The Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab, India
1,317 words
On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Wade Michael Page, a racist skinhead, opened fire at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, killing six worshipers and wounding three others. It is a terrible act, and I wish it had never happened. But why did it happen? We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but I can say three things with confidence.
First, if the Sikhs had not been in America, Page could not have killed them. As far as I know, when I was born, there were no Sikhs in America at all, much less whole Sikh communities and Sikh temples. When I was a kid, Sikhs were an exotic people I read about in National Geographic who worshiped at a golden temple in the Punjab, not in the suburbs of Milwaukee.
I am not blaming the victims, mind you. I am sure that they were decent people who came to the United States to better themselves and their families. No, I blame the people who brought them here: the creators and sustainers of non-white immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity.
I have nothing personal against Sikhs. Of all the non-European ethnic groups in America, I find Hindus and Sikhs to be the most agreeable. When I was in India, Sikhs were always the most reliable and honest cab drivers. When I lived in Berkeley, Muslim cab drivers would refuse to transport my dog, so I would specifically request non-Muslim cab drivers . . . and the company would send Sikhs. Their cabs were decorated in colorful anti-Muslim and Sikh nationalist slogans. Obviously, there’s a ticking time bomb in Berkeley’s much-celebrated diversity. One day, swords will be drawn and towel-heads will roll.
This brings us to the reason why Sikhs do not belong in America: they add to the racial, ethnic, and religious diversity that is our greatest weakness and source of social problems. Before 1965, America’s biggest problem was the racial diversity of whites, blacks, Amerindians, East Asians, Jews, and other people from the Near East.
This diversity caused friction, which at best wore away racial, cultural, and religious differences. At worst, these tensions gave rise to distrust, alienation, hatred, violence, and social upheaval. After 1965, America opened its doors to the rest of the world, enormously compounding the diversity problem. The Sikh temple massacre is just one of the dividends of out-of-control diversity, and there will be many more to come.
This is why the North American New Right advocates the creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples. We believe that it is best for all peoples to have their own homelands where they can live according to their distinct racial, ethnic, and religious identities, free of the destructive forces of diversity.
In the case of recent immigrant populations, the best solution is for them to return to their homelands. I also think that is the best solution for groups like Jews, Japanese, and Chinese who have been in America for a long time but still maintain strong ties to their homelands. In the case of indigenous peoples and some older immigrant populations (including the descendants of African slaves), territorial partition would seem to be in order.
Second, the easiest and most comforting explanation for such a rampage is that the shooter is “crazy.” This may well be the case. There is no shortage of crazy people in the White Nationalist subculture. It is all too tempting and easy to simply disown Page and label him “one of them”: one of those evil, crazy racists who are fundamentally different from the rest of us, the “good,” “sane,” “tolerant” people. But the truth is, Wade Michael Page was “one of us.”
By “one of us,” I simply mean that he was a white man, and all white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even the multi-culty Kool-Aid drinkers who pursue status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.
Page and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Page may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Page at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
Third, Page’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people then dying in a gun battle with the police — is a product of what I call “Old Right” thinking. By the Old Right, I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. The skinhead subculture to which Page belonged is a hotbed of Old Right thinking, rife with fantasies of race war, lone wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from the skinhead movement and other contemporary “Old Right” tendencies. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.
This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.
Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.
Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence. Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way, and we don’t have to all be rocket scientists to do it, since anyone of even moderate intelligence can make real progress by simply repeating Bob Whitaker’s talking points.
Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not innocent immigrants. Moreover, killing innocent people (and at a place of worship!) has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for immigrants. (Even I feel sympathy for them, and I would deport them tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose gun rights must be taken away.
So Page’s choice of targets was superficial and frankly stupid. Was he even thinking about the larger good of his people? Or was he merely indulging in blind, self-destructive spite? How exactly does behaving like repugnant maniacs help White Nationalists establish ourselves as representatives of the long-term best interests of our people?
I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and a propensity to wildcat violence and rigorously screen out such people, and (2) we need draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches.
