Posted by Christian M on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:41 | #

Let’s make a White genocide evidence wiki.

Beginning thread is here:

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/bob-whitakers-pro-white-bbq/15183-white-genocide-evidence-wiki-project.html

A major weakness is that many WNs only play around on the Internet, click links, post comments, and bitch about quotations. This can be a HUGE strength!

Let’s encourage user submissions to compile ALL quotations providing evidence for the intent or the act of White genocide. This will need minimal cleanup/edits/review every few weeks. In no time flat, we’ll have a HUGE list of all the anti-White quotations. (Ancillary goals: voting records, indoctrination plans, immigration plans, corporate sponsorships.) This will bring us three great things for White people:

1. Evidence for future White genocide prosecutions, tribunals, or exposures
2. Anti-Whites will be even more nervous and may slow up their assaults
3. Provides excellent eye-openers for more White awakenings

I’m thinking that we can use this site to promote it and use MajorityRights.com (they have a race wiki so they already have the software code infrastructure) or another site to actually host the quotations and wiki-building. Let’s start the thread here and feel free to search Stormfront and other places to pull the quotations.

Classify each quotation by UN Genocide part a, b, c, d, or e. Provide the context and provide as many references as possible for the quotation.

This will be open IP rights. Everyone is encouraged to copy, download, and spread it around to have plenty of redundant, hard, and soft backup copies in case of attack or shutdown.

This needs to be something cleaner and separate from the quotation list on Stormfront or Jewwatch—but we can certainly use those! Maybe a separate website altogether “WhiteGenocideEvidence.com” will be created.

Thanks,

Christian M (aka C Miller)

****EXAMPLE****

Noel Ignatiev
Jewish Harvard Professor
United States
A B C D E
“The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists…Keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”

excerpt:

International law defines genocide as an international crime against humanity, with grave punishment for violations. As far as the international recognition of the reality of race, ask the ghosts of Saddam Hussein or Wilhelm Frick if the Kurds or Jews, respectively, are mere social constructs. Race is an internationally-recognized reality and is a major factor in the crime of genocide. In the future, the political and economic elites that are responsible for the policies of White genocide may face trial before an international tribunal. The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The present immigration and political policies of many traditionally White nations, especially the United States, are in violation of part (c) and possibly part (d). White nations have been subverted to conditions that heavily favor non-White immigration, restrict White birthrates, and encourage and support non-White birthrates, and are thus calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the White race. There are many quotations of politicians, professors, and pundits advocating this very point - the end of the White race. Genocide is not always an act of traditional murder. The United Nations Convention on Genocide covers violent genocide with parts (a) and (b). However, the remaining definitions cover indirect and incremental methods to clarify that any form of genocide is punishable under international law.

Read full article to understand White genocide:

None dare call it White genocide

Posted by Frank on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:21 | #

GW,

it sounds like the quake has a silver lining.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:07 | #

it sounds like the quake has a silver lining.

Knock it off, Frank. You can’t have your quake and eat it too.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:40 | #

Lol, that’s very witty.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:43 | #

Excellent suggestions from Christian M. I’ve long advocated each of us compiling a private list of the really repulsive race traitors, which could one day be collated into a public List Project - just to let them know we’re watching, and waiting.

Posted by Alaric on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:16 | #

I will never think of our kith and kin from New Zealand, Canada, and Australia as being foreigners and I shall never think of Europeans as being anything else.

Exactly the reason the Anglosphere must be eradicated, subjugated for all time. The British are the vampire of the continent and have brought nothing but destruction on the mainland Germanics.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:03 | #

What are people here thinking of the Arab uprisings? Major historical events, which will be written about and analyzed for decades. I haven’t seen very much here at MR on the implications for whites. Good? Bad?

Posted by Frank on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:21 | #

Leon,

some say it’s a “Rothchilds plot” to get the US into another war.

Others say Israel/US is finally being thrown out of the region.

Some say extremists will come to power, though at least in Egypt the Christian Copts were somewhat involved in the protests, unless the US Coptic website is neocon-occupied. Who knows.

-

Some warn this could create a refugee problem - more mass immigration :0

I haven’t liked archaeology being destroyed. Otherwise, I’m more interested in domestic affairs. The archaeology is mostly all that concerns me.

Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:15 | #

some say it’s a “Rothchilds plot” to get the US into another war.
(Frank)

Those who say this aren’t very bright. Otherwise, I’m not sure whether these uprisings will be good or bad for Europe.

Posted by Christian M on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:52 | #

Create a user name and post to this thread:

http://www.whitenewsnow.com/bob-whitakers-pro-white-bbq/15183-white-genocide-evidence-wiki-project.html

Or, just post to this comment thread if you wish.

How about it, folks?  The idea is to have a free-standing website “WhiteGenocide_____.com” that is not attached to any other group whatsoever.  It will be an independent testament to the policy of White genocide.  There can be no accusations using the various shibboleths.

I’m looking for a few good White men to help me out here!

****EXAMPLE****

Noel Ignatiev
Jewish Harvard Professor
United States
A B C D E (this lists which parts are violated)
“The goal of abolishing the White race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed White supremacists…Keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”

See excerpt from:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/none_dare_call_it_white_genocide/

Race is an internationally-recognized reality and is a major factor in the crime of genocide. In the future, the political and economic elites that are responsible for the policies of White genocide may face trial before an international tribunal. The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:28 | #

Leon Haller February 23, 2011, 02:03 PM

What are people here thinking of the Arab uprisings? Major historical events, which will be written about and analyzed for decades. I haven’t seen very much here at MR on the implications for whites. Good? Bad?

About a week into the riots it crossed my mind the riots had the hallmarks of the CIA colour revolutions as in Georgia and Ukraine.

After reading your post this evening I googled ’ CIA colour revolutions and lo there was this, ‘Egypt is Another Soros “Color” Revolution.’

http://www.henrymakow.com/egypt.html

Maybe it is all designed to inflame the existing tensions out there (as one commenter says.)

Some say there is an almighty clash being engineered between Western civilisation and Islam.  WW III.  Clues, 9/11, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, mass Islamic migration into white lands.

It is terribly easy to cross over into conspiracy territory here as Makow does in this piece.

Make of it what you will.

Here’s something else from this evening’s trawl.  Not entirely unrelated me thinks.

‘We’re at a Huge Transition Phase in Our History’  says Gordon Brown.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,746939,00.html

What is Gordan Brown referring to?  ‘We’re at a Huge Transition Phase in Our History’

NWO?

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:16 | #

I would like to nominate Chris Bowen the Australian Minister for Immigration as complicit in genocide.  He recently announced a new pro-multiculturalism policy called The People of Australia.

I sent him the following:

“In NEW STRATEGY IN SUPPORT OF MULTICULTURALISM IN AUSTRALIA you assert that your “…new national multicultural policy, The People of Australia, builds on the Federal Government’s strong support for multiculturalism in Australia…”  You undoubtedly have bipartisan federal government support but do you have a mandate from the people of Australia to pursue such a policy?  Polls have consistently shown that the majority of Australians oppose non-European immigration into Australia, and by non-European I mean non-white.

The best way to maintain a socially cohesive and harmonious society is by maintaining a homogenous one, quite the opposite of your pronounced objectives.  I doubt you have a clear overview of where you are going with all this so in the, probably vain, hope of inspiring you to think through your policy I would like you to address a few questions.

Do you have a figure of how much you want to reduce the white population of Australia to?

Have you got some final mix of any sort in mind or will you just wing it with some knee-jerk reaction to whatever global hot spot is the flavor of the day?

Will you take into account importing foreign hostilities when inviting immigrants to enrich us?

Will you force people to mix or can we expect to see enclaves of ethnic groups continue to grow?

Does freedom of association fit into your grand plan?

Will you abolish affirmative action programs in the interest of fairness?

Will the new body you propose help to ensure Australian Government services respond to the needs of the majority population communities and not just migrant and refugee communities?

Do you have a working definition of anti-racism or racism?  If so please do tell.  If whites are targeted can they expect fair treatment?  Will you set up a task force to deal with that increasing problem?  (Yes, this is so; maybe the police can enlighten you on this score.)

You also stated that “The People of Australia policy embraced four principles, including celebrating and valuing diversity; maintaining social cohesion; communicating the benefits of Australia’s diversity; and responding to intolerance and discrimination.”  Do you have any verifiable proof that diversity is beneficial?  Can you provide references for such an outlook or even point to exemplar foreign multicultural societies?”

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:38 | #

Great stuff in there Thunder.

Posted by Philosopher King on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:38 | #

What are people here thinking of the Arab uprisings? Major historical events, which will be written about and analyzed for decades. I haven’t seen very much here at MR on the implications for whites. Good? Bad?

I am by no means an expert, but I think it’s safe to say that the events in the Middle East will certainly have repercussions for us.

At first glance these events seem like they will benefit us since:

1.)  If new governments are more competent and egalitarian there will be less of a need for those in Muslim countries to immigrate to white nations.

2.)  Opposition to Zionism will increase, and new Middle East leaders could threaten Israeli dominance and garner sympathy in the international community. Many do-gooder types will also be more apt to sympathize with Middle Eastern countries opposed to Israel if they are “democratic.”

3.)  Muslims in Europe or America might be tempted to return to their home countries if they become sufficiently sustainable (probably overly-optimistic).

Each of these has a downside too however because:

1.)  Muslims are the most important asset to anti-multiculturalists and nationalists, since Muslims are more widely viewed as externally threatening, are less willing to assimilate and are far more likely to be considered alien by whites. Many in Western nations have negative sentiments over Muslims and this is likely to increase over the coming years; for modern European nationalists the Muslim is the new Jew, the whipping boy which will get us into power.

2.)  Zionists will almost certainly prop up regimes which view them favorably or will normalize relations with Middle Eastern countries in exchange for aid.

3.)  see 1.

One other downside is that it’s simply easier for Western nations to deal with one or two leaders, than parliament and the bureaucratic democratic system. Take Italy for instance which paid Libya 5 billion dollars in reparations for colonizing it, in addition to massive foreign investment from Libya, Italy got assurances that illegal immigration from Libya would be significantly curbed. I don’t think that kind of deal is brokered between “democratic” countries very often.

I think this is an important matter and I’d be interested in hearing other opinions. In my analysis, I generalized quite a bit and as I said I am by no means an expert.

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:46 | #

Re point 1.

A lot of anti-Muslim feeling has been channeled into anti-extremism. Thus sidestepping the whole demographic issue. Thats alright because those are moderate majority Muslims, the ones who share our values.

Posted by Philosopher King on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:16 | #

A lot of anti-Muslim feeling has been channeled into anti-extremism. Thus sidestepping the whole demographic issue.

Then nationalists must pose as anti-extremists, which is essentially what they’re already doing. I think my point remains, if there weren’t Muslims (and by extension extremism), who would nationalists be left with to attack?

Nick Griffin put it best:

“We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it’s the thing they can understand. It’s the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with. If we were to attack some other ethnic group—some people say we should attack the Jews… But ... we’ve got to get to power.”

