11 replies to this topic

[Darkademic]

[Note]: This an archived debate - taken from the original debate at Stormfront.

Non-WN sites won't discuss these issues. They're afraid to. They claim that it's beneath them to debate with "haters" and "nazis," so that pretty much settles that.

That's simply not true.

I'm waiting for his opening statement. I need him to list his basic premises so I know what I'm debating against and so I don't inadvertantly end up using straw men.

[SDY6401]

I'm waiting for his opening statement. I need him to list his basic premises so I know what I'm debating against and so I don't inadvertantly end up using straw men.

The basic premise is this: You could refer to me as an "anti-anti-racist." The ideology known as "anti-racism" is malignant, harmful, and unfairly castigates the entire White race for the actions of a small percentage of elite Whites. Those who support the ideology of anti-racism either actively support punishing White people or are unwitting dupes in that process.

I also consider anti-racism to be hypocritical, since the major "crimes" attributed to the White race, such as slavery, colonialism, and displacement of Native tribes, were mainly caused by the elite - the top leadership. By all rights, the backlash of anti-racism should have been directed at the wealthy and powerful in this country, but instead, it was directed at the masses and even more intensely directed at working-class Whites.

So, those who support anti-racism are supporting a hypocritical and morally-wrong ideal.

Too often, the antis here try to portray WN as if it was something we just made up yesterday, as if nobody ever heard of racial issues before there came to be such a thing as "White Nationalism."

Antis come in here and ask elementary questions, such as "What is White?" Well, gee, haven't they ever heard of the race known as "White" before? I recall a popular film called "White Men Can't Jump," but I don't recall any confusion at the time over what this phrase "White man" meant. When that movie came out, did anyone ask, "Gee, what are 'White men'? I've never of that before!" Was there any mass confusion in society because nobody knew what a "White man" was?

Then why do antis pretend to act so confused about the subject here, as if they never heard of the White race before?

[Darkademic]

The basic premise is this: You could refer to me as an "anti-anti-racist." The ideology known as "anti-racism" is malignant, harmful, and unfairly castigates the entire White race for the actions of a small percentage of elite Whites. Those who support the ideology of anti-racism either actively support punishing White people or are unwitting dupes in that process.

I also consider anti-racism to be hypocritical, since the major "crimes" attributed to the White race, such as slavery, colonialism, and displacement of Native tribes, were mainly caused by the elite - the top leadership. By all rights, the backlash of anti-racism should have been directed at the wealthy and powerful in this country, but instead, it was directed at the masses and even more intensely directed at working-class Whites.

So, those who support anti-racism are supporting a hypocritical and morally-wrong ideal.

Punishing the entire White race for the actions of a small percentage of elite Whites IS racism. So that would make you an anti-racist, in that respect, if you oppose such things.

Too often, the antis here try to portray WN as if it was something we just made up yesterday, as if nobody ever heard of racial issues before there came to be such a thing as "White Nationalism."

Throughout history, major conflict has rarely, in relative terms, existed between Whites and non-Whites. Nearly all major conflict has been within racial groups, between nations or religious groups. The concept of a White race has not been around for a long time; and the White race has always been extremely divided: Take either of the World Wars, any Civil War, or the Anglo-French wars as examples. Moreover, racial differences have never been the cause of any large scale conflict (as far as I know), and there has always been some other underlying reason; most often political/economic gain as with the British Empire etc. Since pre-Roman times right the way until 1945, Whites have been at each others throats fighting large, bloody wars amongst each other. This is also reflected in other races e.g. the Chinese warring states or the Mongol empire.

Antis come in here and ask elementary questions, such as "What is White?" Well, gee, haven't they ever heard of the race known as "White" before? I recall a popular film called "White Men Can't Jump," but I don't recall any confusion at the time over what this phrase "White man" meant. When that movie came out, did anyone ask, "Gee, what are 'White men'? I've never of that before!" Was there any mass confusion in society because nobody knew what a "White man" was?

Then why do antis pretend to act so confused about the subject here, as if they never heard of the White race before?

I do not dispute that it is possible to make vague distinctions between Whites and non-Whites, but there is no objective way of delineating "the White race". Any factors used to distinguish between racial groups, whilst being real, are not objective, in that they are no more significant than any other factors that one could use to differentiate between groups of people.

[SDY6401]

I didn't know you lived in Novgorod, Russia. I visited your city back in 1987. Nice place. Lots of history.

Punishing the entire White race for the actions of a small percentage of elite Whites IS racism. So that would make you an anti-racist, in that respect, if you oppose such things.

My point is that anti-racism, as it has been practiced over the past half-century, is hypocritical and wrong. Yes, one could say that anti-racism is racism, or as Bob Whitaker put it, "anti-racism is a code word for anti-white."

Throughout history, major conflict has rarely, in relative terms, existed between Whites and non-Whites. Nearly all major conflict has been within racial groups, between nations or religious groups.

True, but I think you're jumping ahead of yourself in the discussion. At this point, I'm only addressing the issue of race itself and how it has been regarded throughout history, not necessarily as a source of conflict, however.

The main reason why there has been very little conflict between Whites and non-whites throughout the bulk of history is that there was very little contact between the races most of the time.

The concept of a White race has not been around for a long time;

It's been around at least as long as the 1790 Naturalization Act.

and the White race has always been extremely divided: Take either of the World Wars, any Civil War, or the Anglo-French wars as examples.

Yep. All true, but none of it has anything to do with the point I was making.

Moreover, racial differences have never been the cause of any large scale conflict (as far as I know), and there has always been some other underlying reason; most often political/economic gain as with the British Empire etc.

Yep. All true. In fact, now that you mention all this, it kind of makes one wonder why anyone ever made a big deal over "racism" in the first place, if the causes of conflict lie elsewhere.

Since pre-Roman times right the way until 1945, Whites have been at each others throats fighting large, bloody wars amongst each other. This is also reflected in other races e.g. the Chinese warring states or the Mongol empire.

As well as among the tribes of Africa and the Americas.

But again, this is not an issue where we're talking about wars between nations, but rather, internal dissension among the citizenry within the same nation.

That's a far different matter, because, all of the wars you mentioned above were started by just a few leaders at the top, whereas internal dissension occurs more at a "grass roots" level, among the people, oftentimes against the will of the top leadership.

I do not dispute that it is possible to make vague distinctions between Whites and non-Whites, but there is no objective way of delineating "the White race".

I am forced to agree with you on this point, but this fact actually does more discredit to anti-racism, since their entire ideological position is based on what this non-objectively-defined race called "White" has done throughout history. We have public policies and imposed cultural practices inspired by that ideology which justifies itself on the idea that this group of people called "the White race" has done some unfair and unjust things. Therefore, according to the ideology, people who are not a part of "the White race" deserve special compensatory treatment to make up for all those centuries of "racism."

So, if there is no objective way of delineating the "White race," then anti-racism has no objective reason to exist.

[Darkademic]

I didn't know you lived in Novgorod, Russia. I visited your city back in 1987. Nice place. Lots of history.

It's my hometown yeah, but I currently live in the UK. We moved over here as the economic situation in Russia was not great.

My point is that anti-racism, as it has been practiced over the past half-century, is hypocritical and wrong. Yes, one could say that anti-racism is racism, or as Bob Whitaker put it, "anti-racism is a code word for anti-white."

Well you need to understand what my position is. I am certainly not anti-White, I oppose any government legislation which subjugates White people such as affirmative action, and if any White people choose to segregate themselves apart from other racial groups then that is their prerogative and their right (even though I personally would not pursue such goals). However, as an Objectivist, I believe in individual rights, not group rights. If such segregation is desired is must be done so without infringing upon the rights of others (regardless of their race). Affirmative action, for example, is racist, not anti-racist. Anything which enforces or promotes race-group rights (I.e. prioritising one racial group over another in any way) is racist in my view.

True, but I think you're jumping ahead of yourself in the discussion. At this point, I'm only addressing the issue of race itself and how it has been regarded throughout history, not necessarily as a source of conflict, however.

Well, I am simply demonstrating that race has never been a key uniting factor in any human society. Even if the concept has existed (for a relatively short amount of time) it has never been of any particular significance with regards to social organisation, other than as default - since racial groups were by default geographically close to each other until the advent of large scale international travel and migration. This is the obvious reason why culture correlates (imperfectly) with race or ethnicity.

The main reason why there has been very little conflict between Whites and non-whites throughout the bulk of history is that there was very little contact between the races most of the time.

True, I have made that point a few times in debates over here.

It's been around at least as long as the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Okay, so a little over 200 years. That is really not a long time in relative terms, since I am considering the entirity of human history here. It is also not a definitive or objective definition, but rather a broad approximation, as you say at the end of your post.

Yep. All true. In fact, now that you mention all this, it kind of makes one wonder why anyone ever made a big deal over "racism" in the first place, if the causes of conflict lie elsewhere.

Well you are right there, racism is perhaps not a big issue compared to evils such as communism. However, it is still a collectivist ideology and causes many problems and a lot of tension and resentment.

As well as among the tribes of Africa and the Americas.

Indeed.

But again, this is not an issue where we're talking about wars between nations, but rather, internal dissension among the citizenry within the same nation.

That's a far different matter, because, all of the wars you mentioned above were started by just a few leaders at the top, whereas internal dissension occurs more at a "grass roots" level, among the people, oftentimes against the will of the top leadership.

True. In this case I would argue that cultural and ideological differences are to blame for conflict. Now, this is perhaps where we may differ in our opinions. I strongly believe that one does not have to be from the West or be White to adopt Western culture, therefore I do not see blacks causing a disproportionate amount of crime, or muslims blowing themselves up as a "racial problem" or an example of "racial incompatibility". It is cultural incompatibility.

I am strongly opposed to multiculturalism (the mixing or moral equivocation of conflicting cultures, I.e. cultures that are mutually exclusive in their ideas, beliefs, actions etc.) however I do not see culture as being tied to race. If a Black person or a Middle-Eastern person or an East-Asian person adopts and adheres to Western culture and values (such as freedom of speech, individual rights etc.) then he/she is perfectly welcome in any Western society. Conversely, anyone who attempts to undermine Western values through terrorism, crime, demanding special treatment etc. should be condemned and kicked out or punished accordingly.

I am forced to agree with you on this point, but this fact actually does more discredit to anti-racism, since their entire ideological position is based on what this non-objectively-defined race called "White" has done throughout history. We have public policies and imposed cultural practices inspired by that ideology which justifies itself on the idea that this group of people called "the White race" has done some unfair and unjust things. Therefore, according to the ideology, people who are not a part of "the White race" deserve special compensatory treatment to make up for all those centuries of "racism."

So, if there is no objective way of delineating the "White race," then anti-racism has no objective reason to exist.

Well, what you are calling anti-racism here, I call racism. Anything which treats races as a single entity is racism. I am against these things and against any government which promotes such ideology - e.g. reparations.

Racism does not require the White race to exist as such, it simply needs people to believe that it does. In the same way, Marxism needs people to believe in a class war between the prolateriat and the bourgeoisie.

[SDY6401]

Moving right along...

It's my hometown yeah, but I currently live in the UK. We moved over here as the economic situation in Russia was not great.

A bad economic system is a malady which seems to affect quite a number of countries around the world.

Well you need to understand what my position is. I am certainly not anti-White, I oppose any government legislation which subjugates White people such as affirmative action, and if any White people choose to segregate themselves apart from other racial groups then that is their prerogative and their right (even though I personally would not pursue such goals).

I can understand this position, and it seems reasonable to me. The only trouble is, anti-racism, as an ideology, is not reasonable. The policies and practices we've been living under these past decades are equally unreasonable. As far as I've been able to gather, many anti-racists who come to this forum are also against Affirmative Action, but then, it still exists.

So, how can it be that a policy which most people oppose is still in effect? Why hasn't it been abolished by now?

You may not be able to answer those questions, nor do I expect you to. But I will mention that in California a few years ago, there was a ballot referendum which called for ending Affirmative Action in state agencies and universities. Although the referendum passed overwhelmingly, it was not without complications. For one thing, the cries of "racism" reached a crescendo, and the original author of the referendum (who was a black man, ironically) received all kinds of death threats from blacks who called him an "Uncle Tom" and a "race traitor." These are the kinds of attitudes and political atmosphere produced by anti-racism, which, among other things, gives validation to death threats and violence.

However, as an Objectivist, I believe in individual rights, not group rights.

Actually, it tends to come down to the same thing. You can't have group rights without individual rights. An individual has a right to own property, just as a group of individuals (aka "corporation") has the right to own property. The group rights and individual rights are identical. They have to be. But oftentimes, for all practical purposes, a group will generally hold the upper hand over an individual.

If such segregation is desired is must be done so without infringing upon the rights of others (regardless of their race).

Shouldn't the reverse also be true? If integration is desired, shouldn't it have been done without force and other coercive measures which violated people's rights? Forcing integration in public agencies and institutions, such as schools, may be one thing, but anti-racism also infringed upon private property rights as well. That crosses the line.

Affirmative action, for example, is racist, not anti-racist. Anything which enforces or promotes race-group rights (I.e. prioritising one racial group over another in any way) is racist in my view.

There's always been a fine line between "anti-racism" and "racism" against Whites. Keep in mind that anti-racism was originally conceived specifically as a reactive ideology to counter the racial hierarchical order which existed in America and other Western countries.

Overall, as an ideology, it never really grew beyond its foundation of vindictiveness towards the White race as a whole. So, the ideology of anti-racism gives tacit validation to "racism" against Whites only because of the historical circumstances of racial issues in this country. It's the idea that non-whites are entitled to some level of "payback" against Whites, and that's really what anti-racism comes down to.

Among other things, this is why we still have Affirmative Action. This is also why there's such a thing as "Black Entertainment Television" while no "White Entertainment Television." This is why a "Black Students Association" can exist on nearly every college campus, but a "White Students Association" in the same context would be considered "racist." This is also why blacks can get away with saying "nappy-headed ho," while Whites get fired for saying something like that.

Well, I am simply demonstrating that race has never been a key uniting factor in any human society. Even if the concept has existed (for a relatively short amount of time) it has never been of any particular significance with regards to social organisation, other than as default - since racial groups were by default geographically close to each other until the advent of large scale international travel and migration. This is the obvious reason why culture correlates (imperfectly) with race or ethnicity.

Well, as I said earlier, race was not a key factor until relatively recently. The reason for this is because there was hardly any contact between the races, largely because of geographical isolation from each other. (You see? Racial separation actually works to keep the races at peace with each other.)

It probably grew to become important in America because of the circumstances we faced. When White people encountered black African slaves and American Indian tribes, suddenly our national differences between Whites became less and less relevant. Obviously, an Englishman and a Frenchman would share much more in common with each other than either of them would have in common with any black African or American Indian.

Nationally speaking, an Englishman, Frenchman, Dutchman, German, or Swede (just to name a few) was geographically and politically separated from their national homeland(s) in Europe, but they were still linked by the same race. They were White Americans, not English, French, Dutch, or whatever. So, in America, race became of enormous significance in regards to social organization, since it was a superior paradigm than having disparate European nationalities at odds with each other within our new and fragile Republic.

Maybe in Europe, there's a different perspective on this matter, but from the American viewpoint, we did what we thought was practical and reasonably beneficial to all European nationalities which settled in America. But for this reason, your perspective from the UK and/or Russia might be vastly different than how America has traditionally viewed matters of race. For this reason, there might be some discrepancies and misconceptions on how we see each others' viewpoint. My primary beef is with anti-racism and how it has been practiced in America, and it may seem incongruous for you because of this.

Okay, so a little over 200 years. That is really not a long time in relative terms, since I am considering the entirity of human history here. It is also not a definitive or objective definition, but rather a broad approximation, as you say at the end of your post.

It may only be 200 years, but that's as about as long as America has been in existence as an independent Republic. Still, I was just pointing out where the term "White" was codified into law, but the concept itself has been around longer.

It may not be an "objective" definition, but objectivity in such matters is a rarity in this world. It's like criticizing White Nationalism because it's not perfect or Utopian, but what in this world is?

Well you are right there, racism is perhaps not a big issue compared to evils such as communism. However, it is still a collectivist ideology and causes many problems and a lot of tension and resentment.