I just hope I don’t have to do this often.
55 Comments
Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not innocent immigrants.
Frankly, so would targeting “Old Right”-style white nationalists, who are some of the most insane people on this planet. You might not want to admit this because they are allies of yours, but their awesome degree of racial hatred, alienation and propensity to explode in racial violence is a serious burden on any fledgling racial movement.
He put on the bear sark and became a berserker – other races fear that more of us will do this. So that potential is an ace in the hole so to speak. I mean giving up everything threatening about ourselves would be just to make ourselves irrelevant. No one cares about harmless people. As Revilio Oliver said somewhere (I saw it on this site last week) Force doesn’t work? It is the only thing that does. But otherwise, I agree with you and Mr Johnson: it has to be held in restraint and we need to lead with our heads for a good while yet.
Jaego,
I wasn’t speaking out against force. Ideology — or in simpler language, ideas and beliefs, which all people have and cannot help having — determine the kind of force, the degree of force and the ends to which it is to be applied (and, of course, whether it is to be applied at all). “Old Right” (let’s go with that that term) creeps, whose departure from what the ordinary person feels about race is acute, have tended to believe in and, in some cases, encouraged, essentially unlimited force towards essentially unlimited ends (“this planet is ours!”). The effect has been to instill the belief that this is how you “do” racism or white nationalism; that to care about your race and its future means to subscribe to their specific set of beliefs or to hold those beliefs with the same intensity they do. This makes it laughably easy for opponents to discredit racialism or white nationalism and to implement policies that would make it difficult or impossible for any kind of racialism/WN (not just the Old Right variety) to get off the ground.
(WNs do not generally understand this because they are so steeped in their belief that they hold in their hands a Great Truth, a truth to which all who rationally consider racial issues must eventually give their intellectual assent. That, too, is laughable, with respect to the totality of the Old Right WN world view.)
If the Old Right’s effect of defining what racialism/WN mean and require is to turn prospects off racialism/WN, then it’s only logical to conclude that racialism/WN would be better off without such people.
Phil,
So we should murder “Old Right” members for pre-crime?
Read the last sentence above. Whether anyone wants to kill them or not — and I hardly expect it — if it’s true they do so much harm, if it’s true the effect of their contribution is help keep racialism in the intellectual and moral ghetto, then their elimination, while it may not solve everything, would in fact be a positive step, just like the elimination of some hard leftist anti-white university professor may not solve everything but would be a positive step, anyway, were it to occur.
And “Your allies?” Who are you?
A political bedfellow.
My comment appears unkind, I understand. But I really do believe Greg Johnson feels as strongly about race as a Ben Klassen or a WLP; it’s their approach he takes issue with more the substance of their views. I didn’t expect the comment to be posted, and would have been content for Greg Johnson to read it alone. But kudos to him for posting it. It should be possible to discuss these issues openly and straightforwardly and posting this comment is a step in that direction.
So we should murder “Old Right” members for pre-crime?
And “Your allies?” Who are you?
Well these Old Right types do sometimes turn on one another.
Great essay, Greg. We win with love, not hate: love of boundaries, love of history, love for all peoples and their self-determination, including and especially ourselves. The only thing to be hated (by all races, religions, and nations) is the globalist trash attempting to pillage and destroy every natural ethnoreligious identity in order to sell their cheap trinkets worldwide and enslave every nation in debt. The Left is losing the moral highground almost everyday, when we gain that- the New Right will be unstoppable.
Very well said!
Eric, I like the sentiment, and it’s something worth promoting. When I see non-whites in their own homelands, enjoying their own way of life and sovereignty over their own institutions, it genuinely pleases me. I’m happy for them, in that they they have something that we have lost. For example, a school in Japan composed entirely of…actual Japanese. How fortunate they are to not have Nushawn and Orangelo thrust amongst them. How fortunate they are to be able to simply be themselves, to be what they are.
Unfortunately, this feeling does not appear to be reciprocated.
We’ve now got a fairly large number of non-whites, such as the Sikh poster below, who genuinely believe that they have a right to swarm into white lands. Those of us who object probably seem quite bizarre to people like him. The idea of whites having lands of their own must appear preposterous. Whites simply can’t do that, it’s unthinkable. Everyone else can, but not whites.
While we don’t begrudge them their homelands, they have come to begrudge us ours. And of course, not telling you anything you don’t know, but this isn’t just limited to America the “proposition nation,” but all over the white world. No matter the history of the white land in question, there is ALWAYS an excuse for Third Worlders to infest it. The anti-whites have done their jobs well.
Obviously, that’s an unsustainable situation, but I don’t see them voluntarily giving up their present ability to live life on a “What’s ours is ours, what’s theirs is up for grabs” basis.
While it is true that the immigration law in USA was passed and signed into law in Oct 1965, it really didn’t become effective until 1 July 1968. So technically speaking, America opened it’s doors to non-white immigration in July 1968.
http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/79%20stat%20911.pdf
The three year wainting period was designed to blunt public oppositoin to something that wasn’t going to happen “immediately.” The people truely are dumb sheeple with limited forward looking capacity.
Greg I agree with your article.
I’d just like to add that the time lag between one killing spree and another seems to be getting shorter all the time, and I’m not just talking about white nationalist killing sprees but all sprees in general. Was this common even 20 or 30 years ago’s – I don’t think so. This can only be the product of an increasingly sick and degenerate culture.
These killing sprees are becoming depressingly common. You are right. This is a sick society, speeding toward the abyss.
I caught a little of the podcastable Diane Rehm Show with the oddball Potok and
another Jewish fellow on the subject today. Thankfully, it did get out, if I caught it right, that two-thirds of the WN movement opposed the act. (Whomever the guests
considered represent the WN movement.)
Unfortunately Alex Linder was described as ecstatic, praising the act and demanding every Sikh return to India, because they don’t belong in a White country no matter how peaceful they are.
Well, I reckon if every Sikh did return to India, that wouldn’t move the scale toward an all-White United States one-tenth of one percent in a favorable direction, but from Linder’s depicted emotion, if accurately described, you would have believed Sikhs were here in the numbers of Mexicans.
Now that I mention it, the knowing employer of illegal Mexicans might be a more defensible target, a rep of Big Business cheap labor drive or ideologue defending it
even more worthy, especially in areas where White workers wages have been driven down or their employment chances eliminated.
There was a big Sikh seperatist movement in India which might have climaxed
when they assassinated Indira Gandhi after she beseiged their Temple. Thousands of Sikhs were slaughtered by Hindus in mass retaliation and the movement seemed to subside.
For the liberals who describe Sikhs as pacifists and see the US as an interminable melting pot, this history might be instructive, but I doubt it.
Page was evidently in the movement since 2000 or earlier, give or take. That should have
been more than enough time to prioritize enemies. Would a British White Nationalist
right about now choose a Japanese Zen monastery for his personal Waterloo?
Liberals call Sikhs pacifist? More of the usual lies. Shiks are warrirors, fought often in the British army and are required by their faith to wear a dagger at all times.
And yes Hindus and Shiks are about the most ameniable caucasian immigrants. They seem to have a similar sense of humor.
One was a roommate in college. He said he had an uncle who was very proud of his British army service. The younger roommate was more of an Indian nationalist.
Greg,
I have observed that Sikhs, Hindus, or Asians in general DO NOT import their rivalries and animosities native to their homelands into the US. They are quite alien to this land and Asians know it. They congregate and socialize and worship among themselves, co-operate with one another in the workplace, regard rules cynically, and when it comes time to draw their knives it will be WHITES who are targeted. Just as a White identity is being borne in the US a Brown-Asian-Black racial identity opposed to the native White population is too. They are nursing their grievances and hatreds just as we are. And they are not fooled by media propaganda. They are already very much racially conscious! They feel their alien-ness everyday. They speak and look differently. They are colored differently. They will bow and scrape before authorities in the hope wielding power someday – a goal toward which they are being actively assisted by the system. How it will play out in the future is unknown but concerning. If they win, the best case scenario is we look forward to cleaning their homes and removing their trash like the Amish girls are doing for my Sikh co-worker right now!
