"Don’t Write Off the Liberals" by Melinda Jelliby

This is a very interesting article that appeared in the White nationalist journal American Renaissance eight years ago. I’m not a White nationalist, and in fact as an anti-racist, I am dead set against them, but nevertheless, there are many truisms here. First is that real liberalism only works among Whites. This may indeed be the case, though the verdict is still out on East Asians.
Only Whites have adopted environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc. That is, everything we hold dear. Probably only Whites are civilized enough to break up a country without massacring each other in a manner that should shame the basest of lower animals in the process. Hopefully, a post on this in the future.
This is why the White Nationalist movement always seemed to be so strange to me in its hatred for liberalism, but this article sheds some light on the reasons for that.
One of the things that I think is so great about White people is how liberal we are, how we founded and led all of the major liberal movements all over the world, and how we are presently probably the most tolerant and altruistic ethnic group on Earth. Sure this is a recent development, but so what?
White-created liberalism has been exported to much of the rest of the world, where in general it has found little favor, though things are improving somewhat.
White men treat women better than any other ethnic group on Earth, and what do we get for it but flying crockery and kicks to the balls.
Whites treat gays better than any society on Earth, but the gay rights movement is part of the White-hating Left.
Nowhere on Earth is the environmental movement more cultivated and altruistic than among Whites. What other ethnic group on Earth would deign to save bugs, beetles, weeds, minnows, field mice and flowers? There is not one.
The PC Movement, horrible as it is, has some positive aspects. For one, it is incredibly altruistic. PC must be one of the most altruistic movements on Earth. It is so altruistic that is nearly insane, and this is why it arouses such contempt among sane people.
Like Christianity, it asks us to be better than most of us are capable of being. Like Christianity, it arouses the rage of those of us who cannot be as good as these ideologies demand of us. Our moral failings shame us, and in rage we lash out at the ideology that demanded of us such rectitude.
The article is also correct that welfare probably only works in a racially homogeneous society, otherwise it turns into ethnic warfare and/or a spoils system.
That many liberals, socialists, Communists, etc. of the past were also White racists is little known. This is more to be mourned than to be lauded.
Anyway, check it out, interesting read.

Don’t Write Off the Liberals

A real racial movement
cannot be exclusively conservative.

by Melinda Jelliby

I am a liberal. I am also a white woman committed to my race and civilization. I am in favor of much of what is called “big government,” I think the Second Amendment is an anachronism, and I have been reading American Renaissance for more than five years. This may appear to be a shocking contradiction but, as I will show, it is not. Nor am I alone in my views.
Admittedly, there are not very many of us liberals-cum-racial nationalists, but I predict there will be more. The white consciousness movement needs friends — from across the political spectrum — if it is to succeed, and it should not structure itself in a way that discourages potential allies needlessly.
To read American Renaissance (AR) is to get the impression that racial consciousness is a package deal based mostly on opposition; opposition to welfare, gun control, big government, women’s liberation, homosexuals, the United Nations, free trade, and maybe even public schools and social security.
There is no logical reason racial consciousness has to be tied to these things, and to do so as explicitly as AR does risks failing to be — dare I say it? — inclusive. It is true that a clear understanding of race is today more likely to be found among people who also take certain positions generally called “conservative,” but there is nothing inherent or inevitable about this.

The Historical Perspective

As AR is fond of pointing out, until just a few decades ago, virtually every aspect of what is today called “racism” was part of the unquestioned fabric of American society. It should not be necessary to note that that fabric has always been made up of competing schools of thought, many of which were “liberal” by today’s standards. “Liberalism,” in that sense, was perfectly compatible with a healthy understanding of the meaning of race.
Although it probably saddens the hearts of most AR readers, it is possible to view American history as the steady triumph of “liberalism,” defined as the steady dismantling of tradition, hierarchy, and inequality in the search for equality.
The very establishment of the country as a republic rather than a monarchy was in this sense liberal, as were a long list of Constitutional and legal changes: abolition of the property qualification for voters, direct election of senators, abolition of slavery, voting rights for women, compulsory education, the income tax, social security, organized labor, inheritance taxes, etc., etc., all the way up to the Americans With Disabilities Act and homosexual marriage.
It is racial nuttiness that is our enemy, not liberalism, and they are not the same thing.
Whether one sees this as the march of progress or the march of folly, my point is that however bitter the debates may have been over these policies, up until just a few decades ago neither side doubted that America was a European nation that could not survive if it ceased to be European.
The suffragettes, for example, wanted votes for women — a radical idea at the time — but they were not “liberal” about race. And of course, many abolitionists, including Abraham Lincoln, wanted to free the slaves and then expel them from the country.
In that sense, he was more “conservative” on race than the supporters of slavery; he didn’t want blacks in the country under any circumstances. My point is that ever since the founding of this country, it has been possible to work for far-reaching, even revolutionary change without upsetting race relations or losing sight of the racial identity of the nation.
It is easy to find “liberals” from America’s past who were also “racists.” Take William Jennings Bryan (1860 — 1925), certainly no reactionary. He thought blacks should be prevented from voting “on the ground that civilization has a right to preserve itself.” At the 1924 Democratic convention he spoke strongly against a motion to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, and helped defeat it.
His Populist Party running mate in 1886, Tom Watson (1856 — 1924), went even further, calling blacks a “hideous, ominous, national menace.” In 1908 Watson ran for public office “standing squarely for white supremacy.” “Lynch law is a good sign,” he wrote. “It shows that a sense of justice yet lives among the people.”
When he died, the leader of the American Socialist Party Eugene Debs (1855 — 1926) — certainly no conservative — wrote, “he was a great man, a heroic soul who fought for power over evil his whole life long in the interest of the common people, and they loved and honored him.”
The common people, certainly as represented by the Socialist Party, were not liberal on race. The socialists reached the height of their power during the early part of this century and at one time could claim 2,000 elected officials. They were split on the Negro question, but the anti-black faction was probably the stronger.
The party organ, Social Democratic Herald, argued on Sept. 14, 1901 that blacks were inferior, depraved degenerates who went “around raping women and children.” The socialist press dismissed any white woman who consorted with blacks as “depraved.”
In 1903, the Second International criticized American socialists for not speaking out against lynching and other violence against blacks. The Socialist National Quorum explained that Americans were silent on the subject because only the abolition of capitalism and the triumph of socialism could prevent the further procreation of black “lynchable human degenerates.”
At the 1910 Socialist Party Congress, the Committee on Immigration called for the “unconditional exclusion” of Chinese and Japanese on the grounds that America already had problems enough dealing with Negroes. There was a strong view within the party that it was capitalism that forced the races to live and work together, and that under Socialism the race problem would be solved for good by complete segregation.
In their racial views, American socialists were in complete agreement with Karl Marx. He and Friedrich Engels both despised blacks and used the English word “nigger” in private correspondence even though they wrote in German. Marx called his rival for leadership of the German socialism movement, Ferdinand Lassalle, “the Jewish nigger,” and described him thus, in a letter to Engels:

It is now entirely clear to me, that, as his cranial structure and hair type prove, Lassalle is descended from the Negroes, who joined Moses’ flight from Egypt (that is, assuming his mother, or his paternal grandmother, did not cross with a nigger)… The officiousness of the fellow is also nigger-like.

