Tuesday, January 5, 2010

So It Has Come to This!

I have seen some sharp looking people working for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), (Seriously, I really have!) But for the most part most of them seem like homeless people who were given a government job in order to get them off the streets. Even if they didn’t look like a addict looking for his next “fix” I really don’t fancy the idea of them looking at a naked image of my body as I pass through airport security.

Yet I understand the concern everyone has about those crazy people who think that blowing up people is the way to find favor with God. After all what better way to show your piety than blowing body parts into the air.

But back to this scanner thing. The only reason it is necessary is because we have allowed our nation to be captured by Zionist thugs who has used our muscle against their enemies in the middle east. And now we are saddled with this enormous problem. But even then I suspect it would be much more controllable than what we have today if we would not have allowed our nation to be the dumping ground for the refuge of the world.

Ok, the image is not very detailed and certainly not attractive. But, is it necessary?

Maybe in today’s world! But the world we have today is not a natural thing. It is a creation, a monstrous creation, like a Frankenstein creation by those who hate the White Christian America which existed from 1607 until 1965 when the Hart /Cellar immigration bill was signed into law by Lyndon Johnson. When that occurred, a flood of racial aliens began invading our homeland and America began to rapidly change into this freakish image we have today.

At the end of the 1960’s, 92% of Americans were white. But that was then and this is now with white people becoming a minority in this nation by 2042.
Hundred and millions of aliens now are on our streets, in our schools and in our airports. And people scratch there hollow heads wondering what went wrong.
I don’t want a pornographic strip search of my body just so I can have the pleasure of seating in a crowded flying bus with my knees under my chin . . . but at the same time, I don’t particularly favor the idea of being blown into a million indistinguishable body parts while I am flying over the Rocky Mountains.

I think that a good place to start would be for agents of the TSA to look at pictures of ALL the terrorist bombers, both here and in Europe. Some of them might need a little help, but after discovering that there was not a white people among them, they could simply begin practicing some old fashion racial profiling.
Hey! Don’t laugh! It has worked in the past.

Until there is a clear cut example of a white Christian blowing up an airplane, we should be left alone. Muslims simply have a pretty good track record when it comes to blowing things up. So profile them and let their naked images pop up on the internet.

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

It was another false flag operation brought to you by the Jews running our government. Do you believe everything the Jew media tells you. Have you even considered what these x-ray machines can do to our health.

Anonymous said...

The body scanner is sure to get a go-ahead because of the illustrious personages hawking them. Chief among them is former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff, who now heads the Chertoff Group, which represents one of the leading manufacturers of whole-body-imaging machines, Rapiscan Systems. For days after the attack, Chertoff made the rounds on the media promoting the scanners, calling the bombing attempt "a very vivid lesson in the value of that machinery" -- all without disclosing his relationship to Rapiscan.

NorwegianHeat said...

Racial profiling would only cause more separation, segregation, and hatred amongst people. You want to screen ALL Muslims because SOME happen to be terrorists, but white people "should be left alone" because nobody's provided you with an example of a white-terrorist yet? Ridiculous. How long until another Theodore Kaczynski comes along to blow away your fantasies of an innocent "White Christian America"?
You don't think you should have to be scanned because you're white and not a terrorist? How about the people you suggest should be profiled? If they AREN'T terrorists--which the vast majority would not be--they'll feel the same injustice is being served upon them as you would if you were the one being scanned. The only difference between you and them is that THEY AREN'T WHITE. You can't stereotype like that--everyone is their own individual.
You want to wait for a white person--another unabomber--to blow up a plane before agreeing that whites should be scanned? You mean that the lives of a plane-full of people are EXPENDABLE before you're willing to consider your rights a legitimate sacrifice for the protection of everyone? Either we ALL share the SAME rights, or we ALL lose them. Scan everyone, or scan no one.

If we're ever going to advance as a society, we need to stop looking at differences between people and start looking at what we share. EVERYONE is a victim when fear and hatred are allowed to manipulate our actions.
We can't just tuck into our shells, or leave our blinders on and pin the blame on the other side--you're just denying your own accountability and responsibility. You can't say that because a Muslim carries out an act of terrorism that all Muslims should be suspected. If a PERSON carries out such an act, then it is ALL OF US that must bear the inconvenience of more thorough security.
We all have a hand in the tomorrow we wake up to. Instead of BLAMING Muslims for terrorism, it is our duty to strive for a better relationship with them, so that acts of violence do not occur in the future. If you segregate them, invade their countries, and manipulate their lives, how is that supposed to mend the scars between us and them? Back-and-forth hatred will only deepen the fissures, and increase the bloodshed.

"Zionist thugs"? Oh right, acts of terrorism incurred upon our nation are totally the Jews' fault. There's no way that "White Christian America" could have anything to do with it. See, that's exactly what I'm talking about--more scapegoating. How about our oil-agenda, or our mission to keep the undeveloped nations undeveloped and housing our sweatshops and providing our cheap labor? There's no way the rest of the world could hate us for that--nope, Hitler was right, it's just the Jews.

NorwegianHeat said...

Also, your "White Christian America" didn't begin until 1620, when the separatist pilgrims struck out on their own. This was not America at the time, either--The America we know today was slowly conquered by the white colonists at the expense of the natives that had lived here for thousands of years before that.

There were also many immigrants from European nations--the Irish, the Germans, the Norwegians, etc., that flooded our country throughout the 1800's and early 1900's, but I suppose they were white, so they don't count toward your "racial alien" census... What makes this nation freakish is the amount of resistance you put forth toward the integration of those minorities that finally began to receive their equally deserved rights in the 60's.

NorwegianHeat said...

"Hundred and millions of aliens now are on our streets, in our schools and in our airports."

Hmmm "in our airports". Maybe we should just close our borders entirely--no one goes in or out! Then there wouldn't be any foreign terrorists sneaking their bombs past our security and onto our planes! Genius! Sure, we wouldn't be able to see the rest of the world as easily, but heck, why do we waste our time with anything but the "White Christian America" anyway?!

DutchGirl said...

Seriously, you guys are the joke of the day. Can't believe people can be so narrow-minded.

But I agree: scanning only the non-pure-whites is a brilliant idea, it increases the chances of a wonderfull WHITE superior person blows himself up in a plane and makes it crash into your great Christian Revival Center!!

Really would make my day :-)

Anonymous said...

Honestly many Christians will be appalled by your assertion that the country is under Zionist control.

Profiler said...

Guess they don't like racial profiling. But the fact is that it DOES work.

NorwegianHeat said...

Okay Profiler, it works right NOW, because the people committing such attacks happen to be mostly of a certain ethnic/religious background, but what if there comes a day when that trend shifts?
It doesn't matter if it WORKS--that doesn't make it RIGHT. There's no way to justify abusing someones rights just because they fit a certain demographic. There's no "separate-but-equal" in racial profiling--you're just segregating! We need to decide whether to protect EVERYONE'S privacy rights and risk terrorist attacks by not using invasive scanning procedures, or better ensure EVERYONE'S safety by adopting tighter security measures--measures that apply to ALL passengers.

RCakia said...

I absolutely love all the fear against "profiling". Hey I have dark hair and dark eyes,I wear my beard longer than average. In the summer I just might fit the profile. I'm ok with that. I don't see how anyone, at this time, can not say odds favor people of a Muslim faith for committing terror. And if i was setting the profile I wouldn't limit it to the color of ones skin or Nation of origin. Certainly we have seen converted Caucasian Muslims. I would profile all those with Muslim names as well.

For all of you people that are ok with giving up some rights to offer security how about this as a solution lets just seal the border immediately. The only international flights in America will be out bound only. We can repeal GATT and NAFTA, stop accepting imports. Rebuild a self sustaining Nation and economy again, help out of control population growth and probably get rid of several of the "one world" people who would refuse to live in such an intolerant nation. If we did that we would be secure from outside attacks and what do you know everyone is treated the same.

Anonymous said...

II Chron. 7:14

NorwegianHeat said...

I wouldn't call it fear, RCakia--I'm white, I wouldn't even be affected in this case--it's simply unfair to treat others differently just because they're different. You're honestly telling me that if you were taken aside in public somewhere and told, "You look like someone who might commit a crime, so we're going to search you," you wouldn't be a little offended that of all the other normal people going about their business, YOU were picked out of the crowd as "suspect"? Maybe I'm just too sensitive, but I would be, and I'm empathetic toward those who actually face these kinds of injustices on a regular basis.

Oh, and what's wrong with "one world"? Is that not an accurate summary of our reality? I mean, so far, it's just the one planet (Earth) we're all living on. Why's it such a hard concept to accept that we could just all get along and live together if we wanted to. Just mind our own business, respect personal boundaries, and treat others as we'd want them to treat us. Accept that everyone's going to see things a little bit differently. Life is a lot simpler than we make it.

Anonymous said...

white people ar perfect right? they don't blow people in the air, because they simply never make a mistake or do something wich isn't that good.

well i got something nice to sai.
the black people where brought to america because the white people wanted it. (as slaves if you were forgotten it) the reason they are no slaves annymore, is because YOU WHITE PEOPLE RELEASED THEM...

you can see that as a little mistake in your crappy head.

but white people ar perfect they make no mistakes...

well as far as i know, black people are just as perfect as white. so you got a problem. positive + positive = negative

i guess you're both perfect, and both the worst thing that could ever happen to the earth.

you are only to arrogant to see that.

Anonymous said...

When is the last time you seen a polish, Italian or German you get my point, blow up a plane or strap bombs to their person to kill themself and others. We should single out muslim. The should not be allowed in the USA.

Anonymous said...

white people do make mistakes but they do not blow up airplanes and kill hundreds of innocent people

RCakia said...

Its not the fear of falling into the profile group I was referencing. More the fear of offending someone else. I would equate that similarly as I would any other politically correct custom we are being trained to adopt. It is ok to offend people and its ok to be offended. It is sad when people become so hypersensitive that we have to be so guarded in out actions and comments.

If you single someone out and categorize them for atrocious behavior its bad but if we categorize people for positive traits that's ok as long as that group doesn't happen to be a white Christian. But I am getting way off topic now.

As far as what is wrong with the "one world" well the way you describe it isn't really the "one world" mentality I would describe. In fact you almost sound like a separatist (I guess you're in the right place). You say "Why's it such a hard concept to accept that we could just all get along and live together if we wanted to. Just mind our own business, respect personal boundaries, and treat others as we'd want them to treat us."
I agree with that too. The key things are respect boundaries and mind your own business. That is totally opposite of the one world movement with limited borders and huge governments that don't mind their own business. I don't seek to get people to think like me. I accept that people are different. In fact I would encourage them to cherish their differences.

The reality is if different groups cohabit the same area, the differences between the groups diminish over time. The outcome would be a new group of people that just has a remnant of the culture and heritage they started with. All those unique characteristics that make us different and that diversity that all of us cherish are gone. I happen to love my heritage and don't wish to lose it or compromise it in any way.

NorwegianHeat said...

Well, I guess I don't have much to say to that--if you can't understand the problem with treating a certain group of differently just because you have a lesser opinion of them, or because you're afraid of them, then there's probably no getting through to you. I just feel that if YOUR demographic was suddenly found in a similar situation, you or those sharing your views might start amending their opinions of what's fair.

As far as some of the other Anonymous comments that have trickled in go: not ALL Muslims are bad--you can't treat them like they are. True, white people haven't been blowing up planes lately, but that doesn't mean they're incapable of these evils. Keep in mind that these people you're stereotyping come from much more desperate backgrounds. There aren't a lot of White Christian Nations right now being invaded or occupied by foreign troops, being obstructed or manipulated by more powerful nations, or being swindled out of resources. Perhaps if we found ourselves in such a predicament, bomb-wielding white extremists wouldn’t be so rare.

Continued mistreatment of Muslims won’t end terror attacks--if anything, they’ll only escalate. If they can’t get bombs onto planes anymore, you can be sure they’ll find some other mode of getting their message across. Sacrificing stable relationships with the average, good-natured Muslim to spite a handful of extremists is not the answer--that will only create more separation, more bad-blood, and more conflict. If you wish to breed more misunderstanding, hatred, and war, then profiling and segregation is the way to go, but it will not deliver in terms of peace or justice.

As far as “one world” goes--whether you are for or against the integration of different cultures, it’s going to happen. There are too many people in the world as it is, and our growth isn’t going to slow down (barring some catastrophic event, of course). There is too little space as it is, and as our numbers continue to escalate, so too will the overlap of culture race. If you look at history, this is no new trend--it’s been going on for thousands of years, as old civilizations fall to the new, people are conquered, converted, or exterminated, and territories are expanded. There have been countless mixings of cultures over the years to reach this point--RCakia, your proud heritage is a product of this process. It’s just another manifestation of evolution--a driving force in the spectrum of life. Whether you chose to deny it or cherish it, it won’t be stopped--it transcends will; it occurs out of necessity.
With today’s global economic market, where trade on opposite sides of the planet can have a direct impacts on each other--with instantaneous satellite, internet, mobile phone, and television transmissions connecting people all over the world--we’ve all run out of places to run. We can no longer hide from this reality--we are ONE WORLD. From here out, it’s only going to get more crowded, with different races and different lifestyles living door-to-door. We’ve got to find a way to get along—to accept both our differences and similarities—or face ruin.

Anonymous said...

Kick the Jews out of this country. Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

"If you look at history, this is no new trend--it’s been going on for thousands of years, as old civilizations fall to the new, people are conquered, converted, or exterminated, and territories are expanded."

Ah! So this justifies more of the same! Brilliant logic! People have been committing murders since time immemorial, so that makes murder OK as well.

Muslims belong in the Mid-East. I do not want them in America.

And if it's a question of Necessity -- that of one race and civilization surviving and another perishing, you can bet that I want the West to be the survivor.

It is immoral to force people to "get along" under one government when their respective ways of life are fundamentally incompatible.

Christianity and Islam could both be wrong, but it is not possible that they could both be right. Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, Islam that He is only a prophet. Incompatible views. When these both strive to govern a nation, only chaos or tyranny can result.

I'm beginning to agree with the man who said that "the only good liberal is a dead liberal."

The Left is using so much raw physical force against traditional-minded and freedom-loving White Americans that a literal physical struggle to the death is now the only way out.

NorwegianHeat said...

"Ah! So this justifies more of the same! Brilliant logic! People have been committing murders since time immemorial, so that makes murder OK as well."

Oh wow, that's not an acceptable application of my argument at all... Of course murder isn't OKAY, it violates rights! My entire argument is to treat others as you would like them to treat you!
I'm just citing human history. Of course not ever example is a pretty one. In fact, most of human history has been incredibly inhuman, and I don't support the instances where cultures were unfairly replaced, but just because the general process has had bad applications in the past doesn't mean that it can't take on brighter, better justified qualities--cultures must simply blend in a fair and balanced manner.
All I'm saying is that evolution of culture is just as much a natural process in human history as evolution of life in general. Go ahead, keep twisting my words up, though.

"Muslims belong in the Mid-East. I do not want them in America. "

Four-hundred years ago, WHITE people still BELONGED in Europe--and BELONGED in Africa thousands of years before that--but that didn't stop them from crossing the Atlantic and taking over the territories of a people that, thousands of years ago, used to BELONG in Asia.
People don't BELONG in anywhere--they're free to come and go as they please, like migrating birds, or herds of roaming caribou. There's no reason that good people with Muslim backgrounds can't come to this country. It's within their rights. This is an acceptable blending. What would be unacceptable would be if either our culture or theirs was forced upon the other party. That's where I draw the line. It's unfair--just like murder.

"And if it's a question of Necessity -- that of one race and civilization surviving and another perishing, you can bet that I want the West to be the survivor."

Blending! Blending! I'm taking about BLENDING here! Not one conquering and subduing the other! No one is trying to force Islamic views on you, just asking for the right to live along side you, with equal rights to yours!

NorwegianHeat said...

"Christianity and Islam could both be wrong, but it is not possible that they could both be right. Christianity teaches that Jesus is God, Islam that He is only a prophet. Incompatible views.

"Incompatible views"? They're only incompatible because you make them that way! There's no reason why either view can't be accepted and respected. I'm not affiliated with any sect, but in my own personal faith, I see Jesus as more of a prophet than a god. What's wrong with that? I accept his teachings as positive contributions to society. Why can't THAT be what unites people--the acceptance of good moral values in general? Isn't it enough to be good people to each other? Why does someone have to believe the exact same thing as you in order to have a valid opinion?

"When these both strive to govern a nation, only chaos or tyranny can result."

Then maybe a change of tactic is required. Maybe people should stop trying to GOVERN the lives and beliefs of others. And your statement is flawed. I mean, it really adds to my growing belief that YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
True, chaos would ensue, as it usually does, if there was a power struggle between two or more sides jockeying for control, but not tyranny. Tyranny would be the result of one of those sides being victorious and forcing EVERYONE to adhere to its beliefs--sort of like the measures you seem to support. Forcing Muslims, Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, etc. to follow a white Christian decree would be tyranny. Forcing anyone who is different from you out of the country would be tyranny.

"...freedom-loving White Americans..."

Are you serious? Who doesn't love freedom? I love freedom, I'm sure the slaves taken from Africa and the Native Americans did, too. So would most Muslims in airports. The problem is that you feel your freedoms are so predominant over anyone else that you have the right to sacrifice others' for your own. A Muslim has just as much a right to freedom as you, and that doesn't violate your rights.

NorwegianHeat said...

"I'm beginning to agree with the man who said that 'the only good liberal is a dead liberal.'"

Alright, well keep in mind that it’s YOU in this situation--the freedom-loving White Christian American--holding this sentiment, not a Jew or a Muslim or a liberal. My views are different from yours, and, while my intent is good-natured, my differences are irreconcilable. You're telling me that, even if a person MEANS well, aims to HELP society, and promotes acceptance of ALL people, they're still better DEAD if they're a liberal? Just because their views are different? I mean, am I understanding this correctly? The only way that you will tolerate me is if I'm dead? Where's the freedom in that? Where's the justification?

"...a literal physical struggle to the death is now the only way out."

Let it be noted that YOU are the one making the call for war. YOU are making the call for bloodshed over this. I'M saying that everyone should respect each other, get along with each other, and support each other UNCONDITIONALLY--yet YOU are on the side of RIGHT, and the opposition must be destroyed through forceful means?! You claim to love freedom, but you don't even know what freedom means. You've never experienced it--you're a slave to your own delusions of righteousness, and you're hiding behind a religion to justify your own lack of morals.

Look at all your claims? How would Jesus--either god or prophet--address them? Would HE want to kick Muslims out? Would HE want to FORCE anyone into a certain way of life or thinking? Would HE call for bloodshed and death to settle any of our disagreements? ANYONE with an OUNCE of UNDERSTANDING would immediately recognize the answer as "NO!"
THAT is what separates you and me--I am a follower of his PRINCIPLES, while you are a follower of a sect bearing his name alone. THAT is what separates true FREEDOM from TYRANNY.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian,

You are missing my point.

I believe that multiculturalism is immoral and unnatural. There has never been a mulitcultural society in history that has been a success. Let me quote John Bryant:

"FACT: One of the most distinguished black scholars in America, syndicated columnist Dr Thomas Sowell, has studied multiracial societies around the world and has observed that -- with the single exception of societies where one race is completely dominant over all others -- such societies simply do not work."

Norwegian,

I happen to be an evolutionist who is visiting this site. Evolution is about separation of emerging species. I am opposed to miscegenation because it goes against the evolutionary development of new species via adaptation: Survival of the Fittest.

Anonymous said...

Race Prejudice is Evolution's warning not to mix: (From John Bryant again):

"... we find that all higher, more mobile animals living under feral (natural) conditions not only evolve a sense of territoriality, whereby they become isolated or at least semi-isolated genetically on a geographical basis in what are known as demes, but that they also develop what zoologists call "feral restraints", that is, a marked unwillingness -- amounting often to a positive refusal -- to interbreed with members of other sub-species. ...

"These feral restraints serve a vital evolutionary process. Zoologists have identified two types of such constraints, the first of which are called 'built-in' constraints, based upon the form of distinctive shape, color, smell, or even patterns of movement, common to animals of the same sub-species, but serve as a warning to members of related but disparate subspecies not to attempt sexual relationships. They are like a sign that reads 'Danger! a new biological experiment is in progress. Do not approach!' But in addition to these built-in constraints, the distinguished zoologist, Peter Klopfer (1970) has shown that acquired constraints exist among feral animals due to behavioral imprinting. These may be equated with the culturally-reinforced prejudices associated with 'in-group' and 'out-group' behavior among human beings. ...

"The sociobiological significance of prejudice becomes even more apparent when we realize that evolution arises not solely from individual competition. Team spirit and group cohesiveness have a high survival value for those mammals and primates which have adopted a pattern of group life. Furthermore, the concept of survival of the fittest among social animals such as man refers less to individuals than it does to breeding populations and entire sub-species. ...

"... Evolution could not continue its work amongst the higher animals if each new experimental sub-species were to lose its identity before it had time to evolve into a species."

In McGregor's view, then, it is the horrible, dreadful and immoral attitude of racial or group prejudice which is a vital source of evolution, and we can only wait with bated breath to see what kind of contortions the Academy will go into over this theory, since most academicians support both evolution and political correctness simultaneously. Who knows? Perhaps their thoughts will undergo some needed evolution."



As far as I am concerned, Races have rights too, not just individuals.

I don't want foreign culures in my neighborhood. I don't believe in race equality. I don't believe in trying to be 'nice' to everybody UNCONDITIONALLY and at no matter what the cost to me, personally.

Rudyard Kipling said that each Faith has merit only in its own country.

Miscegenation is genocide. You liberals, like the late Ted Kennedy, are FORCING integration and miscegenation on the race into which I was born. The only way to meet force of this kind is resistance. I would prefer passive resistance, Gandhi style, if possible. But if you people continue to force aliens into my everyday life and force Whites to mix -- "blend" as you call it -- then war is necessary--necessary because I do not want to "blend" by mixing blood with racial aliens.

I am not satisfied with the belief that Jesus taught that race-mixing was God's will or that all human beings are God's beloved children.

In any event, a Christian American Indian also agrees that Christianity is not against nationhood and that God does not want nations to mix (you'll have to search his forums to find the explicit statement he's made that he believes that Christianity does not promote the genocide of miscegenation):

http://www.badeaglefoundation.org/

Anonymous said...

Norwegian,

I don't want to interfere with the religious belief of other cultures. I just want them contained in their native lands.

So we Whites conquered the New World. Big deal. It's our now, and there is no moral imperative that we should share it with anyone new. Only the American Indian has any possible claim, and we made our sacred treaties with him in the past.

If I don't want to allow a black family to live next door to me and you force this on me, how can I get my way except by making war on you? Since a liberal and a racial loyalist cannot both have their way in the matter of forced integration, war is inevitable. Without it, Whites will lose their heritage, their children, their culture, and their biology. How dare you take those things -- the very meaning of life -- away from those who wish to protect and preserve against dilution.

Racial promiscuity is either morally right or morally wrong. Since it is genocide, I believe it is immoral. Since you, as a liberal, would force it on the White society, your death is required to stop you getting your way.

Anonymous said...

"My entire argument is to treat others as you would like them to treat you!"

Do you know how I want to be treated when I travel abroad -- to a Muslim country or, say, to Japan?

Like a GUEST only.

I want these people to be very angry with me if I asked to settle among them for life. I want to be rejected by other races and cultures as not being fit to live among them as one of them.

And in the same way, I want the right to live in an all-White society. As to religion, let Whites in my society practice whatever religion, or lack thereof, they so desire. I am only interested in preserving the purity of the bloodlines and the integrity of the culture.

Frankly, I'd be slightly disappointed if my white next-door neighbor were a Buddhist or a Scientologist, but I would not be at enmity with them over the matter. It is the physical RACE that I most want to preserve. Fashions come and go, but the RACE must remain pure.

Miscegenation is EVIL. It is WRONG. And forced integration of races always leads to miscegention; therefore, integration is also EVIL, WRONG, and IMMORAL.

Anonymous said...

"Why does someone have to believe the exact same thing as you in order to have a valid opinion?"

As to personal beliefs, the other person is entitled to their opinion. But when we are dealing with a society and its standards or values, one set must prevail and another have a more limited franchise.

To illustrate:

Some people believe in rejecting clothing as often as possible -- the nudists.

Well, if a family lives this way in the privacy of their own home, it's no business of mine. Or if they buy land and set up a colony for such a lifestyle, again it's no business of mine.

However, this does not mean that such persons have the "right" to go to the supermarket or shopping mall in the buff. One standard applies to one place, another to the other.

In otherwords, tolerance has its limits. In this finite world, everybody cannot have his own way at all times and under all circumstances.

The liberal belief that everyone can be fully accomodated at all times and in all circumstances is actually a delusion, and thus liberalism is a mental disorder.

You and I have an irreconcilible difference of VALUES. I value race and racial identity, whereas you believe that Whites owe it to the rest of the world to breed themselves out of existence.

Such an extreme, all-encompassing difference of values has no room for compromise--that is, if you are, as liberals DO, forcing liberal values on the entire society as the law of all the land.

For those persons who want integration, let them have it -- but not in such a way as to make it a universal law. Integrationists, like the nudists, must live in special places set aside to accomidate their lifestyle and values, so as not to force these on persons who disagree with them and do not wish to participate in this lifestyle. Or, conversely, racial separatists must be granted lands where they can live according to their values.

Then we can watch the results (even though the evidence is already abundantly clear) to see which group prospers and which becomes impoverished. Let Nature decide which is better, integration or racial separation. I, for one, have no doubt that the racial separatists will enjoy greater prosperity and a happier general existence, for they will be free to be themselves and will not have to live like animals placed in captivity at the zoo (i.e., the unnatural, or less natural, multiracial society).

Been There! said...

Dear Anonymous at 8:01 PM

I like what you have written, however, I view the teachings of Jesus Christ being centered on the issue of race. In recent years Christianity has been captured by Judaizers who have destroyed the faith and have turned it into a vehicle for miscegenation. Check out Pastor Robb's church page at www.ChristianRevivalCenter.net.

Like I said though I agree with you. Your last paragraph was right on target. You state "I, for one, have no doubt that the racial separatists will enjoy greater prosperity and a happier general existence."

We have a very recent example of this in South Africa. South Africa's apartheid system was much different then segregation in America. In America where segregation was practiced, Negroes lived under a white government and therefore claimed to be the victim of prejudice. In South Africa, Apartheid was actually established as Negro governed land areas. When South Africa was established, no Negroes lived in the region. I am aware most people are ignorant of this fact, but Negroes did not move into the area until after South Africa began to prosper. Many moved to work in the diamond mines. The condition was, however, they would return to their own self-governed areas and villages which were established. They came into the white areas to work but had to return to their own self-governed areas. These areas were never able to establish themselves as productive or advanced. While the white areas in the same region, under the same climate propered.

NorweigianHeat is a hate monger. While he talks about love and tolerance, the fact is that he only wants tolerance for those who believe in miscegenation but hate those who have racial self-esteem.

Nature has ALREADY declared who is best able to create a wholesome culture. Many Negroes as individuals are wonderful and decent people, but the race fails to advance.

Negroes, left alone, can make little advancement. The history of Africa is an example of their compounded failure.

I don't hate Negroes and I don't wish any black person ill will. But I do not wish to see my race destroyed because somebody like NorwegianHeat attempts to put a guilt trip on us.

I also find it somewhat humorous that NorwegianHeat condemns people for having pride in their racial identity yet he then assumes this same racial identity in his chosen name - Norwegian.

I am sure he means well. He is just another example of those who have become the victim of anti-white propaganda.

There are many good people who are black, Asian, Mexican, Arab etc. But just because they are good people doesn’t mean I have to forfeit my own racial pride or allow my race to be swallowed up in a sea of racial miscegenation.

The problem with people like NorwegianHeat is he thinks in simplistic terms and refuses to investigate the issues of race. Like a sponge, he thinks what he reads in the newspapers is true - that all white people who have racial pride are monsters that hate minorities.

I used to think like him, so I know where he is coming from. For years I simply refused to listen to other people, like NorwegianHeat I just accepted what I saw on TV or read in the newspapers. It took me several years to deprogram myself. The same can happen to him. He is exactly where I used to be.

Anonymous said...

Ok screw the whole racial thing it doesn't matter, If everyone becomes a mix of all races there won't be this stupid thing called profiling(for the most part). I think this scanner thing is terrible.

Also you won't stop/reduce terrorism by doing this. Terrorism doesn't just stick with the planes. I could easily come to America, make a bomb, and blow up the subway station. Or a building or a school. Look if those muslim radicals really wanted to have war with us they would have already done this. But they haven't...

I'm pretty sure if they tried to do this they could easily succeed.
Anyone in America could just all of a sudden walk into a building next thing you know BOOM! everyone is dead.

I feel that 911 is to blame for all this but I personally don't think a bunch of Muslims had enough "Brains" to do this. Someone had to have helped them. Look at the guy they hired to set his pants on fire... HE FAILED!

Someone is planning all of this and I don't know who.

Anonymous said...

"If everyone becomes a mix of all races . . ."

Why would you desire such a monotonous world?

Having different races, languages, cultures -- this helps make life more interesting.

Why should we all look and think and behave exactly the same?

Different places for different races -- the only way to preserve true diversity.

NorwegianHeat said...

In response to the string of anonymous comments beginning at 2:08 PM on the 9th through 3:17 PM:

And you seem to be missing my point, too!
You seem to think that by standing up for the rights of others, I’m violating yours—that I’m trying to FORCE you to mix with other races, or something. I’m not FORCING anybody to do anything. If you want to protect YOUR whiteness and your kids’ whiteness, then fine, you and your lineage can continue reproducing in “white on white” relationships. That’s completely within your rights—I wouldn’t try to take that from you. To be completely honest, the future mother of my children will most likely be white—just personal preference. To say that I, or other liberals are trying to FORCE you to mix your genes with those of other races is ridiculous. We’re simply standing up for the rights of others to do so should they choose to. If you truly believe that we have the right to remain separate, then you can’t deny that, by the same logic, we have the right to mix as well. Just as no one can force YOU to mix your bloodline with another, you can’t FORCE others not to.

But okay, you’re concerned that I’m missing your point. Let’s see if I can piece it together.

“As far as I am concerned, Races have rights too, not just individuals.”

Okay, you believe races have rights. I’ll admit, I have a little trouble wrapping my head around this one. I don’t identify too much with being white—I see my pale skin, blue eye pigment, fairer hair color, and smaller sex organs as the product of melatonin level differences that help distinguish me from those who have developed closer to the equator, under more direct sunlight. If I were to move my family further south, then over time, my offspring would most likely take on darker tones generation to generation. That’s about it. I guess I don’t recognize the ridged borders you and like-minded individuals have erected around race. I see race as a fluid, ever-changing aspect of human evolution. I don’t see how being white or black or some shade in between gives you different rights. Your opposition to this way of thinking is evident.

“I don't believe in race equality.”

Why? YOU are white, so white MUST be better? It’s disappointing that you can’t relate to people that simply LOOK different from you. If you were black, would you still feel that whites are superior? If I’m misunderstanding this statement, call me out on it. I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from on race rights.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“I don't believe in trying to be 'nice' to everybody UNCONDITIONALLY and at no matter what the cost to me, personally.”

So you’re only nice when it’s convenient, or to individuals you can relate to? That’s sad. What happened to “good Christian morals”?(I’m operating under the assumption that this is the same person I was responding to earlier, and that you are Christian, so excuse all this if I’m mistaken) Love thy neighbor”? “Do unto others…”? I just don’t see how you can make statements like this and still cower behind the Christian label. If you’re going to bend and redefine the “rules” as you go along, then you’re not REALLY following HIS word, are you? If your views are as independent from true Christian views as yours appear to be, then I feel you’re merely posing as a Christian. Not that that’s that big of a deal—just a bit dishonest.
But even if you aren’t Christian, that doesn’t really excuse your stance. I mean, why WOULDN’T you want to be nice to others? You really SEEK conflict and friction? I try to be nice, or at least respectful to everyone—even if I don’t agree with them. That way, I can reasonably expect the same treatment from them. If they don’t honor my respect, then that’s their own error, and they’re just less fortunate than me, I guess. Your views are very different from mine, however:

“Do you know how I want to be treated when I travel abroad -- to a Muslim country or, say, to Japan? Like a GUEST only. I want these people to be very angry with me if I asked to settle among them for life. I want to be rejected by other races and cultures as not being fit to live among them as one of them.”

You want to be HATED?! Why would you WANT that?! The only reason I can see is that this nearly masochistic desire for hatred simply justifies you to return of such fear, misunderstanding, and hatred of others. If I’m off-based, go ahead and elaborate on this one—I’m interested in your take. It just seems really bizarre and selfish and counter-productive to me. How do societies move forward if they WANT to have conflicts with each other? How do you form positive relationships when you’re looking for hatred just to justify your own? Seems mentally unhealthy.

“And in the same way, I want the right to live in an all-White society.”

I don’t know what to tell you other than that isn’t a right you’re entitled to in THIS society. Immigration created this country beginning with the original pilgrims. We’ve allowed immigration to this day, in the spirit of those first settlers. Those wishing to escape their homeland are allowed to take refuge here. Europeans flocked here during the 16, 17, 18, and early 1900’s. Later in the century, other races caught on. In between, Africans were brought in as slaves. You can’t FORCE those races out now, and I don’t think you’ll have much luck getting them barred from entering in the future. Therefore, your desire is simply unrealistic. If you REALLY want an all-white society, you’re probably going to have to forge your own, and probably somewhere else. You could try Antarctica—it’s pretty much up-for-grabs.

Rudyard Kipling was… entitled to his own opinion!

“Miscegenation is genocide.”

…Because YOU say so? I’m sorry, but this is just a baseless statement with no support provided. How is it genocide? Genocide—like what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany? Nowhere near comparable. No one is corralling our race and exterminating us.

“You liberals, like the late Ted Kennedy, are FORCING integration and miscegenation on the race into which I was born.”

No one is forcing white people into interracial relationships. Those that enter interracial relationships do so by CHOICE. Can people not make their own choices now? No? Not in “freedom-loving White America”?

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“The only way to meet force of this kind is resistance. I would prefer passive resistance, Gandhi style, if possible. But if you people continue to force aliens into my everyday life and force Whites to mix -- "blend" as you call it -- then war is necessary--necessary because I do not want to "blend" by mixing blood with racial aliens.”

As I’ve already stated, there’s no force involved. No one is forcing “aliens into your everyday life” you’re merely encountering them, as they have the right to be there. If you really don’t like them that much, then just steer clear, and mind your business, and they’ll probably do the same. You don’t need to “blend” or mix blood with them—that’s your right, just as much as it’s you right to “blend” if you choose to.

“I am not satisfied with the belief that Jesus taught that race-mixing was God's will or that all human beings are God's beloved children.”

Okay, so God created white people as his “beloved children” and all the others as… what? Stepping stones for a white empire? Cheap labor? Scape-goats? You can question the teachings of your own religion if you want—it just furthers my suspicions that you aren’t the wholesome Christian you claim to be. In any case, keep in mind that Jesus himself was from the Middle East, and probably not as white as you picture him.

“I don't want to interfere with the religious belief of other cultures. I just want them contained in their native lands.”

Are you willing to lead by example then, and return to Europe? As you already know, whites left their native lands for America just like the “racial aliens” you’re so against. Oh, but you think our being here is justified, while others are not.

“So we Whites conquered the New World. Big deal. It's our now…”

It WAS a big deal to the people that lost their land and culture. While there isn’t much we can do to undo the wrong that was done, you could at least acknowledge it as an injustice—but you merely shrug it off:

“Only the American Indian has any possible claim, and we made our sacred treaties with him in the past.”

Ignorance. You feel that allotting smaller and smaller reservations, and often going back on “deals” natives couldn’t even comprehend to begin with was fair? Give me a break. Those “sacred treaties” were nothing more than theft-by-swindle—those people were ROBBED. It’s thinking like yours that allowed such an injustice.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“If I don't want to allow a black family to live next door to me and you force this on me, how can I get my way except by making war on you?”

You can’t always get your way—didn’t your mom ever tell you that? Try this one: “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.” You’re extremely lucky to live in this country—benefitting from all the freedoms that citizenship allows. That’s your cake. The thing is, you can’t have it all to yourself. The rights that apply to you apply to the black family living next door. You may not like it, but you’ll have to deal with it—it’s the only way to be fair to everyone, and the only way to maintain peace and unity in your community.
And why would you make war on me? I didn’t force the black family to move in next to you—THEY chose to. Your feud is with them, but if you start making trouble over it, they’ll just think you’re a racist and an asshole (and rightly so)—wouldn’t it be easier to just tolerate them? Why do you want to create unnecessary stresses in your life?

“…Whites will lose their heritage, their children, their culture, and their biology.”

Since interracial relationships are a personal choice, not the forced genocide you claim it is, whites will lose or gain what they CHOOSE to. Heritage is history—honor it as you see fit. I think it’s important to understand where we came from, so we don’t repeat past mistakes unnecessarily. Luckily we have history books (which, if you think the treatment of native Americans was fair, you obviously haven’t read or understood) and family records for those purposes. To sacrifice a peaceful future based on equality out of fear of losing our roots is a grave mistake.

“How dare you take those things -- the very meaning of life -- away from those who wish to protect and preserve against dilution.”

I’m not trying to take away anything. If you want to preserve them, do so. Just keep your actions within the laws of our country, and the rights of everyone else.
The meaning of one’s life is defined by the individual. If your identity lies solely in the fact that you are white, then—while I find it superficial substance-lacking, and selfish—you are free to cherish that. However, you don’t have the right to restrict others in forging their own identities and giving their own meanings to their own lives—be that through immigration to America, “blending” with other races, or moving in next door to you.

“Since you, as a liberal, would force it on the White society, your death is required to stop you getting your way.”

You just keep making the same mistakes. You identify those different from you (me), give them a label (liberal), and declare war. You are free to your opinions, but you can’t just decide they’re universally correct as a means to justify your cowardly, self-centered actions.
I’m not forcing anything (for the umpteenth time). My opinions obviously differ from yours, and since neither of us are going to sway the other, I think it’s safe to assume we’re at a stalemate—SO MY DEATH IS REQUIRED?! NOBODY needs to die as the result of a conflict. If a disagreement comes to that, it is because one party or the other takes it there. Bloodshed doesn’t just happen—it’s a product of hatred, ignorance, and intolerance. Murder is the result of weakness in the perpetrator. There is no reason why conflicts can’t be settled through non-violent means—murder is a cowardly method of solving the issue.
It’s also yet another violation of the religious guidelines you claim to base your life around. Do you just not have a conscience?

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“Frankly, I'd be slightly disappointed if my white next-door neighbor were a Buddhist or a Scientologist, but I would not be at enmity with them over the matter. It is the physical RACE that I most want to preserve. Fashions come and go, but the RACE must remain pure.”

I feel you’re contradicting yourself here. You’ve stated over and over that war is necessary between the people and ideologies you represent and liberals. You’ve stated that, as liberal, my death is required. Liberal viewpoints are not a matter of RACE, they are a matter of belief—just as much as Buddhism and Scientology. Your standards seem to change whenever convenient. You’d be pissed as hell if a black family moved in next door, even if they were Christian. You wouldn’t have much issue with a Buddhist or Scientologist—so long as they were white—but if they’re a white liberal, their death is required. Absolutely senseless…

“Miscegenation is EVIL.”

Baseless claim.

“It is WRONG.”

Baseless claim.

“And forced integration of races always leads to miscegenation…”

Generalization based on other logical errors.

“…therefore, integration is also EVIL, WRONG, and IMMORAL.”

Do to a lack of evidence, I completely reject your conclusion.

Another Anonymous said...

Dear NorwegianHeat

I have read your posts and the comments by Anonymous.

Some of his comments are sincere, but a little misstated.

You keep saying no one if forcing him or others to race-mix. But you are mistaken. When information is purposely denied to the ears of children or other images are created that were based on a falsehood which alters the values of a child that is subtle force.

The huge propaganda machine that goes in operation every February during Black History Month is a perfect example.

There are hundred of organizations that are in existence (such as Black Journalist Associations, Asian Lawyers etc) all created around a person’s racial identity. Yet whites who attempt to do the same thing are soon terminated from their jobs of education.

You tell Anonymous that if he doesn’t like it here, he can always go somewhere else and start his own country. Dear NorwegianHeat, that has already been done. America was started and continued itself as a white country from its inception until laws were manipulated upon the American people. I would suggest you (just for your own study) write to Pastor Robb (P. O. Box 354, Bergman Ark 72615 and ask (there is no charge) for his recent issue of The Torch titled, America’s White Identity.

Anyway, unlike the other anonymous, I don’t view you as an enemy. And even though I am also against miscegenation. I treat everyone, regardless of color with kindness and respect.

NorwegianHeat, have you realized the greatness of America was built during the period of time when it maintained its white character. It is only a recent years (since the early 1970’s) that America began to become a nonwhite nation. I suspect you are a product of modern education and the image of America’s white character has been demonized in your eyes.

History books has been altered and have created this racial indifference in your head.

About 8 or 10 years ago I was the same way. So I know what is going on it there! It took me a while to shake loose of it. But the first thing I had to do (just my story - I don’t know about you) was to understand that just because someone believed in preserving their white heritage did not mean they were bad people or wanted to kill nonwhites. This is the image the media (so it appears) has created or at least focused on. When I got that false image out of my head and realized that these were sincere people who weren’t stupid or ignorant I was able to quietly begin to understand their view point. I began to see propaganda coming from many directions I had never seen before. I began to see the hypocrisy of those who claim to promote racial equality, but only used this to advance an anti-white agenda.

I realize you can’t see it now. At first I couldn’t either. I thought these people were simply paranoid. (Maybe even a little crazy!)
I was a victim like you.

Instead of arguing with people. I would suggest you at least try to understand what they are saying and not necessarily pick apart “how” they are saying it. Write for Pastor Robb’s article.

I am not one who spends much time commenting on blogs. I will read occasionally, but I don’t usually take time to write. It just isn’t me. So I am not even sure I will write back if you respond. I heard Pastor Robb say a while ago to someone, “I don’t have any inner need to prove you are wrong and I am right. I am just stating how I see it. What you do with it is up to you.”

I like that because that is how I am. I don’t have a need to prove any thing to you. So that is why I most likely will not reply if you should make a comment.

Anonymous said...

"To sacrifice a peaceful future based on equality out of fear of losing our roots is a grave mistake."

Norwegian,
Racial equality DOES NOT EXIST!

What makes a person fully human is I.Q. A pet dog may be loved by the family, but its I.Q. is not equal to that of human beings. I suggest that an I.Q. of about 100 (the White average) is approximately at the human level.

American blacks, being mixed with white blood, have an average I.Q.of85 (subhuman), and African blacks have an average I.Q. of 70 (again subhuman).

You are the one insising that blacks and Muslims, etc., have a "right" to live in this country. That is your opinion. Liberals waged a political war against the values of the majority of Americans to make such "rights" the universal law of the land. I want to see those right repealed. I want to see a civil war for the purpose of separating the races, because I do not believe that different subspecies (i.e.,races) have any God-given "right" to just live with and mate with whomever they please. The anti-miscegenation laws of the American Colonists and many U.S. states were the right laws.

As to whether what happened to the American Indians was "fair" -- 'all is fair in love and war,' they say! Seriously, I don't care whether it was fair or not; it is the past, and the past is dead. We took the land and it is ours. Such is the way of wars of conquest. At present, the best we can do is to honor the treaties made with American Indians and allow them to protect their nationhood.

Your liberals demand rights which I believe should not be lawful. Nowhere in Nature is their a law that the gazelle has a "right" not to be eaten by the lion. Thse "rights" you harp on were decided in the minds of men--they are men's ideals. This is why war must be waged. You believe in these revolutionary rights; and, like all revolutionists, you must be prepared to sacrifice your life, if necessary, for your beliefs.

"but if they’re a white liberal, their death is required."

Liberals have power in this country. They set the laws. They govern the land. They make the decisions as to the values of the society in general -- they've been having victory after victory since the 1950s, if not since Roosevelt. They have changed the country.

Just as the U.S. Civil War was required to decide who was to be victorious, the South or the North, a war is required to decide whose values are to prevail, the multiracialists or the race separatists. What I mean by "your life is required" is to get your ATTENTION! If political differences cannot be settled by mutual agreement, as in the U.S. Civil War or the American Revolution, then both sides must be prepared for war, so as to decide the question. You may not perish personally in such a war, but you must engage in it, if your ideological opponents can manage to challenge your beliefs on the battlefield. All I'm saying is that you need to be prepared to fight to the death to defend what you believe in, should things come to that. I am not saying that I'm coming after you prior to the actual declaration of war against liberals and their agenda.

I would stop the liberal agenda by peaceful means, but things have gone too far now for that to be a realistic option -- or so it seems to me. If anyone can show me a peaceful path to meaningful, enforced racial separation, I will gladly follow it.

Anonymous said...

"Heritage is history—honor it as you see fit."

Heritage is merely history?
To honor it, it must be a living heritage. It must have a future.



"I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from on race rights."

Try here:

http://www.racialcompact.com/

"You’re extremely lucky to live in this country—benefitting from all the freedoms that citizenship allows."

I feel extremely UNLUCKY to live in such a degenerate and depraved culture as the present-day United States. I cannot turn on the television or many radio stations without vomiting.

What wonderful "freedoms" do I have -- other than to express my beliefs online (I'll grant that one -- though public personalities are routinely forced to resign for making politically incorrect comments!).

Yes, I have the freedom to watch my neighborhood turn black -- a neighborhood that was 99% white for the first 25 years of my life!

I have the freedom to see thousands of black faces on teleision, often in interracial sexual relationships with whites. Beatiful!

I have the freedom to hear the pounding beat and idiodic lyrics of savage "music" created mostly by blacks, blasting out of automobiles and neighbor's homes on my street. Sweet!

I have the freedom to live next-door to a lesbian woman who campaigned proudly for the Obama presidency. Just lovely!

I have the freedom to pay taxes to support interracial schools -- schools that used to be all-white when I attended them as a child -- and pay taxes that support the role of local government in the bringing of African and Asian and Latin American babies to my city to be placed into White families. Georgeous!

I have the freedom to walk out-or-doors and watch interracial couples of all ages (including minors) making love in public. That's such a delight!

I have the freedom to observe white children listening to obscene music and occasionally dancing to it in the streets, just like Negroes.

I have the freedom to work at places where, if I express an unapproved opinion, I'm fired. Such a secure feeling that is!

No, lady (I assume you're female; forgive if my guess is wrong), I'd rather live in pre-WWII Netherlands or Ireland (say roughly 1875 - 1937) any day. Unfortunately, that was not my fate. (Even to have live there from 1900 - 1975 would have been more pleasant by far than to live in the multiracial U.S. I can think of other examples of white societies in history where I'd live a happier life.)

Did it ever occur to you that I HATE the modern U.S.? Sadly, there's no place where I can afford to move where there are not exactly the same problems as here.

Anonymous said...

"It WAS a big deal to the people that lost their land and culture."

Likewise it's just as big a deal to me to lose mine.



"While there isn’t much we can do to undo the wrong that was done, you could at least acknowledge it as an injustice—but you merely shrug it off."

Wars of conquest are unplesant, and many innocent people suffered. That was unfortunate and no doubt "unjust." But that is the way life is when there are too many people and not enough land. Of course, your solution is for white nations to follow the example of Mexico and Brazil and become mixed-race nations -- only by "choice," of course.

No, the original immigration policies, established in these United States, excluded as many non-Europeans and non-Christians as possible. The change in immigration law in 1965 was NOT in the "spirit" of the Founding Fathers.

You're mistaken to assume that I want to be HATED. I actually have very friendly converstaions via Internet with many people from all over the world. Obviously, these are not on the subject of the racial transformation of the West.

My point was that I expect other races to treat me kindly while I'm a guest. I expect them to be very less-than-pleased should I announce a desire to settle there and live among them as a citizen with the same rights as the native citizens and thus force myself on them and their culture. They too have a right to preserve their nationhood, race, and culture.

Anonymous said...

"Anyway, unlike the other anonymous, I don’t view you as an enemy. And even though I am also against miscegenation. I treat everyone, regardless of color with kindness and respect."

(Being that 'other anonymous')I view the liberal belief system as innimical to the survival of the West. Those who zealously enforce the liberal agenda are political enemies, though not personal enemies. If a sustainable White Society is ever to be restored and Europe is ever to be restored to Europeans, the Liberal True Believers will have to be expelled, for all they really know how to do is fight for change--change of the wrong kind.

I too treat everyone I meet with kindness and respect.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian,

Here's an American Indian who has made peace with the unfortunate past and is actually pro-white:

http://www.badeagle.com/

His website is among my very favorite pro-white websites -- perhaps my favorite.

I hate no one for racial reasons. I hate the multiracial society and liberalism.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian,

I too will have nothing more to say to you. If you cannot understand my love of the unique beauty of the White Race and its Culture and my desire to save it from multiculturalism, there is nothing possible that I can ever say to convince you otherwise.

As for Blacks not being equal to Whites, do this Google search for the opinion of a black preacher:

"Manning - Ms. Ann"

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I'm so lucky to be a U.S. citizen, where now I have to have my body X-rayed every time I take a plane, as ordered by our illegal-alien "president." (He certainly is not MY president, nor do I accept the current government as legitimate.)

Guess what?

Because X-rays are destructive of body cells, I will be taking NO more plane flights. Period.

Would I leave America? Yes, if I were of means and could find a quiet and accepting white nation to give me welcome.

Anonymous said...

"If you really don’t like them that much, then just steer clear, and mind your business, and they’ll probably do the same."

Not a realistic option. It is impossible not to deal with minorities when they are 40% of your city. Furthermore, I dislike the Whites who mix with the minorities, rather than the minorities themselves. I only want to form friendships with proud white people.

Again: It is the multiracial society that I hate, not the individuals who are of other races. And no, the belief that people have a "right" to be wherever they choose and live however they please is an invented "right," not a law of Nature. The law of Nature is survival of the fittest and the perishing of the unfit. No "rights" need apply.

A society is a social agreement. To belong to any given human society, one must meet the requirements. A Catholic does not have a "right" to worship at a Jewish synagogue, nor does a Mexican have a "right" to move to the States and take away some native citizen's job. These "rights" are invented by the Left and must be opposed.

The problem with Liberalism is that there can never be a satiation point. There will always be new "rights" to defend and more changes to demand. The liberal change process is unending; it creates social instability. It demands onerous sacrifices on all citizens and a measure of "tolerance" that eventually becomes intolerable.

Liberalism is a mental disorder. Such persons must be kept out of any nation's political life. Yes, Ted Kennedy was severely mentally ill.

Anonymous said...

Here's a wonderful example of how much "freedom" Americans have these days:

"Reid, in a private conversation, described the Illinois senator [Barack Obama] as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

For this, the opposition party is demanding his resignation! How is this "freedom"? I call it tyranny.

This shows that race is a huge impediment in the political life of the nation. There are far more important matters to give serious attention to than these useless trifles. America is a sick country.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian,

OK, you're a man. I re-read your post and that point is clear.

"You're telling me that, even if a person MEANS well, aims to HELP society, and promotes acceptance of ALL people, they're still better DEAD if they're a liberal?"

Ever hear the proverb: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions?
More people have been murdered in the name of equality than any other doctrine put forth.

"To be completely honest, the future mother of my children will MOST LIKELY be white—just personal preference."

You are not in love with your race. You are open to the possiblity of personally participating in miscegenation and producing race-mixed children. This is the reason that liberals must be separated from white communities or nations that choose to be all-white.

"No one is trying to force Islamic views on you."

Not yet. Give them time. Let their numbers and political power grow. Then they will force even YOU to convert.

"I don’t identify too much with being white. . ."

This is the root of our conflict. I look in the mirror and see not only a man, but a White man. I would be absolutely crushed to be anything other than White.

"How do you form positive relationships when you’re looking for hatred just to justify your own?"

I'm not looking for hatred. Just race consciousness. I want the Japanese to be racially conscious enough to keep Japan racially Japanese. I do not hate them and would even help them if they needed my help.

Anonymous said...

"You’d be pissed as hell if a black family moved in next door, even if they were Christian."

Their black children would interact with my white children (or my neighbor's white chilren), ultimately causing white children to lose their racial pride and tempting them to engage in interracial sexual intercourse.
White children do not need that temptation or influence.

NorwegianHeat said...

In response to Anonymous at 8:01 PM on the 9th:

Your nudist analogy is creative, but I question whether it truly applies.

Nudists don’t go out in public because American laws prohibits public indecency. In other words, it is illegal to be naked in public. For this reason, nudists, CHOOSE to live in communities devoted to such lifestyles. In these isolated societies, members indulge on the natural right to live life in the buff without offending anybody.

“Integrationists, like the nudists, must live in special places set aside to accomidate their lifestyle and values, so as not to force these on persons who disagree with them and do not wish to participate in this lifestyle.”

There are several glaring issues within this proposal. First of all, holding liberal views is not against the law. If I choose to respect others rights, I’m not participating in criminal activity, I’m being humane. For some reason, many of the comments here suggest that this violates THEIR rights somehow, but they’ve thus far failed to justify this reasoning. Regardless, I’m just as much within my rights and the law to think the way I do, just as much as you are free to feel the way you do (no matter how misguided I feel it is). Since I’m living within my rights, I’m not going to voluntarily abandon my home to live in some isolated community just to avoid offending you, no more than you would to avoid offending me or others who think or live differently from you. Likewise, you can’t reasonably expect “integrationists” to be rounded up against their will and forced to live in such isolated communities, as FORCING them into this lifestyle would be a violation of their rights. Think if it was you! As a minority (luckily your radical, inhumane views are not very popular in this day and age), how would you feel if liberals or integrationists FORCED you from your home and lifestyle and mandated that you relocate to select communes? I’m assuming you would recognize this as a violation of your freedom. That’s probably how the Jews felt as they were FORCED into concentration camps, or how the Native Americans felt when they were FORCED onto reservations—mere fragments of their former territories.

“In otherwords, tolerance has its limits.”

Tolerance, in itself, does not have limits. Rather, people have limits to how much they are WILLING to tolerate.

“In this finite world, everybody cannot have his own way at all times and under all circumstances.”

I could say the same thing to you (though I would’ve worded it better)! Since others have just as much a right to live their lives as you do, we need to learn to respect all lifestyles as much as possible, for the sake of a peaceful, productive future! I can’t have my way all the time and neither can you!

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“The liberal belief that everyone can be fully accomodated at all times and in all circumstances is actually a delusion, and thus liberalism is a mental disorder.”

The conservative belief that the accommodation of others is expendable in order to uphold those values is morally wrong. The belief that your lifestyle and views are somehow better than others’ is a delusion.
I’m not claiming that everyone can be fully accommodated—just look at your case! Your view that people that don’t think or live the same of you should be sectioned of from the rest of society will not be accommodated.
Liberalism is a mental disorder? Okay, then from my perspective, conservatism is a mental disorder. We just have opposing views and values. It goes both ways.
But actually, I don’t view conservatism as a “mental disorder”. I feel that “disorders” are yet another example of our narrow-mindedness. There’s no genetic template for what is “normal” or “correct”. People may have “differences” but they do not have “disorders”.
This is the basis of my entire argument. Everyone is different in some way—it’s the way of life. Life moves on, evolves, diversifies. These differences are something we should embrace and celebrate, not lock away in seclusion. But I recognize that not everyone is WILLING to TOLERATE these differences.

“You and I have an irreconcilible difference of VALUES. I value race and racial identity, whereas you believe that Whites owe it to the rest of the world to breed themselves out of existence.”

Honestly? I do not believe anything like that. I believe white people owe the rest of the world the same respect that we have for ourselves. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why does everything have to be black or white with you?

“Integrationists, like the nudists, must live in special places set aside to accomidate their lifestyle and values, so as not to force these on persons who disagree with them and do not wish to participate in this lifestyle. Or, conversely, racial separatists must be granted lands where they can live according to their values.”

We live in a small world nowadays. We’ve been networked with the rest of the planet—our lives are all interconnected. Things are only going to get tighter, as our populations continue to grow unchecked. Even if your proposition were possible today (which I doubt), it won’t be long before your idea of separation of lifestyles will be an impossibility. If we continue to grow as we have been, we will soon have nowhere to hide from those who hold different values and different ways of life. We will need to confront our differences sooner rather than later. How we choose to handle these confrontations is important—it will shape the future of mankind. When the time comes, we will greet our differences with acceptance or hatred—peace or bloodshed.
Instead of running from the inevitable, wouldn’t it make more sense to begin facing these issues now, before times are desperate? Wouldn’t be wise to explore a peaceful solution while we still can?

“I, for one, have no doubt that the racial separatists will enjoy greater prosperity and a happier general existence, for they will be free to be themselves and will not have to live like animals placed in captivity at the zoo (i.e., the unnatural, or less natural, multiracial society).”

What is prosperity? Money? Material possessions? I feel very rich already do to my views of life. I wouldn’t trade my values for a position in your separatist society, even if it meant greater wealth in possessions. I consider moral values to be of greater value than monetary ones.

NorwegianHeat said...

In response to Been There!:

South Africa is just another example of one group of people putting themselves over another. Regardless of the structure of a governing system, if a group of people is made to do the unwanted tasks of their oppressors, how can they be expected to advance? If you interfere with the natural systems of an indigenous people, force them to depend on the infrastructure you introduce, and treat them as second-class, then no, the system is not going to work. The natives were never accepted as equals—merely cheap labor.

“These areas were never able to establish themselves as productive or advanced. While the white areas in the same region, under the same climate propered.”

In the eyes of white people, but that doesn’t mean anything. If they weren’t accustomed to the ways of the white people, or share the same values, they probably wouldn’t emulate the pattern of development of the white colonies. This, however, is not a sign of failure. The natives simply clung to lifestyles the white colonists could not relate to, and didn’t try to understand, while continuing to follow the trends they developed in their homeland.
I also question your claims that there were no black people there before the colonists arrived. A source for that information would be interesting.

The thing is, you’re citing examples of integration to back your claims that it won’t work, but your examples are misleading.
Since arriving here as slaves, African Americans have long been regarded as second class. Even after being freed, they faced years of mistreatment and segregation, failing to receive equal rights until the 1960’s. But even then, stereotypes and oppression remained. If a group of people faces constant subjugation and abuse, how can you simultaneously expect them to perform as equal? If you only refer to criminals in the ghetto when on the subject of African Americans, or any other minority for that matter, then you’re not looking at the whole picture. Those that have managed to escape the binds of poverty have demonstrated the same ability to function in our society as white people. These individuals are prime examples of successful integration. Those that haven’t made the step up shouldn’t be condemned for it—it was us who put them there! A white person living in those conditions is just as capable of amoral behavior. Instead of continuing to oppress these people, we should be aiding them. If we want a productive society, then it is up to those with the ability to mend it to do so. We are responsible for the wellbeing of the society we live in, and the people who live within it.

“Nature has ALREADY declared who is best able to create a wholesome culture.”

As far as I can tell, white culture, or American culture—however you want to look at it—has demonstrated just as much ability to commit evil as any other.
Oh, and hatred is not wholesome.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“Many Negroes as individuals are wonderful and decent people, but the race fails to advance.”

“Negroes, left alone, can make little advancement. The history of Africa is an example of their compounded failure.”

What do you consider advancement? If it’s conquest, then no, black people have not been as successful. What about spirituality? Or finding a balanced, sustainable way of life within an environment? Depending on how you define “advancement” will result in very different measures of success. If a group of people rejects your idea of how to live, then of course they’ll never live up to your standards—but that doesn’t make them wrong.

“I don't hate Negroes and I don't wish any black person ill will. But I do not wish to see my race destroyed because somebody like NorwegianHeat attempts to put a guilt trip on us.”

Okay, you don’t “hate” black people, but you don’t offer them a whole lot of respect either. Stop calling them “negroes”—they don’t like that. Ignorance is not much better than hate.
You don’t “wish any black person ill will”—you just don’t want them having relationships with white people, or living in our society. Hmm. See, I just see that as ill will, as you don’t think they should be allowed the same rights as you within this society. Yeah, that’s pretty much ill will.
If you believe in the mistreatment of those that are different from you, then you should feel guilty, but that’s not going to destroy your race.

Anonymous said...

Norwegian,

You believe so fervently in the equality and good-will of blacks. Excellent! Why not get a job in service to their needs?

A good way would be for you to rent an apartment in Washington D.C. and get a government job to help work with the black community there.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“He is just another example of those who have become the victim of anti-white propaganda.”

I’m not anti-white. I am white. I’m not a victim of propaganda. I make a point of investigating both sides of issues and then make a decision for myself based on my moral code. I pity those who rely on media or government or organized religions to think and live for them.

“The problem with people like NorwegianHeat is he thinks in simplistic terms and refuses to investigate the issues of race.”

This is funny, because I feel that the problem with people like you is that you think in simplistic terms and refuse to LOOK PAST issues of race!

“Like a sponge, he thinks what he reads in the newspapers is true - that all white people who have racial pride are monsters that hate minorities.”

Not true. I recognize a lot of deception coming from both the left and the right—everyone is fighting for control. I try not to trust in the media too much, as content is easily corrupted by the agendas of others. I merely try to observe the world around me from as many angles as I can. The views that I ultimately come to are those that make the most sense to ME.
I don’t believe people with racial pride are monsters, but I’ve stated that enough already. I believe that people willing to sacrifice the rights of others to favor their own comforts are monsters. If you believe in the abuse of the rights of minorities, then—whether or not you are willing to call it “hate”—you still display a disgusting amount of inconsideration for the wellbeing other others. You greet those that are different from you with apathy. I simply challenge myself to see the similarities in everyone, and accept them for it, because I believe it is the right thing to do.

“I used to think like him, so I know where he is coming from.”

I highly doubt this. You reject my views because you still don’t understand them—you don’t see life as I do. You couldn’t possibly know where I’m coming from and feel the way you do about these issues. A true appreciation for all forms of life is incorruptible—you can’t be made aware of the truth and beauty of existence and just un-see it.
I used to be an incredibly racist person—I suffered several injustices at the hands of people who happened to be black, and I hated black people for it. But as time went by, and I continued to educate myself, I began to see the error in my way of thinking—in the generalizations I was making. I had blamed the evils of the people who hurt me on the color of their skin instead of the content of their hearts. Since then I have realized, thankfully, that people who do evil do so because of how they interpret the world around them, not because of what color skin they have. If people find it acceptable to harm others, then there is a problem with how they think, not with the color of their skin.

“For years I simply refused to listen to other people, like NorwegianHeat I just accepted what I saw on TV or read in the newspapers.”

Again, this is a misrepresentation of my lifestyle. If I was simply quoting the media, I wouldn’t be able to sit here defending my position. Every time you attack me or my position, I will be able to think it through and respond. A mere slave to popular ideals won’t have a legitimate understanding of them. They’d give up if you rejected their claims.
Likewise, if your views had any merit, the people commenting on here would be able to better promote their causes.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“It took me several years to deprogram myself.”

I’m not programmed. You assume that your way of thinking must be the only correct way of thinking—that any other way of thinking must be the product of some evil agenda. I’m not brainwashed, I don’t support most of the things our country does—even the liberals everyone on here likes lumping me in with.
I don’t feel that you’ve necessarily been programmed either. I mean, there’s the possibility, but I feel it’s more likely that you’ve just never been able to look past the surface of things, as I once struggled with, and that it’s easier live like that. I’ll admit, from experience, that it is—but that doesn’t make it right. If Jesus was real—and I think he was—I feel that’s what he would’ve seen.

“The same can happen to him. He is exactly where I used to be.”

No it can’t happen. We have very strange positions, you and I. You believe that you were once me, and since transcended that false perception of reality, and I believe the same of you. It’s interesting.

NorwegianHeat said...

Ah, and to Anonymous at 6:06 on the 10th:

"’If everyone becomes a mix of all races . . .’
Why would you desire such a monotonous world?”

That’s not what I desire—I merely desire the equality of all races, and part of that equality includes the right to choose your mate. If people choose to propagate through interracial means, that’s their right.

“Having different races, languages, cultures -- this helps make life more interesting.”

That it does—it’s even more interesting when those differences are allowed to be in the presence of one another. And when they mix, new diversity is born—how do you think YOUR race, language, and culture came to be to begin with? If our ancestors didn’t accept the changes that came to them in their lives, we wouldn’t be around today. It’s called adaptation. Trying to maintain a perfect, pure, controlled white population isn’t adaptation, it’s fear of change.

“Why should we all look and think and behave exactly the same?”

We shouldn’t—but that’s what segregation would result in. If we were all white Christian conservative Americans, we’d all “look and think and behave exactly the same” wouldn’t we? I’ve never stated that ALL WHITE PEOPLE MUST BLEND WITH MINORITIES—I’m saying for those who wish to create new mixes, it must remain an option.

“Different places for different races -- the only way to preserve true diversity.”

No it isn’t. The only way for true diversity is to accept both the similarities and differences of people, and remain true to yourself. Don’t let others govern the way you live and think. Be your own person. True diversity lacks labels. “Conservative”, “liberal”, “black”, “Christian”, “white”, “atheist”, “American”—when you start clinging too hard to these, you start to lose your identity as an individual. If you’re proud of them, then cherish that, but don’t let it govern the person are. I feel true diversity and true identity transcend our ability to define and categorize.

NorwegianHeat said...

In regards to Another Anonymous:

“Some of his comments are sincere, but a little misstated.”

Oh, I’m sure he’s sincere, and I’m sure he believes in what he is saying just as much as you or I do. I’m simply posing an alternate view.

“You keep saying no one if forcing him or others to race-mix. But you are mistaken. When information is purposely denied to the ears of children or other images are created that were based on a falsehood which alters the values of a child that is subtle force.”

Alright, then by that same standard, my views should reach the ears of children just as much as yours. Let them hear both sides of the issue, and hopefully they can make the right decision for themselves, whichever that may turn out to be.
What about my message is based on falsehoods? I really don’t understand what you find about what I’m saying so unbelievable?
And no, no one is forcing race mixing. Race mixing is a choice that people make. It’s hard to believe, but people CAN think differently than you and not be wrong. I’m not saying YOUR views are completely wrong—only wrong in the sense that you feel it is acceptable to deny others the right to choose who they want to mate with to protect your own agenda. You can only control your own life, your own destiny. You and people who think like you can continue to sew new seeds of the white race, but by denying others the right to live their own lives the way they want to is wrong. If I told you couldn’t marry a white woman because the white race needs to be eliminated, then your arguments would have merit, and you would be right, I would be violating your freedom to live your life. But if others choose miscegenation, then that is their right, you can’t deny them that. If you do, then you open yourself to the same injustices by violating the balance of equality.

“Anyway, unlike the other anonymous, I don’t view you as an enemy. And even though I am also against miscegenation. I treat everyone, regardless of color with kindness and respect.”

If this is so, and you respect others’ rights to miscegenation, then we’re on the same page, and we have no quarrel with each other. I commend you for your open-mindedness. The bone I have to pick is only with those that see the mistreatment of others as a legitimate means to forward their own cause—to protect the white race at the expense of others’ right to create their own.

“NorwegianHeat, have you realized the greatness of America was built during the period of time when it maintained its white character.”

Have YOU realized that, even during those times, great evils were still present in America? Have you realized that it is not the color of our skin, but the content of our minds and hearts that allows us to do evil upon others? Look at the Salem trials, the segregation of African Americans, the abuse of homosexuals, the internment of the Japanese during WWII—you can’t blame these things on other races. There are no scapegoats, and there is no justification for these actions. They were mistakes made by white people when fears and differences could not be looked past. These are learning opportunities—chances to build from previous errors to create a healthier, more accepting society.

“It is only a recent years (since the early 1970’s) that America began to become a nonwhite nation.”

Yeah. And things don’t look much different, except that now those in power have more minorities to blame for the failings of society. Nothing has changed in the way people live their lives. People of all colors are still committing acts of hatred and violence upon each other.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)


“I suspect you are a product of modern education and the image of America’s white character has been demonized in your eyes.”

I am the product of my own education. I don’t see America’s white character as demonized. I’m white, most of the people I know and get along with are white. Demons come in every form, from ever background. In fact, during the early part of my life, I saw a lot of minorities committing atrocious acts, and saw THEM as demonized. It took me time to realize that there was evil in the individuals themselves, not the race they descended from, that was the real issue. And if more of the evil characters in our society are from minorities, then it is the injustice and mistreatment that we force upon them that contributes a great deal to their condition. If we want these people to function in a productive, wholesome manner within our communities, then we must allow them the tools to do so. If we continue to hold prejudices against them, then how can you expect them to function alongside us as equals?

“History books has been altered and have created this racial indifference in your head.”

Really? I’d like to hear your versions of the history lessons I was taught. I’d like to hear about your version of the wholesome, sinless white man.

“But the first thing I had to do (just my story - I don’t know about you) was to understand that just because someone believed in preserving their white heritage did not mean they were bad people or wanted to kill nonwhites.”

This isn’t what I believe. I have no qualms with those trying to preserve their heritage, just those who feel it is necessary to do so at the expense of others. If you’ll look back, this blog post was actually about racial profiling in airports. That was the view I was originally debating, but then for some reason, someone decided to bring up the perceived evils of miscegenation, although it wasn’t really related to the original topic, and things have snowballed from there.

“This is the image the media (so it appears) has created or at least focused on.”

Whether this is true or not does not affect the context of what I am arguing for. I don’t care one way or the other what the media says. I’m forming my own views based on the rights that are important to me. Since I feel that I should have these rights, it’s only fair that everyone else should.

“When I got that false image out of my head and realized that these were sincere people who weren’t stupid or ignorant I was able to quietly begin to understand their view point.”

That’s great, I feel I’m gaining an understanding of the viewpoint as well—but I still don’t agree with it when it begins crossing the line of interfering with anyone else’s pursuit of freedom. I’ve never said you can’t believe what you believe, only that you can’t violate others’ rights.

“I began to see propaganda coming from many directions I had never seen before. I began to see the hypocrisy of those who claim to promote racial equality, but only used this to advance an anti-white agenda.”

Well, I don’t know who these others are, but if their agenda is anti-white, then I am against that as well. I’m not trying to get rid of rights. I just want everyone to co-exist in as fair a manner as possible. If you are still going to claim that my agenda is anti-white, then I can only accept that your agenda is anti-everything-else. I don’t want it to come to that, because I don’t feel that’s really what you believe in, but if you’re only going to perceive my values one way, then I can only apply the opposite view to yours. Is this really what we want? Black and white? Why can’t we recognize and acknowledge the full spectrum of lifestyles and beliefs that exist within our society? Why does it have to be reduced to for-or-against?

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“I was a victim like you.”

I am not a victim, and I resent this statement.

“I would suggest you at least try to understand what they are saying and not necessarily pick apart “how” they are saying it.”

I understand where you’re coming from with this. I feel I understand what people are saying here—that they don’t want to lose their heritage, race, and lifestyles. Still, I don’t agree with the idea that protecting the rights of others is in violation of your rights. I don’t care how you say it, if that is your message, then I have a problem with it. If you don’t support the violation of others’ rights, then my fight isn’t with you.

“I would suggest you (just for your own study) write to Pastor Robb (P. O. Box 354, Bergman Ark 72615 and ask (there is no charge) for his recent issue of The Torch titled, America’s White Identity.”

Not a bad recommendation, thank you. Out of respect, perhaps I will investigate this. However, if I agree to look further into your views through this publication, would you be willing to accept that my views are my own, and not the product of brainwashing propaganda? Would you be willing to reevaluate what I’m actually SAYING from an unbiased perspective, rather than immediately assuming you understand my character—that I’m some mindless sheep? If I do study it, and still reject your views, will I still be the “hate monger” some of these comments make me out to be?

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

“I am not one who spends much time commenting on blogs. I will read occasionally, but I don’t usually take time to write. It just isn’t me. So I am not even sure I will write back if you respond. I heard Pastor Robb say a while ago to someone, ‘I don’t have any inner need to prove you are wrong and I am right. I am just stating how I see it. What you do with it is up to you.’”

I’ve devoted a lot of my life to writing—it’s something I enjoy doing. I also enjoy practicing my use of logic, and I like debating my views with those who don’t see things my way. I think this is healthy for both parties—we can each strengthen our ideas, and if we expose faults in the other’s reasoning, then those weaknesses can be addressed. I understand Pastor Robb’s point—I also don’t feel the need to convert anyone to my way of thinking, so I’m hoping that my presence here hasn’t been misunderstood. I can definitely see where I can come across as preachy, but I mostly intend these comments as a personal exercise—I recognize that it’s highly unlikely that I’ll change any of your minds, as much as I feel you won’t be able to change my views. I’m merely working to strengthen my own views. If you don’t want to respond, that’s perfectly fine—I won’t hold it against you or think less of you—but if you would like to use this opportunity to practice your own use of logic, or exercise your values, feel free. I welcome anyone to challenge my way of thinking—I see no harm in a healthy debate. It’s how we learn. I don’t see any reason why our correspondence can’t be a positive experience for both sides.

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

The problem I have with the assumption that my views are the result of my victimization by propaganda is that I could just as easily say the same about many f the opposing views I’m finding here. This same concept of opposing perspectives can be applied to many things.
When I was young, I listened to what the media, religion, and education system told me about drug use. Drug use was made out to be dangerous the user and detrimental to society, and I believed it completely. In high school, I held the biggest anti-drug sentiment in the whole school, and alienated myself from a lot of people around me.
Eventually, after high school, I tried drugs for the first time. I immediately recognized the errors I had made—believing only what others told me, and not forming an opinion of my own. I began to see the unfair messages that anti-drug propaganda produced. I am now against some of those messages, and am a supporter of the right to use drugs if desired.
The thing is, it’s not just that black and white. Drugs aren’t just GOOD or BAD—they are what you make them. If you can use them responsibly, without harming others with them, they can be very useful tools in the exploration of self and the world around you. However, if you abuse them, they can be extremely harmful. In the end, drugs are just tools—like everything else. It is the merit of their application that defines them. Thus, they should not be barred from use completely over the concern of some bad eggs. It is a violation of freedom. We should promote appropriate use, instead of simply trying to control the lives of the people who want to use them. Simply telling people what they can or can’t do doesn’t promote responsibility or growth of those people—those that really want to do them will still find a way. Instead of trying to control drug use, we should promote appropriate drug use. That’s the only way to advance as a society. Instead of saying “you can’t do that” we should be sending the message that responsibility and accountability are the true keys to success. Don’t control people, educate them.
We need to approach issues of racial and cultural differences in the same way. Instead of trying to control what people practice and how they live, wouldn’t it be better to promote responsible living? Instead of trying to influence the population with propaganda promoting one agenda or the other, wouldn’t educating people on the importance of equality have a greater affect on our progress? I don’t see equal rights among people as a bad thing—I don’t see support of it as a violation of white rights. I support white rights just as much as anyone else’s. The only way to protect your own rights is by standing up for the rights of everyone else. If we attempt to violate others’ rights to spare our own, then that will only justify others’ attempts to violate ours in return. This is not responsible, equal development, and it will only lead to further violations—more pain and more hatred.

(I'll probably have some more responses to the new comments later)

Anonymous said...

"The meaning of one’s life is defined by the individual."

There is a name for this belief in Philosophy: it is called Existentialism. I do not subscribe to this philosophy.

"Forcing Muslims, Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, etc. to follow a white Christian decree would be tyranny."

I never advocated forcing anybody into Christianity.

"Maybe people should stop trying to GOVERN the lives and beliefs of others."

Your ignorance of Islam is beyond belief! This forcing of their religion, meaning "Submission," on the entire world has been the basis of that religion since its founding. Saying that the spread of Islam into Europe and America can be done with Muslims having no desire for ruling this land with their religion -- what pitiful ignorance of the true nature of that religion you demonstrate!

"If you were black, would you still feel that whites are superior?"

If I were an honest and reasonably intelligent black, probably, yes.

'Oh, and what's wrong with "one world"?'

The Bible says that God stopped the building of the Tower of Babel because He was opposed to a one-world society and disapproved of "racial harmony." One-worldism is, therefore, clearly Rebellion against the Law of God.

Anonymous said...

"I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from on race rights."

See here:

http://www.racialcompact.com/

" “Miscegenation is genocide.”

…Because YOU say so? I’m sorry, but this is just a baseless statement with no support provided. How is it genocide?"

You chose a bad analogy. Very many religious Jews believe that miscegenation is genocide. I have even had Jews admit this to me.

When a White marries a Black, for example, the child is a mixed-race person who is neither truly white nor black, but both. Genocide for both races.

"And why would you make war on me? I didn’t force the black family to move in next to you—THEY chose to."

Wrong. Liberals have passed laws forcing people to sell homes to blacks, even when they would desire not to. Very un-Constitutional. The man who built my next-door neighbor's house was a white racist, and he would be appalled to find a Negro family living in the houses he built. But that has already happened. Liberal laws have forced community integration; to deny that makes you either ignorant or a liar.

" “And in the same way, I want the right to live in an all-White society.”

I don’t know what to tell you other than that isn’t a right you’re entitled to in THIS society. "

It's you liberal who are deciding who gets what "rights." The truth is that "rights" exist only in human mind -- they do not exist in the world of reality. If there are any true rights at all, they can only come from God, never from the mind of man.

"Liberal viewpoints are not a matter of RACE, they are a matter of belief—just as much as Buddhism and Scientology."

They are a matter of belief CONCERNING race and race-relations. Those of us who do not subscribe to the liberal viewpoints on these subjects must, in order to live according to OUR values, remove liberals from our society. Otherwise there will never be peace and prosperity.

Anonymous said...

"“Miscegenation is EVIL.”

Baseless claim."

Evolutionary Theory and the territorial nature of animals. Animals refuse to mate in the way that corresponds to miscegenation under natural circumstances. You obviously did not study evolution and the quote I provided:

"... we find that all higher, more mobile animals living under feral (natural) conditions not only evolve a sense of territoriality, whereby they become isolated or at least semi-isolated genetically on a geographical basis in what are known as demes, but that they also develop what zoologists call "feral restraints", that is, a marked unwillingness -- amounting often to a positive refusal -- to interbreed with members of other sub-species. ... "


“It is WRONG.”

Baseless claim.

Same answer as above: the law of Evolution forbids that the lion shall lie down with the tiger.

“And forced integration of races always leads to miscegenation…”

Generalization based on other logical errors.

Name the specific "logical errors." Furthermore -- and much more importantly -- show me any human society that has integrated without anti-miscegenation laws in History that has rejected miscegenation and maintained the integrity of the races.

Anonymous said...

"I view the teachings of Jesus Christ being centered on the issue of race."

This would, of course, be excellent. I do believe that the Bible implicitly recognizes nationhood and is generally negative on the mixing thing. Just wish it had an explicit universal prohibition on miscegenation, such as Hinduism does: "Out of the corruption of women proceeds the confusion of races; out of the confusion of races proceeds the loss of memory ; out of the loss of memory proceeds the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil!" - Bhagavad Gita

Anonymous said...

OK, NorwegianHeat,

You are certain that Blacks and Whites are equal.

Name me a great black civilization.

Name me a black-ruled American city that has prospered.

Name me a black-ruled nation in Africa that has prospered and is a desirable place to live.

Explain why the average black I.Q. in Africa has been consistently tested at 70.

Explain why the avereage American black I.Q. (most American blacks are clearly of mixed race with whites) remains at 85.

Name a black poet and playwrite on a par with William Shakespeare or Goethe.

Name me a black composer of music on a par with Bach or Beethoven.

Name me a black artist on a par with Bertel Thorvaldsen or Caravaggio.

Name me a black inventor on a par with Thomas Edison or Alexander Graham Bell.

Name me a black scientist on a par with Isaac Newton or Copernicus.

Name me a black philosopher on a par with Plato or Aristotle.

Name me a black empire with the glory of Ancient Rome at its height.

And last of all, name me an American black city where it is safe for a white person (or even a black, for that matter) to walk the streets after dark.

You say that Whites prejudice is to blame for Blacks' failures and lack of achievement (despite the fact that certain Blacks have succeeded). Why is it then that others who have faced similar discrimination -- Jews and Asians, for example -- have actually succeeded even more than the average white American?

Last, but not least, what black city or nation would you like to raise your family in? Detroit? Zimbabwe?

Anonymous said...

"Another Anonymous"

You did your noble best, my White brother!

There are quite a few liberals who are simply misguided and indoctrinated from birth.

However, there are also the liberal True Believers, such as NorwegianHeat.

For the True Believer, Liberalism is a religion. To convince him is like convincing a staunch Calvinist to become a Roman Catholic. It simply cannot be done.

As to Liberalism's True Believers, I will spare the kind-hearted Christian owner of this blog the words of the late Dr. William Pierce as to what their fate must needs be!

Anonymous said...

"The meaning of one’s life is defined by the individual."

This is the opposite of religion. If this be true, Man is his own god. Also, if this be true, there is no objective Meaning to Life.

Every religion, even those that Christians would oppose, teaches that Meaning comes from knowing God. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism (traditional Chinese religion) all teach that God is the Truth and Meaning of Man's existence.

NorwegianHeat is an Existentialist at heart, just like Jean-Paul Sartre et al. This philosophy is anti-God and is perhaps the chief reason Europe today is so secular and is slowly falling under Islamic rule.

See this telling video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

An Observer said...

This is my first post, but I just HAD to say something.

To everyone:
What's the deal with NorwegianHeat? From all the many and LONG posts he has written it appears he is a know-it-all elitist wind bag with nothing to do and most like a general failure. ANY BODY (racist or anti-racist) who can spend THAT much time writing on a message board evidently has NOTHING else to do but bask in his own illusion of greatness.

Come on NorwegianHeat, don't you have anything else to do? - walk a dog, play ball with a child, help an old lady cross the street.

It doesn't matter if I agee with you or not. The TIME spent writtng all this stuff is moronic.

Get a life!

Anonymous said...

I guess that NorwegianHeat doesn't have the answers to the very simple questions I put to him!

NorwegianHeat said...

Oh, don't celebrate yet, I got your answers. While I feel I don't need to give you the examples you're looking for--they're on the internet, do the research yourself--I'm guessing you'd consider that a victory, much like you did when I failed to respond on the same day as your posting (Contrary to An Observer's opinion, I DO have a life, and prior commitments.) So, even though I really shouldn't need to prove the worth of other races, let's see what I can come up with:

As far as black artists, poets, and composers ON PAR (this is the proper English phrase, not “on a par” as you say) with the names you provided, how about Robert Scott Duncanson, Langston Hughes, Scott, Joplin, Maya Angelou, Jean-Michel Basquiat, or Duke Ellington?
You’re white, yet can your writing stand up to that of Shakespeare? With “on a par” I highly doubt it. Does your whiteness allow you to write music like Bach?

Some black inventors include George Washington Carver, who found many useful applications for peanuts, among other things. Robert Bryant and Emmett W. Chappelle have both engineered many technologies employed by NASA. Then there’s Cordell Reed, who works to improve methods of harvesting nuclear electric power. What have YOU contributed to those fields?

You want examples of black scientists? I’ve already listed a few, but I’ll go on. How about a personal hero of mine, Jim Gates, a theoretical physicist? When I was still in high school, writing a paper on string theory, I exchanged emails with him and cited him as a primary source. I can personally attest to his brilliance, and also commend his generosity in aiding my research. None of the white physicists I contacted ever responded.

As far as empires go, there were the Nubians and the Egyptians, which were pretty impressive for their time. The Roman Empire at its peak was perhaps larger, but this was also later in history—just as the British Empire trumped the Romans. Each builds off of the advancements of the previous empire.

(MORE TO COME!)

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

The first people evolved in Africa—black people. The first instances of language probably originated with ancient peoples living in Africa—black people. If you want to talk about philosophers, then the first examples of these would have been the creators of religion. The first religions—philosophies centering around the reason for and meaning of life—probably developed in black civilizations in Africa. Staples in your life that you may or may not take for granted most likely would not have come about were it not for the intellect of early black culture.
To take this idea even further, consider the spread of knowledge from Africa to the Middle East and the Mediterranean, and then north into central Europe and Scandinavia. The spread of culture was just as much a process of the same integration you now oppose. Without cultural and racial integration, you’d still be following the ways of your European ancestors. Have you ever realized, as Christianity advanced north, your ancestors were encountered and considered pagan savages—just as native North and South Americans and black Africans were? That’s right, YOUR ancestors (assuming this is where your ancestor’s were from) were considered unequal—not on the same level as those who were invading. Their way of life was taken away from them and replaced by what was deemed superior.
Look at Europe before America: Different nationalities—all white—feuding over territory and religion. When these different nationalities began encountering each other in America, at first, there was conflict. Nobody liked the Irish, for instance. Each nationality felt superior. Now, over time—through integration and blending—formally separate nationalities have accepted their differences as merged to form American culture. You don’t look around and see German and British and Swedish—it’s all just white American. Now we’re encountering new people who we see as different. Just as we once feuded over which nationality is better, you are now choosing to feud over which race is better. In the same way that we have set aside issues of nationality, so too can we set aside issues of race—IF WE CHOOSE TO.

(MORE TO COME!)

NorwegianHeat said...

(CONTINUED)

Okay, on to I.Q’s. This should be obvious, but if you need me to “explain why the average black I.Q. in Africa has been consistently tested at 70,” then alright, I’ll lead you through this one.
America is the richest nation in the world. We’ve set up extensive systems of education—from pre-school and kindergarten up through high school and on to college. We spend the first third of our lives learning before we’re actually ready to join society as productive members. Through these means, we breed a more intelligent society (you being the exception to the rule). This is not the case in Africa. Most African nations, as you should know, do not have the benefits of our economic infrastructure. They do not have our material wealth; they do not have our educational benefits. Thus, the general population is bound to test lower. Likewise, populations in the U.S that lack the financial support found in the predominantly white middle-to-upper class—the ghettos—will not test as high, since they don’t have access to top-notch educations. Races that endure second-class treatment are going to find themselves with fewer opportunities to educate themselves. They will remain poor, and they will, on average, test lower than those that are pampered. Individuals that break free of this cycle will achieve greater opportunities at wealth and education. Look at the physicists and engineers listed earlier. Very intelligent individuals. A white person living in poverty is going to test just as dumb as any other race. Since a larger percentage of black people are living with lower incomes than the white populace, it only makes sense that their test results should be lower. Those results by no means suggest that black individuals have less potential for intelligence than white people. To dispute that is to ignore circumstance.

A lot of what you’re suggesting seems to be based on intelligence—the mentioning of I.Q scores, the assumption that white people make better artists or scientists—this puzzles me. If we are to assume, as seem to suggest, that intelligence defines our value, than what does that say about you and me? I’m under the assumption that I’m smarter than you. If that is the case, does that mean that I am better than you? Is my life of greater value than yours? By the standards you are introducing, it would seem so. It would also mean that those black intellectuals I initially introduced would all be of more value than you or I, and anyone living in the ghetto—black or white—would barely even have a life worth living. Yet, according to my values and my beliefs, we are still equal—equal in that each of us was born with the same potential to live wholesome, responsible lives. The reason I disagree with a society based on classes (and classes based on race) is that the tables could so easily be turned. What if things were flipped, and it was whites fighting for their rights, and their equal treatment? Wouldn’t you expect black people to sympathize with us? To see our worth as people? Wouldn’t you be upset when they choose ignorance and greed?

All this is very basic--I've barely touched on most of these issues, and neglected to respond entirely to several of your inquiries. While I doubt I've successfully made my point to you, I'm guessing no effort--no matter how thorough--ever will. I could go on about this stuff forever, but I doubt I’d be entertaining anybody but myself, so I’ll leave it at that for now.

NorwegianHeat said...

Oh, one more quick point I'd like to make:

To whoever suggested I check out badeagle.com--did you realize that David Yeagley is a product of the very process you're so against? Yes, while his mother was a blend of a couple Native American tribes, his father was white. He's the product of an interracial relationship! I haven't yet found where he mentions the evils of miscegenation--I'll keep looking--but I have found a few points of interest.
For one, David is a Christian, and enjoys composing classical music. This would suggest to me that he favors aspects of his white, or European heritage, over the traditional ways of the Comanche people. So that it doesn't become misconstrued, let me say first that I find absolutely nothing wrong with this. My "liberal" views allow everyone their own life choices. The reason I bring up his values is simply that these were not the traditional Native American values--the values held by the people who were mistreated by European settlers. My point is, Mr. Yeagley and his values are not accurate examples of the people and culture that were lost. Mr. Yeagley has not lost his way of life--he was born and raised an INTEGRATED member of our society and culture. Where Mr. Yeagley is content to come to terms with the past (nothing wrong with that either), the traditional natives would not have had this luxury. They DID lose their way of life, and their rights WERE violated.

Practically speaking, Mr. Yeagley is probably right--Native Americans will most likely never regain their former lands and way of life. It would probably be best to accept the past, and move forward. This doesn't mean, however, that we should forget the lessons learned from that past--that we can't violate others' ways of life to favor our own.

I just fail to see how introducing me to his case was supposed to clarify your view—let alone convince me of its validity. He is a perfect example of what I am arguing for!

Anonymous said...

"I’m under the assumption that I’m smarter than you."

My school I.Q. says I'm at 170. You'd have to be pretty damn intelligent to have a higher I.Q. than myself.

Anonymous said...

"I haven't yet found where he mentions the evils of miscegenation--I'll keep looking--"

NH, Allow me to assist you:

David Yeagley // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:46 pm

Say “white,” and the automatons think “black.” Why, didn’t you know white people are actually black? The white race is a wee extension of the black race.

Go black, baby! Forget that “green” stuff. Go black–and let it be the white women who lead out. Back to black!

Ah, the lost white race. What a tragedy.

Anonymous said...

David Yeagley quotes:

"Like the universal law of aesthetics. We want beauty. Superior beauty lies in the white race. It is the variety of color, the red hair, the blonde hair, the green eyes, the blue eyes. All the other races in the world have only one coloring, the same black hair, the dark brown eyes and skin. A bit drab in comparison, can’t we say?"

"This denigration of race [miscegenation] is a cruel mockery of manhood. It is a pathetic testimony of the personal irresponsibility and malignant selfishness of failed men. Indeed, a careless woman is generally such for the lack of a caring father."

"Disguised though it may be in moral and religious terms, political terms, or even genetic terms, the case is fairly obvious: “the hated white race” is such for its beauty and power."

Anonymous said...

"Oh, and hatred is not wholesome."
NorweianHeat

"The Healthiness of Hate
By John "Birdman" Bryant


Hate is good, provided only that it is directed against hateful things. --JBR Yant"

Here:

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbl/Lbl-HealthinessOfHate.html

Anonymous said...

"ON PAR (this is the proper English phrase, not “on a par” as you say)"
-- NorwegianHeat

BALDERDASH

The Cassell's (A very highly respected AND authoritative English-language resource) French-English dictionary SAYS: English "on a par with" translates into French as "de pair avec." There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ENGLISH PHRASE "ON A PAR WITH." THAT IS JUST YOUR IGNORANT OPINION!

NONE OF THE PERSONS YOU MENTION CAN MATCH THE GREATNESS OF THE WHITE GENIUSUS I'VE LISTED. YOUR RESPONSE IS A JOKE!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "So It Has Come to This!":

A little more help in your search, NorwegianHeat:

David Yeagley // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:16 pm

"Google is liberal. Liberal means interracial sex, mixed breeds, multi-culti-culturalism, one world, globalist false godism…you know, the whole nine yards.

All major business are liberal. I suppose they fear being sued by the ACLU. Therefore, they are aggressive now about their liberalism, these mega-corps conglomorates."

"I would not look forward to a time when there is no white race."
-- David Yeagley

"White women are leaping in bed with black men, or other darkies of the world, and popping out strange-looking children. Generally speaking, the male in these incidents could not care less about the children. It’s all about sexual aggression against the white race. They’re happy to conquer for the moment, and to create ghastly, permanent consequences. Marriage and family have nothing to do with these misanthropes, nor the lusus naturae [freaks of nature] they create." -- David Yeagley

Anonymous said...

I think Observer hit the nail on the head.

NorwegianHeat, doesn't have a life. ANYONE who can spend as much time as he does writting on an internet blog evidently doesn't have any place to go or anyone to be with.

NorwegianHeat said...

Okay, after looking up "on a par with" you are correct. I apologize. This mistake does not detract from my argument overall, however.

"NONE OF THE PERSONS YOU MENTION CAN MATCH THE GREATNESS OF THE WHITE GENIUSUS I'VE LISTED."

That's your ignorant opinion. You don't VALUE their contributions, but that doesn't mean others don't. Value isn't fixed, it's relative to your perception. Have you noticed ANYONE turning out writing like Shakespeare lately? Nobody writes or talks like that anymore. But I'm guessing that if you put a gifted black person in his shoes, they'd be able to create similar accomplishments.

As far as the Yeagley argument goes, I'm not buying it. If Mr. Yeagley chooses to make generalizations about interracial relationships, that's his choice, but he's ignoring the truth. There plenty of MARRIED interracial couples. I know some personally. They are married with children, have respectable jobs, and leave love letters for each other on valentine's--even after years of being together. They are very much IN LOVE, and COMMITTED to their children. There's no aggression toward the white race. One is black, one as white, but they are equals in their union. If you are going to ignore these examples of positive interracial relationships and focus solely on the deadbeats and whores, then you're missing the big picture.

You say one of the problems is that these sorts of relationships--but aren't there conservatives (I'm thinking of a specific case in Louisiana not to long ago) trying to stop interracial couples from getting marriage licenses? You can't have it both ways.

Another reason I disagree with this argument is that, under the right conditions, single-race relationships are capable of the same failures. Black-with-black or white-with-white--if the individuals involved lack family values, then they're going to fail any offspring they produce. My parents are both white. They remained together the entire time they were raising me, but they didn't love each other anymore, and that caused a lot of strife growing up. They rushed into having a child (me) before they know if they really wanted to commit to raising a child together. There was no black influence, they were just irresponsible. THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE FIGHTING. If we want to save the children of weak relationships, then we should be stressing the importance of building strong relationships before you start having kids with someone--regardless of race.

"NorwegianHeat, doesn't have a life. ANYONE who can spend as much time as he does writting on an internet blog evidently doesn't have any place to go or anyone to be with."

You're entitled to your opinion, but personal attacks aren't going to validate any of the arguments here. I have a life--what I do dwith it is my business. If I want to spend some of my time arguing on the internet, what's wrong with that? Then I'll go to work, then come home and write, or hang out with friends, or maybe post another comment or two on here. If I'm happy with my routine, then I'm pretty sure that's all that matters.
And c'mon, do you honestly think I care what any of you think of me personally? I'M very happy with MY life, and that's all I need. I wouldn't trade it for any of yours.

Anonymous said...

NorwegianHeat,

Here's my final say:

I'm sorry to hear that your parents didn't love each other. I suspect (though you won't agree) that this has something to do with why you lack racial loyalty feelings.

In any case, for me, the big picture is that Whites are about 9% of the world population and falling fast. The extinction of Whites of European descent is nearer than you might think. Race-suicide is not a good thing, so far as I'm concerned. Miscegenation is a luxury the White Race simply cannot afford, if it aims to survive in any meaningful way into the future world scene.

Best wihes to you.