Sikhs were prominent in the riots in Vancover in the early 20th Century protesting the efforts to expel Asians. Thankfully, both Canada and the United States were sane enough to stop the Asians back then so we had a few years at least.
About your premise: yes and no. There is a obviously a huge minority coalition yet at the same time major hostilities have already broken out here and there. Koreans vs Blacks. Mexicans ethnically cleansing Blacks in parts of Southern California. Blacks vs Sikhs and Muslims during the London riots. They were featured on the news approvingly for defending their community even. The problem is that none of these tries to build a coaliton with us since we have no power. The Feds have put us on the bottom and keep us there as everyone’s prey.
I would have White unite on all levels – including that of the streets. Lead with the head, sure. But don’t abandon the potential for force.
My observations are ones from my professional life. Black thuggery will affect anyone who attempts to do business in a ghetto and racial-ethnic alliances will form to protect against it, but when whites are in the competitive mix — when there is power, position, and money alliances formed will be the “coloreds” against the white nearly every time. This is a generalization which I think holds true most of the time.
I think these groups do carry their rivalries…as I recall, Sikhs in Canada blew up a plane due to trouble in India.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sikhs-of-vancouver
Thanks for this assessment. It really grieves me to see young white men go off like this and then be completely demonized by the press. No public candle lighting for him, but I think some private ones may have happened.
Metapolitics is a much better strategy.
Excellent article. I see this as a result of the democracy and egalitarianism in American culture. The same awful frustration that a black child must feel when he is told from birth that he is equal in every way to whites yet cannot accomplish the same things and can make neither heads nor tails of how that is possible is causing frustration in our community. Everyone feels he is capable of anything. John Smith is just as qualified as Tom Jones in every way. Utopia is always one vote, one battle around the corner. No one knows his place anymore. The idea of a genetic and cultural elite within the white race been lost. It is not enough for someone to be on our side politically. They must be told how to be on our side.
Anyone with half a brain could have told this shooter that he was about to do something very stupid. I think it is the responsibility of the elite to guide the movement while constantly, without fail,condemning the fringe, even if it loses us a few supporters in the short term.
Who are the elite? We CCers, of course. We need to enter the fray more forcefully and corral the wolves.
Sigh…
This is not a question of “Old Right” VS “New Right”. You reason like a constructivist or a Marxist, for whom ideology determines the behavior of someone. And as such I wonder if you’re not a troll, or have an agenda to push.
This is entirely a question of intelligence. Entirely. The dumber someone is, the more likely he is to a be a skinhead, a chauvinist or a xenophobe, who is racist out of mere reptilian emotion. Like Wade Michael Page. The smarter someone is, the more likely he is to have a logical or scientific reasoning to back his racism.
I agree on the fact lowbrow and violent skinheads have caused immeasurable harm to the WN movement on an international level, but those to blame at the core are the mass medias, who focused on them instead of focusing on the intellectuals and leaders of the movement. This was not the case in, say, 1920s Germany, where the SA brawlers were regarded by everyone as grunts and policemen and not as an intellectual representation of the NSDAP.
” The smarter someone is, the more likely he is to have a logical or scientific reasoning to back his racism.”
I have to disagree with you. The more intelligent one is the better one is able to rationalize one’s desires. The desires themselves don’t really change. They get dressed in lots of fine words and “scientific” observations — selectively chosen — to justify whatever one wants.
Do you deny the existence of an objective reality (or “truth”)?
What about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh_Thind
You are all immigrants. Some white people came to america a few hundred years ago… got rid of the original Native Americans. Then, when more white people started to show up (irish, italian, etc..), that caused a problem. And you know what? They integrated. An irishman even went on to be a president. Then you had problems with blacks. And you know what? They integrated and now a black guy went on to be the president. Soon there will be a mexican president and one day a Sikh president (Nikki Haley maybe).
