Caucasian Nation

Regular readers of this blog already know how I relish the occasional dissenting viewpoints posted here.  Not so that the rest of us can make fun of such visitors, ridicule them or beat our own drums even louder.  On the contrary, I want such visitors to feel welcome and wanted here – and this applies regardless of their racial or religious background.  This is where the true beauty of the internet blossoms.  Truth grows best on soil that has been watered with the blood of frequent debate.

So I have been reading the essay that Steph linked to in the “about” section.  The basic premise of the essay is that claims of white victimhood are merely a crudely disguised form of white racism.  The essay recounts the brutality of Southerners toward their slaves before and after the war, and how Southern whites claimed to be victims even as they lynched and terrorized those who opposed them.  I had hoped to find some sort of substance in the essay.  Something that would make it worth reading.  Instead, I found statements such as this:

Even though we’ve mostly done away with outright racial violence, the memory of violence survives in the symbolism of  the Shirley Sherrod affair…

We’ve done away with racial violence?  I would like to see Marco Roth (unfortunately, probably a Jew) explain this lack of violence to the families of  Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom or to Mike Sola or to Sylvia Hollingsworth or to the families of the victims of the Zebra murders or to the victims of Colin Ferguson or to the victims of the anti-white pogroms in Philadelphia or to the families of the Wichita Horror victims or to any of the other thousands of white victims of violent black racism*.  I am sure they would be relieved to know that what they experienced was not “violence”.  Likewise, the 30,000 plus white women who are raped by black men each year would be comforted to know that their ordeals were not “violent”.  Perhaps he feels all this is justified because of incidents like the Sherrod affair, which I have already written about elsewhere.

Lest the reader suspect me, in the preceding paragraph, of cherry-picking black on white crimes, it has already been shown that such crimes are extremely common.  With interracial crimes, black perpetrator/white victim is the norm, not the exception.  I strongly suggest reading The Color of Crime for more information on this topic.

Anti-white demagogues, such as Roth, dismiss black on white crime by first denying that it exists.  Failing this, they blame said crime on poverty and white oppression.  The fact of the matter is that it is precisely essays such as Roth’s, and the incessant anti-white drum-beating of the mass media, that is instrumental in swelling the ranks of white victims.  Black leaders read essays such as Roth’s – and then pass the content on to their flock.  Ultimately, it trickles down to the criminal class and serves as “justification” for yet more rapes, murders and muggings.  Thus, Roth’s essay is not only ignorant, it is also irresponsible.  But then again, perhaps this was his intent all along.

Roth seems to live in the days of Jim Crow.  He seems unaware that the number of whites, murdered by blacks in recent years, far exceeds the total number of blacks ever lynched by whites.  Sitting in his gated community, this is probably not a great concern for him.  Without skipping a beat, Roth continues to spout nonsense:

To say that the Republican Party these days stands for white ethno-nationalism is not an op-ed exaggeration

Does he mean the same Republican party that gave us affirmative action, open borders with Mexico and countless federal handouts, programs and low-interest loans specifically for non-whites – but nothing specifically for whites?  Is he really talking about that Republican party?  After all these years, it turns out that all the enmity between the Republican party and white people of America was just a big misunderstanding.  They are our friends after all!  But seriously, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

At least Roth admits that there is anti-white sentiment in schools:

The simple-minded mantra we’re taught in grade school goes like this: blacks good because oppressed, whites bad because oppressors. So if whites suddenly became oppressed, even while remaining the majority, they would magically become good again. Many Americans are now being taught to think this way.

Apparently Roth fails to recognize that this anti-white message is followed up, after graduation, via television, radio, newspapers, billboards – and stupid essays, like the one he just wrote.  There is a word for the ongoing beating down of a people’s ethnic pride.  That word is “oppression”.

I must take issue with yet another statement by Roth:

The United States grants freedom of religion and individual expression, but it does not grant the freedom for states, or individuals, to enter and leave the Union at will.

If I were to list all the sources, from the fathers of this country, that contradict Roth on this count, this post would be a long one indeed.  Instead, I shall quote the founders and let the reader decide if this might be a right that the founders would want to preserve for future generations:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…

Yes folks, “separation” is another word for “leaving a union”.  This nation was founded upon the principle that people have a right to secede.  Otherwise, we would still be part of England.  Perhaps Roth should practice what he preaches and move to England.  I recommend Westminster; I am certain he would feel at home there.

Roth does not stop at denying whites any manner of group pride, rights or protection.  When it comes right down to it, he wants nobody to have rights – with the probable exception of himself:

The ideology of states’ rights against federal enforcement, the metastasized right to bear arms, the fear of “big government” intervention — these were the pillars on which the Confederate and later segregationist South sought to erect a white plantation nation. The use to which these ideas were put in the American past forever taints their invocation, as it rightly should.

There we have it.  Local government is evil, the right to self-defense is evil and freedom from big government intervention is evil.  Why?  Because the Confederacy believed in such things.  Then Roth had better stay away from cotton; the Confederates were very fond of cotton I hear.

As for Steph, I thank her for bringing the essay to my attention; it was entertaining – in a blood-boiling sort of way.  If Marco Roth, who is an assistant-professor, can be so jaw-droppingly ignorant – surely I cannot blame his victims for being just as ignorant.  The background information, which allowed me to see Roth’s folly for what it is, cannot be gleaned from the mainstream media or public education; it comes from years of independent study.  Most people have neither the time, nor the inclination to pursue such knowledge.  So I do not blame you one bit, Steph, for taking Roth’s essay seriously.  It is not your fault.

*For a small sample of victims, look here.

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 book/movie/video reviews and links, examples of propaganda. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Caucasian Nation

  1. Harold says:

    Speaking of bringing things to your attention, I came across this article:

    http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=202434

    and was sad to see to what the Yemeni Jews have been reduced to. I never would have even heard of them if it wasn’t for your blog.

    • fred says:

      Rabbi: I would like to thank the president for allowing this interview.

      That pretty much says it all doesn’t it?

  2. seedofjapheth says:

    The author if the essay said that when whites claim to be victims of racism whites are actually being racial terrorists because at some point in history whites were lynching blacks while claiming to be victims of blacks. That’s just bad logic. The whites claiming to be victims of racism nowadays aren’t lynching blacks.

  3. countenance says:

    I’m not so welcoming of the other side as you. I mean, why should we carry their water when they won’t carry ours?

    They’ve got most of the establishment on our side, and about 1.5 of the two major parties, plus almost the entirety of academia and popular culture. And in all honestly, most of the conservative “alternative” is racially egalitarian as well.

    Our media are few and scant by comparison.

    No, I’m not crying for the other side.

    • jewamongyou says:

      I would not “carry their water” for them if, by this, you mean allow this blog to become a vehicle for their dogma. But it is important for me to allow them on the blog, without being shouted down, for three reasons:

      1) This is one way we are better than them; we allow them to voice their objections (in a respectful manner) and engage them in meaningful conversation. They, on the other hand, are capable only of hysterics whenever they encounter our point of view. I do not want to descend to their level.

      2) By allowing them to be a part of this forum, there is a possibility that some of them might see the error of their ways. Preaching to the choir cannot accomplish this. Many, if not most, of us started out brainwashed and found our way to the truth through blogs like this one. Being mean to people, or shutting them out, will not gain us many converts.

      3) I enjoy engaging our intellectual foes in debate. It’s fun and it enriches the blog as long as it is done with taste.

      • Ryan says:

        Jewamongyou, I too thought that talking about this in a debate would win some converts over. Just be aware of who you’re talking to however.

        For the life of me, I’ve done it four times and I will not do it again. Do not try to engage a black person in any kind of online debate. I know what they are like first hand since I sleep next to one which at times can be bad enough, but online it will never end. They cannot and will not use reason in their arguments, and instead resort to childish rantings that have no bearing on reality other than what they want to see. They will post under other names so as to make it seem like there are many more of them attacking you, and everytime you post something that would end the argument with any rational being, they pick out something that wasn’t even the point of the argument and run with it. They love to divert from the point of the debate to either some ad hominem attack, or inadvertantly try to lure you to look at something some liberal or insane afrocentric has posted as the absolute truth in their defense.

        In short they want to argue just for the sake of it, only because they don’t want to hear anything critical about their race, or themselves period. I know this to be their mentality through and through from personal experience. Therefore there is no way to have a real debate, and it will always just end up in a shouting contest.

      • countenance says:

        An argument for doing it is that it can bring out some really good arguments in our people. I sometimes see it on AR — The occasional leftist whose postings are intelligent enough to make it past the moderators illicit some really insightful responses from our people, and restock our intellectual cupboard.

      • countenance says:

        Ryan:

        The white leftists are even worse. They have “something to prove,” and they mate that fanaticism with the veneer of intelligent rhetoric.

  4. Dregs says:

    JAY,

    The ideological baggage that most people (liberal or conservative) carry in their heads with regard to race remains the biggest barrier to winning people over to alternative right / HBD / race realist viewpoints. Whether you are speaking with a reader of The Nation, Mother Jones, National Review or Commentary, you are likely to face the same response if you start getting into questions of innate racial differences. Most people will have two immediate mental reactions when race is raised: One, the person raising the issue is racist and possibly just degrees of separation from Nazism. And two, innumerable rationalizations for apparent racial differences will start spinning through their heads: racial discrimination, economic disparities, lowered expectations, single-motherhood, welfare culture, etc.

