|
|
|
White Nationalists Should Negotiate Settlement with Lakota Nationalists Due to treaty violations by the United States government and now United Nations support for indigenous peoples Lakota Nationalists are seceding parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. Adding to that the fact that they are preparing to place liens on real estate transactions throughout the 5 state region, there is a potential for imminent and serious conflict with the US Federal government. With such dangers to their cultural, genetic and territorial integrity they need a more realistic approach to maintaining their territory—and such an approach may be offered by the following negotiated settlement between Lakota Nationalists and White Nationalists: Those who have followed my writings on legitimate (in the sense of “human rights”) holding of territory understand that my primary principle is based on the Malthusian recognition of carrying capacity creation as the determining factor. This isn’t to say that legitimacy is a natural right, but it is to say that if we are to talk of laws and treaties at all, we need to start with carrying capacity creation or the entire edifice is rendered irrelevant due to Malthusian limits. Therefore, the wheat fields of this region, which dramatically increased its carrying capacity, are most legitimately claimed by the pioneer families that originally brought those fields to production, with some substantial allowance for hereditary land rights granted to the bloodlines related to men like Norman Borlaug. While the Lakota Nationalists are allowing all current residents of the seceded territory to remain and become citizens, even stating there will be no taxation, it is clear that they are hostile to the “homesteads” rights of the pioneer families that so increased the carrying capacity of the region. I think this conflict is relatively easy to resolve via the Libertarian Government Finance: Economic Rent Citizens Dividend I previously proposed combined with a recognition of the principles of separation outlined in Deep Libertarianism: Human Ecology. Basically, the deal white nationalists should try to negotiate with the Lakota is two fold: 1) Provide a homestead exemption for the financial value of assets (“in place” liquidation value) required to sustain a subsistence family farm but then charge a use fee, equal to the risk free interest rate, for property rights beyond that subsistence amount—and guarantee that the revenue be evenly dispersed to all citizens of the new Lakota Confederation in a citizens dividend. 2) Let counties be self-defining, by mutual consenting residence, “tribes” of people with dynamically changing jurisdictional boundaries within the Confederation’s territory—adjusting to expand or contract depending the number of people who “vote with their feet” to leave one jurisdiction (an absolute right) and join another that does not reject them (an absolute right). The reason the Lakota Nation should prefer this settlement, creating a new Lakota Confederation, to a simple taking of land is that it will attract the young men looking for a homestead they need to defend their territorial claim while providing economic growth, without letting those young men invade the Lakota tribes’ counties and steal their women or otherwise nonconsentually contaminate their culture. I certainly recognize two flaws in this approach: 1) The authentic Lakota culture is primarily hunting—more of a paleolithic lifestyle—so they represent a “natural heritage” people whose territory ideally would be treated under rules more akin to natural ecosystem preservation than placed in head-to-head competition with other human ecologies for carrying capacity creation. 2) There are major land holders like Ted Turner who own millions of acres of ranch land that are likely to object to losing their land to the combination of natural game preserves for Lakota hunters and additional, high carrying capacity uses by young men seeking homesteads within the new Confederation. These major land holders, whose property rights are now protected primarily by the government rather than their own natural ability to defend a homestead, may corrupt any negotiations between white nationalists and the Lakota by buying off the leadership of the Lakota or the leadership of the white nationalists. Comments:2
Posted by Red Baron on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:32 | # This is terrific news, let a thousand flowers bloom. Surely, an overreach by our racial competitors is one of the few things which might prove to be a catalyst for White consciousness. Lord knows with the respectable types lurking around in our ranks - stifling the movement - it won’t happen by our hands. 3
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:07 | # DEJ, anyone who is a separatist is acutely aware of the problem going back to Thomas Jefferson who was an avowed separatist. I find it fairly predictable that Ron Paul’s detractors spend so much time on Don Black’s $500 contribution since Don Black and the rest of the folks historically with the KKK are pretty much over the idea that there should be a multi-tiered multi-racial society and have taken a more Jeffersonian separatist view. Quoting:
Jefferson was, of course, speaking as a citizen in the erroneously constituted Federal government of the United States—erroneously constituted in the sense that there was no “vote with your feet” provision allowing reallocation of territorial boundaries based on the homestead requirements of people who leave one jurisdiction and are admitted to another. Such territorial boundary reallocation based on assortative migration could accommodate peoples as disparate as northern Europeans and Kalahari Bushmen since it reduces the role of the central government to virtually nothing but census and property assessment functions in service of such assortative migration and territorial reallocation. BTW: I think that Auster et al are now using neologism “separationist” for the obvious reason that they can get away with making up words when they need to escape the stigma they’ve placed on prior, perfectly good, words rendering them unusable for self-description. 4
Posted by Scipio Americanus on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:32 | # “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.”—Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72 Hey James, did you notice how the second and third lines of that quote are conspicuously missing from the inscription found on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. (District of Corruption). Imagine that! LOL! Scipio Americanus 5
Posted by GT on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:38 | # Great suggestion, Bowery. However, remember that Sioux reservations have multiple clans living in them. What happens if not all the clans adhere to this? Let’s find out more about how deep rooted this Indian independence movement really is. Especially listen for what elected tribal officials say. If they don’t say anything it means there’s a significant division of opinion. If numbers of officials condemn it out of hand we’ll know Russell Means speaks for only a few. 6
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:24 | # James How much US Territory are you willing to let China, India, Pakistan and Iran colonize/occupy? 8
Posted by Bill on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:57 | # There are secessionist movements all around us. The Lakota pronunciamento is merely the latest. Hawaii is seeing a Native Hawaiian effort to establish an organization with state powers. A recent conference brought Vermont types together with Deep Southern types a few months ago. More and more self-identified groups are making the term secession into a legitimate political concept for public discourse. 9
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:23 | # Bill Only a small fraction of percent of the White Ameican poplation has expressd an interest in or participated in secession gatherings. And at these secessionist get togethers,there is uslly a leftist prescence. The Left,the chinese and other post-1965 non-whites would be more than happy to accept the massive territorial concessions that pinheads such as GT would make. The Chinese and the rest of them would be delighted to have massive territorial concessions and the massive technological infrastructure that would come with it. 10
Posted by GT on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:00 | # Despite the obstacles we face – and they are many – it is shameful that non-White groups not directly/indirectly supported by JOG either here or abroad, are further along in pursuing their interests than we are. It is shameful that Israel’s respect for Hezbollah is greater – far greater – than the respect shown to us by non-Whites and race traitors in our own countries! White nationalism as presently constituted has had its chance and failed. For 50 years our choice has been between 1) eccentric looking “revolutionaries” and “pamphleteers” who fantasize about capturing the reins of JOG when not drinking or milling about on street corners looking for action, and 2) graybeards with lifestyle and retirement bennies to which they’ve become fondly attached attempting to persuade and enlist a critical mass of adherents to “subvert” the regime/judeoconomy from within, so that all may continue to enjoy its financial benefits without risk. The ADL-SPLC-JOG nexus could not have done a better job of controlling the non-movement’s direction if they owned us. Frankly, I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that they do own us – at least several key individuals and organizations. I mean, how else to explain White nationalism’s persistent refusal to learn from its failures? There isn’t a satisfactory explanation other than gross stupidity, and I don’t buy that for a second. It is time for new ideas. Multiracialism is here, on North American shores, at this very instant, in vast and growing numbers, and is supported by the ruling class, its sycophantic managers, and “White nationalists” who are unwilling to at least partially divest themselves of the judeoconomy. The ruling class will not be persuaded, except by a largely self-sustaining force that is independent of the judeoconomy. We can be that force and attract millions of adherents in less than a generation if we put our minds and hands to it. Alternate communities and economies, local political engagement, and secession are the future – if we are to have one as a people. 11
Posted by GT on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:07 | # Ooops! I forgot to complete my editing! “...and “White nationalists” like Frank McCluck who are unwilling to at least partially divest themselves of the judeoconomy.”
12
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:48 | # Frank, as Frey points out, whites are fleeing from entire States and regions due to non white immigration. As MacDonald points out, they are also retreating into “implicit whiteness” via “communities” like NASCAR, hunting, etc.. If the deal I posit with the Lakota is negotiated, the flood of whites to the area will produce profound political pressures on the US Federal Government to loosen the thumbscrews on the remaining whites lest the Feds lose the white population en masse. Remember, the primary problem right now isn’t whites wanting to live in all white areas—it is whites being prevented from controlling entry of non-whites to the areas to which they have fled at so much cost and loss to themselves. In the present circumstances, any deal that lets whites control the entry of nonwhites to any territory anywhere in the world will be revolutionary. 13
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 02:57 | # The primary problem that we are facing is that much of the white population is willing to bend over backwards to appease racial minorities. As it happens, the vast majority of these people tend to live in places like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Wisconsin, etc. Their representatives are responsible for virtually all the federal civil rights legislation in American history. This is why we find ourselves in our present circumstances. White Nationalists from these states often endorse turning over the entire Deep South to the American negro (why?). Little thought is given to the whites who actually live in these areas. We’re expected to uproot ourselves and trek halfway across North America, in the name of racial solidarity, to live amongst a bunch of liberals we have little in common with culturally or ideologically. Suppose that Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, and North Florida seceded from the United States and formed a new nation. Most of our problems would be solved. 14
Posted by captainchaos on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:49 | # White would be fools to give up one square inch of the existing territory of America. What we need to do is: close down our borders, deport all illegal aliens, enact a permenant moratorium on all immigration, make miscegenation illegal (it was once, it can be again), secure freedom of association rights so whites can at least have their own neighborhoods, and increase white fertility rates. Giving up our territory just strikes me as drastic. 15
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:41 | # Scimitar, to the problem of non-exclusion subsequent to white flight I should add the problem of defector whites who flee to live in all white areas but rationalize to themselves that the reason they did is because of things like “good schools” or “low crime” and then hypocritically promote the very policies that make the problems from which they fled. These are among the most vicious problems we face since they can only afford their self-deceptive hypocrisy so long as they aren’t living in the ecological disaster they have created, but they pursue the recreation of that disaster relentlessly wherever they flee along with the rest of us. When I run across these hypocrites it makes my blood boil far more than it does when I see the first “minority” gangs ripping through town with their heroin dealers because I know that the only reason they are in the area is “the Church Ladies of Holocaustianity” are defending their presence in the human ecology by preaching to the young women that they must altruistically punish any young men that challenge the presence of those gangs. I really wonder in what units of time the life expectancy is going to be of all these little old ladies (and their male equivalents) when law enforcement finally breaks down due to their moral vanity. Picoseconds? Femtoseconds? So I sympathize with you. However, you will find it utterly impossible to achieve the secession you discuss so long as the Federal government wields its theocratic authority and the only way I can see to break the stranglehold of that authority is by starting with smaller demonstrations of freedom of association that lets whites truly escape not only “minorities” (ignoring the minority status of whites worldwide of course) but also the church ladies of Holocaustianity and their hypocritical moral vanity. We have to start somewhere and I just don’t see how you can claim your secessionist movement can gain any steam without some on-the-ground demonstration of freedom for whites who prefer to live in environments similar to those in which they were raised. 16
Posted by GT on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:59 | # …on-the-ground demonstration of freedom for whites… Consensus must be shown at county and state levels. At state levels we must capture 2/3 of the legislative districts, which means the state should have a non-Hispanic White population of 70-75%. Less population density = greater likelihood of success; therefore, the first “on-the-ground demonstration” you’re referring to should begin in the Pacific Northwest through Dakota region. Only following that first successful example would secessionist movements in other regions stand a chance of catching fire. 17
Posted by GT on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:04 | # Giving up our territory just strikes me as drastic. So if Whites in the Northwestern U.S. seceded, does that mean you would oppose them? 18
Posted by A Casual Observer on Sat, 22 Dec 2007 23:27 | # I would not and will not support them. I do not support secessionist movements and their defeatist supporters. Period. Really, the vast, vast majority of people in those states is utterly opposed to secession and it is only a small minority who actually support something so drastic. It’s completely unfeasibly, and even if it were it would not last for long. Economic sanctions alone from the United States and Canada would impoverish your mini-republic and you’d be forced to live in Third World conditions. And that’s assuming your mini-republic was able to fully secede in the first place. I have no doubt that the government would squash your little secessionist movement like an elephant stepping on a dung beetle. 19
Posted by captainchaos on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:19 | # Yes, I would oppose any secession at this time. Echoing the thoughts of Casual Observer I think such a movement even granted that it were widely supported in that region would be squashed like a bug. I conceive of secession as one of two “nuclear options” for the survival of our race in North America; the other being out right civil war. Quite honestly I would advocate civil war before breaking up the country because whites would obviously win handily given that we were united. However, I don’t think any of that will ultimately be necessary. The victory of a closed border and deportation of illegal aliens will be achieved in the next decade I think. The vast majority of people (black and white) are at their wits end due to the impact of mestizos on our neighborhoods, culture, social services, and employment/wage depression. Our once arrogantly insouciant politicians are slowly beginning to feel the heat and change their tune. Like Pat Buchanan said they have now “got religion.” Once we get illegal immigration tackled we can then use that as a steping stone to rectify legal immigration. 20
Posted by GT on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:28 | # “Casual Observer” <u>would not support</u> White secession. “Captainchaos” says he would <u>oppose</u> it. Presumably, the non-support of “A Casual Observer” means he would not shoot the secessionists. However, I can’t help but notice what appears to be handrubbing glee at the prospect of the federal government doing so. Question for “A Casual Observer”: Are you in favor of the federal government shooting White secessionists? I ask this question because I want to know if your response reflects mere tactical disagreement or is the response of a race traitor. Question for “captainchaos”: I assume your opposition reflects tactical disagreement. Is that correct? 21
Posted by captainchaos on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:43 | # Yes GT, purely tactical. I would be afraid that if whites did suceed at this point in time they would be shot at. But if something like this big economic crash everyone is whispering about happens soon and it turns out to be the “big one” (Great Depression Redux) I think white people’s loyalty to the existing regime could crack. From signs I’ve seen I think the officer corps of the US Armed Forces is extremely bitter at the painfully obvious way in which Bush has used them to carry water for the Zionists. If the perfect storm happens and the shit really hits the fan I wouldn’t be suprised to see some kind of coup in the near future. Well, thats just rank speculation. But my gut feeling is that pretty soon all this is going to culminate in a decisive way so I think for now people should keep their powder dry. 22
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:11 | # captainchaos: Do you think that the Feds are going to go attack a bunch of Lakota for exercising sovereignty over their treaty lands? 23
Posted by danielj on Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:33 | # I’m with James. Do you know what kind of media firestorm would rage if the sell-outs in office tried to Ruby Ridge a bunch of red-skinned Americans? It would be a public relations disaster of epic proportions and unbelievable electoral consequence. 24
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:31 | # DanielJ: Precisely. They have some strategic assets in the situation we’re facing that we do not. We need them. We have some strategic assets in the situation they’re facing that they do not. They need us. I don’t know how I can state it more obviously than that. 25
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:47 | # captainchaos, I don’t want to discount the possibility of a military coup in the near future, but really, do you think the military junta willcare about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 so much that they’re drop their other priorities (which subsequent to a coup will be many) and come after a domestic model of how to resolve conflicts created by Jews in their crazed vectorist dedication to heterosity? They’ll need us more than anyone now understands because assortative migration with territorial adjustment is the only way they can sort out the mess Jewish virulence has made of the United States. 26
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:07 | # Im just thinking out loud here… If the power of the US state declined to the point where it could not impede white secession then it would also have declined, I suspect, to the point where it couldnt enforce a lot of other stuff. The priviledged position of minorities vs whites would be a casualty thus secession might longer be necessary. 27
Posted by TR on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:45 | # I don’t know if the US gov’t could crush a white secessionist movement so easily. The gov’t certainly has the power to make an example of Randy Weaver and in Waco, TX but a much larger movement is going to be a much tougher nut to crack. There are not enough BATF/FBI personnel to for it and they will be in very hostile territory. They can surround and kill people and burn a compound, but I don’t see them being able to do much more than that and they know it. Their best bet is to keep people cowed. If there is an economic crisis, then all bets are off. If whites have nothing left to lose, then I can easily see many picking up a rifle and using it. 28
Posted by captainchaos on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:07 | # If all of the above mentioned means result in the desired ends I’m all for them. My primary concern is that when all is said and done our existing territory remains intact. I’m not willing to concede the Southwest to mestizos, the South to blacks, etc. A federation of de facto racial regions is acceptable in my opinion. Perhaps in these regions a limited number of minorities could live and work so long at they went back to their own ethnic section (neighborhood) of that particular region at the end of the day. Oh yeah, and no screwing of white women by non-whites. Whites living in the other race’s de facto racial regions (presumably the Southwest and the South) would be afforded the same treatment. 29
Posted by GT on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:07 | # How many natural gas pipelines run through the this area, power lines, rail lines? Are natural resources located here like mines or oil wells, good farmland, etc…? Not to mention hydroelectric plants & electrical substations, fiberoptic trunks (many passing through old natural gas pipelines). I’m not willing to concede the Southwest to mestizos, the South to blacks, etc. It’s a practical matter in which “tough” talk like “one of us is worth six Yankees” is not only a non-starter, but delusional as well. The fact is there are insufficient Whites in the southwest to acquire political legitimacy, the importance of which is necessary to acquire the popular support necessary to access government and civil resources before secession. Furthermore, much of the region’s “high tech” infrastructure is degraded, dependent upon water and power from the Northwest, and easily cut off. Mestizos in the southwest have access to the civil resources White nationalists can neither obtain nor hold, along with the support of well-armed mestizo gangs and the Mexican government. Now we can argue this until the cows come home, but the fact is Aztlan will stay within the multiracial U.S. or become Mexico’s northern territory. Isolated urban pockets of White resistance will be wiped out if not found scrambling to get the hell out. Investments in the southwestern branch of the American judeoconomy made by loud-mouthed retirees living in Temecula, Beverly Hills, and Upland are not worth the lives of young White men. Period. 30
Posted by danielj on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:59 | # God. If one has been Temecula one would realize that the White people that inhabit that God awful monstrosity aren’t worth saving anyway. They are primarily concerned with acquisition of larger boats and houses, greener lawns in spite of the desert clime, bleached hair and fake tits and Budweiser. (It isn’t even good beer) The amount of territory isn’t important, but rather, the quality of territory we eventually inhabit. Once acre of well watered, deer populated high ground is worth more than all of Las Vegas. 31
Posted by danielj on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:02 | # The only “inalienable” right we have is the right to fight for survival. Maintaining the California dream would require too much sacrifice with little to no benefit to anyone except the shit-head Republicans that park their 700 series BMW’s, in their south Orange County McMansion driveways, built by Mexicans that demolished the wages of the White men in the area. 32
Posted by A Casual Observer on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:46 | # Are you in favor of the federal government shooting White secessionists? I do not think it’s a matter of whether or not I would favor such a measure. I’m just being a realist here, and the fact of the matter is that the government has never had any qualms crushing these kinds of movements. As for me personally, since that is an element of the question, I do not support secessionist movements. If violence did break out, I would find myself on the side that you consider to be treasonous. My loyalty is with the *United* States. And, quite frankly, I wouldn’t bother responding to this if I were you, because I’m going to ignore your little invectives about me being a “race traitor,” so just don’t waste your time. Read this and move on… let’s not bog down this entry with a discussion of my positions. Do you think that the Feds are going to go attack a bunch of Lakota for exercising sovereignty over their treaty lands? The Lakota that are calling for secession do not have the support of the Lakota leadership councils in the region. They are a small group acting independently. The blog Q & O has discussed this in some detail. This is nothing but a political ploy meant to draw attention to their miserable conditions. 33
