In order of severity;
1. One drop rule
2. Christian/pagan divide and hostility amongst some toward Christianity
3. Lack of acceptance of non-European whites (ie white Middle Eastern Christians, de-Islamified white Middle Easterners/Central Asians/North Africans)
4. Eugenics (ie belief in getting rid of the disabled, aborting all babies with defects, trying to "breed out" or genetically de-select everything potentially seen as problematic ie ADHD)
5. Remorselessness toward reformed whites with previous problematic behavior
6. Over-reliance on symbolism and idolization of people and movements from the past with very bad images today (ie National Socialist Germany in particular, to a lesser degree the KKK)
7. Inability to accept compromise in terms of the lands we can realistically rule over (although I feel many are coming around on this one)
I don't have time to go into detail now, I may write a more extensive writeup on this later, but I believe these issues threaten to fragment and potentially destroy the movement more than any, especially numbers 1 and 2.
Sunday 27 April 2014
Thursday 24 April 2014
A step by step guide to what we must do
1. Allow the enemy to become more abrasive
Yes, you have heard me correctly. The first step is waking the people up, and in order to be woken up, they must be shook violently from their sleep. History is a series of actions and reactions. Thesis counterthesis. The fact is, Obama's presidency is one of the best things to ever happen to white America. White America has been dying a slow death for decades now. Obama's presidency may have accelerated it, but it has also given birth to something new.
60% of white Americans voted against Obama. That is a more united demographic than ever before, I believe, or at least in the 20th century. Never before in recent history have white Americans voted so uniformly. This speaks to an increase in white unity overall. Look at the Jews--kicked out of every country, and now the most powerful race on earth today. As Obi Wan said in Star Wars, if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine. Since the Holocaust, the Jews have literally multiplied exponentially in terms of their power.
Imagine if you poke and prod the sleeping dragon that is white people, how powerful it could become. The way to get a sleeping dragon to breathe fire is to awaken it. If you want white people to wake up, the persecution must increase.
Now you will say I am a hypocrite because I don't want to be personally victimized by any of this. You may be right. But then I don't need any awakening. I am fully awake from my slumber. My eyes are fucking open. So really, it isn't me who needs the rude awakening. Hopefully if any white people must suffer, it will be self-hating whites, and whites who choose to "go avatar", who will be the greatest recipients of this persecution, the canaries in the coalmines. If someone must take one for the team, bite the bullet for all of us, I'd rather it be them than us.
But hopefully all of us can be awoken.
2. Make our own media and our own educational institutions
This is crucial. No amount of bickering on web forums will amount to anything, compared to the massive impact that our own movie studios, our own TV platforms (whether online or cable or what have you), our own publication companies and most of all, our own schools and universities, would have.
This is a no-brainer. The enemy has the media and educational system firmly in their own quarters, on lockdown. It is theirs. Let's give them a taste of their own medicine. Sure, Hollywood will occasionally allow a movie like 300 or Lord of the Rings to be made, movies with obvious white nationalist parallels, but ultimately they'd never allow a movie to be made that is as in your face about its message as Avatar. Like Kevin Spacey says in Seven, we need to hit people over the head with a sledgehammer.
3. No more crazy shooters
But THIS is not what I mean by hitting people over the head with a sledgehammer. Not in the way Breivik or the Sikh temple guy did. Those people don't help our cause. They only give the media more fuel to demonize us with. No more.
4. Define our goals
We need a realistic set of goals. No "100% pure society according to the one drop rule" bullshit. No exterminating X race from the face of the earth wild schemes. And as sad as it makes me to say it, we must downsize. Whites once populated a good third of the Earth. We will be lucky if we can keep half of that land as ours.
Realistically, we don't need tons and tons of land to form our own society. We need land, yes, but do we need all of the Americas and Europe and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and every other piece of land that has ever been white land? No, we do not.
Europe is and has always been our heart and soul. It should be our homeland, period. Non negotiable. However as far as the "new world" goes, we will need to partition of it. If we can keep ANY of it at all as white nations, we should consider ourselves lucky. We first need to give the aboriginal peoples nations of their own, real nations with significant amounts of land, to show that we are serious about the idea of every people deserving a homeland. The rest of the new world may have to be devoted to "Diversity Land".
That being said, there are certain places where white homelands may be viable. Quebec. Southern Brazil. Part of Australia; northern Queensland or Tasmania perhaps? Parts of Argentina and Uruguay. The inland west of the USA; from Montana to northern Arizona, that whole area.
But some areas will be inevitably lost. At this point can anyone ever see California as a white homeland ever again? Sadly, I doubt it.
Yes, you have heard me correctly. The first step is waking the people up, and in order to be woken up, they must be shook violently from their sleep. History is a series of actions and reactions. Thesis counterthesis. The fact is, Obama's presidency is one of the best things to ever happen to white America. White America has been dying a slow death for decades now. Obama's presidency may have accelerated it, but it has also given birth to something new.
60% of white Americans voted against Obama. That is a more united demographic than ever before, I believe, or at least in the 20th century. Never before in recent history have white Americans voted so uniformly. This speaks to an increase in white unity overall. Look at the Jews--kicked out of every country, and now the most powerful race on earth today. As Obi Wan said in Star Wars, if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine. Since the Holocaust, the Jews have literally multiplied exponentially in terms of their power.
Imagine if you poke and prod the sleeping dragon that is white people, how powerful it could become. The way to get a sleeping dragon to breathe fire is to awaken it. If you want white people to wake up, the persecution must increase.
Now you will say I am a hypocrite because I don't want to be personally victimized by any of this. You may be right. But then I don't need any awakening. I am fully awake from my slumber. My eyes are fucking open. So really, it isn't me who needs the rude awakening. Hopefully if any white people must suffer, it will be self-hating whites, and whites who choose to "go avatar", who will be the greatest recipients of this persecution, the canaries in the coalmines. If someone must take one for the team, bite the bullet for all of us, I'd rather it be them than us.
But hopefully all of us can be awoken.
2. Make our own media and our own educational institutions
This is crucial. No amount of bickering on web forums will amount to anything, compared to the massive impact that our own movie studios, our own TV platforms (whether online or cable or what have you), our own publication companies and most of all, our own schools and universities, would have.
This is a no-brainer. The enemy has the media and educational system firmly in their own quarters, on lockdown. It is theirs. Let's give them a taste of their own medicine. Sure, Hollywood will occasionally allow a movie like 300 or Lord of the Rings to be made, movies with obvious white nationalist parallels, but ultimately they'd never allow a movie to be made that is as in your face about its message as Avatar. Like Kevin Spacey says in Seven, we need to hit people over the head with a sledgehammer.
3. No more crazy shooters
But THIS is not what I mean by hitting people over the head with a sledgehammer. Not in the way Breivik or the Sikh temple guy did. Those people don't help our cause. They only give the media more fuel to demonize us with. No more.
4. Define our goals
We need a realistic set of goals. No "100% pure society according to the one drop rule" bullshit. No exterminating X race from the face of the earth wild schemes. And as sad as it makes me to say it, we must downsize. Whites once populated a good third of the Earth. We will be lucky if we can keep half of that land as ours.
Realistically, we don't need tons and tons of land to form our own society. We need land, yes, but do we need all of the Americas and Europe and Australia and New Zealand and South Africa and every other piece of land that has ever been white land? No, we do not.
Europe is and has always been our heart and soul. It should be our homeland, period. Non negotiable. However as far as the "new world" goes, we will need to partition of it. If we can keep ANY of it at all as white nations, we should consider ourselves lucky. We first need to give the aboriginal peoples nations of their own, real nations with significant amounts of land, to show that we are serious about the idea of every people deserving a homeland. The rest of the new world may have to be devoted to "Diversity Land".
That being said, there are certain places where white homelands may be viable. Quebec. Southern Brazil. Part of Australia; northern Queensland or Tasmania perhaps? Parts of Argentina and Uruguay. The inland west of the USA; from Montana to northern Arizona, that whole area.
But some areas will be inevitably lost. At this point can anyone ever see California as a white homeland ever again? Sadly, I doubt it.
Thursday 17 April 2014
My idea for partition of Canada, red areas are English Canada, blue Quebec, the rest is given to the First Nations (this is all conditional of course on Europe being restored as the white European homeland). Canada and quebec keep hydro dams they built though.
My friend asks, "couldnt we maintain a strip so east and west could be connected?".
To that I say, Western Canada may just want to become their own nation and given the way that Ottawa is so eastern Canada centric I can't blame them. Winnipeg can be the first nations capital. Canada and quebec under this arrangement wouldn't be explicitly white nations like in europe, ie they can't deport citizens but they can deport illegals and pursue whatever future immigration policy they vote for. If natives still get special privileges in canada and quebec it must be reduced ie none for people of less than 50% native blood. Although I think under this arrangement their special privileges should be abolished entirely. The natives can choose to deport the non natives or let them stay. I believe they'd choose the latter because they like our tax dollars. Natives will probably be the majority in Saskatchewan and Manitoba in a few generations one way or another..
My friend says; " no special privilages canada for canadians, thirdworldia for the natives".
To that I say, Yeah. Natives can still choose to live here but no more special privileges. As far as the United States goes they are much more densely populated so the only areas I could see giving them would be the large native reserve regions in the four corners and in South Dakota and most of Alaska
I say, " Blacks are non native to canada. They get no state. They can stay here if they're legal citizens but we have no obligation to let in anyone else. Toronto is pretty enriched"
sidenote; I think black Americans can have their own country too in the "black belt" of the south. However America should be allowed to put a massive Israel-style wall around it. This country will be sub-third world in no time.
Friend one; "umm torontos fucked then"
Me; Ummm if we get back Europe that is a price I'm willing to pay.
I even gave the natives a nice warm unpopulated region of BC so they can't complain it is all super cold land.
Manitoba and Saskatchewan will probably be majority aboriginal in half a century or 70 years anyway, so better to put down the chips now when it still makes us look good to do so, rather than then when it'll look like a feeble act of desperation. Besides Winnepeg sucks, do we really even want it? It's practically an aboriginal city already. Let's be honest guys.
The moderate far right and what we stand for
I am sick of having to deal with mainstream conservatives and their tepid watered-down play-it-safe bullshit on one hand, but also the radical white nationalists and their asinine one drop rule "scream Heil Hitler in public" bullshit too.
We need a forum for the dark enlightenment. Stormfront is too dominated by crazies; you go up against some of their orthodoxy (ie one drop rule) and you get flamed to high hell there. The closest we have is certain facebook pages like This is Europa where "moderate far righters" tend to congregate. Yes, that's right. We are the moderate far right.
