I’m turning this into a main post as I’ve put some careful thought into it and it seems trolls will try to bury it:
Hi MOB, don’t worry about Carolyn being advertised here. She has her niche and we have our direction which is not competing. Therefore, it is not necessary to give her inadvertent advertising in a staple of critical attention to her efforts.
“Without respectful recognition of the uniquely remarkable role played by Hitler and the Germans in the seemingly insurmountable struggle against Jewish world domination, you lose considerable substance and credibility.”
I never said that Hitler and the Germans were not unique and remarkable, nor that their focus on the J.Q. did not merit assimilation - particularly in the sense of prioritizing Jews as a concern and seeing the necessity to separate from them.
I did not say that we should reject everything about Hitler and the Germans - especially not the Germans, of course (and congratulations, I suppose, on drubbing Brazil, even if you do have an N, a Turk, an Arab of some sort, and a half Pole on your team). It is rather that we are not going to ignore and pretend the negative side of Hitlerism did not exist. Nor will we say that he was unique in being wise to the J.Q. or that he handled it in a uniquely effective way. It is clear that is not nearly true enough. *
If people come to MR and say, hey, you know, Hitler had such and such an idea right, I would not turn them away if it is coming from one who is not trying to promote Hitler as correct and worthy of our loyalty across the board - as Carolyn does.
We would not exclude an idea simply because Hitler held the same, nor for that matter just because Jews or Christians may have had similar thoughts on a matter. It is that we cannot endorse these world views on the whole as their drawbacks are too great.
Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent. As such, we would like to look upon peoples of native Europeans as a classificatory whole with subdivisions. The whole and the subdivisions to be maintained and fostered as ecologies symbiotic within and between each other.
In response to Katana, I will add this:
The term “White” is not especially problematic and works especially well in combination as “The White Class.” However, there is a danger in being too simple with “White” as a blanket term. “White” can be too unsophisticated in particular as it is susceptible to include Jews while excluding authentic Europeans. As we all know White is a more American term. It is better to ask Americans to be inconvenienced to drop it (especially since the country is going down in terms of our interests) than to ask native Europeans to drop the designation, “European.” It is a better strategy to resurrect “European” as meaning, “of native European extraction.” It is more descriptive and provides better grounding all around than “White”. Even for Americans it should be the better term in the long-run. Though again, I do not have a big problem with “White”, particularly necessary to designate those of mixed European ancestry living outside of Europe.
I will draw the line on the contention that I am speaking in tongues when I insist upon an ecological and classificatory view.
Classification represents the mediation between Cartesian extremes: assertion of social classifications is what has been deprived us (Whites/Europeans) and what we need to restore (as a matter of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, as I always say – lets add operational verifiability).
More, the view of ecological classifications is particularly important as it directs attention to systemic depth, patterns, historical relations as naturally conservative aspects of our evolution and relation to natural environment.
This class of classifications of native Europeans, the White Class, classifies, primarily not hierarchically but horizontally, between peoples, and discriminates accordingly. With especial vigilance to the European/ non-European distinction. With that, unlike Hitler’s world view, the maintenance of all native European peoples and their distinct nations should fall within our interest group - we should not be fighting each other for territorial acquisition, to establish a master- slave relation, whatever.
We do not see Jews as a part of our interest group; but as a distinct pattern averse to our interests.
It is problematic that there are some who are not harmful to us, perhaps even helpful; nevertheless, they do not fall within our interest group. An individual Jew who may be different from the pattern is still classified as a Jew - a non-European.
Nevertheless, it is our agenda to separate and have sovereignty from Jews, and other non-Whites, not to exterminate them. That confers the moral high-ground upon us and theoretical innocence. Even as we know, in fact especially as we know, that they are not likely to simply leave us alone (note the trolling of Thorn, et. al - why don’t they go away? need to ask?); this position is particularly important to maintain in assertion of our will to peace, cooperation and warranted defense as it may come to declared war (instead of the undeclared war as it now is).
What to do about quarter Jews and one eighth Jews (as Lenin apparently was), is also problematic - not a simple concern.
However, MR is sufficiently nuanced to address these problems in our posts and commentary. That is among our merits - we are clear but not too simple.
We have a hermeneutic view, which circles between scientific rigor and comprehensive imagination as need be - particularly regarding our interests.
As for MacDonald endorsing Greg and Counter-Currents, I think that is proper on a couple levels. First, Greg is publishing some good and sincere work on our behalf. Second, that people not let anti-homosexuality override the good work that he has done and can do. Though coming from a more scientific perspective, MacDonald has a view regarding homosexuality that is largely aligned with what I see as reasonable - critical, discouraging, but not shrill, because it is not numerically sufficient a draw for our men to prioritize as a staple of concerned attention either.
Finally, they do have that kindred Nordic entering point that I’ve discussed, in addition to a bit of academic snobbery going on. KM and Johnson are PhD’s and scholars. Their drawing lines around that has valid and invalid points, good and bad sides.
As maintained, their scholarly and professional standards can always be pointed to against those who say that we do not have that on our side. More, it is not merely an artificial line. They are gifted and skilled to examine the literature and issues in an in-depth and competent manner.
However, it does have its drawbacks.
The mannerly protocol of professionalism binds them into logics that can be insensible.
For example, they will not use the “N” word because, they say, that would turn-off soccer moms among other “intelligent” and “educated” people.
But they will openly court those who fully endorse Hitler, as if that will not turn-off intelligent and educated people.
That is the kind of absurd and insensible contradiction that sheer logic and professional interface with the respectable public is susceptible to.
MacDonald and Sunic maintain that the only stereotype to avoid for White Nationalists is the vulgar skinhead. I have maintained that the wimpish (or yes, faggy) nerd, who will not say “N”, could be equally a turn-off. In advocating our group interest, they are insufficiently “othering” people who should be “othered” and over “othering” people who should not be “othered.”
There might be some susceptibility to that in Germanophiles or Nordicists as they may resort to their logical abilities in transcendence and to focus on themselves in relation to Jews (an over focus on the most intelligent and formidable adversary indeed, but conferring an undue measure of benign innocence on other non-Whites; while unduly pejoratizing other European peoples); as Germanics and Nordics have not evolved in interface with Africa, but in antagonisms with other Europeans and Jews; they escape there, take cover in not being “prejudiced” against blacks; allowing other Europeans to take the brunt of black reality. It can be a logical perspective which, for its insensibility, leads to an unmeasured narrowing of prejudice and overcompensating response. This might only be compounded by Christianity, Hitlerism and Jewish incitement.
For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way, with proper context, it does not turn me off, but tells me clearly that this person has sense, knows what they are talking about, organizes matters properly. That will resonate for others as well.
The largest reason why I do no use it here is because it is my understanding that it is literally illegal in some European nations. I am not an agent provocateur trying to lead people to jail, fines or other limitations on their effective advocacy.
I am not a “Professional.” That gives me some advantages and disadvantages. It does illustrate that I am not the all conquering world beater, who can succeed in just any circumstance - a man whose ability and will carried him to a PhD even in America’s multi-cult hell hole. It also means that I am not so insensible as to carry on by dint of sheer logic, “rise above” and ignore what I should not. I did embark upon a PhD, but I cannot say that I regret not contributing to America’s multicultural hell hole or not saying anything sufficiently critical of it - contributing to it or not saying anything critical of it having been two requirements to go ahead in American academia. Nevertheless, I did participate in the PhD program and audited it enough to get a good feel, if not understanding of things I need to know.
On the positive side, my “inability” to achieve a PhD reflects sensibility on my part, an unwillingness to ignore the destruction of our people that was imperviously entailed in the “hegemonic logics”, i.e. PC requirements, of a PhD.
A Philosophy PhD once said to me (even though not knowing me or much about me), that you cannot be a racist if you are going to be a PhD.
I responded, “that is why I do not want a PhD”
He smiled as he understood my reasoning automatically.
Nevertheless, admittedly, being unprofessional does have drawbacks. For example, over indulgence of vulgarity (in my defense, against people who were vulgar with me and having vulgar motives) because I don’t see the status to be lost in such association - which could cost us an interview, say, with Frank Salter, who in turn would not want to be associated with vulgarity. Still, those indulgences were before GW suggested that I might take over the wheel and steer MR’s direction.
In this case, I do have more responsibility to not drag GW’s project down, as it is a noble and beautiful one. Thus, I would try more to refrain from unnecessary vulgarity as it might send intelligent professionals away from helpful connection with us.
Even so, it has been my position and continues to be that Europeans need to be more assertive, not self transcendent and self censoring. I believe that there is an optimal balance between intellectualism and efficiently asserted prejudice - the N word, for example, can be very effective coming from a scholar or an intellectual on occasion. More, it will signal to people that one has sense, sense enough to see and organize the pattern for what it is - thus connecting to people who have to rely more on their senses, where they cannot figuratively escape in and through baroque logics; and where they cannot literally escape their inundated circumstances. It would confirm from high and authoritative places that indeed, these people are not to be intimately mingled with. They are not ok for your daughter.
But “no no no, musn’t refer to those people as N’s. We must care about their families and how Jews are misleading them.” Upchuck from up-in-the-head logical escape of “White Enterprises” that of all positions should know better and provide feedback protective of Whites. But no, “Newsome and Christian were in the wrong place, should have known better” - really?! (if you can believe it, “Father Francis” actually said that)
“What would constitute tasty and nutritious food to draw WNs into the MR parlor on a regular basis? What would affirm and strengthen their present White Nationalist orientation?”
I would submit the essay below, “The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1” as a good start
Note, MOB, that I do not consider or treat you as a troll, even though you have some disagreement with our editorial direction, you are different in being sincerely concerned with all Europeans and their significant distinctions.
Now that we have begun to clear away what and who we are not representing, we can begin to elaborate more and reach more for what and who we are representing.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 07:20 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, That Question Again, Thread Wars, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
Nick Griffin addresses EU Parliament, calling to account criminals behind EU immigration policy and their deceptive terms:
Posted by DanielS on Friday, March 14, 2014 at 11:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Law
A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?
Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”
It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”
The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction - including of human ecology.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 06:29 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Conservatism, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Origin of Man, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation
The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.
There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than genetics, of course. For example, Bowery might seek demonstrations of particular skills to confirm the type that he is looking for in his particular community. Lister would be correct to look for additional criteria beyond genetics and so on. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.
We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.
Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.
Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. Therefore, they do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.
This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, January 4, 2014 at 07:47 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Demographics, Education, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Psychology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The Euro-DNA Nation confronts the Wall Street Wolf
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 04:08 AM in Activism, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Political Philosophy, White Nationalism
Paul Weston’s blog: http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/
Liberty GB: http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/
Hat-tip to Morgoth
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses - i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.
Posted by DanielS on Friday, October 25, 2013 at 05:22 AM in Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, History, Marxism & Culture War, National Socialism, Political Philosophy, That Question Again, The American right, White Nationalism
Given the ‘ecological turn’ recently in this corner of cyberspace I recalled a thought that I had some time ago on using ecological concepts heuristically in connection to political analysis.
It was claimed that the devastation of the Third World by bankers creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. The retort was that this is a Judeo-Marxist canard used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. The retort added that parts of Africa in 1812 had yet to see the wheel, the implication being that Third world nations have been built or economically enhanced by the West. The retort also blames slaughters and devastation in the Third World on their natives alone.
Let’s see. Civilization shouldn’t be confused with economic security. An isolated hunter-gatherer tribe living in a jungle typically has sufficient food to eat, clothing and living structures; they are willing and able to provide for themselves. Whereas in a modern civilization such as the U.S., tens of millions are unable to provide food for themselves, in spite of being willing and able to work, and must depend on government handouts such as food stamps, and there are millions of homeless people.
The reason for the economic problems of Western nations is that malicious bankers issue and control money, which is also the case for nearly all Third World nations. So how does the Third world fare under banker control?
For a while now, this is how the international bankers have dealt with the Third World [some things apply to some Western nations also]:
Naturally, Third World nations will experience significant emigration pressures. Residents of some European nations will better understand what the Third World experiences when austerirty measures in their nations become more severe to pay the interests on loans they need from banks.
As of now, people are rioting over gas prices in Nigeria, but before one brings in the violence proneness of blacks, take a guess at what’s caused the rise and toward which purpose. One has to wonder how many other instances of rioting in Third World nations have their root cause in what the international bankers do, not in violence that would occur no matter what. These international bankers are behind numerous wars in the Western hemisphere, and they surely haven’t left the Third world in peace.
Notice that some black African nations are resource-rich but the masses live in poverty. Is this due to the corruption of their elite? They have corrupt elite, but if this were the reason, there would be lots of black billionaires [U.S. dollars] in some African nations, whereas the natural resource-related wealth is siphoned out by the international bankers, in the manner detailed above, and scraps, in comparison, are given to the corrupt elite.
People complain about me focusing on money and the community disproportionately controlling it when there are serious immigration issues to be discussed, but what’s causing the immigration issues? It takes more than merely opening Western borders to immigrants; Third Worlders need an incentive to emigrate en masse, too.
Will the masses be willing to go to a land far, far away where people speak a different language and have a very different culture if the masses have a reasonable income/sustenance where they live, and live in a relatively peaceful society? Will the masses be willing to give up the security of their existence for discordance, learning and re-learning skills in a foreign nation and the uncertainty of having a similar level of economic security there? These are important questions to reflect on. A desire to emigrate will be true of some individuals, but not the masses if there’s basic economic security [food, shelter, clothing, base medical facilities] and no warfare or civil strife.
But economic devastation provides a strong incentive for mass emigration pressure in the Third World. And thus we have the demand and supply of contemporary mass immigration into Western nations:
So is it wise to complain about immigration levels and focus on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims----like Amren, Vdare, the masses of the “alternative right” or “Third position” crowds----or is it wise to aim for the root cause, which lies in malicious bankers controlling the money supply? And is it wise to just focus on the money issue or also expose some of the other major crimes of these people, such as 9/11? They bring in all these immigrants to undermine ethnic cohesion in the West. Complaining about immigration doesn’t help and exacerbates division. But the money issue and 9/11 are of universal significance and unite the divided against the bankers. And some people complain of conspiracy and detraction from the important issues, such as immigration and multiculturalism, when 9/11 is brought up!
The number of whites stands at 500 million. White women on average give birth to 1.4 children each. Not all of these children are white, and the number of white children born per white woman on average is 1.2. Very pessimistic assumptions, aren’t they?
Under the following assumptions, how long will it take to reduce the white population to 50 million, 10 million, 5 million and 1 million? If the extinction point is reached at 500 white people, how many years will this take? What can be inferred from this exercise?
At start, the age distributions are as follows, the birth and death rates remain constant throughout, only women between the ages of 20-40 give birth, and men and women are matched in numbers.
Age-Range | Percent | Death rate per 100k 0-20 | 20 | 300 20-40 | 40 | 150 40-60 | 25 | 500 60-plus | 15 | 5000
Most answers in this excel sheet (if you can’t open it, install the free and open source open office or libre office suite).
Dams and the hydroelectric power stations that accompany them are being destroyed under phony environmental concerns.
The process in part achieves rural depopulation and increases the cost of rural habitation so that only the rich can live beyond the cities and suburbs: http://prfamerica.org/1998/LandForDams.html
More: http://morphcity.com/home/107-dam-liars-crooks-and-killers [be cautious with the rest of the website]
The uninhabited land will increasingly end up in the hands of bankers as governments owe them staggering amounts of debt that can’t be paid off as the bankers create debts out of nothing and the only money created by governments comprises of coins.
Cutting off a convenient source of electricity is another useful goal for the bankers as they can more easily disrupt the supply of fossil fuels used for generating electricity in a region, raising the cost of electricity or bringing the inhabitants to a grind if they protest too much against the banking system.
Follow the suggestions of prfamerica.org for property rights activism, and also target the money masters: http://www.majorityrights.com/money#implementation
by The Narrator
The tragic part is that this is actually a rosier picture than the reality. “Non-Hispanic white” is a category that includes millions of North Africans and middle-easterners.
So this news release is actually softening the blow. When these non-white children come of age in 15 years the older generation of Whites (who make up an increasingly sizable percentage of whites) will be rapidly dying out. As many who have read here before know, I’ve estimated the white population in America to be around 52 to 55% of the total population circa 2008/2010. So in 15 years the changeover will be even more dramatic than what has been experienced so far. Because, remember, all signs point towards a continuing flood of migrants and immigrants and refugees from the third world on top of the demographic projections based on those already here. Millions are pouring in every 12 months.
Officially, and I stress “officially”, so-called non-Hispanic whites are 63% of the population in 2010. In 2000 it was 69%. In 1990 it was 75%. That’s averaging a 6% drop every ten years. Or a 3% drop every 60 months.
Without going through all the math again, I’ll venture to guesstimate that by mid-century (39 years from now) whites will, optimistically, make up around 29% of the population of the United States. And it keeps getting worse from there, as non-whites reproduce like rabbits.
That means that if you are 25 years old today, by the time you are 75 years old whites may very well be no more than 19% of the population of America.
To give a further perspective here, if by some miracle we gained political influence in the next election cycle, increased our birthrates and stopped all immigration and deported all the illegals and refugees, we might be able to manage to be 40% of the population by mid century.
In other words, we’ve crossed the point of no return.
“White flight” is no longer an option. Go into any small town in rural America and you’ll be confronted by growing numbers of blacks and Hispanics. They’re seemingly doubling by the year (There are, after all, about 160 million non-whites in America now, so they’re naturally going to be everywhere).
To our north Canada is being overrun too, and to our south hundreds of millions more non-whites await their chance to pillage and plunder the US as well. Even our ancient homelands and strongholds in Europe are under assault and being swamped by enemies.
Recently there were so many high profile black on white mob assaults in multiple states and in a variety of settings that even the MSM was forced to cover it. Even if our people “Wake Up” now today, there is no going back to the safety and prosperity we’ve known. We are in a stage of rapid decline. There in no longer a safe haven or a fortified position into which to retreat. We are scattered and surrounded.
Whatever our future fortunes may be, we are now in a place unprecedented in human history. Thus the means by which we might extract ourselves from this situation will need be unprecedented as well.
We are in uncharted territory.
The coalition government, in its search for economies, is in the process of deciding to scrap the Office for National Statistics’ ten-yearly household census. It favours a piecemeal approach based on public and private databases.
Next year’s national Census cannot be stopped, but will be subject to unspecified economies. The implications for the content of the questionnaire, which currently allows “whites” to specify their ethnicity, the first box in this section being “English - Welsh - Scottish - Northern Irish - British”, and for the resultant database, due to be available from the middle of 2012, is now uncertain. Thereafter, it is difficult to see how information on ethnicity can be extracted from other databases. Country of birth, yes, but racial origin, no. The process of replacement cannot be accurately measured without that information, and that does not help us at all.
A Demographic Overview Of Whites Within The United States
By The Narrator
The following is a basic look at the demographics of White percentages by state(s) within regions. I’ve used general geographic definitions to cluster states that are, well, naturally clustered together. So, for example, my usage of the term “south-west” may not be what an American would necessarily concur with. But my compartmentalizing of the states is more functional and done with Europeans, Australians, etc in mind .... I hope it’s all clear.
The point here is not to advocate some sort of regional movement by saying this region is Whiter than that region. It is simply to provide basic information. Besides migration patterns can change quickly and what appears to be a doomed state or region today may be Whiter in years to come. And Whiter regions or states today may be dramatically less so in ten years time.
So this is a “Just the Facts” type of exercise.
The percentages here are not fixed and tend to fluctuate a point or two even within the Census material. We’ll know more after next year when the 2010 census begins. And I expect the news for us to be worse than some imagine. I hope I’m wrong.
A few things to keep in mind looking at these percentages is that they are based on estimates from 2007 by the Census Bureau, not concrete numbers. Also, the definition of white which the Census uses includes peoples from North Africa and the Middle-East. So it erroneously includes Jews, Arabs, Iranians, Turks etc, as “white”. And there are somewhere around 14 million of those peoples in America. Lastly, the numbers of illegals have been, by all accounts, rather obviously (and likely intentionally) underestimated.
So looking at these percentages, you could arguably subtract anywhere from 1 to 10 additional points from the percentage of Whites in some, or all, states.
With that said, here goes. The percentage of Whites will appear next to each state. At the bottom of each list will be a total average for that region, except with the single states and the District of Columbia which would be redundant.
The news that white Americans will be a minority has washed up at the Telegraph:-
The companion piece to this was last November’s “come-clean” by the UK Official of National Statistics, which forecast that population would rise to hitherto unmentioned levels. The Daily Mail, ever anxious to stoke the fires of righteous indignation, majored on the upper level of the forecast thus:-
Watching CNN last night, they had a special on Osama bin Laden that raised several interesting points on the so-called war on terror. One segment showed a Belgium jihadist going back to Afghanistan on bin Laden’s orders to kill a powerful warlord that was problematic to the Taliban, to gain the Taliban’s cooperation in allowing him to operate within their territory. But that was not the interesting part of the piece.
It also displayed how Islamists can martyr themselves so easily. This man’s wife, still in Belgium, was very proud of her husband’s sacrifice (though her face was veiled—maybe he desired release from her). She indicated that she was getting praise from her friends and kin, and she also received money from bin Laden. This makes this form of extremism much more difficult to comprehend, as Western morals do not allow suicide without bringing great shame and grief to friends and relatives. I know that one restraint for not lashing out at someone else violently, or even verbally in this politically correct world, is the fear of hurting my people. But what if violence was seen as honorable, with my family being proud of my actions? A very different set of circumstances emerges.
One of the more extraordinary documents relating to immigration is an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies by the unusual figure Fredo Arias-King, a Harvard MBA, a Sovietologist, and an advisor to Vicente Fox during his 2000 Presidential campaign. He was the first to point out to me that Fox’s first Foreign Secretary, Jorge G. Castanea’s mother, a Soviet woman working a the UN, might have been a Soviet spy.
Working for Fox, Arias-King met with 80 members of the U.S. Congress , and discussed immigration in detail with 50. Of those, 90% were enthusiastic about boosting immigration from Mexico.
Liam Byrne is not precisely a household name. If asked, the typical man on the street would probably have the vague idea that the man is either a rock singer or a perma-tanned TV-presenter. He is neither, but the Byrne family shouldn’t breath a sigh of relief just yet, for he is infact Britain’s immigration minister and he has an idea of his own: a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I cannot imagine that he will get much opposition in Parliament. Dave Cameron has already informed us that he intends to commit his party to support for open borders. The Lib Dems… when did you last hear about the Lib Dems opposing any pro-immigrant measure (when did you last hear about the Lib Dems, for that matter)? The press will probably be similarly supportive, throwing out cliches about our duty to be “compassionate”, “tolerant” and so on.
No, the cry of dissent will come not from our democratic institutions, but from a rather more venerable source, ole’ reality itself. The Daily Mail reports:
Some great stuff in there:
I bet the jewish number isn’t representative. They’re crafty enough to know better than to answer honestly. The same probably goes to a lesser extent for Mexicans. Blacks get a “get out of media spotlight free” card at birth so their figure is probably relatively accurate.
My series on ocean frontier fertility has discussed the potential for white population increase. It did not discuss the negative benefit of such frontiers: escape from the coming anthrocide—the die off of the vast majority of humanity most likely brought about by vectorism‘s promotion of virulence. Although large scale activity on the ocean frontier is long enough in the future to make this topic less than urgent, it is nevertheless timely as a university professor of ecology has, during a professional conference, praised the potential of a new strain of airborne Ebola that could kill 90% of the human population, receiving a standing ovation from fellow scientists. Shades of “Twelve Monkeys”. Current projections of pandemic deaths do not directly kill 90% of the world’s population, but during the next decades, vectorism’s pervasive growth of globalist reach may well provide sufficient virulence and transmissibility to achieve the professor’s goal—a time during which ocean frontiers may be developed and become relevant for demographic purposes.
Having previously discussed the theoretic global potential of iron fertilization to peacefully increase the population of whites, the immediate problem is how to bring this theoretic potential into actual practice in the near term. In all likelihood this new regime will be opened up in the same way other new regimes are opened: with high value products or services that are under increasing demand and/or decreasing availability. With over-harvesting of natural ocean fisheries and the increasing demand from growing Asian markets, a point is rapidly approaching where oceanic cultivation of some of the higher value products will be capitalized. This essay is about one such potential and how it can seed the iron fertilization potential for white population increase: Oceanic Cultivation of Bluefin Tuna.
Whites will soon become a minority in Birmingham and other major British cities, posing a “critical” challenge to social stability, Britain’s race relations watchdog has warned. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), says “tough decisions” will have to be made as Leicester then Birmingham, Oldham and Bradford become “plural cities” where no one race holds a demographic majority. The warning comes as government statistics show that white and ethnic minority communities are becoming increasingly segregated by growing population movement and immigration.
The prospects are great for ecologically imposed patriarchy enhancing the fertility of whites via oceanic frontiers. The majority of the earth’s surface remains not only uncultivated, but not biologically productive despite the presence of adequate sunlight and near-adequate nutrients. If recent experiments in iron fertilization of high nitrogen low chlorophyll oceanic surface regions are any indication, the primary ingredient lacking is the pioneering spirit that led to the cultivation and increased carrying capacity of the Anglosphere’s frontier territories: The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It is reasonable to expect that the Anglosphere alone could increase its numbers by a factor of 10, relatively unmolested by multicultural supremacists, during this pioneering renaissance and maintain if not improve the quality of their populations. Other, less sea-faring European peoples could enjoy smaller but nevertheless profound population and territorial relief. Moreover this population increase could be very rapid if the fertility rates of the United States frontier is any guide. This is a prospect that seems plausible in no other way short of world war.
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 11:19 PM in Demographics, European Nationalism, Globalisation, Libertarianism, Science & Technology, White Nationalism
It’s because of all those blacks and Hispanics they have around the place there of course
More than half of the women born during Japan’s second postwar baby boom from 1971 to 1974 had not had any children by age 30, according to statistics released Friday by the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry.
Coupled with an earlier prediction that the number of women of childbearing age—15 to 49—will continue to decline over the coming decade or more, the ministry is concerned that the fall in the birthrate will accelerate.
In The Return of Patriarchy Foreign Policy’s Phillip Longman opines:
And I would add that no advanced white civilization has yet endured for the simple reason that none has learned what makes Europeans fertile.
As I’ve often pointed out before, there are two big exceptions to the decline of total fertility rates among whites, exemplified in the United States by Utah and Alaska. These two States correspond to the ancient dichotomy between socially imposed monogamy and ecologically imposed monogamy respectively. Utah has socially imposed male authority (via Mormonism which posits a father as priest to his family) and Alaska has ecologically imposed male authority. It is the latter that is the more natural for whites and it is why abandonment of the pursuit of frontiers, as occurred in 1972, is so destructive to white fertility. By frontiers I’m referring to physical, not political, frontiers. Although fighting wars can affect the operational sex ratio (unmated males/unmated females) in a way that enhances white fertility, it is a terminal euphoria, as shown by the post WW II baby boom generation. The frontiers I’m talking about increase the carrying capacity of a territory as happened in Europe during the retreat of the glaciers, during the neolithic, or during the expansion of North American crop cover. Although I’ve walked my talk for a long time now to open up space as a frontier, the wheels of the gods are now turning slowly in the right direction for the long journey there and it is time to pursue more immediate concerns. That is what this series of messages on “Ocean Frontier Fertility” will be about.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa