I wouldn’t worry about this

Why I Left White Nationalism
By R. DEREK BLACK

I grew up in a family that embraced extreme views. I’ve moved on. The country can, too.

I wouldn’t worry because the country has moved on. Is it perfect? Nope, not at all. But is it a lot less racist than it was? Yup.

A sober analysis would probably tells us that the most racist remaining part of the US is the union run education system.

26 comments on “I wouldn’t worry about this

  1. White nationalism cannot go away. It would be nice if it did. But it won’t. Because the rest of the world continues to be highly racist, especially against Whites. There is no point telling Whites not to vote as a block when Blacks do. That is what gave us Obama. Who has a highly racially tinted, if that’s the phrase, view of the world.

    What these demands amount to is White suicide. Whites are expected to sit quiet and wait until it is their turn to be killed. By and large they do.

    However that may not last. Whites may discover they have a spine after all. Or they will die out. Sad, but there is no third option. We offered a colour-blind world without racism. No one else was interested.

  2. Demographic take-over is destroyed by the phrase “No , you aren’t coming here”. As simple as that. If it is meant.

    White people need to purge and destroy the leftist enemy within. The actual ethnics themselves are a threat only because white minds are in thrall to white leftist treason.

  3. “White nationalism”, which isn’t actually nationalism, is a retarded form of Nazi LARPing for angry young fedora fanciers and bumfluff moustache sporters who aren’t getting any. It’s less a political movement, more like something between furries and balloon fetishists on the social autism spectrum.

    OTOH, nationalism – actual nationalism, the conviction that one’s home and kith and kin matter more than GDP calculations do – isn’t going away. And after decades of having unwanted demographic displacement and minority identity politics and cultural guilt trips shoved down their throats, whites are finally getting in on that sweet, sweet Who?/Whom? action themselves.

    The future’s going to be great.

  4. Standard SJW operation procedure. Anything that deviates the current SJW dogma is deemed RACIST and must be punished. Thus ends this morning’s sermon.

  5. R. Derek Black is a graduate student in history, focusing on the early Middle Ages.

    Yes, the U.S. education system is a shambles.

    Still, painting Trump as the next Charlemagne makes a change from calling him the next Hitler.

  6. “White people need to purge and destroy the leftist enemy within. The actual ethnics themselves are a threat only because white minds are in thrall to white leftist treason.”

    People only give the SJWs such powers because they’re disgusted by foul racist thugs going on about “purging” their ideological enemies. The louder they are, the more likely it is that they’ll be the first to get purged.

    The price of free speech, eh?

  7. NiV–You established your credentials as dumb young snot long ago. You have nothing to prove.

    People have “given” fuck-all to SJW scum. They have invaded the culture working across 50 years to create such a head of emotional steam that morons–like you– automatically shit their pants about supposed waycism. Although socialism itself, steeped in an ocean of blood, is far worse than racism.

    The purging–as you well know had you read what I have previously written–consists of halting CM propaganda on the taxpayers tit.

    As for your buffoonery–let legions of RoP in and our so marvellous culture will convert them to the cause of leftist rainbowism–shows how much of a realist you are–let alone a libertarian.

    Still waiting to hear details of your successful “friendly persuasions” of Jihadis. And I always will be.

  8. People only give the SJWs such powers because they’re disgusted by foul racist thugs going on about “purging” their ideological enemies.

    So MSM kowtowing to race hustlers (which has steadily increased over the last 40 years) is all down to Ecks, is it?

    Up to a point, Lord Copper.

  9. “So MSM kowtowing to race hustlers (which has steadily increased over the last 40 years) is all down to Ecks, is it?”

    Not entirely, but largely.

    You know, I was chatting with an MSM-reading work colleague about politics, just after the American election. Even though he was a conservative, right-wing voter, not at all inclined to political correctness or social justice issues, he was horrified that Trump had got in. “Why?” I asked. “Because they’re racists.” I tried to argue, but he just pulled up various links to Trump-supporting white supremacists ranting about how they were finally going to be able to exclude and eliminate the blacks. It’s virtually impossible for me to make a coherent argument under those circumstances without looking like a total shit myself as well. So I muttered briefly about “free speech” and gave up the argument.

