Liberals = Nazis: They are out to get us from Guywhite

Liberals = Nazis: They are out to get us

So I am reading Yahoo’s AR list and its amusing comments on the total Jewish domination with the goal to keep the rest of the world permanently submitted. As evidence they will cite, out of context, some Jew they think agrees with them (a lot of Jews in Hollywood = it’s an organized effort to bring down the white race), some out of context quotes, bad acts by individual Jews, etc.

And I am sitting here thinking, “don’t you guys realize how ridiculous you sound. Does it not bother you that your stories are only believed by people from Alabama and Montana, where more people claim to have seen aliens than Jews?”

Then I see a NY Times article posted. And it’s the same exact crap, except the victims of the assault are right-wingers and whites rather than Jews. It’s exactly the same crap, which makes it that much worse.

A person from Arkansas who never saw a Jew will fall for anything someone he trusts will tell him. If his Minister tells him thst Jews are the Chosen People who must be supported in their fight agaist the exclusively evil Moslems, he will believe it.

Likewise, having never seen a Jew he can think they are a different race out to destroy whites with some diabolical scheme.

I never met any Bulgarians so it would be easy to convince me either way on them.

But everyone in the US met whites. We are not talking about some mysterious people from a far away land. So how does this crap fly?!

Why is nobody calling BS on it?

There’s nothing entertaining
about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil
rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week
dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from
Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police
had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families.

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows
so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale
mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at
Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its
proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big
deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to
hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style
government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million
newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative
authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last
week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney
signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered
Republican ideas.

Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor
to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the
gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted
a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch
anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit
on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this
“middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has
incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the
bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four
of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the
20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her
Facebook page.

When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in
1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The
Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential
campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only
pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded
them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September
will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J.
scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism”
along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American
Medical Association.

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated
reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before
Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar
majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in
the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights
bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater,
running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal
allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

The Cultural Defeat of the White Race by guywhite

The Cultural Defeat of the White Race

What is a nerd? Mary Bucholtz, a linguist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has been working on the question for the last 12 years. She has gone to high schools and colleges, mainly in California, and asked students from different crowds to think about the idea of nerdiness and who among their peers should be considered a nerd; students have also “reported” themselves. Nerdiness, she has concluded, is largely a matter of racially tinged behavior. People who are considered nerds tend to act in ways that are, as she puts it, “hyperwhite.”

With America’s culture being more diverse (sorry) in recent decades, one often sees white kids acting “black”

The dominant race always has an easy time reproducing. Women in particular are attracted to dominant men. More than anything dominant (as opposed to domineering) behavior is attractive to women. More than anything, more than looks, more than money, women want leaders, men who can decide, who can rule, who are confident.

Women want these men, and men want to be these men.

A hundred years ago, blacks tried to act white. Why? Because whites were the dominant race. If a black person could “pass”, he would often move to another town and pretend to be white. Being white was good.

Today, whites are acting black and being white is nerdy. Whatever else you can say about nerds, they are not sexually appealing. This is particularly true for men. Women don’t want nerds, not matter what they say.

It sounds nice so some women feel compelled to say that they like nerds because they think it makes them a better person by being attracted to someone who is stereotypically smart. But the reality is that when push comes to shove, the women will say that the nerd is “nice, but I just don’t see him that way.”

This isn’t to say that women like dumb men because clearly they don’t. What they like are smart men who are well-adjusted, which the nerds are just not. Nerds are people who may get high grades, but are utterly inept in social situations. They are out of place. They don’t belong.

They are like whites in the New America.

The white race is the nerdy kid of the New America. This is not our America anymore and we don’t belong here. In this New America, we are inept socially and have to pretend to be like the “diverse” populations.

Global Warming: Caused by Humans? by guywhite

Global Warming: Caused by Humans?

If this is true, that settles it for me. I was agnostic on whether or not humans caused Global Warming, but this is pretty good proof that it’s (a) a normal event; (b) is probably not man-caused.

Can anyone here back up or counter the following?

The memory is that it was reading another part of the Durant’s Story of Civilization (of which tAoN is volume 11) back in grade school, I stumbled on a passage which was the very first in any book of any kind in which I realized that the authors could let their political preconceptions alter their interpretation of their subject. What they wrote, as I recall it very inexactly 40 years later, was to the effect that western civilization had progressed in a grand upward sweep since the time of the ancient Greeks, pausing only in the years 1952-1960 — which of course the Eisenhower administration. (This was written before Nixon was elected.) I had previously believed that if something was written in a book, it was authoritatively true. This little gem was so blatantly silly that you couldn’t possibly take it seriously. Books weren’t Truth, after all. It was a defining moment in my intellectual life, something like learning the truth about Santa Claus.

I had some of the same feelings, roughly a decade ago, to learn that the scientific establishment would attack ideas, in this case the notion of diamondoid machinery and mechanosynthesis, using blather, appeal to authority, and various other fallacies, when they knew they didn’t have valid scientific arguments. It was all in aid of getting funding and retaining prestige, and not the search for truth.

There was never a “nanogate” so we will probably never know to what extent the nanotech “in-group” fudged, colluded, or simply used the old-boy network to marginalize their rivals. It would be just as clueless as the Durants to claim that there was a broad sweep of progress in nanotechnology except from 1996 to 2005. But it’s also a bit disingenuous to claim, as some commentators have, to be “shocked — shocked!” to find that kind of thing going on in climate science.

Unlike some people, we at Foresight haven’t been overly focussed on the sturm und drang of science politics. A major reason is that in the long run, it doesn’t matter. If diamondoid machines can be built, and it’s highly likely they can, there is little chance that they won’t be sometime in the coming century. So no matter what the specifics of any given debate, it’s a good idea to look at things like the Industrial Revolution to understand the coming century of technological innovation.

One thing that Climategate does is give us an opportunity to step back from the details of the AGW argument and say, maybe these are heat-of-the-moment stuff, and in the long run will look as silly as the Durants’ allergy to Eisenhower. And perhaps, if we can put climate arguments in perspective, it will allow us to put the much smaller nano arguments (pun intended) into perspective too.

So let’s look at some ice.

I’m looking at the temperature record as read from this central Greenland ice core. It gives us about as close as we can come to a direct, experimental measurement of temperature at that one spot for the past 50,000 years. As far as I know, the data are not adjusted according to any fancy computer climate model or anything else like that.

So what does it tell us about, say, the past 500 years? (the youngest datum is age=0.0951409 (thousand years before present) — perhaps younger snow doesn’t work so well?):


Well, whaddaya know — a hockey stick. In fact, the “blade” continues up in the 20th century at least another half a degree. But how long is the handle? How unprecedented is the current warming trend?


Yes, Virginia, there was a Medieval Warm Period, in central Greenland at any rate. But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all. And the following Little Ice Age is what killed them off, and caused widespread crop failures (and the consequent burning of witches) across Europe. But was the MWP itself unusual?


Well, no — over the period of recorded history, the average temperature was about equal to the height of the MWP. Rises not only as high, but as rapid, as the current hockey stick blade have been the rule, not the exception.


In fact for the entire Holocene — the period over which, by some odd coincidence, humanity developed agriculture and civilization — the temperature has been higher than now, and the trend over the past 4000 years is a marked decline. From this perspective, it’s the LIA that was unusual, and the current warming trend simply represents a return to the mean. If it lasts.


From the perspective of the Holocene as a whole, our current hockeystick is beginning to look pretty dinky. By far the possibility I would worry about, if I were the worrying sort, would be the return to an ice age — since interglacials, over the past half million years or so, have tended to last only 10,000 years or so. And Ice ages are not conducive to agriculture.


… and ice ages have a better claim on being the natural state of Earth’s climate than interglacials. This next graph, for the longest period, we have to go to an Antarctic core (Vostok):


In other words, we’re pretty lucky to be here during this rare, warm period in climate history. But the broader lesson is, climate doesn’t stand still. It doesn’t even stand stay on the relatively constrained range of the last 10,000 years for more than about 10,000 years at a time.

Does this mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas? No.

Does it mean that it isn’t warming? No.

Does it mean that we shouldn’t develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels? Of course not. We should do all those things for many reasons — but there’s plenty of time to do them the right way, by developing nanotech. (There’s plenty of money, too, but it’s all going to climate science at the moment. :-) ) And that will be a very good thing to have done if we do fall back into an ice age, believe me.

For climate science it means that the Hockey Team climatologists’ insistence that human-emitted CO2 is the only thing that could account for the recent warming trend is probably poppycock.

And that, if you will allow me to return full circle, means that the Fat Fingers argument is probably poppycock too.

Atlanta Fried Chicken Party and other great stuff by guywhite

What? Atlanta blacks aren’t excited about the idea of getting rid of the whites who are keeping them down?

– Sabril

Forgot to mention this in the previous post. Blacks are now complaining that a white mayor may be elected in Atlanta. Ok, fine, so if you get rid of whites, the problem goes away.

But no, whites are supposed to pay taxes, but apparently not vote, or at least not vote in an efficient manner that allows them to choose the candidate they want. Voting for whites should be African-style: purely symbolic with no chance to actually choose who they want.

Last time white Americans were told to pay taxes without representation, they had the Boston Tea Party. This time around, can we have the Atlanta Fried Chicken Party?


Detroit crime

Straight White Male Republican

Joke of the Day

In the cradle of the civil rights movement, a new secession effort is under way that would break off Atlanta’s predominantly white, wealthy suburbs to the north from poorer, black neighborhoods in the south…

The measure made it out of House committee this year. It’s been stymied so far by questions about the counties’ financial viability…

I posted it predominantly for its humor value. How, oh how, will whites achieve financial viability without blacks. It will be as horrible as Finland. The mere word Finland brings images of child starving on the dirty, unpaved roads near broken down homes. Oh wait, that would be Africa. White-only countries and cities look beautiful.

I don’t think the split will happen. The people who’ll benefit from it will be Republicans, and they are scared of their own shadow.

This can’t happen unless we admit that:

1. Blacks get more government services than whites, and not just welfare, but also public schools, public transportation (subsidized mostly by highway tolls and taxes), etc;
2. Blacks pay far less in taxes, even per capita, even as percentage of their salary (because our taxes are progressive);
3. Blacks commit more crime, even when we take education and poverty into account.

And all of this puts a great strain on other communities, who have a legitimate desire to not want to pay for someone else’s out-of-wedlock children from cradle to prison.


Hypocricy and The Joys of Diversity

Sam Roberts, New York Times, December 26, 2009

Much of the focus on the results of last month’s New York City elections was on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s small victory margin, despite the more than $102 million he spent to secure a third term. But the elections also produced a seismic political shift that so far has gone largely unnoticed: Black, Hispanic and Asian residents made up a majority of voters in a citywide race for the first time.

That turnout is a milestone in a city where minority groups make up both a majority of the population and a majority of those eligible to vote. The transformation of the electorate also signals the growing political importance of the city’s diverse tapestry and the challenges that citywide candidates will face as they strive to stitch together successful voting blocs.

I’ve written about diversity at length, including here and here, but let me add something.

Nobody ever chooses to live in “diversity”. Southerners had particular views on race relations because they lived in diversity and could not escape it. Unlike the rest of the country, where whites and blacks are de facto segregated, the South has always been the most integrated place in this country.

This seems strange to those unfamiliar with the region because you always hear about the legal segregation in the past. But this legal segregation arose from the Southerners having no de facto segregation.

The most liberal big city in the nation is probably Portland, OR. It also happens to be the whitest city. Even in places like New York and LA, whites are largely segregated from blacks. How many ghetto blacks do you see in Beverly Hills? How many whites do you see in Compton?

Whites in Santa Monica can send their kids to decent school where they won’t get raped or mugged. Whites in Birmingham, AL cannot.

This is particularly so when you consider that the South is the poorest region in the nation. These people can’t send their kids to private school, nor can they move.

But while the rich and the upper middle class built a virtual wall around themselves in their suburbs and neighborhoods, the poor couldn’t just abandon their homes because they didn’t have the money for a second house, and could not sell the home they lived because of the drop in property values caused by crime and decay brought on by the Blacks.

Even those renting their apartments often found it impossible to move out of “inner cities.” Many couldn’t afford to buy cars needed to move from suburbs to their city jobs, or they couldn’t afford to spend 3-4 hours a day traveling because they had to be home to cook, clean, paint, fix the car and perform other duties for which the rich hire help. They also could not afford to “buy” protection from diversity by donating time and money to the campaigns of influential politicians who would then build shields in the form of government buildings, colleges and highways around their remaining neighborhoods to prevent minorities from moving in, as was done for the upper class Whites.

