The reinvention of white people

Have American whites lost their nationhood and then had it resurrected – by leftists?  It would not be the first time a nation unknowingly transformed from a natural, organic nation into one whose existence is somewhat artificial and, therefore, whose very nature has changed.  Rather like a science fiction tale of a human falling asleep as flesh and blood and waking up as an android.

No doubt some native American tribes, for whom membership used to require no paperwork and whose self-identity was as natural and flowing as the rivers around them now find themselves struggling to maintain a meaningful existence in a different world.  They must keep computer files for members and follow practices previously unheard of just to maintain some semblance of continuity for their nation.

At a time when the United States was over 90% white, one could still accurately say that, by and large, America was a nation founded by whites and composed of whites.  Back then, a white American’s nationality could be defined by his U.S. citizenship.  He could convincingly equate the two in most cases.  Of course this is not so anymore.  These days, “American” can mean anything and (as I’ve stated before) therefore it means nothing.

Thanks to leftist policies, which are specifically designed to marginalize and displace whites, America no longer exists as a nation.  It has been reduced to nothing more than  a specific territory ruled by an elite political class.  Former white “Americans” have either lost any true sense of nationhood (their former patriotism having become a hollow fantasy) or else they have embraced their white heritage as their nation.  The former have no nation.  The latter now belong to a new nation – created indirectly by leftists.

Proud white Americans, being members of a new nation, may  find themselves confused.  On the one hand, they feel deeply rooted in their historical past.  On the other hand, that past – though lived by their genetic forebears – was the past of different nations.  In the meantime, the rules have changed.  Things that used to be assumed must now be argued.  Things that used to be safe must now be defended.  Things that used to be sacred are now openly questioned.  Things that used to be profane are now considered sacred.  When faced with disruptions such as these, a people will typically take measures to preserve the culture they have inherited from their former nations.  Unfortunately, those measures sometimes prove themselves to be as disruptive as the challenges that provoked them.

These are dangerous times for white peoples wherever they are.  They are, of course, dangerous because of the widespread violence, hate propaganda and genocidal government policies directed against us – but they are also dangerous because of the ways we sometimes find ourselves reacting to such persecution.  Unable to maintain the innocence of yesteryear, some of us may slide into mentalities that are not helpful.  During his speech, at the most recent Amren conference, Sam Dickson urged caution lest we become like the caricatures our enemies use to portray us.  Let us take his advice to heart.  With one hand, let us defend our cultures, genetic legacies, language etc. but let the other hand steady us so that we remain normal, natural people.  We cannot control the events that brought about our status as new nations – but we can control the ways we adapt to it.  We can nurture our new nations in such a way that the artificiality of it takes on the qualities of a seamless transition still rooted in our past but well suited to forge ahead on our own terms.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The reinvention of white people

  1. “America no longer exists as a nation. It has been reduced to nothing more than a specific territory ruled by an elite political class. ”

    Priceless.

    • Patrick says:

      Curt Doolittle,

      In a previous post you mentioned something about germany being invaded resulting in the stifling of the develoipment of a new religion. Were you referring to ww1, ww2, or some other war? Just curious what you were saying on that… because in ww2 it was kinda a weird time for Germany and I dont see that time period a s a cultural rennaisance.

      • Romanticism is the mythological movement behind German unification in response to Napoleon’s conquest of the previously fractured 300 principalities.

        The Roman’s invaded europe because celts were metal workers and they had relative wealth that could be exploited.
        The Church stopped the Germans from unifying because it would have threatened italian leadership. (Giving titles to princes)
        The English Civilization conquered the germans to prevent them from expansion of their empire and posing a continental threat.
        We ended up with a power vacuum that the russians and US filled.

        The period of Nietzsche and Wagner and the romantic artists was the attempt to ostracize christianity from northern (germanic) europe.

        This is well worn territory, oceans of writing on it. It’s just not popular because the nazi’s turned it into their program of mythology. In fact, it was an effort to implement greek and european myth by expunging christianity.

        THe greeks for example, lost all writing after the collapse of Minoan civilization. One of the reasons for the revitalization of hellenic civilization was that they had lost their myths and effectively reinvented them and themselves accordingly.

        My view is that we made the greatest mistake in history twice. Athens (naval) destroyed Sparta (army) just as england (naval) destroyed Germany (army). This event is perhaps the causal failure of both hellenic and western civilizations.

      • Patrick says:

        To respond to something you said I don’t think that areas need to be politically unified in order to achieve cultural objectives.

        Secondly the only wars I know of where England stifled German expansionism were ww1 and 2. Were you referring to ww1 specifically when you criticized the english or were you referring to both ww1 and 2… or was there some other war I am not aware of you were referring to?

      • RE: “…wars….”

        WWI+II are the same process of german containment, interrupted.

        History tends to refer to this as ‘the german problem’. Which means ‘Germany, culturally and factually keeps the east at bay’, but could not be allowed to become strong enough to conquer the rest of europe. Napoleon changed german sentiment by breaking a thousand year old agreement between the church and the states – in doing so he ruined france as a nation, and unified germany.

        (Even now, after defeat, it is the dominant economic power in europe, and the Euro is really just the Mark by another name.)

