MECHA Regional Map of the US
Having watched the video of Jamie Kelso’s experience at the CPAC, I was struck by Mr. Kelso’s insistence on the right of White people to control their traditional homelands. I believe the main reasons why he failed to make headway with his propositionist challengers is that he was attempting to win an ontological argument about race with abstract logic, when beliefs about race (like religion)—not despite, but because they are ontological—are singularly impervious to reason. There is nothing Mr. Kelso could have said that would have persuaded his opponents. There are things he could have done, but more on that later. Firstly, I would like to contradict Mr. Kelso and state that, no, presently White people neither have the right to exist nor the right to control their traditional homelands. We had that right in the past, but not anymore.
Concepts like rights are meaningless without force, or at least the willingness to use force. An abstract code of law, perhaps even morality, may grant people any number of rights; but in practice, it is the possession and unfettered use of overwhelming might that makes rights, not the other way around. This is why the American Indians have no right to claim possession of United States: it is not that the European settlers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century proved in a court of law that the former too were immigrants, or that they demonstrated that Europoids had inhabited the region before the American Indians’ ancestors immigrated from Siberia. None of this was even known at the time, and certainly the European settlers would not have cared if it had been. The American Indians were simply unable to match the technological and organisational might of the European colonists, and their constitution was also weak in the face of alcohol and newly introduced European viruses.
Much is made in our circles of the lack of rights for Whites in modern South Africa. Whites once enjoyed superior force in relation to the Bantu Blacks that comprised the majority of the population there. Then the Whites decided to cease their use of force and hand over their country to the Bantus. The Bantu, armed with their numbers and the White man’s weapons and state apparatus, seized the opportunity to use force against their former masters, many of whom subsequently deemed it safer to emigrate (a great number of them now reside in their ancestral homeland in Britain). Yet the Bantu are not indigenous to the region: they came originally from what we call Cameroon and arrived in Southern Africa in the fourth century—that means they were still relatively recent arrivals when the White man came. The much older tribes, the San people, whose presence in Southern Africa goes back some 10-22,000 years, remain more or less rightless under Bantu domination, much as they were before (see my TOO article, Deconstruction: I Know How to Do It Too).
When it comes to rights, therefore, we must for all practical purposes treat them as inextricably bound up with force, and when it comes to force, it is a case either use it, or lose it.
At the CPAC event Mr. Kelso was on stronger ground when he pointed out that the United States belonged to White Americans because the latter built the country. Not to be pedantic, but I would further point out that White Americans not only built it, but also conceived and created it. There was no United States in the North American continent before the White man arrived, and there would be no United States now had the White man not successfully colonised and organised the region in his own image. Had the White man remained oblivious of the existence of the continent we call America (even the name is ours), no nation states would exist there today; indeed, small parts of the continent would be controlled by mostly pre-historical tribes, isolated by large swathes of uninhabited space.
For similar reasons, we cannot consider the Blacks in the United States to have “as much right” to the country as the Whites. Blacks made up a small percentage of the historical American nation, and for whatever reasons, the economic output of Blacks on average has been vastly inferior to that of Whites. Indeed, in the contemporary United States Blacks cost more than they produce on the whole—particularly when we consider the cost of violent crime and welfare recipience, where they are disproportionately represented.
I do not say this to humiliate Blacks in the United States; I say it because it has become a trope of postmodern times for many Whites to repeat the liberal mantra that Blacks have “as much right as Whites or anybody else” to claim ownership of the country, and because implementing this idea will ultimately lead to the destruction of both the United States and the Whites who still sustain its existence.
Yes, some Whites from centuries ago can be blamed for creating a multiracial society through their purchasing of Black slaves. And, yes, a number of other Whites since then can be blamed for not adequately rectifying the situation once the slaves were emancipated. There was once a movement to have the former Black slaves sent back to Africa, and, indeed, Liberia was created for this purpose. Alas, most of the funding and support favoured the movement for integration, and White Americans ended up with the fractured society that they have today, presided over by a Black man.
Yet, past policy mistakes, egregious as they were, do not negate the fact that the United States was conceived, created, built, and organised by the White man: it is in every regard the White man’s creation, not the African’s or the Amerindian’s. It has also been defaced by foreign elements, but it is still, even if decreasingly, a White man’s country.
An interesting mental exercise would be to imagine that Whites in the United States decided to abandon the continent and return to their ancestral homelands in Europe, taking with them, or else dismantling, everything that their ancestors built over the past four hundred years. Would we see a global superpower rise in the region, controlled by Blacks, Mulattoes, and Mestizos, and Amerindians by 2,400? Haiti, which over two centuries years ago was left with much of the infrastructure that was built by the French does not provide an encouraging precedent: rather than half way there, they have regressed and stabilized at a lower economic and ecologic niche, more in line with Sub-Saharan Africa than with modern France. Even though only much less time has elapsed, former White countries like Rhodesia and South Africa are clearly headed in a similar direction.
Turning now to what Jamie Kelso may have done, he was clearly at a disadvantage being the sole proponent of White rights and White interests at the CPAC conference. Eventually, faced with the solid opposition and hermetically sealed minds of the abstract propositionists, he opted for a tactical retreat. I suggest it would have been different if he had arrived accompanied by thirty to fifty well-dressed, good-looking, educated, articulate, tall race realists—young Jared Taylors, in effect, some of whom were also members of CPAC. His opponents may have attempted to engage in an argument, but it is easy to imagine that they would have been overwhelmed by such forceful opposition: not just because of the opposition’s looks or numbers, but because the opposition’s arguments enjoyed forceful physical and semiotic backing. It is likely that the propositionists would have become frustrated and resorted to epithets before withdrawing to grumble among themselves, and congratulate each other on their moral superiority . . . in retreat. It is also likely, given the human tendency to jump on bandwagons and respond to physical attractiveness and formidability, that the sheer force of numbers would have compelled some to adopt a more open-minded attitude, and even make concessions. Had they seen that there is wide-spread support for the position Mr. Kelso tried to argue, it is easy to imagine that some may have reconsidered their anti-Whiteness, and come to see the White rights position as alternative rather than immoral. With enough confrontations of this nature, some, perhaps glad to be liberated from PC, would have embraced the alternative position, and become acerbic critics of their former co-ideologues. We have seen this process wherever there has been a regime change.
Needless to say that scoring victories of this kind will require forward planning and organising, as well as an acute awareness of the fact that, ultimately, it is force, the appearance of force, or the threat of force, whether muscular or psychological, physically manifest or semiotically sublimated, that in practical terms validates or invalidates any claims to rights. At the moment, the claim to White rights remains invalid, because a great number of Whites remain unwilling forcefully to defend the rights earned by their ancestors, and because a powerful minority of Whites are actively ceding those rights or colluding with foreign ethnic elements in their sale for personal profit or advancement.
This is clearly because the rights accrued over generations have created the illusion that our power and our rights are eternal—“inalienable”, as the early English colonists used to say. Although Whites have been in retreat for nearly a century now, the sheer magnitude of the power accumulated over the centuries, plus half a century of relatively uninterrupted peace and economic prosperity, instills a sense of complacent omnipotence—the kind of confidence that makes possible indulgence in luxuries like liberalism, universalism, and feelings of racial guilt. Normally it will take a severe rupture to shatter such confidence, and awaken Whites to the need actively to look after their racial interests. But our current establishment is well aware of this, and, accordingly, pursue a strategy of incrementalism, false consciouness, and managed decline. Thus the crisis needs to be precipitated—precipitated semiotically so that it may occur intellectually.
Backing logical arguments with an attractive and formidable presence at events like CPAC’s may be one way to achieve this on that class of battleground.
Facing the Future as a Minority
You seem to be saying that a nationalist movement needs lots of young high quality people before it can have the credibility to lots of recruit young high quality people!
It’s the old story – nothing succeeds like success. But I think Kelso would say the point is that it is very difficult to recruit young high quality people. Those are the ones who would be making the greatest sacrifices in joining a nationalist organization.
Jared Taylor is effective because he has good arguments and can put them across. He understands that there are some things that white people will not contemplate doing and that it is counterproductive to advocate them.
Taylor’s conferences used to be broadcast on CNN. Now – they are routed 2 years in a row. This year’s routing was with his assistance, as he didn’t really want to sign with a willing lodging. He did have a lot of Jews present, proportionally, vs young attractive Whites – so I guess that’s his idea of success.
Everyone here is a dissident. Everyone here confuses discussion of news and jews with activism. Everyone here is wasting precious time.
Dissidents who want to DO something have a toolbox full of the most effective weapons on the planet It’s here: http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/audio/ridingshotgun6.mp3
Interesting link Protocols, worth listening too. I don’t we are all wasting our time here though … after all we got your link here. :)
One of the problems with Kurtagic’s rhetoric is that he says “might makes right”, yet he emphasizes right, not might. He claims that “it’s not the arguments” (it’s all about semiotics) yet he calls for “logical arguments” and discussions a la Kelso. Confusing. One would think that a “hardliner” like Kurtagic would judge Kelso’s “discussion club”-attempt as ridiculously ineffective.
Kurtagic’s way:-
Influencing the perceptions of the mainstream in that way would require a lot more credibility than nationalism currently possesses. It all boils down to a need for nationalists to gain credibility.
I for one was delighted with the concepts forwarded by Mr Kurtagic. It doesn seem like the whites made to look bad in social settings are outnumbered and rather poorly presenting themselves. As evidenced by the Tea Party, group cohesiveness promtes bolder action by the soldiers, and longer lasting consciousness. It helps gird the emotional desire to defend or even fight, rather than retreat.
The logical fallacy in all of these dreamer-like attempts at reasoning and writing our way back to power, is that no matter what combination of words is presented, those who currently hold power over this world – International Finance Jewry – WILL NOT cede their position willingly.
Two very broad chimerical leaps must be made to believe:
A.) The ‘diebold democracy’ is valid, and
B.) This supposed 65% white remaining majority in the US could espouse the anti-authority message, since all of us here have clearly established who the authority is, with all of their omnipotent media control and influence to make sure the majority of people not willing to risk everything go their way in their ‘democracy’ (including white majority).
And if someone doesn’t have the foresight to see that this is no actual democracy, and actually the strongest authoritarian rule the world has ever seen when you consider who the real power is (the small clique of international money usurers who are in fact ultra-national), that is their problem.
Good luck getting the 65% ‘white majority’ to swallow that whole and accept it, let alone understand it. After that, good luck proving all of them voted our way.
You have only the freedom you win through force and you must remain strong so you can keep your freedom. Blacks have only the freedom White people say they have since they and jews and others can’t defend their freedoms.
When Whites are outnumbered it might be a different story.
You and Kurtagic are so right. Arguments about “rights” can only influence the ignorant and gullible. No one has any natural right to even exist. “Rights” are only won and held through power.
Interview with Jared Taylor. I think his parallel with “familists” is an excellent argument.
Half of Jared Taylor’s invitees, at the “sucessful/unsuccessful” (WTF does that even mean? I thought Taylor was this paragon of expression, and language) private little confab go to the same synagogue as the Banking Elite.
Stop defending that JERK. He hates MacDonald, ya know.
I wouldn’t abandon hope yet. I would say the young political activists Kelso interrogated are reluctant to abandon the ‘moral high ground’ for a like-to-like fight with the likes of Farrakhan. We could agree with them that to do so is a major strategic shift with fundamental consequences for political rhetoric and voter appeal. Perhaps ethnic rights could be added to, rather than replacing, other political agendas.
Incidentally, looks aren’t everything in politics, though they count for something.
@Lancashire lad
Wish I knew what you wrote.
The CPAC kids first need to hear people speak in their white voice in a white-centric way. When they hear that often enough, it will break through as a positive model.
Arguments based on public policy, history, and existential threats have to come after that just to be heard.
Speaking in a white voice in a white-centric way is simplicity itself, and it works to boost newbies into the first ring of understanding. Otherwise, all the arguments and issues in the world pass right over their heads…..they literally have no categories or classifications in their heads to discuss these issues.
It is surprising that “rings of knowledge” is not a popular concept here. Obviously, newbies need very basic info. Then they can advance to more profound info, and so on. We don’t feed babies steak tartare or give them vodka to drink…why would we think newbies or CPAC attendees can chew on the kinds of issues that posters here are familiar with?
First of all, I have much respect for Jamie Kelso for taking a stand like this. But what could be done differently next time? Here’s my observation:
His message “we (whites) have interests” fail to come across because he is trying to mobilise a group his adversaries does not see themselves as members of. He could as well stated “people that like to sing in the shower have interests”. You cannot appeal to non members. They are non members, because they don’t see themself as part of a group. What you can do however, is to sell membership!
So how does one sell membership? By saying white girls should have more babies? No. Memberships are sold by informing people about the benefits of being a member. But what are our benefits? Why should people choose to see themselves as part of an exclusive white group instead of simply a group of various heritage open to everyone? What does our group have to offer that others don’t?
Here is my main points:
- genetical differences can explain differences in culture. If you change the genetic input, you will change the culture. If you like the culture, don’t change the input.
- Your forefathers shaped your culture to best fit their needs and nature. If you are like your forefathers, it will probably fit you just as well.
- I am not talking about IQ here, there are other more important behavioral factors to consider. Prof. Kevin MacDonald has an excellent article on this:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Individualism-Collectivism.html
- Altruism is phenotype biased. Fact. Should we be less altruistic towards people of other heritage? I think not. Can culture overcome such bias? Of course! But when are you most in need of help? In a situation where impulses are controlled by cultural factors or in a situation of distress and panic? Why are racial identity more important in prison than on wall street?
Try it next time, see if it makes a different inpact.
That’s a great post. We need to all get brushed up on these talking points and use them in conversation and online discussions. Get this new way of talking about the issue out there.
It has several advantages:
1. It’s true.
2. It’s in scientific language which confers authority.
3. It’s new and makes the other person have to think.
4. People won’t know how to respond if they disagree.
5. It makes the advocate sound educated.
Feu d’enfer, interesting points.
White liberals are “high” off of presumed moral righteousness, and are humiliated by the thought of being “racist,” politically incorrect, etc. So the first thing to start them off with is an accusation that they are trying to turn all people into “white liberals just like themselves.”
In their moral arrogance, white liberals believe everyone else is just like them, that everyone wants to convert to their politics, and their morality. Draw a specific link with the missionaries of the past, etc. Ask them if they have a right to impose their culture on everyone, and if they are really so arrogant as to believe all other ethnicities are just like them.
In other words – accuse them of being White, and holding White interests. It breaks down the objections, and they become submissive, like they do to their liberal thought police, when caught “acting white.”
Then, absolve them – it’s ok that you’re white. You don’t have to try to make everyone else like you. People are unique, including white people, and so forth.
It works.
“rights are meaningless without force or the willingness to use force.” I completely disagree. “rights” establish themselves thru the political process. Decades of agitation have preceded things like Abolition, Temperance/Prohibition, women’s suffrage, union collective-bargaining rights won in 1935 (Wagner Act) and the 8 hour day and more labor victories, the the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s culminating in Brown v Board of Education (1954???) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the jew and liberal 40 year campaign culminating in the 1965 Immigration Act.
Have my degrees in Political Science been useless? Then, the Long March Thru the Institutions begun about 1970 finally culminated in the take-over of the universities, etc. by about 1990.
The continued “argument” for “force” for our movement…I gotta say, it is totally absurd, useless, counter-productive and psychologically juvenile.
We are starting to Win…right now! Any use of “force” will scare the hell out of Europeans and American Whites. It is an absurd argument from start to finish, espec since we have no batallions, nevermind divisions per the remark (Napoleon?) asking how many divisions the Pope had.
European anti-immigrant and ultimately racialist movements are gaining fast in elections. Do I have to remind folks of how national socialism came to power? The US is morphing as we speak, polarizing, racializing, with the HQ (hatred quotients on the rise). Self-confessed conservataives are twice as large as self-confessed liberals, and the independents are swinging to the right. This is spectacular.
Btw, Kelso trying to persuade more or less intellectual and college educated conservatives , who are really just right-wing liberals, and failing, is no big deal. Our people , most of whom have not gone to college, are out there and they ARE thinking or feeling. They don’t like blacks, mexers, New York City! (jews) Obongo, Congress, the whole damned lot of both Dems and Republicans….hence the Tea Party. And there will be more, even with an economic recovery because joblessness will remain high and mexers will be perceived as driving down wages and taking White (and Black) jobs, and the fiscal crisis of the state(s) means more and more cuts for White Americans’s school kids, as well as the blacksandbrowns…and this will bring these savages into the streets….it is great!!
Let the blacksandbrowns (and the fat public employee unions) do the forcing…and see where that gets them. This country is going to swing so far right that in 5 years….we will not believe what happened.
Force? I gotta say, grow up. Joe
Joe, we have to make sure we understand the difference between force and power. I agree that at this point the threat of violence frightens people. But neither at this point will voting accomplish anything. Immigration has created a huge fifth column who will always vote against us even if we have an otherwise viable candidate, which in it’s self is currently practically impossible.
Elections run on money. Clearly the jews presently have a lock on that and no candidate favorable to us is even going to get nominated. We lost power because too many of our people in the past hundred years have been gullible and trusting; they allowed themselves to get sidetracked with other issues and put into office people like the Roosevelts and Wilson. I also include people like Eisenhower and the Bush twins who absolutely scammed people with their pretensions of conservatism while they were actually anything but.
Political power allowed things to get to the point they did at Little Rock; when the crisis point came then, actual force was used not to preserve our dominance but to destroy it. Furthermore, if even now we had the power to create a revolution here it would soon be put down by the rest of the world, many of whom would like nothing better than sending their armies here. Indeed I am very much afraid that some of these people who work to destroy government may have exactly that in mind.
So our position is indeed precarious, and time is not on our side. I see nothing other than education as hope for us; we have to get our people to understand how and why we lost power and what is going to happen if we don’t get it back.
Joe
It was Stalin and not Napoleon but I am not sure it makes any difference!
The only thing that will save the USA in the short term is total bankruptcy brought on by a total war fought on behalf of Israel. When the full consequences of the Faustian pact are experienced by a big enough proportion of the population with the most to lose, then there will be a change. Either way, violence will be involved I’m afraid to say. I wish it were not the case. As Shakespeare notes in his tragedies evil tends to burn itself out by Act V. It’s the destruction in Acts II, III and IV which is the scary part.
@ Joe Webb
Never make threats you can’t keep. Kurtagic & others needs to learn that fact of political life. LOL.
Here is an example of how to lobby, by Johnson of the A3P. This is how the pro’s do it. Simple and to the point:
http://american3p.org/american-voice/chairmans-message-lobbying-for-white-interests-at-the-highest-levels-of-american-leadership/
The only thing that will save the USA in the short term is total bankruptcy brought on by a total war fought on behalf of Israel.
Not sure if I agree. If true, your viewpoint would imply that it would be logical to vote Palin in 2012, a very disturbing thought.
As Shakespeare notes in his tragedies evil tends to burn itself out by Act V. It’s the destruction in Acts II, III and IV which is the scary part.
Excellent analogy.
Newsflash!
Jamie Kelso, inventor of the “Loughner’s mother and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords attend the same synagogue” fable, repeats the same tactical mistakes racial conservatives have made for the past 50 years and blows it with CPAC kids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX8ZtykZLTk
Extremist Alex Kurtagic writing for TOO, now seeks 30-50 square-jawed Tony Robbins look-alikes in suits to win over the CPAC kiddies next time.
“Might makes right,” says Kurtagic. “Some of these kiddies might ‘reconsider’ their opposition to racialism if confronted by these numbers.”
Some people, however, beg to differ.
“We’re confident that a minimal police presence would ‘persuade’ Kurtagic’s little army of suited thugs that they are not wanted here,” said Al Cardenas, CPAC Chairman.
—–
Kurtagic should stay with fiction.
What The H? Are you saying CPAC has already responded to this article?
What source do you have on this?
I would remind folks of Edmund Burke’s line about the Rights of Man versus “his due as an Englishman.” The Rights of an Englishman were constructed over a period at least a thousand years old. “Organic” is the word for the development of and idea and a feeling that has been filtered and refined thru many, many generations and achieved the rank of “the opinion of mankind (Aristotle).
The liberal Opinion of Mankind today is very thinly distributed and only deeply held by only several million Intellectuals in Europe and the N. America. The majority of Whites and most non-Whites do not believe this nonsense of abstract “rights of Man”. The blacks and browns lack the intelligence to conceive of the rights of man, and if they mouthe it, it is only an opportunistic con of Whites.
Yes, White Liberalism (Whites as the only race to have dreampt up LIberalism) is relatively strong right now but on the defensive, politically, somewhat intellectually (Merkel, etc in Eruope), and electorally. Immigration is going to bury LIberalism and if we don’t do something stupid and juvenile , we can help throw dirt on LIberalism’s grave. However, we will not be the primary grave-diggers, The real grave-diggers will be ordinary Americans and European who VOTE.
IF you want to get real melodramatic, and talk about the Ruling Class, the Power Elite, the Trilateral Commission and its subalterns, then ….I ask you this: Are they more interested is salvaging their money and status, or are they going to side with the nigger-lovers and commies, and finally , Jews? Joe
hear, hear!
Conservativism and Liberalism are two sides of the same Enlightenment coin. One always has the tendency to fold into the other.
In fact, the period in cultural history known as the Enlightenment is the virual breeding ground of complacent omnipotence, to use Kurtagic’s superb phrase.
Whites are the classic example of a people who well over two hundred years ago, a blip on the screen of biological time, created a metaphysic, a belief system, that positively encouraged resting on one’s laurels. With predictable, and rather disagreeable, consequences.
Conservatives say the lion has claws and should use them whenever he wants.
The Liberal says no and eventually convinces the Conservative that he’s right.
Once the Conservative stops using violence then the Liberal says, “Well, in that case, why have claws at all?”
The lion is soon declawed and THEN the Liberal, still high on moral pomposity, begins to invite his enemies into his house. Soon after that it’s all over, for everyone.
Obviously, the best form of leadership in this case is a lion with claws who knows how and when to use them but doesn’t. What he does do is protect those who are both productive and dynamic.
what does “complacent omnipotence” mean? It sounds pretty unclear to my ears. Liberalism has been anything but complacent over the last couple centuries. Especially the communist variant of Liberalism which took Liberalism’s catechism and took it to its logical conclusion. Yes, there are problems with that last sentence, but overall it is true. The laws of the USSR formally articulated Liberalism’s liberties, except for the Leninist Party, and so on.
A better word than omnipotence for what I guess Kurtagic is reaching for is hegemony. The Left understood that very well after Gramsci cleared the intellectual decks of some of the claptrap of classic Stalinism.
In this regard, it is not Force, but Consent that ultimately wins out, and the Left’s Long March thru the Institutions is exactly what intellectual hegemony means.
Our job is NOT necessarily to reprize a Long March. We don’t have to do that because, besides there being not enough time to do that, what the Left loved to call the Masses, are massing to overthrow the Left , regardless of our own efforts. What our role is is at least this: don’t queer the deal with very stupid “force”, and 2, keep at it with our writing/educating, and, 3, do what is in front of you with regard to local politics, Tea Party, the Republican Party, etc.
Time is amazingly on our side now, as opposed to say, 30 years ago. Intellectual hegemony is not going to happen for us now, maybe later. But political hegemony is near. Because biology , the fiscal crisis of the State and immigration blues and war weariness are what is happening….things look better than they ever have.
As I have confessed before, I was an anti-communist leftie for a long time. I am 69 and have observed matters….we are starting to win, and that win will only be delayed if anybody starts acting out their frustrations or adolescent fantasies. Joe
I think all many of you are saying is that rights, absent the rule of law backed by force, will be trampled upon by those working in their own self interest.
That doesn’t mean that we should all be nihilists and say that rights are meaningless or unnecessary. Natural law, even as understood by the Founders and by Christian thinkers before them was always understood to be a normative concept. They all believed that a state could exist outside of natural law. (indeed, criticisms of their own states encouraged much of their writings)
We need a clear and realistic definition of natural law. In our pre-scientific past the term was used in a lot of nonsense ways. Properly used, natural laws are the laws of physics which determine everything which happens in the universe; nothing CAN happen which is not by natural law. To think otherwise is to resort to some form of voodoo. There are no “rights” other than the completely amoral operation of the laws. Those laws can be used to create “rights” only if one first has the power to do so. And they can just as easily be taken away by them.
What do you mean? Jews could just as easily say they are operating by natural law in that they are breaking us economically, demographically, and spiritually through the instrumentalities of our own society.
But at some level, there must be an accounting for values. Though you are correct that natural law should be in harmony with scientific knowledge, this has to come from ‘nonsense ways.’
For example, lets say we are talking about whether people have a right not to face cruel and unusual punishment. Well, we can look to evolutionary psychology and determine whether rehabilitation is really possible, and we can look to whether deterrence works–and these factors can help determine what is ‘cruel and unusual.’ However, ultimately, it depends on what kind of society we WANT to have.
rule of law is not “backed by force.” Law means consent of most of the folks in a body politic. Of course there are sanctions for refusing to obey the law. Otherwise, anarchy obtains. The Force that is getting bandied about in this thread is violence. Joe
There are no “rights” other than the completely amoral operation of the laws. Those laws can be used to create “rights” only if one first has the power to do so.
Many people in history have propounded the idea of certain rights existing while having no power to enforce them.
Only AFTER the rights were believed in by a large enough group of people were actions taken to secure the power needed to enforce these rights.
This whole idea that power must exist before rights is false.
Rather it is the case that rights cannot be enforced in the temporal realm without power.
Also saying that rights don’t exist is naïve. It’s like saying that the Christian God doesn’t exist.
Even if the Christian God doesn’t exist outside the Universe, he exists inside people’s heads and has an effect on the real world through this fact.
Saying rights are non-existent is like saying Odysseus is non-existent.
Whether Odysseus existed or not, people went through the trouble of creating a mimesis of his existence and this mimesis had a profound impact on the development of Greek and ultimately Western Civilization.
In the same way the idea of rights has had a profound impact on reality, whether they’re based on a fictional premise or not.
As far as white people not belonging in North America, the open-borders forces over in Europe don’t seem at all slowed down by not being able to use that argument to disposes whites in their European homeland.
That is a good point about presentation and setting. It could also be wondered if the pack mentality was partly to make sure that their gathering was not sullied by such talk and ideas that could eventually reach the press or their other detractors. Maybe they thought of themselves as representing the entire event.
I have heard it said that white liberals are actively knowingly working for the destruction of white people and the West. The other theory is that these people cannot imagine whites and the West ever falling, seeing whites as so powerful that only a small dent could be put in their armor. Of course there must be both types. But I do agree that the second explanation is probably more likely, as absurd as that seems. They must be blind to what is going on all around them. But I guess that would be yet another example of nothing being able to get between a man and what he wants to believe.
Party politics speaking, one of the things that I have been appreciating so far about American Third Position is that it calmly and matter-of-factly presents the desirability of white survival as a normal and healthy goal. I think that can stun people and make them straighten up and actually listen.
Has anything been won through semantic gerrymandering? Has anything been won without a struggle ? A struggle inexorably implies violence, intellectual violence ( civil rights campaigns) civic violence ( riots and vandalism) . Assertion of rights can be achieved through assertion of force. The system, the ruling elite is subjecting its subjects to a brutal violence of psychological and emotional terrorism ( i.e mass immigration without native consent; engaging in foreign forays without native consent; electoral fraud and elction circus shows every four years without any agenda other than that of the gradual dispossesion of the native ) . Without active militancy ( whites only civic marches; we want our country back, not in words but in deeds; ) we shall keep on wallowing in a sea of intelectual abstraction about regaining our former position of dominance. The ballot box will not return nor deliver our country back to its rightful owners.
You’re talking about force, Zenko, and the simple truth is that we don’t have it. You have to have political power_people and arms_before you can realistically talk about force.
militancy is good. demonstrations are good. But we cannot cross the line. Do you want to win, or just assert your narcissistic tendencies to demand I want it all and I want it now!…which was and is the SOP of most Left individuals.
Historically, Whites have had little trouble asserting various forms of power when the time came, as long as they,
1. Had the power and,
2. Were morally and ideologically prepared to use that power.
To me those are the most important issues, especially #2. We need to convince Whites that they are morally and socially entitled to promote their own interests and preserve their people. We need them to understand the value of White nations throughout history. We need them feel as entitled as any organism on earth to survive and prosper. If we accomplish that, all the rest will follow.
Barbara said:
“You have only the freedom you win through force and you must remain strong so you can keep your freedom.”
Barbara, I totally agree with you.
Still, I’m perplexed. When we saw the protesters in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya (at least early on) taking to the streets to overthrow their governments, almost none of them were carrying guns.
White Americans are THE most heavily armed civilian population in the world. I am NOT saying go out and start a war. I’m just pondering our profound timidity.
@Jim – I think that jews have perfected the way to win through psychological warfare and control of media and other major institutions which they buy their way into. Their methods have evolved over the centuries.
They control our elites who are the cowards. If the people were informed we’d take to the streets and there wouldn’t be any place on this Earth where jews would be safe.
jews learned that they have to control all media and propaganda machines such as movies, tv and even art so there is no chance for any patriot to get the truth to the masses.
They were driven out of every place they ever lived among us so they evolved. Russia was different and now they are doing to us what they did to Russians.
The public is armed with physical weapons but not with ideological weapons, facts or truth. We are propagandized from child hood and holocaust memorials pock mark our land.
jews are the terrorists because they keep everyone too terrorized to even speak the truth about things. They control every government on Earth just like they control ours. Even as our children die in war and we are destroyed our elites are too afraid to speak out.
Then others caution people such as myself that I”m not allowed to say anything because others will think of us as the KKK or maybe like stormtroopers or others who are looked upon with contempt at the same time evil zionists rule over us. As long as the least educated are the ones who speak out its easy to stigmatize any movement. The only way to solve that is for elites to explicitly join these people and remove the stigma but that would take courage.
There is no excuse for this because if we all joined together there are more of us than there are jews and we could defeat them. Imagine if all the senators joined together and stood up to the jew. Imagine if they passed laws to take money out of campaigns.
Its not the people who are at fault. We’re not cowards and we don’t sell out for their 40 pieces of silver.
Those who are shabbos goy come from Harvard, Yale and other ivy league schools and they end up in our gov and run our institutions and they sell us out to the jew.
I was raised a Southern Baptist and I remember Corrie Ten Boon, an old jew woman that we were taught had become Christian – but what she really was, was a jew who infiltrated our Christian churches so she could play the holocaust victim and propagandize innocent Christian children.
Its the same today with Anne Rice who pretended to return to her Catholic roots. Then went on tv and said that Christians should reject teachings about homosexuality and just do what is right. That makes Christian teachings meaningless as tho we have no right to live by the teachings of Christ. She called Christians evil, imagine going on tv and calling jews evil.
I emailed Rice and went round and round with her. I told her I didn’t know what she was up to but that I didn’t believe a jew like her was a Catholic. I told her since her vampire books were done she probably realized that people like Dan Brown could make money off Catholics so that was what she was trying to do.
Of course its all twisted because the fact is Jesus never said anything about queers, all the hatred of gays comes from the Old Testament. But its all about tearing us down, that’s what angers me, I’ve got no desire to defend Catholics or Baptists but I will when they’re attacked by jews.
I remember when my grandpa got us our first tv, way back in the 50s. I remember sitting on the living room rug and watching a drama on tv. There were these Christian people, they carried Bibles with them, a Father and his wife, their son and his wife – they kidnapped a woman and as the two men took her off into some woods to rape and kill her the two women remained in the car with their Bibles open and praying.
As a child I was shocked, bewildered and stunned. My innocent child mind could not understand how people could be so evil. I didn’t know and I guess neither did anyone else that this was jew propaganda against us, our culture, our religion, everything.
Imagine doing such things to our children. jews are the most despicable people god ever let live. Yet they whine about anti semitism. So what if people hate them? They’re evil creeps who do nothing but destroy and the only thing they have to replace the great White societies they destroy are chaos, continual war, revolution, disease, starvation and misery. I hope they burn in hell where I hope Corrie Ten Boon will be for eternity.
Every brave soul who has attempted to fight for our interests is demonized so that people won’t even touch them like they have leprosy.
Charles Lindebergh, David Duke, The Turner Diaries, McCarthy, Mel Gibson, even Jimmy Carter because he came up with the idea of a Palestinian homeland and tried to bring peace which would be good for America but not good for international jewry, the curse of the world.
How do you rid yourself once you’re stigmatized? People like Kevin M and Johnson say they know now they can never go back. Others have said the same, once you get branded and stigmatized there is no turning back. Not many people are willing to take that step even ones who will pick up a gun and risk their lives wont risk stigmatization. Imagine the courage it took for all these years to be David Duke and his only crime was telling the truth.
Nobody wanted to be him. So everybody projected as hard as they could against him and everything he stood for while proclaiming their great love and respect for the jew. The South enjoys the same stigma. Its ignored on the map above as tho it doesn’t exist or just doesnt matter. Its all right though, I’m used to it. The South has become the most multi cultural region in the nation. I guess it just doesn’t matter.
Athanasius
Jews ARE using natural law and they have used it far more effectively than we. Values are a purely subjective term which have not one whit more meaning than the power which backs them up. When you talk about standards on things like torture, again you are talking about subjective values. If you can talk about values which appeal to people and hence will help you gain power, then you are using natural law, to the extent that it works. Again, nothing CAN happen not within natural law; EVERYTHING which does happen IS within natural law.
Values are a purely subjective term which have not one whit more meaning than the power which backs them up.
I strongly disagree. If you were right, US Presidents would just threaten their citizens instead of bothering with arguments for why people should support or go along with this or that policy.
Obviously people are (partly) moral creatures. If you convince them that doing something is right, they’re a whole lot more likely to do it than if you fail to convince them it’s right.
Look what just happened in Egypt. The people rose up against the government because they believed it didn’t have moral authority, and this in spite of the fact that in standing up against Mubarak they risked their lives.
A fool would look at events in Egypt and conclude that what happened was due merely to Mubarak being too squeamish with the use of force against his own people, but this would be too simplistic.
When the people don’t value your rulership, it takes far more force to hold power.
In the case of Mubarak it would’ve took more force than his own army was willing to use.
Why wasn’t the army willing to use more force?
Because they didn’t think it was the morally right thing to do and/or because the people didn’t think it was the moral thing to do, and would’ve held it against the army.
Also it should be noted that Europeans are especially idealistic. It isn’t a coincidence that the first people to codify the idea of rulers having moral obligations to the ruled were Europeans like the Greeks (Athenian democracy, etc.), English (Magna Carta, etc.), and other examples.
And it should be noted that even Machiavelli took a far more moralized attitude toward politics than people give him credit for.
This kind of might makes right talk is alienating to the European-American masses.
Only the cynical and all too often bought off elite are going to be that open to it, and they have too much investment in the current system to be that likely to flip anyway.
Next year a group of WNs ought to attend CPAC with Kelso and “educate” these young “conservative” activists. Strength in numbers.
“educate” with threats? Are you thinking or feeling? Joe
Joe
You’re not really serious about law not being backed by force, are you? How many people right now would pay income tax without the threat of force? How many of us would sit back and allow the massive immigration? How many out there would follow the laws against theft and murder and rape?
Left free for centuries we might well come to a point where those values would be observed without force or threat of force. But in the current situation as it exists that isn’t a dream___it’s a nightmare.
What we need now is power. The jews are incredibly good at collecting power from an incredible array of sources; they always have people on both sides of any issue. There is a time for “values”. But for right now I think we take power from any source we can find, be it Christian or atheist or Moslem or devil-worshiper.
Excellent article. But Jamie tried. It is almost impossible to discuss race from a logical point of view. I wish Jamie had made the remark that people don’t come here for the soil. They come for the benefits of an advanced civilization.
When those folks gain the upper hand the infrastructure crumbles making a waste land of cities, towns and communities. Look at Detroit. Look at Southern California. Look at the city of Washington, D. C.
Educated Blacks do not go back to Black Communities and civilize them. Likewise the Hispanics. Educated Asians go for high paying White positions while the disadvantaged Asians form gangs. Is this what we want for a civilized nation…displacement, crime, dead inner cities, abandoned communities? How right and moral is that?
“…Thus the crisis needs to be precipitated—precipitated semiotically so that it may occur intellectually.”
A two by four up side the head (metaphor for white minority status and displacement) is indeed what will awaken most whites.
We can simulate that by NOT VOTING IN MASS.
If another 10% of the more racially concious whites threw the next two or three elections, the Jews would not be able to restrain their minority coalitions.
Thus the 60% of whites who are now oblivious would be confronted with racial reality NOW instead of in 2050.
So what ever kind of battle came out of THAT realization, it would happen when we are still a 60% majority.
The book that dare not be mentioned stated that it is good if a disaster comes upon a people suddenly rather than by the incrimental/fog in warming water scenario, because they will react before it is too late.
But besides not voting in the empires elections, we should form “shadow governments” and hold “shadow” elections, held among whites only. That’s to help get the idea across to our slower bretheren.
Pat Buchanan said America is looking more and more like the Weimar Republic. We should study that history.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/stark.htm
Also I recommend faem.com
But most of all, we need to start forming little local communities of racially conscious whites. A half dozen households in the same county would do.
Stormfront has about 200,000 members now. That means there must be one REALLY racially aware white in every thousand. That means there are likely 6 race conscious households within a 10 mile radius of where you are sitting now.
Go on stormfront, check out the activist section, and look for people like you under “regional and national”.
Everybody’s arguing about News and Jews. It leads NOWHERE.
This link has some of the most powerful tools in existence for dissidents who are activists, and want to move beyond “discussion”.
http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/audio/ridingshotgun6.mp3
“There is nothing Mr. Kelso could have said that would have persuaded his opponents.”
Why? How? Are you a prophet? A fatalist? A futilist? I have seen many Whites persuaded to alter their views, those with all kinds of predispositions, and in all kinds of situations. Was Jamie in some kind of Cosmic Stasis Zone on that day, impervious to word, thought, personal interaction or human influence?
“There are things he could have done, but more on that later.
Words are forms of doing/action, and often effective. Was he talking to statues? The fact is he probably actually did have an impact regardless of what shows on the video. The first time one strikes a pillar often nothing is seen, and one does not see the little cracks.
“Firstly, I would like to contradict Mr. Kelso and state that, no, presently White people neither have the right to exist nor the right to control their traditional homelands.
I don’t know where you are going with this statement. My first reaction is that it is some sort of sophisticated polemical ploy. However, simple and direct ideas are better for us at this time. I disagree with it. We do have that right. And we should claim, assert, and stand by that right.
“We had that right in the past, but not anymore.”
No, we still have it now, in the eyes of God and our ancestors, and we should assert it, claim it, expound it, elucitade it, and stand by it.
Enough cleverness, and enough devaluation of Jamie’s efforts. What he did was right, brave, and proper.
Well stated, Mr. Lee.
Whiteawake, laws are backed by the threat of fines and jail, and ultimately capital punishment. To deny this power of the state or community is to deny gravity its gravitons. Authority is what is at stake here. We want to gain Authority so that we make the rules, not our enemies.
I only hear libertarians talking about the ultimate violence underlying the state as very bad indeed. This complaint is rooted in a narcissism that claims that only I get to make the rules..This is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with violence or its threat when legitimately deployed. Otherwise, it is every man for himself. Surely, all White nationalists should see that. Every group has its rules. If one wants to be Free…then one moves to the cave and thereby violates his own nature…or part of it…which is the social nature of homo sapien sapiens. Hermits are free, and feral, not belonging to the Polis, or human community.
Thanks for the correction on Napoleon / Stalin, Buckle. I am glad to hear that ultimate cynicism came from Uncle Joe.
Btw, Whiteawake, of course we are talking about Power here…not the euphemism “force.” If one wants to talk violence and military activity, then please speak plain english and call it what it is.
Also, I noticed a sign from the Wisconsin labor unions protest. It had the pedigreed left-crazy clenched fist on it. I wince at that stuff. No White American is going to go for a clenched-fist- whomever is threatening with it.
We are in an intensively political time, a contest. And for the most part we have only a very small role to play. Our voice must remain calm and as dignified as we can make it. Europe and America have only a few years left to turn the political struggle our way. It will not be our place to have a significant role in it because of political conditons…propagandized minds, etc. However, for most Americans and Europeans, it will be “I’m not a racist, but…” That is all we need.
As I keep saying, Time is on our side, and let me add the best is yet to come.
If we lose the political struggle over the next few years, I suppose the guns will come out. They may come out before there is a definitive resolution of the contest. The way the thing works, we must Always be in a self-defense posture and never appear to be the violent ones, the haters, etc.
By the way, a few folks keep remarking the Jewish Power. Right. The Jewish Power was beaten in the last election. Money is not everything. The Jewish Power may be getting beat right now with regard to more wars for Israel…Defense Secretary Gates coming right out and saying there can be no more wars in the Middle East that we fight or pay for. The Jews are in trouble, and you young folks will get the chance to see it unravel over the next few years. Let them and the Left look real bad , not us. We need to look good, even if that costs us some martyrs….we need a couple martyrs anyway.
Let me finish my complaint department bit with a challenge to Kurtagic: Please speak plain English and leave your semiotics behind in Europe. Those kinds of words are , in part, what got us into this mess in the first place. Po-Mo is the last gasp of a dying LIberalism. Po-Mo is largely Jewish. Po-Mo is Paris-speak. We need White-speak.
Joe
Joe
You still don’t seem to get the distinction between political power and force. If you have the support to influence lawmakers, to win elections, ect., that is political power. It only becomes force when the actual cops and/or army is called out to impose it’s will on the citizens.
You’re the one who said laws aren’t backed by force. You can’t have it both ways, Joe.
More on Kurtagic.
read this again and see how much sense it makes to you, especially with regard to the deeply-seated propaganda that we have all been exposed to.
If anybody had tried this Kurtagic method on me he would have been in deep-shit.
Are these CPAC folks going to be “overwhelmed by such forceful opposition…and forceful and semiotic backing.” I think of Jewish Aggression in this regard. I Feel like my old 18 year-old self, (which I still am…lot of Viking Berzerker still in me) with my nostrils flairing to open the airways to prepare for physical battle…a fist in the face is the most likely outcome to this method recommended by Kurtagic, not the “concessions” and “openminded]ness]” and “bandwagon” effects he imagines.
Plain old anglo-saxon politeness is the way to persuade, not “semioitic backing,” whatever that means.
Speaking of Kelso at cpac:
“I suggest it would have been different if he had arrived accompanied by thirty to fifty well-dressed, good-looking, educated, articulate, tall race realists—young Jared Taylors, in effect, some of whom were also members of CPAC. His opponents may have attempted to engage in an argument, but it is easy to imagine that they would have been overwhelmed by such forceful opposition: not just because of the opposition’s looks or numbers, but because the opposition’s arguments enjoyed forceful physical and semiotic backing. It is likely that the propositionists would have become frustrated and resorted to epithets before withdrawing to grumble among themselves, and congratulate each other on their moral superiority . . . in retreat. It is also likely, given the human tendency to jump on bandwagons and respond to physical attractiveness and formidability, that the sheer force of numbers would have compelled some to adopt a more open-minded attitude, and even make concessions.”
The problem with the author is he is questioning the authority of history when its that history that Kelso should have pointed out. The problem here is that the Nationalist movement is still trying to find strong arguments that can carry some authority. You can never justify a Whites only America(European only). America’s history won’t allow that andthe civil war ended that debate.
Its much better to identify America based on its history. A European majority with an West African and Native American minority and seperate that America from the post 1965 immigration. Kelso and the author did not make the distinction between these two Americas but lumped post 1965 non Whites with African Americans and Native Americans. Post 1965 America has nothing to do with the identity or history or culture of America. It was promoted by mainly Jewish actvist who themselves have nothing to do with America’s history and culture. Without making that distinction any argument will fall.
In 1960 America was 90% Whites with ancestors of slaves and the native Americans representing the rest. America is not Europe and Nationalist should insist that the demographics of America should only include such demographic. It won’t be a Whites only country but it will remain a White majority.
Questioning that history by saying Blacks have no right to say they belong here is a losing argument. How Blacks talk and what they eat says otherwise. You can not explain how Blacks talk and what they eat and the names they have or even their social problems they have outside of the American historic experience. Grits and cornbread are as much America as apple pie. History can be an authority that arguments can be built around. For that Nationalist will have to make distinctions and make compromises but its way better than the way things are going now.
“The logical fallacy in all of these dreamer-like attempts at reasoning and writing our way back to power,
– Reasoning is good, speaking and writing are among the actions. And dreams are what inspire action and work. Don’t demean dreams. Their power was once their dream.
“is that no matter what combination of words is presented, those who currently hold power over this world – International Finance Jewry – WILL NOT cede their position willingly.”
The propagation of words and ideas gave them their power. Words, magical and powerful words, like “racist” and “anti-semite” and “nazi.” Lack of words (from informed free speakers) allowed that power to grow and get established. There is a reason most post anonymously here: Because they realize the power of words and that the power is threatened by them.
They’re power is likewise weakened by words and mass awareness, and mass awareness comes from words and communication. Just as our power was eroded, we erode their power by speaking. Just as their position was gained by speaking (influencing minds, propagandizing), their position is eroded by our speaking where no one spoke before.
Speaking and writing are not the ONLY actions, but there is no reason to demean those actions and to do so is self-defeating. Those who speak certain things at this time are among the bravest that there are. There is a reason, Mr. Z, that most post their views anonymously. They feel risk in doing so, because they know how much their mere speech does, indeed, threaten the powers.
Words, ideas, no-talk rules: That’s what took away our power and gave them theirs. To demean the value of speech and consciousness-raising at this time is unwise.
“Good luck getting the 65% ‘white majority’ to swallow that whole and accept it, let alone understand it.
Do you propose there is more chance of it if we don’t speak up, write, and post?
“After that, good luck proving all of them voted our way.”
Nothing like inspiration and positive thinking to inspire more action!
“Everybody’s arguing about News and Jews. It leads NOWHERE.
No, such discussion and posting leads to here:
– To greater awareness among Gentiles about the Jews, their influence, and their agenda.
And this is a critical development and essential place to get to. I’ve not seen a mass awareness growing in all my 53 years till just recently. So all this is leading somewhere. Not that it’s everything, or near to it.
I notice I’m suddenly on moderation. Is it because I criticized some things Alex Kurtagic wrote?
“I notice I’m suddenly on moderation. Is it because I criticized some things Alex Kurtagic wrote?”
If by moderation you mean that you’re getting some thumbs down, then no, I don’t believe you are.
If you’ll notice, almost all posts that have been around awhile have more or less the same amount of “negative” response (thumbs down) regardless of their content. I strongly suspect this is done by a few trolls who go around and give thumbs down to everything.
OK, I think I know what you’re talking about now – You post your comment and you get the “awaiting moderation” message. I get that now and then. I wonder if it isn’t just some sort of spam gaurd.
I think we have a petty saboteur on this site.
When comments are calm and reasonable and advocate calm and reason, they seem to get more negative ratings, which should only be for abuse. When comments call for not voting or tend to violence of speech or anything that might (if encouraged) eventually slide towards advocating violence, there is less “friction”. And negative ratings pile up on a daily basis.
In other words, it’s probably the same person or the same two people day after day, adding “abuse” down-ratings to comments that are most in harmony with the purpose and spirit of Occidental Observer till those comments are lost to sight, while letting float to the top whatever is counterproductive for our minority intellectual movement.
It’s an abuse of the tool given to us to shape the discussion. (As such, I think it’s a good example of non-physical aggression, and of using tools of discussion that are meant to aid in the pursuit of truth instead to fight for dominance – like complaining constantly to wear people down instead of to raise and solve real problems.)
I think the way to counter this is for everybody to systematically up-rate any reasonable comment that’s plainly not abuse but is being down-rated for abuse. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. The point is not to define who you are by what you like best but for us to protect each other’s right to comment reasonably and calmly in the Occidental Observer spirit and not be buried under a steady rain of false “abuse” down-ratings.
Yes, the more I see of this ratings system the less I like it and the more I distrust the whole thing. It smells badly of Skinnerian behavior reinforcement. Clearly means need to be available to handle abusers but I don’t think this system is it. I just noticed last night so many comments are hidden on one of the older threads it’s difficult to read.
I agree, way too many red thumbs. I mean not just my own posts, some of which have been argumentative, but perfectly straightforward posts are suddenly getting lots of thumbs down. I am going to green thumb anything decent for now, even I don’t agree with it, as long as it comes from a legit person or looks like a legit post.
I have liked the thumbs in the past, but if it used by the trolls/saboteurs against us, then maybe the act of banning is more effective. After Mr. L was banned, things are finally getting back to real conversations.
“I have liked the thumbs in the past, but if it used by the trolls/saboteurs against us, then maybe the act of banning is more effective.”
I understand your sentiment and reasoning, Jason, but I think the thumbs have been effective in keeping at least some of the perps away. Remember Nungman? Or how about DerWeibe Engle? I haven’t seen them around lately. True, some left before the rating system, but it may have discouraged them from coming back.
I personally think everyone should just count on getting 4 or 5 thumbs down on everything they post, then forget about the rating system and not take it personally. I don’t think it was really ever intended to be an actual rating system. Just troll control.
If some valid remarks by CONSISTENTLY valid contributors have been hidden, then we should make an effort at giving them thumbs up. Just my opinion.
Might find these interesting:
Will the White Race Survive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoKl47nK04M
Civil Rights for White People?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_3SHsMY76E
What Mr. Kelso did was such a small thing — in the face of all we SHOULD be doing — that critiquing it so prominently seems like the ship’s First Mate complaining about the cook’s last eggs-and-breakfast while pirates are boarding and a storm is blowing. It seems an over-analysis and over critiquing of one man’s small, heartfelt effort.
The last thing I want to do is pour ice water on our hopes in this current situation, but I’m compelled to do a little reality check here. For anyone who lived in the South during the 50′s and 60′s the apparent resistance now does not even come up to the level of a “tempest in a teapot”. Many, I believe most, of us actually favored a civil war if need be; it was just that having already been through that we had a better grasp on the realities of power. Nevertheless we lived day in and day out with the possibilities of war breaking out at just any time; it was a constant like the possibility of rain. Obviously there are a lot of things different now. But many of those changes are for the worst. We’ve lost 20% of our majority. Many, many, of our people, especially young people, have been lured into the socialist trap of welfare and race mixing.
By no means am I saying we shouldn’t keep up the fight. But let’s keep our feet on the ground too, and not get carried away into acting fools.
Whiteawake: “I just noticed last night so many comments are hidden on one of the older threads it’s difficult to read.”
I think that’s pleasing to whoever is doing this. We’re being attacked, in an extremely petty way.
Jason Speaks: “I am going to green thumb anything decent for now, even I don’t agree with it, as long as it comes from a legit person or looks like a legit post.”
Good.
To me this petty conflict illustrates the difference between the sort of person who does this, a person inclined to underhandedness and constant aggression at any level that’s convenient (likely out of an inherited predisposition to harm or pester others combined with a propensity to symbolic over physical means of mischief-making), and those of us who are here for the right reasons, studying and arguing for the sake of the White race, in a spirit of sincerity, constructiveness, reason and calm.
Reginald
I absolutely agree that belief in fictions can influence people’s behavior. But for clarity let’s understand that belief in a right with no power behind it is like a house plan without the materials and money to build it.
But strictly speaking I have a real problem with actions built on fiction; they’re dangerously undependable.
Whites no longer have the right to their own homelands because for the most part they are not willing to do what is necessary to keep them and in many cases both actively collaborate in their own dispossession and refuse to recognise the abovementioned right. It doesn’t have to be this way, but regaining the right is dependent on being willing and able to enforce it and this in turn is dependent on there being a consensus that makes that willingness to enforce possible.
The argument “whites have the right to a homeland” is weak in our present day context because it presupposes that rights have an existence independent of the consensus that is needed to make practical enforcement possible.
That consensus does not exist today. Only some Whites believe in the existence of such a right, and among them only some are willing to act in consequence. That is not a consensus: that is a minority view.
And ours has become a highly unconventional one.
When desiring to promote a highly unconventional view, it becomes necessary artificially to amplify the effect of one’s actions. One way to achieve this to design them for maximum psychological effect. Guerrilla marketing is predicated on this principle.
If Mr. Kelso’s opponents had seen that he was not alone in his position, that it enjoyed support among not a few young, intelligent, well-spoken guys just like them, guys who were also members of CPAC, then we would have seen a different video.
An extension of the idea that success breed ssuccess is the marketing idea that the appearance of success breed success. Marketers often rely on the illusion that “everyone is excited” about whatever they are selling to get everyone excited about it. That is what I mean by artificially precipitating a crisis.
And I mean crisis here in the broadest possible sense, which includes the type of artificial psychological crisis that made people queue in the freezing rain for hours in the middle of the night to get a copy of the newly released Harry Potter volume. It includes also, and is related to, the type of crisis that cause people to question their identity, their beliefs, their knowledge, and their associations. It is not just economic collapse and 911.
That is not a destructive devaluation of Mr. Kelso’s efforts, but a constructive evaluation of a common (but fallacious) argument, as well as an attempt to increase the effectiveness of debate-oriented activism.
I was hoping to see readers contributing their own ideas for effective new lines of argument and tactics for their effective deployment on the ground.
Why not start a debate about bringing our troops home and discuss the reasons why israel shouldn’t be a hegemon?
White people have conquered inferior cultures and brought about civilization and progress. jews would turn everything into a Gaza Strip.
jews have to use White people, our children’s blood and our treasury, which should expose them for what they are and that they don’t deserve to be a hegemon.
The Civil War, WW2 and now the middle east represent wars in which jews have decimated and therefore dumbed down our race. That should make people angry.
quote
The division of the United States into two federations of
equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the
High Financial Power of Europe. These bankers were afraid
that the United States, if they remained in one block and as
one nation, would attain economical and financial
independence, which would upset their financial domination
over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated.
They foresaw tremendous booty if they could substitute two
feeble democracies, indebted to the Jewish financiers, to the
vigorous republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore,
they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question
of slavery and thus to dig an abyss between the two parts of
the republic. Lincoln never suspected these underground
machinations. He was anti-slavery, and he was elected as
such. But his character prevented him from being the man of
one party. When he had affairs in his hands, he perceived
that these sinister financiers of Europe, the Rothschilds,
wished to make him the executor of their designs.
They made the rupture between the North and the South
imminent! The masters of finance in Europe made this
rupture definitive in order to exploit it to the utmost.
Lincoln’s personality surprised them: they thought to easily
dupe the candidate woodcutter. But Lincoln read their plots
and soon understood that the South was not the worst foe, but
the Jewish financiers. He did not confide his apprehensions;
he watched the gestures of the Hidden Hand; he did not wish
to expose publicly the questions which disconcert the
ignorant masses. He decided to eliminate the international
bankers, by establishing a system of loans, allowing the
states to borrow directly from the people without
intermediary. He did not study financial questions, but his
robust good sense revealed to him that the source of any
wealth resides in the work and economy of the nation. He
opposed emissions through the international financiers. He
obtained from the Congress the right to borrow from the
people by selling to it the bonds of the states. The local banks
were only too glad to help such a system. And the
government and the nation escaped the plots of foreign
financiers. They understood at once that the United States
would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was resolved
upon. Nothing is easier than to find a fanatic to strike.
The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There
was no man in the United States great enough to wear his
boots. And Israel went anew to garner the riches of the
world. I fear that Jewish banks with their craftiness and
tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of
America and will use it to systematically corrupt modern
civilization. The Jews will not hesitate to plunge the whole of
Christendom into wars and chaos in order that “the earth
should become the inheritance of Israel.” (Interview by C.
Seim, La Vieille France, March, 1921.)
A globe could be used as a marketing tool. The lands of White people could be highlighted in one color, the lands of Muslims in another color, the 53 black countries in another color etc etc – this would demonstrate that all these other races and religions have their countries and we should be allowed to have ours.
Here’s an ad example
“Unhappy with the way you are treated by the evil White man? We can help. We will provide you with transportation back to the nation of your people where you will never have to deal with the White man again.”
The next presidential election when we are once again offered the “choices” of nothing and less than nothing, I’d like to see the reaction if white voters just stayed home. I can’t help but think we’d gain more from that than helping elect some jerk who’s going to do us nothing but harm anyway. At least the message would be loud and clear that we’ve had enough.
No military principle is higher than morale. Its loss means defeat.
It takes more than guns and bayonets to make an army, it takes banners and bugles and speeches and salutes and everything that’s summed up under the heading of [i]doctrine[/i]. I think this goes double for Whites, who more than anyone else seem to be motivated by abstractions.
Those who can be motivated by abstractions can be demotivated by the right ones.
When the right to fight is constantly undermined, it must be just as constantly shored up.
“And this is a critical development and essential place to get to. I’ve not seen a mass awareness growing in all my 53 years till just recently. So all this is leading somewhere.”
It so refreshing to hear you young people on here.
I have seen stuff of this level with the Jew student riots, building occuations and bombings by the white left
(not to mention black city destroying riots) in the mid to late 60′s.
This IS however the first time in my 68 years that middle class non-violent whites have got out in the massive numbers they are now.
And in passing, I handed out a business card this morning with the 14 words and a couple of web sites one it. :)
Re: Alex Kurtagic
March 7, 2011 – 8:34 am
That should have been in your post. I didn’t understand you were saying that till you spelled it out just then.
I’d written this on the previous article posted, regarding Kelso’s valiant attempt to infuse racial awareness at CPAC – but I’ll repost my main points.
) Know you audience. The White Nationalist/White Advocate/White Wonk crowd is too in love withknowledge and reason/ We need Intellectal ideology – to start the engines – but EMOTION and FEAR is what drives most humans. Even Whit ones.
When talk to working class/and now White collar Whites – I focus on elements – jobs, and They Hate You. “They” being The Other. Most people still live in ethnic enclaves. I live a round a buncha lovely semi-rural White Christians. The only thing they know aobut living around Non-Whites is what TalmudVision tells ‘em. I ALWAYS put people on the spot. I use my version of the Socratic Method. I don’t “tell”. I ASK QUESTIONS. I ask these types, :Have YOU ever LIVES around a majorioty of Non-Whites? As a White minority? (The answer is “no”. Some-one will invariably defensively state that they “…know a Good One” – fill in the non-White blan. I then re-ask the question, until they cannot elude the parameters of my question). I then go on to tell them that I HAVE lived as a White Minority, in a variety of Non-White settings – not one place – but many places – and that they will NOT LIKE IT AT ALL, once they are forced to do so, and when THAT happens -there will be no place left to move to. I will
THEM launch into as many crime stat faqs/Tales o’ the Hood, a their TalmudVision PC programming will allow them to absorb, in one sitting.
If I’m w/ a more “upscale” crowd – I do the same. I simply vary the thrust, and emphasis. These types may hav actuallylived in cities – and I remind them of the places in those various cities, where they knew bloody well they could not enter. They knew the areas they had to stick to certain areas that were “safe”. I’l then pin down those Faux Sopphicate types as to WHY certain parts of a city are not safe. Name the Reason – why – there are the Darky sections! You must make them SAY it. Not evade – you must MAKE them say it aloud. These types are all aobut fashion, and Hipper Than Thou-ness. We must make “tolerance” of those Icky Violent Smelly Darkies unfashionable. Defending all the Cool Things White People Create is the way to appeal to the Fashionistas.
The Soccer Mom – “Do you realky want brilliant Young Sidney’s (a girl) future dstroyed, when osm random Lakeesha decides to get her gang of Homies, or Rahim the Somalian Muslim imported from Afreaka, to stalk your daughter, and beat the crap out of her, when she’s all alone – cause she is a pretty smart White girl?
Give Soccer Mom ONE new item on this topic – and you’ve got that demo forever. he may protest initially – but tell her that all ethics ARe the same -those clever Chinese kids and those brilliant Indian Speller Champs are racially focused on their own kind. They won’t do a bloody thing for little Sidney. This is the demo you want to stuff with facts and data – Soccer Mom will do the research. It won’t take a lot of research to get her on board..
Every encounter must be tailored to the target, so to speak.
Kelso should have brough Big White Dudes – dressed nicely, of course – so he could not be forced to retreat. NEVER give up the Hill, once th Hill has been staked out. He should have had the Great Big White Dude back-up to force the Capaign for Liberty Facists – and their trailing Juden cohorts, of the turf he staked.
The young folsk he spoke ot – he needed to appeal to their intellectial vanity. “Europeans drove out the Native Americans”? “Ha! WHAT “Native Americans? The Land Bridge Asians were NOT here first. Caucasians were. You mean you’ve NEVER HEARD OF THE WINDOVER BOG PEOPLE??!!! ARE YOU RETARDED? Seriously – are you a retard? You aren o retarded? What’s your IQ? Then what’s oyur excuse. Tsk tsk tsk….never heard of the Windover Bog people. Wow. Dude – you are SERIOUSLY lagging behind. Wow. …..!”
That’s the tack Kelos shoulld have taken with that crowd. Get them to research their peril – but insult the crap out of them on, to their faces, in front of each other (critical) “Knowledge/Ahead of the Curve/The Chinese Won’t Hire YOU They Have Their Own” meme.
Tht woulda worked.
Why am I on Moderation?
My comments are moderated too. I don’t see the point for it either since people can vote comments up or down.
Jamie Kelso isn’t the only one who can make a video.
He did have one guy with him, the bushy dark hair to
Jamies right.
Could some one round up four or five guys and go to some upcoming right wing event? That would be a good test and a motivator if posted on here.
What I dream of is something like what happened in the London streets with the workers in the couple of weeks after Enoch Powells “Rivers of blood” speech way back in 1968.
As an after thought, we do need to encourage all 18 year old white conservatives to do a three year hitch in the infantry.
Has anyone else here read Lt. Col. Nathan Freiers “Known Unknoswns” paper for the U.S. Army
Strategic Studies institute? If the military in late 2008 as war gamming for “multi state insurrection or purposefull resistance” shouldn’t we ensure our young men have the training?
Freier was apparently sending a signal to the officer core that in the unlikely event of insurrection the Army should sit it out in the barracks as did the Red Army in 1991.
Those of you who aren’t infantry vets may be unaware how crucial training is.
But the most important thing is to get out in public and show something. Just got back with from a little outing wearing my “European Americans United” T-shirt. :)
The more you sweat in politics the less you bleed in war.
Phil
The problem with our 18 year old boys getting the infantry training is they go fight for Israel. Plus, the showers aren’t too safe anymore if you drop the soap..
All this banter. Facts of the matter IS: Holder stated that whites haven’t suffered enough. THAT makes Holder a racist ill-read N-word, seeing as slavery has been over for 170+ YEARS, whites have suffered terribly at the hands of the savage, sub-human negroids as The Color Of Crime has proven by facts, http://www.colorofcrime.com/ and as Uncle Tom Holder ignores THOSE facts, he’s playing the race card like any good jew shabbat goy. It’s all about white guilt folks and THAT n*gger POS lays it on thick.
If after 170+ years of the non-suffering tax-paying whites moneys, grants, welfare, AID, ADC, food stamps, free medical, free housing, free electric and power and free schooling, we havent suffered, I’ll just say I’m just glad he’s not a jew or we’d have to sacrifice another 6 million Gentiles.
Barbara
I agree with much of what you’ve said; you’ve made some very good points. But I have to take the most serious of exception to your remarks concerning Lincoln. For a Southerner no dictator in the history of the world can match this backwoods scum who was willing to kill 600,000 Americans to deny freedom from Northern domination to the white people of the South. Nor do I believe there is any excuse; he did it because in his low background there was no appreciation for freedom of whites; he’d just absorbed the ignorant abolitionist ideas of his time and place. This man sent black soldiers to rob, rape and murder Southern whites; he destroyed the South far beyond the requirements of war and beyond decency. Like so many others time has veiled him in “greatness”. But for the white race he earned only everlasting hatred.
I know that we’re supposed to contribute tactical advice, but I can’t think of any that would be useful without knowing what people have.
If you have actors in your group you do one thing, if you have some sign-writers you do something else.
It’s all about using the abilities of the people you have and staying in their comfort zone in order for them to remain confident and effective and in order for activism to be fun.
It’s not about any one best method that must be applied without regard for individual abilities, habits, resources and circumstances.
Protocols of Albion:
Thanks for the link to white rabbit. I ended up seeing the you tube video by originalsavagechick on immigration destruction of the race.
It’s fantastic.
Also I’m about half way through the (real clear politics?) training series.
I only wish the narrator would speak in more definite terms and give examples of what he means. It’s difficult for me to follow.
Maybe all I’ll ever understand is how to wear my “European Americans United” t-shirt and handing out 14 words business cards, but that is something. :(
“It doesn’t have to be this way, but regaining the right is dependent on being willing and able to enforce it
Most Whites will not be interested in a “right” that derives solely from force. They are, however, motivated about rights that have other bases weightier than that. Things like: Our own ancestors created this country; they built it; we were manipulated, propagandized, and duped into losing our ethnic makeup (in 1965), or that this country’s ideals and construction is a reflection of our own European philosophical heritage, etc.
Claiming that Whites don’t have the right to claim their country is a posture and a polemic that has, it seem so to me, no positive value to the White mind that needs to wake up and stake claim. Or, value for the kind of foot soldiers more interested in doing something than in ivory tower analysis. Saying we don’t already have the right may be interesting as iconoclastic writing, by I don’t feel it’s a positive attitude to present to Whites.
Most Whites will not try to gain or enforce a right that they don’t feel is inherently theirs already; a right that is legitimate in itself, not just legitimate through “enforcement.” Whites have never admired “rights” that rely solely on enforcement/force.
And I have to contradict you again: Whites have the right.
good post Julian. I hate to criticize in real strong terms, but Kurtagic is playing with European po-mo and/or Parisian or deconstrucitonist jew-jit-su which lands his logic in the wasteland. Sorry, but it needs to be said real plain and outloud. Joe
Yup. That’s my impression.
You know, there are a lot of things we Whites have NOT had the past 50 years. And some things we’ve never had but now need. I’ll list a few of the things we truly haven’t had:
1. We have not had a positive “White identity”
2. We have not had awareness about the Jewish agenda; the Jewish element in our problems
3. We have not had leadership
4. We lost our media domination
5. We never had media-domination-with an objective of reinforcing ourselves (which is how the Jews used it when they got it)
6. Since the 1960s we have not had significant communication.
7. We have not had very many aware Whites. (I mean, there was a major dearth of them for a long time, including myself!)
8. We’ve not yet developed a pan-White movement or ethic
9. We don’t have much natural ethnic networking, friendship, and brotherhood, especially in the critical category of males.
10. We no longer have the strongest families, or courtship and marriage mores
11. We no longer have natural White ethnic communities
12. We no longer have strong church affiliation and the ethnic cohesiveness that was once incidental to that
13. We don’t have a religion that is explicitly race-affirming (the Jews have that)
14. We no longer have a White-preferring immigration policy
15. We no longer have control of our borders
All that might look like a lot that we don’t have. But guess what? Items 1 through 7 are changing and we are now getting them. I bolded those for cheer. (Morale, indeed.) But I was too conservative to bold 8 and 9, however:
– I see a positive White identity coming back. I see more unapologetic pro-White material now than ever before. (1)
– There is more awareness about the Jewish role than ever before. (2)
– We now have some leaders (Kevin MacDonald is one of them). (3)
– We are changing the media equation because of the internet and our free speech participation. (I’ve never seen real discussion of the Jews in America till the internet.) We are, in real terms, getting our media domination back as more and more people turn to the free internet and the reality of White views is seen. Because of the nature of the internet and the participation of so many, items 4 and 5 are in play. We never did have a media that was explicitly working to reinforce ourselves, but the internet has becoming that!
– We have a lot of communication now about our racial issues among ourselves now, even if not much IRL networking. (6)
– We have a great many aware Whites now, Whites with the willingness to unapologetically affirm racial interests. Does anyone think the internet’s “OriginalSavageChick” was thinking and talking like that 3 years ago? (I myself was a deluded Baha’i just a few short years ago!) I would say that change is of the nature of a sea change. (7)
That’s 7 things I see us starting to get, of 15. That list is hefty and profound, sure. But it includes things we’ve never had going way back, yet now do have.
And note this: A lot of things on that list are we only recently lost! A think is easier to get back when only recently lost.
In sum:
– There are some things Whites don’t have.
– We can get what we need back, and get things anew.
– The moral and spiritual right to assert themselves is not one of the items we don’t have.
Joe and Julian
I don’t know where you guys were in the 50′s and 60′s but let me lay out my objections to what you’re saying.
To begin with we had a white, Christian, highly activated and outraged population; I’ve attended meetings of thousands. We knew very well that jews were behind what was happening to us. We THOUGHT we had natural “rights” which could not be denied us. We had leaders whom we rallied behind. We had a much better immigration policy. In short, Julian, we had nearly all those things you’re saying we should have now.
But in the end none of that mattered. The “rights” we thought we had disappeared, for the SECOND time, I might add, under the onslaught of federal guns, backed by a ceaseless tidal wave of jew owned media proclaiming our “evil” in opposing the “rights” of poor, downtrodden blacks. A victim of mugging has a choice: he can give up his wallet or die. We had that choice too: give up our “rights” or die.
So as for those things you think will “save” us, I have to tell you, we have already been there and done that, not once but twice. Clearly something is wrong or missing. Just repeating a failed strategy is not going to help us. We have to get a better understanding of how the world works and devise tactics which actually work; we have to learn to develop ideas and then try them out in the real world, to judge them on effectiveness and nothing else.
I strongly disagree with the many view points here regarding the arguments to be used. i still think the pre 1965 immigration America is the way to go. History carries enormous authority. It is one thing to argue against the 1965 immigration act which was advocated by a few alien elites. Its another thing to try to change the history of America. The civil war was not fought for nothing. But the civil war was about the historic demographic of America which was predominantly White but had some Africans and Natives. These two minorities are still minorities today and are not really growing. The problem is that some try to lump them with the recent immigrants like Hispanics and Asians and Jews and Arabs. Thats a big mistake. No argument will win like this. You can not say Whites this or that. But you can define what is American. The 1965 immigration act must be labeled null and void. And all immigrants after that must be deborted regardless of how long they stayed or whether they were born here or not. Thats because the 1965 immigration act is an act or war and was done without the consent of the people. Neither Blacks( indigenous) or the Natives want these immigrants. Blacks and Natives wanted civil rights and they got that. Thats all they wanted. But tryingb to lump them all togther in a White versus non White is a losing game. History carries authority as it represents what can be defined as America.
Its not that difficult at all. Once its been established that the 1965 immigration act was an agenda driven act of war to “change America”, its very easy after that. Those who migrated to America after that can be shown the door easily. Of course the ones with PhDs and Masters and lots of money will be exempted. The rest can easily go. None of those recent immigrants identify with America one bit. They came to a multi-cultural America with no idenity. They have no roots and can easily leave.
Its the only winning argument the rest like IQ and stuff and every race should have its own turf and all that won’t sell. The good thing about history its that it can’t bechanged and its self evident. It needs to explaining. But many nationalist want more than that and that will bring them down.
I meant it needs no explaining. And all White nation can work in Sweden and Denmar, not America. But a dominant White can work as thats the history of the country.
Trying to change that history is a losing game.
Existing immigration laws are not enforced because there is a lack of consensus about the necessity of Whites in the United States having their own living space.
The 1965 Immigration Act was passed because there was a lack of consensus about the necessity of Whites in the United States having their own living space.
Were there a consensus on this issue—among politicians, big business, and the citizenry—the way there is a consensus right now about how “racism” is bad, a pro-White immigration policy would enjoy the force of law.
But because there is no consensus on this issue, the lack of a strong enough opposition together with the active collaboration of anti-White proponents means bad immigration laws are passed and even the bad laws are not enforced.
And because the consensus does not recognise that Whites have an exclusive / primary claim on the United States, for all practical purposes the right to claim it as a White homeland does not exist today.
For it to exist in practice it needs to exist beyond the realm of theory, beyond an abstract notion espoused by an unconventional minority.
This is why I think the argument “Whites have the right to a homeland” is a weak one in the present day context. In theory only some recognise it, in practice fewer still recognise it—or consider it important enough to risk being called a name by someone. In fact, it is even worse: many Whites do not think of themselves as belonging to a race, some even think their race does not exist.
Until there is a consensus among Whites that (a) their race exists, (b) they belong to a race, and (c) they too as Whites have racial interests, the concept of a racially defined right to a homeland will not compute, and will be a weak line of argument in a debate.
My point is that if we are to re-create a consensus on the existence and legitimacy of White racial interests, we need to use more psychologically compelling arguments and presentation strategies and avoid arguments that rely on concepts few recognise and most—even so-called conservatives— reject.
everything is wrong about this piece. Maybe it is because Kurtagic lives in Europe. I will discontent myself with the first two sentences.
“Existing immigration laws are not enforced because there is a lack of consensus about the necessity of Whites in the United States having their own living space.”
“The 1965 Immigration Act was passed because there was a lack of consensus about the necessity of Whites in the United States having their own living space.”
This is just false. Nobody asked Whites in 1965 if they wanted to share their country with aliens. Secondly, now there is no “lack of consensus” among Whites about sharing their space with Mexers….about 90 per cent of Whites want them out. Blacks are another matter and we all know that there is ambivalence about Blacks because of white guilt, etc. If push comes to shove, Whites would remove them quickly if there was some place for them to go.
Only the liberal elites “Believe” in the claptrap of multi-racialism, etc. And some college kids who will grow up faster as the thing degenerates.
Kurtagic is lost in some kind of logic un- tethered and untutored by empirical reality. Despite his claims to fathom the psychology of Whites, he does not. Whites do NOT have to “Believe” any creed, one way or the other, in order for them to throw out their racial tormentors.
The Jews are another matter because they pass racially. However, I talk to many folks and most of them have figured out , sans books, that the wars are for Israel. However, the Jews will remain the toughest nut to crack. first the mexers, then the blacks, and then the Jews. LIberals will be picked-off along the way. They will partially fade away, and partially provide real good targets for White rage. I am talking pollitics here, not violence.
The violence will start from these Others, not us. Self-defense is, however, still operative and lawful. Joe
@Alex – I do not agree that there is no consensus, I think there are plenty of White people who believe we have a right to the nations we created and built – what we lack is any media or public forum where we see our opinions expressed or validated.
Once again I do not want the people to be blamed for what our elites are doing by allowing nothing but jew propaganda to be heard by people so that many Whites innocently take part in our own destruction.
jews learned over the centuries what institutions they needed to control in order to become the perfect parasites and cancers upon us. So they now control our media and any other vehicle which could be used to reach the people – such as movies, music, art etc. Anyone who opposes them is stigmatized and silenced. So what are we supposed to do without our leadership and the wealthy and powerful Whites who could make a difference?
You asked for ideas about what tools and methods we could use to fight against the jew, a writer such as yourself could create a dramatic trial where international jewry is put on trial for making the West diverse, found guilty and forced to pay reparations to Western nations.
The trial could include facts about no gas chambers ever existing in Germany and point out that not one jew family ever came forward and stated that they had family members in concentration camps and the holocaust is a scam and a lie so that it is for all intents and purposes “all jews”.
the problem with many intellectuals is they get abstracted. “Rights” ordinary white folks do not “think” about. Let us get back to “being” which encompasses more or less total mental and physical experience and awareness.
This thread has gone on a long time (too long?) and more or less is very short on psychology, espec evolutionary psychology. Let us get back to Implicit and Explicit. All of us function day to day more or less on auto-pilot…what KM calls implicit functioning. We might even benefit from the counsel of Mr. Longley if he could deliver a succinct and to the point opinion (and without insults).
Nascar , etc. Whites don’t think about their “rights”. They have a mental functioning..implicit…awareness of what is going on around them. When they feel the threat, they react, which is the model of Health. It is “I am not racist…but.” We are rapidly approaching the Great Divide when Fear overrides Comfort. Whites will start killing their racial enemies without necessarily coming up with “reasons” and “rights”. Their perceptions do not need Rights.
A White guy coming thru their front door with a gun will be little different than a Black guy doing the same. Kill him. Of course, it is not the White guy coming thru the door. This mental functioning is not based on Rights, it is based on socio-biology’s genuine Being…the totality of mental and physical functioning. Only intellectuals dither like Hamlet.
When I hear the word Rights, I take out my revolver….will become the norm for Whites. OUr task is to make sure they don’t shoot us.
Joe
to make clear the last sentence above, Whites have been listening to the nigras and beaners clamoring for their “rights” for a couple generations now and they are sick of it. The word “entitled” has morphed politically from a simple matter of legaleze, to the psychological “feeling” entitled.
We could help revive and rescue that word for ourselves as Whites. Whites need to feel entitled to their country with no yammering on about “rights.”
We built it, we invented everything, we are the best and get the hell out all you termites infesting the mansion of the West.
“We could help revive and rescue that word for ourselves as Whites. Whites need to feel entitled to their country with no yammering on about “rights.”
We built it, we invented everything, we are the best and get the hell out”
That’s what I am getting at. Excellent comment.
“I don’t know where you guys were in the 50′s and 60′s…
It’s safe to say most here were not alive in the 50′s, and two young to be politically active in the 60′s.
To begin with we had a white, Christian, highly activated and outraged population;…
We all have our unique pasts and experience of the world. I am sure you have experienced things I’ve not experienced. I grew up in Des Moines, Iowa in the 1960s and 70s, which is a pretty good assay of Middle America. (They used to say “Will it play in Peoria”? In real life Des Moines was also considered a “typical America” sample for every sort of New York marketer.)
Anyway, I never remember encountering a “highly activated, outraged population” in that middle-America sphere. I didn’t have a single friend who was noticeably pro-White, and not one who even mentioned Jews, although by high school many Jews were around and snickering at us. I don’t even remember the parents of my friends having White or Jews-aware attitudes. My population in the 1960s/70s was influenced by two things: The television and fear. If anybody expressed political views around me it was basically something against “the capitalists” or “fascists” or the “rednecks” (who were, it was understood, racist). We all accepted that White racial identity (“racism”) was bad, and that seeing blacks around was “progress.” My guess is that most Whites in major cities in this period experienced pretty much the same culture.
“I’ve attended meetings of thousands.
I think you are unusual. I never even heard of a meeting to attend from the 60′s through the end of the century.
“We knew very well that jews were behind what was happening to us.”
I think you are unusual. I never even saw serious discussion of them until after the year 2000 with the internet. Call me a clueless idiot in the past, but I think I was not the unusual one.
Each of us will have a different take on America’s past. (John was raised on the South side of Grand, in a mansion; William was raised in a garbage dump, etc…) Each of us has his own past and story-of-a- past. However, I gave my experience with those decades, and impressions of change, for what it’s worth. I think there are many who saw the same America.
My basic points were to lay out what we still don’t have or have lost, and what we need, and to point out the progress I perceive. You were obviously racially aware long before I was. I would say your past is the more unusual, plus admirable.
Thanks for giving me your viewpoint, Julian; in a way it surprises me; yet in another way not, knowing what a distorted story was being put out by the media. You’ve helped me better understand the attitude of some of the guys I was in service with who basically did not discuss the subject with we southerners. At the time, 60-64, things were extremely tense.
I wish I had in some way earned the title of “admirable”, but I’m afraid my efforts came nowhere near that, a matter of much regret in my old age. The truth is that I was just another piece of floatsum carried along by the tide of history.
It may interest you you to hear that until the court’s “Brown” decision came up many of us enjoyed what seemed to us at least, a very good relationship with blacks. Most of us were taught to treat them with dignity and respect, and we looked down on people who did otherwise. Those who had lived on our own farm for generations seemed like just a different kind of family, and I have to believe most of them felt the same about us. But then the black/white confrontations began, and as people do, each side began to demonize the other, and bit by bit the good will slipped away.
I am proud of Kelso for standing up, showing up. That’s more than I can say for the rest of you arm chair quarterbacks. As for rights, freedom of action is a natural right of the free man. Anarchy is really what we have today in usa, people do as they please. Those who follow rules, go along with the program are destroyed, while the aggressive races ie Mexicans, breed their new Azzland? The problem for whites is they aborted their children for 30 years, destroying the gene pool. The rich and poor have so much in common, do as they please, destroy as they please. It is the middle class who creates, works, builds, run small businesses, employ people outside of the corporate PC world. They are gone, destroyed game over by and large. Most usa cities are just copy machine products of any other city or town.
Stand up and take what you want, every other race is!
Joe webb is right about action.
And anybody who want’s to do orginal savage chicks schtict should realize that it’s straigt from Bob Whitaker.
It’s on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prAQUocOjZM
Also the comment about history having great weight. That goes along with the idea that power comes from popularity, control of the military and from TRADITION, as in “You have to vote for a republicrat, third party voting is throwing your vote away. It’ always been a republicrat”
Lastly, a white nation will work in America and we have to have it. But we’ll get it only after whites are reawakened, and it will mean giving the blacks a seperate homeland below the 33rd parallel.
Whites don’t need the deep south. Trust me. We grew up in FLorida and now both my older sisters have skin cancer.
phil white
March 8, 2011 – 11:18 pm | Permalink
Also the comment about history having great weight. That goes along with the idea that power comes from popularity, control of the military and from TRADITION, as in “You have to vote for a republicrat, third party voting is throwing your vote away. It’ always been a republicrat”
Ene quote.
I meant demogrpahics. That Whites built this country and set it up, but they did so with free land from the Natives and free labor from Africa. These two minority communities are not going anywhere as they have no roots anywhere else. But migrants who came here after multi-cultural America are not really assimilated with anything American. You need to define what it means to be American. You can not say its just White. Thats a eak non intellectual argument. But you can define it by looking at its history. Those who can trace their ancestory to America’s orgin.
As far as moving people here and there thats impossible in the 21st century. Thats just talk.
The more radical and violence hinting the more thumps up rating. Looks like the FOX crowd is moving in. They will simply replace Liberals with Blacks and Latinos and replace Arabs and Muslims with Jews. Other than that they will use the same talking points and rather than fight for Israel they will ignite a civil war in America. They will change what they think but now how they think. In a way, Jewish shaping of a pro Jewish anti Muslim culture in America can come back to haunt the Jews. The crowd that cheered them can one day jeer them. Kind of like the US and Saudi Arabia and pakistan supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians. Only to see them turn against the hand that fed them.
Former Neocons coming in. Beware.
“It may interest you you to hear that until the court’s “Brown” decision came up many of us enjoyed what seemed to us at least, a very good relationship with blacks. Most of us were taught to treat them with dignity and respect,”
I have no doubt the tribe has built up a very false concept of the south including what life was really like in the time of slavery. Somebody once said that Northern Whites like the idea of blacks and equality but don’t really like blacks. Southerners don’t like the idea of equality, but are pretty comfortable with blacks, and the blacks comfortable with the whites, having lived intimately for so long, and having a real history together. I think there is truth to that.
It’s always seemed to me that the Northern blacks — where the Whites were ostensibly so pro-equality and pro-Black, are the ones with the worst chip on their soldier and the most unpleasant attitudes. I remember my daughter, when first visiting the south (Wilmington, North Carolina) reporting with charmed astonishment how black women were so friendly to her. “They even touched me, complimented me on my looks, and called me honey.” That obviously came from living intimately for a long withe with Whites, even being like part of the family.
The northerners and Jews create a great deal of lies, untruth, and distortion about White people in the south, and their nature as people, just to serve their agenda of mixing up and weakening the Whites.
“And anybody who want’s to do orginal savage chicks schtict should realize that it’s straigt from Bob Whitaker.”
Lydia/OriginalSavageChick is obviously an individual, a unique individual, is speaking sincerely from her heart, and is not a duplicate of Bob Whitaker.
I listened to a bit of the Whitaker video you posted and don’t see why you came out with that. I do not see any duplication of attitude, delivery, or content. Is it that they both speak English?
Why are her sincere statements a “schtict” by the way?
Why would anybody here want to do a “schtict”?
I didn’t mean to be critical of Ms. Savage. She is a much better spokes person than Bob. Young, female and attractive she can connect to the demographics we need.
She is from the heart, but the words (other than the up screen scroll at the end) are Bob’s. Maybe I slipped and got the wrong link. Will try again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prAQUocOjZM
As to my schtict crack, it was just another bi-polar error judgment trying to make a joke. Sorry.
By all means help her go more viral on the web.
If I didn’t think Savage as the presenter was the best white propaganda I’ve seen on the web in months, I wouldn’t have taken the trouble to try and transcribe it from the audio.
Yesterday I also ordered 10 CD’s from white rabbit that list the mantra as part of the content.
So far I’ve been unable to buy a copy of the music by Ennio Morricne, so if you find out what film it was written for or the title, please let me know. It’s beautiful.
Below is my attempt at an accurate transcript, plus the link to white rabbit radio that features Savages video.
“Everybody says that there is a race problem. Everybody says that this race problem will be solved When the third world pours into ever white country and only into white countries.
The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but no one says that Japan or Taiwan will solve this race problem by brining in millions of third worlders and quote “assimilating with them.”
Everybody says that the final solution for this race problem is for every white country and only white countries to assimilate, i.e, intermarry with all of these nonwhites.
Now what if I told I if there was a race problem and this race problem would only be solved if hundreds of millions of non-blacks where brought into every black country and only into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize that I am not talking about a race problem, I am talking about a final solution to the black problem?
And how long would it take for any sane black man to notice this? And what kind of a psycho black man would not object to this?
But I tell the obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race and liberals, respectable conservatives all agree that I’m supposedly a NAZI who wants to kill 6 million Jews.
They say they are anti-racist but what they really are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Latin America for Latin Americans, white countries for everyone.
In 1914 33% of the worlds population where white. Today it is down to 9%, and of that number only 2% Are white women of child bearing age who can ensure the continuation of our race.
These are the hard facts. And if we fail to act our unique species will become extinct!
If the white race were an endangered panda bear, whale or sea turtle people every where would be trying to ‘save’ the white race from extinction.
However, since the white race is always portrayed as
evil in the anti-white media, everyone views the white race as not worth saving.
And the Zionist owned media pushes multiculturalism on white women of child bearing age with constant race mixing propaganda.
So If you are pro-third world immigration into white countries and only white countries then you are actually pro-white genocide. ”
Guys, you know where to post this.
“As far as moving people here and there thats impossible in the 21st century. Thats just talk.”
You are right in that we can’t persuade the average white of the need for partition just yet, but right now we in the quior are hashing out where we are eventually going with white nationalism. Nationalism kind of implies a national territory, unless you speak of Gypsies and, before 1948, of Jews.
Begining in 1995 the West forced the Serbs to evacuate from Kosovo, their ancestral homeland.
If 10 million illegal Mexicans can be removed why can’t 15 million blacks move from Detroit and other Northern cities to south of Atlanta? A lot of them have been doing it on their own for decades now.
How about the forced removal of a million Arabs in 1948 by the Jews? What about the 30 million or so Muslims and Hindus that passed each other on the roads during the partion of “India” in 1948?
We can not do it right now, but what may be ahead is something like the reconquista of Spain that took 700 years.
It might be no more than a Republican style tax break incentive for people who live in a more homogenious neighborhood, then county, and finally state. The political cover being that homogenious neighborhoods are less violent and require less tax dollars to police.
Look, within the living memory of todays college students, Wisconsin was a liberal state. Now the state legilature has a Republican majority that’s ready to pass a union busting law. We are in the midst of more than just a sea change of philosophy.
In 2002 Robert Precter wrote “Conquer the Crash”. Yggdrasil over at the occidental quarterly on line pushed Prechters books.
Prechter is a stock amarket analyst who’s main thesis is that the civilizational wide social attitudes, and thus the eonomy and market go through patterns that can be to some extent predicted.
In 1978 he said a 20 year bull market was ahead. In 2002 he wrote that a great depression was coming. Housing prices would crash, (my house here in Florida was assesed for taxes at $179,000 three years ago. The last bill assesed it at $75,000). The banks would be in trouble. If the government tried to bail out the banks by handing them cash the troubled banks, being in a panic, would likely sit on the cash. That also happened. He said you would see major brand name corporations fail, (Government Motors it turned out) and that you would see more people droping out of the wider cultures and clinging together in more narrowly defined social groups, with more hostility to people in out groups. He said this would be a world wide pattern. There would be more terrorism and conflict world wide.
Civilizations go through drastic change from time to time.
America importing a 80 million non-white citizens within a century and a half of the end of non-white slavery was a drastic change wasn’t it?
Why are we all bloging on this web site? Isn’t it that we’ve seen drastic change in our society in our life times and we are sick to death of it?
George Bush senior didn’t get “The Vision Thing”. I’m hopeing we, the core of the coming revolution, can come up with our own inspiring vision. Revolutions are not half measures.
It might be no more than a Republican style tax break incentive for people who live in a more homogenious neighborhood, then county, and finally state. The political cover being that homogenious neighborhoods are less violent and require less tax dollars to police.
Look, within the living memory of todays college students, Wisconsin was a liberal state. Now the state legilature has a Republican majority that’s ready to pass a union busting law. We are in the midst of more than just a sea change of philosophy.
Please excuse last redundant paragraph in above post.
“NPR’s CEO and president, Vivian Schiller, has been forced to resign, the radio broadcaster’s media correspondent reported Wednesday, following an undercover sting in which a senior executive was videotaped describing Tea Party members as “racist.” ”
Again, I think this is more than a sea change.
would Schiller be Jewish???
I was just going to add, if someone hasn’t already, that the author of this should read Plato’s Gorgias and compare himself with Callicles.
You could be right Phil White. But nearly all those drastic changes have repercussions to this day. The last time I looked Israel ain’t doing too well and is living on a knife edge. The partition of Indian and pakistan has led to tension 50 years later. So maybe you are right, but it will be traumatic and there is no reason to believe that Whites or anyone else would get the better of it. Anyway the Arabs to this day are 20% of Israel and the Muslims are 10 of India. But it seems you want an all exclusive ethno state. That has never happened in American history.
It could happen in Europe since the immigrants never really assimilated and have strong limks with their country of origin. But with America you are looking at a very different picture. Blacks have no link with any other place. But maybe you are right but I see this leading to a civil war that might not end the way you think.
“Haiti, which over two centuries years ago was left with much of the infrastructure that was built by the French does not provide an encouraging precedent: rather than half way there”
Actually, at the uprising of the blakc slaves, they took their machetes and killed every white man, woman and child and infant, and those Blacks loyal to the whites, the “House Slaves” and chopped them up. And every mulato, just for having white bloode, every one that was a skilled craftsman was slaughtered, every teacher and educated mulato. Everything that appeared from the French owners was hated and viciously destroyed and burned.
That’s why there were so many Racially Mixed refugees immigrating to New Orleans or thereabouts, at that time. They were fleeing for their lives.
Such was the case for Freedom and Quality in Haiti.
And those that were left were pure Africans, uneducated, poor unfortunates under the control of the gangs and hoodlums, such as the Tonton Macoute and the Duvalier, of today.
I’ll cut to the chase right here and now: whether whites “have a right to a homeland” in the USA – or not – is largely contingent upon WHO’S defending that position.
In this case, Mr. Kelso is simply not qualified to stand up and assume the defense of this weighty proposition. With all due respect, he is essentially a forum webmaster and not a skilled debater. Most of his intellectual arsenal has been acquired from second-hand Nazisms, so it is no wonder that he did not fare well.
As for the Mexicans laying claim to the US, they have no claim. Their assertions are easily shot down: since Mexicans are defined as mestizos, a racially-mogrelized people of mixed Spanish and Amerindian blood – they therefore could not have occupied America in pre-colonial times – not as ‘mestizos’. For obvious reasons, that would have been impossible.
Therefore, if ANY claim along these lines can be made, such claims cannot be made by those of mixed caucasoid-mongoloid blood – but only by those of pure mongoloid blood, ie, the American Indian.
That said, there remains a problem – as far as the American Indian is concerned. Simply expressed, the American Indian himself is comprised of literally hundreds of tribes (‘nations’ to their way of thinking) so what we have here is -quite literally – hundreds of theoretical claims to ‘first ownership’ of America.
However, no one knows which ‘nation’ reached North America first, which arrived second, which third, and so forth. That leaves the legitimate racial claimants to this continent lost in time.
Result?
Bad news for the American Indian, it would seem. Clearly, he (collectively) is an amorphous entity who lacks any substantive historical documentation, such as in the form of ancient texts, – as, for instance, the ancient Egyptians have. Such historical documentation is necessary in order to establish irrefutable proof of legal (or moral) right to these lands.
In other words, nomads don’t get no respect.
Finally, let’s briefly examine Europe. Maybe, just maybe, the first homo sapien to reach that land was the first ancestor of all subsequent Frenchman. IF that could be scientifically established it might serve as a legitimate basis for all present-day Frenchmen to smugly lay claim to ALL of Europe, since, as the reasoning would go, it was THEIR ancestors who reached Europe first, and not the ancestors of the English or the Germans or the Lithuanians, et al.
That, in essence, is the same flawed reasoning the American Indian is trying to use in order to lay claim to North America. However, since no one tribe (‘nation’) can offer any sort of proof that it was THEIR tribal ancestors who first set foot on this continent’s shores, they instead have been compelled to flip over to Argument B (for bullshit) that any Indian and every Indian – of any tribe whatsoever – owns this continent.
That is their argument, and it is bad wampum.
On the other hand, Euro-Americans DO know when they arrived here and DO know what they conceived, what they built, what they shed in the way of blood, sweat, and tears, and what they built out of a savage wilderness. And every step of the way we have written documentation and hard-won evidence that this land is OURS.
Don’t be fooled: this claim is unshakeable. That is, if one properly understands and knows how to present it. And, most importantly, if the RIGHT individual or individuals are there to step forward and do so.
Ward Kendall
author of “Hold Back This Day”
http://wardkendallnow.blogspot.com/p/about.html
In this case, Mr. Kelso is simply not qualified to stand up and assume the defense of this weighty proposition. With all due respect, he is essentially a forum webmaster and not a skilled debater. Most of his intellectual arsenal has been acquired from second-hand Nazisms, so it is no wonder that he did not fare well.
As for the Mexicans laying claim to the US, they have no claim. Their assertions are easily shot down: since Mexicans are defined as mestizos, a racially-mogrelized people of mixed Spanish and Amerindian blood – they therefore cannot have occupied America in pre-colonial times. If ANY claim along those lines can be made it cannot be made by mestizos – but by American Indians only.
Even so, the American Indian himself is comprised of literally hundreds of tribes (‘nations’ to them) so we are looking at – again, literally – hundreds of theoretical claims to ‘first ownership’ of America. However, no one knows which ‘nation’ reached North America first, which second, which third, and so forth, so the legitimate racial claimants to this continent is lost in time.
Result? The American Indian is an amorphous entity who lacks any substantive historical documentation in the form of ancient texts – as, say, the ancient Egyptians have – to establish irrefutable proof of their legal or moral right to these lands.
Nomads don’t get no respect, in other words.
Finally, let’s briefly examine Europe. Maybe, just maybe, the first homo sapien to reach there was the first ancestor of – say – a Frenchman. IF, somehow, that could be proven, then, might it not be made a legitimate claim by all French today that ALL of Europe is their by right, since it was THEIR ancestors who reached it first, and not the ancestors of the English or the Germans or the Lithuanians, et al.
That, in essence, is the fallacious argument the American Indian is strapped with. Since no one tribe (‘nation’) can lay ‘first footstep’ inside North America, they argue from the presumption that anyone – of any tribe – owns this continent.
That is their argument, and it does not fly.
Euro-Americans DO know when they arrived here and DO know what they conceived, what they built, what they shed in the way of blood, sweat, and tears, and what they built out of a savage wilderness.
THIS is our claim and it is unshakeable. That is, if one knows properly how to elucidate it, and if the RIGHT individual is chosen to do so.
Ward Kendall
author of “Hold Back This Day”
wardkendallnow.blogspot.com