That means we are far right, we aren't mainstream conservatives. We aren't the Stephen Harpers of this world who give lip service to social conservatism while letting in 400 000 third world immigrants from the worst countries on Earth every year. But at the same time, we are the moderate far right. That means we reject genocide as a solution, we embrace a more open view of racial nationalism that doesn't necessarily reject people for lack of "blood purity" so long as they in essence embody our people and its values. We accept the possibility that in a nation like the United States or Canada, which is more of a proposition state than an ethno-state, while the current situation with mass immigration will destroy these countries, there are some non-whites who truly embody their values and culture. Note, I mentioned new world states here; the ethno states of Europe are a completely different story, and they shouldn't accept anything less than 98% of the population being their own ethnic group (that's the Japanese number, so I figure it's a fair benchmark). What this means as Ramzpaul says is that an ideal American or Canadian right wing state may be merely 90% white; which means yes we are willing to accept non whites, in a certain number, who embrace our cause and who acknowledge that these nations were made in the image of European civilization and that there is a reason why European civilization must remain the dominant culture in order for these societies to function. We even accept the possibility of leftist style multiculturalism existing somewhere on Earth (ie blue state America, most of Latin America) just as long as whites are given our own homelands too, just as every other race has. Even the native Americans have reserves, the Jews have Israel, Africans have Africa, Asians have Asia, and they aren't having diversity shoved down their throats like we are. In the case of Norweigian girls being raped by immigrants, yes 100% of the rape there is by non-European immigrants, they are literally having diversity forcibly shoved down their throats.
We are sick of this shit too, but we aren't going to embrace solutions that involve genocide. Deportation, not genocide! New borders, new countries, not new massacres or new death camps.
We reject the one drop rule which automatically counts out 50% of the white population from joining any sort of pro-white movement. Not only that, but it is entirely based on emotion. Show me the scientific evidence that being 1/16th or 1/64th whatever severely harms the white brain! If it does then why is Italy's murder rate so low? Shouldn't Italy have a murder rate more similar to that of African or Latin American countries if the one drop rule is true? Also why do American whites have such a low murder rate when so many have a bit of Native American blood? Why are white Americans so rich, so economically successful when their blood is actually more "polluted" than most of western Europe?
I don't deny that there are problems with people claiming to be white who aren't white. For instance, certain Hispanics lying on the US census. The "white Hispanic" population on the census is clearly much higher than it actually is in real life. Latin America in general has a problem with this. But anyone with eyes can tell the difference between someone who is fundamentally white and someone who fundamentally isn't. We don't need a one drop rule for that. Even the idol of the extreme far right, Adolf Hitler, didn't believe in the one drop rule! He allowed Germans with small amounts of Jewish blood to still be considered Germans.
The one drop rule is a load of bullshit, and it is our enemies' greatest tool to use against us!
What better way to divide any pro-white movement than dividing the "pure whites" from the ones with slight amounts of non-white blood? It is the easiest way to create internal divisions and ever prevent the movement from taking off in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it is a great way to push these "impure" whites into the opposing camp. I don't blame them for feeling rejected, and if they suddenly become antifa cultural Marxists because the white nationalist movement wouldn't accept them, then you know what, the blame for that is on you, Stormfront and your ilk!
Now obviously there are certain demographics we can never win over, and are as good as lost. Trying to win over non-whites is largely fruitless unless they are Japanese living in Japan or Koreans living in Korea. But if you try and win over a non-white in the west to a plan that could potentially restrict their right to take themselves and their family to whatever western country they want, all of a sudden they're all butthurt and crying about human rights. Meanwhile Japan strictly restricts immigration on a daily basis without a peep from them. Obviously these non-whites are disingenuous when they claim it's about "human rights". No, it's about their own "right" to live in a western country and mooch off the system, and in the men's case, to be around hot white women and have sex with them. If it was actually about human rights then they'd complain about east Asian countries' restrictions on immigration too.
So there is very little point to trying to reach out to non-whites, except in areas such as men's rights. Similarly, the gay and transsexual community are pretty much a lost cause to win over to dark enlightenment principles.
However, there are certain groups we cannot give up on. Atheists. Women. Christians. And yes, the "impure blood" white people, who are about 50% or more of our race.
I myself am impure blood. There, I said it. If you have a problem with that, then go fuck yourself. I don't define myself by my 1/16th non-European side, it isn't who I am, but it's there, and I refuse to simply deny the facts. And yes, I do look totally white. My 1/16th non European blood is from that one particular non European race who look a lot like us, and identify as white when it's convenient and as a seperate race when it's convenient. For instance they will call themselves white to explain their wealth and privilege, but they'll call themselves a seperate race when it comes to the issue of intermarriage.
Anyway yes I do have blood from that particular group. The man who I'm descended from converted to Christianity so as far as I'm concerned he lost his status as part of the "chosen few" anyway, he willingly gave it up.
So, one drop rule people, look around you. Do these whites with tiny amounts of non white blood act substantially different from you? Are they the ones populating America's ghettoes, contributing to its sky high murder rate? Do they uniformly vote Democrat? Are they significantly more left wing and cultural Marxist than "pure blood" whites? Is there any real signficant distinction between "pure" and "impure" whites aside from the distinction in your head?
All it's based on is pure emotion, and stupid metaphors of "what if you have 1/16th cyanide in your water? what is an acceptable amount of posion?" that have no bearing on the reality of the situation. I've never heard a factual or scientific argument in favor of the one drop rule. If they do actually bring facts into the equation, they argue using statistics from countries where the population are clearly way beyond "a few drops" of non-white blood, where the vast majority are unequivocally non-white (ie most Latin American countries).
Face it, we have enough divisions already. Why create a further one by obsessing over trivial amounts of non-white blood in people who look white, act white and think white?