        In the context of this conversation, I don’t remember what I was commenting on, other than perhaps, that Germans came very close to producing a new mythos, which is what most cultures need in order to develop expansionist ‘sentiments’. (Non rational reasons for, and justification of, rational aspirations that produce group competitiveness.)

        There is nothing I”m writing here that’s not been written about profusely.

        From a political philosopher’s point of view, most monotheistic religions are submissive, long term, low cost, forms of lower class rebellion. They are organized reactionary movements. The upper classes generally are wealthy enough, and strong enough, to take action directly, rather than wait for an opportunity to act, or simply engaging in subversion.

        We forced germans into WW2 by a poorly executed and very dangerous reparations agreement where only violence and inflation could be the outcome. This was well know at the time. It was counseled against by many. But popular sentiment prevailed.

        Germany was our Sparta. It was a status conscious hierarchical nation with a social duty protocol with deep sentiments of order, discipline and militarism and craftsmanship. Internally in culture and externally by political encouragement, germany kept the east at bay, for the better part of two thousand years.

        The problem with our conquest of Germany and our takeover of the British naval bases at a discount, and our ownership of and expansion of the international system of trade, is that we became an empire.

        The difference between a nation and an empire is simply that a nation is a cultural and racial concept that allows a group to expand it’s power, and an empire is an economic concept over nations that oppresses groups ability to expand their power, status, and wealth.

        We lost our cultural identity when we gained our empire. We killed our ability to keep it a culturally unified empire because it is now impossible for the white minority to assert a self vision without being called nazis. Our Christian sentiments (submissive sentiments) will not allow us to fight this, and our lower classes, the feminine class, and minority classes have politically unified to use it as the primary means of oppressing the traditionally strong western political unit: the ‘federation of the fraternal order of city defending, market making soldiers” which we call ‘white men’.

        We adopted democracy and we revolted against our church, and adopted the religion of Democratic Secular Humanism. The public intellectuals be came our priests of ‘DSH’. The church abandoned europe, and is now a third world political force. So by default the west is now embracing democratic secular humanism.

        The only way to alter this situation is to do what the Greeks did which is to revise history to show that our ambitions have been bad for us, and the consequences have been enormous.

        A number of ‘revisionist historians’ have attempted similar approaches, and most have been either german, or english. Mythology is in general, revisionist history. It is a means of providing a group with unity to combat other groups. (I”m quoting Rothbard here quite a bit for example.)

        If history is any measure, it will not be until the whites in the USA are an oppressed minority, whereby a minority of people will create a revised history and appeal to whatever sentiments that can be remembered or reconstructed.

        People are, and always will be, racist, culture-ist, gender-ist, age-ist. And only an empire whose purpose is the oppression of group expansion of power has a political interest in educating and maintaining a population that is not racist, or at least, interested in keeping only one race in power.

        In the US, the anti-race movement was actually started by new england women (post puritans) who became what we call evangelicals when freed from domestic service with the resulting wealth of the industrial revolution, and they were free to engage in political discourse and became a

        In other words, this liberal movement to undermine white men and their ‘fraternal military market making empire’ is an outgrowth of the christian puritan movement and women’s suffrage. Suffrage became directed at slavery and that is how lincoln used women to advocate the north’s aggression against the south, and in doing so created the US Empire, instead of the federation of states. The anti-man movement and it’s sentiment continued through the suffrage movement, and rapid immigration from the late 1800’s through the 1920’s as the US federal empire tried to fill up the continent to both gain tax and prevent foreign takeover. This created the first ‘great depression’ as labor moved to the USA, and production increased on cheap land and labor, and drove down prices in europe. The USA needed money to continue this process and created the federal reserve so that it could print fiat money and fund the expansionist economy. This created our great capitalist robber barons. This abuse of money and the immigration and economic imbalance made possible the second great depression of the 1930’s. The suffrage movement converted to the socialist and communist movement. The depression and war depopulated our previously expanding little towns and cities and converted the US from a farm economy to a manufacturing economy. Post war the US had a near monopoly on world manufacturing. The return of the soldiers from the war required more money printing.

        So women were the source of the movement to undermine the power of the fraternal order of soldiers that is the source of the Civic Republican Tradition, democracy, freedom, and prosperity, just like women were the source of christianity was under rome. Women seem to prefer a Bonapartist State.

        Women eventually control social direction over long enough periods, because they create a ‘market for affection’, which men must conform to in order to obtain mates, during periods of economic expansion. In regression, or under conflict the women desire more masculine defenses, and do the opposite. The Fraternal order of soldiers commands that men are political together in public, but familial at home. This separates the two sets of ethics.

        Again, there is a vast literature on these topics, that like the IQ literature is politically unsanitary. But it’s there. And it’s generally good work, and economists refer to it all the time.

        Here are a few things to ponder, given the distribution of IQ’s among the races, with east asians at the top, followed by european jews, followed by northern european whites, followed by the southern latitudinal cultures, ending with sub saharan africans. Only whites seem to have been able to consistently produce anti-corruption sentiments in their cultures. But fraternal militarism, anti-corruption, market making, and engineering and sea-faring are a very powerful combination once you invent accounting and fiat money, and can solve the inter-temporal coordination problem of a complex division of knowledge and labor.

