Posted by daniels. on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 06:10 | #

A Good Plan.

Attempts at implementation will likely run into the need for adjustments, but that is not the important point, which is that:

“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”
- Alfred North Whitehead

This proposal for reclamation is an account with the moral high ground of a more than reasonable intentionality to reference upon contention.

Now, for implementation..

Posted by Dirty Bull on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 07:49 | #

It won’t work.

Please, GW, stop living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land and stop fantasizing about these ‘dream’ scenarios, grow a pair and accept reality for what it is.

The political class fucked you over good and proper - and that’s all there is to it. Your whinings make as much sense as a Saxon thegn moaning about his Norman lord and master booting him off his land and making live in a pauper’s cottage.

I’ll wager that 50% of UK births are non-indigenous right here and now, never mind the mythological ‘20 or 30 years’ hence’. The Rubicon has been crossed.

Also we are likely to see Labour Party hegemony (due to the ethnic vote), just like the USA will see Democrat hegemony. All oppostion (not that the fucking tories did a damn thing) will be futile.

Posted by antifascist on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 08:11 | #

@GuessedWorker,

4. Ban mosque development.

I can understand your 17 other ideas, in the context of your “racial protectionism” ideology. Of course I disagree with all 18 ideas, of yours entirely.
But, what if their are “white” Muslims, who would like to build mosques in Britain, and they have white Imams, teaching a “racist” white supremacist ideology? Banning mosques would alienate ” white” Muslims from your community, if they were sympathetic to your “racial protectionist” ideology.

Posted by daniels. on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:18 | #

Dirty Bull, it is important for U.K. Nativists to have a humane and reasonable plan to point to for the event that non-natives can be dealt with reasonably; it is even more important to have such a plan to be able to point to if they and the powers that be are not reasonable and easy to deal with.

- the reason being that (in line with idiots such as anti-fascist) they will be continually looking for ways to distort and misrepresent nativist motives. However, the nativists would have a clear and humane plan to refer to (which we will adhere to if they will), for those of good will to brought to an accurate understanding: that the nativists are Not the bad guys; that what they want is more than reasonable.

How realistic implementation is at this point is a secondary matter.

In a preparatory respect, native Europeans are declaring a wish for independence from any anti-White systems and are, in statements such as G.W.‘s, beginning to set down rules of our governance, irrespective of the anti-White systems that be. That is as it should be - who are they? Who is anybody to say that we do not have the right to defend our European peoples, their varieties and habitats?

“One cannot continually investigate everything, but must, from time to time, work from a given state of partial knowledge.”

“Even a false or inadequate working hypothesis is better than no working hypothesis.”

A.N. Whitehead

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:50 | #

Anti ... should I call you Anthony?

In the future there will be a billion non-whites in Western Europe, and another billion in North America.  There is nothing in the present racio-political dispensation to prevent this.  Non-whites are, in any case, only a globalist-Jewish tool for an hegemony that cannot be maintained in the presence of a West of healthily ethnocentric and autonomous indigenous peoples.  This is the genocidal evil you are shilling for, and you are doing it as a psychological captive of Jewish propaganda.

You are not morally superior.  You are damaged.  We are not the hate-objects your damaged psyche has to create, so that it can affect to redeem itself.  We are blood and kin.  We belong to a people whom we love, with whom we share genetic interests, and for whom we feel responsibility.  We care for the life and well-being of our people.  We also are not morally superior.  We are merely human.

We are seeking to prevent a genocide, not least because it will occur to our children, our children’s children, our family lines.  Normal people do that kind of thing.  If they are Europeans (but not other races) they do it for all the human family.  We have to do it for ourselves, don’t we?  There is no morality in failing to survive, and none, obviously, in jumping about and shouting the r-word while a noble and uniquely creative race is submerged in the bottomless seas of the Third World.

The dispossession and dissolution of our race is not something notional for a student debate.  It is happening.  It is a matter of life and death.  Your petty psychological needs are interesting, intellectually and diagnostically.  You have been taught to hate your own kind - don’t deny it - as a means to heal yourself.  But you have nothing to say of the historical moment.  What I get from you I can get from any activist Jew.

By the way, you don’t reject all eighteen of the proposals in my O/P.  Look again.

Posted by Zeke on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:40 | #

There is nothing in the present racio-political dispensation to prevent this.

Except, secular neo-liberalism.

http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/gates-women-need-birth-control-global-health-agenda

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:37 | #

A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE - Excerpt 4

(Anti-White brainwashing in the classroom conducted by liberal-racists.)

Watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_NUGl2lZao

source:

http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:11 | #

I think this is an excellent starter list. I have advocated much of this over the years. It won’t fly, however, as I have also said. Why not? Race treason is a nearly unique white racial trait. I keep saying this, and people keep either ignoring me, damning me, or dismissing me - but never disproving me.

You/we must demonstrate two things: nonwhites do not belong in white lands (the ontological question), and whites are morally right to demand they leave (the ethical issue).

I don’t think this can be done in time actually to reclaim Europe. How many whites can really be reached via ontological arguments?

Several decades ago, the ethical approach would have been the more promising. When the US was 80+% white I was already arguing against further immigration, and on racial survivalist-ethicist grounds. Specifically, by no later than 1982, I pointed out that whites built America; that we Americans had a moral right to decide on our own immigration policies (ie, without consideration of non-American moral claims); that nonwhites were, on the whole, civilizationally inferior to whites; and that the country would become an ever more immiserated, corrupt, violent and alien - in a word, undesirable - place the more nonwhite it became. No one today can say I was wrong.

But that was 35-40 million immigrants ago. America could have endured as a white society if the idiot Reagan had made an issue of ending immigration. He failed to do so (I don’t know if he was a utopian right-liberal, or just a shortsighted fool). Thus, the preservation of the 50 state white American union is no longer an option, absent a morally problematic Civil (Race) War 2 which even most racialists would eschew, given the likely horrendous material suffering as well as economic costs. The only option for the long term preservation of Real/White America is white geographic ingathering intentionally or functionally effectuated for the purpose of pursuing racial secession and ultimate sovereignty. I think this eventuality is possible, but unlikely.

For white Americans in the period leading up to racial secession our task is to raise our collective racial consciousness, to debunk the antiwhite lies of the PC Left; to build up white pride, expose the truths about the true costs of ‘diversity’, discourage white miscegenation, and encourage white family formation and fecundity; and finally, to work for the constant political empowerment and protection of whites. It is now widely understood that the 2012 election was an exercise of raw demographic power of nonwhites (incl Jews) allied to various types of white race traitors, whether ideological (liberal-left), or functional/interest-based (slutty urban females, homos, govt “workers”, trial lawyers, ecofreaks, (white) welfare recipients). We must now spearhead the development of a hybrid conservative/WN politics (say, a Middle American nationalism), in which WNs work to encourage our fellow whites to press conservatives to support those policies which both serve the race, as well as conservative goals. I have pointed out in the past many such policies we should pursue:

1) end legal immigration (at least eliminate the ‘family reunification’ basis for immigration, and replace with a ‘valuable skills’ criterion)
2) deport illegal aliens
3) militarize/secure the US/Mexico border
4) end affirmative racism
5) national felon disenfranchisement
6) national Voter ID
7) national concealed carry
8) national Make My Day / No Duty to Retreat law
9) grant independence to Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, “American” Samoa - and Hawaii
10) make govt welfare assistance conditional upon contraceptive implantation.

This list is just a start. Each item is justifiable in race-neutral / conservative terms, but together they begin to reempower whites, and slightly disempower nonwhites.

Europe exists in a totally different ethical ‘space’. No nonwhite has any moral right to reside on European soil (this does not mean that the ethical case for, if necessary, violently removing all nonwhites has actually been made). EuroWNs should make the case for total removal. But I question whether such will be physically successful. I think there are too many innate white race traitors, who can never be reached via reasoned discourse. In alliance with the alien colonizers, I wonder how soon that alliance will be a majority? Perhaps in France (and elsewhere) that point has been reached already.

Alien colonization + white PC indoctrination + white miscegenation = doom of the West.

White Zion is your only hope. At least it’s likely to be English-speaking. 

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:47 | #

White liberals’ newest allies in their war on both white Christian heterosexual males and the white women who support them.

Lovely.