But you just said earlier that race has historically not been a source of tension and conflict. Now, you're saying that it is.

I know that Ayn Rand spoke pretty harshly against collectivism, but no man is an island. There's absolutely no way to get away from collectivism, even if it might take different forms which are less malignant than others. Fact is, human civilization was founded on collectivism. As a species, we found that it was far more beneficial to work together for a common interest. The lives of individuals became better and more enhanced as a result. That's the whole idea behind collectivism, so that the lives of the individuals who comprise a collective would be enhanced and improved.

To be sure, collectivism is harmful when taken to extremes, such as under communism, but extreme individualism can be harmful, too.

True. In this case I would argue that cultural and ideological differences are to blame for conflict. Now, this is perhaps where we may differ in our opinions. I strongly believe that one does not have to be from the West or be White to adopt Western culture, therefore I do not see blacks causing a disproportionate amount of crime, or muslims blowing themselves up as a "racial problem" or an example of "racial incompatibility". It is cultural incompatibility.

Well, to be honest, that's what we're really discussing here. We're not talking about skin color or genetics, as so many antis like to paint the issue. It is about culture, and specifically, I'm addressing the culture of anti-racism. I'm looking at their perspective, values, ideals - based upon their policies, practices, and behaviors. I am judging them by their fruits.

It's a "racial problem" only inasmuch as anti-racism and social liberalism in general have made it into a problem, thus providing a pretext and a justification for blacks committing a disproportionate level of crime and/or Muslims blowing things up. A Muslim, for example, may not be born with a "violent gene" or anything like that, but being raised and inculcated with that mindset for the first 20 years of one's life is likely to have an effect on their values, perspectives, and attitudes.

Of course, you're absolutely correct that someone doesn't necessarily have to be White or born in Western culture to be assimilable to Western ideals and culture, but I also have to acknowledge that many, if not most, simply choose not to do that. Back when America's attitudes and policies were decidedly more "racist," assimilation was demanded and expected of anyone who was not American or not White. For all practical purposes, people didn't have much of a choice. (Older mestizos from a different generation complain about how they were subjected to corporal punishment in schools if they were heard speaking Spanish.) But now, even asking a non-white to assimilate to American culture is considered "racist."

The bottom line is, most of them won't assimilate to our culture, even though they have the freedom of choice and every opportunity to do so. Since their choice is to reject our culture, why should we accept them? They're the ones making the choice, not us.

Even blacks who have been in America for generations, once they felt free enough to reject American culture, did so with great relish, as they embraced African culture, "Kwanzaa," "Juneteenth," a bizarre naming convention for their children, and all kinds of other strange crapola, some of which is clearly anti-White and anti-American.

I blame the ideological adherents of anti-racism for allowing this to happen and inhibiting any public scrutiny or criticism.

I am strongly opposed to multiculturalism (the mixing or moral equivocation of conflicting cultures, I.e. cultures that are mutually exclusive in their ideas, beliefs, actions etc.) however I do not see culture as being tied to race.

It's not necessarily tied to race, but oftentimes, it is. This is especially true in America where race has been a common benchmark in distinguishing sub-cultures in America.

If a Black person or a Middle-Eastern person or an East-Asian person adopts and adheres to Western culture and values (such as freedom of speech, individual rights etc.) then he/she is perfectly welcome in any Western society.

Those are political beliefs which aren't necessarily cultural.

Take your own homeland, Russia, for example. If I was to move to Russia, and adopt and adhere to Russian culture, what would that really mean? Would it mean that I support a Tsarist government, a communist government, or the current government under Putin? Are you saying that adhering to a culture is merely a matter of adhering to certain political beliefs (such as freedom of speech)?

Conversely, anyone who attempts to undermine Western values through terrorism, crime, demanding special treatment etc. should be condemned and kicked out or punished accordingly.

Well, terrorism and crime are already against the law, so it's merely a matter of enforcing the laws already on the books more stringently.

Demanding special treatment is somewhat different. I mean, anyone can ask for special treatment (freedom of speech allows it), but the problem comes in when society actually views such requests seriously. That's what anti-racism has done.

Well, what you are calling anti-racism here, I call racism.

This may be the result of different perspectives from different areas of the world.

This may also be due to the way "racism" has been defined and misdefined over the years. Originally, the term was coined by Trotsky for use in communist propaganda against Western capitalist societies. It was used to describe the overall establishment and the policies we lived under, and it was viewed exclusively as something Whites did to non-whites. Just as they viewed capitalists as exploiting the lower classes, they viewed "racists" as exploiting the "lower races," so to speak. This is where liberal anti-racists and leftist/communist anti-racists tend to diverge, as liberals viewed non-whites with pity and compassion (which is a form of condescension from those who believe they are superior), whereas the communists viewed them as vulnerable to communist agitation and recruitment in an effort to destabilize Western/capitalist governments.

We can argue over definitions until we're blue in the face, but it's impossible to do so without looking at the reality of what's actually happening and how "race" and "racism" (as well as "anti-racism") have been viewed over the past 70+ years in America and elsewhere around the world.

Technically speaking, I could argue that "Separate But Equal" is an anti-racist and liberal philosophy, but anti-racists and liberals vehemently oppose the concept of "Separate But Equal." Their argument is that it wasn't really "equal," and thus, unfair, but when you really look at it, it wasn't really "separate," either.

Anything which treats races as a single entity is racism. I am against these things and against any government which promotes such ideology - e.g. reparations.

Then you recognize the contradictions and hypocrisy in the prevailing ideology under which we currently live.

Your view is actually shared by a number of conservative pundits (even if the politicians seem more closed-lipped about it), but they generally face the same kind of vicious opposition which White Nationalists face. They might get tarred and labeled as "racists," too, so anti-racists are not just singling out White Nationalists or those they consider the most "extreme."

I don't entirely disagree with the conservative and/or libertarian viewpoint, but my main complaint is that I think that they're too soft. They don't go for the jugular like they should. I could get behind some political candidates like Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, or Tom Tancredo, but they need an "equalizer" to counter the vicious opposition they get. That's where anti-anti-racism can come into play, to attack those who would attack conservatives. That's where extremism may become necessary, since it would entail going up against some extremely-entrenched political factions which have dominated the scene in America for generations. We have to destroy their Sacred Cows and go on the attack. We don't defend our views; we attack their views.

What do you think I do here at Stormfront? I attack the anti-racists. I attack them because they deserve to be attacked. I'm not here because I believe that blacks like watermelon or something like that.

Racism does not require the White race to exist as such, it simply needs people to believe that it does. In the same way, Marxism needs people to believe in a class war between the prolateriat and the bourgeoisie.

Understood. But as any student of history can attest, what people believe can have enormous ramifications. Human beings are very complex organisms, and in many ways, very dangerous and unpredictable. We've been studying and shaping our species for millennia, and still, even to this day, we still haven't been able to figure ourselves out yet. It's only been relatively recent that medical science has been able to learn about the functions of our physical bodies, and even then, there's still much they don't know. Even less is known about the human brain, the human mind, and our emotional make-up.

Of course, as we both well know, even beliefs in "That Which Is Unseen" can be quite powerful, but in terms of race, these are beliefs in differences which are seen and noticeable to anyone with eyes. A person can clearly notice differences between a person designated as "White" versus a person designated as "Black." Calling one person "White" and the other one "Black" is where the "belief" part comes into play. But they're still real people with real physical differences which can be seen and examined.

To put it another way, a "tree" exists, as in, a physical object which can be seen and examined scientifically. But to refer to that object as a "tree" - that's a belief. The object itself is real. The word to refer to it is not. A Russian person would look at the object and say "eto derevo." If I said "tree" to him, he might think that I'm referring to the number 3.

Class differences are also noticeable in many tangible and real ways, but as you noted, the Marxist model was a distortion of reality. Anti-racism (which has its ideological roots in Marxism) is a similar distortion of reality.

[Darkademic]

A bad economic system is a malady which seems to affect quite a number of countries around the world.

Unfortunately so; predominantly due to Marxism in some way. Malady is a very appropriate word for it.
 

I can understand this position, and it seems reasonable to me. The only trouble is, anti-racism, as an ideology, is not reasonable. The policies and practices we've been living under these past decades are equally unreasonable. As far as I've been able to gather, many anti-racists who come to this forum are also against Affirmative Action, but then, it still exists.

So, how can it be that a policy which most people oppose is still in effect? Why hasn't it been abolished by now?

You may not be able to answer those questions, nor do I expect you to. But I will mention that in California a few years ago, there was a ballot referendum which called for ending Affirmative Action in state agencies and universities. Although the referendum passed overwhelmingly, it was not without complications. For one thing, the cries of "racism" reached a crescendo, and the original author of the referendum (who was a black man, ironically) received all kinds of death threats from blacks who called him an "Uncle Tom" and a "race traitor." These are the kinds of attitudes and political atmosphere produced by anti-racism, which, among other things, gives validation to death threats and violence.

Our conflicting definitions may lead to some confusion here. As I said, I regard affirmative action, reparations, and government legislation that promote group rights, as well as any ideology associated with these things, as racist rather than anti-racist. I suggest we refrain from using the terms and instead state the specific policies or ideas we are referring to.

I agree you here though, and the problem is the fact that irrational ideas permeate not only the minds of the majority of people, but also those in power. Politics today is a mish mash of compromises that are completely devoid of any principle or grounding. The government simply swings back and forth like a pendulum fixing perceived problems with more and more intervention, and ever more bureaucracy. It is not in question that Blacks were subject to incredible cruelty and injustice (and yes I accept that this cannot be blamed on "Whites"), however the government, instead of simply restoring rights and freedom, they have attempted to "rebalance" thing will all sorts of collectivist policies. This is wrong, and it is because there is no trace of principles - any action taken is completely pragmatic and only takes into account the range of the moment rather than the full context of things - including the fact that humans are individuals and cannot be treated as groups in the way that they are.
 

Actually, it tends to come down to the same thing. You can't have group rights without individual rights. An individual has a right to own property, just as a group of individuals (aka "corporation") has the right to own property. The group rights and individual rights are identical. They have to be. But oftentimes, for all practical purposes, a group will generally hold the upper hand over an individual.

The group often does hold the upper hand, and this is the doctrine of collectivism I oppose. Democracy, communism, racism, sexism - all examples of groupism which infringe upon individual rights.

To be clear: A group has no rights, as such, other than the individual rights of those that make up the group.
 

Shouldn't the reverse also be true? If integration is desired, shouldn't it have been done without force and other coercive measures which violated people's rights? Forcing integration in public agencies and institutions, such as schools, may be one thing, but anti-racism also infringed upon private property rights as well. That crosses the line.

Yes, of course.
 

There's always been a fine line between "anti-racism" and "racism" against Whites. Keep in mind that anti-racism was originally conceived specifically as a reactive ideology to counter the racial hierarchical order which existed in America and other Western countries.

Agreed; originally it was intended to counter racism, but it nevertheless became more racism, just in an new institutionalised manner.
 

Overall, as an ideology, it never really grew beyond its foundation of vindictiveness towards the White race as a whole. So, the ideology of anti-racism gives tacit validation to "racism" against Whites only because of the historical circumstances of racial issues in this country. It's the idea that non-whites are entitled to some level of "payback" against Whites, and that's really what anti-racism comes down to.

Well, yes. Again, this is the treatment of racism with more racism.
 

Among other things, this is why we still have Affirmative Action. This is also why there's such a thing as "Black Entertainment Television" while no "White Entertainment Television." This is why a "Black Students Association" can exist on nearly every college campus, but a "White Students Association" in the same context would be considered "racist." This is also why blacks can get away with saying "nappy-headed ho," while Whites get fired for saying something like that.

Agreed again. I find this just as hypocritical and unacceptable as you do.
 

Well, as I said earlier, race was not a key factor until relatively recently. The reason for this is because there was hardly any contact between the races, largely because of geographical isolation from each other. (You see? Racial separation actually works to keep the races at peace with each other.)

Well of course it kept "the races" at peace with each other, but that's just hypothetical since there's no way of knowing what would have happened if this was not the case in the past. Now, if you consider the amount of bloody and destructive conflicts that occured despite "the races" being separate for all that time, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that racial separation in fact had no impact whatsoever on the total conflict that occurs amongst humans. In fact, more distant centuries have seen a greater amount of more brutal conflict that more recent centuries where racial groups have had more contact with each other.
 

It probably grew to become important in America because of the circumstances we faced. When White people encountered black African slaves and American Indian tribes, suddenly our national differences between Whites became less and less relevant. Obviously, an Englishman and a Frenchman would share much more in common with each other than either of them would have in common with any black African or American Indian.

Nationally speaking, an Englishman, Frenchman, Dutchman, German, or Swede (just to name a few) was geographically and politically separated from their national homeland(s) in Europe, but they were still linked by the same race. They were White Americans, not English, French, Dutch, or whatever. So, in America, race became of enormous significance in regards to social organization, since it was a superior paradigm than having disparate European nationalities at odds with each other within our new and fragile Republic.

Whilst these various groups would likely have more cultural similarities with those from the same part of the world, this was not enough to bind these various ethnic groups together. It is well known that Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were subject to great prejudice from the new American society in general. There was plenty of hostility and tension between the various White ethnicities, a situation that is quite similar to the animosity between more disparate racial groups (I.e. Whites and non-Whites) which is present today. It does not seem to me that the quantitative differences between two cultures necessarily mean they will conflict, it is the nature of those differences and how they are perceived that determine whether conflict will arise. Obviously now the conflict between European ethnicities in America has all but disappeared, regarding conflict that was based upon their perceived distinctiveness and perhaps rivalry. That's not to say that conflict no longer occurs amongst Whites obviously, just it is no longer due to that particular brand of group-think.
 

Maybe in Europe, there's a different perspective on this matter, but from the American viewpoint, we did what we thought was practical and reasonably beneficial to all European nationalities which settled in America. But for this reason, your perspective from the UK and/or Russia might be vastly different than how America has traditionally viewed matters of race. For this reason, there might be some discrepancies and misconceptions on how we see each others' viewpoint. My primary beef is with anti-racism and how it has been practiced in America, and it may seem incongruous for you because of this.

Understandably there will be differences. My knowledge of American history is not brilliant I admit, the only in depth reading I've done on it was about the Civil War. I do know however, that the early days did not see an instantly peaceful merger between White nationality sub-groups.

If the British or Russian perceptions of race become relevant I will elaborate on those areas, however I think I've got enough to respond to at the moment.
 

It may only be 200 years, but that's as about as long as America has been in existence as an independent Republic. Still, I was just pointing out where the term "White" was codified into law, but the concept itself has been around longer.

It may not be an "objective" definition, but objectivity in such matters is a rarity in this world. It's like criticizing White Nationalism because it's not perfect or Utopian, but what in this world is?

Well I do not believe social organisation or political decisions can be based upon arbitrary designations. I argue that you cannot possibly have White Nationalism without being able to properly and objectively define "White".
 

But you just said earlier that race has historically not been a source of tension and conflict. Now, you're saying that it is.

You misread. Race has not been a source of tension and conflict, racism has. The former pertains to reality, the biological differences that exist amongst humans (although not in a categorical way). The latter pertains to an ideology which views the former (race) as being categorical (wrongly) and as being of some kind of significance.
 

I know that Ayn Rand spoke pretty harshly against collectivism, but no man is an island. There's absolutely no way to get away from collectivism, even if it might take different forms which are less malignant than others. Fact is, human civilization was founded on collectivism. As a species, we found that it was far more beneficial to work together for a common interest. The lives of individuals became better and more enhanced as a result. That's the whole idea behind collectivism, so that the lives of the individuals who comprise a collective would be enhanced and improved.

To be sure, collectivism is harmful when taken to extremes, such as under communism, but extreme individualism can be harmful, too.

I disagree that "extreme individualism" can be harmful. Objectivism is often misinterpreted or misrepresented in this way: It does not suggest that human beings should isolate themselves from each other - quite the opposite, it strongly emphasises the considerable benefits of volunatarily working for mutual gain - this being the concept of trade. However mutual gain is not the same as the gain of the anonymous collective as in socialism, communism, Marxism. By collectivism, Objectivism refers to the individual being subjugated to the collective - that is, where the individual is secondary to the group, and can be disposed of or enslaved at the whim of the government, the monarch, the majority, the nation, the commune, the tribe, the race etc.
 

