ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, March 07, 2015

The ugly doctrine of anti-racism

The UK's former equality czar admits anti-racism is an "ugly new doctrine":
A former equality chief has branded his years working to stamp out racial discrimination as 'utterly wrong'. Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips said efforts made under the Blair government turned anti-racism into an 'ugly new doctrine'.

Mr Phillips is the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has waged a 30-year campaign to tackle issues around discrimination and equality. In an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, called Things We Won't Say About Race That Are True, he says attempts to stop prejudice instead encouraged abuse and endangered lives....

Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into 'thought control'.
Anti-racism is anti-science, anti-history, and anti-freedom. It is pernicious and evil. Racism is neither a sin nor is it a societal evil. Race-based self-segregation is not only the observably preferred human norm for all races throughout the entirety of recorded human history, it is inevitable. You cannot support freedom and anti-racism at the same time. It is not logically possible. You cannot support freedom of speech and thought control. You cannot support diversity and freedom of association.

It is true that racism has inspired various crimes throughout history, as has greed, ambition, lust, and a variety of other concepts. But it is the crimes that matter, and it is the crimes that should be prevented, not whatever the intellectual motivation for them might be. Consider how ridiculous most people would believe the idea of passing a law against thinking or expressing lustful thoughts to be. That is precisely how stupid and totalitarian it is to try to ban racism.

Labels: ,

96 Comments:

Anonymous Quartermaster March 07, 2015 10:51 AM  

What the left does is rarely well thought out. When it is, you get something like Mao's or Stalin's regime, and there's soem doubt as to how well thought out those were.

Anonymous Red Comet March 07, 2015 10:55 AM  

Consider how ridiculous most people would believe the idea of passing a law against thinking or expressing lustful thoughts to be.

The pinkshirts have been trying to build to this for years. Unfortunately for them the only people supporting them on this are the same omega neckbeard nerds that they also hate.

I also get a laugh at how most of them on the net have congregated to tumblr, the blog with no comments, in a deliberate move of self-segregation because they can't take the heat literally anywhere else.

Anonymous Aeoli March 07, 2015 10:56 AM  

A lot of people would be in favor laws against lust, greed, etc. You might not get elected to office on such a platform, but you'd get a healthy share of votes. If not for "electability" you'd get more.

I may be out of touch here, but I would also say there's a strong contingent in favor of abolishing "money". You could ask if they mean "currency" but they wouldn't know what you're talking about.

Imagine if TPTB decided to do a propaganda campaign to compound this sort of ignorance. I think it could become the majority position.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni March 07, 2015 10:59 AM  

Freedom of thought!? What a dangerous idea! That can only lead to other nutty, right-wing ideas, like freedom of association! Then where would the equity/diversity bureaucratic tyrants be?

Anonymous PA March 07, 2015 11:08 AM  

On anti-racism being ugly: "ugly" is an important and underutilized word. We usually criticize the anti-white arrangements in terms of their injustice or harmfulness. But rarely on the aesthetic level.

As I said here earlier, it is not strong minds, but weak stomachs that abolish bad ideologies. Below is a translated poem of Zbigniew Herbert (1924 – 1998), called “A Matter of Taste” (orig: “Potęga Smaku”) on that very subject. He explains that anti-communist dissidents like himself were not so much men of character -- which they were, but not to the extent to which their supporters credited them -- as they were men who were simply disgusted with what they saw under that regime.

The translated poem:

It didn’t require great character at all
our refusal disagreement and resistance
we had the necessary shred of courage
but fundamentally it was a matter of taste

Yes taste

In which there are fibers of soul, the cartilage of conscience
Who knows, if we had been better and more attractively tempted
Sent rose-skinned women thin as a wafer
Or fantastic creatures from the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch

But what kind of hell was there instead
A wet pit the murderers’ alley the barrack
Called Palace of Justice
A home-brewed Mephisto in a Lenin jacket
Sent Aurora’s grandchildren out into the field
Boys with potato faces
Very ugly girls with red hands

Verily, their rhetoric was made of cheap sacking
(Marcus Tullius kept turning in his grave)
Chains of tautologies a couple of concepts like flails
The dialectics of butchers charm of the subjunctive

So aesthetics can be helpful in life
One should not neglect the study of beauty
Before we declare our consent we must carefully examine
The shape of the architecture the rhythm of the drums and pipes
Official colors the despicable ritual of funerals

Our eyes and ears refused obedience
The princes of our senses proudly chose exile

It did not require great character at all
We had a shred of necessary courage
But fundamentally it was a matter of taste
Yes taste

That commands us to get out, to make a wry face, draw out a sneer
Even if for this the precious capital of the body the head
Must fall

Anonymous PA March 07, 2015 11:12 AM  

I accidentally deleted a line form one of the stanzas. Here it is as it should appear:

Verily, their rhetoric was made of cheap sacking
(Marcus Tullius kept turning in his grave)
Chains of tautologies a couple of concepts like flails
The dialectics of butchers no distinctions in reasoning
Syntax deprived of the charm of the subjunctive

Anonymous ivvenalis March 07, 2015 11:13 AM  

The idea that the workers, not "capitalists" should control the means of production has gotten a LOT more people killed than the idea that England belongs to the English. Yet somehow it's far more acceptable to hold Marxist views than to believe that Britain shouldn't have open borders.

Anonymous Mike March 07, 2015 11:22 AM  

"You cannot support freedom and anti-racism at the same time."

Read some anti-racist manifestos, and you quickly realize they are very open about their intention to dominate and control everyone else -- for a worthy cause, of course.

Blogger Yohami March 07, 2015 11:36 AM  

"a law against thinking or expressing lustful thoughts""

Feminism is already on it

Anonymous Northern Observer March 07, 2015 11:38 AM  

"Consider how ridiculous most people would believe the idea of passing a law against thinking or expressing lustful thoughts to be. That is precisely how stupid it is to try to ban racism."

Stupid or not, lots of societies have tried to ban the expression of lustful thoughts.

