|
|
Learning identity politicsThe following quote from Frank Salter is found in the first edition of “On Genetic Interests”, pages 189-190:
So ... it is in our interest to make sure multiculturalism does NOT work.
A few points about multiculturalism:- A. Multiculturalism is leading to the genetic displacement of European-derived peoples. B. In my opinion, the single most important passage in Salter’s book is when he stresses that multiculturalism that “works” is worse for the majority ethny than multiculturalism that does not work (see quote above). In the former case, successful multiculturalism means that the Establishment is smoothly managing the subordination, displacement and eventual replacement of the majority native ethny. The more it “works” the deeper is the hole the majority group finds itself in. However, multiculturalism that does not work leads to ethnic-racial balkanization, ethnic-racial conflicts and frictions, etc. – all of which tend to “wake up” the native ethny to the displacement process, and all of which disrupt the managed transition to genetic replacement. As an analogy imagine two fatal diseases, both of which are curable but only if treated in the early stages. The first disease is completely painless and symptom-free during this early stage; the victim feels great. The second disease causes great pain and other discomfort during the initial stage. It is likely that the first disease will go undiagnosed until it is too late. It is likely that the unpleasantness of the second disease will provoke the victim to get early medical attention, leading to a cure. The same with multiculturalism. When “everyone gets along” and “enjoys diversity” or values “high-IQ skilled Asian immigration” the native majority ethny may well not react to its displacement until too late, when its numbers and its hold on the political process is so diminished that the process of displacement is completely irreversible. However, when there is increasing balkanization and friction the problems inherent in multiculturalism become more obvious and may motivate majority members to organize to defend their genetic interests. C. Salter observes that in practice multiculturalism is predicated upon the passivity and aracial indifference of the majority ethny and the aggressive mobilization and “identity politics” of minorities. If and when the majority begins practicing identity politics and begins mobilizing on an ethnic/racial level, then the multicultural regime becomes untenable. Multiculturalism is not possible in the face of a determined, organized, ethnically/racially-aware majority. If this obtains then what you have is, essentially, an ethnic state (with subordinated minorities, until they leave) - not a multicultural state. This is recognized by the Establishment and is one key reason for the double standards on race that exist in “western” nations, ie white activism is suppressed and non-white activism is either allowed or actually encouraged. The system built upon multiculturalism resists the one thing – majority group identity politics and group mobilization - capable of undermining the whole edifice. Huntington realizes this too, which is why he warns against white identity politics in his recent works – such would undermine the “creedal nation” that Huntington wants. So, a multiculturalism that does not work is the goal, and Point C suggests how this can be achieved in a completely peaceful manner … Once whites begin to organize on the basis of ethnic/racial identity, the multicultural project is on the skids. Friction increases. Different peoples recognize their different interests. Cooperation becomes more difficult. Even heretofore superficially pleasant inter-group personal relationships may begin to break down. People, including members of the white majority (gasp! horrors!!), begin to think of themselves predominantly in racial terms. Group identity trumps “values.” Balkanization – already underway due to the hyper-aggressiveness of minority activism – will increase exponentially. Majority mobilization will presumably be viewed as “unacceptable” by minority activists, who view such as their monopoly – “how dare Whitey act as if he has the same rights as us!” The more the minority groups get their noses twisted out of joint, the more this demonstrates to whites that the differences of interests are immense. On the other hand, even if the other side tries to ignore white mobilization, in the hopes that it will quietly go away, that’ll give the white mobilizers a chance, without interference, to go about their business of building the initial foundations of their movement. For, as long as the multicultural state exists whites will have legitimate grievances upon which to build the movement of majority group mobilization. Minority group complaints may provoke a quicker growth of majority mobilization, but it will grow nonetheless. Minority-based balkanization – within limits - can be acceptable to the Establishment as long as the majority is quiescent. But, once the majority itself rejects the basic tenets of multiculturalism – their passivity and rejection of a specific identity – the regime has a major problem. A multiculturalism that does not work or has ceased to do so can never be repaired. When breaking point is reached people of all races – but especially the majority – will search for another vehicle for their group interests. The get this process underway some part of the majority must begin to identify on a racial basis. If a certain “critical mass” can be achieved, the point between “working” and “not working” is tipped and the fissure lines will significantly deepen. A large number of majority members saying “no” to the multicultural experiment will render the issue of forming an ethno-state respectable, perhaps even inevitable. Of course, the Establishment will attempt to short-circuit this. It is already tougher in Europe with the laws they have (which is why the same is attempted here – outlawing free expression). But in the USA there is more room for maneuver. Groups like the EAIF are a great start – moderate in tone but very specific and aggressive in stating that they represent European-Americans – not “all Americans”, but specifically, our people. And when things get bad enough in Europe – as they have already done to some extent in the Netherlands – people will begin to organize along identity lines, even with the Establishment frowning upon them. Thus, we should not “all get along.” We should peacefully, legally, rationally and consistently organize ourselves in a group-specific manner. We should utterly reject a color-blind “American identity” and pursue objectives that advantage our people. We need to reject the passivity that multiculturalism demands of us and instead insist on group rights and group interests. Multiculturalism has contempt for the majority, but it needs the majority to “behave itself.” To the extent that the majority cooperates, the contempt is justified. The majority should not”, by their passivity, “enable the very system that is causing their subordination and displacement. Thus balkanization … and why it is crucial. Balkanization and majority group mobilization can promote each other in a “feed forward” positive feedback loop, as long as the process is done in a reasonable manner. Unreasonable hyper-radical activity not only hinders mobilization by turning off reasonable people, but it impairs proper balkanization as well. The side-show freakish elements do more to bring people together in mutual dismay at their antics than drive people apart based upon a realization of irreconcilable differences of interests. For the latter, a sane, responsible and mature methodology is definitely required. Now, non-whites and white leftists will in general be against any white mobilization, regardless of whether it brings balkanization or not. But there are some groups – apart from, of course, the multicultural Establishment itself – who will be particularly hard-hit by balkanization. Mixed-race families may well have a hard time in this “new world.” Privileged, upper-tier minority groups (elite free-riders) also will be expected to have problems, since these are those who a) have the most interactions with whites, and b) are on the top of the human energy pyramid and thus have the most to lose from this process. For example, South Asian academics who are insulted that the cognitive elitist Jared Taylor would eschew them on a racial basis will surely find it unpleasant when other highly educated, intelligent whites begin to put race first and look upon the academics in question merely as “aliens”. Here are some suggestions for anybody interested in starting the process of eroding the multicultural state:- 1. Stop thinking of yourselves as “Americans.” A baby born to an illegal who just crossed the border is an “American” too. A just naturalized Hindu who had spent his formative years bathing in the Ganges is an “American”. The term no longer has any valid meaning, particularly for whites who are disgruntled with the direction the nation is going. So - you are not “Americans.” European-Americans, yes. Whites, yes. “Americans”, no. Stop ‘enabling’ the constitutional patriots by accepting a CP version of identity. The first step toward the freedom of balkanization is for the majority group to accept and promote a specific group identity separate from that of an over-arching state-national identity. 2. No more loyalty to the state that is oppressing us and undermining our group interests. Do whatever is minimally required to comply with law – eg, pay taxes – but do nothing beyond this. View the current American state as an unjust occupier of the nation. This state has enormous coercive power, so one must comply with the minimal legal requirements of the state. But do not volunteer anything for it beyond that. 3. Practice ethnic nepotism to the extent possible under the legal constraints of the multicultural state apparatus. 4. Relations with non-ethnics should be reserved, and coolly polite. On the one hand, to comply with the state apparatus and for common decency, one must certainly eschew unprovoked overt hostility. So, as suggested – be polite, reserved, and engage, when required, in coolly respectful interaction (assuming you are treated with respect in return). But: NO interpersonal warmth, no interactions above and beyond the absolute minimum required for function. Do not make “the other” welcome or comfortable. Do not ‘enable’ multiculturalism by fostering an a-racial family atmosphere. Whites who are against their own (and our) group interests should be treated with the same coolly polite reserve. They are not “us” either. 5. Support those activists who support our ethny and who do so in a sane, reasonable manner so as to attract more mainstream support. The ultra-fanatics are such that they actually can impede balkanization, because they make reasonable whites join with non-whites (and white leftists) in their mutual scorn for the swastika-wavers and other numb-nuts. But, an intelligent, rational, and serious pursuit of white group interests – in explicitly racial terms – may be such that enhanced balkanization is inevitable. The MR blog itself – perhaps with certain Neocon exceptions – fits in well with this methodology. This kills two birds with one stone: by pursuing an explicitly pro-white agenda in an intelligent and mature manner, not only is the agenda itself (whatever that may be at a given time) advanced, but there is a “heightening of the contradictions” of the multicultural society, a delineation of incompatible interests between groups, an increased awareness of racial difference – all of which contributes to balkanization. Whites would no longer be part of the passive “background” of a multicultural America, but instead a separate group demanding that its ethnic needs be met. Oh yes, and we need more public advocacy. Monthly and quarterly magazines like AR and TOQ are great. But we need a news-feed that is not filtered through the mainstream media worldview. We need weeklies and a daily paper. We would also benefit from an explicitly pro-white political platform. The unlikely (for now) possibility of electoral victory is not the issue. Aside from bringing matters of concern to the public forum and recruiting new activists, a political platform would benefit us by showing that white Americans have legitimate group interests separate from “American state interests” and separate from the interests of “other Americans”. Such a platform could only lend impetus to balkanization and must, therefore, be worthwhile. So, within the confines of legality and reasonable, decent behaviour, the prescription for European-derived peoples in multicultural societies is to do everything possible to enhance the racial balkanization of that society. In a feed-forward mechanism more white group mobilization will result in more balkanization, which in turn creates the conditions for more group mobilization, and so forth. But … one must begin somewhere. One must create the initial hairline fissures, if one wishes to see the maliciously anti-white edifice crumble. Posted by JW Holliday on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 08:42 AM in Political analysis Comments:2
Posted by Geoff Beck on June 14, 2005, 09:28 AM | # Father Bush with his own kind? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/3054368.stm 3
Posted by JW Holliday on June 14, 2005, 09:51 AM | # Stuka, Thanks for the kind words about the post. I agree with you, whites are the most loyal to the regime. Whites are the primary target of the ‘constitutional patriotism’ propaganda (in high gear after 9/11). As well, T think, there is some ‘nostalgia’ involved. I know a number of Bush voters who still think of America as a ‘white country’, the same republic created by the Founding Fathers. These are usually the same people though who constantly complain about non-white immigration, race, anti-white double standards, etc. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. Non-whites labor under no such illusions; they are simply here to milk America for all it is worth. Perhaps, a fraction of the white flag wavers may one day realize their error. 4
Posted by JW Holliday on June 14, 2005, 09:53 AM | # Given that opinion polls may be used to influence opinion itself, such polls, if properly constructed, and if well publicized can work wonders for what is discussed here. It seems that many Americans are turning against the Iraq war. Why not a poll to discern to what extent different groups of “Americans” feel this way? Is it possible that one group in particular is still in favor of a substantial US involvement in Middle East affairs? Perhaps the reason for such an opinion can be teased out of an opinion poll as well? There are also, I would think, significant group differences on subjects like affirmative action, immigration, US relations to various foreign countries, etc. Various incidents - eg, the US-China spy plane row or the Wen Ho Lee case - can be used to underline the fundamental fault lines that exist in the “wonderful mosaic of American diversity.” Indeed, if “diversity” is so wonderful, why not let us see the diversity of opinions that “just happen to” correlate with racial distinctions? Such would be very informative. 5
Posted by Matra on June 14, 2005, 01:57 PM | # Fascinating post. On the question of giving up “American” it seems to this foreign observer you are discarding one of your best weapons. We’ve seen the power of patriotic symbols and the attachment the average white American has to his Americanism. It was whites who settled the colonies, came up with the declaration of independence, fought the British, settled the West, and, in general, built the country. With white Americans still seeing themselves as the natural inheritors of the nation their ancestors built I don’t think it would be wise to give up their “American” label and to adopt the word “white” as the latter would conjure up KKK and Nazi images in the minds of the majority. It would be better to draw a distinction between the American nation and the American state, government, popular culture, etc, as the latter are hostile to the authentic American nation. Constantly point out that it is the American state that refuses to defend America’s borders, panders to foreign lobbyists and immigrants, enforces affirmative action and, yes, waters down the meaning of the word American. Given that there is already widespread resentment about such matters why not take advantage of it whilst making sure the GOP is added to the list of those who are enemies of the real American nation? After all, the GOP can’t get elected without the flag waving whites. I don’t see how alienating the jingo crowd is going to help your cause. It can’t be that difficult to convince them that they are losing their country and that the entire establishment, including the GOP, is against them. Besides the more a white exclusivist group claims the symbols of America the more it will nauseate the ethnic majorities and leftists who may then cease to identify with such patriotic accessories thus making Americanism and white virtually one in the same to the public. Look at the Confederate flag. I’ve seen it in old music videos of leftist performers who today wouldn’t be caught dead anywhere near it because it has taken on a new meaning in the last two decades. It may be fairly easy to isolate those who carry the symbols of the Confederacy (in part because to some it carries a whiff of treason) but I can’t see American patriotism ever becoming something that alienates the white masses. But it can certainly alienate Mexicans, Asians, blacks, etc. 6
Posted by Matra on June 14, 2005, 02:05 PM | # As for adopting the word “European”. Heck even in liberal Canada the word often conjures up negative images. This is especially the case in white small towns where “European” generally doesn’t even include the British or Irish. It generally means non-Anglophone white people who take dives in ice hockey games, vote socialist, look down their noses at all North Americans, and, strangely, have a propensity towards homosexuality! I suspect the image of the word European is worse in the US especially in the aftermath of Gulf War II. 7
Posted by seelow heights on June 14, 2005, 02:08 PM | # Maybe a moratorium should be declared on references to the German regime of 1933-1945 and its relevance to broader issues. Think how extraordinary and extreme the chain of circumstances were that brought Hitler to power: (1) defeat in war with an undefeated army, (2) continuation of a murderous blockade until the German government signed the highly punitive Versailles treaty, (3) Red Munich and the Sparticist uprising, (4) hyperinflation, (5)the Great Depression, (6)governmental paralysis largely brought about by a hyperdemocratic election system that mitigated against the formation of parliamentary majorities, and (7) the internal threat of the KPD and the external threat of the Soviet Union, (8) last but not least the inept backroom dealing of Franz Von Papen. And, of course, neither Hitler nor the NSDAP ever got a majority before Hitler became Chancellor. 8
Posted by seelow heights on June 14, 2005, 02:13 PM | # I should have included a separate item for the Versailles Treaty itself. 9
Posted by JW Holliday on June 14, 2005, 03:29 PM | # Matra, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. While you make some good points, my perspective is that white Americans have been so completely contaminated by constitutional patriotism that I, for one, do not wish to use a generic “Americanism” as any sort of rallying cry. Now, don’t misunderstand my position. Of course, we should use the symbols and history of traditional America - the American flag and not any foreign symbol (note to the neo-nutzis!) is what should be displayed at rallies. However, my attitude is that the “conservative Americans” had their chance to save a unified traditional America in the 1960s and 1970s and failed to do so - one could make an argument that the failure to listen to guys like Lindbergh in the 1930s was the real turning point in the loss of America. Well…regardless of when America was lost, it was so lost. The things that will need to be done to salvage European-American genetic (and proximate as well) interests go far, far beyond any sort of the “reforms” that can incorporate moderate “Americanism.” I see it as better to put the elementary cards on the able now. If we are clear now that by “American”, for example, we mean only European-Americans, and that our identity - whatever name you wish to call it - is based upon the ethny, then those who support our cause will know from the beginning what it is about. Watering down the message at the beginning to try to appeal to a larger group cannot sustain over a period of time. Either the “movement” will be compromised beyond recognition by all the “moderation” or the “moderates” will bolt from the group when “the true face” is “revealed.” Better to show the true face at the start. The “true face” is NOT hyper-radical numb-nutism - the true face is Salterism without apologies. So, in summary, I am concerned that emphasizing “Americanism” too much will be counter-productive. The aim should be to divide on a racial basis, not unite on an “ideals” basis. The problem is not so much that non-whites will be attracted to “Americanism”, but that “Americanism” (as has already happened) has within it the seeds of constitutional patriotism – for whites. If what we mean by American is white American, then that’s what we mean. If we are not explicit about that, then we’ll get all sorts of Asiatics with their “how dare you say I’m not an American” CPism, and we’ll be right back we’re we are started. So, yes, the flag, the Alamo, Washington and Robert E. Lee - that’s all fine. But an attempt to “save America” - the herd needs to hear some hard truths. They lost the country their forefathers built, they had better make an attempt to save themselves as a race. If the flag-wavers don’t want to hear that now, then they’ll be forced to hear it later - when the corpse of American begins to stink. Just because America’s grave-diggers have done a good job of covering up the stink with their perfume of ‘patriotism’ and “CPism” doesn’t mean that the country isn’t already dead. Let the rot progress a bit more, and the stink will become more obvious. 10
Posted by JW Holliday on June 14, 2005, 03:38 PM | # I agree with Seelow that the German thing is overdone. I think that even German nationalists should stop harping about all of that and concentrate on issues now (although I realize that there is a relationship between the two, but still…). As regards Americans, it is even more obvious. Matra: but can’t see American patriotism ever becoming something that alienates the white masses ... But that reverses the point. It is not that American patriotism will alienate the white masses…it is that it is too seductive, and is manipulated to get guys like Pat Tillman to die for guys like Paul Wolfowitz. Patriotism for the American of Washington and As regards European….unfortunately, I see no other word. “Aryan” is absurd (vague and reeking of “nazism”), “white” is too vague, etc etc. Yes, I know that in a nation so immature that “French Fries” are renamed “Freedom Fries” that the average white moron may initially recoil from “European.” But, we need not aim at the average moron now. The average moron is a herd animal that goes in whatever direction seems appropriate. Despite some weak natural ethnocentrism, the instincts of the average white cud-chewer is overwhelmed by the multicult propaganda machine, by CPism, and by the very public humilations of guys like John Rocker. If we can get, however, a thoughful minority on our side, and do so in a sustainable manner, and show the herd that, yes, there IS an alternative to multiracial “ideal” Americanism, and, yes, guys like Taylor and Calabro are not nutcases, and, yes, maybe the herd instinct can move in another direction. So, yes, with the Neocon’s sneering at Europe as the “axis of weasel” and so forth, and with “Freedom Fries”, the average American football fan will also mimic his masters and sneer at “European.” However, if the European roots of white Americans can be portrayed in a positive light by the more intelligent minority of our people, the herd may notice. 12
Posted by Geoff Beck on June 14, 2005, 05:09 PM | # > American question Maybe JW is right. the Pre-WWII American, and a post WWII ‘American’ are totally different animals. I am a pre-WWII American, but is this really an American anymore? 13
Posted by Lurker on June 14, 2005, 07:45 PM | # Saying this as an outsider - isnt 1965 a watershed as much as WW2? 14
Posted by Geoff Beck on June 14, 2005, 07:58 PM | # 1965 is a good date, culturally speaking. Though the Empire has its beginnings after WWII. 15
Posted by John S Bolton on June 14, 2005, 08:37 PM | # Isn’t it incorrect to assume that our officials and their professoriate want less racial conflict, rather than more? They are clearly anticaucasian, but that doesn’t mean that they actually like other races or want them to win. The officials want power; that is why they play the power game rather than something else, like getting land for their minorities. A new nation, White America, is the expected result of government managed conflict which boils over to the point of civil war and dictatorship. If we have policies which increase such conflict every year, and which are never reversed, what else can happen? 16
Posted by Stuka on June 14, 2005, 08:44 PM | # If what we mean by American is white American, then that’s what we mean. If we are not explicit about that, then we’ll get all sorts of Asiatics with their “how dare you say I’m not an American” CPism, and we’ll be right back we’re we are started. Yes, agreed. That’s personally how I approach the issue, although my rebuttals to the inevitable “American doesn’t equal white!” reactions could be stronger. Truth is, there doesn’t seem to be much in the historical literature to bolster our case. I’m certain that until very recently the word American meant white; even today, most of my European and Aussie friends think white when they think American. I remember Jared Taylor posting an article replete with quotes from the Founding Fathers and others on this score. 17
Posted by JW Holliday on June 15, 2005, 08:45 AM | # For example: 18
Posted by Cashanova123 on June 16, 2005, 05:41 PM | # Great article, but I think that white Americans need to feel like they can use the words “Constitution” and “American” WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. We NEED our culture. Without it, there’s no way we can get excited about saving our race. I mean, do we (white Americans) really care that much about saving Germany, or England? As far as most European-Americans are concerned, our culture is just as important as our race, if not more so. I don’t know how many “WWII Americans” are going to get really riled up and patriotic when they hear the word “white”. The term “constitutional patriotism” doesn’t HAVE to include Asians or Mexicans. I’m not an expert on the document, but I don’t think it says anything about open borders. And when the Asian fellow you mentioned says, “Hey, how dare you say I’m not American?”, you ask him how many of his descendants helped write those important documents. Once again, GREAT article. Next entry: 7,000-year-old temples press Europe’s claim to the oldest civilisation Previous entry: Follow the Aka men? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) zhrcwuwmkq commented in entry 'The end of Mel Gibson's career?' on 05/23/12, 11:46 PM. (go) (view) SEO Services commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/23/12, 11:11 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/23/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) Cockouche commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 09:40 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/23/12, 08:41 PM. (go) (view) GlablePax commented in entry 'University official sentenced for child porn, blackmail' on 05/23/12, 08:23 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) cuiseur automatique seb commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/23/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Srakotraqu commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 07:30 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:19 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 06:26 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Stuka on June 14, 2005, 09:18 AM | #
JW, many thanks for an excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly with points 1) to 5). The biggest obstacle I anticipate is getting whites to stop thinking of themselves as American. Sadly it’s whites themselves who tend to be the most loyal to the current regime, and who display aggressive patriotism and hostility to the idea of “hyphenated Americans.”