Beautiful, guy!

LOL!! Good work!

Good for you! How horrible that they ask!

Man, you just can't make this stuff up, can you? I love it. I think "debates" like this just point out how obviously stupid the entire Jew/race/gender hatred thing is.

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Idiotic Nazis. I hate Idiotic Nazis.

Jewish carpenter? Harrison Ford? I'm confused.

I hate Illinois Nazis - but that's a different movie.

Yessir ... good job ... I'm new to blogging, but when I see something I like, it moves off of the long list to the short list and that's where you belong.

Yes, great response. It's amazing they call themselves Christians, makes us all look bad. :/

Beautiful daughter, I hope to be blessed with children one day.

That is hilarious, although I'm not sure it is really worth responding to. The loopier the Arabs get, the more I wish I was a Jew just to annoy them.

Websurfing Nazis Must Die!

Anyway, I suggest you stop, Tony. It's really not fair toying with them like this.

I use the word "chutzpah", and I'm a White Atheist. How do I fit into their world view?

(Maybe I don't. Maybe I ought to be shopping for a .45, too!)

You know you're doing something right if a bunch of nazis dislike you enough to wonder whether you're jewish or not.

What Chutzpah, Tony! Keep up the great work. I don't like guns, and those guys make me want to buy a .45.

Want some free training to go with that .45? I'm sure that I can find someone who's willing to help out.

James

Tony, I'll second James' offer as well.

Drop me a note if you'd like some advice in that area.

Didn't these guys learn anything from the Indiana Jones movies? Or World War II?

A.L.

Tony,I'm so sorry these people exist.I'm appalled.Get a gun,the Founders thought it was a good idea.

Those comments don't represent all of us at Stormfront. Granted, it makes us as a whole look bad, but there's a lot smart people on there. (And some not-so-smart people. Same as any forum, really.) Stick around and explore.

Stormfront forum is actually diverse. There's independents, libertarians, socialists, conservatives, liberals, and yes, national socialists there. There's a wide range of views there.

For my part, it's not about hurting anyone else - that's not what I want at all. I want my own people and culture to have a future. I wish the best to all other peoples and I want the best for my own. I think you'll find that to be the case with most people on Stormfront forum. Again, stick around and check it out.

I'd also recommend the following links if you'd like to understand us a little better (even if not agree with us). Thanks for listening.

http://www.amren.com/

http://home.ddc.net/ygg/

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/

http://www.newnation.org/

"Jesus was a Jew."
"Yes, but only on his mother's side."

Seriously, though, I don't know anything about you or your blog -- I just wandered in from Instapundit. But if one can be reasonably judged by the quality of his enemies, you're doing pretty well.

The funny thing about the remark about Jesus only being a Jew on his mother's side is that that's the only side that counts. ;)

Hi Tony ! I have an extra GM (.45) that I can lend you. And, heck, I'll go with you if you like...

Wow! Visiting that website was like kicking over a rock in a forgotten part of the rain forest.

A .45 is nice at close range, but my Dad used to use an M1 Garand. I've always been proud of him for that.

ahem yes all well and good, but then explain the shape of your skull? as we all know the jew has a certain size and shape due to the extra calcium that is caused by dehorning the jew baby at the bris.

saying your Christian won't cut it w/out an explaination to this, plus pix of you eating a bacon cheeseburger.

thank you.

Adolph Jr.

Tony,

Much as I love a high quality handgun, I recommend this for repulsing marauding bands of skinheads in and around the home, at ranges out to 150m or so. (Beyond that, you might want one of .)

Dagnabit! That last comment got cut off. It should've read "one of these."

For these meshugineh I got up early this morning? Oy.

Very, VERY nice! I had not seen this blog before, but I'm very happy to make your acquaintance.

By all means, continue needling the pinheads if it tickles you to do so... but get that .45 too. Chances are you'll never meet them face-to-face, and even if you did, I have difficulty believing they'd have either the guts or the marksmanship to take a shot at you. But you never know.

Someone once said that antisemitism serves a useful function -- it's a touchstone for the morally bankrupt. "First they came for the Jews", and so forth. I think there's a lot to be said for that view of antisemitism... and it's as good a reason as any to keep an eye on those that practice it.

best wishes,
Daniel in Medford

I'm a Jewish carpenter, Greg. Could you worship me?

(With apologies to "Meet The Parents"!)

M-14's, G3's and 1911's aside (all good choices BTW) It seems that is easiest to defeat the Nazis with wit and humor. Kind of leaves them mumbling that old Nazi mantra of "hey did he just insult me?”

Tony's white?

Grandpa was a carpenter, he built houses, stores and banks...wait a minute. That wasn't Jusus, it was John Prine.

Don't worry, Merc. As long as you're making contributions to the world, "your" "people" and "culture" will have a "future." So take off that armband and write that symphony you've been meaning to start. We'll wait.

I'm horrified by what I'm reading here. First of all, guys, Tony has kids, so don't push him to get a .45. If he needs to ventilate one of these master race (read: white trash) pricks and misses, God only knows where that massive slug is going to wind up. And what's this about a rifle for home defense?? How big is his house, for goodness sake?

Tony, go get yourself a Mossberg 500 12-gauge shotgun with an 18-1/2" barrel, 8-round capacity and pistol grip. It's inexpensive, small enough for close-in defense, absolutely devastating in its effect and, with the right shells, you won't worry about hitting something you don't want to on the other side of the drywall.

Speaking as a Christian American of almost pure German extraction, I can confidently assert that these goose-stepping freaks are a disgrace to America, a plague on Christianity and an insult to Germans. It revolts me to think of such base and vile beings discussing your departed daughter.

Just a parting thought: When my 3 year-old niece passed away, one of her nurses gave me a card whose message I'll never forget. It said, "Death is not the extinguishing of a light. It is blowing out a candle because the sun has come up."

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Tony like Paul said here in Corinthians they have blinders on.

"Big Smiles!"

"Big Smiles!"

Mel Gibson, in Lethal Weapon II

Makes me wonder whether the lack of intellectual fortitude over there is the cause or the effect of the white supremacy dogma. But I'm not nearly curious enough to study it more closely.

My condolences for the loss of your child.

I had to laugh, though, at yet another case of shooting fish (Nazi peabrains) in a barrel. Keep up the good work. I know, I know, sometimes it's too easy, but you know, somebody has to do it.

Shape of the skull? Calcium? Horns? What movie was that?

How come the Neos don't respond to the fart posts?

Please don't take that thread to be typical of Stormfront. Most of us are simply concerned about the rapidly accelerating loss of our people and culture. I -- and I'm sure I'm not the only one -- actually find your blog rather nice. It's good to see a loving father.

Some of our younger members with less refined political sensibilities tend to look for bogeymen where they don't exist. I hope you've noticed that that thread on SF has been closed, locked, and retitled by a moderator.

As another poster said above, we have all ranges of political views at SF. All of you who believe that the destruction of the White race is a good thing and those of you who are not opposed to the destruction of Western culture are cordially invited to stop by our forum for some friendly debate. I assure you, we're quite civil.

So those of you who think we're "evil nazis," why don't you take a few minutes to stop by and find out what we're really about, rather than getting all your information from television. Jerry Springer's hardly a reliable political analyst, is he?

Please, stop by and let us know what YOU think about the current state of race relations in this wide world of ours.

Thanks!

LOL! What a great read and keep up the good work.

.....but NO Irish!"

(Gratuitous Blazing Saddles reference)

Tony,

Regarding the .45, may I suggest a Glock 21? However, I think one of the previous posters suggestion of a shotgun might be more appropriate for home defense depending on how much time you wish to spend perfecting your marksmanship skills. Ask kimdutoit.com for advice, he will no doubt give you quite a bit to think about. Remember that 99.9% of web cretins are just bluster, but it never hurts to be prepared. A Glock is fantatic for "peace of mind" if you understand it's purpose and limitations. BTW you have a great blog, keep up the good work.

Great answer. And no amount of pious "we just want to preserve 'our' culture" claptrap will excuse people who hate someone else because of their color or religion. We know better than that now. It's beyond time to get along with each other.

And I am a white Christian who says Chutzpah all the time too. I also have a nephew who thinks he is better than those who aren't white/Christian (or what passes for Christian with those folks, which isn't much) to the extent that he named his newborn daughter "Aryana." My best friend is an African Muslim, and my nephew and his ilk would hate her because of that. He hates his own brother-in-law because he's brown (mixed race).

It sickens me. People like Mercury who hide their hatred and mistrust and ignorance behind the curtain of "dialog" sicken me even more. It's because of people like him that my innocent little newborn cousin is going to be raised up to be a racist and that I cannot forgive.

So I guess freedom of speech only applies to those who don't value the existance of the White race, eh?

Why is it that I've seen more talk of violence and shooting those who disagree with you on this thread than I've ever seen on SF? Is it because you know that you can't refute our arguments with fact? Is that why you want to silence us -- so we can't expose the multiculturalist agenda for the fraud it is?

I suppose none of this will get through to most of you, since you seem completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of your position.

To the poster above, I ask the following question: What's wrong with dialogue? Isn't the ability to speek candidly and civilly the hallmark of civilized society? If your position is so strong, why are you afraid to talk about it?

Sadly, this is all too typical of our people today. We've been inculcated with guilt and told constantly bombarded with the idea that our people -- the European people -- are the root of all evil. I hope you haven't honestly fallen for it.

Let's not forget who it was that fought to set free the slaves in America -- White people. All the while, slavery is still a fact of life in many parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Let's also not forget that it is young White people like the martyr Rachel Corey who travel to Israel to try to prevent the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.