The more you resist based on superficial issues like color of skin, the more you are on the wrong side of history. America is based on *principles*.. the same principles that YOUR great grand father was attracted to when he got on that boat from Europe. Freedom and a desire to succeed.
Fuck the color of the skin. Fuck the religion of the person. This is america, the greatest country on earth. And it will remain great through the character of its citizens. Hard work, focus on science and engineering, creating jobs within our own borders for everyone, regardless of their race. I am an American Sikh, born and brought up in this country. If you cannot look past the color of my skin and work with me to keep this country the greatest country on earth — that’s your problem.
“America” — the propositional “nation,” i.e., the egalitarian capitalist system — is the most evil enterprise in human history if it can take a person one generation removed from a proud and healthy people with a strong identity and turn him into a deracinated nihilist like this.
Disagree slightly. Or maybe it’s just a slight difference in interpretation/emphasis. I don’t think America did it. This person seems to have freely chosen the worst that America has to offer when there is no reason he had to. It shows the seductiveness of American/Western decadence even to people from fairly healthy backgrounds.
Every non-white immigrant regards White Americans with disdain and contempt. He sputters on about America being a “land of immigrants” (as if there is a land that wasn’t) and despite his rhetoric he will marry a fellow Sikh and regard Americans as only so many sheep to be fleeced or fileted when the time comes. Hypocrisy, deceit, slavish obeisance to power, pretensions to culture, and a seething hatred for whites are their hallmarks.
“I am an American Sikh, born and brought up in this country. If you cannot look past the color of my skin and work with me to keep this country the greatest country on earth — that’s your problem.”
This country was, at one time, the greatest country on earth. Now? It’s all downwhill, precisely as it fills up with non-whites such as yourself. The historic American nation and the monstrosity that calls itself America today might as well be on two different planets. They are entirely different nations.
“The more you resist based on superficial issues like color of skin, the more you are on the wrong side of history. America is based on *principles*.. the same principles that YOUR great grand father was attracted to when he got on that boat from Europe.”
Our great grandfathers came to a land built by and inhabited by their fellow Europeans. They didn’t go to Punjab. They didn’t desire to live with you, but rather with their own. I’m quite confident that the inhabitants of Punjab would have reciprocated. Instead, our ancestors came to the great European descended nation that America once was, but would have never come to the declining, polygot cesspool of today.
Truthfully, I don’t expect you to understand this. The America that drew our great grandfathers is probably beyond your comprehension, for the simple reason that you are not us, and therefore it literally makes no sense to you. But fear not! Plenty of us are desirous of going our own way, so perhaps one day we can be out of each other’s hair entirely. Next time, you won’t be allowed to destroy our creation, though you will no doubt try. You will eye our white lands, and scheme for the day when you can enter.
Not a chance. I think it’s safe to say we’ve learned our lesson.
Extremely well said…and poetic in delivery. Thanks.
We all feel sympathy for ‘victims’, it is in our nature/blood. As well, many of us, including myself, know dozens, if not several hundreds (multiplied by all of us) who have been Victimized by some ‘anti-traditional’ aspect of this modern society; like the poster above (american and sikh), and stated by Trainspotter, this individual is just not capable of understanding what we are all talking about too bad, because if I was living in a foreign land, with a long and varied history, you could bet that this would be a big part of my personal understanding of the ‘place I called home’, and would only seek to change anything there that affected me ‘outside’ this purview.
George Lincoln Rockwell’s greatest legacy (in my mind) was ‘The Ducks and the Hens’, as this beautiful little ditty has been passed to my children, and the children of thousands; it is, as TS said:
Let strive, every day, to make sure that we succeed in this enterprise.
Faustus,
Don’t fall into the abstract sympathy trap.
Did our Sikh enemy above feel bad for John Hinkle? Chris Newsom and Channon Christian? Tim McLean? Amaro Viana? Where are his comments about the victims of the Aurora massacre? Where is he speaking out against his co-ethnics in England raping and murdering white girls?
You are not obligated to feel sympathy for those who are not familiar to you. It is pure emotional contagion and a symptom of our weakness as whites, always trying to be fair. This is —never— reciprocated.
See, to these ants at the picnic, we don’t count. We scarcely even exist as they pursue the success of their bloodlines. We’re just so much ugly, ill-mannered, frumpy white detritus addicted to cigarettes. They look down on us. When they gather for family dinner, they aren’t going, “Oh my, how horrible that those poor white people were killed in ____,” and wobbling their heads.
They don’t fucking care. They have no natural reason to pity or sympathize or even like us as humans. And they don’t. Their religion is as much a sham as the average Christian’s — a proxy for ethnic cohesion.
There’s a circuit inside white people that prompts them to sympathize with everything that moves. This needs to be switched off.
The United States is not a “nation of immigrants”, rather, it is a nation of colonists. North-Western European colonists founded America for themselves and their progeny (us). Their connection to us is one of family ties and means-and-ends. The colonists did not “steal” a pre-existing democratic republic from the North American Aborigines, rather, they struggled, triumphed, and created their own. Apaches, Pimas, etc., are not “native” United States citizens, they are an aborigine people that lived outside of the United States until relatively recently. (In fact, they largely continue to do so via their semi-sovereign reservations). The United States did not exist before the European colonists founded it; this nation did not predate its European colonization.
The period of Western European colonization began before the revolution and lasted until the 1960s. It is only in the last half century that the United States shifted from that of a European colony to the present notion of a “nation of immigrants”, or to more correctly put it, a colony of the world’s failed non-European peoples. The same loss of ownership has occurred in the rest of the Anglosphere and has also coincided with its overall decline. The United States will not outlive the dissolution of its European founding stock.
Opinions like yours – those of entitled strangers – emphasize why the term “White Supremacist” should be embraced rather than a tame “White Separatist” label: White Separatists of the present are mealy the squanderers of wealth left by their White Supremacists forebears. A separatist turns tail, tolerates, and backs down. A supremacist advances, defends, and builds (hence the existence of the United States as historically instituted by supremacist European colonists).
America was created by colonists for the descendent sons and daughters of said colonists, thus America is “a nation of European colonists”.
Speaking of “White Supremacist”, non-whites very much prefer to live in much higher quality white countries rather than their own 3rd world countries, hence they are the real white supremacists.
I roomed with a Sikh in college. I respect your people, what you don’t realize is there is a worldwide plan, led mostly by powerful Jews to assimilate whites every where out of existence.
The psychotic Jews at the top of the pyramid of Jewish power in this country fear any white Christian country will eventually evolve into a NAZI state and gas another six million Jews.
As an ideologically protected minority you should be able to discern the tremendous power Jews have over this country. Just look at the endless wars America fights against Israel’s enemies. And yes I realize Islam is a violent aggressive religion.
The program of genocide against whites is something you wouldn’t be expected to be aware of because as a non-European it doesn’t affect you. Pleas read the following and understand America is close to exploding in Civil war, certainly within 15 years. A word to the wise.
BOB’S MANTRA
“Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
“They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
Bob Whitaker
Thanks for the support. Now why do you people want your own Nation in the Punjab? India is a wonderful melting pot just like America – you should be happy there.
I think I could speak for everyone on this forum in saying that, if we were in your shoes we would be proud of and embrace the identity that you are, at best, watering down through Americanization. I don’t know your life, but I would imagine that, if you marry a Sikh woman, on the day you have a son you will be overwhelmed with the sense of the transcendent. You will realize that you are a link in the chain between unknown multitudes of descendents and your own ancestors. You will see much more clearly the incompatibility of the Proposition Nation with Tradition and Identity. You are facing a choice in your generation: Jersey Shore or the wisdom of your Gurus, chatting about Lost over Starbucks coffee with your startup co-workers or practicing Gatka with your fellow Lions of India, being utilized by a mercantile elite to divide and rule a land foreign to your forefathers or defending and leading what may be the most dynamic world power in the 21st Century. Though it could never be my path in this life, in your shoes I would choose the latter. Our fates and identities are different; that does not mean that respect is impossible or hate is inevitable. The Dharma of a Sikh is in the Subcontinent, and your people has yet to fulfill their destiny.
Every immigrant I’ve ever met had contempt for White Americans and thought he understood America better than we do. So typically, I would just make a few broadsides about his own Nation about which I knew little until they were sputtering with rage. You don’t understand, they would froth. But you understand us and our situation, I would reply.
It all comes from being a defeated people with no pride. It invites this kind of comment. I mean why would invaders respect the people they were invading? Remember the Ugly American abroad? Now we have the Ugly Everybody right here. White Europeans are often the worst of all for ideological reasons and not so much predatory considerations.
“The Ugly Everybody” — nice one!
Well said.
@American and Sikh
You don’t get it.
The Punjabi region where your people are the majority could re-organize itself tomorrow into an exact replica of the political system used here in the US and it wouldn’t change a damn thing. The Punjab wouldn’t become a nation of “principles” – it would remain the main homeland for Sikhs.
Adopt the US Constitution and Punjabi Sikhs would still resist with everything they had if say, millions of Mexicans decided to move in illegally. In this sense the Punjab is inseparable from the Sikh people. All other “principles” are fluff.
Up until 30 years ago or so the US was a 90%+ White European Nation. The “principles” you admire are for us, to govern ourselves, they’re not an invitation to you. Adopt our “principles” and our constitution if you want, but do it in your own land.
I assure you, most of us don’t want to live with you, regardless of the front the media is putting up over this incident. You will never feel at home living amongst us whites, and all you’ll succeed in doing by insisting on living here is making your white neighbors not feel at home either. Do us all a favor and go home.
The day of the incident CNN had an interview with a Sikh who was inside the temple and witnessed the massacre. He said that there were four shooters. Anyone else see that news clip? And does anyone have a link to it?
When you set out to destroy a man’s race and colonize his country with foreigners, he is going to react. Perhaps some react in ways that no one likes but how could you expect them not to react?
If the ruling class of Japan decided to flood Japan with millions of Indian, Africans and assorted other third worlders then told the Japanese people that their race was going to be blended into a “melting pot” how could you not expect a normal Japanese man to resist this genocide? Maybe some dumb Japanese guy would attack the immigrants themselves while to smarter Japanese guy would try to take down the traitorous elite politically…but I can understand why each of them would resist.
I wish the guy hadn’t done this, I really do…but the real fault lies with the anti-Whites who have created this horrendous situation. The problem is only going to get worse unless we start to address it. We need an open and frank discussion on race and the program of genocide being implemented against ours.
Agreed
There used to be a concept called “Black rage” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_rage_(law)
Essentially the argument was that Black people were living in a society that didn’t care about their racial interests so therefor it was understandable that they might be psychologically damaged by this and react in violent, unpredictable ways.
You will notice that the people putting forth this theory never apologized for this violent behavior, they merely provided their own context for it putting the blame on aspects of society they didn’t like and prescribed a solution that happened to coincide with the direction they wanted to take our society. It didn’t work as a legal argument but the ideas stuck in people’s minds.
Doesn’t it seem like we are living in an age of White rage?
Good point, which fits in with my approach to Page, Breivik, and God knows how many others to come: (1) emphasize that racial hatred and violence is the predictable, inevitable result of multiculturalism, which is why we need separate societies (2) emphasize that white ethnocentrism is natural and normal, not pathological, and will inevitably lead to more such events, as intensified multiculturalism leads to White Rage; and (3) argue that awakened whites need to stop these stupid, self-indulgent, self-destructive massacres and instead focus on educating our people about why such violence is inevitable and what can be done to stop it. White Nationalists should stop being part of the problem and start being the ones who offer a real solution.
@ GJ
Agree.
One thing, however, is that much of your personal approach is of a sensitive nature – not a thing wrong with that – but insensitivity is also part of the equation. Balance in everything.
True White Nationalism is the solution.
To the Issue of Rage: Yes, we most certainly are.
@ uh
A ‘trap’, by definition, is something that your are ‘unaware’ of, and I certainly know the difference between sympathy for my own, and sympathy for an event which included many innocents (truly, not all persons are combatants). But based on your comment below, I can relate most emphatically:
Of course your anger, anguish and pain is understandable – but being ‘hard’ does not have to be tempered with stupidity and a lack of honest courage (not to say that this fits you) to disengage the primary opponents (those who ‘actively seek our destruction’ with those that share space with us based on the multi-cults Invitation) from those simply trying to live out their existence; of course this issue of their presence, and the presence of all those non-western elements within our body-politic, must be addressed, and it will. As we garner even more momentum, and we honestly strive for political power, independent geographical sovereignty, and stake our claim, this will address itself as a matter of course.
@ uh
I know several Sikhs, and they are intelligent and potentially very dangerous: They understand warfare, are ethno-centric in extremis, will not allow their daughters to marry ‘anyone’ outside their blood, and generally understand that they are in a ‘white man’s land’, although they often speak of the “tragic loss” that they see in america, as the ‘westerner’ is pushed out of the cities, etc. Even if these individuals go home and talk ‘sh-t’, does that mean that you or myself would ever give them that ‘inch’ that would mean our life, over theirs? Hardly.
By way of analogy, if you think of Robert E. Lee, General of a powerful and mobile army, taught in the best School of War that this country had produced up to that point, when it came to ‘killing’ his enemy – he did – but when that confrontation had ended in his victory, he would then satiate the blood-lust of his men (sometimes with force), and would gather his forces for the next enemy rout. Being hard is only part of a war – there will come times that understanding this will save both elements unnecessary pain.
Do not give up one side for the other; but both, together, is what will make you Victorious and Noble.
BTW – I was extremely involved in the Chris Newsom and Channon Christian tragedy, including many more before this. Never Forget!
This guy was not trained to murder nonWhites by the White Nationalist movement, he was trained to kill nonWhites in their own countries by the US military and US government.
Why is it such a stretch that he would continue to kill nonWhites, as he was trained to do, once he got back here?
Worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=870vL2JhqC8
This may prove interesting – who’s up next?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t905889-9/#post10503168
Just a few stray thoughts on the mystical/historical side. Sikhism’s founder, Guru Nanak, was the soul of love and peace. He found great limitations in the Hinduism of his day and felt urged to find another way. Sure he founded a Path and a Community or Sangha, but if left alone they might have become a mystical brotherhood like Sufism and not a Warrior Nation. But they were ruthlessly persecuted by the Muslims and they fought back – magnifiently. Or if left alone they might have just petered out after a few generations as Kabir’s, the great poet saint of Muslim Hindu accord, movement did.
I looked at the link the Sikh provided. Indeed the man seemed like an amazing preacher and Renaissance Man. It changes nothing. Men like him should be allowed to teach but join the Army and fight for us? No, that just confuses the different levels and muddies everything.
Even in the ancient Greek City States, there was room for honored guests from abroad. And the proud Greeks were humble enough to admit that they had gotten some things from others. Plato even said that if a seeker couldn’t find a Teacher in his own City then go to another. And if could not find one in Greece, than seek abroad. Amazingly broad minded for the times – or not. Some say we went backwards after that.
“I want to whiten up the Sikh bloodline”, let us see how that flies with Mr. Sikh-american? Except for the posts outlining the genocide being inflicted upon us the rest of the posts degenerated into wordist weakness.
The guy was crazy, but most unfortunately, it looks like it will continue to happen this way, until “THEY” all leave North America. With all the crazies out there, the horizon is quite clear.
Interesting: http://takimag.com/article/making_us_sikh_kathy_shaidle/print#axzz24CijKuGK