—

Bloody rites and agonising ceremony: Devotees turn mosque floor red during mass flagellation to mourn Shiite martyr

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238211/Blood-flows-mosque-floor-Indian-Shiite-Muslims-mass-flagellation-procession.html#ixzz2DQjmpF8Q

Posted by jamesUK on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:55 | #

In a previous address at the New Right Conference in London Norman Lowell said it would be better for European nationalists to form a block within the European parliament and make European wide changes rather than have nationalists running and failing to achieve any real political progress in their own countries.

@Guessedworker

In the future there will be a billion non-whites in Western Europe, and another billion in North America.  There is nothing in the present racio-political dispensation to prevent this.

LOL! You are not serious are you?

As I have stated and posted links before the immigration surge into Britain has been from the new EU countries mainly Poland who have the 2nd highest birth rate after indigenous British Pakistanis.

Polish women in the UK have a higher fertility rate than British women and are also producing more babies than their counterparts who have stayed in Poland.

The figures, which come from the Centre for International Relations, showed that Polish women who have settled in the UK have a fertility rate of 2.48 compared to 1.84 for British-born women; it is the second largest rate in the country, behind only Pakistani women.

http://www.winstonsolicitors.co.uk/legal-news/uk-poles-having-more-children.html

Western Europe, which includes France, Germany and the Netherlands, is expected to have the biggest numerical increase in the size of its Muslim population. The number of Muslims living in this part of Europe is projected to increase by 5.1 million, from 11.3 million in 2010 to 16.4 million in 2030. The Muslim share of Western Europe’s total population is expected to increase from 6.0% in 2010 to 8.6% in 2030.

The number of Muslims living in Northern Europe, which includes the United Kingdom, is expected to increase from 3.8 million in 2010 to 7.5 million in 2030. Muslims are expected to make up 7.0% of Northern Europe’s population, up from 3.8% in 2010.

http://www.pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx

@Thorn

What does a Shia religious ceremony in India and Muslim countries have to do with Europe?

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:20 | #

Here is the problem, James:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/global-population-growth-africa-cities

Africa, the world’s poorest continent, also has its highest birth rate. A woman in sub-Saharan Africa will give birth to an average of 5.2 children in her lifetime. Africa’s population of 1 billion is predicted to more than double in 40 years to 2.3 billion, accounting for about half of projected global growth over that period.

http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2011/climate-action/Population_growth_challenge/EN/index.htm

The population of the world is projected to increase in the coming decades to reach 9 billion people in 40 years (from today’s 6.9 billion) and attain a peak of 9.5 billion in 2075

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/22/population-world-15bn-2100

The United Nations will warn this week that the world’s population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century, putting a catastrophic strain on the planet’s resources unless urgent action is taken to curb growth rates, the Observer can reveal.

That figure is likely to shock many experts as it is far higher than many current estimates. A previous UN estimate had expected the world to have more than 10 billion people by 2100; currently, there are nearly 7 billion.

The new figure is contained in a landmark study by the United Nations Population Fund (Unfpa) that will be released this week. The report –The State of World Population 2011 – is being compiled to mark the expected moment this month when somewhere on Earth a person will be born who will take the current world population over the 7 billion mark, and will be released simultaneously in cities across the globe.

The projections vary, but the story is the same.  Where are these additional billions going to live, do you think?

Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:30 | #

Off topic but not too much.

Mr. Haller seems to think economic inequality that’s off the scale (so to speak) isn’t problematic to the health of the collective whole.

Too bad that evidence suggests otherwise - the ‘money-empathy gap’ research suggests that having more money makes people act far more selfishly and far less ethically.

http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/

Of course if we wish to reward and select for such personalities - particularly amongst the ruling elite - then carry on with neo-liberalism. I have nothing against ‘socially constrained’ forms of excellence and elitism - in scientific matters, literature, genuine scholarship, art, even in military qualities and so on.

What I absolutely will NOT be beholden to are those deeply unethical, morally (and in many cases criminally) corrupt but superficially clever crooks that run and profit enormously from the Ponzi scheme know as the derivatives market and associated phenomena such as ‘dark liquidity pools’.

Bringing such people down and the system they have completely gamed (to enrich themselves beyond belief) is, I’m convinced more than ever, is key to the revolutionary shift in society and politics required to secure the future of Europe.

Americans will never accept that their system of liberty and freedom is, over the long-term, killing them. I for one cannot waste any more intellectual or emotional energy on those that still stumble on willfully sporting such ideological blinkers.

Mr. Haller and his ilk are perhaps the worst case of ‘useful idiots’ in history. That maximally understood individual ‘liberty’ under a regime of market Hobbesianism is the ‘answer’ – to anything at all – is a deadly ideological delusion of the very worse type. Even fascists aren’t that stupid in their world-view.

It matters little if the particular foundations of this ‘free-market fundamentalism’ are precisely Lockean or Hobbesian:

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/09/12/economists-are-hobbesians/

but it is very much the bastard child of liberal ontology - with all that means in terms of a collective slow-motion disaster for the West. Yes we can, at an ever increasing rate, destroy our collective social-capital (mainly for the disproportionate benefit of a tiny plutocratic strata). And we have been for a few centuries now, but there is likely to be an enormous price to pay.

Wall Street and the version of ‘Americanism’ and ‘freedom’ it represents must be crushed – well as a minimum very fundamentally reformed/constrained - for our survival.

So back to GW’s policy ideas - a debt jubilee upon all the odious debt that have been heaped upon Europeans and bring the collective spivs of ‘the City’ under an iron grip for the economic crimes they have committed against the nation.

Perhaps then we could fund some of those proposed resettlement packages?

Who’s scared of a scintilla of corrective and very non-liberal ‘economic authoritarianism’?

Posted by Dude on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:17 | #

Carrot:

The reinvesting of effort into the moribund Commonwealth, through political agreement, or if not supporting sedition and then securing their allegiance through the usual means. Backed by the principle of nationally sovereign peoples.

i) a return to traditional homeland for some
ii) resettlement territory for others perhaps in a Hong Kong/China style ‘free trade area’

It might also have the advantage of giving a stronger moral foundation to those of our own population who have a missionary mindset and who might not be otherwise persuaded of the wider project.

Referendums and the demise of the EU as a growing economic entity is in the air. Even if it remains, our relationship may evolve into an EFTA one allowing separate trading arrangements with others. We have a large empire and the dominions as a subset of that to which we can make siren songs.

Elsewhere, for different reasons the subject has been considered recently
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2075/something_in_common_thinking_outside_the_eu_box

Posted by Dude on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:34 | #

LOL.

*‘We have a large Commonwealth’, not empire

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:04 | #

ii) resettlement territory for others perhaps in a Hong Kong/China style ‘free trade area’

Stateside I think something similar will have to take place. The Bay Area and South becomes international and California becomes officially and finally a multicultural state. New York City as well.

Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:05 | #

*from the Bay Area South

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:11 | #

@Thorn

What does a Shia religious ceremony in India and Muslim countries have to do with Europe?

——-

The real question is why are the ruling elites allowing massive migration of mooslimes into Christendom?

Can you answer me that?

Maybe this can help us all understand:

http://sheikyermami.com/2010/12/16/europes-collective-suicide-is-a-done-deal/

Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:09 | #

@Guessedworker

The projections vary, but the story is the same.  Where are these additional billions going to live, do you think?

To neighbouring countries and regions near the African continent.

There is no way millions of Africans will be allowed to travel legally or illegally into western Europe that despite our current wars where we have killed tens of thousands and displaced millions only a fraction travel to western Europe and only a relative handful of those are given European residence and that is not even permanent.

Posted by jamesUK on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:37 | #

@Thorn

The real question is why are the ruling elites allowing massive migration of mooslimes into Christendom?

Can you answer me that?

There not. As I said before most of the immigration into western Europe is economic migrants from the new EU countries.

The vast majority of the Muslim population of Europe came during the 60’s, 70s and 80’s with the need for immigrant labour to fix a workforce shortage or like in the case of France immigration during the Algerian war of independence.

Turkish workers came into West German in the 70’s due to US and British Cold Warrior hawks launching an extensive subversive/sabotage operation against the East that resulted in the construction of the Berlin wall by the Soviets with the resulting shortage of workers travelling from the East to work in the West.

