Comments on: Who’s White? – Part 3

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:25:56 +0000

Who’s White? – Part 4 concerns David Lane's views on this topic.

By: Kristoffer

Kristoffer — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:07:02 +0000

Sorry, but this is such a waste of space. Stay focused on shows from August.

Cut through all the BS and simply use your commonsense, eyes, and the credo of David Lane: Who is white http://www.davidlane1488.com/whoiswhite.html

SF used to be an interesting and competent place to go, but it has fallen very far.

Carolyn has done a good job organizing a good program, don’t waste time with this.

By: CSR

CSR — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 05:04:13 +0000

What about Doggerland?

By: Carl

Carl — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:02:56 +0000

Well, there are a few Jermaicans around who haven’t mixed yet. It might be hard to rescue them when we can barely rescue ourselves. The case of Jermaicans is also a cautionary tale, of going gentle into that awful night (apologies to Dylan Thomas).

By: Haakon Kreutz

Haakon Kreutz — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:17:59 +0000

@TS: Forgive me, “master”. It must be my “inner nigger”.

By: Tanstaafl

Tanstaafl — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:59:15 +0000

HK, what part of the point about anti-White slippery slope arguments did you not get?

By: Haakon Kreutz

Haakon Kreutz — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:19:09 +0000

What about those who are genetically white but not geographically European or culturally Euro either? These types DO exist, y’know, whether out on the steppes of Asia or the Rif Mountains. They may be somewhat marginal, but should we reach out to this “white periphery”? Just because they are Muslims or shamanist herdsmen doesn’t mean they aren’t technically part of the extended family. Some of these people are much sounder specimens than downbred Moderns that one can find in major metropolitan humanimal warrens. I know its a fine line to draw sometimes, but I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 02:18:32 +0000

I would like to introduce what I think may be a useful concept: if a person has a doubt that he is White, then he probably isn’t. This approach is quite similar to ‘taking someone’s word for it’, but it puts the onus on the person. Do you have a doubt? Then you’re not White. (And of course if someone is clearly not White, or is a Joo, then they’re not White.) Perhaps then the doubt itself is determinative. The doubt represents the non-White genes and the White genes ‘fighting’ within their being.

That approach assumes good will on the person. Keeping out interlopers is another matter. I think that as genetic tests are more and more complex, it becomes easier to play the game of arguing that there are no clear boundaries.

My favorite is the gut check: whom would you have your sister marry? That’s the best one yet.