the White network - Tag Archive for "White identity"

Jews Versus Whites – Part 3

Published on November 12, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Concluding a review of glaring differences between Whites and jews.

Two Lessons in Privilege from April 2013.

Susan Patton advised Princeton women:

For most of you, the cornerstone of your future and happiness will be inextricably linked to the man you marry, and you will never again have this concentration of men who are worthy of you.

Here’s what nobody is telling you: Find a husband on campus before you graduate. Yes, I went there.

Under the initial presumption that Patton was a “WASP”, she was condemned as an elitist and “racist”. Once she played the jewish mother card all the anger and criticism turned into understanding and sympathy.

Suzy Lee Weiss wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal complaining about being rejected by elite colleges:

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would’ve happily come out of it. “Diversity!” I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would’ve been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

This too resulted in condemnation, until Tablet Magazine called her “family”, and Commentary Magazine (the mouthpiece of the American Jewish Committee) published two articles defending her. Then she started getting job offers.

An article in National Review Online played on the conflation of jews and Whites. To All the Colleges That Rejected Suzy Weiss:

Such sarcasm is seen as blasphemy in universities and colleges throughout America. Their faculty and administrative officers, and their professional associations, such as the American Council on Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of University Professors, overwhelmingly believe — firmly and unapologetically — that out-and-out racial and ethnic discrimination in college admissions is fully acceptable in the interests of “diversity.” Discriminating against culturally “nondiverse” Caucasians such as Suzy Weiss is, in their eyes, the right thing to do. And they want the Supreme Court to recognize such discrimination as constitutional.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that Ivy League and other top-notch schools practice such ugly discrimination. After all, they had similar practices in the 1920s to ensure their schools did not have “too many” Jewish students. Today, they just want to make sure they don’t have “too many” Caucasians or Asians on campus. All they have done is change the groups targeted for discrimination.

Suzy Weiss and many other high-school seniors across the United States are being discriminated against because of their skin color or because they have an epicanthic fold in their eyes. Such racial and ethnic discrimination is morally wrong, and neither “diversity” nor anything else can justify it.

Ron Unz has tried to get out in front of the who/whom of American university admissions. In The Myth of American Meritocracy he writes:

For a broader historical perspective, we should consider The Chosen by Berkeley sociologist Jerome Karabel, an exhaustive and award-winning 2005 narrative history of the last century of admissions policy at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (I will henceforth sometimes abbreviate these “top three” most elite schools as “HYP”).

Karabel’s massive documentation—over 700 pages and 3000 endnotes—establishes the remarkable fact that America’s uniquely complex and subjective system of academic admissions actually arose as a means of covert ethnic tribal warfare. During the 1920s, the established Northeastern Anglo-Saxon elites who then dominated the Ivy League wished to sharply curtail the rapidly growing numbers of Jewish students, but their initial attempts to impose simple numerical quotas provoked enormous controversy and faculty opposition.10 Therefore, the approach subsequently taken by Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell and his peers was to transform the admissions process from a simple objective test of academic merit into a complex and holistic consideration of all aspects of each individual applicant; the resulting opacity permitted the admission or rejection of any given applicant, allowing the ethnicity of the student body to be shaped as desired.

The massively footnoted text of The Chosen might lead one to paraphrase Clausewitz and conclude that our elite college admissions policy often consists of ethnic warfare waged by other means, or even that it could be summarized as a simple Leninesque question of “Who, Whom?”

Asian-Americans as the “New Jews”

The overwhelming focus of Karabel’s book is on changes in Jewish undergraduate percentages at each university, and this is probably less due to his own ethnic heritage than because the data provides an extremely simple means of charting the ebb and flow of admissions policy: Jews were a high-performing group, whose numbers could only be restricted by major deviations from an objective meritocratic standard.

Obviously, anti-Jewish discrimination in admissions no longer exists at any of these institutions, but a roughly analogous situation may be found with a group whom Golden and others have sometimes labeled “The New Jews,” namely Asian-Americans.

“The new jews” has also been used in reference to muslims, especially in Europe. It is an implicit reference to the jewish narrative distinguishing jews and Whites – with jews oppressed and Whites as their oppressors.

Once we begin separating out the Jewish portion of Ivy League enrollment, our picture of the overall demographics of the student bodies is completely transformed. Indeed, Karabel opens the final chapter of his book by performing exactly this calculation and noting the extreme irony that the WASP demographic group which had once so completely dominated America’s elite universities and “virtually all the major institutions of American life” had by 2000 become “a small and beleaguered minority at Harvard,” being actually fewer in number than the Jews whose presence they had once sought to restrict.50 Very similar results seem to apply all across the Ivy League, with the disproportion often being even greater than the particular example emphasized by Karabel.

In fact, Harvard reported that 45.0 percent of its undergraduates in 2011 were white Americans, but since Jews were 25 percent of the student body, the enrollment of non-Jewish whites might have been as low as 20 percent, though the true figure was probably somewhat higher.51 The Jewish levels for Yale and Columbia were also around 25 percent, while white Gentiles were 22 percent at the former and just 15 percent at the latter. The remainder of the Ivy League followed this same general pattern.

This overrepresentation of Jews is really quite extraordinary, since the group currently constitutes just 2.1 percent of the general population and about 1.8 percent of college-age Americans.52 Thus, although Asian-American high school graduates each year outnumber their Jewish classmates nearly three-to-one, American Jews are far more numerous at Harvard and throughout the Ivy League. Both groups are highly urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated within a few states, so the “diversity” factors considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews seem to fare much better at the admissions office.

Even more remarkable are the historical trajectories. As noted earlier, America’s Asian population has been growing rapidly over the last couple of decades, so the substantial decline in reported Ivy League Asian enrollment has actually constituted a huge drop relative to their fraction of the population. Meanwhile, the population of American Jews has been approximately constant in numbers, and aging along with the rest of the white population, leading to a sharp decline in the national proportion of college-age Jews, falling from 2.6 percent in 1972 and 2.2 percent in 1992 to just 1.8 percent in 2012. Nevertheless, total Jewish enrollment at elite universities has held constant or actually increased, indicating a large rise in relative Jewish admissions. In fact, if we aggregate the reported enrollment figures, we discover that 4 percent of all college-age American Jews are currently enrolled in the Ivy League, compared to just 1 percent of Asians and about 0.1 percent of whites of Christian background.53

Menachem Rosensaft: Israel’s Jewish Essence Is Non-Negotiable: A Response to Mahmoud Abbas, Huffington Post, 5 November 2011:

“My people,” Abbas declared, “desire to exercise their right to enjoy a normal life like the rest of humanity. They believe what the great poet Mahmoud Darwish said: Standing here, staying here, permanent here, eternal here, and we have one goal, one, one: to be.”

Our unambiguous response must be that we insist on precisely the same rights Darwish demands for the Palestinians. For us, a permanent, eternal Jewish sovereignty in the State of Israel is not only non-negotiable but must be, especially in the aftermath of the Holocaust, one of the cornerstones of any authentic and hopefully lasting peace.

When the remnant of European Jewry emerged from the death camps, forests and hiding places throughout Europe in the winter and spring of 1945, they looked for their families and, overwhelmingly, discovered that their fathers and mothers, their husbands, wives and children, their brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, and cousins, had all been murdered by the Germans and their accomplices. And yet, they did not give in to despair.

On the contrary, almost from the moment of their liberation, the Holocaust survivors’ defiant affirmation of their Jewish national identity in the Displaced Persons camps of Germany, Austria, and Italy took the form of a political and spiritually redemptive Zionism.

My father, who taught me that a love of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel is the most important element of Jewish leadership, understood that the goal of a Jewish state was a spiritual lifeline that gave the survivors of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belsen, and all the other centers of horror a sense of purpose and a basis for hope. He died 36 years ago this week during the Days of Awe, midway between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. I cannot think of a worthier way to honor his memory than by evoking his spirit and his uncompromising dedication to the creation of a new Jewish commonwealth to refute each and every refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Menachem Rosensaft: White Nationalism: A Scourge That Won’t Go Away, Huffington Post, 12 March 2012:

Reacting to the inclusion of the “white nationalist” anti-immigration activist Peter Brimelow on a panel on “The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the Pursuit of Diversity Is Weakening the American Identity” at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Ed Schultz observed on MSNBC’s The Ed Show that, “We’ve come to expect CPAC to bring together the far righties. But even CPAC should draw the line somewhere.”

Schultz went on to quote Brimelow as having said at CPAC that, “Democrats have given up on winning the white working class vote, so they use bilingualism to build up a client constituency. It’s treason. We hear about racism, but the real issue is treason.”

Brimelow certainly doesn’t mince words. He told a CBS reporter that US immigration policy, the legal kind, mind you, “is creating a “Spanish speaking underclass parallel to the African American underclass.”

“These are people who are completely dysfunctional,” Brimelow said. “They’re on welfare; they’re not doing any kind of work — at least not legal work — and their children are having a terrible time.” California, which used to be “paradise,” he added, is “rapidly turning into Hispanic slum.”

Nice. So who, precisely, is Peter Brimelow, and why should the rest of us be concerned when a white nationalist racist like him appears at the same event as, say, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin?

Brimelow is founder and editor of the VDARE.com website which has been designated a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and which, according to no less an authority than the Anti-Defamation League, “features the work of racists, anti-Semites and anti-immigrant figures.”

The ADL has been following Brimelow’s activities for some time. In February of 2009, the organization tells us, “Brimelow demonstrated his racist views” at “a conference of racists in Baltimore, Maryland, dedicated to ‘Preserving Western Civilization.'” There, Brimelow “delivered one of the most extreme presentations at the conference. He argued that the influx of “non-traditional” immigration is a problem all over the Western world and that the loss of control over the country by “white Protestants” will mean a collapse of the American political system. He urged that whites respond by creating an explicitly white nationalist political party.”

Hmm? An “explicitly white nationalist political party”? Where have we heard that before?

We all know that there are bigots amongst us who espouse theories of racial, ethnic or religious superiority. They have the right to express their views, however noxious, on street corners or on their websites. No one, however, is obliged to invite them to be part of polite society.

The fact that the organizers of CPAC chose to give Peter Brimelow a platform reflects on them. Why the other CPAC participants have chosen not to denounce or even distance themselves from his toxic rhetoric is a question well worth asking.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft, Wikipedia:

Menachem Z. Rosensaft, (*1948 Bergen-Belsen, Germany) an attorney in New York and the Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Survivors, is a leader of the Second Generation movement of children of survivors,[1] and has been described on the front page of the New York Times as one of the most prominent of the survivors’ sons and daughters.[2] He also served as National President of the Labor Zionist Alliance, and was active in the early stages of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As psychologist Eva Fogelman has written: “Menachem Rosensaft’s moral voice has gone beyond the responsibility he felt as a child of survivors to remember and educate. He felt the need to promote peace and a tolerant State of Israel as well. He wanted to bring to justice Nazi war criminals, to fight racism and bigotry, and to work toward the continuity of the Jewish people”.[3]

In March 2009, Menachem Rosensaft was appointed as general counsel of the World Jewish Congress, the umbrella organization of Jewish communities around the world based in New York.[4] Currently, Menachem Rosensaft is Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School,[5][6] and Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at Syracuse University College of Law.[7] In 2011 he was appointed lecturer in law at Columbia University Law School where he teaches a course in the law of genocide.[8]

Israel Can Never Be Too Jewish, by Yaakov Dov Bleich, Forward.com, 9 September 2013:

Interesting to ask, has there ever been a debate in France about “French identity, too much or too little”? Or in Germany? Holland? England? The United States? Our Jewish identity, based on our Jewish traditions, is what has given us the connection to this Holy Land for so many thousands of years. It is what has kept us together, and it is what joins us today. It is our distinguishing character. It was in Egypt before we became a nation, and it is today. There can never be too much Judaism. Our Jewish Identity can never be too much. It can only be too little.

Is Israel too Jewish? An unorthodox solution, by Rick Jacobs, Haaretz, 11 September 2013:

My love for Israel is at the core of my Jewish identity, yet, as president of the largest movement of Jews in North America, the Reform movement, I find the religious status quo destructive to Jewish unity. Too many Diaspora Jews are disconnecting from an Israel that does not honor, reflect or support their core Jewish commitments.

Of course, Israel faces enormous external security threats, but it also faces an existential threat to its very soul and character. We need a global conversation about how to practice Judaism across borders, where Diaspora Jewry and Israeli Jewry can enrich each other.

But we must ensure that Israel represents a Jewish state that truly embodies the values and vibrancy of all Jewry, seeking to create a just and secure nation that will continue to link us as a people across oceans and across generations. Judaism and democracy can thrive only in an Israel with true freedom, freedom that embodies the dreams and promises of Israel’s Declaration of Independence: “to uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex… guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture… be based on freedom, justice and peace….”

In the free marketplace of Diaspora Jewish life, Orthodoxy and liberal Judaism are both flourishing, so why be afraid of affirming the legitimacy of the many authentic Jewish paths, including, too, the secular/cultural? Young Jews worldwide are searching for answers — and how they define their Jewish identities should be a source of renewal for the Jewish state.

The difference between jews and Whites is the difference between a parasite and its host. Jews pathologize Whites, literally cause pathology. They are pathogenic.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

3 Comments

Jews Versus Whites – Part 2

Published on November 5, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Continuing a review of fundamental ideological distinctions between jews and Whites.

In August 2000 Tim Wise provided his own personal jewish narrative – clearly identifying himself as a jew, his sympathies for jews like his grandfather, and describing how it fuels his antipathy for Whites:

For the sake of becoming American (and that had really meant to become white), one had to give up what one was, in order to metamorphose in Kafkaesque fashion into something one was not: a white man.

At the end of the day, even with the advantages that come with transformation, one has to wonder if it was a decent bargain: to trade your traditions and political-cultural soul for a permanent guest pass at someone else’s club, and a shot at the vice-presidency. The self-doubt we Jews have on this score is likely part of the reason we cling to the model minority myth with such dialysis-machine like ardor: it allows us to think it was worth it after all.

The terms minority and majority reveal a significant distinction between jews and Whites. Ordinarily a minority group is regarded as morally superior to the majority, which is often justified by pointing to differences in wealth or power. The exceptions are telling: Israel, where jews are the majority, and South Africa where Whites are a minority. White minority rule over South Africa was regarded as immoral and illegitimate, was boycotted and ultimately brought down. Meanwhile, jew minority rule over the United States is denied and otherwise disguised, and exposing or opposing it is painted as irrational and immoral.

“The Jewish Question” – Jared Taylor Vs. Brit sheds further light on Jared Taylor’s view of jews. Taylor implies that there is no racial distinction between Whites and jews – that the jewish question is not a question of race. Furthermore, he claims there are jews “entirely on our side”. Taylor’s point of view is more favorable to jews than Whites. Judaism, Culture and the Gentile World: A Conversation with Rabbi Mayer Schiller provides a window into the mind of an AmRen jew.

I’ve previously discussed the idea, propagandized primarily by jews in the jewsmedia, that something being “too White” is a problem. They have exactly the opposite attitude about “too jewish”. This was illustrated by the hysterical reaction to a relatively mild and innoculous statement Miley Cyrus made last month.

Miley Cyrus: Music Industry Too Old, Too Jewish To Understand Her Appeal, at Weasel Zippers:

“It’s always weird when things are targeted for young people, yet they’re driven by people that are like 40 years too old. It can’t be like this 70-year-old Jewish man that doesn’t leave his desk all day, telling me what the clubs want to hear.”

Miley Cyrus’ Anti-Semitic Slip is Showing, at Tablet Magazine:

But Miley’s comment deserves attention because of its very particular context. As Jody Rosen poignantly noted in New York shortly after her now-notorious twerking turn at MTV’s Video Music Awards, the singer’s current reincarnation is a bit of minstrelsy

As Rosen convincingly argues, such masquerading has frequently served as “a shortcut to self-actualization” for white people, from Al Jolson onwards. Entertainers have understood and applied minstrelsy as a performative process by which white—and, in the case of Jolson, Jewish—performers could remake themselves as all-American pop stars.

Rosen: The 2013 VMAs Were Dominated by Miley’s Minstrel Show, by Jody Rosen, 26 Aug 2013:

A doctoral dissertation could (and will) be written on the racial, class, and gender dynamics of Cyrus’s shtick. I’ll make just one historical note. For white performers, minstrelsy has always been a means to an end: a shortcut to self-actualization. The archetypal example is in The Jazz Singer (1927), in which Al Jolson’s immigrant striver puts on the blackface mask to cast off his immigrant Jewish patrimony and remake himself as an all-American pop star.

Miley Cyrus’ Shocking Anti-Semitic Remarks, at Hollyscoop:

Miley Cyrus’ entire point of living is to shock people. However, baring her midriff, rapping, and loving ecstasy is no longer shocking to anyone so Miley has moved on to thoughtless racial comments.

The point is that shocking Whites is regarded as normal, while the simple mention of jews is regarded as shocking. Both the standard and the threshold could hardly differ more.

One of the more hysterical expressions of jewish outrage came from hyper-jewess Debbie Schlussel – “View” Hags Attack Jews, Defend Miley Virus’ Anti-Semitism; Jenny McCarthy: “Jews Know How to Make Money; Whoopi: “Jews Controlled Music Industry”.

Burlington Takeaway: Words Whites Can’t Say touched on a legal distinction between Whites and jews.

New Legal Tools Fight Anti-Semitism, CLJ’s Susan Tuchman Says, July 2007:

That legal tool is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thanks in part to the efforts of Tuchman, anti-Semitism can now be challenged under Title VI.

The good news, Tuchman said, is that the inclusion of Jews as a protected class under Title VI was recently endorsed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, a bi-partisan agency that investigates and studies discrimination, reporting its findings to Congress and the president. In 2006, the Commission recognized that anti-Semitism encompasses more than name calling and threats, and that sometimes it is expressed as “anti-Israelism” or anti-Zionism.

The Commission accordingly recommended that colleges and universities come out and condemn anti-Semitism, Tuchman explained. The Commission rejected the argument that universities could remain silent because of the perpetrators’ right to free speech; instead, the Commission said, the schools had a moral obligation to take a stand against anti-Semitic speech.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an outgrowth of Title VII (no discrimination in employment) of the Civil Rights Act. EEO Terminology:

Discrimination: Any act or failure to act, impermissibly based in whole or in part on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap, and/or reprisal, that adversely affects privileges, benefits, working conditions, results in disparate treatment, or had a disparate impact on employees or applicants.

Disparate Impact: Under EEO law, less favorable effect for one group than for another. Disparate impact results when rules applied to all employees have a different and more inhibiting effect on women and minority groups than on the majority. For example, nonessential educational requirements for certain jobs can have a disparate impact on minority groups looking for work, as they often been limited in their access to educational opportunities.

Disparate Treatment: Inconsistent application of rules and policies to one group of people over another. Discrimination may result when rules and policies are applied differently to members of protected classes. Disciplining Hispanic and Afro-American employees for tardiness, while ignoring tardiness among other employees, is an example of disparate treatment. Such inconsistent application of rules often leads to complaints.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

7 Comments

Jews Versus Whites

Published on October 29, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

How do we differ? Let us count the ways.

Jared Taylor commits racial treason on Phil Donahue !:

Donahue: “How are you with the jews? Are the jews OK?”

Taylor: “The jews? The jews are fine by me.”

Donahue: “And so jews can live in your neighborhood and go to your cocktail party with all those good looking people?”

Taylor: “Look white to me.”

Whatever Taylor thinks about the jews, his answer plays into widespread misperceptions of both jews and race. Saying you’re OK with the jews because they look “white” is saying that race is just skin color, literally skin deep, something trivial.

The differences run far deeper.

The jewish narrative distinguishes jews from Whites – painting jews as oppressed and Whites as their oppressors.

If jews saw jewishness as part of, or even on par with Whiteness, then they’d argue that both, or neither, should be capitalized. Instead they get angry and make ridiculous arguments in favor of double standards – the capitalization of words being just one seemingly trivial example.

The argument is often made that jews are just another type of White, but with a different religion. But unlike other European religions, any and all of which are freely and mercilessly criticized, criticism of judaism is regarded as “discrimination”, “hate”, “intolerance”.

Another argument that is often made is that jews are just another type of White, but with a different ethnicity, like the French or Hungarians. Except that jews, wherever they live, unite and lobby as a block, across borders. And those who live in France or Hungary demand to be treated as good or even better than any mere Frenchman or Hungarian.

Jewish DNA deserves a discussion of its own. Suffice it here to note that jews are genetically closer to Europeans than Africans, but are still clearly distinct. Even partial Ashkenazi ancestry can be discerned by DNA analysis.

The focus here will be on differences in thinking – the clearest being in group identity.

The recent Pew poll confirmed that jews generally identify positively as jews. They are hyper-aware and hyper-defensive about their jewishness and the interests of jews as a group. They view Whites not only as distinct from jews, but as a threat – either passively, by assimilation and intermarriage, or actively, via genocide.

This is in strong constrast with Whites, who generally don’t identify positively as White (or even “white”), are relatively unconcerned or defensive about their Whiteness, and have in large part accepted the jewish narrative which paints anyone with a strong, positive sense of White racial identity as morally or mentally defective. For the most part Whites view jews as “white”, socializing and intermarrying with them even when mixing with other races was not considered acceptable.

Jews are amongst the thought-leaders of anti-“racism”/anti-Whitism. For example, Susan Sontag (“the White race is the cancer of history”), Noel Ignatiev (“the key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the White race”), and Tim Wise (“white like me”, who literally makes his living inciting hatred of Whites).

Differences in thinking and identity are also visible in politics and voting patterns.

Milton Himmelfarb “coined the aphorism on the Jewish community’s political persuasions: ‘Jews earn like Episcopalians, and vote like Puerto Ricans.'”

Mik Moore: Reflections on the Jewish Vote, 2012, Mik Moore, 9 Nov 2012:

2012: 70% for Obama, 30% for Romney

2008: 74-78% for Obama, 22-26% for McCain

President Obama and the white vote? No problem., Chris Cillizza and Jon Cohen, 8 Nov 2012:

2012: 39% for Obama, 61% for Romney

2008: 43% for Obama, 57% for McCain

In the end, President Obama’s “problem” with the white vote wound up being less than advertised — and certainly less problematic to his political prospects than Mitt Romney’s 44-point loss among Hispanic voters.

This chart, again from our friends at the Post polling unit, tells that story better than we can write it.

Just one in every ten Republican voters were non-white. That is the story of the 2012 election.

The upshot is that the jewish vote is consistently, markedly distinct from the White vote.

It is also consistently jewish pundits who label Whiteness a “problem” – and not only when it comes to voting. I discussed many examples of this in Anti-White Problems.

Two recent examples follow.

Twitter, Women and Power,
by Nicholas Kristof, NYTimes.com, 23 Oct 2013:

Twitter is on schedule to go public as a company next month, a sparkling symbol of innovation, technology — and stale, old thinking reflected in a board of seven white men.

I also realize that I live in a glass house, because my world of punditry is a cacophony of mostly white male voices. Gender imbalance isn’t just Twitter’s problem, but a global challenge across many sectors.

Of course it is actually a cacophony of mostly jewish voices. Even the ones that aren’t jews parrot jewish opinions on race, immigration, nationalism, and with special deference to Israel and jews. The value to jews of posing as “white” is that in cases like this the attention and blame can be fobbed off onto Whites.

Apple, Twitter and Tech’s Middle-Aged White Guy Problem, Daily Ticker, Yahoo Finance:

Anyone who watched the Apple (AAPL) keynote this week (if you’re me) couldn’t help but notice that it was a parade of middle-aged white guys who came on stage to reveal the company’s latest and greatest.

And Twitter, ahead of it’s planned IPO next month, has come under fire for the makeup of its board of directors: all white men. The executive team isn’t much better (all men except for the general counsel).

The “white man” brought in to comment in this case doesn’t defend Whites or White men whatsoever. Instead he says things are changing, but “it needs to change faster”. The “white man” is, of course, a jew whose attitude toward jews is entirely different. Aaron Pressman from Yahoo! News tweeted: Feel exactly the same, tears to my eyes etc @winerip I’m Jewish, and when I was growing up…never buy a Ford or VW… http://t.co/DLLRLsbONl

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

10 Comments

White Problems

Published on May 21, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

A survey of problems for Whites.

Who’s White? Only advocates agonize over this. Critics don’t.

The term “White problem” is most often misapplied to anti-White complaints about Whites.

The idea that Whites have any real problems is mocked.

First World Problems, Know Your Meme:

First World Problems, also known as “White Whine,” are frustrations and complaints that are only experienced by privileged individuals in wealthy countries. It is typically used as a tongue-in-cheek comedic device to make light of trivial inconveniences.

First World Problems, Urban Dictionary:

Problems from living in a wealthy, industrialized nation that third worlders would probably roll their eyes at.

Louis C.K.:

We have white people problems in America. That’s what we have. White people problems. You know what that is? That’s where your life is amazing, so you just make up shit to be upset about. People in other countries have real problems. Like “Oh shit, they’re cutting all our heads off, today!” Things like that. Here, we make things up to be upset about. Like “How come I have to choose a language on the ATM. It’s bullshit. I shouldn’t have to do that. I’m American!

See also, White Whine – A Collection of First-World Problems. From the front page:

After suffering the indignity of the suburbs today to pick up a replacement iphone, I now must return to the suburbs tomorrow, as the replacement phone is broken.

So-called “White whines” are not even consciously voiced from a White point of view.

Contrast with Jewish Complaining and Jews Love to Argue, from Television Tropes and Idioms.

Non-Whites whine about microaggressions. Some examples of the various petty ways they feel offended or oppressed can be found at Microaggressions : Power, privilege and everyday life. A sample from the front page:

My close friend is Armenian, and her father has friends in the Armenian community in Watertown, much of which is located on Franklin. In these last 24 or so hours, one of his friends have received calls, threatening or yelling at him just for being Armenian.

These petty complaints are based upon a self-conscious identity as self-righteous diversity.

They are taken seriously, not mocked. Microaggression, Wikipedia:

Sue et al. (2007) describe microaggressions as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

Microinvalidation – Characterized by communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person.

White identity is excluded and invalidated by definition.

White Activism: More Harm than Good?, Racism is A White Problem:

It made me wonder if white people are MORE racist during their activist, anti-racist activities. The very act of trying to uproot racism, so seemingly central to white survival, can provoke a backlash within the white activist. And at the same time that this racism is showing up, the white person gets to feel like a good white person for being an activist. So, in the end, does it really help?

Schools and media are openly anti-White, antipathetic to Whites, engaging in anti-White indoctrination and anti-White propaganda.

Whiteness studies, Wikipedia:

A central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history and its effects on the present, inspired by postmodernism and historicism, in which the very concept of racial superiority is said to have been socially constructed in order to justify discrimination against non-whites.

Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. Krizek write about whiteness as a “strategic rhetoric,” asserting that whiteness is a product of “discursive formation” and a “rhetorical construction” in the essay “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric.” Nakayama and Krizek write, “there is no ‘true essence’ to ‘whiteness’: there are only historically contingent constructions of that social location.”

White privilege, Wikipedia:

The term denotes both obvious and less obvious unspoken advantages that white individuals may not recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice.[1] These include cultural affirmations of one’s own worth; greater presumed social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely.[2] The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one’s own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.

The government is anti-White. Affirmative action, explicit preferences/favoritism for non-Whites. Rhetoric and programs promoting diversity, meaning less white, as good and right. Anti-discrimination principles in practice serve to protect non-Whites, not Whites.

Birth rates are below replacement rate in many White subpopulations.

Living spaces are being colonized, with Whites demographically swamped by non-Whites.

Whites don’t identify positively as White.

Whites are too easily divided – whether by partisan politics, class, religion or by ethnic/national passions. Whites have the capacity to see the world in terms of Us and Them, but a strange preference to fight among ourselves rather than uniting against more alien Others.

Whites are too prone to self-criticism and guilt. Too gullible, too trusting, too easily misled. As a result, more likely to serve the interests of anyone but Whites.

Too tolerant, too nice, too concerned about being polite, prim, proper, not giving offense.

Few Whites are thinking about, much less addressing White problems.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

2 Comments

Anti-White Problems

Published on May 14, 2013 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Expanding upon Segan and O’Hehir’s Big Damning White Problems, tracking a disturbing pattern of “White problem” rhetoric.

Economy? What Economy?, Washington Post, 3 Sep 2008:

But the economy is not all; the GOP’s last best hope remains identity politics. In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

Identity politics is a weapon created by leftwing jews who view any form of White identity – no matter how weak, implicit, or even denied – as a “huge problem”. Meyerson’s ideal is an un-White America.

Harold Meyerson:

In September, 2009 Atlantic Monthly named Harold Meyerson one of 50 Most Influential Columnists. Calling its list “its all-star team,” Atlantic Monthly’s Top 50 are the most influential commentators in the nation – the columnists and bloggers and broadcast pundits who shape the national debates.

This anti-White view has been echoed by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, jewess DNC chairwoman, during the 2012 election. From Decoding the Racial Political Discourse:

There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum — to African Americans.

The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.

Jews have two parties actively seeking to serve their interests, non-Whites have one, and Whites have none. Meanwhile, the judaized media narrative inverts reality, painting this situation as biased in favor of Whites.

From Problem, What Problem?, Ballet series has lots of talent, little diversity, Washington Post, Sarah Kaufman, Jun 2010:

The companies are also overwhelmingly white and dotted with Europeans — as they have always been. Diversity in ballet remains a serious problem for the small companies as well as the large, on the coasts as well as in the heartland. In the 21st century, we can put a black man in the White House, but as last week’s survey shows, we can’t put a black ballerina in the Opera House. Clearly, not enough work is being done to foster African American dancers.

“Too White” is another way anti-Whites describe their problems.

Vienna Philharmonic attacked for past Nazi ties, being too white, latimes.com, 3 Jan 2013:

Norman Lebrecht, who runs a widely read classical-music blog, wrote that the orchestra has no Asian or other non-white members, “even though one third of the students at Vienna’s University of Music come from the Far East.”

Iowa’s Critics traces one manifestation of this idea that broke into the mainstream in Jan 2012.

Andrea Mitchell:

The rap on Iowa: it doesn’t represent the rest of the country — too White, too evangelical, too rural.

The source of this rap was Arthur Gregg Sulzberger:

Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.

The critic was Stephen Bloom, who wrote Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life:

I’ve lived in many places, lots of them foreign countries, but none has been more foreign to me than Iowa.

In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa’s not representative of much. There are few minorities, no sizable cities, and the state’s about to lose one of its five seats in the U.S. House because its population is shifting; any growth is negligible. Still, thanks to a host of nonsensical political precedents, whoever wins the Iowa Caucuses in January will very likely have a 50 percent chance of being elected president 11 months later.

These ideas – “White problem”/”too White” – are being propagandized, repeated over and over to the masses by the thoroughly judaized corporate media. This demoralizes Whites and emboldens non-Whites. One way to counter such propaganda is to call it out for what it is: manipulative lies intended to create problems for Whites.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

5 Comments

Tan and Carolyn ‘Live’ – Identity, Anonymity, Christianity, Holocaustianity

Published on February 26, 2013 by Carolyn in The Heretics' Hour

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

21 Comments

The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 2

Published on November 6, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Continued reading from William Pierce’s Who We Are:

Upper Paleolithic Man

For roughly 20,000 years during the closing chapter of the Ice Ages — the period known to archaeologists as the Upper Paleolithic, or “late old stone age” — our ancestors lived as big-game hunters in Europe, ranging from the Mediterranean coast to the edge of the ice in the north. Their physical remains and those of their artifacts are relatively plentiful, giving us a great deal of information about them and their lifestyle. One of the most striking things about the Upper Paleolithic inhabitants of Europe was their physical homogeneity. Measurements made on their skeletal remains indicate a population more racially homogeneous than that of any European country today — and this population was spread over an enormous area throughout a span of time very long compared to that of all recorded human history.

As one would expect, the evidence of their art indicates a corresponding degree of psychic homogeneity. A remarkable similarity exists, for example, in cave paintings found at locations ranging from the Iberian peninsula all the way to the Urals, a distance of more than 3,000 miles.

Rugged, Brainy

Upper Paleolithic Whites had broad, rugged faces with large, wide jaws, prominent chins, and — judging from the nasal openings in their skulls — prominent noses of narrow-to-medium width. And they had large brains: nearly 100 cubic centimeters larger than the White average today.

They were predominantly dolichocephalic (long-headed, like modern Nordics and Mediterraneans), although this was one physical trait in which the Upper Paleolithic population showed substantial diversity, with a larger minority of mesocephalic and brachycephalic (round-headed, like modern Alpines) skulls in the west than in the east. Throughout the Upper Paleolithic this White proto-race lived not only in Europe but also in a band stretching across northern Asia to the Pacific. In Siberia and other eastern regions they were eventually displaced or absorbed by Mongoloid peoples, although isolated pockets of them have survived even until the present (the Ainu people of Japan seem to be an example, but even they show Mongoloid admixture).

Glacial Retreat

In Europe, when the Ice Ages came to an end, some of the White big-game hunters changed their way of life, and some did not, but instead followed the retreating glaciers northward as they shrank back toward their nucleus in the mountains of the Scandinavian peninsula.

Neither the Nordics nor the Alpines of today are physically identical to the Upper Paleolithic Whites, although both are ultimately related to them. In both the Nordic and the Alpine areas of Europe, however, one finds local populations which are essentially Upper Paleolithic in type. By selecting from these populations individuals whose skeletal measurements fit those of Upper Paleolithic fossils, we can gain a good idea of what the Ice Age hunters of 25,000 years ago looked like.

And from their artifacts we can gain a good idea of how they lived. Most of these artifacts are tools or weapons made of bone or stone, but there are also carved art-objects, paintings, hearths, and remnants of dwellings.

Craftsmen and Artists

They made a great variety of stone implements, prominent among which were long, thin blades struck from carefully prepared stone cores with a single, precise blow. Such stone blades were not entirely unknown during the preceding, Neanderthal stage of human development, but now they became much more common, and the tool-making technology associated with them took several strides forward.

Another distinguishing feature of Upper Paleolithic European culture was the extensive use of bone. It was carved into sewing needles, clothing fastenings and ornaments, statuettes, harpoon and spear heads, musical instruments, and many other items, using stone tools manufactured especially for the purpose.

The Upper Paleolithic economy was based on herd animals: horses, woolly mammoths, bison, and, especially, reindeer. These animals flourished on the tundra, and the people of Europe depended almost totally on them. From their flesh came food, from their hides clothing and coverings for shelters, and from their bones tools and implements.

Permanent Villages

Some groups of hunters apparently followed the herds on their seasonal migrations, but others established year-around settlements. Typically these settlements were occupied by from five to 20 families (from 20 to 100 individuals), and the habitations varied from single-family huts, probably covered with animal skins, to long, multi-family houses with gable roofs. One such Ice Age long house in southern Russia was nearly 450 feet long. Despite the harsh environment, the tundra supported large herds, and the hunters apparently had plenty to eat. They obviously had the leisure time — and the inclination — to devote themselves to non-essential pastimes, such as art and music.

Birth of Ceramics

These Ice Age Europeans were inventive people. In a few thousand years they introduced more cultural innovations than in all of mankind’s previous existence. They learned, for example, to use coal as a fuel. And they learned that by firing statuettes and other objects molded of clay, they obtained a much more durable. water-resistant product. Fired-clay objects recently found at Dolni Vestonice, in Moravia, and dated at 28,000 years ago represent man’s first use of the ceramic techniques which played such an important role in his later cultural development. Until quite recently, archaeologists had assumed that ceramic technology was first developed by farming peoples in the Middle East almost 20,000 years later.

There is also evidence that the Ice Age hunters carried on trade over distances of hundreds of miles, at least.

Ice-Age Archers

Two enormously significant inventions which date from the closing phase of the Wuerm Ice Age are the spear-thrower and the bow. Approximately 15,000 years ago Upper Paleolithic Whites learned to throw a hunting spear with much greater force by using the leverage provided by a piece of carved reindeer antler hooked over the butt. This invention gradually spread over the world, and the racially backward Australian aborigines still use spear-throwers for hunting today.

Some 11,000 years ago our European ancestors invented the world’s second propulsive weapon, the bow. Although the earliest bow which has been found (at Holmgard, Denmark) is only about 8,000 years old, collections of arrows 3,000 years older, with clearly identifiable notches for a bowstring, have been unearthed at Stellmoor, near Hamburg. The bow gave man an incalculable advantage in hunting, as he no longer had to creep up on his prey to within spear range.

Two gaps in Upper Paleolithic man’s cultural achievements are primarily responsible for the limitations in our knowledge of him and his ways: he did not write, and he seldom portrayed human beings in his prolific art.

Our First Kinsmen

Whether neoteny provides the correct explanation for the developments of the Upper Paleolithic period or not, it is clear that the race which hunted reindeer on the tundra of northern Europe from the second Wuerm glacial advance until about 10,000 years ago was essentially modern, not only physically but also psychically, and was, therefore, the first race to appear on this earth with whom we can feel the bond of full kinship.

Until now we have traced the development of a single, rather homogeneous racial group: the Whites of the Upper Paleolithic period who hunted the herds on the northern Eurasian plain, and their forest-and-coast-dwelling descendants in the Mesolithic period.

Mediterranean Subrace

But throughout the whole Upper Paleolithic period there was another subracial type on the southern and southeastern margins of Europe. Averaging about five inches shorter than the Upper Paleolithic Whites, with slenderer builds, smaller heads, narrower faces, and more delicate features, the male and female members of this southern subrace were quite similar in skeletal appearance. That is, they were a pedomorphic subrace, to use the ethnological term; the adults did not develop as strong a degree of sexual differentiation as did the Upper Paleolithic Whites. These were the ancestors of today’s small, dark, narrow faced, pedomorphic Mediterraneans.

Some 150,000 years ago, during the relatively mild Riss-Wuerm interglacial period, the ancestors of the Upper Paleolithic Whites first expanded from southern Europe into the northern Eurasian plain, as described in the third installment in this series. But some of their fellows remained behind, along both the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean and in the Middle East. Those who went north and became big-game hunters went through the Neanderthaloid phase and eventually evolved into the Cro-Magnon type of the Upper Paleolithic. Those who remained in the south evolved under different conditions, becoming the Mediterranean type.

Upper Paleolithic

The Cro-Magnon subrace, which was the principal racial element in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods — i.e., from about 40,000 years ago until the introduction of farming 6,000-8,000 years ago — is represented today by groups of Upper Paleolithic survivors in Ireland, northern Germany, Scandinavia, and other parts of northern Europe. They were described and pictured in the fourth installment in this series. The Cro-Magnon homeland may be considered to be the vast northern European plain, stretching from the Alps in the south to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea in the north, and from Ireland in the west to the Urals in the east.

Alpine Subrace

The Alpine subrace, which was described in the fifth installment, has been derived from the Cro-Magnon subrace through a complex of genetic changes involving a reduction in stature, a decrease in relative head length, a slight decrease in sexual differentiation — and, perhaps, some Mediterranean admixture. The Alpine homeland is the mountain belt stretching across western and central Europe – i.e., it is in that region that Alpines have historically constituted the largest portion of the population.

And the various Mediterranean types, whose ancestors developed more or less separately from the Cro-Magnon subrace, have their homelands along the African and European shores of the Mediterranean Sea and in the Middle East.

Population Explosion

When men everywhere lived by hunting, fishing, and gathering natural vegetation, population densities were everywhere quite small: on the order of one person for every five square miles of habitable land. When they began living by farming and raising livestock, however, population densities rapidly increased more than a hundredfold.

We noted in the fifth installment that it was in the Mediterranean racial area, on Europe’s borders rather than in its interior, that the Neolithic revolution began. And, thus, beginning about 9,000 years ago, the Mediterraneans gained a strong numerical advantage over the Cro-Magnons and their Alpine relatives. Several groups of Mediterraneans, representing several varieties, were able to push northward and westward into Europe, initially swamping the sparse hunter-gatherer population.

Even though the Cro-Magnons themselves experienced a population surge when they became farmers, the initial advantage of the Mediterraneans resulted in a lasting Mediterranean numerical dominance in many areas which had formerly been Cro-Magnon. Most areas of Mediterranean penetration became racially mixed, with the ratio of Cro-Magnon to Mediterranean blood varying from place to place.

Tall, Blond Warriors

But the Mediterraneans were not the only ones to invade the Cro-Magnon areas of Europe during the Neolithic period. From the steppes of southern Russia, in the region between the Black Sea and the Caspian, came wave after wave of a subrace which differed from all the others we have encountered thus far. Not quite as ruggedly built as the Cro-Magnons, yet more so than the Mediterraneans, they were tall and fair.

They may have learned the arts of agriculture from earlier contact with a nearby Mediterranean group, or they may have developed farming on their own, but, whichever the case, they were already carrying these arts westward and northwestward with them nearly 6,000 years ago. Superb craftsmen as well as farmers and cattle breeders, they were, above all else, warriors. Wherever they went they conquered and ruled.

Nordics Take Lead

And their culture ruled also. Their language replaced the language of the conquered peoples everywhere, as did also their religion, their art, and their social customs. They were the Nordics.

The Old European civilization lasted about 3,000 years — i.e., until about 5,500 years ago — and then it disintegrated utterly. Its temples and gods, its towns, its language — all disappeared in an overwhelming disaster: the arrival of Bronze Age Nordic warriors from the east.

The creators of the Old European civilization were a blend of the Mesolithic Cro-Magnons originally in the Balkan area and the Neolithic Mediterraneans who infiltrated the area, beginning a little over 8,500 years ago. Most of these Mediterraneans were of a variety anthropologists call Danubian, and they were short, gracile, and pedomorphic. Because the Cro-Magnon population differed physically in so many respects from the Danubians, there were substantial geographical variations in racial type in Old Europe, depending on the proportions of the two basic stocks present in the blend. When the Nordics arrived, the geographical racial pattern became even more varied. The racial homogeneity which had existed in most of Europe during the Upper Paleolithic period was gone for good.

Soil-Bound Spirit

The religion of the people of Old Europe, like the religion of every race, was created in their own image, a spiritual reflection of their inner nature. They were farmers, Mediterranean and passive. They were a settled race, and their ties were to the soil. Although we can decipher none of their religious inscriptions, it seems safe to assume that, like other soil-bound peoples, their religion was centered on the concept of fertility. Certainly, this is suggested by the abundance of female figurines, stylized vulva symbols, and other evidences of a flourishing fertility cult which have been unearthed by archaeologists along with other remnants of the Old European culture.

The abundance of the life-giving soil, the seasonal death and rebirth of the green earth, the mating and birthing of their domestic animals: these were the essential mysteries, and it was around these that the religious concepts of their matriarchal society must have been formed. Theirs was the religion of the Earth Mother.

Warrior Religion

In contrast, the Battle-Axe People, the blond horsemen from the east, the conquerors of Old Europe, were a race on the move. Nordic, active, patriarchal, dominating, they, too, farmed and, bred livestock, but they were far less soil-bound in their outlook than the Mediterraneans. Warriors, explorers, rulers, they were less concerned with the mysteries of plant and animal reproduction and more concerned with valor, honor, and authority. Their spiritual focus was upward and outward, toward the sky and far horizons, rather than downward toward the soil and inward toward their own bodily functions, as in the case of the Mediterraneans. Theirs was the religion of the Sky Father.

Neolithic Europe, Wikipedia:

Basic cultural characteristics

Regardless of specific chronology, many European Neolithic groups share basic characteristics, such as living in small-scale, presumably egalitarian [citation needed], family-based communities, subsisting on domesticated plants and animals supplemented with the collection of wild plant foods and with hunting, and producing hand-made pottery, that is, pottery made without the potter’s wheel. There are also many differences, with some Neolithic communities in southeastern Europe living in heavily fortified settlements of 3,000-4,000 people (e.g., Sesklo in Greece) whereas Neolithic groups in England were small (possibly 50-100 people) and highly mobile cattle-herders.

The details of the origin, chronology, social organization, subsistence practices and ideology of the peoples of Neolithic Europe are obtained from archaeology, and not historical records, since these people left none. Since the 1970s, population genetics has provided independent data on the population history of Neolithic Europe, including migration events and genetic relationships with peoples in South Asia. A further independent tool, linguistics, has contributed hypothetical reconstructions of early European languages and family trees with estimates of dating of splits, in particular theories on the relationship between speakers of Indo-European languages and Neolithic peoples.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

1 Comment

The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 1

Published on October 30, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Carleton Stevens Coon

An overview of Europe prior to the Aryan invasions circa 4000 BC.

The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages (notes added):

Lower Paleolithic           2.5M - 200,000
Middle Paleolithic          200,000 - 40,000
Upper Paleolithic           40,000 - 8000 BC
Mesolithic/Epipaleolithic   ambiguous bounds
Neolithic                   8000 BC - 3000 BC
Bronze Age                  3000 BC - 1000 BC
Iron Age                    1000 BC - now

The Pleistocene is the geological epoch which lasted from about 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago. The Holocene is an interglacial (relatively warmer) period lasting from about 11,700 years ago until today.

Doggerland, Wikipedia:

Doggerland is a name given by archaeologists and geologists to a former landmass in the southern North Sea that connected the island of Great Britain to mainland Europe during and after the last Ice Age, surviving until about 6,500 or 6,200 BCE and then gradually being flooded by rising sea levels. Geological surveys have suggested that Doggerland was a large area of dry land that stretched from Britain’s east coast across to the present coast of the Netherlands and the western coasts of Germany and Denmark.[2] Doggerland was probably a rich habitat with human habitation in the Mesolithic period.

Carleton S. Coon, Wikipedia.

Multiregional origin of modern humans, Wikipedia.

From the introduction to The Races Of Europe, by Carleton Stevens Coon, published in 1939:

We suggest that the ancestors of the whites in their major form developed during pluvial [rainy] periods of the Pleistocene in parts of what is now the arid zone reaching from the Sahara to northern India; that in post-glacial times many were forced out of these homes by desiccation, and that some of them originated agriculture and animal husbandry in northeastern Africa and southwestern Asia. From these centers agricultural pioneers followed post-glacial zones of climate into Europe, gradually encroaching upon the lands formerly glaciated. In most of the regions which they occupied they greatly outnumbered the descendants of the hunters and fishers whose ancestors had clung on since glacial times, and many of whom had followed the retreating ice toward its last melting nuclei.

At any rate, the main conclusion of this study will be that the present races of Europe are derived from a blend of (A), food-producing peoples from Asia and Africa, of basically Mediterranean racial form, with (B), the descendants of interglacial and glacial food-gatherers, produced in turn by a blending of basic Homo sapiens, related to the remote ancestor of the Mediterraneans, with some non-sapiens species of general Neanderthaloid form. The actions and interactions of environment, selection, migration, and human culture upon the various entities within this amalgam, have produced the white race in its present complexity.

From JR’s Rare Books and Commentary, Who We Are: a Series of Articles on the History of the White Race (PDF), by William Luther Pierce:

No people is morally and spiritually healthy unless it is imbued with a strong sense of its own identity. Essential to that sense of identity are an awareness and an understanding of all the qualities which the members of the people share in common.

It is doubly imperative that every man and woman who claims the privilege of membership in a community based on the bonds of common race and common culture knows and takes pride in his racial and cultural history, for in this history are all the elements which give his community its unique character and differentiate its members from all those who are not members.

When such knowledge and pride are lacking, a community is subject to a host of ills and cannot long endure. Solidarity and a sense of responsibility to the community give place to special-interest factionalism and alienation. A lack of a sense of identity blurs the distinction between compatriot and stranger, between friend and foe, and leaves the community prey to the greed or malice of aliens as well as of its own pathological members, who will grow mightily in numbers as loss of identity proceeds.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

4 Comments

Who’s White? – Part 4

Published on October 23, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Kristoffer comments on Who’s White? – Part 3:

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

David Lane’s Pyramid Prophecy and Der Bruder Schweighen Archives:

Der Bruder Schweigen , or “The Order” as they were commonly known, was a White Nationalist organization that fought to reclaim America for the people whose ancestors struggled, sacrificed, and died to build it. They were men and women of different socioeconomic backgrounds bound together by the ideals of racial solidarity and the creation of an autonomous White homeland.

Who is White, by David Lane:

Those of you who have over the years or decades either observed or participated in the resistance to the murder of the White race know that provocateurs have attacked the racial purity of professed leaders to impugn their motives. In my opinion part of the reason this has successfully worked for the enemy is a mind set grown from an alien religion. A basic tenet of Judeo-Christianity and part of its fatal allure is that it allows inferior men to claim superior status without corresponding effort. A Judeo-Christian with an IQ of 90 and a dismal life history can get baptized, repeat a few ritualistic words and presto, suddenly proclaim divine status superior to that of a man a million times his superior in intellect and character. The “blue-eyed blond” syndrome is typical of this mentality. And I say this advisedly since I appear Nordic, tall, slender, blue-eyed blond. Yet I can only guess at the purity of my ancestry. My father of record sold my mother to his buddies and to strangers for booze money, so the Gods alone know all. What I do know is this. I look White. I fight for White. I recognize the achievements of the White race. I want to preserve our kind. I am horrified that the beauty of the White Aryan woman may soon perish from the earth forever. I suffer for each White child tormented in America’s inter-racial nightmare. I see beauty in a Celtic princess with brown or red hair and green eyes. I see beauty in the statuesque Nordic Goddess with blue eyes and golden hair. I see beauty in the freckle-faced Irish lass. I see heroism in Robert Jay Mathews and Richard Scutari with their dark hair and eyes of green or brown as well as in Frank DeSilva, a fair skinned Bruders with a French Portuguese name. Theirs is far greater nobility than 99% of those “Nordic Ideals,” I might add.

For those who boast of their “purity,” you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and so on. Go back 500 years or so and you have a million ancestors. A few more generations and everyone who ever trod the lands of Europe is your ancestor, including Huns, Mongols and Moors. There are no 100% pure Aryans as per 10,000 years ago. But we still do exist as a distinct and unique biological entity. The cultures and civilizations we create are beyond comparison. The beauty of our women, blondes, brunettes, redheads, green-eyed, blue-eyed, brown-eyed, is the desire of all men and the envy of all women. So, we do not want to be derailed by gossip or speculation on who may be 1/16th Indian or have some Italian, Spanish or Portuguese blood. We are not going to debate over whether the collective remaining White gene pool is 95% or 97% pure Aryan.

Surely it would be a tragedy if the various divisions of our race lose their distinctive traits and beauty. And after we have secured the existence of our people and a future for ALL our children, hopefully we can take steps to preserve this diversity. But for now, we are going to accept the facts and circumstances as they exist. We are going to work together for the holy cause and we will not tolerate provocateurs, divisions or dissension. If someone looks White, acts White, fights White, then until their actions prove otherwise, they are our Folk. On the other hand, regardless of pedigree or appearance, those who oppose, criticize, hinder or fail to support our cause are no friends of ours.

The Order, Metapedia:

The nine founding members of the group swore an oath that began:

“I, as a free Aryan man, hereby swear an unrelenting oath upon the green graves of our sires, upon the children in the wombs of our wives, upon the throne of God almighty, sacred is His name, to join together in holy union with those brothers in this circle and to declare forthright that from this moment on I have no fear of death, no fear of foe; that I have a sacred duty to do whatever is necessary to deliver our people from the Jew and bring total victory to the Aryan race…”

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. – David Lane

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

5 Comments

Who’s White? – Part 3

Published on October 16, 2012 by Tanstaafl in Age of Treason Radio

Map of Indo European migrations from ca. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan model.

Continued reading from Who’s White?, by John Law at Stormfront.

If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we’re concerned, that’s what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can’t compromise. You’re either White or you aren’t.

After all, on an anonymous message board, we don’t have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don’t have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they’re White, then we can pretty much assume they’re White. But on an anonymous message board we don’t have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don’t know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that’s what he is, part non-White.

Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:

Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we’re all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a “pure” race, etc. — therefore, it doesn’t do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn’t exist.

I’m sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively “pure” sub-group. I’m not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn’t mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he’s no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.

As I said, that’s a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.

This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.

They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there’s little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with “there’s only one race, the human race.” With that, the White race is defined out of existence.

Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.

Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?

Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:

Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical “scores,” and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers’ wars.

So, again, in response to the question, “Who’s White?” we answer:

“Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions.” And if you tell us you’re not, we will believe you.

I’m John Law and thanks for listening.

Kurgan hypothesis:

The Kurgan hypothesis (also theory or model) … postulates that the people of an archaeological “Kurgan culture” (a term grouping the Yamna, or Pit Grave, culture and its predecessors) in the Pontic steppe were the most likely speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. The term is derived from kurgan (курган), a Turkic loanword in Russian for a tumulus or burial mound. The Kurgan model is the most widely accepted scenario of Indo-European origins.

Urheimat is a:

German compound of Ur- “primitive, original” and Heimat “home, homeland”

Old Europe (archaeology):

Old Europe is a term coined by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas to describe what she perceives as a relatively homogeneous and widespread pre-Indo-European Neolithic culture in Europe, particularly in Malta and the Balkans.

In her major work, The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: 6500–3500 B.C. (1982), she refers to these Neolithic cultures as Old Europe. Archaeologists and ethnographers working within her framework believe that the evidence points to migrations of the peoples who spoke Indo-European languages at the beginning of the Bronze age (the Kurgan hypothesis). For this reason, Gimbutas and her associates regard the terms Neolithic Europe, Old Europe, and Pre-Indo-European as synonymous.

According to Gimbutas’ version of the Kurgan hypothesis, Old Europe was invaded and destroyed by horse-riding pastoral nomads from the Pontic-Caspian steppe (the “Kurgan culture”) who brought with them violence, patriarchy and Indo-European languages.[2] More recent proponents of the Kurgan hypothesis agree that the cultures of Old Europe spoke pre-Indo-European languages but include a less dramatic transition, with a prolonged migration of Proto-Indo-European speakers after Old Europe’s collapse because of other factors.

Marija Gimbutas:

Marija Gimbutas (Lithuanian: Marija Gimbutienė) (Vilnius, January 23, 1921 – Los Angeles, United States February 2, 1994), was a Lithuanian-American archeologist known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of “Old Europe”, a term she introduced, and for her Kurgan hypothesis, the current most widely accepted of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses among scholars. Gimbutas’s conclusions that Neolithic sites in Lithuania and across Europe pointed to long-term stable egalitarian societies with women at the center materially and spiritually earned a mixed reception by other scholars, but became a keystone of the matriarchal studies movement and the Goddess movement.

In 1956 Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis, which combined archaeological study of the distinctive Kurgan burial mounds with linguistics to unravel some problems in the study of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples, whom she dubbed the “Kurgans”; namely, to account for their origin and to trace their migrations into Europe. This hypothesis, and the act of bridging the disciplines, has had a significant impact on Indo-European studies.

Gimbutas gained fame — and notoriety — with her last three books: The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974); The Language of the Goddess (1989), which inspired an exhibition in Wiesbaden, 1993/94; and her final book, The Civilization of the Goddess (1991), which based on her documented archeological findings presented an overview of her conclusions about Neolithic cultures across Europe: housing patterns, social structure, art, religion, and the nature of literacy.

The Civilization of the Goddess articulated what Gimbutas saw as the differences between the Old European system, which she considered goddess- and woman-centered (gynocentric), and the Bronze Age Indo-European patriarchal (“androcratic”) culture which supplanted it. According to her interpretations, gynocentric (or matristic) societies were peaceful, they honored homosexuals, and they espoused economic equality.

The “androcratic”, or male-dominated, Kurgan peoples, on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchical rule of male warriors.

Every human language evolved from ’single prehistoric African mother tongue’:

Every language in the world – from English to Mandarin – evolved from a prehistoric ’mother tongue’ first spoken in Africa tens of thousands of years ago, a new study reveals.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

8 Comments

Page 1 of 212

Jews Versus Whites – Part 3

Jews Versus Whites – Part 2

Jews Versus Whites

White Problems

Anti-White Problems

Tan and Carolyn ‘Live’ – Identity, Anonymity, Christianity, Holocaustianity

The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 2

The Racial Roots of Europeans – Part 1

Who’s White? – Part 4

Who’s White? – Part 3

Listen

Programs

Recent Broadcasts/Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Policy