Counter-Currents
814 words
The race problem necessitates deportation / repatriation / resettlement / expulsion. Just as aliens have swamped our territory—have been physically transferred into our homelands to destroy our people—they can be transferred out.
The first step is to immediately and completely halt all “legal” and illegal non-white immigration.
The second step is to reverse the formidable mass of economic and political incentives that were crafted to create the present debacle. This includes enforcing existing immigration law, which is routinely violated by local, state, and federal governments, the judiciary, and law enforcement. It is widely-recognized that such changes would powerfully encourage so-called “self-deportation.”
Though such measures provide a good start and are essential components of any healthy population policy, they are not enough. Inasmuch as we are confronted with an imminent threat to our survival, all non-whites, including Jews, must go. It does not matter how rough the process must be, just as it does not matter to Jews, government, and other anti-white elements how catastrophic their policies are to us (or, for that matter, to Middle Easterners).
The sooner such measures are implemented, the less assimilated and hybridized the imported arrivals remain, the easier and cleaner the process will be. It will become more difficult—though no less necessary—with each passing year before decisive action is taken.
Elsewhere I have noted that not only did Abraham Lincoln not advocate racial mixing, he favored the resettlement of American blacks outside the United States.
Nevertheless, his position was less radical than it sounds. Most blacks did not want to go—quite sensibly from their point of view, since they did not consider themselves Africans—and hardly anyplace wanted to accept them. However, Lincoln insisted that emigration must be noncompulsory and conducted at government expense.
His Virginia-born Attorney General Edward Bates, on the other hand, demanded compulsory deportation: the Negro, he maintained, would never leave voluntarily. Since the correctness of Bates’ position is unassailable, Lincoln’s resettlement policy obviously was not a far-reaching program. (Bates and his South Carolinian wife, by the way, had 17 children in an era when childbirth was nowhere near as safe, or infant mortality rates as inconsequential, as they are today.)
Contra Lincoln, everywhere whites live, in addition to closing the gates to the artificially-created flood of racial aliens, resettlement must be mandatory.
The prevailing policy of white racial destruction—genocide—is a crime according to international law. Because the perpetrators constitute the ruling class, they will not prosecute themselves, any more than Communists were punished after the “fall” of that System.
Mexicans being deported from Los Angeles, 1931
It is palpable that today’s criminals do not occupy any kind of moral high ground. They stand self-condemned under their own laws, never mind their constantly reiterated, hypocritical moral pronouncements.
Ethnic cleansing and genocide conducted by means of mass immigration and other methods are not morally superior to racial separation through mass deportation. What is presently being done is by far the greater evil. Concealment of crimes by the media or elites is not equivalent to non-commission of the underlying acts.
Replacement migration constitutes the next-to-last stage in a comprehensive program that began with anti-colonialism and the relinquishment of white colonies overseas, followed by the destruction of several white-ruled First World nations in southern Africa, one of which possessed nuclear weapons. The latter governments were replaced by black-Jewish coalitions of “ex-” Communists.
As a New York Times reviewer noted, “ethnic cleansing was viewed not so long ago as a legitimate tool of foreign policy. In the early part of the 20th century, forced population shifts were not uncommon, as multicultural empires crumbled and nationalism drove the formation of new, ethnically homogenous countries.”
There are numerous historical precedents for removal, including
- Expulsions of Jews from various countries in Europe (1290–1944)
- Expulsion of Moors and Moriscos from Spain (1492/1609)
- Repatriation of blacks to Africa: The American Colonization Society and Liberia (1816–1847)
- The Indian Removal Act (US, 1830)
- Russian resettlement of Muslim Circassians, Ubykhs, Abkhaz, and Abaza to the Ottoman Empire (1864–1867)
- Reciprocal mass expulsions from Greece and Turkey (the Lausanne Agreement, 1923)
- Mexican Repatriation (US, 1930–1935)
- Soviet deportation of Koreans to Soviet Central Asia (1937)
- Soviet deportation of 1.5 million Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Karachais, Kalmyks, Balkars, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Hemshin, and Meskhetians (1943–1944)
- The mass transfer of Hindus and Muslims between India and Pakistan (1947)
- Operation Wetback (US, 1954)
It is notable that several mass deportations were “politically correct” within the framework of prevailing Left-wing ideology. Communist deportations, for example—simply by virtue of being Communist—were politically correct, just as genocide conducted against whites is.
Other brutal but politically correct mass deportations include the forced expulsion of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe by Allied-Communist forces after WWII, and Arabs from Palestine by Jews and their American, European, and Soviet backers.
Indeed, “correct” ethnic cleansing in the Middle East continues at this very moment, demonstrating that power and will are what make deportations viable.
What must be done can be done.
54 comments
A more effective method might be sterilization, which would not be limited just to recent immigrants. Citizens could be summoned to the nearest medical center to receive an inoculation against a particularly virulent (and fictitious) newly-discovered virus. Those who would benefit our country by failing to reproduce could then be sterilized by injection.
Stealth sterilization programs will always be discovered before they are finished. That already happened with such programs on Indian women in the US, Papuan women in Indonesian New Guinea and Ethiopian-Jewish women in Israel. People will notice when certain communities do not reproduce anymore. Then suspicious “health programs” will be discovered.
“People will notice when certain communities do not reproduce anymore. Then suspicious “health programs” will be discovered.”
This is no doubt true. But if, say, 75% of the country’s “vibrant” people were sterilized quickly, it wouldn’t matter whether it were noticed or not.
Mass lies and creepy assault-by-stealth behavior is Jewish behavior. We can’t out-Jew the Jews.
We should confront our problems with vigor and sincerity, not with creepy lies and insidious tricks. If we’re going to start being creepy and insidious, many (perhaps most) Whites will eventually come to find us repulsive.
I absolutely agree that we can’t out-Jew the Jews by stealth. That’s fundamental.
But whites are more malleable than you think. You are assuming most of them share your high moral standards. But if that were true, the Jews could never have done what they did to us and everybody else in the first place, much less still be literally worshipped as demi-gods by most whites—there are even many WN philo-Semites!—after all the evil they have done. You are right about the stealth, but, though I hate to say it, whites are not as moral as you give them credit for being.
If you’d like to read a detailed proposal of such a program worked out to the smallest detail, check out Jewish author Theodore N(ewman) Kaufman’s (1910-1986) Germany Must Perish! (Newark, NJ: Argyle Press, 1941), 104 pp. He proposed sterilizing the entire German nation, and Joseph Goebbels made Kaufman’s program widely known. I own the book and have read it. Kaufman is quite ostentatious about how moral his scheme is.
Jewish Leftist Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) also proposed, if I remember correctly, that governments should secretly sterilize populations through the water or food supply. Since, in a different place, he insists the First World is responsible for the depredation of the planet through overconsumption, and that Third Worlders are innocent, it’s easy to gauge who he thought should be sterilized.
Recently, in Israel, Jews performed involuntary sterilizations on their black population, as Franklin Ryckaert notes.
I’ve considered writing about the various Jewish proposals and actions on this front, but the information is scattered, so it would involve a research project. They seem quite attracted to it.
Anyway, involuntary racial sterilization, in principle, is clearly politically correct, there’s no question about that. Jews call themselves the “light unto the nations.” Perhaps we’ll be forced to emulate them out of sheer self-defense.
I believe that Grosset and Dunlap, which appears to be a mainstream publisher, once published Meir Kahane’s book They Must Go, which advocates the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel.
The whole problem of repatriation of non-Whites from white countries is not a problem of logistics or finance but solely of acceptability. As the author of this article rightly observes, it is a matter of “political correctness”. Therefore we must try to change the political climate. We must try to have the idea of ethnic survival of Whites being a moral cause be accepted. Presently white survival is seen as utterly amoral. This insane situation has to be changed.
Mr. Hamilton,
Such an easy way out of mandatory diversity isn’t very likely to happen: the scenario I foresee is the coming of a bloody and ruthless race war in the West. It’s too late for repatriation, there are too many of them, and besides, scores of Whites will fight on the mud’s side. As doctor Pierce said, “there will be hell to pay!”
Deportations would require governments that aren’t bent on the genocide of Whites. I think it would be much easier for race-conscious Whites to leave their lands and found a settlement some place far off, and leave the weak liberal Whites to their fate.
There are no more empty spaces “some place far off” on this planet. White flight is no more an option. For Whites their countries themselves will be their battlefields.
“What must be done can be done.”
Mr. Hamilton,
Of course to get such deportations accomplished within the framework of our existing US Constitutional and legal systems much would need to be changed by Congressional legislative action, all of which would be subject to judicial review.
Please consider the following:
1) The 14th Amendment to our Constitution grants citizenship, regardless of race, to anyone born within the US;
2) Under the current Immigration Act (Title 8 USC) no provision exists for the removal of citizens or aliens solely based upon their race and Orders of Removal (i.e. deportation) issued by Immigration Judges are subject to applet court review;
And given current sentiments about such changes among the general population one can see the gigantic hurdles such actions they would need to clear just to get the discussion started. Where does one begin?
I acknowledge the problems you raise, but think the place to begin is by visualizing a different state of affairs (different possibilities), than exists now. Because the present situation is so extreme, and has proceeded so far toward its goal, we are left with few options. Certain courses of action have literally been thrust upon us.
I’m sure you’re broadly aware of the history of immigration law in the United States between the immigration acts of 1924 and 1965—and what has happened since.
The 1924 laws, which insured a white society, were changed. Existing laws can also be changed. Sam Francis and VDare have proposed an immigration “moratorium,” and Pete Wilson, Kris Koblach, and Mitt Romney have touched upon “self-deportation.” The birthright citizenship you mention has been contested in Congress. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/30/birthright-citizenship-constitution/2036095/ I am simply shining a higher-powered light further into the darkness than any of these people have done.
It might be that peaceful, democratic change in a pro-white direction (for example, the enactment of laws necessary to accomplish the objectives stated here) is no longer feasible. But even if a homeland is established outside the existing legal framework, racial separation would still be necessary.
In matters of this nature, what the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve. But first, the relevant ideas need to be conceived. We must dare to think them.
Any progress in a positive direction, whether by legal means within the existing System, or, if necessary, outside it, I favor.
First the “unthinkable” must be made thinkable, then the “unspeakable” must be made speakable in order for the “undoable” to be made doable.
The change in US immigration policy was mainly the work of Jewish lobbying, as prof. Kevin MacDonald has demonstrated. In priciple a repeal of that policy could be the work of a pro-White lobby. Whites should start to learn to lobby as effectively as the Jews.
I’m sure many readers are familiar with Tribe member James Howard Kunstler. Like Harold Covington, I find Kunstler amusing, so I read his weekly blog.
One funny habit he has is to name members of his own Tribe but never note that they constitute a tribe. He does so again today, this time in a way that very much parallels Mr. Hamilton’s essay above. To wit:
“Life in the USA is like living in a broken-down, cob-jobbed, vermin-infested house that needs to be gutted, disinfected, and rebuilt — with the hope that it might come out of the restoration process retaining the better qualities of our heritage. Some of us are anxious to get on with the job, to expel all the rats, bats, bedbugs, roaches, and lice, tear out the stinking shag carpet and the moldy sheet-rock, rip off the crappy plastic siding, and start rebuilding along lines that are consistent with the demands of the future — namely, the reality of capital and material resource scarcity. But it has been apparent for a while that the current owners of the house would prefer to let it fall down, or burn down rather than renovate.”
And who are the “current owners”? Everyone should recognize the people Kunstler describes as “a tiny cohort of financial vampire squids [who] suck in all the nominal wealth of society.”
Excellent proposal. I’ve been waiting for someone to mention this for a long time now.
You forgot one thing however. It goes together with repatriation as does wine with cheese.
You’ll have to enlighten me.
The confiscation of all foreign owned assets by European governments.
he wealth obtained could defer the costs of repatriation. It could also create a pool of largess that would attract many erstwhile disinterested knuckleheads, increasing support and chances of success.
In fine; repatriation+spoliation=liberation.
If you confiscate their assets, you’ll alienate even the few individuals and governments who might be willing to cooperate with such a hypothetical resettlement program. On the other hands, money-transfer companies like Western Union should be shut down for good: this will force economic migrants to self-deport themselves or cooperate with the program, but we’re still left with the great bulk of second/third generation non-whites: they’d rather turn our homelands to rabble than go back to countries they don’t deem their own, you forgot that most of them sincerely believe they’re in the West to stay.
Since they all want to come to Europe and America, leave them all come and take the countries they vacated!
As I am reading “Camp of the Saints” currently, I see it is blueprint of what is happening to the west right now. George Lincoln Rockewell talked about the need, not for segregation (which always fails), but total geographic separation. I propose a reparation/repatriation program. We will pay and provide the means for certain people to get out. Other nice things will be offered, all on very special condition: if they leave permanently.
This is the whole White Nationalist movement in a nutshell. One very serious problem however. The Jews. They will have to be forced out. We really cannot negotiate with them. What truly drives them is not rational.
Problem is, as I’ve said above, no matter how much money you pour in the volountary repatriation scheme, the overwhelming majority of non-whites won’t be willing to go back to the teeming shores they’ve left: and last but not least, where are you going to find the unbelievably huge amount of money needed to lure them out of our countries? And what’s more, the countries they hail from will obstruct every resettlement program, Jews nitwithstanding.
Don’t worry. The Jews are already talking about self-deporting:
http://www.haaretz.com/questions-of-survival-1.191164
Perhaps the Jews see the writing on the wall regarding their future survival in the West, even if most Whites do not.
Today’s problem is not how to deport the non-Whites, but how to get rid of the Jewish dictatorship. The next problem will be how to get a nationalist regime rather than a conservative government led by a man like Lincoln, who was afraid of taking energetic measures of resettlement.
Once a nationalistic government is in place, it will face other problems. Third-world countries may refuse to take back their population. What if Mexico refuses to cooperate? Should it be militarily invaded? I think a possible solution would be to invade some African country and resettle the Mexicans there. Israel did something like that recently. They bribed the Ugandan government so it would accept people that were no longer wanted in Israel. But it was probably not a whole lot of people. No military invasion was needed. Another solution would be to resettle all the immigrants on a small piece of American territory next to Mexico.
“Ethnic cleansing and genocide conducted by means of mass immigration and other methods are not morally superior to racial separation through mass deportation.”
And also, in terms of shed tears and broken hearts, being expelled from the USA isn’t worse for the Mexicans than willingly leaving their friends and families in Mexico in order to become parasites in the USA. They are in the USA for the money, not because they love Americans. Their love of money is obviously stronger than their love for their own people. If they are expelled back to Mexico, they will cry mostly about the money and material comfort they lost.
Speaking of sterilization – there IS a sterilization program underway and many whites could be affected.
Here’s a paragraph from this blog site: http://vidrebel.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/video-gmo-ticking-time-bomb-the-bankers-want-you-sterilized-and-then-dead/
“In 2001 Mitch Hein was President of Epicyte, a San Diego bio-tech firm that made a protein that sterilized men and women who ate the corn his company had genetically engineered. Epicyte had gone to Mexico and found a rare protein in women that was known as causing immune infertility. The protein attacked sperm and prevented impregnation. When this Epicyte protein was spliced by them into corn and fed to men, it attacked their sperm and made them infertile. In women this protein attacks sperm making normal conception impossible. This protein has spread by normal plant pollination. It would now be a herculean task to remove from our food supply. And that is by design.”
Vidrebel is one of the best blogger out there!
There will be no deportations. Millions of non-whites who have been here for generations will not be willing to go back to their motherlands even if those governments were to accept them back. We will not have the financial resources to send them back even if they wanted to go. The revolution will be one of survival, not humanitarianism We all know what it is going to come down to, we don’t have to say it.
You could say the same for pretty much any population transfer in history (and there has been many of them). Many who were expelled in the past were living there for multiple generations.
Many non-white countries actually WOULD accept them, especially if you allowed them to keep their money. If whites had the power to radically change the course of a history that is turning us into a minority across the west, then whites would have the power to expel non-whites. It is curious how many WNs are so hostile to something so necessary for white survival.
We’re not “hostile” to that, we’re simply saying that it’s far too late for that and the only thing ahead of us is an awful bloodbath.
Don’t get me wrong if we can get the right kind of movement and political apparatus in place I’m all for peaceful repatriation. It would mean less bloodshed of our people. It’s so late in the game I just don’t see it happening. Anything to spare the lives of the dwindling white population I am for.
“Millions of non-whites who have been here for generations will not be willing to go back…”
Immigration is a hoax. It never happened. The millions of non-whites who had been living in the same place since their ancestors climbed down from the trees would never have accepted to leave their homelands for Europe or the USA.
“We will not have the financial resources to send them back even if they wanted to go.”
On the contrary, each time one of them is expelled, you are left with more money to expel the others. The more you expel, the richer you get!
Yes human consciousness is mediated, by culture and suggestion. And that can come from the Culture itself or outsiders with access to the Culture via the media. Big Lies are just as plausible as other kinds of lies – more so since the normalcy bias kicks in. Just tell people they were forced to leave their homelands and now we’re sorry and sending them back.
An example of normal cultural myth: The Sioux think they’ve lived in the Dakotas since the beginning of time. But in reality they lost a war against the Cree and were forced out of the Eastern Woodlands a few centuries ago. They know this themselves on another level but typically the Myth dominates their consciousness. They project their reverence for their ancestors and eternity onto their current situation.
Like I said to Jeff Imson above if we can get peaceful repatriation going I am all for it.
Jaego: “Yes human consciousness is mediated, by culture and suggestion. And that can come from the Culture itself or outsiders with access to the Culture via the media.”
Exactly. In our mind, we have an imperfect representation of the world around us. We come to that representation by using our eyes and brains, and also by listening to what people around us are saying. Unfortunately, we unconsciously absorb wrong clues given by the Jewish media, and we have to make a conscious mental effort to get rid of them. It takes a lot of mental energy. And when we get tired, we are drawn back to the dominant view that comes from the Jewish media. So, in the end, it isn’t really a matter of conformism. It is more a matter of absorbing false information through osmosis.
Sociologists like Solomon Asch have thought up many experiences that show the power of conformism, induced by peer pressure or by the prestige of people with a high social status. Conformism is both useful in a natural society, and dangerous when people imitate what they see on Jewish TV.
But in the end, I think the damage done by the Jewish media has less to do with conformism than with supplying false information and wrong assumptions. That is why we tend to overestimate the human cost of deporting the immigrants, and to underestimate the human cost of destroying the White race. When we dress like our peers or like cool people, it is conformism. But when we do not challenge the Jewish lies we hear in the media, it is simply because we don’t have the time to stop and think about everything.
If WN people manage to create their own media, a part of their function will simply be to provide a environment where it is assumed as a matter of course that White people must live, and that non-whites must be expelled. Our minds tend to absorb more easily what is seen by everyone around us as a matter of course, than what is proven by argument.
Whites should very much start thinking along the lines of expulsion and repatriation of non-whites and Jews by any means. It isn’t enough to pine for a Rhode Island sized ethnostate. This is our country and even if we must start with a small area the goal should be a reconquista to reclaim every square inch of N. America and then some.
The non-whites will have no compunction meting out the same treatment to us if the worst ever comes to pass.
Of course whites must reclaim every inch of their countries, problem is that most non-whites will rather fight to death here, aided by hundreds of thousands of self-hating whites. I see a messy bloodbath, not an orderly resettlement program in our future.
AleCes: “most non-whites will rather fight to death here, aided by hundreds of thousands of self-hating whites”
If White Nationalists manage to peacefully take the government back, the non-Whites will simply do as they are told, and there will be no civil war. If White people only succeed in achieving independence in the North-West and in other places, there may be a war when they try to get back the whole territory.
The huge majority of White people are against race replacement. In a crisis, racial polarization will occur, and the White majority will become very hostile to the anti-white coalition.
Most White people who work today in pro-immigration organizations would never dream of killing fellow White people who oppose immigration. They don’t even understand that mass immigration amounts to genocide. If widespread violence occurs, most of them will renounce their pro-third-world mindset and they will side with the White majority. It is impossible to convince a leftist with logical arguments, but violence would be more successful.
In the last century, most Europeans who fought on the communist side in Spain and in other countries didn’t even know that they were fighting for the Jews. But if there is a racial war in this century, I hope most people will understand that the war is between White people and a coalition of Jews and other non-Whites. It will make it very hard for the leftist Whites to side against their own people, and try to kill as many as they can. I think the Jews will lose most of their support among White people. Meanwhile, most non-Whites will try to stay out of the fight if they can.
A civil war would certainly help White Nationalists to take back the government. Maybe a short war will happen and there will be few casualties. Once the White Nationalists are in power, they can start the orderly resettlement program.
By the way, there’s the ominous question of what to do with half-breeds, there are people who now look as white as we do but do have a non-white grandparent. Take Vin Diesel, for instance, I was stunned to learn he’s a quadroon, in France Negro immigration is so old that even Hitler remarked it: there are octodroon all over the place, I’d be interested to know where Mr. Johnson would draw the line. Eventually he could elaborate on that on a full-fledged article about racial passing.
Of course the existence half-breeds is the best argument for repatriation. We cannot change the mixing that has already happened, but the continuation (and acceleration) will be the death of us. William G. Simpson makes a good case about overcoming the logistical problems of moving them out.
However, this is just as much a question of our mindset than anything. If you begin to consider the impossible, it might become possible. Liberals do this on a routine basis. Forty years ago who thought gay marriage was even worthy of discussion? I am not advocating for that, just trying to make my point.
Actually, as far as I’m concerned, mongrels are the enemy number one: non-integrated minorities, large as the might be, don’t leave any genetic imprint in the host population, those who’ll fight us to death are the integrated mulattoes who want to turn Europe into a mulatto continent.
I think it would be better to refuse the contributions of people like AleCes, who are not on our side.
I can sympathize with you on this; there are some people who are a bit suspicious based on the manner that they speak. In the case of AleCes, I cannot see why any reasonable person would think that it is a good idea to advocate the mass killing of non-white residents/immigrants (which is essentially what he is doing). Hypothetically, even if such a thing would be necessary and unavoidable, as he claims, there would be no sense in advocating it at the present; it’s like trying to argue that we must be inhumane. But still it is ridiculous to think that a deportation program is unfeasible, when there is plenty of reason from what we know of history to think that it is both feasible and desirable.
Hello Armor,
Don’t understand what you mean by “not being on your side”. If you mean I’m not on wishful thinkers’ side, of course I’m not! And please stop misunderstanding me: I didn’t say we need wreak revenge on non-whites, I just said non-whites will be eager to wreak revenge on us, they’ve been bombarded with antiwhite propaganda for decades, Mr. Pierce himself said there would “be hell to pay”, was he “not on your side”? If he wasn’t then I wonder which side are you on.
To Tudor:
I did read the article but it leaves much to be desired inasmuch as it doesn’t cut the Gordian knot straight away. In most western metropolises miscegenation has reached Gomorrah levels, what do we do with such mongrels? Are mulattoes going to stay because they have on white parent? I’m fiercely opposed to that, but some quadroons look as white as we do (take Vin Diesel, for instance) and most octodroons don’t have any recognizable negroid features at all. There must be a quick and dirty rule for passing, brutal and merciless as it might be because unfortunately massive miscegenation has happened in the last 60 years, and denouncing me won’t further the cause of our race.
I think it is quite obvious from the discussion what needs to be done with mixed-race individuals: they need to live in separate territories/communities from the rest of us just as other races need to live separately from us. Basic principle is racial separatism. There has also been much discussed on how to define membership to a race. I myself have argued in the past that belonging to the White-European racial group is defined by possessing the proper physical traits and appearance, a majority white ancestry, and a European (or White European-derived) racial and cultural identity (essentially, if someone has all of these attributes, a minor amount of non-white mixture does not matter, that person is White from my perspective). I could probably write a lot on the matter of miscegenation and racial identifications and the complications involved, but there is no need to when so many New Right/Identitarian and White Nationalist authors have covered these issues multiple times.
I should not speak for Greg Johnson, since he likes to do that himself, but much has already been written on the topic of racial purity and miscegenation on Counter-Currents. For example, there was an article endorsed by Johnson entitled “Racial Purity, Ethnic Genetic Interests,
& the Cobb Case” by Ted Sallis, and it should answer some questions. It wouldn’t hurt you to go back to do some research on older articles by topic.
Lucian, yes, much has been written on it, but what has been written, good though it is, is just not good enough. I apologize for reopening old wounds, but this issue of definitions is unquestionably an Achilles heel. While it’s possible to suppress discussion of it in-house, opponents will not be so kind. The comments here are not the place to do it, but I think it’s vital that the issue be given a fuller treatment in the future, and I hope the thoughts expressed in my brief comment here might serve as a spur to such a treatment.
On this particular occasion, I have a suspicion that what got up Armor’s nose was Ale’s suggestion of negroid genetic ingression. Fair enough, but it cannot honestly be denied. How many Frenchmen would be keen to disavow an Alexandre Dumas? If they do it at all it would surely be with a heavy heart rather than with the casualness that racialists tend to suppose. In the face of unfeeling racialist aggression, opponents’ logic very quickly assumes the form of “the black race produced an Alexandre Dumas so I guess it’s okay if the white race dies.” That of course will not do, but the point that it will not do is better impressed upon people with some subtlety and compassion rather than anger and aggression.
To put the issue as simply as I can, every group has its “Sicilians” – it’s Sicilians all the way down. That’s to say, it doesn’t matter how or where you draw the lines, someone’s always going to be marginal and, typically, resentful as a result. How to deal effectively with the “Sicilian problem” – how to maximize support and minimize opposition, yet not betray the racial core – is an issue that simply must be confronted. As one of those “Sicilians” I believe it can be fairly settled and ought to be (or else I wouldn’t even bother posting).
Yes, that which is tainted hates that which is pure. Or misery loves company. Their solution? Drag down. Sully that which is pure. If we let that happen, then we didn’t love ourselves enough to survive. It all comes down to that. And as Cicero said, the Enemy Within is the most dangerous of all.
To Verlis:
“Sicilian” means you have negro blood in you? Sorry if I intrude in your privacy but you aroused my curiosity. The bottom line is that if WNs take power, they should immediately establish a casta system analogous to the one in vigor in Latin America prior to independence: people who don’t have miscegenated in the past 60 years are pure whites and they’re on top of the social pyramid. Then standard rules for passing shall be established but they must be very strict because negro blood is far stronger than the white one and takes generations to be completely effaced. As a rule of thumb, mongrels shall leave more often than not, I’m adamant about that, and I hope other people here shall agree with me because if we consider them as our own, by mingling with them we’d end up destroying our race even if pure non-whites were to be sent back home and all further immigration stopped.
Verlis, I think there’s more to Armor’s problem with AleCes than this little comment on possible Negro ancestry among the French, considering his past posts. As for the matter at hand, admittedly I do not think I can adequately judge the psychology of the French people when it comes to racial mixture, but it seems to me that they have a significant amount of nationalists and racialists, both historically and in more recent times. Thus I doubt racial separatism would be hindered too much among them by examples of prominent mixed-race people such as Dumas in their history, considering that there are many other European nations who have had this issue which did not hesitate to become racialist in the past. This is tied to what you call the “Sicilian problem” (although perhaps this kind of label should be offensive to Sicilians, because plenty of them are white from my perspective and from their own); the problem is solved by taking the most balanced and reasonable approach to racial mixture, a solution which we can say has at least been outlined thus far. By the way, I am not sure why you think what has been written on this matter is not good enough; obviously Ted Sallis is not all we have here, even though I referenced him as my example (there is much on the matter from the New Right too, a lot of which Anglophones are unfortunately unable to use, either because they are unaware of them or because they are untranslated).
Verlis: “While it’s possible to suppress discussion of it in-house, opponents will not be so kind.”
In real life, discussion is suppressed by the Jews, not by White Nationalists. The Jewish view is that living among Blacks should not be a problem for Whites, since we are all the same. Even so, it is considered as inhuman to force Blacks to live among other Blacks. The Jews will use similar arguments to lament the fate of a Verlis who is expelled from Whitelandia because he is not white enough. They will argue that darkies like Verlis are just as good as 100% White people. But at the same time, they will suggest that it is inhuman that he would be forced to live among people who are not as White as he is.
As I see it, someone who is expelled from a European country because he is not 100% European will simply continue living among fellow whitish people in his new country. He can marry one of them and have whitish children. What is so horrific about that? The loss of money? No longer being able to marry a Swedish woman? And what is so horrific about having to live among Blacks? If I was expelled to Africa, I would not die from sorrow. My life would go on. I would try to meet other Whites who are living there.
Anyway, for White people living in White countries, the priority must be to protect their collective existence, that is to say their race. First of all, that is what gives meaning to our life: knowing that we are part of a people that will continue to exist after our death. Mixed-race people who would like to stay among us usually don’t care about that. Very often, they have grievances against White people. Most of all, they want to preserve the material comfort they get from living among Whites. They don’t mind resettling to another city where they don’t know anyone, so long as it is in the same White country. I guess most of them would rather live in a place that is mostly white, rather than in a place where most people are racially mixed and resemble them. And they don’t want to resettle in a backward place like Africa. And they think they have a right to have children.
For people like them, I would like the idea of conquering part of Northern Algeria to give them their own separate territory, but it would take a war. A place like French Guiana would be another possibility. In the USA, a piece of American territory could be given to mixed-race people, and another part to the Blacks, while the Mexicans would go back to Mexico.
Basically, I agree with what blogger Guessedworker once said :
—
Well, it cannot be that immoral to return foreign populations to their own ancestral homelands (…). No, it is the others, the ones with complex racial histories, who present the dilemma.
But let’s turn the issue round. What moral reason can such an individual show for his claim to membership of the eternal nation? Economic productivity isn’t one. (…) All that’s left, I think, is family sentiment … the human right to belong with those closest to oneself. Does it outweigh the rights of the eternal nation, with which it is in conflict here? No, decidedly not. The latter’s are rights of an existential character. The individual’s right to family is profound, but it is not existential for the individual. In fact, the loss of family is part of life’s journey for us all.
—
Silver writes:
While it’s possible to suppress discussion of it in-house, opponents will not be so kind.
Indeed. Carrying over your “good work” from “Majority Rights” to Counter Currents?
Silver writes:
While it’s possible to suppress discussion of it in-house, opponents will not be so kind.
Indeed. Carrying over your “good work” from “Majority Rights” to Counter Currents?
Use information on Verlis’ perspective:
http://westbiop.blogspot.com/search/label/silver
What really happened on this thread:
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
Which results in the sincere, otherwise level-headed commentators to state:
And what is so horrific about having to live among Blacks?
I assume that either you have no experience with Blacks, or you are being sarcastic. If living with even Blacks is OK, then surely the same can be said about Hispanics and Asians. Let’s all enjoy the benefits of diversity then.
That’s why the Sunstein strategy is so brilliant. You don’t have to explicitly censor anyone. Just poison the well, and then sit back and watch the results.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.