Blogger Robert What? March 07, 2015 12:02 PM  

IMHO the "elite" are anti-racist for others, not themselves. If the general population of whites are shamed into living with the "vibrants", then the elites hope that they'll be spared.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 07, 2015 12:04 PM  

Anti-racism being nothing but anti-white. They basically say that but conservatives are usually looking for what the libtards are really, really saying

Anonymous Anonymous March 07, 2015 12:08 PM  

AKAHorace


Well good for him for publically changing his mind. Debate about race and immigration seems a lot more open in Europe than North America. Can you imagine anyone saying what he has said and getting it in the papers here ?

Blogger glad2meetyou March 07, 2015 12:16 PM  

"It is true that racism has inspired various crimes throughout history, as has greed, ambition, lust, and a variety of other concepts."

I never thought of likening racism to lust or greed. It's concise and should help in arguments. Thanks.

Anonymous paradox March 07, 2015 12:18 PM  

Racism is neither a sin nor is it a societal evil.

Racial supremacy, defined as not wanting to share the Gospel message of Christ Jesus and salvation, is a sin. The Christian Identity heresy is a perfect example of this. They consider sharing Christ with blacks, Jews, etc... to be casting pearls before swine.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 12:31 PM  

Paradox... Vox addressed that point in the subsequent sentence. Literally the Very. Next. One.

I mean, I know he can be a bit abstract at times, but come on now.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 12:33 PM  

*paragraph, not sentence

Blogger Vox March 07, 2015 12:49 PM  

Racial supremacy, defined as not wanting to share the Gospel message of Christ Jesus and salvation, is a sin.

False definitions don't help you make your case. The fact that you utilize a false definition instead of any existing and relevant definition indicates that you already know your argument is baseless.

Anonymous Richard Camellion March 07, 2015 12:59 PM  

With all due respect, I believe it's foolhardy for Race Realists to accept the term racist.

The word racism has an extremely negative meaning for the general public and has come to define irrational and/or immoral racial hostility and with Left dominating academia, pop culture, etc., it's futile to attempt to change the definition.

Far better to use the term to condemn the endless racial discrimination against Whites as well as the vicious scapegoating used to excuse the violence and stupidity of mestizos and blacks.

Also, being a political realist, eliminating Affirmative Action, Section 8, and the other anti-White "racist" policies championed by the Left are very difficult but realistic goals.
Freedom of association would take a revolution.

Anonymous Anonymous March 07, 2015 1:00 PM  

Paradox . . .

In all Christian charity - you really need to examine your thinking process.

You are parroting the liberal Christian view that parallels the political view Vox is very properly assailing. And Vox's response exposes how you think succinctly and - well - completely.

Personally - your words accuse Christians of sin where none has occurred. You really need to observe society more closely, and bone up on your theology as well.

Pax Christi -

Rev. J. Jeffrey. Baxter, Em.

Blogger Vox March 07, 2015 1:08 PM  

The word racism has an extremely negative meaning for the general public and has come to define irrational and/or immoral racial hostility and with Left dominating academia, pop culture, etc., it's futile to attempt to change the definition.

You're completely missing the point and you're out of date. You're like a WWII general worrying about poison gas when the tanks are rolling forward. The terms are irrelevant. What you should be worrying about is how to stop the slaughter once it starts.

Tell the average young white kid in Europe that he's racist and he'll stare at you and say "so"? The whole "racism" concept is an intra-white issue. And the issue is no longer intra-white.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 1:10 PM  

A point of clarification, Reverend - the "Christian Identity" movement is both real and truly heretical. Paradox's error is in conflating that silliness with those of us who recognize that race relations do not work the way the left claims.

Anonymous paradox March 07, 2015 1:17 PM  

You are parroting the liberal Christian view that parallels the political view Vox is very properly assailing. And Vox's response exposes how you think succinctly and - well - completely

No... it's not liberal Christianity. Gen. Jonathan Jackson (Stonewall) held Sunday School classes for black children. It was not a sin for Jackson to understand that he was mental metric superior to blacks. What would have been a sin is if he believed to no share the Gospel with them. The Gospel is to be shared with every nation. I'm not saying every nation needs to become cosmopolitan. I am saying every nation needs Christ and needs to develop it's on way of worshiping Jesus.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 1:19 PM  

Mr Phillips, the former equality czar, is Black, which affords him some protection against the anti-racist mob. But his real armor is the support of TPTB. The wackos that really believe in the multi-cult might throw rocks, but the big men with money and power, for whom the wackos unknowingly work, will spare him. For Phillips is their man too. The Left has taken a hundred steps forward, and now will take five steps back to allow the people some relief. Calls for dialogue are merely timeouts before resuming the attack.

Anonymous BigGaySteve March 07, 2015 1:22 PM  

" congregated to tumblr, the blog with no comments, in a deliberate move of self-segregation because they can't take the heat"

You can comment on tumbler you just have to "like" the post first, so you can black knight complement them. Like "yea you are right Elysium was a really good movie, it shows that if Asians and whites flee to space the rest of the world will fall apart without them, the ""minorities"" on earth need the last white man on earth to save them" I don't think those comments can be erased.

"Racial supremacy, defined as not wanting to share the Gospel message of Christ Jesus and salvation, is a sin."
For the sin of supremacy say "3 Asians average scores are even higher in math than whites & they commit less violent crime than whites as well" and put a donation in the poor box. I imagine most racists would rather have them afraid of going to hell if they raped little white girls like moslems do. If cops are willing to ignore the gang rapes of 17,000+ little white girls in the UK what are the odds they will do anything to defend gays?

Anonymous DissidentRight March 07, 2015 1:23 PM  

The word racism has an extremely negative meaning for the general public [...] it's futile to attempt to change the definition.

For whites who are liberal and middle-class-or-better. Conservative whites and working class whites will put on a front (usually), but get them alone and they have nothing but contempt for the term and the Left's definition.

When normal, respected people identifying as "racist", that puts the other side in the position of, 'who do you believe: me, or your lying eyes?'

