|
|
|
China complains to WTO that US fails to implement tariff ruling Trump is making a bad choice in saber rattling against China and the rest of Asia. It is to say the least that his conciliatory stance with regard to Israel is of little help to us beyond perhaps serving to strategically placate them, but neither is siding with The Russian Federation over China the right priority. China is never going to side with the The Russian Federation. Neither is Japan. We need cooperation with these and other Asian countries, and we do not need the headaches of The Russian Federation. We need China, Japan and the rest of Asia to assist against Islamic and Middle Eastern imposition, Jews and Africans; we need Asian assistance in regard to our borders and along The Silk Road. Russia’s tenuous claim, tenuous economic industrial and demographic support for its vast eastward expanse is a burden that we don’t need to share in. We’d all be better off with a Russian state scaled to the size of an ethno-state. The eastern part of the present Russian Federation will be taken over by Asian peoples eventually anyway. We need Asian cooperation to secure our own ethno-states, and its best to deal with these realities. Israel and The Russian Federation or China, Japan and the rest of Asia in alliance with ethno-nationalism, White and otherwise? Trump is taking the wrong side.
Comments:2
Posted by O*R*I*O*N on Tue, 17 May 2016 06:44 | # This whole mongoloidal-friendly geopolitical stance is new to me. My own opinion is that any slacking in the attitude towards and practice of racial purity is inadvisable under practically all circumstances (except possibly for Aryan warlords to establish temporary harems of the most suitable concubines of subjected peoples after having been tried and prevailed in mortal combat and literally having conquered new lands for the White race. Under such circumstances it would probably be unnecessarily prudish to object to such a natural arrangement). 3
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 May 2016 09:03 | #
As a matter to be articulated, it is new to me as well. However, in the background of my thinking and in offhand statements of opinion before taking on an explicit pro-White agenda, I believe that I held a normal White male outlook - that Asians are not as bad as blacks; and though miscegenation is not advisable, that miscegenation is not as bad with Asians as it is with blacks. However, I personally never had yellow fever - Asian women were never my thing and I didn’t fully understand White guys who were crazy about them; as I became more articulate, my feeling that Asians were not as bad as blacks migrated and translated to, also not as bad as Jews, Muslims and White traitors; and especially if the Asians themselves were ethno-nationalists and intent on maintaining racial differences - which they usually are - they can be an enormous help against Jews, Muslims/Arabs and blacks.
It is a long term strategy but there is also short term practicality to begin working on this cooperation.
I don’t know what you mean by incorporating large scale Eurasian migrations. European peoples certainly need sacrosanct homelands. My thought with regard to Asians is that IF strict accountability to The Euro DNA Nation is established such that we had the means to control sufficient quantities and qualities of our DNA, that we might be able to live alongside a certain percentage of Asians who would be adjacent to us for education, business, cooperative enterprise and military purposes - of defending the borders of our nations/DNA - the 14 words, as it were.
There has been no caucasoid-mongoloid nor any other interracial dating by me. I don’t think GW either. I don’t know about Kumiko (though I’m sure she hasn’t dated blacks, Arabs or Jews).
Of course I have been charmed by Kumiko’s kindness, generosity, intelligence and fierce dedication to race and ethnonationalism. And I have learned things from her perspective that I would not have thought of by myself - many dynamics about Asian geopolitical relations. However, the logic of rapprochement is just that: logical.
It’s ok, and thank you very much. I’m glad that you enjoy the stuff; please keep perusing at your leisure.
I agree that its inadvisable under any circumstances and ought to be discouraged, even in the case of White-Asian mixing, not as bad though it may be. I don’t know about making exceptions for Aryan warlords but it doesn’t seem like an issue for the foreseeable future.
