|
|
|
To do what we must to remain who we are
For reasons of familiarity, where a single national model has had to be used for discussion here I have used a post-Britain England - a nation freed from the British yoke, and contemplating anew the grounds for citizenship. But this essay is about the ethics of the preservation of all the peoples native to Western Europe. If a white ethno-state ever solidifies in the North American continent it would be adaptable to that too. It is an essay of three parts. The first explores the preservation of our ethnic being as the principle upon which citizenship qualification must rest. The second is about the rights of the collective over those of the individual. The last is about the primacy of justice for all the wrongs done to us these last six decades over justice for all those who find themselves nationless through no fault of their own. Jus sanguinis endogamous Ethnic cleansing, forced removals, racial purity, the one drop rule ... these are some of the names that have been given to that spider in the cup. Some are more vexing than others ... vexing, that is, to one steeped only in the morals and sensibilities of the liberalism that has gripped the West since the end of World War Two. But any thinking nationalist who is seriously intent on confronting the issue of blood, soil and citizenship in a post-liberal age must arm himself with an ethical counterweight to these morals and sensibilities - one that licences the survival of his people. The legal basis for citizenship of a modern Western nation tends to be drawn as widely as possible. Birth to at least one citizen by blood (Jus sanguinis), birth within the borders of the nation (Jus solis), and naturalization are usually all thrown into the mix. As a crowd-puller, it works only too well.
But, as we know, it isn’t some elevated morality, not some towering Lazarene belief in the destiny of Man which informs this official pulling of every citizenship lever. It is the desire for a large, flexible, competitive workforce. The business mind which is content to see its own kin-folk dispossessed in the name of lower unit cost has never wasted sweet and godly sentiments upon its new brown-skinned workforce, and won’t be the one hurling allegations of ethnic cleansing or racial purity when the bitch finally bites back. It sees only human capital, a resource to be tapped. It wants more resources, not less. The present basis for citizenship in the West is engineered precisely to accommodate this morality-free valuation of Man. But even the non-economic defences of it, supposed to be so “natural” for “right-thinking” people, are not overflowing with morality when you look at them. Thus, the migrant wants to get to the West and find work, we are told, and we have no right to place obstructions in front of people who simply seek to better themselves. And, anyway, it is our Christian duty or our duty as fellow men to beat world poverty by sharing our wealth and our very house with the poor and under-privileged of the world. They must have their piece of the Western pie, it seems. This obligation is always as open-ended as global poverty is itself endless. However, with the near-prospect of becoming the minority in our own urban centres, we can see that it is only too possible to give everything. So when the last street in the last town has been yielded up, will that be enough? No, because we are not dealing here with a genuinely moral request from the Christian and secular theocracy. We are dealing with the theocrats’ overwhelming need to feel moral, to pour balm upon the economic wounds of the poor - which is why no cost to us ever enters into the equation. None of this is ethical. It is psychological. The nationalist, then, is not hard-pressed for elbow room when he puts forward his ethical basis for citizenship. It must begin with a redefinition of what citizenship is for. An ethnic state has profoundly different preoccupations from the modern political state. It esteems the one asset which is held by the modern political state in complete contempt: the blood of the people whose name is given to that state, whose labours over the millenia built it and whose lives defended it. The ethnic state sees citizenship not as a transferable right or privilege but as title to the national inheritance. Its purpose is not to include but exclude. More than that, it is to protect and conserve our very being, so that we may recover from the predations of the past and restore our power over the future. Inheritance, protection and conservation are flawless moral bases for human action, and hardly suffer besides the theocrats’ feel-good interests. Their ineluctable product is the most particular form of automatic citizenship - birth not to at least one parental citizen by blood, but both. It is not the business of an ethnic state to make, in the very first instance, arrangements for those born to exogamous relationships. The presumption is for blood. And it must be as powerful as this, given the extremism in which, say, the English people find themselves today with a mixed-race population already well over a million strong. We are simply not in a position where more laxity and humanism can continue on their merry way. The individual and the eternal nation I know from debating citizenship with liberals that their favoured ploy is a “what if” game of increasingly sophisticated challenges to “racial purity”. What if one grandfather is Scottish? What if he’s Australian? Or Italian? Jewish? Indian ... half-Indian, then? Of course, they are only feeling for the fracture line so they can whip themselves into a tizzy of indignation, shout “racist” and end the discussion. But they are right that any ethnic fracture point will present dilemmas. There are underclass families where a complex web of cross-racial relationships spans three generations, and it no longer matters who the latest unmarried mother is currently living with, white or black. They are all too dense and deracinated to know. But are they English? How are parental blood-lines to be defined? Because mass migration into the European heartland is a process with an historical start-date, it is always possible to discover and contemplate the eternal nation. In the English context the latest it is to be found in its full and inimitable possession of self is immediately to the point on 22nd June 1948 when the MV Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury with its cargo of Jamaican economic migrants. For me, at least, every non-immigrant and non-Jew of unmixed family lines with residency pre-dating the Windrush would qualify automatically for the new English citizenship. And the rest would have to resort to appeal by genetic testing, if they wish. Making people nationless on grounds of ethnicity is not a small thing. On the face of it one would say without hesitation that it is immoral? But is it? Well, it cannot be that immoral to return foreign populations to their own ancestral homelands, and still less so if Jus solis is excluded from grounds of citizenship. No, it is the others, the ones with complex racial histories, who present the dilemma. But let’s turn the issue round. What moral reason can such an individual show for his claim to membership of the eternal nation? Economic productivity isn’t one. An increase to carrying capacity strikes me as unlikely in 99.99% of cases. All that’s left, I think, is family sentiment … the human right to belong with those closest to oneself. Does it outweigh the rights of the eternal nation, with which it is in conflict here? No, decidedly not. The latter’s are rights of an existential character. The individual’s right to family is profound, but it is not existential for the individual. In fact, the loss of family is part of life’s journey for us all. The higher interest for the greater number must prevail. Nor shall it stand Still, one must acknowledge that justifying surgery of this kind is never straightforward. But let’s remember why the dilemma exists and what is really at stake in the ancestral European heartland. Europeans did not ask to be flooded with Third World peoples and by that means to be slowly changed from themselves into another. There has never been any debate about the morality of that, only denials that there was a flood of any kind, followed by facetious and insulting exhortations to celebrate in it. That, in turn, has been followed by increasingly Orwellian laws to coerce us to the required end. We can scarcely speak honestly to friends in private. The whiteness of our skin already marks us out as racists and oppressors. Meanwhile, racial motivations in murders of our people are repeatedly “missed” by our fine policemen and lawyers. The miscegenation of our women with negros is smiled upon. Our children are brainwashed at school. We English were not even granted the possibility of indicating our ethnicity on the last national census form. We are simply white British. Across the English Channel it’s worse. As of 1st January 2008 there were 61,875,822 people living in metropolitan France. The government calls them all French, and declines to collect a single statistic based on race. Let any man anywhere on this planet explain to us how this is the behaviour of a moral executive and not a bought and paid for class of traitors and mentally disturbed totalitarians. And then let him explain why its sixty-year display of pure contempt for its own people should be allowed to go unreplied. It shall not go unreplied. A nationalist reply to this genocide is the most moral and uplifting and necessary embellishment to our life and times. But there will be human costs. Undoing such a vast injustice, constructed as it is out of the lives of ordinary and innocent men and women, will entail the payment of many costs. We are good men. We shall make these costs as light as we can. But we shall not compromise on leaving nothing of the devil’s handiwork in place … on doing whatever we must to remain forever who we are. Europe must and will survive. Now let us drink with Leontes. Comments:2
Posted by Dasein on Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:44 | # Could someone point me to discussions on the the details of repatriation. Are there historical precedents? I’m not sure how applicable the 1923 Greek-Turkish population exchange would be, since these were adjacents states. How would Germany force Turkey to take back its co-ethnics? I heard an interview a while back between David Duke and Udo Voigt (head of NPD) and Duke suggested that a more even-handed policy toward Israel by Western governments could be used as a bargaining chip. Seems naive, especially in the case of Turkey where such a suggestion would likely have the opposite effect. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:50 | # Dasein, when humanely done, repatriation of incompatibles who are here legally but in excessive numbers makes use of a push-pull strategy: you offer generous financial incentives to leave voluntarily with the whole family and sign an agreement renouncing any right of future re-entry as an immigrant, together with penalties if the offer is refused. As Norman Lowell said in one of his speeches, it’s the carrot-and-stick approach, and “those who will not accept the carrot will be shown the stick.” There are a gazillion ways to finance it. Don’t forget, a dollar goes way further in their Third World countries of origin than it goes here, so it’s relatively cheap. Take Britain for example: she needs to GET THE BRITISH ARMY THE HELL OUT OF BASRA AND START IMMEDIATELY EARMARKING THE MONEY SAVED FOR PAYING NON WHITES TO LEAVE THE UK!!! Still not enough money to pay them all to their satisfaction even after all the savings from decreased crime and welfare are factored in? Well, when was there ever enough money? Was there enough to fight WW I? No. WW II? No. Did that stop the government? No. You borrow for a worthy national cause and go into debt. You issue bonds, take out loans. Also, you can pay immigrants to leave <u>not</u> with a lump sum but, as is offered to lottery winners here in the States, with twenty years of monthly payments, which takes away part of the burden of coming up with immediate lump-sum payments. There are many ways to skin this cat. Any immigrants who are obviously holding out unreasonably in order to try for the most cash possible can “be shown the stick” and given a time limit in which to accept the most generous offer of which the government is capable before that, the government’s best offer, is withdrawn and they’re forced to accept a minimal payment and placed on the next plane under armed police escort. We’re willing to be as generous and humane as possible but at the same time we’re not playing games here. The above applies only to incompatibles here in excessive numbers legally of course. All incompatibles here illegally are owed nothing and should be rounded up and summarily ejected or imprisoned for law-breaking. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:57 | # Also, google an older article by Steve Sailer called “A Better Way Than Kosovo.” That discusses the main underlying principle, financially reimbursed “people-moving” in order to get geographic areas more racially/ethnoculturally homogeneous in the interest of avoiding conflict. And Steve has had a couple of pieces since that one over at Vdare.com on this subject, which you can look up in their archives over there or maybe by doing a search for key words such as push-pull, repatriation, etc. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:12 | # Gudmund, Fascism/NS requires that the nation be raised to new heights of power and prestige through a renewal of its racial spirit. So let’s ask: what is this racial spirit? An ethnic group has traits, which, of course, you can’t renew. But it doesn’t have anything called a spirit. It is a political fiction. But if you still insist on telling a man that, say, the spirit of his race is expressed in its mastery of other races, he will go out and renew his racial spirit by finding a slave to beat. You understand ... someone must pay the price if you try to realise the unrealisable. That is why I am a materialist. But I am not claiming that materialism holds the answer as to how to unite our people behind a desire to live. Materialism explains how life works. “Individual rights, freedom of speech and arms-bearing, the system of common law” - all that’s included. But none of it explains why we should live. That’s our dilemma. 6
Posted by fascist on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:12 | # Fascism/NS requires that the nation be raised to new heights of power and prestige through a renewal of its racial spirit As usual, you haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about. The “purest” forms of fascism - e.g., early Italian fascism or Codreanu’s Legionary movement - didn’t have anything to do with a renewal of any “racial” spirit. Codreanu’s “new man” for example, was based upon moral, ethical, and religio-spiritual principles, national yes, but not “racial.” National Socialism was essentially “materialist” at its core, although at times it delved into “racial spirit” because it couldn’t often square its materialist racial theories with forming an integrated German state (which included “Alpinids” as well as people like Goebbels). But regardless of fringe rhetoric on race, or the confused rantings of an Evola, palingenetic nationalism of the “fascist” variety does not depend upon a fictional “racial spirit,” nor the “beating of slaves.” Plenty of other ideologies and traditions are better associated with “political fictions” and “beating of slaves” than is “fascism.” A personal distate for palingenetic nationalism does not give one the right to distort political realities. 7
Posted by Dasein on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:17 | # Thanks for the info, Fred. These are perhaps the articles of Sailer’s at Vdare which you had in mind: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051106_buyout.htm http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051127_buyout.htm His scheme has a number of flaws, e.g. it is not an all at once event. If each non-European is to be paid 50K (or whatever amount) to leave, you’re going to end up with a Golden Womb phenomenon. One problem that I foresee is ensuring that countries will take back their co-ethnics. Some will perhaps jump at the chance to take in someone with a sizeable chunk of capital, other countries may complain about burdens on the social system that require just a bit more cash from the Western government(s) in question. And where do mixed-race co-ethnics go? Some healthy competition could be in order, have 3rd world countries bidding to take the emigrants. Repatriation is an interesting topic, I think the only humane long-term solution. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:38 | # Dasein, the country of Liberia was the result of Negroes getting repatriated to their continent of origin by white Americans who felt it would be inappropriate to have Negroes in the U.S. Some scholars think if Abraham Lincoln hadn’t been shot he’d have seen that Liberian repatriation scheme to completion but that’s in some dispute. Giscard’s government in France had a paid repatriation scheme during the ‘70s which had some success but was kept grossly underfunded by its political enemies (doubtless including many French Jews who wanted a mulatto France) and petered out, finally, without seeing huge numbers go back though it saw respectable numbers leave given its limitations. West Jewrmany had a paid repatriation program to get the Turks out of Jewrmany during the early ‘80s which was very successful but was killed by politics after only a couple of years up and running, doubtless also killed under Jewish influence emanating from Jewrmany itself or its puppet masters in D.C. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:40 | # Fascist, You criticise too quickly, without thinking beyond your desire to expose me as a charlatan! As a result, you have caught yourself out proffering the historical surface in a discussion about the internal principles. So ... from the dreaded and, apparently, impoverished Wikipedia, quoting an American historian Barbara Jelavich on the subject of the Iron Legion:-
To paraphrase what I wrote before:- The Legion required that national salvation be achieved through a renewal of religious spirit. Whether the form is religious or racial it makes no difference to the outcome, which is that people were not just beaten but murdered in pursuit of a totally unrealisable goal. I mean, the Second Coming, for Chris’sake! And you call this something we can respect today? Why? I would just add that all gestures in the direction of renewal are moral in nature. The racial spirit is no less a moral vessel than the religious spirit. Neither of them are real. Anyway, from our point of view, and from the point of view of Gudmund’s question, it is NS rather than any other form of the beast that engenders curiosity. Are you going to draw your sword on that as well? 10
Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:53 | # “Anyway, it is our Christian duty or our duty as fellow men to beat world poverty by sharing our wealth and our very house with the poor and under-privileged of the world.” WHy do you continually put Communism and CHristianity together, when the two are antithetical to one another? You Catholics, don’t you remember the “Syllabus of Errors” of 1905? All of it was diametrically opposed to the implementation of a Jewish Marxist’s thought into a European cult and culture. When one forgets one’s own history, one’s future also looks unmemorable…. 11
Posted by fascist on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:06 | # You criticise too quickly, without thinking beyond your desire to expose me as a charlatan! As a result, you have caught yourself out proffering the historical surface in a discussion about the internal principles. No. It’s called truth. You mentioned a “racial spirit” - if you now wish to amend that, all well and good, but I was responding to your “too quick” comment, written “without thinking.” More to the point: you criticize “fascist” movements for their violence. Communism murdered millions. Liberal globalism is genociding an entire race. Conservative traditionalism “beat upon” “native peoples” through imperialism, colonialism, and slavery. Cherry-picking is fine for fruit consumption, but not argumentation. Ah, but, you say, “fascist” violence is particularly pernicious because it is all for non-realizable, impossible aims, which leads to: More to the point II: if you consider all “spritual” actualization to be fictions - and you have objective justification for doing so - the point remains that, whatever works to motivate the pursuit of genetic interests is something that can, at least potentially, be considered legitimate. You yourself host a blog in which calls for “materialist” genetic testing leads to people being subjected to vulgar ad hominem. It would seem then that the cognitively challenged masses need something more than “materialist” “testing” to inspire them. Political fictions, perhaps? And, if genetic interests can be preserved, is some cultural renaissance and renewal such a bad thing? Just because ultimate interests trump proximate interests does not mean proximate interests do not exist. They do. Culture matters. Civilization matters. Palingenetic renewal - to the extent that it is actually practically possible - matters. These are not mutually exclusive to materialism. More to the point III: Not all these “fictions” were in fact fiction. Stripped of its religious cover, Legionary ethics had a point. Humans are in general a sorry lot - this blog proves the case very well. Some ethical and moral improvement is called for. Establishment Christianity burned “heretics” at the stake and destroyed societies through war and Inquisition. Compared to this, the behavior of Mussolini’s Blackshirts or Codreanu’s legionaries were small potatoes. So ... from the dreaded and, apparently, impoverished Wikipedia, quoting an American historian Barbara Jelavich on the subject of the Iron Legion:- “Iron Legion?” There was a Legion of the Archangel Michael and there was the Iron Guard (originally not meant to be exactly the same but it ended up being considered so). There was no “Iron Legion.” With respect to “NS” - it was more “materialist” than any other “fascist” movement and yet committed more of the acts that you, as a materialist, deem offensive. And with that, I need to get back to my “shiteating.” Yum Yum… 12
Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:06 | # “Whether the form is religious or racial it makes no difference to the outcome, which is that people were not just beaten but murdered in pursuit of a totally unrealisable goal. I mean, the Second Coming, for Chris’sake! And you call this something we can respect today? Why?”