Do you think that when non-Whites are the numerical majority in our White homelands, they will fight to preserve the rights of indigeneous Whites the way Whites have fought for their rights? If you do, you're deluding yourselves. All the while you defend them, they laugh at you. They see you for a sucker they can use for their own ends.

Wake up. Stand up for your OWN people for a change. If you don't, your grandchildren will pay the ultimate price.

That's lovely, Stormfronter, but I prefer it in the original German. Have fun storming the castle!

B

Typical. All snide humor and no substance...

My 'race' stands on its own accomplishments, and I don't need to denigrate someone else's to bolster a lack of self-esteem, whether personal or social. I don't live in fear that someone browner than I might have some authority over me, nor does the prospect of being a white minority scare me (I live in California, for pete's sake).

I am proud of who I am, but I have no business being 'proud' of what my so-called 'race' has accomplished. What did I do to further any of that? Not much. And even if I did, when pride mutates into distrust and hatred and a false sense of superority, I will have no part of it.

Dialog presumes that each side has rational tenets to discuss, and NO racist organization does, period, whether it is the Aryan Nation, the Nation of Islam, the KKK, Hamas, whomever. Evil, sadly, comes in all colors.

Yeah, you're entitled to your own opinion, that's one of the things that makes America great. And you can call me a hypocrite any day of the week if you want to. But you live in a world where there is only 'me' and 'you.' There is no 'us.' That's a sad place to be, and whatever woes might afflict our world, attitudes like that only worsen them.

As entertaining as this has been, my lunch break is over and I have to go back to teaching your children now. Hopefully I'll be able to balance out some of the idiocy, pseudo-science, and Afrocentric historical revisionism they're exposed to in some of the other classes around here.

It truly breaks my heart to know that, since demographics suggest that Whites will be a minority in their own lands in less than 50 years, your children and grandchildren will have to suffer because of your short-sightedness, complacency, and obsession with accumulating wealth and comfort instead of standing up for what's good and beautiful in this world.

You call us haters because you don't understand us. You call us haters, but we act not out hate for any group of people, but rather out of love for our own. This is the truly natural mode of thinking. My race is my family. Even though some of you are misguided, I suppose you are not to blame. I love you all and wish you the best always. You children are in my prayers.

PS. @CaliGirl:

You obviously have made zero effort to inform yourself on our position. If you had, you'd see that it is not predicated on hate, but rather on blind reality; not on superiority, but rather preservation.

I'm sad to say that it is you who is the hater.

Again, I extend my invitation to all of you to visit SF and discuss with us why you think our position is wrong, rather than just telling us over and over again that it is. Stop letting the television do your thinking for you and exercise your brains for a change.

PPS. Please pardon the typographical errors. Bit of a hurry, you know...

Quite the opposite, actually. I have been to all the web sites and have read all the dogma. I have spoken to people besides my nephew who have believed those things or who used to. I know exactly what they're all about. That is why it sickens me, Stormfronter.

Let me see, what was the line on one of the websites the other day? Oh yeah, it was something like "Keeping America safe from Jews for over 25 years." Forgive me if I didn't get it quite right, but I am sure you know the line to which I refer. You can toss about terms like 'pride' and 'dialog' and all the rest all you want but the proof is in the pudding, as they say. And any website that says that the only good Jew (or fill in the blank with your ethnicity of choice) is one that is 6 feet under is all about hatred. Oh, and cowardice, and greed, and fear, and ignorance, etc. All enviable traits of the 'white' race, I am sure.

Afrocentrism? Where did THAT come from? Pseudo-science? Huh?

Oh my gosh, I just came here by way of Dean's World. This is great Tony. I just posted why I got rid of cable news and trash television. I now have basic cable for $12.00 a mo. Reading this makes me think I should go ahead and save that $12.00! This is funnier than Nick at Nite!

"If I were a carpenter and you were my lady, would you marry me anyway and have my baby?" LOL, yep...that $12.00 bucks a month over 12 months add up! Thanks Tony, you and Dean are going to have to get a big contribution in your tip jars!

>Quite the opposite, actually. I have been to all
>the web sites and have read all the dogma.

Considering that the Simon Wiesenthal center currently has over 3,000 targetted websites in its "hate site" list, I sincerely doubt you've been to all of them. Any more lies you care to throw our way?

>And any website that says that the only good Jew
>(or fill in the blank with your ethnicity of
>choice) is one that is 6 feet under is all about
>hatred.

Well, then I assume that since THIS site now contains posts by people like you advocating using guns to kill people with whose political views you disagree, then THIS site is all about hatred too. You evil haters should be ashamed of yourself.

>Afrocentrism? Where did THAT come from?
>Pseudo-science? Huh?

Ummm... Africans? I think I know which of our SF posters this guy is. If I'm right, then he's probably talking about some text books he mentioned that are being used in his school district. One of them claims that race is skin-color and skin-color only. This is clearly pseudo-science. If a forensic anthropologist can look at a cranium from 20 feet away and tell you with one glance whether it came from a caucasian, a negroid, an australoid, or a mongoloid, then race is CLEARLY more than skin deep.

Another of the books he mentioned maintains that Africans inhabited the New World long before the time of Christopher Columbus and that they interbred with the Native Americans before White people even arrived here. This nonsense is being taught as fact in our schools.

And here's one for the gun nuts who seem to love this blog (and also seem to love threatening law abiding White people with injury and death). A third textbook in use in this particular school district has rewritten the Constitution of the United States of America. Isn't that nice? It says that the second ammendment guarantees us the "right to keep and bear arms subject to state and federal law."

I second Stormfronter's invitation to you.

It's true that some of our younger members, who have more enthusiasm than wisdom, sometimes veer off into not-so-nice territory, many of our members are very politically astute and would love a chance to talk with you. I recommend you stop by.

Stormfront and their ilk have never really grasped two things first that the world has moved on since 1945 and second the British never liked them in the interwar period in the first place.

The thing they also forget is that what made (and makes) Britain great is not there dross but out ability to work with and join with other peoples and our greatest failures are almost alwats the results of not doing so.

They are enemies of Britain as much as Muslim terrorists.

>Oh, and cowardice, and greed, and fear, and
>ignorance, etc. All enviable traits of the 'white'
>race, I am sure.

What a horribly racist thing to say. We see now that you aren't motivated by your love for non-Whites. You're motivated by a psychotic hatred of your own people. It's amazing what 50 years of educational reform can do to a race.

>Stormfront and their ilk have never really
>grasped two things first that the world has moved
>on since 1945

And what you don't seem to grasp is that White Nationalism has almost nothing to do with Hitler and more to do with people like George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Ford, Charles A. Lindbergh, and many other courageous defenders of the White race.

>and second the British never liked them in the >interwar period in the first place.

Stormfront wasn't around in the interwar period, genius.

I stand corrected...I haven't been to ALL.

And given that my graduate work just happened to be in physical anthropology I also know that while there are some physical characteristics that are more common in some 'races' than others, those characteristics are by no means definitive. A physical anthroplogist cannot tell from across the room the 'race' of a cranium. That's more racist claptrap, sorry. Race is not a useful scientific term. It is very useful in dividing people, however. Your post makes that obvious.

There are afrocentric textbooks out and about, and they're the same as the garbage I read on the various websites discussed earlier...sad attempts by a 'disenfranchised' group resorting to lies and hyperbole to make themselves feel important.

"As we have shown, the morphological differences between human races can exceed those found between subspecies [i.e., races] or even species of our nearest relatives, the chimps and gorillas, and other nondomesticated animals."
-- Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele, authors of "Race: The Reality of Human Differences

Available at Amazon.com

An Interesting Article from the Journal of Forensic Sciences:

Volume: 31
Issue: 2
Year: 1986
Pages: 719-725
Author(s): Holland TD
Title: Race Determination of Fragmentary Crania by Analysis of the Cranial Base
Keywords: forensic science, human identification, musculoskeletal system, physical anthropology

Abstract: The cranial base can be used to determine the race of fragmentary skulls. An initial study used 8 measurements taken from 100 crania in the Terry Collection. The sample was divided equally by race and sex. Five regression models were formulated that predicted correctly the race of the sample with 70 to 86% accuracy. In a separate test, a control sample of 20 skulls, also drawn from the Terry Collection but not involved with formulating the regression equations, was correctly classified with 75 to 90% accuracy.

This article is not exactly WN friendly, but:

"In 1912, Franz Boas stunned the world of anthropology by reporting striking differences in cranial form between American-born children of immigrants and their European-born parents. After collecting and analyzing measurements from over 13,000 subjects, Boas proclaimed that environment, not heredity, determined skull shape. The skull was plastic: You couldn’t use it to reliably distinguish ethnicity or race, let alone intellect.

David Hurst Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History, summarizes Boas’s revelation in his book Skull Wars, published in 2000: “Boas found that nobody knew what a ‘race’ really was.” Instead, human form and behavior stemmed from environment: the foods a person ate, the kind of home he or she grew up in, the society to which the individual belonged. Over time, Boas’s outlook became widespread — became in its own way as dogmatic, some anthropologists now say, as the earlier racist outlook.

Recently, two physical anthropologists reanalyzed Boas’s head-form data. They report that Boas — now considered the founding father of modern American anthropology — was wrong. Their findings may lead to a new understanding of human races and the origin of certain ancient skeletons, including the recently discovered Kennewick Man, whose cranial characteristics have stirred controversy among anthropologists.

Corey Sparks, a doctoral candidate at Penn State, and Richard Jantz, a professor at the University of Tennessee, published their findings in the October 7, 2002, issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)."