That’s true. However, you have hit upon something in that I am blown away by Kumiko’s intelligence and can understand how a White guy could be lured away. It also forced me to consider the possibility that a limited amount of that mixing, if accountable, might not be all that bad - although I wouldn’t say that Jimmy Page, Elliot Rogers or Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi are anything to brag about. We must be careful: could be playing with fire. So, your rigorous caution in that regard is excellent. However, coming back to the main point, no: these geopolitical considerations are not based on my subjective interests but on geopolitical logic as I have come to understand national and regional relations. 1. Asia is a great potential ally against Jews, Muslims/Arabs and Africans. They have the intelligence, volume of people and ethnocentric interest to oppose them. It also helps that they are not Christian. Further, similar as us, they could use a cultured, sane and intelligent ally, trading and enterprise partner - in their case, European peoples. Not only is Asia a great potential ally but we probably need them. 2. Further, China and Japan ARE NOT going to get along with The Russian Federation. Nor are Central Asian states nor most of Asia. The Russian Federation’s meddling, exploitation and brinkmanship in North Korea only underscores the point. 3. The Russian Federation is not an ethno-state, it is a territorial aggrandizement larger than Pluto. I am prepared to believe that it is larger than it should be, morally with regard to other peoples and their would-be ethno states and in the interests of Russians and their ethnostate, in order to avoid ongoing conflicts. Rather than Europeans moving to Siberia, I believe that we should cultivate a more modest Russian ethnostate. Kumiko argues that the Russian Federation is parasitic, relying on controlling the would-be lands of Asians, resource garnering and trade, rather than innovative manufacture. Now, I’ve been keen to distinguish Jewish and right-wing neo-liberal capitalist influences from rank and file Russian people per se. I would presume elite White traitors and that the masses are asses in Russia as anywhere. Though I am not against Russian ethnonationalists, of course. Again, The Russian Federation does not look like an ethno-state. It looks more like a an imperial expanse by right wing and Jewish power and influence. While Kumiko’s prefiguration to counter this Russian Federation resistance might have her a little overcompensating in her perspective and perhaps she needs to be, she is not necessarily unreasonable. She agreed with China’s position that slow economic cultivation of Ukraine would have been the way, not a hot war with Russia. The YKW pushed the situation between Ukraine/Russia as it is now. Where I might disagree with her to some extent is with regard to just what the native people of the central third of the Russian Federation are and where claims begin: Genetic history indicates to me that just south of central Russia is the birthplace of EurAsians - i.e., both. Thus, northward would have been an territory expanded into by a kind of primordial mix; as you move west, more European evolution and more East, more Asian evolution. That’s ancient. A bit more recently, Asians of central Asia would have been killing the more European peoples to the West - Russians, hell, they went so far west as to wipe out Polish Wroclaw (after that it became Breslau for a long time). In these regards, I think Kumiko might be a bit more fair in seeing that there is some “European” in the primordial stuff and that injustices have gone East to West as well, not only from the European side. However, I am prepared to believe that there were injustices that have headed eastward and southward from White, or mostly White Russians - and of course, the Jewish influence would not help in terms of just geopolitical relations. This is why I am keen on designating a White left. There are corrupt White elites and they are often in cahoots with Jews, doing their right wing imperialism and exploitation that we don’t need to be associated with. That’s true in America and I presume, well, indications are, that it is the case with The Russian Federation as well. The practicality is this: There are huge Russian cities not far west of Lake Baikal, and so, rightly or wrongly as it is historically, we probably should not contest that as part of Russia, even argumentatively; though there can be some Asian claims and enclaves in that central third, maybe some in the western third; it’s big enough. To the east of Lake Baikal, however, we ought to hear Asian arguments and claims a bit more. From an ethnonationalist standpoint this eastern part of the Russian Federation may well be overdrawn and violating valid Asian ethnonationalist and regional claims. The central point for us is not to fight with Russia but neither to contest on their behalf after that point, as we need regional cooperation with Asia and to secure our own borders rather than Russia’s problems with Japan, China and Central Asia. Rather than Europeans moving to Siberia, I believe that we should cultivate a more modest Russian ethnostate to cooperate with. And rather than moving into this eastern third of Russia, we should view it as a matter of indifference and not our fight if Asia takes it over; however, we need to view even our relative indifference as a matter of negotiation - what’s in it for us (in addition to necessary resources) are more secure borders for European people in Europe and in our states elsewhere - that could include some Russian enclave cities in the east - conditional upon ethnonational and regional cooperation, of course - e.g., that they stop interfering with North Korea.