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 1:29 PM  

I've started asking people to clarify the definition whenever they accuse me of x-ism. Either they screw it up and give me an opening to destroy the excessively broad definition or they use a really narrow definition that is easily side-stepped. It does wonders for figuring out which of them are the true believers and which are just parroting the line.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 07, 2015 1:34 PM  

The Danish are racist, zerohedge has a hilarious thread centered on a video about having Danish babies that surprisingly lacks glorious people of color showing up with tribe in tow.

IMO slowly but surely whites are turning the word racist around away from them and upon their antagonists, and this is good

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 1:40 PM  

Richard Camellion: I am a racist. I believe in de jure segregation, legal discrimination, anti-miscegination laws, a ban on non-White immigration, the mass deportation of non-Whites on the slightest pretext, and compulsory sterilization. This is not fantasy. All these things have existed in this country my lifetime. Of course this could be called "racial realism" to soften the blow, but if I get into semantic arguments about it, I'm conceding moral ground to the anti-racists.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 1:49 PM  

"Anti-miscegenation laws."

Ha, good to know you think Vox shouldn't exist.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 1:50 PM  

Steve Sailer has linked to a New York Times article about a girl being refused a seat on the UCLA Student Council's Judicial Board because she's a Jew. Apparently the Diversity we've been importing to fill our universities lacks an appreciation for certain pieces of the Beautiful Mosaic. Once they get to run things, like student councils, their natural and healthy racism comes out.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 2:03 PM  

"Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into 'thought control'."

Since when is w-word g-word thing-that-shall-not-be-mentioned a "good intention"?

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 2:05 PM  

S1AL: I am not aware that procreation between Whites and Indians has been illegal in this country in my lifetime. Procreation between Blacks and Whites has, with good reason.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 2:09 PM  

Discard: you didn't differentiate. You said "non-white" several times. Feel free to clarify further exactly which ethnic groups qualify under your several stated premises.

I would also be interested to know what "good reason" there is for anti-miscegenation laws.

Anonymous anti-racist March 07, 2015 2:19 PM  

Whites are scum.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 2:29 PM  

anti-racist: "Whites are scum."

Should scum and scummy children continue to exist indefinitely into the future? Or is it a good thing that there are policies in place that unless changed ensure that whites will cease to exist in identifiable racial, ethnic, and national (or in Christian Identity cases religious) groups, in whole or in part?

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 2:30 PM  

S1AL: I wrote of "…anti-miscegenation laws…" and "…have existed in this country in my lifetime". Sorry if I was not sufficiently clear. It happens a lot, I expect.

The good reason for anti-Black miscegenation laws is that Black DNA is effectively a genetic pollutant. Blacks are a blight on society and a drain on the economy. The fewer the better. Diluting their presence by mixing it with White genes is simply spreading the problem around. And I believe no more in the right to breed with whoever you wish than I do the right to shit in a drinking fountain.

Anonymous Giuseppe March 07, 2015 2:31 PM  

Vox,
Tell the average young white kid in Europe that he's racist and he'll stare at you and say "so"?

I think this may be more true in Italy than say in London. Not sure about the rest of Europe though, so you may be right, but in the UK the term still is one even young people shy away from.

I think the rhetoric of the word used does play a part in the battle. I lived 25 years in Africa and have travelled extensively, so I am indeed a race realist, but I am not a racist in the sense of automatically judging an individual I have opportunity to evaluate personally purely based on his race.

And by this I mean that while I recognise certain general traits of different races (and ditto cultures) and can objectively regard some as better than others in general terms, the reality is that I judge each individual as such, and not based on some imaginary tick box based on their race/culture/religion.

I mean, I personally think Islam is satanic in origin and nature, but I HAVE met fair, decent, compassionate individuals that were "muslim" (a bit, I suspect as a churchian would define themselves as "christian").

I haven't discussed the topic with you enough (nor read the relevant posts on your views on race/racism) to be absolutely clear on how you treat individuals of a specific race when compared to those of another, but I would be a little surprised if you did in fact treat individuals differently based on general race rather than specific individual behaviours.

What I think a lot of your (lurking) readers may be a bit uncomfortable with is a certain apparent lack of clarity on your part in this regard (not saying you haven't been clear, possibly in multiple posts I haven't read, just saying your immediate position is not obvious to most people I think).

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 2:33 PM  

Note that anti-racist does not say "Racists are scum", but "Whites are scum".

Anonymous Anubis March 07, 2015 2:39 PM  

"Anti-miscegenation laws." Ha, good to know you think Vox shouldn't exist.

Vox has a heritage of all K selected "ice people", all ants but no grasshoppers . No one is saying Ben Carson shouldn't exist with him being in the top 1% of blacks, because only 15% of blacks have an IQ of 100 or higher.

Anyone's thought about the Reverend Boston High School Dean anti-gun preacher drug dealer that blew away one of his students? I know main stream media wont cover the details.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/03/06/boston-high-school-dean-reverend-and-anti-gun-activist-arrested-for-dealing-drugs-and-shooting-student-dealer-in-head-execution-style/comment-page-1/#comment-1327018

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 2:48 PM  

Discard: there were five states, as of 1967, where miscegenation laws included Natives.

Further, how is black DNA a "pollutant?" Given my knowledge of genetics and ethnic traits, the only substantiated factor of which I am aware is the average lower IQ (and even that is quite possibly overstated).

But, given that you don't believe in the fundamental right to marry as one pleases, I doubt we're going to reach anything even resembling a point of agreement here.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 2:51 PM  

Mr.MantraMan: "Anti-racism being nothing but anti-white. They basically say that but conservatives are usually looking for what the libtards are really, really saying"

That's funny because it's true.

It plays out similarly with non-liberal non-white anti-whites, like this:

Mr. Asian: "We do not accept Australia as an Asian country. We don't care if your politicians say Australia is 'in Asia'. What we want is Asian faces!"

Mr. Enlightened Conservative White Australia: "Oh I see what you're saying: this is about culture! You're concerned we are not being respectful enough of your Asian culture culture!

Mr. Asian (addressing repulsive white ghost with teeth-gritted patience): "No! Faces! People! You are not Asian!" (etc.)