Well, to be honest, that's what we're really discussing here. We're not talking about skin color or genetics, as so many antis like to paint the issue. It is about culture, and specifically, I'm addressing the culture of anti-racism. I'm looking at their perspective, values, ideals - based upon their policies, practices, and behaviors. I am judging them by their fruits.

It's a "racial problem" only inasmuch as anti-racism and social liberalism in general have made it into a problem, thus providing a pretext and a justification for blacks committing a disproportionate level of crime and/or Muslims blowing things up. A Muslim, for example, may not be born with a "violent gene" or anything like that, but being raised and inculcated with that mindset for the first 20 years of one's life is likely to have an effect on their values, perspectives, and attitudes.

You are referring to the ideology of multiculturalism here, which I oppose. I also despise how race can be used as a get-out-clause; I.e. "playing the race card". Again, it is collectivism. I totally agree that Muslims may be indoctrinated into thinking a particular way which conflicts with and is potentially harmful to Western society. I don't think it's true of all Muslims, as many will abide by the laws of Western nations and not try to get their own way, but it is true that such ideological differences can be very harmful.
 

Of course, you're absolutely correct that someone doesn't necessarily have to be White or born in Western culture to be assimilable to Western ideals and culture, but I also have to acknowledge that many, if not most, simply choose not to do that. Back when America's attitudes and policies were decidedly more "racist," assimilation was demanded and expected of anyone who was not American or not White. For all practical purposes, people didn't have much of a choice. (Older mestizos from a different generation complain about how they were subjected to corporal punishment in schools if they were heard speaking Spanish.) But now, even asking a non-white to assimilate to American culture is considered "racist."

The bottom line is, most of them won't assimilate to our culture, even though they have the freedom of choice and every opportunity to do so. Since their choice is to reject our culture, why should we accept them? They're the ones making the choice, not us.

Even if the majority of them won't assimilate, I fail to see how this means all of them can be excluded from a proper Western society. Even if they don't adopt the more superficial values such as types of food, clothing and music, this isn't a threat or a problem. It is only when core Western values that I have described previously (those relating to freedom and individual rights) are opposed that problems will arise and retaliatory actions should be taken to preserve Western values and culture.
 

Even blacks who have been in America for generations, once they felt free enough to reject American culture, did so with great relish, as they embraced African culture, "Kwanzaa," "Juneteenth," a bizarre naming convention for their children, and all kinds of other strange crapola, some of which is clearly anti-White and anti-American.

I blame the ideological adherents of anti-racism for allowing this to happen and inhibiting any public scrutiny or criticism.

I wouldn't go so far as to call these things anti-White - they're just pro-Black, or rather pro-African. There isn't really a problem with people embracing these things since they do not directly conflict with Western culture, they are merely different. When I talk about conflicting cultures I mean ideas which actually negate or oppose each other. For example, elements of Islam such as the idea that it is okay to "murder non-believers" (correct me if I'm wrong, but such is stated in the Qur'an). This clearly undermines the widespread Western belief (not to mention, fact) that murder is wrong, as it violates one's right to life.
 

It's not necessarily tied to race, but oftentimes, it is. This is especially true in America where race has been a common benchmark in distinguishing sub-cultures in America.

Indeed, however the fact they are not tied together, and simply correlate (albeit often closely), means that one cannot base judgement on race alone (if at all).
 

Those are political beliefs which aren't necessarily cultural.

Take your own homeland, Russia, for example. If I was to move to Russia, and adopt and adhere to Russian culture, what would that really mean? Would it mean that I support a Tsarist government, a communist government, or the current government under Putin? Are you saying that adhering to a culture is merely a matter of adhering to certain political beliefs (such as freedom of speech)?

Not exactly. It is not political beliefs per se, but the ethical beliefs and moral values upon which these beliefs rest upon. Of course, higher levels of culture includes all sorts of things - art, music, folklore, architecture etc., however these are not actually essential as they are not even universal within a particular place or amongst a particular ethnic group, and vary greatly amongst individuals. For instance, Shostakovich (one of my favourite composers) is clearly an element of Russian culture; however that does not mean all Russians like that music. Similarly, tea is the UK's national drink, and I drink ridiculous amounts of it, however not everyone in the UK drinks tea. These are non-essential cultural components that vary greatly, and need not be adopted by those who choose to live in a particular place. However, fundamental moral values, such as belief in one's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ARE essential, because conflict on these will result in chaos. Crime is a direct result of the erosion of these values.
 

Well, terrorism and crime are already against the law, so it's merely a matter of enforcing the laws already on the books more stringently.

I agree, and this is probably even more vital in the UK where punishment for crime is becoming laughable.
 

Demanding special treatment is somewhat different. I mean, anyone can ask for special treatment (freedom of speech allows it), but the problem comes in when society actually views such requests seriously. That's what anti-racism has done.

Yes, exactly.
 

This may be the result of different perspectives from different areas of the world.

This may also be due to the way "racism" has been defined and misdefined over the years. Originally, the term was coined by Trotsky for use in communist propaganda against Western capitalist societies. It was used to describe the overall establishment and the policies we lived under, and it was viewed exclusively as something Whites did to non-whites. Just as they viewed capitalists as exploiting the lower classes, they viewed "racists" as exploiting the "lower races," so to speak. This is where liberal anti-racists and leftist/communist anti-racists tend to diverge, as liberals viewed non-whites with pity and compassion (which is a form of condescension from those who believe they are superior), whereas the communists viewed them as vulnerable to communist agitation and recruitment in an effort to destabilize Western/capitalist governments.

We can argue over definitions until we're blue in the face, but it's impossible to do so without looking at the reality of what's actually happening and how "race" and "racism" (as well as "anti-racism") have been viewed over the past 70+ years in America and elsewhere around the world.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from here. As I said towards the beginning of my post, it's probably best that we refer more specifically to what we mean, to avoid confusion. So, if I mean anything that treats races as separate entities I will likely call it race-collectivism, as that is what I mean by racism - and so anti-race-collectivism would be what I mean by anti-racism. Anti-White, on the other hand, seems to be synonymous with your perception of anti-racism.
 

Then you recognize the contradictions and hypocrisy in the prevailing ideology under which we currently live.

Correct.
 

Your view is actually shared by a number of conservative pundits (even if the politicians seem more closed-lipped about it), but they generally face the same kind of vicious opposition which White Nationalists face. They might get tarred and labeled as "racists," too, so anti-racists are not just singling out White Nationalists or those they consider the most "extreme."

Well, Objectivism is often smeared as extremist because it flies in the face of the hypocritical liberalism and compromise-based society that exists today.
 

I don't entirely disagree with the conservative and/or libertarian viewpoint, but my main complaint is that I think that they're too soft. They don't go for the jugular like they should. I could get behind some political candidates like Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, or Tom Tancredo, but they need an "equalizer" to counter the vicious opposition they get. That's where anti-anti-racism can come into play, to attack those who would attack conservatives. That's where extremism may become necessary, since it would entail going up against some extremely-entrenched political factions which have dominated the scene in America for generations. We have to destroy their Sacred Cows and go on the attack. We don't defend our views; we attack their views.

Well I agree here, Objectivsts are well known for regarding libertarians as too soft and for partially surrendering their values to appease people. Ayn Rand herself despised libertarians for this reason.

I'm entirely with you in the opposition of the system that exists, and it is really on moral/epistemological grounds that I oppose White Nationalism; not because I think it is immoral to desire freedom from tyrannical governments imposing culture or ideology on the population; but because I view it as irrational to place importance on race (as you may remember from my very first thread here which I entitled "Irrational and Illogical"). Both race-collectivism and the actions taken to counteract it make the same mistake of treating race as an important factor when judging individuals. Both are anti-individualist mentalities; for example the belief that a Black person can never "belong" simply because the majority (?) of Black people choose not to, to varying degrees.

As I have said, I do not deny that there are real differences between populations as you travel around the globe, both in biology and in culture, however since race and culture are not directly dependant upon one another, race cannot be used as a definitive or objective grouping of humans.
 

Understood. But as any student of history can attest, what people believe can have enormous ramifications. Human beings are very complex organisms, and in many ways, very dangerous and unpredictable. We've been studying and shaping our species for millennia, and still, even to this day, we still haven't been able to figure ourselves out yet. It's only been relatively recent that medical science has been able to learn about the functions of our physical bodies, and even then, there's still much they don't know. Even less is known about the human brain, the human mind, and our emotional make-up.

On a scientific level, you are correct. However, philosophically, the nature of human beings is not particularly complex. Human beings are rational animals, meaning they posess a rational faculty and are capable of independent, rational thought and they are capable of choosing action based on those thoughts. Emotions are reactions to effects upon one's values. One values one's life for example, so if it is threatened then one feels fear. One values one's wife or partner, so one feels love for that person, and so on.

In terms of beliefs, yes, irrational ideas are widespread and this is the problem. Racism is one of those irrational ideas, and it has lead to nothing but conflict, resentment, tension, violence and hatred. It is because it is the idea that one "belongs" to a particular group and that all other groups are just that; "others", and can never be successfully mixed together. This is not the case as human beings are individual and sovereign entities. Again, yes cultures do often correlate with race (or rather ethnicity, mostly) but this does not negate the fact that race and culture are independent variables. Race (or rather, biology) is pretty much inescapable (although Michael Jackson might like to pretend otherwise), but culture is certainly not.
 

Of course, as we both well know, even beliefs in "That Which Is Unseen" can be quite powerful, but in terms of race, these are beliefs in differences which are seen and noticeable to anyone with eyes. A person can clearly notice differences between a person designated as "White" versus a person designated as "Black." Calling one person "White" and the other one "Black" is where the "belief" part comes into play. But they're still real people with real physical differences which can be seen and examined.

That is true, differences exist, but as I said, not in an objective way. Factually, biological differences exist in a gradual fashion, with some clusters that correspond to geographical populations. A lot of people believe that race is categorical and easy to determine, however what race a person appears to belong to often does not coincide with other factors that aren't readily visible, but which are assumed when talking about race - such as ancestry and genetics.
 

To put it another way, a "tree" exists, as in, a physical object which can be seen and examined scientifically. But to refer to that object as a "tree" - that's a belief. The object itself is real. The word to refer to it is not. A Russian person would look at the object and say "eto derevo." If I said "tree" to him, he might think that I'm referring to the number 3.

Hehe correct, nice to see you know a little bit of Russian; it remains my favourite language.

This is an epistemological issue. Words refer to concepts. Concepts are not "real", as in the concept of a tree does not refer to a particular tree that exists in reality, but rather it refers all trees that have ever been and that ever will be. Concepts are however derived from reality; and words are just used as concrete identifiers for these concepts. Concepts consist of all the qualities of particulars combined together, whilst discarding particular measurements (e.g. a tree can be very tall, or very short) as well as non-essential characteristics (such as colour). A concept takes into account all the known characteristics of existents and combines them into a single, abstract mental unit. The human ability to form concepts is what allows humans to perform complex thought that lower animals are simply unable to.

The problem with "White" as a concept is that there are no objective characteristics to take into account, and different characteristics that are often concentrated on when considering racial groups conflict with each other. For example skin colour does not coincide with ancestry which does not coincide with genetics. Like race and culture, they may in some cases correlate, but race is still a very fuzzy generalisation.
 

Class differences are also noticeable in many tangible and real ways, but as you noted, the Marxist model was a distortion of reality. Anti-racism (which has its ideological roots in Marxism) is a similar distortion of reality.

Correct, and racism is also a distortion of reality, as it puts individuals into discrete racial groupings when they don't exist as such. Even if they did, race is still not a determinant of one's character or values or actions, and therefore would still not be a valid criterion for segregation. Culture is equally vague and cannot be objectively categorised, however culture is a collective term for ideas and the products of ideas. Ideas can, objectively, conflict, therefore certain ideas or groups of ideas are incompatible with certain other ideas or groups of ideas. In this way, certain people are dangerous to Western societies, however these people cannot be accurately identified using race. Doing so is entirely unjust.

[SDY6401]

I'm about halfway through my response to you, DarkReaver13, but since it's getting pretty long already, I'm going to post it in parts. So, here's what I have so far.
 

Unfortunately so; predominantly due to Marxism in some way. Malady is a very appropriate word for it.

As you may already know, Marxism was odious for other reasons, too, not just due to its economic flaws. In many ways, Cultural Marxism is probably more flawed than Economic Marxism. Of course, the economic theories and practices of Marxism were thoroughly flawed, but they should have seen that when they implemented those policies. The real problem was any lack of ideological flexibility which would have allowed them to make necessary systemic changes to make their economy work better. This ideological intransigence and inflexibility is one of the most salient features of Marxism, and that�s why it was a bad system.

Sure, it was a flawed structure, but the government could have made adjustments and tweaks to make it work better. The reason why they were inflexible and stubborn in making any changes was because their ideology of Marxism was their religion, and they were religious fanatics.

Cultural Marxists are similar in that they are equally intransigent, inflexible, and just plain stubborn � even if they currently subscribe to a more efficient economic system (and even then, I might still have some misgivings, if only due to the same kind of ideological intransigence that killed communism).
 

Our conflicting definitions may lead to some confusion here. As I said, I regard affirmative action, reparations, and government legislation that promote group rights, as well as any ideology associated with these things, as racist rather than anti-racist. I suggest we refrain from using the terms and instead state the specific policies or ideas we are referring to.

Agreed.

Also, keep in mind that some of my statements and arguments may not apply specifically to your own position. After all, I�m a White Nationalist because I oppose the policies and practices in effect in America today, not because I oppose Dark Reaver 13�s views or Thinker�s views. I formulated many of my political positions at a time when I didn�t even know of your existence, so your own personal views may not directly apply in all instances.
 

I agree you here though, and the problem is the fact that irrational ideas permeate not only the minds of the majority of people, but also those in power.

Could be. However, I think those in power know of the irrational ideas of the masses and utilize that knowledge to manipulate and deceive them. The last thing the government and media would want is to teach and educate the masses to be more rational and more informed on politics and world events.
 

Politics today is a mish mash of compromises that are completely devoid of any principle or grounding. The government simply swings back and forth like a pendulum fixing perceived problems with more and more intervention, and ever more bureaucracy.

And with that, the system becomes far more vulnerable to corruption and intrigue.

The public perception is that the government is the people and the people are the government. By giving more power to the government, it is often perceived as giving power to the people, and the problem won�t really go away as long as most people continue to hold that perception.

The practical reality is not that more power is transferred to the people, but in fact, more power is put into the hands of �the bureaucrat� who becomes a virtual �king� over his domain. In fact, bureaucrats and special interest groups have almost a symbiotic relationship when it comes to lobbying Congress.
 

It is not in question that Blacks were subject to incredible cruelty and injustice (and yes I accept that this cannot be blamed on "Whites"), however the government, instead of simply restoring rights and freedom, they have attempted to "rebalance" thing will all sorts of collectivist policies. This is wrong, and it is because there is no trace of principles - any action taken is completely pragmatic and only takes into account the range of the moment rather than the full context of things - including the fact that humans are individuals and cannot be treated as groups in the way that they are.

Yes, this is all true. As I said, the policies in question were designed as a reaction to previous policies considered to be wrong. But I maintain that the reaction itself was also wrong, and those who continue to support these reactive policies are just as wrong, if not more so. Worse yet, those who challenge and oppose these policies are labeled as �racists� and ostracized by those who call themselves �anti-racists,� thus making it extraordinarily difficult to even discuss these policies openly.

At this point, I don�t think it�s possible to fix and reform bad policies when those who criticize those bad policies are made into pariahs and outcasts from society. If the supporters, advocates, and implementers of those policies are not even willing to discuss them openly and honestly, then what conclusions can we draw about the merit of those policies? What conclusions can we draw about the moral character of those who continue to support and advocate for these policies, while giving no quarter for dissent or criticism of any kind?

I don�t blame you for not wanting to be associated with the progenitors and advocates for this ideology, and it is my hope that, when this kind of light is put on the policymakers and the �movers and shakers� in this society, then more people will see them for what they are and stop supporting them.

Our statements are generally directed at the �Powers That Be,� and our tack is primarily to put a spotlight on the ones in power whose decisions affect the lives of Americans and many others throughout the world. We are sharply critical of the policymakers and pundits whose prevailing influence has been far-reaching and widespread. This may not necessarily apply to you or other �antis� (that is, those who oppose WN), but there�s one thing that does bother me, though. Why do you seek to take the light of scrutiny away from the government and put it back on us? Antis come to this forum to try to put us on the defensive, but oftentimes, it�s practically impossible to get a coherent answer as to what they�re arguing for � or even they know what they�re arguing against.

I�ll give you credit for being consistent and coherent in your arguments for individualism vs. collectivism, but I�m not sure if your arguments are necessarily applicable for arguing against WN specifically, as they could be easily directed against many ideologies and political systems � including our own. Perhaps, if the principles of Objectivism were adopted 50-60 years ago, instead of the Cultural Marxism we�re currently living under, then maybe things would be better today. (But that�s a big �maybe� which I don�t want to go into right now, at least not in this discussion.)
 

The group often does hold the upper hand, and this is the doctrine of collectivism I oppose. Democracy, communism, racism, sexism - all examples of groupism which infringe upon individual rights.

This is interesting. So, do you oppose all forms of �groupism,� even those who group together for economic benefit (such as banks, corporations, cartels, interlocking directorates, etc.)?
 

To be clear: A group has no rights, as such, other than the individual rights of those that make up the group.

And while we�re on the subject, what about two very large and powerful groups, the Republican and Democratic parties? Aren�t political parties the most egregious examples of �groupism�? Even George Washington warned about it when he railed against the �Spirit of Party� in his Farewell Address (see my signature quote).
 

Agreed; originally it was intended to counter racism, but it nevertheless became more racism, just in an new institutionalised manner.

Then the ideology we commonly refer to as �anti-racism� (not necessarily your interpretation of it) is contradictory, inconsistent, and largely hypocritical.
 

Well, yes. Again, this is the treatment of racism with more racism.

Yep. Exactly.
 

Agreed again. I find this just as hypocritical and unacceptable as you do.

Then, perhaps you see our reasons in wanting to challenge it.
 

Well of course it kept "the races" at peace with each other, but that's just hypothetical since there's no way of knowing what would have happened if this was not the case in the past. Now, if you consider the amount of bloody and destructive conflicts that occured despite "the races" being separate for all that time, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that racial separation in fact had no impact whatsoever on the total conflict that occurs amongst humans. In fact, more distant centuries have seen a greater amount of more brutal conflict that more recent centuries where racial groups have had more contact with each other.

Understood, but this isn�t necessarily about wars between nations. We�re talking about the composition of the citizenry within a nation and how it impacts on national culture, public order, and national security, among other things. I don�t see this as being a matter of collectivism vs. individualism, but rather, it�s a matter of competing sub-collectives within the larger collective of the nation as a whole.

For example, the White American �collective� has always concerned itself with the good of America as a whole, whereas non-white sub-collectives within America have always concerned themselves with the good of their sub-collective only, thus producing a conflict within the nation.

The real source of conflict has more to do with shortages of resources than anything else. The racial and/or tribal aspects only come into play when deciding how these meager resources will be doled out. Obviously, people would tend to favor their own family over outsiders, and if there isn�t enough to go around, then the outsiders have to be kept away. That�s really what it comes down to. There aren�t enough resources to go around, so it�s necessary to make hard decisions about the future of this nation and the world as a whole.
 

Whilst these various groups would likely have more cultural similarities with those from the same part of the world, this was not enough to bind these various ethnic groups together. It is well known that Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans were subject to great prejudice from the new American society in general.

It�s well-known, but exaggerated to a great degree. Whatever prejudice existed between European nationalities was that which was brought over from Europe. There were also religious prejudices among Protestants and Catholics which also tended to contribute to the dissension you�re referring to above.
 

There was plenty of hostility and tension between the various White ethnicities, a situation that is quite similar to the animosity between more disparate racial groups (I.e. Whites and non-Whites) which is present today.

Not that similar. The Irish and Italian immigrants assimilated, while the non-white immigrants protested, marched, and demanded special treatment, which the Federal government gave them. That�s where most of the problems we�re addressing begin and end.
 

It does not seem to me that the quantitative differences between two cultures necessarily mean they will conflict, it is the nature of those differences and how they are perceived that determine whether conflict will arise. Obviously now the conflict between European ethnicities in America has all but disappeared, regarding conflict that was based upon their perceived distinctiveness and perhaps rivalry. That's not to say that conflict no longer occurs amongst Whites obviously, just it is no longer due to that particular brand of group-think.

Or, what�s more likely the case, different White ethnicities assimilated to the prevailing Anglo-American culture. In fact, what�s interesting is how non-white ethnicities react to different White nationalities. For example, if a person looks White and acts White, and speaks English like an American, mestizos (aka �Hispanics�) will often refer to that person as �Anglo,� no matter if they�re �Anglo� or not. A third-generation Russian-American who speaks English like an American would be an �Anglo� in their eyes. Blacks just view them as �White,� as most of them seem unaware of the fact that there are different nations within Europe and a variety of White nationalities.

The conflict is not just between �different groups.� First off, the non-whites believe that Whites have special privileges in this society which causes them to resent and hate White people as a whole. Most Whites, on the other hand, do not feel �privileged,� and in fact, with Affirmative Action, minority-based scholarships, along with other aspects of anti-racism and multiculturalism, many Whites feel as if non-whites are given special privileges which they, as Whites, never received.
 

Understandably there will be differences. My knowledge of American history is not brilliant I admit, the only in depth reading I've done on it was about the Civil War. I do know however, that the early days did not see an instantly peaceful merger between White nationality sub-groups.

True, but a lot of that was mitigated by the fact that America was rather large and mostly uninhabited. There was enough space that White sub-groups could live relatively isolated from other White sub-groups.

It�s true that European nationalities in Colonial America, particularly the Dutch and French, had a great deal of animosity towards the English. One of America�s favorite words, �Yankee,� originated from that animosity towards the English, especially after the English took over New Amsterdam from the Dutch and changed it to �New York.�

But war, particularly the American Revolution, had a way of causing those animosities to evaporate. Different nationalities were unified by their hatred of monarchism, specifically the English King George III.
 

If the British or Russian perceptions of race become relevant I will elaborate on those areas, however I think I've got enough to respond to at the moment.

Understood, but I�m only pointing out that you may not see things in the same way as I do.

I could be wrong, as I never really bothered to count or survey, but I get the impression that I deal with far more British antis than anything else. Canadians are a close second. Thinker is actually one of the few White American antis I�ve ever had to deal with on a consistent basis. I�m not sure why that is, but it might be that anti-racist propaganda is far more intense in the UK and Canada.

It could also be that White Americans are losing their enthusiasm for anti-racism and no longer feel strongly enough to argue for it. Maybe all the propaganda they�ve been fed for most of their lives is wearing off and starting to show diminishing returns.

Or maybe they�re just fed up with the damn Mexicans � which is another Achilles� Heel for anti-racism. I predict that the anti-racist intransigence over the Mexicanization of America will be their ultimate downfall. They even condemn the Minuteman Project as �racist,� which makes anti-racists look like a bunch of lawless hooligans advocating chaos along our border with Mexico. There�s already enough chaos as it is.

Down in Cananea, 20 miles south of the border and 70 miles from where I am now, the local drug kingpin took over the whole town in a big shootout with police, who ended up running away. Over 20 people were killed, some of whom were innocent bystanders and civilian hostages. There are various drug cartels down there at war with each other, and some of this has spilled over into the US, such as in El Paso where they found a couple of shot-up bodies in the trunk of a car. This cartel war is turning into a major problem, as it�s scaring away American tourists from Mexico, causing the Mexican government to put out the PR and proclaim that Mexico is �perfectly safe for tourists.� Of course, they do warn that those involved in the drug trade may not be safe, but they forget to mention that innocent bystanders may also not be safe if they�re in the wrong place at the wrong time. These crazy cartels don�t care about innocent bystanders. They shot up a hospital in San Luis Rio Colorado a couple of months ago. These are the kinds of people who are running around down there with impunity, and a lot of them are operating on this side of the border as well. But White Americans are not likely to put up with this kind of crap for very long. If the government doesn�t restore order, then someone else must.
 

Well I do not believe social organisation or political decisions can be based upon arbitrary designations. I argue that you cannot possibly have White Nationalism without being able to properly and objectively define "White".

Certainly, we can define �White,� but whether or not it would meet your standards of �properly� and �objectively� is another matter. Also, I might question your view of what you consider to be �arbitrary.� After all, there is �arbitrary� in the sense of �something I just pulled out my ass,� as opposed to something based on already-established social conventions, cultural perceptions, traditions, and mores.

The bottom line is that it seems that you�re criticizing WN as being imperfect as a solution to a situation caused by policies which we�ve already agreed are wrong and hypocritical.

So, if you�re arguing that White Nationalism is not perfect, then I agree with you.
 

You misread. Race has not been a source of tension and conflict, racism has.

Of course, you are defining �racism� as �racial collectivism,� and it seems that your overriding view is that collectivism itself is the source of conflict and tension. Would that be correct?
 

The former pertains to reality, the biological differences that exist amongst humans (although not in a categorical way). The latter pertains to an ideology which views the former (race) as being categorical (wrongly) and as being of some kind of significance.

I could probably go along with this on a theoretical basis, but couldn�t the same idea be applied to concepts of �nation� and �nationalism�? Would you consider �racism� to �race� as being congruently analogous to �nationalism� is to �nation�? What about �tribalism� to �tribe�? What about �ethnocentrism� to �ethnicity�? Or even �nepotism� to �family�?

Do you see any common analogous thread to these various concepts?
 

I disagree that "extreme individualism" can be harmful.

Noted, but what you go on to say is that your philosophy does not entail �extreme individualism.� But it still can be harmful, even if it�s not what you support.
 

Objectivism is often misinterpreted or misrepresented in this way: It does not suggest that human beings should isolate themselves from each other - quite the opposite, it strongly emphasises the considerable benefits of volunatarily working for mutual gain - this being the concept of trade.

Well, yes, I think that working together for mutual interests, engaging in commerce and trade � that�s the foundation of human society. This is politics. As Von Treitschke put it, one of the things which separates man from animals is �political genius,� as he put it. Well, that and language � two things which are indispensable for our species to operate, thrive, and prosper. It could have started as simply as a group of hunters dividing up their prey, just as pack dogs might do. We just do it better, that�s all. That�s why some of the pack dogs went along with us; they knew we were going places.
 

However mutual gain is not the same as the gain of the anonymous collective as in socialism, communism, Marxism. By collectivism, Objectivism refers to the individual being subjugated to the collective - that is, where the individual is secondary to the group, and can be disposed of or enslaved at the whim of the government, the monarch, the majority, the nation, the commune, the tribe, the race etc.

Or an individual can get mauled to death by a bear. Things like that do happen from time to time. Earlier, you included �democracy� as one of those anonymous collectives.

Even in most collective societies, an individual within it has some nominal rights, which is always at the pleasure of the collective. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of �The People,� which is most definitely a �collective,� but it�s the only real collective which counts. Even communist societies, such as the Soviet Union, had a constitution which gave nominal guarantees to individual rights � even if they weren�t worth the paper they were printed on.

That�s another problem that we face, as a species. Humans are good at political compromise and the ability to communicate eloquently and reasonably, but humans often say one thing while doing something completely different. Communists may say that they guarantee individual rights, but do they? Many other political factions and ideologues say pretty much the same thing, but how can anyone tell who�s lying and who�s not?
 

You are referring to the ideology of multiculturalism here, which I oppose. I also despise how race can be used as a get-out-clause; I.e. "playing the race card". Again, it is collectivism. I totally agree that Muslims may be indoctrinated into thinking a particular way which conflicts with and is potentially harmful to Western society. I don't think it's true of all Muslims, as many will abide by the laws of Western nations and not try to get their own way, but it is true that such ideological differences can be very harmful.

Yes. I can�t find much with which to disagree with you here. We both clearly agree that the way things are currently being run is not good for our society.
 

Even if the majority of them won't assimilate, I fail to see how this means all of them can be excluded from a proper Western society.

Maybe they won�t have to be. It really depends on a number of unforeseeable factors. Only time will tell.
 

Even if they don't adopt the more superficial values such as types of food, clothing and music, this isn't a threat or a problem. It is only when core Western values that I have described previously (those relating to freedom and individual rights) are opposed that problems will arise and retaliatory actions should be taken to preserve Western values and culture.

Don�t you think that Western core values could be endangered? Could they be endangered already?
 

I wouldn't go so far as to call these things anti-White - they're just pro-Black, or rather pro-African.

It�s a bit of both. After all, blacks had been assimilated to America (within the paradigm of their own particular sub-culture) already, and the growth of �Afrocentric� cultural notions was more rooted in a rejection of the culture they had been previously living under for generations. Previously, they were Americanized Africans; now they�re Africanized Americans. If they had chosen to remain Americanized, it might still be okay, but too many of them chose to become Africanized. It was their choice, not ours.
 

There isn't really a problem with people embracing these things since they do not directly conflict with Western culture, they are merely different. When I talk about conflicting cultures I mean ideas which actually negate or oppose each other. For example, elements of Islam such as the idea that it is okay to "murder non-believers" (correct me if I'm wrong, but such is stated in the Qur'an). This clearly undermines the widespread Western belief (not to mention, fact) that murder is wrong, as it violates one's right to life.

There may be some different interpretations of that. According to the Qur�an, the unbelievers will be punished by God.

But you�re not just talking about culture here; you�re talking about rule of law. Murder is not just against our beliefs; it�s against the law.

Another salient feature of anti-racism and multiculturalism is the idea that the law can be bent and/or broken if the results are favorable to anti-racism. For example, we have thousands of lawbreakers illegally crossing the border every day, yet anti-racists believe that that�s okay, since they�re only �looking for a better life� and �doing the jobs Americans don�t want� � two common platitudes of anti-racism.

It�s one thing to go along with and assimilate to a culture, but first and foremost, it would be very nice if they would just follow the law once in a while. Enforce the laws regarding border security and immigration. Enforce the laws against assault, rape, robbery, and murder (among other offenses).
 

Indeed, however the fact they are not tied together, and simply correlate (albeit often closely), means that one cannot base judgement on race alone (if at all).

It�s not a matter of basing judgment solely on race. But likewise, I take issue with the commonly-held anti-racist viewpoint that race should be discounted as a factor entirely in all things. The very fact that racial issues are taboo and largely inhibited by Political Correctness clearly indicates that race is very much a significant part of the current paradigm � even if people don�t seem willing to admit it.
 

Not exactly. It is not political beliefs per se, but the ethical beliefs and moral values upon which these beliefs rest upon. Of course, higher levels of culture includes all sorts of things - art, music, folklore, architecture etc., however these are not actually essential as they are not even universal within a particular place or amongst a particular ethnic group, and vary greatly amongst individuals.

When you say it�s not essential, what does that mean? Art, music, folklore, architecture are the tangible results of a national culture, and oftentimes, they are considered symbolic of the nation. If people think of Paris, the Eiffel Tower might be the first thing to come to mind. If people think of Moscow, St. Basil�s Cathedral or The Kremlin might come to mind as symbolic and unique to that city and the culture upon which it was founded. Are these things �essential�? I don�t know.

What if someone proposed tearing down St. Basil�s Cathedral in order to make room for a Wal-Mart store? This may be an extreme and very unlikely example, but if you can understand how you or other Russians might feel if this was to happen, then you might understand a little better about why I oppose multiculturalism so vehemently.
 

For instance, Shostakovich (one of my favourite composers) is clearly an element of Russian culture; however that does not mean all Russians like that music.

Yes, I have a friend who�s a big fan of Shostakovich as well. He also likes Rachmaninoff as well.

What about Vysotsky? I�m only superficially familiar with his music, but some Russian friends have told me that he�s really popular and that his music is uniquely Russian � almost to the point where non-Russians (even a well-informed one like me) would never be able to understand completely. I think he was banned by the communists, if I recall correctly.
 

Similarly, tea is the UK's national drink, and I drink ridiculous amounts of it, however not everyone in the UK drinks tea.

In America, it�s coffee. I drink ridiculous amounts of it, too � sometimes more than what is really healthy. On my father�s side of the family, refusing to drink coffee is considered anti-social, although allowances have been made for tea and decaffeinated coffee.
 

These are non-essential cultural components that vary greatly, and need not be adopted by those who choose to live in a particular place. However, fundamental moral values, such as belief in one's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ARE essential, because conflict on these will result in chaos. Crime is a direct result of the erosion of these values.

I would agree with this, but I suggest that you may be putting the cart before the horse. Our beliefs developed into what they are over the course of thousands of years of written history. They didn�t just pop up out of nothing. The values espoused in our Constitution (I.e. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) were put forth by educated men whose culture was purely European in origin. It can be said that their beliefs were the culmination of the culture and traditions which preceded them, and they were merely building upon what they already knew and accepted as moral truth.

It was because of that background, that firm cultural foundation, that the ideals espoused in our Constitution were able to come about. As a result, the People didn�t really need to be told why these beliefs were good. The moral obligation of a citizen to be a good neighbor to his fellow citizen was not really questioned, because people had already been inculcated with that idea. A lot of things in the Constitution are not covered, primarily because there was the underlying presumption that the people already held certain traditions and mores based upon our commonly-held cultural perceptions.
 

I agree, and this is probably even more vital in the UK where punishment for crime is becoming laughable.

And this is yet another problem which is inadequately addressed by the Powers That Be. Lawlessness and a general hypocrisy at the highest levels of government, where they take a sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. But they do not live up to their oaths. They lie and act dishonorably.
 

Yes, I understand where you are coming from here. As I said towards the beginning of my post, it's probably best that we refer more specifically to what we mean, to avoid confusion. So, if I mean anything that treats races as separate entities I will likely call it race-collectivism, as that is what I mean by racism - and so anti-race-collectivism would be what I mean by anti-racism. Anti-White, on the other hand, seems to be synonymous with your perception of anti-racism.

Yes.

The way I see it, it�s because of anti-racism that the �race card� has power in the mainstream political consciousness. It�s because of anti-racism that Political Correctness exists in this society. It�s because of anti-racism that we can�t take adequate measures to control the border. It�s because of anti-racism that we are unable to stop immigration, even on a temporary basis. It�s because of anti-racism that law enforcement personnel have their hands tied, which hinders their ability to carry out their duties. It�s because of anti-racism that we have to pussy-foot around with these Muslim terrorists.

Anti-racists try to make it so Americans can�t even openly talk about the issues affecting this country without being attacked as a �bigot� or a �racist.� Their biggest crime is in poisoning the atmosphere of free expression in our society, and it is for this reason that I oppose them as viciously as I do. They must be opposed at all costs; nothing else is more important to me. Nothing can get done in this country until that entrenched faction falls away into oblivion. I don�t know how to destroy them, but it is vital that they be destroyed. They are enemies of Free Speech and enemies of American ideals. I attack them on that basis.
 

Well, Objectivism is often smeared as extremist because it flies in the face of the hypocritical liberalism and compromise-based society that exists today.

As a nationalist, there�s much about Objectivism with which I disagree, at least as far as I understand that particular school of thought.

For one thing, I�m not an individualist.

Quite a while back, another WN poster poked some fun at me over my views on individualism by recalling a scene from the movie �Life of Brian.�

http://www.stormfron....7&postcount=65

It�s like I�m among a whole crowd of people proclaiming (in unison) their individuality, while I�m the lone voice saying, �I�m not an individual.� There is some humorous irony to that, I must say.
 

Well I agree here, Objectivsts are well known for regarding libertarians as too soft and for partially surrendering their values to appease people. Ayn Rand herself despised libertarians for this reason.

I once heard it said about libertarians that they are �conservatives who like to smoke dope.� Part of the reason why Libertarianism never really caught in America is probably due to their views on foreign policy, which some criticized as �isolationist.� Fiscal conservatives who have a financial stake in globalism wouldn�t really go for that. Social conservatives don�t care much for the Libertarian stances on drug legalization, homosexuality, pornography, and issues of that nature. Bleeding-heart liberals never cared much for the idea of self-reliance or eliminating the welfare state, so they oppose Libertarians for reasons like that.
 

I'm entirely with you in the opposition of the system that exists, and it is really on moral/epistemological grounds that I oppose White Nationalism; not because I think it is immoral to desire freedom from tyrannical governments imposing culture or ideology on the population; but because I view it as irrational to place importance on race (as you may remember from my very first thread here which I entitled "Irrational and Illogical"). Both race-collectivism and the actions taken to counteract it make the same mistake of treating race as an important factor when judging individuals. Both are anti-individualist mentalities; for example the belief that a Black person can never "belong" simply because the majority (?) of Black people choose not to, to varying degrees.

Understood, but keep in mind that WN is a blanket philosophy covering many political views and variations. Regardless of some of the more esoteric criticisms of WN (such as your view that �White� can not be objectively defined), it does not necessarily follow that such a philosophy would be �anti-individualist� in the sense of violating the human rights of individuals. I can�t say that I speak for all White Nationalists on this point, but regardless of how we define our nations or national identity, it does not mean that we cease to view non-whites as human beings with rights. All human beings, regardless of who they are or where they live, have basic, fundamental rights which have been defined and agreed upon in the West for centuries now � even millennia, in some respects � as we continue to borrow from aspects of Greek and Roman legal and political principles.

In the past, some aspects of �racism� may have been wrong in the way it fomented perceptions that non-whites were �animals� or �less than human.� I openly acknowledge and recognize that such a perception is wrong on many levels. That�s why I don�t consider myself a �White Supremacist.�

However, I don�t think that it�s wrong to acknowledge the obvious cultural differences between the races, especially as they have manifested themselves here in America. I don�t think it�s wrong to say, �We are different; we have different values, different traditions, different cultural perceptions,� and so on. I also don�t see how it�s wrong to observe that the clash of cultural values in this society might be a source of discord and could potentially harm the nation as a whole. I don�t see how it�s wrong to point out that anti-racism and multiculturalism in America has become excessive and too heavy-handed.

Is it so wrong for me, as a White person, to make the statement that some of this crap has gone too far and too long?

As for �irrational and illogical,� those tend to be somewhat loaded terms, at least in the way many people use them. It does border on an ad hominem, since it carries the implication that �if you disagree with me, you must be crazy.�
 

As I have said, I do not deny that there are real differences between populations as you travel around the globe, both in biology and in culture, however since race and culture are not directly dependant upon one another, race cannot be used as a definitive or objective grouping of humans.

Not in all cases. There are some situations where racial classification may be important, particularly in medical science where some diseases affect some races more than others.

It is my understanding that the differences in the races were influenced by the disparate climates we humans encountered on Earth, so it was a matter of humans evolving and adapting to their environment. In a very real sense, the development of our culture comes down to much the same thing.

[Darkademic]

As you may already know, Marxism was odious for other reasons, too, not just due to its economic flaws. In many ways, Cultural Marxism is probably more flawed than Economic Marxism. Of course, the economic theories and practices of Marxism were thoroughly flawed, but they should have seen that when they implemented those policies. The real problem was any lack of ideological flexibility which would have allowed them to make necessary systemic changes to make their economy work better. This ideological intransigence and inflexibility is one of the most salient features of Marxism, and that’s why it was a bad system.

Sure, it was a flawed structure, but the government could have made adjustments and tweaks to make it work better. The reason why they were inflexible and stubborn in making any changes was because their ideology of Marxism was their religion, and they were religious fanatics.

Cultural Marxists are similar in that they are equally intransigent, inflexible, and just plain stubborn – even if they currently subscribe to a more efficient economic system (and even then, I might still have some misgivings, if only due to the same kind of ideological intransigence that killed communism).

Although the economic systems derived from Marxism are inflexible, sure, that isn't the primary driving force behind any given Marxist system's demise. Communism and socialism are unworkable because, as Ludwig von Mises argued in his treatise on Socialism, they make economic calculation impossible by discarding the market system. Marxist economic systems negate the source of all wealth; the human mind, and replace it with the omnipotent state. I don't really want to discuss Marxism much further than that because, although I hate the ideology, it don't think it is relevant enough to this debate. It's sufficient to say that Communism/Socialism destroys nations.

Agreed.

Also, keep in mind that some of my statements and arguments may not apply specifically to your own position. After all, I’m a White Nationalist because I oppose the policies and practices in effect in America today, not because I oppose Dark Reaver 13’s views or Thinker’s views. I formulated many of my political positions at a time when I didn’t even know of your existence, so your own personal views may not directly apply in all instances.

Okay, and since I oppose a lot of current policies and practices, we will predictably agree on many things.

Could be. However, I think those in power know of the irrational ideas of the masses and utilize that knowledge to manipulate and deceive them. The last thing the government and media would want is to teach and educate the masses to be more rational and more informed on politics and world events.

Whilst I'd agree that the government takes some measures to cater to the ignorant masses, I don't think those in power are particularly intelligent or insidious or all-knowing like some kind of X-Files conspiracy government. The main problem I see is that those in power often share the same misguided ideals as those they govern. Nobody has any firmly grounded principles, and collectivism still permeates all branches of politics even after the clear failures of collectivism in the communist experiments of the 20th Century.

And with that, the system becomes far more vulnerable to corruption and intrigue.

The public perception is that the government is the people and the people are the government. By giving more power to the government, it is often perceived as giving power to the people, and the problem won’t really go away as long as most people continue to hold that perception.

The practical reality is not that more power is transferred to the people, but in fact, more power is put into the hands of “the bureaucrat” who becomes a virtual “king” over his domain. In fact, bureaucrats and special interest groups have almost a symbiotic relationship when it comes to lobbying Congress

Exactly right. Additionally though, people automatically think "power to the people" (the literal meaning of democracy) is the good, when it isn't. Politics cannot rightly be decided upon by the arbitrary whim of the majority, nor by the judgment of the state, nor by an iron fisted king, nor by God. Politics must be objective; such as the constitution of the United States was intended to be, and cater to the requirements of individual human beings.

Yes, this is all true. As I said, the policies in question were designed as a reaction to previous policies considered to be wrong. But I maintain that the reaction itself was also wrong, and those who continue to support these reactive policies are just as wrong, if not more so. Worse yet, those who challenge and oppose these policies are labeled as “racists” and ostracized by those who call themselves “anti-racists,” thus making it extraordinarily difficult to even discuss these policies openly.

At this point, I don’t think it’s possible to fix and reform bad policies when those who criticize those bad policies are made into pariahs and outcasts from society. If the supporters, advocates, and implementers of those policies are not even willing to discuss them openly and honestly, then what conclusions can we draw about the merit of those policies? What conclusions can we draw about the moral character of those who continue to support and advocate for these policies, while giving no quarter for dissent or criticism of any kind?

I don’t blame you for not wanting to be associated with the progenitors and advocates for this ideology, and it is my hope that, when this kind of light is put on the policymakers and the “movers and shakers” in this society, then more people will see them for what they are and stop supporting them.

Our statements are generally directed at the “Powers That Be,” and our tack is primarily to put a spotlight on the ones in power whose decisions affect the lives of Americans and many others throughout the world. We are sharply critical of the policymakers and pundits whose prevailing influence has been far-reaching and widespread. This may not necessarily apply to you or other “antis” (that is, those who oppose WN), but there’s one thing that does bother me, though. Why do you seek to take the light of scrutiny away from the government and put it back on us? Antis come to this forum to try to put us on the defensive, but oftentimes, it’s practically impossible to get a coherent answer as to what they’re arguing for – or even they know what they’re arguing against.

It's true that political correctness has taken over, and criticism of sensitive issues is somewhat condemned, but I'm not sure it's at the stage where such criticisms are completely silenced. There is however a wall between those in power, and those not in power, and it often means that those in power are free to do as they like and ignore individual rights as much as they like. Many instances come to mind where the British government has simply ignored huge opposition to certain government action: Iraq being one example.

I don't seek to take the light of scrutiny away from the government (whom are perhaps a more worthy of being targeted, but whom are not as accessible as White Nationalists), however I do quite strongly oppose some of the views of other White Nationalists here. Opposition of multiculturalism is great, but White Nationalists tend to conflate multiculturalism and multiracialism; even though the two are not the same. Opposition to multiculturalism is opposition to ideas and actions which aim to "equalise" cultures, whereas opposition to multiracialism is opposition to entire groups of people regardless of their ideas and actions.

I’ll give you credit for being consistent and coherent in your arguments for individualism vs. collectivism, but I’m not sure if your arguments are necessarily applicable for arguing against WN specifically, as they could be easily directed against many ideologies and political systems – including our own. Perhaps, if the principles of Objectivism were adopted 50-60 years ago, instead of the Cultural Marxism we’re currently living under, then maybe things would be better today. (But that’s a big “maybe” which I don’t want to go into right now, at least not in this discussion.)

I'm arguing from my Objectivist perspective and it's true that Objectivist conflicts with other ideas to varying degrees. Marxism and Kantian philosophy are arguably the most diametrically opposed ideologies with respect to Objectivism. Racism is irrational and immoral in my view, however when you speak of White Nationalism as a primarily cultural movement, it is not particularly opposed to Objectivism; and may in fact be compatible with it. Objectivism is opposed to multiculturalism, and if your central concern is the destruction of multiculturalism then I'd see little or no reason to argue with you. However, Objectivism is opposed to placing importance in racial lineage, and opposed to authoritarian governments (which are commonly associated with Nationalism); therefore I think White Nationalism is a poor way to describe what is essentially Anti-Multiculturalism. I think your individual beliefs go further than merely opposing multiculturalism however, and it is probably these additions that I disagree with.

This is interesting. So, do you oppose all forms of “groupism,” even those who group together for economic benefit (such as banks, corporations, cartels, interlocking directorates, etc.)?

I do not oppose all forms of "groupism", only those which violate the principle of individual rights in some way - those which involve coercion – those which view the individual as merely a fragment of the all-important group. Corporations, for example, are a contractual agreement between the associated members, and are formed for predicted mutual benefit. Forming corporations in a free-society does not give those groups any additional or superior rights.

And while we’re on the subject, what about two very large and powerful groups, the Republican and Democratic parties? Aren’t political parties the most egregious examples of “groupism”? Even George Washington warned about it when he railed against the “Spirit of Party” in his Farewell Address (see my signature quote).

Yes, in the way we see them today, political parties are opposed to individual rights.

Then the ideology we commonly refer to as “anti-racism” (not necessarily your interpretation of it) is contradictory, inconsistent, and largely hypocritical.

Indeed, counter-racist governmental policies are almost always contradictory and hypocritical.

Then, perhaps you see our reasons in wanting to challenge it.

Of course; I just don't agree with division based primarily on race as opposed to culture.

Understood, but this isn’t necessarily about wars between nations. We’re talking about the composition of the citizenry within a nation and how it impacts on national culture, public order, and national security, among other things. I don’t see this as being a matter of collectivism vs. individualism, but rather, it’s a matter of competing sub-collectives within the larger collective of the nation as a whole.

For example, the White American “collective” has always concerned itself with the good of America as a whole, whereas non-white sub-collectives within America have always concerned themselves with the good of their sub-collective only, thus producing a conflict within the nation.

I'd have to disagree here. I don't think the White American "collective" has always concerned itself with the good of America as a whole, and I don't think non-White collectives have only been concerned with themselves. In some cases this may be true, made visible by Black gang warfare for example; however these sub-collectives are a minority, and also exist amongst White people; White supremacist/Neo-Nazi gangs for example, are well known to fight against each other. Also, White Nationalists are not concerned with America as a whole; only White America. I think it is far, far too much of a generalisation and oversimplification to say Whites are concerned with all of America whereas non-Whites are only concerned with their own racial group. Different people are concerned with different things in different amounts at different times. Racists are those who tend to prioritise their racial group, and as I've said, racism is irrational and wrong. The kind of groupism you refer to is a result of collectivist thinking, and that's exactly what I oppose.

The real source of conflict has more to do with shortages of resources than anything else. The racial and/or tribal aspects only come into play when deciding how these meager resources will be doled out. Obviously, people would tend to favor their own family over outsiders, and if there isn’t enough to go around, then the outsiders have to be kept away. That’s really what it comes down to. There aren’t enough resources to go around, so it’s necessary to make hard decisions about the future of this nation and the world as a whole.

So do you believe in the Marxist pie model of economics?

It’s well-known, but exaggerated to a great degree. Whatever prejudice existed between European nationalities was that which was brought over from Europe. There were also religious prejudices among Protestants and Catholics which also tended to contribute to the dissension you’re referring to above.

Exactly, which shows how ideological differences can trump "racial similarity". Protestants and Catholics are still not exactly good friends over in Ireland.

Not that similar. The Irish and Italian immigrants assimilated, while the non-white immigrants protested, marched, and demanded special treatment, which the Federal government gave them. That’s where most of the problems we’re addressing begin and end.

The Irish and Italian immigrants eventually assimilated yes, but the initial conflict was still present. White criminals (and there are plenty of them) are also examples of Whites deviating and rebelling against society at large, and whilst this is usually not racism, it shows that even now there of plenty of White people who do not "assimilate" or obey the norms or rules of society. Slavery is the primary reason why Black immigrants marched and demanded special treatment. Slavery is obviously despicable, but it has long since disappeared from America, so it is no longer justified for Black people to be compensated for what happened to their long dead ancestors; at least from the government. Again, I see this as racism on their part, and it is wrong.

Or, what’s more likely the case, different White ethnicities assimilated to the prevailing Anglo-American culture. In fact, what’s interesting is how non-white ethnicities react to different White nationalities. For example, if a person looks White and acts White, and speaks English like an American, mestizos (aka “Hispanics”) will often refer to that person as “Anglo,” no matter if they’re “Anglo” or not. A third-generation Russian-American who speaks English like an American would be an “Anglo” in their eyes. Blacks just view them as “White,” as most of them seem unaware of the fact that there are different nations within Europe and a variety of White nationalities.

This is an example of the primitiveness of racism. It takes perceptual facts (the physical characteristics associated with race) and uses them to create character/culture judgements. I do not think this kind of racism is present in the minds of all non-Whites, nor do I think it is absent from the minds of all Whites. It is often the case, for example, that Whites simply call Black people Blacks regardless of where they were born, or what country they originate from. The same goes for East Asians who are often mislabelled as Chinese.

The conflict is not just between “different groups.” First off, the non-whites believe that Whites have special privileges in this society which causes them to resent and hate White people as a whole. Most Whites, on the other hand, do not feel “privileged,” and in fact, with Affirmative Action, minority-based scholarships, along with other aspects of anti-racism and multiculturalism, many Whites feel as if non-whites are given special privileges which they, as Whites, never received.

You may be partially correct, but again it is far too great a generalisation. Not all non-Whites resent White people as a whole; I'd argue that only a minority do. Conversely, White people are justified in being annoyed with Affirmative action etc. Again this is racism on the part of non-Whites who feel resentful, and it is racism on the part of the government who treats Whites as an unfairly privileged group.

It’s true that European nationalities in Colonial America, particularly the Dutch and French, had a great deal of animosity towards the English. One of America’s favorite words, “Yankee,” originated from that animosity towards the English, especially after the English took over New Amsterdam from the Dutch and changed it to “New York.”

But war, particularly the American Revolution, had a way of causing those animosities to evaporate. Different nationalities were unified by their hatred of monarchism, specifically the English King George III.

Pretty much agree here.

Understood, but I’m only pointing out that you may not see things in the same way as I do.

I could be wrong, as I never really bothered to count or survey, but I get the impression that I deal with far more British antis than anything else. Canadians are a close second. Thinker is actually one of the few White American antis I’ve ever had to deal with on a consistent basis. I’m not sure why that is, but it might be that anti-racist propaganda is far more intense in the UK and Canada.

It could also be that White Americans are losing their enthusiasm for anti-racism and no longer feel strongly enough to argue for it. Maybe all the propaganda they’ve been fed for most of their lives is wearing off and starting to show diminishing returns.

Or maybe they’re just fed up with the damn Mexicans – which is another Achilles’ Heel for anti-racism. I predict that the anti-racist intransigence over the Mexicanization of America will be their ultimate downfall. They even condemn the Minuteman Project as “racist,” which makes anti-racists look like a bunch of lawless hooligans advocating chaos along our border with Mexico. There’s already enough chaos as it is.

Down in Cananea, 20 miles south of the border and 70 miles from where I am now, the local drug kingpin took over the whole town in a big shootout with police, who ended up running away. Over 20 people were killed, some of whom were innocent bystanders and civilian hostages. There are various drug cartels down there at war with each other, and some of this has spilled over into the US, such as in El Paso where they found a couple of shot-up bodies in the trunk of a car. This cartel war is turning into a major problem, as it’s scaring away American tourists from Mexico, causing the Mexican government to put out the PR and proclaim that Mexico is “perfectly safe for tourists.” Of course, they do warn that those involved in the drug trade may not be safe, but they forget to mention that innocent bystanders may also not be safe if they’re in the wrong place at the wrong time. These crazy cartels don’t care about innocent bystanders. They shot up a hospital in San Luis Rio Colorado a couple of months ago. These are the kinds of people who are running around down there with impunity, and a lot of them are operating on this side of the border as well. But White Americans are not likely to put up with this kind of crap for very long. If the government doesn’t restore order, then someone else must.

Based on what very little television I watch, I don't think anti-racist propaganda is any more intense here. In fact, I don't think I've noticed anything which is blatantly supportative of anti-racism. To take a fairly recent example, if such propaganda were present, the recent demands by Poland for special treatment because of Germany's atrocities against them in WWII would have been met with overwhelming support. However, the newspaper article which I read about it was anything but supportive, saying Poland needs to stop living in the past. Objectivism is barely even heard of in the UK, so even if such propaganda were present, I can hardly be described as a product of it.

Certainly, we can define “White,” but whether or not it would meet your standards of “properly” and “objectively” is another matter. Also, I might question your view of what you consider to be “arbitrary.” After all, there is “arbitrary” in the sense of “something I just pulled out my ass,” as opposed to something based on already-established social conventions, cultural perceptions, traditions, and mores.

Clearly there are social conventions, perceptions and traditions which correlate with traditional racial categories; but I am speaking in terms of biology, since race is supposed to be a biological fact according to most WNs on Stormfront. By arbitrary I am referring to the delineations which are made, and the characteristics which are chosen. I don't deny that there are physical differences which exist between human populations, but there are no rationally significant characteristics, nor any way of making objective divisions based on any characteristics that are chosen. Thus, we are left with arbitrarily determined groupings, based on insignificant physical characteristics.

The bottom line is that it seems that you’re criticizing WN as being imperfect as a solution to a situation caused by policies which we’ve already agreed are wrong and hypocritical.

So, if you’re arguing that White Nationalism is not perfect, then I agree with you.

And the reason why it's not perfect is because it focuses on race as a primary. Were cultural differences identified as the primary threat to Western culture (not to White culture) then your ideas in general would in fact be valid, from an Objectivist perspective. However, you'd need to change the name to Western Culturalism or something like that.

Of course, you are defining “racism” as “racial collectivism,” and it seems that your overriding view is that collectivism itself is the source of conflict and tension. Would that be correct?

Almost. Collectivism isn't the ultimate source of conflict and tension, but a derivative source. The ultimate source is irrationality, that being thought which does not correspond with (or actively contradicts) reality, or which defies reason. Irrationality includes mysticism which leads to religious belief, for example. Irrationality also leads to the moral code of altruism, which is part and parcel of most religious doctrines. Collectivism is the social theory that results from the altruist moral code; that one is a slave to others.

I could probably go along with this on a theoretical basis, but couldn’t the same idea be applied to concepts of “nation” and “nationalism”? Would you consider “racism” to “race” as being congruently analogous to “nationalism” is to “nation”? What about “tribalism” to “tribe”? What about “ethnocentrism” to “ethnicity”? Or even “nepotism” to “family”?

Do you see any common analogous thread to these various concepts?

I think the same idea can be applied to all these concepts. All of them are constructs however (except perhaps family), rather than discoverable facts of reality, and for the corresponding "ism" to be valid, the constructed group has to have some rational purpose or significance. All of them except family are based upon the idea that the group is the standard unit and that individuals live to benefit the group.

Family is different because families are formed by individuals by choice. A man seeks a woman and vice-versa. It is somewhat similar to a corporation, except it is formed not for monetary benefit, but out of love. Any children born into a family are then the responsibility of the individuals involved (their parents).

Noted, but what you go on to say is that your philosophy does not entail “extreme individualism.” But it still can be harmful, even if it’s not what you support.

I think it's just a difference in definition again. My philosophy entails the total non-subservience of any individual to any other individual or to any group of individuals; and that's what I mean by individualism here. The "every man for himself" individualism that you are referring to is actually Anarchism - which is really "might makes right", which means individuals can be subjected to the rule of whichever individual or group has the most troops or the best weapons, and therefore contradicts the kind of individualism I am talking about.

Well, yes, I think that working together for mutual interests, engaging in commerce and trade – that’s the foundation of human society. This is politics. As Von Treitschke put it, one of the things which separates man from animals is “political genius,” as he put it. Well, that and language – two things which are indispensable for our species to operate, thrive, and prosper. It could have started as simply as a group of hunters dividing up their prey, just as pack dogs might do. We just do it better, that’s all. That’s why some of the pack dogs went along with us; they knew we were going places.

I somewhat agree; but I think the faculty of reason and conceptual thought are truly what separates man from animals, and it is this faculty which allows "political genius" and "language" to exist.

Even in most collective societies, an individual within it has some nominal rights, which is always at the pleasure of the collective. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of “The People,” which is most definitely a “collective,” but it’s the only real collective which counts. Even communist societies, such as the Soviet Union, had a constitution which gave nominal guarantees to individual rights – even if they weren’t worth the paper they were printed on.

True, but the U.S. Constitution talks about the rights of individual people, not the rights of all the people as a combined entity.

Maybe they won’t have to be. It really depends on a number of unforeseeable factors. Only time will tell.

So you are not in favour of the total expulsion of all non-Whites from the U.S (so long as they do not undermine Western values/culture)?

Don’t you think that Western core values could be endangered? Could they be endangered already?

Most certainly. Not only by foreigners though; core Western values are being undermined by those who claim they are defending them - esp. the government.

It’s a bit of both. After all, blacks had been assimilated to America (within the paradigm of their own particular sub-culture) already, and the growth of “Afrocentric” cultural notions was more rooted in a rejection of the culture they had been previously living under for generations. Previously, they were Americanized Africans; now they’re Africanized Americans. If they had chosen to remain Americanized, it might still be okay, but too many of them chose to become Africanized. It was their choice, not ours.

You may be right here, but again it is too much of a generalisation. Either way, I do not think the rejection of the superficial elements of Western culture is particularly damaging or threatening, it is only when the core values are attacked. Perhaps you can be more specific as to which elements of White culture they are rejecting, and why this is a significant threat? Black gang culture for example is extremely destructive and should not be tolerated in the slightest. Wearing African jewellery or listening to African music on the other hand, is perfectly alright.

There may be some different interpretations of that. According to the Qur’an, the unbelievers will be punished by God.

But you’re not just talking about culture here; you’re talking about rule of law. Murder is not just against our beliefs; it’s against the law.

Well I believe Western culture (especially American culture) is based on the principle of individual rights, as defined by the constitution. Below, you speak of laws being bent to be favourable to multiculturalism or to a particular group; and this is against these Western principles.

Another salient feature of anti-racism and multiculturalism is the idea that the law can be bent and/or broken if the results are favorable to anti-racism. For example, we have thousands of lawbreakers illegally crossing the border every day, yet anti-racists believe that that’s okay, since they’re only “looking for a better life” and “doing the jobs Americans don’t want” – two common platitudes of anti-racism.

It’s one thing to go along with and assimilate to a culture, but first and foremost, it would be very nice if they would just follow the law once in a while. Enforce the laws regarding border security and immigration. Enforce the laws against assault, rape, robbery, and murder (among other offenses).

Yep, agree here. I'm in favour of unlimited immigration though, but only in a completely laissez-faire society. I agree that immigration should be much more tightly controlled than it is within the current structure however.

It’s not a matter of basing judgment solely on race. But likewise, I take issue with the commonly-held anti-racist viewpoint that race should be discounted as a factor entirely in all things. The very fact that racial issues are taboo and largely inhibited by Political Correctness clearly indicates that race is very much a significant part of the current paradigm – even if people don’t seem willing to admit it.

Race should be discounted as a factor, but racism should not. I reject the idea that biological race determines culture or one's ideas in any way, but many people clearly perceive race on some level, and it is racist ideas which will cause them to feel "part of" whichever race they see themselves as being closest to. Culture will also correlate with population groups due to their proximity to each other.

When you say it’s not essential, what does that mean? Art, music, folklore, architecture are the tangible results of a national culture, and oftentimes, they are considered symbolic of the nation. If people think of Paris, the Eiffel Tower might be the first thing to come to mind. If people think of Moscow, St. Basil’s Cathedral or The Kremlin might come to mind as symbolic and unique to that city and the culture upon which it was founded. Are these things “essential”? I don’t know.

What if someone proposed tearing down St. Basil’s Cathedral in order to make room for a Wal-Mart store? This may be an extreme and very unlikely example, but if you can understand how you or other Russians might feel if this was to happen, then you might understand a little better about why I oppose multiculturalism so vehemently.

I'd argue that the Eiffel Tower and St. Basil's Cathedral are not essential in the way I was meaning it. They are obviously widely recognised symbols of their respective nations; but as cultural products they are very specific to a particular time and were made for a particular purpose. They are national symbols rather than essential cultural elements. Philosophy is essential, and the fundamental philosophical principles that underpin any culture are the most important considerations. Reason vs mysticism, altruism vs egoism, collectivism vs individualism. The specific symbols that arise from this basis are non-essential.

Yes, I have a friend who’s a big fan of Shostakovich as well. He also likes Rachmaninoff as well.

What about Vysotsky? I’m only superficially familiar with his music, but some Russian friends have told me that he’s really popular and that his music is uniquely Russian – almost to the point where non-Russians (even a well-informed one like me) would never be able to understand completely. I think he was banned by the communists, if I recall correctly.

Indeed, Vysotsky was suprisingly popular given his rejection by "cultural institutions". It's not really my kind of music, though it's been a long while since I heard anything by him.

In America, it’s coffee. I drink ridiculous amounts of it, too – sometimes more than what is really healthy. On my father’s side of the family, refusing to drink coffee is considered anti-social, although allowances have been made for tea and decaffeinated coffee.

Never really been a fan of coffee myself, though I have the odd Starbucks. Yorkshire Tea; can't beat it - I actually had to go make myself one as I was writing that.

I would agree with this, but I suggest that you may be putting the cart before the horse. Our beliefs developed into what they are over the course of thousands of years of written history. They didn’t just pop up out of nothing. The values espoused in our Constitution (I.e. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) were put forth by educated men whose culture was purely European in origin. It can be said that their beliefs were the culmination of the culture and traditions which preceded them, and they were merely building upon what they already knew and accepted as moral truth.

It was because of that background, that firm cultural foundation, that the ideals espoused in our Constitution were able to come about. As a result, the People didn’t really need to be told why these beliefs were good. The moral obligation of a citizen to be a good neighbor to his fellow citizen was not really questioned, because people had already been inculcated with that idea. A lot of things in the Constitution are not covered, primarily because there was the underlying presumption that the people already held certain traditions and mores based upon our commonly-held cultural perceptions.

Have to disagree there. The U.S. constitution was more a reaction to the culture and traditions which preceded them, rather than a culmination of them. As you noted earlier, the Americans were fed up with the absolute monarchy which ruled over them (especially that of George III), and the monarchies which had ruled for centuries previous in Britain and the rest of Europe. They also created a secular society; the first ever to my knowledge. The abandonment of both religion and authoritarianism/collectivism/altruism was a total rejection of what had existed previously in almost every human society.

And this is yet another problem which is inadequately addressed by the Powers That Be. Lawlessness and a general hypocrisy at the highest levels of government, where they take a sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. But they do not live up to their oaths. They lie and act dishonorably.

Agreed, and this is no less true in Britain (and Russia).

Yes.

The way I see it, it’s because of anti-racism that the “race card” has power in the mainstream political consciousness. It’s because of anti-racism that Political Correctness exists in this society. It’s because of anti-racism that we can’t take adequate measures to control the border. It’s because of anti-racism that we are unable to stop immigration, even on a temporary basis. It’s because of anti-racism that law enforcement personnel have their hands tied, which hinders their ability to carry out their duties. It’s because of anti-racism that we have to pussy-foot around with these Muslim terrorists.

Anti-racists try to make it so Americans can’t even openly talk about the issues affecting this country without being attacked as a “bigot” or a “racist.” Their biggest crime is in poisoning the atmosphere of free expression in our society, and it is for this reason that I oppose them as viciously as I do. They must be opposed at all costs; nothing else is more important to me. Nothing can get done in this country until that entrenched faction falls away into oblivion. I don’t know how to destroy them, but it is vital that they be destroyed. They are enemies of Free Speech and enemies of American ideals. I attack them on that basis.

Certainly I agree that freedom of speech must not be given up to appease any minority interests. I believe the issues we have discussed regarding threats to Western culture must be tackled head on and without any of the apologetic nonsense we see all over the place.

As a nationalist, there’s much about Objectivism with which I disagree, at least as far as I understand that particular school of thought.

For one thing, I’m not an individualist.

Quite a while back, another WN poster poked some fun at me over my views on individualism by recalling a scene from the movie “Life of Brian.”

http://www.stormfron...mp;postcount=65

It’s like I’m among a whole crowd of people proclaiming (in unison) their individuality, while I’m the lone voice saying, “I’m not an individual.” There is some humorous irony to that, I must say.

You're not an individualist in what respect? Do you think every person is an end in him/herself or do you believe every person should primarily serve the ends of "society" (or some other group)?

I don't really see the irony if you account for the fact that one's individuality is not negated by many others possessing it also. Every human being existing as an individual is an inescapable fact, but all people have the choice to either think for themselves or blindly follow the actions of others (or cease to think and act at all).

Understood, but keep in mind that WN is a blanket philosophy covering many political views and variations. Regardless of some of the more esoteric criticisms of WN (such as your view that “White” can not be objectively defined), it does not necessarily follow that such a philosophy would be “anti-individualist” in the sense of violating the human rights of individuals. I can’t say that I speak for all White Nationalists on this point, but regardless of how we define our nations or national identity, it does not mean that we cease to view non-whites as human beings with rights. All human beings, regardless of who they are or where they live, have basic, fundamental rights which have been defined and agreed upon in the West for centuries now – even millennia, in some respects – as we continue to borrow from aspects of Greek and Roman legal and political principles.

Racism is anti-individualist in the sense that it relegates the characteristics of an individual to irrelevancy compared to their blood/ancestry which is elevated to a position of overriding importance. Maybe it is just a case of over-generalisation or over-simplification, but this is still how the ideas of most of those on Stormfront come across. If individual characteristics are (rightly) seen as overriding, then racism ceases to be meaningful and becomes a very vague generalisation - and such a view would not give reason to some sort of racial segregation.

In the past, some aspects of “racism” may have been wrong in the way it fomented perceptions that non-whites were “animals” or “less than human.” I openly acknowledge and recognize that such a perception is wrong on many levels. That’s why I don’t consider myself a “White Supremacist.”

However, I don’t think that it’s wrong to acknowledge the obvious cultural differences between the races, especially as they have manifested themselves here in America. I don’t think it’s wrong to say, “We are different; we have different values, different traditions, different cultural perceptions,” and so on. I also don’t see how it’s wrong to observe that the clash of cultural values in this society might be a source of discord and could potentially harm the nation as a whole. I don’t see how it’s wrong to point out that anti-racism and multiculturalism in America has become excessive and too heavy-handed.

Is it so wrong for me, as a White person, to make the statement that some of this crap has gone too far and too long?

My point is that these "obvious cultural differences" are not between the "races"; this is merely a correlation (which, I believe, is simply not sufficient). The only reason I can see to shift the focus from culture to race is because it is easier. You can judge a person's race based on perceptual facts - I.e. by observation. You cannot do that (at least not as immediately) with culture, therefore one simply tries to make the link between the two and use race as a kind of cultural index. Race is not culture, and this I believe is the most deplorable flaw of racism - not merely believing that race exists in a categorical fashion, but believing that it is somehow determinant of one's culture, or that it is somehow possible to perceive one's culture by observing a person's "race".

As for “irrational and illogical,” those tend to be somewhat loaded terms, at least in the way many people use them. It does border on an ad hominem, since it carries the implication that “if you disagree with me, you must be crazy.”

I don't mean to sound like that. I am referring to the arguments or ideas themselves rather than the people stating them.

Not in all cases. There are some situations where racial classification may be important, particularly in medical science where some diseases affect some races more than others.

It is my understanding that the differences in the races were influenced by the disparate climates we humans encountered on Earth, so it was a matter of humans evolving and adapting to their environment. In a very real sense, the development of our culture comes down to much the same thing.

In medical science it is still an approximation and a generalisation, and does not represent an objective form of classification.

Populations were affected by disparate climates, yes. However, there were never three distinct population groups. There are clusters of course, but there are also plenty of individuals who do not fit in one of these clusters. I can agree somewhat that culture developed in a similar way, however there is no causal link between race and culture. This is the crucial fact, in my opinion, when it comes to White Nationalism - it implies (to me) that there is some sort of culture which is unique to Whites and which cannot be adopted by anyone else; but this is not the case.

[SDY6401]

I just read your reply, Dark Reaver. It might be a few days before I can respond.

[Darkademic]

I just read your reply, Dark Reaver. It might be a few days before I can respond.

Quite alright, take your time.

[Darkademic]

Fair enough, but I just want to point out that I consider Marxism/Communism to be an entire way of life, not just an economic system.

Well Marxism is an ideology/theory rather than a system sure; and communism is the economic system thought to be the final result of the fall of capitalism according to Marx. But yeah, I see what you mean.

Well, that may be because people tend to naturally gravitate towards collectivism anyway. Humans are social animals, after all.

I don't agree humans are social animals; at least not as a primary. Humans are rational animals, and it's entirely rational to seek collaboration with others (division of labour etc.), so long as there actually is a value to be gained in doing so. You wouldn't want to "socialise" with a thief for example.

But I agree with you that I don’t see the government as being all that intelligent or anything like an X-Files conspiracy, but there are those who try to line their own pockets. I would presume that there would undoubtedly be a number of little conspiracies, but not necessarily one big, all-encompassing conspiracy.

Sure, the state is very corrupt.

I agree, although there is also an underlying assumption that the requirements of individual human beings are identical to each other.

Some things are a value to all human beings regardless of circumstances. Freedom is of value to all human beings, for example. Of course specific things such as which career to choose or what food to eat (or when to eat) vary from individual to individual dependant on circumstances. Politics must use principles which are universalisable - so providing "free" health care is violating the freedom of whomever provides it (the tax payers).

Also, with rights come responsibilities. If politics is not dictated from above, then it’s up to the individuals within the society to be their own politicians. Indeed, if the people are going to be “kings” of their domain, then they must also take the responsibility which comes with power. The problem we have today is that people expect the government to bail them out of every little crisis to befall them.

As Grover Cleveland wrote: “Federal aid…encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” And for his time, Cleveland was considered a liberal. How times and definitions have changed.

Yes, very true.

True enough. I think that British foreign policy and American foreign policy tend to mirror each other, as it has been since WW2. The will of the people doesn’t seem to play much of a part in foreign policy, mainly because the two major political parties aren’t all that different from each other.

Agreed.

That answers one of my “Cursed Questions.” White Nationalists make easier targets, which makes me wonder how many people are truly against us as opposed to those who are merely going along with the crowd for its own sake. I tend to think that the vast majority of our opposition is just going along with the crowd, and their inability to properly and reasonably express their opposition is an indication of this.

It's probably a major cause for opposition, combined with the fact that "racism" is subject to such overwhelmingly negative propoganda. That's not to say I think racism is right (obviously), I just think many "antis" are just against racism because they've been told it's despicably evil, without properly thinking about it. In turn, that's probably why so many antis come across as complete morons; they can't support their blind opposition.

If there was a forum where I could directly debate with members of the government, then I'd certainly be there rather than here. I certainly don't think White Nationalism is the greatest of concerns; and I'd be more inclined to agree with most of it if it dropped the whole race thing and stuck to culture which is the real issue.

Multiculturalism arose from multiracialism. Multiracialism is merely the condition of having multiple races within a society, but multiculturalism was contrived with the original intention that it would allow multiple races to coexist peacefully. Or so goes the theory, but it still seems to have mixed results.

I disagree. People of different "races" with similar or complementary (non-conflicting) cultures can and do coexist peacefully. Multiple races in the same place are not inherently going to conflict. The "-isms" on the end of both implies some kind of purposive act or idea to me. In that respect, both are wrong. Races should not be forcibly and arbitrarily thrown together, and nor should cultures, for the sake of "showing they are equal" or whatever. However, individuals from any race simply moving somewhere is not an act of force, and will not cause harm if their culture does not conflict with that of the people whom he is moving close to. Racism itself could be an issue. If the people in question are racist, then this will cause conflict - but then it is they who are in the wrong, not the immigrant.

Well, again, when you say “racism is irrational and immoral,” then it still seems somewhat vague. That seems more like a value judgment than anything else.

Humanity is irrational anyway, so that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. I don’t worry about that so much.

Much of humanity is irrational, sure, but that doesn't make irrationality desirable or positive. "Irrational" simply means thoughts not accurately and logically reflecting reality in some way. Racism does not reflect reality. "Immoral" is explained below.

But “immoral” is another kettle of fish. What is “immoral” is reflected in actions, such as lying, cheating, stealing, violence, murder. A belief in racial separation doesn’t do any of that, although many anti-racists jump to conclusions and automatically assume “racism” to be violent. That’s pretty irrational, but as I said, humanity is rife with irrationality, and anti-racists are no exception.

Morality relates to action, yes. Immorality is irrationality in action. If someone thinks it'd be a good idea to murder their next-door neighbour, it is irrational. If he then goes and murders them, it is immoral. If someone thinks culture is a result of race, it is irrational. If he then tries to escape all those of other races, or treats them differently based on race alone, it is immoral (because it's not in his own interests).

Well, I am a nationalist. I make no bones about that at all. I was born into this nation – a nation where average folks like my family could still live comfortably and reasonably well. I was well-fed, educated – with a wide variety of recreation and diversion.

In many ways, I feel quite fortunate. Just a wild stroke of luck that I was born a White American. I could have been born in Vietnam or Afghanistan or the Congo, but I was born here.

I think that our forebears created something very special here in America, and I don’t want to see it all go down the sewer. I think we should try to preserve that which is special and great about our nation so that future generations can benefit as well.

Otherwise, our generation might go down in history as the ones who inherited paradise and turned it into a toxic waste dump.

I totally agree with you here. To me, nationalism is loving a nation detached from the values and nature of it - so if you still loved America even if it was a communist dictatorship; just because it was your country, then that would be nationalism in my view. Again, it just seems to be how we're defining the word. In the way you're using it, I fully support you, because you love your country for what it stands for and what makes it great. You are identifying with values, rather than just the flag and some lines on a map.

Yes, but all this is assuming that they’re playing by the rules, which isn’t always the case.

In which case they can be prosecuted for force/fraud depending on what they're doing which isn't "by the rules".

But even in corporations, there’s a mentality of “groupism” which subverts the individual to the will of the group. There may not necessarily be any coercion or overt violations of individual rights, but the mentality is still existent nonetheless. For example, if one is viewed as “not a team player,” it’s considered a negative in the corporate culture. Some have argued that that’s why Japanese corporations tend to be more efficient than U.S. corporations, since they’re more devoted to the collective/corporation. In the U.S., there tends to be more of an adversarial relationship between management and labor, which has its positives and negatives.

Nevertheless all relationships are voluntary within a corporation. Of course people will disagree with particular actions being taken, this is unavoidable, but people still have power proportional to their level of ownership, and people are free to leave whenever they choose.

Government policies tend to work that way.

Many years ago, back when I was in high school, I had a math teacher who would sometimes go on political tangents. One thing that he said stuck with me, when we were discussing things that the government does which make no sense: “They don’t want to make sense. They want to make money.”

Anytime the government does something inexplicable or otherwise against the will of the people (such as Iraq, as you mentioned above), then one should be very skeptical about their motives.

Indeed.

Well, it’s mainly culture, but since race and culture are often linked to each other, you can’t ignore race entirely.

You can ignore race entirely in my view. In the same way that you can ignore ice cream sales when trying to find the causes of people drowning (the two are strongly positively correlated). Culture is not, and cannot possibly be, determined by race, because culture is a set of ideas, and is a result of discourse. If culture is the issue, you look at culture itself, and what actually causes it. This will explain why particular cultural elements are prevalent amongst certain groups. Bringing in race prior to this is bringing in an unecessary variable which will only confuse matters.

The reason why I believe that the White American “collective” has always concerned itself with the good of America as a whole is because, throughout most of our history, White Americans represented the vast majority of Americans. Even if we were only concerned with the well-being of White Americans, for most of our history, that still constituted around 90% of the U.S. population. If 90% of the country is doing well, then that’s a pretty good percentage, I think. Even now, Whites still represent around 60-65% of the U.S. population – around 190-200 million people. So, supporting the well-being and interests of White Americans is still good for America as a whole.

In contrast, blacks only represent around 11-12% of the population, so if they are only concerned about the well-being of blacks, what about the vast majority of 88-89% of the population which would be outside of the pro-black agenda? What would happen to America itself if the black politicians got their way? I have a strong feeling that they would run America in much the same way as Mugabe is running Zimbabwe at present.

Another way to measure a nation’s overall well-being and strength is in how it competes with other nations, either on the battlefield or in the marketplace. A “racist,” “pro-White” America obviously did quite well for itself overall, in terms of our national power, prestige, and economic strength. Ever since we switched over to multiculturalism, we haven’t been doing as well, overall. This is becoming even more evident as we enter another period of “stagflation.” Both economically and militarily, America has declined since we adopted multiculturalism and anti-racism as official public policies. So, when I say that the pro-White cause would be good for America as a whole, I’m not just saying that because it sounds good. I’m going by the already-established track record. I’m going by historical precedent.

The GDP of "Black-America" ranks higher than (amongst others) Australia, Thailand, Argentina, the Netherlands, Taiwan and South Africa. It is 16th in the world, so I don't agree that non-Whites or multiracialism are causing economic decline. Increasingly socialist policies are the reason for "stagflation" and economic problems. I also seriously doubt someone like Barack Obama would rule like Mugabe; it seems a bit silly to suggest it would be the case.

I don't really agree that White Americans are even mostly only concerned with "White America". I think the collectivist "tribal" attitude may be more prevalent amongst non-Whites though.

I don’t believe in anything Marxist. Marx did not invent the concept of revolution, nor was he the first person to note the inequities between the very rich and the very poor in society.

Yes, but you said "there aren't enough resources to go around". I have to disagree there, there is plenty to go around, and wealth is not a fixed sum where the increase of wealth for one means the decrease of wealth for another. Inequality will always be present, but an increase in wealth overall includes an increase in wealth for those at the bottom - so even the poorest in a rich nation are richer than the richest in poor nations.

Yes, I’ve heard about that. But is that really a religious dispute, or is it the result of a centuries-long dispute between two nations (Ireland and England)?

It's a combination of the two I believe; but in both cases it is an ideological difference rather than some kind of inherent ancestral incompatibility.

Yes, there was conflict, but it eventually subsided. Part of the reason for this was because there were strong pressures to assimilate to American culture and become loyal, patriotic Americans. America may have been multiracial and multiethnic, but before the rise of anti-racism and multiculturalism, we had other ways of handling the practical realities of what we were dealing with.

Nowadays, this is no longer the case, and this has led to the problems we address here in this forum.

Well, I believe racism and multiculturalism are two sides of the same coin in this respect. Both emphasize the cultural distinctiveness of particular groups, and suggest that the groups should remain distinctive (which in many cases means incompatible). There is no suggestion of compromise, integration or change from either side, and thus no motivation for assimilation.

I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other. Criminal activity doesn’t necessarily entail another culture or a lack of assimilation to the dominant culture. It may indicate social deviance, but not cultural deviance. There’s a difference.

Besides, rebelling against political authority is actually something which has always been a strong part of American culture. It’s a part of who and what we are, as a nation.

I disagree. Criminals are by definition attacking the dominant culture - which includes the characteristic of non-violence. Culture is a sum of ideas of society, and criminals are opposing the ideas of society at large. Social and cultural deviance are the same in my view.

Rebelling against political authority is all well and good, but it's not the same as criminally rebelling against society.

Blacks didn’t march or demand special treatment back when slavery was going on. It would take a bloody Civil War in which White Americans slaughtered each other in great numbers, just so blacks could be freed from slavery. However bad slavery was, history has shown that the slaveowners paid a very hefty price for their sins – along with a number of innocent people who never owned any slaves. They had their plantations burned, cities and towns looted (and burned), not to mention the hundreds of thousands of White American deaths. In the aftermath, there were the scalawags and carpetbaggers – not just in the South, but in the West as well. (The violence really didn’t end either. The Indian Wars continued in the West, and there was violent labor unrest in the North as well.)

So, in other words, they got their pound of flesh. Maybe they don’t consider it fair compensation, but they should be satisfied that countless White Americans have suffered in the process to help them gain their freedom in America.

Blacks started marching in greater numbers in the 1950s and especially, the 1960s. (They had actually been marching for much longer, but it wasn’t until those decades that they started getting the attention and sympathy of the mainstream media.) But even in the 1950s and 60s, they were really only demanding equal treatment and equal rights. Once that was achieved, either through various acts of Congress or judicial edicts, then they started to grow more arrogant, and that’s when the demands for special treatment started cropping up, in the 1970s and 80s, and continuing up to this very day.

I think I agree with all of this; basically there is no justification for "compensation" anymore.

It is what it is. Maybe it’s “primitive,” but calling it that doesn’t change the reality of what we’re dealing with.

Mind you, I didn’t invent this concept myself. I merely recognize that this is a very real issue in the society in which I live, and as such, I’m trying to work out a way for those people whom society-at-large has deemed as “privileged,” when such is really not the case. When there are people who view me as a “devil” or an “oppressor,” just because of what I look like – or perhaps my gender or nationality – then it’s a reality which I have to deal with. You’d be absolutely correct in saying that such thinking might be “primitive,” but that doesn’t help us much when these “primitive-thinking” people have modern weapons. We have to do what we have to do to defend ourselves, and that’s all there is to it.

Fair enough, but I don't think adopting the same ideas helps matters. Acknowledging that such people do think in racial terms is one thing, but thinking in the same terms to combat them is something else entirely.

If it is a minority, it’s a very significant minority. I also tend to think that they have a great deal of sympathy from the majority of their races, even if they may not be as resolute or extreme about it as some might be.

Furthermore, I would argue that it’s perfectly normal and natural that they would feel that way, at least to some degree. It’s not that difficult for non-whites to find reasons to resent White people, and that’s just the way it is.

It's a significant minority in that they can be very vocal about it and take extreme measures to see that they are heard (for example the race riots we had in the UK a few years ago which happened in the city where I live), but I still think it doesn't make sense to reduce the level of focus on these people in particular and extend it to include those who really have nothing to do with the issue. Immigrants who come over and start a riot and commit acts of violence should be kicked straight out, plain and simple.

I can tell. You seem to be able to understand issues far more in-depth than the average anti-racist.

I'm glad you think so.

But I was only going by my observations in this forum. For some reason, those outside of America seem far more resolute and fanatical in opposing American WN than those inside of America. This is especially noticeable when it comes to the “America-is-not-White-because-Whites-stole-it-from-the-Indians” argument. White Americans might have some difficulty in putting forth such an argument, since they are the beneficiaries and owners of this allegedly “stolen land,” so it might present some ideological conflicts for them. However, those outside of America don’t have any such ideological conflicts, so they can advance this ridiculous argument with impunity.

Hehe, well speaking from the other side of the argument, I'm not really sure. I don't tend to associate myself with most "antis" since the majority of them are liberals, but I can see how that'd make sense.

Technically speaking, you’re correct, but there are other ways of looking at a situation besides biologically. On the other hand, one might argue that there are some biological differences besides just skin color.

But the issue is not biology. WN addresses political issues, namely how Whites can survive in today’s reality. How we are defined as “White” is not really an issue, or at least, it shouldn’t be. That’s already been determined by centuries of tradition. We don’t have to re-invent the wheel, nor do we need to redefine what is “White.” All we really need to do is try to find a way to survive in a world in which many others who define us as “White” have some serious grudges and resentments against us – because we are “White.”

If we were to go solely by biology and science, then we wouldn’t even be called “White.” My actual skin color is more of a pinkish color – or perhaps a very light orange, so scientifically speaking, it’s a whole different ballgame.

I guess I just tend to view human beings as more than just “biological organisms.”

Well I agree here, which is why I was getting frustrated by the return to the biological argument from some of the other posters. It makes no difference. Poltics and culture are the issues.

Well, sure, that’s possible. We could do that. It might be just semantics, though, since we’d be encountering the same opposition. We’d always end up coming back to the same argument.

Here, check out this thread. It might work out as an interesting test to see if Western Culturalism is met with any more reasonable response than White Nationalism.

That's a brilliant idea in my opinion; it will surely test whether most "antis" are just "anti-White" or "anti-Western", either of which are repulsive ideas to hold, the former simply being racism, the latter being perhaps worse since it is attacking the very values which make Western society great.

Families are not that much different, actually. Families eventually turn into clans, which turn into tribes, which turn into nations. There’s definitely a connection there.

The “State” was defined by Von Treitschke as “the people, legally united as an independent entity. By the word "people" we understand briefly a number of families permanently living side by side. This definition implies that the State is primordial and necessary, that it is as enduring as history, and no less essential to mankind than speech.”

Families did turn into clans, but not really in modern times. The state, or rather the nation-state (since the "state" to me just means the government), is essential because it unites people under a common legal/economic system adhering to common principles, and delineates these people apart from people who follow different principles and have a different legal/economic system - however this in no way implies that only a particular set of people (whether it be race, religion, gender etc. etc.) can be a part of a particular nation-state.

Actually, anarchists might argue exactly the same. They don’t actually believe in “might makes right.” They believe that their ideal anarchist society would be filled with peace and love, with everyone sharing all the world. Of course, it depends upon every single individual in society believing in it and going along with it, which is what your ideal society would also entail.

The problem is, a lot of people don’t agree, and they won’t really be willing to work with others without some sort of incentive – whatever it may be. Sometimes, they’ll agree if there’s a prospect of some reward (money, land, gold, etc.) or fear of punishment or retribution (prison, seizure of assets, death, etc.). But usually, it’s another individual (or group of individuals) offering said rewards or punishments, so you’re always going to be stuck with that, one way or the other.

Anarcho-socialists believe that yes, but anarcho-capitalists think people will naturally adopt the principle of non-aggression. However, the reality of both theories of anarchism is "might makes right" because there is no over-arching authority regarding what principles/laws to adopt. You're correct that it's usually another individual or group offering the rewards or dealing out punishments, but this doesn't (necessarily) entail the use of force or collectivism. So long as the principle of non-aggression is adopted, and force is only legitimately used when it is in retaliation against those who initiate it, then individualism and voluntarism remain.

It talks about both, actually.

In essence, the Constitution is the consensus of “We The People,” as the first three words of the document clearly show. In other words, we’re doing this for us.

Collective rights necessarily contradict individual rights. Individual rights are in the interest of every individual though, which is what the constitution is explicitly identifying.

So you are not in favour of the total expulsion of all non-Whites from the U.S (so long as they do not undermine Western values/culture)?

Not totally, no. It probably won’t be necessary, as long as certain guarantees can be put in place. I favor compromise, negotiation, and amicable resolutions to problems. But if the other side is too intransigent and stubborn, then that may add fuel to the fire. We’ll see what happens.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Then you’d have to look at which people are making those decisions in government which threaten Western values. And the government doesn’t operate in a vacuum, either. They have lobbyists and special interest groups which influence them, as well as the mainstream media – who often get the red carpet treatment at the White House and U.S. Capitol. So, if the government is undermining Western values, then you should look at the kind of people who hang around the major buildings of government.

I agree.

As for which elements of White/Western culture are being rejected, it’s more a matter of how Political Correctness has changed things – almost like a whitewash of historical revisionism.

I thought about this the other day when I stumbled across a site called [http://www.yesterlan...l]“YesterLand.”[/url]. I think this is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.

I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Disneyland or Disney World, but as a kid, I recall many fond memories of visiting both of those places. But one of their rides is a train ride around the entire perimeter of the park, where you see the different sections from the train. In the area called “Frontierland,” the train passed by a Burning Settler’s Cabin.

Of course, I agree that there is certainly revisionism being done for the sake of political correctness, and that it is utterly wrong.

I think you have it backwards. Principles of individual rights are derived from Western culture, but not the basis of it. The culture has to exist first, and then the political fine-tuning comes much later. For example, language is an integral part of culture. You can’t have any of these political principles or concepts of individual rights, nor can you have a constitution, without language and other cultural aspects which make all those principles meaningful in the first place.

The problem is, the political fine-tuning never really ends. Every generation seems to feel the need to tinker with it somehow, and that’s how good ideas can turn into bad practices.

I disagree. Obviously language preceded philosophy, however there is nothing else I can think of which precedes the fundamental ideas about freedom and reason with regards to Western culture. Going right back to the accomplishments of the Ancient Greeks, their achievements depended on adherence to reason and individualism. That isn't to say Greek culture was pefectly rational and individualistic, but it was successful to the extent that it was.

It would have to be a completely laissez-faire world, though.

Just the country which was receiving the immigrants.

The thing is, I don’t think we can say for absolute certain that race is positively, absolutely NOT a factor in how human beings turn out. There’s so much that even the scientists don’t know about what makes human beings tick. So, while I won’t definitively claim that race is a factor, I don’t think we can definitively rule it out as a factor either.

My reason for ruling it out entirely is simply because culture is a collection of ideas, and it IS scientific fact that ideas are not inherited - which is why children must be taught everything, with the exception of the very basic functions of the human body and mind (none of which constitute ideas).

Well, if you want to boil things down to what is absolutely essential, then I can suggest the fictitious society of Oceania, as described in Orwell’s 1984. In their society, they got what was “essential,” and nothing more. It may not have been much, but they could still get by, survive, and procreate. Freedom is not essential. Individual rights are not essential. Basic sustenance and the propagation of the species are all that is essential. Everything else is just gravy, but I like gravy, so let’s keep it, I say.

I didn't mean to imply that non-essential means "not required" or worse, "not desirable". I simply mean that if you take the non-essential things away, it wouldn't change the essential nature of the culture. Non-essential things are certainly necessary and desirable for people to have a happy and rich existence. Particular pieces of art are non-essential, however art is essential to any culture, for example.

It wasn’t a total rejection of religion, however. The idea was religious freedom, that a man’s belief in God is a personal matter – between the individual and his Creator. It’s not something that the State could ordain or impose upon people, but by the same token, people had the right to believe in God.

Okay you're right there.

Remember that anti-monarchist sentiment did not actually originate in the U.S., and just because we rejected monarchism didn’t mean that we rejected all of Western culture. We didn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For the average person, a farmer was still a farmer, both before and after the Revolution. He was probably happy at the prospect of not having to pay such unreasonable taxes, as well as the hope that he might be able to get more land. But his day-to-day routine and cultural rituals were pretty much unchanged. His principles, values, and social mores remained virtually unchanged.

Besides, in reality, it took some time before certain ideals really started to take hold. For one thing, there were a few people at first who thought that George Washington should be made the “King” of the United States of America. Fortunately, Washington categorically rejected that whole idea and said that America must never have a king.

Whilst I'm sure some cultural elements remained the same, most of which were inconsequential, I definitely think it was a massive shift, in a very fundamental way, away from the culture of Europe. Europe always emphasized the supreme authority of the monarch, as well as the subservience to the nation (and to God). America did away with that, emphasizing the importance of the individual and making one's own way in life.

What, apart from these things, do you think would have separated an American farmer from, say, a Chinese farmer of the time?

I believe that no man is an island. Just the ostensibly simple process of typing a post and sending it over the Internet is not something that I could do, absolutely on my own. It first requires the proper equipment – a computer and a modem. I bought the computer; I didn’t build it all by myself. Of course, I also need to plug it into the wall, which is connected to the local power plant, which employs thousands of workers to keep the electricity running throughout the city. Naturally, I pay my electric bill (and now they’re talking about a rate increase), but we still need all those individuals out there to keep the system up and running. Similarly, it’s also necessary for the local cable company to keep my internet connection up and running at all times – as long as I pay for it, which I do. But I still need those individuals in that company to keep the system working. If it breaks down, I know that *I* couldn’t fix it, so I’d have to call someone else.

I could go on and on with examples, involving food, gasoline, medical care, and many other essential aspects of society which we all depend upon.

The bottom line is, no matter what the transaction may be, if it involves a multitude of individuals, there has to be a hierarchical structure. This means that, at some point, an individual is likely going to be telling other individuals what to do. There might conceivably be times where an individual might even have to resort to forcing other individuals in a society, such as in wartime, hurricane, floods, or other catastrophes, whether natural or man-made.

Certainly, we have a commitment to support individual rights and civil liberties in this society, but it’s never really that simple. The existence of so many lawyers and a highly complex legal system which decides questions of individual rights on a daily basis is pretty clear proof of just how complicated and problematic it can be. But as with any human system, it’s rife for abuse. Even the system of checks and balances can sometimes go out of balance.

I agree with nearly all of that. The necessity of a division of labour for the survival of any modern economy doesn't equate to collectivism or go against individualism in any way. The difference between individualism and collectivism is what the primary benificiary of one's actions should be. Collectivism says that you should serve the collective as a primary, even at the expense of your own well being (I.e. slavery). Individualism says you should serve yourself as a primary (which often means interacting with other individuals and groups).

I’d like to think that there is a balance between the two. No one is suggesting that we all become clones of each other; that’s not the case at all. People still have free will and the ability to make their own choices. All we’re trying to do is just make a more harmonious and productive society, and it’s easier to accomplish that goal when we don’t have to spend so much time and energy on Political Correctness and other mandates which force people of disparate cultures and races to “get along” (or at least give off the appearance of “getting along”) when the whole idea is complete folly to begin with.

It’s like all of society has been at a standstill for 40 years because we’re still scratching our heads wondering how not to sound “offensive” to other races and cultures. It’s pointless.

Well then I agree. I don't suggest anyone should be forced to cater to other cultures for the sake of their being "different but equal" or whatever.

I understand your point, but I’ve been down this road many times before. I guarantee you that if I put forth an argument which was purely culturally based, then anti-racists and non-whites themselves would instantly turn it into a racial issue. That’s just how these discussions go. So, this tells me that, among other things, there are quite a number of unresolved issues related to race in this society.

Perhaps, but then it is their error in doing so. Obviously race is still an issue to many people, simply because they're not informed enough or haven't really thought about it enough. If culture is the real issue then they need to really ask whether it makes sense to concentrate on race.

Still, if a medication is known to have certain side effects among black patients, then a doctor might take that into consideration when determining a patient’s treatment. It’s a perfectly valid medical practice, and I think that blacks themselves might be grateful for such consideration.

True, of course, but people mistakenly think it isn't based on a generalisation. Obviously when someone's life depends on it it makes sense to take into account all known factors - including general correlations where the more specific causes are not yet known.

The problem is that you’re to break down White Nationalism all the way back to the beginning of time – or at least the beginning of man’s presence on this Earth. I’m not looking to redefine the human species; I just don’t want White people to be threatened.

I don't want White people to be threatened either, nor do I want anybody to be threatened because of their race. I also don't want Western culture to be threatened - but I do want those cultures which conflict with it to be threatened. In fact, I want them to be wiped out (the culture that is, not those who have adopted the culture). That's because I believe any cultures which endorse collectivism, slavery, subjugation to religion, violence, irrationality etc. are WRONG and have no place in a civilized society.