4
Posted by O*R*I*O*N on Tue, 17 May 2016 16:02 | # Thank you for the clarification that your geopolitical stance is not a projection of personal interracial mating choices.
...should always apply. 5
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 17 May 2016 17:53 | # I don’t think Vladivaskok or other large Russian cities in the East should be abandoned: my hypothesis is that they might become enclaves - that’s been the idea all along. Nor am I am against Westerners moving to those places or anywhere else in what is now the Russian Federation, really. Though it is important that we not to act like mad scientists in regard to mixing even European evolutions and habitats.
However, while the rest of that eastern third of The Russian Federation is on a trajectory to become Asian, Europe and other places in the world are choicer, less conflicted (with Asia) lands and more natural habitats for European peoples anyway. As regards our race, yes that is my priority, and Russians are White as well. However, there is a term (which I’ve temporarily forgotten) which comes down to being myopic in one’s focus on race to the extent that you sacrifice the basis and strategic means for its sustenance. That’d be the case if we don’t consider geo-political relations. If White Nationalists can criticize The U.S. government and its Jewy, propositional, neo-liberal international geopolitical meddling, then we can be critical of The Russian Federation on the same grounds of being Jewy, propositional, neo-liberal: Its presence over such an expanse is characterizable as such - it is not primarily an organic and productively sustained ethno-state of the Russian people, but a militarily imposed parasitism and trade economy. Its meddling in Korea and nations to its south along the silk road is also a reflection of trying to maintain those parasitic ways. That becomes an important obstruction not only for the capacity to maintain cooperation with Asia in regard to trade and borders, but as Kumiko is set to explain in an important coming article of hers: viz., also an obstruction to the necessity to secure remaining peak oil and win the race against time so that we can shift to a hydrogen society. Typically, Jewy Russia literally made it impossible, a Jewish guy literally embezzled the start-up money of one model future city project in Western Russia that was set up as cooperation between the Russian Federation and a high-tech Japanese enterprise. Japan and Russia are not going to get along with a Russian Federation of such expanse anyway. North Korea is the glaring affront, Birobidjan a dead-ringer. There are vital resources in other places (e.g., for computers in Africa) for which the Asians are well suited to help as well. But generally, anywhere you go, White people who are at all reasonable have to agree that we are better off co-existing with Asians than Jews, Muslims and blacks. We can’t do it alone and siding with a Jewy, bloated Russian Federation against Japan and China would decrease our cooperation with Asia, increase its antagonism to us and increase our isolation. In addition to being non-Christian, much of Asia is a non-abrahamic bulwark altogether - staunchly against Islam. Eastern religions, the Buddhists, Sikh’s, Hindus, are not the pacifists of our traditional western image and they hate Islam. Praise be to whatever for that. Their developing nations going through neo-liberal or even Marxist phases can be on our side in that regard as well. Kumiko, whom of course I gather this from, has another story, a heartening story, to tell about Nepalese women who armed themselves to kill Muslims who had been attacking and raping them. With similar motivation, the Yazidi can be a naturally motivated ally against the Abramic nonsense as well. But I digress. In regard to your basic point, that is securing our people, no matter where they are, thus comprehending the need to deal with our fluid location, to look after our people, “our nation as our skin”, yes, I fully agree: that is one important aspect of what we are attempting to do with the DNA Nation. It could be very good if you or someone else would help us to get that project underway, garnering cooperation with a testing lab and so on. One last note: while Tanstaafl is not a very original thinker, he does have strong logico analytical capacity that allows him to follow and articulate extant concepts to a fine degree. Though his analytical keenness can have him parse errantly strong distinctions at times, in one place, in particular, I believe he has provided an important service - to help us in Asian cooperation as well: His articulation of the concept of Jewish crypsis is a significant contribution. It does not matter that it is not very original. The fact that Jews can pass as White has been one of our greatest problems. And if we cannot even distinguish them all of the time, lets imagine an Asian trying to distinguish a White European or a White Russian from a Jew! Again, the DNA Nation can assist us greatly in this regard too. It is very important. 6
Posted by China's ruthless crackdown on Islam on Tue, 17 May 2016 22:42 | # China’s ruthless crackdown on Islam: that is the mindset and the kind of alliance we need. Related comment here. 7
Posted by O*R*I*O*N on Wed, 18 May 2016 15:07 | #
I agree. Please do not mistake me for one of the blind slavophiles who uncritically fawns over random eastern europeans or russians almost to the point of grovelling worship. Russia is clearly still infested with a considerable presence of jews with political and economic ties to the Kremlin as to be expected. And the general russian population is indeed heavily mixed with various tatar, turkic and other racially foreign elements. The real russians are still racially White, however, and as such must always be prioritized higher than mongoloidals or other foreign races.