Posted by nucalar on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:26 | # “I’m going to ignore your little invectives about me being a “race traitor,” That’s assuming you are, in fact, white. Is that the case? 34
Posted by GT on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:56 | # As for me personally, since that is an element of the question, I do not support secessionist movements. If violence did break out, I would find myself on the side that you consider to be treasonous. My loyalty is with the *United* States. And, quite frankly, I wouldn’t bother responding to this if I were you, because I’m going to ignore your little invectives about me being a “race traitor,” so just don’t waste your time. Read this and move on… let’s not bog down this entry with a discussion of my positions. A race traitor supportive of killing White secessionists flies in and drops a turd, then advises us to ignore it so that this entry is not bogged down with a discussion of his positions. The problem is his position, reasoning, and motivation is relevant to discussions concerning secession. Race traitors come in many stripes. Some call themselves “racialist,” although their racialism is clearly secondary to personal profit or sentimental historical attachments. This type of racialist is a Patriot in name only. He does not support free association. He does not support self-rule. Those concepts are buzzwords to be employed when conning genuine racialists into supporting his primary objective: The elevation/preservation of Self. The racialist non-movement in America, as presently constituted, contains many of these individuals – individuals who would betray, kill, and support the killing of secessionist Whites to elevate/preserve Self A discussion of race traitors masquerading as racialists is long overdue. 35
Posted by GT on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:02 | # I have assumed that A Casual Observer is White and considers himself to be a racialist. Perhaps I’m wrong. 36
Posted by A Casual Observer on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:49 | # A race traitor supportive of killing White secessionists flies in and drops a turd, then advises us to ignore it so that this entry is not bogged down with a discussion of his positions You’re the one who asked me, knowing full well that a turd may end up in your lawn. Never would have happened if you hadn’t of asked. People who support secession are simply people who have given up and chosen suicide. Secession from the United States is impossible. Try it, and you’ll either die or end up in jail. Dream on, but spare yourself and others the misery and keep the rest of the U.S. out of it. 37
Posted by torgrim on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:15 | # danielj; “The only ‘inalienable’ right we have is the right to fight for survival.” “Maintaining the California dream would require too much sacrifice with too no benefit to anyone except the shit-head Republicans that park their 700 series BMW’s in their So. Orange County McMansion’s driveways built by Mexicans that demolished the wages of the White men in the area.” I hope no one objects to reposting what danielj has said…..it is so, point on, especially, the shit-head capital of So. California, Orange County, and of course, the Right to survive, that it is worth saying again! 38
Posted by nucular on Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:17 | # Once again, “casual observer”, are you white? “Secession from the United States is impossible. Try it, and you’ll either die or end up in jail. Dream on…” This all sounds rather familiar. We simply can’t break up “the greatest nation on earth”, is that it? A fantasy? “People who support secession are simply people who have given up and chosen suicide.” And what do you propose be done? 39
Posted by DavidL on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:19 | # Speaking of secession. Here’s a synopsis of “Snow Crash” by Neal Stephenson I We may not need to secede - the U.S. may break up into many different governing
A very good holiday to all !!! 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:24 | # From the “Who Knew?” department: It turns out Russell Means and Ron Paul go way back: Means (who I assume everyone remembers played Chingachgook in that mediocre “Last of the Mohicans” remake with the great sound track starring the miscast Daniel Day Lewis and the irritating Madeleine Stowe) ran against Paul twenty years ago for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination:
41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:35 | #
Nothing is impossible and everything is on the table including secession. For my money secession is one of the better ways of going about what needs to be done. Casual, can you answer Nucular’s question? What is your race? 42
Posted by A Casual Observer on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:51 | # Fred, where’s your memory? How many times do I need to tell members on this blog that I’m white? 43
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:05 | #
When you show up once every eight months for five minutes then vanish, whenever they ask. You’re not exactly a household name around here, ya know. That’s number one. Number two: we can do without your short snappish temper unless you’ve got the goods to make it worth our while putting up with it — and so far I haven’t seen any evidence thereof. 44
Posted by GT on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:16 | # You’re the one who asked me, knowing full well that a turd may end up in your lawn. Absolutely. I verified that you are a race traitor deserving of all the respect this blog will award you. 46
Posted by captainchaos on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 09:42 | # Concerning getting back the Southwest for whites their is always this option: mount a massive fucking blitzkrieg on the mestizos and ethnically cleanse the entire region. If whites were united nation wide behind this strategy and had sufficient stomach for it this would obviously be effective. Want to turn the demographic clock back to 1960? That is one way. 47
Posted by nucular on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 10:41 | # “Fred, where’s your memory? How many times do I need to tell members on this blog that I’m white?” Arcane? 48
Posted by danielj on Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:01 | #
That is slightly unethical. There are other more humane methods. Only certain mestizos have declared war on us, therefore, it is unwhite to behave like a blood thirsty and monstrous monkey. Brimelow is jerking himself off into a fever over at VDare about what is going on in Arizona with all of the voluntary repatriation that is currently taking place due to the imminence of the new laws about enforcement. 49
Posted by A Casual Observer on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:37 | # Arcane? How many times do I need to tell people on this blog that I’m not Arcane? 50
Posted by Svigor on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:00 | # Fred, I like the secession option too. The big upside is that it could rally a coalition of interested parties. The big downside is such a coalition would be more subject to fissures than most. What’s not to like about self-determination? All the groups currently wanting change get change; the rest are rid of the whiners. This is only a problem for psychopaths and their extended phenotypes. In theory, with the right effort this kind of movement could unite a huge majority of voters.
Hmm. I can definitely envision mestizos slaughtering whites in mestizo territories. So your ethic fails the reciprocity test. Plus, none of the mestizos were invited. They are all unwelcome guests. The elite has changed the demos against the latter’s will and without consent - this is a continuing injustice. Imagine if German civilians had settled in Russia during Barbarossa - should or would they have expected kid gloves from the natives? Should they have received them? NOT advocating wholesale violence against mestizos here, just criticizing the logic underpinning your ethics. 51
Posted by onlooker on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:53 | # “NOT advocating wholesale violence against mestizos here, just criticizing the logic underpinning your ethics.” You make good, solid, sense, Svigor. 52
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:29 | # Just got back from the Charlotte area. Took trips to Asheville and Boon. It’s all being paved over. Secession means packing millions Whites into an even a smaller space. Complete nonsense. Christmas week, and all the streams and pounds were visibly shallow. Secession means handing US territory and trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure, including military infrastructure to China,India and Pakistan.Take your pick, secessionst are either imbeciles or traitors. Secede, and White Americans will be surrounded and eventually conquered. Expect the worst. Imbecile or traitor. 53
Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:36 | # Hmm. I can definitely envision mestizos slaughtering whites in mestizo territories. That is not the metric I use to measure whether or not ethnic cleansing of the Southwest is ethical. I can certainly envision the same scenario. My first assumption was that not every Mexican living in the U.S. has declared war - even secretly - upon Americans of European descent. Secondly, I assumed that the ethnic cleansing being referred to in the post of captainchaos on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 08:42 AM was wholesale genocide of Mexicans in the Southwest region of the U.S. I do believe there is more humane ways of driving out the invaders. I believe we are obligated to use those more humane methods since “we” invited the mother fuckers who occupy our government into their positions, who, in turn invited the Mexicans to enter our country as a source of cheap labor and generators of social strife useful in tightening controls, reducing freedom and increasing expenditures thereby decreasing the solvency of this country. So your ethic fails the reciprocity test. I’m not sure that I believe doing unto others what they have done unto you, or in this case, what one imagines they might do were the shoe on the other foot, is the sine qua non of my entire ethical system. I do not have a fully formed opinion on ethics, but I do believe eye for an eye might not always be the best course to pursue. 54
Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:38 | # Although, I agree with the onlooker that generally you make good sense Svigor. 55
Posted by GT on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:18 | # I’m glad you enjoyed your vacation, Frank. Welcome back:
56
Posted by captainchaos on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:29 | # I am sick and tired of our enemies using our White idealism and morality as a weapon against us. The more concessions we give them the more they love us? No, precisely the opposite. The more concessions we give them the more they spit in our faces. ENOUGH! We must take what back what has been stolen from us and NEVER apologize for it. 57
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:44 | # Daniel Why the intense hatred of the WW11 generation? Did your parents have you on too much ritalin as a child? Percentage of White Americans inteterested in secession:very close to 0. But the number of Americans fed up with open borders immigration policy and Legal Asian immigrants stealing their jobs grows by the thousands with each passing year. And this is a crucial step towards the expulsion of the enemy. I’m still waiting for James Bowery to us if he is willing to sit down with Azalatan,Chinese, Pakistani, Hindu,Sikh and muslim colonizers to negotiate the terms of surrender as the the juvenile Daniel J is. I don’t want to misrepresent his point of view. 58
Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:11 | # Frank: I’m 24 and my mother is 44 placing us both within the bounds of Gen-X I believe. Perhaps you were too busy slamming bennies and defending the 38th parallel to defend California? Let us dispense with the snide remarks from here onwards since I consider you an asset and ally in the struggle. We simply disagree about the possible *range* of tactics. Percentage of White Americans inteterested in secession:very close to 0. This is patently false. The Free State movements in Vermont and New Hampshire are gaining some ground and they are very White states which would make them, de facto, White republics. I am not opposed to either fighting or succession. I think eventually the only safe and reasonably sane move for us will be giving up large portions of the Southwest which I consider no great loss. I grew up in Chino California which means I would be relinquishing my own territory. Think about it Frank. Our own government (if you wanna call it that) is aligned against us and in bed with a foreign government (if you wanna call that plutocracy a government) that also ranks our survival extremely low on its list of priorities. I would not consider strategic retreat a cowardly act in the face of such massive opposition but simply a matter of survival. Even discussing either possibility, since both are so remotely distant as to make either of them negligible strategies, is really only an exercise of the imagination. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you against the enemy if it was reasonable Frank. I also think that you should consider all your endorsements and incitements to violence as dangerous in the light of government projects like Echelon and CARNIVORE. But the number of Americans fed up with open borders immigration policy and Legal Asian immigrants stealing their jobs grows by the thousands with each passing year. I certainly assent to the validity of this fact and anyone that has been following Wintermute’s latest project over at Tanstaafl’s blog can find a current example.Tanstaafl even fingers the jew’s role in all of it. I’m still waiting for James Bowery to us if he is willing to sit down with Azalatan,Chinese, Pakistani, Hindu,Sikh and muslim colonizers to negotiate the terms of surrender as the the juvenile Daniel J is. I don’t want to misrepresent his point of view. This is simply calumnious libel. James does not advocate surrender. Also, treaties do not equal surrender. It is juvenile to suggest that sitting down at a bargaining table with people is surrender. 59
Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:16 | # Additionally, all this talk about revolutionary theory is making me feel like a Marxist. I’m not interested in theory but the concrete realities of White Manhood and Western Civilization. What should a White man be doing right now? Growing his own food, fixing his own engines, creating his own energy, et cetera. James has been researching the energy part of the equation and Maguire (amongst others) has provided interesting material on the engine/machinist/smithing aspects of survivalism. You, unless I’m mistaken have provided me with no such useful information. I leave you with this inspirational quote:
60