        Huntington was right to say that the west conquered by force of arms, and the rest of the world knows it. But he did not understand that such a conquest comes on the back of accountants, non-corruption, and a fraternal masculine order – all of which are almost impossible to duplicate organically.

        A couple of other things I’ve written that might be helpful:

        “Men with IQ’s above 140 invent ideas. Men with IQ’s above 135 expand ideas. Men with IQ’s under 135 use ideas. Men with IQ’s above 122 design machines, men with IQ’s above 105 repair machines, men with IQ’s below 105 use machines”

        “Communication is limited to 30 points of IQ. After that, only the most rudimentary ideas of the upper group can be conveyed to the lower group. And the social orders adopted by the upper are unattainable by the lower.” (Ie: equality is an impossibility.)

        “IQ’s are alterable. They change the world over. A basic education will have a dramatic improvement. But the RELATIVE POSITION of any body of people will remain constant even if their absolute score will increase.”

        “The dirty secret of the Human Genome project is that it is becoming clear that social classes, as well as racial classes, are genetically determinant. This means that we need to rotate the elites. But that empires are necessarily fragile and detrimental to their highest performers, and permanently limiting to it’s lower castes. In that sense Hindus have solved a serious human problem, albeit across a narrower spectrum of human capability than is the entire world.”

        “The upper 20% of any body of people will control 80% of the resources, and they will do so regardless of their composition – for no other reason than that they are more productive with it than all the rest combined. We know that the upper third is more productive than all the rest. It appears that the upper ten percent are more productive than all the rest. And we suspect that the upper quintile is primarily responsible for all functions in any society that have any consequence, and the remainder of the population serves largely at their incentive and direction – and their benefit is largely in the decrease of prices and increase in consumption made possible by the top quintile. The only issue is that soldiers are necessary to maintain land and trade routes, and to hold a market that is free of corruption. Therefore, the conflict for most civilizations is resolving the tendency of the upper classes failing to maintain the needed power and investment in their military to maintain their control over sufficient resources such that they can maintain production – in other words, they get fat dumb and happy.”

        “The number of men in a civilization that do each of these things, and the body of knowledge that they do it with (technical or procedural knowledge) determines the productive capacity of a civilization.”

        “Corruption, or the use of political position as one’s property to be exploited rather than a duty to be performed for the benefit of one’s customers is the most important political determinant of the rate of economic growth that is possible for a population”

        “IF your smartest and most capable people lose their stomach to use violence to maintain power, they will become the victims of those of lesser ability who are not so lazy or inhibited.”

        I don’ know anyone who writes about these topics more than I do (other than Huntington did in books) on the web. This is why I”m very excited about this blog.

      • patrick says:

        Thanx for your reply, woud you agree that it was uncivilized for the nazis to exterminate people? I would like to say that too often people ignore the significance of class although class mobility is goog there are class differences.

  2. Bay Area Guy says:

    With one hand, let us defend our cultures, genetic legacies, language etc. but let the other hand steady us so that we remain normal, natural people.

    Couldn’t have said it any better myself! We can fight on behalf of our people and improve our communities without becoming violent extremists. Every time a crazy white person goes nuts (ie. Timothy Mcveigh and Benjamin Smith), you just know our enemies are licking their chops.

    We do need to start seriously fighting for our people. Raising hell over the pathetic cowardice of Comedy Central, which decided to censor South Park just because it depicted Muhammad (and not in a stereotypical light, mind you), would be a good start.

    What angers me wasn’t the decision itself, but the reason for the decision. It was a decision grounded in fear. Since a few Muslims are angry, we must suspend freedom of expression.

    The whole incident made me want to vomit.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-talk-jon-stewart-south-park-0424-20100423,0,6858122.story

  3. Gaurav Ahuja says:

    I would be more specific in stating that America was founded as a country for Northwestern Europeans/Nordics. When the second great wave happened, it was not welcomed. And to this day, I think it had a bad effect on the founding stock. Very few White people on this continent think of themselves as Whites. For example, some many may only think of themselves as half-Irish and half-Italian(southern Italian usually). Hence, they already think of themselves as mixed, especially if they have ancestors from a place whose racial legacy obviously has non-Whites. That is one of the reason many White-Americans have no problem with miscegenation.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      I would be more specific in stating that America was founded as a country for Northwestern Europeans/Nordics.

      Indeed. The anti-racists and non-whites can scream all they want about how we stole this “country” from the Native Americans (note: the Native Americans weren’t living on any “country” until white men founded this nation. It amazes me how leftists conflate land with country).

      However, the fact of the matter remains that this country was founded by and for whites. Up until the past few decades, this nation was a predominately white nation. This nation had an immigration policy deliberately designed to keep this nation majority white.

      Pointing this out doesn’t make us “hateful white supremacists.” That’s simply the truth. I think this is important to point out so whites feel like they have a stake in this country. Our founding fathers certainly didn’t envision a multiracial rainbow. Our kids and young people should know that a multiracial land dominated by cultural Marxism didn’t always exist.

      To all you self-righteous anti-racists out there, I am aware that blacks and American Indians have been living on this land for as long if not longer than many whites. I am aware that blacks, for better or worse, have played a crucial role in the development of this nation. And yes, I’m also aware that the menial labor of immigrants from Asia and Latin America played an important role.

      However, regardless of who performed the menial labor, this nation was envisioned by whites. The Constitution was written by whites. This nation’s wars (which I know the anti-racists love to chastise us for) were primarily lead and fought by whites (regardless of the fact that non-whites frequently served in the military). The vast majority of great modern inventions have been white inventions, regardless of what some blacks try to claim.

      Of course, I realize that it’s too late to completely reverse the negative changes over the past few decades, but something must be done.

      White do need to reinvent themselves. If our ancestors could see us now, they would be rolling in their graves.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Just to clarify, this isn’t some endorsement of Jim Crow, lynchings, or the “good ol’ days” in that sense. We white advocates shouldn’t romanticize the past too much, because anti-racists will immediately jump on us for being racists who wish to relegate blacks to the back of the bus.

        There were better solutions towards eliminating anti-black racism than integration, “diversity,” and cultural Marxism. Had whites listened more to Malcolm X and other black nationalists, and less to MLK and integrationists, both blacks and whites wouldn’t have as many problems today.

        But anyway, I digress.

        The good thing about the “good ol’ days” that I would like to revive in whites is pride, better behavior (ie. fewer drugs, less drinking, no more school shooters, etc. Just to clarify, I know that whites engaged in negative behaviors back then, but nowhere near as much as they do today) , greater patriotism, more stable families (ie. fewer divorces or out of wedlock births), etc.

        Jew Among You, you mentioned to me the need for us to create such an organization that fights on behalf of whites while cleaning up white communities. Any suggestions for where I should start?

  4. Ryan says:

    It never fails to amaze me how so many of the older generation bows down to diversity these days like they have completely lost their spine. I would have thought that they would be the most vociferous generation for returning to our roots, but time and time again I see them acting as openly PC as any leftist idiot.

    I think with all people, yes even white people there are those who see the bigger picture, and those who don’t. Those who don’t are not interested in the world beyond family and friends, and when a reality check hits them they always conform to common thinking that’s espoused by the MSM. Very few of this latter group ever wakes up, and if they do, it would invariably be because of their friends and family who somehow got through to them.

    These are the sheep we bemoan, and despise because of their timidity to step beyond their comfortable borders and make a stand for themselves. Want to make one of them wake up? Then let them lose their comfortable lifestyle. That would be the first step, and until that is done often times they would literally fight you to the death to maintain their fantasy world. These people are always the first to conform to contemporary thinking, because they are too afraid and helpless to stand on their own two feet.

    I am sure these same people are the lesser among us. They would have lower IQs, lower drives, and lower levels of critical thinking. These are the people that play follow the leader, and never become the leaders themselves. Put them into positions of empowerment and we decline as a people, because they do everything in their power to maintain the status quo and never see the elephant in the room.

  5. jewamongyou says:

    Re: Bay Area Guy’s question “Any suggestions for where I should start?” I have no experience setting up any organization nor do I have a well-thought-out plan at this point. I suppose coming up with a good name would be a good start. Let’s see some suggestions!

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      I don’t think I can come up with a new and original name that hasn’t already been taken.

      Perhaps naming ourselves after a great European/Caucasoid pioneer would be suitable. Any individuals that come to mind?

      • Name? It’s called ‘Nationalism’. During the feudal period, cities usually had multiple sects, and racial and cultural groups were spread across europe. Napoleon created the concept of ‘total war’ and the nation-state, and the nationalist sentiment and ethic that was required to enlist the entire population in total-war (mobilizing the entire economy for war.) The rest of europe, and in particular, the slavic peoples, sought autonomy, in particular against the german austrians. Meanwhile, germans had become the merchant class in much of the eastern states, and germany sought to protect them.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_nationalism_in_Europe

        So, the problem with anti-racists is that they are IMPERIALISTS. Cults of empire. New Napoleons. Nationalism is the counter to imperialism. Multiculturalism is the counter to Nationalism. But multiculturalism is only possible within a dominant majority state, whereby the ruling class is not open to fracture, and groups cannot use the violence of law for group competition and privilege.

        So, as a political movement, the word you’re looking for is nationalism. As an educational movement the word you’re looking for is realism.

        Cheers

  6. jewamongyou says:

    Re: Curt’s long post. That’s pretty intense stuff you’ve got there and thanks for sharing your ideas here.

    • You are welcome. I’m very impressed by the quality of your writing. It’s rational and positive. Invective and sentiment alone (which is all most people are capable of articulating) are not sufficient to solve anything. Analysis and criticism are, because they help us argue against Democratic Secular Humanists, and their one-world fantasy using their language against them, and by employing simple facts.

      This morning I’m working on a graphic that shows IQ distributions and invention thresholds. I’m trying to add a dimension to it for corruption by culture as shown by Huntington (truth telling).

      I’ll share it with you whenever I get it done.

  7. It’s pretty strange to see a Jew calling himself white in the context of white nationalism.

    Aren’t the “political elites” waging war on whites mostly Jewish, who (accurately) perceive themselves as not white?