When you use the term “asian” the definitions start to lose stringency around the edges. Racially speaking a White russian living in the far-eastern regions of his native country would logically classify as a caucasoidal asian. Thus I prefer to use the purely racial categories such as White, Aryan, caucasoidal or the ethno-cultural terms germanic, slavic, celtic, anglo-saxon, etc. for us, and terms such as mongoloidal, negroid, han-chinese, semitic, armenoid, turkic, etc. for the foreign races, instead of the nebulous geographic designations european, asian, american, etc. Let us be specific and keep the definitions as unambiguous as possible. Coexistence with mongoloids is not appealing to me at all. I find them biologically repugnant as I do all other foreign races. There are probably exceptions to this rule as in extreme cases of highly europeanized japanese with lots of Ainu ancestry and possibly with regards to some of the tibetan buddhists of ancient himalayan stock. But in general mongoloids are muds.—Racial enemies or at least competitors. Their demographic mass-infestation of White homelands is totally unacceptable and should be considered a hostile invasion. Of the three other groups you mention, muslims could be worked with insofar as they are racially White ... or near-White to a satisfactorily high degree. Logically speaking there can be (and are) White muslims in this world, but there can never be White non-Whites. I find all the abrahamic religions distinctly unappealing and racially problematic to put it mildly. Of the three, however, the islamic variant undeniably contains more reasonable elements than the other two (anti-feminism, anti-usury and anti-homosexuality). Fewer unreasonable elements would perhaps be a more correct appraisal as the many irrational superstitions islam shares with its monotheistically related, semite doctrines are intolerable.
Not sure what a “testing lab” implies. In principle I’m willing to network with sound racialists anywhere if I find their approach worthwhile and if cooperation is feasible within my current socio-economic circumstances. I would need to know more about your project before comitting time and resources to it. 8
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 18 May 2016 19:04 | #
We are in basic agreement here except that I should have been a little more clear to say that it was the leadership of The Russian Federation in particular that I want to cast suspicion toward with regard to being Jewy, propositional and neo-liberal, while the masses, like the masses of Whites in America or anywhere else, are assess - sheeple, mostly, with enough non-White mix, sure. Personally, I don’t know of anyone who worships them, except perhaps in the sense of being enamored by their women, who are often quite beautiful.
Well, “prioritized” as a term in this context is a bit off for the purpose of sorting out geopolitical coordination. We advocate White people: we prioritize them, yes. But if the leadership of Whites, whether through hubris, through a neo-liberalism which sees no accountability to the White class and its need for coordination in the world; and especially, of course, if Whites are misdirected by Jewish interests, which takes us into conflicts that could have been coordinated in a mutually beneficial way, it is not our “priority” to insist that Whites keep doing what they are doing out of loyalty to them (e.g., “those boys in Vietnam ought to have kept killing the gooks come hell or high water”) and not reconsider a potential alternative, reciprocal win-win relationship. I said: White people who are at all reasonable have to agree that we are better off co-existing with Asians than Jews, Muslims and blacks
Not for my personal understanding. I do not use these as geographical terms. I mean it genetically when I say that there are people of European extraction; there are people of Asian extraction; there are people of Middle Eastern extraction and there are people of African extraction. Sometimes I accidentally use “Islam” or “Muslim” as synonymous with Arab/Middle Eastern, Pakistani.. in that regard, your call for clarification is correct.
Well, I would say that racially, they are White/Europeans living in what has been traditionally called part of Asia - and depending upon where it is that you call his native country, might still be called a part of Asia. East of Lake Baikal, especially, I doubt that it is valid to call that native Russia. “Native Russia” probably starts to be debatable after the the 55th meridian.
I don’t object to your using either the word White or Aryan; though Aryan, in particular, is not well understood by most people. MacDonald, Greg Johnson et al. have rendered some good discussions of these terms. For me, “White” is a practical term for Europeans in diaspora; and “native European” for those here. Where northern Europeans are skittish about referring to Southern Europeans, or even Eastern Europeans, as White, I take recourse to native European national distinctions and advise that we believe in accountability to these distinctions. Regarding the term Aryan, I tend to see it as a term for noble Europeans, but recognize that it has genetic history as well. I’ve heard arguments that it corresponds with the R1a haplogroup (eastern European); that is corresponds with the first hunter gatherers who came into Europe, 35,000 years ago; or that it corresponds with a warrior caste who came down from the ice age thaw to predominate over an older agrarian stock. Whatever, we might clarify a common ground on that later. In genetic terms, I have been going by this scheme to a large extent: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml It tends to fit the groupings that you list here:
And it renders more delineations while not interfering with the basic four part distinction of Europeans, Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans. A distinction between Indians and orientals would seem to be in order to make a broad fifth category; but my conversations with Kumiko have got me in the habit of considering them “Asians” along with Orientals.
Race is always the basis of what I am talking about: the general genetic groupings that I go by - European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian - again, may also need to distinguish Indian; and there are some gray areas. As far as getting specific, that’s fine, but it is not always practical to stop to discuss every last distinction. Coexistence with mongoloids is not appealing to me at all. It depends upon what you mean by co-existence; it seems that you may tend to misunderstand me here. You co-exist with them right now and will so long as they exist. I am being a bit cute there. In a country as small as Denmark and with as precarious a genome, perhaps there should be none. Personally, I don’t care if there are none in Europe. But I could live with limited and accountable enclaves in some countries; in America, if anyone were to tell me that they prefer blacks or Jews over, say, orientals, I would say that they are insane. That is not to say that orientals are unproblematic for Whities and that dealings with them does not require skillful negotiation and backing with significant White power.
Personally it does not bother me that you feel that way. As I have said, yellow fever has never been my thing. In my opinion Asians have their beauties and they have their uglies; so do we. As a matter of diplomacy, I’d rather not dwell on that because I do think that being diplomatic with them is important; that we should try to deal with them.
Whether they are to your tastes or not, you have a strong pattern of agreement among the Japanese that they do not want their people mixed-away. On those grounds and the mutual challenges of your common concern (of ethnonationalism) you might begin to see a reason to coordinate efforts.
Hmm. I believe that they can understand the concept of European homelands. I also believe they can see the value of cooperation to secure resource interests along The Silk Road and elsewhere and against common enemies.
I’ve never recommended their demographic mass infestation of White homelands.
Some White and near White Muslims we might be able to coordinate with, e.g. Iranians; but Islam is an insane, race mixing religion; it is not less dangerous than Christianity; which is completely self destructive. I believe that Asians, orientals in particular, are far more capable as White allies than the motley Abrahamically challenged White or near Whites.
Race is a priority, sure. But a religion is a rule structure, and if that rule structure is directing people to kill or surrender our race, then it is betraying our priority.
Well, they do, but again, they are interacting with rule structures and behaviors which have to be dealt with.
I believe that is true. That doesn’t mean that I am going to be uncritical of the Abrahamic religions. All of them are shit.
We are White racial advocates and advocate separatism irrespective of another race’s religion. However, there are ideologies and religions, notably the Abrahamic, Islam very pointedly, that are enemies of our White racial sovereignty and survival. Make no mistake. There are White Muslims, White Christians and White Liberals - if they do any good for our genetics it is not wholly in accordance with their rule structure; it is more or less incidental; the destruction that they do to us does follow their rule structure. Our basis is genetics, our EGI. And we reject ideologies that run counter to our EGI.
I have always made this distinction. However, you must understand how much a part the Abrahamic religions play in our plight.
I can feel a racial kinship for them as White too, and nostalgia from whence they came genetically, but I don’t trust Abrahamic religions. They are like White people showing you a map and the directions that they are taking to mudville. If they have White children it is only because they took a wrong turn, perhaps were pulled by their genetics, or haven’t follow the map far enough. And they want others to go there and/or to not care. I care about where they are coming from, yes, but also where they are going to - and I am not going to mudville.
I suspect that the software is more powerful, deceptive and dangerous than you are presently giving it credit for. But then, I am declaring this a non-Abrahamic site, I am not going to White Abrahamic sites and telling them what to do - just cautioning people about them from our platform.
We agree about that.
I deny that. Islam is a gutter religion as surely as Christianity and Judaism is. They are all shit.
I don’t want men or women to be abused. There are ways to work out fair gender relations and Europeans can be among the best at that - our women need to be held to account to respect that. Biological homos are a small marginal phenomenon that the right makes too big a deal out of. Jews have weaponized them and tried to make them as obnoxious and over represented as possible. Islam is a far far - far greater danger than some queer bar that nobody could make me go to. It is not that homos are unproblematic but I’ve talked about it enough and its very far down from a priority problem. The phenomenon will emerge in a small percentage of any population and they can have a motivation to oppose - well, Islam for example. May as well let them do that.
Too bad Kumiko hasn’t been around lately. She likes to take apart Islam. I find Islam boring. But I’m satisfied from what I’ve gleaned that it is a more dangerous poison that you are giving its due in this utterance.
Yes.
The kind that thinks in terms like this: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
Fair enough; lets keep talking and seeing if we can coordinate this thing. I believe that we both want the preservation of people of genetic European descent and their distinct kinds. Our disagreements: I would like to coordinate alliance with Asians while you find Asians basically repugnant. You have some hope that White and Whiter Islamics can be worthwhile allies. I have some hope of coordinating with Iranians in Iran and some Muslims and Middle Easterners elsewhere to some extent; White Muslms, like White Christians we will coordinate with as necessary, but always with the caveat that their religion is a race mixing religion and is against us. Asia, the Asia of a China which, for example, is so forceful against Islam, is, I believe, the more promising ally. Having said that, they are not European, we are and we cannot expect them to do what we need to do for ourselves. The best we can hope for is coordination. And if we are naive, they will take advantage of us. On the other hand, The Abrahamics already have.
9
Posted by O*R*I*O*N on Wed, 18 May 2016 23:53 | #
The sacred 14 Words are non-negotiable and should constitute a solid foundation for future deliberation.