First of all, before the wall went up thousands of East Germans had been commuting to the West fo jobs each day and then returned to the East in the evening. So they were clearly not being held in the East against their will. The wall was built primarily for two reasons:

<blockquote>The West was bedeviling the East with a vigorous campaign of recruiting East German professionals and skilled workers, who had been educated at the expense of the Communist government. This eventually led to a serious labor and production crisis in the East. As one indication of this, the New York Times reported in 1963: “West Berlin suffered economically from the wall by the loss of about 60,000 skilled workmen who had commuted daily from their homes in East Berlin to their places of work in West Berlin.” (New York Times, June 27, 1963, p.12)

During the 1950s, American coldwarriors in West Germany instituted a crude campaign of sabotage and subversion against East Germany designed to throw that country’s economic and administrative machinery out of gear. The CIA and other US intelligence and military services recruited, equipped, trained and financed German activist groups and individuals, of West and East, to carry out actions which ran the spectrum from terrorism to juvenile delinquency; anything to make life difficult for the East German people and weaken their support of the government; anything to make the commies look bad.

It was a remarkable undertaking. The United States and its agents used explosives, arson, short circuiting, and other methods to damage power stations, shipyards, canals, docks, public buildings, gas stations, public transportation, bridges, etc; they derailed freight trains, seriously injuring workers; burned 12 cars of a freight train and destroyed air pressure hoses of others; used acids to damage vital factory machinery; put sand in the turbine of a factory, bringing it to a standstill; set fire to a tile-producing factory; promoted work slow-downs in factories; killed 7,000 cows of a co-operative dairy through poisoning; added soap to powdered milk destined for East German schools; were in possession, when arrested, of a large quantity of the poison cantharidin with which it was planned to produce poisoned cigarettes to kill leading East Germans; set off stink bombs to disrupt political meetings; attempted to disrupt the World Youth Festival in East Berlin by sending out forged invitations, false promises of free bed and board, false notices of cancellations, etc.; carried out attacks on participants with explosives, firebombs, and tire-puncturing equipment; forged and distributed large quantities of food ration cards to cause confusion, shortages and resentment; sent out forged tax notices and other government directives and documents to foster disorganization and inefficiency within industry and unions … all this and much more. (See Killing Hope, p.400, note 8, for a list of sources for the details of the sabotage and subversion.) </blockquote>

http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/02/the-fall-of-the-berlin-wall/

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:18 | #

Lister@12

When have I ever spoken in favor of the ‘financialization’ of the US economy? It has been disastrous. We have moved from a nation which produces real goods and services, to one in which the very best minds are seduced (albeit rationally, from an individual standpoint) into pursuing careers in law and mostly unnecessary finance. Trust me: I’ve seen this up close and firsthand. Most of the smartest Americans of my generation did not pursue science (like my late father), engineering (like my uncle), agriculture, or industrial manufacturing (or even that old standby, medicine). They have been going to Wall Street or law firms (with some in allied professions, like advertising, marketing and PR). This has been catastrophic for America’s long term supremacy (though not as bad as the nonwhite immigration colonization), which is one reason I have never been a libertarian.

Indeed, I am not even an economic libertarian. Why you persist in referring to me as such (or worse - a “neoliberal”) despite my repeated disavowals bewilders me. What I do recognize are the reasons why free markets are the best way for a society to maximize wealth (Mises and Hayek, with their different emphases on economic calculation and dispersed knowledge, respectively, explained all this); the fundamental justice of private property rights; that a regime of strong private property rights is best suited to producing a flourishing civil society; and that capitalism maximizes national wealth, which in turn is a vital component of modern military power, something whites (including those Euronat fantasists who think that all the white nations could model themselves on tiny and militarily useless Denmark - this in world seething with impoverished, avaricious, violent and hungry muds!) had better factor into our long term survivalist equations. 

Such property rights obviously should not be fetishized and absolutized, as libertarians are wont to do. If a US private landowner wishes to allow a Chinese military base on his own, morally legitimate private property, should that be tolerated by the larger American society? Of course not - because there need to be certain limits placed on private property rights if the very system of such rights is to endure over time. I have pointed all this out before.

The bottom line is that most of the West does indeed live under conditions of economic plutocracy, and the particular plutocracy in question (and it is not fanciful to speak of a common, transnational Western elite class oligarchy, one whose particular ethnonational constituents have outlooks more in common with each other than with their benighted kinsmen left behind in their ethnic fatherlands) ‘games’ the legal/legislative systems not only to enrich itself, but to do so at least in part by destroying the social/cultural/racial (genetic) capital of the West. I heartily oppose this civilizational treason, which is one reason why I have for so many decades staunchly opposed mass immigration (even though, to some extent, and at least until recently, American elites - but emphatically not the wider society - have probably economically benefitted from this dispensation; frankly, I never had more than a tiny handful of immigrant competitors or colleagues, all of whom were European or Asian).

But the wise man does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. What is needed is a new paradigm - one that I have been advocating for about two decades. I call it “National Capitalism” (not sure why Pat Buchanan doesn’t use this formulation for his very similar ideas; his “economic nationalism” has a needlessly more aggressive and collectivist sound to it, which never resonates among American conservatives to the extent the underlying ideas could). Another term would be “Free Market Nationalism”. This ideology seeks to capture the no longer merely theoretically, but, since the Fall of the Wall, now empirically/historically undeniable resource efficiencies of capitalism, while simultaneously ensuring that individual initiative and incentives are not so untethered from collective national concerns and allegiances, as they have been allowed to become under globalist neoliberalism (which, however, it must be said is more of a rhetorical smokescreen than accurate descriptor: a better term is “globalist welfare-state plutocratism”), as to threaten the survival prospects of the race/nation/civilization itself. 

National Capitalism, an inward-looking or focused system combining a domestic economic growth agenda with anti-globalization, could appeal to many conservatives, and maybe even to some of the less fanatic libertarians. Any still more collectivist ideology simply will not garner much support from the American Right, most of whose members are net producers in the free market, and are understandably wary of any collectivism, which usually only benefits nonwhites and leftist whites at their own expense. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of Tories were of the same mind.

Posted by Dude @JamesUK on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:45 | #

Total migration to the UK among all nationalities numbered 591,000 in 2010 according to LTIM estimates, as shown in Figure 1. This is just below a peak in calendar-year figures of 597,000 in 2006. Non-European migration made up 54.5% of the 2010 total, or an estimated 322,000 migrants arriving. EU nationals were an estimated 30% of arriving migrants. The remaining 16% were British nationals, who might have been born abroad or who might be returning to the UK after a prolonged absence. #

Posted by Dude @ Antifa on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:02 | #

Posted by antifascist on November 27, 2012, 03:11 AM | #

@GuessedWorker,

  4. Ban mosque development.

Concern trolling.

Mosques can be located anywhere such a room in a house or shop. It is when their adherents become entrenched that they take on the appearance of invader’s castles.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:24 | #

Will someone please just bloody tell me how European civilization is going to endure when the majority of whites think any expression of white racial collectivism is morally wrong - or at the very least, when a substantial minority of our genetic kinsmen do (with another huge minority being too scared or comfortable/apathetic to want to bestir themselves to upset the racial status quo)?

I TELL YOU AGAIN: THERE IS NO ANSWER BUT WHITE ZION!

That WNs (esp Americans) won’t admit this truth en masse is yet another sign of our decrepitude.

Posted by Silver on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:48 | #

GW, I am very glad to see this most important topic broached.  Ideas have to be translated into physical reality and the effectiveness of ideas will ultimately judged by the facts they produce ‘on the ground.’  After all is said and done, the ultimate test of racial policy is whether it results in a condition of *separation being achieved.  How separation is to be achieved simply must at some point be given the serious attention it requires—even if only to head off accusations that it’s unrealistic.  Continuing to kick the can down the road with assurances that at some point in the future methods will emerge is more likely to confirm suspicions that separation is unrealistic.  Yes, he who has a strong enough ‘why’ will probably eventually find a ‘what’, but not everyone can be expected to have a strong enough ‘why’; having a solid ‘what’ in mind can reinforce the weaker ‘whys’ and make them strong ones.

*‘Separation’ is an ambiguous and somewhat emotionally charged word but I think it’s the most accurate and appropriate term for what is under discussion. It is ambiguous because the degree, kind or extent of separation (eg local, regional or international; informal and loose or strict and severe) is always unclear unless specifically stated.  And it is emotionally charged for both liberal and nationalistic types.  Liberals detest its similarity and link to segregation and the discrimination necessary to practice it; extreme nationalistic types see in it a compromise that falls far short of the sweeping revolution they deem so necessary, and particularly so when it advocates a cession of territory (whether as a ‘final settlement’ or temporary accommodation).

As for where Africans will live, I don’t think it helps to emotionalize the issue in this way.  The vast majority of them will live as they do today—in Africa.  A doubling of their numbers will mean that a greater absolute number will want to live abroad, but even if they all remained in Africa the population density of the sub-Saharan part would double only from some 40 per square km to 80.  That’s hardly ‘overpopulated.’

Posted by Silver on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:04 | #

Haller,

The only option for the long term preservation of Real/White America is white geographic ingathering intentionally or functionally effectuated for the purpose of pursuing racial secession and ultimate sovereignty.

The options are not either Civil War II (ie reconquest) or White Zion.  There is also the option of a Velvet Divorce.  You may not find that option attractive, but it is an option (that therefore should be mentioned), and I don’t see at all why it’s necessarily more unrealistic or less desirable than White Zion.  On the contrary, the immediate advantage I see in it is that it makes the opposition look like ‘the bad guys’ much more conspicuously than WZ or Reconquest.

Lister,

What I absolutely will NOT be beholden to are those deeply unethical, morally (and in many cases criminally) corrupt but superficially clever crooks that run and profit enormously from the Ponzi scheme know as the derivatives market and associated phenomena such as ‘dark liquidity pools’.

Are you certain you understand what you’re talking about when it comes to derivatives?  If you do, I don’t understand why you think there’s anything inherently Ponzi-like about them.  Fundamentally, derivatives are form of insurance and the only people hurt by participation in that market are speculators who takes losses.  Of course, the losses of certain speculators can be so enormous that there are flow-on effects for the rest of the economy and the integrity of the financial system can be so threatened that bailouts become politically irresistible, but this is not a point that must inevitably be reached (as it is with a Ponzi scheme).

Posted by Silver on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:09 | #

JamesUK seems a bit mentally challenged.  He’s like someone who disregards the plain reasoning that leaping off a 100 storey building would be fatal.  He jumps, and as he passes the 50th storey exclaims, “What’s the problem? I’m not hurt!”

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:45 | #

I TELL YOU AGAIN: THERE IS NO ANSWER BUT WHITE ZION!

I’m beginning to think that Leon is autistic.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:55 | #

James,

To neighbouring countries and regions near the African continent.

So where is your evidence that Sub-Saharan Africans increase carrying capacity in an economically and socially sustainable way?  Where is your evidence that they create environments in which their own people prefer to, or can, live securely and well in their own lands?

The Third World generally cannot blithely increase its population by a factor of 50% to 100% without creating vast instability and population movements.

Looking just at SSA, the World Bank’s 2011 estimate for SSA population is 874,841,049.  The US Aid prediction of a 1.5 billion increase in 40 years is probably self-serving.  But the UN still forecasts a possible doubling of global population by 2200, in which SSA, because it has the highest birth-rates, will feature prominently.  So by the century’s end we could see an SSA total of 2 billion.

There are probably 10 million SSAs in Europe now.  In Britain SSA immigration, as opposed to Caribbean immigration, has really only been accelerated over the last two decades.  This is only the beginning.  It is intended by our elites to accelerate much further.  It is the stated intention of the EU to develop “economic and cultural cooperation” with North Africa through the Barcelona Process, and with SSA.  This is policy.  Look also at the six EU migration offices opening in SSA now.

Based on this, and there being no political change for nationalism, plus greatly increased instability in SSA as the population doubles, it is not at all excessive to say that over the next 9 decades Europe could attract up three hundred million new SSA immigrants, with continuing high growth in the diaspore (remember the diaspore itself will not replicate the European life but the African life - Africa follows Africans wherever they go).  To put that into context transport-wise, Heathrow alone currently handles 67 million passengers a year.  Even Manchester handles 22 million.

So now add in the population growth in the rest of the world.  Project the lines.  This is a likely future.  Just like the inward-looking Englishmen of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s who never believed that the pressent disaster could materialise - though nationalists did - you are missing the trick.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:11 | #

Silver,

I don’t quite understand what you mean by separation (beyond the obvious). Are you implying geographic separation of races within European nation states so as to form new sovereign territories? In other words, cutting loose Marseilles or the northern Parisian suburbs to form their own little new ethnostates?

GW wants repatriation, plain and simple, as do I (for Europe; for the US I’d be quite happy with a kind of racial federalism, allowing much greater racial communal autonomy: I don’t go into Compton or even East LA, and would be happy not to be allowed to, provided I could keep the muds out of various portions of Orange County in turn .. I really don’t think this is very realistic, however).

Re USA, reconquest viz the great Sam Francis is not going to happen. I disagreed with Sam back in the mid 90s when he proposed it, and after a net increase of approx 30 million nonwhites, from births as well as invasion, in the 18 years since [personal note: good God how time flies - with nary an improvement, either!], with another million this year, and next, and amnesty, and ...,  there ain’t gonna be no velvet divorce. The muds need racial socialism to survive. Whites can ingather then push secession (and such movements of people and ideology will only grow - and of course WNs must encourage them, along with anti-miscegenation stigma and pro-white fertility encouragement), or we can emigrate to a planned WZ.

I’d prefer the white republic carved out of the Pacific northwest or northern plains states (or even tiny northern New England, which I’ve visited many times - from Bar Harbor to the Berkshires, how lovely when kept white!) to having to haul my carcass down to OZ. But I think racial socialist pressures will always be too strong for the ZOG to Let My People Go!

Posted by Alex on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:24 | #

I realize that at this time there is a lot of opposition to the points laid out in the article.  However we are at the beginning of realizing how truly fucked we are.  Whites are very slowly reacting to their own demise, they are probably thinking ”  it’s not that bad, it won’t be so bad”, “muslims are good people, etc”.  I suggest we discuss as many ideas as possible as often as possible.  This article contains the essential steps in white survival all over the world.  Secession is another.  My feeling is that if enough ideas are discussed, no matter how “unrealistic” there will come a tipping point.  The tipping point will be action taken when people realize talking is only going so far and not at all far enough.  All these discussions are to convince people of the need for action.  It won’t be pretty but so what, you think muslims, blacks, mexicans worry about being nice and legal?  They want us gone, period.  Alex

Posted by Bill on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:25 | #

@ 24

Separation’ is an ambiguous and somewhat emotionally charged word but…

The more emotive word is apartheid, I can’t see liberalism going along with that.  Same with stop all immigration, to cease all immigration is another liberal no-no.  To discriminate is another big no-no.  These two tenets are not up for negotiation.

GW

Under what conditions pertaining do you envision implementing your agenda?  Presumably whites have triumphed in the end?

What will victory look like to you?

Will liberal hegemony have been toppled?  Will it have imploded or been beaten in some violent confrontation.  I assume the United States will have triumphed also and we will have escaped nuclear submarines and a carrier task force on station in the Western approaches?

Has the EU disintegrated in this scenario?  Has Russia and China managed to steer clear of involvement as mere spectators?

Just ask’n.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:49 | #

GW,

YES YES YES YES! This has been my point for more then a quarter century! YES YES YES!

The vital point wrt nationalism is very plain. If we do not establish the ethicality of white racial separation and ecology / living space, then we are doomed via total demographic inundation (which itself, as I have also stated previously, is rapidly devolving from a philosophical to a military problem). Abjuration of the Racial Principle has left us totally defenseless in the face of the sheer numbers of nonwhites clamoring (or potentially so) for colonization. The Camp of the Saints problem.

And worse, what I call the Omega Option. If we have not rallied a majority of whites to the RP, then what is to stop some future race traitor (and in the US, the “future” may be 2013!) from simply inviting tens or hundreds of millions of ‘refugees’ or starvation ‘victims’ from Africa to migrate to Europe or North America?

What happens when white majorities have been completely denuded of all racial sense - and there is a terrible overshoot of carrying capacity in SSA, with a billion starving savages? Is it only in the realm of satire or fantasy to imagine a white liberal leader, or worse, an Obama, using a combination of liberal and Christian heretical rhetoric to convince a majority of whites that they have a moral obligation to admit some hundreds of millions of the savages into our lands of plenty? If you think majorities of whites will always be too sober for such insanity, look at the Obama phenomenon of 2008. Granted, he did not get an overall majority of the white vote, but I think he did among young whites, always the outliers of ‘idealism’- as our race itself is the most (idiotically) idealistic. Whites if anything seem to be invincible in their racial lunacy.

We are a dying race because we are genetically maladapted to our current conditions, which include mental memes as well as more obviously physical forces. This may offend certain white supremacists, who think everything is the Jews’ fault, though it’s hard to see how a race that can be so easily manipulated is in any biological sense ‘superior’.

Those of us who want our race to survive are clearly a minority of our race. Whites themselves are their worst enemy. Collectively speaking, our asinine commitment to leftist-inspired equality is simply too strong to allow mass support for inherently anti-egalitarian racial nationalism.

Th sole hope for Aryan survival is domestic ingathering/secession or White Zion; in any event, racial sovereignty.   

Posted by daniels. on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:08 | #

......
“Americans will never accept that their system of liberty and freedom is, over the long-term, killing them. I for one cannot waste any more intellectual or emotional energy on those that still stumble on willfully sporting such ideological blinkers.”

Graham, I can agree that even “freedom of and from association” is ad hoc - thin gruel, as you say, in comparison to an organic community of folks, teamed up in their collective interests, each receiving honor and reward for the qualities they contribute to the community from their position.

I supposed that would indeed, be better than mere freedom from association. By definition, a community would be able do discriminate against non-members; ensconcing and delimiting a human ecology; and correspond with means of accountability. Fine.

But what to do about this?

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

The Fair Housing Act, which denies the prerogative of renters and sellers to rent and sell to whom they wish?

Is this a logical conclusion of freedom of association? Or is it a perversion of it by dissimulating attorneys and judiciary - whether objectivist or Judeo relative - along with, in this case, a Black politician, acting with characteristic hyper-assertiveness; with regard to this causal imposition as he had with and several others?

Americans did try to fight this violation of their freedom from association:

“Rather than seeking to amend the law, the opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act sought to amend the California Constitution to permit housing discrimination with California Proposition 14. Though it passed, it was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.”

It passed - that means “Americans” did not want the Rumford Act. But the court overturned popular will.

It is not accurate to blame Americans - not even totally accurate to blame the Constitution (though it deserves a large measure of the blame for being lame). Nevertheless, whatever freedom from association it provided for was violated:

“With the federal housing funds cut off and with the support of Governor Edmund G. Brown, the constitutionality of the measure was challenged soon afterward. In 1966, the California Supreme Court held that the proposition was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution.[3] Gov. Brown’s stance proved controversial; later in 1966, he was defeated in his bid for re-election by Ronald Reagan.

However, the case continued. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), holding that the wording of Proposition 14 violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was therefore invalid.

The Reitman decision established a significant precedent. It established that the Fourteenth Amendment, because it is an element of the federal constitution, trumps any language in a state constitution that allows racial discrimination, including state constitutional provisions enacted by popular initiative. As of 2010, this precedent remains valid case law.

Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that states could remove a constitutional amendment passed by initiative, if the proffered amendment “encouraged” racial discrimination.

In 1964, pursuant to an initiative and referendum, Art. I, § 26, was added to the California state constitution. It provided in part that neither the State nor any agency thereof “shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.”

We can agree that the rule structure of the Constitution leaves much to be desired.

However, its overbearing perversion begins to take effect with Brown 1954, The Civil Rights Act 1964 and The Immigration and Naturalization Act 1965 - all having been heavily crafted and backed by Jewish interests.

When the judiciary continually overturns their popular will, their majority rights, how can Americans be predominantly to blame? There must, rather, be elite interest groups and radicals with power who are most culpable.

I have a great deal of sympathy to your views. Moving to the economic realm, the likes of Mises and Hayek would correspond quite well with a runaway power of elitist interests - through the non-accountability of their perverse, detached notions individualism.

I am honestly curious to hear how you think European Americans might go about community activism/organization in light of these antagonisms - particularly something like the Rumford Fair Housing Act?

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:28 | #

Whites are the most easily brainwashed of races, and each generation is worse than its predecessor. This is worth a look:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/generation-d-americas-liberal-future.html

Suspect matters aren’t too different in Europe; probably worse.

The only hope is racial separation, sovereignty, tax and communal incentives for white fertility, and a renewed traditionalist conservatism ground into the expanding future generations.

Unfortunately, a ‘muddy’, miscegenated extinction is our race’s more likely future.

Knowing what I do of life, I wish I were 18 again. But as every man lives only a discrete, finite time, I’m glad I’m not any younger. The future on all fronts is relentlessly bleak. I guess I’m one of those Lovecraftian figures Sam Francis wrote about - “scholarly bachelors of good breeding but dim prospects”. I can see the future as if I were there already, which in a sense, as a Californian, I already am.

Maybe I should throw in the towel on all this, devote the rest of my life to interesting questions in theology and the philosophy of religion, and also see if my half-mud GF wants to get hitched ....

Our fight just doesn’t seem to be making any progress, anywhere. WNs are getting noisier, but not more numerous.

Posted by Thorn on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:57 | #

Whites are the most easily brainwashed of races, and each generation is worse than its predecessor. This is worth a look:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/generation-d-americas-liberal-future.html

Continuing on that same theme, who can forget this:

Jamie Kelso at CPAC: Rights versus Interests

February 24, 2011—295 Comments

Kevin MacDonald

Jamie Kelso’s experience at CPAC, on video here, shows how far we are from changing the rhetoric about race and immigration.

CPAC is sponsored by the American Conservative Union which claims it “represents the views of Americans who are concerned with economic growth through lower taxes and reduced government spending and the issues of liberty, personal responsibility, traditional values and national security.” But, whatever traditional values may be supported by the conference attendees, there is no evidence in the video that preserving White America is among them.

Watch video and read more>>

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/02/jamie-kelso-at-cpac-rights-versus-interests/

Posted by AnotherJamesUK on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:05 | #

Just quickly commenting on the list; All great ideas but none of this can be achieved until the chosenite control of the central banking system is demolished. The fact that global central banking policy (and someone correct me if i’m wrong but this is my understanding) is orchestrated and coordinated from the Bank of International Settlements, basically means any one country doing this in isolation is most unlikely.

Our globalist enemies will collapse the global economy all by themselves. Their parasitic modus operandi gurantees this. We need to ensure that at such a time (which I believe is not far away at all), enough numbers of racially aware whites are living in the same geographical area. So, as much as I hate this particular term, a White Zion, as mentioned by another poster, is our best bet (provided I’ve understood this term correctly to mean a conscious migrationary effort on behalf of whites to an agreed upon locale).

Harold Covington (I know, a very devisive figure) is trying to plug the northwest imperative. Frankly, as appealing as it is to me personally, moving to the pacific northwest is too impractical for myself and, I imagine, for most Europeans.

However the concept of our own white European homeland solves alot of problems. It would put us in close proximity with like minded individuals, but it also makes the problem more managable. We are not going to salvage all of Europe, not at the begining of the organic collapse of the Eu at least . England certainly has become far too mongrelised already, and too many ethno-masochistic whites will be too happy to accept being a minority in their own ancestral homelands. Good riddance. We can start anew together in our pre-determined territory, and the Europeans that have any vestige of pride and survival instinct will join us out of necessity.

Ah well, a nice idea anyway…

Posted by daniels. on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:40 | #

There is no need for a term so offensive to conscious Whites as White “Zion.”

Nor is there a need for despair.

Our ancient White homelands can be retaken, smaller White states (White homelands) can be established to serve particular White interests, and the larger state can be achieved in coordination to provide sufficient economy for defense, innovation and exploration.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:48 | #

Like Peak Oil, Britain is now post Peak white, the only way is down, life as we have known is fast disappearing.

Britain (England) and America are being singled out for specialist treatment closely followed by Australia, New Zealand and Canada.  I’m not sure about continental Europe but they’ve gotta go as well.

We (England) are now about to enter an intensifying stage of physical dispossession in tandem with the implementation of draconian legislation.  We ain’t seen nutt’n yet, these bastards mean business.

The abolition of private property must soon become a priority for our occupiers.  With our population increasing at something like the thick end a million a year it is obvious there is never going to be sufficient living accommodation to cope, dispossession of whites from their homes must surely figure a high priority.

Euthanasia is a convenient and simple means of releasing living accommodation, a pilot scheme has been up and running for some time, we can only expect a stepping up in this regard.

This comment thus far has been taken from my documents, the remainder (of this comment) is a shopping list of what is coming down in the next 25 years.  I shan’t be about then but I can see it coming. 

I have just finished watching BBC News Night with Jeremy Paxman surrounded by the usual talking heads discussing the worsening housing crisis.  Paxman actually asked Nick Boles, a government housing minister if the housing demand was being driven by immigration, Boles reply was an unequivocal yes!  Immigration was not spoken of again.  This is tectonic shifting stuff coming from the hallowed turf of the BBC.

The BBC are actually beginning to get it, multiply that up with no jobs, no hospitals, no roads, no community health centres, no midwives, no waste treatment plants, no reservoirs and the magnitude of the problems they have deliberately imported will gradually dawn on Paxman and his mates.  Bring it on.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 04:35 | #

I wonder if I am the only one here, who has noticed that the Christian European White elites have been engaged in a campaign to force the Buddhist-Mynama ethnic-homeland to accept a now-gigantic number of (south-asian-racial-type, Chittagonian-Bengali-speaking, Islam-professing)  “Rohingya” people as naturalized Burmese citizens? 

This pressure campaign seemed to get serious about 6 months ago. Obama mentioned the Rohingya a coupla weeeks ago.

The Organization of Islamic Council tried to open an office in Yangon, the military goivernment there first didn’t object. They only reversed the decision in the face of Buddhist-Monk-led street demonstrations.  Buddhism did start in Burma-Myanmar.

Long-time readers know that I have no affection for Rabbinic “Judaism”,  but I offer for your consideration,  the value proposition that no “Jews” were involved in this.  The Liberal Jews favor causes which offer plausible fund-raising opportunities. Limousine liberals want their limousines.

Euro-elite desire to make kissy with wealthy Muslim countries seems the more likely source of the shouting.

Posted by Silver on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:35 | #

Haller,

I don’t quite understand what you mean by separation (beyond the obvious). Are you implying geographic separation of races within European nation states so as to form new sovereign territories? In other words, cutting loose Marseilles or the northern Parisian suburbs to form their own little new ethnostates?

The formation of ethnic enclaves, statelets, city-states, or ‘free cities’ (whether mixed or exclusive) or what have you are all forms of separation. But so too is the repatriation (actually, expulsion) that you demand.  So too is an informal ‘system’ (way of life) in which various groups stick to their own parts of town, aware that they’re unwelcome elsewhere.  Each of these differs in degree or extent of separation and each provides a varying degree of racial security but the factor they all share in common is the separation or apartness they create, and which forms such an essential part of racial purpose.  (Bill: I called separation somewhat emotionally charged; in terms of the emotional reaction it provokes, yes, ‘apartheid’ is the real McCoy.)

All this may seem too obvious for words to you, but it’s hardly too obvious to the man who, perhaps for the first time, allows himself to think (and feel and act and live ) racially.  For such a man, there is a bewildering array of positions and attitudes that could be assumed.  He is a babe in the woods. Yes, race is important, he is finally able to acknowledge, but what dose it really mean?  What should he now be doing that he wasn’t previously?  What are to be the ends of racial fellow feeling?  Does it mean cultivating a sense of superiority or antagonism?  Does it mean hatching plans to dominate others?  Does it mean throwing oneself at the study of genetics or absorbing oneself in the sublimity of eugenic promise?  Does it mean wallowing in resignation, regret or self-pity?  The almost endless possibilities on offer do not necessarily contradict or compete with ‘separation,’ but their effect is to dissipate racial energy, and this can ill be afforded because while the possibilities may be endless, time assuredly is not.  While that energy can’t really be ‘controlled’ (no more than mountain lions can be herded), I think it can be channeled; channeled into the most productive courses. 

GW wants repatriation, plain and simple, as do I (for Europe; for the US I’d be quite happy with a kind of racial federalism, allowing much greater racial communal autonomy)

Yes, I know what you want. If only it were as simple as ordering up your preferred pizza toppings.  Pardon the undue levity, but I couldn’t help but be amused at the way you relegate what is the crux of the issue to a parenthetical afterthought. 

Re USA, reconquest viz the great Sam Francis is not going to happen. I disagreed with Sam back in the mid 90s when he proposed it, and after a net increase of approx 30 million nonwhites, from births as well as invasion, in the 18 years since [personal note: good God how time flies - with nary an improvement, either!], with another million this year, and next, and amnesty, and ...,  there ain’t gonna be no velvet divorce. The muds need racial socialism to survive. Whites can ingather then push secession (and such movements of people and ideology will only grow - and of course WNs must encourage them, along with anti-miscegenation stigma and pro-white fertility encouragement), or we can emigrate to a planned WZ.

The reconquest/civil war/rahowa I referred to differs from what Francis proposed.  Separation or separatism or apartness didn’t feature in Francis’ thinking.  He wanted control, control over the territory forming the US and over the lives of the people in it, both white and non-white.  When you get down to it, he didn’t understand race as well as he thought he did.  If by the eighteen years since he proposed it you’re referring to the Amren debate in early ‘95 it was made very clear there that Francis had only a superficial understanding of racial issues.  It’s really only for lack of racial leaders that Francis is exulted at all; in reality, his was an eleventh hour conservatism that, in hindsight, was always doomed to irrelevance by the very racial processes that he so poorly grasped. 

The reconquest/race war solution (“white revolution is the only solution,” as the slogan puts it), if it is to be an actual solution, is not merely or primarily about reconquest of territory; it’s primarily about expulsion.  It claims the entirety of the United States territory for whites and whites alone; all others must be made to leave.  This is what you propose for Europe.  When you except America from this solution I can only assume you do so for practical or logistic reasons, not for moral or strategic reasons, for if expulsion can be effected in one territory or landmass there’s no obvious reason why it could not be effected in another territory or landmass except in the case that the ‘racial terrain’ differs so greatly that it becomes the decisive factor.  Stated more simply, Europe can do it because it has numbers and history on its side; America can’t do it because it lacks both numbers and history. 

If racial expulsion from the entirety of US territory can therefore be dismissed, the only alternative is some form of separation within the territory constituting the US.  Your claim is that there is but one way to achieve it, which is for white Americans to ingather in some portion of America (or elsewhere in the world), achieve control of that portion of territory, and expel racial outsiders from it.  This is White Zion.  My claim is that there is another way to achieve separation within the US, which is to work with other races and/or other groups—any other races and any groups—who would like separation for themselves too.  This is Velvet Divorce.  If the divorce cannot be velvet between all races and all groups, it can at least be velvet between the races and groups subscribing to it. 

The reason I claim Velvet Divorce is superior is because it forces the racial issue into public consciousness in a way that is vastly more favorable to white racial interests (and more favorable to all separatist interests in general).  Think about it.  The expulsion necessary for White Zion is only infinitesimally less evil in the public mind than the expulsion necessary for retaking every square inch of America.  Confronting White Zion spurs next to no adjustment in existing racial attitudes at all (if anything, it only hardens them).  Contrast this to Velvet Divorce.  A velvet divorcer can claim that he agrees with a great deal of 20th century liberalism and anti-racism, only that the fatal oversight has been that those attitudes, taken to their conclusions, leave an America and a world without whites and this oversight must be corrected and corrected for.  Sure, he can say, if a thing ain’t broke don’t fix it; but the corollary is, if it is, do.  And that’s what velvet divorce is designed to do: fix what is broken.  A velvet divorcer can claim all this whether he believes it or truly feels it or not.  While in the minds of many it will seem ‘obvious’ that such a person is lying, I personally believe that vast numbers of such people would be telling the truth: they never were interested in racial hatred or supremacy or total racial exclusivity or whatever (the classic stuff of ‘nazism,’ as they see it); but they are simply not willing to stand by and allow themselves to be erased from the earth, and particularly not when the process of erasure—the cultural phenomena associated with it—is itself so painful. 

You say that non-whites require racial socialism (taking from whites) in order to survive.  This isn’t true.  All over the world they are not only merely surviving, they are thriving.  They are not nearly as prosperous as whites, but prosperity is not an immediate consequence of whiteness.  Prosperity is something a population can only grow into.  Whites grew into it first, and claims began being thrown around at that time that only whites are capable of growing into it.  The truth is that a large number of non-white countries are today substantially wealthier than white countries were at the time these claims began to be thrown around.  For example, it was common for racialists in the 1920s and 1930s to argue that non-whites were incapable of reaching or sustaining the level of white prosperity of the 20s and 30s.  But numerous non-white countries today have achieved a level of prosperity that exceeds the USA of the 20s and 30s.  The prosperity of Brazil today is roughly on par with the prosperity of the USA of 1940. (The comparison isn’t ideal because of substantial differences between the two societies, but I’d say deficits in one area balance out with surpluses in another; eg the housing quality of the masses may be lower in Brazil than the US of 1940, but it’s made up for by those masses’ level of access to consumer goods superior to that of Americans of 1940). So what you really mean is that non-whites enjoy the privilege of access to present white levels of prosperity that they will not readily give up.  That may be so, but today they have little reason to even consider giving it up.  If they did have reason to consider it, I think it’s only logical to assume many would not only give the implicit trade-off serious thought but in fact go ahead and advocate making it.

Some groups and some races would clearly look more favorably on velvet divorce than others.  Who those groups are and their reasons for looking favorably are too large a topic to address here.  For now, it’d be nice to hear you acknowledge that they exist. 

A final thought.  Many thinkers throughout the ages have observed that men have the capacity to triumph in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds stacked against them.  These observations have entered our lexicon in adages like “where there is a will, there is a way.”  I would like to suggest an extension with greater relevance to our common purpose here to these inspiring words: where there is racial goodwill, there is a way.

Posted by Silver on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:13 | #

Hymie, what is there to notice?  What part of “thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race or religious creed” don’t you get?  It’s not exactly news that this is the ruling paradigm of the globalizing elite.  Unlike most here, I will grant that even the Zionist Entity (hehe) has been subjected to intense pressure on this front.  Of course, you’re better positioned to resist that pressure than the unfortunates in European lands, and not just because of your more powerful sense of group identity, but also because of the decidedly illiberal islamist opposition you’re confronted by.  Naturally, likudniks exaggerate that islamist threat wildly, but I guess they feel it has to be milked for all its worth, just like “the holocaust” and “neo-nazis.”

Posted by Bill on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:06 | #

See ref @38 above.  BBC News Night.

Junior housing minister Nick Boles crowed on last night’s BBC ‘s News night that Britain’s acute housing problem would be solved if the home construction industry would get its finger out and start building the required 200,000 homes a year for the next 20 years.

Four million new homes would cut it. Problem solved.

I suggest 4 million would be a rain drop in the Sahara desert.

In many ways the discussion was fascinating.  A female talking head from the north west remarked that a nearby housing estate homes were standing empty, people simply couldn’t afford the £300,000 asking price.  In addition, (this is me) it is government policy that new housing estates are required by law to include a mix of what is described as affordable housing.  Affordable housing is a euphemism for social housing, IOW’s immigrants and poor white families.

I would guess most of the affordable houses would be rented either from private landlords or local authorities.

Mixed housing is nothing more than engineering forced race mixing, who would invest in a £300,000 home with a fair chance of having multiple neighbours who didn’t share your values.  Just another case of unintended consequences.

If people who can afford to buy but don’t then who is going to buy?  I can see government stepping in and buying thousands of empty homes which will then be rented out by the local authorities.

Where will government get the money to pay for all of those empty homes?  Why, borrow it of course.  Hey! hang on, isn’t this where we came in?  Wasn’t it in America where they wanted people to buy there own homes even if they had no income? Something about creating a credit crunch.

This Marxist capitalist alliance takes some understanding.  Boles, (housing minister) was urging the head honcho mega builder to start mega building and make a nice profit in the process.  Marxism abhors private property for private gain, in fact for Marxist/liberals it’s a huge no-no and ban such a thing.  And yet this is another glaring inconsistency in the unholy alliance.  Marxism is relying on capitalism to fund and underpin the whole welfare state immigration she-bang, at a handsome profit you understand.

I give up.

Will someone here one day comment on this?

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:13 | #

>>  Hymie, what is there to notice?

That in the face of an opportunity to build an alliance with a group that ==is==  unified enough and self-confident enough to shut out an attempted immigrant invasion - and which indigenously controls a significantly-sized territory which is an potential agricultural powerhouse (think of Israel, but with all the rainfall a farmer could ask for), and is blessed with massive natural resources - WN thought-leaders chose to instead spend their time polishing the mirror in which they admire themselves.

Somebody might grab the opportunity.  But don’t worry.  There might be some crumbs left.  Your grandchildren will possibly be allowed a tourist visa to Buddhist Zion.  I’ll tell my grandchildren who are ensconsced in control of Myanmar’s Central Bank to say say nice things about your grandchildren.

Only Haller’s grandkids will receive invitations to immigrate.

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:53 | #

Given the present situation on the ground, here is why Silver’s “Velvet Divorce” idea is a much superior way to proceed than the White Zion route:

The very existence of historically white societies is evil

Which ineluctably means, that the very existence of white people as white people in any community in which they form the numerical majority and the majority culture is evil.
And understand this: not a single mainstream conservative in America will oppose that idea.

These thoughts are triggered by an e-mail from Kathlene M., who writes:

Although Minnesota must implement budget cuts to education, the state apparently has enough money to send teachers to a white guilt conference. Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune comments:

<blockquote>The conference is “built on the premise that the U.S. was started by white people, for white people,” according to conference materials. Its mission is to get participants to confront their biases in a “journey in understanding white supremacy, whiteness, privilege, power and oppression,” and to “agree to take action in [their] own circle of power.”

According to liberals it’s a crime for white people to have a country for white people. A list of the sponsors includes two Lutheran universities: Gustavus Adolphus and Augsburg College. Nothing like having WASPs undermine their own culture. The conference is led by an earring-adorned “community educator” named Paul Kivel who, although white (and Jewish), devotes his life to “social justice” for everyone except whites. This is something I’d expect here in California, not in the Midwest.

——-

LA replies:

“This is something I’d expect here in California, not in the Midwest.”
Where have you been? These anti-white teachings have been an established part of Amercan education, as well as of corporate diversity training, for at least 20 years. Check out my 2004 article at FrontPage Magazine, “Anti-Racism: the Mailed Fist of Multiculturalism.”

more:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019089.html</blockquote>

Posted by I Heartily Recommend You To Vote UKIP! on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:32 | #

Bill,
    The people wo run this country (the UK), are simply not very bright. That is the start and the end of it.
  If you look at any of the myriad of popuation projections issued by any number of local authorities, helath authorities, government departments, academics, just about anyone who’s got an interest in these things, released before the magic yera of 1997, they will tell you one thing and one thing only - the UK population was projection to slowly and inexorably decline from hereonin, and thus no central planning of widescale infrastructure, schools, housing etc was ever budgetted or planned for. As we all know, these things take time to plan properly, hence the blueprints of 20 years ago are the bricks and mortar of today.
  New Labour’s ‘open door’ really only took on its full blush post 2001, when the Blair government felt confident and arrogant enough to show its true colours. Prior to that it was deeply hidden, as the cunning bastards knew full well they would never had been elected on such an announced programme. Look at the Neather paper - it’s all ideology, a hideous brew of lefty universalism and right-wing Friedmannite neo-liberalism, the bizarre idea that stuffing Britain full of warm bodies equals ‘economic growth’ (believe me or not, this was neo-liberal dogma, as espoused by ugly-faced jew-boy Portes pre-crash). Senior ‘academics’ at the LSE claimed ‘only’ 40,00 Poles would evr come here, stupid politiicains bought that crap and called people like me, who stated the obvious (ie if wages in Poland are only a fifth of English wages, half of Poland would chance their arms), stupid and uneducated and not ‘smart’ like their pet ideologues.
- And so it came to pass, planned but unplanned for and never mind the ideology, bugger the consequences. All conceived in the pre-crash go-go years when the political trash thought the gravy train would last forever.
Funny now after our 7 lean years you don’t hear this moron talk (which was the ‘mainstream opinion’) anymore, the ‘clever’ people have got a badcase of the struck-dumbs.
  Bever thought I’d say this, but thank G-d for the crash, and the bit of common it’s koocked into some exceedingly thick and arrogant heads. Nothing else, not even a Hilti nail-gun could penetrate that 6” of reinforced cocrete enveloping 5 micrograms of pure shit.

Posted by Duncan on Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:59 | #

The Organization of Islamic Council tried to open an office in Yangon, the military goivernment there first didn’t object. They only reversed the decision in the face of Buddhist-Monk-led street demonstrations.  Buddhism did start in Burma-Myanmar.

Long-time readers know that I have no affection for Rabbinic “Judaism”,  but I offer for your consideration,  the value proposition that no “Jews” were involved in this.  The Liberal Jews favor causes which offer plausible fund-raising opportunities. Limousine liberals want their limousines.

Euro-elite desire to make kissy with wealthy Muslim countries seems the more likely source of the shouting.

Don’t worry, your co-ethnics are heavily involved in this. George Soros has been promoting globalism in Burma for decades. And globalism more generally is Jewish inspired and driven. It’s just TJB - typical Jewish behavior.

http://www.dvb.no/news/george-soros-to-open-first-burma-office/19469

US billionaire investor George Soros said he has agreed to set up an official base for his philanthropic work in Burma after meetings with the country’s president and Aung San Suu Kyi.

The financier, one of the world’s richest men who funds pro-democracy initiatives in Burma, travelled to the army-dominated country “in his capacity as a philanthropist”, according to a statement seen on Thursday.

Soros said he planned to establish an “official presence” in the country to aid “the transition from a closed to a more open society”, following the 26 December to 3 January trip to Burma.

He added that talks with opposition leader Suu Kyi included “a wide ranging discussion about the reform process”.

“My foundations have been supporting the democracy movement for 20 years, but this was my first meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. I have been and remain very much guided by her vision in my involvement in Burma,” Soros said.

Burma, which remains subject to tough Western sanctions, was left impoverished and isolated by nearly half a century of military rule.

Despite the continued dominance of the army, the new government has shown promising signs that it is willing to reform since taking over from the ruling junta in March.

President Thein Sein, a former general, has held talks with Suu Kyi, opened dialogue with ethnic rebels and indicated a wish for warmer ties with the west.

But the country has yet to meet expectations over key issues like the release of all political prisoners. Authorities caused disappointment this week by announcing a cut to jail terms for all inmates without issuing a much-anticipated amnesty for detained dissidents.

“While I am greatly encouraged by signs of political opening in Burma, the reforms are in early days. There is a big gap between the good will at the top and conditions on the ground,” Soros said, in the release from his Open Society Foundations group.

Other recent high-profile Western visitors have included US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague, who travelled to the country on Thursday. Both represent the highest-level envoys from their nations in half a century.

Soros, who made a huge fortune from speculating, has given away billions of dollars to philanthropic causes in recent years.

Open Society Foundations have funded a number of projects in Burma since 1994, with a focus on increasing international awareness of conditions in the country and providing assistance to marginalised ethnic minorities, women, and young people.

Posted by Hymie in Afula on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:09 | #

>>  Don’t worry, your co-ethnics are heavily involved in this. George Soros has been promoting globalism in Burma for decades. And globalism more generally is Jewish

I wouldn’t lift a finger to help the Jews or any other religiously-defined group. Run them into the gas chambers, it doesn’t bother me.

Duncan’s a nice guy.  Notwithstanding which, just as Africans don’t get to decide who are HIS co-ethnics, he doesn’t get to decide who are mine. 

That decision is made in Hebrew.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 06:26 | #

see @  38 Above.

Migrants fuel need for Green Belt homes: Minister’s candid admission on housing crisis

Nick Boles said migrants accounted for almost half of the housing demand, and his figures suggest 100,000 new homes a year will be needed to accommodate them. The minister added: ‘We can’t go on like this.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241219/Migrants-fuel-need-Green-Belt-homes-Ministers-candid-admission-housing-crisis.html#ixzz2DmKwL5uM

On News Night the figure Boles quoted was 200,000 a year.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:05 | #

Paxman - Boles BBC News Night.  Concreting over Britain.

See for yourself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20535467

Keep in mind this is just housing, no infrastructure mentioned.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:43 | #

In terms of your list arranged marriages are a big part of it too. One of Labour’s first acts was to drop the primary purpose rule.

I think my list would start with

1. Tell the whole truth.
This is easily the biggest factor as things are so much worse than most people who live outside the effected areas imagine. For example even most people who read nationalist websites aren’t aware of how totally corrupt everything becomes as soon as white people are a minority in a local area. This could be achieved through some kind of media representation act that gave all political parties a state-funded media platform.

2. Exit EU.

3. Complete moratorium on legal immigration for n years.

4. Rigorously enforce illegal immigration laws as a matter of priority.
This is key as they go where it’s easiest to get citizenship. Make yourself the hardest place to get citizenship and they’ll target whoever becomes the new easiest. You don’t need to deport them all just look like you intend to.

5. 1920s law enforcement.
Most of them come from populations that are either more violent or more corrupt. If the laws were rigorously enforced with harsh sentencing that would slow down the birth rate. Also if the most violent from particular ethnic groups were locked up that would slow the rate of ethnic cleansing. Secondly if seizure of assets became the norm for fraud cases lots of them would self-deport as they knew they wouldn’t be able to stop themselves. This requires (1) to be in place so people knew that for example the proportion of people from particular ethnic groups in jail for street robbery was perfectly in line with their proportion of perpetrators derived from victim reports but also that corruption and fraud was completely endemic among certain populations whose “us” is their extended family and whose “them” is everyone else.

6. Just for fun.
Reinstate the treason law.
Add a clause that repealing or attempting to repeal the law against treason was in itself treason.
Make the new clause apply retroactively.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 01:09 | #

I should add i don’t disagree with your list but i’m prioritizing things that are neutral on the surface but deeply racial under the surface.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:22 | #

In addition, (this is me) it is government policy that new housing estates are required by law to include a mix of what is described as affordable housing.  Affordable housing is a euphemism for social housing, IOW’s immigrants and poor white families….Mixed housing is nothing more than engineering forced race mixing, who would invest in a £300,000 home with a fair chance of having multiple neighbours who didn’t share your values.  Just another case of unintended consequences.

Good point. I hadn’t thought of that.

With our population increasing at something like the thick end a million a year it is obvious there is never going to be sufficient living accommodation to cope, dispossession of whites from their homes must surely figure a high priority. Euthanasia is a convenient and simple means of releasing living accommodation, a pilot scheme has been up and running for some time, we can only expect a stepping up in this regard.

Very much on the cards.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:47 | #

@ 53

They will come for the old first, little old ladies whose other halves have been long gone, she, living in a home that is considered too big for her needs.  It won’t matter if she has lived there for all of her married life, the little old lady will have to go.  Perhaps the house will be taken into local housing stock, which begs the question what claim will her children have on the house.

The next move could be local authorities will enforce under capacity homes to take in strangers, who will be deemed on the street homeless.  Here again, forced integration will play a part.  My local council enclosed with my council tax bill an invitation to take in a lodger bribing me with £80. 00 a week rent.

Posted by Mercury on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:44 | #

Leon Haller: Your comments on this thread, in particular 8 and 20, are bloody brilliant. All common sense, but put well. I’m surprised more people don’t listen to you, what gives?

You did something else good here too, recently. I’m going to find it if I can. Keep writing, mate.

Posted by Thorn on Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:36 | #

Posted by Mercury on December 03, 2012, 09:44 PM | #

Leon Haller: Your comments on this thread, in particular 8 and 20, are bloody brilliant. All common sense, but put well. I’m surprised more people don’t listen to you, what gives?

You did something else good here too, recently. I’m going to find it if I can. Keep writing, mate.

———————————————————————————————-

Agreed.

You might want to check out the London thread—particularly Leon’s comments @ 35 & 37.

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//london#c135443