Your enlightened conservative, insulted to his face (and about his too-white face) has a seemingly limitless capacity for protective stupidity. He is always willing to look behind anti-white hostility to see something else.

Especially if it seems that anti-white hostility will be vented in a practical way not on him or his family, but on other whites further down the socio-economic pyramid. Other whites toward whom he may have duties, and whose interests he may hold in trust, but for whom he cares nothing.

(That is particularly how men act when they want to be Randian heroes, rising high above "second-handers" and nobodies. Group responsibility means little to them. They are not to be trusted.)

Blogger Desiderius March 07, 2015 3:04 PM  

Giuseppe,

"And by this I mean that while I recognise certain general traits of different races (and ditto cultures) and can objectively regard some as better than others in general terms, the reality is that I judge each individual as such, and not based on some imaginary tick box based on their race/culture/religion."

That's the definition of racism that built up the goodwill that the anti-racists are now raping and pillaging. As it is not their definition of racism (not close) I don't see how it is germane to the point of discussion, other than a means of undermining Vox in hopes of avoiding conflict with the rapists and pillagers.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 3:12 PM  

Having a home-made definition of "racist" which exonerates you doesn't achieve anything. According to your definition of "racist" you may be innocent, but if you are white you can still be smeared as a "racist" and this can still have severe consequences like threatening your employment.

Anti-racist is anti-white. That is really what it comes down to.

Anonymous cecilhenry March 07, 2015 3:13 PM  

ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY IS GENOCIDE.

Miscegenation is also Genocide. IT destroys something. Undeniable.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 3:17 PM  

I am a native American White. You must mean that five states forbade breeding between Whites and Indians in my lifetime. I did not know that. In any event, it should be clear that I am completely opposed to Black/White coupling, whereas my views vary with respect to other races and peoples.

Black DNA makes you stupid. That's not a enough to be a pollutant?

I don't believe in homo marriage either.

Anonymous Anti racist March 07, 2015 3:25 PM  

"Race-based self-segregation is not only the observably preferred human norm for all races throughout the entirety of recorded human history, it is inevitable. You cannot support freedom and anti-racism at the same time. It is not logically possible. "

Slavery has been the preferred human norm, but we don't champion it today....Do We?? Nor is racism inevitable, obviously. We know this because we have so many examples of it not governing relationships. And in fact it is so easy to support anti racism and freedom I'm surprised it has to be said, let alone the opposit countered: I support your right to act immorally where your thoughts on race are concerned. There. Both freedom and anti racism is supported together.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 3:26 PM  

Discard: that's... Not quite how genetics work. I've known plenty of smart black people, some literally fresh off the boat (or plane).

But if that's the logic you wish to use, why not just extend it to all people based on intelligence testing? We could even implement your preference of forced sterilization and rid ourselves of all those undesirables. What do you propose for a baseline minimum intelligence?

Blogger Vox March 07, 2015 3:34 PM  

What I think a lot of your (lurking) readers may be a bit uncomfortable with is a certain apparent lack of clarity on your part in this regard (not saying you haven't been clear, possibly in multiple posts I haven't read, just saying your immediate position is not obvious to most people I think).

I don't care what may or may not make lurking readers uncomfortable. It is no business of theirs how I treat individuals in my private life nor does my behavior make any thing that I say about the consequences of macro social policies any more or less true. If they are inclined to dismiss my rational statements about sub-species population groups on the basis of an imaginary ad hominem, this is probably not the blog for them.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 3:37 PM  

S1AL: "Further, how is black DNA a "pollutant?" "

It's amazing how the same people that in many cases will be aghast at the destruction of the native dingo population due to genetic pollution from dogs will find the concept of genetic pollution incomprehensible and / or unobjectionable when it comes to blending out white populations.

If you move a few million blacks onto a tribal reservation and require the natives to "assimilate" the tribe will cease to exist. It will not only suffer a cultural impact, the tribe's genotype will be erased. From the point of view of maintaining the tribe, this is genetic pollution.

The British nations, for a small group of examples, are the native population of Great Britain, and logically would have the same moral rights that the native peoples of North America would have. Including the right not to be erased by orchestrated genetic pollution.

If a tribe can say, "you are not a part of the tribe and not entitled to the moral and material benefits of belonging to it unless you are genetically part of it to a degree that satisfies us" (and I'm sure tribes do have that right), logically that would suggest that a group of nations, such as the nations of Great Britain, have the right to say: "you are not a part of the nations and not entitled to the moral and material benefits of belonging to us unless you are genetically part of us to a degree that satisfies us".

The point is the same: ethnic continuity.

Ethnic continuity includes culture. It's reasonable to suppose that you cannot have a native American culture without the right genotype, and that you can't have British cultures without the right genotypes. Brutal evidence, for instance from Rotherham, supports this. The imported black, brown and mixed-race Muslim imports don't act British. So they are a pollution.

Now, you never get 100% purity. That's not a reasonable goal for any nation. But you can refuse to be swept away. There is no moral obligation to be reduced to a minority in your own country. Which means there is not a moral obligation not to have any laws that aim at preventing that from happening.

Anonymous Anti racist March 07, 2015 3:47 PM  

Only moral degenerates justify their hate on genetics

Blogger Thordaddy March 07, 2015 3:51 PM  

Anti-racism is passive liberal-speak for anti-white Supremacy... Anti-racism is AGAINST white man believing in and/or striving towards objective Supremacy. And within this "belief" lie the motivation to "perfect" man in the most diabolical of manners.

Anonymous Anti racist March 07, 2015 3:58 PM  

It is none of those things, Thordaddy. It is a plea to judge me on who I am not on who my parents are.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 4:16 PM  

"It's amazing how the same people that in many cases will be aghast at the destruction of the native dingo population due to genetic pollution from dogs will find the concept of genetic pollution incomprehensible and / or unobjectionable when it comes to blending out white populations.

This might come as a shock, but I find both of those notions to be risible. Given the damage that the search for generic purity in dog breeds has done, I'm not sure that's a comparison I would want to make, anyways.

Similarly, I have no use for the concept of the " white race." Depending on what definition you use, that conceptually includes something like 40-50% of the human genome distribution... And manages to not include one Caucasian sub-group!

"If you move a few million blacks onto a tribal reservation and require the natives to "assimilate" the tribe will cease to exist. It will not only suffer a cultural impact, the tribe's genotype will be erased. From the point of view of maintaining the tribe, this is genetic pollution."

How did we go from optional and personal miscegenation to mass and compulsory miscegenation? This is a ludicrous comparison.

"The British nations, for a small group of examples, are the native population of Great Britain, and logically would have the same moral rights that the native peoples of North America would have. Including the right not to be erased by orchestrated genetic pollution."

A significant portion of my ancestry is from the British Isles. A significant portion is not. How does this concept apply to me in any way?

And, once again, how did we move from miscegenation laws to an orchestrated conspiracy?

"Now, you never get 100% purity. That's not a reasonable goal for any nation. But you can refuse to be swept away. There is no moral obligation to be reduced to a minority in your own country. Which means there is not a moral obligation not to have any laws that aim at preventing that from happening."

The population of the United States is already massively "impure" on both a demographic and a personal level. It would be nearly impossible to find anyone who could reasonably be defined as "pure" white. Why would someone advocate attempting to preserve something that already doesn't exist.

Furthermore, what inherent value is there in such preservation? I can respect the right of a nation to attempt to preserve its serve of self through genetics if it finds that to be a reasonable course of action (I am, by definition, not welcome in any such country) but the United States is not such a nation.

Anonymous cecilhenry March 07, 2015 4:21 PM  

S1AL:


Exactly. Well said. SAve the spotted owl but white people have interests--no way???

Hypocritical, but with the liberal mindset ANYTHING is done for status and a leg up on someone else.

Always looking around for someone to condescend to--until the prey disappears and they have to answer.......

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 4:26 PM  

S1AL: That's not quite how statistics work. That you know some smart Blacks does not argue for Blacks' general intelligence any more than your knowing some tall women argues for women generally being taller than men. "I know a good one" (IKAGW) is a shorthand phrase coined to address your common but fallacious argument.

I could see sterilizing those who cannot or will not support themselves.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 4:30 PM  

S1AL: "…nearly impossible to find anyone who could reasonably be defined as 'pure' White". You are simply full of shit.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 4:32 PM  

S1AL: "How did we go from optional and personal miscegenation to mass and compulsory miscegenation?"

Because the starting point of the thread is the admission of the equality czar, in charge of enforcing compulsory anti-racism, that it is an ugly doctrine.

Anti-racism is anti-white, and it's compulsory dogma.

Compulsion is always in the wings if not on center state when we discuss anti-racism, much as it is when we discuss communism.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 4:33 PM  

Compulsion is always in the wings if not on center stage when we discuss anti-racism, much as it is when we discuss communism.

Anonymous Thornham March 07, 2015 4:37 PM  

Discard: "You are simply full of shit." Well said.

At least squirrels in the UK don't have to suffer through the same extermination as its indigenous people.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 4:37 PM  

Anti-racist. It is you who said "White people suck". It is you who base your hatred on genetics. It is you who is the moral degenerate.

I don't hate non-Whites. I deal amicably with non-Whites every day. Even when they offend or insult me with their words and behavior, I recognize that they are simply being themselves and doing and saying what the multi-cult has told them is right and good. I reserve my hatred for those who use them as a cat's paw against my people and culture.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 4:38 PM  

Discard: Nor did I make that argument. I was countering your statement that "black DNA makes you stupid."

But I am of the opinion that the higher levels of g and IQ in certain ethnicities are a result of environmental pressures that selected for intelligence, and that informs a number of my opinions on the issue.

Anonymous Petar March 07, 2015 4:45 PM  

"It is a plea to judge me on who I am not on who my parents are."

Non-white people ARE non-white. Your point could not be more mute.

Also, the hypocrisy is staggering. First, "white people suck" then some pathetic pleas for individualized threatment and disregarding racial traits in evaluating people's qualities.

I really hope you are a throll as it pains me to think there are so many so intellectually impotent people out there.

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 4:46 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 4:49 PM  

S1AL: "…the higher levels of g and IQ in certain ethnicities are a result of …". In short, Black DNA makes you stupid. Embrace it.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 5:00 PM  

Prince Charles is a patron of the Red Squirrel Survival Trust and a vocal advocate on its work to protect the rodent whose future is increasingly uncertain.

If only he loved the native British people as much as the native British squirrels...

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 5:01 PM  

Discard: Hey, if you don't get the difference, you don't get it. I can accept that.

Thornham/Discard: how, exactly, do you define "pure" white? Do you have a complete list of genes which a person is allowed to have in order to be categorized that way? Or is it more about "looking" white? Or maybe it's a percentage of the correct genome variants?

Titus: my comments exist within the scope of responding to the support for anti-miscegenation laws. As a proponent of general liberty, I find both positions (anti-misc laws and forcible intermarriage) to be distasteful in the extreme.

Anonymous PA March 07, 2015 5:15 PM  

There is no need for anti-miscegenation laws if there is liberty. Ten free white men are well capable of making it very clear to one hundred black men that their daughters and sisters are off limits. But we haven't had liberty since at least 1954.

OpenID bc64a9f8-765e-11e3-8683-000bcdcb2996 March 07, 2015 5:16 PM  

I wonder what Erin Pizzey had to say about Domestic Violence and feminism after she became inconvenient to the respective DV, and Fembot, industry "ministries of truth"?
I wonder what Jimmy Whales had to say about the "evolving" integrity of Wikipedia?
As always..."If you build it, they will come."
CaptDMO

Blogger bob k. mando March 07, 2015 6:04 PM  

Quartermaster March 07, 2015 10:51 AM
When it is, you get something like Mao's or Stalin's regime, and there's soem doubt as to how well thought out those were.



those were exquisitely well thought out.