No. I find asians of caucasoid ancestry perfectly appealing, such as caucasoid kazakhs, iranians, indians and, as mentioned already, White russians of the far east. It’s mongoloidals I find repugnant. Especially so if they parasitize White homelands. But I acknowledge your point about geopolitical diplomacy. Concerning White muslims I stand by my words. Insofar as they are of caucasoidal ancestry they are potentially salvable for racialism and retain the crucial ability to produce White progeny. My stance is phrased in unequivocal, unmistakable language. I personally hate abrahamic mindpoison. It obviously grew from jewry, and has been detrimental to White racial interests both historically and at present. I maintain that it makes sense, in racialist terms, to look for common ground with actual Whites in flesh and blood who are opposed to both toxic modernity, the faggot agenda, usury and zog geopolitical control. Let me rephrase my opinion about racially foreign muslims colonizing White homelands lest you forget and misinterpret my worldview: they are eternal mortal enemies. Race-traitors of any kind and most western converts to mohammedanism would fall into the same general category. 10
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 19 May 2016 08:40 | #
The 14 Words are what solidified my position and brought me into open fight to begin with. They have always been central and essential. I can agree that they are non-negotiable. And one determiner of the fact that they have not been negotiated-away can be established by DNA. Don’t misunderstand my use of the word “negotiate” when I use it as a technical term, however, as in “negotiating obstacles” and coming to an agreement.
You may not have entirely noticed what I was saying - I have not been using “Asian” as a geographic distinction but as a genetic category: White Russians would not be Asians by this classification, but rather people of European ancestry. Kazakhs, Iranians and Indians are Asians, perhaps even Middle Eastern, depending upon how one might like to classify them. They should not be perfectly appealing in terms of the 14 words, but people that we can work with perhaps. However, they might not exactly get along with White Russians, especially as those White Russians extend influence eastward and southward - and that is what I am talking about: The 14 Words meets up with obstacles and securing our existence does not translate to going up against unlikely or unworthy challenges. I mean for that to be an abstract statement at this point. I am not committed to the concept of the Russian Federation being contracted, certainly not to the point that I’d be eager to fight for the Asian side that would wish incursions upon it, but neither am I willing to fight to protect its eastern third, particularly not as European borders are not secured; and European territories in The America’s and other continents are not secured as White. To me, this all requires a step back - to secure our nation “as our skin”, i.e., as our D.N.A.; then targeting territories - concentrating particularly our homelands of Europe, of course, but also coordinating by means of DNA around the globe; and it means negotiating obstacles and requirements with others. In that regard, turning Orientals into enemies when they could be our most powerful allies would be more than foolish. Are there problems with their populations and practices? Yes, of course. We’ll get to that.
There are two or three things going on here. 1. Your distaste for what I take to be Orientals, which I imagine extends to Amerindians. 2. Where they move upon White lands in numbers. 3. Where their ways threaten and at times literally impose upon us.
Regarding your second position, of course neither they nor any other non-Whites can have citizenship in the Euro DNA Nation. Of course it is not acceptable for them or any other non-Whites, i.e., for their nation to be living among our nations in large percentage - particularly in Europe. On other continents, we have to draw border lines. I would rather have orientals on the other side of those borders than blacks or Jews. You will perhaps object that it should not be either/or; but sometimes it is and will be a choice. Now, Amerindians, Mestizos, etc are a species of mongoloid as well. They cannot be a part of our DNA Nation either; they have less capacity to help us in coordination. Here I am a bit more like you than even standard WN in that I find their willingness to relinquish California and the Southwest to them to be offensive. However, I do not always trust right-wingers to distinguish White Central and South Americans from Meztisos. And in negotiative theory, blacks should get NOTHING but a trip to Africa. So long as Meztisos are outside of our habitats, they don’t bother me too much. In fact, when it comes to a fight between blacks and Mesitzos, I am routing for the Meztisos against the blacks.
Good.
OK.
Between clearly designated nations - which correspond to both people (genetics) and territories. I differ from you in that I could probably tolerate them having some outpost enclaves, if accountable, and if they allow some outpost enclaves of ours among some of their bigger territories: e.g., some Chinatowns in The Americas and Vladivastoks over there in East Asia. Garrison cooperation along The Silk Road would also be the better option: as in Djbouti
I am not sure of the particular example that you have in mind, either in terms of the kind of mongolodal or the place. I hear that orientals are overwhelming the Vancouver, Canada area and parts of California. That should have not have been allowed to happen. Another big problem with orientals is their overwhelming our institutions of higher learning - particularly in STEM disciplines. I used to pass MIT and would see nothing but orientals pouring out of the doors. That kind of thing is not acceptable in our universities. I should also mention of my experience at university with them, that they do not care about us, our traditions and ways like we do - they are other people and can be quite unsympathetic. But if I have to try to work with and angle with one group against another, I would rather have orientals on my side than blacks, mixed race hispanics/mestizos or Jews. Indians are over represented in universities too - but with them it is even worse in a sense, as it is more a matter of nepotism (thus less a matter of raw ability that can be worked with). I hear talk of Whites sitting down and drawing border lines with blacks and Meztisos. I’d rather talk with orientals about that. Indians and corrigible Middle Easterners are a tricky area in between. I find what Indians have done with their nepotism, (((H1B Visas))) and (((special business loans))) to overwhelm Silicon valley and certain businesses in America such as motels and convenience stores to be very offensive. Other characteristics can be offensive as well - cheapness. They must be kept from taking advantage of our educational and business ventures. Like orientals, they might be coordinated with, but they are not as smart, not as powerful an ally and probably more a threat of mixing than orientals. In the case of Whiter Middle Easterners, I think we have to be careful. That is some wild and woolly stuff, it is not us, it is probably even more prone to mixing than orientals and it may remain a conduit for Islam’s race mixing agenda.
Well, I don’t begrudge your talking to White Muslims; but I would rather spend my time otherwise than trying to disabuse them. Having said that, my essential questions with regard to advocacy are 1) are you White/European and 2) are you fighting/flighting for White interests? A White Muslim might answer the first question easily and could find the second question impossible.
Absolutely.
This is what I have been saying about coordination. On the other hand, that is coordination. Trying to talk with Christians is a waste of time. There are enough sites that do that. Here, we will mainly talk at them. As with Muslims and Jews, we will limit their voice on this platform and speak to them in detail by special invitation only.
Yes.
The common ground is here. MR’s platform is clear.
Again, I am not comfortable defending queers because I am not one; but to mention them in the same sentence as these other problems is way out of register. You don’t have to prove your heterosexuality to me and you don’t have to get comfortable with them - I am not; especially not the male ones. But, outside of their promotion among the (((PC)) advocacy triad: gays, non-Whites, feminism, I don’t notice them much, don’t think about them and don’t see the reason to make them into an issue on the level of other problems. When you are talking in terms of dealing with reality, I would encourage you reconsider the idea that “Muslims are good on the gay issue and feminist issue.” I have been of your mindset. You must be in very stressful circumstances, as I was. If you find yourself living in a committed White place, where White women are not quite so weaponized, i.e., where they are immersed among White guys and more loyal by default, I believe that you might see fit that we can do better than Islam in making for a good and fair society - including with gender relations. I have long maintained that it is key that there be White enclaves treating sex as sacrament - a club, so to speak, where strict monogamy is sacrosanct. Even if only a very small percentage of people take the option, the option needs to be among our peoples and our kinds.
Anthony Migchels is working on an anti-usury program.
Our platform is non-Abrahamic. If they come here their religion is in a hostile environment even when it does not get kicked-out.
OK
Well, yes, we can coordinate with those sorts on conditional terms, but again, this is going to rub up against your pro-White first Russian position - it requires coordination; in the same way that a pro-White Russian position rubs up against orientals, The Silk Road, oil and other resources, and needs to be coordinated. 11
Posted by Kemp on long-term consequences of foreign labor on Thu, 19 May 2016 15:41 | # Arthur Kemp on the long term consequences of using foreign labor. Arthur Kemp provides a strong cautionary argument that aligns significantly with O*R*I*O*N’s vigilance for more pure, DIY White ethnostates. Though I (DanielS) was not talking about using orientals as labor, it is clear that the concept of outpost enclaves has to be treated very carefully as well.
Post a comment:
Next entry: The last whites of the East End
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA Nations
|
Posted by China balks at EU vote against its WTO status on Tue, 17 May 2016 05:55 | #