    Most of the reasons for our white demographic plight are in changes in immigration law and promotion of miscegenation. Jewish organizations paid for and wrote the Immigration Act of 1965, and Jewish hands are on every pro-miscegenation book and television show.

    Don’t you see that Jews are a major source, if not the source of white dispossession?

    • jewamongyou says:

      “Don’t you see that Jews are a major source, if not the source of white dispossession?” You should read some of my earlier posts.

    • Observer says:

      Aren’t the “political elites” waging war on whites mostly Jewish, who (accurately) perceive themselves as not white?

      The ‘Anglo-American’ putative ‘elites’ have also been greatly responsible for betraying their nation’s race, heritage and culture in favor of Globalism and the worship of Mammon.

      Sorry, but you cannot overlook this truism. Greed on our White Anglo ‘leaders’ part — now and through much of the twentieth century — was a major factor in our dispossession.

      • A friend of mine who is one of the more public Rabbis says “There are good whites and bad whites, good jews and bad jews, good this and good that. It’s the bad’s we need to worry about in every group.”

        I’ve written and spoken to jewish organizations and they really do not understand what they are doing until you explain it to them. THey have been a landless diasporic people for two thousand years that followed whites around europe as they opened sea trade. Whites are market buildings and jews are traders. Market builders are SOLDIERS. If jews undermine whit militarism’s culture of soldiery, they will undermine the market mechanism that supports their diaspora. Whites are great at holding territory, trade routes and are the least corruption oriented people on the planet to date.

        The problem is status conflict between whites and jews. Jews are more egoistic (we don’t know why, although we think we know why european jews have a linguistic advantage) they compete with the military class for position. This has always been a problem, for two thousand years. Liquid capital is simply MORE PROFITABLE than either real property (land) or improved property (buildings) because it TURNS faster and requires fewer men to defend.

        Second, jews do not pay the cost of restraint in the cultures that they trade in. They often profit by breaking taboos. (The porn industry, the movie industry, the ‘negative reformation in law’, advertising, and various other occupations). This has been a method in the culture since roman times when jews were tax collectors and loan sharks. In order to maintain the fraternal order, whites, who in certain classes, appear to still be Mithraites) pay a very high cost by being strong yet not exerting violence by way of corruption. And white culture punishes corruption vehemently. (I am overstating here for illustrative purposes, just in case I get some idiot throwing me the exception-breaks-rule fallacy.) So to some degree, whites to not break taboos as easily. The majority of vast financial scandals are disproportionately jewish in origin. Again, we do not know why. But again, these are factors that describe the margins. There are good and bad in every race and the high performers among the bad set the reputation for the entire race.

        German oppression of the jews was for two reasons. First they were the local version of the capitalist class exemplified by the english. This mercantilism threatened the germanic system of duty and hierarchy where everyone had a place.

        Second, much of the jewish movement was communist. This was a bad combination. WHen the state needed money for reparations the jews were again an easy source of profits. on the other hand Jewish egoism and disregard for their host culture was real, just as it is real in the USA in the current era. We do not know why jewish sentiment is communal. Typically it is female sects that form that sentiment.

        In the american south, and in the northeast, jews had become almost ‘presbyterian’, was the joke, with christmas trees topped with stars of david, and joining country clubs. THe influx of eastern European jews pre and post war were the source of the change in our system. And within a generation they had become a significant force in our universities.

        It is quite unfortunate that the jewish culture, which produces so many intellectuals, is completely ignorant of the practical reality of the self sacrifice of the heroic meme that makes whites land holders, trade route holders and market-makers, and how they are supported by the acts of the white culture, who is only too happy to have them prosper.

        Conversely, no one else is particularity interested in having jews in their culture. The 4 point IQ advantage that jews have in verbal skill over the northern europeans is not true for asians, who are an additional 4 points higher than european jews. Furthermore, they are even more racist than jews. The only place for jews to live is within Christendom. (Although they made up the large part of the Iraqi administration – which is not a terribly moral position to take.)

        We need to educate jews and christians and change jewish culture so that it understands that they never learned the lesson of the rise and fall of the kingdom of israel: the gnostics were right. Jehovah was a false god. Any true god would teach his people to hold land. And therefore Jehovah is actually the devil in disguise. Else they really are agents of the devil. ( LOL. I”m not being religious, just communicating is the appropriate language of the sentiment of the wacky people.)

        It is more advantageous for whites to host jews than not. Because our entire culture is militarized and many of us culturally see abstract trade as dirty, and the entire middle and lower classes are still of the craftsman mentality. Only the lower classes maintain the masculine militarism however. The rest have been educated out of it by the school system.

        Jews were forced out of spain because they were too comfortable conspiring with the Muslims. The spanish inquisition, for all the horror that is made of it, was not the idea of the church. It was the request of the king of spain.

        There have been large massacres of christians by jews in the ancient past, but they were not whites.

        It is very advantageous for jews to encourage persecution and elitism because it keeps the society closed and highly competitive. Only 1500 families it appears, are the source of all modern western jews (I have lost where I found that number so I can’t reference it here.)

        So, my view is that jews and christians need to be allies. We have almost always been allies, albeit uncomfortable allies. That is, until the threat to german social structure. And post germany, the US made a home for jews that the rest of the world would not have (and we did not want). But the benefit has been palpable. The negative has been the destructive force liberal jews have had on the society by combining with the women’s movement.

        White guilt is over with as of this year. I’m pretty sure that Buchanan is right, and we are seeing ‘the birth of a people’ as we speak.

        But I would prefer that good christians and good jews worked hand in hand for the betterment of both.

  8. africanblackmilitant says:

    Jewamongyou

    Your argument is just white male fantasy. Even if your argument is correct (Which is isn’t) but even if it was correct then 99.999% of whites are WORTHLESS because 99.999% of whites have contributed nothing to science or innovation and 99.999% of blacks haven’t and 99.999% of asians haven’t either. Those numbers are simply conjectural of course to illustrate a point. Accomplishment is first and foremost an individual act done by extremely exceptional people.

    Your focusing your argument on the last 300 years, this has been a period in which whites have been top, so OF COUSRE most inventions and discoveries are going to be coming from whites. Furthermore during the past 300 years whites have theorized that blacks are subhuman. So why should give opportunities to a monkey ? That is white people’s logic and as long as whites never allow black people into anything your logic is *safe*

    Here is couple of links and books you should look at because like most whites your intelligence is limited only to what the people who you respect have told you.

    Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern (Journal of African Civilizations) (Paperback)
    by Ivan Van Sertima (Editor)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blacks-Science-Ancient-Journal-Civilizations/dp/0878559418/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263228459&sr=1-4

    Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy (Paperback)
    by George G.M. James (Author)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stolen-Legacy-Greek-Philosophy-Egyptian/dp/0913543780/ref=pd_sim_b_5

    African Presence in Early Europe (Journal of African Civilizations) (Paperback)
    by Ivan Van Sertima (Editor)

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/African-Presence-Europe-Journal-Civilizations/dp/0887386644/ref=pd_sim_b_3

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0946960569?ie=UTF8&tag=ukdebate-21&link_code=em1&camp=2502&creative=11126&creativeASIN=0946960569&adid=b010e496-7740-453b-bf57-31c60f697684

    • jewamongyou says:

      Unlike leftist blogs/forums, I actually welcome dissenting views. So,as long as we can have a reasoned debate, your posts are welcome and appreciated.

      I think it would be easier to tackle one issue at a time. I noticed you call yourself “africanblackmilitant” so I assume you have some sort of group identity and that you identify with blacks as a group. Not only that, but you appear to take pride in the accomplishments of other blacks. Am I mistaken in this?

      If it is alright for you to take pride in what other blacks have done, then it follows that it is alright for whites to take pride in what other whites have done. If group identity is legitimate for one group, then it is legitimate for all of them.

      In a similar vein, do you consider it wrong when sports fans root for their own team and celebrate its victories – even though those fans had no part in them? Do you correct them when they make statements such as “we won!” or “we lost” – pointing out that there is no “we”, only “they”?

  9. africanblackmilitant says:


    Originally Posted By jewamongyou

    Unlike leftist blogs/forums, I actually welcome dissenting views. So,as long as we can have a reasoned debate, your posts are welcome and appreciated.

    Racism is not *reasonable*. If I am in a fight with someone I think unreasonable to let the person who I’m fighting with dictate to me how I should fight. I always think it’s funny the way white people try to insist on the ground rules for a fight.


    Originally Posted By jewamongyou

    If it is alright for you to take pride in what other blacks have done, then it follows that it is alright for whites to take pride in what other whites have done. If group identity is legitimate for one group, then it is legitimate for all of them.

    That’s where your wrong. I don’t really take pride in someone’s black persons brilliance thousands of years ago. Plus I have lomng realised that people who try to promote the achievements of their own group have themselves rarely achieved anything.


    Originally Posted By jewamongyou

    In a similar vein, do you consider it wrong when sports fans root for their own team and celebrate its victories – even though those fans had no part in them ? Do you correct them when they make statements such as “we won!” or “we lost” – pointing out that there is no “we”, only “they”?

    Sports are fair game. The one who wins the superbowl is the best team in the league or the world series. They have officials, judges, rules to ensure that everyone plays according to the rules. So the winners can sit back and say they are the best.

    Life is not like that.

    If I got a gun and blew your head off it would pretty stupid for me to say “I won” if I had a 100m race with you and gave myself a 50 meter start it would be pretty silly for me to say “I’m faster than you”
    My point white people claim victory when they have cheated, when the odds have been heavily stacked in their favour.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Since you say “racism is not reasonable”, please tell us your definition of “racism”.

      You claim that whites have an advantage because we cheat. Have you read “The Affirmative Action Hoax”? If you read it and then debunk his claims, you will have earned respect here and you might change some minds. Otherwise, your claims come across as baseless.

  10. africanblackmilitant says:


    Originally Posted By Jewamongyou

    You claim that whites have an advantage because we cheat. Have you read “The Affirmative Action Hoax”? If you read it and then debunk his claims, you will have earned respect here and you might change some minds. Otherwise, your claims come across as baseless.

    Some of what white people have is UNEARNED. I think much of both the fear and anger that comes up around discussions of affirmative action has its roots in that secret.

    Most of the institutions in the USA are chaired, governed and otherwise presided over by white people. For you to somehow suggest that white people are being discriminated against during hiring processes is like saying white people are not in power.

    Plus most white people have NEVER been attacked by a black person, NEVER been evicted by a black person, NEVER had a black person deny your child the college of her choice, NEVER had a black person deny you a bank loan and you’ve NEVER heard a black person say

    “We’re going to eliminate a thousand jobs here – Have a nice day!”

    Does Affirmative Action redress that balance ?

    As for jobs, well, nearly nine in ten jobs are NEVER advertised at all, thereby becoming open to a free and fair competition. Rather, they are filled by word-of-mouth and networking: a process which disproportionately disadvantages people of colour, irrespective of our qualifications. I find it strange the way few whites think of your position as resulting from racial preference. Indeed, you pride yourselves on your hard work and ambition, you ignore that at every turn, your hard work has been met with access to an opportunity structure to which millions of others have been denied similar access.

    What does that mean ?

    Perhaps most importantly, when you seek admission to a university, apply for a job, or hunt for an apartment, you DON’T look threatening. Almost all of the people evaluating you for those things look like you, they are white. They see in you a reflection of themselves, and in a racist world that is an advantage.

    You smile. You’re white. You are one of them.

    YOU ARE NOT DANGEROUS.

    Even when you get angry, you’re cut some slack. After all, you’re white. That you don’t mean you don’t deserve your job, or that if you weren’t white you would never have gotten the job. It means simply that all through your life, you have soaked up benefits for being white. However I realise that white people denying their advantages is logical. Ask a fish about it’s environment and the last thing he will talk about is the water. When something has been there all your life, you take it for granted.

    • jewamongyou says:

      “Some of what white people have is UNEARNED.” Of course. Some of what black people have is UNEARNED. If we lived in a society where you could get nothing except what you’ve earned – we would all die in infancy!

      Yes, it’s true that most of our institutions are run by white people. But what you seem to not understand is that the vast majority of white people are NOT in positions of power. The white elites are actively discriminating against poorer white people – because it is what is expected of them and it is what is required by law. Sure, there is discrimination against whites by blacks (especially in black-run cities and by government in general) but my main gripe is about discrimination against whites by OTHER WHITES (the ones in power).

      Though I sometimes count myself among whites, many people who look at me do not consider me “white”. It is often assumed I am Hispanic. Strangers speak to me in Spanish and yes, I have been on the receiving end of white racism. But I’ve also experienced black racism.

      “…you DON’T look threatening…
      YOU ARE NOT DANGEROUS.”

      The reason people consider blacks dangerous has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It has everything to do with past experience. That’s certainly MY experience and the experience of many other people I’ve known – including blacks. Therefore, this is not “prejudice” but conditioning. This is how even dogs can become “racist”; they learn, through experience, that blacks are more likely to be dangerous.

  11. africanblackmilitant says:


    Originally Posted By Jewamongyou

    The white elites are actively discriminating against poorer white people – because it is what is expected of them and it is what is required by law. Sure, there is discrimination against whites by blacks (especially in black-run cities and by government in general) but my main gripe is about discrimination against whites by OTHER WHITES (the ones in power).

    I agree.


    Originally Posted By Jewamongyou

    Yes, it’s true that most of our institutions are run by white people. But what you seem to not understand is that the vast majority of white people are NOT in positions of power.

    Yeah that’s true but you don’t have to be white and powerful to have privilege and unearned advantages. People compete for “stuff” against others of their same basic economic status. Rich and poor are not competing for the same homes, bank loans, jobs, or even educations to a large extent. Poor and powerless whites compete with poor and powerless blacks. Middle class whites compete with middle class blacks. Rich whites compete with rich blacks. And in those competitions racial privilege most certainly attaches.

    None of this is to say that poor powerless whites aren’t being screwed over…….THEY ARE. In fact, ironically, whiteness matters more to the white poor and powerless than the white rich and powerful. When one is rich and powerful, one has enough money to stay warm and buy security. But when one is poor and white, skin is all one has left, and it takes on larger-than-life meaning. .


    Originally Posted By Jewamongyou

    The reason people consider blacks dangerous has nothing to do with the color of their skin. It has everything to do with past experience. That’s certainly MY experience and the experience of many other people I’ve known – including blacks. Therefore, this is not “prejudice” but conditioning. This is how even dogs can become “racist”; they learn, through experience, that blacks are more likely to be dangerous.

    If your negative experiences with blacks PROVE that blacks are bad people, then by your definition, anyone who had had good experiences with black people would be able to say that all blacks are good people :

    AN ARGUMENT EVERY BIT AS SILLY.

    There are 36 million black people in the USA. Plus you are probably being highly selective when it comes to the experiences from which you think you should draw conclusions from.

    I think they call it CONFIRMATION BIAS, where you notice facts that support a belief of yours while tending to overlook those that go against it. It’s why those who believe in stereotypes say they are true. The few cases that confirm a stereotype are given more weight in your minds than the many cases that do not.

  12. jewamongyou says:

    “…AN ARGUMENT EVERY BIT AS SILLY.

    There are 36 million black people in the USA. Plus you are probably being highly selective when it comes to the experiences from which you think you should draw conclusions from…”

    It would be silly to conclude that ALL blacks are dangerous based on a few experiences. But it is not silly to conclude that blacks IN GENERAL are more dangerous than whites. The ramifications of this are in crime statistics and the level of safety in different neighborhoods. I’m pretty sure that even most blacks recognize this fact.

  13. I don’t understand why this is difficult to understand.

    You cannot judge an individual by the properties of his classification (race) but you can judge a classification (race) by the properties of it’s individuals. In other words, if you treat some individual that you meet on the street by the properties of his class, then you’re certainly engaging in racist activity – and you’re being an idiot as well because of the failure of your reasoning. If you said instead that you’re playing your probabilities by treating an individual by the properties of his class, then you’re simply being lazy – and trying to gain the benefits of a social and market order at a discount: society with different groups must of necessity grant each other the option of nonconformance to the aggregate properties of his observable class. If you’re making a general statement about how groups relate to each other, and aggregating properties of classes then you’re simply stating the true and obvious. If you instead are proposing that there are no races and people do not, or may not, act as if there are not races, then you are simply denying both the clear and unarguable evidence presented by the data and by history: status relations within races are less costly and more rewarding than across races, except at both the very top and very bottom of the spectrum, where status perks can be gained by racial combinations – like when a woman can get a better man from a different minority than she can within her own racial group.

    White people are acting like a minority, because they are becoming a minority. They have become a minority for complex economic, religious, historical, and demographic reasons. But politically, the domestic war against white males has largely to do with the coincidence between women’s suffrage movement among christian northern protestants, and the abolitionist movement – advocates who used each other to gain political power once the Louisiana purchase made the west open to a profitable land grab. (Yes, it’s white women’s fault if you want to blame anyone. So is high taxation. So is immigration. Just like in the roman empire. And no this isn’t my idea, it’s Rothbard’s and he’s backed it appropriately.)

    I don’t really care very much about one minority or the other, but the data is pretty clear worldwide, that in the aggregate, a larger percentage of people of african heritage that we classify as ‘black’ have a higher propensity toward mysticism, a higher propensity towards violence, a lower propensity toward verbal acuity, and a lower propensity toward the perception of abstractions, and for some reason, a much higher propensity toward corruption and drug use. We can say similar things about every classification, both good and bad.

    The primary good and bad things about white people are that they have the world’s lowest incidence of corruption, the words highest per capita per year, production of innovation, and the worlds greatest fascination with weaponry and war.

    There is virtually nothing good to say about islamic civilization – as far as history is concerned it’s a mental cancer. THe book is open yet on Hindu civilization which thanks to anglo influence and the fall of the soviet model appears to be maturing nicely. Sinic civilization has, for most of history, been the largest and wealthiest, and now that they have been shaken from their slumber, they’ll most likely resume that position. The “middle kingdom”, translates better as “the center empire around which the rest of the world revolves.” And the multi-racial empire of despotism that is china continues to regain it’s position.

    And of course, given Chinese history, the flaws of white people’s somewhat violent transformation of human civilization into the industrial and capital age will pale by comparison. Just look at asian arts: they despise the human being, as well as the human form. Contrast this with the Greco/Roman/Germanic/Anglo view of of man, and that’s the contrast in cultures. A non european world will not be a better one.

    Chinese call westerners ‘naive children’ because we cannot conceive of a world filled with corruption, any more than they can conceive our world that is nearly free of it.

    I can even pick on jews as an arrested civilization, that cannot hold land and can never hold land, and exists by profiting from trading on western morals, which are necessary for land holding, without contributing to land holding, and therefore obtaining their freedom and wealth at a discount that no other civilization would tolerate.

    We can pick on everyone. I’m not sure it’s worthwhile. White people are becoming and soon will certainly be, a minority. And their 5000 year-old land-holding, tool-creating, warrior culture, and it’s penchant for individualism and democracy, distrust of corruption and the concentration of power, and it’s fascination with technology will undoubtably be replaced by the collective poverty-inducing certainty-worshipping despotism that the rest of the world finds so attractive.

    We may forget that for most of their history, white people have been the minority. Greek, roman, medieval, and modern civilization is largely concerned with keeping the east at bay. Greek civilization was simply at the edge of the bronze age. The purpose of germany for two thousand years, has been to keep the east at bay. And anglos foolishly killed off germany three times in history. The result is obvious in the demographics: he who breeds wins. white people have preserved their wealth often in history by controlling their breeding. And white people will be a minority soon, having failed to keep the east at bay by immigration, and breeding.

    It’s simply time, geography, and demographics. Nothing’s going to change it. Whites are fat, dumb, and happy. And it’s that simple.

  14. africanblackmilitant says:

    Curt Doolittle

    You seriously don’t believe that nonsense you just wrote do you ?

  15. Pingback: Should “white” be capitalized? « Jewamongyou's Blog

  16. Pingback: Don’t convert to Judaism | Jewamongyou's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s