Posted by Rollory on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:14 | #

” less of a need for those in Muslim countries to immigrate to white nations.”

The Italian foreign minister predicted today between 200K and 300K Libyans will head for Italian shores if Kadafi goes down.

There’s already the thousands of Tunisians on Lampedusa.

Egypt has 85 million people, can not feed itself, and that is not a problem solvable in the short term with governmental changes.

No, the crisis is deepening.

Posted by Thunder on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:51 | #

Thanks Lurker,

I take that as high praise coming from you.

And I would like to add that the sophistication of some of our correspondents now is very heartening.  People like GW, yourself and many many others have lifted the game substantially.  I also get the feeling that you are moving the discussions consistently closer to the important truths.  Soon we will be insisting people answer the question “Are you pro-white or are you pro white genocide? (Tip of the hat to Horus.) And they will feel increasingly compelled to answer.

I remember how it used to be years ago.  (I believe I have been going at these issues over the internet in Oz for what—30 years.)  It would be one or two of us quoting Jensen and Rushton against a horde of zombie leftists hearing the same insults ad nauseam.  Progress has been made and the wider the disconnect between the average person and mainstream thought police the more our views will influence.

I think that is why Christian’s suggestion is so important.  We need to continue to raise the stakes.

Posted by Philosopher King on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:11 | #

I apologize if I’m hijacking this thread, if anyone feels we should concentrate on the main topic please let me know.

The Italian foreign minister predicted today between 200K and 300K Libyans will head for Italian shores if Kadafi goes down.

I listed this as one of the downsides of this crisis above. While that might seem like a lot, this bleeding will only be temporary and once Libya becomes stabilized again (long-term) the levels of immigration will (likely) go down.

Egypt has 85 million people, can not feed itself, and that is not a problem solvable in the short term with governmental changes.

I agree with this assessment, this presents a major complication for us.

In terms of long-term strategy, however, I feel that nationalists gain a lot from mass Muslim immigration (I know this might seem like a paradox). Consider the alternative, if mass immigration ceases from Muslim nations, what will nationalists have to attack? Our populations become more liberal with every passing year, at least there are people who think our way today, will there be in 20 years? If we limit immigration today, and allow future generations to deal with the consequences of present demographic trends, will they? At least today there are many who have lived without being immersed in multiculturalism, who recognize it for what it is, and with Muslim extremism in the mix we can convert many more to our side. Using the logic of Vietnam I think we might have to burn the village in order to save it.

Posted by Drifter on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 05:48 | #

what will nationalists have to attack?

Attacking should be no more than half or less of the strategy. Constructive ingroup pursuits should be half or more of the strategy. The second part is probably baffling to most nationalists.

Posted by Philosopher King on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:00 | #

Attacking should be no more than half or less of the strategy. Constructive ingroup pursuits should be half or more of the strategy. The second part is probably baffling to most nationalists.

How do you propose raising public awareness for nationalism? Perhaps I phrased my idea incorrectly, what I mean to say is that without Muslims, nationalists will be unable to appeal to peoples’ fears and apprehensions. Our goal should not be to isolate ourselves, there are too few of us for such actions to be of any consequence. What we must do is get enough people on our side, this should be our top priority.

Posted by Bill on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:22 | #

Middle East riots. Regime change, democratisation - whatever.

What I singularly failed to mention @ 10.28 PM above was, whatever goes on in this region has to be viewed through the what’s in it for Israel filter, how do events tie in with the Israeli interests?

If these revolutions have indeed been triggered by American interests, then by extension, Israel must benefit or do they?

There seems to be in American politics, two factions at work, one pro Israel and the other anti.  I am not sufficiently familiar with the nuances in play here, so will have leave that to others.

So again, the question is, how do these revolutions pan out when viewed through the what’s in it for Israel filter?

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:47 | #

Let’s encourage user submissions to compile ALL quotations providing evidence for the intent or the act of White genocide.

Christian, seeing as your writing is now published at TOO, I would be interested in your opinion of MacDonald’s editorial policy per commenting which in effect silences the most articulate and insightful commenters.  Of course I mean all those who in good conscience cannot consign themselves to the ranks of his kiss-ass chorus.

A finer collection of numbnuts you will never find than under the tent of the Regnery circus.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:48 | #

For those it concerns it’s worth publicizing this at other venues: http://www.redcross.org.nz/donate

Exactly the reason the Anglosphere must be eradicated, subjugated for all time. The British are the vampire of the continent and have brought nothing but destruction on the mainland Germanics.

Idiot. Britain’s policy in Europe was always to prevent one country becoming dominant. Apart from that we tried to ignore it. Since when did vampires spend most of their time trying to ignore? Empires are for outside of Europe - the Germans wouldn’t want to be part of a Spanish, French or Russian Empire any more than the French, Spanish or Russians would want to be part of a German Empire.

Anyway you already got your revenge when the jews were pushed out into the Anglosphere.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344218/Asian-sex-gangs-Culture-silence-allows-grooming-white-girls-fear-racist.html

Enjoy your revenge and stop complaining.

What are people here thinking of the Arab uprisings? Major historical events, which will be written about and analyzed for decades. I haven’t seen very much here at MR on the implications for whites. Good? Bad?

The federal reserve has been printing money like there’s no tomorrow trying to keep the US economy afloat. This has led to increasing food prices around the world and that seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back in the middle-east and the initial trigger for the revolt - although they have taken on a life of their own now. It’s both bad and good. It’s bad but bad is good as stability is destroying us and things going wrong will help to shake people out of their trance.

Put another way America is going down like Atlantis and directly or indirectly this will create a massive tsunami all over the world.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 10:45 | #

the Germans wouldn’t want to be part of a Spanish, French or Russian Empire any more than the French, Spanish or Russians would want to be part of a German Empire.

I’m sure Western Europeans - as evidenced by the exceptionally lenient German occupation of France - would much rather be ruled by Krauts than the Bolsheviks.  If Germany had not gone through with Barbarossa, the latter is what they would have gotten.

Britain’s policy in Europe was always to prevent one country becoming dominant.

Uh huh.  That clearly explains Churchill’s attempt to engage in a little horse trading with that noted humanitarian Stalin for proportion of influence as between Britain and Russia in post-war Europe.

Anyway you already got your revenge when the jews were pushed out into the Anglosphere.

It’s all the Joos!  The English have no moral agency.

Enjoy your revenge and stop complaining.

The English participated in doing to Germany post-war what they have always accused Krauts of planning to do to Slavs.  Churchill signed off on the Morgenthau plan as he believed Germany’s total destruction (entailing the starvation of as much as half of Germany) would make for a better market for Britain’s manufactured exports.  That is about as low as it gets.  Whatever moral authority you believe you English still have is now forfeit.

Idiot.

Is that what you say whenever you are flush with oxytocin?  I don’t judge, I know you can’t help it.

Put another way America is going down like Atlantis

Like Atlantis!  Care for some tea with your whiskey?

Posted by Frank on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:27 | #

CC,

Atlantis refers to the last part of Plato’s Critias. I suspect that’s a reference you’d like.

As the race mixed, the divine nature faded. Also though it lost ties with the founding ancestral traditions, which were divine in origin.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:28 | #

Churchill was part Amerindian. Can we blame his as being insufficiently English?

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:03 | #

CC: Like Atlantis!  Care for some tea with your whiskey?

Sober symbolism.

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

The Morgenthau plan came out of the US government:

Roosevelt is also quoted as saying to Morgenthau that “We have got to be tough with the Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can’t just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.”

The Morgenthau plan faced strong opposition within Roosevelt’s government. Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of War, said he had “yet to meet a man who was not horrified at the ‘Carthaginian’ attitude of the Treasury. It is Semitism gone wild for vengeance and will lay the seeds of another war in the next generation.”

Churchill was not inclined to support the proposal…The meeting broke up on Churchill’s disagreement but Roosevelt suggested that Morgenthau and White continue to discuss with Lord Cherwell, Churchill’s personal assistant.

Lord Cherwell has been described as having “an almost pathological hatred for Nazi Germany, and an almost medieval desire for revenge was a part of his character”. Morgenthau is quoted as saying to his staff that “I can’t overemphasize how helpful Lord Cherwell was because he could advise how to handle Churchill” (Blum, p. 373). In any case, Cherwell was able to persuade Churchill to change his mind. Churchill later said that “At first I was violently opposed to the idea. But the President and Mr. Morgenthau — from whom we had much to ask — were so insistent that in the end we agreed to consider it”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lindemann,_1st_Viscount_Cherwell

Frederick Alexander Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell FRS PC CH (5 April 1886 – 3 July 1957) was an English Jewish physicist who was an influential scientific adviser to the British government, particularly Winston Churchill. He advocated the wartime “area” bombing of German cities, and was a strong doubter of the existence of the Nazi “V” weapons programme.

Lindemann was the second of three sons of Adolphus Frederick Lindemann, who had emigrated to the United Kingdom circa 1871 and become naturalised. Frederick was born in Baden-Baden in Germany where his American mother Olga Noble, the widow of a wealthy banker.

CC: It’s all the Joos!  The English have no moral agency.

It is important to understand the mechanism. Morgenthau playing Wormtongue to Roosevelt and Lord Cherwell playing Wormtongue to Churchill.

I’m sure Western Europeans - as evidenced by the exceptionally lenient German occupation of France - would much rather be ruled by Krauts than the Bolsheviks.  If Germany had not gone through with Barbarossa, the latter is what they would have gotten.

The dishonesty in your position is the pretence that it was just about the Bolsheviks. I agree it partly was and to that extent my attitude to WWII has changed. But it was also simply about Germany building an empire inside Europe. If you pretend that Germany was (solely) selflessly defending against the threat of the Bosheviks then you can build a whole construct on the evil anglo-americans stopping them. But it’s only half true. Preventing any one European power building an empire in Europe is perfectly reasonable and something Germans were okay with when Britain was helping them against Napoleon.

In hindsight the Bolshevik element should have outweighed the traditional policy but hindsight is 20/20.

Whatever moral authority you believe you English still have is now forfeit.

I couldn’t care less about that. I’m only interested in what i think will work as a strategy and Hitler worship ignores his great mistake, a mistake that is relevant to the current situation.

Instead of going it alone he should have worked to help the fascist movements in France and Poland to power. With France on board too, Spain would have joined in and Ukraine - after the recent famine-genocide - if treated right would have eagerly changed sides in an invasion in the same way the Baltic states did. Even most of the ordinary Russians could have been won over if they’d been played right.

- 20 Polish Divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- 20 Ukrainian Divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- 20 French Divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- a handful of Spanish divisions
- a handful of anti-Bolshevik Russian divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- newspapers in Britain and America bought and used to push an anti-Bolshevik line

That’s what an anglo-saxon Hitler would have done and he would have won.

The point of this being not to attack Hitler but to illustrate the parallels to the current situation. If any nationalist party anywhere in the white world comes to power they need to be restrained while helping other nationalist parties to power elsewhere so everyone moves together.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:11 | #

Oops, screwed up the quotes. I’ll repost the last part as it’s the only bit that matters for the future.

It’s all the Joos!  The English have no moral agency.

It is important to understand the mechanism. Morgenthau playing Wormtongue to Roosevelt and Lord Cherwell playing Wormtongue to Churchill.

I’m sure Western Europeans - as evidenced by the exceptionally lenient German occupation of France - would much rather be ruled by Krauts than the Bolsheviks.  If Germany had not gone through with Barbarossa, the latter is what they would have gotten.

The dishonesty in your position is the pretence that it was just about the Bolsheviks. I agree it partly was and to that extent my attitude to WWII has changed. But it was also simply about Germany building an empire inside Europe. If you pretend that Germany was (solely) selflessly defending against the threat of the Bosheviks then you can build a whole construct on the evil anglo-americans stopping them. But it’s only half true. Preventing any one European power building an empire in Europe is perfectly reasonable and something Germans were okay with when Britain was helping them against Napoleon.  In hindsight the Bolshevik element should have outweighed the traditional policy but hindsight is 20/20.

Whatever moral authority you believe you English still have is now forfeit.

I couldn’t care less about that. I’m only interested in what i think will work as a strategy and Hitler worship ignores his great mistake, a mistake that is relevant to the current situation.

Instead of going it alone he should have worked to help the fascist movements in France and Poland to power. With France on board too, Spain would have joined in and Ukraine - after the recent famine-genocide - if treated right would have eagerly changed sides in an invasion in the same way the Baltic states did. Even most of the ordinary Russians could have been won over if they’d been played right.

- 20 Polish Divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- 20 Ukrainian Divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- 20 French Divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- a handful of Spanish divisions
- a handful of anti-Bolshevik Russian divisions instead of German divisions left behind to fight partisans
- newspapers in Britain and America bought and used to push an anti-Bolshevik line

That’s what an anglo-saxon Hitler would have done and he would have won.

The point of this being not to attack Hitler but to illustrate the parallels to the current situation. If any nationalist party anywhere in the white world comes to power they need to be restrained while helping other nationalist parties to power elsewhere so everyone moves together.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:13 | #

Ugh. Wrong again. Ah well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:07 | #

Whatever moral authority you believe you English still have is now forfeit

What, actually, does that mean?  Who are these “English”?  And who are “Krauts”?

This is all imaginary nonsense of no objective value whatsoever.  The reputation of wartime Germany is not the cause we are fighting for.  In any case, that reputation could not survive the nature of National Socialism itself.  It was not English morality which triumphed in the Western half of Germany in May 1945. It was morality, along with Judeo-American hegemonic ambition (which turned out not to be so moral).

Posted by Thorn on Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:01 | #

Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (or Barcelona Process) started in 1995 with the Barcelona Euro-Mediterranean Conference. The European Union stated the intention of this “partnership” is “to strengthen its relations with the countries in the Mashriq and Maghreb regions”. The partnership laid the foundations for what came to be the Union for the Mediterranean, an institution building on, but not replacing, the EuroMed Partnership.

The European Union enlargement of 2004 brought two more Mediterranean countries (Cyprus and Malta) into the Union, while adding a total of 10 to the number of Member States. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership today comprises 44 members: 27 European Union member states, and 16 partner countries (Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, the Palestinian territories, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey).[1]

Barcelona ProcessThe Barcelona Process is an initiative, which lays the foundations of a proposed new regional relationship. In the Barcelona Declaration, the Euro-Mediterranean partners established the three main objectives of the Partnership:

1.Definition of a common area of peace and stability through the reinforcement of political and security dialogue (Political and Security Basket).

2.Construction of a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free-trade area (Economic and Financial Basket).

3.Rapprochement between peoples through a social, cultural and human partnership aimed at encouraging understanding between cultures and exchanges between civil societies (Social, Cultural and Human Basket).

The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership comprises two complementary dimensions:

Role

Its agenda was the following:

Security and stability in the Mediterranean;
Agreeing on shared values and initializing a long-term process for cooperation in the Mediterranean;

Promoting democracy, good governance and human rights;

Achieving mutually satisfactory trading terms for the region’s partners, the “region” consisting of the countries that participated;

Establishing a complementary policy to the United States’ presence in the Mediterranean.

The Barcelona Process comprises three “baskets”:

economic - to work for shared prosperity in the Mediterranean, including the Association Agreements on the bilateral level

political - promotion of political values, good governance and democracy

cultural - cultural exchange and strengthening civil society

Javier Solana opened the conference saying that they were brought together to straighten out the “clash of civilizations” and misunderstandings that there had been between them, and that it “was auspicious” that they had convened on the 900th anniversary of the First Crusade. He described the conference as a process to foster cultural and economic unity in the Mediterranean region. The Barcelona Treaty was drawn up by the 27 countries in attendance, and Javier Solana, who represented Spain as their foreign minister during their turn at the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, was credited with the diplomatic accomplishment.

more>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Mediterranean_Partnership

Posted by Drifter on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 01:18 | #

How do you propose raising public awareness for nationalism? Perhaps I phrased my idea incorrectly, what I mean to say is that without Muslims, nationalists will be unable to appeal to peoples’ fears and apprehensions.

Understood. But, what do our people (Anglophone, American mutt, continental, etc.) love? Antipathy is one thing, but attraction by sympathy is another.

Our goal should not be to isolate ourselves, there are too few of us for such actions to be of any consequence. What we must do is get enough people on our side, this should be our top priority.

If our priority is only antipathy to nasty Others, then Big Brother and “freedom” would still for most people seem to offer a better choice for managing multiracial chaos than some angry protestors offering a life toiling under “fascism”. What else explains the consistent antipathy toward nationalism?

Posted by Philosopher King on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:39 | #

what do our people (Anglophone, American mutt, continental, etc.) love? Antipathy is one thing, but attraction by sympathy is another.

There once was a romantic period when white people loved one another; this was when white people had to rely on one another, and to make sacrifices for the benefit of their communities. However, this time has passed, industrialization has made our lives easier and economics has made us more individualistic. At one time elite Western leaders were cultivated with a sense of duty to their people, these leaders could not be bribed since they owned all of a nation’s wealth. Nations during this period were autarkic and every man was essential to the continuance of the society and of the culture. Men were instilled with a sense of belonging, there were family traditions, and deeply held convictions, and cultural aliens were viewed as threats to these interests.

Today however the world is different. Today Western men have no sense of direction, and no priorities. Nihilism reigns supreme and the modern Western man seeks to maximize his pleasure intake with no regard for anything else. The simple truth is that Western culture is gone or fading fast. Whites in America, for instance, have no knowledge of their heritage and whites everywhere are told to be ashamed for what they are. The media has redefined the standard of beauty and appeal so that any two people can copulate; now people are perfect matches if they are both popular, both of the same socioeconomic status, etc. Tradition has been thrown out the window; it is cast as a superstition, vilified by hedonists, and ridiculed as undemocratic.

It’s important to recognize the fact that this is how those in the Western world think today. We white nationalists are as Evola put it the differentiated men, we seek tradition, we feel that tradition imbues life with greater meaning than the accumulation of wealth; we feel that this is the only environment where are children can flourish. For most people in the west today, however, all that matters is money and the desire to continue living (even if absent of purpose). I know I may seem harsh, and I may come across as being unduly cynical but this is the truth. We today are in the wintertime of Western culture; we can no longer appeal to people’s sense of belonging, their spirituality, their desire for tradition, or the future of their spawn. In order to reinvigorate the West we need to appeal to people’s needs in the here and now and today people are persuaded by the accumulation of wealth and the desire to continue living, hence we must show them that immigrants threaten these things. In this sense we are appealing to what they love, however, they happen to love the wrong things.

If our priority is only antipathy to nasty Others, then Big Brother and “freedom” would still for most people seem to offer a better choice for managing multiracial chaos than some angry protestors offering a life toiling under “fascism”. What else explains the consistent antipathy toward nationalism?

I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re getting at. I feel that nationalists should try to speak more openly about the freedoms they provide that Big Brother cannot: freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the ability to raise one’s kids with a sense of pride in their culture.

I think the biggest problem nationalists face today is an image problem, if people only knew what we really stood for they would be less likely to dismiss us. The only glimpse of nationalists most people get are the thugs and sociopaths in our movement, nevertheless in Europe nationalism is becoming more mainstream every year.

I’m usually quite busy so if you respond don’t expect a speedy reply.

Posted by Wrong on Fri, 25 Feb 2011 22:35 | #

“There once was a romantic period when white people loved one another; this was when white people had to rely on one another, and to make sacrifices for the benefit of their communities. However, this time has passed, industrialization has made our lives easier and economics has made us more individualistic. At one time elite Western leaders were cultivated with a sense of duty to their people, these leaders could not be bribed since they owned all of a nation’s wealth. Nations during this period were autarkic and every man was essential to the continuance of the society and of the culture. Men were instilled with a sense of belonging, there were family traditions, and deeply held convictions, and cultural aliens were viewed as threats to these interests.”

This is bollocks. Whites have been selling each other out from the beginning of time. Charlemagne allowed slave-trading of Slavs and Heathens (with Yids as the middlemen). Where was the love then?

The sooner folk get over the notion of a golden past where everything was hunky-dory until some evil occurred that destroyed it the better.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:30 | #

Who are these “English”?  And who are “Krauts”?

Those that are genetically English; those that are genetically German.  What, are you actually a social constructionist?

First:

This is all imaginary nonsense of no objective value whatsoever.

But then:

It was not English morality which triumphed in the Western half of Germany in May 1945. It was morality, along with Judeo-American hegemonic ambition (which turned out not to be so moral).

The one, true cosmic morality?  If that is what you are implying, then never was there a clearer example of “imaginary nonsense of no objective value whatsoever.”  Measured by your usual essentialist standards, such that a given ethny’s morality should be in keeping with that ethny’s baseline genetic proclivities for social organization given that this secures said ethny’s genetic continuity (e.g., giving individualism its due within certain limits), we can expect the more genetically individualistic than German English to rightly (by what I presume to be your standards) affirm a morality which allows the individual more leeway of action than Germans would.  Are you claiming the English checked their (English) morality at the door in passing moral judgement on those they called, and you have called, “Krauts” in favor of this loftier cosmic morality?

To further parse your statement, at least as formulated, it really is quite self-contradictory.  As you tell it, “morality” “triumphed” (one does not accrue moral authority with a moral triumph?) in what became Western Germany under British and American influence.  Yet it was, according to you, the British influence which was more morally salutary than the American, and both of these more morally salutary than the Bolshevik influence.  Englishness had nothing to do with that, in your opinion; just dumb luck?

Your humble woodshed, sir.

Posted by Woodshed on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:48 | #

Churchill’s attempt to engage in a little horse trading with that noted humanitarian Stalin for proportion of influence as between Britain and Russia in post-war Europe.

[...]

Churchill signed off on the Morgenthau plan as he believed Germany’s total destruction (entailing the starvation of as much as half of Germany) would make for a better market for Britain’s manufactured exports.

Notice that none of these statements of fact are disputed except to say that “The Joos made us do it” and “Morality prevailed”.  Weak.

I can hear the rejoinder now: “But you must keep in mind what debased and vicious political gangsters the Krauts were at that time.  We had to fight them and with morality on our side.  Justice is inseparable from morality.  It is just and moral that the wicked be punished.  We gave the Krauts no less than they deserved.  Oops, did I say that last bit out loud?”

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:14 | #

The reputation of wartime Germany is not the cause we are fighting for.

But defending the reputation of wartime England is something you expend effort to do.  I will not insult you by chalking this up to feminine emotional reflex.  Why then?  It is because you recognize that the image of moral authority which this cloaks the English in can only aid the cause of furthering English ethnic genetic interests.  There is your “objective value” - assuming of course you believe what furthers English EGI is of objective value.

Jesus, I wish this wasn’t so easy.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:49 | #

It’s a shame Germany didn’t win so we could all see it demonstrate its fallen human nature and give us something to whine about.

The proper point of reviewing history like this is to resolve the underlying problems and heal divisions.

CC,

you seem to want Germans to rule over the English as a result of WWII… Such sounds very much like the Jewish Holocaustism. Rather than attempt that, why not unite as Nordics? There aren’t many remaining. Perhaps you prefer uniting with the Muslim invaders - they’re sure uniting with the German women as I type…

If Southerners can forgive the demonic North, may Sherman rot in Hell, then Germans ought to be able to forgive the English.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:54 | #

Part of the problem is how Pierce and the Jews have destroyed all sense of faith. In the past the Norse pagans viewed the world as flawed, and Christians viewed man as fallen. Pierce might have invented some bullshit that appeals to awakening minds, but such isn’t how pagans actually thought. He’s just more rot that must be rejected for Nordics to live again.

It’s regrettable that English fought Germans. Wars happen, and the modern managerial state, a state whose power you praise CC, is very dangerous because man wields such power. We see with WWII what man is capable of doing.

You whine because the Germans weren’t given the opportunity to abuse power. They’re also mere humans. There’s no great difference between the two groups.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:20 | #

Frank,

you seem to want Germans to rule over the English as a result of WWII

Not so.  I’ve stated here in the past I think NS as historically incarnated is not morally defensible.  But if the brute choice was to have the English picking cotton in German fields and fetching Massa’s lemonade or see the White race go extinct then the former is what I prefer.  That is an extremely provocative way of putting it, but I’ll stand behind it.  In actuality, the worst the English could have expected in the instance of a German victory was a puppet-government beholden to Berlin.

Such sounds very much like the Jewish Holocaustism.

I do believe that Nazi Germany planned to ethnically cleanse many millions of Slavs and enslave the rest.  Whether or not I will consistently affirm that is another matter - a matter of ethnic interest.  And it is not as if the English don’t talk out both sides of their mouths, as suits them, as they deem necessary.  But would they admit it?  Never.  Would they cease their verbal chicanery in attempting to manipulate the WWII narrative, wiping the slate clean of their own sins, to arrogate moral authority to themselves, despite the fact that this is pretty feminine, and quite Jewish?  Not holding my breath.

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” - Orwell

why not unite as Nordics?

I would be content to drop the matter.  But if the English hit Krauts, they can expect Krauts to hit back.  And they can expect the Krauts to win.  That simple.

Posted by Frank on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:33 | #

CC,

Others might have issue, but I can’t honestly disagree with what you say there. Thanks for clarifying. You are an unusual guy though, in a good way.

Posted by the best bar none on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:25 | #

You are an unusual guy though, in a good way.

I’m pretty tame by MR standards.  The home of the war against the faith-gene and single deadly combat (I mean, pretty obviously these offer no viable avenue to racial preservation and are simply indulgences).  Eccentric would be a polite way of putting it.  Bat shit crazy would not be. 

But at least by way of contrast, this is a palace to the Regnery shit house.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:42 | #

“But…but…Captain, why you gotta piss all over the porch?”

Just marking my territory.  When you’re on a roll let it ride.  Fuckin’-A.

Posted by CL on Sun, 27 Feb 2011 09:31 | #

Fuckin’-A.

It might mean more if you bothered to post under another name before kissing your own ass.

I’m also surprised you didn’t add an “LOL” at the end of your message.

How are we supposed to know that you brayed like a donkey in mirth as you typed your piss-centric comment without the “LOL” at the end?

You really must be slipping.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 27 Feb 2011 19:42 | #

kissing your own ass.

I would never dream of it.  Kissing my ass is your job.

You really must be slipping.

Why so pissy, “CL”, did I strike a nerve?

Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:30 | #

Excellent comment from Philosopher King, even if its rendition of our racial past is rather ‘romantic’ itself.

In order to reinvigorate the West we need to appeal to people’s needs in the here and now and today people are persuaded by the accumulation of wealth and the desire to continue living, hence we must show them that immigrants threaten these things. In this sense we are appealing to what they love, however, they happen to love the wrong things. (PK)

Note I have been saying exactly this, here and elsewhere, for years now, in my advocacy of a single-issue anti-immigration orientation for nationalists, the development of a “nationalist minimum”, and my dismissal of the value of excessive ontological speculation.

I have not emphasized the final sentence I have copied above, and that is a very wise insight.

I hope you comment more, Philosopher King.

Posted by Philosopher King on Sun, 27 Feb 2011 23:56 | #

its rendition of our racial past is rather ‘romantic’ itself.

Guilty.

I hope you comment more, Philosopher King.

I’ll try my best, but I’m a young man (20), a full-time student and relatively new to white advocacy. For now I mostly prefer to read the comments of others, and to occasionally chime in. At this stage in my life, education is my top priority, so I don’t want to become a major contributor until I’m educated enough to make major contributions, both on the internet and in the real world.

Posted by CL on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:23 | #

So when you’re asked to fight a war that’s over nothing
It’s best to join the side that’s gonna win.
-Conor Oberst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKV2bHpiH1E&feature=related

Stupid fucking Krauts.

Posted by CL on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:28 | #

But if the English hit Krauts, they can expect Krauts to hit back.  And they can expect the Krauts to win.

That’s not how I remember World War I and World War II going!

Perhaps it would’ve been smarter for the wars to have been avoided, but this doesn’t change how utterly your idiotic doctrine of German supremacy relative to the English has been contradicted by historical experience.

Also it should be noted that Guessedworker hasn’t “hit” the Krauts at all.

You really think that opposition to National Socialism has to be driven by anti-German bias?

Posted by CL on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:31 | #

I would never dream of it.

You don’t just dream of it, you do it again and again and again.

However stupid your points often are, they still deserve better than being associated with your clownish wannabe rapper act.

Just because Kanye West can’t go two sentences without engaging in self-puffing doesn’t mean you have to follow suit.

Posted by CL on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 09:41 | #

I can hear the rejoinder now: “But you must keep in mind what debased and vicious political gangsters the Krauts were at that time.  We had to fight them and with morality on our side.  Justice is inseparable from morality.  It is just and moral that the wicked be punished.  We gave the Krauts no less than they deserved.  Oops, did I say that last bit out loud?”

Yes. 

Deal with it.

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:49 | #

You are wise beyond your years, Philosopher King. When I was your age, I was stuck in a very conventionally American liberal university environment, where there was literally nothing of racial truth available anywhere accessible. I, and many friends, knew there was something rotten in Denmark, so to speak, but it was difficult to see things clearly. Of course, you have the benefit of the Internet, which wouldn’t be developed in a big way for another decade for my young self, as well as the immense breakthroughs in racial thinking and science which took place in the 90s. Don’t take them for granted! Many persons struggled long and hard to reach the level of racial knowledge now routinely exhibited by bright 20 year olds. Persons like you do give me hope, though, that the message of racial threat and renewal is getting out to the public.

In 1986 I proposed writing a book called Survival or Extinction? On the Future of the White Race. People were shocked, less by the politically incorrect title (this was before “PC” had been coined as a term applicable outside of communist countries), however, than by the bizarre idea that the white race was headed towards obliteration (outside of a possible nuclear exchange with the Soviets). Even (intelligent) conservatives thought I was being over-alarmist. I wish I had done more to build on my racially precocious insights.

You are right to continue your education in these areas. Indeed, I am doing the same thing myself, despite my much greater age. I am still trying to work out my own conservative-nationalist political philosophy; it is a time consuming endeavor, requiring much disciplined reading (and I have only a certain amount of extra-professional time). I don’t wish to be patronizing, but if you need any bibliographic resources, I would be happy to offer some. Those, too, took me along time to discover, and are the results of much reading over several decades.

[In fact, doing a racialist bibliography thread might be very useful as a start to a permanent collection. Also, this should include suggestions for solid reads across a range of disciplines only tangentially related to race.]

Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 01 Mar 2011 09:25 | #

CL, you’re not very bright, are you?  I set down several traps and you heedlessly stepped into nearly every one.

Do you hate Germans?

Stupid fucking Krauts.

Ostensibly yes.

Would you be willing to commit genocide against Germans in order to sate your moralistic outrage?

Yes. 

Deal with it.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions.  Shithead.

Posted by Philosopher King on Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:26 | #

Thanks for the welcome. I hate to sound pessimistic but universities are more liberal than ever, in both anthropology and psychology classes, any acknowledgment of racial differences (even those which are blatantly obvious) is viewed as heresy (although I’m sure this isn’t a new phenomenon); and political science classes promote political systems based on how egalitarian they are. Occasionally I do encounter events that do give me hope, the other day I was walking behind two white blokes to my apartment, after looking over their shoulders they proceeded to scorn minority favoritism and even called the president a nigger. These two were well-educated and felt affinity with me, a complete stranger, after they saw that I was white.

You are right to suggest that the internet is a useful tool to disseminate the message of white nationalism; I never would have become interested in WN without it. I’m not particularly well-read at this stage, and don’t really have the time to delve into White nationalist literature. For now I’m content to read about one racialist book a month, and have, so far, read most of the greats: Yockey, Evola, Oliver, Spengler etc. My academic field of interest has nothing to do with politics or philosophy and so for now I can’t spend any more time reading racialist literature, though I do believe creating a racialist bibliography would be quite useful. WN is just one of my political/philosophical interests and I also spend a great deal of time reading about transhumanism, which I view as a million times greater threat to the West than multiculturalism and miscegenation.

I would suspect I’m somewhat of an anomaly in my generation; the vast majority of so-called millennial’s adore tolerance and multiculturalism (and technology obviously). I fear that when the boomer’s go so too will go any hope of reversing modern trends. Most people in my generation have never known anything other than multiculturalism and can’t imagine a world without it. I was lucky, I was raised in a posh suburb in one of the whitest states in the country, but today even my state is threatened with the onslaught of changing demographics. For now I’m content to just ride the tiger, there will be a lot of damage before all is said and done, but that which does not kill us will make us stronger.