two or three times what they would be somewhere else, because everybody wants to live there.

For further proof, some of my German ancestors came from the Pennsylvania Dutch. They are actually not Dutch but German. My ancestors lived there for over 200 years in this German speaking community, preserving records of ancestry along with their language- not to mention the fact that they only married other German speaking Germans for hundreds of years. There are many other such areas in the United States.

My own family even wrote a book about the family history, how life was, their personalities, their occupations, kids, who they married and how they died. Though true, it reads like a novel.

Skildur
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 09:02 PM
:laugh: This thread stater is a good damn comedian.

What do you expect from bedroom terrorist who spends 99,9 % of his life in the Internet?

palesye
Wednesday, December 14th, 2005, 09:51 PM
I always thought the equivalent to Slavic and Latino, was Nordic.- Not the largely linguistic/cultural term of Germanic.

You are wrong. Does Nordic Slav somehow become Germanic? Or Nordic Finn? Or Balt? :cool:

Slavic is strictly linguistic term. Not a racial. How can you compare Bulgarians and Poles, for example? Nothing in common.

othala
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 05:16 AM
I have thought about the term "WHITE RACE" and have found it to be worthless as it considers Germanic Americans to be the same as darker European types. Some have even gone as far as to attempt to bring Middle Easterners into the fold because they are at times indistinguishable from the darker types of Europeans. What I have come to realize is that I am Nordish and represent something that is of such great value that I cannot be on equal ground with a Sicilian pizza parlor operator. There are many places here in America where the Nordish flame burns brightly but the people are asleep and do not see their place in the world. The sense of kinship that I feel amongst them is not repeated when I am among the short, dark, and hairy Italians or other dark Europeans that seem to be proliferating in the US. Some seem more European than others, but none are Nordish. For our Nordish race to survive, I believe that we must learn how to be seperate but equal with the other non-Nordish white races and work together politically for our common survival. These thoughts are a work in progress, so critique as necessary......

Thruthheim
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 02:04 PM
You are wrong. Does Nordic Slav somehow become Germanic? Or Nordic Finn? Or Balt? :cool:

Slavic is strictly linguistic term. Not a racial. How can you compare Bulgarians and Poles, for example? Nothing in common.

So if Slav is a linguistic term? Then what is Germanic? Also, if Slav isn't a racial term, what category does the vast majority of Eastern Europeans come under? Alpine?

Sigurd
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 02:13 PM
An amalgation of Alpinid and Dinarid traits.

palesye
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 03:51 PM
So if Slav is a linguistic term? Then what is Germanic? Also, if Slav isn't a racial term, what category does the vast majority of Eastern Europeans come under? Alpine?

What do you understand under Eastern Europeans? Hungarians and Lithuanians (or take Poles or Belarussians if you want) are Eastern Europeans but they have not very much in common (racially).
It is like to ask what majority of Western Europeans come under. Do Spaniards and Danes look the same?

Thruthheim
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 05:01 PM
What do you understand under Eastern Europeans? Hungarians and Lithuanians (or take Poles or Belarussians if you want) are Eastern Europeans but they have not very much in common (racially).
It is like to ask what majority of Western Europeans come under. Do Spaniards and Danes look the same?

You are making your point by using regions(West Europeans- Also, Spanish are southern Euro's,Danes are North), Im talking of the whats commonly known as Slavic, Nordic and Romance.. does this not exist?

So Slavic is just linguistic? So why do people often offer Germanic as racial then? :confused:

beowulf wodenson
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 05:35 PM
So Slavic is just linguistic? So why do people often offer Germanic as racial then?


The northern "Germanic" peoples do have similar 'nordid' sub-racial types in common in addition to related language and culture, whereas slavs are classed more by language and culture? That would be my guess. As for southern Europeans, meditteranean types combined with north African admixture? That's the case for Sicily and Spain it would seem.

Siegfried
Saturday, December 17th, 2005, 05:14 PM
An amalgation of Alpinid and Dinarid traits.

These two types certainly do exist there, but it's a lot more complicated than that. East Baltid, Pontid, Nordid, etc can also be found. Lundman thought the eastern half of Europe is racially more diverse than the west, and I think he was right about that.


The northern "Germanic" peoples do have similar 'nordid' sub-racial types in common in addition to related language and culture, whereas slavs are classed more by language and culture?

Yes, the Germanic peoples are genetically far more of a unity than the Slavic nations.

GreenHeart
Saturday, December 31st, 2005, 03:15 AM
These two types certainly do exist there, but it's a lot more complicated than that. East Baltid, Pontid, Nordid, etc can also be found. Lundman thought the eastern half of Europe is racially more diverse than the west, and I think he was right about that.



Yes, the Germanic peoples are genetically far more of a unity than the Slavic nations.

That's true, northwestern europeans can't really be distinginguished from each other (with the exception of France). An Irish or English person could both equally blend in in Germany as a German would in Ireland or England, except for the language difference, and the same surely applies to the other countries as well. Although these countries have many subraces, we interbred with each other over the millenia, and thus form a closely related gene pool, and while it's a difficult concept to grasp, a germanic halstatt nordic is probably more closely related to a germanic bruenn than to a slavic halstatt. The slavs are generally outside the germanic gene pool, and spiritually unrelated, like the latins are. It's not wise to mix these groups.

Amerikaner
Thursday, June 20th, 2019, 01:17 AM
The article is talking about how talking about race realism is like saying that rain exists. But considering the level of denial people are in, stating the obvious is something people need to hear. I just suggest people avoid stating the obvious in a way that could make them lose their job.