    Item two makes it difficult for people to process facts in the same way they do for non-race-related topics. Item one is more fundamental: it causes people to essentially dismiss their interlocutor as a rational person and ignore anything they even say.

    Hopefully, there are several trends that will change this situation. First, there is a wide range of new writers / bloggers who are extremely difficult to label as “haters”. Whether one agrees or disagrees with people like Steve Sailer, Griffe de Lion, Charles Murray, Audacious Epigone, Dennis Mangan, JAY, etc., if one is familiar with their writings and assesses them honestly, it is very very difficult to consider these hateful people or people with some hidden agenda. Despite the efforts of the SPLC, fewer and fewer people will be fooled into believeing that Steve Sailer is a closet Nazi.

    Second, as the younger generation comes of age in the midst of more crime, more white flight and more preferences for minorities, they will no longer carry the racial guilt of their parents and grand-parents. Even with the incessant indocrination, younger people will begin to question why THEY are to feel guilty over wrongs from generations ago, when they themselves are being driven to minority status, are themselves the victims of real hate crimes (which can increasingly be viewed on YouTube), etc.

    Unfortunately, when the tide of consciousness eventually turns, it will probably be too late.

  5. Ryan says:

    I really don’t understand what motivates people to blindly believe such garbage as they do in recent times. It’s like people don’t think for themselves anymore and they listen to the so called experts to inform them what is black and what is white.

    Towards this train of thought, I find myself wondering just how much of a percentage of the population rises above the level of mindless repeaters, to actually come to their own conclusions by researching their beliefs for themselves?

    I’d liken it to not being much different than buying a used car on the say so of the sleazy used car salesman.

  6. Weaver says:

    Many of the claims of violence were either during Reconstruction or complete fabrication. Blacks were used politically against Southerners during Reconstruction.

    When good fights evil, sometimes violence is justified. Sitting back allowing the Carpet Baggers to rape us would have been unconscionable.

    I don’t say this to somehow divide American whites today. Truth is simply not plastic, and the South deserves praise for resisting occupation.

  7. Weaver says:

    Countenance,

    it’s even worse than you say. Many allegedly “pro-white” sites aren’t anything of the sort. When the tide turns, it’ll be hijacked and channeled back into destruction.

    It’s a perfect storm with incompetency and treason everywhere. I like your blog at least.

    Doom and gloom! The end is nigh.

    • countenance says:

      I’m of the opinion that a lot of these “pro-White” (soi distant) sites of which you are thinking aren’t as much “pro-white” as anti-Semitic. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard of a “pro-white” person fawn over some non-white who ranted and raved against “the Jews,” I could retire.

      Thanks for the compliment. I do a lot of non-political stuff, (much to the consternation of a cadre of people that constantly email me and tell me to “stick to the issues”) and I’m actually in awe of my own snark. Man cannot live on bread alone.

      • thewhitechrist says:

        Not that I expect this site to be Christophilic, but the cavil of ‘anti-semitism’ was a propaganda term, invented by a Jew (by the name of Leon Trotsky- name ring a bell?) to stifle all ‘White Russian’ dissent in the wake of an overwhelmingly Jewish overlord class, in the heady first days of the Bolshevik/Leninist Communist takeover of Czartist Russia. Besides, as Jewish author Arthur Koestler has shown in his book, ‘The Thirteenth Tribe,’ over 95% of all ‘Jews’ out there, aren’t even Semites!

        In other words, the term ‘anti-semite’ is a ‘red’ herring. (Pun intended)

        -Fr. John

  8. Eurobeing says:

    If you want a forshadowing of what is to come of whites in countries overrun by blacks and mestizos look no farther than Zimbabwe. The white population was coerced into allowing black rule and now they are being killed by the thousands and having thier property dispossed.

    As far as crime in this country is concerned not nearly enough has been made of the mall violence the beatings on school and public buses by blacks and of the out of control violence against white women. If the truth we told and exacterbated the way that fear of white racisim is then we would have more of an awakening in this country.

    This goes to show that the 60’s benevolence for blacks and their misdeeds is still around but many whites are beginning to understand the consequences of black power and our abdication as the ruling race.

  9. Californian says:

    Roth seems to live in the days of Jim Crow.

    This is common among white liberals. They seem to ignore the fact that discrimination on the basis of race has been against the law for five or so decades. And that every major piece of social legislation that liberals have demanded — affirmative actions, forced busing, minority studies, hate crime laws, ad nauseam — have been in force as long as most people in this country have been alive. Heck, the USA even joined in on the jihad against White rule in Rhodesia and South Africa to make American blacks happy.

    This is why, I suspect, that liberals have to constantly flagellate themselves with stories of the bad old days of segregation. They can not face the current reality that liberalism has been an epic failure. If they did, they might have to also face up to some of the realities of race.

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