Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Even Cave Men Should Defend Their Heritage!

The following comment was sent to this blog.


"did you know that 75% of severly uneducated america is white?
just saying"

( I want to point out that they failed to capitalize the first letter of this sentence. They failed to capitalize America and they misspelled severely.)


I posted this comment to illustrate failed critical thinking. This person boldly proclaimed that 75% of severely uneducated people in the U.S. were white.

Such a statement is blatantly untrue. But let’s suppose for a moment that it IS true. Does that mean we should not be allowed to preserve our heritage? Even if we were only a race of cave men that ran through the jungle with clubs in our hands uttering out an occasional grunt, I think we still have a unalienable right to love our people.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with who is superior or who in inferior. The question is, Do white people have a God given right to love our people, love our heritage and pass it down to future generations?

Do white people have a right to defend ourselves from genocide?

If the answer is "No!" than you are a hypocrite. If the answer is "Yes!" than you need to become aware that genocide is exactly what we are facing and the attempt to defend ourselves from genocide does not mean we hate "minorities."

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

And how would you defend yourself? Seal yourself from the outside world, ironic given that the whites were the ones who chose to go colonizing; attack, that would make you a terrorist; or plead for mercy, not that anyone would care?
What exactly is causing this genocide? Since genocide involves killing a massive number of people.

Anonymous said...

Did the genocide of the Jewish race really happen?

Nordic2005 said...

"And how would you defend yourself? Seal yourself from the outside world?"

Well, Anonymous, these very words of yours reveal that you do understand what genocide is, despite your claim at the end of your paragraph that you do not see it happening to Whites. Your very words reveal that you intuitively understand that genetic isolation is an essential prerequisite and requirement for the survival of a race of people. Miscegenation is a form of genocide, and your very words bear clear witness that you do understand that, though I would not be surprised should you deny it.

I agree fully with what Pastor Robb has written.

NorwegianHeat said...

"The issue at hand has nothing to do with who is superior or who in inferior."

I'm glad you feel this way. Not all of the people commenting here seem to think this way.

"The question is, Do white people have a God given right to love our people, love our heritage and pass it down to future generations?"

Yes, certainly.

"Do white people have a right to defend ourselves from genocide?"

Sure, if I see a legitimate act of genocide being committed against white Americans, I'll step up in defense along with everybody else.

"If the answer is "Yes!" than you need to become aware that genocide is exactly what we are facing and the attempt to defend ourselves from genocide does not mean we hate 'minorities.'"

I am still unconvinced that willful miscegenation between two loving individuals intent on starting a family together is genocide. The definition of genocide states that it is a deliberate action--if the participants of an interracial couple do not hold to the strict racial-identity that you do, and decide to marry and have kids, then their actions are not to deliberately destroy a race. Perhaps this is hard to understand for someone with your perspective.

As far as hating minorities goes, some of your fans, Mr. Robb, DO display very unequal views of individual races. When I post comments on your blog entries, I do try to keep them on topic (airport security measures, relief in Haiti, etc.). I diverge in the defense of other races when other comments engage me to. I don't jump to the conclusion that people here are racist--they provide me with evidence of it. So when I start my preaching on racial equality, it is not necessarily directed at you or your comments, but at your supporters who have enticed me to do so. I approach each individual with the understanding that not everyone of the white nationalist perspective shares the same perspective--that everyone here has their own motivation and views. Those that prove themselves racist I will call out for it.

Nordic2005 said...

Why preserve the White Race?

This is the best argument.

Because it has a personality of its own -- in fact each nation of Europe has its own personality -- though all Europeans are truly brothers, as Ludwig van Beethoven proudly declared (Symphony 9).

Without the White Race the world will not have such awesome music as this (to God be the glory!):

(Copy and Paste)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhFu7kM7-ao

These are things that come from the soul and cannot be articulated in words. Either you feel sympathy for this or your soul is alien to this European-Christian expression.

Anonymous said...

Well the reason I think we can't celebrate/preserve our heritage is because of hate groups that were formed early on. They gave the idea a bad name. No offense Robb but the kkk is to blame for some if not most of this. Now when ever the idea is brought up they call us Neo Nazis or Klan Men.

But come on genocide!? Not exactly but if you think about everyone will be a minority in America except for Latinos who are going to be the countries next majority. But this group is not limited by color so there will be white/black/brown/yellow latinos.

But like what NH said genocide is done on purpose. I don't think a white guy/girl marries a minority believing it will destroy the white population.

Why not have a mix of races then everyone can share heritages.
This is what being American should be about(everyone getting along).

Anonymous said...

"Miscegenation is a form of genocide."
No, it's not. Since by definition it requires that mass of people are killed. Really is miscegenation is done willing by both parties, where as genocide is not. And what benefit, if any, is there? They just end up as relics of the past. And if they become extinct, the world continue.

NorwegianHeat said...

"Because it has a personality of its own -- in fact each nation of Europe has its own personality -- though all Europeans are truly brothers, as Ludwig van Beethoven proudly declared (Symphony 9)."

I agree that nations in Europe have their own personalities--when America began to become a hot ticket for European immigrants, we saw these personalities clash as new Americans of different nationalities stubbornly struggled against integrating into a common system of life. Today, though, I'd say it's safe to say that those old hostilities are gone. We are no longer a nation of "Irish", "Germans", or "Norwegians", but simply "Americans".

If it is "wrong" for whites to sacrifice their racial "personality" by mixing with other races, then wouldn't it be a logical conclusion, by those same standards, to say that white America as it has come to me is also "wrong"? By shedding the European "personalities" of our homelands in order to come together as Americans, haven't we violated our heritage--or is it legit since Beethoven gave it the okay?

In a time when European nations competed against each other, wouldn't Beethoven's ideals of white-brotherhood be considered the liberal opinion of the day?

How about liberals today, who see the possibility of brotherhood between all races on the grounds that we are all human? Or a common brotherhood with every creature in that we all inhabit the same planet and, after billions of years of evolution, still share a common ancestor that started it all? Why are these not equally valid views next to Beethoven's?

"Without the White Race the world will not have such awesome music as this (to God be the glory!)"

The white race has contributed a great deal to the music of the world, and I hope we do for a long time to come. I also enjoy the music of other cultures and other races, and choose to include them in my life.

Thanks for sharing the video--he has an amazing voice, and it was a very beautiful performance!

Anonymous said...

Norwegian:
I understand you don't believe in God. So be it. However, I am still wondering what is the rule you use to determine the difference between right and wrong.
For example you say loving white people more than black people is wrong. What is the rule you use to make this judgment.

Nordic2005 said...

Norwegian,

[Copy & Paste Practice :)]

Here is the great French boy-soprano showing his very French personality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBJ03zYWhd4

And here is the great Scottish-English boy soprano Joseph McManners showing his British personality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OANw85k7Sok

And yet both personalities are unmistakably European-Christian, as this beautiful music by Joseph in Ireland reveals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-zgLY3fgd8

Your other questions are deeper and will take a little more time to answer, as some of the information is found in books I have. Perhaps I'll find the time within a day or two.

Nordic2005 said...

Norwegian,

Additionally, I will say that, yes, I can appreciate certain achievements of other races.

I have a CD of some Chinese "Classical" Music -- that is, high-art music. It is very interesting. It is, however, inferior to Western art-music, (though I'm sure that you will insist that this is only "my opinion"). Why is it inferior? It has neither harmony nor polyphony -- it is all sung in unison, like primitive (or very early) Western Classical Music; thus it is less developed, just as early Western classical music was less developed than Beethoven and Debussy. [The Blacks, on the other hand, fall very far behind the Chinese and Japanese in musical development -- though I'm sure that you'll tell me that American black music (which was made possible only because of American white music) is "equal" to Bach and Schumann ;)].

I also like Japanese Judo (Jujitsu) and Chinese Kung Fu and would be willing to practice both, but this does not mean that I want Japanese and Chinese people invading Europe or America; nor does it mean that I would consider myself to be in any way less than 100% White. I'd be perfectly willing to visit Japan and China (Hong Kong) to learn those two arts (if necessary), as knowledge of those arts would benefit me personally and greatly enhance my safety on the dangerous streets of the multiracial U.S. Those skills might even save the live of another person whom I might defend. But I would not move to those nations to live, nor would I marry one of their women.

Nordic2005 said...

The Bible teaches that intermarriage is immoral, and it is racially explicit.

From the Book of Ezra, Chapter 9, we read:

Ezra's Prayer About Intermarriage

"1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness."

Notice, God's commandment was NOT, "First convert these people to the Faith, then you are free to make marriages with them."

So the standard argument heard in liberal churches today that it was solely because of the "detestable practices" of the alien peoples that the Israelites were forbidden to marry them does not hold water. If these peoples were "convertible," and race was a non-issue, then God would have stated this clearly. They were NOT "convertible." The "heathen" were not worthy of conversion. This was not what the Lord desired, or else He would have expressed this. It is even entirely possible that the Israelites were not asked to convert their neighbors because the latter were genetically inclined to the "detestable practices." But the reason clearly stated is that Israel is a special and chosen people ON A RACIAL BASIS. The Bible calls them "the Holy Race."

Anonymous said...

You say:
". . . if I started using my Norwegian heritage to elevate myself unfairly over other members of society, or as justification to restrict or harm or neglect others--I just don't think that's right."

Ok, what is the authority you are using to determine "I don't think that's right."

Nordic2005 said...

Norwegian,

I'll have to take your questions one bite at a time. There is no simple sound-byte answer, as you have raised a number of issues (perhaps more than you realized).

So I'll begin with Beethoven.

Beethoven liked to think of himself first and foremost as a European.

He knew that his paternal family were actually of Dutch origin, and he stubbornly refused to Germanize his name by changing the 'van' (Dutch) to 'von' (German), despite political pressure put on him to do so (that is, when he sued in court for the right to adopt his nephew, Karl).

Also, in his letters, when he would sign his name, he used various European spellings, thus:

Ludwig (German), Louis (French), and Luigi (Italian), as three examples. Perhaps he even used the English Lewis? I do not know.

Nordic2005 said...

Norwegian,

I think you owe us poor unenlightened "racialists" a bit of explanation.

Here's what I mean.

Why the intense love and concern for black people?

The only way I could possibly imagine myself working so diligently on their behalf as you are doing on this blog is if I'd had the experience of falling in love with a Black.

Having never had this experience, it is impossible for me to imagine myself being so powerfully motivated by thoughts in favor of miscegenation that I'd devote my time to defending it.

I am a White Nationalist simply because I see in the White Race a work of art.

I do not see the same artistic qualities in Tyra Banks, Oprah Winfrey, or any person of mixed-race as I see in the better-looking members of my own race.

Additionally, I would count it a blessing from Above to have a son as handsome and talented as either Jean-Baptiste Maunier or Joseph McManners (though in this day and age I would not want my son to be famous -- because this is not a righteous generation). I would definitely NOT want my son to be another Tiger Woods or Barack Hussein Obama. This would bring shame, not glory, upon me. These two look like freaks to me, having even less artistic merit than a pure-blooded Negro. At least a pure-blooded Negro looks like a natural life-form and not like a freak.

I can fully understand and appreciate anyone protesting harsh mistreatment or persecution of Blacks. I certainly don't want to do them any mischief.

Speaking of Jean-Baptiste Maunier, the great French boy-soprano: he hates rap music. This is what I'd expect from him. This is what I'd expect from my own son. Maunier is no doubt not motivated by racial awareness, but rather only by the endowments of talent and good taste he inherited genetically.

White Nationalism is about the kind of world white people want their children to inherit.

NorwegianHeat said...

Interesting. My response posted last night has disappeared. It seems that the Anonymous it was addressed to had a chance to see it however, as you quoted and responded to it. In short, my response denied the assertion that I believe “loving white people more than black people is wrong.” I stated that this is not my argument, and that I have no problems with having pride—I merely disagree with using it as a means to treat others unfairly.

“Ok, what is the authority you are using to determine ‘I don't think that's right.’”

Again, I will have the answer for you later today or tomorrow in the Haitian charity section. Thanks for being patient—I have a busy schedule and it’s an in-depth response, so bear with me.

“Additionally, I will say that, yes, I can appreciate certain achievements of other races.”

Great, then perhaps you start to understand my perspective.

“It is, however, inferior to Western art-music, (though I'm sure that you will insist that this is only "my opinion"). Why is it inferior? It has neither harmony nor polyphony -- it is all sung in unison, like primitive (or very early) Western Classical Music; thus it is less developed, just as early Western classical music was less developed than Beethoven and Debussy. [The Blacks, on the other hand, fall very far behind the Chinese and Japanese in musical development -- though I'm sure that you'll tell me that American black music (which was made possible only because of American white music) is "equal" to Bach and Schumann ;)].”

You’re right, I do believe that this is your opinion, and I welcome you to have it. I enjoy many of the links you’ve provided—thank you for those—but I also enjoy simpler “less developed” music as well. I would hope you wouldn’t judge me negatively for that. If technical merits were the only things we looked for in music, or libraries would be awfully small.
As far as “American black music” goes, I’m really not a fan of a lot of it. Mainstream hip-hop and pop really do nothing for me. However, I respect the rights of others to appreciate these forms of entertainment even when I don’t.
I personally enjoy underground rap, or pretty much anything that I can listen to and admire the work that was put into creating it.

“I also like Japanese Judo (Jujitsu) and Chinese Kung Fu and would be willing to practice both, but this does not mean that I want Japanese and Chinese people invading Europe or America; nor does it mean that I would consider myself to be in any way less than 100% White.”

These arts are interesting to me as well. I see no problem with allowing those of Asian descent to live within my community.

“But I would not move to those nations to live, nor would I marry one of their women.”

Which is fine—those are your choices to make. My only concern is that others who do wish to make these kinds of decisions be allowed to.

NorwegianHeat said...

“The Bible teaches that intermarriage is immoral, and it is racially explicit.”

And if you choose to personally follow these teachings, go right ahead. But others who do not agree with this belief should be free to practice as they wish. In America, the Bible is not the law of the land, it is just another opinion.

“If these peoples were "convertible," and race was a non-issue, then God would have stated this clearly.”

It seems to me that there are a lot of things that God doesn’t state clearly in the Bible. This has lead to many denominations of Christianity. These divisions in Christianity facilitated the pilgrimage that eventually gave rise to this country. I have always understood this country to represent the rights of its citizens to make their own decisions. It is not really a place for elitists and holy races, but a sanctuary for all people to live and work together by setting aside those concepts that set them apart in other areas of the world.

“Beethoven liked to think of himself first and foremost as a European.”

And I liken myself first and foremost as a human being. Those are our perspectives. Neither is superior to the other. They’re both accurate descriptions of our reality.

“He knew that his paternal family were actually of Dutch origin, and he stubbornly refused to Germanize his name by changing the 'van' (Dutch) to 'von' (German), despite political pressure put on him to do so (that is, when he sued in court for the right to adopt his nephew, Karl).”

I see no problem there. It seems that you and I can both agree that Beethoven was a remarkable musician, and lived respectably.

“Why the intense love and concern for black people?”

Because I see their interests and wellbeing as equal to those of white people. My intense love of all human beings is probably not so different than your intense love of the white race—it’s simply what we feel we relate to and identify with. I can see the similarities and differences between different races—I just choose to focus on and cherish the similarities, while respecting the differences.

“The only way I could possibly imagine myself working so diligently on their behalf as you are doing on this blog is if I'd had the experience of falling in love with a Black.”

Well, there are black individuals in my life that I have a deep respect for—I don’t know if it is love, really, but it is an appreciation.

“Having never had this experience, it is impossible for me to imagine myself being so powerfully motivated by thoughts in favor of miscegenation that I'd devote my time to defending it.”

I interact with several interracial couples on a daily basis. I see only good in their relationship—loving families, beautiful children, productive lives. If there are people who would try to take that from them, then I would defend it, just as I would hope others would aid me if I stood to lose something. I just don’t believe in pursuing selfish goals—I want to provide strength to those in need. Hopefully, others would extend me the same favor.

NorwegianHeat said...

“I am a White Nationalist simply because I see in the White Race a work of art.”

As I see in all humans.

“I do not see the same artistic qualities in Tyra Banks, Oprah Winfrey, or any person of mixed-race as I see in the better-looking members of my own race.”

That’s fine, everyone has different values. I don’t see a lot of artistic qualities in KKK or white nationalist movement, but they exist nonetheless. While I am free to debate views with you (and you with me) we can’t force each other into living and thinking a certain way. Nothing wrong with a constructive discussion, though. I do appreciate you exchanging opinions with me, as well as the music you have shared. I find it an enjoyable process. We may never change each other, but we can certainly work toward understanding and respecting each other.

“Additionally, I would count it a blessing from Above to have a son as handsome and talented as either Jean-Baptiste Maunier or Joseph McManners (though in this day and age I would not want my son to be famous -- because this is not a righteous generation).”

No doubt, I would as well. It would be an amazing feat to produce such talented offspring. Hopefully my future children will excel in some avenue—only time will tell, though.

“I would definitely NOT want my son to be another Tiger Woods or Barack Hussein Obama. This would bring shame, not glory, upon me.”

While I can appreciate Tiger’s focus and determination on the golf course, I would agree that his blatant lack of devotion to his wife is in no way commendable. Family values are something we need to work to strengthen in our American lifestyle, and Tiger has set a poor example. I don’t associate this with his race, but with his character—same as John Edwards, who happens to be white. I just think it makes more sense to promote good morals than focus on race.
As far as the President goes, I’m always a little weary of politicians. I’ll wait to see how the next couple years go before solidifying my opinions of him. He seems to have a fine family, though.

“These two look like freaks to me, having even less artistic merit than a pure-blooded Negro. At least a pure-blooded Negro looks like a natural life-form and not like a freak.”

Again, just your opinion, which is fine. I personally don’t see anything wrong with them (except Obama’s lips look kinda funny—but that doesn’t influence the person he is), but that’s just me.

NorwegianHeat said...

“I can fully understand and appreciate anyone protesting harsh mistreatment or persecution of Blacks. I certainly don't want to do them any mischief.”

Excellent, then we share a very important value!

“Speaking of Jean-Baptiste Maunier, the great French boy-soprano: he hates rap music.”

That’s fine. I like only what I consider talented rap. I’ll agree that the majority is probably just uninspired garbage whipped together for a profit—but that’s the American Way for ya, and it won’t stop me from appreciating the expression of those true artists who do have merit.

“Maunier is no doubt not motivated by racial awareness, but rather only by the endowments of talent and good taste he inherited genetically.”

And endowed with talent he is. I agree that his opinions probably aren’t racial in nature. I once held a strong dislike for all rap music up until I started paying attention to what some of the artists were saying, and found I liked it. I could see a connection between the poetry I was writing and the poetry that they were speaking.

“White Nationalism is about the kind of world white people want their children to inherit.”

And my beliefs are about the kind of world that I personally feel all people could benefit from by passing it on to their children.

But alright, now I’ve got other stuff to attend to. Hopefully I’ll have my standards f right and wrong up soon.

Nordic2005 said...

"In America, the Bible is not the law of the land, it is just another opinion."

Well, here's a second religion (Hinduism) expressing that same opinion ever so clearly and unambiguously:

"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

Hinduism, it would seem, makes race-mixing the #1 SIN. Indeed, it would be seen as the root of all evil. It simply doesn't get any stronger than that!

What I think you don't get, Norwegian, is that there exist such a thing as very real racial instincts. "Racist" ideas would not take root in people's minds if they did not correspond to some primal, basic instinct. If people naturally observed no race differences that elicited, or could possibly elicit, emotional responses, they could not possibly be persuaded that race is a meaningful existential category. Anything absolutely unknown to the mind cannot call forth an emotion.

I have observed the "racism" instinct among animals -- particularly cats. Cats are extremely territorial and may even demand the privacy of exclusivity of a particular room in a house. My beloved cat of 16 years just passed away of cancer. She tolerated no one but myself in "our" room -- even people she otherwise liked (in other rooms of the house).

I'd like to throw in an interesting anecdote here (to lighten the mood for a moment) -- this is a true experience. This actually happened.

It seems that not only I and the man who spoke to J.-B. Maunier ("I'm 56 years old and I want to tell you that you've touched a lot of people") like his singing.

This past summer, as I was doing yard work, I put on a CD of Maunier singing. A song-bird heard the music, got all excited, flew out from among the trees right up to the antenna on the nearest roof-top and began singing heartily (and beautifully) along with the gifted French lad.

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out in reference to the quote the Pastor quoted, studies show that people who are bad at spelling and grammar usage generally have high intellect. FYI

Anonymous said...

Hey only 22% of the nation has had some form of higher education, white or not what do you care more about, the progression of America or your racist ideals-and please nobody comment on the fact that I wrote this with a bias, you all speak in a bias connotation.

Anonymous said...

hey for commentator #2 Judaism is not a race it's a religion!

Nordic2005 said...

"I also enjoy simpler “less developed” music as well."
--NorwegianHeat

This quote illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the liberal. You use scare-quote marks around my words "less developed" to cast doubt on their appropriateness and correctness. You are not educated in music. There is not a single scholar in the field of music who would agree with your use of these quote marks. Everyone educated in music (and I studied it professionally since age 7) will instantly agree with me that Bach's "Art of Fugue" is more developed than "Yankee Doodle." To suggest otherwise is way beyond absurd. Your suggestion, by use of quotation marks, that my idea is merely a subjective opinion can only show your ignorance--that is, lack of formal education--in the subject of music. Liberalism is ignorance. Liberals believe in "equality," even to the point of absurdity.

And it is not a matter of choosing between the simple and the complex. The complex is built of the materials of the simple. It simply is a fact that Shakespeare and Kant are more developed thought than books used to teach basic reading, such as the children's tale, "The Story of Ping," or "The Bird With the Golden Wings." That some music is more developed than other music is NOT an opinion. Absolutely no music scholar would use "quote marks" in the manner you just did.

And this is not a fluke. It is an essential part of liberalism--I think it is its core belief: the belief that all value judgments of this kind are "subjective opinions." That belief is a falsehood and a superstition. Shakespeare is more developed than "Jack and Jill." (Children's literature). Any educator will agree that there is fifth grade reading level, and ther is post-graduate reading level.

I have devoted much of my life to a formal study of classical music and have received a music education. I do not speak as an uneducated person on this subject.

I enjoy Ray Charles' catchy tune "I Got A Woman." I make funny jokes by changing the lyrics. But this music is not as developed as Beethoven's Emperor Piano Concerto, and I have absolutely no doubt that Ray Charles was unable to play the "Emperor." I also have no doubt that Beethove could easily -- instantly -- have played absolutely ANYTHING that Ray Charles could play on the piano. Without training. All Beethoven or Glenn Gould would have to do is watch and listen, then instantly reproduce, like a little kid repeating the words of an older kid.

A fundamental flaw of liberalism: all value judgments are subjective in nature and cannot be taken too seriously. After all, liberals say, "All cultures are equal." You know, Black Africa even today has a culture and civilization as high as Europe at the height of her glory.

Liberalism is not founded in logic but in superstition.

Nordic2005 said...

"hey for commentator #2 Judaism is not a race it's a religion!"

It is BOTH.

"studies show that people who are bad at spelling and grammar usage generally have high intellect. FYI"

I have a great bridge in California to sell you. Owning it is like having a magic tree on which money grows in great abundance. Having it, you'll be as rich as a king or queen. I'll gladly sell it to you for the low price of $150,000, since I'm in dire poverty. ;)

"By shedding the European "personalities" of our homelands in order to come together as Americans, haven't we violated our heritage--or is it legit since Beethoven gave it the okay?"

Yes, the ethnic heritage of many Americans has been violated or compromised. Still, I know some families which are primarily Celtic, German, and so forth. Some traces of European ethnic personalities still survive -- though, overall, America is a nation without a personality of its own. It can be, at times and especially in certain places, a very dull, cultureless and place, you know -- at least to me. Parts of America -- indeed this is rapidly spreading -- are simply like international airports. My own home town, which was without Blacks at all when I was a kid, is now like a foreign land to me. I no longer feel at home here in the least. I myself feel like a stranger in my own home town -- like a periah and persona non grata.

I don't believe that Beethoven was calling for the destruction of European nations and their identities. Rather he (like William Shakespeare in the latter's plea for friendship between England and France), was calling for a total end to hostilities and war-making between European nations--all in the spirit of mutual respect and brotherhood. I think that is all he really meant. I believe Beethoven thought, exactly as I do, separate but equal. That is what I want for Blacks -- for them to be separate from Whites geographically but have equal rights of safety and freedom from persecution under international law.

Moreover, generally speaking, if a European of one nation moves to another European nation, true assimilation takes place and the family of this person takes on the personality of the new national identity. Thus a Dutch person who moves to France (and vice versa) actually will, in his children, become French in personality. The same cannot be said for America. The different races (European nations are ethnic groups belonging to the White Race, not major races). Non-White Assimilation here in America is not taking place as predicted, nor is it taking place in any other White nation that has let non-Whites in in large numbers. A majority of non-Whites are non-assailable.

Nordic2005 said...

"I see no problem with allowing those of Asian descent to live within my community."


Norwegian,

I think these lyrics to John Lennon's song sum up your views completley. You seem to believe that all the Earth belongs to "all humanity." I simply believe that this, like the communism from which it sprang, is egalitarian nonsense.

Imagine Lyrics
Artist(Band):John Lennon

"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"

Nordic2005 said...

Last comment, Norwegian.

Your conversations have been most interesting.

I have come to believe you are actually an ideologue -- a well-meaning fellow attached to a system of a prior beliefs that limit his outlook to pre-ordained conclusions, to the exclusion of all empirical evidence.

You have racial feelings -- you're just not in touch with them.

Perhaps spending a summer alone in the Mountains will allow you to experience your full identity: a human being, to be sure, but one who is also a member of the White Race.

Best Wishes,
-- Nordic

Observer said...

Nordic:

My observation of Norwegian is he is a total victim of New Age nothingness. The song by John Lennon identifies him exactly. In Norwegian’s mind there is nothing of value, nothing worth preserving from destruction. He loves nothing - though I would suggest he would deny my accusation. And because there is nothing of value - nothing worthy of love, there is, therefore, nothing he would die for - his life - his self-indulgence - is the only thing of value. You can see this all through his writing. He’s boorishly narcissistic and is entertained by his own delusions of intellect.

I suspect he is a nice guy and earnestly wants to do good. He is just unable because there is no defining line between the ugly and the beautiful. Norwegian reminds me of a typical victim of doubletalk from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

“This, thought Winston, was the most frightening aspect of the party regime-that it could obliterate memory, turn lies into Truth and alter the Past. The Party slogan was “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” This was where “doublethink” came into play, minds were trained to HOLD CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY AND UNQUESTIONINGLY."

Nordic2005 said...

If Pastor Robb would be so kind as to post the link to this Dutch song about losing a cat, owning to a natural death from old age. This is in memory of my little girl "buddy," -- whom I lost to cancer on 13 January past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuhKeAkgm7A&annotation_id=annotation_434782&feature=iv

(If the link does not work, go here: YouTube: Joël - Een doodgewone kat (videoclip) HQ

Here's an informal translation of the lyrics. Obviously my knowledge of Dutch is very limited, so this may not be entirely perfect.

A Quite Common Cat
MY TRANSLATION
Verse One
Ooh-ooh
When I got him from someone who had advertised in the (news)paper
When I got him he was so small that he could sit on my hand
A pile of wool with eyes much too wise and much too scared
It was very much as if he were saying, "You belong with me, and I with you"
Refrain
He could purr like the best, he was playful and he was soft
He understood, that I know for certain, what I said and what I thought
Now everyone may claim "he was a quite common cat"
But what we had for each other for many years was love, just the same
Verse Two
One time, one day, I had even left the front door standing open
And he was missing; I was almost sick, searching for him: gone!
But close to the house, he came with raised tail to meet me
It was very much as if he were saying, " you're right, [I was] just a little distance away -- great job!
(Refrain Repeats)
Verse Three
When he was old, he was no longer so enterprising (like he once was)
Because he had pain, and our doctor could really do nothing more
When his time was finished, I heard him softly mewing early in the morning
When I came it was very much as if he were saying, "and now it is enough"
Refrain -- Last line repeats once
 
 
 

Nordic2005 said...

Observer,

You are spot-on. Very little is really "special" to Norwegian, as every life-form is equal in every way.

I was almost going to suggest, in response to his question:

"Or a common brotherhood with every creature in that we all inhabit the same planet and, after billions of years of evolution, still share a common ancestor that started it all?"

If there's a "BROTHERHOOD with every living creature," perhaps I ought to adopt a boa-constrictor, instead of a kitten, this time around. I and the boa could live in the house, with the boa having free run of the place, in perfect harmony and wonderful, delightful companionship!

(I just didn't want to be unkind to the guy, as he's not quite thought these theories through.)

Anonymous said...

This online article seems to be very pertinent.

"Why Miscegenation is Wrong"

http://www.westerncritique.org/why_miscegenation_is_wrong.htm

Nordic2005 said...

What is "genocide"?

It is not simply the mass killing of a people with a common ancestry.

It means, rather, destruction of the genes that make up a specific racial group.

The Article here: Why Miscegenation is Wrong is highly recommended, though I wish I could edit the authors grammatical errors that sometimes interfere with the otherwise very well thought-out piece.

http://www.westerncritique.org/why_miscegenation_is_wrong.htm

Nordic2005 said...

More evidence that the Republican Party is opposed to White Racial Integrity and is no better than the Democrats.

http://foolocracy.com/2009/10/racist-picture-of-obama-calls-miscegenation-a-crime/

Anonymous said...

Once Hollywood actually had moral values:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=Ls1WMhrpj7m04v7KHHhjtTy5TWLhjMTyKLw3TQhlhPyKpGSQyrLJ!-1423713543!1320305757?docId=5006627155

Nordic2005 said...

If the HQ video buffers too much, the original video might be better:

Joël - Een doodgewone kat (videoclip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny-beTtxjq4&feature=related

Nordic2005 said...

"Nou mag iedereen beweren" = "Now anyone can/ everyone may claim" . . . (the latter translation seems more fitting here)

"het was een doodgewone kat" . . .

which means

"it was a very orinary cat."

Nordic2005 said...

Liberals have a misunderstanding or one-sided -- warped, actually -- view of love.

I loved my cat friend.
Did I also love the cancer that took her (otherwise she was perfectly healthy) from me?

No! I hated the cancer! I hated to lose that cat! I hate disease.

Well, if I likewise love my race and culture, how can I possibly love the multicultural society that is taking it away from me? Multiculturalism is an unnatural condition and thus is a social disease. My race is dying -- and liberals and "progressives" tell me I should be celebrating this fact. They are insane.

Nordic2005 said...

I really am looking forward to the Last Judgment mentioned in the Bible.

Not because I am righteous -- I'm just a sinner saved by grace -- but because I am hoping that Our Lord and Savior will set the record straight on the subject of race and how the multicultural society is Rebellion against His commandments.


And don't get me wrong. I do not delight in anyone's suffering. I would not wish my worst enemy to suffer even one instant in Hell. I only want God to vindicate my position on the race subject and remove the veil of deception from all those who have hated me without cause and argued with me on this matter.

Anonymous said...

It's is summarily disappointing that so many people fail to comprehend the equality of all people.

If all of you claim to be true Christians, you ought to recognize that Jesus taught against discrimination and racism. Consider the parable of the Good Samaritan.

You all should also realize that this nation was founded by a number of Deists, perhaps most significantly Benjamin Franklin. Deists are necessarily Christian.

NorwegianHeat said...

Okay, I’ve been away from my computer for a while, so this response is way late, but oh well.

“Hinduism, it would seem, makes race-mixing the #1 SIN. Indeed, it would be seen as the root of all evil.”

Yes, I understand that this has been the traditional view of interracial-relations, and is probably echoed in many other religious texts. However, with interracial relationships gaining support in mainstream America, it would seem that many Americans have decided that these views are outdated.

“What I think you don't get, Norwegian, is that there exist such a thing as very real racial instincts.”

No, I totally understand this. I simply believe that adhering to instincts like these is detrimental to the pursuit of a fitter functioning society. I believe that societies are built upon rules that direct us to ignore our instincts in order to better live and function amongst each other. I disagree with forced racial-separation in the same way that I disagree with murdering someone or going to war over territorial disputes. These actions may be natural to us, but I do not think they are conductive to a progressive society.

“If people naturally observed no race differences that elicited, or could possibly elicit, emotional responses, they could not possibly be persuaded that race is a meaningful existential category.”

I agree, however I feel that the natural fear of those who appear different from us can be overcome—that we can look past these surface differences and embrace the very human core we all share.
Even in nature, completely different species have developed a sort of primal comradery in the form of symbiotic relationships. While these creatures may have once instinctually feared one another, over time, common interests have caused their lifestyles to converge. They have EVOLVED to cooperate for a mutual gain.
Look at humans and our pets: thousands of years ago, man probably wouldn’t be found running with a hungry wolf-pack—it would violate his sense of self-preservation. Yet today we have domesticated dogs, cats, pigs, rodents, birds—we have formed bonds of cohabitation with creatures far more removed from us than black are from whites. We are not instinctually opposed to our pets living among us, and they are not afraid us. Both parties benefit from the relationship. We get furry, lovable companions, and they don’t have to do anything to take care of themselves. Sorry to hear about your cat, by the way—I know what losing a loved one is like.
I know this will sound terrible, and I do not mean it literally—I use this analogy strictly to communicate a larger idea—but if black people could be “domesticated” to live and function fluidly within a “white society” (which would be white no longer, but instead mixed), would you still reject them? It is my belief that if humans can learn to live and work with animals, then we can certainly learn to live and learn with each other.

NorwegianHeat said...

“This past summer, as I was doing yard work, I put on a CD of Maunier singing. A song-bird heard the music, got all excited, flew out from among the trees right up to the antenna on the nearest roof-top and began singing heartily (and beautifully) along with the gifted French lad.”

Cool story! Observing animals interact with human music is always entertaining—it makes you wonder sometimes just how different from us they really are. Have you heard of Snowball the Cockatoo? There are some videos of him on the internet dancing to pop music. I heard that they’ve actually studied his brain-patterns in order to better understand his behavior, and that they believe he is the first animal to display an understanding of tempo. Those could just be internet rumors, of course, but it’s interesting to think about.

NorwegianHeat said...

"This quote illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the liberal. You use scare-quote marks around my words "less developed" to cast doubt on their appropriateness and correctness.”

Okay, I understand that. Because of my liberal views, I have a hard time accepting that anything can have a set value—we decide our own values to things, like in the saying “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. I did not intend to cast doubt on your values specifically, I am only trying to cite your ideas within the context of my own.
I understand your concept of “less developed” (there they are again!) music. I just feel that development is relative. Other forms of music, while perhaps not as technical in their development as classical European forms, are still created with a particular purpose—to share either emotional or ideological values with the listener. In that sense, I feel that any established form of music is going to be equal in development in that they all meet the standards they were designed to—regardless of their perceived sophistication.
I was not trying to offend you by discrediting your ideas with quotes—I only wanted to cite your ideas as I established my own.

“You are not educated in music.”

I’ve been playing the violin for about thirteen years, and played in the school orchestra from fourth grade up through graduation. While I’m certainly not a scholar, nor anywhere near your level of expertise, I’m not a complete novice either.

“There is not a single scholar in the field of music who would agree with your use of these quote marks.”

Not, not in their use as you understand them, however I feel there is a misunderstanding between us—you perceive my use of the quotes differently than how I intended them. Perhaps music scholars would cut me a little slack if they understood the context in which I used them—and my motivation.

“Absolutely no music scholar would use ‘quote marks’ in the manner you just did.”

No, not in the manner that you’re accusing me of, however I believe there has been some sort of misunderstanding between us, as your interpretation of my use of quotes and my intentions in using them obviously differ.

NorwegianHeat said...

“Everyone educated in music (and I studied it professionally since age 7) will instantly agree with me that Bach's ‘Art of Fugue’ is more developed than ‘Yankee Doodle.’ To suggest otherwise is way beyond absurd.”

Yes, much more technically developed—but would you argue that people should not appreciate “Yankee Doodle” for what it is? This is the point I am trying to make about my appreciation of other races. Sure, “Yankee Doodle” is a simple tune, but am I too good to listen to it? I just think it is absurd to accuse anything of less technical merit to be completely invalid. “Roses are red, violets are blue” is no Shakespeare, but it has its place, doesn’t it?

“That some music is more developed than other music is NOT an opinion.”

No, but the idea that more developed music is universally superior IS. My use of quotes was not to suggest that technical development in music is an opinion—“Hot Cross Buns” or Mary Had a Little Lamb” in fourth grade was obviously a lot different than anything I was playing my senior year—I simply wished to keep the idea of “development” in perspective. Development is not the sole influence in personal taste. Value is relative.

“Your suggestion, by use of quotation marks, that my idea is merely a subjective opinion can only show your ignorance--that is, lack of formal education--in the subject of music.”

I disagree with this. While I’m likely not as educated as you are in the field, I do have an understanding of written music. My use of quotes was not to deny the technical prowess of classically composed European music, but merely an attempt to highlight my belief that there are different ways of perceiving development, and that “less developed” is still enjoyable. If you were to argue with me that analyzing a piece’s technical development is the only way to appraise its value, then yes, that would be a subjective opinion.

NorwegianHeat said...

“Liberalism is ignorance. Liberals believe in ‘equality,’ even to the point of absurdity.”

Enlighten me then. What is so absurd about my views? Why is equality not worth pursuing? If you can convince me that our efforts as a society thus far in establishing and ensuring a fair system are good enough, then fine, I’ll give up. Until then, however, I’m not going to acknowledge my values as an absurdity.
By the way, I like your use of “scare quote marks” here. Am I correct in assuming that those are to cast doubt on the appropriateness and correctness of equality? If the use of scare quotes is a fault of liberals, then perhaps we share something with conservatives…

“It is an essential part of liberalism--I think it is its core belief: the belief that all value judgments of this kind are ‘subjective opinions.’"

Yes, I do believe that all value judgments are “subjective opinions” (just quoting you here). How can they be viewed otherwise?

“That belief is a falsehood and a superstition.”

Is it? I mean, you feel, as a conservative, that the conservative views are better, while I, being more liberal, favor liberal views. You favor classical music while an African American might favor rap. Are these attitudes not biased? You could argue “pride” in defense of your beliefs, and I could argue “equality” in defense of mine, but because of our subjective values, we’re likely never to agree with each other. You could promote the superiority of classical European music through its technicality, but a fan of rap is likely to counter that with the creative word-working aspects or catchy beats of their preferred genre. Without a bias toward one argument or the other, can either side be deemed better or more correct than the other? You obviously favor the complexity of classical music, but why should your opinion be taken over that of someone favoring the simplistic? What makes your opinions and interests universally better than any other? It is only your subjective opinion that your views and values are better than mine.

“Liberalism is not founded in logic but in superstition.”

Conservatism is not founded in logic but in superstition.
White nationalism is not founded in logic but in superstition.
There, I can make the same statements about your views—it doesn’t really prove anything does it? No, they’re just subjective opinions.

NorwegianHeat said...

“A fundamental flaw of liberalism: all value judgments are subjective in nature and cannot be taken too seriously.”

I still am unconvinced of any flaw in this logic. From my experience, I can only perceive this as reality. I mean, take your own case for example—you make nearly as many comments heralding your cat as I do the equal treatment of minorities. Surely you don’t think that your cat was more genetically developed than black people, do you? And yet, you obviously found SOMETHING to love and value about that cat—as inferior as it might have been. How can this be? It seems to be that this can result only from subjective values—in your case, you appreciate cats more than black people. I SHOULD I take your calls for sympathy over the death of your cat seriously (not that I don’t—I lost one of my cats myself not too long ago) if you can’t find the room to respect the things I value (black people)? If you can justify a love and appreciation for a cat, then how can you deny that the same principle should apply to the acceptance of minorities? After all, a black person is certainly genetically closer to a white person than a cat is.

“After all, liberals say, ‘All cultures are equal.’”

We say that because it’s true—all cultures are equal in their right to conduct themselves according to their beliefs. If a tribe of “less developed” (WOO-HOO!) people spends their entire existence living in a remote jungle—far and forever beyond the influence of western civilization—and they live happily enough and continue to propagate and carry on, isn’t that just? If we as westerners never discovered them, and never had the chance to pass judgment on them or their development, would their lives and lifestyles still be inferior? From their perspective, they are doing things as they have always done them, and as they should be done—what’s wrong with that? Are they not equal in their right to continue in their ways just as much as you would like to continue living your life as you’ve been doing?

“You know, Black Africa even today has a culture and civilization as high as Europe at the height of her glory.”

Is this sarcasm? I’m assuming so.

NorwegianHeat said...

“…America is a nation without a personality of its own.”

I don’t know about this one. I guess I agree in that there is no dominant personality. I think we have a lot of different personalities fighting for dominance. America has multiple personalities—they all have their own merits.

“My own home town, which was without Blacks at all when I was a kid, is now like a foreign land to me.”

That is how my home town was when my father was growing up here. I suppose he also feels slightly alienated. I would perhaps feel like this if the demographics I am accustomed to were altered, though I trust in my ability to adapt to these changes in my environment.

“I no longer feel at home here in the least.”

That’s unfortunate. You cannot relate your new neighbors, I take it? Try getting to know them better—find something that brings you together.

NorwegianHeat said...

“I don't believe that Beethoven was calling for the destruction of European nations and their identities. Rather he (like William Shakespeare in the latter's plea for friendship between England and France), was calling for a total end to hostilities and war-making between European nations--all in the spirit of mutual respect and brotherhood.”

Yeah, that was probably his goal, just as my goal would be to end hostilities between black and white—all in the spirit of mutual respect and brotherhood.

“I believe Beethoven thought, exactly as I do, separate but equal. That is what I want for Blacks -- for them to be separate from Whites geographically but have equal rights of safety and freedom from persecution under international law.”

And separate but equal may work for the French living in France and the Germans living in Germany, etc., but that is simply not the reality that we face here in America. We have black people and white people all living in the same country. We could have stayed separate—and maybe that would’ve been better—but the truth is, white people violated that separation when they started shipping black people over here as slaves. Did they want to come? No, of course not—but it is a reality their offspring must deal with today. For African Americans today, this IS their homeland. Whether we like it or not, we’re going to have to share it.
But let’s say we decided that the geographical separation you’re calling for was necessary—where and how do you propose we move them? Who will be willing to give up their homes for such an endeavor? Who would PAY for it? Would you be willing to sacrifice your tax dollars? Think about how much that would cost WHITE America just to establish a separate-but-equal BLACK America—am I REALLY the ignorant one here?

“I think these lyrics to John Lennon's song sum up your views completley.”

You’re right—great song, by the way. I have absolutely no problem likening my views to those found in the lyrics.

NorwegianHeat said...

“You seem to believe that all the Earth belongs to ‘all humanity.’"

I do, and moreover, to all life in general. We as humans do not own the Earth any more than white people own America.

“I simply believe that this, like the communism from which it sprang, is egalitarian nonsense.”

I’ll admit that my views are probably more communist or socialist in nature—I am not very fond of capitalism. I do not find egalitarianism to be nonsense.

“Your conversations have been most interesting.”

Thank you very much—I’ve enjoyed them as well. Through sharing and debating our views, we create grand opportunities for ourselves to strengthen them.

“I have come to believe you are actually an ideologue -- a well-meaning fellow attached to a system of a prior beliefs that limit his outlook to pre-ordained conclusions, to the exclusion of all empirical evidence.”

Maybe I am, but I have similar feelings regarding the stances you support. I don’t believe kicking minorities out of our country would solve all of our problems. It may work as a quick fix, but would it solve the issue of poverty? No. A new bottom-rung would form—whites only, I’m afraid. Would it create a more balanced, fair, fluid society? No.

In many faiths, a place exists where people go in death—afterworlds like the Christian Heaven. As I understand it, those that believe in these post-life destinations live their entire lives according to moral guidelines in attempts to gain entry to these utopias in death. If we can agree that the goal in life is to reach these places in death, then shouldn’t we try to build our societies in their image? If Heaven is the goal, then shouldn’t the way we live our lives reflect that?
If there is a Heaven, I don’t think it would be for whites only. I don’t think it would be structured around capitalism. I would assume that all souls that reach the pearly gates are welcomed equally—regardless of social status, material worth, or genetics—into an equal society. I feel that Heaven would be more egalitarian than elitist. Again, that’s my subjective opinion, but I just think it’s more logical. Is a life really just and righteous if it is lived contrary to the image of the divine?

“Perhaps spending a summer alone in the Mountains will allow you to experience your full identity: a human being, to be sure, but one who is also a member of the White Race.”

Maybe. I certainly think it would be an enlightening experience. I question how removing myself from society completely would help me connect with my whiteness, though—or lessen my sympathy for those who are discriminated against. I don’t see how it would alter my perception of white versus black.

NorwegianHeat said...

“What is ‘genocide’?”

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

If you can find any mention of miscegenation here, I’d certainly be interested.

“It is not simply the mass killing of a people with a common ancestry.”

True.

“It means, rather, destruction of the genes that make up a specific racial group.”

I would stress that genocide is the DELIBERATE destruction of that racial group. Since genocide is not a deliberate act of destruction, it is not really genocide, nor should it be a crime. Love should not be a crime.

“Liberals have a misunderstanding or one-sided -- warped, actually -- view of love.”

One-sided? I don’t think so. Warped maybe—as in all-encompassing. That’s closer, but probably not entirely accurate either. To say that all liberals think the same on all issues is just more misinformed generalizing. It would be like me saying that all conservatives or all white nationalists are heartless—there’s no basis for such a statement. While I’ve encountered individuals that certainly seem to fit this description (Thomas Robb, based on his views of charity as “foolish sentimentalism”), but it would be ignorant for me to lump a bunch of other people in with him without any reasoning for it.
I can only speak for myself, but I try to love things before I hate them—if that’s warped or one-sided, fine. If you find compassion disagreeable, then I’m happy to disappoint you.

NorwegianHeat said...

“I loved my cat friend.
Did I also love the cancer that took her (otherwise she was perfectly healthy) from me?”

I should hope not.

“No! I hated the cancer! I hated to lose that cat! I hate disease.”

It still happened though, and that’s nature. Life adapts and evolves and lives on through mutation. That is what our culture and bloodlines are doing now, through cohabitation and miscegenation—mutating. It is not only natural, but might even be necessary for our continued survival as humans at some point—it’s impossible to say. Regardless of whether it turns out to be for good or not, it’s still going to happen, and it’s not your place to stop it. You can only control your own life—if miscegenation doesn’t make sense to you in your case, then don’t take part in it. But you can’t tell others what is right for them.
Cancer is an out-of-control mutation. Whether you chose to accept it as a fact of life, or fight it like a disease is up to you, but in the end, what will be will be.

“Well, if I likewise love my race and culture, how can I possibly love the multicultural society that is taking it away from me?”

Whether you like it or not, America today is a multicultural society—and as I see it—always has been. Where it once was multiple white cultures, it is now multi-racial as well. Maybe you can’t ever love that—it’s your own outlook. But where would the justification be in barring others from enjoying the multiculturalism they love? You’d be doing the same to them as you’re accusing them of doing to you—except that while their actions are not in a deliberate attempt to harm you or your way of life, the actions you would have to take to stop them would be. With that in mind, who is really in the wrong?

“Multiculturalism is an unnatural condition and thus is a social disease.”

How is it unnatural? Throughout history, cultures have spread and encountered others. That’s what happens when a population expands and neighboring populations begin competing for the same resources. When such an encounter occurs, those cultures must either learn to cohabit, merge, or decide a dominant victor through some avenue of war. Any of those outcomes will be natural—it’s only a matter of which path will lead to the brightest future. I do not believe in the violence of war or the injustice of inequality as acceptable means of deciding such a dispute, so I cannot support the white nationalist cause.

NorwegianHeat said...

“My race is dying -- and liberals and ‘progressives’ tell me I should be celebrating this fact. They are insane.”

It is not your race that is dying; it is your way of thinking. Your genes would still live on through your offspring even if they were conceived interracially. Your race is simply making a gradual change. Genes favor survival at all costs—it is your ideals that are unchanging, and thus primed for extinction.
If you were one of only two people left on Earth, and the other was black, would you rather allow all of humanity to die out with you than to mix the races? For survival at all in that case, you’d have to be willing to adapt to that reality—as grim as it might be—and accept miscegenation over “separate but equal.” If you were to cling just as stubbornly to your petty racial identity as you do now, mankind would die out with you, and you’d have no one to blame but yourself. Multiculturalism and miscegenation would not be unnatural or blame-worthy in this scenario, but your white-separatism certainly would. Ideals are subjective—relative. Will you still deny that as a fault of the liberal way of thinking?

NorwegianHeat said...

“I really am looking forward to the Last Judgment mentioned in the Bible.”

I look forward to—but to not immediately invite—my energy to return to the macroverse.

“Not because I am righteous -- I'm just a sinner saved by grace -- but because I am hoping that Our Lord and Savior will set the record straight on the subject of race and how the multicultural society is Rebellion against His commandments.”

Yes, it would be interesting to get a straight-forward, undeniable response from your god on this matter. I’m not going to hold my breath, though.

“I only want God to vindicate my position on the race subject and remove the veil of deception from all those who have hated me without cause and argued with me on this matter.”

Isn’t that in itself a roundabout claim to righteousness, though? I mean, if God is siding with you, then you must be righteous.
For the record, I have argued with you, but I certainly don’t hate you over it.

Thank you Nordic, I appreciate these exchanges, and you have my best wishes as well.

--Dane

NorwegianHeat said...

Regarding Observer:

I have plenty of values and plenty to value—things I live and fight for. I try to find something I can relate to in everything—I look for my relation to all things, so that I may love all things. Just because my values don’t align with yours doesn’t mean they aren’t real.

“My observation of Norwegian is he is a total victim of New Age nothingness.”

Nothingness? Really? Again, you are assuming there is no value to my views simply because they don’t align with yours—another example of the “subjective opinions” that Nordic would deny.

“The song by John Lennon identifies him exactly.”

Yes it does.

“In Norwegian’s mind there is nothing of value, nothing worth preserving from destruction.”

In Observer’s mind there is NOTHING AT ALL.

Oh wait, that wasn’t very nice was it? Your assumption that you know what’s going on in my head is amusing, but your claims aren’t very fair—it would be like me saying that white nationalists value nothing. That certainly isn’t true, is it?
I have plenty that I value, and plenty worth preserving from destruction.

“He loves nothing - though I would suggest he would deny my accusation.”

I love a lot, so yes, I will adamantly deny your accusations. You’re in no position to make baseless claims like that.

“And because there is nothing of value - nothing worthy of love, there is, therefore, nothing he would die for - his life - his self-indulgence - is the only thing of value.”

This is coming from a supporter of the KKK—an organization that seems to believe only in the indulgence of whites. Based on the ideals expressed by various representatives here, their own lives and cultures are the only things they value. In this way, how are we different? Plus, I’m arguing for the equal treatment of races I am not a part of—how is this self-centered? I have nothing to personally gain—I just think it’s right.

“You can see this all through his writing.”

Interesting—how WOULD you have me communicate my ideas, then?

NorwegianHeat said...

“He’s boorishly narcissistic and is entertained by his own delusions of intellect.”

“Boorishly narcissistic”? This is coming from someone going by the pretentious title “The Observer” who has no personal views to share on the matter, and instead resolves to analyze and criticize the efforts of others. From my perspective it is YOU with an inflated self-image. Am I really the one with the distorted ego? I’m sorry, but until you can defend your own views, your judgments of mine are moot.
Everyone is delusional from one point of view or another—I could say the same of almost anyone I’ve communicated with here. Everything we experience is the product of a psychedelic experience—all differing based on the frequency to which we are tuned. If our brains are set to filter stimuli differently, then our perceptions are bound to differ—sometimes drastically. You are just as delusional to me as I am to you.

“I suspect he is a nice guy and earnestly wants to do good.”

Thank you. This is how I see myself as well.

“He is just unable because there is no defining line between the ugly and the beautiful.”

So I’m incapable of doing good? How can you honestly defend this assessment? You don’t know anything about me or my life—other than what I have provided here—and you haven’t even managed to absorb that—how can you make these assertions?

“Norwegian reminds me of a typical victim of doubletalk from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Really? What kind of double-talk am I being mislead by? Is it similar to the double-talk employed by the Knights, like the discrepancies between their white-nationalist ideals and the words of the bible they claim to base their lives around?

Did you know that Orwell was a Democratic-socialist? Did you know that Orwell wrote that book in an attempt to highlight the idea that whites/Europeans are wrong in assuming their superiority? I find this ironic. I see Mr. Robb has used “Nineteen Eighty-Four” in his sermon—his arguments were lacking, though.

NorwegianHeat said...

“hey for commentator #2 Judaism is not a race it's a religion!”

Yes, Judaism is technically a religion, but there does exist a bloodline of people that generally practice Judaism that can be traced back thousands of years. They have a history of being rather exclusive in that they generally intermarry within the bloodline, and do display some common genetic traits, so I can understand the “Jewish race” label, although it is probably politically incorrect. I don’t really associate myself as a member of a “Christian race” although I could probably be classified as such by the same standards.
In any case, when Hitler targeted the Jews for extermination (as the original question concerned with), the aim was to eliminate their “inferior” genes (eugenics)—not eliminate the religion itself. And yes, it’s been pretty well documented that that happened.

NorwegianHeat said...

"It's is summarily disappointing that so many people fail to comprehend the equality of all people."

I agree.

"If all of you claim to be true Christians, you ought to recognize that Jesus taught against discrimination and racism."

This was argument as well. They don't seem to agree with us, though.

"You all should also realize that this nation was founded by a number of Deists, perhaps most significantly Benjamin Franklin. Deists are necessarily Christian."

Many of the founding fathers were abolitionists, as well--freeing their own slaves following the revolution. They recognized the need for equality in our fledgling nation, and sought it--long before it was a popular belief.

Anonymous said...

Gosh! Norwegian. . . Don't you have anything else to do with your life? It's unbelievable!

Observer said...

I agree. He is obsessed with this. Other people come on, state their position and then go on. I have made a couple of comments, but I have other things to do. I have a job, wife and kids. I have ball games to attend, “dates” with my wife, hobbies and social functions. Life is busy. I don’t have time to live out a fantasy on the internet. Believe me - if I have a choice of "living" on the internet or kissing my little girls "boo - boo," the boo boo wins out every time.
Norwegian - it’s unnatural and unhealthy - you need to get out more.

NorwegianHeat said...

Here we go with the "unnatural" stuff again.

There is no standard for what is natural.

Thank you for your concern, but I don't need you to worry about me--I'm an adult. If I felt this was at all detracting from my quality of life, I wouldn't do it. I have family and friends and a career. This is nothing more than a hobby--it entertains me. Writing and sharing my views is what I do. I don't LIVE on my computer. Compared to the rest of my daily routine, I spend very little time here--perhaps more than others, but certainly not to the point of obsession. I think you assume that this takes up a lot more of my time than it really does.

Plus, whether you want to discredit me or not, it doesn't negate the validity of my views.

There, that took me what? A minute?

Anonymous said...

Hey! Norwegian. I haven't gotten my answer yet. What is the standard you use to determine right from wrong?