You’re welcome.

Because of your skill and abiltiy to research for , then write such compelling articles… I wonder what your thoughts are about writing one similar to that which was referenced in #61, but related more specifically to Criminal Aliens in the United States (fromMexico & Central America in particlur, but from everywhere else too…)…?

Keep up the good work.

Thank you for your kind words.

MAKE COMMENTS AT:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/the-“true-conservative”-racial-purity-quiz/

“…I support segregation. And there is not a damn thing wrong with this.”
(No. 27)
Thank you Chris

“…The Frankfurt School came up with this idea to undermine European / White solidarity. Traditionally, blood and soil / kin and kith have been central to conservatism.

Aristotle supported such a concept, borrowing the very phrase “blood and soil” from Plato. St. Augustine supported this as well.”
(No. 13)

“If you look at traditional philosophical conservatism (e.g. Weaver, Kirk, et al), there is much allowance for distinctions made on race, etc. Weaver, Kirk and Eliot all supported segregation – a very wise concept.

Such distinctions (based upon a Burkean ‘prejudice’) have been central to conservative thought. Conservatives should rail against the meaningless abstractions of the Enlightenment (such as “we are all equal”), and harbour a more traditionalist outlook: kith and kin / blood and soil. As Cicero said of natural law in De Legibus, it is based upon traditions of the “ancestors.”

In short, blood lines are important and so are their proximity…”
(No. 30)

“According to recent DNA studies (see U. Penn Genetics Survey), about 95% of “white Americans” are of pure European blood. Probably about 5% would have one African ancestor out of about 256 ancestors. True, many blacks and whites had babies together, but there was the “one drop rule” and these kids would have been considered black, and never would have “crossed the racial line,” which is why you only have about 5% of whites with African blood. About 45% of blacks have white blood.

Without kith and kin / blood and soil, without any recognition of the importance of ethnicity, you are left with the left-wing “proposition nation,” given to us by Enlightenment radicals and later Marxists.

Like Kirk and Weaver (the “fathers of American Conservatism”), …race does matter.”
(No. 33)

“Regarding national identity, if you think what a person believes is more important than his ethnicity, then you are a proponent of the “proposition nation,” a radical concept put forward by revolutionaries and Marxists. Prior to the Leftists introducing the “proposition nation,” a more traditional mode of life reigned supreme.

…the essentials (e.g. Aristotle’s communitarian ethics, Cicero, Eliot, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, etc.).”
(No.35)
Thank you Cato

“Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn’t recognize race. But this isn’t a perfect world.

No one can deny that AMONG ALL OTHER RACES/ groups (except whites) racial identity is very strong.
Asians-
[Blacks]
[Mexicans/ 'Chicanos']
[Persians]
[Arabs]

…so should whites. …promote white interests [!]…”
(No. 38)

“…other races (except whites) do have a strong ‘racial [ethnic] identity’…they always [most GENERALLY at least] promote it.
(No. 44)

Thank you John

“…your ‘enlightened’ attitude, and contempt for people who hold older, ‘less enlightened’ beliefs is very typical of modern ‘conservatism.’ …Dabney was right when he said that American conservatism has never conserved anything. It is just go slower progressivism… Dabney…arcane [?]

Given the hostility of the PC Gestapo to anyone who dares to transgress PC Right Think, it is perfectly understandable that people would not want to give their full name and e-mail address. It shows no bravery on your part that you are willing to do so since you are giving a pitch-perfect rendition of the establishment [more Politically Correct] party line.”
(No. 51)
Thank you Red

“Blacks are not integrationists; the vast majority of them are segregationists.”
(No. 54)
Thank you Nicholas

And, THANIKS AGAIN to those intelligent and thoughtful commentators listed above for their posts. How refreshing.

Is it not sad that being PROUD TO BE WHITE nearly always earns one a title of ‘racist’ or ‘bigot’?

Lunacy.

ASIDE FROM scientific, political, governmental contributions made by certain races/ethnicities over the last roughly 6000 years since life ‘as we know it’ began OR THE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR LACK THEREOF by certain others… (Would I be more correct to describe it as LAVISHLY NON-existent?)…

IF one considers EVEN SOME of the copious data in articles such as the one titled
“The Color of Crime: Ground-Breaking New Study Released” by Nicholas Stix, October 2005 (Thank you YET ONCE MORE Nicholas), then attention to and respect for, DIFFERENCES IN RACE MUST be recognized.

Being ‘created equally’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’ DID NOT MEAN, and SHOULD NOT MEAN that patterns of speech, behavior, family interaction; appetites and inclinations to conduct one’s self in a respectful/ respectable, law-abiding, civilized, and dare I say patriotic (?) COULD NOT or WOULD NOT correlate generally to race or that there WOULD NOT or MIGHT NOT be ‘interference’ to behaving in such a manner because of one’s ethnicity…

Political Correctness = Animal Farm

Burn the farm.

And so, his name has become synonymous with the exit point of a human being’s alimentary canal.

Your reply to me deserves a book in response, but I will post a “brief” reply under your new essay since that is where I suspect the action will be transferring.

But would you please answer me one question? What exactly is a “Clymer?”

Red

I see they just posted my Racial Purity Quiz. Many thanks to those of you who provided the material for this essay.

I won’t be responding to any more genetically-superior commentary on this essay now that the Quiz is up. So for those of you who feel the need to tell us about your centuries-old DNA trail, or have any other forced busing or prison-rape fantasies you need to explore, go at it with all the gusto you you can manage. It will be a lot of fun just watching you define yourselves even further without the need for additional commentary from me.

Last one out of the gene pool is a neo-Marxist, or whatever other big word you can remember to illustrate your innate superiority.

It’s a little hard to tell where reality drifts off and allegory takes over in your comments. It might be time to check those meds, or at least have a neighbor look in on you from time to time.

Sir Anthony

Why am I not surprised that anyone who calls himself “Sir Anthony” is a segregationist.

To everyone else

Notice how a simple proposition that the fundamental way to look at another person is to ask the question “are they a ‘jerk’?”, rather than “what color/age/sex., etc are they?”, becomes a polemic by genetically-pure True Conservatives who need to tell you how innately inferior everyone else in the world is, and then launch into discussions of forced busing, overheard conversations, and prison gang-rape to justify their positions?

This is obviously what Plato and Aristotle had in mind, not to mention Locke and St. Augustine, when they laid down their ten point plan for REAL Conservatism.

All you have to do is let people talk and the truth will reveal itself in many different ways.

Okay, maybe my original instincts were right after all.

I didn’t “refuse” to answer your question. You just stopped reading. I figured that anybody who advocates national policy based on the conversations they overhear from other people, and then assumes that the entire world is like that, might benefit from an explanation about the difference between logical and illogical conclusions from a given assumption.

Here’s what I said:

“I guess we have two basic choices to deal with the idiocy of this when non-white races want to claim special status or distinction based on the color of their skin. We can either join them and become as big a Clymer as they are, or we can block their stupidity the same way we damp down the pseudo-intellectuals of our own ‘race’.”

We can’t stop people from saying stupid things, since this is America and you have a right to be a fool. But we can educate against ignorance in whatever form it appears, and organize ourselves to block the passage of racist legislation (whatever its source) within the context of the American political system. Since we live in a pluralist democracy the results will not be instantaneous. This is one reason why we have elections.

Or, we can just be as stupid as the other people who spout racist tripe and join that club.

I write at length in my essay “What Kind of Car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?” about how we battled the ignorance that justified human slavery in the 19th century, and how we can overturn the abortion culture today. I’d apply that same prescription to this issue.

Now tell me how being a white racist fool is going to help you “defeat” all the other non-white racist fools?

I’m a conservative, and I definitely support segregation. It is a part of human nature. Only a utopianist tries to undo human nature with Big Brother projects (racial integration, busing, etc.).