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:52 | # I’m only asking James to clarify his point of view. The secessionist movement is very small I believe that conceeding territory to foriegn colonizers is a death sentetnce for White Americans. The only option for White Americans is to no longer obey an illegitmate Goverment. This would be done through a series of steps and escalations. If the Goverment attempts to murder thousands/millions of Euro-Americans,it’s legtimacy will be reduced to 0. At the present tim,. it is true that thousands of Euro-Americans are running away. However, this should not be viewed as a positive development or strengthen the case for secession. Secession means encirclement by the enemy. For the life of me, I can not figure out why anyone would want the border with China to end somewhere several hundred miles into the interior of America. The Whiter Southern and Western states are already beginning to feel crowed. Secession along with an increase in White America fertility will make these states feel a hell of lot more crowded. Housing will be very expensive. All the natural beauty in these states will be paved over to create affordable housing for fleeing whites. The non-white areas of the the former US will have a larger population- much harger- than the White population in the White regions. You would have to be very naive to think that there wouldn’t be violent conflict over scarce resources between the non-white and white areas of the former US. Secession will not guarantee the long term survival of Euro-Americans nor will it prevent the violent conflict with non-whites. There will be a sequence of steps taken to get rid of the current anti-Euro-American Reublican/ Democratic goverments. Not voting is one of these steps. A cordon-sanitare policy is another step. Violent racial conflict,whether in the US,England and Europe in general is unavoidable. The invaders will not leave peacefully. It is only a question of when it is going to happen. Here is my prediction:Either White Americans some time very soon start taking the steps neccesary to expel the invaders/collnizers or they can continue to retreat inward and face encirclement and a massive loss of trillions of dollars in infrastructure -including- military infrastructure- to non-whites and eventually expereince-with 100 percent certainty I say this-the termination of the Euro-American experiment in North America. What Euro-America needs is a series of very strong shocks/catastrophes that send a very trong signal that business as usual=DEATH. The sooner the better. I hope there is an even worse drought this summer in the American South. This will result in building/housing moratorium in the South. Housing prices will skyrocket. Northeastern Whites won’t be able to use the American South as a safety valve anymore. The same for the Whiter WEstern States. This will significantly undermine the case for secession. There will be only one chpice staring into the fce of White America:expulsion or eath of thousands/millions of Euro-American gene-lines. The federal goverment can’t force Euro-Americans to nice to hispanics,asians,muslims and african forever. With resources becomming scarcer with each passing year, there will be a collective FUCK-OFF from White America to the non-whites. This will be preceded by thousands of individual FUCK-OFFS from individual FUCKOFFS from individual White Americans to individual non-whites at work,in school, in the street and at school. 61
Posted by danielj on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:10 | # The secessionist movement is very small Conceded. I believe that conceding territory to foreign colonizers is a death sentence for White Americans. I’m not sure it is. It might end up in making things worse as you generally imply in your posts. The only option for White Americans is to no longer obey an illegitimate Government. This would be done through a series of steps and escalations. If the Government attempts to murder thousands/millions of Euro-Americans,it’s legitimacy will be reduced to 0. Not true. There is not only one option. I would prefer that people stand up and the revolution tomorrow but it is about as likely as a fruitful and united succession movement. The government is already murdering Euro-Americans. The public fool system, the disincentives to procreate, infanticide, Marxism, poison food and water, anti-depressants, war, debt, inflation and on ad infinitum. At the present time,. it is true that thousands of Euro-Americans are running away. However, this should not be viewed as a positive development or strengthen the case for secession. Perhaps a concentration of the Euro populace will cause White public opinion to coalesce and crystallize on a solution the deathly serious problem of repelling the foreign invasion. Additionally, it should be seen as a nascent form of White Nationalism that might flower upon demographic concentration in the Exodus from comprised territories. De-urbanizing is not an unwelcome development but a rather positive trend in my opinion sense the suburbs encourage the growth of isolation and dependence upon the Judeo-economy. Secession means encirclement by the enemy. Or a reforming of the lines. For the life of me, I can not figure out why anyone would want the border with China to end somewhere several hundred miles into the interior of America. Straw man Frank. Secession will not guarantee the long term survival of Euro-Americans nor will it prevent the violent conflict with non-whites. Agreed on both counts. NOTHING WILL “GUARANTEE” THE LONG TERM SURVIVAL OF EUROPEAN AMERICANS! Violent racial conflict,whether in the US,England and Europe in general is unavoidable. You underestimate our White enemies and the power of tyrannical government. The invaders will not leave peacefully. It is only a question of when it is going to happen. It is possible if the right incentives are in place for them to leave. I don’t know that it is probable that all of them will leave. What Euro-America needs is a series of very strong shocks/catastrophes that send a very trong signal that business as usual=DEATH. Maybe I’m being pessimistic but I think that will give us another PATRIOT Act with little to no resistance from the general pop. We shall see what happens… 62
Posted by GT on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:43 | # Daniel: Straw man, Frank. We’re going in circles with Frank. Every “point” he makes is a strawman which has been intelligently answered several times. The man is a judeocon with a lifestyle and investment income/pension more precious to him than our desire to live free of the Kwa. Frank could say “Bon Voyage” to secessionist Whites without animosity or even provide limited help, but he is trapped by a combination of personal limitations and life choices. If the judeoconomy should fall (it won’t unless we or an outside entity cause it to do so), Frank would want young men like you to protect him and his family, and preserve the value of his real estate investments in Beverly Hills, Rancho Santa Fe, Upland, Sun Valley, or wherever his location in northern Mexico should happen to be. That is why he scornfully refers to secession as “running away,” and does so despite the fact that we’ll likely face the armed might of JOG long before any silly Turner Diary scenario is implemented by the non-movement’s costumed clowns and book clubbers. The moral and most of the practical argumentation supporting alternative communities, economies, local political engagement, and secession is ours. This fact burns the dues-collecting non-movement’s ass and is why they’ll call us every name in the book before it’s over. 63
Posted by danielj on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:17 | # I actually meant to write: cue GT after that bout with Frank 64
Posted by A Casual Observer on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:45 | # I’m with Frank and captainchaos on this one. I might disagree on minor points as to whether or not explicitly *racial* violence is inevitable, but on this issue we see pretty similarly. We must cease the endless compromises and never cede an inch of the territory that our ancestors fought so hard to conquer and preserve. Keep up the good work, gentlemen. 65
Posted by GT on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:37 | # Daniel, Frank wrote: Violent racial conflict,whether in the US, England and Europe in general is unavoidable. The invaders will not leave peacefully. It is only a question of when it is going to happen. In 1964, years before the mestizo invasion gathered steam and trashed most of southern California, the non-movement’s “leaders” predicted race war with the newly emancipated sub-Saharan scum. It was “just around the corner,” or so promised the literature produced by the original, FBI-busted “Minuteman” group. About this time and shortly thereafter I observed the block-busting of Inglewood, then Watts happened, schoolgirls at Clyde Woodworth put against the wall and fingered in full view of gutless White teachers who turned their backs, money stolen, nigger gangs at Morningside High stomping the hell out of solitary White teens in full view of apartment dwellers across 104th street who merely closed windows and blinds, a bedroom window smashed by bat and quickly followed by the bodies of two leering adult simians, etc., etc. And that was just one of many locations throughout the future Aztlan. Guess what? No race war. Just a bunch of loud, boastful talk from behind closed doors by beer-guzzling yahoos. 1964 was 43 years ago. Sound familiar? The yahoos had their chance and failed. It’s time for new ideas. End of story. 66
Posted by danielj on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:03 | # I saw San Bernardino turn into a giant knife fight for everyone of us White kids that was left to fight our own way through public schools. Just to get a little bit of weed, beer or fucking safety on the bus we had to pay tribute to the children of the same damn mayatas that ruined Inglewood. My hometown of Chino turned into the city that all the relatives of la Eme moved into to be in proximity to the state prison that their husbands and fathers were incarcerated in. We are out-numbered, out-gunned, marginalized, infiltrated, isolated, despised, rejected and alone. But, if they wanna drink the William Pierce/Turner Diaries/National Alliance/World Church of the Creator/Oder Kool-Aid then there is nothing we can do. But I will do my best to reason with them as long as they respond to me. There isn’t any of us left GT. But, nevertheless, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. I feel more connected to you and Maguire than anybody around me, save a few of my friends from California that are not as militant but understand vaguely what is at stake. Sometimes all I can say, in the words of favorite jewish filmmakers, is… Fuck it Dude. Lets go bowling. 67
Posted by A Casual Observer on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:48 | # if they wanna drink the William Pierce/Turner Diaries/National Alliance/World Church of the Creator/Oder Kool-Aid then there is nothing we can do. But I will do my best to reason with them as long as they respond to me. The National Alliance / World Church of the Creator / Order types were/are all insane. I would never support their program; to say it in the most kind manner possible, exterminationist philosophies are highly repulsive. Not only that, William Pierce fantasized of starting a nuclear war between the USSR and USA! He reminds me of Che Guevara when he chastised Nikita Khrushchev for failing to use nukes to wipe the US off the face of planet. Really, there is no difference between these exterminationist national socialist race-warriors and the exterminationist communist class-warriors; they are equally nihilistic and are willing to sacrifice all principle and kill or destroy anything and everything that stands even somewhat in the way of achieving their utopian goals. Our civilization and our people have a great history and heritage that deserves to be defended and nurtured, not destroyed by these nihilistic nuts on the left and right. There is a backlash coming. It will not be along the lines that the race-warriors have predicted, but do not doubt: it is coming, and it will come from where you least expect it. 68
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:19 | # it will come from where you least expect it. From the SPLC? 69
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:00 | # James are you referring to me in your post? In mean time, How much American territory ar you willing to concede to China, India, Pakistan and Iran( avery large population of Iranians in Southern CAlifornia)The reclamation of American territory will require expulsion at some point in time. Do want to sit down with other secessionists-such as leftist Kirkpatrick Sale- and negotiate the terms of surrender with Azlatan and China. I want a very large ocean between the America and Asian James. How bout you? If the colonizers don’t accept expulsion and a majority of Euro-Ameriacns want their homeland back, then violent racial conflict on the the level of a race war between Euro-Americans and asian,muslim and hispanic colonizers is a highly probable event. By the way, I beleive Chittum has got a lot of the details right. What is the point about ducking your head in the sand. Things will just happen. Their will be mutual escalation on both sides. When the Mexican students held their big protests across the Southwest and LA two years ago, the response of White America was not surrender and secession. On the contrary, the response was to call for increase efforts at expulsion. Guessedworker The above analysis applies to England also If you think violent racial conflict on the level of race war is avoidable in England, you tell us how. There is a lot less room to run away from the problem in England. Even though there is blueprint policy in operation in America that makes a race war within the borders of America highly probable-every one understands this including our enemy- we are not suppose to talk about it here for some very weird politically correct reasons within the White Nationalist movement. That’s how I see it at least. 70
Posted by Frank McGuckin on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:04 | # GT New ideas? Your idea about secession is catching like wildfire around the country. 71
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:48 | # Frank, I’ve stated on other occasions that any non-Europeans who entered US soil on the strength of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 are here illegally since it is obvious that “law” was a fraud perpetrated by Jews against what the Framers of the US Constitution called “our posterity”. This fraud includes statements of its sponsors, made to the public at the time (including fraud by the New York Times). So as far as legality they are all illegal aliens. So our main difference is how to deal with this situation. You think that its going to be a race war. Perhaps—especially if the society undergoes catastrophic collapse before secession is achieved—and that is a definite possibility. However, when you point to public reaction to Mexican students as being the evidence that reaction to Asians here illegally is going to be the same as the reaction to Mexicans here illegally, I think it is you who are putting forth “abstract gibberish that you are so prone to”. The numbers are far smaller and their criminal activity, damaging though it is—especially the activity of the Dravidians—is much more subtle. I think you are going to find it very difficult to raise public outrage toward Asians to the level required to get them expelled. Moreover, there is the question of how eminent domain is exercised to reacquire land rights these people have acquired from Jewish fraud artists who stole our territory to sell off to others around the world. It is not immediately apparent to me that the Asians are any more culpable than is someone who comes into possession of stolen items through a crooked pawn broker. They may have to share in the damages but it simply isn’t reasonable to treat them the way you would treat the thief or even the pawn broker. There is good reason to believe that assortative migration with territorial boundary adjustment would lead to the eventual repatriation of most Asians as there is more of a fair contest between “diverse” societies and ethnically “pure” societies. The compromise I’m willing to live with is far from “abstract gibberish”. It deals in the political and military realities of there existing feet on the ground here on our territory—just as would the proposed deal with the Lakota deal with the fact that some of their claimed territory is legitimately theirs due to treaty violations but this is complicated by the fact that there are many Euros living there and by the fact that much of their claimed territory is _not_ legitimately theirs by virtue of carrying capacity creation by Euros—primarily wheat fields of those states. 72
Posted by GT on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:37 | # Frank, We know you have no moral qualms about using young White men to protect and salvage your lifestyle in Aztlan. Does your opposition to White secession include the killing of White secessionists as well? —— JB, From the SPLC? I thought of that as well. “A Casual Race Traitor’s” whiteness may be limited to the U.S. government’s definition of the term. The disassembly of their multiracial project by many tens of thousands of committed, technically proficient White men must be a terrifying thought. Not exactly the same as facing down bumbling, babbling towel heads in Iraq, I suspect. 73
Posted by GT on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:23 | # Daniel, But, if they wanna drink the William Pierce/Turner Diaries/National Alliance/World Church of the Creator/Oder Kool-Aid then there is nothing we can do. But I will do my best to reason with them as long as they respond to me. Please note the non-movement’s marginal leadership, toleration and encouragement of dysfunctional social behaviors and cult-like leader worship, sloppy thinking and amateurish propaganda, and small size. Something is seriously wrong with the non-movement and I suspect it is the controlling-influence of the ADL-SPLC-JOG. Other than gross stupidity beyond anything imaginable, this would explain why nothing has changed in the past 50 years. We will not “persuade” the non-movement’s marginal leadership to adopt our program for not only is it beyond their ability and moral courage, but runs counter to the interests of the ADL-SPLC-JOG. Our task is to encourage thought, development, and implementation of this program by a free-thinking, technically competent minority who are blessed with characters of steel. They, in turn, will develop and take the program to Whites in the real world. Therefore, it is not necessary that the failed non-movement’s leaders and cult-followers concur with us. In the big picture, the non-movement is irrelevant. 74
Posted by GT on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:43 | # McCluck, New ideas? Your idea about secession is catching like wildfire around the country. You bet it is. Whites want free association. That is why the Ron Paul candidacy, despite his aracial neo-constitutionalism, is a damn good sign. 75
Posted by GT on Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:07 | # I’m with Frank and captainchaos on this one…Keep up the good work, gentlemen. This remark by A Casual Observer, who <u>supports the killing of White secessionists</u>, is stupid. Captainchaos <u>does not</u> support the killing of secessionists and we’ve yet to hear from Frank McCluck on the subject. This jew or race traitor calling itself ACO presumes much, don’t you think? 76
Posted by A Casual Observer on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:51 | # From the SPLC? The SPLC is only scary to neo-retards, like the Aryan Nations / National Alliance / Order / WCOTC, etc. The disassembly of their multiracial project by many tens of thousands of committed, technically proficient White men must be a terrifying thought. Ha ha ha! I’d like to see you try to find and bring together in a single location 10,000 white people who want to secede on a racial basis and actually attempt it. Why are you on here arguing with me? There’s work to do. Get going already! LMAO A Casual Observer, who supports the killing of White secessionists I do not support killing anybody merely because of their ideology. There are plenty of secessionists in this country, of all races, who will never act on their beliefs and are so fiercely independent or ideological that they cannot be organized. BUT, if they do decide to act and were able to somehow organize, of which I doubt will ever happen, I do support suppressing them. 77
Posted by A Casual Observer on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:56 | # This is a futile debate. I’m telling you, without any actions on my part, if you attempted to secede, you would be crushed like bugs. That’s the fact of the matter. That is why it is futile. If you believe otherwise, you are naive. Don’t believe me? Try it. Quit sitting at your desk typing away wasting your time debating people like me. Get out and do it, but don’t deceive yourself by thinking that nobody warned you. 78
Posted by GT on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 02:23 | # I do not support killing anybody merely because of their ideology. You support the killing of White secessionists if they should secede. That makes you a dissembling piece of judaic shit. 79
Posted by GT on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 02:57 | # A Casual Race Traitor, Ha ha ha! I’d like to see you try to find and bring together in a single location 10,000 white people who want to secede on a racial basis and actually attempt it. Why are you on here arguing with me? There’s work to do. Get going already! LMAO Well of course you’re typing “Ha ha ha & LMAO” safely ensconced behind a keyboard as I am - but what if we’re successful? Come on, humor me for a moment. What if we succeed in bringing together many tens of thousands of technically proficient White men on a racial basis? Preventing that from happening explains why you’re here denigrating the idea rather than dropping a few cyber turds and leaving, doesn’t it? The fact is you’re 1) a disingenuous bastard, or 2) a pathetic, “bored” individual without a life. After all, you’re the one who said we’d be crushed! You and the tribe won’t be “laughing” in cyberspace if we’re successful. The reality is you’ll scream like little girls. 80
Posted by GT on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:57 | # 1. Secessionist talk scares the hell out of our enemies, especially when technically competent individuals looking at the Kwa’s weaknesses and strengths are participating in the discussion. The fact that we’re in our infancy is irrelevant. Our primary need is good ideas and the technically competent men to implement them. 2. We are not interested in persuading the ADL-SPLC-JOG-controlled non-movement to change their way of thinking or to join us. It’s not important that salivating, racialist judeocons like Frank McCluck concur with secession. What is important at this point in time is the assembly of a free-thinking, technically competent group with balls of steel, and the ability to implement and teach local leaders in rural and select suburban locations. The packages would likely be tailored in accordance with local demographic, political, and economic conditions. 81
Posted by TR on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:20 | # “Secessionist talk scares the hell out of our enemies,” True. This in and of itself is a good reason to keep the discussion abour secession/separation/free association going strong. You want the enemy to be uptight and afraid. Besides, it is cheap and easy to do! A Casual Observer, 82
Posted by GT on Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:55 | # Secessionist talk scares the hell out of our enemies, especially when technically competent individuals looking at the Kwa’s weaknesses and strengths are participating in the discussion. I should clarify my meaning. By open discussion of “the Kwa’s weaknesses and strengths” I’m (primarily) referring to its political, social, and economic landscape, and how these effect the development of our alternate communities and economies, local political engagement, and the likelihood of <u>peaceful</u> secession. If technically competent racialists are openly discussing, testing, and implementing various methods by which a microcommunity comprised of two (or two dozen) households could achieve electrical independence, our enemies will assume that we have other competencies as well. And they may be right! Everybody (including women) should cross-train and acquire multiple, foundational skills in carpentry, welding, electrical, machine shop, etc. There really isn’t a need for us to publicly discuss military operations in conjunction with the words “secession” or “revolution.” This information can be obtained from numerous sources other than racialist webpages. Enemies attempting to goad us into revealing that information can be referred to cheesy discussion boards comprised of hobbyists - the cheesier, the better. Discussion of military matters, for the most part, should be verbal and kept within the boundaries of the microcommunity – that social unit comprised of family and long-term friends. 83
Posted by Sam Hughes on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:50 | # http://www.republicoflakotah.com/docs/noticeofliens.pdf Anyone have an opinion about what’s happening in Bolivia? Post a comment:
Next entry: Utopian idealists against the nation and the people
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) |
Posted by D.E. Johnson on Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:29 | #
You are taking the long view of the situation, Mr. Bowery, and there is certainly nothing wrong at all with that, and I commend you for it. However, I think that many of our people will not understand it, simply because of their instinctive lack of identity with Lakota Indians: They will miss the importance of ethnocentric nationalism and will not understand the proposed negotiations. Just as the Lakota mistakenly assumes a genetic identity with distant mestizos, our people will fail to see the similarities between themselves and the Lakota, in terms of dispossession. That is not an insurmountable problem, but I suggest that it be kept in mind.