Nikolas Försberg
November 7th, 2011, 06:23 PM
Who's White?
by John Law,
Stormfront Senior Moderator
White Hot Radio Podcast,
November 3, 2006
John Law, "Who's White?" Audio (http://sfradiofiles.com/Downloads/Who%27s%20White.mp3)
"White Nationalism." Both of these words are equally important.
Good evening, I'm John Law, Stormfront Senior Moderator and National Vanguard member.
Tonight I'd like to address the first part of the term 'White Nationalism' and answer the question, “Who's White?”
It’s a fair question, a fundamental question really. Our enemies have no trouble identifying us but sometimes people who are just becoming racially aware have difficulty answering this question. It’s the kind of question that can invite hair-splitting arguments or mind-numbing technical discussion. Those things are fine in their place but what folks really need to get started on this path of White Nationalism is a simple working definition that can be readily applied to almost any situation.
So in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions."
What comprises "European?" Those areas north of the Mediterranean and west of the Urals corresponding roughly to what was formerly known as European Christendom.
Note the word "wholly" -- "of wholly European descent." Sometimes a person might volunteer that he is some small part non-White, like 1/64th or 1/128th, and then ask if we still consider him White. The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White.
If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we're concerned, that's what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can't compromise. You're either White or you aren't.
After all, on an anonymous message board, we don't have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don't have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they're White, then we can pretty much assume they're White. But on an anonymous message board we don't have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don't know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that's what he is, part non-White.
Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:
Quote.
Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we're all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a "pure" race, etc. -- therefore, it doesn't do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn't exist.
I'm sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively "pure" sub-group. I'm not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn't mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he's no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.
As I said, that's a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.
End quote.
This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.
They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there's little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with "there's only one race, the human race." With that, the White race is defined out of existence.
Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.
Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?
Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:
Quote.
Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical "scores," and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers' wars.
End quote.
So, again, in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer:
"Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions." And if you tell us you're not, we will believe you.
I'm John Law and thanks for listening.
---+++---
FONTE. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t579650/)
Assim que possível o texto será disponibilizado em português.
by John Law,
Stormfront Senior Moderator
White Hot Radio Podcast,
November 3, 2006
John Law, "Who's White?" Audio (http://sfradiofiles.com/Downloads/Who%27s%20White.mp3)
"White Nationalism." Both of these words are equally important.
Good evening, I'm John Law, Stormfront Senior Moderator and National Vanguard member.
Tonight I'd like to address the first part of the term 'White Nationalism' and answer the question, “Who's White?”
It’s a fair question, a fundamental question really. Our enemies have no trouble identifying us but sometimes people who are just becoming racially aware have difficulty answering this question. It’s the kind of question that can invite hair-splitting arguments or mind-numbing technical discussion. Those things are fine in their place but what folks really need to get started on this path of White Nationalism is a simple working definition that can be readily applied to almost any situation.
So in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer: "Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions."
What comprises "European?" Those areas north of the Mediterranean and west of the Urals corresponding roughly to what was formerly known as European Christendom.
Note the word "wholly" -- "of wholly European descent." Sometimes a person might volunteer that he is some small part non-White, like 1/64th or 1/128th, and then ask if we still consider him White. The answer is that if a person identifies with his non-White part so much that he is concerned about it and feels compelled to tell us about it, then we consider him to be non-White.
If someone were to say that they were 12.5% Amerindian then, as far as we're concerned, that's what they are, 1/8th non-White. This is something about which we can't compromise. You're either White or you aren't.
After all, on an anonymous message board, we don't have the person-to person contact that we do in the real world. We don't have the visual clues, the body language, the vocal expressions, the facial expressions, the overall impressions that we can get in real person-to-person meetings. In personal encounters if someone looks White, sounds White, acts White, says they're White, then we can pretty much assume they're White. But on an anonymous message board we don't have those visual and auditory clues. A poster can post a picture of anybody at all and claim to be that person but unless we have met that poster in person, we don't know who they are. On an anonymous message board all we have is what a poster writes and if he writes that he is part non-White, then that's what he is, part non-White.
Dr. William Pierce had this to say about the matter:
Quote.
Who can say that he has no non-Aryan ancestry at all in his family tree? Not I. Most people can say who their parents and grandparents are. Only a few Americans can go back as far as four generations, however. I doubt that as many as one percent of Americans can go back six generations with any degree of certainty. Jews and liberals seize this fact to confuse people with the claim that we're all mongrels, that there is no such thing as a "pure" race, etc. -- therefore, it doesn't do any good to try to preserve the White race, because it really doesn't exist.
I'm sure that you are not fooled by that sophistry. We must be practical. We know that there is a White race, and that it is easy to select individuals from that race who constitute a relatively "pure" sub-group. I'm not an expert on Amerindian ethnology, but I do know that the Indians consisted of many tribes which were racially distinct, ranging from essentially Caucasoid to essentially Mongoloid. So if one has Indian admixture, it depends a lot on what tribe. As a very rough rule, if a person looks White and thinks of himself as White and is the kind of person our other members wouldn't mind their sisters marrying-and if we know that he's no more than one-sixteenth non-White, we consider him White.
As I said, that's a rough rule. A person may believe that one of his grandparents was an Indian, because that grandparent lived on a reservation. But the fact is that many people who consider themselves Indians today and live on reservations are more White than Indian, due to earlier racial mixture between Whites and Indians.
End quote.
This type of question, about being partly non-White, is asked endlessly on Stormfront. Some posters are asking an honest question but often others are anti-Whites desperately looking for ways to show that we are all mongrels, that there is no such thing as race, that miscegenation is good and natural, that we should all just go home and let things follow their course.
They may start with an extreme claim of some minuscule admixture, say 1/64th. Then, if we reject that for being non-White they say we are fanatics and if we accept them and their claim then we have started down the fatal slippery slope. If 1/64th is okay, they will ask, then 1/32nd must be okay too since there's little difference between 1/64th and 1/32nd. And if 1/32nd is okay then 1/16th must be fine too. And so on down the slippery slope. Their agenda is to get us on that slippery slope because that slippery slope ends with "there's only one race, the human race." With that, the White race is defined out of existence.
Even after these antis are refuted, they come back a few days later asking the same question as if there had been no prior resolution in the hopes that they can snag a few newcomers and to plant the seeds of doubt. This continues on ad infinitum.
Another tactic of the egalitarian crowd is to try to reduce the basis of White Nationalism to something as absurd and as superficial as skin color. Our contention is that we are a distinct and unique people with our own culture, history and destiny. We have not only the right but the moral duty to perpetuate ourselves. To do anything less would amount to racial suicide. We go to great lengths to preserve bio-diversity, the spotted owls, snail darters, mountain gorillas, etc. etc. Are White Europeans any less worthy of preservation?
Another post that appears endlessly on Stormfront is the kind that denounces various European people as not being truly White. In answer to that false accusation, the National Vanguard has stated that:
Quote.
Due to the generally deplorable understanding of race, it is necessary for us to emphasize that White people are the descendants of all historically European peoples, including the Irish, Slavs, Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, as well as the Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, etc., so long as there is no discernible trace of non-White admixture. National Vanguard celebrates the cultural diversity of the White race. Our beautiful languages, traditions, and cultures are a strength. We are pan-European in our views and stand unconditionally opposed to conflicts between White peoples. Outside forces often exploit one White ethnicity against another. We do not excuse anti-White hatreds or historical "scores," and will consistently work towards reconciliation and unity in places such as the Balkans and Northern Ireland. Our watchword is no more brothers' wars.
End quote.
So, again, in response to the question, "Who's White?" we answer:
"Non-Jewish people of wholly European descent. No exceptions." And if you tell us you're not, we will believe you.
I'm John Law and thanks for listening.
---+++---
FONTE. (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t579650/)
Assim que possível o texto será disponibilizado em português.