The poor were stuck with “diversity”.

Which brings me back to New York’s diversity. The Jews who live there seem to have views radically different from those elsewhere, and especially in the suburbs. Why? Because those who stayed behind usually couldn’t get out.

Devout Jews had to stay in their communities because of their very specific needs that require a large community of like-minded people. Even when blacks went on a murderous spree against them in Crown Heights, they had no choice but to stay in that very diverse neighborhood.

Russian Jews, who arrived here poor, had to move into Brighton Beach, then a black neighborhood which is still attached to the black Coney Island, meaning that the schools there are terrible.

Even the WASPified Jews of the Upper East Side and the Hippie Jews of the Upper West Side are within a mile or two of Harlem, awfully close to Harlem for comfort in terms of long-term housing values. There’s no reason why blacks can’t move further down into the presently upscale mostly-Jewish neighborhoods.

In the face of all this diversity, every single New York Jewish neighborhood just voted for the Republican over the black Democrat Bill Thompson, just as they voted for Rudy Giuliani over David Dinkins.

Those Jews who went down to the South half a century ago to promote integration are hypocrites. They wanted to promote a popular idea that made them look good, while knowing that they won’t have to suffer from it.

But when push comes to shove, it’s not that the Southerners are bad people, it’s that they have to take the brunt of diversity. When facing the same thing, Jews and all others act the same way. After all, nobody wants their daughter raped.

Negative Depiction of Blacks in the Media

considering the rampant depiction of thuggish (black) athletes and thuggish (black) young men virtually everywhere you turn

Does someone have any proof of that? Can you cite a single case where blacks are portrayed in purely negative terms?

Usually, even if they have a flaw, they have an overriding positive or some victimology. Steve Sailer wrote that in one Law & Order series, they had only one black criminal in the whole first year, and he was just someone who snapped after being victimized. At the end, we were supposed to feel bad for him in the same sense we feel bad for a brutalized wife who snapped and shot her husband.

In 2008 I wrote that all the home alarm commercials feature white men. All them, without exception. I have seen followed them carefully. There hasn’t been a single exception. There were no blacks, no Hispanics, no Orientals, no Indians (of either kind), just whites.

Blacks and liberals claim that every time we turn on the TV, we watch Birth of a Nation. But do we? Can you cite a single such modern movie, sit-com or commercial?

When a person cites a conclusion without being able to state any reason for it, you know that they are wrong, usually just promoting a politically correct lie.

So does anyone have an example of blacks being portrayed strictly negatively? I am not talking about a “Mr. Q” situation where a father takes a hospital hostage to force the doctors to kill him to use his organs to save his son. Nor am I talking about blacks being portrayed as humans with normal human flaws.

I want an example where at the end of the movie you can’t help but think that blacks are bad people. This is exactly what is alleged against the media. I want an example.

Obama: Not On Our Side- Non whites like obama’s plan for white America

Obama: Not On Our Side

Locust:  I’ll give you the short and sweet version, non whites support Obama’s raping of white America, everything he has done to this nation, non whites support, while whites, who started out at 61% support, whites are now down to 39%. while Blacks support for Obama is higher, more then 90%, almost unchanged, and all other non whites support has dropped only slightly.  This is clear, we know who our enemies are, they include liberal whites (most of them) and all other races.

November 29, 2009 by guywhite

The basic rule of politics is that voters ask whether the politician is on their side. The Kurds in Iraq don’t vote for each other because of “racism”, but because they understand that the Arabs, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, won’t be on their side.

Any white not blinded by dogma should’ve known that Barack Obama is not our side. People made a big deal of him being a Moslem. I much rather prefer the Moslem leaders of Turkey and Qatar than the guy who for 20 years sat in the the church of Jeremiah Wright. There are good Moslems and bad Moslems, but there is no good Jeremiah Wright.

Obama attended a rally organized by Louis Farrakhan. His autobiography is admittedly “a story of race”. He broke up with a girlfriend for being white.

Obama’s official White House visitors included the head of the New Black Panthers, as well as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and of course what President can survive without meeting Oprah Winfrey!

Barack Obama picked sides a long time ago, and it is only now that whites are realizing that he didn’t pick our side.