Samuel Gompers: “American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism”

Samuel Gompers (1850 — 1924) epitomizes old-school American liberalism. He was a Jewish immigrant who found-ed the American Federation of Labor and worked constantly for “progressive” causes, but when it came to race, he was firmly in the white man’s corner.
In a 1921 letter to the president of Haverford College explaining the AFL’s position on immigration, he wrote: “Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil.”
In an AFL monograph entitled Meat vs. Rice: American Manhood Against Asiatic Coolieism , he wrote, “It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion.”
The author Jack London (1876 — 1916) was, in his day, the best known, most highly paid, and popular author in the world. He was a committed socialist but also a white supremacist. He wrote that socialism was “devised for the happiness of certain kindred races. It is devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races.”
There were, however, some races that were not going to go quietly extinct but would have to be taken firmly in hand. In a little essay called “The Yellow Peril,” London worried about what would happen if the 400 million Chinese were ever taken in hand by the 45 million Japanese and led on a crusade against the white man:

Four hundred million indefatigable workers (deft, intelligent, and unafraid to die), aroused and rejuvenescent, managed and guided by forty-five million additional human beings who are splendid fighting animals, scientific and modern, constitute that menace to the Western world which has been well named the ‘Yellow Peril.’

The English philosopher Bertrand Russell, (1872–1970) was another well-known socialist free-thinker, and eternal gadfly to all things conservatives hold dear — well, almost all things. On the race question he was entirely on Jack London’s side. In a 1923 book called Prospects of Industrial Civilization he wrote:

[The] white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence…
Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.

These people were socialists, but that did not blind them to race. They were for socialism and progress but whites came first.
It is also worth noting that a certain central European politician who had considerable influence on mid-century events was a National Socialist. The most famous racist in world history was no libertarian friend of big business. He was a typical rabble-rousing lefty who got his start in beerhalls, not in boardrooms.

Woodrow Wilson … League of Nations and Segregation, Too.

Woodrow Wilson is on the enemies list of many conservatives who see his love affair with the League of Nations as a precursor to national capitulation and One World Government.
But he, too, was a committed racialist who kept Princeton University all white when he was in charge, and made sure, as President, that white bureaucrats did not have to sit next to blacks. After a private showing of D.W. Griffith’s movie, Birth of a Nation, attended by selected senators, congressmen, and Supreme Court chief justice Edward White, he remarked admiringly that the film wrote “history with lightening.”
Not even feminism, which is today closely associated with anti-racism, had origins of which it can today be entirely proud. Margaret Sanger (1883 — 1966) was an early advocate of women’s liberation and was the founder of what is now Planned Parenthood.
She was a militant advocate for female suffrage, published articles on sexuality in a socialist magazine named The Call, and in 1914 founded her own feminist journal, The Woman Rebel. Sanger was a revolutionary — but not when it came to race. She liked the racial hierarchy exactly as it was, and was friends with Lothrop Stoddard, who contributed to her publication.
There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about any of these examples of liberal “racism.” The natural human perspective is that of the tribe. Within the tribe there can be libertarians, socialists, Christians, atheists, and any number of antagonists who are nevertheless loyal tribesmen.
Politics is supposed to end at the water’s edge, meaning that whatever differences Americans have among ourselves are set aside when we face the outside world. Although it never became a catch-phrase, it used to be that politics ended at the race’s edge too.
There is no reason why it should not continue to do so. There is no contradiction between virtually every traditionally liberal position and racial consciousness. In fact, many liberal policies require an understanding of racial differences. For example, I think government has an important role in helping look after people who cannot look after themselves.
But I also think people support welfare programs only when there is a shared feeling of social obligation, which cannot be felt across racial lines. Just as Americans resent it when aliens go on welfare, they resent it when people who are visibly not their kin — but happen to be citizens — take public charity.
As well they should. And no one should pretend that it is only whites who feel this way. If it turned out that whites were getting scholarships from the United Negro College Fund the black outcry would be deafening — even though most of the funding comes from whites.
I think welfare benefits at a certain level are a natural reflection of the way whites build societies. Every white nation, without exception, has moved in this direction. If the nanny state goes too far, as it did in Scandinavia, voters will rein it in, but the record suggests that welfare programs are inherent to white societies.
It is only when non-whites who do not feel the same reciprocal web of obligations to society are included in welfare that we get abuse and degeneracy so flagrant that we are tempted to throw out the whole system. But it is silly to think that just because blacks and Hispanics make a mess of welfare that welfare itself is wrong.
The emancipation of women and the loosening of sexual restraints must also be understood in a racial context. It has opened up opportunities for many white women but has condemned huge numbers of black and Hispanic women to wretched single-motherhood.
Here again we see racial traits that do — or do not — make “liberalism” possible, and it would be a mistake to condemn liberalism itself because of the havoc it has wrought on certain groups.
It is true that in Scandinavian countries illegitimacy rates are high — 65 percent in Iceland, 49 percent in Norway, and 54 percent in Sweden — but this does not mean for the Nordics what it means for Harlem.
Swedes may not be marrying but they are cohabiting in exactly the kind of stable relationship that is necessary for children and which marriage is designed to ensure. High rates of black bastardy and its attendant horrors are the price Americans pay for “liberalism,” but in Sweden high rates of bastardy are essentially benign.
There are many “liberal” movements — animal rights, environmentalism, ecumenicism, homosexual rights — that have virtually no following among non-whites, and that unmask liberalism’s best-kept and most embarrassing little secret: only whites can really be liberals (the verdict is still out on north Asians).
Try explaining women’s liberation to Africans, or telling Honduran millionaires there should be income redistribution, or arguing for religious freedom with Muslims, or telling Japanese to be nice to homosexuals, or even asking American blacks to recycle beer cans.
To repeat: A far-reaching liberalism involving redistribution of wealth requires, first of all, a homogeneous society in which people think of their nation as an extended family. Those feelings do not easily cross the racial divide.
Second, liberalism succeeds only with whites. Although they refuse to admit it, the frustration of so many of today’s liberals comes from trying to make their policies work in a multiracial society like our own and from trying to export them to places like Haiti.
Liberalism is no different from so many other practices and institutions that sprang up among whites and are not appropriate for others. Our country keeps mindlessly trying to push democracy, rule of law, freedom of the press, etc. onto people for whom these things are meaningless. But it would be a mistake to note the racial aspect of the mismatch only when a “conservative” idea or institution fails to take root among non-whites. Liberalism deserves the same analysis.
Let me explain. It seems to me that AR has come very close to suggesting that private ownership of firearms is appropriate for whites but not for blacks. In effect it is saying it is superficial to conclude, as liberals do, that guns are to blame for our rates of violence.
AR loves to go the NRA one better and argue that not only do people rather than guns kill people, it is certain people who kill people. Don’t throw out the Second Amendment, says AR; wake up to race.
Likewise, in the November 1999, issue there is an O Tempora item about the disproportionate number of non-whites who fall afoul of the University of Virginia honor code.
AR writes that if non-whites succeed in junking the honor code, “one more institution built by whites for whites will have been set aside because non-whites could not meet its demands.” Once again, the AR argument is that we must not consider institutions or ideologies to be failures just because non-whites wreck them.
AR should judge liberalism by the same standards. It should be open to the argument that, like private ownership of weapons and the UVA honor code, liberalism is perfectly sound when practiced by the people among whom it originated and for which it was designed.
To expand distinctively white institutions to include others is like putting a saddle on a cow. Do not be unfairly selective in this insight and apply it only when non-whites destroy “conservative” ideals. They destroy “liberal” ideals, too.
A dedicated liberal with any sense of the practical should be a dedicated separatist.
It is racial nuttiness that is our enemy, not liberalism, and they are not the same thing. You may disagree all you like with Margaret Sanger, Jack London, Tom Watson, and the turn-of-the-century socialists, but they had no illusions about race.
The fatal mistake was when liberalism jumped the tracks and went soft-headed about blacks. Two very important things happened as a result. First, liberalism became hated as never before. To be sure, there were fights over women’s suffrage, the League of Nations, the New Deal, and all the rest, but only in recent times have large numbers of Americans thought of something called “liberalism” as pure poison.
They hate liberalism because of its association with affirmative action and non-white immigration but also because of liberalism’s very evident failure when applied to non-whites, particularly blacks. Liberalism became associated — unnecessarily and illogically in my view — with racial idiocy, and at the same time, because its programs were being applied to non-whites for whom they could not possibly work, liberalism appeared to be inherently defective.
People also hate liberalism because it was only when racial equality became one of its central goals that liberalism grew spiteful and incapable of gentlemanly disagreement. It was only when anti-racism became its central project that liberalism started using police-state psychology and began to excommunicate opponents.
There were no jokes about the tyranny of “political correctness” until liberalism was poisoned by racial idiocy and became snarling and sanctimonious. It should be possible to mount a reasoned, libertarian attack on the welfare state without being called a Nazi and driven from respectable society.
One should be able to argue for indirect election of senators, raising the voting age, restoring the property qualification for voters, or even establishing a monarchy without being considered much more than an eccentric. However, as soon as any of these ideas can be seen as hurting non-whites today’s liberalism requires that their advocates be banished to outer darkness.
Racial foolishness has made liberalism so small-minded and intolerant that it can no longer muster wide support for the genuine benefits it has to offer.

Possible Future Allies?

The second thing that happened was that when liberalism and then the country lost its nerve on race and set in motion trends that could reduce whites to a minority, it meant that liberals had written their own death sentence. If the country really does become an Afro-Caribbean-Hispanic mish-mash it is not going to meet either the racial or economic requirements for liberalism.
You cannot have European-style welfare in a country with a Third-World population or a Third-World economy. It is all very well to pass laws that guarantee universal medical care, but if large parts of the economy are off the books, everyone cheats on taxes, and the doctors are on the take, you end up with private medicine anyway.
In its new, anti-white incarnation, liberalism will destroy liberalism. In order to survive, liberalism must reverse course on race. Believe it or not, some of us liberals understand this.

Was Anti-Racism Inevitable?

In objection to everything I have written so far, some would argue that “anti-racism” is inherent to liberalism, that it was only a matter of time before the leveling impulse that characterizes so much of liberalism would eventually get around to race. This may sound plausible but it is wrong.
Turn once again to the historical record. Marx, Engels, and the rest of the most determined levelers drew the line at race, as did virtually every historical figure who was “liberal” by today’s standards. They were not cleverly hiding an anti-racist agenda; like everyone else, they knew that politics stops at the race’s edge.
What’s more, liberalism always draws lines and will always be beaten back when it fails to draw lines. The greatest defeat of the leveling impulse was, of course, the collapse of Communism, but there have been other defeats: The states refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. The hippie movement, communes, and Israeli kibbutzes have come and gone.
Everyone now recognizes that capitalism creates wealth and competition stimulates efficiency. No one thinks foreign aid will cure the world’s problems.
But perhaps the most powerful argument against the view that anti-racism is inherent to liberalism is that not even passionate liberals are true anti-racists. There is no end to liberal hypocrisy about race. The judge who orders school busing but sends his children to private school, the “diversity” advocate who lives in a white neighborhood — these are now stock figures in the American comedy.
Not one college official or corporate executive has ever offered his own job to an underqualified non-white in the name of “diversity.” And this, of course, is why two aspects of the anti-racist movement — affirmative action and school busing — are on the ropes. Not even liberals are willing to send their children to school with blacks or be elbowed out of jobs.
I would add that it is only on race that liberalism is so offensively hypocritical. The people who want stronger gun laws, no tariff barriers, world government, high taxes, and more government look forward to living in the world they wish to legislate into existence. They genuinely don’t want gun laws for everyone else but concealed carry for themselves. There can still be honest, sincere liberalism — except when it comes to race.
I wish I could say that liberals were soon going to wake up from this anti-racist nightmare, and that Democrats will eventually become so ashamed of saying one thing and doing another that they will stop saying anything at all about race. Alas, not so. At one level my liberal friends know that they and their associates are hypocrites, but this doesn’t bother them.
They are like Christians who thrill to the gospel of charity and humility but ignore it in their daily lives — and who still consider themselves strong Christians. When everyone is a hypocrite there are no penalties for hypocrisy, and when there are no penalties there is no pressure to change.
At the same time, most liberals make the same mistake about race that AR does: They think anti-racism is inseparable from liberalism. Their commitment to “social justice” (within the tribe) is far stronger than their commitment to non-whites, but they think they must give up the former if they abandon the latter.
Finally, liberals have so great an investment in anti-racism they cannot possibly write it off now. It is hard enough to change intellectual course in middle age; for most people it is impossible if it means conceding that people they hate were right after all.
Can you imagine a Kennedy or a Clinton making even the slightest concession if it meant he agreed — if only in part — with David Duke? Not even the most overwhelming proof can drive men to that kind of humiliation. The battles over race have been too vicious for liberals to admit gracefully that they were wrong.
So what are we to do? First of all, it can be useful simply to understand that liberalism and anti-racism are not permanently linked, and to bear in mind which is the real enemy. Just because you meet someone who is “liberal” on some issue, do not assume he could never be an ally. If we are trying to build a movement for our people, it is counterproductive and wrong to think it must be exclusively conservative.
If this is to be a larger movement, we should not tie racial consciousness to any political positions. We need all the friends and help we can get, and dear though they may be to the hearts of conservatives, the Second Amendment, outlawing abortion, and prayer in the schools count for nothing compared to a common position on race.
For the time being, it is undoubtedly true that our allies are more likely to read National Review than Nation or New Republic, but there is no logical reason why race cannot eventually become like the war in Kosovo, opinions on which cut across the usual divide.
I predict that some day this will happen, and AR and other “conservative” whites should not prevent or delay this. In order for racial consciousness to reach anything like the critical mass necessary for us to change this country we need a lot more people who are willing to take a stand as whites.
The people who make that happen are not all going to be gun-toting government-haters. They are not all going to be members of the Council of Conservative Citizens. They are going to be proud, healthy-minded white people who disagree on a lot of things, but who see eye to eye on the only thing that really matters now, and that is race.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

59 thoughts on “"Don’t Write Off the Liberals" by Melinda Jelliby”

  1. “The article is also correct that welfare probably only works in a racially homogeneous society, otherwise it turns into ethnic warfare and/or a spoils system.”
    This is exactly what I’ve wrote here before – good to see you now believe it.
    Additionally, varying forms of socialism (or semi-socialism) can only work in a society that is racially/ethnically homogeneous (or at least very nearly so: 90+%) – socialism will NEVER succeed in very multiracial/multicultural societies. Mainstream economists and political scientists of the future will think of themselves as stupid for not figuring this out sooner.

