The Moral High Ground:
A Reply to Andrew Hamilton’s “On Deportation”
I do not intend to minimize the existential threat we whites face as a race. Whites are not merely being exploited, dispossessed, and victimized in order to support a growing non-white population. Our enemies, the anti-whites, are deliberately inflicting on our race conditions of life calculated to bring about our physical destruction. Their policy is genocide.
This policy is not implemented through money and power alone but through moral subversion. Anti-whites point to the injustices that whites have inflicted on non-whites in the past in order to justify the genocide of whites today. The anti-whites won’t talk about genocide even amongst themselves, they just proceed with it. If they did admit to it, then all their stored up moral capital would vanish in a puff of smoke. However, every now and then even the most professional anti-white will let their emotions get the better of them and let slip their real agenda.
Our movement is in competition with anti-whites for the loyalty and support of whites. We cannot offer them money, power, or status as our enemies might, but we can compete with them morally. By consistently pointing to this genocide (the most monstrous act of racial discrimination) we can seize the moral high ground and encourage idealistic whites to reject the thirty pieces of silver the anti-white system offers and get them to join our struggle because it is the right thing to do.
Whites are an innately low ethnocentric people with a tendency to conceive morality in universal terms. In dealing with other races we do not ask “Is it good for whites?” We ask “Is it just?” Whites are not inclined to support the ethnostate ideal merely because it would be good for them in particular, but because it is fair and just for all races to have them. If it is fair for whites to create their own ethnostate then the means of achieving it must be fair to non-whites who are going to be affected by its creation. This is sometimes forgotten in the movement as it draws disproportionately from whites who are highly ethnocentric and only ask the question “Is it good for whites?” This is moral shorthand for the idea that might makes right.
There are two methods of separation available in forming an ethnostate: One is transferring the non-white population outside the borders of an existing multi-racial state, and the second is breaking up the multi-racial state and redrawing the borders of the ethnostate around existing white enclaves. These methods are not exclusive of each other as an ethnostate could be set-up in a corner of the United States where whites remain the majority and at the same time transfer the minority non-white population over to the remaining rump of the United States.
But what of the justice involved in these population transfers? We are certainly justified in forcibly deporting immigrants regardless of whether their papers are in order; they made the choice to immigrate and profit from our genocide. Immigrants, however, constitute only a proportion of the non-whites, many more have been born and raised to adulthood in white countries and never lived anywhere else. If we hold them collectively responsible for the actions of their parents then we are legitimizing the moral claims of the anti-whites who hold that our genocide is a justifiable punishment of whites for the sins of slavery, colonialism, and the holocaust. If we claim that whites today should not have to pay for historical crimes, then we are not justified in expelling non-whites born in a white country.
In our treatment of non-whites, we ought to simply apply the golden rule and treat them how we whites expect to be treated by non-whites. Although forced deportation of immigrants would be entirely justified we should not use any compulsion on non-whites who were born in the West. They like us possess a birth right to the land that they currently live on. All of us have the right of freedom of association and self-determination and whites ought to exercise these rights to politically separate our neighborhoods from their neighborhoods and in doing so carve out ethno-states in the areas where we remain the overwhelming majority. We ought to honor existing contracts with the remaining non-white minorities but make no new ones. This would mean that over time all access to employment, housing, and credit would dry up and out of simple economic self-interest these remaining non-whites would then self-deport to the newly created Bantustans.
Strict border security would prevent the non-white populace of these Bantustans from entering the ethnostate. Unable to freeload off whites these Bantustans would increasingly reflect the third world origins of its inhabitants leading to stagnation and regression. Detroit is a postindustrial wasteland despite massive federal and state subsidies: without regular infusions of white money it would decline even more rapidly.
The property values inside the Bantustans would decline relatively and absolutely in comparison with the property values inside the ethnostate. Such a mismatch in property values between the ethnostates and the Bantustans would create market incentives for real estate developers to buy property within these Bantustans and re-develop them for whites. We can see this process of gentrification taking place today as white flight to the suburbs, spurred on by non-white crime and integrated schools, caused property values to crash in cities such as Atlanta and Washington DC. A few decades later real estate developers started buying up choice neighborhoods in these cities and moved in new white tenants replacing old black tenants with the result that the cities are whiter than they were a few decades ago.
There is no reason why we cannot expect a process of white gentrification to take place within the Bantustans where the low property values would encourage pioneering whites to establish gated communities just inside the borders of these Bantustans. The decision to admit these white pioneers would be at the discretion of the non-white political leadership of these Bantustans who may exercise their sovereign right to refuse, however, like the historical Bantustans of South Africa we can expect that they would be economically dependent on the ethnostate, which could use its aid and trade policy as leverage to assist the gentrification of these Bantustans.
The speed and extent of this gentrification process would depend upon the demographic expansion and will of the white population. It could potentially take several generations for all these Bantustans to be gentrified out of existence. Rome was not built in a day and the scars of genocide will not disappear in a day either. The scars may never disappear completely and whites may just have to learn to live with it.
We whites hold a historical grudge for all the lives and territory we have lost, but every race and tribe nurses their own historical grudges. We rightly dismiss the historical grudges of non-whites as morally irrelevant to the situation today. If Native Americans have no justification in forcing modern day white Americans back into the sea then we ought to reciprocate and accept that we have no moral right to expel the descendants of non-white immigrants from their own territory. The anti-whites are evil but they are not stupid and whenever cornered on the issue of white genocide they will focus on the immorality of the solution in order to wrestle back the moral high ground they have just lost. They will no longer have this escape hatch if we sincerely apply the golden rule in our dealings with non-whites.
It seems almost an axiom in WN circles that Whites are fundamentally less ethnocentric than other races. Is this indeed the case?
We should not forget that only the white race has been exposed for so many centuries to Christianity’s homogenizing influence. Possibly the lack of ethnocentrism disappears once Christianity and the liberalism it has spawned are dismissed.
Furthermore, the innumerable wars in European history may have been justified with all kinds of universalistic reasoning, but ethnic animosity was often a decisive factor. We only have to push this ethnocentrism towards the racial boundary.
On a personal note, I was afflicted with a heavy case of yellow fever. To my surprise, the positive attention I give to the members of my race, now that I am a White Nationalist, has even cured me of this ‘disease’. I can still appreciate Asian beauty, but now I really ask myself what attracted me to them so much.
It may very well be that many whites in WN circles have gone through a similar process. Those people are not White Nationalists because they were ethnocentric already, but because they have discovered the plight (and the beauty!) of the white race.
If we are able to create an ethno-state, we should prevent members from mixing with other races. The gentrification of the Bantustan area described would again create environments for race-mixing. Anyone attempting such a thing should at least lose his citizenship.
If we are not able to create an ethno-state (yet), there at least should be heavy social penalties for race-mixing.
I was just awaiting something like this to come out of this site: here’s my golden rule: there can be no “bantustans” on our heartlands, these lands do belong to us, other non-whites wouldn’t have any compunction in exterminating us, see what’s happening nowadays in South Africa and what happened 200 years ago in Santo Domingo. As Doctor Pierce used to say, bantustans are no solution: white plutocrats would be tempted to use them as cheap labor cesspools and the whole thing would start up all over again. The only thing that, as far as I’m concerned, should be open to negotiation, is the price of resettlement: but the fact that non-whites and mongrels MUST be made to quit our heartlands is the main tenet of White Nationalism, I think Mr. Johnson would agree on that.
As a side-note, I repeat my assumption that it’s too late for that and that when the lights go down, non-whites will initiate violence on us and they’ll compel the bulk of Whites to fight for survival in their own countries. As Dr. Pierce said, “they’ll be hell to pay”, it’s too late for that.
Is there a difference between “bantustans” and apartheid/segregation laws? Segregation has failed everywhere it has been attempted. This moral high ground stuff just does not impress me. We have always had the moral high ground because we created the western civilization that increased the populations of these other races worldwide. I don’t think there is much convincing we can do other than state the plain truth. Stating the truth out loud might cause a war itself if enough of us did it. I don’t know – no easy solution that is for sure.
I appreciate your note of realism. It is too late to change before disaster hits – and race war will be a big part of what comes next. But I also appreciate the article: if we come through the race war, we may have to deal with what to do with large populations of non-Whites. But at least we wont have the media or leftists on our backs – they’ll be largely gone or at least afraid to talk on our side of the border. So we will be free to chart a course between idealism and self interest. And once we are free and clear, they’ll hopefully be no need for the intermediate stage of Bantustans. So I guess I’m a Hamiltonian.
I made this point to Sam Francis in 2003: a white regime with the power to partition the country would also have the power to simply deport non-white populations. The only thing that would hold them back is lack of will.
I am working on an article on this very issue.
My basic view is that the moral imperative of ethnic separation trumps considerations like the “birthrights” of non-whites in white societies, which is tantamount to a right to multiracial diversity, which is tantamount to the right to be part of a system that destroys every race that falls into it. Obviously, there is no such right.
I think, though, that people should be treated with the maximum kindness in resettling them. Also, I see no reason why separation needs to be envisioned as a violent and swift process. The essential thing is to create trends toward racial homogeneity and preservation, just as we now live under trends toward diversity and destruction. The speed at which these trends unfold can be faster or slower, but as long as the trend is kept in place, we could cleanse our homelands relatively slowly, over a couple of generations, just as the process of mixing and destruction spans generations. And just as most whites are perfectly content to live in a system in which we collectively have no future, many non-whites might be perfectly content to accept the same sort of status.
I am working these sorts of ideas out under the title “The Slow Cleanse.”
I’m no Hamiltonian, I’m a Piercean, the gradualism Mr. Johnson longs for would’ve been envisageable, say thirty years ago, but now the ticking bomb is about to burst and when the lights go down… the color of your skin shall be your uniform. If we emerge at all from such a vicious infighting which is certain to smash into smithereens our cities, what makes you think people who’ve lost relatives and friends to the mud hordes would be amenable to treat the very mud hordes “with the maximum kindness in resettling them”.
The Turner Diaries is juvenile fiction for skinheads, not a serious political treatise.
The Slow Cleanse – good title. As opposed to Chemotherapy perhaps. I must admit feeling a bit bad for the Indians though. Would you have any special consideration for them?
Sam Francis was too lax on this issue. He said since using Blacks for cheap labor was “inevitable”, we might as well work on guidelines beforehand. As Alex said, that would get us right back in the fire. Frightfully unwise.
Americans today think it is perfectly moral, indeed wonderful, for millions of Indians from Mexico to uproot themselves and come to the US to work. Why not send our Indians to Mexico? Ultimately arguments about whose ancestors walked on this continent first do not matter compared to the imperative of racial separation.
I laugh at the people who talk about the roots that Mexican tumbleweeds have put down in America in recent decades. If their roots in Mexico, which go back thousands of years, did not matter to the Mexicans, then why should be care about their “roots” here in America?
Cheap labor is never cheap if you force the employers to pay for the “externalities”: the welfare, the degradation of communities, the crime. The cost of having blacks in America is very high indeed.
The way the economy is going nobody is going to want to live here. Homeland Security with their 2,700 tanks and five bullets for every American might try and stop people leaving which would be rather ironic. Perhaps we should embrace low wages and high taxes??? What price freedom?
I have to say that I personally completely agree with the idea of “the slow cleanse” and have actually advocated something of the sort myself elsewhere. It may be even be a more practical method – politically and economically – than that of rapid deportation. The objections of the likes of AleCes are, of course, irrelevant in my eyes, because they are not based on realistic thinking (I have already commented on what I think of what he asserts on Hamilton’s article).
And by the way another tenet of White Nationalism is that non-whites and mongrels, no matter for how many generations they’ve been squatting our lands “DO NOT possess any birth right to the current land they live on”. And why is Mr. Lote recycling those trite Republican slogans of “freedom of association” and “self-deportation”? I thought people here knew better. And by the way, hadn’t Mr. Johnson condemned Libertarianism as a Jewish ploy to forestall the coming of racial consciousness among the white masses?
Please, enlighten me.
Salvation through self-determination is a far more attainable goal than the one put forward by a completely powerless entity that incessantly barks about rounding up hundreds of millions of people and shipping them to some remote location of the world.
If they have no moral obligation to respect my right to self-determination, then I have no moral obligation to respect theirs. I don’t expect the anti-White crowd to suddenly morph into a fervent supporter of pro-White people just because I give them the freedom to do what is best for them and their lives; but I do expect that spotlighting their hypocrisy will open the eyes of more decent White people. The process will eventually siphon off those decent Whites and keep them at least indifferent to pro-White politics, and leave the anti-racist crowd with a larger percentage of true anti-Whites and sociopaths than it already has.
It’s a little psychology trick. I can bring out the worst in the “bad” people by treating them better, not by treating them worse. There’s actually a lot of triggers and details involved, but that’s the gist of it.
If you mean by “self-determination” the establishment of a breakaway white ethnostate, I shall retort that NO surrender WHATSOEVER of white lands should be contemplated in the long run, if whites retreat and make a stand in some faraway corner of the USA, it must be done with the steadfast intent of reconquering every inch of the country, no matter how long it may take.
If you start surrendering swathes of land, non-whites will get the impression that their strategy of infiltration DID work and will be certain to try it once again when the opportunity arises. Rather, we should teach them a lesson that they’re going to learn for the centuries to come. Nothing short of our survival is at stake.
I agree with this. I don’t think we should give up any of our current territory either. First though, we have find some way to obtain power. Will there have to be a complete collapse before we can get it or can we step in before this happens?
“If you want welfare, it’s in Africa.” No more collecting welfare in the US. Quasi-self-deportation could work by putting the carrots in the right place. Once you’re done, pull the plug. Beggars can’t be choosers. There numerous ways to do that and make a profit. If the costs of mal-integration are so high, profits abound.
White consciousness has survival value.
Self-determination is not a proclamation of keeping something strictly White, breaking away or surrendering anything. It’s completely subjective.
There is no White ethnostate. There can only be White ethnostate(s). What is ideal for one group of pro-White people might not be ideal for another. What one group might tolerate, another group might claim to be the antithesis of pro-White views and nation building. If you can’t even get large portions of the White population to at least acknowledge the right to some kind of selective White preservation(by way of self-determination), then all of the other divisions are pointless. You’re building this perfect storm of racial awakening in your head, going right to what you believe is the grand finale, and completely bypassing any kind of process to get you to that point. This is simply unrealistic and unattainable in the world outside of Internet nation building. This is not just unattainable because of the logistics and strife it would cause around the world, but because the people you believe you are doing this for want no part of it. It gets even worse for you when those people actively fight you for your beliefs.
You speak of surrendering as though you actually have some kind of leverage outside of the Internet. Reevaluating, reorganizing and rallying around the lowest common denominator is what you do when you are outmanned, outflanked, and have almost no momentum. You call it surrender. I call it prioritizing or compartmentalizing. In the end, the only thing that truly matters is that there are more and more White people who wish to build along racial lines, and/or more and more people in general who believe we have a right to build along racial lines. I am no Utopianist, and I’m rather cynical, so I’m fairly certain someone is going to pick a fight and try and get in my way to realizing my own pro-White self-determination. I’m just going to make sure there are less of those people tomorrow than there are today, and then eventually separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to finding countrymen.
Please Celestial Time read my comment carefully: I said “in the long run”, I don’t expect things to run smoothly at all, I even acknowledge the possibility that White Resistance might have to regroup into breakaway state but I do think, unlike what Mr. Johnson suggested in some of his articles, that in the long run a balkanized North America isn’t an ideal situation for Whites.
The bottom line is I’m talking about strategy, not tactics, I know we’re just Internet paper tigers at the moment, but, I repeat it for the umpteenth time, if we grant them the right to carve their “bantustans” inside our heartlands, THEY SHALL HAVE WON. Of course you might be forced to allow them to do so because at the moment your military/political/whatever strength is insufficient to expel them. But we should always long for a complete reconquest, I think that’s what defines WN in a nutshell, I hope other Internet “nation-builders” will agree with me
“In the end, the only thing that truly matters is that there are more and more White people who wish to build along racial lines, and/or more and more people in general who believe we have a right to build along racial lines.” – Celestial Time
I want the non-Whites out yesterday. Nevertheless, Celestial Time is correct. Our failure to concern ourselves with taking the moral high ground in the past is why we’re a Internet fringe today. Great article by Lote.
Although I agree more with Mr. Hamilton I see the writer’s point. The main issue seems to be that there is no honorable way to fight a dishonorable enemy and our enemies are very dishonorable.
Sorry Mike, I don’t see the point at all, let the fight be dishonorable if survival is what it’s at stake. Mr. Lote’s point seems a very defeatist one indeed, Alain Soral in France says about the same thing: we can expel illegal aliens but those who’ve been born here, we cannot kick them out, we must integrate them.
To me, all that talk smacks of sophistry, the only line that we must draw is the color line, genetics will determine who’s going to stay and who doesn’t, not cultural or moral considerations: that’s why I insisted pretty much on that topic.
The rest doesn’t matter.
James Burnham makes the point in his “Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom” that politics is about the seizure of power; the arguments used in agitprop are masks of that intention. One can only understand politics by seeing through the arguments and understanding the power relationships.
Still, Simon Lote brings up an important point, and one which needs to be considered: what is the moral basis for survival?
A distinction has to be made between morality and moralistic posturing. The left is quite good at the posturing. The left made its campaign against White-run South Africa into a crusade (jihad?) against apartheid, painted in the starkest terms of good versus evil, and never mind the facts. But this was an agitprop tactic, not an indicator of actual moral value. Objectively speaking, there is no reason to conclude that White minority rule was in SA any worse than the kind of hellholes created by black majority rule throughout Africa, or for that matter, by communism in Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia (none of which were protested by the left, obviously).
Logically, it could be argued that if every other people has a right to their own country, then why shouldn’t Whites? If Algeria, Vietnam, Zimbabwe or Cuba could have their own national liberation movements (in the Cold War) and throw off foreign domination, then why not ancient nations such as France, Germany, Spain or Britain (today)?
It gets back to the left’s choice of agitprop tactics: promote national liberation when it will undermine Western colonies; promote internationalism-diversity when it will undermine Western homelands. The critical thing is not the argument but the left’s political end: the destruction of Western rule.
Will standing for a moral policy win support from Whites? We really do not know because there is no campaign in place for this today. Look at the failure of the mainstream anti-illegal immigration effort. It’s out-spent and out-mediaed by the pro-immigration forces. Let’s note that the pro-immigration faction has the backing of much of the corporate and government sectors. When it comes to just the technical factors of organization, they have the edge, regardless of moral issues.
You’d think that defending White peoples against genocide would be a moral cause. Especially when the opposition has stated that genocide is the de facto objective; e.g., “abolishing the White race.” But will White people rally in their own defense?
The reality is that White people have been dispossessed from their own lands. The anti-White faction sees nothing wrong with forcing Whites out of a cities like Detroit, or countries like Rhodesia-Zimbabwe, or creating no-go zones throughout many ancient European cities. Logically, the defense of White interests in these places ought to be a moral issue. Yet this has failed to gain any traction.
Is this simply due to technical issues? That is, has there been an inadequate organization for pro-White agitprop, self-defense and trans-national cooperation?
Or is there an underlying lack of vision for White peoples?
Exactly, the fight for white survival is as moral as the Vietnamese and the Algerian Wars were: freedom fighters there had no compunctions in torturing, murdering and massacring for the sake of their cause, yet this didn’t end up tarnishing their cause, at least as far as the Controlled Media were concerned.
I am skeptical. Keeping non-whites here may present a problem in the future especially if they keep having large families and whites have only a minimal increase in birthrate. I think if we were to resettle them courteously that would suffice.
We could give them a choice: stay and be sterilized or accept our offer to resettle you. While this may sound barbaric it is nothing short of necessary. Their families are (usually) large enough that there is a possibility they could (over the course of a several generations) achieve a significant percentage of the population.
There is another problem with this idea. If we have starving people in ghettos all over the country then they may become violent, and some may be tempted to give them charity. Lower standard of living inside the “bantustans” would make the ethno-state for an easy target for racism accusations.
I believe that Whites have no less potential to be ethnocentric than others. Do not underestimate the power of propaganda, especially modern propaganda. Educating whites about our people and others would be a start.
Indeed, if the times allow us the possibility of a slower and more friendly solution, sterilization offers many wonderful possibilities. It does not affect the life of a person that much, and still accomplishes the task.
The virus of christianity has done its work well the Western man has lost the will to live. If it will make the moralists and the sentimental feel better, put someone like me in charge. Like the Red Dragon “I have no pity.” That way the christian and weak willed can have someone to point the finger of blame at and sleep well at night. I do not think there will be a mass movement in America, the white peoples here are the trash of our race and degenerate. I think our American movement will peak with small white communities in isolated areas. However, there is still a possibility that a mass movement will start in Europe where large numbers of the elite of our race still exist, namely the Germans. I foresee a scenario developing along the lines of Yockey’s great book “Imperium.”
Being half German/Austrian I would be very happy if the Germans regained their integrity and became what you describe as “the elite of our race”, but they fall a bit short of your description. They will be the last ones to turn against the System.
Hey Mr. Quint,
Sorry to smash up your dreams of an Imperium, but have you ever been to Europe? Because I live in there and whatever racial consciousness we may have acquired, we owe it to you Americans who’ve pioneered WN, so if all you can attain is “small white communities in desolated areas”, we’re definitely going into extinction.
“Hey” AleCes then we are definitely headed for extinction and I lived two and one half years in Germany. It does not surprise me that you say there is no racial consciousness in Europe.
Ouch, if there’s someone who can start this very revolution it’s you. After 1945 the destiny of this race hinges on you White Americans, it’s only you who can get us to see the light out of this tunnel.
Really, our plight is as desperate as the Jews’ one under Hitler, only a WN Overlord executed by a regenerated Piercean America can save us from the Negroarab hordes run amok.
Those who were “born here” will not be expelled off the Continent, merely removed from the White homeland. I do not see a Continent-wide effort being a success in the short term, but I do see a Nation carved out of the Continent (say Covington’s Northwest Republic) where non-Whites are expelled. And why should they not? They are here and have a supposed “birthright” so they can stay in North America, but not in the homeland. Denver, Kansas City, Miami Beach, Fl., LA, Cal., and so on would be their destinations.
Already Jacksonville, Mississippi is the capital of the “New Africa” and L.A. the capital of “Aztlan”, with Whites being displaced via violent crime and murder. What is next, a “jizyah” for Whites in the negro “New Africa?
When Whites create their own homeland, they will judge the laws and society that they wish to live under. Not the negros and not the Muslims or the Jew and not the Mexicans, but Whites and Whites only. To open the door to non-Whites is to destroy the point of an ethnic homeland. Is it so cruel to displace non-whites? People move to jobs all the time. People want to live beside their own and in a land where they are a full citizen. In the NWR, negros and Squat Monsters would not be considered citizens any more than Christians are full citizens under Sharia law or that Gringos are citizens in Mexico.
Let’s not get our panties in a wad till the time comes that we secure the homeland. When the negros, jews and Mexicans are streaming South will be the time to decide however, I don’t see Whites fighting and dying so we can have another “mixed race” homeland.
Ex Gladio Libertas!
JackSON, Mississipi, not JacksonVILLE, Mississippi.
That’s JackSON, as in the State Capital.
I repeat, the State Capital.
Again, this is why the Northwest Imperative is singularly important.
Ask all of those who believe The South Will Rise Again (they will, speaking Spanglish), how quickly they lost the State Capital of a major state in the Confederacy.
Go ahead, ask the disposessed Whites of Jackson how THAT is working out for them.
AleCes you are burning a straw man here. Please point out exactly where in my article I argued for integration, libertarianism, plutocracy and giving up on trying to reclaim territories that once belonged to whites. The whole purpose of the article was to make the point that the ethnostate must be achieved through moral means.
A common thread running through AleCes posts is that he believes that there is a future race war coming that he a) assumes that non-whites will inevitably attempt to exterminate us all and b) uses this as justification to reject any appeal to moral consistency.
My answer to this is that it is a) most predictions about the future events turn about to be wrong. Nobody in 1983 predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse so quickly and peacefully so what makes your prediction any more reliable? b) If hypothetically your race war does happen as you say it will, then morally we ought to fight the war in a just manner and then conclude it with a just peace.
Also in clarification to other posters I am not talking about resurrecting Jim Crow or Apartheid. These failed because one race ruling over another race is not morally sustainable in the long-term. I advocate something more radical namely political separation to create separate states. Ethnostates for Whites, Bantustans for the rest. As to the worries that the proximity of these states will tempt the ethnostate to import cheap labour I will simply make the point that in a world of cheap air flights geographic distance is no real barrier to non-whites flooding into white countries. The only real barriers that matter are political ones.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, but your wrote that “The scars may never disappear completely and whites may just have to learn to live with it.” which smacks of a preventive surrender to me, indeed it sounds like an AMNESTY to me, which I thought to be a no-go area for WNs.
As an answer to Mr. Johnson: when I say I’m a Piercean I don’t mean that things will turn out to be as they were described in the fictionalized account, indeed things are by far worse off in the real world because we don’t even have an “organization” of our own. Yet, “there will be hell to pay!”.
In general, people here seem to imply that dismissing their metapolitical strategy automatically makes me a crank, you all talk about gaining political leverage, yet WNs don’t even have a party of their own. Moreover, I’ve read many articles here warning that we cannot elect ourselves into power let alone sneak our way into the control room, so which other options are we left with?
I’m the first one who wishes to avoid a bloodbath, yet with millions of non-whites flooding the West every year, the hell to pay seems to me to be approaching more and more.
A couple of things relate. 1. an artificial womb to mass produce whites. 2. robots that make black labor obsolete. 3. White Liberty making jobs for people so that this movement can mushroom. http://whiteliberty.US
Greg, you’re wrong that deportation can be in any way kind and gentle. Ann Coulter made this point in a recent article (http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-could-we-get-some-immigrants-who-can-take-a-poll), where she noted, “NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT DEPORTATION. [Her caps.] We didn’t round up 11 million foreigners to get them here, and we’re not going to round them up to send them home. They’ll leave the same way they came.”
She’s referring only to “illegal aliens,” of course, not non-whites.
At any rate, she makes admirably clear what deportation means: “armed men round up millions of women and children [the illegal men apparently remain behind] at midnight, put them [the women and children] in leg irons and immediately deport them on stinky buses.”
So there you go! In one sentence. Clearly, deportation can’t be a George Bush-ish “kind and gentle” process. (Gee, didn’t he callously invade Iraq and otherwise facilitate widespread Jewish murder and brutality in the Middle East?)
It is a little misleading to imply that what was done “spanned generations.” Historically, it occurred in the blink of an eye. The scheming behind the disaster spanned generations. That’s the long time horizon of Jews, and their ability to single-mindedly pursue specific objectives such as replacement migration over incredibly long periods of time, even as generations of Jews live and die.
But the actual transportation of millions of aliens into white homelands occurred much more quickly. Indeed, that’s why we’re being presented with a fait accompli now: “It would be inhumane, even criminal, for you to do anything about it!”
Yeah, well, buzz off, pests! (And I’m not referring to the immigrants.)
This started in 1965, and was not blatantly obvious as late as 1970 and 1980, perhaps even 1990. It has accelerated and accelerated and accelerated. It happened very rapidly.
Those people got here quickly, and they can be returned quickly, whether they were born here or not. The longer we wait, the more assimilated and hybridized they’ll be, and the permanently weaker our own population.
My own boyhood was spent in a white America. The change was fast.
As in certain suspense novels and movies, we’re working against a ticking clock, with limited time to do what’s both necessary and right before all is lost.
There have been two generations born since 1965, and a couple more will be born before 2050.
That sounds VERY good, and very realistic indeed, but I’m still a Piercean at the moment, I don’t rule out extensive bloodshed.
Actually if bloodshed reawakens white from their lethargy, it might prove a much-needed blessing in disguise.
I strongly disagree with the statement that non-whites born in the west has a birthright to live there. They don’t. Just because I go with my wife to Japan and make sure our baby is born there doesn’t give our child a birthright to that land. It’s something that runs much deeper than that. Theese invaders and infiltrators are strangers to our lands and their children and grandchildren and so forth will still be strangers. Our long term goal must be to expel all invaders, there can be no compromises about that. Preferably this will be a both humane and voluntarily process, but if not, so be it.
From the main article: “In our treatment of non-whites, we ought to simply apply the golden rule and treat them how we whites expect to be treated by non-whites.”
Well, Africans have a right to expel White people from Africa (except from the Southern tip). We won’t protest.
In theory, I’m not opposed to the concept of a gradual cleanse. It would certainly be wonderful to have the wind at our backs as opposed to the trends always working against us. But I think this sort of thinking is more applicable to the preliminary phase of the future white ethnostate. By that I mean the PLE concept of “terraforming” white communities, where they are gradually made more desirable to healthy whites, and less desirable to non-whites and anti-whites in general. It’s basically a white nationalist version of what non-whites (and anti-whites in general) have done to us over recent decades. The swamp is slowly drained over time, and gradually a community becomes “our sort of place” as opposed to “their sort of place.”
But this process can only go so far when we are operating under what amounts to hostile occupation, and at some point the rubber has to hit the road. The ethnostate is proclaimed, and at that point I believe time will be of the essence. The longer non-whites remain within the boundaries of the new ethnostate, the longer problems get to fester, and the more opportunities for all sorts of subversion and mischief to spread.
Look at what has happened with Israel concerning the Palestinians. That problem has festered like an oozing sore ever since I was a little kid. It has utterly destroyed Israeli credibility on the world stage, and without massive support from the United States, could have quite possibly resulted in the destruction of Israel….and may still. Yet Israel still gets the rap for ethnic cleansing, without reaping the full benefits of a homogenous ethnostate. We’re going to get the rap for ethnic cleansing anyway, so if you’ve gotta do the time….
Contrast this to the ethnic cleansing of German communities in eastern Europe. The Soviets just got it done. It was over. They left no constituency behind that could cause problems and serve as a plaything for foreign powers. The years march on, and today only a handful of elderly Germans would have any memory of this. Their descendants were born elsewhere, have built their lives elsewhere, and to most of them it would probably seem absurd to reclaim the lost communities. Soon it will pass entirely out of living memory. As far as political issues go, it’s about as dead as can possibly be expected.
So drain the swamp slowly if that suits the circumstances best, but don’t allow good intentions to lead to festering sores. Something to think about, anyway.
I find the invocation of morality in this article telling. Anyone familiar with Nietzsche’s critique of die sklavenmoral would certainly raise an eyebrow at it’s perusal.
On the issue of segregation. I’ve long felt that segregation, particularly in the South, was a failure because it was half-hearted and poorly implemented rather than bad or impractical.
“Back of the bus” and separate water fountains and lunch counters? What are blacks doing on the same bus and in the same establishments and communities in the first place? There was clearly already too much integration to begin with.
The source of this error (too much pre-civil rights integration) is partly economic but also partly political and partly sexual.
And the sexual aspect isn’t at all what you no doubt think.
This whole article wreaks of pure fantasy. Come on people. Ride the damn tiger till it collapses from exhaustion. Then climb off that beast, put a leash on it and lead it back to the cage where it belongs. In the meantime, don’t get thrown off. Its been running at full speed for quite a while and about to pass out. Keep your faith…whatever your faith might be. Hone your skills– for a new dawn is approaching.
That’s it Holmgang, I must confess I balked at using your harsh words, but I do agree wholeheartedly with what you said. That’s faux realpolitik, and it’s time for us to expose it for what it really is: pure fantasy.
How about Pierce’s vision of a White World achieved by genocide of all other races? Jack London wrote a similar story. I find it a disgusting idea – as would Hitler have I believe. Not to mention a great way to get nuked by the Chinese.
Jaego is right on the mark.
Piercian fantasies of mass extermination of other races are about what I would have expected from a man who, bluntly, ran from his remit of forming a political organization of political soldiers for the White race. He had everything he needed, and chose, instead, to write books about the singularly ineffective political tool of assassinating parking mudsharks and their paramours.
The key to effectiveness, political organization, a Youth Corps, developing into effective forces in politics and social transformation -all done, as always, in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way” (HT: Jim Giles), the invaluable work of decades, and a work of lasting, ever-growing value OR deranged exterminationist fantasies, obviously a form of compensation for organizational inadequacies of all kinds.
REALLY effective efforts? Sending money to counter-currents, each and every month, without fail? Rebuilding your life in the framework of becoming part of the Living Foundation of the new nation, the Northwest Republic, starting where you are, starting tonight, starting now?
“That’s faux realpolitik, and it’s time for us to expose it for what it really is: pure fantasy.” – AleCes
Faux realpolitik is the idea that moral arguments are faux realpolitiks. The fact that after 50 years we’re a fringe limited to cyberspace, fer chrissake, is the only real evidence I need to show that this Piercian aversion to moral argumentation is wrong-headed. I could cite Zimbabwe, South Africa, our own Southern states, and numerous other examples to refute this nonsense, but shouldn’t have to.
The masses of whites are not scientifically trained. Not even a scientist is a scientist in most aspects of his life. Morality opens the door for 99% of us. Events validate our ad hoc moral positions. That is just the way it is. Let ego stand in the way of accepting this facts and nothing will change.
Naturally, deporting/expelling/relocating non-whites may take a little time. However, in “Operation Wetback” the mestizos in the West and Southwest were forcibly removed or made to feel very unwelcome leading them to “self deport” and Dwight Eisenhower even authorized lethal force if necessary. I do anticipate a great deal of resistance from third world nations since most of their people residing in the U.S. represent the underbelly of those societies (especially Mexico). Furthermore, they see their diaspora populations as colonists and a useful fifth column to manipulate and exploit for the benefit of the various third world nations (especially Mexico and China although Israel is first world nation).
To argue that non-whites/third world people who were born and raised here should be exempted is to believe that they are assimilated and harbor no ill will towards the white majority. We all know that is not the case with blacks and there are plenty of second and third generation mestizos who subscribe to the reconquista and natural born Jews and Muslims who more loyal to their tribe members and coreligionists more than they are a white American. Hell, looking at the racial voting patterns in the last two presidential elections should prove to anyone that the majority of non-whites do not identify with white Americans nor believe in constitutional government.
In order to survive and reclaim what is rightfully ours whites must become very intolerant towards all other races currently squatting on our soil. But to transform contemporary white Americans from sentimental (towards non-whites), and pacified into pro-white hardliners will require a miracle.
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.
Edit your comment