Since the start of his presidency, U.S. President Barack Obama’s approval rating has declined more among non-Hispanic whites than among nonwhites, and now, fewer than 4 in 10 whites approve of the job Obama is doing as president.


Obama last week fell below 50% approval in Gallup Daily tracking for the first time in his presidency, both in daily three-day rolling averages and in Gallup Daily tracking results aggregated weekly.

In his first full week in office (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), an average of 66% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing, including 61% of non-Hispanic whites and 80% of nonwhites. In the most recent week, spanning Nov. 16-22 interviewing, his approval rating averaged 49% overall, 39% among whites, and 73% among nonwhites. Thus, since the beginning of his presidency, his support has dropped 22 points among whites, compared with a 7-point loss among nonwhites.


Blacks’ support for Obama has averaged 93% during his time in office, and has been at or above 90% nearly every week during his presidency. Thus, part of the reason Obama’s support among nonwhites has not dropped as much as his support among other groups is because of his consistent support from blacks. (With Hispanics’ approval rating down five points, greater declines among Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed races account for his total seven-point drop among nonwhites.)

The accompanying table shows how Obama’s approval rating has changed by subgroup from his first full week in office to the most recent week. The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points during this time. Independents’ approval of Obama has declined nearly as much (down 18 points), whereas support among Democrats is down only 6 points.

Obama’s strongest support comes from blacks, Democrats, and liberals—all of whom give him approval ratings above 80%. He maintains solid support of more than 60% from nonwhites, Hispanics, and young adults.


A Closer Look at Race and Party

One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party. This is not a sufficient explanation, though, because Obama’s approval rating has dropped among Democrats even as it has held steady among blacks.

In fact, it appears as though Obama’s relatively small loss in support among Democrats has come exclusively from white Democrats. In late January/early February, Obama averaged 87% approval among white Democrats and 90% approval among nonwhite Democrats. Now, his approval rating among white Democrats is 76%, down 11 points, but is essentially the same (if not a little higher) at 92% among nonwhite Democrats.


Geneticists Proving Our Ancestors Right by guywhite

Geneticists Proving Our Ancestors Right

by guywhite

Thanks to Jay for this:

“Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

In 2010, GWAS fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes. The data are already collected, with DNA samples from large populations already measured for these traits. It’s just a matter of doing the statistics and writing up the papers for Nature Genetics.”

Information like this is why I write this blog. I’d like the truth to be known. It really gets to me when the same people who cheer for “race is biological” suddenly reverse themselves and scream that it’s sociological when it suits them, as well as other similar intellectual dishonesty. I see people argue in an intellectually dishonest way and I think of shutting down this blog for good.

Then I get articles like that and I know why I continue to write.

Ultimately race realists will win. Those who are intellectually honest will be proven right by facts. I am done with white nationalism, just as I previously gave up on neo-cons and libertarians.

Staying true to the facts, something none of these can do when they contradict what they want to hear (as is true for the liberals as well), is what race realists try to do. If the response to my posting a peer-reviewed study that blacks have higher testosterone and drawing the obvious observation that blacks – due to testosterone, as the science shows – find it easier to build muscle is to claim that I have a black boyfriend, as racehist claimed, then WN is not worth supporting.

WN’s remember that blacks have higher testosterone when it comes to crime. They remember that T has some positive effects when it comes to attacking feminist claims that women are equally good athletes. But when we apply the same science to black-white difference, there’re childish claims of “you are gay!”, that’s not realism, that’s utter stupidity.

There are differences in intelligence, personality, physical ability. Sometimes, my group will come out ahead and sometimes behind, but I prefer to stay intellectually honest about it, rather than feed myself lies I want to hear.

The Left is probably worst of all. At least WNs support their own, which is commendable. The Left is like AIDS that tries to undermine its own organism. They freely admit, as A Conversation About Race showed, that blacks deserve their athletic success, but not that whites deserve their intellectual and business success.

How the liberals aren’t all suicidal is beyond me. If you are so horrible, such a danger to humanity, get rid of yourself. Or maybe that’s what they are doing when they are not reproducing.

It’s interesting that I got this article as I was watching the show “Meet The Natives”, about Australoid Pacific Islanders coming to the US. Did people really need genetics to know that there are vast differences? Our ancestors knew it just by having a bit of common sense, a quality sorely lacking today.