Counter-Currents
2,953 words
Here is my attempt at selling White Nationalism to liberal, diaspora Jews. I know, it will be a hard sell, but as a writer, I strive for a perspective as wide as the world. An impossible dream, yes, but still I strive. Why? Because white ethnostates are what the white race will need in the very near future to avert the impending existential crisis of multi-racialism. And some of the most powerful people standing in our way today are liberal, diaspora Jews.
As we all know, non-white invaders are barbarizing traditionally white homelands, and the white elites, crippled by the twin diseases of Cultural Marxism and political correctness, have become powerless to stop it. Our identities, both racial and national, have been suppressed, and our futures as potential minorities in our own nations are fraught with uncertainty. We see the oppression, chaos, and poverty in the Muslim world, black Africa, and Latin America, and know that given enough immigration from these places, our world will decline rapidly. In fact, the decline has already begun.
Of course, it’s not enough to halt this decline. We must reverse it and make the white nations great again. Considering all the wonderful things white Europeans have given the world since Antiquity, it would be better for everyone, not just the whites, if this happens. As it stands now, however, whites are on the road to second-class citizenship in our own countries, and perhaps eventual extinction in many parts of the world. The goose that laid the golden egg just might get cooked and eaten one day, and, as Jews, I really hope that’s not what you want.
As an American, I can think of three broad methods for achieving a white ethnostate in North America. One is what Counter-Currents editor Greg Johnson calls the Slow Cleanse. Basically, self-identifying whites take control of the American government and initiate pro-white policies which, among other things, forbid non-white immigration and encourage non-white self-deportation. Such a peaceful transition would occur until whites once again make up the ninety to ninety-five percent majority they enjoyed prior to the 1965 Immigration Act. This would take a long time and would certainly cause some difficulties for non-whites, but ultimately would save the white race from its current predicament, in North America at least.
The second method is Balkanization, which, thanks to the traction achieved recently by Calexit, is something many of us are talking about right now. Americans are already balkanized by race in many places. And, let’s face it, we’re starting to hate each other. The Left-Right fault line runs deep. A divorce may be in order. In response to the violent backlash against conservatives in American universities, the Ace of Spades recently wrote:
On the plus side, it will take us closer to National Divorce, which will benefit all parties.
I don’t want revolution, I don’t want “resistance,” I don’t want violence. I don’t want to make others live under my heel (despite the fact they dearly wish to make me live under theirs).
I just want Done. I want Gone. I want Goodbye.
Sadly, this is perhaps the only sentiment that many on the Left and Right can agree upon these days.
Balkanization would also be a peaceful method to achieve a white ethnostsate. I’m not sure how it would come about, but I imagine that under the best circumstances, representatives from various groups would meet and hash out who gets what. For example, the White Nationalists get the Pacific Northwest, the midwest, and most of the former Confederacy. The northeast and most of the west coast would go to the multi-racial Left, and the southwest would go to the Hispanics. Lawrence Murray has an interesting rundown of American Balkanization on his Atlantic Centurion site, and I am sure there is much to quibble over. Really, however, the details don’t matter too much, as long as whites get their ethnostate and a chance to rebuild.
The final method is warfare. At this point, all bets are off and God only knows how it will all play out. Whites could get everything or lose everything, or settle for something similar to what we have now after sacrificing millions of lives. And the same goes for you and everyone else. This possibility, of course, is the one that we all want least, but will be the only option remaining for whites if the Slow Cleanse and Balkanization don’t work out. We hope you understand that at that point, the alternatives for whites will be either to fight or submit completely to our enemies. Remember Masada? It will be something like that, only on a much larger scale and quite a bit more successful. And when that happens, you can rest assured that whites will have little tolerance for non-whites, Jews included, given that we will be blaming them for our dire predicament. Jews have been a consistent and influential Left-wing presence in America for over one hundred twenty years and have promoted non-white immigration as often as they could. Just because you look like us does not mean we will let you off the hook once we’re contemplating first and last things. At that point, your choices will be limited to fleeing to Israel or siding against us, sort of how you are siding against us now. And if you choose the latter, you will have no room to complain when things get violent and deadly.
So, here are the arguments for the Hard Sell which will focus on demonstrating the bright sides of the first two methods outlined above. I hope you see the truth in these arguments. I hope you find them persuasive. I hope you will also wish to respond and engage productively. In either event, please remember, I am presenting the Hard Sell because I want what’s best for everyone.
Argument 1: You will be getting off easy. You don’t really want to stick around for the bloody birth throes of a white ethnostate, do you? In fact, you should consider yourselves lucky that you don’t have to. You have Israel. You have a homeland, which is one more homeland than most whites have. So if you intend to complain about how difficult it will be to uproot yourselves and move to Israel (or to another part of North America in the event of Balkanization), White Nationalists will not be terribly sympathetic. Our lot will be just as bad, if not worse. In the case of Balkanization, whites will be undergoing similar upheavals and displacement. And in the case of war, we’re going to have to duke it out with non-whites as well as that Left-wing, oikophobic portion of our own population which hates us. A couple of U-Haul rentals and a flight to Tel Aviv would be a small price to pay to avoid being part of that scenario.
Check out Michel Houellebecq’s novel Submission, if you wish to take a gander at the kind of future traditionally white nations are now contemplating. There’s a memorable scene in which the French protagonist must say goodbye to his Jewish girlfriend during the slow Islamic takeover of France. She finally realizes that she must leave for Israel, and wants to take him with her, but he refuses. “There is no Israel for me,” he said.
Argument 2: It’s hypocritical to support a Jewish ethnostate in Israel and not a white one anywhere. White Nationalists basically want the same thing Israelis want. Among other things, this includes a homeland which secures our perpetual majority. Israel could even be seen as a model for a white ethnostate. So how can you claim to be consistent when you support open borders for America but not for Israel? See the hypocrisy? Of course, I know the typical response to this. America and Israel, they say, are apples and oranges, the former being a vast, pluralistic society which has thrived on immigration for over two hundred years, whereas the latter is a tiny nation, besieged by enemies, constantly under threat, and the only place on Earth where Jews as a group can call home. Therefore, it’s not appropriate to compare one with the other.
But yes, it is appropriate. First of all, we should never mistake a definition for an argument. Just because you define the United States as a pluralistic, racially diverse nation does not mean I have to, or that it should be one. The Founding Fathers, with the Naturalization Act of 1790, certainly didn’t think so. America is what we say it is, that is, the white people who founded it, broke its land, built its cities, fought its wars, and upon whose genius the world relied to create one of the greatest civilizations in history. Without whites, there never would have been a United States, so I do believe we get the final word on who gets to live here and who doesn’t, just as the Israelis do when it comes to Israel.
And while we’re on the topic of defining what a country is, some people choose to define Israel as an apartheid state. Is that enough to make it so?
Finally, as for the argument about being a tiny, besieged country, please don’t pretend that that’s such a bad thing. Israel is only besieged by enemies because it is smart enough not to let its enemies in as immigrants. Better to be a besieged country that is armed to the teeth, racially proud, and equipped with several hundred nuclear weapons than a declining superpower which is slowly rotting from the inside. If anything, the United States is in worse shape than Israel, since the process doing us in is impossible to reverse without massive amounts of bloodshed.
So, for the sake of consistency, and for the millions of innocent whites being robbed of their homelands one immigrant at a time, you should support White Nationalism.
Argument 3: Jews are not white people. (I didn’t say this would be an easy sell, did I?) Of course, in any ethnostate you will have a tiny number of outsiders living and working there. Jews would be no different than any other non-white in a white ethnostate. But since Jews have been shown to be genetically distinct from European whites (according to Nicholas Wade in his book A Troublesome Inheritance) and possess many characteristic traits, both negative and positive, it makes sense that they wouldn’t belong in any ethnostate that isn’t theirs.
Argument 4: One does not have to hate Jews to support White Nationalism. As I have written before, there is an objective need for White Nationalism. Therefore, it does not matter how a person feels about Jews in order to support it. Yes, it is true that many White Nationalists are anti-Semites. I have read and heard the heinous abuse which gets dumped on Jews on the Internet and elsewhere. I know what goes on. I understand your antipathy towards White Nationalism. But just because a portion of a population can get verbally abusive does not mean that the population as a whole does not deserve an ethnostate.
Please also consider that whites are placed in a unique position. No other people in the world is expected to take in millions of unruly Third World immigrants and smile about it while they slowly get dispossessed in their own nations. In fact, if they complain about it loudly enough, they could lose their careers or even go to prison in some countries. This is an outrage, and therefore some bitterness and anger should be expected from that portion of the population which is most sensitive to these things.
