Racist

I'm a racist and PROUD of it

The white, European character of the United States was enshrined in law. The first naturalization bill, passed in 1790, made citizenship available only to "free white persons." A few localities recognized free blacks as citizens of states, but the Supreme Court ruled in 1857 that no black, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States. Blacks did gain U.S. citizenship under the post-Civil War amendments, but other races did not. State and federal laws excluded Asians, and in 1914 the Supreme Court upheld the principle that citizenship could be denied to foreign-born Asians

horizontal rule

Karl W. B. Schwarz: "I am quite certain that bigotry is a sin. I am quite certain that the type of bigotry espoused by Mr. Knight and his like-minded bigots is neither American in spirit nor Christian in content."

No, Karl, bigotry (and racism) are NOT sins, and in fact the "reverse bigotry" you espouse IS precisely the sin for which God punished Solomon, a punishment which is with us to this day.  In one million words of Scripture, the word or concept of racist appears not even once, because it was not even an English word or concept, so it CANNOT be a sin. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, the signing of the US Constitution, and the addition of the Bill of Rights, this word never appears even once because it was STILL not an English word, so racism cannot accurately be construed as "neither American in spirit nor Christian in content".  The FIRST appearance of this word in the English language was in 1934 when H.G. Wells used it in a POSITIVE context, equating it with nationalism.  Your use of this racist slur is contrary to what H.G. Wells intended, and even to this day in conflict with most English definitions, so you cannot in all good conscience declare it "illegal", much less "immoral", much less "neither American in spirit nor Christian in content".

By espousing your form of bigotry against the White Race, the FOUNDERS of this once-great putative Christian nation, you play right into the hands of jews whose bigotry puts even yours to shame, who wouldn't THINK of electing a black president in "Israel".

horizontal rule

 


Be PROUD to be called a racist

"A lot of the anti-immigration movement is jingoistic at best and racist at worst. There is a fear of white people being over run by darker-skinned people."

1.5 million web sites just like the one above claim that simply supporting our existing LAW, and in particular immigration LAW, makes you a racist

Be a PROUD RACIST!

And never forget: the term "racism" never even existed in all our glorious history until 1935

In most countries today, the concept of "racism" is still a foreign concept.  In Korea, the word:

인송 차별주의자

is a NEW Korean word, and simply adding this word debased the entire Korean culture [read: RACE].  This word didn't even exist in Korean during the entire brutal 36 year occupation of Korea by the Japanese, nor was it ever even applied to Hitler and his nazi thugs.  Just like "our" English word, it was made up entirely out of whole cloth.

horizontal rule

 

 

What can be done about people who came to the US and became "citizens" even though they're not the posterity of the Christian Founding Forefathers who wrote the US Constitution specifically to protect their posterity?

PREAMBLE We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What can be done about people who claim the following famous men are "racists"?  Isn't this exactly why they're so widely acclaimed--that they were "racists"?  Is it their "racism" which made them popular, successful, famous, and very effective, and what made this former Christian nation so great?  What can be done about people who now denigrate their memory by insinuating that they were "racists"? 

 

They can be exiled, just as we exiled the Tories

 

bulletJesus Christ:
bullet

He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15:24

bullet

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" John 1:47

bullet

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the  Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And   as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."  Matthew 10:5-9

bullet"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees [read: jews]."
bullet

His Apostles:

bulletI ask then, Did God reject his people? May it never be! For I also am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, Romans 11:1
bullet"who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God, blessed forever. Amen", Romans 9:4-5
bullet"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting." James 1:1
bulletAdolf Hitler:  "When thus, for the first time, I recognized the Jew as the coldhearted, shameless, and calculating director of this revolting vice traffic in the scum of the big city, a cold shudder ran down my back."
bullet

Alexander McClelland: "The two Kapos [in the concentration camp] that beat me daily, using a heavy wooden baton they called 'Herr Doktor' (The Doctor) were both fellow Prisoners, both were Jewish, one from Hungary and the other was, I believe, a Ukrainian."

bulletMartin Luther: "He did not call them Abraham's children, but a 'brood of vipers' [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, 'He has a demon' [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord calls them a 'brood of vipers'; furthermore in John 8:39-44 he states: 'If you were Abraham's children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil.' It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham's but the devil's children, nor can they bear to hear this today."
bulletBenjamin Freedman:  These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews.
bullet

Benjamin Franklin: "Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even thou they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention"

bulletGeorge Washington:  "They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America." ( in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.)
bulletThomas Jefferson:
bulletit had been a terrible mistake to bring blacks to America, and wrote that they should be freed from slavery and then "removed from beyond the reach of mixture." He looked forward to the day when whites would populate not just North but South America, adding "nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface."
bullet"But as this would be no punishment or change of condition to slaves (me miserum!) let them be sent to other countries. By these means we should be freed from the wickedness of the latter, & the former would be living monuments of public vengeance."
bullet"What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims [the Talmud] could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine... It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook." 
bulletJared Taylor:   "Many people appear to believe that the motto E Pluribus Unum means that the United States was always meant to be a melting pot of the world's people. In fact, 'out of many, one,' the motto chosen for the great seal in 1776, refers to the 13 colonies united into one nation. It has nothing to do with multi-racialism."
bulletJohn Jay: "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs . . . ."
bulletHenry Clay:  The American Colonization Society was founded to free black slaves and persuade them to return to Africa and "rid our country of a useless and pernicious, if not dangerous portion of the population"
bulletJames Monroe: the capital of Liberia is named Monrovia in gratitude for his help in sending blacks to Africa.
bulletAbraham Lincoln:

 

bullet"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."  Abraham Lincoln   (Spoken at Springfield, Illinois, July 17, 1858;   ABRAHAM LINCOLN COMPLETE WORKS, edited by Nicolay   and Hay, published by The Century Company, 1894, Volume I, p. 273.)
bullet"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes- nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."  Abraham Lincoln    (Spoken in the sixth joint debate with Senator    Douglas at Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858),    Ibid., pp. 369, 370, 457, and 458.
bullet"Why...should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." Abraham Lincoln     (Spoken to a committee of colored men at the White House, July 14, 1862), The New York Daily Tribune, August 15, 1862, p. 1; New York Semi-Weekly Times, August 15, 1862, p.5.)
bullet“It is better for the Negro and white races to be separated,” President Abraham Lincoln said in an address to some 500 free Negroes, on the White House lawn, April 14, 1862. “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader physical difference than exists between any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason, at last, why we should be separated. Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with white people. On this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I cannot alter it if I would. See your present condition, the Country engaged in war, our white men cutting one another's throats, and then consider what we know to be the truth — But for your race among us there would be no war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. It is better for us both therefore to be separated”, page 370 of Volume 5 of the Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler and published by Rutgers University Press.
bulletAndrew Johnson: "This is a country for white men," he wrote, "and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men . . . ."
bulletJames Garfield: "[I have] a strong feeling of repugnance when I think of the negro being made our political equal and I would be glad if they could be colonized, sent to heaven, or got rid of in any decent way . . . ."
bulletTheodore Roosevelt: thought blacks were "a perfectly stupid race," and blamed Southerners for bringing them to America. In 1901 he wrote: "I have not been able to think out any solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent . . . he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away . . . ." As for Indians, he once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the health of the tenth."
bulletWoodrow Wilson was a confirmed segregationist, and as president of Princeton prevented blacks from enrolling. He enforced segregation in government offices and was supported in this by Charles Eliot, president of Harvard, who argued that "civilized white men" could not be expected to work with "barbarous black men." During the Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson campaigned to keep Asians out of the country: "I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson."
bulletHenry Cabot Lodge: "there is a limit to the capacity of any race for assimilating and elevating an inferior race, and when you begin to pour in unlimited numbers of people of alien or lower races of less social efficiency and less moral force, you are running the most frightful risk that any people can run."
bulletHarry Truman: "I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."
bulletDwight Eisenhower argued that although it might be necessary to grant blacks certain political rights, this did not mean social equality "or that a Negro should court my daughter."
bulletJohn Kennedy made virtually no effort to end segregation but is the first President whose public pronouncements on race begin to be acceptable by today's standards (or lack thereof).
bulletMark Twain, wrote of the American Indian that he was "a good, fair, desirable subject for extermination if ever there was one."
bulletJack London explained that part of the appeal of socialism was that it was "devised so as to give more strength to these certain kindred favored races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races."
bulletSamuel Gompers, probably the most famous labor leader in American history, reflected prevailing views. In 1921 he wrote: "Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe that there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil." He went on to add, "It must be clear to every thinking man and woman that while there is hardly a single reason for the admission of Asiatics, there are hundreds of good and strong reasons for their absolute exclusion."
bulletDiaspora and Race: The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggests that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora.
bulletY Chromosome of jews:  Jewish law tracing back almost 2,000 years states that Jewish affiliation is determined by maternal ancestry, so the Y chromosome study addresses the question of how much non-Jewish men may have contributed to Jewish genetic diversity. Dr. Hammer was surprised to find how little that contribution was.
bulletGenetic Identity:  The results also indicate a low level of admixture (intermarriage, conversion, rape, etc.) into the gene pool of these various Jewish communities...Only the Jewish people in the history of mankind has retained its genetic identity for over 100 generations, while being spread throughout the world -- truly unique and inspiring.
bulletKnesset:  "The Knesset Immigration and Absorption Committee discussed the case of a family that was asked to undergo DNA testing to prove that they were eligible for immigration under the Law of Return. Religious representatives said DNA tests are legitimate to prove family ties; secular representatives called the tests invasive."

horizontal rule

Jared Taylor:

The ban on immigration and naturalization of Chinese, established in 1882, continued until 1943. It was only when the United States found itself allied with China in the Second World War that Congress repealed the Chinese exclusion laws-but not by much. It set an annual quota of 105 Chinese. Needless to say, it permitted no immigration from Japan. Until 1965, the United States had a "national origins" immigration policy designed explicitly to keep the country white.

The history of the franchise reflects a clear conception of the United States as a nation ruled by and for whites. Before the federal government took control of voting rights in the 1960s, the states determined who could and could not vote. Only in 1924 did Congress confer citizenship on Indians, and every state that entered the union between 1819 and the Civil War kept blacks from voting. In 1855, Negroes could vote only in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island, which together accounted for only four percent of the country's blacks. The federal government did not allow free Negroes to vote in the territories it controlled.

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibited withholding the franchise on racial grounds, was not an expression of egalitarianism so much as an attempt to punish the South-where most blacks lived-and a political calculation by Republicans that they would win black support. In the West, there was great opposition to the amendment for fear it would mean Asians could vote, and in Rhode Island ratification nearly failed for fear it would mean the Irish "race" would get the vote.

horizontal rule


 

"GEE, I'M NOT A RACIST, WHY...ER...UM...AH..."
by H. Millard (c) 2002


I'm getting sick of hearing white people mewling that they're not racists every time some hate filled anti-white bigot uses the term racist to shut the white person up. Such cowardice harms all white people, because it emboldens the anti-white bigots. 

I've also getting sick of seeing "we're not racists" disclaimers on some pro-white Web sites. It's gotten so silly that many timid whites can't say anything at all about race without first saying "I'm not a racist...." By contrast, I've heard very few non-whites ever claim that they aren't racists. I also don't know of any pro-black, pro-Asian, or pro-Hispanic Web sites that have any such disclaimers that they're not racist. 
 


I don't care what kind of cowardly spin timid whites put on the we're not racist disclaimers. By even using the disclaimers they're proving that they are weak and effete. You know what weak means. My dictionary defines effete as: exhausted; no longer capable of producing; spent and sterile; lacking vigor, lacking force of character, lacking moral stamina; decadent; soft. That's how I would describe many of those who use these disclaimers, and also, sadly, how I would generally describe many white people in society today. 

Notwithstanding this condemnation, however, some timid pro-white Web sites do serve their purpose as a threshold for other timid whites who are just starting to wake up to the reality that they are white and alone on a dark planet whose dark peoples want (on a gene level, at least) to destroy them. Such Web sites allow such awakening whites to take a few tentative steps toward a higher consciousness.
 


Still, a bold vibrant people does not apologize for being as it is and for wanting to remain as it is and to not want to become extinct. A bold vibrant people does not show up in history, hat in hand, begging to be allowed to survive and to BE. A bold vibrant people fights for the right to BE and refuses to take an inferior position to any other people. Such a bold vibrant people recognizes no human authority over it that it can even beg from. Such a people refuses to lie down like a whipped dog that has lost its spirit, and give up the struggle to BE.


 


I visited the Web site of a pro-white group the other day and the first few words on the site tell visitors that the site isn't racist and that the group rejects racism. I wondered to myself why the group rejects racism. How can they be for one race and reject racism? Of course, I know that what they were really trying to say was that they don't want to have to waste space to give a proper definition to racism so everyone will know that they aren't pushing racial hatred, which is something different than racism. 

The truth is that racism is benign. It's a philosophical view that says, in its original sense, that one believes the races of man are different from each other. Isn't that the truth? Aren't the races different from each other? Can't we see a few of the main differences? Are we to pretend that there are no differences? And, if we pretend there are no differences, isn't this one of the first steps toward the genocide of distinct races? Aren't those who are pushing the idea that race doesn't exist or who are attempting to minimize racial differences, in our minds, really attacking us and trying to destroy us as a distinct people? You know they are.
 


They're trying to get the ten percent of humans on this dark planet who are white to mate and blend in with the ninety percent of the humans who aren't white. Such a blending is genocide. 

Some timid souls will argue that because we've let the anti-white bigots redefine the word "racism" to mean "hate" that we must be sensitive and use the word as they have defined it. I believe we should reject this view. Without the use of this and other words, we have a hard time thinking about the reality of race and genes. Humans think in words and we need words to think. If we do not use the right words in the correct ways, we are cutting off our thoughts. If we let others take away our words, we're letting them take away not only our freedom of expression, but also our very freedom of thought, which is the spring from which our expression comes. 

But, let's be very direct. Racism is a valid scientific/intellectual/ philosophical view of man. Unlike some other unscientific/anti-intellectual/philosophical views of man, racism actually does hold up in reality and it does explain the nature of man and much of existence as existence relates to living things. To deny that one is a racist is to deny that one sees differences among the races of man. We must add, though, that there is a problem with the word racism in that it is too confining. Since the word race is used only for different human groups and doesn't encompass the whole panoply of life, of which humans are a part, the term racism fails to convey the basic principles behind the philosophy. Perhaps this belief system called racism should actually be called "geneism" since this would be a more accurate expression of the belief system. However, since this later term is still not in wide use, as meant here, we are left with the word racism.
 


The essential thing to remember is that genes and their collective expression as race in humans (and, "breeds" in dogs and similar group terms in other species) are the most important element in life. Another important thing to keep in mind is the fact that we are carriers of our genes and in a sense, the genes are directing us in ways that will protect them, and us. 

Of course, those who are trying to destroy the reality of separate races try to deny the reality of separate races partly by saying that there are no "pure races." Of course, they are right. This is so, because although races are steps toward the development of different species of humans incapable of breeding with one another, we have not had human isolation for a long enough period of time to have any of the present races become separate species--at least as species is usually defined. Because such cross breeding is possible among the races, and because there is no real human isolation, such cross breeding has and does take place, and this keeps races from being purely this or purely that. This has also kept any human race from separating more from the mass of humanity into a separate species that can no longer cross breed with the rest of humanity.
 


However, the argument that there are no pure races is a red herring. We don't have to have pure races in order to have races. There are different races. We can see different peoples and we can classify like with like based on the sensory information we receive. The reason we have our senses is so that we can survive by knowing like from unlike, dangerous from not dangerous, Us from not Us. Those who want to destroy separate races are telling us not to believe our senses. They are wrong. 

Now even though there has been a minor blending of races over the centuries, we can still tell the difference between white people and non-white people. There may be shades of brown mixed in, but on the whole, we know who is white and who is not. We can also, if we want, decide what constitutes the ideal of each race and say that this ideal is what this or that race is, when in its purest form, and is freer of genes blended in from other races. 

We don't need to do a genetic study to determine these ideals. Again, all we need to do is use our senses and our brains.
 


How would we determine what is the white ideal? What would the purest white person look like? To answer this, we would have to look at why there are white people at all. White people, as have all peoples, developed from other human types as a response to environmental conditions. For example, whites are especially adapted to cool, rainy lands with cloud covered skies. We know this, in part, and just as one bit of evidence, because we know that white skin allows in more of the sun's rays in such a climate so that a proper amount of Vitamin D can be produced. Black skin, on the other hand, is designed to keep out more of the sun's rays so that too much Vitamin D isn't produced. With this little piece of knowledge, we can then say that a white person must be--please excuse the simplicity of this--white. So, an ideal white person must be white. We can go on with most other characteristics in the same way to actually reverse engineer an ideal white person or an ideal any other type of person. 

Nature is a very efficient engineer. It designs life with economy and functionality. Races have arisen to fit certain niches in nature. It's as though nature were given a contract to design human creatures for different conditions. The spec sheet for whites might say something like this: Supply a humanoid creature that is self-replicating. It must be able to live and prosper in a cool climate with clouds and lots of rain. It must be able to find food where it lives. So, what does nature do? Just what a human engineer does. A human engineer doesn't start from scratch, but works from what already exists and modifies it. In the case of nature, an earlier human form is taken and modified much the way someone might modify a VW Beetle into a dune buggy. Now, to follow this example further, at first the dune buggy and the VW Beetle will have many interchangeable parts, but as time goes on, the Dune Buggy may be modified more and more to be more efficient for use in the sand. This may cause a change in the engine or other major components. Eventually, the dune buggy may be so different from the VW Beetle, that it will, in a sense, be of a different species.
 


Our natural instincts and many of our natural desires, which we often think are part of our free will, are often really just our genes telling us things. For example, we are often naturally attracted to people who look a certain way because of what our genes are telling us. Our genes want to spread their kind, and to do this we need to mate with those who have the same kind of genes. So, our genes, in a healthy person, will influence in our mating choices. Again, a healthy person, often finds people who look different to be unattractive. The reason is because our outward appearance is gene caused, and gives quick visual clues to who is Us and who is not Us. 

This may seem unnecessary to say, but you have a right to be white. You have a right to associate only with other whites if this is your wish. You have a right to not date non-whites. If you want to have your family remain white, listen to your genes. 

 

 


 
bulletReferences: (Note: links may expire and content not necessary endorsed by H. Millard 
or New Nation News but presented for further study for those interested in the topic by the NNN editor.)
bullet"Not racist" links 
bulletMonkey chants as black man died 'not racist' 
bullet"racial differences" 
bullet"racial types" 
bullet"right to be White"