Some Comments Over at Roissy's

Update: 2009-04-29: 2nd update

I've actually done a bunch more posts (16+) on the second thread mentioned below. And they involve a lot of interaction with some other posters, including a typical Jewish, bad-faith douchebag. Head on over to Roissy's and check it out! I'm probably gonna be too lazy to copy all of these over to this post when you all can just read it all in context. That'll leave more time to finish up my giant post on subverting the MSM I hope to publish within a day or two.

Update: 2009-04-29

I've followed Latte Island's suggestion to copy the comments here as a courtesy. There are some very thoughtful commenters over at Roissy's though, so you might want to check them out in their full context, as well as some other commenters running other conversations that are interesting.

Original post with some editing

I've posted a number of somewhat long comments on two of Roissy's recent posts, discussing topics like Jews, Blacks, Whites, "civil society", immigration, etc.

The first thread discusses immigration and the demographic transformation of California.

First Thread: Text Message Of Dire Portent

First Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Second Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Third Comment	Local Copy of Comment

In the second thread I make much longer comments covering a variety of topics.

Second Thread: Sobering Thought of the Day

First Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Second Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Third Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Forth Comment	Local Copy of Comment

Roissy and some of his commenters are sharp and have interesting things to say.

If I make some more comments later, I'll add more links above. You all can also just jump to the thread and search for my handle, or you certainly might like reading over other folks comments as well.

I'm also working on a long post (and have been for a while) on ideas for subverting and replacing the mainstream media. I hope to have it finished in a day or two.

I'm curious whether folks like my giant posts, which I hope are somewhat logically coherent in covering a subject, or whether you all would like me to break them up into smaller chunks, perhaps with a "table of contents" post for a set of them. I'm not sure if they're so long, it gets to be a trial to read the whole thing.

Thread 1: Comment 1

Yeah, but how old are you G?

Are you over 45?

Thread 1: Comment 2

Well said Lucius.

To detail the implications of my question to G, California has radically changed demographically over the last 60 years, particularly since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

You can view the historical ethnic demographics for the US, including California at the US Census Bureau in Excel or PDF files.

The results for California (through 1990) indicate:

Year	%White	%Black	% non-Hispanic White
1940	95.50	1.8	89.49
1950	93.66	4.4	N/A
1960	91.97	5.6	N/A
1970	89.01	7.0	N/A but 76.27 from 15% sample, 78.00 from 5% sample
1980	76.18	7.7	66.60
1990	68.97	7.4	57.22
2006	59.8	6.2	43

The last line comes from the 2006 ACS Estimates according to Wikipedia.

So there have been large and rapid changes to ethnic demographics in California (no surprise).

Our traitorous elites would like to Californicate the rest of the country the same way if they can get away with it.

We shouldn’t let them.

Thread 1: Comment 3

@G

My point was that if you were a young man, you wouldn’t have been alive to witness the full scope of the demographic changes in California. You’ve only witnessed the latest incremental step in our out-of-control immigration, which might not look that radical if seen from the perspective of, say, ten years (although I’ve actually seen many natives report how much worse it has gotten over the last 10 years.

Thread 2: Comment 1

Obsidian said:

Voodude makes a powerful point that I’ve been thinking about for awhile now-why are people, who don’t live among or even near such “others” spend so much time thinking, writing, ruminating about said “others”? I mean, its pretty clear that Roissy and others, take great care not to rub elbows w/NAMs in any major way, if at all.

So…wassup with that?

To answer your point about rubbing elbows with NAMs, our "civil rights" laws deny the historic right of free association, so it is both illegal and abhorred by our "civil society" for a group of Whites to segregate themselves away (it's kosher for Jews though). As the country becomes more non-White, it will become more difficult to escape the third worlding of this country unless you have wealth or power. The old White ethnic neighborhoods of yesteryear that provided community and safety for non-elites are now a forbidden dream.

So why think about these issues? Because we're rationally analyzing the future of this country based on current trends and don't like what we see.

We already have plenty of evidence in from many areas of the country, like California, Florida, Arizona, New York, with the following results: wire-pulling-elites-living-in-gated-communities-with-lots-of-wealth? life is goooood! middle-and-working-class? life is not so goooood!

I personally get along well with foreigners and have always been interested in foreign cultures, languages and peoples. But in the same way that I respect those other groups and countries and don't think globalism should level all countries into controlled consumer cattle, or that the US should be imperialistically dictating to them, I respect my own nation and people and don't want to see it heavily colonized and transformed into something alien, particularly since this has been engineered very dishonestly. It's now "racist" to speak out against the transformation, while in 1965 it was promised that no such transformation would occur, in order to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Likewise with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 where a "one-time" amnesty would be granted in exchange for future immigration control and border enforcement. They've lied through their teeth every time and deserve no more trust or credibility.

An example of what our elites have planned for us comes from america2050.org which is sponsored by some left wing foundations, global corporations and the Jewish J.M. Kaplan Fund.

Here's a quote:

America 2050 is a national initiative to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050.

America 2050 is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers to develop a framework for the nation's future growth that considers trends such as:

* Rapid population growth and demographic change
* Global climate change
* The rise in foreign trade
* Sprawling and inefficient land use patterns
* Uneven and inequitable growth within and between regions
* Infrastructure systems that are reaching capacity
* The emergence of megaregions

Look at the passion the Jewish J.M. Kaplan Fund has for "Migrations":

The Fund aims to support: a) comprehensive immigration policy reform for the United States; and b) the integration of immigrants into local and national communities. The former aim is pursued through grants for public education and advocacy. The latter is pursued by efforts, initiated by the Fund, to: bolster local immigrant-friendly policies and programs; highlight immigrant contributions to the commonweal; and establish, with the Migration Policy Institute, a new award – the E Pluribus Unum Prize – intended to honor government agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals who have succeded in integrating recent immigrants and adding value to the larger community.

I wonder if the Kaplan family support the same policies for Israel that they do for the US? We've got plenty of third world non-Jews we could ship off to Israel so they too can enjoy the magically enriching benefits of diversity (Our Greatest Strength! TM) and marginalization within their own land.

Thread 2: Comment 2

Obsidian,

Thanks for your courteous reply. Let me answer your questions in two posts. Here's part one.

I'd be interested in hearing your ideas and opinions about the content of my posts.

I'm also curious if you believe our "civil society" is anti-White or not (e.g. Hollywood, mainstream media, academia, K12 education, government, etc)

Let me answer your second question first. Freedom of association is being denied to Whites when they can't create and participate in ethnocentric organizations, either legally or through social sanction. For example, the typical university has dozens of ethnic organizations catering to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews (as an ethnic group) and so on, but if Whites even establish non-racial organizations like Youth for Western Civilization, they are excoriated and shunned as racists and get their own $PLC bulletins. Again, this is NOT a White group, but they are effectively treated as if they were and considered beyond the pale.

So if Whites tried to establish White Engineers, White Student Association, White Lawyers, etc, they would be condemned as bigoted Nazis and their future career prospects harmed. Such are the blatant double standards governing our "civil society". Another example, in the House of Representatives, the Congressional Black Caucus has refused to seat White representatives who represent majority Black districts. Can you imagine our "civil society" approving of remotely similar behavior for any White group (such White groups aren't even allowed right now, meaning, they are technically legal, but anyone participating in an explicitly White ethnocentric organization is outcast as a racist Nazi, particularly by Jews, who have TONS of rabidly ethnocentric organziations for themselves)?

Another facet to traditional freedom of association was the ability of neighborhoods to legally control their ethnic or racial composition. This was overturned in the 1960s and unscrupulous real estate moguls used these legal tools to destroy ethnic neighborhoods, while making handsome profits and ensuring a constant supply of new customers with Whites continually being pushed to new, temporarily safe, expensive areas. In many cases remaining Whites and their children would suffer violence as the neighborhoods deteriorated. Detroit is a classic, if extreme, example. "White flight" was really ethnic cleansing against Whites in many cases.

You yourself have discussed the violent nature of Black urban areas in previous posts. Frankly many Whites want nothing to do with such environments. If a certain subgroup of Blacks prefer a thuggish and violent lifestyle, I'm OK with them pursuing such a life within their own spaces, but Whites, particularly non-elite, non-wealthy, Whites should also be allowed to pursue a healthy, safe environment for themselves and their families and defend their own spaces against violent aggression.

The next facet of your point revolves around the replacement for traditional freedom of association by the new implicit freedom based on wealth. So wealthy people can escape to nice areas filled with nicer people (excepting the recent trend toward Section 8 housing that intermixes some of the thuggish subclasses into areas they otherwise couldn't afford, although they normally target the middle class and not the rich). California now has many gated communities for just this purpose, analogous to long standing Latin American patterns for separating the classes. These were unnecessary before our recent "enrichment" by diversity.

So you are correct that since a larger number of Blacks are less wealthy, they are more limited in where they may live. It's not a legal restriction but an economic restriction that statistically affects Blacks more than most other populations.

One reason Blacks have a bad reputation as a group is their tolerance and coddling of the thuggish subclass responsible for so much crime and violence. Most Black leadership defends and excuses their bad behavior instead of properly condemning it. I also believe a disturbing portion of the non-thuggish Black majority shares this attitude and sympathizes with them, at least when they're sticking it to Whitey. Given all the anti-White propaganda coursing through our popular culture, educational system and so on, it's not too surprising that so many Blacks have a lot of anti-White hostility.

Thread 2: Comment 3

Obsidian,

Here's part two dealing with your first question.

The "short" answer for why Jews have both historically and currently are pushing so hard for third world immigration into America is that they consider this in their group interests. Professor Kevin MacDonald has documented in great detail in three books written during the 1990s. They benefit while displacing their traditional competitors, Whites, who they distrust as potential Nazis. This is demonstrated by a notorious quote by Jewish activist Earl Raab, from Chapter 7 of "Culture of Critique"):

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
(Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 1993 February 19, 23)

They are benefiting by displacing the traditional WASP leadership of the country while they fit in as "White" even though they have a great deal of hostility for the traditional population, which is frequently masked euphemistically as contempt for "flyover country". Many Jewish commentators including David Gelernter, Ben Stein and Michael Medved have discussed this.

An example of very disproportionally Jewish representation is their enrollment in top-tier universities, which then provide the most prestigious manpower for other elite institutions in government, media, academia, business, Wall Street, etc.

Look at the numbers of Jews attending various elite universities: THAT'S DISPROPORTIONATE! Where's the liberal and diversicrat outrage for 2% of the population taking 38% of Northwestern, 33% of Washington University (St. Louis), 30% of Yale, 28% of the University of Pennsylvania, 25.5% of Harvard, 25% of Brown, Columbia and Cornell, 21% of NYU, 18.3% of Michigan, etc? (NOTE: these are all outstanding schools and nearly all outstanding schools have way more than 2% Jews: do your own search: e.g. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is about 10% Jewish as is UC Berkeley: Those are large campuses that are 5 times disproportionate). Since Jews are categorized as White it turns out that (non-Jewish) Whites are strongly underrepresented at many elite universities, if we want to follow the affirmative action bean counting so sacred to our "civil society".

Of course, since Ashkenazi (European) Jews have an average IQ of around 110, it is to be expected that they will be somewhat overrepresented among the intellectual elites, but part of their disproportion also comes from ethnocentrism. For example, several years ago a study was done analyzing the citations of scientific papers and they discovered that Jewish authors tended to disproportionally cite other Jews and cite them more heavily, which could enhance their careers, since a major metric of academic success was how frequently your publications were cited.

Historically Jews across the broad spectrum of beliefs and organizations were nearly universally supportive of scrapping the traditional immigration restrictions, like the national origin quota, while in modern times, it is still extremely popular, but some dissenters have appeared, mostly because they fear the impact of Muslim immigration.

If not for the Jewish activism in promoting these policies, it never would've happened as thoroughly documented by Kevin MacDonald in his The Culture of Critique with Chapter 7 focusing on their role in overturning the national origin quota in 1965.

An excellent source for further exploring these issues is The Occidental Observer which contains many articles with copious links to additional sources of information. A basic philosophy of this site is that Whites should organize and behave ethnocentrically just as much as other groups, like Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews, are allowed and encouraged too.

Our civil society is now explicitly rejecting the color-blind society. For example, consider the many publically funded institutes at universities staffed by taxpayer-funded academics, like The Kirwan Institute.

Here's a full quote for context with particularly interesting parts in bold:

For some time now, the push for colorblind discourses, policies and practices around race and ethnicity in the United States has become more and more pronounced. Some justify this push with reference to the mistaken belief that nowadays racial identity has only marginal effects on a person's or group’s social interactions or access to social and economic opportunity. Some advocates for colorblindness go further: more than superfluous, they say, race talk of any kind is inherently divisive and pernicious.

At Kirwan, we agree that all too often implicit and explicit race talk has indeed been used to divide and alienate. At the same time, we believe colorblindness, though sometimes urged by people and organizations with the best intentions, is a mistake—one with profound consequences. The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts. That question is an empirical one we engage in through a number of projects. In some cases we specifically examine how people talk about race and how such conversations impact their behavior. In other work we look at how issue "frames" operate. And in still other projects we look at the efficacy of using class-based or universal policy approaches to racial matters.

In the Diversity Advancement Project, for example, the Institute is collaborating with the Center for Social Inclusion to develop strategies to increase public support for racial, ethnic and gender diversity in our public and private institutions. Our project on Democratic Merit aims to push colleges and universities toward greater investment in those communities and students whose success is needed to enhance the health and strength of our multiracial democracy. And in our projects on African American-Immigrant coalition building, we work to understand the conditions and contexts that facilitate constructive, institutionalized relationships across lines of race and nativity, and those that tend to undermine or preclude such relationships.

It is impossible to quickly summarize all of this work, much of it ongoing. What we can say is that context, audience, and environment all matter in determining how best to promote racial justice. We can also say that, drawing on our own efforts and those of numerous colleagues and experts, we expect to make steady progress toward agreement on how the findings of this growing field can usefully shape our collective social justice advocacy and activist practice.

Note that brazen advocacy and politics is pursued at an academic institution funded with public money and this is only one of many. Here's another one that also lists further such scams.

Of course for all their happy academic talk about "context", their idea of fairness and balance is Whiteness Studies, which is a direct attack on Whites, our identity, history, traditions and peoplehood, in constrast to EVERY other ethnic studies, which openly advocate for their ethnic group.

Consider one of the flagships of the Whiteness Studies movement, racetraitor.org:

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

The editors publish things in RACE TRAITOR because they think that publishing them will help build a community of readers. Editorial opinions are expressed in editorials and unsigned replies to letters.

Yeah, right. "White trash" shares a more exalted status than Oprah, Chris Rock, Michael Jordon, Colin Powell or Barack Obama.

I don't see these academics ferociously calling on anyone to smash the Black race, which they would do if they were logically consistent. Likewise, Jews are much more successful than Whites (and, by transitivity, vastly more so than Blacks), yet I don't see any of them trying to deconstruct Jewishness or dismantle Jewish privilege.

F*** them and their double standards and hypocrisy.

Kevin MacDonald documents how substantial Jewish influence was mostly responsible for these "cultures of critique" (of Whites).

Thread 2: Comment 4

@chicnoir

You're correct that such national-origin organizations are permissible. But most American Whites have ancestors from many different European countries. Many government and corporate forms, including for new jobs, ask me if I'm "white", not of Irish or German descent. And since White people are demonized by Hollywood and our media and legally discriminated against by our government, this only strengthens our pan-European identity as Whites.

Some Jews argue that the Palestinian people don't really exist because they supposedly don't have a historic existence. Well, given their treatment over the last 120 years by Zionists, even if they didn't really exist two centuries ago, they sure do now.

The existence of White identity is much, much older than the anti-White leftists claim, as discussed in the comments on this thread. A few more comments down from this one, I give some excerpts and some google book searches anyone can run to see some proof.

If the pan-African Black identity is "celebrated", then White should be too.

Likewise given a Jewish identity encompassing Mizrahis, Ashkenazis, athiests, Buddhists (still considered Jews) and the full spectrum of Jewish religious belief from Reconstructionist to Haredi Jews.

Likewise for creating a synthetic "Asian" identity for American consumption. In Asia, they consider themselves Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc, first, second and third over pan-Asian.

The key insight that killed my lifelong belief in the color-blind society was that the left, as it takes over our "civil society", is motivated by hatred of Whites instead of love of non-Whites, and this is reflected in the increasing anti-White policies, rhetoric and ideology. The color-blind rhetoric was just a tool to dispossess Whites of their traditional society and as we are marginalized, ethnic politics will likely rule the day and Whites will be a hated scapegoat class, similar to the kulaks genocided in the millions by Stalinist Jews in the 1930s.