So, in essence the one drop rule is one example of many of what divides the moderate far right from the extreme far right, and why we must avoid their style of thinking, which has zero chance of ever attaining a large pool of followers or any degree whatsoever of widespread success. Also, stop it with the damn Nazi flags already! Nobody is gonna be turned on by that. Except in a strictly sexual fetish context. But otherwise just quit it already. We need new symbols that reflect our struggle today, not symbols based in 1940s Germany. Also why do we need to embrace genocide and colonialism? We need homelands but we don't need to conquer the whole world or exterminate entire races. Furthermore Hitler wasn't exactly big on Slavs, so if you call yourself a pan-white nationalist you may want to rethink the swastikas.
Anyway that's all for now.
We need a forum for the dark enlightenment. Stormfront is too dominated by crazies; you go up against some of their orthodoxy (ie one drop rule) and you get flamed to high hell there. The closest we have is certain facebook pages like This is Europa where "moderate far righters" tend to congregate. Yes, that's right. We are the moderate far right.
That means we are far right, we aren't mainstream conservatives. We aren't the Stephen Harpers of this world who give lip service to social conservatism while letting in 400 000 third world immigrants from the worst countries on Earth every year. But at the same time, we are the moderate far right. That means we reject genocide as a solution, we embrace a more open view of racial nationalism that doesn't necessarily reject people for lack of "blood purity" so long as they in essence embody our people and its values. We accept the possibility that in a nation like the United States or Canada, which is more of a proposition state than an ethno-state, while the current situation with mass immigration will destroy these countries, there are some non-whites who truly embody their values and culture. Note, I mentioned new world states here; the ethno states of Europe are a completely different story, and they shouldn't accept anything less than 98% of the population being their own ethnic group (that's the Japanese number, so I figure it's a fair benchmark). What this means as Ramzpaul says is that an ideal American or Canadian right wing state may be merely 90% white; which means yes we are willing to accept non whites, in a certain number, who embrace our cause and who acknowledge that these nations were made in the image of European civilization and that there is a reason why European civilization must remain the dominant culture in order for these societies to function. We even accept the possibility of leftist style multiculturalism existing somewhere on Earth (ie blue state America, most of Latin America) just as long as whites are given our own homelands too, just as every other race has. Even the native Americans have reserves, the Jews have Israel, Africans have Africa, Asians have Asia, and they aren't having diversity shoved down their throats like we are. In the case of Norweigian girls being raped by immigrants, yes 100% of the rape there is by non-European immigrants, they are literally having diversity forcibly shoved down their throats.
We are sick of this shit too, but we aren't going to embrace solutions that involve genocide. Deportation, not genocide! New borders, new countries, not new massacres or new death camps.
We reject the one drop rule which automatically counts out 50% of the white population from joining any sort of pro-white movement. Not only that, but it is entirely based on emotion. Show me the scientific evidence that being 1/16th or 1/64th whatever severely harms the white brain! If it does then why is Italy's murder rate so low? Shouldn't Italy have a murder rate more similar to that of African or Latin American countries if the one drop rule is true? Also why do American whites have such a low murder rate when so many have a bit of Native American blood? Why are white Americans so rich, so economically successful when their blood is actually more "polluted" than most of western Europe?
I don't deny that there are problems with people claiming to be white who aren't white. For instance, certain Hispanics lying on the US census. The "white Hispanic" population on the census is clearly much higher than it actually is in real life. Latin America in general has a problem with this. But anyone with eyes can tell the difference between someone who is fundamentally white and someone who fundamentally isn't. We don't need a one drop rule for that. Even the idol of the extreme far right, Adolf Hitler, didn't believe in the one drop rule! He allowed Germans with small amounts of Jewish blood to still be considered Germans.
The one drop rule is a load of bullshit, and it is our enemies' greatest tool to use against us!
What better way to divide any pro-white movement than dividing the "pure whites" from the ones with slight amounts of non-white blood? It is the easiest way to create internal divisions and ever prevent the movement from taking off in any meaningful way. Furthermore, it is a great way to push these "impure" whites into the opposing camp. I don't blame them for feeling rejected, and if they suddenly become antifa cultural Marxists because the white nationalist movement wouldn't accept them, then you know what, the blame for that is on you, Stormfront and your ilk!
Now obviously there are certain demographics we can never win over, and are as good as lost. Trying to win over non-whites is largely fruitless unless they are Japanese living in Japan or Koreans living in Korea. But if you try and win over a non-white in the west to a plan that could potentially restrict their right to take themselves and their family to whatever western country they want, all of a sudden they're all butthurt and crying about human rights. Meanwhile Japan strictly restricts immigration on a daily basis without a peep from them. Obviously these non-whites are disingenuous when they claim it's about "human rights". No, it's about their own "right" to live in a western country and mooch off the system, and in the men's case, to be around hot white women and have sex with them. If it was actually about human rights then they'd complain about east Asian countries' restrictions on immigration too.
So there is very little point to trying to reach out to non-whites, except in areas such as men's rights. Similarly, the gay and transsexual community are pretty much a lost cause to win over to dark enlightenment principles.
However, there are certain groups we cannot give up on. Atheists. Women. Christians. And yes, the "impure blood" white people, who are about 50% or more of our race.
I myself am impure blood. There, I said it. If you have a problem with that, then go fuck yourself. I don't define myself by my 1/16th non-European side, it isn't who I am, but it's there, and I refuse to simply deny the facts. And yes, I do look totally white. My 1/16th non European blood is from that one particular non European race who look a lot like us, and identify as white when it's convenient and as a seperate race when it's convenient. For instance they will call themselves white to explain their wealth and privilege, but they'll call themselves a seperate race when it comes to the issue of intermarriage.