Read more @ http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html

You'll have to forgive me. My own graduate work was in Linguistics. Those are just a few results I picked out of a quick google for "physical anthropology +cranium"

Europe was pillaged and defeated by Mongols, Huns, Goths etc. countless times, making anyone's claims of genetic certainty a fantasy. Nature seems to indicate (with Homo Sapiens) that genetic diversity works. So, what's my point? Are you an American in your heart is what counts. Need more? Go read Bill Whittle.

Goths and Huns were White. Mongols never made it too far past Russia, as they were stopped by the Poles. Anything else?

And before you say that the Huns were from Central Asia, let me just say that so were the Caucasian mummies (probably Tocharians) that were recently found in Western China.

"America in 2050: Another country
Posted: March 24, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

In 1960, when JFK defeated Nixon, America was a nation of 160 million, 90 percent white and 10 percent black, with a few million Hispanics and Asians sprinkled among us.

We were one nation, one people. We worshipped the same God, spoke the same English language, studied American history and English literature, honored the same heroes, read the same books, watched the same TV shows, went to the same movies, and saw ourselves as defenders of Western Civilization against the godless communism of the Soviet Empire.

We were confident and proud of who we were. When Nikita Khrushchev demanded an apology for our having sent a U-2 spy plane over Russia, Ike blew up the Paris summit rather than accede to his demand. We cheered the old general's defiance.

That was yesterday. But due to the Immigration Act of 1965 and the cultural revolution of the '60s, that America is now gone forever. And as one studies the latest projections of the Census Bureau, the America of our grandchildren will be another country altogether, a nation unrecognizable to our parents, a giant Brazil of the North.

In 2050, there will be three times as many people living here as in 1960 – 420 million. White Americans will be a minority, 49 percent, and falling. Hispanics in the United States, over 100 million, will be equal to the entire population of Mexico today. Our Asian population will be almost as large as our African-American population today.

By countries of origin, America will be a Third World nation. Our cities will look like Los Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of Texas, Arizona and California will look like Mexico City.

When we all belong to "minorities," what will hold us together? With the rise of group rights and identity politics, we are already falling out and falling apart over racial preferences and ethnic entitlements.

In the 1990s, for the first time since the Spanish arrived, the white population of California fell. White flight has begun. The white majority, voting with its feet, is ceding the Golden State to Hispanic and Asian immigrants.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington, author of "Who We Are," raises an alarm about the huge infusion of Hispanics into the Southwest, and for many reasons. "

read more @ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37720

Russia comes from "Rus" which was the local identifier for the Vikings which swept down through western Russia to Turkey and north Afica. Then came the Mongols. Much later came the Muslims through southern Europe and stopped in Spain. Much mixing makes for much uncertainty.

Perhaps I should have specified that my graduate work in Linguistics dealt primarily with the Slavic languages. I don't need you to tell me the origin of the word Rus, which in actuality is still uncertain. It may equally as well have come from the Finnish word "ruos."

As I said before, the Mongols never made it further than Eastern Poland, where a small tribe of Tatars still live to this day.

The Muslims did not "come through southern Europe and stop in Spain." The Moorish Caliphate entered Spain, yes, before they were driven out in La Reconquista. They also conquered Sicily, but were again driven out by the Normans.

There's little genetic evidence for admixture among the populations that were effected, and as a matter of fact, most genetic evidence points to the opposite.

Come on, Bob. You can do better than that.

I'm off for now, but I'll be back.

Thanks for helping my point, that there was "some" mixing going on. The larger point was the author's status as an "American." I, too will be back.

Bob, what are you talking about?

When you say "[t]he larger point was the author's status as an 'American,'" what author are you talking about? You're barely coherent here, Bob.

Besides, he hardly proved your point, not that you really had one.

So Kievan Rus' (you forgot the myagki znak, or soft sign) was founded by Vikings -- to be more precise, Varangians -- from Skandinavia. So?

It's common knowledge that Kievan Rus' was ruled by a Skandinavian elite and a predominantly Slavic populace. Yes, they intermixed. That's why most Great Russians (Russians) today express the Nordic phenotype. White Russians (Belorussians), on the other hand, tend toward the East Baltic or Ladogan phenotypes. Little Russians (Ukrainians) tend toward the Pontid or Neo-Danubian phenotypes. Either way, White people are White people. If White people mix with White people, what do you get? That's right, Bob! More White people!

As for Spain and the Mediterranean, Dienekes Pointikos tells us:

"In a previous entry I had quantified the extent of Berber admixture in Europe as it is evidenced by the distribution of different clades of Y chromosome haplogroup E. The two latest studies [1, 2] allows us to estimate this admixture in several European populations. Haplogroup E-M81 is localized in NW Africa (highest frequency 80% in Mozabite Berbers [A White tribe indigenous to Northern Africa -- SF], and more than 50% in several populations of the region) and mostly lacking in Negroids and European Caucasoids. Given its date and its limited haplotype diversity, it is a good marker for detecting NW African admixture in other human populations.

In general, it appears that this marker occurs at very small frequencies

12.2% Southern Portuguese
5.4/5.3% Andalusians
4% Northern Portuguese
3.6/2.1% Spanish Basques
3.5% French
3% Catalan
2.2% Asturians
2.2% Central Italians
1.6% Southern Spaniards
1.5% Northern Italians
1.3% Italians (Calabria)
0.7/5.5% Sicilians
0.3% Sardinians"

Like I said, tiny fractions.

Darn good post sir. As someone who is of a religion that has had its shares of troubles I am glad you took a stand.

PS
Good choice on the .45acp

Actually, gunner, it's kind of sad.

Tony's a smart guy. Why was his knee-jerk reaction to attack all the members of Stormfront, when only one or two were saying bad things about him. After all, there are 27,814 members on Stormfront.

Several of them came to Tony's defense, yet he still made fun of them in his post. That seems pretty small-minded to me. Really, though, I've come to expect it.

I know it's hard to break out of the mindset we've been conditioned into by years of inadequate or incorrect schooling, misleading television, and increasing societal pressure to not speak up for anyone who is proud of being European or European-American. It's hard.

It's so hard, in fact, that even when JohnJoyTree was defending Tony and setting the other guy straight, Tony still verbally attacked him. I'm sure JohnJoyTree has already forgiven him, but it's still a sign of the times.

Getting back to the guns for a moment...may I suggest my own personal home defense choice? An 1853 model Enfield 3-Band, in .577 caliber with the 18" bayonet attached at all times, loaded with 60 grains of FFFg and a 460 grain minie ball. Yes, it's just a single shot blackpowder muzzleloader, but WHAT a shot! Makes a two-foot hole coming out the other side, generally removes one or more extremities in the process, and the vast majority of your Master Race sorts don't have the capacity to realize it takes 20 seconds to reload. If they do, well, then you can instead make Nazis-On-A-Stick!

Yes, it's an antique, so sue me. EuroArms and Navy Arms makes great repros; besides, civilization ended in 1863, anyhow.

Seriously, I wouldn't give it a second thought. In my neck of the woods, the KKKlowns used to run the freak show on the town square every weekend, along with the random hitler youth wanna-bes, but they usually spent all their energy screaming and trying to keep their pants hitched up, leaving none to do anything more disturbing to the general peace. These are all insecure cowards at heart, during daylight a stern look is all you need to make them go slinking away. They are really only dangerous when you mix groups of five or more with sufficient alcohol, a convenient unsuspecting target, several hours of courage-gathering debate, and a complete lack of any possibility of police or other armed citizenry showing up.

This is the very reason the Internet has been such a godsend to these cretins, as it gives them the chance to build really spectacular and sinister looking tributes to their twin gods of Adolf and Ernst, completely from the comfort and safety of their bedroom in the basement of Mom's house, and send off these wordy and somewhat "intellectual" appearing missives without ever having to risk getting their butts whipped (again) by showing up in decent society during the daylight hours. An excellent, if slightly dated, field guide to the species may be found in the movie, "Blues Brothers."

I'm always amazed at what stupid fuckwits these American Nazis are. Aryan? Not a chance!!! The Aryans thought that the white people in America were a mongrel race, fit only to be the serfs of their German master race. American Nazis make about as much sense as African Ku Klux Klansmen!!!

More ad hominem attacks and bland attempts at humor with yet again zero substance.

I hardly live with mother. Actually, I live with my wife. I am a veteran of the United States Army Infantry. I am hardly scared of you. I've never claimed to be an "intellectual," though I do have a Master of Science degree.

If the majority of my WN activism takes place on line, it's only because if it became widely known that I support my own people's interests over the interests of others, my name would be dragged through the mud and my family would have to put up with death threats like the ones you people seem to love making.

Seriously, as was said before, there have been more threats of violence in this one thread than I've ever seen on SF. That really says something. You do realize that you guys have been discussing the best way to kill law abiding White people, don't you?

BTW, HerrMeier, what is it with you people? Do you get all your information from Hollywood? You're pointing to a comedy movie, "Blues Brothers," as somehow reflecting the political realities of our struggle?

That's as ridiculous as the guy earlier who asked why we didn't understand history and suggested maybe it was because we hadn't seen enough "Indiana Jones" movies.

You guys need to get out from in front of those screens and pick up a book. No wonder you're brainwashed.

Richard, do you even know what "Aryan" means? Apparently not.

"Aryan" is a word of Indo-European (ie. Aryan) origin, meaning "noble." It is a word used today (by those who don't get their information from Steven Spielberg) to describe the Indo-European peoples in all their manifestations.

The word is most commonly used in the Vedic texts of Ancient India, which were written during and after the Aryan Invasions of India, whereby tribes of White people subdued the Indian subcontinent, setting up the basis of the caste system and a civilization which has continued to this day.

Another word derived from Aryan include "Iran," which literally means "The Land of the Aryans." The people of Persia were White Indo-Europeans (Farsi is an Indo-Iranian language) who were conquered by Arabs.

The word "Ireland" has the same etymology and meaning. This shows how widespread Whites once were. Now we are on the run and quickly becoming numerical minorities in our own land.

I'm sorry that you want to kill us for choosing to defend ourselves, and just hope that one day, before it's too late, you'll realize that all along we've been defending you, too.

Excuse me, everyone. I posted earlier that Stormfront has 27,814 members.

I'm happy to say that that number has changed. Five new people have joined in the past two hours, bringing Stormfront's user base to a new total of 27, 819 members.

Not too shabby, eh? We'll see what the numbers look like tomorrow.

Sweet dreams, everyone.

I know, I know... I said I was going to bed and I am.

Before I go, I just wanted to give you all the opportunity to look at this list of people who clearly are not afraid of "showing up in decent society during daylight hours," and are standing bravely in defense of the White race and our culture.

Take a look. You may be surprised. Most entries have a photo and a brief bio, along with links to more info.

Here you go:
http://stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38769

Ok, really, goodnight this time. :-)

"Seriously, though, I don't know anything about you or your blog -- I just wandered in from Instapundit. But if one can be reasonably judged by the quality of his enemies, you're doing pretty well."

Hmmm. America+Britain+Israel vs Rest of World.

You might be onto something there!

"Someone once said that antisemitism serves a useful function -- it's a touchstone for the morally bankrupt. "

Yep. Voltaire, Martin Luther, Gore Vidal, Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran - all morally bankrupt. Of course, the anti-Semitism charge against some of these men is threadbare at best, but that never stopped anyone from using the term.

These days if you criticise Jews you're an anti-Semite. That's probably why I see so many articles about how the entire continent of Europe is "anti-Semitic."

"If he needs to ventilate one of these master race (read: white trash) pricks"

Can you feel the love? I'm the hater though, right?

"Great answer. And no amount of pious "we just want to preserve 'our' culture" claptrap will excuse people who hate someone else because of their color or religion."

How do you feel about Satanists? How about someone whos religion hearkens back to the Mayan ritual of human sacrifice? Theory aside, wanting to preserve our race and culture is a requirement of White Nationalism, hating other races and cultures isn't.

"I also have a nephew who thinks he is better than those who aren't white/Christian (or what passes for Christian with those folks, which isn't much) to the extent that he named his newborn daughter "Aryana." My best friend is an African Muslim, and my nephew and his ilk would hate her because of that. He hates his own brother-in-law because he's brown (mixed race).

It sickens me. People like Mercury who hide their hatred and mistrust and ignorance behind the curtain of "dialog" sicken me even more. It's because of people like him that my innocent little newborn cousin is going to be raised up to be a racist and that I cannot forgive."

Idiots like you try to illogically apply one persons unhealthy beliefs another person because in YOUR mind they share an ideology. One might as well condemn all Republicans because one of them hates Muslims or committed murder. Talk about narrow-minded.

I guess some people just need someone to hate, and since racists are the mass-media approved "hatable" class, they're just conforming to what they've been told.

"My 'race' stands on its own accomplishments, and I don't need to denigrate someone else's to bolster a lack of self-esteem, whether personal or social. I don't live in fear that someone browner than I might have some authority over me, nor does the prospect of being a white minority scare me (I live in California, for pete's sake).}

This is all just dime-store pop-psychology, aka ad hominem attack. I don't need to denigrate someone else to bolster my self-esteem either (bolstering a lack of self-esteem wouldn't make much sense, would it?). I don't live in fear that someone browner than myself might have authority over me, either. Strawmen - the foremost weapon in the anti-racist arsenal.

"I am proud of who I am, but I have no business being 'proud' of what my so-called 'race' has accomplished. What did I do to further any of that? Not much. And even if I did, when pride mutates into distrust and hatred and a false sense of superority, I will have no part of it."

Are you proud when your mother or sister or father or brother or children or whatever achieve success? Why? To racial nationalists, race is an extended family. Why are civic pride, national pride, organizational pride, religious pride, familial pride etc. all acceptable, but racial pride not? Relative distrust of outgroups is human nature - look into social identity theory for details.

"Dialog presumes that each side has rational tenets to discuss, and NO racist organization does, period, whether it is the Aryan Nation, the Nation of Islam, the KKK, Hamas, whomever. Evil, sadly, comes in all colors."

Then perhaps the issue for discussion should be "do racist organizations (National Alliance, American Renaissance, NAACP, etc.) have rational tenets to discuss? " Surely any reasonable person would agree that we're owed at least a chance to make our case - unless of course the goal is to simply avoid losing an argument. Then I can understand the goal of avoiding a fair hearing. Don't try to blow smoke up my ass about the motives, though, I'm no fool.

"Yeah, you're entitled to your own opinion, that's one of the things that makes America great. And you can call me a hypocrite any day of the week if you want to. But you live in a world where there is only 'me' and 'you.' There is no 'us.' That's a sad place to be, and whatever woes might afflict our world, attitudes like that only worsen them."

No, "us" is one of the central tenets of WNism.

"Quite the opposite, actually. I have been to all the web sites and have read all the dogma. I have spoken to people besides my nephew who have believed those things or who used to. I know exactly what they're all about. That is why it sickens me, Stormfronter."

I don't believe you. If you had studied WNism at any length, you would be more cautious about your generalizations. You've never argued with any well-informed WNs, that's my guess. I'll let you in on a little secret - if all you want to do is focus on the negative stereotypes to be found in the WN ranks, then your preexisting goal is easily accomplished. Yes, there are some irrational haters in the WN ranks, yes, there we even have more than our share, but we also have some extraordinarily well-informed debators. I've observed and participated in MANY discussions of racial matters at SF and elsewhere, and guess what? Anti-racism always loses in a protracted discusion between capable 'debators.

Why? Because anti-racism is absolutist and reductionist. It vastly overreaches its own capabilities, and only dominates because anti-racists stock the mass media and racists don't get to hold the microphone. Thus, when reasonably fair discussion occurs (as on the Internet), the BEST anti-racism can do (in my experience) is battle racism to a bloody draw. Truth be told, racism gets the best of it, but anti-racism does have a few stubborn arguments that are not subject to falsification, so I won't claim that racism always wins. Really though, this IS a moral victory for racism, because what is trumpeted as self-evidently true in the mass media is shown to be weak - very very weak.

Don't believe me? Try a few books:
Why Race Matters, by Michael Levin (yes, I know he's Jewish - I'm not technically an anti-Semite, I don't have a problem with people because they're Jewish, I just have problems with much of Jewish collective behavior).
A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and Its Discontents, and The Culture of Critique, all by Kevin MacDonald.

"Let me see, what was the line on one of the websites the other day? Oh yeah, it was something like "Keeping America safe from Jews for over 25 years." Forgive me if I didn't get it quite right, but I am sure you know the line to which I refer. You can toss about terms like 'pride' and 'dialog' and all the rest all you want but the proof is in the pudding, as they say."

Ah, I see. So, it's unfair for White Nationalists to judge certain groups by some of their members, but it's okay for you to judge White Nationalists by some of theirs? I get it. Is this your idea of logic or consistency or fairness?

"And any website that says that the only good Jew (or fill in the blank with your ethnicity of choice) is one that is 6 feet under is all about hatred. Oh, and cowardice, and greed, and fear, and ignorance, etc. All enviable traits of the 'white' race, I am sure."

I've never said anything like that in my life, I don't promote ideas like that, and again, I'm surprised you think it's intellectually honest to judge ALL racists by one Website. That's like my finding an anti-racist Website that supports Palestinian suicide bombers and concluding that all anti-racists are terrorists or terrorist-sympathizers. Really, what are they teaching in school these days?

"Oh my gosh, I just came here by way of Dean's World. This is great Tony. I just posted why I got rid of cable news and trash television. I now have basic cable for $12.00 a mo. Reading this makes me think I should go ahead and save that $12.00! This is funnier than Nick at Nite!"

Bah, lose the cable altogether, television is mind-cancer. I haven't had cable in a year and I can still feel my IQ improving.

"Stormfront and their ilk have never really grasped two things first that the world has moved on since 1945 and second the British never liked them in the interwar period in the first place."

This is yet another hopelessly insipid but ubiquitous anti-racist argument. "The whole world disagrees." Gee, intelligent thought and action is decided by committee now? Wow, when did this happen? And why didn't America go communist when China and Russia did? Lemme guess, if the whole world decided that cannibalism was swell and the way to go, you'd jump right in line, ticket in hand, eh?

"The thing they also forget is that what made (and makes) Britain great is not there dross but out ability to work with and join with other peoples and our greatest failures are almost alwats the results of not doing so.

They are enemies of Britain as much as Muslim terrorists."

But, but, shouldn't you be joining hands with the Muslim terrorists? After all, inclusion is the way the truth, and the light, right?

"And given that my graduate work just happened to be in physical anthropology I also know that while there are some physical characteristics that are more common in some 'races' than others, those characteristics are by no means definitive. A physical anthroplogist cannot tell from across the room the 'race' of a cranium. That's more racist claptrap, sorry. Race is not a useful scientific term."

Nonsense, race is most certainly a useful scientific classification. I love it when anti-racists actually stop mouthing platitudes and emotional claptrap and actually put their foot in it, as you just have:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/medicine_and_race.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/wide_eyed.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/times.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/sarich_miele.htm
http://www.isteve.com/makingsense.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/presentation.htm
http://www.vdare.com/francis/boas.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm

The medical profession seems to think race is a scientifically useful classification. The medical profession doesn't have the luxury of denying race when it could cost people their lives.

Note that I use Sailer here exclusively because he's not a racist - he's pro intermarriage, etc. He's just not a race-denier. Try a search for his name at VDare, he's written lots more.

"It is very useful in dividing people, however. Your post makes that obvious."

Ah, I see. We wicked WNs, we want to drive a wedge between all this unity, but Jesse Jackson and his team of shakedown artists, they're all about togetherness. The black caucus, they have everyone's interests equally in mind, that's why they call it the...black...caucus. AIPAC too - they aren't the largest PAC working for foreign interests because they look after Israel first, heavens no. They care about all Americans equally.

"Europe was pillaged and defeated by Mongols, Huns, Goths etc. countless times, making anyone's claims of genetic certainty a fantasy. Nature seems to indicate (with Homo Sapiens) that genetic diversity works. So, what's my point? Are you an American in your heart is what counts. Need more? Go read Bill Whittle."

WNism isn't about genetic certainty, so your fantasy is irrelevant. Racial borders are fuzzy, that doesn't make them less real. Artists can't tell you where orange ends and red begins, but they still find colors useful and you don't hear them yakking about how "color doesn't exist." I think the unifying power of American citizenship is going to erode gradually over the years, as whites become a minority and discover that the ways of others are drastically different from their own. Read the demographic data, whites will be a minority in America by 2050. Then we'll learn the hard way what we never should've forgotten in the first place - our ways are our own, and they are ALIEN to others. I think nations should be based on a common culture and race, rather than some wishful thinking about "assimilation" that we've become too spineless to demand of our immigrants in the first place. "Assimilation" my ass, look around folks, they aren't assimilating NOW, what makes you think they'll listen to the white folks when they're a minority?

Do you want to know my idea of what white supremacy is? I think REAL White supremacy is the almost universal belief of white people that Africans, Asians, Middle-Easterners, etc. are all just white folks at heart, with different colored skin. Many of us actually believe that given the chance, they'll all just jump on the bandwagon and take our Anglo-Saxon-derived morality and ethics and culture to heart and become just like us. I think that's the most self-deceptive, self-destructive idea I've ever heard.

Multiculturalism is just another nail in the coffin, it guarantees that we won't even have the will to demand that the people flooding into our country assimilate and learn our language and agree to uphold our values.

"This is the very reason the Internet has been such a godsend to these cretins"

Yep, that free speech thing is a real bitch, ain't it? It makes it awful hard for one-way information flow, which is what the mass-media wants.

"I'm always amazed at what stupid fuckwits these American Nazis are. Aryan? Not a chance!!! The Aryans thought that the white people in America were a mongrel race, fit only to be the serfs of their German master race. American Nazis make about as much sense as African Ku Klux Klansmen!!!"

Yeah, you're a real paragon of intellect yourself there, Clyde. Nazi means Nationali Socialist, and I'm not one. Not all racial nationalists are National Socialists, hell, most SFers aren't.

Here's my parting thought after all this typing: if you think we're wrong, come to SF and show us how and why. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, There isn't a truth in the world that I fear or would want suppressed. Let me just tickle your curiousity with a challenge - you can't beat me. This isn't arrogance, just an assertion based on extensive experience. It isn't that I'm brilliant, it's that the facts are on my side. A brilliant man who tries to argue that the earth is flat will lose to a man of modest intellect who argues that it's round.

Btw, I didn't read the post everyone's talking about, but I gather that the author's daughter died at a very young age. I'm very sorry for your loss. I've lost two people close to me, and it hurts very much. I can't even begin to imagine how bad it hurts to lose one's baby daughter.

I also apologize if someone at SF had anything negative to say about your daughter, as I said, we have more than our fair share of defectives. Part of the reason for this is that sociopaths are attracted to movements that society tells them are bad. They want to be the villain in a Hollywood movie, so they figure becoming a WN is a way to live out that fantasy.

Great posts, Svyatoslav!

You've said what I've been trying to say this whole time -- that the anti-WN position is predicated on fear, misunderstanding, and prejudice -- the same things of which they accuse us. And they say we're brainwashed...

In any event, I'm happy to report the new numbers:

Seven more people joined Stormfront in the few hours since I went to bed. That means that Stormfront now has 27, 826 members. Not too bad for a "fringe" movement, eh?

I give up, you are the master race
and we go "Ththththth", right in der fuhrer's face.

In other words, Bobby, you have nothing to contribute to intelligent conversation.

BTW, We're up to 27, 832 members now. The latest is a Chinese nationalist. We have lots of Asians joining our site to express their agreement with our views.

I admire the sense of racial solidarity Asian people have. But then again, it's not yet forbidden to have "Asian Pride." Just try to express your "White Pride," though, and see what happens.

Nope. But if you come to town, I'd enjoy having a beer with you.

Time Out

A few points I hope the White Nationalists who've been commenting above will consider:

1) A sin is no less a sin because other people do it (e.g., "you say we're divisive, but look at Jesse Jackson...").

2) Race and culture correlate based on common beginning historical factors. There is no evidence or data or even a well-strung theory that shows causality. This posited causality, however, is the linchpin of racism. Otherwise a racist is reduced to: "you look different and so we shouldn't swap genes."

3) Nobody advised violence against "law-abiding White people" in the comments above. They advised violence against trespassing White people. The Stormfront site has a comment string devoted to lusty discussions of self-defense, and that's exactly what went on here.

Also, a couple of points I hope the anti-racists who've been commenting above will consider:

1) There's a strong case to be made against the construct of "race," but it's a distraction. Even if we concede the racist construct, the White Nationalist hasn't a leg to stand on unless he can show a deterministic linkage between race and behavior. This is the point where the racist argument deteriorates, and so this is where to focus your argument.

2) Insulting someone who claims to want to engage in debate only fuels his paranoia and isolationism. It's usually best to attack the idea and not the person. There's a time for judgment, and when it comes, none of us will be holding the sword. There's a reason the Christian is admonished to pray for his enemies -- because a terrible eternal agony awaits the unrepentant.

And if you don't believe that, you can at least agree that a respectful evisceration of someone's arguments is always classier than name calling.

Okay, time out is over. Return to jousting.

Finally, a voice of reason from outside our camp!

I take exception to several of your points, but don't have time to respond just now.

I look forward to taking this up later.

I think my question is why was he singled out by your group to be talked about in relationship to his possible Jewish Heritage? The fact of the matter is that there were wome that defended him and I say hurrah!, but they defended him from the view point that since he is "white and Christian" he is an Ok guy.
Stormfronter is a good spokeperson for his group and a better writer then I am. But with all of his words he still has me worried. How often does the Storm Front people sit back and pass judgement on people?

"1) A sin is no less a sin because other people do it (e.g., "you say we're divisive, but look at Jesse Jackson...")."

Nope, doesn't apply. I don't think blacks are wrong to organize collectively along racial lines, I think whites are wrong to damn whites who want to organize collectively along racial lines.

"2) Race and culture correlate based on common beginning historical factors. There is no evidence or data or even a well-strung theory that shows causality. This posited causality, however, is the linchpin of racism. Otherwise a racist is reduced to: "you look different and so we shouldn't swap genes.""

You're going to have to do better than throw words like causality around. There is no evidence for what causality, precisely? What posited causality is the linchpin of racism?

In any event, White Nationalism does not depend on finding irrefutable proof (irrefutable proof that we aren't living in the Matrix can't be found either) of "white racial superiority." People have a right to preserve their genes, and peoples have a right to preserve their gene pools. Who is to say that blacks are wrong to want to make a collective decision to preserve their race? Who is to say that whites cannot preserve theirs?

Why is the spotted owl precious, but the races of man not?

Superiority/inferiority aside, white people can do one thing no other race can: produce white babies. Hell, let's assume for a moment that the white race is inferior to all others - that makes NO difference to the arguments of White Nationalism.

What if you came from a poor, low-IQ family? Would you leave them to die because they're inferior? Of course not - they're your FAMILY. Theorizing on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or "does race exist?" is missing the point. Our race is our extended family, to care for it and to want it to succeed and survive is NOT wicked or evil. Anyone who says it is can kiss my ass right in the crack.

"1) There's a strong case to be made against the construct of "race,""

No there isn't. Anti-racism is smoke and mirrors, and the "race does not exist" crowd are professional ostriches.

"Even if we concede the racist construct, the White Nationalist hasn't a leg to stand on unless he can show a deterministic linkage between race and behavior."

Nonsense. Acknowledging racial differences does not require determinism. I believe both nature and nurture are important, although I do think that in real world conditions nature is slightly predominant. After all, one cannot nurture a nature that isn't there. Water your plants all you wish, they'll never grow to the size of Jack's beanstalk.

"This is the point where the racist argument deteriorates, and so this is where to focus your argument."

No, this is the point where you tear apart a strawman and congratulate yourself. Racism (as practiced and theorized) is not deterministic.

"2) Insulting someone who claims to want to engage in debate only fuels his paranoia and isolationism. It's usually best to attack the idea and not the person."

Ad hominem attack comes a close second to the straw man argument in the anti-racist's arsenal, in my experience. Logic is usually his last resort, if that. The problem with anti-racism, as far as discussion goes, is that it resembles a religion more than a rational thought process.

"There's a time for judgment, and when it comes, none of us will be holding the sword. There's a reason the Christian is admonished to pray for his enemies -- because a terrible eternal agony awaits the unrepentant."

Heh. Funny, I've never really been able to reconcile the nigh-universal Christian doctrine of hell with the scriptures. I see no basis for such a belief in the Tanakh or the Gospels. Of course, I understand the motivation for such a post-facto invention, with crystal clarity.

"And if you don't believe that, you can at least agree that a respectful evisceration of someone's arguments is always classier than name calling."

Class is usually in very short supply among the anti-racists I encounter. I've had every kind of morbid death wish hurled at me, usually involving my brains or vitals spilling out, or implements penetrating my eye sockets, etc. A cute bunch, the anti-racists.

"Okay, time out is over. Return to jousting."

Ehehehe, you've done a bit of tilting yourself, no?

"I think my question is why was he singled out by your group to be talked about in relationship to his possible Jewish Heritage?"

Do you speak for all anti-racists? Can I ask you what all anti-racists believe? Stick to the parties at hand, eh?

"The fact of the matter is that there were wome that defended him and I say hurrah!, but they defended him from the view point that since he is "white and Christian" he is an Ok guy."

Jews have historically made themselves the collective enemies of white Christians. This is a long story, it's quicker for me to just recommend Prof. Kevin MacDonald's work (above) than to go into the whole sordid tale.

"Stormfronter is a good spokeperson for his group and a better writer then I am. But with all of his words he still has me worried. How often does the Storm Front people sit back and pass judgement on people?"

Eh? So now, the enemy is judgemental people? Try this, go to your local beauty salon and listen to all the judgemental gossip you hear there.

Racists are only human, after all. Surely you don't think we're the only judgemental people on Earth? Hell, we're not even the only racially judgemental people on Earth. Try your local liberal arts college for details on the evil white race.

Sorry, I forgot to enter my name, that was me.

"I give up, you are the master race
and we go "Ththththth", right in der fuhrer's face."

I missed this one - White Nationalism is not predicated on the white race as the "master race."

White Nationalism and "White Supremacism" [sic] aren't even remotely coterminous.

"In any event, White Nationalism does not depend on finding irrefutable proof ... of "white racial superiority." People have a right to preserve their genes, and peoples have a right to preserve their gene pools. Who is to say that blacks are wrong to want to make a collective decision to preserve their race? Who is to say that whites cannot preserve theirs?"

You're right, you don't need a compelling reason to want to keep your genes "pure," any more than someone needs a compelling reason to collect purple plastic pigs by the dozens. It's a free country -- date women as lily-white as you like.

But don't congratulate yourselves for it, because if you cannot show a linkage between race and behavior, then you can't offer a compelling benefit of keeping your genes "pure," any more than a nutcase environmentalist can posit a compelling benefit for preserving a slightly modified variant of a mosquito.

"Our race is our extended family, to care for it and to want it to succeed and survive is NOT wicked or evil."

No, but absent some compelling case for going to all the trouble, it seems bloody stupid, don't you think? The reality is, you do believe there are significant qualities in the white "race" that make it worth preserving, and that make it superior to others. But you can't prove this, or even make much of a case for it, because there is no data showing a causal linkage between race and positive behavior, there is only correlation that is a natural consequence of historical variation in institutions and culture.

"No there isn't" [a strong case to be made against the construct of "race"]

This belies ignorance of the field. There's some evidence of observable clusters of genetically determined features. But parsing these into "races" quickly becomes a shell game akin to determining whether a deer on the eastern slope of a mountain, which has evolved a different pattern of shading, is a separate "species" from his brothers on the other side of the mountain, which didn't develop this shading.

"Nonsense. Acknowledging racial differences does not require determinism."

But explaining why it's such a big stinking deal does. Otherwise you're just like a bunch of old ladies collecting Precious Moments figurines. "Ooh, this one is so special -- there's only a few left just like it. We need to store it away in the attic so it doesn't break."

"Funny, I've never really been able to reconcile the nigh-universal Christian doctrine of hell with the scriptures. I see no basis for such a belief in the Tanakh or the Gospels."

Remarkable. That whole thing about the serpent being cast into a fiery lake, or people not abiding in Christ being as branches that will be gathered up and cast into the fire, or the part where Christ predicts future judgment, in which he will tell many who thought they had served him, "depart from me" -- what do you think these reference?

"You're right, you don't need a compelling reason to want to keep your genes "pure," any more than someone needs a

compelling reason to collect purple plastic pigs by the dozens. It's a free country -- date women as lily-white as

you like.

But don't congratulate yourselves for it, because if you cannot show a linkage between race and behavior, then you

can't offer a compelling benefit of keeping your genes "pure," any more than a nutcase environmentalist can posit

a compelling benefit for preserving a slightly modified variant of a mosquito."

Ah, I can show a linkage between race and behavior, but I'm going to sidestep that for a moment because your

assertion that racists "can't offer a compelling benefit of keeping [our] genes 'pure,'" without said linkage is

false (why not avoid even the tendentious 'pure' stuff? It isn't about keeping our genes 'pure,' it's about

keeping our race's genome intact).

The very nature of genetic self-interest is aligned towards racial self-preservation and propagation, as it is

towards individual self-preservation and propagation. Here's an article related to this idea:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:CWsB5D-mkv4J:theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/mxr-genetic.html+%22Pan-Europ

ean+Genetic+Interests%22&hl=en
I've made several posts at SF in an effort to explain this idea, so rather than reinvent the wheel I'll just cut

and paste the relevant parts here (keep in mind this is a hack job so don't mind the need for an editor):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Matthew is a Viking and the sole survivor of a shipwreck. He finds himself on the shores of Arabia. By some

miracle of fate, Arabs find him and instead of enslaving or killing him, make him a full member of the tribe.

Ragnar is a Viking who lives in a Viking village in Sweden, and is a full member of his tribe.

Matthew's genetic self-interest is much less served by promoting the success of his adopted tribe than Ragnar's

genetic self-interest is served by promoting the success of his native tribe. This is because, ceteris paribus,

Matthew's genes will be overwhelmed by the fact that his genes are but a drop in the Arab ocean, whereas Ragnar's

genes are similar to his tribe's and therefore will not be overwhelmed. His blue eyes, blonde hair, etc. will

continue on because they are shared by many of his tribesmen, whereas Matthew's will not because he is the only

one contributing the genes.

This is of course an extreme example for the purposes of illustration, but the paradigm holds over a continuum, it

isn't a binary on-off issue.

The genome of Group A, the Vikings, is represented by the letters A-M. Each letter can represent a trait or a gene

or something to that effect. D could be blue eyes, F could be red hair, L could be freckles, etc.

The genome of Group B, the Arabs, is represented by the letters N-Z.

[I realize of course that a realistic portrayal would have much more overlap than I've allowed for, but this is

just a simplistic illustration. If it helps, think of each letter as a trait or gene unique to its group.]

Ragnar and Matthew are both Vikings and both have traits A, B, C, and D. Ragnar lives in a Viking breeding

population (as defined by me above), and Matthew lives in an Arab breeding population.

Here's the whole point: Ragnar lives in an environment rich in A, B, C, and D. Matthew lives in an environment

utterly devoid of A, B, C, and D. Ragnar's interests are served by the success of his breeding population because

even if he does not breed he is contributing to the success of his genes because his breeding population is one

rich in his own genes. Matthew's genetic interests are not served AT ALL if he does not breed because the breeding

population he belongs to does not have his genes.

If either man breeds, he is adding to the reproductive success of his breeding population, yes, but Ragnar is

doing so in an environment radically more conducive to his own genetic self-interest than Matthew is because

Ragnar's genes are similar to those being propagated by his breeding population, and Matthew's are not. The genes

Ragnar carries are sure to be passed on to his breeding population by himself and others in the population,

whereas Matthew's genes have only one person to contribute them to his breeding population - Matthew.

I hope this makes it clear, if I didn't do so before. I started out with a more explicit and by the numbers

illustration in mind (hence the letters and whatnot) but I don't feel like getting that connect-the-dots with it

after all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In a nutshell, the idea is that a person's genetic self-interest is served by advancing the the genetic success of

those related to him, in direct proportion to his genetic similarity to the group.

This is far from the only justification for WNism, it's just the basic Darwinian argument for WNism. I regard the

"linkage between race and behavior," as you put it, as an ancillary, if more diverse and emotionally compelling,

motive for WNism.

"Our race is our extended family, to care for it and to want it to succeed and survive is NOT wicked or evil."
"No, but absent some compelling case for going to all the trouble, it seems bloody stupid, don't you think?"

Well, it seems roughly as bloody stupid as people's natural love of family. I don't need to come up with some

high-minded rationalization for wanting to see my family happy and successful - I can say the same for my race.

As I said, there's much more to it than that, but the rest is all icing on the cake.

"The reality is, you do believe there are significant qualities in the white "race" that make it worth preserving,

and that make it superior to others. But you can't prove this, or even make much of a case for it, because there

is no data showing a causal linkage between race and positive behavior, there is only correlation that is a

natural consequence of historical variation in institutions and culture."

You've presented a complex question here - you've married the idea that the White race has qualities that make it

worth preserving to the idea that those qualities make it superior to others. I'll just divorce the two for you.

At bottom, all the icing aside, I believe the white race is worth preserving because it's mine. Again - I don't

choose to love my family based on a rational decision, I love my family because that's the way it is. There are

of course a myriad of arguments that go beyond this.

I'd also add that loyalty doesn't require a rational belief in superiority, it requires an emotional belief in

cameraderie. Just ask Arizona Cardinals fans - they don't root for their team out of a rational weighing of the

facts, they root for their team through losing seasons as well as winning ones.

You want a compelling reason? How about "inevitability?" Identity politics is on the rise in western

civilization, not in decline. How long exactly should whites hold out on being the last group to recognize the

obvious trend? Are we really so very stupid that we must wait until we're a minority? Where is it written that

identity politics is okay, except where majorities are concerned?

Why do anti-racists suddenly become obsessed with "causal links" and similar silliness when the race argument is

brought up? Nothing else is subject to this level of proof, but for some reason racism is. Here's an example.

IQ tests have shown again and again that the white mean is a standard deviation above the black mean (and that the

Asian mean is measurably higher than the white mean - WHOOPS! There goes the supremacy canard!). Anti-racists go

through all kinds of mental contortions trying to explain this away with blatant Lysenkoisms. What they're

missing is the galactically obvious - the theory of evolution essentially REQUIRES that there be variations in

mean racial IQ. The races evolved under vastly different selective pressures, in totally different environments.

The natural question isn't "how can there be differences in mean racial IQ," it's "how can there NOT be

differences in mean racial IQ?" It's inconceivable that in these differing environments, racial mean IQ would

remain identical. One has to ignore the very essence of Darwin's theory to believe otherwise. The same goes for

behavioral differences.

If you're thinking of using it, just save the "racial/cultural bias in IQ testing" canard:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

There are many racial differences beyond mean IQ. Btw, did you read ANY of the articles I posted above? Doesn't

the fact that the actions, if not the rhetoric, of the medical profession are diametrically opposed to your "race

does not exist" bit give you pause? Or have you shrunk the "race does not exist" bit until it only circumscribes

behavior? What kind of sense does that make? Don't the huge disparities in criminal behavior and sexual behavior

(as evinced by the propagation of AIDs, the illegitimacy rate) between the races belie your "racial behavior"

exception?

Once again, I am ignoring the forest for the trees. You've stated that racism isn't necessarily evil, rather that

it's just a bit silly. How do you square this with the message that we all receive through our televisions,

radio, theatres, and books - that racism is the last extant evil? Everything that was taboo is now permissible,

but that darned racism, well, we need LAWS to stop that. Silliness like believing in UFOs is okay, but silliness like racism must be LEGISLATED out of existence.

"No there isn't" [a strong case to be made against the construct of "race"]
"This belies ignorance of the field. There's some evidence of observable clusters of genetically determined

features."

I am largely ignorant of the sophistic acrobatics that the likes of Stephen Jay Gould and Jared Diamond go through

to obfuscate racial reality, but I am not ignorant of racial facts. I don't have the time or money to read every

lie or half-truth in print.

"But parsing these into "races" quickly becomes a shell game akin to determining whether a deer on the eastern

slope of a mountain, which has evolved a different pattern of shading, is a separate "species" from his brothers

on the other side of the mountain, which didn't develop this shading.""

Ehehehe. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I was just reading the other day about these two species of

Chimps are categorized as such by scientists solely on the basis of their BEHAVIOR. They are phenotypically

identical - scientists can't even tell them apart by appearance. Yet I'm to believe that race doesn't exist? I'm

inclined to agree, but only in the sense that we should replace the term race with species!

The "fuzzy borders" argument is nice and all, but uncompelling. If you'd read the Sailer articles I posted, you'd

know that fuzzy borders in no way invalidate the concept of race. The fact that racial classification can be scaled up or down ad infinitum doesn't invalidate the concept of race.

"But explaining why it's such a big stinking deal does."

You tell me why it's such a big deal, friend. Why must we be endlessly propagandized against ethnocentrism in the

mass media? Why must our kids be bused across town for diversity's sake? Why must freedom of association be

abrogated to fight discrimination? Why must we all hear how wonderful multiculturalism and diversity are, day in

day out? Why is it okay for Star Jones to exclaim how happy she is to have found a wealthy, intelligent, BLACK

man (emphasis hers) on national television, when we all know how a white woman proclaiming similarly about a WHITE

man would be received?

If racism is so self-evidently false or maladaptive, why can't it just die on it's own? Obviously, if it really

was such a non-starter, it could just die a natural death in the free competition of ideas.

"Otherwise you're just like a bunch of old ladies collecting Precious Moments figurines. "Ooh, this one is so

special -- there's only a few left just like it. We need to store it away in the attic so it doesn't break.""

Again, can you explain the popular demonization and hatred of racism? Can you explain why racism is

vilified, but conservationists are good folks?

You haven't really compelled me to go into this with your arguments, but I'll just make a quick foray here. Race

is essentially the soil in which culture is planted and grows. There are other factors needed besides the soil,

but that doesn't change soil's essential nature. Sub-Saharan Africa hasn't caught up with the world yet, and it

isn't because of evil whitey's colonialism. To return to my argument above, the belief that Africans will create

European-style civilizations with just a bit o' lovin' TLC is the height of stupidity. That's my definition of

"liberal white supremacy," a sort of unconscious white supremacy that assumes we're all just white folks on the

inside. Africans create their OWN kinds of civilizations, and are not inclined to create civilizations like ours.

I mean really, just think about it - think about all the hand-wringing that goes on over how bad whitey treated

the Africans in America. Think about all the horrors of slavery, and how long we held them down. Then reframe

the issue and realize that blacks in America comprise the wealthiest large black population in the world.

Hmmmmm. It almost sounds as though they've come out of the deal better than the blacks who sold them in the first

place! Talk about the last laugh! You couldn't PAY American blacks to repatriate to Africa. When reparationists

say they want justice, they're lying. Justice would be to put the situation back as it was before we started

meddling with them. Justice would be repatriation. They don't want justice, they want a handout.

"Remarkable. That whole thing about the serpent being cast into a fiery lake, or people not abiding in Christ

being as branches that will be gathered up and cast into the fire, or the part where Christ predicts future

judgment, in which he will tell many who thought they had served him, "depart from me" -- what do you think these

reference?"

I'll spare you the calls for chapter and verse. How do you get from the serpent being cast into a fiery lake, to

"I'm sending a lot of you folks to hell for eternal torment?" How do you jump from being cast into a fire to being

cast into eternal torment in hell? How do you get an eternal agony in hell from "depart from me?"

Don't bother going into too much detail, I'm not really interested. I'm an Atheist/Agnostic.

I'm tired of writing now, so I'll leave you with a few final links. I'm too tired to find a good spot to weave them in:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/010802/010802-1.html
http://psych.mcmaster.ca/debruine/fret.html
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_608335.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery.genetics

When your first reflexive thought is that we should resist this inherent human quality, try to remember your simple question, "what's the point? What compelling motive do I have to eschew human nature?" Also keep in mind that even if you do manage to suppress your own nature, there's absolutely no guarantee that the next guy will be so selfless.

You should try the Sailer link I provided above about Calli-Sforza, it provides a good example of how mainstream

writers on the science of race talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Here are some other relevant articles:
Here's a link between genes and behavior:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_642307.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery
Keep in mind the fact that the whole point of race is varying frequencies of genes between human populations.

Here's more on race and behavior:
http://www.amren.com/0207issue/0207issue.html#cover

Here's more about Lynn's research and the would-be deniers of racial behavioral differences:
http://www.amren.com/943issue/943issue.html#cover

Here's a pair of reviews of the aforementioned book by Michael Levin, "Why Race Matters:"
http://www.amren.com/9710issue/9710issue.html#cover
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_wrm.html
Here's Levin's review of Diamond's Lysenkoist "Guns, Germs, and Steel:"
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_ggs.html

Here's a bit on the racial component of crime:
http://www.amren.com/997issue/997issue.html#cover
If you don't believe Taylor, try the DOJ's stats. Don't bother with the poverty causes crime argument, it doesn't

hold up. According to census data, there were 7.75 million poor blacks, 7.5 million poor hispanics,
and 14.25 million poor non-hispanic whites in America in 2000. Blacks alone came very close to equalling whites

in crime in raw numbers - the per capita numbers are staggering.

OF course, the crime argument just leads back around to the ole' unfalsifiable platform of anti-racism. "Is black crime a black proclivity problem or a white racist cop problem?" That's why I say that it's impossible to disprove anti-racism, just as it's impossible to disprove the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. This in turn leads back to my "anti-racism as theology" argument.

Never mind the how the "white racist cop" idea is on it's face - cops are constantly walking around on eggshells with blacks, out of fear of litigation. I don't have the link for the study from some midwestern college that I was reading about the other day about the whole racist cop theory. These academics took ride-alongs and other sources and studied how cops treated minorities. Take my word for it that their conclusion was that the cops were more deferential towards minorities than whites - they knew they had the upper hand with white suspects, because they knew that the whites didn't have the cult of victimology to back them up. I suspect they also knew that white culture doesn't make prison a badge of honor or promote contempt and rudeness towards cops, but I digress.

It all comes down to how objective we are willing to be, and where the preponderance of the evidence lead us.

Hell, I don't need science to "prove" racial behavioral differences to me! I GREW UP in a black ghetto!

Sorry about the double-spacing, I wrote it in notepad and it looked fine.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994928

Women tend to choose husbands who look like their fathers - even if they are adopted, reveals a new study.

The research shows that women use their dads as a template for picking a mate by a process called "sexual imprinting", says Tamas Bereczkei at the University of Pécs in Hungary and colleagues.

Husbands and wives have long been suggested to look alike and this is known to occur in many animal species. Couples that look like each other are also more likely to share common genes, and having a degree of similarity is believed to beneficial.

This might explain the study's findings, suggests Glenn Weisfeld, one of the research team and a human ethologist at Wayne State University, Detroit, US "There seems to be an advantage for animals to select a mate somewhat similar to themselves genetically," he told New Scientist.

"One good possibility is that there are some fortuitous genetic combinations which are retained in the offspring if both parents are similar," he says. "In humans there is evidence to show a lower rate of miscarriage."

Ahahahahaha, where'd all the moralistic crusaders go? Did you guys pick up your toys and go home? I was just getting warmed up!

I correct myself - ostrichism is the first and foremost weapon of equalitarians and race-deniers. Just like the mass media, they figure they can just ignore the issue and make it go away.

Well, thanks at least to you, Tony, at least you made a few cogent, if fallacious, arguments before you clammed up.

"In a nutshell, the idea is that a person's genetic self-interest is served by advancing the the genetic success of those related to him, in direct proportion to his genetic similarity to the group.

This is far from the only justification for WNism, it's just the basic Darwinian argument for WNism. I regard the 'linkage between race and behavior,' as you put it, as an ancillary, if more diverse and emotionally compelling, motive for WNism."

I can think of little that reduces humanity to a cold set of equations more quickly than the notion that what should motivate man is the propagation of his genes. Your organizing principle is something that does not distinguish you, morally and in terms of your aspirations, from a dog.

"I don't need to come up with some high-minded rationalization for wanting to see my family happy and successful - I can say the same for my race."

There is no question that people tend to prefer those with similar racial features. It is also clearly the case that people have much greater love and loyalty for family than for strangers who have similar features. You have taken a natural human proclivity and made it a fetish.

"IQ tests have shown again and again that the white mean is a standard deviation above the black mean..."

And IQ tests decades ago showed that Jewish immigrants were a standard deviation below non-Jewish whites. This has disappeared completely. This notion of IQ is more plastic than you seem to allow.

"Don't the huge disparities in criminal behavior and sexual behavior (as evinced by the propagation of AIDs, the illegitimacy rate) between the races belie your 'racial behavior' exception?"

I've run out of ways to illustrate the difference between correlation and causation. If you want to pursue this further, you will have to find a way to understand the difference, and see that pointing to correlations does not prove causality, and that absent this, you cannot refute the very plausible (and better documented) argument that the correlations you observe are the product of institutional features, not racial features.

"Chimps are categorized as such by scientists solely on the basis of their BEHAVIOR. They are phenotypically identical - scientists can't even tell them apart by appearance. Yet I'm to believe that race doesn't exist?"

I think you're missing the point, yet you've managed to make it in this statement. Precisely because racial/species distinctions are so dependent on the subjective evaluations of observers, they are plastic categories, and plastic is not the best foundation on which to build one's worldview.

"Why must our kids be bused across town for diversity's sake? Why must freedom of association be abrogated to fight discrimination? Why must we all hear how wonderful multiculturalism and diversity are, day in day out? Why is it okay for Star Jones..."

It's probably best not to let your anger at obvious stupidity drive your worldview, or to offer their stupid beliefs and actions as justification for your own beliefs and actions.

"If racism is so self-evidently false or maladaptive, why can't it just die on it's own?"

I don't recall arguing that it is maladaptive. Many wrongs thrive because we are selfish, easily deceived creatures intent on elevating ourselves above all other created things.

"Of course, the crime argument just leads back around to the ole' unfalsifiable platform of anti-racism. 'Is black crime a black proclivity problem or a white racist cop problem?'"

Again, there are plausible explanations that are neither racist (e.g., black proclivity), nor stupid (e.g., rampant white police racism).

"Hell, I don't need science to 'prove' racial behavioral differences to me! I GREW UP in a black ghetto!"

This is where we are stuck. Let me be clear. There are striking behavioral differences between some of what we call races. But: A) there are also striking differences within these same races, which would appear to belie the racial causation hypothesis; and, B) there are simpler, more plausible, and better documented explanations for these differences than genetics.

"I can think of little that reduces humanity to a cold set of equations more quickly than the notion that what should motivate man is the propagation of his genes. Your organizing principle is something that does not distinguish you, morally and in terms of your aspirations, from a dog."

Is that your idea of logic? As for morality and aspirations, distinguishing oneself from a dog is the litmus test now? My desire to eat every day does little to distinguish me from a dog either, but I don't hold hunger in contempt.

I never claimed that the Darwinist justification for WNism was a high-minded moral one. I provided it because you asked for a logical justification for WNism. This is a common tactic of anti-WNists - move the goal posts as frequently as possible.

Also, I might add that I've already mentioned that racial nationalism is, in essence, a starting point. I have plenty of other interests and aspirations that have nothing to do with WNism.

Again though, this is all just a smokescreen you've set up. Politics is, at bottom, about self-interest, and there's nothing high-minded or transcendant about it. WNism is politics.

"There is no question that people tend to prefer those with similar racial features. It is also clearly the case that people have much greater love and loyalty for family than for strangers who have similar features. You have taken a natural human proclivity and made it a fetish."

Nonsense. This is just more ad hominem attack. I am not obsessed with race, I am however very interested in self-determination.

One might as well say that Greenpeace is a fetishist movement, or the ACLU is stocked with fetishists, or pro-lifers have made their morality into a fetish.

What a weak argument.

"And IQ tests decades ago showed that Jewish immigrants were a standard deviation below non-Jewish whites. This has disappeared completely. This notion of IQ is more plastic than you seem to allow."

No, they didn't, that's a common myth, but a myth nonetheless. The sample was anything but a fair one, and the original researcher even said as much at the time.

IQ is indeed plastic, but plastic only stretches so far.

"I've run out of ways to illustrate the difference between correlation and causation. If you want to pursue this further, you will have to find a way to understand the difference, and see that pointing to correlations does not prove causality, and that absent this, you cannot refute the very plausible (and better documented) argument that the correlations you observe are the product of institutional features, not racial features."

I've never said that correlation proves causation. Correlation is evidence of causation. I hear this argument so often, yet it doesn't wash, because I don't argue causation. I could go into it more, but I've just finished going into this somewhere else, and I'm tired of the issue.

I know analogies are slippery slopes, but I'll try one anyways.

Let's imagine a group of people with a certain distinct tatoo. Let's imagine that 100% of these people had been proven guilty of murder. Would a rational man pontificate on correlation vs. causation before treating bearers of this tatoo with caution?

I've said it many times before - only a fool relies on strict empirical proof for everything. Wise men make best guesses all day long, every day of their lives.

When I leave my house, I have no empirical proof that a malaysian tiger trap hasn't been dug under my welcome mat. Do I check under the mat every day for that trap? No I don't - how very illogical of me!

The logical assumption is that any statistical racial differences are caused by BOTH nature and nurture, only a fool would assume otherwise.

You do a good job of highlighting the central point of my WNism - I cannot prove nature is the cause (nor do I think it is), and you cannot prove nurture is the cause.

That's the crux of this - the establishment and the media universally tout the idea that all the differences are environmental. ALL. I put forward the idea that it is a combination of nature and nurture, an eminently more rational idea.

Given the fact that neither the natural or the nurturist determinists can prove their case, why do the media and the establishment side with the Lysenkoists?

"I think you're missing the point, yet you've managed to make it in this statement. Precisely because racial/species distinctions are so dependent on the subjective evaluations of observers, they are plastic categories, and plastic is not the best foundation on which to build one's worldview."

I haven't built my worldview on WNism. My worldview has pushed me towards WNism.

Again, color is plastic, yet it is of critical importance to artists, who don't quibble over the fuzzy boundaries of red and orange.

"It's probably best not to let your anger at obvious stupidity drive your worldview, or to offer their stupid beliefs and actions as justification for your own beliefs and actions."

Is this the "don't give in to the dark side Luke" argument? So, when someone slaps you in the face, do you just let bygones be bygones? How about when he raises his hand a second time?

Sometimes, violence calls for violence, stupidity calls for exclusion, etc. Friendship is a TWO WAY street. I don't hold out my hand overlong to those who don't grasp it.

"I don't recall arguing that it is maladaptive. Many wrongs thrive because we are selfish, easily deceived creatures intent on elevating ourselves above all other created things."

I was referring to the common popular opinion that racism is pathological.

"Again, there are plausible explanations that are neither racist (e.g., black proclivity), nor stupid (e.g., rampant white police racism)."

Then there are still others, no doubt, that take an all-encompassing approach and try to reconcile all the data.

"This is where we are stuck. Let me be clear. There are striking behavioral differences between some of what we call races."

Well, that's at least something. Most people can't even bring themselves to admit this.

"But: A) there are also striking differences within these same races, which would appear to belie the racial causation hypothesis;"

That's a strawman. I've asserted several times that behavior exists in a nature/nurture continuum. Race (heredity writ large) influences behavior, as does environment.

"and, B) there are simpler, more plausible, and better documented explanations for these differences than genetics."

I don't see how, when the intra-racial differences in behavior you mention so often fall along sub-racial lines.

Anyways, to return this to ground level:
Behavior and intelligence (traits influenced by heredity) vary between, as well as among, racial groups (heredity writ large).

Sorry, that was me, I forgot to sign my name.

One more thing - hasn't this conversation raised reasonable doubt in your mind concerning the demonization of racists in the popular media, and the establishment's absolute refusal to allow public debate of these matters?

Lol, I forgot to sign in AGAIN!

Svyatoslav:

Your attempts to use parts of genetic similarity theory to justify white separatist goals falls flat on it's face upon even a cursory examination because whiteness is a very poor proxy for genetic similarity. According to stormfront a Greek who marries a Turk is a "race mixer" but a Greek who marries a Russian is not because they are both "white". The same goes for a "black" American person with mostly Anglo Saxon ancestors, he or she could easily be more geneitically similar to a "white" Anglo-Saxon American such as myself than a Southern or Eastern European is.