    1. Well, it existed in the USSR, but it had to be held together at gunpoint, let’s face it. Same with Cuba. Venezuela has voted in a socialist many times now, and Bolivia a few times, but part of the problem both men are having implementing their projects is the multiracial nature of their societies.
      Canada still has a social democracy, and so does the UK, but in both places there are forces bashing away at it. The bashing seemed to start at about the same time as the multiculturalism set in. People are assholes. They only want to share with their own kind, not with others. That’s unfortunate, but that’s just how we are.

  2. RL: “Only Whites have adopted environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc … One of the things that I think is so great about White people is how liberal we are, how we founded and led all of the major liberal movements all over the world, and how we are presently probably the most tolerant and altruistic ethnic group on Earth. … White men treat women better than any other ethnic group on Earth, and what do we get for it but flying crockery and kicks to the balls? .. Whites treat gays better than any society on Earth, but the gay rights movement is part of the White-hating Left. .. Nowhere on Earth is the environmental movement more cultivated and altruistic than among Whites? What other ethnic group on Earth would deign to save bugs, beetles, weeds, minnows, field mice and flowers? There is not one. ”
    Correct, and eloquently expressed on your part.
    However, as Whites increasingly become extinct or extensively mixed these civilizational positives (which were invented and have been put in to practice the most by Whites) will in all likelihood fade away because other racial/ethnic groups do not practice/agree with them or are simply too unintelligent and barbaric to sustain them.
    Whites have been especially prominent in the environmental sustainability movement, an issue I particularly care about; I commented about that recently @ http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/lets_finnish_what_others_have_begun/#c75642

    1. I really do worry about a lot, Eman.
      OTOH, some Whites are still really terrible about this – for instance, the Southern European Whites in Argentina and the Iberian Whites all over Latin America. This is because I think that Iberian and South Italian Whites are what I call Arabized peoples – they are culturally Arabized. Further, the Whites in Russia are doing a pretty crappy job on the environment, but these have always been among the most backwards of our people.
      I agree with you that at present, non-Whites simply do not seem to be capable of the kind of environmentalism that we Whites are. I really do worry if they will ever be capable of it. This is something that we really need to think hard about. God how I wish that the rest of the world could be as liberal as the White West. It isn’t, but is that a permanent state or a temporary one?

    2. “OTOH, some Whites are still really terrible about this – for instance, the Southern European Whites in Argentina and the Iberian Whites all over Latin America. This is because I think that Iberian and South Italian Whites are what I call Arabized peoples – they are culturally Arabized. Further, the Whites in Russia are doing a pretty crappy job on the environment, but these have always been among the most backwards of our people.”
      Again you are correct. The reason Whites with a Southern Euro/Mediterranean background (Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, etc…along with people of Southern Euro/Med descent who live in the Americas, Australia, and so forth) are worse than Northern Euro/Nordic Whites on fixing environmental problems along with the other progressive issues you mentioned is of course because they are ‘less White’ than Nordics, i.e. they have significant non-White ancestry (they usually have a smattering of Arab/Near Eastern/North African/Turkish, Black African, and/or Asiatic genes). Similarly with White Russian Slavs, many have a lot of Asiatic ancestry (the hordes of Genghis Khan made it as far east as modern Poland and left Asiatic genes all over Eastern Europe, hence the genesis of the Slavs) – thus they are also ‘less White’ than Nordic Northern Euros. The fact that they are ‘less White’ makes them much less to prone to supporting what you call “liberal” values, policies, and rights.
      “I agree with you that at present, non-Whites simply do not seem to be capable of the kind of environmentalism that we Whites are. I really do worry if they will ever be capable of it. This is something that we really need to think hard about. God how I wish that the rest of the world could be as liberal as the White West. It isn’t, but is that a permanent state or a temporary one?”
      Non-Whites definitely aren’t capable of environmentalism, animal rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and other human rights like freedom of speech/freedom of religion/freedom of assembly/freedom of press, etc on the scale that Whites are (especially Northern Euro Whites) – history has proven that they simply aren’t as intelligent, conscientious, orderly, stable, or hardworking as Northern Euros and thus are unable to sustain those policies, rights, and values.
      I think you are using the words “liberal” and “liberalism” too loosely here, because not all environmentalism is “liberal” nor is the protection of the other values or rights we’ve discussed – not sure what the right term(s) might be though regarding the issues we are discussing…perhaps simply “White-Western”?

      1. “Again you are correct. The reason Whites with a Southern Euro/Mediterranean background (Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Greeks, etc…along with people of Southern Euro/Med descent who live in the Americas, Australia, and so forth) are worse than Northern Euro/Nordic Whites on fixing environmental problems along with the other progressive issues you mentioned is of course because they are ‘less White’ than Nordics, i.e. they have significant non-White ancestry (they usually have a smattering of Arab/Near Eastern/North African/Turkish, Black African, and/or Asiatic genes). Similarly with White Russian Slavs, many have a lot of Asiatic ancestry (the hordes of Genghis Khan made it as far east as modern Poland and left Asiatic genes all over Eastern Europe, hence the genesis of the Slavs) – thus they are also ‘less White’ than Nordic Northern Euros. The fact that they are ‘less White’ makes them much less to prone to supporting what you call “liberal” values, policies, and rights”
        I hate to break this to you (That’s a lie), but that’s crap. These Nordics actually have more black genes that many meds. Robert has made several post about how turks have less black genes that you average german. Also, its known that the Sami share certain genes with Moroccans.
        Also, the idea that russians have large amounts of asian genes is something i doubt. I don’t know a lot about russian genetics, but I know a lot about russian history. In Russia, the mongol occupiers were largerly ‘abseentee rulers.’ The lived around the south russian steps were there weren’t many russian at the time and had their capital at Sarai, which I believe is near modern day Volgograd/Stalingrad. Their contact with the russians largely involved beating the shit out of people who didn’t pay tribute or had ideas about rebelling. Later russian did have contact with tatars and other asians, but that doesn’t mean they bred with them. Things like religion and language blocked this. It is true that some russian have surnames with mongol or tatar origin, but this only denotes one asiatic ancestor for sure. Some tatars did convert and russify, but they were small portion of the elite and an even smaller portion of the total society. Russians also interbred with finnic people early in their history, but finland is has many of the traits of the other nordic contires so saying that contributes is nonsense.
        “hence the genesis of the Slavs”
        This is the dumbest statemate I have ever read. The ethnogenesis of the slavs occured LONG before that. Besides, many german probably have some slav genes. Contrary to the belief of prussian genocide, the germans probably interbred with the balts and slavs of the east who they conquered. And how many babies were made as russian soldiers raped their way from konigsberg to berlin? If we use you logic then the germans who lived amongst slavs in places like slovenia must have intebred and now have asian genes. It is also widely know that many germans do have jew ancestors.
        Russians stand up for themselves against immigrants. Where immigrants usually scare people in places like sweden they live in fear in southern italy. Since immigrants run amok in northern societies and interracial relationships are on the rise in these areas we can conclude that Northern Europe obviously full of pussy genes. This is why they wont fight back, becuase genetically they’re vaginas who were made to be dominated by feminist women.
        At the same time we should look at Scandinavian history. Lets look at the vikings. They attacked unsuspecting weaker people and raped their women. They then took their gold and other treasures back home. So we can see that since the vikings were rapists and thieves who loved bling that they must have held the elusive ‘nigger genes’ that David Duke has warned us about. Sorry Scandinavian niggers, but the mediterranean need to ban your immigrants so you don’t flood them with your violent rapist nigger genes.
        Going back to an earlier topic, I want to look at the assumptiom inplicit in the ‘Russians are half gooks’ claim. The idea that since the mongols were in russia that there must have been interbreeding flies in the face of the white nationalist claim that races naturally only breed with each other. This also means that the afrikaners are half-black and of course white southerns are part black. White southerners, afrikaners, and Scnadinavians should join together in black pride! Eman you are clearly a tim wise clone with you thoughts about naturally occuring mongerlization af the races and your love of nigger viking nordics.
        Sorry for the long post

        1. @Wade in MO
          Russia has the second highest rate of foreign immigration in the world second only to the US but unlike the US Russia suffers from a severe demographic problem and its suicidal non-existent open doors immigration policy to tens of thousands of Muslim Central Asians who will outbreed Russia with their 5+ children and strong potential links to Eurasian terrorist groups who have links to Chechen terrorism like the murder of a prominent Orthodox priest in his church in Moscow last year by a Tajik national.

        2. “Russia has the second highest rate of foreign immigration in the world second only to the US but unlike the US Russia suffers from a severe demographic problem and its suicidal non-existent open doors immigration policy to tens of thousands of Muslim Central Asians who will outbreed Russia with their 5+ children and strong potential links to Eurasian terrorist groups who have links to Chechen terrorism like the murder of a prominent Orthodox priest in his church in Moscow last year by a Tajik national.”
          I think you’ve missed the point of my post. He wasn’t talking about russians today, he was saying that their was massive interbreeding in the past, which I disagreed with. Also, just because there are immigrants doesn’t necessarily mean massive interbreeding. Cultural barriers can prevent such of the thing and are probably more effective than the ‘racial consciousness’ of white nationalists.
          I agree that it is a problem, but I think Russians ‘know the score’ more than westerners on these things. They have been near muslims or turks much longer than westerners and have had much success at controlling them. Sometimes they need to use brute force, but they have other methods as well. I have started reading a book called ‘For Prophet and Tsar’ by historian Terry Crews. The book talks about how Russians augmented enlightenment values and applied them to muslims in central asia from catherine the great till the revolution, when the policies were changed. They didn’t have to deal with a formal and limiting system like democracy, which allowed them to be creative and more effective.
          The russians know nomads and muslims well. What they do need to do is keep the oligarchs in check. After all, we know who the oligarchs are and we know how low their people are when it comes to this kind of thing.
          We also need to look in depth at stats. there are many ethnic russian in central asia. Kazakstan is 30+% russian with a volga german minority who can immigrate to russia. I don;t like millions of high fertility muslims migrating to the state with the second largest nuclear arsenal on earth and I’m sure russia’s leaders don’t like it either. I’m also willing to bet they have access to more info than us when making these decision.

  3. “[Sanger] liked the racial hierarchy exactly as it was, and was friends with Lothrop Stoddard, who contributed to her publication.”
    Sanger was a great thinker-strategist-activist; without her work in promoting birth control/abortion the USA would currently have tens of millions more ethnic/racial minorities than it now has, and the nation would of course be much worse as a result of that.
    Additionally, Lothrop Stoddard was a brilliant man – most of the predictions he made about racial issues/racial demographics, political issues (especially as they relate to race), and the rise of Islam back in the 1920s-30s have now come true…have you read any of his work, Robert? If not, you can d-load them for free at the following links:
    http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01572150&id=Nv7TeKoQuRYC&printsec=titlepagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_Tide_of_Color_Against_White_World-Supremacy
    http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01027004&id=sG8AAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP7#PPP11,M1
    http://books.google.com/books?id=I3BKkUhfvnIC&pg=PA3&dq=inauthor:Lothrop+inauthor:Stoddard#PPP9,M1

    1. Stoddard wasn’t a “racist” – he was a stark realist regarding racial/ethnic issues. He gathered the factual evidence available to him during his time, told the truth regarding that evidence, and has consequently been proven correct.
      As I said in the previous post, most everything he predicted back in the 1920s about race/ethnicity has now come true…we are surrounded by it everywhere in the White West now in 21st Century. Thus if you admire the cold/hard/rational truth, even if that truth is considered “racist” by the PC-police in contemporary times, you’ve got to admire Stoddard. The guy was a superb futurologist, surely one of best one of the entire 20th Century – he is a stellar White American (Anglo-Saxon) thinker to be celebrated and widely read, not one to be shunned and ignored as a nasty “racist” simply because he was brutally truthful about racial matters.

  4. Robert you have a misunderstanding of the word race. Race does not refer to ones skin color, ones race refers to ones lineage. So for example: the british aristocracy is of a different race than other white britons because the british aristocracy form a distinct tribe.
    A person can alter ones race within ones lifetime through education or adopting certain behavior patterns and speech styles. To alter ones race is to join a tribe.
    White people are not all of one race, that is THE BIG LIE that hitler kept telling people over and over again until people believed him.

    1. I guess I don’t agree with that. Also Hitler did not say all Whites were one race. He considered Slavs so inferior that he wanted to wipe them off the face of the Earth. He was really a Nordicist supremacist more than anything else.

    2. I did not use the term skin color to mean just skin color. I used the term skin color as short-hand to include all the other classical racial identifiers such as pherenology and facial features.
      My point is that you can’t tell a persons race by what they look like or their skin color. WHo ones friends are is an indicator of what ones race is. A race of people is generally of a variety of skin colors.

    3. Patrick: “White people are not all of one race, that is THE BIG LIE that hitler kept telling people over and over again until people believed him.”
      Patrick, you are clearly unaware/ignorant of the factual evidence regarding the White race and as such you should have no say in these matters until you learn the facts.
      People of White/European ancestry are the most genetically similar major race on Earth (they have the least genetic diversity of all races), while Sub-Saharan Africans are the least genetically similar and have the most overall genetic diversity. For the scientific evidence of this see: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/08/the_genetic_map_of_europe.php & http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/08/genetic_map_of_europe_genes_va.php – and as for Jews supposedly being
      ‘White,’ they don’t cluster on the same genetic map with White Europeans unless of course they have some recent White/European ancestors; see: http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/01/how_ashkenazi_jewish_are_you.php & http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/04/snps-dont-lie.php
      Thus Whites as a whole are much more closely linked in a macro-racial sense than many think whether they be Nords, Meds, Slavs, ‘Alpines,’ etc…it’s only that Meds, Slavs, Alpines, etc have a varying percentage of recent and/or distant non-White/European genetic ancestry, and thus they are ‘less White’ than Nordic Northern Euros. That is not to say that Meds, Slavs, etc are non-White – they are indeed majority White, but they are MIXED Whites. Thus there are MANY differing White ethnic groups (or ethnically White subgroups) within the overall White racial macro-group.
      With your stupid Hitler comment you again demonstrate your ignorance on these matters. Hitler never claimed Whites were “all one race” – he fully acknowledged that the White race can be classified in to many different White subgroups (or White ethnic groups) within the overall White macro-race. Hitler and everyone who knows what they are talking about knows that ethnic Germans are ethnically (BUT NOT RACIALLY) different than Hungarian Magyars, Southern/Sicilian Italians, Polish Slavs, Arabized Spaniards, the Finns, various Baltic ethnic groups, and so on. And it can be broken down even further than that…for instance, even within the German macro-ethnic-group (a major White ethnic group) there are various German micro-ethnic-groups (e.g., Eastern Prussians, Western Prussians, various Alpine Germans, Baden Germans, Bavarian Germans [many sub-groups of even that group], many Austrian German groups, Baltic Germans, Volga Germans, various German-Slav and German-Italian mixes, etc).

    4. Patrick I am sorry to inform you but one of the meanings of Race is ‘a group with an endogamous mating pattern’ which assuredly Whites have!!
      You may wish to check out the works of JP Rushton (‘Race, Evolution, and Behavior’)

  5. Well for one thing, Stoddard was a Nordicist, and I can’t handle that. I like Southern Europeans. There’s a difference between being a race realist (I am one) and being a stark flaming racist. Stoddard was a racist. It’s true most race realists are also racists, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

  6. Only liberals support environmentalism and all the other stuff I was talking about, Eman. Conservatives are against the whole lot. As far as Russians go, I doubt if they are much more Asian in their genes than the Finns, and the Finns are very liberal.

  7. The Finnish Right can’t do a thing, and as far as the issues we were discussing, Finland is probably the most liberal state on the planet. I’m not sure how Asian they are, but they are way outside the rest of European Whites genetically, and I doubt if they are less Asian than the Russians.
    The Iberians and Italians in Europe and the US are far more liberal in the areas we discussed than their brethren in Latin America. So much for racial determinism.

    1. “I’m not sure how Asian they are, but they are way outside the rest of European Whites genetically, and I doubt if they are less Asian than the Russians.”
      Possibly, but the Asiatic admixture found in Russians and other Slavs is of MUCH more recent origin than in Finns and is thus much more strongly expressed in them. That makes all the difference in the world.

  8. Race is best seen as an extended genetic family. That’s how I see it anyway. Race Denial is one of the most unscientific enterprises that anti-racists engage in nowadays. I understand why they do it – the knowledge of race tends to lead to racism, so let’s deny that race exists, and hence wipe out racism, but people are not that stupid. Anyway, I’m opposed to anti-scientism, no matter what good deeds it hopes to accomplish.

  9. Mr. Lindsay thank you for posting this excellent article!
    It is in fact one of my favorites from Amren.
    The fact that so many liberals were Racialists (Margaret Sanger, Jack London, Woodrow Wilson) just gives more credence to the notion that Racialism is Truth. After all if Leftists believe it to as well as Rightists then that must mean it is True!
    Anyhow I would mention one example since you guys are commenting about enviromentalism: California! From the 1970s to the mid-1980s (times I would travel there on vacation) it was a very nice place, but ever since the waves of mestizo immigration it has been thrashed! They breed like locusts and have despoiled Wonderful Pure Nature. I lived in San Francisco for a time and saw this happen first hand.
    California serves as a warning to White liberals who are still blind about Racialism.

  10. Sure it’s possible to view history as a series of liberal triumphs if you ignore all the liberal failures. Let’s not forget that liberals have fervently supported ideas such as the abolition of all marriage, “correctional” rehabilitation of criminals, legalized pedophilia (yes, seriously), legalized hard drugs, and so on. And communism is a whole category of failed liberal ideas by itself: abolition of religion, abolition of democracy, rationed food, etc.
    Also, while I can agree that whites more or less invented liberalism whereas conservative ideas are embraced by everybody, it tends to be whites who are able to come up with intelligent defenses of conservative ideas rather than just saying “we’ve always done it this way; our religion says so”.

    1. Communism is usually not thought of as liberalism. Communists do not like liberals and in general, liberals do not like Communism. No one but crazy reactionaries equates the two. True they are both leftwing, but the similarity ends there.
      Legalized pedophilia, abolition of all marriage and legalization of hard drugs have never occurred anywhere on Earth and the overwhelming majority of liberals have opposed them anyway. Most would say that those are radical positions and not liberal ones.
      As far as rehabilitation of criminals, yes, it has proven to work.
      That conservative ideas are embraced by the whole world is one reason the world is such a fucked up place. Conservatism and the Right is backwards, barbaric, and uncivilized. Sure Whites used to be conservatives. But we outgrew it because we are superior.
      When Cuba has the lowest malnutrition rate in Latin America, it is hard to call food rationing a failure. By the 1970’s, China’s food rationing had eliminated hunger for the first time in the history of China. What’s so failed about that?
      Most would not call abolition of democracy a liberal idea. Liberals created democracy and conservatives have always opposed it, and conservatism is always plutocratic and cannot afford to be democratic.

  11. Also, I agree that “the verdict is still out on North Asians” because most of their countries haven’t been democratic for very long: Japan 60 years, Korea and Taiwan about 20, and Im not sure any of the others can be called democratic even today, so you’re basically looking at the beliefs of the ruling class rather than the people.

  12. …”In current practice, anti-racism is aimed at whites. In their case, racism includes not only hatred and abuse, but any distrust of others, any special concern or preference for whites, any recognition of whites as a people. Anti-racism also imposes on whites an obligation to sacrifice their interests to those of nonwhites. If a white does something at odds with black interests or desires, for example if he fails sufficiently to favor “affirmative action,” he is racist or at best insensitive.[10] In contrast, public statements by blacks can be revoltingly bigoted without consequence.[11]
    Permitting to some what is forbidden others seems to relativize racism and thus deny that it is ultimate pathological evil. It also suggests that anti-racism draws support from anti-white bigotry. The suggestion is correct.”
    – Jim Kalb
    Anti-Racism
    http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/1447

    1. Yes this is true, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Anti-racism must oppose racism against Whites too or it is worthless. And if others have the right to pride or pursuit of interests, surely Whites do too.
      Personally, I am an ethnocentric White man, a race realist and an anti-racist. No contradiction at all.

    2. whodareswings:I don’t agree that racism should be directed toward whites Jim. However, you must be realistic and fairminded in your thinking.If you are honestly looking for truthful answers and not simple justifications for white insensitivity. Black people have worked for this country for free and been murdered, raped and abused for centuries. No Affirmative action? You have got to be kidding…that is the very least that this crooked goverment should have done for black peoples troubles and horrific treatment. Would you have preferred to have had the situation blacks suffered reversed and we complain about anti-racism from the people we got fat and rich off? Absoloutley not. I know you wouldn’t. It always amazes me that white men and women who live off the fruit of black inventions and free labor that made this country powerful and filthy rich can moan and whine about a few unorganized non-violent blacks making a bigoted statement on T.V.
      (More than half of these black guys are owned by those posing as liberal jews or goverment controlled whites anyway)Its like you guys simply don’t posses enough intellectual elasticity to understand that had black peoples and other colored people around the world truly been as hateful,racist and deviously violent as you white people, you all would never have been able to reach the financial and political levels that you enjoy today as a white man. You should get down on your knees and thank God , that black people are not as devious,violent and bitterly hateful as white people are and would be in our exact same situation. To top matters off for all the stupid small minded,white Nationalist theories;(Blacks being less intelligent than whites,Egyptians being white and the Khoi San not fathering any of the modern Asians) and fear of miscegeneation talk, the goverment refused Marcus Garvey and The Honarable Elijah Mohammed the means to safely transport a large segment of black people out of this country. The same country which has done every despicable action under the sun to alienate black people and attack them. Thank God we still survived and invented devices you enjoy daily despite oppression. Your goverment doesn’t really want AA’s to have their own space of land to live off and thrive financially and socially,they want escape goats and foot stools for the whites who are going to do evil and mess up. Every all black town that started up in American history and was thriving sucessfully was invaded by conniving hateful whites and destroyed. I thought whites wanted seperation from us? I guess not. Not to mention the milions of dollars made each year off of black inmates in prisons across this terrorist country. I am an ethnocentric black man and a racialist and an ant-racist all not contrictions. I just hope that one day people mainly white people(since they have the bigger issues with fair minded friendship and racism will stop their myopic, devilish thinking and unify with all mankind and nature across the planet.

  13. It’s ironic indeed that the people most militant about protecting the legacy of the white race are those who understand it least, and who have the most in common with the other races as described in this article.

    1. One thing the author leaves unanswered: What would her course of action be if she called the shots? Expulsion? Forced separation?

    2. This is the question, it seems. If the white race and civilization as we know it are in such peril, what specifically are they prepared to do about it?

    3. Do you guys even have any evidence to back up this baseless claim???
      Jared Taylor went to Yale!
      Sam Francis had a Phd!
      David Duke has a Phd!
      Clearly Whites know their own civilization.

  14. Liberalism and racial nuttiness (as exemplified in PCism and all the things people are afraid to say) have not always been synonymous. But for most of the time that most of those currently alive can remember, liberalism *has* been synonymous with judging people as individuals rather than as representatives of a given gene pool. I could see people ditching PCism and affirmative action, but I really don’t see many wanting to go back to the 1920s and earlier, at least not after mulling it over. I think even many people who are instinctively racist in their personal lives and emotions would regard this as (rightly, IMO) essentially unfair and unjust.
    As an illustration, who would want to go back to the days when there was a government official specifically responsible for determining whether ostensibly white people had black blood, and therefore had to withdraw their kids from “white” schools and move out of :”white” neighborhoods? This actually happened. What if it happened to you or, say, your daughter in law?

    1. You’re right, Mort. It’s not coming back. Racism is dead and gone and even liberals who live in White towns and cities do not want to go back to it. Most of them, if you talk to them, are vehemently anti-racist in that regard.

  15. Jared Taylor tells me that she is a White separatist. She wants some kind of White enclave somewhere in the US so the Whites who want to secede can go live there. The rest can live in Multicultiland.

    1. How do they intend to do it, I wonder? Can anyone imagine this being approved by any court in the United States?
      These people are either oblivious to reality or they’re not being honest about what they really intend to do to bring this about.

    2. Whether she wants to admit it or not, White separatism as such is pretty inimical to any kind of liberalism most people will recognize. My prediction is that she will gradually ditch liberalism and drift toward the “me and my shotgun” attitude of most WNs and WSs. She pretty much has to. Liberals won’t accept her overt racism even if they are race realists or otherwise tired of the nuttiness; and her racial comrades will go into spasms when she makes a grab for their guns.
      That’s not to say that whites as whites shouldn’t defend themselves from racially motivated attacks, or that whites shouldn’t be proud of the achievements of Western Euro civilization (because that’s what we’re really talking about here). But the rest of it is fundamentally unworkable. Interesting article, though.

    3. “How do they intend to do it, I wonder? Can anyone imagine this being approved by any court in the United States?”
      Constantly changing and shifting issues, values, and mores regarding legality/illegality are null-and-void as far as I am concerned as long as the long-term survival of Whites in the USA is at stake.
      It’s obvious that if it should come down to choosing between the breaking of some anti-White/pro-multicult laws vs. the extinction or near-extinction of Whites in the USA, myself as well as other Whites with a conscience will of course choose the former.

  16. Fioreth, Mort Goldman is a non-Zionist Jew.
    David Duke’s PhD is utterly worthless. He got it from some anti-Semitic Ukrainian diploma mill in something like Zionism and Holocaust Studies. He wrote a “dissertation” on that. It’s a joke.
    What he means is that almost all White nationalists hate liberalism to the core. A few are socialists, but even those usually want some kind of fascist socialism. A few are environmentalists. A few WN gays support gay rights. WN’s in general are anti-environment, anti-women’s rights, anti-animal rights, anti-gay rights, often anti-democracy, anti-freedom of religion, pro-gun, etc. 95% of them are on the Far Right. Yet White civilization, as the author points out, nowadays, is liberal civilization. Yet those who claim they love White civilization the most hate (White) liberalism the most. It doesn’t make any sense.

    1. Well I would have to agree with your assessment however as I had posted earlier this is one of my favorite Amren articles and I read it early on in my Racialist Awakening Process. I would probably fit in as a ‘liberal Racialist’, lets take a short look at issued you brought forth:
      – Favor Socialism – National Socialism, National Bolshevism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism ) and Strasserism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism ) are all fine by me!
      – Favor enviromentalism
      – Don’t care about gays (believe they are only 3% of the population so not that important really)
      so that is pretty liberal for the Racialist/ WN world.

    2. “WN’s in general are anti-environment…”
      Not true – in fact, environmentalism and environmental CONSERVation was pioneered by one of the 2oth centuries most prominent racialists, Madison Grant.
      Without his pioneering efforts in conservation and zoology many species would have gone extinct in North America, including American bison and even possibly California’s redwoods. He also worked assiduously to establish America’s National Park system. Read a bit more about Grant’s environmental activism at the following – http://hbdbooks.com/?p=76
      Environmentalism has been surreptitiously co-opted by leftists in the past few decades. Nearly all of the early pioneers in environmentalism were conservative White men who would be considered horrible ‘racists’ by the controlled/mainstream Jew-wrecked PC-system of modern times.

  17. Indeed, you White nationalists should look to Israel as a good model for the kind of society you want to create. My point all along, and why I am an anti-Zionist. Thx for confirming that.

  18. No problem, silver – I’m just glad to spread the word about the work of these brilliant thinkers/predictionists. Every racialist should become thoroughly familiar with the work of Lothrop Stoddard as well as Madison Grant (and there are of course many others).
    Have you ever read Grant’s THE PASSING OF THE GREAT RACE? If not, you can d-load the book in PDF format for free at the following link: http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC09053224&id=Q9cKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage
    That book, along with Stoddard’s book THE RISING TIDE OF COLOR (linked to above), basically predicted the impending racial disaster back in the early 20th century, a disaster which unfortunately now surrounds us in the 21st.

  19. I am a gruff in ya face American Jew.
    The NICEST people I have ever met are REAL Christian conservatives.
    While I dont ‘write off all liberals’ I certainly am NOT happy that they have SHOVED OFF Christian peoples RIGHTS in their own nation.
    Christians and right wing Jews are some of the MOST oppressed people in America now, BECAUSE of LEFTISM, not necessarily liberalism.

  20. Robert Lindsay,
    You claim to be an anthropology graduate, but repeatedly in your blog I keep reading one of the most vulgar errors it’s possible for an anthropologist to make.You repeatedly state that ‘such-and-such’ caucasoidal ethnicity from India is one of the ‘oldest’ caucasoidal groups extant.
    At the very basic level this is wrong, wrong, wrong.No extant ethnicity of homo sapiens is in any real or scientific sense ‘older’ than any other ethnicity – they have all existed in a continuous lineage from the primordial amoeba to present for exactly the same length of time, hence the use of the word ‘older’ in this context is ridiculous, similarly it’s wrong for anyone to say that a crocodile, for example, is more ancient than a rat.
    However, one can speak of morphologically ‘primitive’ characteristics meaning that characteristics of certain extant ethnies bear stronger resemblances to common extinct forms than others.
    This is not supposed to be pompous or pedantic, but to get a very important biological principle across.

    1. First of all, I am not an anthropology graduate. However, I worked as a cultural anthropologist for a while. I only took one anthro course in college. Cultural anthros don’t work with physical anthro stuff.
      I strongly disagree that there are not more archaic phenotypes and more progressive ones. My feelings about the peoples of India are merely a hypothesis. I suspect that at least some may represent an older phenotype – that is, representative of what we used to look like.
      Some phenotypes are more modern since they only recently appeared. Others are more archaic in that they represent what humans used to look like. One can find this in a number of animal species also, nothing revolutionary about it.
      All I’m trying to suggest is that some humans may look more like we used to, and some may be more modern phenotypes relatively newer in history.

  21. Eman,
    Your ignorance of the genetics and phenotypes of the various European ethnicities is simply breathtaking.
    However, I’m not surprised this seems to be a very, very common characteristic amongst Americans, most of whom have never set foot on European soil and whose firsthand knowledge is zero.
    As a matter of fact until very recently, (ie 40 years ago), Britain was by far the worst industrially polluted nation in Europe – things only really changed after Londob’s ‘great smog’ of 1960 (due to smoke pollution) that killed thousands in a particular harsh winter due to bronchial aggravation.

  22. ” Only Whites have adopted environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc ”
    Obviously not true. Until the turn of the 20th century, Islam had far more civilised laws regarding women’s rights, and still has to some extent. Honour killing, stoning and all that are local customs not sanctioned by Islam, in theory anyway. The West’s record on all that isn’t much better – someone pointed out that if you take away the loaded language and call ‘honour crimes’ what they are called in the West – domestic abuse – then there is more of it in the USA than in the Arab world.
    ‘ environmentalism, animal rights, anti-racism, multiculturalism, women’s rights, gay rights, etc ‘have only been adopted by a small percentage of the intellectual elites in the West – find me a white Western government that has a great record on any of these. You can find pressure groups in nearly ALL nations that support these things. Personally I DON’T agree with multiculturalism, which brings me onto:
    “OTOH, some Whites are still really terrible about this – for instance, the Southern European Whites in Argentina and the Iberian Whites all over Latin America. This is because I think that Iberian and South Italian Whites are what I call Arabized peoples – they are culturally Arabized.”
    You seem to be bending over backwards here to avoid stating the obvious. It’s because these people are Roman Catholics. It’s not ‘white culture’ that gave us all the advances towards tolerance of diversity, freedom of thought etc, but ‘ white PROTESTANT culture’, the culture of N. Europe, and now of a lot of Africa and the Caribbean. Karl Marx said of Protestantism that it was a significant step towards secularism because it dispensed with all the trappings, the iconograpphy, ritual… and so was a step towards doing without religious nonsense completely. We date all our cherished freedoms to what is now euphemistically called ‘the Enlightenment’, called this to avoid calling it what it was – ‘the Reformation’, the throwing off of the intellectual shackles of the totalitarian Roman church. The freedom to believe and worship was the first freedom leading to all others, leading to the asking of ” why shouldn’t we have freedom in all other areas too”.
    That’s why I’m against multiculturalism. It implies that all cultures are of equal value, which is obviously a nonsense; how can a culture that doesn’t believe in freedom of lifestyle or culture be of equal value to a ‘multi-culturalist’ as one that values tolerance. It’s the tolerant secular Protestant heritage we should be protecting, not the white race. Other cultures should be tolerated but encouraged to modify and assimilate, and should definitely not receive equal favour in our society.
    As to White Nationalists – they’re mostly just bullies and sadists. If they had a pure white, heterosexual, gun-toting, no-welfare society, they’d be looking for witches to burn, looking for people with too many freckles, or an extra toe, or whatever reason to gang up on someone. The only excuse for them is the jew nationalist gang that seems to have America by the balls – but the WNs sure ain’t the answer.
    MERRY CHRISTMAS

    1. “You seem to be bending over backwards here to avoid stating the obvious. It’s because these people are Roman Catholics. It’s not ‘white culture’ that gave us all the advances towards tolerance of diversity, freedom of thought etc, but ‘ white PROTESTANT culture’, the culture of N. Europe, and now of a lot of Africa and the Caribbean”
      BULLSHIT! By you logic then Austria and Bavaria along with Flanders. Some of these countries have had catholic minorities. Even though there not a majority, catholics are the largest group in the Netherlands and have been for a while. If anything, one might connect these values, or some of these values to Northern Europe in general, but even that is on shaky ground. If we were to believe you then things like the Hanseatic League could never exist catholic areas, but it did. In reality, many of things that people talk about in regards to these areas were developing long before they succumbed to heresy. Modern research in to the history of science has shown that the old view pushed by reformation and ‘enlightment’ liars is complete bullshit. The old view of history cannot be sustained. Notice how the idea of the ‘middle ages’ have been cut back in recent years. it used to be that people called the period between the fall of rome and the late 1400’s/ early 1500s was called ‘the dark ages.’ No that name has been cut back to the years ~500-1000 AD. You cant really blame catholicism for the problems of those years.
      Also, look at the US. Did protestant culture really lead to tolerance in Salem, Mass? How about the anti-catholic bigots who ran around this country for centuries? Were they tolerant? By your logic the American South should be a flourishing center of civiliazion under protest dominace. In reality it’s a backwater compared to other parts of the country that have far larger numbers of catholics. It’s also the historic center of backwards assholeness and racial violence in the US. Compare the southern US to areas with smaller land area and smaller populices. The US south versus northern Italy. The US south versus Austria. Which area do you think is more valueable as a source of culture and creativity. I don’t mean to disrespect the south, but the fact is it’s true. I’m not saying that cathlicism was the root of the success of northern italy or of achievements like the magna carta, but if we were to believe your argument about protestatism, then these things wouldn’t exist at all.
      One could also question whether many of these ‘modern’ values are actually good things. For example, I think germany bans scientology. This might not be good in the eyes of certain people, but I think its perfectly resonable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *