Posted by tommy on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 03:47 | #

The only problem is that, contrary to popular belief, the sinking of the RMS Lusitania wasn’t nearly as important in propelling America into the First World War as was the exposure of the Zimmermann Telegram.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:57 | #

It was Wilson, most likely with the encouragement of Balfour who:

a) Years before Zimmermann’s Telegram, initiated hostilities with Germany, and
b) For years up until Zimmermann’s Telegram, lied about it after the sinking of the Lusitania.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:08 | #

Tommy, since you like to connect dots, please connect these dots:  the Zionists, The Balfour Declaration, the U.S.‘s entry into the 1914 war.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:00 | #

The reason I call it the 1914 war is before the 1917 entry of the U.S. it wasn’t WW I yet, so I needed another name for it.  Anyone know what its name was during its first three years?  What did people call it before it became a “world war” in 1917?  When I lived in French-speaking Europe (till the early ‘80s) WW I used to get called “La Guerre de Quatorze-Dixhuit” far more often than it was called “La Première Guerre Mondiale.”  (Those mean, respectively, “The ‘14-‘18 War” and “The First World War.”)  “La Première Guerre Mondiale” was decidely rare:  it was essentially always “La Guerre de Quatorze-Dixhuit” that you heard people say.

Posted by Diamed on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:08 | #

I thought everyone knew the Lusitania was a setup and the germans were in the right.  The fact that it was carrying arms was well known to everyone.  I guess officials were still denying any such thing.  And I guess this proof digged up straight from the site will disappear down the memory hole while the officials still deny any responsibility.  Isn’t it fun knowing hundreds of thousands of Americans died for a lie?  It makes you wonder what other lies were told about Germany during wartime.  Like, say, the Holocaust. . .

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:30 | #

More dots:

Teddy Roosevelt, winning a Nobel Prize for the effort, forces concessions from the Czar after Russo-Japanese War, in which Jacob Schiff organised a loan for the Japanese Navy. Under TR’s admin the National Monetary Commission was organised, co-chaired by Schiff. Moreover, Schiff organised an attempted boycott against the Czar for earlier pogroms. In addition Schiff was Paul Warburg’s brother-in-law.

Samuel Untermyer was the government attorney for the Pujo Committee, and ultimately recommended the passing legislation that would become the Federal Reserve Act, signed into law by Wilson. “Mr. Untermyer advocated the Zionist liberation movement and was President of the Keren Hayesod, the agency through which the movement was then and still is conducted in America[6]”.In addition, Schiff and Untermyer were supporters of Wilson’s 1912 election campaign, in which Wilson won with only 42% of voter support because Teddy Roosevelt campaigned as a Progressive, splitting the Republican vote, and denying Taft a potential victory.

Paul Warburg was an advocate for a central bank in the United States and was chosen by President Woodrow Wilson to serve as one of the first members of the Federal Reserve Board.

Wilson also opposed the literacy test until Congress finally overturned his veto.

Posted by Wanderer on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:22 | #

The Zimmermann Telegram itself is widely considered today to have been a hoax.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:52 | #

Let me try connecting a few of Desmond’s dots:

Schiff was Paul Warburg’s brother-in-law. [...] Schiff and Untermyer were supporters of Wilson’s 1912 election campaign, in which Wilson won with only 42% of voter support [...].  Paul Warburg was [...] chosen by President Woodrow Wilson to serve as one of the first members of the Federal Reserve Board.

OK, so Schiff appointed Wilson president, then Wilson turned around and appointed Schiff’s bother-in-law Warburg to the Federal Reserve.

Hey I think I’m getting the hang of this!

Posted by Rollory on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:08 | #

The Zimmermann Telegram itself is widely considered today to have been a hoax.

On what evidence?

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:43 | #

Although I can’t quote chapter and verse, Zimmermann himself is widely believed to have admitted he penned the telegram.  Otherwise it is quite plausible that British espionage was responsible for the telegram.  All quite strange… but beside the point:

The Wilson administration unconstitutionally initiated hostilities against Germany and then lied about it.

Posted by Wanderer on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:48 | #

The Zimmermann Telegram itself is widely considered today to have been a hoax.

On what evidence?

Where is the evidence that Belgian babies were not actually bayoneted en-masse by angry German shock troops in 1914? That, too, was a complete fabrication.

Wartime fabrications tend to be funny things. The telegram was produced without evidence in the first place.

The most curious thing about the Zimmermann Note is: It was conveniently authored (and promptly discovered by British Intelligence) at exactly the most opportune possible time: In the days after Wilson’s second inauguration. (The timing strongly suggests a British forgery, since Wilson would be more open to war right after re-election, with some prodding. OTOH, Zimmermann authoring this note immediately after Wilson had just won re-election on the slogan “He Kept Us Out Of the War”, that just makes no sense at all…)

The German foreign minister [Zimmermann], later on, did not deny that he would offer Mexico an alliance, if the USA ever declared war on it. But whether an actual secret telegram intended for Mexico was ever dispatched or not, that is another question altogether. No evidence within Germany itself was ever uncovered to confirm the story. We have the British transcript of the “intercepted”, but not the original in German. And supposedly evidence quietly emerged in 1967 [when secret state records were released, 50 years on] that British intelligence had likely forged the note, as had been suspected all along by many. Someone else may know more about that.

Posted by Wanderer on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:51 | #

More on Zimmermann and Lusitania: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1N56KMHFTE7OH

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:24 | #

The fact that the Lusitania was carrying arms is pretty much an “open secret” to this day.  Mainstream, “respectable” historians, such as Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, mention it in passing; and of course minimize the implications of it.  According to them, it was all worth, all that blood, all that sacrifice, the forces of fascism, and eventually communism, were defeated so that all of Gaia’s Children can enjoy the blessings of buying cheap junk at Walmart.  Gee, thanks Niall, thanks Andrew; that’s deep.  What a waste of two good goys.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:58 | #

In this video,

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2008/12/28/israel-letat-le-plus-raciste-au-monde-israel-the-most-racist-state-in-the-world/

at 4 min 30 sec into it President Bush announces his “biggest regret” was “being mistaken about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction,” and he blames his “mistake” on “bad intelligence,” saying with a laugh, “that’s not a do-over but I wish the intelligence had been different.”  (Notice how this sociopath dismisses his crime which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, tortured thousands, killed and maimed thousands of Americans, hanged Saddam Hussein, wrought untold infrastructure destruction and social disruption, etc., by saying with a laugh, “that’s not a do-over but I wish the intelligence had been better.”  That’s it.  No remorse. 

It’s all a game to him.

Now, does everyone believe his administration “made an honest blunder due to bad intelligence”?  Robert Baer doesn’t.  Baer was CIA chief for Iraq until he resigned in 1995.  His reaction to Bush’s comments start at 5 min 00 sec in this video.  Right after the clip showing Bush’s comments you can hear Baer saying, “Non.  Il ment.  Il ment.  Cent pour cent.”  (“No.  He’s lying.  He’s lying.  One hundred percent.”) 

Robert Baer:

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

Woodrow Wilson lied to get us into WW I which was none of our business.  Roosevelt lied to get us into WW II which was none of our business.  Bush lied to get us to declare war on Iraq, his real motivations, it turns out, centering on issues that were none of our business.  Is there a common thread here?

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:56 | #

Here is a video in which Niall Ferguson discusses what a smart guy he is, as well as what a good goy he is, with [j]ew Harry Kreisler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtEwupxygBo&eurl=http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-305&p=niall+ferguson&SpellState=n-1047191171_q-nTsRpC4AFLZT

Starting at minute 21:45 Fergie discusses: How the exigencies of war “inadvertently” lead to four state constructed institutions which Kreisler dubs the “power square”.

The “power square”:

a) tax collecting bureaucracy

b) representative assembly

c) central bank

d) financial market in which national debt can be financed

According to Niall “The Economist” Ferguson, war may suck, but sometimes good stuff does come out of it.  Like the institutions and mindset by which race traitors (e.g., Ferguson) and Jews (e.g., Kreisler) can steamroll Whites with race-replacement immigration with a clear conscience. 

“All that glitters is not gold; cheap Walmart junk has a high-buffed sheen too.”

SCREW YOU FERGUSON!

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:44 | #

Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

Divers found munitions years ago.

Posted by tommy on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:03 | #

Although I can’t quote chapter and verse, Zimmermann himself is widely believed to have admitted he penned the telegram.  Otherwise it is quite plausible that British espionage was responsible for the telegram.

Yes, you are correct. Zimmermann did admit to penning the telegram and, no, no serious historian of whom I am aware believes the telegram to be a hoax.  (Unlike claims that the Lusitania was carrying munitions—something suspected by a fair number of historians.)  It is certainly at least a small mystery as to why Zimmermann would ‘fess up, but then it is also a bit of mystery as to why Hitler kept his pact with Japan and declared war on the United States following Pearl Harbor thus giving the Roosevelt a pretense to involve the U.S. directly on the European front.  Yet, no one would accuse Hitler of being an agent for British intelligence.

Let us suppose that it was all a setup.  If that were true, then Zimmermann must have been in on it.  I don’t see much evidence that Zimmermann was a British spy.  He doesn’t strike me as an Anglophile—he tried to aid Irish revolutionaries against the Brits in 1914.  I don’t believe Zimmermann was anything other than a loyal, if occasionally zany, German diplomat, but if one were to theorize on a foreign connection, then the Bolsheviks would be a better candidate. Zimmermann aided Lenin’s cohort in returning to Russia and negotiated the withdrawal of Russia from the war.  Still, the most plausible explanation for Zimmermann’s willingness to aid the Russian Communists lies in Germany’s war aims: with the Communists in power, Russia was out of the game, and the military threat on Germany’s Eastern Front vanished.  For Germany, it was a short-term victory; for the West altogether, it was a long-term blunder.

Posted by Homelander on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:04 | #

Taking everything into account, there seems little reason to doubt the judgment of most people at the time - that Jews were mostly pro-German, even more pro-Ottoman and most-of-all anti-Russian. They just didn’t run the world back then. It was Anglo-Saxon elites that pulled America into WWI and, for that matter, created the Federal Reserve.

Posted by Fr. John on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:25 | #

‘Hey I think I’m getting the hang of this!’- Fred
‘Is there a common thread here?’ - Fred

YUP. ONE WORD.

Jews.

http://thewhitechrist.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/the-evils-of-the-jews/

Class dismissed.
Vaya con Dios. (Cuz we’re gonna need it!)

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:19 | #

An informative article from the viewpoint of guys like Homelander.

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:51 | #

It was Anglo-Saxon elites that pulled America into WWI and, for that matter, created the Federal Reserve.

That would be a fine theory if you could ascribe a motive to their actions.  However, since the actions in question were destructive of their own interests, such a motive will be impossiblel to find.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:12 | #

Did Edward Mandell House have Jewish ancestry?  His life story and middle name give reason to strongly suspect he did.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:14 | #

“Col.” House’s role is discussed in James Bowery’s link a couple of comments above.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 03:40 | #

“The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs,
contenting himself with a general growl at the tax rate, and the character and
inefficiency of public officials. He seldom takes the trouble necessary to form the
Government to suit his views. The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views,” - “Colonel” Edward House, in his novel Philip Dru, Administrator

Unfortunately, I see nothing inaccurate in his description.  The lemmings don’t give a damn about “ideas”; what they care about is their petty pleasures.  They won’t do jack until the gravy train stops rolling.  And then it will only be, “Why did the gravy train stop?  How can we get it rolling again?”

If one wants them to adopt racialism they are going to have to think they are going to get lots of gravy out of it.  Of course there could be made to be much gravy to flow, but that would mean a centralized approach and not a decentralized approach…

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:22 | #

Re: Anglo-Saxon elites and WWI

Louis Farrakhan is very illuminating.

Posted by Homelander on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:07 | #

bt - There’s a reason they called it “J. P. Morgan’s War”. He and his kind did just fine. As ealy as this period, I’m sure you could find SOME Jews in American banking - but if, for some reason, you wanted to find a LOT of Jews, the pacifist and socialist press would have been the place to find ‘em.

Pro-war partisans in Russia, France, Britain and the US invariably suspected Jews - as a group - of pro-German and anti-Alliance sympathies (because of the Tsar, because of Dreyfus, because of the relatively favorable treatment of Jews in Imperial Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ott. Empire). Were ALL these observers misled?

Sure. The Rothschilds and others, invested in their various societies, were “loyal” enough. What else COULD they be? Big surprise - French bankers support French war effort! And in Germany, the November Criminals didn’t become criminals…until November.

Posted by Armor on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 08:28 | #

The lemmings don’t give a damn about “ideas” (—Captainchaos)

That’s defeatism! There is obviously a lot of idealism among white people, especially the young, but it is either stifled or hijacked by the leftists. In fact, misplaced idealism from the whites is partly responsible for the success of the race-replacement policy. It is obvious that white people are not defending their egoistic self-interests.
It is hard for them to take action for their own people because of the constant intimidation, and because of the isolation. Each white person has to wake up by himself or herself and have a personal intellectual rebellion against the system. We cannot expect everyone to do so spontaneously. Most people are already busy supporting society by having jobs and raising families, and they feel powerless to change things anyway. Also, many people are not great thinkers and lack the moral confidence to rebel against the whole leftist system because it is so overwhelming. They need encouragement. In order to rally everyone, what is urgently needed is the creation of some pro-white media and institutions, made by white people, for white people.

The average American citizen refuses to pay attention to civic affairs, [...] The truth is he has no cohesive or well-digested views

It is no better in other countries. Anyway, we must not expect the average person to have cohesive, well-digested political views. The only way normal people can form opinions that make sense is if there is a good-quality national debate in the media and in public institutions. Unfortunately, the national debate has been killed by the intimidating domination of the loony left. The political system has degenerated while common sense has evaporated in the media.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:07 | #

Pro-war partisans in Russia, France, Britain and the US invariably suspected Jews - as a group - of pro-German and anti-Alliance sympathies

Who cares? The “German” bankers appointed to the Federal Reserve lent the Allies billions of US tax payer dollars. They encouraged Wilson to enter in 1917 to protect their investment. If Germany wins, who pays back the Allied loans? Their position was pro-“German” banker.

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:11 | #

There’s a reason they called it “J. P. Morgan’s War”. He and his kind did just fine.

No, they didn’t.  He and his kind are being wiped off the face of the earth.  He and his kind have done disastrously.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:52 | #

Armor: “That’s defeatism!”

I agree with Pierce that it is 2-3% of the population that can think with any degree of rigor, internal consistency and gives a damn about doing so.  The rest are, well, lemmings; unflattering but true, in my opinion.

“There is obviously a lot of idealism among white people, especially the young, but it is either stifled or hijacked by the leftists.”

Agreed.  Idealism is obviously more common than the ability to find one’s way out of the fog; idealistic lemmings.

“It is obvious that white people are not defending their egoistic self-interests.”

If, at the critical moment, when the knife of multi-racialism begins to slice into their collective jugular - I mean for real, when it is all like Brazil at best and South Africa at worst - and they won’t then fight back, they never will.

“It is hard for them to take action for their own people because of the constant intimidation, and because of the isolation.”

White racial consciousness is systematically suppressed, and Whites perpetuate the system of suppression because of misplaced idealism, self-righteousness, and fear.  Most, I suspect, are just along for the ride, and try not to think about it.

“Each white person has to wake up by himself or herself and have a personal intellectual rebellion against the system.”

For the most this is impossible; the vast majority of Whites simply are not intellectually and emotionally equipped for it.  The lemmings will not wake up, organically, until it’s Brazil writ large; if ever.  Unless, of course, an effective political (and paramilitary?) leadership cadre developes to wake up a critical mass of them to head off the Brazil scenario.  That is one reason I am so emphatic about “taking it all back,” because if that moment has arrived, life will be nearly intolerable EVEN if we are politically/paramilitarily organized en masse.  To secure a life worth living we will NEED to clear some space (Lebensraum - HaHa!); and if we are willing to clear a little, why not a lot, or in fact all?  Those in Europe who think that the lion’s share of North America being seeded to muds is an acceptable loss to their genetic interests had best get a reality check.  The loss of North America is not acceptable, nor need it be; if our will be strong.

“They need encouragement. In order to rally everyone, what is urgently needed is the creation of some pro-white media and institutions, made by white people, for white people.”

Truth is we don’t need all of them; to be able to “vote the bastards out of office” would be nice, but I don’t suspect it is in the cards.

“They need encouragement. In order to rally everyone, what is urgently needed is the creation of some pro-white media and institutions, made by white people, for white people.”

Yes, to wake up and attract the best to the leadership cadre and the rest as support and foot-soldiers.  I think 10% of the population, of whatever White country, would do it.

“It is no better in other countries. Anyway, we must not expect the average person to have cohesive, well-digested political views. The only way normal people can form opinions that make sense is if there is a good-quality national debate in the media and in public institutions.”

A full range of debate, in any modern mass society, cannot be tolerated if social cohesion is to obtain.  A consensus must be manufactured.  Once/if we are in power we will substitute our manufactured consensus for theirs.  At first glance that may seem like a totalitarian, iron-fisted approach, but it is not necessarily; in the 30’s and 40’s in America portrayal of miscegenation was censored in the film industry.  I advocate taking the further step of legally proscribing miscegenation per se if there be any non-Whites left in our living space when it is all said and done; and unless we are ruthless in the extreme there most likely will be.

P.S. What do you think would be the proper affected (by Whites) disposition of all the non-Whites in the French Army if the shit ever really hit the fan?  Obviously they would have to be disarmed and imprisoned.  That proving insufficiently muscular, in my opinion, they would have to be liquidated.  When the French really get their dander up they leave no head un-rolled.

If one is willing to use the most ruthless means available, if it be necessary, to secure victory, then one is not a defeatist.

Posted by Armor on Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:45 | #

I agree with Pierce that it is 2-3% of the population that can think with any degree of rigor, internal consistency and gives a damn about doing so.
... / ...
A full range of debate, in any modern mass society, cannot be tolerated if social cohesion is to obtain.  A consensus must be manufactured.  Once/if we are in power we will substitute our manufactured consensus for theirs. (—Captainchaos)

There is more common sense and more racial loyalty among most people than among the non-elites who are in charge of the media and government institutions. Our current predicament is not caused by the stupidity of the masses or by their indifference. It is caused by the stupidity and indifference of otherwise intelligent people who run our countries and allow themselves to be intimidated by the loony left. I think the lack of coherence in popular opinions is only due the brainwashing. Pressure from the media and the governement is too strong, even on intelligent people.
Personally, I believe in the ideal of democracy, even though no one knows how to make it work in practice. Our priority must be to stop the race-replacement, but it is congruent with the idea of democracy and giving power back to the people. (For the non-whites, I believe in repatriation to their home countries).

If one is willing to use the most ruthless means available

In order to get popular support, you must make clear that you want no violence. In fact, repatriation of third-world immigrants is the only way to guarantee our existence and avoid violence in the future.

As to the muslim part of the French army, I have no idea what would become of them in a civil war.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 00:36 | #

Armor: “There is more common sense and more racial loyalty among most people than among the non-elites who are in charge of the media and government institutions.”

Unconsciously, yes.  That Whites engage in White flight and self-segregate is a definitive indication of that.  Even consciously: “I don’t go to that part of town, that’s where the niggers are.  It’s not safe.”

“Our current predicament is not caused by the stupidity of the masses or by their indifference.”

Either that, or their cowardice; or some combination thereof.  Why not vote - every last one of them who is not “stupid” or “indifferent” or a “coward” - for the BNP or the National Front then?  What do they have to lose?  The ballot is secret, no?

“It is caused by the stupidity and indifference of otherwise intelligent people who run our countries and allow themselves to be intimidated by the loony left.”

They brainwash, intimidate and inspire selfish degeneracy in the…lemmings.

“I think the lack of coherence in popular opinions is only due the brainwashing.”

Can you brainwash a non-lemming?  How long can you keep a non-lemming brainwashed?

“Pressure from the media and the governement is too strong, even on intelligent people.”

Lemmings are not noted for mental rigor or hardiness.

“Personally, I believe in the ideal of democracy, even though no one knows how to make it work in practice.”

Hmm, touching.

“Our priority must be to stop the race-replacement,”

That and reverse it; and protect the unmongrelized strain of our race, and its various ethnies.

“...but it is congruent with the idea of democracy and giving power back to the people…”

Not if that means the genocide (extinction and/or mongrelization of our race).  Priorities, priorities.

“...(For the non-whites, I believe in repatriation to their home countries).”

So we democratically enfranchise the White plebs so they can democratically disenfranchise the non-White plebs so that they (the non-White plebs) can be booted out of the country.  Sounds good to me, if it will work.

“In order to get popular support, you must make clear that you want no violence.”

Or at least you have to clearly say that you don’t want violence.  But the lemmings somewhere, deep inside, have to think that you are prepared to use it, otherwise you won’t have their respect (think about Shitkozy’s tough talk to the lemmings before his election).  Only the “Church Ladies of Holocaustianity” “respect” (well, I guess respect isn’t the right word) a pussy (that is because they want to empower their pussies), not many others do.  It’s a tawdry little game, laced with euphemisms, but that is the game.

“In fact, repatriation of third-world immigrants is the only way to guarantee our existence and avoid violence in the future.”

To repatriate third-world immigrants we will need power, what if getting power requires violence?  In order to get power democratically we must verbally eschew violence, but what if the third-world immigrants resist being repatriated?  Should we keep our promise to eschew violence? 

“As to the muslim part of the French army, I have no idea what would become of them in a civil war.”

“Fog of war,” best for the lemmings not to think about it.

P.S. It is best that the “leaders” to be perceived as not having any dirt on them.  But someone has to wear the black hat.  That rule applies at this website as well - so I suspect.

Posted by Armor on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 03:12 | #

Whites engage in White flight and self-segregate ... (—Captainchaos)

Not only that, but most of them tell pollsters they want immigration stopped.

It isn’t clear to me who you call lemmings. Contrary to what your quotation of Pierce suggests, you don’t need rigorous thinking to see that immigration is destroying us fast. An ability for approximative thinking is enough. Maybe what is needed is a rebellious temperament.

Or at least you have to clearly say that you don’t want violence

You make it seem more violent than it would be. I like the principle of regaining lost territories, and I think the western citizenship of third-world immigrants should be revoked, but there is no need to go into the details. Today’s priority should be to stop immigration. There is no violence in doing that. On the contrary, it will prevent violence against us in the future. The next step should be to fine employers of illegal immigrants, and cut much of the welfare aid. As a result, many recent immigrants will self deport. It should also be stressed that expelling third-worlders from the West back to their home nations is less violent than uprooting them from their home nations for relocation in the West. Besides, it is immoral to minimize to violence inflicted on the whites by third-world immigration. So, joining the white nationalists should not mean that you agree with violence.
If there are clashes between whites and third-world immigrants, I don’t think it will be initiated by the whites. Even now, most of the interracial violence comes from non-whites. If there is a real civil war, I think it will oppose normal white people to other whites (and half-whites) who refuse to change their fanatical policies. Once the normal people have won, we will try to relocate the third-world immigrants in the most courteous manner possible without hurting their feelings.