I find the bolded parts interesting. If I was a nonwhite I would have somewhat paranoid feelings about white people. Whites are so pressured to think positive thoughts about nonwhite Americans, and are so heavily penalized by not fawning over them and giving lip service to multiculturalism, that there's a huge incentive for whites to pretend to be comfortable with nonwhites for fear of reprisals. I think there are a huge number of whites in this country that are crypto-race realists. There must be. How else to explain white flight? Even white liberals show by their actions that they have an aversion to nonwhites, since they tend to live in the whitest environments. These are a couple great quotes by Joe Sobran:

"The purpose of a college education is to learn the correct view of minorities and to acquire the means to live as far away from them as possible."

"The mating and migratory habits of white liberals are indistinguishable from that of the KKK."

It seems to me that before the 1960s whites had the upperhand with nonwhites. Nonwhites had a certain amount of fear at the thought of displeasing whites. Now it's reversed. Whites fear displeasing nonwhites. So there's never been any racial equality in this country. Whites used to have the upperhand; now nonwhites, with huge help from the Jєωs, have the upperhand with whites.

The best solution is overt racial separation (as opposed to the covert racial self-segregation that 99.9% of whites practice), since racial equality is impossible. One group will always have to have the upperhand with the other group. It's just the way the world works.

Quote

There are doubtless a great many factors accounting for the general willingness of Whites to allow themselves to be pushed aside and to voluntarily become a minority amid a sea of non-Whites, most of whom hold historical grudges against them. My general view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting tendencies of Europeans toward individualism interacting with the rise of a Jєωιѕн elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe.

The problem with individualism is that we have weak ties to other Whites and we don’t have a sense (yet) of common fate. In other words, we are low on ethnocentrism. We hear about a White person who was victimized by a Black criminal or denied a promotion or admission to a university in favor of an “underrepresented minority”, and we don’t feel empathy for the victims simply because they are White. We don’t feel any psychological pain when we hear that White working class men have moved out of an area because their jobs have been taken by illegal Mexican immigrants.

At a rational level, Whites may well think that victimization of Whites is morally wrong. Hence the finding that Whites support ending affirmative action and ending immigration (especially illegal immigration) as has been shown in California and other states. But I suspect that there isn’t any real gut feeling of empathy with other Whites. And it’s the gut feeling of empathy that in the end motivates the sort of behavior that can really begin to alter things politically.

This was demonstrated recently in a study that scanned the brains of Black and White subjects viewing Black and White victims of Hurricane Katrina (Race and Empathy Matter on Neural Level, Science Daily). Everyone reported empathy for the victims. This is a verbal judgment that reflects nothing more than conventional morality. People certainly would not want to tell the experimenter that they have callous disregard for suffering.

But the brain’s emotion centers told a different story. Black subjects had empathic responses to Black victims, and the more ethnocentric Blacks had stronger emotional responses. Whites on the other hand, did not show any empathic responses to people of either race.

It’s not that Whites are incapable of empathy. Images of family members would doubtless result in strong empathic responses among Whites — responses that would motivate helping family members. Indeed, all the research shows much stronger family bonds among Whites than among Blacks — bonds that are motivated at least in part by empathic concern for family. But in general, we just  don’t get emotionally aroused when we see Whites  suffering or victimized.

And it also suggests that the many Whites who do behave altruistically toward Blacks or other non-Whites are not acting out of an emotional imperative of empathy, but for some other  reason — quite possibly social approval. What better way these days to show you are a good person? I thought about this today when viewing a photo of Sandra Bullock with her newly adopted Black baby. Of course, it may be misplaced maternal affection.

But this lack of empathy for other Whites is a problem for political action on behalf of Whites. People are motivated far more by emotions than by rational appraisals. The  empathy among Jєωs for Jєωιѕн suffering is legendary. As Walter Benjamin once said, Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren. (Illuminations, 1968, 262)

There is undoubtedly variation among Whites for ethnocentrism, implying that at least some Whites would be upset by the suffering of other Whites more than by the suffering of, say, Blacks. In other words, they would have the same pattern that Blacks show, only reversed.

Personally, I have found that I do have an emotional reaction to Whites being victimized. This could be because I am more genetically inclined toward ethnocentrism than most Whites. But it could also be influenced by living in Southern California where Whites are now a minority. Social psychologists have shown that members of majority groups do not have the same sense of an ingroup feeling as do members of minority groups.

The good news is that as Whites become a minority, ingroup solidarity–and empathy for other Whites–would be expected to increase. And getting involved in White advocacy with like-minded others doubtless has the effect of reinforcing and increasing those tendencies, especially when it is not at all difficult to imagine nightmarish scenarios of the future for Whites. Such nightmarish scenarios have a great deal of emotional impact, especially when they are graphically depicted. That is the reason why we will not see such depictions in the media.

The bad news is that even with empathy for other Whites, there are still huge barriers for Whites to really get involved in White advocacy — barriers such as losing one’s job and social ostracism. The power of the left to inflict economic pain is huge, as recently shown by the burgeoning movement to inflict economic sanctions on Arizona for having the temerity to enact a law aimed at getting rid of illegal aliens.

But having empathy for other Whites would certainly be a great first step in the right direction–and probably a step that is necessary if we are going to see really intense commitment by Whites to change the current regime.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/04/kevin-macdonald-whites-lack-of-empathy-for-other-whites/

Where in Scripture is this found?

White Americans are taught from an early age to have contempt for the less fortunate among their own people.  Perhaps it is in part a residue of an overreaction to class warfare.  Perhaps it is related to the great religious and ideological splintering that has been aggravated over the centuries.

In the end though, it really does seem that whites don't get along very well with each other. Even those who really should have common interests.  Perhaps we've been manipulated by the artificial and illusory ties of the media, social and economic systems for so long that we lack the ability to form organic communities.

Then again as Gracian says, "Man's life is a warfare against the malice of men."

Competitiveness and a lack of empathy are natural, they are aggravated by a failure to recognize a pressing need for cohesion.

In this society the virtues of local cooperation seem to be lost.  In such an environment marriage, friendship, and community suffer.  Migration and transient employment lead to the seemingly inexorable dispersal of extended families.

E Michael Jones discusses the social breakdown of Catholic communities that occurred with the rise of the sprawling suburbs in his book Slaughter of Cities.  This of course coincided with the rapid decline of the rural population.  No doubt Vatican II and the tendency towards university education away from home also greatly contributed to these fracturing tendencies.

I think that whites do get along pretty well. Why else would they seek out white environments to live? That shows that they prefer their own kind. Class division within races is normal and has always existed. You are right that there are some white liberals who show open contempt for poor whites, but will treat the poor of other races with a kind of fawning respect.

Quote from: Malleus 01

Where in Scripture is this found?

What specifically?

Justification for racism

@guitarplucker,

Well, yes and no.  Depends on which "whites" we're talking about.  Just like "the women" or "the men" aren't good or bad, "the whites" may be practically angels on earth or else loathsome rats in great need of their rat catchers.  Can't we use labels that aren't so value-neutral?  Perhaps "the Europeans" or "the Euro-Americans" might be much better because more open to moral and religious considerations.  For example, to be racially "European" implies a civilization, religion and moral standard to live up to, while the much more vague and materialistic expression "whites" is so focussed on the genetics of natural birth alone that we can fully belong as "whites" no matter what our civilization, religion or morals might be.

This leads me to the expression "Aryans."  I much prefer that word to "whites" because Aryan literally means "noble" and therefore goes far beyond any merely Darwinian struggle of the fittest for degenerate materialistic survivalism.  Since our Catholic point of view must be against Darwin and Darwinism, why should the survival of purely material characteristics (like "white") be something desirable in the first place?  If the reason is because we must sympathise with anyone born white, then how is that different from Judaism, where all is allowed if only it serve the "sustainability" of the allegedly "Chosen People"?

Simply being born does NOT make people sympathetic or worthy of our sympathy and support.  Born to be what?!  Our Christian charity for others is often DESPITE their natural births, not at all because of such material causes.  Christian charity for strangers is a SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE, not anything we owe to others because they were born.  So if you used the word "Aryans" instead of "the whites," then it would have the Catholic quality of implying that bad morals and religion must exclude bad men from our own racial group, and when that happens then "skin complexion be damned."

Some normal Catholic attitude here might be that when "the whites" are villains and scoundrels, they may well belong to somebody's white race, but sure as anything not to MY white race!  This would also show some real CATHOLIC white pride of race, since if as Catholics we are truly proud of our race, then those who clearly do not make the grade (morally and religiously) can not have any part in it.  (!!)

If we're proud of our race, then we should be more proud to be "Europeans" and "Aryans" than to be "whites."  The beauty implied by the name "Europe" and the military virtues implied by "Aryan" should appeal to us, while also avoiding the danger of a label so vague and promiscuous as to include most of our  racial contemporaries in North America and Europe.  True pride in our white race must reject that horrifying gaggle of maggots of Jєωs and (something even worse) wannabe Jєωs with only the greatest conceivable alacrity...

My sense is that we should have enough healthy pride not to much care if other races discriminate against us (one might advise: "grow up and smell the coffee") while the collapse of law and order in immigration calls for "whites" or "Aryans" also to achieve adulthood in that aspect of life and better appreciate the meaning of "Armed Forces."  Given that Aryans are by nature the most militarist of the races, that should come easily to us.  Just a little Catholic military discipline and all would be well on that immigration front, since military affairs are not a question of numbers but of military uniformity.

As for Malleus 01's request for Biblical affirmations of race, the entire Book of Genesis would be a good place to begin.  For those who can read, the Book of Leviticus also explodes with some quite deadly high-voltage lightning bolts on the subject of race as well.  Those who can not find any such references to race in Genesis and Leviticus are most likely brain dead.  For them funeral rites would now be in order.  May they R.I.P.

Quote

Since our Catholic point of view must be against Darwin and Darwinism, why should the survival of purely material characteristics (like "white") be something desirable in the first place?

This is a fallacy.  It's like saying you shouldn't worry about your genetic descendants because to do so is to accept Darwinian evolution.  

This is indeed an incomparably difficult test!  It is the test of Abraham with his beloved son Isaac.  "Purely  material characteristics" like the very beautiful white fair skin complexion of Europeans MUST be sacrificed if their cost is the high standard of our morality and religion.  In fact this is the true answer to the frequent Protestant opposition against Catholic clerical celibacy:  Without the sacrifice by our clergy of their would-be beloved sons of the flesh, the morals and religion of our European people can not have the Roman Catholic excellence that justifies the singular power and privilege (and beauty) of our white European race in the first place.

As Our Lord has said, only those willing to lose their life can truly gain it.  Only if our race holds the perfection of God above our own human perfection can we truly achieve that human perfection, and even greater perfection than anything human.  The clergy should precisely NOT "worry about your genetic descendants" and hold spiritual perfection above all else, even the greatness of temporal male descendants.

To hold the just desire for children ABOVE the desire for morality and religion is exactly the acceptance of Darwinian evolution by Roman Catholics.  It is to reduce humans to the level of livestock and other animals for whom breeding is the highest achievement.  But for Catholics breeding is not the highest achievement.  We are NOT animals or livestock.  (Breeding Catholic children is a high achievement, but not the highest one.)

What I'm saying here is that for we Catholics race is something spiritual and from above, from the Father of Lights, and not merely something material from earth-bound monkeys.

OF COURSE I want our descendants to have the beautiful white race and skin color of our European Race.  In my rhetorical question in the above quote, I'm asking for the REASON why we should want to continue our skin color, not saying at all that we shouldn't want to have that skin color.  But THE reason for wanting this is because that is the race and skin color of Our Lord Jesus Christ!  Not only because it's a pleasant material characteristic when compared with other less pleasant material characteristics in a Darwinian lottery for better material genetic mutations than some rival group living on the other side of this or that mountain range or ocean.  Darwin's envious competition may be good enough for apes and hyenas, but not for Roman Catholics.

We white European Catholics can only keep our race if we are willing to sacrifice the lesser material qualities of our race for the higher spiritual qualities of our race.  For example, we must hold the Catholic education of our children above simply breeding more children.  We must hold the benefit of forming a CATHOLIC military class, some of whom must die young in battle, above forming civilians who marry rather than fight against the invading hordes (especially from Russian Ghettos, and only less so from the Third World).  We must truly understand that the celibacy of our genuinely Catholic clergy (now few in number) does much more for our RACE than the having many children by some of our laity.  That latter option of many children probably is the second best contribution for us, but nevertheless only a distant second best even so.

It's the collectivist vocabulary used by atheists like Dr. Kevin McDonald ("the men," "the women," "the whites") that weakens our struggle for Catholic racial quality, male quality and female quality.  It's more important that we raise our language to noble levels above the Darwinists and Marxists (the two are identical, of course) than that we refute them with correct intellectual arguments.  The elevation of our language is worth more than the elevation of our logic.

To repeat, it would be much more productive if we use names for ourselves that emphasise moral qualities than use ones that only emphasise material qualities.  "The whites" is an expression that is dangerously weak and evasive about religion and morals, whereas expressions like "white Europeans" or "Aryans" do focus on moral and spiritual qualities that can justify our devotion to our own incomparable and magnificent Indo-European white race.

Just as the Patriarch Abraham was only able to sire his own ancient white Hebrew race by being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, so we are only going to be able to sire our future white European race if we are likewise willing to sacrifice our selves and sons -- although only for the right Catholic reasons that greatly displease the Jєωs, never for any apostate reasons that might please them.  (The last thing that could fulfil this noble sacrifice would be to join the American or Israeli Armies!!)

I don't imagine that the white masses of Marxist/Darwinist scuм are "racially superior."  But OUR Catholic white folk had darned well better be.

Quote from: guitarplucker

I find the bolded parts interesting. If I was a nonwhite I would have somewhat paranoid feelings about white people. Whites are so pressured to think.....

Where in Scripture is this found?

Where in Scripture are dinosaurs found?  

I WILL NOT believe in dinosaurs because it is not in Scriptures.  Scriptures covers everything, don't you know?

@guitarplucker,
Well, yes and no.  Depends on which "whites" we're talking about.  Just like "the women" or "the men" aren't good or bad, "the whites" may be practically angels on earth or else loathsome rats in great need of their rat catchers.  Can't we use labels that aren't so value-neutral?  Perhaps "the Europeans" or "the Euro-Americans" might be much better because more open to moral and religious considerations.  

So you're another stickler like PereJoseph.  Euro-Americans, whites, Europeans, Aryans, French, Germans, Greeks, etc. It's all the same. Everyone knows who "whites" refers to. How aren't the terms "Europeans" or "Aryans" value-neutral? Or do you think all Europeans and Aryans are saints?

You can only be a European if you're good? I've never heard of that. The Church doesn't make such a distinction. You can be a sinner, but if you're baptized you're still Catholic in the eyes of the Church.

Bad Europeans are still European, just like bad Zulus are still Zulus.

"Europeans" or "Euro-Americans" are perfectly fine replacements for "white." I don't really care about the label. You can see that Macdonald is using "whites" as a generalization. Below in bold he uses "traditional peoples and cultures of Europe":

"My general view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting tendencies of Europeans toward individualism interacting with the rise of a Jєωιѕн elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe."

"My sense is that we should have enough healthy pride not to much care if other races discriminate against us

Not caring if people discriminate against Euro's is different from at least acknowledging it. But why shouldn't we care? Part of the battle is caring.