    Any time people stand up and complain about SJWs imposing political correctness, what’s their number one argument? To point to the white supremacists and holocaust deniers, and maniacs beating up LGBTers with concrete bars. And the argument for free speech is lost before it’s started because nobody wants to be seen standing side-by-side with that filth – the stupid, deluded dregs of humanity. It’s a bait-and-switch, true, but it works.

    In the war for public opinion, dressing up your ideas in nazi uniforms and parading them around for everyone to see is just bad tactics – that’s obvious, right?

    I don’t want to stop Ecksy expressing his views, but I do want to make it clear to any outsiders that right-wingers, Trump-supporters, and Brexiteers are not *all* knuckle-dragging skinheads with mirror-reversed swastika tattoos on their thick-browed foreheads by dropping a few contrary opinions into the discussion.It makes it a hell of a lot easier later to try to defend right-wing views to normal people who live outside the Stormfront swamp.

    Think about what precedents you’re setting – you should never advocate any weapon of social control that you wouldn’t be willing to see your ideological enemies wield, because as the tides of fortune shift they always eventually will. “Purges” of their ideological enemies are exactly what the SJWs want to start, and people like Ecksy are their best and most convincing argument for them. Why help them bring it about by arguing alongside the SJWs that such tactics are allowable or justifiable in a civilised society?

  10. ” “Purges” of their ideological enemies are exactly what the SJWs want to start[…]”

    Have you not been paying attention? Purges of their ideological enemies are what the SJWs have started or, in some cases, achieved. Yes, the areas they have colonised are now an intellectual wasteland, for all they bleat about diversity, and yes, they need to be extirpated root and branch. At the ballot box for now, that is. Other means only if they don’t go quietly.

  11. I do want to make it clear to any outsiders that right-wingers, Trump-supporters, and Brexiteers are not *all* knuckle-dragging skinheads with mirror-reversed swastika tattoos on their thick-browed foreheads

    I understand your point, but I’m not sure that it works. Amongst MSM consumers, perhaps; but amongst the producers, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to believe all the stereotyping opinions/”facts” they push.

    While Ecksian rantings might confirm their prejudices, those prejudices already exist and are not to be admitted or discussed.

    I was once a witness in a large civil case, which seemed to me to be little more than a racket. It was noticeable that the weaker the plaintiffs’ case, the more indignant their legal team became. Professional play-acting aside, I felt that the indignation was fueled chiefly by the deep desire of the bad guys to present themselves as the good guys (to themselves as much as to anyone else).

  12. “Have you not been paying attention? Purges of their ideological enemies are what the SJWs have started or, in some cases, achieved.”

    In some limited areas, yes. Not in the whole of society yet, though.

    But this is nothing new. For centuries we had religious wars between the Protestants and the Catholics. First a Protestant would get into power, and purge all the Catholics. Then a Catholic would get into power, and purge all the Protestants. Back and forth, over and over and over again, until everyone got sick of it.

    That’s what the Enlightenment was about – you declare religious freedom as a right, take away the government’s power to purge people based on their religion, and then it doesn’t matter *who* gets into power, they can’t do anything to their enemies. It was the beginning of modern concept of liberty, and it was the UK that was its birthplace. It is, in large part, what “British Values” are all about.

    And now you want to get rid of those values, and go back to the back-and-forth of purges?

    Ecksy is like a Catholic complaining of the invasion of Protestants, wanting to purge them all before he gets purged. The SJWs are like Protestants trying to purge the wicked Catholics – and using identical arguments to justify it. *Both* stand in opposition to the proponents of religious freedom, that say: “Stop it with all the stupid purges!”

    British society is – as Tim says – strongly opposed to intolerance and prejudice of all forms. It’s our strongest bulwark against the SJWs, that we can argue for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and British people holding British values will listen to that. But people like my work colleague are equally horrified by the *other* side of the authoritarian see-saw, who are *equally* opposed to those core British principles of liberty and tolerance. And *that’s* why the SJWs have been making so much headway.

    Large parts of the right aren’t arguing for freedom and tolerance for all, only for themselves and their own way of life. ‘The Protestants are trying to bring back purges, so let’s purge them first!’ Seriously?

    Every argument you make about SJWs applies to you as well. Every argument you make is an argument the SJWs make as well. “Yes, they need to be extirpated root and branch. At the ballot box for now, that is. Other means only if they don’t go quietly.” Isn’t that absolutely what the SJWs are saying? Do you truly think their argument is right, their methods justifiable?

  13. ” Amongst MSM consumers, perhaps; but amongst the producers, there seems to be an overwhelming desire to believe all the stereotyping opinions/”facts” they push.”

    I agree. And the right has to make the argument against them. But it has to do so from the position of principled liberty and tolerance, not from the position of *their own* variety of authoritarianism.

    “While Ecksian rantings might confirm their prejudices, those prejudices already exist and are not to be admitted or discussed.”

    Agreed. But how do you counter those prejudices when they have the unopposed rantings of Ecks and those like him as such an excellent counter-example to any claims that those prejudices are not true?

  14. In a two-party system, you need to capture the centre-ground. This requires clear disavowal of your extreme wing to avoid frightening those centrist swing voters. There’s a space for Ecksian discourse in private circles, but not amongst the public at large.

    Same goes for the left. They can’t win while Comrade Corbyn (or Comrade Bernie) is scaring the horses.

  15. …he just pulled up various links to Trump-supporting white supremacists ranting…

    You say he is a reasonable person. Why not ask him for evidence of what Trump has said or done to make him believe that Trump is a racist? Surely, that is the issue, not what some of his supporters (but by no means all, or even a majority) believe or expect. The corollary was to ask whether BLM’s support for Obama (or Hillary) indicates that they are in favour of violent opposition to law enforcement, or what the American Communist Party’s endorsement of Hillary implied for her economic polices.
    Going further, you might have asked whether the CPUSA’s endorsement of the Democratic ticket for eight straight election cycles (since their last candidacy in 1984) means that the Democrats are literally communists.
    Or you could give up and wring your hands about how horrible he is, and how he was only supported by “a basket of deplorables.”

  16. Not Ecksian but Ecksitis: a diseased mind. And where I’ve previously said (on this blog?) I don’t recognise the Jewish factor of neocon, Ecksitis’s cut/paste ‘purges’ reminds me of this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSoEbC3UWU

    and this shit: and let it roll with this, then it continues on and on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs

    It’s all about the demise of the US constitution, apparently because Marx has been able to influence absolutely every facet of human endeavour. Especially being polite.

    NiV’s posts are well balanced whilst essentially agreeing with the blog in general.

    And So Much For Subtlety is a wannabe Victorian phrenologist.

    http://www.victorianweb.org/science/phrenology/intro.html

  17. Don’t Hug Me – “NiV’s posts are well balanced whilst essentially agreeing with the blog in general. And So Much For Subtlety is a wannabe Victorian phrenologist.”

    Cool. I always thought phrenology was underappreciated. However I am curious as to why you slum here. We get a lot of vacuous posturing Leftists. The problem is that we have heard your arguments, such as they are, before. We were not convinced when we saw them on a CBS Lunchtime special. We are unlikely to be convinced now. Especially as your views, such as they are, are simply status signalling – you do not have a coherent or credible argument, you just want the world to know what a morally upright and decent guy you are. As we can see here. You give us your specious “opinions” from high as if you were God.

    Of course the real problem is that if you were to engage and present a real argument, you would lose. We both know it. We live immersed in the culture that produces vain status signallers like you. We are not convinced. Better minds that yours have tried. The only result would be you becoming more like us. And you wouldn’t want that. It might cause social awkwardness in whatever White liberal SJW sheltered workshop you live in.

    So that reduces the problem to how long are you going to do what Arnald et al did? How long is it going to take you before you realise the waste of time that is your life and your comments here, so that you go away? Any bets?

    NiV – “You know, I was chatting with an MSM-reading work colleague about politics, just after the American election.”

    Cool story Brah.

  18. @ Don’t Hug Me

    I think on the whole that it’s probably not a bad idea to feel that your line of argument is going to stimulate interest before posting links which you hope others might follow.

    For my part, it’s not that I’m impervious to reason or other points of view (though obviously I try), it’s just that in your case my interest sickens and dies before I get very far into what you’ve written.

    At least I’ll grant that you don’t talk about religious wars in Europe in the late middle ages and the beginning of the modern period which is a plus.

  19. Don’t Hug Me (Jesus H Christ)– As some clown who thinks NiV is well-balanced you can just fuck right off and take your links with you. You are here to shill for one of your gang.

    NiV–Your colleagues are as thick as you so it seems.

    Once again you illustrate that –whatever perversion of “libertarian” ideas you try to lard your views with –you are a common or garden , shit-your-pants-on-cue SJW.

    Perhaps the word “purge” is what triggers you. And having been triggered, the concept that “purging” as I use it means ceasing the taxpayers subsidy of CM is beyond you. I chose the label “purge” to further taunt Marxian scum with the reminder of the millions they have murdered. However in your dim bulb brain, given a choice between my use of the word as I have –several times now–explained it to you and whatever fantasy the word sets off in you, you clearly prefer your tripe over reality. Surprise fucking surprise.

    Your “Wars of Religion” cockrot isn’t worth fisking. But:

    “Every argument you make about SJWs applies to you as well. Every argument you make is an argument the SJWs make as well.”

    Really? The fucking BBC is pumping out “my” views day and night is it? All paid for by licence extortion. News to me that is .

    “Yes, they need to be extirpated root and branch. At the ballot box for now, that is. Other means only if they don’t go quietly.”

    I can’t recall talking much about ballot boxes. Stopping the taxpayer subsidising propaganda that is aimed at the destruction of the taxpayers being obliged to pay for it is my aim. I never even suggested that Marxist shite should be silenced. Only that the scum would have to sell their shite in the marketplace to those willing to buy sans subsidy.

    ” Isn’t that absolutely what the SJWs are saying?”

    No–not anywhere outside your brain pan.

    ” Do you truly think their argument is right, their methods justifiable?”

    Since my views and the slightly paler (w-w-w-wwaycism!!) views of many others on here have nothing to do with the deceitful bullshit we have all witnessed from SJWs for years–then no I don’t think their arguments are right or justifiable.

    You are a clown NiV.

    And you should have told your “right-wing” moron of a workmate that he is a fucking SJW controlled stooge. The Purge is aimed at stopping exactly the kind of 24 hour brainwashing that results in dickheads like your pal.

    STILL waiting to hear about those Jihadis.

  20. NiV: “Ecksy is like a Catholic complaining of the invasion of Protestants, wanting to purge them all before he gets purged. The SJWs are like Protestants trying to purge the wicked Catholics[…]”

    It’s not Protestants vs. Catholics. It’s Aztecs vs. Catholics. You’re (apparently) succumbing to this bullshit idea that if two people disagree on something, the optimum point is somewhere in-between. It’s not. Taken to its logical conclusion, after the SJWs have done their purge people on the other side are dead, imprisoned or starving. After we’ve done ours: well, what then? The SJWs are, ideally, peacefully marginalised or in extremis a few of them are in gibbets. Everyone else gets to swing their fists, while making sure to mark the position of other people’s noses first. These two outcomes are not mirror images of each other.

    The thing is, this isn’t a hypothetical. We see what happens when one side wins (North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba) and we see what happens when the other side gains even a partial victory (Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland).

  21. @Andrew M

    ” This requires clear disavowal of your extreme wing to avoid frightening those centrist swing voters.”

    Only the right are expected to disavow extremists. Have you ever seen any demands from the media for the left to disavow the acts of mass murder and terror from the left’s own extremists?
    Look back at the coverage of Pim Fortyuns murder by a leftist and compare it with coverage of Jo Cox’s. The media, and leftist politicians clearly implied that he had it coming whereas she has been elevated to sainthood and the killing has been used to demonise everyone on the right.
    Witness the medias complete lack of interest in the very real violence against Trump supporters in the US, but fake hate crimes supposedly committed by Trump voters are headline news. It was demanded of Trump that he disavow the KKK, but no-one asked Clinton to disavow the Communist Party which endorsed her candidacy.

  22. Jonathan,

    Fair point. I only meant that they need to disavow extremists in order to make themselves electable. If the Left continue to shoot themselves in the foot by associating with undesirables, that’s perfectly fine by me.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.