Mao and Stalin could hardly have done better ... for themselves.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 07, 2015 6:17 PM  

Mr.MantraMan: "Anti-racism being nothing but anti-white. They basically say that but conservatives are usually looking for what the libtards are really, really saying"

Five killed in Mali jihadist nightclub attack:

"They reportedly shouted 'death to whites' on entering the restaurant... It sounds like an attack against the presence of Europeans. Then they apparently targeted the French national," a diplomatic source said.

US Secretary of State John Kerry said the act of "opening fire on a restaurant filled with innocent civilians only strengthens our resolve to fight terrorism in all its forms wherever it lives".

History says this will result in zero effort to fight anti-white terrorism, but an increased effort to "fight terrorism" by means such as making up lists of political tendencies favored by whites and defining them as terrorist-related.

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 6:21 PM  

S1AL: I do get the difference. The difference is, not enough to matter unless you're trying to avoid crushing eggshells.

I am born of northern, western, and central European stock. I am pure White, even by any White Nationalist standard. But I do not argue about Spaniards or Italians or Russians, as some might. I don't really care if someone is a bit Cherokee or Kurd or Japanese either. I'm not a DNA fetishist. It was possible to make necessary distinctions long before modern biology, and it still is.
Your insistence on some precise definition, some impossible-to-manage standard, is akin to the legal rules that make every murder trial a multi-year circus, with an unsupportable administrative burden. I can see why you, being racially mixed, would benefit from the broadest possible definition of White, just as criminals benefit from legal minutia. Eventually, that means that every Moslem and Hindu light-skinned enough to get a tan is one of us. But you're not.

We don't live under conditions of general liberty. We live under conditions of foreign occupation. Click on isteve on unz at the top right corner of the blog, and read the story about the Jewish girl at UCLA. Those were non-White aliens doing the dirt. They will not be punished.

Anonymous Sheila March 07, 2015 6:25 PM  

S1AL - now you are being deliberately obtuse . . . or perhaps you are just genuinely stupid, as well as ignorant. To the PTB great disappointment, Whites in America have proven to be hideously White. Per testing done by 23&Me (with the resultant issues of self-selection), while blacks average 80% black and 20% other DNA, and hispanics 65% European (again, self-selection - those who pay to have their DNA analyzed are not your average mestizos), American Whites average 98.6% White. Of course, that's less than 100% so I'm sure you'll neatly fit that in with your definition of "mixed." This horrible hatefact was actually published in the NYT, so if you don't choose to look up the numerous studies replicating this data, stop at an older Steve Sailer post which discusses the issue.

To further Discard's point about black DNA being a "pollutant," totally aside from the fact that most features of the White genotype are recessive and therefore are utterly overwhelmed/destroyed by miscegenation, g has been proven highly heritable and its distribution amongst the races is abundantly clear. Again, dozens of studies document this. Further, particular genes have been shown to control impulsive and violent behavior and such genes appear at a dramatically higher frequency among blacks than other races. I could go on, but since one cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into, using rational argument here is wasting my time. You just continue with your nice thoughts about people, and things will just turn out fine for you, mkay?

Blogger S1AL March 07, 2015 6:51 PM  

Discard: So... Why are you talking about purity? If you're going to use a word, use it correctly. If you think the U.S. should be "generally" white, say that.

I also like how you jumped to conclusions about the degree and type of ethnic mixing I have... Anyone looking at me (unless I've been out in the sun a lot) is going to assume I'm of purely European descent, as would I. The difference is that I don't care because it's arbitrary silliness.

Also, you do realize that most middle easterners are considered "white," yes? Heck, there are red-headed Phoenicians.

And do you remember the part where there are dark-skinned Caucasians? Yeah, they share more average genetic material with central Europeans than a lot of the Iberian stock. But they look black. Do explain how they fit into your race theory.


But that's my point. You guys who are talking about "racial purity" can't even come to a consensus on what that is. You just use it as an excuse.


Sheila: Congratulations, you've managed to adequately comprehend my point. Virtually nobody in this country is "pure" anything.

And recessive traits are not "destroyed" by miscegenation... At worst they're hidden. If you care that damn much about external characteristics, you're incredibly shallow.

I'm fully aware that g is highly heritable... Especially on the maternal side. That doesn't negate the fact that conditions can and will select for it, regardless of race. Those pressures simply appeared earlier for some number of white/Asian ethnicities. There's no reason to believe that it won't select over time in other populations.

And genetics don't control behavior. They influence it. And one of the generic variants known to influence heavily towards impulsive violence appears only in... Finnish males. Awkward.

But keep telling yourself that you're being rational in your biases. It's amusing.

Anonymous Anubis March 07, 2015 6:57 PM  

Further, how is black DNA a "pollutant?" Given my knowledge of genetics and ethnic traits, the only substantiated factor of which I am aware is the average lower IQ.

There is the fact they evolved Sickle cell to survive malaria without quinine that whitey brought to Africa. While it has many drawbacks the ability for sickle cells to survive malaria is a great advantage if you are not smart enough to use similar bad tasting alkaloids that chimpanzees are smart enough to use, its not just sign language primates that are smarter than the AVG IQ of black nations.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/chimps-self-medicate-111129.htm


I've known plenty of smart black people

I knew a black doctor that malpracticed himself to death but I have never meet a black as smart as seen on fictional TV. Only 15% of US blacks have an IQ of 100 or higher. Haiti and the Dominican Republic are on the same island but DR has an avg IQ of 15 points higher and guards its borders better than we do. Even 57,000+ American Mensa has 9 black members, although a couple could sneak into a KKK rally in the summertime.

Anonymous Petar March 07, 2015 7:00 PM  

"If you care that damn much about external characteristics, you're incredibly shallow."

For 95+% of the people I interact with daily, their outer appearence is the most important characteristic that influences my life.
Besides, if you actually knew anything about world history, you would know that universally, when you have ethnic heterogenity (cultural/genetic variants usually having a lot to do with outer appearance), there is inter-ethnic violence. This is universal. This is NEVER going to change.

Ergo, there is nothing shallow about caring so much about it. Indeed, i deem it far more important than caring about whether the level of your income tax is 5% or 50%.

