It’s rather amusing to note that the biggest racial fight now taking place in the US is in the Democratic primaries and as the Clintons are attacking (per Clintonite propaganda) dope-dealing crypto-Muslim Barrack Obama.  And the anti-racist crowd is worried about Ron Paul???!!!

“Anyone who elevates an attachment to ethnic identity over the fundamental truths of morality and the claims of supernatural charity will find no friend in me” Many “racialists” are like this, but some are not. Jared Taylor, I believe is not like that. And when you use the term it might be better to define it, because racialism like racism has a fluid, continuous definition. And please use evidence to reject what has traditionally been taked for granted all over the world in the fact there are innate racial differences. When you bring up the fact that people kill each other(with racial divisions in mind) that doesn’t make any theory about race less true. In fact, that helps their case. Thanks for letting us know how you stand on the issue. It is a bit more thoughtful than what I see from cultural Marxists.

Comment erases

The term “racist” was in fact coined by the mass murderer communist jew Leon Trotsky.  And Leon Trotsky’s real name was not “Leon Trotsky”.  His real name was David Bronstein.  All of you clueless white people out there, stop being afraid of a term that was created by a mass murdering communist jew P.O.S.!  Wake up!

I read Vdare and have never encountered the kind of vitriol found in the above posts. 

It’s my impression that Taylor et al.,think that the forces of Conservativism have failed to stop the racial balkanization of American life.  Therefore they see a need for whites to “play the game” so to speak in this racially polarized arena.

So the question is, is it to late to stop the madness?  If Conservatives can’t even prevent their own movement from taking on the character of an ethnic lobby, how can they defend the interests and culture of the majority, who see their country desolving around them?

I believe that the last hope for a decent future rests in the ability of the Conservative movement to redefine itself as culturally Western, Christian Conservative reform movement.  That message, taken to the public with the strong message that this movement will have nothing to do with persecution, might have a chance.  We simply need to force a decision in the public arena as to what is the American Culture and how do we preserve this culture.

Constitutional amendments to establish English as the official language is a start.  An amendment restricting immigration would be another.  A reference to both Greco/Roman and Christian founding principles might be another.  Finally the Constitution must be amended to abolish all government racial preference policies and infringements on free association.

One thing is for sure.  If we Conservatives fail in this, no amount of appeal to Christian morality will stop the majorities drift into racial thinking. And as we can read in these posts, this will reflect tribal hatred more than pride.

One thing

About the old KKK equivalent of blood-libel, the myth of Black men being obsessed with White women, thank God for Mel Brooks:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BB7tClTaQbg

And come on.  A middle class White American college girl stands a far greater chance of getting raped by a White college boy than by any Black gangstas who already have their hands full raping Black women.  Statistically, most rape victims know their attackers personally, and consequently most rapes are intra-racial.

@ felipeb, “Be a coward and flee to Idaho or Australia?”

Australia a country for cowards?  That’s as ludicrous as calling Russia a haven for teetotalers. 

“The White race is under siege by a divide and coquer tactic of Jewry.”

Crystal meth destroys brains.  You mean the “White race” is under siege by “non-whites” like, well like the Jew Kirk Douglas?

http://www.lovefilm.com/lovefilm/images/products/1/11641-large.jpg

Or this half-Jewish enemy of the White Race.  You wouldn’t want the purity of the White race to be contaminated with HER genes, now would you:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/225/473935846_2b9a54a0f1.jpg

“The descendants of the Founders of this nation and those of later legal immigrants have a right to preserve their culture.”

Yes they do, but until more of them begin to take more seriously the urgent task of
defending their landscape and natural resources from irreversible destruction, their professed claims to care about “defending their country” will continue to ring hollow.

This neocon article would be more appropriate for First Things or Weekly Standard

“Without commenting on individuals, I would say that your general point is central to my thinking and my idea of traditionalism. Traditionalism means an appreciation for what makes us what we are, all the dimensions of what we are, what our civilization is. A view that reduces us and our civilization to race, or that makes race the primary factor, is woefully incomplete and distorted. Race is a part of the structure of reality that makes us what we are, and liberalism denies that. But God and transcendent truth are also part of the structure of reality that makes us what we are, and the Darwinian racialists deny that.

Because they deny this fundamental aspect of existence on which our civilization and any society is founded, the Darwinian racialists are unable to articulate a meaningful politics and are unable to defend Western civilization effectively. The Darwinian racialists help us understand the truth of the racial question, which, while it may not have been important in past ages, is of indispensable importance for us, living as we do under liberalism which requires the total mixing of all races in our society and thus our extinction as a distinct people and civilization; but the Darwinian racialists are unable to relate the racial question to the larger whole of which it is a part.

Most Christians today are anti-racialists, a view incompatible with the survival of the West. Most racialists are non-Christians and reductive materialists, a view incompatible with the survival of the West. The key insight is that Western man and Western civilization are multi-layered. A view that takes just one part of the whole and treats it as the whole is no good. The West cannot survive unless it goes beyond these reductive, partial views and starts to see things whole. The true thinkers of Western civilization, the authors of the Hebrew Bible, Plato, Aristotle, the founders of Christianity, Augustine, were never reductionists, they saw the multileveled nature of reality, and man as its epitome. Modern Western man has lost that. Western survival depends on regaining it.”

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009679.html

Jews trained this guy well. Only jews and other “minorities” can have racial identity and pride. Whites need not apply. Shed yer blinders, dude, you have been taken for a ride.

Oh, and lest someone may confuse state inspired
racialism with communal preservation let me
point out that the two are not the same,
neither in affect nor method.

@ David, “This neocon article would be more appropriate for First Things or Weekly Standard”

Tell that to Taki’s face and (although I don’t speak for him) I’ll bet he’ll knock you down for the count.  Except, Gentlemen don’t bother brawling with non-gentlemen over matters of honour, so maybe Taki would just let you slink away - and when a Gentleman refuses to fight with you, that’s a lot more degrading than being invited to an honest fight between decent men.  At any rate, you’re really crossing a line calling one of Taki’s best writers a neocon.  Zmirak doesn’t necessarily represent what Taki believes in, but as long as Zmirak is one of Taki’s champion writers, when you insult Zmirak’s honour, you insult the host, Taki.

(Gloss:  Granted, a few months ago I insulted Jared Taylor who wrote an article for this site.  That is why, as a matter of honour, I will no longer write any articles for this site.  And as a matter of honour, I would present myself to take a blow from Taki if he thought it was necessary to defend his and his blog’s honour after I insulted one of Taki’s guest writers - an insult I continue to stand by.  I’m just asking you, and others, to remember that whenever you insult the honour of any of Taki’s writers, you’re challenging Taki’s honour.  You can do that, but please be man enough to accept the consequences with integrity.  Eh, that said, I think Taki would probably rather drink with me than fight - although I’ll stand by my offer to take a punch from Taki after I insulted one of his writers, Jared Taylor.  Followed by punches from the punch-bowl… :-)

@ “empty13”, “Jews trained this guy well.”

You mean John Zmirak.  Yep, Jews trained him well.  Moses, Jesus, the BVM Mary, St Paul, St Stephen and the other first Christian martyrs etc, yep, those Jews trained John Zmirak very well indeed.

John Ball:

You are an epic twit.  Stick to the scarecrows at hand and leave your “my dad can beat up your dad” buffoonery off the thread.  Surely you can summon one cogent point to argue?

Zmirak, you are a sorry excuse for a conservative. Someone said you belong in the neocon camp, and you most certainly do. You little politically correct slug. Why do you at all bother pretending to be something you’re not? Do you think you’re so much smarter than everyone else? You’re not.

Please say after me; “My name is John Zmirak and I’m a neocon”. Feels better, doesn’t it? The truth shall set you free.

Trotsky, your spiritual father, used another expression; “Useful idiot”. Meaning someone who fights for something that will never benefit him. So what are you fighting for? Really?

“Sepp” (another anonymous), evidently you, too, have become too barbarianised to understand the first thing about honour, or about fighting honourably.

And that’s a very cogent point, a point you’ll never understand. 

Come on, “Sepp”.  If you wanna tangle with me verbally (even if anonymously), the please put some heart and soul into it like a real man, instead of like a vulgarian bully-boy in a playground who doesn’t know the difference between honour versus “kicking ass.”

@ Craig Senna,

Well, at least you deserve some respect for using your own name.  Unlike many other “racialist” creeps here, you’re not a coward, and that deserves some respect.  Then again, Hitler was a very courageous man too, and he deserves respect for that, even in Hell.

You wrote:

“Zmirak, you are a sorry excuse for a conservative. Someone said you belong in the neocon camp, and you most certainly do. You little politically correct slug.”

HA!  JOHN ZMIRAK, POLITICALLY CORRECT?  Good GOD, man!  He’s an unreservedly PUBLIC Roman Catholic who really walks the walk of his faith, THE MOST CONSERVATIVE religion in the world!  And he has the guts to write and publish UNDER HIS OWN NAME according to his conscience, no matter what the professional consequences, or consequences of prestige or popularity, might be for him.  That’s the kind of courage which most of the so-called “racial realists” who comment here anonymously, do not have.  A kind of moral courage similar to Sir (or Saint) Thomas More, even if at this point Zmirak’s potential consequences don’t (yet) involve having his head cut off.  But I’d bet every penny I have, that if it ever came to a choice between integrity versus personal advantage, John Zmirak would choose death before dishonour.  I say this because he has already taken a great risk in writing what he has written.

And you wrote:

“Why do you at all bother pretending to be something you’re not? Do you think you’re so much smarter than everyone else? You’re not.”

Good God.  Craig Senna, Mr Zmirak of all people has never pretended to be anything other than what he is, a devout and honest Roman Catholic first (honest because he makes no pretense of personal virtue), and an American patriot second.
And the very fact of his receiving so much abuse on this post, is all the more testament to his integrity.

As I continue to witness John Zmirak’s integrity - an integrity which is founded on faith in Christ and Christ’s Church - I continue to reconsider returning to the Roman Catholic Church, of which John Zmirak is one of the best exemplars of our time, the Church which evidently is the source of John Zmirak’s spiritual and intellectual integrity, against which neither any vulgarian thugs, nor the claims of temporal popularity, nor Satan who is the author of temporal popularity, can or will ever prevail.

Another great piece by John Zmirak.

“Slammed from the right.” No.  Slammed from the “right.” All racists are of the left.  They get what dignity they think they have not from the image of God in each of us, however abused by others and especially by ourselves, but by mere membership in an imagined biological collective which real biologists have no use for.

Some may be motivated by a very real concern for the concrete historical realities which have nurtured us, which is conservative, or at least starts out that way.  Others are motivated by anger and hatred for American life as they have experienced it.  This is not conservative.

Racism denies God, and the divine image in man, and most racists seem to want to destroy the America you and I grew up in, and us along with it.

It is good to have this essay from the heart of our multiracial and multicultural civilization on the traditional feast day of the (secular) Father of Europe, and presently the feast day of the intellectual Father of us all, the Angelic Doctor.

Mr. Zmirak I have agreed with the majority of your articles but this one I simply cannot. As a Catholic and a race-realist I must say this article reveals you suffer from the mindset that has made “conservatism” a losing force since WWII. Faith alone does not make a people or a nation. Mexico and most of Latin America shares our Christian faith but does that mean they are like our nation or that our nation will remain the same if whites are replaced with Hispanics? Absolutely not. Race plays a vital role in the identity to people and nations. The Left has become more and more powerful over the last half century because they courted the racial identity of blacks (and now Hispanics). If America is to be preserved as the nation that declared independance from the British Empire in 1776 we embrace and shout from the rooftops our racial identity as whites.

Here are two articles showing there is absolutely no contradition between being a Christian and being a white-nationalist:

http://www.amren.com/ar/1996/08/index.html

http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/07/index.html

<<If America is to be preserved as the nation that declared independance (sic) from the British Empire in 1776 we embrace and shout from the rooftops our racial identity as whites.>>

The problem with that is there was no concept of a “White race” in 1776.  One was English, Scottish, Irish, French, Bavarian, Prussian, etc.  “Race” was tied up directly in “nation”, as it still should be; that is, we should never refer to the USofA as a “nation”.  It is a “country”, a land, a place, not a “nation”.  Also, to say “our nation is White” is a mistake, as I mentioned above, the notion of a “White race” is an invention of The Revolution.  Don’t be a Revolutionary.  So, to say “our country is a White country” is to imply that the land itself is “white” (eg “the white cliffs of Dover").  It WOULD be appropriate to lay claim to the USofA being a “Scottish nation”, however.  The only problem is there are VERY VERY few pure Scots in America; most Scottish families mixed with at least the Germanic peoples.  To say the Scottish people and the Germanic people are of the same race, that is, “nation”, would imply that the Scottish and Germanic people are clamoring for a united “homeland”.  They are not.  Both the Scottish and the Germanic people know full well that they are separate people; only ignorant Americans believe them to be the same.  If you really believe in the “White race”, why not support the European Union, a government controlled entirely by “Whites”?

Ah, John, you see now the pernicious effects of lack of
racial mixing. If you allow intermarriage while holding
fast to your traditions, you might find that you
extend your reach instead of restricting it.

You might study the case of Spain, who cheerfully counts
as Hispanics anyone who speaks Spanish and practices
the Catholic religion, whatever their ethnic origins
(a good reference would be “Defense of the Hispanidad”
of Ramiro de Maetzu). You see how expanded the Spanish
language is, and how expanded the Catholic Church? All
spiritual children of Spain - you can bet that Spain has
no qualms about its identity.

By the way, there was a few weeks ago a discussion in
Spanish newspapers about a plaza called Plaza del Negro.
After some research they found out that the full name
was Plaza del Negro Latino, named thus because that’s
where such Negro Latino had his house. The man, a
renowned scholar of his day, had entered Spain as a slave,
and after acheiving freedom, became a well-known scholar,
mentioned by Cervantes, and married into a good Spanish
family of the day. He was called Latino because of his
extesive knowledge of Latin.

The Spaniards considered him a Spaniard and did not worry
about the material components of heritage since they
knew the important part was the spiritual - which they
took excellent care of.
Blacks

Auster has some wise things to say when he is not shilling for Lincoln and/or nationalism. He is right that both the pure racialists and the vigilant anti-racialists are absurdly reductionistic. It is not “all about race,” but to think that race can be entirely removed from the picture is blind ideological madness.

Billy Bob

Hypocrites of the first order—While the Entity preaches love and and we’re-all-in-this-together tolerance out of one side of it’s face, it farts zero tolerance for racism, out of the other. They support majority rule in countries where Whites are in the minority but oppose majority rule in countries which are mainly White. The only consistent thing about these marxist bastards is that they are anti-White. If it’s anti-White, then it’s politically correct.

@ Ms Adriana,

I bow humbly before your wise and noble words.

And for John Zmirak, and for all other readers of goodwill toward all men (as the Angels sang when Christ was born), here is a clip from Kenneth Branagh’s (a Northern Irish Gentleman of Orange heritage) cinematic rendition of Shakespeare’s “Henry the Fifth.”

The song they are singing, is the old song of the Templar Knights, “Non nobis, domine, etc”, meaning, “Not to us, but to YOU, Lord, belongs the Glory!”

And I like this cinematic scene very much, because it’s a metaphorical symbol for how all of the wars between men - all Children of Adam - are contaminated and evil, and God (all three persons of God, but especially Christ, the Prince of Peace) is profaned by all of the wars of men, and there is no “Glory” in war, because all glory belongs to God, especially the Son of God, the Prince of Peace.

And this movie-clip’s metaphor, I think, applies to everyone in our time who believe in “racial” (or national) conflicts more than they believe in the conflict between God versus untruthful, destructive, evil spirits of men (and fallen angels who want Men to love “race” and “nation” more than they love God.)

The song, in Latin, says, “Not to us, Lord, but to YOU belongs the Glory!” And so it does.  The glory belongs to God, while the stupid wars - between England and France AS WELL AS BETWEEN any races - belong to sinful children of Adam.  The sins are ours, while the only Glory belongs to God, far away from our sins and our hatreds.  Here ya go:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ewbuPY3uGQ4

John Ball’s “honour” requires him to not write any more articles for Top Drawer. What a shame his “honour” does not also insist that he fall mute in the comment section. Yes, we all know that honor is spelt differently down under and that you have discovered this factoid. Now that you have deigned to grace knagaroo land with your presence, kindly butt out of American affairs. These are family matters and you are no longer kin. Civility calls for it. I would have said that honor did, but I am reminded the man who observed of a guest that the more he spoke of his honor the faster we counted the spoons.

By the way, a few days ago, if you had switched
to the right channel, you’d have seen a massive
Rainbow Coalition march, with black preachers
speaking in biblical cadences and mentioning Dr.
King, with latinos brandishing signs in Spanish,
and with a rabbi giving blessings, evoking the
Holocaust to call for action, and blowing the
shofar.

It was the March for Life, covered by EWTN, and
what a lovely spectacle it was.

The founding father were racialists.  Faileoconservatism (as Alex Linder calls it) has failed precisely because it has pretended for many decades that the conflict was over ideology.  It was not and is not.  It’s Jew vs. white.  Always has been.  Bill Buckley, Sam Francis and Taki side with the Jew against their own folk.  Satraps, all.

Movements and pleas towards ethnic/racial solidarity would not be necessary or even imaginable for the European population in America had the path to national suicide not been taken in 1965. In 40 years the demographics of this nation have been altered to a state that would be unrecognizable to our grandparents.  And what is clear is that this transformation did not happen by accident.

@Brandon

The path to national suicide began much
sooner than ‘65.
It began with Wilson when the nation was
sold into indentured servitude.
But then again, perhaps even sooner when
Lincoln enslaved the whites along with
the blacks.

The future is tribal.  Race is playing an increasingly
important role in American politics and security affairs. It’s
time to choose sides.

Zmirak’s article is a prime example of the spinelessness
of American conservatives on issues of race, culture,
and immigration. They wish these topics facing them would go away,
but of course they won’t.

By refusing to take a stand, by refusing
to accept reality, Zmirak and
others like him are going to be irrelevant. The American
conservative movement as a whole is presently lost
in the wilderness.

Those of us who stand up for Western civilisation, who
defend our kith and kin, represent the future of
American conservatism.  What is conservatism if not the
defense, by arms if necessary, of one’s people?

Conservatism is not about abstract theories.  Conservatism is about
the defense of promotion of real flesh-and-blood people.

With “friends” such as Zmirak, who needs enemies?  Honestly, conservatives have been shooting themselves in the foot for decades, which is one reason the American Right doesn’t really matter anymore. And now we have so-called conservatives like Zmirak taking shots at fellow White Americans. As if we didn’t have enough enemies attacking us!

There is nothing immoral about defending your family.  Should I tell my blue-eyed son or my blonde-haired daughter that we live in a multicultural society where everyone is equal so therefore they mean just as much to me as some black ghetto punk in South Central LA or Chicano gangbanger? No, Zmirak, I refuse to do that. I love my children more than I love people of another race, culture, or civilization. My family comes first.  My civilization comes first.

That I feel the need to explain this to some egghead conservative who bashes my family and my people, demonstrates how far conservatism has declined.  You have lost the plot, Zmirak.

From the address of His Holiness John Paul II to the United Nations, 5 October 1995:

8. …A presupposition of a nation’s rights is certainly its right to exist: therefore no one — neither a State nor another nation, nor an international organization — is ever justified in asserting that an individual nation is not worthy of existence. … Its right to exist naturally implies that every nation also enjoys the right to its own language and culture, through which a people expresses and promotes that which I would call its fundamental spiritual “sovereignty”. History shows that in extreme circumstances (such as those which occurred in the land where I was born) it is precisely its culture that enables a nation to survive the loss of political and economic independence. Every nation therefore has also the right to shape its life according to its own traditions, excluding, of course, every abuse of basic human rights and in particular the oppression of minorities. Every nation has the right to build its future by providing an appropriate education for the younger generation.

I just wanted to repeat Dr. Zmirak’s final paragraph:

“Worst of all, by claiming the tainted term “racialist,” and adopting its implications, any man of any race engages in an ugly extended narcissism, a kind of idolatry. He opens himself and his soul to the low, seductive voice that undermines simple human empathy, that seeks out scapegoats beyond the “tribe,” that urges retribution against the White Devil, the Gringo, or the International Jew. That voice dehumanizes us, which is no surprise since it is not of human origin. It’s the voice that whispered so long ago “Ye shall be as gods.” Once tune your ear to this voice, and soon enough you will be asked, by a very different Voice: “Cain, where is thy brother?” “

To me, this is deeply wise and poignant.  To pursue racialism as a putatively conservative tactic is to once again fall victim to reductive, supposedly ‘scientifc’ Enlightenment confusion.  We would do far better to strive for what I would call “epistemic modesty”, the kind Thomas Fleming alludes to in his Morality of Everyday Life.  The kind a thoughtful Christian traditionalist like Dr. Zmirak speaks to.

The problem with that is there was no concept of a “White race” in 1776.

Then somehow in fifteenth years the founders of the nation developed the concept as show in the naturalization law of 1790, which limited naturalization to ‘free white persons’

And again the next year, as a look at the Militia law of 1791 will show you

“"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. “

This seems pretty racially charged, even if it doesn’t mention the white race specifically:

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

No, by demonizing (for that is what Zmirak does) racialists he is rejecting the very founding of the country. They recognized very deeply and instinctively the importance of race. Zmirak believes that were evil, if he is serious in his final few paragraphs.

A question for Zmirak. Slovenia has something like under five million people. How many skilled and enterprising Chinese immigrants could it take and still be Slovenia? Where would the continuity end?

I suppose it is time to bid farewell to Taki’s, but I have to admit I am stunned by this development.  I’ve done my share of criticizing of such icons as Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, etc., provoking response and disagreement, but not censorship.  How could I have imagined that Hillary was the third rail?  It’s so counterintuitive, I hardly know what to think.  Anyway, unlike John Ball, Adriana and Dr. Cathey, when I leave a forum, I don’t return.  I think that criticism of Hillary Clinton is still permitted at Chronicles.

“Race in the ancient sense denotes extended family, and there is nothing more conservative than the defense of one’s family.” - Russell Kirk

Zmirak has become the new David Frum excommunicating everyone to his Right.

I get the sense from reading Zmirak and conservatives like him that they consider issues of race beneath them.  They don’t want to get their hands dirty.  I get the feeling they would rather sit around sipping tea and discussing Chesterton.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.  Such pursuits of course belong in a civilized country in civilised times—but today we are in neither.  We are at war.  Race war has been declared against white people. Conservatives like Zmirak are more of a hindrance than a help during war time.

Looks like Brimelow doesn’t agree with Zmirak.

Sam Francis:  Essential Writings on Race

“Reading these essays by Sam, I am made aware for the hundredth time of how much we have lost by his untimely passing. What emerges from these discussions of race is nothing vulgar or demagogic but a mental seriousness that is almost entirely absent from today’s political journalism. Sam not only broaches what in a cowardly, mendacious society one is taught to avoid but he addresses his task with brilliance and even a certain delicacy. His efforts to make us think continue to enlighten those noble few who will listen.” — Paul Gottfried

“The poet Robert Burns coined the expression “gentleman and scholar:” Sam Francis was also a journalist. Nothing engaged his analytical and expository talents more than the science and politics of race. No subject was more vital in his lifetime, nor more taboo. This book is a well-organized and illuminatingly-annotated selection of Francis’s thinking on race. It is valuable today; it may well prove seminal in the future.” — Peter Brimelow

http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=essential_writings_on_race__by_sam_francis

LAWRENCE AUSTER RESPONDS:

The other day I pointed out how intellectually sloppy and irresponsible it was of John Zmirak, in a blog entry at Taki’s Top Drawer, to fall all over himself praising Peter Brimelow, the author of Alien Nation and editor of Vdare, and then in the same entry to express total and unqualified contempt for “racialists.” I said this because Brimelow, with his passionate concern about preserving America as a white majority country (remember that the most spectacular feature of Alien Nation was the dramatic charts showing the browning of the American population, and that Brimelow repeatedly stated that he wanted to preserve an America where his blond haired, blue-eyed son would not be out of place), is by definition a racialist, that is, a person who thinks that race matters. Not that it’s the only thing that matters, but that it matters. I said Zmirak needed to make distinctions between, on one hand, reductive and hate-filled racialists (and several of them post at his blog entry today, including the pro-Nazi Alex Linder), and, on the other hand, moderate racialists such as Brimelow.

Zmirak now replies to my and others’ criticisms (he doesn’t mention me by name but links my earlier post) by drawing the line as follows. It’s morally permissible, says Zmirak, to care about the continuity of one’s country and culture and to seek to resist or slow down their too-rapid transformation by large-scale immigration. But it’s wrong, totally impermissible, to say that race has anything to do with the national identity and culture that one is defending. Thus, after mentioning, and seeming to approve, the people who have legitimate concerns about preserving the cultural identity of their country, Zmirak continues:

“But there’s a movement out there to try to radicalize these folks, indeed to make them “volkisch.” To get them to adopt the term “racialist” to describe their perfectly ordinary human craving for continuity. [LA notes: This is obviously a reference to me.] To take up, in other words, a banner that has been dragged through the darkest muck of human misery, through the ashes of death camps in Poland, and the killing fields of Rwanda. And in adopting such a term, they wouldn’t just be picking up unwieldy political baggage, ... they’d also be elevating the issue of race to a centrality it doesn’t deserve, turning one locus of loyalty--out of many which ought to compete in the human soul--into a fetish. In other words, they would be making themselves into ideologues, sinking to the level of the Nation of Islam, the historic White League, and La Raza.”

Since Zmirak is in fact replying to me, and since I myself defined moderate racialism as precisely the view he claims to support, in which race is one of many loci of loyalty in the human soul, and since I said that Zmirak needed to distinguish between moderate racialism and ideological racialism, why doesn’t he acknowledge my articulation of moderate racialism and deal with it?

Further, while he concedes, in passing, and in indirect language, the legitimacy of race as one loyalty among others, his actual condemnation of anything to do explicitly with race would still have the result of making any honest discussion to race impossible, since any such discussion would, in his words, “be elevating the issue of race to a centrality it doesn’t deserve.” How can we discuss any issue without making it “central"--at least during the time that we’re discussing it?

For example, many of the people who seek to transform America through open borders have a racial agenda, to topple white America. How can that agenda be discussed and opposed unless we talk frankly about its aims, and unless we defend the actual group that is being targeted, namely white America? But that would mean, at least during the course of such a discussion, making race central, which Zmirak forbids.

Finally, Zmirak’s condemnation of any explicit and focused concern with race still leaves him open to the charge of gross hypocrisy when it comes to his praise for Peter Brimelow. One of the commenters to his latest post has turned up this statement of Brimelow’s, from a review of a collection of articles by the late Samuel Francis.

Brimelow wrote:

“The poet Robert Burns coined the expression “gentleman and scholar:” Sam Francis was also a journalist. Nothing engaged his analytical and expository talents more than the science and politics of race. No subject was more vital in his lifetime, nor more taboo. This book is a well-organized and illuminatingly-annotated selection of Francis’s thinking on race. It is valuable today; it may well prove seminal in the future.”

Sam Francis cared about race. He thought race mattered (a) in the sense that different races have different civilizational abilities, (b) in the sense that the white race was indispensable to the creation of the West, and (c) in the sense that he wanted to preserve whites as the majority people of the West and America. And Brimelow praises highly Francis’s concerns about race. So by Zmirak’s own criterion, Zmirak should condemn Peter Brimelow. Instead, here is the sycophantic way he wrote about Brimelow in his earlier post:

“So there we were, at the storied Elaine’s restaurant, Taki, R. Emmet Tyrell, Lewis Lapham, and several other luminaries… but I couldn’t help feeling (sorry, Taki) that the most important man at the table was Peter Brimelow--the courageous journalist, formerly of Forbes and National Review, author of the prophetic immigration book Alien Nation.... Peter Brimelow was there with his lovely, relatively recent bride Lydia, and we didn’t get much chance to talk. I fairly basked in the reflected glow of their marital bliss, and reminded myself to visit them in Connecticut. But now I’m writing to encourage you to visit Peter online, at his fascinating, edgy Web site VDare. While it runs a wide variety of thinkers--some of whom I really can’t endorse--the site is mostly persuasive, and always brave.”

So Zmirak is at best an incoherent thinker, at worst a rank opportunist. When he feels it serves his interests to flatter extravagantly a well-known racial rightist like Brimelow, he does so. And when he feels it serves his interests to consign all racial rightists to the outer darkness (except, of course, for Peter Brimelow), he does so.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Zmirak’s objections are of a piece with those liberals who say that, of course, they don’t want to banish religion or constrain people from allowing religion to inform their politics--they just don’t want anyone, ever, in any public way, affirming the importance of religion and allowing it to become an explicit issue. [LA intrudes: Exactly correct. You’ve captured the essence of what Zmirak is doing, which I was trying to get at but didn’t quite get there.] Folks like Zmirak want it both ways--race can be a very important issue, sure, but only in private. But how, then, are we to treat this crucially important issue as important, if we can’t allow it to inform our policy debate? This two-step cannot work, of course, since issues connected to race have profound social consequences. To treat race as important implies giving it at least some explicit public consideration. They end up making the claim, in the end, that many of the things that matter the very most for man and society cannot be decided by a self-governing people. This nonsense of saying that race is important but must not form the basis of any actual policy is just mealy mouthed double-talk.

Any reasonable person will agree that you don’t give something a centrality it doesn’t deserve. What I’d like to hear from Zmirak is how much centrality he thinks race and ethnicity deserve--what is the right amount? How does his professed belief in the importance of race issues translate into a practical discussion of them? Deploying German trigger words like “volkisch” doesn’t suffice to answer the question--we all agree that society doesn’t need to organize itself completely around a theory of racial triumph and conquest. But that sets rather an extreme and unhelpful standard.

Dan R. writes:

Zmirak is one of that band of brave conservatives who begin to wet their pants once race is brought into the picture, a reflection of how liberal views on race are so deeply imbedded in the culture. It’s pathetic, but he’s far from being alone in this regard.

It appears to me that moderate racialists are very few and far between. But Zmirak should be able to recognize ones like Brimelow and you.

LA replies:

Yes, Zmirak condemns Nazi-type racialists to the outer darkness, except at his own blog, where he allows them free rein, assuring that most non-insane people will not want to post there, and also allowing the impression to be created that the Nazi types represent all racial thinking.

Ben W. writes:

Question is what would people like Zmirak, who eschew any mention of race, do with a country such as Israel?

If Israel allows an unlimited and unrestricted influx of non-Jews, that spells the end of Israel. Race is a consideration.

LA replies:

Jews of today, meaning the post World War II period, are extremely insistent on the idea that Jewishness is defined solely by religion and has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. Yet in the real world, Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity or race are deeply connected, since ethnicity means a group sharing a common culture, and therefore a common history, and therefore common genetic ancestry. So by restricting immigration to Jews, Israel does in fact restrict its immigration racially, though without formally doing so.

Mark A. writes:

Zmirak, like most contemporary conservatives still under the influence of liberalism, confuses discrimination and exclusion with extermination. The essence of good taste is to have “discriminating taste.” We value certain things more than other things. A five-star restaurant will discriminate and will exclude a bum from entering its restaurant and urinating on the Persian rug. This does not mean that the restaurant is denying the bum of his humanity and calling the SS to have him deported to Auschwitz.

Zmirak’s association of a discriminatory immigration policy with a Nazi policy of extermination and denial of humanity is intellectually stupid and lazy.”

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009773.html

It appears to me that Mr. Zmirak is merely serving to add weight, or to give the appearance, to radical racialists, or those on the fringes of radical racialism, of adding weight to the theory of reductive racialism?  If he doesn’t want racialism to occupy a centrality in the debate it doesn’t deserve, then why does he completely and utterly alienate moderate racialists, or those who have the “perfectly ordinary human craving for [racial] continuity”?

And isn’t he himself, by his own radical anti-racialism, elevating race to a centrality it truly doesn’t deserve?

Good grief Sid, enough with the unseemly war whoops. Perhaps you need to read this. I wonder who wrote it. Perhaps the person who wrote it needs to reread it.

“Frum’s ascendancy doesn’t surprise me. You see, one of the most dominant motives in any socially stigmatized group – such as conservatives were at Yale and still are in the opinion-making circles Frum now inhabits – is self-purification. One tries to wash away the taint that your opponents have attached to you by finding someone within your own movement who is more distasteful, more extreme, more socially maladroit, then denouncing him. Best of all if you can lead the chorus of ostracism. That renders you yourself ritually pure, at least for a while – and joins you securely to the community that has now been purged. Anthropologist Rene Girard analyzes this social phenomenon brilliantly, tracing its operation from the ancient world, through the death of Christ, up to the present. It was frequently the motivating force in anti-Semitic uprisings, as social misfits whipped up the crowd to persecute the “evil,” loathsome Other. As Justin Raimondo points out in Reclaiming the American Right, this liturgy of anathema has been the rite of choice for decades in “movement conservatism.” Self-hating conservatives conduct such a ritual every few years – are duly applauded for it.

How easy to relieve one’s own anxieties, demonstrate one’s own “good will,” and win general approval by finding an alternate focus for opprobrium, then leading the mob that drives out the evildoer! Bill Clinton (remember him?) was engaging in this tactic when he denounced Sistah Souljah. Moderate black leaders do the same when they dutifully denounce Louis Farrakhan – a point made brilliantly in Warren Beatty’s worthy film “Bulworth.” Countless conservatives joined in such fun when Trent Lott shot off his mouth. I must confess that I’ve done it myself. There’s a certain glee, a sense of cleanliness and virtue that arises when you discover that there is someone – anyone – in the world who’s further out on a limb, then you righteously saw it off. “I may be conservative (or liberal, or antiwar), but I’m not like…” Fill in the blank with your favorite extremist, the person with whom you’d least like to be associated. The gay writer David Sedaris described the phenomenon brilliantly in a radio essay, explaining how in high school he’d find someone more effeminate than he, and lead the chorus of taunts, to help redirect the social abuse from himself, and affirm his place in the mainstream.

Of course, there are ideas that must be refuted. But the unseemly eagerness with which today’s political police latch onto and denounce perceived dissidents betrays something dark at work. When you realize that someone in your own political camp has taken your own principles and perverted them beyond recognition, the appropriate emotional response is sadness, a grim sense of necessity, and a determination to be fair. That’s also the spirit in which sane men approach the prospect of starting a war.

Instead, too often, the self-anointed members of a given “mainstream” movement (whatever it is) respond with an ugly glee. John Podhoretz boasted on NPR of the role warbloggers had played in bringing down Trent Lott. Podhoretz spoke with as much bravura as if he’d personally captured Osama bin Laden, and dragged the murderer to prison by his beard. It’s the very same spirit that Frum displays in his preening piece in National Review. With an almost papal solemnity, he declares opponents of the current war virtual traitors, and employing the papal “We” he pronounces anathema: “We turn our backs on them.” My first reaction to this was simply to laugh, and mutter, “Be glad there’s an American soldier watching your back, chicken-hawk."”

Mr. Zmirak,

I hardly think anyone needed a heads up about Vdare - Vdare IS mainstream conservatism now - you have just assured that Taki’s will remain “fringe” in the movemment. Can you really not see the stupidity of praising Brimelow and then turning and bashing racialism? This sort of cowardice has been implicit here for some time, but I thank you for making it explicit. We can now place Taki’s in the category, “occasionally worthwhile, but alot of useful idiots hang out there.”

J.R.

St. Martin of Porres was a Negro. He never drove
a Porsche, nor wore pants ever since he became a
friar.

But white people knelt to him and begged his prayers
and blessing.

They still do, in the altars where the Catholic Church
decided he should be.

Conservatism can be summed up in a single word: failure.

Well, I’m with you Mr. Zmirak.

Despite the fact that you are a race-traitor and slave to the Jews and a diserter in the race war and enemy of your people and all those slurs for the non-racist, I am glad that you are standing with the Church Universal and helping to preserve a future where my children won’t have to be tragic mulattos, but just Americans.

For the record, my post above was referring to a post by Sid Cundiff that now no longer exists as far as I can tell. Am I seeing things?

The fight to save America is lost.  As Mr. Nice Guy Conservatives we lost.  So let’s turn this country into the worst nightmare of the multiculti “winners” who got their cheated victory by becoming hard core, absolutely uncompromising, all or nothing, volkisch racialists.

Republicans and paleocons are weak losers.  Hamas are winners—look what they did to the much better armed IDF in August of 2006.

Hey Zmirak, don’t you agree with authentic Catholic Hutton Gibson that the Holocaust is wildly exaggerated?  Or are you an adherent of Vatican Jew . . . er, I mean Vatican Too . . . er, I mean Vatican II.

Wasn’t Saint Augustine African? As someone of Irish/English/German/Dutch/French-Swiss extraction with blue-ish eyes and bloodlines to John Alden of Mayflower fame, and as someone who grew up in a smaller Northeastern US town, I do almost exclusively enjoy whitish women and really don’t mind at all being surrounded by “white” people. I just really find it odd when people stake out their “white” and “American” identities with such ferocity. Are all the countries that my ancestors came from legit? As a Roman Catholic I know many racialist/KKK types would paint me with the evil/foreign brush. Are Italians OK? When my father was an altar boy, he served at a funeral where a flamboyantly distraught woman leaped onto the lowering coffin. His mother asked him, “what kind of people were they”? He answered, “There were some white people, and some Italians....”! Do you like pasta? So did/do the Chinese. Does eating at Taco Bell make you a race traitor? Where does one culture remain pure and another end? I do enjoy the best parts of the western tradition as it is commonly known. I like politeness and people who aren’t loud. “Nigger” is in my vocabulary and I have used it to describe unpleasant blacks like the ones who stomped my brother’s face in. I read here about “black ghetto punk(s)” and “Chicano gang bangers” and I find their culture disgusting and ultimately self destructive. But I don’t care any more for “wiggers”, or poor white meth-head wife-beaters, or white collar war-mongers which are both existent and part of/from white American culture. Has anyone here read “The Redneck Manifesto” by Jim Goad? It’s a pro-white tome describing how poor white immigrants have had it just as bad as blacks through indentured servitude and liberal revulsion. But his main point is that racial differences are used to keep the lower classes fighting amongst themselves as the rich and powerful continue to rake in the spoils. Take your own inventories people, look out for that log in your own eye. Pax, Philthy

It’s a pro-white tome describing how poor white immigrants have had it just as bad as blacks through indentured servitude and liberal revulsion.

That’s an okay analysis for 30-50 years ago, when there was no mass immigration and the two populations, black and white, were fairly stable in relation to one another. That is not the case now, when we have a mass immigration policy in virtually every Western European or Western European settled country that is literally ‘changing the face of ‘ London, New York, Minnesota , etc etc. Well, maybe we like our faces, maybe we don’t want them changed. One does not have to ‘worship’ at the ‘alter of race’ to recognize ones racial and genetic heritage as well as one’s cultural heritage and to see connections between the two. Any more than one has to worship at the alter of Yosemite to appreciate the beauty of nature and want to preserve it.

St Augstine was a berber. Unfortunately they were conquered by the Arabs, who brought sub-saharan african slaves into their areas. Now there are few of the original berber phenotype around.

“Yes, Mr. Zmirak, you may not be interested in race, but race is interested in you. The “people of color” now surrounding your liberal cloud-cuckoo land may not share your vision of a race-blind society. Indeed, there is no reason to suspect that they will.”

http://landocockaigne.blogspot.com/2008/01/land-of-cockaigne.html

Conservatives are responsible for the immigration catastrophe we are now facing.

- Ronald Reagan’s 1984 IRCA Amnesty. Rewarded illegal alien lawbreakers with citizenship. Encouraged tens of millions of Mexican aliens to cross our southern border illegaly.

- The Immigration Act of 1990 signed into law by Bush Sr. Drastically increased third world immigration.

- The failure of three consecutive conservative presidents - Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush to enforce our immigration laws.

- Failure of conservative lawmakers elected to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for twelve years to solve our immigration problem.

- Proposal by George W. Bush to legalize all illegal aliens and radically expand legal immigration. A conservative president supported Ted Kennedy’s Kill America Act of 2007.

I’m not sure why any of this should bother John Zmirak. Pope John Paul II himself declared on numerous occasions that migration was a “human right.” The U.S. Catholic bishops are amongst the strongest, most enthusiastic supporters of the Bush amnesty. It translates ultimately into more Catholics than ever before in America; more cheap labor for the Big Boyz - the corporate elites - who control the GOP. A convenient alliance to the say the least.

Conservatism is failure. Racialists are unanimous that third world immigration to the U.S. must stop. Conservatives are people who believed George W. Bush (and now John McCain) would make a great president!

Only racialists can solve this problem. Conservatives never will. You know it. I know it. Where do you get off attacking us?

“Conservatism is failure. Racialists are unanimous that third world immigration to the U.S. must stop. Conservatives are people who believed George W. Bush (and now John McCain) would make a great president!

Only racialists can solve this problem. Conservatives never will. You know it. I know it. Where do you get off attacking us?”

I agree with this statement...just what are conservatives “conserving” these days?

It truly is amusing to me how white “conservatives” are willing to dismiss legitimate concerns of white people in order to become elected.

No wonder the “conservative” movement is appearing to move to the left...you can’t beat Hillary by becoming Hillary.

The Republikahn party is no longer a viable party or vehicle.  They don’t represent me or people that look like me. 

Goodbye Republikahn party.

Mr. Zimrak,

You stated:

“There’s a term for people who favor slow, incremental change that respects our heritage over radical, irreversible acts of social engineering: They’re called ‘conservatives.’”

Not so fast.  They’re subversives, not conservatives.

Slow, incremental change as you call it - implying both planning and effort - means keeping the irksome little froggies comfortably unaware while slowly boiling them down to an eventual and inescapable nothingness.  An act of calculated hatred and cruelty or disdain.  Thank you for revealing, at least in part, your perspective.

John Zmikrak,
Thanks for the candid expose of your hated for Jard Taylor and Professor Kevin McDonald.  As you wrote henceforth I am no friend of yours.

Richard

This is simply outrageous that a member of Roman Cornhole faith presumes to lecture real Americans on “fundamental truths of morality and the claims of supernatural charity”. You don’t belong in this country.

Zmirak can’t see the forest for the trees. Conservatism was intended to conserve America as an extension of Western Civilization. America is a nation and those who say otherwise are already living on the global plantation. Nations are networks of people closely related by blood, in other words a collection of families. Therefore America and Western civilzation have a genetic basis. It is this characteristic, taking influences from both culture and custom, heritage and ancestry, that defines any nation. Now, with the proper understanding that race informs and perpetuates culture, one can finally see that fact glaring in public view, that race is central and is the one thing that must be conserved to perpetuate a culture and civilization. Replace the race, and you replace the civilization.

I’ll reject racialism when the militant negroes and hispanics do; which will not be for a VERY LONG TIME.

i think that writers like mr.zmirak live in a perpetual liberal bubble.a protected enviroment,where he only interacts with the nicest muds,and similarly brain-washed white people.he needs to go for along walk at night in south chicago or east st.louis so that there he can personally “feel the LOVE” that all righteous colored folks have for us and put his multicutural bullshit to the test.race war is on its way,wake up dummies.

Africa for Africans. Asia for Asians. White countries for EVERYONE.

Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.  The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites. What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries? How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem? I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem? And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this? But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION:
http://whitakeronline.org

Excellent post, John!

It’s about time some were realistic like you.  We need to get beyond loyalties and just be individuals.

So what should we do?  We need to get as far ahead as possible.  If we look out only for number one, America will be great again!

I agree with you, that being on the right, it is important to identify the latest causes that have chances of success, and back them.  How else can each of get ahead.

I mean these racists, what do they expect from life?  Fired from their jobs, kicked out of their clubs, disowned by their family.

What idiots?  They talk about “courage” and stuff.  What the they are is stupid.

Do they think their beloved white folks will come to their aid, when life kicks them hard?

Not if I can help it.

It’s time people learned to think for themselves.

Success is the best possible revenge on self-styled “pro-whites,” and other deluded idiots.

I guess Peter is Jewish.

Anyhow, all peoples have the the right to live free in their own lands.  Last September the UN approved the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which surely apply to all indegenes regardless of the colour of their skin.

Now, European peoples in their own homelands are, obviously, beneficiaries of the Declaration.  American whites are probably not.  It seems to me, though, that the principle of non-aggression applies.  A people established in a land - as American whites and blacks are - have a legitimate expectation that their position as de fact sovereign peoples will not be challenged by their own elites.

Manifestly, American whites have been so challenged, indeed betrayed.  There is justice is white nationalism, as there is justice most any time a population seeks to defend itself from aggression.

Zmirak’s vile characterisation of racialism astonshes me.  Rarely have I come across such ill-will from a non-leftist.  Frankly, I have no idea why Taki gives him airtime.  Even I could write the hell out of him seven days a week.  But it is his ignorance that is most troubling.

Zmirak, gain the patience to read Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests.  Understand that there is another face to white survivalism than the one you hate so much.

I’ve only recently become aware of this site having regular posts and commentary (I thought it was the usual one-way site with just articles - kudos for Taki for his fortitude; I predict it will cost him), so I’ll refrain from writing much before I’ve had a look around; however: John Ball is a moral coward typical of so many Conservatives; he gives so little thought to anyone but himself that he mocks the anonymous for the very real dangers they face should their identities be revealed.  Bravo, John!  Your beliefs render you safe from the powers that be.  Now there’s something to be proud of!  You could’ve been almost as proud as a Nazi under the Third Reich - you’d just need to change a few pronouns here and there.  Btw, if you like we can meet and I’ll slap you around (if you aren’t an just a huffing old man, as I suspect).

Okay, I know I said I’d look around first, but I can’t help myself.  Let’s see if we can do a bit of logic, yes?  It is the nature of living things to seek replication.  It is in fact their purpose, insofar as one can attach such, regardless of whether we quibble about the rubber hitting the road at the gene or individual level.  Ergo, individuals have an interest in seeing the replication of individuals similar to themselves, in proportion to that similarity.  (This is obvious and accepted at the nuclear and even extended family levels, yet for some “odd” reason beyond the extended family level, i.e., as family stretches into race, the accepted pursuit of one’s own interests becomes unacceptable to some).  Even Christians for whom ideas trump reality know to “be fruitful and multiply.” Do I really need to belabor the point?  Think hard about your gymnastics before you reply, because I (and many others) have heard it all before and we’re still not buying into the “reasons” given for why we must forgo our own interests.

“To me, this is deeply wise and poignant.  To pursue racialism as a putatively conservative tactic is to once again fall victim to reductive, supposedly ‘scientifc’ Enlightenment confusion.  We would do far better to strive for what I would call “epistemic modesty”, the kind Thomas Fleming alludes to in his Morality of Everyday Life.  The kind a thoughtful Christian traditionalist like Dr. Zmirak speaks to.”

What’s so wise about it?  Try dumbing it down for those of us hicks who know nothing of theology.  Common sense, that I can do.  E.g., why would God create races if his intent was to see them destroyed by panmixia?  How does one reconcile the blatantly ethnocentric Old Testament and modern liberal egalitarianism?

Btw, the paragraph you quote hinges on straw man arguments.  E.g., “scapegoats” (a Hebrew meme, btw), which are not necessary to racialism, which Zmirak seems to acknowledge with his implied slippery slope fallacy ("opens himself and his soul to").  As for racialism dehumanizing people, I find quite the opposite.  I found a deeply spiritual, and profoundly human awakening followed (slowly) after my political racial awakening - what is it to be human, but to be what we are?  I am human; I am male; I am European; I am Nordic.  That’s who I AM; embracing that has put me at one with the universe (at least, much closer than I’ve ever been).  All humans should feel the rewards of really knowing one’s place and purpose in the universe (I don’t mean to imply that racialism is all-encompassing, but rather that it’s impossible to truly embrace what you are with part of who you are - your race - amputated).  The aracialism that says we’re all one big mass, destined to coffee-colored everyman-ism.  Now if that isn’t dehumanizing, nothing is.  Btw, the Cain bit was great - yeah, racialists are all about killing their own brothers.  LOL!

Posted by Fred on Feb 02, 2008.

That’s another great point; Europeans should be racialists based on a conservative (note the small c, as in wildlife conservation, or conservative science) reciprocation of other groups, foremost among them Jewry.  I’ll give up my racialism when Israelis give up theirs.  I’ll give up my desire for an ethnostate when Jews give up theirs.  Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Mr. Zmirak,

you set up a bit of a straw man…

There is such a think as a Christian racialist, and there is such a thing as a traditionalist who views race as an integral component.

Any familiar with the American racialist scene know that Christians there dominate. It is Europe that is atheist.

The racialists you present are the same nuts the SPLC puts on display when denouncing the right.

These are not representative, and you know this too.

And the term racialist must be use, to prevent subversion by those peddling the false myth that culture can be passed on with ease to new immigrant groups. If a better term presents itself that includes race, denies supremacy, and values both tradition and community, many will gladly pick it up.

Of course… all who respect their ancestors and wish their people to continue on are to be hated… It’s popular and easy to attack them, so why not?

Forget Lenin and Stalin, Hitler is the true enemy, eh?

Just checking to see if I’ve been banned, or if the original VDare thread has been closed.  I don’t want to go lumping you guys in with the typical pansies afraid of thought crimes if you don’t deserve it.

Okay, I see that the other thread was probably just closed.  I had a long comment written up, but it won’t make sense so instead I’ll repeat the most salient question I (and apparently many other interlopers here) want answered, which no one here wants to answer (or admit they don’t want to answer):

Why do the Jews get to be ethnocentric, but not Europeans?  Why is a Jewish ethnostate a pillar of Conservatism, but any European ethnostate is verboten?

Please try to avoid special pleading when you answer; also, please try to avoid ducking the fact that Israel is an ethnostate, because that’s a matter of semantics - Euro racialists would be perfectly happy with something like what the Jews have in Israel, just as gussied up in religion, security concerns, faux humanitarianism, and whinging historical justifications.

Ignoring this issue doesn’t make you guys look very good.

I’d be interested in seeing Gottfried, shock horror he’s Jewish, reply to this.

Since obviously anything I say will be disregarded as that of the evil hate monger of mass media fairy tales, I humbly request Dr. Gottfried’s input here.

I’ve never attacked Israel’s right to improve its nation-state, and I’m honored to say Gottfried works to defend the white Christian West, with all of its unique nationalities and particularities.

---

There is nothing wrong with loving one’s own, and culture exists to serve the people. It is the people, who *shock* *horror* share a genetic heritage, who make up communities and nations. A child is descended from his parents, and the progeny of a community and of the greater nation are made up of the parents of said nation. The nation lives on through its children, and each ought to be honored as it pursues its own unique cultural pursuits and the well being of its land and people.

“Anyone who elevates...will find no friend in me.”

What would Christ think?  Somewhere a nun is weeping…

Seriously though:

“Anyone who elevates” [insert things unnecessary to European ethnocentrism here]

And for all the other racialists?  What response do you have for us?

“We share no premises in common.”

It’s about premises now?  I thought it was all about the brotherhood of man, baby!  What happened to Christ’s grace and all that rot?  Straight out the window eh?  Sorry, I like to needle Christians - don’t take it personally; I get along fine with honest Christians.

“The people who feel this way, who think that the U.S. has the same right to control its border with Mexico as Mexico has to patrol its frontier with Belize, mostly don’t despise foreigners. In fact, on a personal basis, they’re typically friendly and solicitous.”

This one is a sure-fire sign of someone who hasn’t thought hard about the subject at hand.  Hell, who am I kidding?  Opposition to racialism in a Euro is a sure-fire sign of someone who hasn’t thought hard about the subject at hand.  But I digress - it’s just plain funny to me, the assertion or implication that Euro racialists are all sneering, impolite thugs who hate anyone who isn’t white.

News flash, Zmirak: I’m typically friendly and solicitous to everyone too!  I banter and joke with blacks (I grew up surrounded by them), browns, yellows, reds, sepias, etc.  As an aside, I read about a study some time back that showed that white “racists” tend to be better liked by blacks than white “non-racists.” Not because of any stated belief (blacks weren’t told who the racists were), just going by general, everyday conversation and interaction.  If memory serves, if one read between the lines the upshot was that racist whites treated blacks differently from whites, which blacks took as a sign of respect because non-racist whites tend to assume - as liberal white supremacists - that blacks are whites with brown skin and treated them as they do fellow whites, i.e., without putting in extra effort to assuage tender black sensibilities.  In short, white “racists” are more careful around blacks (and know more about them) and blacks appreciate it - funny world, eh?

“In all my years of mixing with people who favor paring back immigration, I can count the number of genuine xenophobes”

Must be nice.  I’d need a calculator to figure out how many white genophobes I’ve met.  This place seems to be crawling with them, though less so than a typical sampling of the lobotomized Euro population, I guess.

“To take up, in other words, a banner that has been dragged through the darkest muck of human misery, through the ashes of death camps in Poland, and the killing fields of Rwanda.”

Man, I’m getting all misty-eyed.  Hold on, I need a Kleenex…

...okay I’m back.  You were talking about aracialism, or egalitarianism, or whatever.  You know, the banner that has been dragged through the darkest muck of human misery, through the ashes of the gulags in Siberia, the killing fields of Cambodia, and most of the 3rd World at one point or another.  Do go on.  I’ll pass it all on to the Chinese.

“No, they’d also be elevating the issue of race to a centrality it doesn’t deserve, turning one locus of loyalty—out of many which ought to compete in the human soul—into a fetish.”

Yeah but what about the rest of us?  You know, those of us who put race back into its proper place, as the bedrock beneath Western Civilization.  What do you have to say to us?  What do you have to say to those who point out that race only has to be an issue in heterogenous states (you know, what they call conglomerations pretending to be nations)?  What do you say to those who point out that giving white “racists” what they want would put a firewall between their vile wickedness and the halo-ed lambs of the multicult?

“Of course, this would do great damage politically, and render almost impossible the passage of perfectly reasonable limits on the numbers of unskilled immigrants the U.S. takes each year—reforms that make sense for a wide variety of reasons.”

No, crypto-racism is fine by me.  But the left has you in a bind - you can’t even refrain from condemning “racism” (whites pursuing their own interests) without getting the racist smear.  So, you’ve been checkmated.  As long as you let the left dictate, you’ll lose.  And I think you know you’re going to lose.  I think that’s why (much to Limbaugh’s consternation) Conservatives won’t put up a fight - they’re already beaten.

Consider the fact that in my view, your effort to avoid “great damage politically” (inflicted chiefly by those who’d see you destroyed, even if it is the soft destruction of cultural disintegration and panmixia) is like choosing death over amputating a gangrenous leg.

“Such policy questions certainly matter, but morals matter more.”

Nonsense.  You just haven’t been mugged yet.  Maybe you’ll succeed in passing that buck to your children or grandchildren, but someone’s going to pay the bill.  Morals matter more to those whose bellies are full.

“The practice of racial self-worship (alas, all too common among minority groups) sows ugly division among the existing, multiracial community of Americans, and lowers the bar of civility that makes peaceful coexistence possible. As a descendant of the former Yugoslavia on one side, and Ireland on the other, I take civility seriously.”

The whole problem is the enforced, involuntary multicult.  You worship that Baal; I won’t.  I demand an opt-out.

P.S., you’re going to have to do much better than this to refute Euro racialism.  Most experienced Euro racialists have a distinct southpaw advantage.  We’ve heard everything you’ve got to say.  You’ve heard little of what we’ve got to say.  Your advantage is your theology - you can interpret scripture and doctrine to your liking and claim God’s on your side.  It’s also your Achilles heel, since few would elevate your theology to the level of social doctrine.  I for one favor civil societies, not theocracies (though I doubt very much you can make any rigorous, scripturally-based defense of aracialism).

P.P.S., I’m a flexible guy.  A U.S. where freedom of association was restored and freedom-killing “anti-discrimination” laws (and the rest of the racial spoils system) were repealed would go a long way toward satisfying me.  Even better would be self-determination, where groups can create their own states for themselves.  I absolutely do not want an enforced, across the board separation of the races; no way in hell I want the white liberals forced into my state.  They’d only sabotage it anyway.  No, I want self-determination, competing experiments so everybody can try his own methods.  We’d see in a few generations whose ideas work best, and how people voted with their feet.

Hey man, check out the discounts these guys are offering on enlarge patches!
Steel Package: 10 Patches reg $79.95 Now $49.95 ! Free shipping too!
Silver Package: 25 Patches reg $129.95, Now $99.95! Free shipping and free exercise manual included!
Gold Package: 40 Patches reg $189.95, Now $149.95! Free shipping and free exercise manual included!
Platinum Package: 65 Patches reg $259.95, Now $199.95! Free shipping and free exercise manual included!
Millions of men are taking advantage of this revolutionary new product - Don’t be left behind!
Product here - http://www.nemogs.com