Anyway yes I do have blood from that particular group. The man who I'm descended from converted to Christianity so as far as I'm concerned he lost his status as part of the "chosen few" anyway, he willingly gave it up.
So, one drop rule people, look around you. Do these whites with tiny amounts of non white blood act substantially different from you? Are they the ones populating America's ghettoes, contributing to its sky high murder rate? Do they uniformly vote Democrat? Are they significantly more left wing and cultural Marxist than "pure blood" whites? Is there any real signficant distinction between "pure" and "impure" whites aside from the distinction in your head?
All it's based on is pure emotion, and stupid metaphors of "what if you have 1/16th cyanide in your water? what is an acceptable amount of posion?" that have no bearing on the reality of the situation. I've never heard a factual or scientific argument in favor of the one drop rule. If they do actually bring facts into the equation, they argue using statistics from countries where the population are clearly way beyond "a few drops" of non-white blood, where the vast majority are unequivocally non-white (ie most Latin American countries).
Face it, we have enough divisions already. Why create a further one by obsessing over trivial amounts of non-white blood in people who look white, act white and think white?
So, in essence the one drop rule is one example of many of what divides the moderate far right from the extreme far right, and why we must avoid their style of thinking, which has zero chance of ever attaining a large pool of followers or any degree whatsoever of widespread success. Also, stop it with the damn Nazi flags already! Nobody is gonna be turned on by that. Except in a strictly sexual fetish context. But otherwise just quit it already. We need new symbols that reflect our struggle today, not symbols based in 1940s Germany. Also why do we need to embrace genocide and colonialism? We need homelands but we don't need to conquer the whole world or exterminate entire races. Furthermore Hitler wasn't exactly big on Slavs, so if you call yourself a pan-white nationalist you may want to rethink the swastikas.
Anyway that's all for now.
Wednesday 16 April 2014
Why I hate the EU, but not the idea of the EU
Fact is, while I am a nationalist, we cannot go back to the way things were before. We can't go back to the world in which WW1 and WW2 and countless wars beforehand happened.
The world wars may not have destroyed Europe in spirit as much as cultural Marxism has, but they physically destroyed more of Europe than any horde of rioting "youths" could ever dream of. We need some kind of multinational governing body to keep the peace between different countries, in Europe and in the world as a whole.
For all its problems, there are far less overt violent wars in the world today. Yes, there does need to be one more war, a big one; the war to reclaim western civilization, but I am optimistic that we can win this war without a death toll over 10 000 (yes, I am being realistic; "without firing a single shot" is unrealistic).
But it's a good thing that European countries don't go to war over petty shit like they used to. And the ones that still do, in the Caucasus and Balkans, are countries that are not under the sphere of EU influence as much.
Now I do support Russia's annexation of Crimea, but that was done democratically, and that was demographically justified, and more importantly, was done without massive deaths or destruction. Also, my hypothetical EU would support Crimea's self determination.
Which brings the problems with the existing EU. The existing EU is anti-white, anti-Russia and to be quite frank, anti-Europe. It promotes multiculturalism, immigration, the destruction of European cultures, the Euroblender, race mixing to destroy the white race, and other such policies that are fundamentally anti European.
But if we had a hypothetical organization that was like the EU without the cultural Marxism I think that'd be more of a good thing than a bad. Ditto with the UN, although its existence as a whole is more questionable and may be a fundamentally bad idea.
The world wars may not have destroyed Europe in spirit as much as cultural Marxism has, but they physically destroyed more of Europe than any horde of rioting "youths" could ever dream of. We need some kind of multinational governing body to keep the peace between different countries, in Europe and in the world as a whole.
For all its problems, there are far less overt violent wars in the world today. Yes, there does need to be one more war, a big one; the war to reclaim western civilization, but I am optimistic that we can win this war without a death toll over 10 000 (yes, I am being realistic; "without firing a single shot" is unrealistic).
But it's a good thing that European countries don't go to war over petty shit like they used to. And the ones that still do, in the Caucasus and Balkans, are countries that are not under the sphere of EU influence as much.
Now I do support Russia's annexation of Crimea, but that was done democratically, and that was demographically justified, and more importantly, was done without massive deaths or destruction. Also, my hypothetical EU would support Crimea's self determination.
Which brings the problems with the existing EU. The existing EU is anti-white, anti-Russia and to be quite frank, anti-Europe. It promotes multiculturalism, immigration, the destruction of European cultures, the Euroblender, race mixing to destroy the white race, and other such policies that are fundamentally anti European.
But if we had a hypothetical organization that was like the EU without the cultural Marxism I think that'd be more of a good thing than a bad. Ditto with the UN, although its existence as a whole is more questionable and may be a fundamentally bad idea.
Problems with white nationalism
I fundamentally agree with the basic tenets of white nationalism. All people deserve their own nations and whites are the only ones who the worldwide elite denies that (yes, amerindians lack nations of their own, but if they started demanding it, they wouldn't be called racist for saying it by the mass media or the universities or governments or the UN).
I agree that anti racist is a codeword for anti white, that we must secure an existence for white children, that our race is beautiful and unique and must be preserved. I believe that the greatness of western civilization is not an abstract ideal, it comes from its people.
That being said.....
This is not a post to restate all that. This is a post to underscore the innate problems within the white nationalist movement. Why? Because if this movement is ever going to take off, whether on its own or within the larger context of right wing politics (combined with mens rights etc., the dark enlightenment), it needs to iron out some of its own internal contradictions, divisions and problems.
1. The lack of self determination for amerindians and Australian aboriginals
We have to address this issue. Of course it is unrealistic to give 8 million people control over all of Canada and the USA. Yes, white people built America, we built Canada and New Zealand and Australia and we built the good parts of Latin America too. We made these societies into what they are today, and we created these nations in our image.
But that being said, we cannot deny the amerindians, Australian aboriginals or Maoris the right to their own self determination without being hypocritical.
As I said, realistically, in a world with 7 billion people it'd be unreasonable to give entire continents to populations of 8 million (Native Americans in USA and Canada) or less than 1 million (aboriginal Australians). But should they have sovereign nations with their own borders, within these countries? Absolutely yes. No, we cannot turn the clock back to before 1492. If we were going to do that, then we'd also have to go back to before 1453, and give Turkey back to the Greeks and Armenians. We'd have to also make all the blacks leave the Caribbean and give those nations back to the few remaining Caribs.
But we absolutely should allow the indigenous peoples to have their own countries. I made a map of the borders in Canada; we could realistically give them the majority of the country. In America it'd be tougher; the four corners region and parts of South Dakota and most of Alaska seem to be the only viable places. In Australia you could give them most of the interior and even most of Western Australia north of Perth...basically, over 70% of the country.
In Latin America you could give amerindians (not mestizos, actual amerindians) Bolivia and Paraguay, and some of the central American countries (maybe Guatemala, southern Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua). Parts of Peru as well.
New Zealand being a small country would be hard to divide up but I'm sure it'd be manageable. Hawaii again is small, but who knows, it could be possible to allocate one or two islands as the nation of the indigenous Hawaiians.
Would they have a right to kick whites and other non-aboriginals out of these nations? Yes, I suppose so. But realistically I doubt they would, because they do love our money and our tax dollars.
2. One drop rule
The one drop rule is idiotic. I did a poll once of WN's, and it was split literally 50/50 as to whether people believe in this rule. It is literally the single most divisive factor in the white nationalist community. This rule has to go in order for whites to be united. It is unrealistic, it excludes about half of the world's white population or more. And quite frankly it does not reflect reality. Tiny amounts of Moorish, Native American, Mongol and Turk blood exist in huge amounts of the world's white population. If you want to say it's historically regrettable, then fine, but the fact is, it happened, and nothing can change that. These people identify as white European today, they embrace and follow European culture, they embrace white European identity and reject Moorish or Turk or whatever identity (except for the 1/16th Native American people who call themselves Natives....I don't call these people non-whites, I just call them idiots).
If you want to say that olive skinned Greeks and Italians don't belong in Sweden, that's fine, but then I'd also say that blonde haired pale skinned Swedes don't belong in Greece or Italy. Every European ethnicity belongs in their own countries, and whites from the new world of mixed white ethnicity who wish to live in Europe belong in whatever white country they are most genetically and/or linguistically similar to.
Either way the one drop rule must go. It is divisive and quite frankly it seems like a rule more useful to divide whites than to unite them. If I was an anti-white trying to sow discord amongst the white nationalist community, I would fall back on the one drop rule every single time. Defining who is white is a difficult task, and very subjective, but the one drop rule is an absurdly strict definition that has to go.
3. The idea of purging the gene pool of "race traitors"
By their definition of race traitor, anybody who has ever kissed or had sex with a non-white is eternally scarred, never to be allowed back into the fold again. Fact is, we have two problems here. Firstly, we live in a left wing society in which the media aggressively promotes race mixing, to the point where if you don't date non-whites, as a rule, you will be socially shunned by many of your peers for it.
Secondly, this movement needs all the numbers it can get, and automatically shutting out all those with a "checkered past" isn't the way to go. If they're gonna exclude everyone who's ever twerked along to a MTV rap video, good luck getting much of a support base.
Finally, there can be supporters of the white nationalist cause who don't necessarily abide by white nationalist principles themselves. Just because somebody marries an Asian doesn't mean that they can't support the idea of Europe as the white homeland, or America as a 90% white country.
I say everything has its place, and people who wish to marry other races should have a place for that too. I simply don't want that place to be Europe. And yes, within my hypothetical idea of Amerindian and Aboriginal Australian homeland nations, they would have every right to demand that the "blended humanity" shouldn't be a part of their ethnic homelands either. Also, there are many more moderate conservatives who may be open to marrying other races, while still agreeing that we let in too many immigrants. Their difference is that they'd say some individual non-white immigrants benefit our countries and embody our culture well, even if many do not, and even if we simply let in too many to assimilate them all. Some may argue that certain groups (ie East Asians) benefit our countries, while others (ie Africans) do not.
To those moderate conservatives who feel that way, I would say; your attitude and beliefs have relevance in places like Canada and the USA, but in Europe, our ethnic homeland, we require a more overtly ethno-national outlook. If you want to have your conservative mixed race family, I don't begrudge you that; just do it in America or Canada or Australia, not in Europe.
4. Rejecting all non-Europeans as white
This may be the most taboo thing for me to say, but I'm just gonna say it; I think certain non Europeans are white. In terms of appearance and culture. Middle Eastern Christians are my prime example. A Lebanese Christian who looks white, is white in my opinion. Yes there are genetic differences, but then groups like Greeks within Europe share more in common with Lebanese Christians than they do with, say, Swedes (although yes, a Greek shares more in common with a Swede than a Lebanese with a Swede).
Nevertheless, I think Lebanese Christians in America have shown that they can indeed be part of the "white" melting pot. I think they have a place within western society, and as part of the "white culture" in a new world context, particularly in Canada and the USA and places like Argentina as well.
I agree that anti racist is a codeword for anti white, that we must secure an existence for white children, that our race is beautiful and unique and must be preserved. I believe that the greatness of western civilization is not an abstract ideal, it comes from its people.
That being said.....
This is not a post to restate all that. This is a post to underscore the innate problems within the white nationalist movement. Why? Because if this movement is ever going to take off, whether on its own or within the larger context of right wing politics (combined with mens rights etc., the dark enlightenment), it needs to iron out some of its own internal contradictions, divisions and problems.
1. The lack of self determination for amerindians and Australian aboriginals
We have to address this issue. Of course it is unrealistic to give 8 million people control over all of Canada and the USA. Yes, white people built America, we built Canada and New Zealand and Australia and we built the good parts of Latin America too. We made these societies into what they are today, and we created these nations in our image.
But that being said, we cannot deny the amerindians, Australian aboriginals or Maoris the right to their own self determination without being hypocritical.
As I said, realistically, in a world with 7 billion people it'd be unreasonable to give entire continents to populations of 8 million (Native Americans in USA and Canada) or less than 1 million (aboriginal Australians). But should they have sovereign nations with their own borders, within these countries? Absolutely yes. No, we cannot turn the clock back to before 1492. If we were going to do that, then we'd also have to go back to before 1453, and give Turkey back to the Greeks and Armenians. We'd have to also make all the blacks leave the Caribbean and give those nations back to the few remaining Caribs.
But we absolutely should allow the indigenous peoples to have their own countries. I made a map of the borders in Canada; we could realistically give them the majority of the country. In America it'd be tougher; the four corners region and parts of South Dakota and most of Alaska seem to be the only viable places. In Australia you could give them most of the interior and even most of Western Australia north of Perth...basically, over 70% of the country.
In Latin America you could give amerindians (not mestizos, actual amerindians) Bolivia and Paraguay, and some of the central American countries (maybe Guatemala, southern Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua). Parts of Peru as well.
New Zealand being a small country would be hard to divide up but I'm sure it'd be manageable. Hawaii again is small, but who knows, it could be possible to allocate one or two islands as the nation of the indigenous Hawaiians.
Would they have a right to kick whites and other non-aboriginals out of these nations? Yes, I suppose so. But realistically I doubt they would, because they do love our money and our tax dollars.
2. One drop rule
The one drop rule is idiotic. I did a poll once of WN's, and it was split literally 50/50 as to whether people believe in this rule. It is literally the single most divisive factor in the white nationalist community. This rule has to go in order for whites to be united. It is unrealistic, it excludes about half of the world's white population or more. And quite frankly it does not reflect reality. Tiny amounts of Moorish, Native American, Mongol and Turk blood exist in huge amounts of the world's white population. If you want to say it's historically regrettable, then fine, but the fact is, it happened, and nothing can change that. These people identify as white European today, they embrace and follow European culture, they embrace white European identity and reject Moorish or Turk or whatever identity (except for the 1/16th Native American people who call themselves Natives....I don't call these people non-whites, I just call them idiots).
If you want to say that olive skinned Greeks and Italians don't belong in Sweden, that's fine, but then I'd also say that blonde haired pale skinned Swedes don't belong in Greece or Italy. Every European ethnicity belongs in their own countries, and whites from the new world of mixed white ethnicity who wish to live in Europe belong in whatever white country they are most genetically and/or linguistically similar to.
Either way the one drop rule must go. It is divisive and quite frankly it seems like a rule more useful to divide whites than to unite them. If I was an anti-white trying to sow discord amongst the white nationalist community, I would fall back on the one drop rule every single time. Defining who is white is a difficult task, and very subjective, but the one drop rule is an absurdly strict definition that has to go.
3. The idea of purging the gene pool of "race traitors"
By their definition of race traitor, anybody who has ever kissed or had sex with a non-white is eternally scarred, never to be allowed back into the fold again. Fact is, we have two problems here. Firstly, we live in a left wing society in which the media aggressively promotes race mixing, to the point where if you don't date non-whites, as a rule, you will be socially shunned by many of your peers for it.
Secondly, this movement needs all the numbers it can get, and automatically shutting out all those with a "checkered past" isn't the way to go. If they're gonna exclude everyone who's ever twerked along to a MTV rap video, good luck getting much of a support base.
Finally, there can be supporters of the white nationalist cause who don't necessarily abide by white nationalist principles themselves. Just because somebody marries an Asian doesn't mean that they can't support the idea of Europe as the white homeland, or America as a 90% white country.
I say everything has its place, and people who wish to marry other races should have a place for that too. I simply don't want that place to be Europe. And yes, within my hypothetical idea of Amerindian and Aboriginal Australian homeland nations, they would have every right to demand that the "blended humanity" shouldn't be a part of their ethnic homelands either. Also, there are many more moderate conservatives who may be open to marrying other races, while still agreeing that we let in too many immigrants. Their difference is that they'd say some individual non-white immigrants benefit our countries and embody our culture well, even if many do not, and even if we simply let in too many to assimilate them all. Some may argue that certain groups (ie East Asians) benefit our countries, while others (ie Africans) do not.
To those moderate conservatives who feel that way, I would say; your attitude and beliefs have relevance in places like Canada and the USA, but in Europe, our ethnic homeland, we require a more overtly ethno-national outlook. If you want to have your conservative mixed race family, I don't begrudge you that; just do it in America or Canada or Australia, not in Europe.
4. Rejecting all non-Europeans as white
This may be the most taboo thing for me to say, but I'm just gonna say it; I think certain non Europeans are white. In terms of appearance and culture. Middle Eastern Christians are my prime example. A Lebanese Christian who looks white, is white in my opinion. Yes there are genetic differences, but then groups like Greeks within Europe share more in common with Lebanese Christians than they do with, say, Swedes (although yes, a Greek shares more in common with a Swede than a Lebanese with a Swede).
Nevertheless, I think Lebanese Christians in America have shown that they can indeed be part of the "white" melting pot. I think they have a place within western society, and as part of the "white culture" in a new world context, particularly in Canada and the USA and places like Argentina as well.
On nationalism and the right to self determination
I believe all peoples fundamentally have the right to self determination. This raises the question, what is a people, and what is self determination?
The latter question is much easier to address. Generally speaking, self determination is nationhood. Some people may feel that an autonomous region within a larger country (ie Quebec) is an acceptable level of nationhood (ie Quebecois federalists) while others (ie Quebecois seperatists) feel that anything short of nationhood is unacceptable. I am leaving the question of autonomy within a larger nation as a grey area. I think the big question is, is the larger nation respecting the autonomous region's right to self determination? In Quebec's case I believe Canada mostly does respect this (you can argue that mass immigration goes against Quebec's right to self determination, but Quebec has more control over its own immigration than English Canada does, and the PQ has never announced any motive to stop mass immigration). We allow Quebec to have language laws and even religious symbols laws that the rest of Canada does not have. However, when you look at an example like Kurdistan or Tibet, clearly these people do not have self determination in any way whatsoever.
So, in theory, a people can have an autonomous nation within a larger national entity, but in practice, a seperate country is often needed.
I believe most squabbling over things like Scottish or Catalan seperatism ignore the much bigger issue. Europe as a whole has no self determination. They are held hostage to the whim of the elites in the EU who wish to make Europe a multicultural state full of blended brown and black humanity. Ultimately the arguing and bickering over Scotland and Catalonia is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and Europe is the sinking ship.
The elites of the EU will not allow the European people self determination. Studies show the majority of Europeans in every major country except Sweden are against mass immigration, and Sweden is so brainwashed that their opinions cannot be taken as those of independent-minded human beings but rather as an ideologically-occupied state that needs to be liberated from the clutches of their elite-controlled media and educational system.
The fact is, there is a myriad of proof that race is linked to genetic factors like IQ. But ultimately that isn't the point. The point is, every nation deserves self determination.
That includes Native Americans too, and yes I do favor carving out sovereign states for them. I would willingly give them over half of Canada even.
Now this goes back to the original question, how large and distinct must a group of people be to deserve self determination? There is no easy answer to this, but I would say typically 5 million is the population threshold I would use, and I would say there must be a distinct linguistic, cultural and/or racial identity.
This definition is of course open to plenty of debate but I would say that'd be a reasonable point to start out from. Certain extremely distinct groups like Australian aborigines could still constitute a nation with under 5 million people. I am still in favor of the continued existence of nations under 5 million; this is simply a general rule of thumb.
The latter question is much easier to address. Generally speaking, self determination is nationhood. Some people may feel that an autonomous region within a larger country (ie Quebec) is an acceptable level of nationhood (ie Quebecois federalists) while others (ie Quebecois seperatists) feel that anything short of nationhood is unacceptable. I am leaving the question of autonomy within a larger nation as a grey area. I think the big question is, is the larger nation respecting the autonomous region's right to self determination? In Quebec's case I believe Canada mostly does respect this (you can argue that mass immigration goes against Quebec's right to self determination, but Quebec has more control over its own immigration than English Canada does, and the PQ has never announced any motive to stop mass immigration). We allow Quebec to have language laws and even religious symbols laws that the rest of Canada does not have. However, when you look at an example like Kurdistan or Tibet, clearly these people do not have self determination in any way whatsoever.
So, in theory, a people can have an autonomous nation within a larger national entity, but in practice, a seperate country is often needed.
I believe most squabbling over things like Scottish or Catalan seperatism ignore the much bigger issue. Europe as a whole has no self determination. They are held hostage to the whim of the elites in the EU who wish to make Europe a multicultural state full of blended brown and black humanity. Ultimately the arguing and bickering over Scotland and Catalonia is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and Europe is the sinking ship.
The elites of the EU will not allow the European people self determination. Studies show the majority of Europeans in every major country except Sweden are against mass immigration, and Sweden is so brainwashed that their opinions cannot be taken as those of independent-minded human beings but rather as an ideologically-occupied state that needs to be liberated from the clutches of their elite-controlled media and educational system.
The fact is, there is a myriad of proof that race is linked to genetic factors like IQ. But ultimately that isn't the point. The point is, every nation deserves self determination.
That includes Native Americans too, and yes I do favor carving out sovereign states for them. I would willingly give them over half of Canada even.
Now this goes back to the original question, how large and distinct must a group of people be to deserve self determination? There is no easy answer to this, but I would say typically 5 million is the population threshold I would use, and I would say there must be a distinct linguistic, cultural and/or racial identity.
This definition is of course open to plenty of debate but I would say that'd be a reasonable point to start out from. Certain extremely distinct groups like Australian aborigines could still constitute a nation with under 5 million people. I am still in favor of the continued existence of nations under 5 million; this is simply a general rule of thumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)