And that is what I noted at a 2000 conference where I met Ernst Zuendel before he was turned over (illegally) to the neo-Germans. YOU cannot fight SOMETHING with NOTHING. YOU NEED CHRISTIANITY- a muscular, racially-aware, historical faith, or you are DOOMED TO FAIL, when confronting the accursed Jews. NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING can stand up to their false (But ideologically iron-clad) “Holocaust Dogma of Judaism” EXCEPT for historic, Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. Codreneau is still considered a martyr in Romania, and there are ICONS of him in many Romanians’ homes, just as the Czar and his Family are considered martyrs by the “Faithless Jews” (whom everyone knows committed regicide because they HATE CHRIST) and their icons are now spreading all over Russia and the Diaspora. So, when you state, “Whether the form is religious or racial it makes no difference to the outcome,” it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!! Nowhere in this quote is the Second Coming mentioned or considered. All of what Codreneau and Putin are trying to do today, is to take SERIOUSLY the petition in the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom come ON EARTH, as IT IS in Heaven.” This is the preamble to the millenium, not the apocalypsis. But if we don’t battle the Deicides here and now, THEN we will HAVE the Apocalypse, for Christ will ‘cut short those days,’ so that ‘the elect’ will not suffer overmuch. Orthodoxia ki thanatos! 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:08 | # Fr. John: WHy do you continually put Communism and CHristianity together, when the two are antithetical to one another? I was not speaking in my own voice in that passage, but in the voice of a “right-thinking” person. Sorry if that wasn’t clear from the tone. I would, of course, never accuse you of thinking like that! 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:40 | # Fascist, The owner of a certain blog now closed to public perusal would, I am sure, disagree with nearly everything of substance that you have written. First, being a man of measured ways, he would not allow himself the emotional latitude to attack someone who harbours no ill-will towards him, and who is too respectful to raise a hand in reply. Second, he would, with his keen mind, instantly ascertain that it isn’t great to criticise someone for not centering a side-discussion on fascism/NS on the earth-shattering achievements of a guy in Romania who was shot in 1938. Third, again because he is a thinking man and not an emotional automaton, he would certainly ask himself if simple, uncomplicated social conservatism, which everyone understands, is not a more fitting evangelist for our evolved moral behaviours than the murdering of one’s political opponents in the expectation that it will being Christ back to planet Earth to gee everyone up a bit. All in all, I think that, being a man of more frankness and honesty of expression than I am, he would knock at least seven intellectual bells out of you until you got the message of what it is all about: We are all on the same side, and the way we do things is ... we do them our own way. If you can help, fine. But don’t set out to hinder. You will only harm your previously high reputation anyway. I think that’s more or less what that other guy would have said to you. You’re wrong about Codpiece’s cricket guard, btw. The guard is what they do in front of the stumps with the bat, before receiving the bowler’s delivery. It’s the box that saves the next generation. Think about what I’ve said, now. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:12 | # Once again, an MR.com log entry which is in the top rank of anything found anywhere on the web by any writer on any subject. The top rank. Also: this entry nicely, in effect, clarifies — partly retracts might be a better word — GW’s initial endorsement of Dienekes’ jus solis/jus sanguinis log entry, an entry which I, too, prematurely supported, never thinking to go back to monitor the discussion in the comments thread where the Pontic Greek was drawn out by a commenter signing as “Just Say Negro” and made to say what he actually had in mind. Learning what he actually had in mind thanks to JWH’s comment here at MR.com the other day, 1) I was profoundly disappointed in him, the Greek, and 2) I was grateful for a) this site’s comments feature through which I learned of DP’s mistake, and b) DP’s site’s comments feature, without which no one would have learned of DP’s mistake. As I said elsewhere, comments threads can be didactic. Yes there are drawbacks associated with them. Sometimes a blog has to accept the good with the bad. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:37 | # GW: “I would just add that all gestures in the direction of renewal are moral in nature. The racial spirit is no less a moral vessel than the religious spirit. Neither of them are real.” What is the truth, what is the real; for Man? This rotting flesh? Those carnal delights we so mechanically pursue, enjoy? What is a man? A collection of organs and neurons that propel him through his pointless ministrations, for all the universe could care? Is not the logical conclusion he is irresistibly drawn to that now he is, but before he was not and forevermore after, he will be nothing? Yes. What has it ever been but the religious impulse that has driven men to do anything of weight, grandeur, meaning beyond eating and fucking; beyond that of the beast of the field? Why must we deny ourselves our most potent weapon, our most precious meaning, for the sake of those who know not, cannot soar so as European Man? They would not pay us the same consideration. And why must we choose the one religious sentiment, the one that despises cruelty done to “the other”, over the religious sentiment that spiritualizes cruelty done to “the other” when it is necessary to secure life? Why then do men weep when presented with the spectacle of the ineffable majesty of their brothers who took lives in battle and gave theirs so that they might live? What meaning is there once a spiritually imbued vision is stripped from our perception of the world? There is none. And without it we will perish. 17
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 05:19 | # Fred, what was this Dienekes post? Been over there to look, couldnt find it. 18
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 05:42 | # Lurker, it’s linked in this comment by “Eugen Sandow”: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jews_lie_about_madoff_swindle/#c66769 19
Posted by Diamed on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:03 | # Repatriation is a fine solution, combining it with buyouts is as humane as one could possibly wish. I fear not enough people are interested in repatriation for that to work in time though. I guess my criticism is basically this: Given we aren’t coming to power any time soon, at the least not in the next 50 years, and given the demographic realities that face us 50 years from now, can WN speak of solutions like repatriation seriously? How exactly do you repatriate hundreds of millions of hispanics in the year 2042 to Mexico when Mexico can’t possibly hold that many people? Do we just shoot the excess so they don’t starve to death? Do we first go to war with the receiving country who would almost surely refuse to take them? How do white minorities have the right to ‘repatriate’ non-white majorities? As far as reality is concerned, wherever you live is your homeland, if France is majority muslim, it’s a homeland for muslims, not whites. What it was in the past is irrelevant. Repatriation has a narrow window of opportunity. For instance I would not think it just for a tiny minority of native americans to ‘repatriate’ European-Americans back to Europe and claim all the land for themselves. Like it or not, that’s our homeland now, and they are the aliens, the foreigners, the people without a home. The same could be said of states like California. Who should be repatriated? The majority non-whites or the minority whites who have no business being there in a state that is no longer about them? Unfortunately the window of opportunity for repatriation exactly mirrors the time liberal feel-good diversity is the most popular among whites. While it is easy to repatriate a 10 or 20% minority to their respective homelands, that is precisely when whites feel non-whites are harmless and enriching and would just love to have a non-white friend to show how cool they are. When whites wake up ala South Africa, the idea of repatriating the 90% black majority to Congo or wherever is just nonsense. Not only do they lack the power, but they are speaking of something completely different—ethnic cleansing not repatriation. And if it’s okay to ethnic cleanse people off their territory which they are a clear majority in while we are a small minority simply because once upon a time a white person walked there, we may as well justify taking any land we want simply because we want it. That at least seems less torturous logic and more honest and fair-dealing. What amazes me is we were willing to ethnic cleanse tens of millions of germans, killing and raping millions of them in the process, after WWII and no one bats an eye or cares, just to settle some petty ethnic disputes, but we get all dewey eyed and hysterical at the idea of doing the same to non-whites with no merit we share nothing with and are, in fact, entirely different species. No one can even claim the germans did more harm as occupiers than the non-whites are doing, not with all the crime, welfare, and terrorism they bring with them (and any reader of EGI would know that merely the importation of a single bantu into your territory is equivalent or greater harm to your genetic interests than the murder of your own child, whereas it would take something like 10,000 germans to lose a few kids worth of genes from their neighbors, whites are so similar). If we can be heartless towards our own and get the moral stamp of approval and watch it go down the memory hole, I feel we can girder our loins and summon the courage to be heartless to others too, get moral approval for it, and never think about it again. Who, after all, today speaks of the Germans? This isn’t to say we shouldn’t offer repatriation at all. History will show we gave them opportunity after opportunity to accept a peaceful compromise, and it was they not us who refused them all, settling instead on a program of planned and gleefully celebrated genocide of the white race as their only objective. It will be important for our historians to point out how many times we offered concessions and compromises to them, but in the end the negotiations will not succeed, we will be forced to wholesale slaughter, and we will have the moral highground when we do it. That is, if we win. (odds are our goose is just cooked and the non-whites are quite right in rejecting any compromise or negotiation when they see the prize of victory so near to completion as they are today. What’s in it for them to stop now? What do they have to fear from whites? From their point of view, our gracious offers of repatriation are just ludicrous. Who is the president of the US? Who is the president of France? Who owns the world? Who is having the kids in previously white countries? They’d be insane to quit while they’re ahead. It’s like demanding the holders of a 4-of-a-kind to fold on the off chance the white race has a royal straight flush up their sleeves. Odds are we DON’T. They know it, we know it.) 20
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:37 | # Diamed: “It’s like demanding the holders of a 4-of-a-kind to fold on the off chance the white race has a royal straight flush up their sleeves. Odds are we DON’T. They know it, we know it.” I once heard Tomislav Sunic, on the Political Cesspool, reading a portion of his book, Homo Americanus, in which he speculated that in the future an American regime may, intentionally, allow tens of millions to starve. So long as the Jews are in control guess who will be on the receiving end of that? It will be the “White trash”. William Gayley Simpson wasn’t necessarily as hysterical in his suggestion that Communists would take over America and liquidate tens of millions of Whites as some said; not “Communists”, but still Jews. Simpson wrote of the need to get the “Communist vampire” off our back - indeed, by any means necessary. As for the potential of non-Whites resisting us in our bid to reclaim all of North America, I’m not sweating bullets. If the Wehrmacht can take France in six weeks and nearly bring the mighty Soviet Union to its knees I think the White race will fair well in a war of annihilation with muds. These “people” really don’t realize who they are messing with. 21
Posted by Armor on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:26 | #
I think every absurd posture of the liberal frauds cuts both ways: - If family sentiment is no obstacle to immigration to the West, it cannot be an obstacle to deportation from the West either, especially if it is our only way to maintain our collective existence. - According to the liberals, race doesn’t matter. It should make no difference to us if we are forced to take in a few million immigrants. If so, it should make no difference to the immigrants either, when we expel them to some other country, not necessarily their home country. What really matters is the nation we belong too, not the territory, although every nation needs some territory. There would be a problem in separating people from their own nation, but what we want to do is separate people from different nations. Europeans stay in Europe, everyone else go back to their own nations. The real problem is with mixed-race people, as you say. There is no reason we should allow them to stay among us. If the whole world is supposed to become mixed-race, there is no reason mixed-raced people should live and mix with us rather than with other populations. Maybe we could get some territory for them in North Africa or some other place. We would have to use force. Some of the local Arab population would have to be relocated. The leftists will say it is a nazi-like scheme, but they are not morally competent: they think it is perfectly natural to relocate third-world immigrants to white countries in massive numbers. In fact, relocation of a few million mixed-race people to North Africa is a far better idea than what our Western governments have in store for us, which is complete annihilation through race-replacement and race-mixing in the not so long future. 22
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:27 | # Thanks Fred. Received and understood. JWH lands the knockout punch yet again. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:39 | # GW: “For me, at least, everyone of unmixed family lines with residency pre-dating the Windrush would qualify automatically for the new English citizenship. And the rest would have to resort to appeal by genetic testing, if they wish.” But how do you find out if they are of “unmixed family lines”? Ancestry records that the authorities would demand as a qualification for citizenship? If that, then why not take the extra, more definitive step of administering DNA tests to all as a qualification for citizenship? Then you could institute laws that proscribe the breeding of citizens with non-citizens. “If a white ethno-state ever solidifies in the North American continent…” If a White ethno-state ever solidifies in England… No, I’m not going to finish that sentence, I don’t like it. All of North America is our ethno-state, as it once was. What portion of England are you willing to concede to the mudscum? 24
Posted by danielj on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:25 | # In America we must wrestle control of some territory from our own government; whether it will happen through political subversion, patient supplication or secession I am unsure of, but it is our only option. There is no possible way we can simply grab the reigns of government and achieve control over a repatriation scheme that is doomed to fail without simultaneous repatriation schemes occurring in every other European country. The political pressure from other countries not in the middle of such a scheme would be too great and the economic disruption that would occur would not be tolerated by any other major power. We must carve out small sectors of independence and make them our de facto homelands and hope that they will someday be declared de jure because the forces aligned against us are too strong. Balkanization is our only hope. I’m with Diamed, our goose is already cooked and the most we can do is add some pepper. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:32 | #
You and Diamed would meet with JWH’s approval then, Daniel: in this business JWH frowns on any attitude except pessimism. Friedrich Braun tends to be like that as well: pessimistic. The thing is, no matter what the situation looks like, and no matter whether you feel ever so slightly hopeful/optimistic or overwhelmingly hopeless/pessimistic, you never stop fighting. Wasn’t that one of the messages of Lord of the Rings? How often did pessimism reign, and men do things that seemed utterly without hope of success, just because they would never, ever, ever, ever give up no matter the odds against them? Each man of us must say to himself, “I’m with this to the bitter end. If need be, I’ll be the last man standing. In my mind I will never give up or compromise. Never means never.” Say that to yourself and it makes no difference whether you see a smidgen of hope or see everything darkly as purest futility: in you we have the man we need. 27
Posted by Red Mercury on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:04 | # GW’s essay is one of the best to be found on this site or indeed anywhere in the WN universe. Well done. The key is to state the truth, claim the moral high ground (which we clearly occupy—we simply need to talk about it more), and to avoid surrendering to pessimism and despair. But it’s strange, IMO, to discuss repatriation, balkanization, ethnic cleansing, when even a hint of such an event would immediately provoke a violent reaction (i.e. civil war) on the part of overclass and/or targeted non-white population groups. Wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss these scenarios first and plan accordingly? One of the biggest failings I perceive in my fellow Whites is a lack of imagination. It never occurs to them to draw the obvious conclusions about present policies of mass non-white immigration, multi-cult, and the coming minority status of Whites in our own lands. It never occurs to them, I think, to consider just what it would take to achieve political control again. Do you honestly think the current overclass would ever accept peacefully being voted out of office? Do you honestly think that would happen? I fully expect to see civil war in my lifetime. It is something I look forward to, actually, which I find is an unpopular and even perverse position on WN discussion boards. I accept that. In the event of a civil war, however, I believe there will be opportunities for Whites to do what needs to be done. Timing is everything. 28
Posted by Ryder on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:01 | #
(Fred Scrooby) This is absolutely right. I’ll go even further: we’re going to win. We’ve got to take that attitude. It amazes me how much defeatism I see on various WN boards. Now, by no means are all WN defeatists, but a significant minority are. Our enemies must love this. Some are no doubt trolls or antis seeking to spread defeatism, but no doubt some of it is genuine. Here we are, still with hundreds of millions of whites, and we get the “we’re all doomed” mantra. No, we’re not doomed. Far from it. I’ve got to tell you, as discouraging as things can be, I’ve never been more optimistic. The system is facing the biggest challenges in most of our lifetimes. The system ain’t going to last. Now, whether it has five years left to it or fifty, of course I don’t know. But I’m guessing sooner rather than later. This is no time for anyone of WN inclinations to be discouraged. Opportunities are undoubtedly coming our way, and probably faster than we guess. The brainwashing of our people is a mile wide but an inch deep. Our enemies understand this. Pity that some WN don’t. 29
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:42 | # Lurker: “JWH lands the knockout punch yet again.” Silver is a filthy, greasy wog: why not liquidate the wog? And hell hath no fury like… Individualism, enough! The Asiatic hive-mind’s time has come. daneilj: “We must carve out small sectors of independence and make them our de facto homelands and hope that they will someday be declared de jure because the forces aligned against us are too strong. Balkanization is our only hope.” I don’t disagree with balkanization and secession as an intermediate goal; but always, and ever, my dream is the complete, total, final reconquest of North America for the White man. It should be the Holy Cause that we whisper amongst ourselves, and, if need be, pass down through the generations (hey, it worked for the Jews with Israel). All our efforts, all the strength of ours that we cultivate, must, be directed towards that end; we retreat today, only, so that we might achieve final victory tomorrow. Maybe palingeneticism is a big no-no, but I figure screw it. Fred: “Wasn’t that one of the messages of Lord of the Rings?” Indeed it is. “...in this business JWH frowns on any attitude except pessimism. Friedrich Braun tends to be like that as well: pessimistic.” Those guys love palingeneticism. What good is palingeneticism if it doesn’t keep your chin up? Red Mercury: “In the event of a civil war, however, I believe there will be opportunities for Whites to do what needs to be done. Timing is everything.” You mean like “under the fog of war”? Just what happens “under the fog of war”? Oh, I know, never mind. Ryder: “I’ll go even further: we’re going to win. We’ve got to take that attitude.” Damn right: one day we will take back all of North America. 30
Posted by apollonian on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:10 | # Humanity Needs Cyclic Christian Inspiration, Thus Jew-Expulsion, Etc. Good discussion so far, comrades. Ultimately, note history and reality (socio-biology—see KevinMacDonald.net) are CYCLIC, according to “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler. Eventually hook-nosed Jews, so ugly, so psychopathic and disgusting, and so eminently hateable will lose—rather than, so much, whites or gentiles beginning to win very much. Observe Walt-Mearsheimer CFR-Bilderberg conspiratorial faction (see TheNewAmerican.com for expo/ref.) has already definitively pointed “finger” at “The Israel Lobby.” Thus proverbial “seeds” are sown, “foundation” laid, etc. Jew parasite disease-of-opportunity will destroy host/victim, then required to turn upon itself. Forest fire eventually burns itself out. Thus as Jews kill one another off, question/issue will regard what is most enterprising course?—which will be dear old Christianity, essence of which is reverence for TRUTH, according to Gosp. JOHN 14:6. Hence then we see we must prosecute TRUTH (hence science, logic, etc.), this however, in most Christian fashion (ck more Apollonian expo at NewNation.org, under “commentary” heading). How then to achieve most perfect Jew-expulsion?—well, one good beginning is to demonstrate such Jew-expulsion will so effectively de-capitate criminal conspiracy which presently rules so horrifically, prosecuting Orwellian “perpetual war for perp. peace,” etc. Note topmost mastermind Jews presently aim quite deliberately at general de-population—sociopathologically, yet a shrewd strategy, indubitably. And specifically, good Christians need to “get out” and demonstrate in front of “Christian” places, this in manner of dear Pastor Carlson of Whtt.org, though he is far too tame and milky for his Christianity-lite substance. Christianity, as u should know, is supposed to be anti-semitic (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13). CONCLUSION: So there u have it: just removing Criminals by itself would so much improve things, never doubt—and Jew-expulsion then provides basic strategy. Thing then we want to avoid is prosecution of Truth working against itself benefitting those infernal Jews who always make use of Pharisaism-moralism and Pelagian heresy (“good-evil” delusion/fallacy). Jews aren’t “evil”—as they are mere agent (occuring CYCLICALLY, of course) which removes over-populated gentiles. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:46 | #
Funny thing is, JWH didn’t need to: if he’d waited a few days Dienekes would have, himself, landed the knock-out punch on his own chin. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:46 | #
It happened in Germany under the Kohl gov’t in 1983. Of interest is the envy felt by the native German population at the payouts to the departing Turks. It’s funny, the Kohl government was attempting to return Turks to their homeland because they were not, in their view assimilable, and much of the German workforce, to whom this benefit accrues, is envious of not receiving a similar pay out.
There is no need for “simultaneous repatriation schemes occurring in every other European country” for a programme to work. Deportation of illegals will also be resisted by WNs because some of them will be “white folks”. LOL Whites taking back North America? Is that the wikipedia version? “Whites” never were North America’s founding people. 33
Posted by Bill on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 22:47 | # A lot of posters here have lost their perspective, their awakenedness has clouded (or perhaps panicked) their judgement. It’s a natural reaction, they’re beating their breast exhorting ” I can see it, why the hell can’t you? “When are you all going to wake up?” I’m the same, if a chap like me can see what’s going on why can’t those millions of others out there see what I see. For chrissakes you only have to watch the BBC for ten minutes and they’re telling you what’s in store for us. We must always remember, this has never happened before in the whole history of mankind, never has a tribal elite invited their people to commit suicide in the name of tolerance. We should also remember this all pervasive programme has been, and still is, and will continue to be orchestrated by cunning deceit, obscuration, browbeating, politically correct manacling, plus the super new improved Teflon coated political correctness, (anti semitism) lies, treachery and humbug. All emanating from the highest sources of officialdom. Is it any wonder the pulverised brainwashed public have not cottoned on yet? Our elites cannot hide what is going on, it’s in our face 24/7, the sheeple are bemused, they simply cannot understand what they see with their own eyes, they cannot understand why nobody is explaining to them what is going on, they cannot understand for the life of them why, if they should raise the subject at all, they are pounced on and denounced as racist. It is all very similar to when political correctness was introduced, the sheeple (me included) decried and ridiculed it, saying it was stupid, it was all a joke it was madness - but it would go away, given time. But political correctness didn’t go away, it intensified and was seen for what it was, it was evil, it was totalitarian, it was a thought compliant straight jacket. The question I ask myself, have the sheeple made any connection between pc and immigration? I’m not so sure that they have. Have the sheeple made any connection between all of these things and anti white legislation in the name of anti terrorism? I don’t think they have. In fact I would say that 98% of the population, although disturbed, are not connecting the dots, it’s as though they’re hypnotised, which in a way I suppose they are. The MSM is their Svengali. Despite all of this, do not despair, I liken it to a family on the beach at the seaside, who are having such a good time they don’t notice the tide is coming in, it is only when the the waves have broken over all their possessions that they become awake. How far has the tide advanced, quite a bit I’d say, and it’s advancing by the hour, to mix metaphors the noose is tightening, it defies human instinct that the sheeple will not awake at some point. But of course, it is at that point, it becomes a different story. Regular readers here will readily recognise a lot of this post from previous posts of mine - but I make no apologies for repeating the general theme, somebody new might be looking in. 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:24 | # That was an excellent comment, Bill. As yours always are, comrade. 35
Posted by selous scout on Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:50 | # Wonderful comments, Bill. Maybe the lemmings don’t want to connect the dots, perhaps they don’t want to see. The truth—that Whites are being genocided through Race Replacement and race-mixing schemes and oppressed by the Multi-Cult—may be too horrible for them to even consider seriously. Also, they don’t want to contemplate the effort and mess involved in what will be required of them to attain self-governance again as responsible, mature adults. In short, they don’t want to be MEN. They are satisfied being pussified adolescents, content with their video games, cans of lager, football on the telly, all the while their wife and daughters are out rutting with blacks like horny teenagers. 36
Posted by Wanderer on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:50 | # The citizenship discussion is reminiscent of the inflation analogy raised by another English author, in his excellent essay entitled “The Danish Civil War” (which appeared a year or so ago on GatesofVienna). I hope the webmaster(s) will forgive me for reposting the few paragraphs from that essay:
So, “political” citizenship will [continue to] be seen as less and less relevant, will lose value, exactly like one’s 50,000Euro in the bank in the event of Eurozone hyperinflation. The logical successor is “ethnic citizenship”. The latter rises above “Jus-Sanguinis vs Jus-Solis” (which narrowly focus on where the child is born and/or where ‘at least one’ of the parents were born) to affirm that the only legitimate members of the nation are those of the specific ethnoracial stock which defines (or defined) that nation. [And, of course: those who practice certain cultural folkways associated with that nation: e.g. no Muslim can be English…but ethnic stock trumps culture; culture and even language can always be re-learned, racial-stock cannot easily be re-constituted once subsumed]. 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:09 | # Desmond Jones: “There is no need for “simultaneous repatriation schemes occurring in every other European country” for a programme to work.” Diamed’s point stands, the window of opportunity, via democratic means, is closing quickly proportionately to the worsening demographics. “Deportation of illegals will also be resisted by WNs because some of them will be “white folks”.” If that’s the way it’s got to be. They will be deported to White countries, not some turd-world pisshole. No biggie. “Whites taking back North America?” Yup. Don’t worry Desmond, there won’t be any forced breeding programs to amalgamate the Welsh and the Ukrainians. I’m afraid even after the reconquest we’ll still be stuck with our Ingins and our Kaffirs: we’ll need anti-miscegenation laws. Not applying to intra-European groups, of course. But we could use media influence to popularize DNA testing for mate selection consistent with genetic interests. Sound like a plan? “Is that the wikipedia version?” It’s in the pragmatic version. ““Whites” never were North America’s founding people.” Don’t tell me your going to give me some “First Nations” rap like Mizz Wenchstine. Oh, wait, I guess your talking about the original colonizing people from Britannia. What about the Dutch and Germans, are they covered? I’m pretty sure they are in America - considered founding stock. If so, my ass is covered. “LOL” 38
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:30 | #
Such nonsense. The arenda system established by the Polish aristocracy is just one example of many where an elite encouraged, aided and abetted the diminishing of their own tribal/ethnic people to further their own interests. 39
Posted by Braunau am Inn on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:31 | # The Greek Jew who’s now president of France said during a t.v. program and in a flight of self-serving moral indignation that any talk of jus sanguinis will lead to Auschwitz. This is the type of insane hyperbole, intellectual terror, and moral blackmail that any efforts made by Europeans in behalf of their genetic survival face from hostile Jews, immigrants and their descendants, and suicidal and self-loathing White liberals. 40
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:59 | # Appolonian, We have a convention here, which I admit one of our main contributors has twice broken - and that makes this harder for me - but anyway, we have a convention that no people are spoken of with the vulgarity that one encounters in other quarters. I would be grateful if you could observe that rule in respect to your remarks about Jews. As for your comments about the deportation of Jewish populations, that was not included in my essay. I consider that Jews are settled population in Europe, which have to be treated in a different way from the post-war Third World population transfers. This doesn’t imply that I think Jews must remain in the West. It just means I did not write about them here. 41
Posted by Ryder on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:02 | # The times they are a changin. Up until very recently, most whites could live in essentially all white neighborhoods. The first wave of white flight “worked”, in the sense that it was entirely possible to find an affordable white neighborhood with decent public schools that were also almost entirely white. Those days are gone. The non-white tide has chased down the white flighters. Suburbia is transformed. Even the rural areas fill with mestizos. You now need some serious bucks to buy into an all white area with good public schools. Same with miscegenation. I didn’t start seeing miscegentation until the early to mid nineties. Now, I can’t go anywhere without seeing it. Of course, not everybody is doing it. Most don’t. But it is VISIBLE now, and that’s the important point. Even ten years ago, people on the street didn’t buy that whites would ever become a minority in America. They just couldn’t see it, they couldn’t feel it. Never mind what the demographic statistics said. Today? The system media openly brags and trumpets impending white minority status. The mask is removed. The point is that, until recently, whites seemed to feel that they were on top, that their position was secure. Anyone who said otherwise was dismissed as an alarmist. That’s changing. I make a habit of talking to people one on one, sizing them up and taking the public temperature on race. My conclusion: the white public is far more open to our ideas than it was just a decade or so ago. There is less and less of a sense of noblesse oblige, because they increasingly realize that they are not in the higher position. They feel that their generosity has been abused. They are increasingly alienated from the system. One of the things that has kept the whole charade going for so long has been the economy. The sheeple have learned that to speak out against the holy cant of political correctness is to be reduced to a breadcrumb. Once the system can’t deliver the comfy lifestyle to buy off the people, the system will have less and less support. That day appears to be coming. Even if the system can put it off for a few more years, it will only be postponing the inevitable. Sooner or later the system will not be able to buy the willing compliance of millions of whites. We don’t need anywhere near universal support amongst whites. We just need a good, sizable minority. A few million will do to get on with. We’re gonna get them, and then far more than that. On the micro level, even assuming relative economic stability, how can the white guilt last as the media celebrates our women bedding down with non-whites? Will that white kid in high school feel sufficient guilt after learning that the girl of his dreams, his first crush, is bedding down with Rufus the Rasta? There is going to be a real disconnect when he learns that the brothers have run a train on his dream girl, and then he sees blacks get special scholarship money and set asides. Why should he feel guilt? He grows up with a media that worships black athletes and celebrities, he sees non-whites getting the white girls, he is mocked mercilessly in the media - and now he is supposed to feel guilt? Obama is elected, and still he is supposed to feel guilt? And perhaps more fundamentally, can he really like all of this? Is it truly enjoyable for him to see Rufus the Rasta running around with the white girls, while he himself is treated like a joke? Now, no doubt many whites will embrace Stockholm Syndrome, and identify with their conquerors. We’ve all seen that. But there is something else going on out there, something that is inevitable. More and more normal whites are experiencing a psychological break from the system. The fissures are there, and they are getting bigger. It just doesn’t FEEL like our country anymore. These often subtle psychological separations can be enormously important in the coming years, providing fertile ground for our cause - IF we ourselves can maintain hope, and if we can offer a viable solution. We’ve never had this before, but we’re getting it. I can’t overemphasize its importance. The great tragedy is that a few decades ago, when general racial views were much healthier, the average white felt too much attachment to the system. Now, he SHOULD have lost this sense of attachment no later than Brown v. Board, but he didn’t. He therefore shied away from the real change that was necessary, change that could have been accomplished far easier back then. Show me a racial conservative of thirty years ago, and I’ll show you a guy who was nowhere near ready to seriously entertain white nationalism. But show me a person who is psychologically separating from the system, and I’ll show you someone who may well give us a fair hearing. Hell, white nationalism is more and more likely to strike them as no crazier - and hopefully a lot less crazy - than the various nuttiness that they have been expected to swallow in recent decades. As horrible as the cost is, from massive miscegenation to Obama as president, we are going to get something for our expense. A white public that, pyschologically, is nowhere near as invested in the system as it used to be. And then diminish or remove the economic payout, and we are in for some interesting times. Our main problem is that we don’t have a clear, coherent plan that we can promote and rally around. White nationalists are incredibly divided. That needs to change. 42
Posted by danielj on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:47 | # Sorry to sound so down Fred. I’m not trying to be entirely defeatist. I just think we should plan for the worst and the best. To the Captain: I do consider it an intermediate goal as to break off some breathing room for ourselves and only for the ultimate purposes of regrouping and retaliating. 43
Posted by Braunau am Inn on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:03 | #
They all deserved it because of the way the Wehrmacht acted in the East. Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” (ed. Germar Rudolf). In Germany the debate about the anti-Wehrmacht exhibition, clearly conducted with left-wing extremist aims, has resulted not only in exposing the network of leftist ideologists in Germany who have virtually monopolized the historiography of the Third Reich for themselves. Another consequence has been that contemporary historians are prepared, for the first time in over 50 years, to critically analyze and question the authenticity of documents that purport to prove alleged National Socialist crimes. In this context, special mention must go to Professor Dr. Dr. Klaus Sojka who has subjected the pictures of Reemtsma’s exhibit to a detailed and devastating critique by supplementing these pictures with many others and analyzing them comprehensively from the perspective of document criticism. Prof. Franz W. Seidler has set a sort of counterpoint to this entire debate by publishing the only recently rediscovered files of the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau which documented, with great care and in detail, the crimes that were committed against German soldiers during the eastern campaign: “This book is a response to the exhibition ‘War of Extermination. The Crimes of the Wehrmacht, 1941 to 1945’ […]. Unlike the anti-Wehrmacht exhibition, this documentation of Soviet wartime atrocities leaves no room for fabrications, misleading text and arbitrary allegations. – All events are documented. – Information regarding places and dates is unequivocal. – The pictures are not private photos, but legal and medical evidence. – The text documents have not been altered. – Most documents are supported by further evidence which researchers can examine. – The wording of the text documents can be verified in the Federal Archives / Military Archives in Freiburg under shelf mark RW 2/v.147-v.152.” Indeed some of the crimes described are enough to make a reader’s blood run cold; for example, the many photos documenting cases of Russian cannibalism of German soldiers. It takes such documentation to really drive home the point what a dirty war the barbaric attitude of Stalin and his comrades forced the Germans to fight. A particularly interesting reply was made by the young historian Walter Post, whose account reveals revisionist tendencies in many respects, and concludes in a sort of bottom-line: “In an essay in the book accompanying the exhibition ‘War of Extermination. The Crimes of the Wehrmacht’, Alfred Streim [Public Prosecutor with the Central Office of Provincial Justice Administrations in Ludwigsburg] stated that ever since the Central Office was established in 1958, some 3,000 preliminary proceedings have been instituted in the Federal Republic of Germany against members of the Wehrmacht – in other words, 3,000 Wehrmacht soldiers were suspected of having participated in National Socialist or war crimes. If one considers that approximately 18 million men and women belonged to the Wehrmacht, then 3,000 accused constitute 0. 017% of the entire personnel. Even if one assumes, absolutely hypothetically, that there was a very high 90% rate of unreported or undetected cases, and thus a total of 30,000 potential suspects, this still amounts to only 0.17%. Incidentally, of the 3,000 preliminary proceedings in the Federal Republic of Germany, only two(!) have resulted in a conviction. In the former German Democratic Republic there has been a total of eight convictions of former members of the Wehrmacht. Thus, quantitative studies also show that the legend of the ‘decent Wehrmacht’ is not necessarily a legend.” [Footnotes and photos omitted.] 44
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 03:15 | # danielj: “I do consider it an intermediate goal as to break off some breathing room for ourselves and only for the ultimate purposes of regrouping and retaliating.” It’s the Big Idea that rallies the guys we need to our flag - the leadership cadre. Taking it all back is the Big Idea. The Big Idea can provide them with proper motivation to rope in the lemmings to work to consolidate our strength. What ropes in the lemmings is the promise of better security and a better standard of living in microcommunities vs. the deteriorating multi-cult. 45
Posted by Homelander on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:41 | # Taking it ALL back isn’t the big idea. Probably the mud-people should live, and live in the tropics. They could be - like the rain-forests - a pool of genetic potential: what might be good for something, some day. It is the “imperium” of white people which got us into all this trouble; the colonies, the imported slaves, the tourism and exotic imports, the cheap labor - both among immigrants and in runaway shops - which have put our backs to the wall. Let us retreat to defensible and tenable temperate homelands…and let the muds screw themselves. They will. 46
Posted by Captainchaos on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:05 | # Homelander: “Taking it ALL back isn’t the big idea.” Yes it is: North America, Europe, Russian Siberia, Australia, New Zealand and southern Africa for the White race. “Probably the mud-people should live, and live in the tropics.” They will be repatriated back to their ancestral land. There they will reside at the level the are capable of providing for themselves. The White race will assert it’s influence to the degree necessary to prevent ecological despoilment. There can be no other responsible path. If we do not once more assert the tribally oriented manliness of the White man our people will perish. If we are sufficiently galvanized to secure ethno-states there is no reason to think we would not also be sufficiently galvanized to take it all back. The Big Idea, its logic is irresistible. 47
Posted by Homelander on Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:22 | # Capt. Chaos I have sympathy…but I’m not so optimistic. On my worst days, I’m apt to write off nearly all of Russia (along with Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans) and Mediterranian Europe. Also the entire CONUS save for the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. South Africa? Good luck with the Cape Province, maybe…or forget-about-it. So that leaves a sort of “Greater Canada”, Nordic-Middle Europe (and taking UK back won’t be easy!), Chile-Argentina-Uruguay and Australia/NZ. Room enough for 10%. Less. Many whites will stay behind - let’s face it. Think of Darwinian adaptation. Normal times, a successful species merely expands. Crises times? Most get left behind. (Going to work. Hope to take this up further. Glad to find this site.) 48
Posted by Gudmund Haraldsen on Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:53 | #
Julius Caesar was once confronted by an aide at his camp in Greece. The aide said, “My liege, Pompeii and his allies have us outnumbered by three to one.” Caesar replied, “Then that is the advantage we must press home.” The aide responded, “I wasn’t aware there WAS an advantage.” Caesar concluded, “We must win or die. Pompeii has other options.” —— ALL of the countries mentioned WILL be ours again! Do whatever you need to, to steel your resolve. Me? I’m in this for the long run. And if it takes ten generations, I’ll see to it that we at least start that process. 49
Posted by Colbol on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:28 | # First off i am an Englishman with worries about the state of my country and its “Europe-isation”, and general lack of pride and identity and i identify with several points made about rather unspecific mentions of crimes against our people. I want to know what crimes rather than hearing your anger at them. I’d like to say outright i do not discriminate by race, but i strongly support patriotism, and i find this problem intriguing. i see from this article however that while you have zeal and fanaticism, they are misplaced because you lack the answers. i say this because i myself believe that the answer you seek is far too bloody and morally wrong for you to get away with it. Are you willing to murder people in order to make them leave what they believe is their own country? Believe; that is what it will come to, both in the US and in Europe. i was brought up christian and i cannot and will not actively break the commandment not to kill. A hypocrite is, to me, someone without the spine to stand up for what he talks about, and all you Christians contemplating murder had better get of your soap boxes and listen to yourselves. You cannot claim to be a part of a faith that is so against this kind of thinking. this is the problem. Furthermore, this speculation about electing a fascist government will never happen because while some Europeans may actively agree or be content to sit on the fence, the majority will never condone this kind of action. Especially the french, ‘caus they already tried it once. democracy will not give up its yoke of power lightly. fuck it i say elect the bloody prince and get him to join the BNP. As for the Americans your “white pride” is already a lost, misplaced caus (where is your pride with all this shit, see link http://www.readfaster.com/education_stats.asp) and i have little to no respect for your current state of affairs. with no grounds whatsoever for “ethnic ejection” (Whites, Blacks and Hispanics are the invaders not the naturals) you cannot stand up and proclaim “our land” any more than you can understand the nuances of losing your identity as “white America”. if you care about purity of race and power of the white man never forget you can always trace your family roots back to England, Ireland, France, Italy and go back. if you got the nuts. 50
Posted by Diamed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:18 | # “i was brought up christian and i cannot and will not actively break the commandment not to kill.” Really? Are you amish? If someone broke into your house and started raping and killing your family would you be willing to kill that person in self defense? If you reserve the right to individual self-defense do you reserve the right of collective self-defense? If your country is invaded by rapist murdering thieves who intend to place you and everyone else into slavery, do you have the right to self-defense against their collective invasion? If so, what if you learned that the rape, murder, and theft rates of ‘immigrants’ coming by the millions into your country is 10 times that of the native whites? Could it be that this is simply a modern invasion veiled by lies but for all practical purposes the exact same as my description above? If this IS a veiled invasion exactly like a band of rapist murdering thieving slavers, do you have the right to self-defense against ‘immigration’ (which is in truth invasion and conquest)? I don’t know how seriously you take your wish to not kill, you’ll have to explain it more thoroughly. If you seriously are one of those ‘turn the other cheek’ christians who can never kill anyone no matter what, then you serve as a perfect example to the other readers here why Christianity is poisonous and must be abolished if we are ever to save our people. “As for the Americans your “white pride” is already a lost, misplaced cause.” You couldn’t be more wrong. Whites have more to be proud of every day than ever before. Read Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray and you’ll understand what an incredible race we are. Gauss, Wagner, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Newton, Locke, Rousseau, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky, Dostoevesky, Tolstoy, Plutarch, Virgil, Plotinus, Titian, Van Gogh, Watt, Faraday, Huygen, Euler, Liebniz, Maxwell—just tell me when to stop when you get the point. And this legacy hasn’t suddenly disappeared. In just the 1900’s whites invented: the airplane, the automobile, the interstate highway system, the telephone, the computer, the laser, the internet, the green revolution, antibiotics, automated factories, we’ve even sequenced the human genome, split the atom, and landed on the moon. Who else has done anything like this? Who but whites? How could you not admire such a people and thank your lucky stars you are one of them? “with no grounds whatsoever for “ethnic ejection” (Whites, Blacks and Hispanics are the invaders not the naturals) “ No grounds whatsoever hmm? Are you aware that amerindians also emigrated to America and originally also weren’t there? So what grounds do they have to own the land? Do you think morality is based on ‘who gets there first’? If you think that is the final moral law for who owns the land, I’m afraid more than just America has ‘no grounds for protecting its own demographic majority.’ After all, humanity emerged from a tiny patch of land in Africa and ruthlessly conquered and exterminated the ‘native’ inhabitants of the world, homo habilus, homo erectus, etc. We stole their land even though they were there first. Clearly we must somehow find their dna encased in amber and jurassic park style revive them and hand the world back over right? It’s the moral thing to do. And if any tribe has ever immigrated or conquered anywhere, they need to go back to their native lands right? Well, sorry Turkey, it looks like you have no place in the middle east, your home is back in mongolia or kazachstan. The angles are going to have to get out of England and give it back to the celts. Of course the celts were also immigrants but I’m not sure you can find any cro-magnon men to hand it back to. All the bantus will have to go back to nigeria and return africa to the native bushmen and pygmies. You see, they only recently migrated south and have no real right to live anywhere else. Most of China is inhabited by northern invaders, those Chinese should be kicked back up into Mongolia or Russia. A few pockets remain of ‘native’ chinese who were there first, they must be given the entire country back. Never mind this would mean deporting billions of chinese for the sake of a few millions, justice must be done. And of course, the Aryans must immigrate back out of India and set up camp at the black sea, the Arabs must pull everyone back to Saudi Arabia, and all the jews, subcons, muslim and chinese diasporas must return to their native homelands —hey now we’re talking! To be more direct, no one’s interested in your double standards that specifically single out Americans as having no right to their land. Everyone on earth is descended from immigrants or conquerors, not just us. The true moral right to land is what you do with it. No more, no less. If you are a great people who make a great country with that land, then you have the moral right to possess it. If you are a bunch of barbarian cannibals who wander across it killing buffalo with no written language, you don’t have the moral right to a good 2/7 of the world’s resources. Sorry. America was and can again become the greatest country on earth. We in fact have the most moral right to exist on earth. “if you care about purity of race and power of the white man never forget you can always trace your family roots back to England, Ireland, France, Italy and go back.” How does that make any sense? If I care about my race and power, why would I abandon an entire continent of land and natural resources to non-whites? I’d stay and defend it and take more land while I was at it. Furthermore, what is the use in moving to Europe? Currently, the same demographic trends will make it non-white by the end of the century. There’s nowhere to run. And the fact that whites are ‘native’ to Europe doesn’t matter to our dispossessors either. How exactly do you justify the mass invasion and non-white possession of Europe buddy? There is nowhere to run. We will take back all our land and we will kill anyone who opposes us. We have the moral right to defend what’s ours, whether in Europe, America, or South Africa. We have a manifest destiny too grand to be squashed by illiterate barbarians and savages. We have a record of achievement too high to not be venerated by our own descendants still singing our own songs and walking among our own city streets we built with our own hands. We earned our right to exist. It’s the Africans, Muslims, Aztecs, and all the rest who must step lightly. The scale of justice is tipping them towards annihilation. The supplanting of the superior by the inferior can not be allowed to go on forever. 51
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:05 | # Colbol, Stick around and give yourself a chance to understand the primary value we attach to our people. Be patient - it takes a long time for anyone to come to a new understanding of this still taboo subject. MR is a different type of site to most others exploring the world from a Euro-nationalist perspective. It is more radical. But if you read us regularly and occasionally engage us on the threads you will see something new in time. It is worth the effort. 52
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:21 | # colbol, I hope you can understand that the reason you identify with America, if you do at all, is that when you turn on the tele you see people that look just like you, who speak your language, and, for better or worse, share your values. My ancestors (some of them from England and Scotland) came to the New World and carved a civilization out of a wilderness while yours sat back home. It is incredibly uncharitable of you to suggest that all the labors of my ancestors should now be left to burn to ashes. There are now about 200 million (including White Canadians) White people on the North American continent. Do you honestly believe it is realistic that we all come back to the old country? Do you think that we want to? No, of course not. This is the only home we have ever known, it is the only home we want to know; and at the end of the day we simply have to place else to go. I might as well tell you that the ancestors of the Norman conquerors had best clear out of Britannia and head back across the channel. Hispanics of such large numbers are a relatively recent addition to America. They don’t share our values, they don’t speak our language adequately, and, most importantly, they are not a part of our European family. They have a country they can easily go back to and live happily; Mexico. They will always have Mexico, as I said above, America is all we have. 53
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:55 | # By the way, colbol. You forgot to mention Germany as a hypothetical point of return. German-Americans make up the largest ethnic group of all American ethnicities according to the latest census. We settled largely in the Midwest and have grown quite attached to it. I’m sure you will recall just how ornery Germans can become over land disputes. This is our land, we will never give it up; and that is that. 54
Posted by Armor on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:18 | #
1) They don’t believe it is their own country
You make it sound as if there was a territorial dispute between Americans and immigrants, as if the question was: who has the best claim to a particular land. In fact, the conflict is this: immigrants want to live among white people, and white people would rather be left alone. The territory problem is only a consequence of the coexistence problem. It is true that the whites need to expel immigrants in order to have their country back. But third-world immigrants do not wish to expel the whites and “take back” America. They do not have a feeling that this is THEIR country. On the contrary, the only reason they want to be in the USA (destroying it in the process) is the presence of white people, because living alongside white people improve their material comfort. South-Americans who can not go to the USA are glad to go to Europe. Mexicans would rather go to the USA than Spain, but only because it is closer to their home country. The claim that immigrants believe Europe or America is THEIR country is usually made by Jewish or leftist race-replacers, not by the immigrants themselves. Today, most Mexicans still living in Mexico have a cousin living in the USA. The Mexican nation is now spread over two different countries, whereas the American nation is spread within the borders of only one country. But most Mexicans do not have a particular attachment to the US territory. They mainly have a loyalty to their own people. Likewise, Americans have a preference for Americans and feel no attachment to Mexicans. What matters is your nation, not a particular territory. But every nation needs to have some space of its own, or it will just disappear. When the Mexicans are sent back to Mexico, it will be like a huge family reunion. If they are not sent back, it will be the death of the American nation. You must be crazy if you like that solution. The same situation exists in France: every Arab now has family on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea. The whites are fleeing cities infested by immigrants, and we are told that Northern Africans cannot live in Northern Africa because it would be too cruel. Does it really make sense? 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:44 | #
No. Then who keeps telling us it does? The answer is in Armor’s comment, though I take it here out of context:
My point is yes there are dupes on the other side who don’t understand what they’re doing (as there are dupes on our side who don’t understand the war the other side is waging), but the central core of activists on the other side aim consciously at race-replacement, out of genocidal hatred of the Euro race. The signs that this is so, certainly among the Jewish élites, who 1) very aggressively push non-white immigration into the Eurosphere, 2) very insistently deny race exists, and 3) very strongly support Israel, are simply unmistakable: there can be no doubt about it. The central core of activists pushing race-replacement immigration into the Eurosphere are genocidalists hoping to achieve genocide “without the mess” of bullets. The race-replacement crisis is not due to a miasma like liberalism but to certain concrete causes which can be addressed and successfully dealt with as such (as concrete causes which are discoverable and treatable). 56
Posted by exPF on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:46 | # This was another impressive essay, GW. There were several moral arguments in the essay which I think are unique and deserve to be
Not only is this a brilliant and scholarly approach, it really is the only thing that is fair to the English nation, whose rights to exist have come under constant attack post-1948. Pre-Windrush English for example would be a good unifying term.
In particular this term, the eternal nation, is to me very meaningful and I think should be used in further theory. It would be a massive paradigm-shift in thinking about these matters if one ceased to refer to the individual and viewed things from the perspective of ‘the eternal nation’. 57
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:20 | # PF, Thank you for your kindness. There will be much theory to come, some from me for sure, some from another MR commenter who is joining us and who has a better philosophical knowledge than I do and, I think, a better mind than mine. What I am striving toward is a schematic for a universe of ideas which licence our survival, and which can be extrapolated into common argumentation and word formulae for empowering our people in political debate. This approach is highly unpopular with the Judeo-centrics, and I do understand why. But I believe it is the profoundest way in which a thinking racial loyalist can contribute at this time. 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:23 | #
I see MR.com’s role mainly as formulating ideas so they’ll be ready when the moment arrives to act, exactly as described in this quote from Nobel economist Milton Friedman (he of course was referring to his particular “school” of economists but this site is doing the same thing): http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/false_folk_consciousness/#c60938 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:23 | # By the way, I have to repeat, as I said somewhere in the comments thread above: this log entry, “To Do What We Must To Remain Who We Are,” is one of the best essays published in the blogosphere I’ve seen on any topic, by anyone, anywhere. This is top-rank. 61
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:51 | #
But I get exuberant, GW — I’m not a steady WASP. I’m one of those German-Slav-Jew mongrels prone to exuberance and emotionalism. You know that! So just bear with me a little here. 62
Posted by Clytemnestra on Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:44 | # I am a White American. I have a few responses to make to some previous posts. For the Briton who wrote that I have no right to be here, I have this to say, conventional wisdom has it that the Amerind migrated from Asia across the Bering Strait and settled in America. My government is currently covering up the number of archeological finds of skeletons belonging to Caucasians. For those who had puzzled over the fact that the Amerind looked rather Asiatic but distinctly different from the Mongols, it answered part of the puzzle. DNA tests revealed the Amerind already had quite of a bit of Caucasoid blood through his maternal line. One could conclude Mongoloids in great numbers swarmed over the Americas, overwhelmed the Caucasoids and absorbed them into their population, most likely by killing the males and taking the females as sex slaves. Europe is primarily composed of distinct White tribes; the Saxons, the Celts, the Teutons and the Slaves. If there are any I have left out, I apologize. If I go by the three separate nations whose immigrants to this country made me possible, I am evenly split among two tribes, possibly three. Just what current European ethnostate would readily accept me as a citizen? For that matter, why hasn’t Great Britain granted White Africans of British descent the right to return? Why hasn’t Holland extended the same right to the Afrikaner Boers of Dutch descent? You roll out the welcome mat for every Non-White in hell’s half acre. Yet you have the brass tacks to tell me I have no ethnic right to be an American?! To hell with you. Now for the OTHER part of your diatribe. If, as you say, we Americans of White European extraction stole North America from its rightful owners the Amerinds, that means we stole it from the Mohawks, the Algonquin, the Cherokee, the Blackfoot, the Seminole, the Apache, etc. So where the hell is it written that it be handed - lock, stock, and barrel, to the descendants of Mayan and Incan tribes? Nor, do I want to hear any weaseling on the issue of deporting illegal aliens. It is not as hard as some here like to make it. It’s as simple as turning off the magnets that draw them here. E-verify proved very effective at screening out illegal aliens by employers which was why Congress ended the program. Reinstitute e-verify. Make every employer and landlord use it and impose draconian fines on those that don’t. Delete all welfare benefits to illegal aliens. Again, e-verify is a very good tool in screening out illegal applicants. Cash-starved state governments could have instant and constant revenue streams if they issued wallet-sized abbreviated birth certificates with current pictures on them that could be updated every four years. Moreover, they could put teeth in immigration enforcement if it was standard operating procedure for any police officer requiring everyone they stop to show proof of citizenship. They would also be required in elections. Anyone who could not do so would be arrested and have to pay a bond until they could furnish it. The fourteenth amendment must be changed to get rid of the anchor baby loophole. Any child born here who does not have at least one parent who is a naturalized citizen or one who was born in the USA should not have instant citizenship conferred on him. They should be considered citizens of their parents’ country. And that law needs to be made retroactive. We need to repeal the Kennedy-Hart-Celler monstrosity and put strict quotas on immigration and end all chain migration. And the quota should be limited to the White Africans who are currently facing genocide at the hands of a tyranny of the black majority, we coerced them into “sharing power” with. Believe it or not, most illegal aliens will self-deport, especially those in Mexico, Central, and South America. They are a pragmatic people who are prepared and have done nothing but send tons of money home to their country’s banks in anticipation of the day where they are all finally evicted by fed-up American citizens. They will simply load up their trucks with all the stuff they got in America and head home. Post a comment:
Next entry: Collective Wisdom
|
|
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 Gudmund on Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:23 | #
Guessedworker,
You have denounced “palingenetic ultranationalist populism” in the past. But what is there for us if we are to “stem the tide”? If times were less desperate than they were, perhaps a more benign solution could be posed.
In any case, since freedom of speech is already a thing of the past in the EU, how can you possibly hope to fight such a situation other than through “palingenetic ultranationalist populism”?
Desperate times call for desperate measures as they say. I am a proponent of individual rights, freedom of speech and arms-bearing, the system of common law, and other things that the British (used to) hold dear. But such things do not account for what we may have to do to preserve our land and kin.
We needn’t denounce the “palingenetic ultranationalist populism” merely because it is stained by history. It would be akin to saying that Whites can’t have rights because of what our ancestors did…oh, wait, that’s what our enemies are saying now.
If we subscribe to this sort of equivocal thinking, we might as well roll over and die now.