Blogger Vox March 07, 2015 7:50 PM  

There's no reason to believe that it won't select over time in other populations.

Of course there is. Thanks to people like you, it is selecting for precisely the opposite. Both blacks and whites have been selecting for less intelligence over the last 30 years.

The die-off in Nigeria alone is going to be spectacular. They produce less food today than they did when their population was one-fourth the present population. All thanks to white Western do-gooders.

Blogger Corvinus March 07, 2015 8:10 PM  

Also, you do realize that most middle easterners are considered "white," yes? Heck, there are red-headed Phoenicians.

Middle Easterners are actually largely mulatto, thanks to the trans-Sahara slave trade over hundreds of years. Ever seen a picture of Zacarias Moussaoui?

Blogger Corvinus March 07, 2015 8:11 PM  

And do you remember the part where there are dark-skinned Caucasians? Yeah, they share more average genetic material with central Europeans than a lot of the Iberian stock. But they look black. Do explain how they fit into your race theory.

Tamils and Sri Lankans don't look black at all. Just because they have the same skin tone as Africans doesn't mean they look like groids otherwise.

Anonymous KentAllard March 07, 2015 8:14 PM  

If non-racists are so non-racist - why do they act so racist? Other motives perhaps?

Anonymous Discard March 07, 2015 8:18 PM  

S1AL: I didn't bring up "purity", you did, in quoting Titus Didius Tacitus who wrote that seeking 100% racial purity was unreasonable. You took his dismissal of racial purity and made it an endorsement, and attributed it to me. You're full of shit again.

Who considers most Middle Easterners to be White? The U.S. Government? Not credible.
I know a red-haired Middle Easterner, a Jew. Other Middle Easterners recognize her as a Jew on sight because of it. Your Phoenicians have got the blood of Abraham, most likely.

It is not the external characteristics that I object to. That is the story that lefties tell everyone, so they can flatter themselves for their broad-mindedness. The external characteristics are visible indications of a genetic and generally cultural differences that I object to. That's why I don't shoot Blacks on sight, I only keep an eye on them, as do you. That is also why, once I am satisfied with their basic decency, I am at ease with Blacks and other non-Whites.

Not all conditions select for high intelligence. You are ignorant. Read up on r/K differences.

My biases are rooted in decades of observation. DNA and IQ and the lot are simply confirmations of things I already knew. Or are ghettos and barrios the way they are because the White Man is keeping the brothers and the Raza down?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 08, 2015 12:28 AM  

S1AL: "…nearly impossible to find anyone who could reasonably be defined as 'pure' White".

S1AL is not arguing in good faith.

Please nobody take what he is saying as a fair copy of what I said about 100% racial purity not being a reasonable goal. I am all for white people remaining white; I just think that there's such a thing as an exception, and humane and reasonable laws for the preservation of ethnic groups need to provide for exceptions, but more importantly they need to support the preservation of the group characteristics that a given individual might be an exception to.

His attitude seems to be about enlarging on "not 100% pure" till the group identity is lost. My attitude is like that of someone defining "good delivery gold" such that, despite reasonable impurities, the gold will not be lost.

Anonymous Giuseppe March 08, 2015 12:45 AM  

It is no business of theirs how I treat individuals in my private life nor does my behavior make any thing that I say about the consequences of macro social policies any more or less true. If they are inclined to dismiss my rational statements about sub-species population groups on the basis of an imaginary ad hominem, this is probably not the blog for them.

I don't think you understood the intent of what I meant. I think you argument against certain macro social policies are pretty easy to understand. I am not sure, however, what practical solutions you are suggesting are implemented.
personally I favour maximum individual freedom with accepted logical consequences, but in reading your blog, so far I think if you did voice a solution I didn't see it, or maybe I didn't understand it. My point is basically, ok, I see the problem you describe, I think most sane people see it, but what do you propose is the solution? Because substituting one Macro social policy with another is not necessarily an improvement in my view.

Blogger S1AL March 08, 2015 1:32 AM  

Vox: I should have been clearer about that. Rephrase - There's no reason to think that those pressures won't select for higher intelligence in any ethnic group over time (operating assumption that those pressures are actually in place). It's quite clear to me that certain social policies have had the effect of removing or negating those pressures. The breakdown of the black family has possibly been the most disastrous result.

Discard: So what you're saying is that Titus brought it up and I responded to it? Sure, great, and then you made a comment about it. Regardless...

No, the ghettos and barrios exist for a number of reasons. Ethnicity is only a part of it. Educational levels, the welfare state, cultural issues, and a host of other factors play a part. Laying it at the feet of ethnicity doesn't solve anything or explain the parallel neighborhoods full of white people.

Titus: I have no idea what you're advocating. My point was, and remains, that anti-miscegenation laws are a silly attempt to maintain something that does not exist in this country: racial purity. Furthermore, that concept of "purity" is inherently flawed and leads to some very strange conclusions when accepted.

Anonymous Discard March 08, 2015 5:07 AM  

S1AL: Read Titus' and your own comments. He dismissed the idea of racial purity, and you took it for an endorsement. Don't weasel-word it by saying you "responded" to his comment. You either misunderstood or misrepresented him.

Race and ethnicity are the only reasons for ghettos and barrios. Perfectly good White cities with fully developed physical and administrative infrastructure, go Dark. The Mexicans cannot sustain the level of services that Whites did, and the barrio is the result. Blacks are incapable of maintaining the city at all. Keep in mind that they did not need to build the city. Whites had already done that. They fail to even maintain that which was given to them. I may not like what Chinese or Iranians do to a city they take over, but I can't claim that they let the place go to ruin.
The Darks' low educational levels, the cultural issues, their fucked up families, all are racial issues. Low IQ people with limited impulse control create societies that express those weaknesses. Laying it at the feet of race and ethnicity doesn't solve anything except the mystery of why it happens. If you want a solution, you have to recognize the cause of the problem. And it's not White racism.