I really believe that antipathy towards outgroups is a genetic trait. One end of the bell curve can’t help but feel hostility toward outgroups, and the other feels no hostility at all towards them. This, I believe, is the natural range of characteristics for all people. So when you single out white people for shame because some of them say mean things about Jews and other non-whites, please realize that this happens because they don’t have an ethnostate. I’m sure Palestinians and other racial minorities catch abuse from certain Jewish citizens of Israel for the exact same reasons. I’m also sure that quite a few Jews truly do detest gentiles. Some people just don’t like outsiders, and when they are on their home turf, they can get quite nasty about it. Since I believe this is a genetic thing, I must also believe that there is little they or anyone else can do about it. But as long as such individuals have a place to go where they don’t have to encounter outsiders, peace can be kept. So if you want to greatly reduce anti-Semitism in the Western world, push for the formation of a white ethnostate.
Argument 5: As long as Jewish nationalism exists, White Nationalism will not lead to a second Holocaust. Had Israel been around during the early years of the Third Reich, I really believe there wouldn’t have been a first one. It’s not like the Nazis didn’t try to encourage Jewish nationalism prior to the war. For many reasons, not least humanitarian ones, Jews deserve their homeland, and I am glad Israel can take care of itself. I really am. Further, Jews have a lot to offer as a people, and I would like for that to continue in a place like Israel, which can suit the unique character of its people. And if you look at history, Jews suffered the most when they were a wandering diaspora in gentile lands. Do you really want that to continue? Because it will if liberal, diaspora Jews continue to import Muslim anti-Semites into white-controlled lands. Just chew on that one for a while.
And another thing about this Holocaust business: don’t you think you have been using it as a weapon against white people for long enough now? That and slavery have been pummeled into the minds of young whites in a concerted effort to shame us into abjuring our own racial interests. Do you think we’re not noticing? Do you think we’re going to want this to continue as we slowly lose our lands? Isn’t it time you gave us a break? I say this because Holocaust-phobia is wearing thin seventy years after the fact. This is not because white people are insensitive to its sheer enormity. It’s because we’re detecting a prejudice on your part which considers any white gentile who acts in his own racial interest as a closet Nazi. Even if we deny it or renounce anti-Semitism, it doesn’t matter. We are all potential Nazis to you, and that’s all there is to it. Don’t you see how offensive that is? Do you forget that hundreds of thousands of white, Christian men lined up to get slaughtered on the battlefields of Western Europe in part to save your people from the Holocaust? Do we not deserve even a little bit of credit for that?
And since so many of you wish to use the Holocaust to create self-abnegation among innocent people, perhaps whites should start doing the same to you. Are you not familiar with Jewish complicity in the Holodomor and other Soviet war crimes? Jonathan Bowden relates a story about how a British National Party deputy chairman once fielded a question about the Shoah during an interview. He responded, “Well, which ‘Shoah’ are you referring to? Are you talking about the Communist holocausts, many of which were inspired by Jewish ideas?” He’s right, you know, although Jewish involvement in such atrocities went far beyond mere ideas. Stalin’s Jewish lieutenants and associates, such as Politburo member Lazar Kaganovich (who oversaw much of the famine in Ukraine in the early 1930s), NKVD commander Boris Berman (who committed acts of terror and atrocities in Belarus), secret policemen Matvei Berman and Naftali Frenkel (who helped develop the Soviet slave labor system, the latter of whom oversaw the deaths of two hundred thousand slaves during the construction of the White Sea Baltic Canal in 1932), and many others were complicit in the deaths of millions, especially in Ukraine. And I think it goes without saying that Bolshevism, one of the most murderous movements in the history of mankind, was in large part a Jewish phenomenon, at least until Stalin turned on the Jews in the 1930s. So without Jews, there is no Bolshevism. And without Bolshevism, there is no USSR. And without the USSR . . . well, you see my point. Louis Rappaport, a Jewish writer, described Lazar Kaganovich in 1989 as having “more blood on his hands than any living person.” In the same vein, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his monumental The Gulag Archipelago, offhandedly referred to Genrikh Yagoda, the Jewish chief of the Soviet secret police during the 1930s, as the “murderer of millions.”
Not bad for two percent of the population, wouldn’t you say?
Yes, I am aware of the Black Hundreds and the bloody pogroms of the Czarist period. But how far back do you want to go with this? Is history nothing more than a pissing contest to see who has suffered the most? Wouldn’t you also like to talk about the two million white Europeans sold into slavery by the Crimean Tatars and other Muslims since the fall of the Byzantine Empire? Or how about the one-and-a-quarter-million of them sold into slavery by Barbary pirates during the same period? Or does only Jewish suffering matter to you?
I hate discussions like this. They go nowhere and accomplish nothing but the spreading of discord and discontent. I think that perhaps the best, most persuasive argument in favor of White Nationalism is that it ends discussions like this once and for all. And afterwards, we can all go home.
23 comments
It should also be noted that without whites, there never would have been an Israel.
Consistent with history, and to some extent with a prevailing Jewish world-view, Jews do not act, but are acted upon. Whatever might be extolled as Jewish pioneering efforts are typically built atop genuine previous efforts of a host nation, or are simple theft, annexation. Jews don’t build from scratch, they infest and degrade existing majority structures, hijack capital and distort culture. (One may, with hindsight, conclude that the Third Reich anticipated this as inevitable.)
While it’s a funny and snarky rhetorical device to pitch White Nationalism to Jewish liberals — as if “hearts and minds” is a relevant concept — I think the creation of a white ethnostate will be a radically violent struggle, violent and deadly beyond comprehension, and will necessitate some rather stringent prophylactic measures, within and beyond the borders. Even if a white nationalist faction takes effective control of rump U.S. state infrastructure, it is naïve to assume that globalist interests will simply concede. Aside from media ownership, finance, energy extraction, arms manufacture, and the exporting of chaos, their counter-sovereignty weaponry will always include demographic manipulation. And they will jealously retain that power to manipulate — and all power — until it is taken away.
The projected population growth of Subsaharan Africa is something akin to an algae bloom, which will likely herald a drastic subsequent depopulation, from disease and famine, but only if the population is contained within Subsaharan Africa. How does one make that happen? By making it happen. Look to future propagandists of an environmental stripe to make a case for preëmptive measures, as such a bloom is first and foremost a global ecological threat. As Hillary might say, some hard choices will have to be made. Best to get into the mindset sooner, not later.
On this continent, just as mass deportation, historically speaking, is often an early phase in a longer process — which, historically speaking again, includes genocide — the notion of North American balkanization seems idealistic, unless viewed as such a phase.
It is not for nothing that the conspiracy-minded recognize (imagine?) a global depopulation project in the making. I call upon thoughtful, long-term planning types to muster, and I propose that we take a very hard, worst-case view to heart from the outset. What kind of interior North American white ethnostate will there be if the coasts continue to be cancerous satellites, “sanctuaries” for successive waves of highly fertile, low IQ vibrancy?
Depopulists are in many ways in same position as white nationalists. Educated small group with facts against the ignorant mass, which is calling them genocidal freaks. I discovered this issue and educated myself while investigating white genocide. And my conclusion is that unless we make revolutionary scientific breakthroughs, that depopulation is inevitable. The only question is whether we liquidate excess lives ourselves or nature will do it for us.
For white nationalists there is simple solution: deport the non-white invaders. But this would only slightly alleviate the problem. Its not the population size itself that is unsustainable, level of consumption is, our ecological footprint is too big. Whites are biggest consumers. Of course the rich elites should be expropriated, but we need to downsize way more than that. The only way to save advances of our western civilization is to decrease size of it. Alternative is to conquer a lot more land or entire planet, which I am against. We are adapted to cold climates, we belong there.
For this reason I am thankful to Jews that they have depressed white birth rates. And frankly it would be good if we could get another decade of this soft genocide at accelerated speed before we finally take over. It is dirty business and its better if enemy does it for us. We cant start our reign by telling our people there is too many of them and we need to downsize.
I think the eco-footprint line is ideology, an example of the white-guilt, original sin, “humanity-as-cancer,” etc.
In this case, we have no need for innovative science (another pervasive and false ideological construct, as if we have tried everything else and failed). The breakthrough we need is to throw off ideological notions of collective guilt. And, to nationalize resources, infrastructure, and finance.
The wastefulness of consumer capitalism can’t be fundamentally changed by guilt-tripping some section of a consumer population into changing their consumption habits. Another way of saying this is that consumers do not really have any leverage. Over-consumption is a symptom, not a cause.
The broad solution is to remove the profitability of waste.
Under the current globalist system, when you boil water, a member of the Saudi royal family (for example) makes a profit. Hence, waste is fine for the stockholder. In fact it is more than fine, it means more profit.
Nationalization of resources and infrastructure would cancel globalist entrenchment. Waste then becomes a liability.
I realize it sounds very neat, but the essential point is to free our thinking. White Nationalists need not embrace existing collective guilt formulas. No virtue signaling required.
I stress “collective” guilt, because a collective is indeed what we are, and we must embrace and always be aware of our collective history, culture, our strengths as well as weaknesses. But we are not a billion grains of sand, a thousand points of light. Such sentimental abstractions are designed to obscure our proud awareness of our ancestry.
We are a race. We take charge of our own destiny. No guilt.
Some very interesting ideas there, Norman. I tend to think that as nationalists, our overarching goal should be to secure territory for our nations and to build better, more sustainable futures for our descendants. In terms of sustainability, I agree with you completely that corporate capitalism – as currently practiced – can’t deliver. Nationalisation of key infrastructure and some industry (esp natural monopolies – particularly the power to create money, if not the whole banking sector) will help society move towards a more sustainable footing.
But I would take issue with your contention that we have no need for innovative science. If we are to leave our descendants a better and more sustainable future, then technology will have to play a part in that. But that doesn’t mean more Angry Birds apps, for instance.
The Australian writer Allan R Jones uses the term ‘appropriate technology’ to describe science that enables us to live better lives while consuming less (or at least no more) of the earths resources. He also points out that inventing and developing appropriate technology is something that Western cultures have excelled in for millennia. This kind of technology means, for example, that instead of boiling water and paying the Saudi royal family (or in Oz, a power company majority owned by foreign companies) for the privilege, I can have hot water boiled solar power captured on my roof. I am still living well, my footprint is reduced and I am no longer subsidising foreign companies that have no interest in me other than as a cash cow.
So, while I’d agree that much of our current technology is wasteful or frivolous, I think that we need appropriate technology more now than ever.
Thank you, nineofclubs. I will certainly look into Jones.
I regret I didn’t adequately underscore the qualification In this case, as in: “In this case, we have no need for innovative science.” Unqualified, it could be construed as a sentiment along the lines of: “We don’t need no gadgets and fancy book learnin’!” or the like.
Some of the WN discussion seems a bit hobbled by an internalized desire to maintain a pernicious ideological vocabulary, one which belongs entirely to that thing which continues to dispossess us. I refer to terms such as innovation, sustainability, eco-footprint, etc. (and even science itself, which Rupert Sheldrake examines, showing that there is science proper, and then “science” as ideology). These terms are common examples, but there are many more to be found in technology, economics, political science, and nearly any discipline as it survives under Cultural Marxism. That many terms are often trite and almost meaningless doesn’t detract from their power to set the Overton Window, to signal within entrenched power structures.
To take one example, the expression “innovative solutions,” is technocratic signaling.
The core ideology holds an unquestioned assumption that only an innovation (new thing) can save us, implying not only that previous options have been exhausted and found lacking, but also that we needn’t discuss historical precedent or context.
In actual use, when Obama articulates a need for new thinking — “innovative solutions” or whatever — while he is saying precisely nothing to the populace, he is clearly signaling to his constituency (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Raytheon, etc.): Don’t worry, guys. If we can’t ignore the “problem” under discussion, (transfer of wealth, financial crash, etc.), we’ll outsource the “solution” to the current beneficiaries of the “problem” (subcontracting much needed henhouse security to Fox & Associates, LLC).
And so on, ad absurdam.
I can only reiterate: “The breakthrough we need is to throw off ideological notions of collective guilt,” because guilt is deeply disabling to the individual. By throwing it off first, we can begin to see with our own eyes, speak with our own voice, and thus throw off the internalized desire to legitimize their rhetoric and their ideology.
Therefore, in homage to Ambrose Bierce, I offer the start of a new glossary.
Sustainability: status quo advocacy; hubris; denial of mortality; fear of uncertainty.
Innovation: something which further enriches entrenched interests, ignores an actual problem, and/or removes historical context and accountability.
Eco-footprint: an artifice cited as evidence of original sin; justification for auto-disenfranchisement, auto-dispossession, auto-genocide.
Visionary: conformist.
Norman,
“While it’s a funny and snarky rhetorical device to pitch White Nationalism to Jewish liberals — as if “hearts and minds” is a relevant concept — I think the creation of a white ethnostate will be a radically violent struggle, violent and deadly beyond comprehension, and will necessitate some rather stringent prophylactic measures, within and beyond the borders. ”
I enjoyed reading that, although I assure you I was not trying to be snarky. I am afraid however that you are correct in your predictions…although I hope not. It was this hope that inspired my article.
Spencer Quinn:
You are conscientious to go through and reply to your commenters. Thanks.
I should amend my comment with the disclaimer that snark is in the eye of the beholder. In this case the eye (mine) beheld snark in the proposition itself — the Hard Sell of pitching WN to Jewish liberals — not in the tone of your writing.
My sad prediction of war could be wrong, but it hinges upon a point I don’t often see articulated in such forums as Counter Currents, etc. And that is this:
Whether through partition, balkanization, attack by a foreign power, or UFO-disclosure-driven singularity, the breakup of the U.S. will mean war of one kind or another: slow, fast, cold, hot, economic, nuclear, conventional, hybrid, some/all of the above. It could be argued that hybrid civil war is already under way, but whatever. I don’t think there’s much to argue concerning an imminent or eventual collapse of things as they are.
And, unless there’s an evacuation or colonization plan I haven’t heard about, wouldn’t North American White Nationalism find itself rather well positioned (by merely existing) to have a seat at the table among political inheritors of US infrastructure, weapons stockpile, even its debt?
It isn’t a prediction, but rather it seems a logical probability, and a good topic for think-tankish contingency scenarios. A majority of the leadership and the most capable mid-level components of civil aviation, transport, energy, public safety and military are white men. Does anyone imagine someone else could crash-land the plane?
The likely political lay of the (smoldering, scarred, but fertile) land should be imagined, extrapolated, talked about. There will be no need to sell anything to liberals at that point. The ones who want to get something for appearing virtuous will either die, signaling to no one, or embrace the new code: No white child left behind.
On Argument 5. I formerly lived next door to a German immigrant to Australia, who confided to me one day after a couple of beers that he’d been in the Hitler Youth as a boy. After describing his harrowing experiences at the end of WW2, he said to me that most Germans, including committed Nazis, had never wanted to see Jews killed or even interned. He maintained that they wanted Jews to emigrate to Palestine or Madagascar so they could ‘live their own lives in peace’.
Nine,
Very interesting. Thank you for that. When I was a kid, we met a man who claimed to have been a WW2 vet. When we asked him whom he fought for, he said, “the good guys.” It took us a good 10-15 minutes of grilling before we realized that he had fought for Germany.
Nice article Mr. Quinn.
Near the beginning of your article you make a distinction between the twin diseases of “Cultural Marxism” and “Political Correctness.” I always thought they were two names for the same thing much like “Mark Twain” and “Samuel Clemens” name the same 19th Century American writer.
In my view “CM” = “PC” and it is defined by the following 3 clauses:
1) Racial Egalitarianism: All races are the same and there are no differences in anything other than skin color.
2) Radical Feminism: There are no significant differences between men and women and therefore they are completely interchangeable.
3) Rejection of heterosexual normality: LGBT is fine and all restrictions on any of these individuals is morally wrong.
I would be interested to hear how, in your view, these ideas of “CM” and “PC” should be defined.
I also draw the same conclusion about cultural Marxism, and modern Christianity, they are one, and the same.
Hi Jud, nice point. To be honest, I didn’t put too much thought into the distinction between PC and CM when I wrote the piece. I wouldn’t argue with someone who thinks they are one in the same. However, my hunch is that there is a difference.
CM is the (shoddy) intellectual framework behind PC. It gets into the why’s and wherefore’s behind PC. Cultural Marxism will cover theory, history, equality, etc.
PC on the other hand amounts to the growing list of things that white, straight men can and cannot say in public.
CM is the roots of a weed, whereas PC is vine which strangles a tree over time…if you will pardon the analogy.
First separate the Metropolitan multicultural
city from the hinterland. Let Chicago, LA, Philly, Baltimore, NYC,
SF and Seattle become mini states. Eventually these places will
Become cannibal pots where whites stupid enough to live in Enrichment will be flung.
In a generation right wing death squads can go in and clean up the remaining hunter gatherers.
Excellent article, I reblogged and commented briefly here:
https://theroperreportsite.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/why-the-jews-should-accept-balkanization/
Thank you very much, Billy Roper!
Joseph Atwill whom I admire as a brilliant researcher, and who discovered when, and where Christianity was created, by whom, and how it was inserted into western civilization, attempted to determine how many white gentiles were killed in all the 20th century wars, and subsequent, and contributing factors, came up with the number 250 million, plus, or minus twenty million. That is as close as Mr. Atwill could come to a precise number! Plus, or minus twenty million is a monumental difference, and I think someday it will be determined that it was plus 20 million. Mr. Atwill mentions frequently in his videos of an encounter with a rabbi whom was whining about “muh dik six million,” to whom he was trying to impress with this fact. The most glaring fact is that all of these 20th century wars can be laid at the Jews doors. There is one option that you did not address, and one that I feel will eventually have to be used, is unlimited biological warfare. I think it will come down to races-specific plagues in order to ensure the survival of the white race, and, as time goes by, more, and more white people will come around to my way of thinking.
I understand that Jewish farmers use non-Jews to harvest their crops, this is a serious flaw in Jewish society. Requiring non-Jews to perform physical labor which they think is beneath a Jew will be their downfall. These non-Jews will continue with a high-birth rate strategy, and instruct their offspring to increasingly hate Jews, and rightly so. This is the strategy that blacks used in the United States so successfully, with Jews supplying their intellectual foundation. Clandestinely supplying non-Jews within, and around Israel with weapons will encourage patriotic Jews to emigrate.
Hitler was right about the Jews, he hypothesized that Jews just want Israel for a base of operations to operate from. A place where they can go to receive instruction, reinvigorate, and recharge their spirits before heading back out to herd the hated canaille.
Peter, I think we can all agree that ethno-nationalism across the world will cure them of this delusion. Once we say no to multiculturalism once and for all, Israel will be no longer their “base of operations” but their home. That will be better for everyone.
Balkanization is out of the question for a number of reasons. One of them is that you would still have to deploy either of the remaining strategies, either Slow Cleanse or Warfare or both, in order to move none-whites out of White Only Lands. But the most obvious reason is that it is a mistake to look for the solution in the American only context, it is White Race Existential Thread, North American, European (including Russia), Australian and New Zealand. Europe, for instance, can not give away its lands to none-whites. It is too small to be generous with its heritage. So, for Europeans, balkanization is out to the question. It stands to reason that balkanization is a none-started for the rest o f the White Nations.
Joe Sam, you make a good point. But with Balkanization, I envisioned voluntary transferals of populations. Anyway, this raises the age-old question: Do we get 85% of what we want without war? Or 100% with it? You seem to think the latter option is the only option. And you may be correct. But I hope not.
I think that with the Balkanization of America, once the whites form their ethnostate, it will clearly be the strongest, most successful nation on the continent. No neighboring nations run by Mexicans or Muslims or blacks could equal us. Such a future is worth considering when the other option is rattling sabres for a war that not we but our children are going to fight.
A great article, coherent, highly articulate, eloquent, and persuasive. My only worry is that the diaspora liberal (the word “liberal” is actually redundant here) Jews hate the White race to the marrow, they want first and foremost to destroy the White people and will consider things afterwards (perhaps they reckon they’ve already got a plan to deal with the stupid Islamic illiterate and semi-literate masses whom they look down upon contemptuously from their own intellectual superiority); perhaps they simply couldn’t help it themselves as they are so genetically and inextricably wired to hate, detest and destroy the White race.
Still, I believe the author’s skilled and painstaking striving to persuade the Jews in their and our best interest is commendable and worth a try, and maybe the best policy of the White people is a two-track strategy i.e. trying our most sedulous and sincere effort to reason with the Jews and hoping to convince some brighter and less calcified minds, while at the same time working harder and more resourcefully to enhance our own position and build on our own strength to repulse and defeat the Jewry eventually and completely.
Thank you, Riki-Eiki. I worked hard on that one. I’m afraid your concerns may be correct for the majority of those Jews who have the will to power. I do believe that as Islam and Mexico slowly take over this country in the next 3 decades or so, more and more Jews will see the wisdom in separation and their own hypocrisy regarding Israel. Whether this will be too little too late remains to be seen. I think we would all prefer accomplishing this through reason rather than war. That’s what I was attempting with this article.
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.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment