Venting about venting

One of the more salient points, made by Craig Bodeker in his now famous “A Conversation About Race“, was that today’s political climate does not allow whites to be pro-white without being viewed as anti-everybody else. Personally, I try to keep this point at the forefront of my mind when I speak or write. It’s not always easy. People who identify as pro-white are very much aware of the ongoing atrocities being perpetrated upon whites and the glaring double standard imposed against whites. It’s easy to become an angry person but not so easy to channel ones anger to constructive ends. Sometimes it’s difficult to avoid becoming what our enemies say we are.

Powerful forces (some would say “The Jooz”) are using non-whites as clubs to pound whites into oblivion. So some pro-whites channel their anger toward the non-whites; toward blacks and Mexicans in the U.S. and maybe toward Asian Muslims in Europe. Others channel their anger toward “The Jooz”. As a Jew myself, I’d suggest a distinction between “The Jooz” and “Jews”. At any rate, I’ve vented plenty of venom at blacks and Hispanics myself. I try to put it in context and make it clear that I speak only in general terms. But I’ll admit that the following criticism applies to myself as well.

I was reading a recent American Renaissance article about the spread of cellular service in Africa. It’s an innocuous subject. If anything, it gives us a ray of hope; if Africa becomes a better place to live, we all benefit. But after reading the comments on that article, I became frustrated. I wrote:

I’m disappointed in a lot of the comments here. Is it our goal here to ridicule blacks or is it to inform the world that whites have legitimate interests and are being targeted for genocide? While doing the former may make us feel witty, or release some of our anger, I think we should ask ourselves, before pushing the “post” button, if our comments are going to actually help our cause.

Imagine you’re a young person fresh out of high school or college. You’re curious about pro-white movements and race-realism so you click on this article. What sort of impression would you get from reading the comments here?

My comment, before reading the others, was going to be something along the lines of “that’s great. I hope Africa does improve its lot; that would be better for all of us, because it would slow the flow of Africans out of Africa.”

I think a lot of pro-whites know, deep down, that I’m right. Some of them won’t admit it; their anger won’t let them. It’s a pity because, if our enemies can succeed in infecting our hearts with destructive hatred, then what hope is there for us?

This was not the first time I’d contemplated criticizing the content of the comments at American Renaissance. Months ago, I’d written:

Reading through the comments on American Renaissance, I’m struck by how many of them make blanket statements about blacks. The moderators seem to now tolerate the word “negro”, which does make sense. They still won’t allow the word “nigger”, which makes sense sometimes – and sometimes it doesn’t…

Perhaps the moderators at Amren should ask themselves the same question when deciding whether to let a comment remain or not. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, Amren should not be a site for angry venting of that nature. If people want to vent, and talk about “niggers and apes”, they can do so at niggermania.com or some other similar forum. Of course, if the moderators have had a change of attitude and don’t mind if Amren turns into another niggermania, that’s their prerogative. It would sadden me though.

I had allowed that post to remain a draft. It’s not for me to tell the folks at American Renaissance what sort of site it should be. It does bother me that I cannot direct friends or relatives to that site in the hopes of convincing them of the justness of our cause; they’d be too put off by the comments.

It’s hard to blame the people at American Renaissance for allowing anti-black tirades in the comments. A steady diet of black-on-white murders, beatings and rapes will do that to you over time – but only if you let it.

 

Being a part of the “Dark Enlightenment”

Thanks again to John Derbyshire for linking to me in one of his columns. This time, he’s coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” for the movement to recognize not-so-pleasant realities.  I like it.  But Dennis Mangan has already stated that he is unworthy of being listed among Derbyshire’s must-read blogs. If so, where does that leave me?

John Derbyshire, along with Steve Sailer, provide a valuable service. Aside from being exceptional writers in their own right, they provide a crucial link between a handful of widely recognized pro-white bloggers and a multitude of obscure bloggers. It’s an honor to be linked to by Derbyshire and, even more so, to be counted in his “essential reading” blog list. Especially considering that my posts have not been exactly stellar recently. Real life has a way of demanding one’s time and my writing is based in inspiration and available free time rather than necessity.

But fear not, loyal readers! I have vacation plans in the making and I’ll be off to exotic places in a few months. So stay tuned…

 

The problem with big-tent movements and blogs

We all love to speak our minds. Some of us feel so strongly about it we actually start our own blogs. Invariably we find like-minded people in the vast blogosphere and forge new alliances. That’s all find and dandy. The problems start when we reveal that we have opinions that range beyond the single issues upon which many of those alliances were forged.

Practically everybody here agrees that race is real, that white people exist and that white people have a right to exist. But what about homosexuality? What about the role of government? What about Christianity and religion in general? Obviously we don’t all take the same positions when it comes to these other matters. Most of us can find it in our hearts to agree to disagree and focus on our common causes.

But a lot of people have opinions that they feel cannot be compromised. They will have nothing to do with individuals who hold contrary views. The author of the now defunct blog Latte Island found this problem serious enough to cause her to stop blogging. She wrote me:

Hi, I’ve stopped blogging.  Here’s why:  my bias towards inclusion of all possible allies seems to be a lost cause.  Every major story, even this thing with Petraeus, has the usual chorus of, look, the women are responsible, the gays are responsible, everything would have been better if we could put women back in the kitchen and having babies, the gays should shut up with their demands for special privileges, etc.

Okay, if that’s what pro-white people want, fine.  I’m a feminist, and I like having the right to work instead of having babies. Not everyone is called to motherhood.  It’s always been like that.  Social conservatives are just making stuff up about how, in the good old days,  everyone was happy in the kitchen and closet.   I don’t think homosexuality is the cause of the fall of Rome and America.  When I read stuff like that, I laugh and think, it’s too bad these otherwise intelligent people don’t even realize how many gay people they already know and like.

But it’s all really the fault of the Jews, of course.

Do you remember Ian Jobling of White America?  He hasn’t been heard of in quite a while, for the same reasons as me.  After a while, you give up on  people who would rather hate on some of their own people, than be a bit more permissive and win.

I voted for Romney, because he’s a big tent pragmatist like me.  I wouldn’t have voted for one of those bible-thumping bigots the right loves so much.

Though Latte Island and I do not have identical views, I share her enthusiasm for big-tent pragmatism and I do agree with her that it’s self-defeating to harp on divisions that don’t need to be deal-breakers. Nor do I believe I’m compromising my principles by befriending proponents of big government or Christians or pagans or what have you.

Human stupidity, whose blog is still very much alive and well (and who has written a very nice series of articles on the George Zimmermann/ Travvon Martin case, which I recommend) has also been struggling with this problem. He has some well-founded, but controversial, opinions on diverse topics – and he’s found that expounding on one topic will alienate his allies in other topics. I’ve had similar concerns – but my readers appear to be more forgiving (thank you!). I’m pretty sure that Robert Lindsay has the same issue, but I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t care. It’s a certain state of blogger nirvana where you can speak your mind and some people think you’re crazy – but you don’t care because you’re having fun.

One solution, if you haven’t reached your blogger nirvana yet, would be to have separate blogs for each issue. But then somebody discovers that it’s the same writer and it becomes a scandal. Better to be upfront about your beliefs; if they’re too crazy to share, it might be time to trade them in for new ones anyway.

 

Jared Taylor speaks at Towson University

I just finished watching this video and thought I’d share it with the rest of y’all. It’s interesting to watch low I.Q., brainwashed, attendees asking questions that show how much they fail to comprehend. Speaking to them is like speaking to a wall. A thick wall of ignorance.

 

Ann Coulter’s race-realism in “Godless”

I just finished reading Ann Coulter’s “Godless“. Though I find her style to be abrasive and sometimes difficult to read, there are a lot of gems to be found in “Godless”. For the time being, however, I want to focus on Coulter’s particular brand of race-realism. Racial differences in I.Q. is a subject that she is willing to broach – but only with a ten-foot pole. On page 175 she writes, regarding “The Bell Curve“:

Liberals were afraid of a book that told the truth about IQ because they are godless secularists who do not believe humans are in God’s image. Christians have no fear of hearing facts about genetic differences in IQ because we don’t think humans are special because they are smart. There may be some advantages to being intelligent, but a lot of liberals appear to have high IQs, so, really, what’s the point? After Hitler carried the secularists’ philosophy to its bloody conclusion, liberals became terrified of making any comment that seems to acknowledge that there are any differences among groups of people – especially racial groups. It’s difficult to have a simple conversation, much less engage in free-ranging, open scientific inquiry, when liberals are constantly rushing in with their rule book about what can and cannot be said.

Apparently, it’s difficult for Coulter as well; for she leaves this (obviously important) IQ issue at that one paragraph and then launches into a seven and a half page tirade about AIDS and homosexuals. Though she’s willing to mention racial IQ differences, she clearly wants to keep such talk to a minimum. Coulter does bring up race and IQ once more toward the end of her book (pgs. 277,278):

This is why liberals have panic attacks in response to any science that reveals differences in humans – differences in acquiring AIDS, IQ, mathematical abilities, and so on. If there really is a genetic component to IQ, what arguments do atheists have against sterilizing, enslaving, or killing the stupid among us?…

But with the secular crowd, their political ideology keeps shutting off open scientific inquiry. Over and over again, they can only accept one answer: AIDS doesn’t discriminate, IQ is an artificially contrived social construct with no genetic component, there are no innate differences between the sexes, and the human soul was created by random mutation and natural selection. Their religion prevents them from engaging in honest discussion because science without God leaves them with no arguments against barbarism – like bestiality, abortion, slavery, and eugenics.

The only lesson liberals learned from Hitler is: Don’t discriminate! Not that human life is sacred, but that we must never say people are different. Girls are the same as boys, and homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, and blacks are the same as whites. That’s their plan for nipping any aspiring Hitlers in the bud…

If race-realism is the hard liquor of controversial conservatism, then attacks on homosexuality/AIDS would be the mixer that makes it more palatable for Coulter. Without bringing up homosexuality, bestiality, AIDS etc., Coulter is unable to discuss racial differences*. AIDS is her aid in dealing with this issue. It’s her crutch.

It’s easy to see why, despite her knowledge of racial differences, she’s loath to dwell on them: When it comes to race, she is a liberal. She has fallen for the same racism phobia that has infected the Left. According to Coulter, racists are among the most evil people on Earth. She writes (pg. 271):

In a 1939 manifesto titled “Birth Control and the Negro,” she noted that “the poorer areas, particularly in the South… are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.” Sanger recommended birth control to lessen the financial burden of caring for such weeds, “destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.” Undoubtedly, she would be delighted to know that today (1) Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions in the United States, and (2) about 36 percent of our aborted babies are black, almost three times their percentage in the American population. Mission accomplished, Margaret!

In fact, the last chapter of “Godless” can just about be summed up by saying that liberalism (via Darwinism) was responsible for the greatest evils mankind has ever known: Nazism and eugenics/racism. It’s no wonder Coulter fears expounding on race/IQ differences too much. She doesn’t want to sound like a “racist” herself. Not that her AIDS/race-realism mix has protected her from accusations of “racism”. She should have known that even the slightest hint of acknowledging racial differences is all it takes to be labeled a “Hitler” these days.

Since couching race-realism within the folds of homosexuality/AIDS is futile, and since open recognition of racial differences is crucial to the preservation of civilized society, she might as well just come out and state the facts without compunction.

*This is the only book of hers I’ve read. Also, it’s been six years since it came out and I’m sure she’s said/written much since then. So my comments only apply to the contents of “Godless”.

 

A funny video

Thanks to my friend Portland Realist for sharing this with me. Read between the lines for race-realism. I especially like the part where they both claim they’re not racist because they “like black girls”. It’s always been customary to “like the girls” of the people you’re exterminating. Blacks do it all the time – so kudos to those two for dishing some of it back.

 

 

 

Mississippi church says “no” to black wedding

When I first read the story, about church members in Mississippi intimidating their pastor into refusing to marry a black couple in their church, I thought to myself that either we’re not being told the entire story or it’s a rather silly position to take – especially considering that the church is already mixed race. If it has black members, how can it refuse to allow them to marry in the church?

But, upon further reflection, I realized that the people who (anonymously) threatened their pastor probably never gave their consent for the church to be mixed in the first place; they probably wished it had remained entirely white. Blacks were most likely forced upon them – as is so often the case. I doubt that those church members had a problem with the couple itself; they were regulars (though not actual members) at the church. But a black wedding brings black family and guests. There is no way to guarantee that only upstanding family-members and friends will attend the wedding. There is no way to guarantee that church property will not be damaged, that pews won’t be vandalized, that windows won’t be broken. But it is guaranteed that the young black male guests will pursue white female church members should they have any contact.

No, the church members are not being racist at all. They are not claiming that whites are superior to blacks, or that race is the primary determiner of human traits. Rather, they are asserting their right to freedom of association. The right to be left alone and to determine one’s own destiny. They are saying “no” to black colonialism and to the dictates of Black-Run-America (BRA). In short, they are rejecting slavery.

 

When white men mass-murder

It’s no use trying to ignore it. A white man massacred dozens of people at a theater in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 of them. It’s not the first time something like this has happened and for the pro-white crowd to remain silent about it*, even as we constantly draw attention to the (much worse) black/Hispanic proclivities for violence, only serves to diminish our credibility.

None of us ever claimed that whites are perfect. It goes without saying that, in a country that includes tens of millions of whites, some of them are going to be crazy or disturbed. But this sort of thing does appear to happen more often as the years pass – or perhaps it’s only the fact that today’s media works at the speed of light.

The enemies of gun rights are, predictably, leveraging this to their advantage. They claim that, had guns and ammo not been available to James Holmes, the mass killing would never have occurred. Yes, this is possible – but the shooting should not serve as justification for depriving us of our guns. The biggest murderers, over the last hundred or so years, have been agents of government. Are “gun-control” advocates demanding that guns be taken away from government?

A republican representative has stated that the loss of Christian values contributed to the massacre. That and the fact that none of the victims had his own gun with which to eliminate the threat. Considering how well-armed Holmes was (and dressed in body armor), I doubt it would have made much of a difference.

It’s too early for us to know what motivated Holmes to take the lives of so many innocent people. It’s possible Holmes himself doesn’t know. But it’s not too early for me to make two points:

1) Some tragedies are just that, and nothing we do can prevent them. We punish, we weep and life goes on. I don’t know if this is one of those tragedies.

2) Pro-whites should talk about such incidents openly and head-on. Whatever it is that motivates white males to commit such deeds, should be laid bare for all to see and pro-whites should be at the forefront talking about it.

*Of course I’m not accusing anybody of ignoring it; the incident only occurred yesterday.

 

Voice of Reason interviews Unamusement Park

Unlike myself, Unamusement Park (who calls himself “Richard Smith” for this interview), actually does have a good radio-voice. I thoroughly enjoyed this interview and I’m sure many of y’all will too:

Click here to listen to the interview.

 

Blog obituaries

Mangan’s blog is now available to invited readers only. I’m certain that Mr. Mangan knows what he’s doing, but I can’t help but wonder what the purpose of a blog would be if only subscribers (I.E. those who already agree with you anyway) can read it.

The Tribe of Ice People hasn’t posted anything new since early December of last year. It appears all she wanted to tell us was that anti-semitism is bad for whites. Well, alright then. I’ll keep that in mind.

StatSquatch hasn’t written anything new since October of last year. His blog has now become a statistic.

Uhuru Guru (sometimes confused, by yours truly, for “South Africa Sucks”) hasn’t posted anything new since November of last year. I hope the Kaffirs haven’t gotten him.

Seed of Japheth has retired from blogging as of April of this year. May Krishna smile upon his next reincarnation.

Robert Lindsay still experiences some sightings, but he seems to focus mostly on Bigfoot and socialism these days – which is fine if that’s your cup of tea. Keep leaving those tracks Robert!

Reluctant Apostate has published nothing new since December of last year. I understand he’s a busy person; hopefully he’s doing great things in real life.

Eugenicist posts rarely these days and not on matters that pertain to this blog.

I know I’ve missed a few and yes, I realize that blogs come and go. Most of the above blogs, though not active, are still online – and they still link to me. So I’m not sure if I should remove them from my blog roll  and replace them with more current blogs.

Please share your opinions, insights and gossip in the comments!