Anti-miscegenation laws are not a silly attempt to maintain something that does not exist, but a means to limit the damage Blacks do. They are a tool which Whites used to keep Blacks away from their foolish daughters. Not every White man has the wherewithal to scare Blacks, or anybody else. That's why we have laws to put burglars away, rather than requiring every man to carry out his own justice.
Having your house robbed is nothing compared to having your daughter knocked up by a Black. Her life is ruined, the world has one more Black in it, and other Blacks are encouraged to get some White pussy. Black seed is poison to civilization, and anti-miscegenation laws are a reasonable precaution.

Neither I nor Titus have advocated racial purity. You're arguing with your own ears.

Anonymous The Obvious March 08, 2015 6:35 AM  

S1AL is an infamous troll, he called himself Cheech And Chong Found God/Dusty Shackleford and pulled the exact same stunt over at Unclebob's Treehouse, claiming that as you can't define "white" at the macro level, you can't defend "white" at the micro level, i.e. your own family.

And yes, the Buddist Parable of the Poisoned Arrow is a useful counter to his argument.

Blogger Vox March 08, 2015 7:23 AM  

There's no reason to think that those pressures won't select for higher intelligence in any ethnic group over time (operating assumption that those pressures are actually in place). It's quite clear to me that certain social policies have had the effect of removing or negating those pressures. The breakdown of the black family has possibly been the most disastrous result.

I don't disagree. Hence my point about "time to civilization". The problem is that we're talking about something that will require somewhere between 500 and 800 years even if things were moving in the right direction. Which, you have already admitted, they are not.

Blogger Vox March 08, 2015 7:25 AM  

I am not sure, however, what practical solutions you are suggesting are implemented

I'm not suggesting anything because I don't think any rational suggestions will be considered, much less implemented. I think the situation will eventually be resolved the way it has historically been resolved, through inter-ethnic violence, forcible segregation, and both ethnic and religious cleansing.

Blogger S1AL March 08, 2015 10:08 AM  

Discard: If you don't see how the words "I'm all for white people remaining white" are an avocation of racial purity... well, there's nothing more to say.

And not everything is a racial issue. Vast, grand civilizations have existed in every area of the planet at one time or another. It's not so long ago that there Romans considered many of your ancestors (and mine) uncouth savages.

Culture exists apart from race. Else there would be no explanation for the lawlessness of the westward expansion or the modern trailer parks.

Vox: I think the time frame might be shorter than that, but of course it's still going to be many generations. I expect that we're going to look back on this era in 50 years (if we're alive) and shake or heads in disbelief at how long we let the hard left shape social policy in the inner city.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus March 08, 2015 12:01 PM  

The Obvious: "S1AL is an infamous troll, he called himself Cheech And Chong Found God/Dusty Shackleford and pulled the exact same stunt over at Unclebob's Treehouse, claiming that as you can't define "white" at the macro level, you can't defend "white" at the micro level, i.e. your own family."

Oh. OK, thanks, The Obvious. I have nothing to add, then.

Blogger S1AL March 08, 2015 12:20 PM  

Titus: No idea who this guy thinks I am, but he's wrong. I use the same handle everywhere.

My argument isn't one just used by me, though he has the logic a bit backwards. Racial purity isn't definable/defensible at a macro level, and miscegenation laws are therefore foolishly trite at best. At a micro level... Do what you will. I don't care. What I do care about is the idiocy of telling other people that their marital choices are illegal. Cause race.

Blogger Thordaddy March 08, 2015 2:39 PM  

S1AL...

Miscegenation is an indicator of a potentially self-annihilating ethos and laws against self-annihillation SHOULD BE self-evident. Furthermore, the impossibility of "racial purity" DOES NOT in any manner prohibit one from socially constructing a "white race" coalescing around the voluntary pursuit of objective Supremacy. Simply think of the new white race = a sports team wanting to COLLECTIVELY ascend, unimpeded. The anti-racist IS AGAINST such an entity.

Anonymous Discard March 08, 2015 4:18 PM  

S1AL: Culture is to race as personality is to the individual person.

The White people of the western frontier and of trailer parks are examples of small subsets of the White race, just as White engineers or Mormons are. The word "sub-culture" exists to describe such groups. Put all these White sub-cultures together and you get a larger culture that creates and builds. Put all the Black sub-cultures together, whatever those sub-cultures may be, and you get a larger culture that subsists.

Breeding Whites with Blacks creates more Blacks, a better sort of Black than the average, but as a group still inferior to Whites. Among Whites, there is a more than adequate supply of dullards for all our needs. Blacks are superfluous at best, cancerous at worst. If you want to conduct these genetic experiments, hoping for different results than such experiments have had in the past, do it in Africa, whose people might be improved by a couple shots of White DNA.

Anonymous Giuseppe March 08, 2015 4:22 PM  

I'm not suggesting anything because I don't think any rational suggestions will be considered, much less implemented.
Sadly I agree.
That said, I for one would like to hear your ideal rational solution if you have one. It might not be listened to or implemented, but if you actually have one, I think it's worth sharing. We do have to start somewhere if we are to improve on anything.

And even if it might only be a hundred years from now, beginning with a good idea does make a difference.

Morphic resonance is, in my considered opinion and experience, and actual motive force, so on that basis alone it would make sense to give a good idea some exposure.

Blogger Corvinus March 08, 2015 8:12 PM  

S1AL is an infamous troll, he called himself Cheech And Chong Found God/Dusty Shackleford and pulled the exact same stunt over at Unclebob's Treehouse, claiming that as you can't define "white" at the macro level, you can't defend "white" at the micro level, i.e. your own family.

S1AL doesn't really sound like Cheech. I'm well familiar with Cheech, as he likes to bite at my ankles on here, mainly by posting an absurd Gamma statement dinging me in the comments of a blog post about 24 hours after the last poster has left it due to newer blog posts. The idea is obviously to "get the last word" on a particular subject, to (mentally) score a victory against me. Typical Gamma.

Blogger Kevin Brown April 06, 2015 5:15 PM  

Join Millions of Singles in and around the world and find your Interracial dream partner today.
Interracial Dating
Black Women Dating
Interracial Marriages

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts