September 17, 2012

Flowchart: "Is Someone a Racist?"

I'm not sure who made this up:




88 comments:

Anonymous said...


I am race-ist. Ism means belief or creed, and I believe in racial differences--most crucially that Jews are smarter and blacks are stronger and their brains and brawn are allied against whites--, I believe in the worth of my race, I believe in the love of my race and loyalty to my race.


Anonymous said...

I've got to have this printed on a bumper sticker.

Shouting Thomas said...

We seem to be reaching a crisis of this lunacy.

For the left, every political issue since 1960 has been another re-enactment of the battle to end Jim Crow.

The corruption of this lunacy now strangles us.

Is there any way out?

Hail said...

Orwell wrote about the term 'fascist'. By the 1940s, the term had been so politically-abused in English that it had lost any shred of real meaning, he said.

In other words, saying "John is a fascist" conveyed exactly the following meaning: "I dislike John". Nothing more.

What is Fascism? by George Orwell: "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. ...."

Anonymous said...

It looks suspiciously like something from a policy directive from the South African ANC government.

Yes...I do live in South Africa.

Anonymous said...

Why liberals get away with 'racism' more easily than conservatives do. Other than their official commitment to 'fighting racism' and liberal Jewish control of media, the fact is conservatives sympathize with liberal 'racism' whereas liberals feel hostile toward conservative 'racism'.

When conservatives see privileged white liberals using whatever means to KEEP BLACKS OUT, they cheer for white liberals. If anything, white conservatives wish they could do the same. So, conservatives almost never call foul on liberal 'racism'. Indeed, many conservatives may even believe or wish to believe that white liberals are on the side of white power for coming up with policies to keep blacks out. And if anything, white conservatives--especially less privileged ones--wish they could do the same thing that privileged white liberals do to keep their communities white.

So, white liberals can get away with anything since no one calls them on it. Though blacks do sense hypocrisy on the part of white liberals, gays, and Jews, they mostly remain shush because being part of the Democratic coalition bring goodies--at least to the black elites.
It's like Israel can get away with 'racism', 'imperialism', 'nationalism', and 'fascism' because no one dares to call Israel on it--at least in the MSM in America. Not only are Jewish liberals mostly mum about Zionist abuses but even conservatives don't call out on it either. If anything, white conservatives relish the sight of 'white' Jews bashing and beating the crap out of 'muzzie' and 'swarthy' Palestinians. It reminds them of the old days of how they used to run America by keeping blacks and others in their places.

In contrast, South African whites couldn't get away with it because their 'racism' was called on by the powers-that-be, especially Jews who control the MSM.
And in America, white liberals loudly call out on white conservative 'racism', especially in the South--even when it's whites who are getting beaten up, as in the JENA SIX case. White liberals in blue states create communities divided along racial lines--even more so than in the South--and support economic policies that offer little to blacks(look at Detroit, St. Louis, South side of Chicago, etc and indeed are pushing blacks back to the red states), but they are not called on it.

White liberals are not gonna condemn themselves, AND white conservatives don't condemn white liberal 'racism' since conservatives believe such 'racism' is justified against dangerous blacks. So, just like Jews get to act 'racist' and 'nationalist' in Israel and get away with it cuz no one calls them on it--indeed, Americans support Israel 100%--, white liberals in America get to be totally 'racist' and get away with it because their 'racism' is sympathized with by white conservatives. White conservatives believe in white communities, and so when white liberals promote policies to keep out blacks, white conservatives totally understand and sympathize. But white liberals don't feel the same way about white conservative 'racism', especially in the South and among the working classes. The very same people who support racial profiling in NY and gentrification to drive out blacks from the best part of NY get all worked up about how whites in the South won't give blacks a fair shake. And super-privileged Jewish liberals who use all sorts of means--not just meritocracy but tribal networking and ideological witchhunting--to increase Jewish numbers in high places scream and holler about how white firemen won't be 'inclusive' enough when it comes to promoting less qualified black firemen. Again, the difference is white conservatives don't call out on Jewish privilege-ism whereas Jews endless call out on white 'racism'.

Anonymous said...

Maybe white liberals subconsciously feel like hypocrites and so they project their own 'ugliness' onto others. They act 'racist' but can't face their own 'racism', so they see it so much in other whites instead, especially conservatives.
Or, maybe white liberals feel that their 'racism' is permissible because they try so hard to understand and promote progress. So, even as white liberals live in privileged white communities, they feel that since they are so aware of the injustice of their 'privilege' and working so hard to end it--strangely by increasing their own privilege in the name of fighting that privilege--, they are to be forgiven. (One of the problems of Sailer Strategy is that if you wanna be a successful white person, you must paradoxically be an anti-white white person. Since Jews and liberals control the elite institutions, a white person has to show his anti-white credentials in order to be accepted in the elite community. Since so many privileged whites are rewarded for anti-white-ism, why should they be pro-white and hurt their personal interests? If anti-white-ism was applied equally against all whites, all whites would go for the Sailer Strategy. But in fact, anti-white-ism is geared so that smart whites will gain from it while dumb masses of whites will be hurt by it. Since smart whites are bought over by the Jewish elites, dumb masses of whites have no one to lead them.
While dumber whites are hurt by anti-white-ism, the fact is smarter whites are greatly aided by it. If you're a white gentile, you're far more likely to be admitted to a good college and get a good job if you show your anti-white credentials. This is why the white community is divided by class. Paradoxically, a white person rises higher the more anti-white he is, and he sinks lower the more pro-white he is. It's the old imperialism trick. British used to reward Indians and Chinese who worked against their own peoples. To join the upper imperialist club, Hindus and Chinese had to favor globalist imperialism over mass nationalism.)

White liberals are kinda like the Chinese communist party. Its members are all out to become richer and more powerful, but as long as they spew the official communist line about working toward a 'classless' socialist society, they feel justified in their power and privilege.

Anonymous said...

In my city it is diversity day in and day out. Diversity for breakfast, diversity for lunch, diversity for dinner. All this diversity is quite monotonous and homogenously diverse. These days, if you really want diversity you have to seek out homogeneity. So this weekend I went to the Octoberfest at a local German cultural center. How wonderfully homogenous it was! I truly got to experience some diversity by experiencing this homogeny. Of course I don't care one whiff that my great grandparents came from Germany. I don't know anything about German culture or history. The history I identify with is the American history of the Pilgrims, Revolution, Civil War, Norman Rockwell... So I belong to the Ethnic Group That Must Not Be Named (formerly called Americans). However, my ethnic group is not allowed to operate a cultural center (or there would be massive riots!) like the German center, so I guess I have to make due with what I'm allowed.

pat said...

As Dinesh D'Souza pointed out in his first big book The End of Racism there was no racism before the fifteenth century. That was the period we now call "The Age of Discovery".

Some black activists like to point out that there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome. That's true, but Romans never knew much about Africans or Orientals. There was an occasional black slave to be seen but few others.

When the Portuguese began their circumnavigation of Africa in the fourteen hundreds they were astounded at how primitive the natives were. Before these voyages there were only traveller's tales of men with their heads below their shoulders and other absurdities. The only black skinned people ever seen in their own lands were the Nubians very far south on the Nile. Egyptians and Tunisians were probably lighter then than they are today.

The modern age is conventionally said to have started in 1453 (Gutenberg and the fall of Constantinople). Racism began at just about the same time too.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

If Romney has a chance of winning and he must play it safe in order to win, I can understand.

But if he's going to lose--a near certainty--, he might as well lose boldly than wimpily.
He should go all out on Obama on all issues that liberals call 'mean and nasty'.
Immigration, affirmative action, Sotomayor and Kagan, Eric Holder, black flashmobs, and etc.
That way, even as he loses, he'll have put major issues on the table, and people will discuss them.
We need some honest debate, and losing candidates shouldn't play safe but fire up all the cylinders. I mean what have you got to lose if you're gonna lose?

It's like in a sports game, the side that is ahead on points can play it safe by just keeping ahead. But the side that is losing badly should do everything. They're gonna lose anyway so why not be bold?

Anonymous said...

We need a white or European-American version of something like the NAACP and AIPAC.

But in order for it to work, it must not be taken over by neocons and globalists as Tea Party was.
And it must be for white middle class, white working class, and white poor. The hell with elites. And this organization must bring to attention how most white people are being shafted in the NWO.
Who's gonna lead it?

Anonymous said...

The workings of the idiot leftist mind...

Anonymous said...

Replace "racist" with "sexist" and "white" with "white male", and it also makes sense.

Truth said...

The face of the Young Conservative Union Gentlemen, you can sleep a little easier...

Truth said...


More Classic Comedy!

If you don't laugh at the Winston Churchill part at the end, you are not alive.

Anonymous said...

The oldest version I can find is from March 29th and attributes it to (Getting Ugly with) Big Larry. By early July it has the textured added in the background and the copyright notice removed.

Anonymous said...

Join the Racistance.

Gringo said...

Note: if you think this flowchart is funny, then YOU are a racist. :)

Lugash said...

Note: if you think this flowchart is funny, then YOU are a racist. :)

If you think about this flowchart, then you're a racist.

Whiskey said...

The problem with the Sailer Strategy is that about 70% of White women ages 18-45 have a real hate hate hate for about 90% of their male peers and White guys in general.

The flowchart needs adjusting. White women rarely (though it does happen Lena Dunham "Girls" etc.) get called racist. That's mostly White guys. Indeed White guy is an insult. If most White guys were somewhere between Kevin Federline or Levi Johnson, to Charlie Sheen and Russell Brand, that wouldn't happen. But too many are like a non-rich Mark Zuckerberg, and that's a sin White women can't forgive.

Anonymous said...

Some black activists like to point out that there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome. That's true, but Romans never knew much about Africans or Orientals. There was an occasional black slave to be seen but few others.

To the Romans, Africa was Libya, and Asia was Anatolia.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous from 9/17/12 9:03 AM, you are uncommonly savvy. Keep posting!

Gloria

Lugash said...

It's like in a sports game, the side that is ahead on points can play it safe by just keeping ahead. But the side that is losing badly should do everything. They're gonna lose anyway so why not be bold?

Because it will beef up the "See how unpopular immigration restriction/anti AA/isolationism is" argument for the neocons and RINOs.

sunbeam said...

pat said:

"As Dinesh D'Souza pointed out in his first big book The End of Racism there was no racism before the fifteenth century. That was the period we now call "The Age of Discovery".

Some black activists like to point out that there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome. That's true, but Romans never knew much about Africans or Orientals. There was an occasional black slave to be seen but few others.

When the Portuguese began their circumnavigation of Africa in the fourteen hundreds they were astounded at how primitive the natives were. Before these voyages there were only traveller's tales of men with their heads below their shoulders and other absurdities. The only black skinned people ever seen in their own lands were the Nubians very far south on the Nile. Egyptians and Tunisians were probably lighter then than they are today."

I seem to remember reading that Ethiopians were considered by the Romans to be highly intelligent, while your typical Germanic type was kind of on par with an ox or something.

Jews were considered to be religious fanatics, constantly simmering with unrest.

Times change. Be kind of interesting to somehow acquire a nordic type of this era and subject them to a cunningly designed series of intelligence tests.

I'm semi-joking. But Flynn effect notwithstanding, I wish there were more discussion of things like exactly how many generations it takes things like increased intelligence to show up if there is selection pressure.

An unanswerable question, but were the Germanic tribesmen of that time as intelligent as Germans of today? Lacking only the right environment to promote the full flowering of that potential?

Or were they dumb as rocks like the Romans thought?

Mutation is always with us, plus by this time there is a goodly selection of all sorts of genes that favor increased intelligence in the population. Including the jewish ones.

Interesting problem; how long does it take to see a change in intelligence levels in a population? What is the relation to how extreme the selection pressure is? A shame I won't live long enough to observe how this works.

Anonymous said...

"The modern age is conventionally said to have started in 1453 (Gutenberg and the fall of Constantinople). Racism began at just about the same time too."

Perhaps in Europe. The Greeks were clearly aware of the Aethiops (burned faces), but I've never come across any Greek value judgements about them. This is a fascinating piece of pottery from the late 6th century BC, but I can only guess what the Greeks thought about it. The word "kalos" written on the white lady's neck means "beautiful", however it's grammatically masculine. No idea why.


I know that the medieval Arabs despised blacks. The Wikipedia article on the Zanj has some quotes from the 9th to the 11th centuries AD. I've seen worse quotes than that from that time and place. Stuff putting them on the same level as wild animals.

Anonymous said...

@ Whiskey-
You forgot to capitalize 'hate'.
Is everything ok?

Lugash said...

We need a white or European-American version of something like the NAACP and AIPAC.

But in order for it to work, it must not be taken over by neocons and globalists as Tea Party was.
And it must be for white middle class, white working class, and white poor. The hell with elites. And this organization must bring to attention how most white people are being shafted in the NWO.
Who's gonna lead it?


A National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People probably wouldn't get enough support among whites, no matter the leader, but I would say a leader would need to be:

* Retired, with an good pension.
* Have experience dealing with messy situations.
* Have private sector and government experience.
* No ties to the elite.
* Possibly even no children.

Maybe an Army Reserve colonel who went against the grain in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a small manufacturing business as his civilian job?

Lizard Predicts Trouble said...

It's like the old question - are you a Witch? To be asked, is to be doomed. Well,that has never led to too much trouble. How did that Thirty Year War in Germany turn out anyway that had witch-accusations and intense hate between Protestants and Catholics? Only lost about a quarter of the population during that war.

cecilhenry said...

THis is a good flowchart but they left out another level on decision tree, namely:



Do you envy the person or do they have something you want??

Yes -- they are racist.
No -- they are not racist.

Anonymous said...

Dang,Whiskey, what happened to you when you were young? Did you experience some trauma like walking in on the blond cheerleader you had a crush on getting the business from some dark dude?

Silver said...

We need some honest debate, and losing candidates shouldn't play safe but fire up all the cylinders. I mean what have you got to lose if you're gonna lose?

The logic seems unassailable, yet so few people ever behave this way. Why is that? Two reasons I can think of are:

(1) People have a need for consistency. If it's okay to do that now, why didn't you do it right from the start? The thought can be very disturbing and one way of quelling the resulting anxieties is to continue doing what you were doing.

(2) Perhaps they're thinking of the future. Sure, their campaign didn't succeed this time around, but it was because of a position on the issues (ie the 'safe' position), it was something else. But next they will campaign on the same issues but those 'other problems' will be fixed and their campaign will succeed. To introduce the 'unsafe' positions on the issues now would doom their future chances.

Still, if things like this flowchart continue to gain spread the 'unsafe' issues, you figure, will become progressively safer and safer and I think we could see many a shrinking violet discover he's got a pair down there.

FredR said...

D'Souza is pretty good at making silly theories sound, for a moment, vaguely reasonable.

Silver said...

The problem with the Sailer Strategy is that about 70% of White women ages 18-45 have a real hate hate hate for about 90% of their male peers and White guys in general.

And yet, astonishingly, even in California -- where diversity and anti-whiteism reign supreme -- those same women managed to have babies with white men 75% of the time in 2008.

Udolpho.com said...

I've said it before. Conservatives have got to get over this severe phobia they have of the word "racist". Do you believe there are racial differences in ability? In average behavior? Do you think natural selection doesn't stop at the neck? Then stop calling yourself a "race-realist", "racialist", or any other evasive euphemism. The charge only has power because otherwise intelligent, well-informed people are afraid of it. The truth is, most of humanity is basically racist. All social animals are nepotists and instinctively defend those most related to them, starting with their families and extending to ethnicity and culture. The word is just a slack-jawed PC ad hominem that doesn't deserve to have any power.

Baloo said...

How do we know there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome, exactly?

Beecher Abury said...

The problem with the Sailer Strategy is that about 70% of White women ages 18-45 have a real hate hate hate for about 90% of their male peers and White guys in general.

Wow, at least he is rethinking his position. In the past he always wrote "white women" as in 100% were culpable. Now it is just 70% that are bad.

Why don't you get out and meet some more people. You might find 70% is still is a bit too high.

Speaking of 70%, why don't you try to convince that dedicated 70% of the Scots-Irish electorate to see things our way.

Riley said...

@ whiskey, If White women actually say something interesting about race they get tarred and feathered just like white men. Recall Stephanie Grace, the "racist" Harvard law emailer.

Truth said...

"Some black activists like to point out that there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome. That's true, but Romans never knew much about Africans or Orientals. There was an occasional black slave to be seen but few others."

Once again, Pat the frustrated history professor, that contrasts with just about everything I've read...


"On another note as it relates to our subject, Lusius Quietus was one of Rome's greatest African generals (in the movie it is Maximus, he was of minor significance). Quietus served under Emperor Trajan. The Emperor named him his successor to the Imperial Purple. Quietus and other African soldiers defended the Dacians. Moreover, when the Jews revolted, Trajan sent Quietus to suppress the revolt, which he did with extreme severity. The Jews called the rebellion "The War of Quietus."

Similarly, African soldiers distinguished themselves under the reign of Emperor Diocletian.

Interestingly, at least ten Africans became Emperors of Rome. They are listed on the historical record as the following: Macrinu, Firmus, Emilianus, Septimius Serverus, Pescennius Niger, Aquilus Niger, Brutidius Niger, Q. Caecilus Niger, Novius Niger, and Trebius Niger who was a proconsul in Spain....

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rome.htm

R. Jones said...

@ whiskey. Yes, but when white women actually say something interesting about race ( like Stephanie Grace of the Harvard Law email "scandal") they get tarred and feathered just like white men.

Anonymous said...

If you do not support sign language ebonics, you are a racist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/sign-language-that-african-americans-use-is-different-from-that-of-whites/2012/09/17/2e897628-bbe2-11e1-8867-ecf6cb7935ef_story.html

Anonymous said...

"And yet, astonishingly, even in California -- where diversity and anti-whiteism reign supreme -- those same women managed to have babies with white men 75% of the time in 2008."


With SWPL white dorks, not with white MEN.

Truth said...

"Wow, at least he is rethinking his position. In the past he always wrote "white women" as in 100% were culpable. Now it is just 70% that are bad."

Hey, Whiskey's coming around!

europeasant said...

Count me in!

Truth said...

"How do we know there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome, exactly?"

Because they let guys walk around in balmorals.

Rho said...

"One of the problems of Sailer Strategy is that if you wanna be a successful white person, you must paradoxically be an anti-white white person. Since Jews and liberals control the elite institutions, a white person has to show his anti-white credentials in order to be accepted in the elite community."

-Actually, a third option exists- to just ignore it and keep on with your work. I've been in academia for a long time across many different levels- undergrad student, a stint as a technician, grad student, postdoc and research assistant professorship and and I've found that you can just go about your day and do your job, and yes, many people will go about spouting off quaint liberal nonsense statements- either trying to test to see whether you or someone else is a liberal, or trying to one up each other... but you can also not bite, just cast your head back with a reflective hmmm, and then go along with your work and not support the garbage yourself. Of course, I'm working in a rather specialized area of polymer chemistry, so someone working in a more liberal field such as sociology is probably swamped in the fools to a greater degree. Its clear from how little so many of the people care in general about others, so their profound support for PC is obvious garbage.

Anonymous said...

White people deserve no sympathy from me or anyone else because almost all antiwhite sentiment comes from white people themselves.

Anonymous said...

If you think about this flowchart, then you're a racist.

If you think - then you're a racist.

Anonymous said...

"I seem to remember reading that Ethiopians were considered by the Romans to be highly intelligent, while your typical Germanic type was kind of on par with an ox or something."

I've never read anything about the Roman attitude towards blacks. I HAVE read Tacitus' Germania, however. It is clear to me from your comment that you have not. Tacitus described Germans as morally sound, monogamous (the only monogamous barbarians), egalitarian, unpretentious, physically powerful, great soldiers. He thought they were yet uncorrupted by civilization, more like the austere, modest, war-like Romans of centuries before him, the Romans who made Rome great, than like the spoiled, avaricious Romans of his own day. The later noble savage idea had parallels with his attitude, but was not identical with it.

David said...

In the southeast, Emmett Till (1955) and all that stuff is still treated as fresh, cool, hip, up-to-date shit. "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1960) is boosted as a revelation about this new "civil rights" thingie that folks down here are starting to hear about.

And right here (Knoxville, Tennessee) is the location of the Channon Christian / Christopher Newsom rape-torture-murders (2007). But there isn't a peep about that rather more recent event in the history of the Civil Rights movement. Well, nothing except quiet tongue-clucking about the latest legal snafus in the case (Knoxville can't find an unimpeachable judge). And I seem to recall in a vague sort of way that some local did a very controlled, "balanced," apparently politically vetted documentary about the case, for local broadcast a couple years ago. To my knowledge, it was not promoted; and it certainly didn't have the tone of a flaming, weeping, good-v-evil, heroic, Hate-Goldberg moral crusade, as does the Till / Mockingbird / Clinton 12 /Scottsboro Boys drumbeat.

My explanation for all this is that the southeast (particularly the Carolinas and Tennessee, in my experience) has a definite "antiracist" presence, largely organized by crypto Scots-Irish attorneys. That last part is quite plain, but the HBD blindness of many people here might surprise you.

The "antiracists" are insane. Embracing that insanity, however, is a sine qua non of social and professional advancement among whites above prole level, a form of credentialing - and that isn't BS, it's really true. If you want to be regarded as being in the inner circle of networkers, then get a black lover and post your togetherness pics all over Facebook. (Look, everyone - I banged a Negro!) These standards are indeed a form of sick psychological sadomasochism [HT: Steve], and they lead to all kinds of neuroses. The best that most regular whites can do about it is to stumble around in a Stockholm Syndrome daze.

Steve Sailer said...

Christian Ethiopian highland kingdoms had diplomatic relations with the Pope by the the 1400s. A Portuguese diplomat spent 6 years in Ethiopia in the mid-1500s and wrote an informative book about it. It sounded pretty backward compared to Portugal in its golden age, but not necessarily more backward than, say, parts of Russia at that time. Evelyn Waugh's interest in Ethiopia in the 1930s was sparked by its cultural similarities to medieval Europe.

Anonymous said...

Truth, to Romans "Africa" was north Africa. For example, Scipio Africanus got that nickname for fighting Carthaginians. In a similar way a general who became distinguished fighting the Germans would have Germanicus added to his name, one who got famous fighting Britons would be nicknamed Britannicus.

What would Romans have called actual blacks? I would guess they'd use the originally Greek term "Aethiops".

I see Septimus Severus on your list. That's pretty funny. You can look up some pics of his online. Some of the Roman emperors were indeed born in north Africa. I don't think that any of these people were black.

peterike said...

Silver to Whiskey: And yet, astonishingly, even in California -- where diversity and anti-whiteism reign supreme -- those same women managed to have babies with white men 75% of the time in 2008.

75% of the time?? And you seem to cite this as evidence that Whiskey is wrong?

If those numbers are true, that is a cataclysm, not reason to feel good about the future of the white race.

Anonymous said...

Grumble grumble ... Damn Kraut spearchuckers on the streets of Rome, making an unholy mess with their beards ... The Proconsul's daughter even ran off with one of 'em stinkin' unwashed Krauts ... mumble mumble.

Anonymous said...

It's like the old question - are you a Witch? To be asked, is to be doomed.


Exactly because if you have enough status, no one will dare ask you if you are a witch. And if you don't have enough then you can never satisfy the inquisitors because it is essentially just a test of social status.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous wrote:

"I've never read anything about the Roman attitude towards blacks. I HAVE read Tacitus' Germania, however. It is clear to me from your comment that you have not. Tacitus described Germans as morally sound, monogamous (the only monogamous barbarians), egalitarian, unpretentious, physically powerful, great soldiers. He thought they were yet uncorrupted by civilization, more like the austere, modest, war-like Romans of centuries before him, the Romans who made Rome great, than like the spoiled, avaricious Romans of his own day. The later noble savage idea had parallels with his attitude, but was not identical with it. "

You are right I have never read Tacitus.

I did a little googling and found this however:

"His small treatise De origine et situ Germanorum [concerning the origin and location of the Germans], commonly called the Germania or Germany, supplies (along with the earlier account of Julius Caesar) the principal written material on the Germanic tribes. Archaeology bears out the accuracy of Tacitus, but the work is not objective; it is a picture of the simple Germans glorified by comparison with the corruption and luxurious immorality of the Romans."

Sounds like a man with an axe to grind.

I did a little more googling and wasn't able to find anything more than basically Romans weren't too keen on barbarians. I found a lot of stuff on the Germanic Wars, but I really don't care about defending the Rhine or the campaigns of Scipio Publius so and so.

I'm not sure it's worth my time to look up more stuff. My memory is usually pretty good, and I'm positive I've read this. But it might have been a throwaway line by someone in a history book.

So I think the odds are on my side, but if you want to declare victory go ahead.

Anonymous said...

"Or were they dumb as rocks like the Romans thought?"

Put it this way. Ethiopians were smart enough to get beaten by Romans. Germanic barbarians were dumb enough to beat the Romans.

Anonymous said...

"How do we know there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome, exactly?"

I guess Romans were equal opportunity killers and oppressors.

peterike said...

Let us grant every bit of crackpot Black Studies history. The Egyptians were black. The Romans were black. The Greeks were black. Whatever you want. Yes, yes you got 'em all!

So what have you done for me lately?

Anonymous said...

"Some black activists like to point out that there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome."

Roman writing is full of both positive and negative "racist" observations but the scale is different. They thought mostly in terms of tribes and nations.

This makes perfect sense if you think about it. For most of history 100% of most people's experiences will have been with people of the same race but different tribes and even in a place like Rome that was probably 90% true.

.
"An unanswerable question, but were the Germanic tribesmen of that time as intelligent as Germans of today? Lacking only the right environment to promote the full flowering of that potential?
Or were they dumb as rocks like the Romans thought?"

The Romans didn't think that. IIRC the Romans didn't mention intelligence much at all when describing other nations. They were generally more concerned with how tough they were - but that may just have been the Roman obsession and doesn't prove anything either way.

Having said that I do think it's possible that specialization itself selects for intelligence and it might take high-density agriculture and civilization to get people to their upper limit whatever that may be.

The latitude advantage in that case might just be latitude selecting for larger skull size and larger skull size providing a higher upper limit as an accidental side-effect.

.
"White people deserve no sympathy from me or anyone else because almost all antiwhite sentiment comes from white people themselves."

That's fair enough. I don't want sympathy. I want white people to realize they're being culturally manipulated into their own genocide like a man being hypnotized into cutting his own throat.

.
"Dang,Whiskey, what happened to you when you were young?"

Ask him if Jewish women crave the same things and you'll get your answer.

TWTS said...

"there was no racism before the fifteenth century"

Arabs were writing about the inferior blacks they were enslaving at least 5 centuries before that.

All races are racist, but just like most things, white people are the best at it.

Anonymous said...

"Of course I don't care one whiff that my great grandparents came from Germany. I don't know anything about German culture or history. The history I identify with is the American history of the Pilgrims, Revolution, Civil War, Norman Rockwell... So I belong to the Ethnic Group That Must Not Be Named (formerly called Americans). However, my ethnic group is not allowed to operate a cultural center (or there would be massive riots!) like the German center, so I guess I have to make due with what I'm allowed."

Well, there's nothing to stop to you from living a life devoted to the stern tenants of puritanism, becoming a civil war reenactor or joining a society of Rockwell appreciators. An organization devoted to an interest in all of these things would require a pretty big roof, though. Essentially, the problem is that there isn't much connecting these things aside from maybe a bit of DNA. You're butting up against the fact that American culture has always been weak and prone to rapid change. In all honestly, an Anglo-American society would suffer much less from riots (are you serious?) than it would from a lack of attendance. And of course it would still be a lot less fun than Oktoberfest.

When you go to Oktoberfest, you're seeing the legitimate manifestation of a people and their culture. They're not just getting together to mark historical events that their ancestors or distant relatives may have participated in. It is the product of a culture that has been around for a long time and isn't going anywhere soon. If there's any Anglo-American equivalent, I'd love to hear about it. But honestly, I just don't see it.

Anonymous said...

"Mutation is always with us, plus by this time there is a goodly selection of all sorts of genes that favor increased intelligence in the population. "

It doesn't really matter when a substantial amount of college-educated women successfully wage a war against the tyranny of the womb.

"In contrast, women with a higher education were producing just 1.85 babies each.

Dr Flynn said at 73 he was too old to worry about offending anyone.

Unplanned pregnancies by less educated women could be reduced, perhaps by future scientific advances."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10450313

Anonymous said...

"Goody Proctor, I hereby sentence you to be burned as a racist!"

DYork said...

Whiskey said...

The problem with the Sailer Strategy is that about 70% of White women ages 18-45 have a real hate hate hate for about 90% of their male peers and White guys in general.


Whiskey thinks about White women the way an anti-semite thinks about Jews.

And Whiskey just because nearly 100% of White women don't prefer you doesn't mean they hate,hate,hate you.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Roman racism one of their greatest heroes Julius Caesar gained his heroic status thanks to slaughtering a million northern barbarians in Gaul. A million dead 2000+ years ago must be the equivalent of many tens of millions today.

To the northern barbarians that roman invasion must have seemed like a genocidal holocaust.

Also, the Romans captured most of their slaves from north of Italy.

DYork said...

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Roman racism one of their greatest heroes Julius Caesar gained his heroic status thanks to slaughtering a million northern barbarians in Gaul. A million dead 2000+ years ago must be the equivalent of many tens of millions today.


Obviously that never happened. But by that standard was Winston Churchill and Arthur Harris racist against White Germans and their culture?

Lizard Predicts Trouble said...

Single White women appear to be a mess. I've said race trumps gender, but I do have some concerns, if the women are clueless. If "demographic change" happens fast enough, it may be too late for a big chunk of White people to catch on in time. Single White women seem almost unbelievably sheeplike in their submission to Political Correctness.

Candleowner said...

"How do we know there was no racial prejudice in ancient Rome, exactly?"

-Prejudice among Romans seems to be like that among Upper class whites, which I guess makes sense as they were the upper class whites of their day. Basically, that blacks are good folk because I don't actually have to live around any of them.

Romans seem to only sneer at other whites, the Germans, the Celts... Blacks are so far below the radar they don't rate a need a one-up for the upper class guy to feel comfortable that they know their place.

I think what we have going on is that, similar to the Sailer statement that for kids to grow up thinking positively of blacks they need to be kept away from blacks, most Romans simply weren't spending their days around Sub-Saharan blacks.

We do know that, much like our upper class white guy and Compton, they didn't seem to interested in real-estate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Though the desert would've been a challenge, they could have taken the coasts with troops in boats, probably would've had easier foes than in Europe.

Erika said...

"Single White women appear to be a mess. I've said race trumps gender, but I do have some concerns, if the women are clueless. If "demographic change" happens fast enough, it may be too late for a big chunk of White people to catch on in time. Single White women seem almost unbelievably sheeplike in their submission to Political Correctness."

There is some truth to that, but I think there are far more white women who see through the nonsense and even despise it more than you think.

Women are less willing to speak their mind about negative things, such as black crime rates, that is true.

Also there is some benefit for us in having the status quo- feminism pays dividends, even if we have to listen to mindless blather about our sanctimonious ovaries or how the men we love are actually raping us. By the same token, we have more to lose by defying it. Much like blacks being kept in line by other blacks, white women are kept in line by their more liberal sisters.

Its easy to complain about white women not doing anything about the current state of affairs, but where are all the white men? If you guys are losing the most from it, why aren't you fighting back harder?

Anonymous said...

We need a white or European-American version of something like the NAACP and AIPAC.

But in order for it to work, it must not be taken over by neocons and globalists as Tea Party was.
And it must be for white middle class, white working class, and white poor. The hell with elites. And this organization must bring to attention how most white people are being shafted in the NWO.
Who's gonna lead it?

A National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People probably wouldn't get enough support among whites, no matter the leader, but I would say a leader would need to be:

* Retired, with an good pension.
* Have experience dealing with messy situations.
* Have private sector and government experience.
* No ties to the elite.
* Possibly even no children."

--How about Jared Taylor? Steve Sailer, our host here, is more of a pure intellectual, Taylor has had more experience facing the opposition.

sunbeam said...

Would you guys lay off the genocide and extinction talk?

I'm not worried about that at all. What does worry me is we seem to be headed to becoming a nation like Brazil.

I think the Europeans have a lot more to fear in that regards than we do. I don't think it will lead to "genocide" (well not european genocide), just a series of events I don't envy at all.

As to why becoming Brazil bothers me? I guess at my heart my ideal country is something you see in old sitcoms. More or less egalitarian, everyone has a chance. People didn't act like f***cking idiots.

I'm not sure that structurally that is going to be true for a lot of the population now. And a whole lot of white people are going to be in that group now as well.

If it were a simple matter of having the tax structure of 1972 in place to fix our problems, buddy I'd fight to the death to enact it.

It's not that simple though, but I can tell you the Bush Tax Cuts weren't a step in the right direction for anything. I don't think the Democratic Party has a clue as to what to do to fix this economic system. I think the Republican Party (where they differ from the Democrats) has brought into a bunch of stuff that is downright lethal to the whole thing.

Unless you are pretty well off and want to see the favelas spread out in all their glory.

Anonymous said...

LOL at the poster called the "truth". Most of the Africans he lists were not "black" but Romans descended from Latin families that colonized Africa. Severus, for example, was a descendant of Roman centurions according to the "Historia Augusta". Also from that source, the "black man" Pescennius Niger had a white complexion that was fused with red. Called "black" on account of his hair color.

As for Arab and Greek racism, here's a text from Al-Masudi (956 AD), telling us what Galen (a Greek scientist) thought of black people;

"mentions ten specific attributes of the black man, which are found in him and no other; frizzy hair, thin eyebrows, broad nostrils, thick lips, pointed teeth, smelly skin, black eyes, furrowed hands and feet, a long penis and great merriment. Galen says that merriment dominates the black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence."

Source: Reversing Sail: A History of the African Diaspora
By Michael A. Gomez


Reads like something a neo-nazi wrote, yet they are the words of a 9th century Arab (and allegedly a 1st century Greek).

Anonymous said...

I like the flow chart.

Vdare editor Peter Brimelow has a good working definition of " a racist" these days. Peter writes:

" A racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal or, sadly, winning an argument with a libertarian".

Here's my definition of a racist:

"A racist is someone who has some loyalty to his/our people and someone who is not a complete idiot or a complete traitor."

David said...

>most Romans simply weren't spending their days around Sub-Saharan blacks<

Here's what Galen thought, per an Arab writer and AmRen.

pat said...

Well I have read Tacitus although he is a bit dry. The nice thing about reading original Roman sources is that there are so few. It is possible to read essentially everything that has survived.

One interesting thing about Tacitus is that he seemed to have hated Tiberius especially. His book on Caligula hasn't survived so our main source is Suetonius who was more of a scandal monger. It's possible that that our view of Caligula as a special monster is just an artifact of differential manuscript survival.

Someone wrote:
An unanswerable question, but were the Germanic tribesmen of that time as intelligent as Germans of today? Lacking only the right environment to promote the full flowering of that potential?

My speculation is that climate dominated the expression of Germanic civilization until modern times. So I think the northern peoples were always smart but until the invention of the chimney and window glass were unable to do much in those northern winters.

The climate hypothesis makes some sense because we now appreciate that Roman civilization flowered during "The Roman Warm period". Rushton used to say that northern winters made the people smart. Maybe so but if you had to sit indoors for five months of the year looking at an open fire you didn't have much time for law courts (open air in Rome) or theater (also open air).

Rushton now thinks northern brains are the result of the melanocortin pigmentation system and vitamin D synthesis. If that's true it also would predict that the Swedes, Brits, and Danes were always smart.

Also remember that Vegetius wrote specifically about the brain power of the various ethnic groups in the Western world. He doesn't mention the Jews at all. This supports the Cochran-Harpending notion that the Ashkenazim only became smart later. He doesn't mention Ethiopians as I remember or any other black people.

There are some Roman comedies which depict blonds as dumb. That makes some sense because blond Brits and Germans were popular as domestic slaves.

There is a simple reason why it is likely that the Northern Africans then were lighter than the peoples in those lands today. Egyptians and Libyans had come south probably in predynastic times. Northern people are lighter skinned but get darker the longer they live nearer the equator. The same thing happen in India with the Aryans.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

It's almost as if the Romans didn't spend every waking minute obsessing about race and IQ.

Anonymous said...

"Its easy to complain about white women not doing anything about the current state of affairs, but where are all the white men? If you guys are losing the most from it, why aren't you fighting back harder? "

white men are the only group stupid enough to not build up a "gimmedat" political group.
While white women piggybacked on black rights and never looked back. It's as if the WKKK never happened!
Repeal white male suffrage! (Not that it matters anyway.)

Truth said...

"they could have taken the coasts with troops in boats,"

"Admiral Casius, send in our vaunted Roman Armada!"

Anonymous said...

There are some Roman comedies which depict blonds as dumb. That makes some sense because blond Brits and Germans were popular as domestic slaves.

Hmmm, so racist dumb blond jokes go that far back? Interesting.

There is a simple reason why it is likely that the Northern Africans then were lighter than the peoples in those lands today.

Actually there has been a large influx of lighter-skinned invaders, immigrants and slaves into Egypt and the rest of North Africa since the end of the Pharaohs: persians. greeks, romans, levantines, turks, circassians, european slaves, french etc

Anonymous said...

"there are some Roman comedies which depict blonds as dumb. That makes some sense because blond Brits and Germans were popular as domestic slaves."

No such comedies exist. Only occasionally did Roman comedies describe the hair color of slaves, and that color was almost always red. Further, none of those comedies linked hair color to intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Though the desert would've been a challenge, [the Romans] could have taken the coasts [of Africa] with troops in boats, probably would've had easier foes than in Europe.

The African interior rain-forest diseases would not have been easier.

Silver said...

75% of the time?? And you seem to cite this as evidence that Whiskey is wrong?

If those numbers are true, that is a cataclysm, not reason to feel good about the future of the white race.


I cited that fact in order to contradict Whiskey's contentious claim, not as a "reason to feel good about the future."

That said, I'm not sure that it can be ruled out as a source of optimism. After all, Cali is "majority-minority" so if whites really were as aracial in their thinking and behavior as they claim I think the miscegenation rate would be far higher. As it stands, whites interbreed in Cali at only slightly greater rate than they do in America as a whole.

As for being a cataclysm, sure, in the long run that's precisely what it's shaping up to be. But for now far too few people are in any sort of mood to contemplate that reality.

Candleowner said...

"Truth said...

"they could have taken the coasts with troops in boats,"

"Admiral Casius, send in our vaunted Roman Armada!""



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_navy

We have to forgive Truth, he probably assumed that Cargo cults brought victory in Britannia to the Romans.

Truth said...


"We have to forgive Truth, he probably assumed that Cargo cults brought victory in Britannia to the Romans."

The first paragraph from the link YOU provided:

"The Roman navy (Latin: Classis, lit. "fleet") comprised the naval forces of the Ancient Roman state. The navy was instrumental in the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean basin, though it never enjoyed the prestige of the Roman legions. Throughout their history, the Romans remained a primarily land-based people, and relied partially on their more nautically inclined subjects, such as the Greeks and the Egyptians, to build and man their ships. Partly because of this, the navy was never wholly embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat "un-Roman".[1] In Antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the logistical autonomy that modern ships and fleets possess."

I'm no nautical expert, but I'm inclined to think it's easier to sail the Mediterranean sea, than the Atlantic ocean.

Truth said...

"Admiral Cassius, we're off to conquest the great expanses of Africa"

"Sha'll we sail westward through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic ocean, Senator Romulus?"

"Of course not you fool! We'll just take the Suez Canal, that would be much simpler, quicker and more logical."

"I'm afraid not, Senator."

"And why, pretel not?"

"It won't be dug for another 2,000 years, sir."

Anonymous said...

"That makes some sense because blond Brits and Germans were popular as domestic slaves."

Wrong again. Not surprising as you're making it all up.

Britons is particular were thought to be very bad slaves because they were disobedient and got drunk all the time.

Candleowner said...

""We have to forgive Truth, he probably assumed that Cargo cults brought victory in Britannia to the Romans."

The first paragraph from the link YOU provided:

"The Roman navy (Latin: Classis, lit. "fleet") comprised the naval forces of the Ancient Roman state. The navy was instrumental in the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean basin, though it never enjoyed the prestige of the Roman legions. Throughout their history, the Romans remained a primarily land-based people, and relied partially on their more nautically inclined subjects, such as the Greeks and the Egyptians, to build and man their ships. Partly because of this, the navy was never wholly embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat "un-Roman".[1] In Antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the logistical autonomy that modern ships and fleets possess."

I'm no nautical expert, but I'm inclined to think it's easier to sail the Mediterranean sea, than the Atlantic ocean. "



"Admiral Cassius, we're off to conquest the great expanses of Africa"

"Sha'll we sail westward through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic ocean, Senator Romulus?"

"Of course not you fool! We'll just take the Suez Canal, that would be much simpler, quicker and more logical."

"I'm afraid not, Senator."

"And why, pretel not?"

"It won't be dug for another 2,000 years, sir."

-Apparently, you're not much of an expert at grasping logic either. Its clear that you have to selectively cherry pick to support your case. If you bothered to read the article, you would find a lengthy history of them using their navy to move troops, including, as I mentioned, having to move troops across the English channel. All of which supports my original statement, that they could move troops via boat. What part of any of that is so confusing? Its clear you don't have any real answer so you have to set up straw men attacks. In terms of your Suez nonsense, do you actually believe they only have the capacity to launch ships from Rome and not have the sense to launch ships from places that would be more convenient, especially in those days? You're right that you're not a nautical expert, even my 6 yr old could plan an attack better than that.

By the way, its 'pray tell', not pretel.

Truth said...

" as I mentioned, having to move troops across the English channel..."

No, you're right bro; English Channel...Atlantic Ocean, same thing. I've always loved all of those people swimming the Atlantic Ocean. FORTUNA FAVET FORTIBUS!