|
|
|
The Situation by The Narrator
The tragic part is that this is actually a rosier picture than the reality. “Non-Hispanic white” is a category that includes millions of North Africans and middle-easterners. So this news release is actually softening the blow. When these non-white children come of age in 15 years the older generation of Whites (who make up an increasingly sizable percentage of whites) will be rapidly dying out. As many who have read here before know, I’ve estimated the white population in America to be around 52 to 55% of the total population circa 2008/2010. So in 15 years the changeover will be even more dramatic than what has been experienced so far. Because, remember, all signs point towards a continuing flood of migrants and immigrants and refugees from the third world on top of the demographic projections based on those already here. Millions are pouring in every 12 months. Officially, and I stress “officially”, so-called non-Hispanic whites are 63% of the population in 2010. In 2000 it was 69%. In 1990 it was 75%. That’s averaging a 6% drop every ten years. Or a 3% drop every 60 months. Without going through all the math again, I’ll venture to guesstimate that by mid-century (39 years from now) whites will, optimistically, make up around 29% of the population of the United States. And it keeps getting worse from there, as non-whites reproduce like rabbits. That means that if you are 25 years old today, by the time you are 75 years old whites may very well be no more than 19% of the population of America. To give a further perspective here, if by some miracle we gained political influence in the next election cycle, increased our birthrates and stopped all immigration and deported all the illegals and refugees, we might be able to manage to be 40% of the population by mid century. In other words, we’ve crossed the point of no return. “White flight” is no longer an option. Go into any small town in rural America and you’ll be confronted by growing numbers of blacks and Hispanics. They’re seemingly doubling by the year (There are, after all, about 160 million non-whites in America now, so they’re naturally going to be everywhere). To our north Canada is being overrun too, and to our south hundreds of millions more non-whites await their chance to pillage and plunder the US as well. Even our ancient homelands and strongholds in Europe are under assault and being swamped by enemies. Recently there were so many high profile black on white mob assaults in multiple states and in a variety of settings that even the MSM was forced to cover it. Even if our people “Wake Up” now today, there is no going back to the safety and prosperity we’ve known. We are in a stage of rapid decline. There in no longer a safe haven or a fortified position into which to retreat. We are scattered and surrounded. Whatever our future fortunes may be, we are now in a place unprecedented in human history. Thus the means by which we might extract ourselves from this situation will need be unprecedented as well. We are in uncharted territory. Comments:2
Posted by Brandon on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:26 | # ...Nobody wants to hear this….The white man has allowed himself to become inwardly dark, so he draws darkness to himself in the form of the dark skinned peoples. He has inwardly become what he sees in his outward circumstances/surroundings. It will continue to get worse until the white male opens his eyes to see his own inner condition is his problem. He has met the enemy and the enemy is himself….The flood of the darkskinned ones across the country is God speaking to white men, but they can’t see it. 3
Posted by Jawake on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:01 | # It is not that I disagree with the demographics, but one thing everyone overlooks is that there are a number of Hispanics entering the U.S. who are whites from South America themselves being dispossessed by a racial socialism. In South Florida it is quite obvious that most of the immigrants from Cuba were whites fleeing from Castro’s preference for blacks. There is also a large number of Venezuelans, mostly lighter-skinned, fleeing from Chavez. All hispanic immigrants in the U.S. are not the poor, native Mexicans and Central Americans. Many are priviledged and have European heritage who left their countries in order to preserve what cash they could still hold onto. 4
Posted by anon on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:27 | #
Hooray for obnoxious, self-centered bourgeoisie clutching their cash! I always have a great time snorting blow with those privileged “European” Venezolanos out in Kendall after thirty or forty shots of miche. 5
Posted by anon on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:29 | #
I believe you are far too kind to Britain. 6
Posted by River on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:30 | # Although we whites strive to obtain a color-blind perspective out of guilt and mantra the “all are the same” and “all are welcome” sentimentalities, those coming to our lands do NOT as a rule reciprocate those feelings. A population of aging, useless (not producing tax revenues), White, OLD people, burdening the social state will not be looked upon compassionately. Why do you think there is so much antimuslim furor currently abounding? It is a last gasp to save OUR own identities without explicitly saying so. A human right that we should unashamedly demand. A God-given right, a right of Natural Law. Everyone has a right to their ethnic enclaves and communities EXCEPT White people. May God protect us in the coming years ahead, as it seems we have lost the will to do so. 7
Posted by . on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:13 | # An Overview: Race and Hispanic Origin and the 2010 Census
Total 308,774,538 .
Alabama 67.0 9
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 21:22 | # Given this news I don’t which of these two tracks is more appropriate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqsyXdj_p_I or 10
Posted by Ambitious Outsider on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 22:56 | # Europa awake before all is lost the enemy are at the gates! 11
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 00:39 | # I am going to interpolate some comments to this very important post. ——————————————————————
Worse, still, as AR has been arguing since the late 90s, many racial Hispanics actually classify themselves as white (as some are, including some of my own friends; but white Hispanics, ie Iberians, are a distinct minority of US Latinos). On the other hand, some of those Arabs ludicrously classified as “white” are Christian refugees, a not inconsiderable number of whom are highly conservative. I know a local cafe owner, an Arab immigrant from Jordan whom I’d long mistakenly assumed was Muslim, and who is clearly not white, but who is actually Christian, and nearly as rightist and even racialist as I am. I realize that’s anecdotal, but a lot of US Christian Arabs have a healthy hatred of Muslims, and really want to be considered white (as do some Hispanics, beyond first-wave Cubans). I’m not justifying their admission to my Nordic nation, but the white holocaust might be delayed by such types.
That’s what the Census and MSM always do - try to soften and mask the real rate of white dispossession.
As many who have read here before know, I’ve estimated the white population in America to be around 52 to 55% of the total population circa 2008/2010. I don’t think that is quite correct, even though I, too, would adopt a ‘purist’ model and exclude Semites of all kinds (Arabs are included in “white” so as to avoid having to classify Jews as nonwhite Middle Easterners), non-European Hispanics, and mixed race “whites” (though I would allow up to 1/16 nonwhite ancestry), from being counted as “white”. I think the resulting, “real white”, number would be 55-58%, but it is certainly falling rapidly. The trend is the thing, not the precise numbers at any given moment. I have been warning about this since the early 80s. I recall in 1982 telling a bunch of unconcerned adults that the US would be majority nonwhite by 2020 (which I still consider racial D-Day), a prediction the racially nonchalant have routinely scoffed at as I have reiterated it over the intervening decades. I will be proven correct. It makes me sick, as I worked hard at one of the anti-immigration orgs for several years in the 90s to prevent this, or at least to awaken brain-dead conservatives to the implications for their own movement of continuing mass immigration - to no avail.
Officially, and I stress “officially”, so-called non-Hispanic whites are 63% of the population in 2010. In 2000 it was 69%. In 1990 it was 75%. That’s averaging a 6% drop every ten years. Or a 3% drop every 60 months.
Without going through all the math again, I’ll venture to guesstimate that by mid-century (39 years from now) whites will, optimistically, make up around 29% of the population of the United States. And it keeps getting worse from there, as non-whites reproduce like rabbits.
Basically right, though non-Hispanic, nonwhite fertility has substantially fallen (and Hispanic fertility would also likely eventually move closer to the white norm - but only if we stop immigration!!). In 2050, when, given my essential good health, I am still likely to be alive, quite old and racially depressed if still living in America, the real white population will certainly not be more than 1/3 of the country - and again, falling faster and faster, given the skewed age structure. What is much worse is the threat of what I call the Omega Option. How many racialists have considered this (I’ve been discussing it, more in other places than here, for the past decade)? The OO quite simply is Raspail’s Camp of the Saints, literally. That is, we reach a point where we have an Obama, or more likely a Mexican, in the White House, who is faced with some “humanitarian” disaster somewhere in the Third World, and who chooses to respond by either admitting overland, or airlifting, tens or hundreds of millions of Third World refugees into our nation virtually overnight (or any white nation; one could easily imagine an Aussie or Canadian PM doing something like this - “we have so much empty space / underpopulated / good for the economy / reaffirming our common humanity” etc etc). Is this really impossible or even unlikely? [And you know it will be abetted by Christian clergy race-traitors, morally bullying their reluctant but pitifully undereducated flocks - which is another reason why I keep stressing the racial reformation of Christian theology: ordinary white Christians, most of whom will give up their race and civilization before their Christianity, need some kind of well-reasoned counterweight to a theology of race-treason, which is incorrect theologically, but also what’s on offer in the churches today.] It all goes back to our having abandoned the Racial Principle, first in the US, and then throughout the white world. Whites will not save our race and civilization without returning to it; that is, only a conscious (and doubtless violent) assertion of racial will-to-survive will enable us to survive, as every exogenous trend is independently leading to white extinction (first, population decline, eventually, state or private criminal-led extermination, as in Rhodesia and South Africa, respectively).
That means that if you are 25 years old today, by the time you are 75 years old whites may very well be no more than 19% of the population of America. To give a further perspective here, if by some miracle we gained political influence in the next election cycle, increased our birthrates and stopped all immigration and deported all the illegals and refugees, we might be able to manage to be 40% of the population by mid century.
But that only delays the D-Day, no? If we stop legal nonwhite immigration and deport all illegals, unless we massively increase white immigration and/or white fertility (the former probably more possible than the latter, though neither is likely), with a majority of American births now being to nonwhites, it’s inevitable that at some distant point nonwhites will outnumber whites anyway.
Yes, and no. WF was a phenomenon of the second half of the last century in the US. It sought to recreate real American zones from among those of our people dispossessed by white traitor/Jewish-instigated black racial integration, which ruined a thousand Majority-built cities. Increasingly, there is nowhere left for whiteflighters to fly to, as Sam Francis warned in the mid-90s. But this merely points out the ever-greater need for what I have called White Zion, the in-gathering of whites (beginning with WNs) into one sovereign polity, in the hope of quietly, demographically conquering it, and then building it up into a Racial State, explicitly dedicated to being a sanctuary for whites from across the planet (as well as base of operations for future military expeditions and technological developments to re-conquer lost white lands).
To our north Canada is being overrun too, and to our south hundreds of millions more non-whites await their chance to pillage and plunder the US as well. Even our ancient homelands and strongholds in Europe are under assault and being swamped by enemies.
Whatever our future fortunes may be, we are now in a place unprecedented in human history. Thus the means by which we might extract ourselves from this situation will need be unprecedented as well. We are in uncharted territory.
12
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:58 | # You and I BOTH know what needs to be done, and preparations are being made in this regard as I write…but I can’t discuss it in detail on a public website. Anything can happen, and it will, suddenly. That’s how history works. The thing to do is prepare yourself. There are millions of Hard Men, or modern-day Berserkers, who will gladly execute the program of action required to liberate our countries. You chaps with weak stomachs or delicate morals can sit it out. Go back to your philosophy books. Go listen to the Archers. Don’t worry, we’ll take care of it. Give us a few years, but we’ll get the job done. Avert your eyes, if you have to. 13
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:38 | # I hope there are millions of Hard Men. It seems like everywhere I go in the US, I’m one of the very few. A lot of the toughest white men I’ve known have been just as racially indoctrinated, often from memories of their integrated high school and college sports teams, as any soft liberal. I don’t have a weak stomach, very, very far from it, but you are right that, despite endless denunciations of my racism, I do have delicate or at least Christian morals. That was why I worked so hard two decades ago to try to keep THEM out - so much morally and physically simpler than expelling them once they’ve set down roots here. My horrified sense is that if some band of white superpatriots did try to start a civil war to save our race, they would easily be eliminated by mostly brainwashed fellow white law enforcement officers, in conjunction with Jewish media propaganda and nonwhite ground forces. This is why it is so important to get a majority of our people to understand the justice of our cause. Our people are uniquely ethical. This is a sociobiological fact that WNs have to accept and work with or around. The majority support is not remotely there yet. 14
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 05:52 | #
Exactly! Online, some time ago, I once pointed out that, for example, had Scottish & English Protestants not been settled in Ireland then perhaps some of the conflict between Britain & Ireland might have avoided. Especially that since Irish independance, regarding Northern Ireland. Obviously I was using this to highlight issues about immigration. I thought I was making a near unassailable moral and utilitarian point about reducing war and conflict, furthermore my comment was aimed particualrly at someone (a liberal leftist) I strongly believed to be of partly Irish Catholic origin. How could he possibly diasagree? His reply was simple, something like: “Its people like you who start wars.” What a fucking retard. Yet I know that he wasnt stupid, just blind to reality. How do you communicate with people like that? There has to be a way to bang some sense into them surely. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:32 | # Lurker,
You go down to his final value. Ask him if wars of self-defence are just, or if every aggressor and invader should simply get his way ... that the only acceptable peace is the one dictated by superior strength. Ask him if Palestinians have the right of self-defence against the superior strength of the Israelis. Or Tibetans against the Han. Force him to replace his peacenik universality with the principle of the right to life and land. Then watch him try to make exceptions in the European case, and pick them off. 16
Posted by Silver on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:53 | # As many who have read here before know, I’ve estimated the white population in America to be around 52 to 55% of the total population circa 2008/2010. And the true picture is even worse than that again, because those figures do not account for the number of individuals in mixed marriage and/or with mixed children. These people (like MR’s own Randy Garver) show up in the stats as white while they’re still alive, but because they have not replaced themselves with progeny of their own kind there will be an immediate drop off in white numbers with their death. Naturally, the greater the number of mixed pairing, the greater the drop off will be; and this is set to occur because the number of mixed pairings, while still proportionally low, is nevertheless steadily growing. (Needless to add, these people are some of the staunchest opponents of racialism anywhere.) Leon, I know you like to think of yourself as so brilliant and so educated that the world should just stop turning in order to lend you its collective ear, but pal, if people failed to heed your warnings you have to be willing to consider the possibility that it was your presentation of the issues that turned them off your message. It’s not hard to see how this could have been. WN-types are forever exaggerating how horrible and disgusting non-whites are. “Desmond Jones” here is the classic example. He experiences feelings of total alienation and revulsion and assumes that everyone else must feel at least something approaching those feelings, so they should be able to relate to what he’s saying. But the reality is that plenty of people simply cannot see what the fuss is about. Some come to see it, later, but it’s not the first thing that jumps out at them about non-whites. Others may share those feelings, but are prepared or determined to work to overcome them, in which case your racial pleas only harden their resolve. I also think you’re exaggerating the nightmare scenario. Blacks are only some 12% of America yet consider the tremendous chunks of living space—some of it extraordinarily homogeneous (eg south Chicago)—they’ve managed to carve out for themselves. Of course, that’s facilitated by black racial attitudes being virtually the polar opposite of white racial attitudes (ie pro-self vs pro-other). In your view, no one will ever treat whites so generously. I’m inclined to disagree with that assessment. The desire for living space around one’s own is pretty mild stuff. Totally hypothetically (since I’m completely powerless), whatever you might think of me, surely by now you’d find it believable that were I “the boss of America” I’d provide a legal framework for that to be achieved. Historically, of course, WN has been about a lot more than just that, which is why so few people like you or trust you. But going forward it’s reasonable to think that there could be sufficient disillusionment with the multicult that relief could come from unexpected quarters. 17
Posted by Stephen on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:26 | # quote “Blacks are only some 12% of America yet consider the tremendous chunks of living space—some of it extraordinarily homogeneous (eg south Chicago)—they’ve managed to carve out for themselves” But that is helped by the fact that no one else wants to live in such areas and expose themselves to black crime and other behavior. When an area has a white majority though all the other ethnicities want to live there and gain the benefits of living near white people, they wont want to let you have any enclaves or ghettos because it will always be a nicer place than where there is less white people. 18
Posted by marlowe on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:45 | #
This thing that you describe was known as “Freedom of Assocation”, and is mentioned explicitly in the Bill of Rights. It’s successful abolition was the primary or sole objective of the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The criminalization of Free Association is now codified in the laws pertaining to real estate transactions in all 50 states. Not mild, but in fact a very big thing.
I think that the obscure philosophizing is the only way one can begin to understand why something which ought to come naturally now requires a reminder. 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:55 | # As I like to remind MR readers, whenever persons start over-concerning themselves with obscure philosophizing: “ripening harvest, encroaching jungle”. We need to secure our homelands, or at least terminate the continuing immigration tsunami, long before we reset racial preservation on a sounder philosophical footing (about which disagreements are as endless as philosophy, anyway). (Haller) 20
Posted by Dave on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:23 | # So, your point is that we are really not going to be able to save our race from destruction…Is that it?? I mean your article is going to be very demoralizing for any White person that actually takes the time to read it Narrator. You seem to be very typical of White activists today in that you seem to be brimming with despair about our situation, and have absolutely no other insights to offer other than to present our dire demographic situation. We have heard this thousands of times now, we don’t need another presentation of it. We need specific solutions…That’s what we need to concentrate on now. And please leave the silly violent revolutionary catharctic fantasies out of any proposed solutions. We have heard all of that crazyness as well. Come on man, think of some interesting solutions to this dilemma and we can go from them there. 21
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:22 | # Force him to replace his peacenik universality with the principle of the right to life and land. Then watch him try to make exceptions in the European case, and pick them off. I’ve spoken to anti-white racist commies like this and their stock response is always along the lines of: “Europeans once invaded and colonised the third world, now it’s the right of the formerly oppressed to take over Europe.” In other words, revenge is theirs. There is no debating or arguing with such people. It is they—NOT us—who will force a violent solution. At the very least we should be prepared for it. “Interesting solutions” to our dilemma will not come about through endless cyber-philosophising, but through the exigencies and opportunities unleashed by what Faye calles the Great Catastrophe. 22
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:05 | # Dave and SelousScout, One thing I do know, at least for Americans, is that we need to start forming non-violent (for now) White Protective Associations (not necessarily under that name), which can also serve as groups to organize meetings of WNs, which in turn should lead to education and grassroots activism on racial issues. Of course, these types of groups already exist (American Renaissance for education in white concerns, Council of Conservative Citizens for education and Majority activism, lots of websites, etc.), but they are always too extreme in ideology, insufficiently “issue-comprehensive” (eg, the focus is on stopping immigration, or protecting gun rights, instead of tying ALL issues of nationalist concern together in one political, cultural and social group package), and, paradoxically, too political at the expense of the social. What is needed right now, for this particular historical juncture, and in America (maybe in the rest of the New World Anglosphere, too - but probably not in Europe, where they already have comprehensive nationalist parties, which just need to be more effectively led, or maybe only more time to grow), is a white American “bridge” between conservatism, which obviously has millions or tens of millions adherents, and the moderate WN groups aforementioned (what you, SS, seem to represent is the still further-out militant ultra-Hard Core, which, like your honorable moniker, will or could certainly be necessary, but will only gain any real and lasting physical victories if a majority, or at the very least, large minority, of whites has already come to accept the justice and necessity of WN or white preservationist (WN intellectuals do need to work out the precise scope of our plans, with appropriate ethical and strategic justifications); to repeat, neither the philosophical, nor more important psychological/ethical, nor most important political, let alone, to my knowledge, all-important physical/martial, groundwork for your kind of operations has been readied). This “bridge” movement should not even be WN, but rather “race-conservative”, or “Middle American nationalist” (like Lee John Barnes’s British cultural nationalism, this would seek to preserve traditional America and its historic culture and way of life, without scaring off “everyday patriots”, especially Christian ones, with a lot of biological racist talk, even if those subjects, as with IQ, genetics of crime, etc, are scientifically true). It should be wholly non-violent as well as non-coercive in orientation; that is, it would seek not to take away the (natural/human or Constitutional) rights or property of any nonwhites in the US, but would seek to create an empirically accurate understanding on the part of whites of how WE WHITES have been, and continue, with accelerating intensity, to be, dispossessed of our culture, property and country, and why it is perfectly reasonable and ethical for us to resist this liberal-instigated, Big Business-supported, Federal Govt-imposed dispossession. This group would then show what must be done legislatively to stop the dispossessionist process (ie, end immigration, abolish affirmative action, disenfranchise violent felons, routinize public hangings, protect guns, expand ‘concealed-carry’ nationwide, limit or end welfare transfer payments, eliminate multiculti propaganda in schools, etc), and then start mobilizing the grassroots to demand that it be done . The group would also have a social component, first to bring WNs (or just MANs) face to face, but also as a place of psychological and sociological refuge for whites who just want to widen their circle of true friends and acquaintances, a place for meeting and networking. I think ever larger numbers of whites, socially atomized by having to live and work in cities that are heavily nonwhite as well as insufferably white-liberal, would like to have their own ‘clubhouses’ (whether literal or just organizational) where they can be their true selves (ontonationalists like GW can surely appreciate that desire). Like all tribal movements, ours, to be sustainable, cannot be only political (constant activism without more gets tiresome), but must be folkish and comradely. I know there is potential for this kind of thing because I was long a member of an informal, but intentional, whites-only social group, always numbering in the few hundreds (it was deliberately limited and selective). As long as there is no direct commercial element, a group in the US can be discriminatory (though I would not suggest this one be so formally; what a lot of white weaklings really want is to be around their fellow whites, to be in white-majority situations, without really admitting that’s what they want, even to themselves - a very, very, VERY important point, one few WNs have grasped). A MAN group would seek to grow into both a nationwide political and fraternal organization. It would not define itself as white, or even only admit whites (which, ironically and regrettably, would turn off a lot of whites), but it would very clearly be white, dedicated to white rights and justice for whites, pushing an implicitly if moderately pro-white political agenda. Such a group could be the foundation for building an anti-liberal, effective if not explicit white consciousness, which could then serve as the nucleus for future, harder WN organizations, as circumstances dictate (deteriorate). But our people will drift into a dispossession past all remedy, and thus eventual extinction, if we seek to go from where they are today, psychologically and ideologically, directly into “Hard Men” WN. It is vital that those who would preserve our race think sequentially, of how we can move step by step away from annihilation (active or passive), into conditions enabling permanent life for our people. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:10 | # Selous, “Interesting solutions” to our dilemma will not come about through endless cyber-philosophising, but through the exigencies and opportunities unleashed by what Faye calles the Great Catastrophe. Violent events occur for which the defensive party requires no ideology nor any idea beyond the will to live. Ideas, however, shape the peace which follows. Only ideas can sustain. Violence never can. 24
Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:21 | # It doesn’t take much for such events to find a justification. What sort of Grand Theory was it that animated African, Arab, and Asian Nationalists to violently throw off the yoke of European colonialism? What’s good for the goose… At least we have ancient tradition of ‘Western Civlisation’ to restore, after the Revolution… Which, perhaps, is when the cyber-philosophers step in. 25
Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 01:28 | # But our people will drift into a dispossession past all remedy, and thus eventual extinction, if we seek to go from where they are today, psychologically and ideologically, directly into “Hard Men” WN. The soft political-academic approach clearly has not worked, which you should know by now if you’ve been practising it since the early 1980s. Something else is needed. The main obstacle now is to get White men to overcome the mental barriers imposed by Multicult and develop into psychological Hard Men. The first hurdle, as I keep telling recruits, is to get over the various ‘taboos’ about discussing race, equality, immigration, violence, etc., that have been drilled into them since they were little kids by Multicult. 26
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:00 | # Silver, I agree and disagree with what you posted. We in the anti-immigration movement in the 90s were not hate-filled white racists, and even those of my knowledge who were, did not so present themselves, but were always careful to point out the general problems caused by immigration, and general advantages of stopping it. The most “racist” things I ever wrote and that got published (pre-Internet) were Brimelow-style discussions about how integrated, multiracial societies led to needless social and political conflict, and that maintaining America’s white majority would be good for all Americans regardless of race, which I believe is undeniable, though of course the implicit reason is that whites are civilizationally and ethically superior. I never stated this openly, but is it not correct? Like all WNs, I knew and said at the time that the white relinquishment of power in South Africa would lead to terrible consequences, for the blacks as well as the whites. Were we wrong? Of course not (incidentally, the white genocide, and grinding African hunger, in Rhodesia is a direct consequence of the loss of white rule in SA, a point never made by the idiot PC mainstream). That we failed to end or even reduce immigration can in no historically accurate way be attributed to any rhetorical severity (such as we might exhibit at WN internet sites). It was short-sighted capitalist greed, combined with Christian heresy and/or theological naivete (which I intend to correct over time), nonwhite lobbying, ideological treason (eg, in the case of the Ford Foundation, the rich white charity founded on racialist money which all-but-built organized American Hispanic nationalism: purer treason the world hath not seen), Jewish media propaganda ... and stupid WHITE APATHY ... which successfully defended the continuing immigration status quo/invasion. Your observations about white psychologically contain a lot of truth, though it ultimately depends upon both the individual in question, as well as which type of nonwhite we’re considering. Most whites really fear and dislike blacks, though few will admit it (however, I’ve been able to elicit an amazing and gratifying number of such admissions over the years). As to other races, it’s a mixed bag, wherein white individualism, so noble if kept within white bounds, plays a mostly negative role. That is, whites are genetically (and theologically) predetermined to regard individuals as individuals, at least to a much higher degree than other races. This of course was our downfall, and GW is correct that a philosophical revolution is required to overcome or neutralize that innate tendency (we may disagree, however, about both the content of that revolution, as well as its timing in the scale of WN tasks). I do not exaggerate nightmare scenarios, though I admit their plausibility. My concern, repeatedly asserted here at MR, is, however, more with what I have called “the drift to extinction”. More nonwhite colonists (even without the Omega Instant-Suicide Option), endless below white replacement fertility, slow but ever-increasing miscegenation, shrinking the gene pool, as you pointed out .... all leading to fewer and ever more powerless whites. The last whites will be those whose psyches are such as to be innately “strong in love of race and heritage”, and thus immune to miscegenation, but without the protection of a sovereign polity, with modern military, under their control, what will become of them? Rhodesia as the template? The nightmare scenario will not occur in the next quarter century; maybe not until 2100. I don’t know. Again, the trend’s the thing, however. Finally, you are hopelessly naive to think that nonwhites will extend to us the same respect and solicitude we have insanely given to them. They are takers, and they want what is ours. If we do not defend it, we will lose it. That is very nearly a universal law of life. 27
Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:24 | # Yeah, you still think peaceful, democratic means will enable us to enact reform? Think again: (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked parts of an Indiana immigration law cracking down on illegal immigrants, in a ruling handed down a week before the bill was to go into effect. The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker comes as a blow to lawmakers in the Republican-dominated state legislature who this year have taken a get-tough approach to immigration. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/us-indiana-immigration-idUSTRE75O09R20110625 The solution is one that NO ONE wants to talk about. Yet. 28
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:32 | # Sorry for all the typos in my last post (proofread!). 29
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:30 | #
It’s a short article, as far as time consumption goes. The census report is being discussed at several race realist sites so the information is already widespread. If you want to be optimistic and upbeat you’d better be sure its in the proper context or you’ll end up utterly defeated and destroyed. Optimism and despair need to be in their proper places. If you believe that the United States can be turned around and brought back to 1955 standards of security and prosperity, you’re not being optimistic, you’re being delusional. You’re wasting time. Take the Tea Party for example. It was a huge waste of resources and time (that can never be gotten back), because it operated on the premise that America’s problems stem from a lack of commitment to “Constitutional Principles”. Because that’s what this all comes down to. Race. All modern politics is about race, and race alone. The Left spends their time assisting and encouraging non-Whites to exploit, plunder and destroy Whites. The White Right spends all their energies trying not to notice this and talk around it. So their optimism is not merely misplaced, it’s suicidal. It’s insane. It’s batshit crazy-Jonestown kind of loony.
Well, I’ve never had or made any “violent revolutionary cathartic fantasies” so, whatever. As to solutions, I’ve said here before that we need leaders. Real leaders. People with credentials; Governors, former-Governors, highly decorated and recognized military men, etc… To be blunt, it will take a Tyrant-King to extract us from the situation. Because despite the goofball notions of some, real movements never happen from the bottom up. All Mass Movements, Revolutions etc… occur from the top down. Led by an aristocratic or ruling class, the elite. At the very least this article is a slap in the face to those who are still asleep to the physical danger that they are in or soon to be in. But as to solutions we little people can take, well, how about this: what would happen if we could get 25% of the White middle class to take their money out of the banks? On the same day? And then a general strike? That alone would greatly discourage further immigration, because they’re coming here for the free goodies.
This is about race alone. When the SHTF the kinda-sorta-whites always side with their swarthy kindred, irregardless of race, politics or regional culture. Blood is thicker than water. ... 30
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:51 | #
Optimism lies in the realization that, however many muds (non-Whites) are piled on top of us, there will still be in terms of absolute numbers enough Whites to achieve separation; potential despair at the prospect that if all those non-Whites (muds) don’t wake Whites up then nothing will.
You wouldn’t wish to live under Parrott’s theocracy? Heresy! I mean, I’m sure there is some middle ground to be found between “breeding out the ‘faith gene’” and a fucking theocracy. 31
Posted by Nowa on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:29 | # If I may put in some words from Germany. Just stumbled upon your blog. If I take Germany for example we have the same problems here like in the US with immigration, white birth rates, multicultural indoctrination etc. The situation is claer, intelligent solutions are necessary. My2 Cents: 1. The inevitably coming economic world crisis will be an oppotunity, that`s right. In fact 1933-1945 was the last attempt of the white race to fight for it’s rights. And so many whites were used to bury it- once and for all? that’s the question. And history is not linear. There are disruptions and revolutions, leaders are born. 32
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:21 | #
Being called nasty names is not the problem. You get called nasty names including “racist” and “nazi” just for being a regular conservative. The problem is that your job and career is threatened once you cross the line and say something TPTB don’t like. We’ve seen this even with powerful people like Rush Limbaugh and Don Imus who said stuff that wasn’t even as remotely “taboo” as what we’ve got to say. Most white people don’t even consider their countries being flooded with non-whites and them being made minorities as a problem. A lot of these idiots actually think it is a good thing. They don’t consider it genocide. I must have heard “this isn’t genocide, this is just individuals mating with whoever they want” at least a hundred times. We need international white flight into one small country so we are the majority and we are the ones persecuting people for their political beliefs instead of the other way round. 33
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:22 | # American moving into its fin de siecle era? The experiment in an ontologically liberal politico-social order looks like it’s rapidly coming to an end (as an ethnocentric/homogenous polity). Tim Wise was right about that rapidly ticking clock for Euro-America. Perhaps the future is as even more violent/nasty Brazil-like ‘society’ with lots of guns, nugatory social-capital, and much inter-group rivalry (and gated ‘communities’ for the fortunate very-wealthy few)? Geographic and/or economic ‘White-flight’ may be individually rational, but it will never deal with the communal problem. Many Euro nations are still at the robust and fairly recoverable 90%+ Euro stage. Unfortunately not England, but even if England is seriously ill from the blow-back arising from the vanity of Empire (yes you are all British subjects in the colonies, have a passport etc., is where this idiotic multicultural policy started locally) it is still not yet terminally ill, but it seems like America might well be. Perhaps the only true organic homelands we Euros have - the places on Earth that gave birth to us - are the places we will actually defend. Give me Denmark over Uncle Sam any day of the week. I’ll be 75 in around forty+ years time (should I still be here) and I would not wish to be living in the USA under the conditions outlined above in the original article (even if I was inside a ‘gated community’) it is likely to be a very unpleasant and dangerous society. (Graham Lister)
There is a certain smugness in your view of the US, Graham, which may not be warranted. A cursory google search yielded this govt population info for Scotland: The estimated population of Scotland on June 30, 2010 was 5,222,100, a rise of 28,100 on the previous year and the highest population since 1977 ———————————————————————————————-
As far as whites are concerned, we are a Racial Republic, albeit insanely anti-racist. Yes, we are relatively old, so the later die-off will be much accelerated, and miscegenation (genetic loss) is likewise accelerating. Still, absent wars or acts of God, does any demographer think there will be fewer than 100 million US whites in 2050? Even if we never reduce immigration at all, such that by 2050 there are 400 million nonwhites, 100 million whites is still a defensible number, especially if there is a much higher degree of racial consciousness among that 100mil, as I believe there will be (and that 100m will continue to be relatively better educated, more skilled, more intelligent, wealthier, and thus disproportionately influential as compared to other US racial blocs). Moreover, as intimated, as our situation worsens, whites will move in two divergent directions. Some will grow more culturally alien, aping the nonwhites in attitude and culture, and intermarrying with them at ever higher rates. These are the racially (and, I hold, characterologically) degenerate whites, the loss of whose genes over time will strengthen the character and racial quality of the remaining undiluted white gene pool (remember Leonidas and his 300! “the strength of the wolf is the strength of the pack”). These remaining others will also grow more conservative, especially racially so, a phenomenon we’ve been seeing now for decades, as more and more whites self-identify as ‘conservatives’ (only nonwhite immigration has prevented the electoral collapse of the Democrats - well, ceteris paribus; it is possible that without nonwhites, whites themselves might be more liberal based on other issues, more willing to support wealth redistributionary social programs, for example). The Tea Party phenomenon is instructive as an opening salvo in the battles for the “Next America”. I attended a few of its rallies. It is clearly a white (and Middle American) phenomenon, as liberal and foreign commentators repeatedly noted. But, contra Narrator, while it is indeed insufficiently race-realist and aware, it is still far better in that regard than any other rightist movement in my lifetime. The TP is known to be vociferously anti-amnesty for the 30 million illegal aliens (something Narrator did not mention, and a very significant issue) trespassing on our soil. At the rallies I attended, I constantly mentioned LEGAL immigration to the persons around me, at one point attracting a rather sizable crowd listening to my harangue about the changing racial composition of the country. I only recall one jerk arguing with me about the benefits of legal immigration; another said he didn’t want us to appear ‘racist’, so we should only discuss the economy. Everyone else who spoke to me agreed with me. So I think it fairly certain that, as our numbers grow smaller, our hearts will grow keener, if I may paraphrase a great Old English stanza: Battle of Maldon 993 Thought must be the harder, In sum, the American future is not enviable, but in the next half-century, it might not be catastrophic. It depends on what we do about it.
The Islamic crescent is the fastest growing area of the world, after parts of Africa. In 30 years both Egypt and Iran will have populations exceeding Russia’s; the Middle East as a whole will dwarf Old, dying, sybaritic Europe, the fantasyland continent where everyone rejects God, honor, entrepreneurship and adventure, and just wants to live as well-pensioned, over-leisured civil bureaucrats (a pathetic dream already foundering against economic reality). The semitic lands have already exceeded their carrying capacity, and the mismatch grows worse annually. Their peoples are violent, religiously indoctrinated, ethnoculturally confident, with ever increasing numbers of unemployed, sexually unattached young males. And the oil is not going to last forever ... Fairly soon (and not a moment too soon), bankrupt America is going to start withdrawing its remaining troops from Europe, something we should have done immediately following the collapse of the USSR. As you Europeans continue to deal with the internal economic contradictions of your own slovenly welfare states (whose budgetary problems cannot remotely be blamed wholly or even mostly on immigrants), and look to defense drawdowns as a way of siphoning off some more cash to prop up these structurally unsound social democratic regimes (after “conservative” Cameron’s cuts, Britain will be left with only 80,000 troops, the fewest number in more than a century), is it really unthinkable that the Muslims might try to militarily conquer Europe - and worse, if it happens 20 or 30 years hence, when the international population imbalance is so very much greater, and the internal ratios so much worse, too - that they might succeed? And Graham thinks little Denmark, whose ‘leaders’ shit themselves over some cartoons, will have a better chance than tens of millions of gun-owning, property-loving, increasingly racialized white Americans. 34
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:32 | # CS, Sadly, you are probably right, over the longest run. Whites as a race will not survive in perpetuity unless we formally dedicate ourselves to that goal, and obtain the means (the racial state) for effectuating our goal. Certainly this is true, as I’ve stated previously, for New World Anglosphere whites. US, Canada, Aus/NZ, and obviously South Africa already, will all be overrun. We Anglos are not quite the same people as Europeans. I’d like to see both an Anglo RS, and some Continental survivors. I continue to see Aus as most promising. I’m just not as pessimistic as some wrt white America in the short and medium terms. Things will continue to darken, at an accelerating pace. But the hell is almost certainly decades away. 35
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:16 | # CS, An addendum, which is relevant to White Zion theory: ————————————————————————————————————————————————————
* Under Apartheid, Blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare the food, put it on the plates and deliver it to the White patrons’ tables, but could not eat that food at the same table in that same restaurant. What hypocrisy is that? Surely if one was going to be consistent, one would have forbidden Blacks from working in restaurants completely: but no, Apartheid didn’t go that far, it was built upon the premise that Blacks did do the work.
36
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:17 | # (continued…) ——————————————————————————————————- At the same time, White Western healthcare and technology was made available on a massive scale: the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was erected in the Black township of Soweto, outside Johannesburg, specifically for the Black population. Infant mortality rates for Blacks fell dramatically (and were way below that of the rest of Black ruled Africa). This rapid population growth put additional pressure on the demographic makeup of the country. As the non-White demographic balloon swelled further and further, the White Apartheid government was forced to think out ever more stringent and oppressive laws to protect the Whites as the Black population continued to leapfrog in numbers year after year.
37
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:39 | # White South Africa. What Went Wrong? http://www.davidduke.com/general/white-western-nations-what-is-going-wrong_4236.html Leon, That is a great piece that I read years ago. We not only have to separate from non-whites. We have to also separate from white liberals. 38
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:40 | # If we ever get control of a country, that piece will be mandatory reading for all students in the school system. 39
Posted by Karthik on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:44 | # Hi, Well I am an Indian and definitely not a white. I was interested in the evolution of blue eyes and came across this website. The information is great and I like the way the website presents every thing very scientifically. But then the website itself is about SAVING the white race. Which I find totally silly. I tell you why. Richard Russel once said that humans do not understand the concept of equality…men get together and say women are stupid, women get together and say men are dumb. Whites like you get together and say black and browns are ugly and stupid while the black say you guys are stupid and ugly. I guess its just human nature. See, humans differ from each other in so many aspects skin colour, eye colour, height, weight, intelligents and so on. Here in this website you have choosen skin colour…I won’t be surprised to find a website where all the tall people are having discussions as to how their numbers are going down. How they should only choose tall mates to make sure their types survive in the future. I am not an expert in evolution but this is what I have read and understood: 1. If you are white then you are genetically immune to many of the diseases of the european continent. If you are black you are immune to the diseases of Africa. Genes have just one motivation i.e. to survive into the future. So naturally a White person would be attracted to a black person (primivel instinct) because their offspring will be immune to diseases of both continents and that way their own genes can move into the future. 2. The reason why sexual reproduction is favoured by evolution over assexual is because with gene mixing the organisim (or the gene) has atleast a change of surviving in case of say an epidemic. Imagine there is one white man and he reproduces assexually i.e. there are only his clones every where. Now imagine there is a virus that attacts exactly his gene type. This way the whole population will be under attact. But with sexually reproduction there is gene mixing and atleast a part of the population will survive. So in other words you, me and all of us are here today because of gene mixing. If your forefathers had your way of thinking…they would all be blacks back in Africa. 3. What is white, where do you draw the line? Genetically white, arabs and asians are closer to each other than africans. As you probably know life has no meaning. Each one of us have to give our own meaning to our life and live it and then die. So you have chosen “I am white I have to save white and the rest of the humans are dumb and ugly” as a meaning. So all the best with that. I have no problems with that as long as you don’t kill me or hurt me. P.S. Mr. J. Richards regarding your blog on Nordic women being beautiful. I think you think that beauty is absolute. That in my opinion is incorrect. If that was so then even cats and dogs will find Nordic women pretty or imagine an Alien who comes to earth…they too will find Nordic women attractive. Which I can bet is not the case. 41
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:14 | # Anon, I thought that would be a bit about how white South Africans gave up Apartheid because their Goddamn rugby teams were banned from international competition. A lot of white people are fucking idiots plain and simple. We need to separate from them just as much as we need to separate from non-whites. 42
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:15 | # Karthik, Race is much more than “skin color”. Please read this. The Race FAQ 43
Posted by Karthik on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:35 | # Yes CS, exactly race is more than skin colour…then why are you making it about skin colour. I have a friend who is half german and half Indian. But he looks completely like an Indian. Not a single sign of white father. But he is still related, or in other word “of the same race ” as his white father. 44
Posted by anon on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:46 | #
That is wrong by definition. They are related, meaning they share ancestry, but are not of the “same race”. A hybrid is a hybrid, not a German or an Indian. But your satisfaction in knowing such a hybrid, and touting him as an example of white disappearance, is evident and an unintended proof of our position with regard to your kind. You comment is more measured and readable than most Hindon’t commentary but all the same why don’t you piss off with your smug desi-tude. We don’t feel the matter of our survival is “silly”. 45
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:47 | # Karthik, Where have I said race is just “skin color”? Your half Indian friend is non-white no matter what he looks like. 46
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:23 | # More on Europe’s decline, for Graham Lister:
“Our country is going to carry on changing, and integration is also a task for the society taking up the task of dealing with immigrants,” Ms. Merkel told the daily newspaper. “For years we’ve been deceiving ourselves about this. Mosques, for example, are going to be a more prominent part of our cities than they were before.” Germany, with a population of 4-5 million Muslims, has been divided in recent weeks by a debate over remarks by the Bundesbank’s Thilo Sarrazin, who argued Turkish and Arab immigrants were failing to integrate and were swamping Germany with a higher birth rate.
47
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:24 | # GW, Why is everything getting text-bolded on this post now? 48
Posted by Nowa on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:21 | # Quote: “I just cannot believe how you Euro-idiots allowed this to happen” I don’t know who you refer to as Euro-idiots. If you mean the population here, yes, just like in the US. The 90% or so brainwashed average joes still “voting” for Sarkozy, Merkel and all these traitors. Ignorant and don’t having a clue. I think the foolishness of the US average people is even more dramatic then in Europe. Where did it evolve from: the Green Party, the modern Social Democrats and all the other parties in line with the Zeitgeist, the multicultural dogma of schools and TV? Right, from the Frankfurt School. Which in turn was a jewish invention (1920’s, Felix Frankfurter etc.) and the most prominent “scholars” of the 60’s where jews like Horkheimer, Pollock, Adorno. They laid the “intellectual” foundation for the recent multicultural Europe. I can not speak for France, but in Germany the root of the present situation is definitely the so called 68’s, disciples of the Frankfurt School. Please excuse my limited English. 50
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:56 | # CS, Yes, the article is very important, esp re our common interest in White Zion (I’m starting to wonder if I shouldn’t pay a designer to do up a website under that name, specifically to encourage strategy discussions, practical aspects for individuals, networking, and generally to create interest in that very specific aspect of the broader racial agenda?). The thesis is undeniable, and holds eternal lessons: “we will pick our own cotton, forevermore”. We simply require the greedmongers to pay higher wages to white menial laborers (which seems right from a Christian perspective, too). If some capitalist wants to make more money employing cheap labor, he can emigrate and do so elsewhere. WZ must always be solely white in its territorial inhabitants, no matter what early diminishment in potential wealth that would entail. [Idiots around here keep asserting that because I acknowledge (understand) the superiority of free markets, I must therefore be an uncritical supporter of them, even a libertarian fool. Not bloody likely! Economics is value-free analysis, like logic, or math. One should understand it. But how one organizes a national economy is a function of moral and political values and preferences. I prefer living in an all-white territory, even if, in the short run, and only in the short run, industrial or agricultural profits might be increased through the importation of nonwhite labor. The economy of WZ must be substantially capitalist, if only to make the best use of dispersed, discrete knowledge, as well as to incentivize entrepreneurship and hard work, both aspects being required to maximize wealth generation, itself necessary to support the military infrastructure we will need to confront and deter a hostile planet. But the economy will serve WZ’s overarching racial preservationist goals; it will not be a source of independent value or concern in itself. Is anybody still calling me a libertarian?!] My only point of disagreement with Mr. Kemp is over the question of whether apartheid really was militarily unsustainable going forward from 1990, when Mandela was released from prison. Of course, he is a lot more qualified than I to make that determination, insofar as was both Southern African, and a member of the SA constabulary! I am, nevertheless, skeptical of his claim on this matter. Small numbers of whites maintained control over large numbers of nonwhite serfs or even slaves throughout the Americas. Far fewer Brits maintained the Raj over a vastly greater number of Hindus than the number of blacks facing the Boers. My intuition is that the Boers could have maintained apartheid indefinitely, even with global economic sanctions, but that they were sold out by their own greedy elites, who put their personal economic interests in eliminating the sanctions regime ahead of national survival. 51
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:06 | # Quote: “I just cannot believe how you Euro-idiots allowed this to happen” I don’t know who you refer to as Euro-idiots. If you mean the population here, yes, just like in the US. The 90% or so brainwashed average joes still “voting” for Sarkozy, Merkel and all these traitors. Ignorant and don’t having a clue. I think the foolishness of the US average people is even more dramatic then in Europe. (Nowa)
Europe had no reason historical whatsoever to evolve a multicultural understanding. The moral justifications for white maintenance were infinitely stronger. You were purely stupid, succumbing to globalist anti-racism, unlike, say, the much wiser Japanese. 52
Posted by Nowa on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:10 | # Early Frankfurt school was not F.Frankfurter, it were Grunberg and Weill. My bad. But it seems nobody here has a clue anyway about such things. 53
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:25 | #
I would just start a thread on Stormfront. We should make a list of countries to go to (the fewer the better) and countries to leave (the more the better). Furthermore, we should all head to one city in each of these countries.
Saudi Arabia has racial alien guest workers. It isn’t a problem because they aren’t considered citizens and never will be. The problem with the West is that they let in guest workers with no intention of ever sending them or their kids home and eventually they are given citizenship as well. For now we should emulate Japan and leave it at that.
It will be mostly capitalist as we want to make the country prosperous and a desirable place to live for ourselves and be able to attract other like minded whites. No one is going to emmigrate to an economic hellhole even if everyone there is white.
We don’t need that big of a military. What would make sense is to train and create the materials necessary for a long sustained guerilla war.
Sixty percent of the white population voted to give blacks the vote. The sensible thing whites should have done is create their own whites only country in the SW and let the blacks have the rest. That they didn’t shows how stupid the average white person is. Even maintaining Aparthed would be preferable to what they have now. 54
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:31 | #
I’m well aware of the commie jews at the Frankfurt school. They would have got nowhere if they didn’t have rich and powerful people helping them every step of the way. 55
Posted by CS on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:37 | #
90% of white people at a minimum are clueless morons. Whatever little thinking they do is whatever those in power tell them to think. That is why the few of us who can think and think like we do need to be in the same country so we’re the majority and it doesn’t matter what the media or government says and we can get what we want. Furthermore, when we are the majority we will be the government and we’ll be creating our own media both privately and publicly to help counteract the jewish liberal crap coming from Hollywood. 56
Posted by Euroamerican on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:29 | # @ Leon Haller; Your comments about South africa and Arthur Kemp: The late Eugene Terrblanche, head of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement, was killed by two black employees.. Tereblanche never made the connection between demographics and destiny He believed that it was part of the civilizing mission of the Boers, the white SOuth Africans, to employ the blacks and thus raise them step by step up the ladder of civilization. He was probably in denial about the hidden profit motive of cheap labor. White people need to hire our own for everything.. If it costs a bit more so be it. What about all the poor white people in South Africa now? Why aren’t the white farmers hiring them? I think the white SOuth Africans got used to being the big boss and never realized that the bill for their ‘lordship over the lesser races’ would come due some day. 57
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:58 | # Euroamerican: I agree with this. I was in S.Africa a decade before the end of apartheid, and worked with S.African ex-military. I found many S.African whites (not all) to be the most debased people morally and in terms of their own self worth I have ever met. They had no idea of the peril, they seemed too fixated on their privileges and superiority. Yet it was not the S.African whites so much who ended apartheid, it wouldn’t have been even considered without great pressure from the western world, mostly American and Britain. The white masses believed somehow the end of apartheid was inevitable because otherwise S.Africa would have to exist as a pariah state , and that stability would be ensured by those Western countries who vowed to end apartheid. Bad choice, but the alternative could have been worse - black revolution funded and armed by western security agencies….complete embargo from Western economies. They were cut loose and they knew it. 58
Posted by TabuLa Raza on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:28 | # Riots in Peoria not covered by MSM “Kill all the white people” 59
Posted by Silver on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:02 | # Stephen, But that is helped by the fact that no one else wants to live in such areas and expose themselves to black crime and other behavior. When an area has a white majority though all the other ethnicities want to live there and gain the benefits of living near white people, they wont want to let you have any enclaves or ghettos because it will always be a nicer place than where there is less white people. Whites can be nasty, too, you know. If whites ever develop the sort of consciousness to demand living space, I’m sure they’ll quickly develop the nastiness necessary to achieve and maintain it. Most black areas aren’t really what you’d call “the ghetto” (not nowadays), and yet people of all races still prefer to avoid it if they can. Yes, crime is an issue (despite often pleasant surrounds), but so is the general unpleasantness of blacks. Many more people are exposed to and have an aversion to the latter than are victims of crime. marlowe, This thing that you describe was known as “Freedom of Assocation”, and is mentioned explicitly in the Bill of Rights. It’s successful abolition was the primary or sole objective of the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. The criminalization of Free Association is now codified in the laws pertaining to real estate transactions in all 50 states. Not mild, but in fact a very big thing. Look, it’s “mild” in comparison to things like drang nach osten and concentration camps and the sorts of things that people reflexively associate with (white) “racism.” And because it’s mild it stands an infinitely greater chance of being understood, respected and accepted. Not in today’s climate, no, but as a general principle. The obvious retort is if it it’s so mild and acceptable then why was it ever abolished? Why wouldn’t the fiercest opponents of FA be its fiercest opponents yet again? Well, one difference is that this time around the data is in. We’ve tried integration and mass multiracialism and many of us have found it desperately wanting; we’ve come to consider it an inferior social arrangement, and some of us have seen fit to re-investigate the moral and philosophical vision of those who championed it and found that wanting, too. Maybe it doesn’t occur often enough, but people can, you know, learn from their mistakes. Haller, That we failed to end or even reduce immigration can in no historically accurate way be attributed to any rhetorical severity (such as we might exhibit at WN internet sites). It was short-sighted capitalist greed, combined with Christian heresy and/or theological naivete (which I intend to correct over time), nonwhite lobbying, ideological treason (eg, in the case of the Ford Foundation, the rich white charity founded on racialist money which all-but-built organized American Hispanic nationalism: purer treason the world hath not seen), Jewish media propaganda ... and stupid WHITE APATHY ... which successfully defended the continuing immigration status quo/invasion. Look, even if you’re right, those things were and are out of your hands. Complaining about it does no good whatsoever. The proper question is still what could have done and what can you now do differently? I’ve read most of the 90s-era immigration stuff. Imo, the greatest mistake was to present immigration as a topical issue (intentionally or not). That led to it being considered, defeated, and then consigned to history as an issue of any political relevance, such that even maintaining interest in it is a struggle. Have you any idea of how many people I’ve heard say “we should have listened to Hanson [Aus restrictionist]”? In their minds, there was a historical opportunity that’s now gone and people will have to live the consequences. Apathy? Fuck yes. But also (a) all-too-human; (b) completely in line with liberal assumptions about what is good in life. (Note: none this has anything to do with rhetorical severity.) A better idea would have been to present immigration as an issue that will at some point have to be dealt with, and that though you’re making the case that now would be a better time to deal with it than later, it’s going to be an issue of permanent relevance. Even the most insane (or, if you like, anti-white) immigration-boosters (you know who I mean) would have to agree that, yes, at some point in the future immigration will have to be restricted—obviously you’re not going to pack two billion people into America. (Then again, Julian Simon might have disagreed.) You start with that foundation, then you can riff off it in a thousand different ways. Same thing with WN, or, as I prefer to put it just “race.” It’s an issue in life. And it’s not going away. It’s not going away no matter how many well-meaning people sincerely wish with all their hearts that it would (and many, many do). We can either continue telling fanciful lies about it (in every respect), or we can deal with it squarely. (Mind you, in my opinion, dealing with it squarely is hardly equivalent to reaching WN-like conclusions [eg Pierce] about it. I suppose it won’t surprise you to learn that this attitude about it accounts in large part for my willingness to go at it with WNs.) I do not exaggerate nightmare scenarios, though I admit their plausibility. Nah, I don’t buy it. What historical examples do have in mind? Haiti? My guess would be that they all involve blacks. Blacks will never be in that position in America. My prediction is that long before anyone would be in a position to carry out nightmarish persecution the tables will have been turned on black America. America will transition from color-line racial politics to color-contiuum racial politics, a la Brazil. If there’s any advantage that Brazil holds over the US it’s that whiteness is prized in Brazil and demonized in the US; conversely, blackness in Brazil is denigrated [pardon the pun!] while in America it is, in many ways, promoted (as cool, hip, exciting etc). If you read race forums beyond WN I think you’ll get the impression that this is already occurring—a surprising (to anyone reared on anti-white anti-racism) number of people don’t seem to mind whites/nords being deemed ‘superior’ provided their own group isn’t low man on the totem pole— so any future non-white majority is rather unlikely, to say the least, to be as pro-black as white ‘lovers have been. Finally, you are hopelessly naive to think that nonwhites will extend to us the same respect and solicitude we have insanely given to them. They are takers, and they want what is ours. If we do not defend it, we will lose it. That is very nearly a universal law of life. Now, wait a second. For starters, whaddya mean “we,” paleface? Secondly, I’m not suggesting that anyone’s just going to give you what you want out of the goodness of their hearts. I’m suggesting there’s a very real possibility that you can bargain for it. The reason is the other groups’ mutual dislike of each other. That dislike doesn’t have to be particularly deep-seated; it only has to be sufficient that the groups’ members prefer the company of their own. If they prefer their own, then many will be amenable to considering sturdier ways of securing living space around their own than the present-day game of dodging the other people and navigating past sixteen thousand shitheads until we find someone we genuinely wish to associate with. For me, that would be an end itself. WNs will obviously want more (a lot more). Very well. My position is we can achieve this first, kill each other later. You’ve accepted the wisdom of the stepping-stones approach, that gives people a concrete goal to work towards that appears believable and achievable and would actually secure a measurable benefit; if my suggestion isn’t it, then what is? Think about it: it makes racialism accessible and attractive to almost everyone (anyway, to vastly, infinitely more people than “WN”); it deftly dodges the antis’ best objections [I should know!]; it’s morally plausible; it’s democratically actionable; it’s inherently peace-seeking rather than inherently aggressive; it’s both conservative and progressive (I would call eugenics progressive, and certainly eugenics fits the program snugly); and I could go on. All this I’ve termed “racial reform,” but maybe you can come up something you feel is more apt. 60
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:47 | #
Yes, that story is on Drudge Report. Along with others, PANDEMONIUM IN PEORIA: MOB YELLS ‘KILL ALL WHITE PEOPLE’... another,
There have been a LOT of these stories finally reaching the mainstream lately.
61
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:38 | # NY just allowed gay marriage. GM has nothing per se to do with this thread, or race. Or does it? The West will only survive through a return to all its historic traditions and modes of existence, from racial segregation, to strict private property rights, to traditional Christian moral values enforced by a “limited government, strong state” (ie, a government that does not meddle in commercial affairs, except for national security concerns, but which is highly authoritarian viz other aspects of people’s lives -exactly as things were in the ‘good old days’). If we’re going to survive we must look to the conditions that obtained in times past when our race was string and expansionist, and then assess the viability of those conditions in light of modern science. Where do WNs stand on “gay-marriage”? 62
Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:08 | # Racial Armageddon, or passive extinction? And so it goes ... Babies Born to Ethnic Minorities Outnumber Number of White Toddlers for First Time in U.S. History More news stories on the Demographic Transformation Ethnic minorities now make up the majority of babies in the United States, official figures revealed today. It is the first time that this has been the case and the change reflects a growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and predominantly minority youths that could reshape government policies. Preliminary census estimates also show the share of African-American households headed by women—made up of mostly single mothers—now exceeds African-American households with married couples, a sign of declining U.S. marriages overall but also continuing challenges for black youths without involved fathers. The findings, based on the latest government data, offer a preview of final 2010 census results being released this summer that provide detailed breakdowns by age, race and householder relationships such as same-sex couples. Demographers say the numbers provide the clearest confirmation yet of a changing social order, one in which racial and ethnic minorities will become the U.S. majority by the middle of the century. Currently, non-Hispanic whites make up just under half of all three-year-olds, which is the youngest age group shown in the Census Bureau’s October 2009 annual survey, its most recent. In 1990, more than 60 per cent of children in that age group were white. The preliminary figures are based on an analysis of the Current Population Survey as well as the 2009 American Community Survey, which sampled three million U.S. households to determine that whites made up 51 per cent of babies younger than two. After taking into account a larger-than-expected jump in the minority child population in the 2010 census, the share of white babies falls below 50 per cent. By contrast, whites make up the vast majority of older Americans—80 per cent of the over 65s and roughly 73 per cent of people aged 45-64. Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor and senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire, noted that much of the race change is being driven by increases in younger Hispanic women having more children than white women, who have lower birth rates and as a group are moving beyond their prime childbearing years. The numbers come amid public debate over hotly contested federal and state issues, from immigration and gay marriage to the rising cost of government benefits, that are resonating in different ways by region and demographics. Alabama became the latest state this month to pass a wide-ranging anti-immigration law, which in part requires schools to report students’ immigration status to state authorities. That follows tough immigration measures passed in similarly Republican-leaning states such as Georgia, Arizona and South Carolina. But governors in Massachusetts, New York and Illinois, which long have been home to numerous immigrants, have opted out of the federal Secure Communities programme that aims to deport dangerous criminals, saying it has made illegal immigrants afraid of reporting crimes to police. California may soon opt out as well. While the number of black single mothers has been gradually declining, overall marriages among blacks are decreasing faster. That reflects a broader U.S. trend of declining marriage rates as well as increases in non-family households made up of people living alone, or with unmarried partners or other non-relatives. Female-headed households make up a 19 per cent share among Hispanics and 9 per cent each for whites and Asians. Meanwhile, figures released last month revealed that the migration of young Hispanic families has fuelled the age divide between regions of America. Young Hispanic migrant families are increasingly moving into western and southern states, while older baby boomers stay put further north. The population in the South and West is now dramatically younger than in the Northeast, and there is a gap of 3.9 years between the youngest and oldest regions of the country, according to figures released by the Census Bureau. In all, 12 of the 14 states with median ages of 36 or younger are located in the South and West, including California, Colorado and Georgia, whereas 13 of the 20 states with a median age of 38 or higher are in the Midwest and Northeast, including New Jersey, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Younger people are increasingly leaving these areas—particularly industrial cities in the Midwest like Detroit which have been badly affected by the recession—to find work in the Sun Belt. But ageing is being slowed in the South and West, as young Hispanic migrants settle and have families, while others continue to move in. Another intriguing recent study has revealed that college-educated immigrants now outnumber those entering the country with just a high school degree—and the variation is much bigger in urban areas. They outnumber those educated at high school by 25 per cent in 44 major American cities—and 30 per cent of working-age immigrants now have a college degree, compared to 19 per cent in 1980. An increase in demand from U.S. employers has seen more college-educated immigrants arriving in the U.S. over the past decade than immigrants without high school education, reported Yahoo News. Only 28 per cent of U.S. immigrants are without a high school diploma and half of skilled immigrants are overqualified for their jobs, a report by the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. said. 63
Posted by Audiophile on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:22 | # This is why I really don’t like the term “White” and much prefer the term “European-American” to describe those Americans who are wholly of European descent. It’s a much more clear cut term and prevents any confusion. 64
Posted by Karthik on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:14 | # CS, A hypothetical question for you. I assume you are a white person. Lets say you get your DNA tested and you are told you have a gene or mitochondria found only in Black people. It could be that 10 generations ago there was a black man in your family. So does that mean you are non-white? 65
Posted by Happening in Australia too on Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:18 | # Asian-born Australians may soon outnumber whites, says government study The number of Asians in Australia has almost doubled in a decade, from 1.03 million in mid-2000 to 2.1 million in the middle of last year, according to government statistics. 66
Posted by CS on Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:52 | # Karthik, All four of my grandparents were white and from Europe. Even if it was found out that I had some oon-white in me, I identify and am identified as a white person. I do support eugenics and part of that eugenics will be to either remove non-white admixture from the white genetic pool or minimize it as much as possible. For example, a white woman who is 1/16 black will only be allowed to procreate with a 100% white man (the whiter the better) so that her kids will be 1/32 black and so on. BTW, I am not a hypocrit and apply the same standards to myself. If it was found I had an unacceptable amount of non-white blood in me I am perfectly willing to forgo having children or have children inside the white Ethnostate. I think part of the emphasis on Nordics is that they are easily identified as white and never mistaken for anyhing else. Whereas with some Meds and other white people that isn’t always the case. 67
Posted by Selous Scout on Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:45 | # It is not recoverable without bloodshed. Full stop. This is the issue each one of us must face. Are you ready to do it, or are you not? I am telling you this not because I want to provoke anything, but because I want my people to start thinking clearly on the matter. PAY ATTENTION !!! 68
Posted by Leon Haller on Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:12 | # It is not recoverable without bloodshed. (Selous Scout) As an analytic statement, this is correct, though the operative word is “recoverable”, or maybe just “It”. What is not recoverable, and what is meant by “recoverable”? If you mean that Europe’s future is not assured racially without removing the alien presence, and that such removal is not possible without at least some bloodshed, you are correct. If you mean that white Americans will never be allowed to form their own ethnostate and secede peacefully, you are also correct. If, however, you mean that legions of WNs will not be able to immigrate and electorally/demographically conquer a sovereign country, like Australia, without bloodshed, I’m not so sure. If the WNs were sufficiently cagey and patient, so as to quietly amass a preponderant majority and beefed up military before moving to expatriate the nonwhites from the WNs’ new White Zion, would the nonwhites (aside from the Abos, a unique case) resist their removal with bloodshed, especially if it is peacefully requested and effectuated without wealth or even property confiscation? Look at what Latinos are doing to the American Southwest. They are peacefully conquering it. Why can’t whites (in the beginning, WNs) do the same somewhere? There are many more Mexicans than WNs, but there are many more whites in the world (and even in the US) than Mexicans - and yet Mexicans are slowly conquering parts of the US (and maybe the whole thing, by some distant future). Whites are, on average, wealthier, better skilled, and, at least in the US, possibly even more psychologically accepting of mobility than Mexicans. 69
Posted by Guest on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:34 | #
70
Posted by Karthik on Sun, 03 Jul 2011 22:58 | # Hi CS, May I know how old you are and what is it that you do?
If I look at human history, I see ancient civilizations every where in Eygpt, Rome, china, India, Middle east etc but nothing in Nordic region. And the modern Europe is richer and technologically ahead thanks mostly to industrial revolution and the world wars and the riches they stole from their colonies. The industries are now coming to the asian countries and they too are experiencing the economical benifits. If you argue that there were more inventions in Europe than in other parts of the world. Well, I don’t know the statistics. But I know this. When you are a country at war and your survival depends on building guns, ships and tanks definietly as more engineers work on them there will be more inventions compared to counries where the engineers are not under such pressure or where there are no engineers. for example in India, (India was a colony of British) the british took away most of the wealth from the country leaving behind hunger and poverty. In such a situation where there is nothing to eat, inventions are hard to come. Why in your opinion is a group of people who have blond hair and white skin (are whites) better than say the chinese or the japanese of Italian. Well Rome had democracy when there were only viking in Nordic region. In my opinion a polar bear is no superior than a black bear or a brown bear. They are just best suited for their environment. Similarly a white man (low levels of melanine in his skin so that he can generate vitamin d even with low sunlight) who is best suited to the low sunlight and cold weather of the North is no superior than a black man (high levels of melanine in his skin to protect against sunlight) and heat of the equator. 71
Posted by CS on Mon, 04 Jul 2011 01:19 | # Karthik,
I do not know for sure about the origins of humans and specifically white people. I’m inclined to believe intelligent design for a bunch of reasons. Regardless of what actually happened, it doesn’t change my views. I never said the white gene was or is the superior gene. Basically what I want is a country and government that promotes my interests and doesn’t work against my interests like the ones I have now.
It is my belief that ancient Egypt, Rome and India were actually white at the time and the subsequent flooding of non-whites and race mixing led to their declines. You may take this as a belief in white superority but I considers the Jews and some NE Asians as equals if not superiors.
See above.
The issue to me isn’t about superiority. The issue is creating a country and government that works to promote my interests and the interests of people like me instead of working against my interests to help people who aren’t like me. I don’t want to live in a country that readily admits black queers from Africa with HIV over regular white people like myself. 72
Posted by Karthik on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:59 | # Ok CS, I get your point…Self peservation. But having a white nation will not solve the problem. But you are right humans tend to trust people who look similar to them than who don’t.
Similarly you would have seen some videos or read some papers where they showed how the black are screwing up your country. Based on these meaningless events you gave a meaning “Blacks are going to hurt me” but you didnot see this in the world what you saw was some blacks made trouble. If you had given a different meaning like “just like there are white who creat trouble there also blacks, but also there are good blacks like the good white” then you won’t be hating the blacks. ALL YOUR TROUBLE STARTS IN THE MIND! Here is a question for you. You can observe your thoughts (Mind) right? Also you can observe your emotions right (like you know when you get angry etc) so my question is Who is observing the Mind and the emotion. If you can observe the mind you are not the mind. You can actually observe your mind when it starts saying things about blacks being dangerous etc. Try it.
73
Posted by CS on Tue, 05 Jul 2011 19:40 | #
It will solve some problems. Eugenics will solve others.
They are not meaningless.
Let’s get something straight. I only became “racist” when I started having to deal with large numbers of blacks on a semi regular basis.
Sorry, if I observe myself being pissed off because black person XYZ is doing ABC that is still my mind at work. 74
Posted by Karthik on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 18:04 | # CS, How many blacks did you meet before you became a “racist”. 100, 500 or 1000? And did you meet black from different educational and social backgrounds. Point is lets say you met 1000 people in your neighbourhood or some specific location and based on this sample of people you have a opinion about the rest of the 1 billion or so black people. And you believe this opinion of yours is right. Let me try one last time regarding “event have no meaning”. Lets say you are in your room. On guy walks in and doesn’t speak to you and goes out. What does that mean? You might say “he is rude” or “he is preoccupied” or “he didn’t see me.” Notice that all these interpretation of his action is in your mind and not in the event itself. The event of a person walking into you room and not talking to you and going out has no meaning. If you are interested you could check out http://www.recreateyourlife.com/free/ anyway ciao! 75
Posted by CS on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:21 | #
Hundreds.
I’ve met them from all different backgrounds. They aren’t all bad. Anyway, even if I never had to meet another black in real life, I still want a white country for whites only. Post a comment:
Next entry: The Chairman, a keen sense of self-preservation, and a block vote
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
)
Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:59 | #
American moving into its fin de siecle era? The experiment in an ontologically liberal politico-social order looks like it’s rapidly coming to an end (as an ethnocentric/homogenous polity). Tim Wise was right about that rapidly ticking clock for Euro-America.
Perhaps the future is as even more violent/nasty Brazil-like ‘society’ with lots of guns, nugatory social-capital, and much inter-group rivalry (and gated ‘communities’ for the fortunate very-wealthy few)? Geographic and/or economic ‘White-flight’ may be individually rational, but it will never deal with the communal problem.
Many Euro nations are still at the robust and fairly recoverable 90%+ Euro stage. Unfortunately not England, but even if England is seriously ill from the blow-back arising from the vanity of Empire (yes you are all British subjects in the colonies, have a passport etc., is where this idiotic multicultural policy started locally) it is still not yet terminally ill, but it seems like America might well be.
Perhaps the only true organic homelands we Euros have - the places on Earth that gave birth to us - are the places we will actually defend. Give me Denmark over Uncle Sam any day of the week. I’ll be 75 in around forty+ years time (should I still be here) and I would not wish to be living in the USA under the conditions outlined above in the original article (even if I was inside a ‘gated community’) it is likely to be a very unpleasant and dangerous society.