Golden Dawn - Greece

Posted by jonjayray on July 24, 2005, 06:36 PM | #

My libertarian answer would be “Of course”.  A person is entitled to say what goes on in his own home.  The problem arises when the family is divided.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2005, 06:36 PM | #

Excellent idea for a log entry!  This way they can’t ignore it as our Aussie friend Silverhand in Brisbane has done twice in different threads.  Had I thought of posing that question, however, I might’ve phrased it thus: 

Do you agree that European Caucasians are entitled to seek to secure their futures in their own lands?

If you phrase it in terms of what they should do rather than what they are entitled to do, they may be tempted to reply with something like,

“Dunno, mate—do as you please.”

The other thing is, it would seem that a bound-and-determined “race-neutral” type of guy like John Ray (or, so he likes to fancy himself) might still wiggle out of the question’s meaning the way it’s worded, by replying with something along the lines of,

“But their futures in their own lands aren’t threatened.  Their futures in their own lands consist in the continued survival of each land’s national character, particular culture, system of laws, and so on, all things which are not jeapardized in the least by ingress unlimited numbers of yellows, Subcons, and other non-Euro-Caucasians with the possible exception of the Sub-Saharans.  So, what’s the problem?”

I’d have put some reference to their racial future in the question, in order to corner slippery types like John, preventing them from wiggling out of the net so easily.  (Of course he’ll still find some way, but let’s at least make him sweat while he’s at it.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2005, 06:38 PM | #

There, he wiggled out in a completely novel way he’s never used before, managing to completely avoid the question!  Bound to happen, I knew it!

Posted by jonjayray on July 24, 2005, 06:50 PM | #

LOL

“managing to completely avoid the question!  Bound to happen, I knew it”

Now Fred:
I know you must be peeved that I did not answer as you predicted but “Of course” is hardly wriggling out of anything

Posted by Stuka on July 24, 2005, 07:48 PM | #

:::cricket:::cricket:::cricket:::cricket:::.......

Posted by Splinter on July 24, 2005, 08:48 PM | #

*Do you agree that European Caucasians should seek to secure their futures in their own lands?*

I believe that all people have the right to a secure future in the own land.

By adding European Caucasians to the question means you are pushing for a particular situation or outcome.

The greyness in this discussion starts with who belongs to what land, what constitutes ownership?  Does China own Tibet, did Iraq own Kuwait did England own Hong Kong or India?

Secondly at this point in time I do not believe any state in the world can claim to contain only one race.

This argument would make more sense to me if it were based on idealology or religion, but based on race, I cannot understand.  I could understand Christians not wanting to live in a country where the majority were Pagans for example.  But just because someone is of a different race does not mean we don’t share the same idealology, surely.

Posted by Kubilai on July 24, 2005, 08:59 PM | #

Splinter, ideology changes though race (if left on its own) does not.  You did read the entry here how British genetic make-up has not changed in 12,000 years, didn’t you?  Tell me what “ideology” has been that constant?

Posted by Splinter on July 24, 2005, 09:10 PM | #

Ok so the white caucasian British genetic makeup has not changed, but surely the genetic makeup of Britian has changed!  With all the people the British brought from their world wide empire.

Posted by Kubilai on July 24, 2005, 09:22 PM | #

Yes it has and just as surely, this change in “British” genetic make-up, if taken a step or three further simply will cause either an irreparable change in White Brits or complete eradication of what was known as White Brits.  So you cannot argue on both sides of the fence.  So you either believe in… 

1) Whites, who are the rightful owners of Britain, are allowed to preserve themselves and their future in their own lands

or

2) We allow all sorts of “Brits” making point number 1 above moot.

You can’t have it both ways, because the 2 are incompatible.

Posted by Silverhand on July 24, 2005, 09:53 PM | #

Do you agree that European Caucasians are entitled to seek to secure their futures in their own lands?

Splinter has touched on how I would have answered this as well. I firstly disagree with the inference that nobody else has any right except European Caucasians. You are obviously angling the debate toward your own area of comfort.

Maybe you should have asked instead:

Do you agree that all cultures are entitled to seek to secure their futures in their own lands?

To this I say, yes, I do not deny them the right to what they believe. By the same token those who do not want to secure such a future are entitled to a voice as well. What makes you right and them wrong? Thus we have the irresistible force meeting
the immovable object. We agree to disagree, for neither side has the right to enforce their will on the other.

My concern is with the impracticality of such a position, and if we are dragging up old threads and not answering questions, this was one of mine nobody answered. What are the economic and social implications and ramifications of such action as enforcement of repatriation and zero migration. Such an act is more than just moving a few people around, and if that is all you believe it is then you are more naive than I thought.

You can argue rights all you want, but there is no denying that enforced repatriation and zero migration would almost certainly have catastrophic effects. You obviously feel that the bloodshed, economic chaos and almost certain environmental devastation are worth it, unfortunately I do not.

Have I given up? No, do I feel castrated because of what is happening in some places? No. Am I concerned? Of course I am concerned, I am a member of the human race which I believe trumps both black and white, and as such I have as much right to the survival of this planet and ALL its people, as you do to your small part of it. The needs of the many far far outweigh the needs of the few.

Posted by Splinter on July 24, 2005, 10:05 PM | #

Ok see here is the point I was making… ownership.  I would agree that the Celts are most likely the traditional owners of Britian, and as all traditional owners should be shown respect, given a voice in government and allowed to maintain the traditional culture.

However to stretch that and say they are the “only” British and should be the only ones that have a say is drawing a very long bow.  Do you agree that all traditional owners (people that can trace their gene pool back over 5,000 years) should be given the same rights in all countries, including the US and Australia.

See I agree more with 2 than one.  People in Britian now with genes from the subcontinent (India etc) could claim longer gene residency than most whites in the US and Australia.  I consider myself Australian although I only have 6 or 7 generations in this country.

Posted by Kubilai on July 24, 2005, 10:19 PM | #

Wow Silverhand, a sensible post, albeit fraught with fallacies, yet no vitriol.  Good job there!

First, the question was posed in the manner that which it was because it is understood that non-Whites DO have that right and with the situation we find ourselves in, including the incitement towards racial hatred, hate crime laws etc, Whites are the ONLY people who are NOT allowed this right of self preservation.  No one is “angling” nothing.  It is a given that non-Whites have MORE rights than Whites in White countries.

Do you agree that all cultures are entitled to seek to secure their futures in their own lands?

To this I say, yes, I do not deny them the right to what they believe. - Silverhand

To this I say, bravo.  However take a gander at my post above yours.  One cannot have both ways.  Either there is a right for self-preservation and we must take it upon ourselves to see a future for our countries and peoples or we admit all sorts and have Whites eventually displaced, replaced, and eradicated.  So if you truly do believe in our rights in our selves and country, then you cannot be an advocate of the other.  They are not mutually exclusive.

By the same token those who do not want to secure such a future are entitled to a voice as well. What makes you right and them wrong? Thus we have the irresistible force meeting
the immovable object. We agree to disagree, for neither side has the right to enforce their will on the other.

The people who do not want to self preserve their own ethny, then by all means they may move to any country of their choice.  India?  Nope, no non-Indian immigration.  China?  Nope, no non-Chinese immigration.  Israel?  Nope, no non-Jews.  The Middle East?  Africa?  By all means, Silverhand. 

Also, GENOCIDE IS WRONG, period.  That is what the “other side” is advocating and it is absolutely wrong and reprehensible.  If it is wrong to “ethnically cleanse” Albanians or any other peoples, then it sure as @#%# is wrong to eradicate Whites from their own homelands.  Then simple logic dictates YOUR side is wrong.

Finally, I do not buy the “huge costs” argument for repatriation.  It may be costly and possibly bloody, though not a given.  What is a given is the human cost and blood if they are not repatriated when the proverbial pot comes to a boil, which it most certainly will at some point in the future.

Posted by Kubilai on July 24, 2005, 10:28 PM | #

Splinter, your argument if reductio ad absurdem, then WHO is the rightful owner of any country and HOW FAR BACK should we go in order to delineate this quandary?  Are we going back to Africa where we supposedly originated from and all other places are free game?  I think not.  I think you essentially have made your bed and that is NON-self preservation.  All the other stuff is simply a smoke screen. 

Tell me, should we displace all the Chinese in China?  All the Indians in India?  All the Africans in Africa?  Should we transport all the little green men that are necessary from Alpha Centauri to these places and eventually eradicate these races of people?  Give me a fucking break, man.

Posted by Splinter on July 24, 2005, 10:43 PM | #

Ok I will give you a break.  we shouldn’t displace anyone anywhere.  Ideally I would have preferred it like you to have never happened.  But it has, we are in this situation now.

As for the “European Caucasians” not having rights, I don’t under this, I have all the rights any australian has, and I can say what I like as shown by Andrew Fraser in Australia.

As for the right/obligation to defend my country and culture I bear that too.  But as I said in another post I don’t feel and right/obligation to defend my whiteness. 

As for China and India barring input to non natives, well they have a significant population problem that they are trying to control.  Isreal I agree is a strange nation state, built as it was like no other nation in the world.  I presume like you I question the wisdom of setting up that nation there.  It is also unusual due to the genetic nature of there religion.

My country, Australia, wants population growth, the current Australians (any race) are not procreating enough for my countries leaders and so we need immigration.  Another thing to note that the majority of migrants in Australia are european decent.

As for the how far back we go I don’t know but you brought up the British gene history.

Your comment about idealogogy changing and race staying static underlines my point, the worl changes views change idealology changes, to presume that segregation on race is the way to reduce problems does not seem a logical conclusion.

Posted by Splinter on July 24, 2005, 11:17 PM | #

_Splinter, your argument if reductio ad absurdem,_

The same could be said of the question.  The question always has a yes answer and everyone has said it.  However it is the next step you take that seems illogical to me.  People use the answer to justify all sorts of actions.

The question also seems to be assuming that you don’t have those rights, or you are loosing those rights.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2005, 11:52 PM | #

I’d typed out a long set of replies to Splinter’s points but then saw the additional ones he made, and I regret I’m just not in his league knowledge-wise or intelligence-wise, so I’m not going to debate him at all.
______

“I firstly disagree with the inference that nobody else has any right except European Caucasians.”  (—Silverhand)

No one said or implied that.

”[...N]either side has the right to enforce their will on the other.”

So, the side that wants group racial self-preservation has no right to act accordingly since that would go against the side that opposes group racial self-preservation.

“What are the economic and social implications and ramifications of [...] enforcement of repatriation and zero migration.”

Everyone would be better off socially certainly, and probably economically too—except the CEOs who are getting rich off the slave labor of the non-white peons they bribe the politicians to let come into the country illegally in unlimited numbers and remain here unmolested.

”[...E]nforced repatriation and zero migration would almost certainly have catastrophic effects. You obviously feel that the bloodshed, economic chaos and almost certain environmental devastation are worth it, unfortunately I do not.”

How would zero immigration of racial incompatibles cause catastrophic effects, bloodshed, economic chaos, or environmental devastation?  When you’ve answered that we can discuss repatriation. 

”[...] I am a member of the human race which I believe trumps both black and white [...].  The needs of the many far far outweigh the needs of the few.”

In other words, because we’re all “members of the human race” and “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” we should let all the people of China, Africa, Latin America, India, and Southeastern Asia migrate to England who want to?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 24, 2005, 11:56 PM | #

“I’m just not in his league, knowledge-wise or intelligence-wise”

He’s way, way too far above me, is what I meant ...

Posted by Andrew L on July 24, 2005, 11:59 PM | #

I just got of the Phone to an Arab in Saudi Arabia, and I prompted the question, his reply was Absolutly NOT, stuff them , ha what ever that means.ooooow. I would say yes of course, but it might be a bit harder now the canser is melignant.

And the poms still cant play cricket hay.What hope have they got keeping their country.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 25, 2005, 12:53 AM | #

In reading this new Steve Sailer piece

just now, I happened to see the following passage, which I’ll paste here for our Aussi friend Silverhand, since it’s somewhat à propos of the topic under discussion:

“A close reading demonstrates that [Prof. Jared] Diamond is quite unenthusiastic about mass immigration. For instance, in his chapter about the ecological fragility of Australia, he relays this optimistic hope for better policy in the future:  ‘Contrary to their government and business leaders, 70 percent of Australians say they want less rather than more immigration.’”

Posted by AD on July 25, 2005, 02:27 AM | #

People immigrate to England because of the society the English have built there.People immigrate to Australia,USA and Canada because of the society whites built there,they don’t go and live in aboriginal society(and didnt when they could have for thousands of years) so the ‘ownership’ argument is redundant.It’s about parasites,living off the offerings of the creator culture then changing it until its a wasteland(current day South Africa and Zimbabwe are the logical conclusion).

Wherever whites create a society,aliens will come to leech,and it is always against the wishes of the majority white population.The timeline goes-just a ‘few’ to fill labour shortages,then a few more who will surely ‘assimilate’,then they have a voting bloc so they lobby for their families to come,then they insist on multiculturalism because assimilation is ‘oppression’,then they become the majority in urban areas,then when the whites have woken up to all the violence and crime,apologists say it’s too late because there is too many here and ‘theres nothing we can do now’.

If we went to another planet and colonised it,non-whites would come and folks would justify it somehow(possibly because the Chinese invented gun powder therefore etc etc).

We want a referendum to reinstate the immigration restriction act.We want self determination.You can have your multiracial society somewhere where the majority actually support it.

The only people who support multiculturalism/mass immigration in western nations are submissive whites with defective genes and non-whites with healthy genes.

Posted by AD on July 25, 2005, 02:42 AM | #

Those who tell us we can do what we want ‘as long as we interfere with no one else’ are the same peole who would be protesting in the street for our destruction(in the name of ‘civil rights’ and ‘equality’ no doubt) if we created even a tiny white separatist state in the US/Australia/wherever.

I just don’t believe it when these folks pretend to acknowledge our right to exist.We have to use the best defence is attack approach.Thats all they understandand and thats the only thing that has worked in the past.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 25, 2005, 03:33 AM | #

OK, thanks to Silverhand and Splinter for entering the ring, and for doing so in the spirit of the blog. I hope others follow.

A couple of important points ...

First, The framing of the question is, naturally, not perfect.  It is work in development.  It is based on some of Svi’s earlier observations, but these were centred on rights.  Others have remarked that rights are inappropriate because nobody grants peoples the possession of their lands, and I agree with that.

I think the reality, then, is not rights-based (and certainly not “ideas” or culture based, Splinter) but genetic.  Peoples in possession of their homelands are territorial for genetic purposes.  Territories are a fundamental security for the transmission of the particular genes which distinguish peoples.

So another good formulation for the question would be:-

Do you agree that European Caucasians should, like all peoples, follow their genetic imperative to protect their lands from invaders

Or it could be turned right around the other way:-

Do you agree that European Caucasians should sacrifice themselves and give up their homelands to invaders

If one was speaking to a determined leftist or to a GNXP-er one might make that “Why do you agree that European Caucasians should sacrifice ...”

My second observation is this:-

The left is not only composed of power-worshippers, inadequates who reflect their guilt and self-hatred upon the healthy, manipulative Jews and GNXP sub-cons.  The greater number are people exactly like us.  I have made the point innumerable times that the greater political zeitgeist IS liberal, and every one of us has had to negotiate with it.  We have all been liberals.  We have all been in thrall to the commonality of liberal ideas and we have all been taught to fear the truths “the racist right” upholds.

We are, therefore, all liberals unless we learn what human nature is, and have the courage to stand for that and against political convention.

Escaping from the spiritual grip of the zeitgeist can be confusing and even dangerous, and lots of folk don’t have the constitution for it.  But it is only just that we should test their beliefs.  However one words our little question, it cleaves those who might free themselves from those who have no interest, wish or capacity to do so.  And that is why this question should be asked of all conventional liberal minds who present themselves before us, here and in “real life”.

Posted by jonjayray on July 25, 2005, 04:27 AM | #

David
I hate to mention it but your problem is not with foreigners but rather with people of your own kind

It is THEY who have allowed all the foreigners in.  If anybody is your enemy it is your fellow English who believe that each case should be judged on its individual merits rather than judged in crude racial terms

The Japs don’t let foreigners in legally because there is a consensus there against it and nobody criticizes them for that

The English could do the same but just do not want to

Posted by Guessedworker on July 25, 2005, 04:55 AM | #

John, you are not saying anything I don’t agree with.  We are of one mind.  Mark made very much the same point on a thread a couple of days ago in respect of classical liberal ideology versus the Frankfurt School hi-jack.

It is for this reason that “the homeland question” is asked of liberal whites, not others.  It is a filter.

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 25, 2005, 05:21 AM | #

Splinter, I wish you were correct that the majority of immmigrants into Australia are European. But it’s not so - the immigration figures for last year showed only 15% from European sources.

Posted by sabra on July 25, 2005, 05:46 AM | #

Mr. Guessed Worker,

The answer to your question is very simple. This modern era cannot be seen as an isolated point in time. European Christians started globalization. European Christians, even today, are pushing globalization. But they are no longer entirely in control. They are no longer on top. They made some mistakes along the way. Mistake #1 was killing, colonizing, and enslaving them, but not wiping them out. That was a big mistake. Mistake #2 was trying to kill us, but not wiping us out. That was a bigger mistake.

By starting a fight but not wiping us out you gave us reason for vengeance and the ability to to exact that revenge.

You should have finished the job when you had the ability to do so. You no longer do. We have nuclear weapons, and so do they. And more importantly, we know there are ways to fight besides open combat and conquest. Many of you are too stupid to realize this. Idiots on this website babble about bullets to the head when the course of postwar Europe has been altered without a shot being fired. You speak of regression to the mean? Well, you Europeans today are a regression to the mean. You are nothing compared to the ancestors who strode the world smiting hip and thigh. You are to them what the modern Mongolians are to Genghis Khan.

For you to complain and whine and whimper now about your situation is like the playground bully crying after he’s started to get a taste of his own medicine. Now that he’s not in control—for what is physical strength when the nervous system has been co-opted—he cries and sues for peace. He’s conveniently forgotten about everything he dished out back in the day, all the corpses and skulls and bodies and occupied countries and desecrated temples.

But we have long memories, and so do the Chinese.

Posted by sabra on July 25, 2005, 05:57 AM | #

Mr. Guessed Worker,

I would further ask you this, as you seem to be in the mood for “deep why” questions today.

Do you believe our desire for vengeance is just? The Opium Wars, the Holocausts, the Trail of Tears, the Scramble for Africa, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Aboriginal suppression…there is scarcely a corner of the world outside of Osaka whose men were not scorched by European fire and whose women were not raped by European knaves.

Do THEY have reason for vengeance? And do not give me the white man’s burden line. You say that all the technological contributions in the world by an immigrant do not matter: it is because they are different and alien and making more money than you that it stings. And this is for an immigrant your country invited in.  How much more angry would you be if there was no invitation, if someone simply strode into your country, raped your wife, destroyed your culture, and enslaved your children? Would you thank them for the technological baubles they gave you in return?

Is their anger justified? This is the question I pose. And this brief, perfectly straightforward post is not aimed at our readers from the political left.  For you guys it presents not the slightest intellectual challenge.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 25, 2005, 06:59 AM | #

Keep talking, Sabbie my friend.  Tell everyone you meet.  Tell the white ones twice.  You and I are on the same side.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 25, 2005, 08:31 AM | #

Sabra, are you, as your pen name and e-mail address suggest, a native-born Israeli Jew?  I strongly doubt that.  If you’d like to divulge your real race/ethnicity I’d be interested in knowing it.  My guess is you’re yellow, subcon, or a white nationalist trying to provoke a strong reaction.  I don’t think you’re a Negro but that’s possible.  Mexican’s also possible. 

In case you’re one of the first two (yellow or subcon), I’ll just make two replies to your vomit.  No one here is whining because a non-white came here and made lots of money.  (No one here is whining, period.)  The people here are against race-replacement population transfers, as are the majorities of the populations of all white countries where that’s being forced down throats by this Tranzi/Wall-Street/neo-Marxist alliance.  We’re muzzled by the MSM so we come here and to similar sites to exchange ideas.  Let us talk openly through the MSM and this all would’ve been sorted out long ago, which is exactly why they won’t let us.  As for your fixation on Chinese and Subcon women supposedly having suffered an epidemic of rape, historically, at the hands of whites, I’d say rape in those places took place on a scale that is infinitessimal compared to what feverish hallucinatory obsessions lie festering in your sick, disgusting brain.

(In fact, the more I think about it, Mexican’s probably the likeliest—you’re most likely one of those.)

Posted by JW Holliday on July 25, 2005, 08:38 AM | #

Sabra,

First let me thank you for your honesty.  Finally, someone who admits the truth that the colored man is motivated by anti-white hatred and the thirst for revenge.  Nonwhite immigration to white lands is not based upon wanting to “bring diversity” or “boost the economy” or be “hard-working and polite immigrants”, but, simply, as a counter-attack to perceived attacks by whites.

OK.  To answer your question.  Is the non-white anger justified?  Yes, it is.  But, then, perhaps white anger is justified by the invasions of Europe by the Persians, Huns, Mongols, Saracens/Moors, Turks, etc.  Perhaps - and a recent book review in AR makes this point - white anger can be stoked by the centuries of slave-trading of white peoples by North African Muslims, of such an extent that entire areas of the North Mediterranean coastline were depopulated.  The hammer-anvil relationship between whites and browns/yellows have gone back and forth throughout history.  Most recently, yes, it has been the whites who’ve been the hammer.  But, so conveniently the colored man forgets when he was the hammer, and Europe writhed in anguish under brown/yellow predations.  Unfortunately, the white man, feckless as he is, has forgotten.  Not all of us though.

It has been the nature of human competition for these things to happen.  We are not asking Mongolia or Turkey for “reparations” (indeed, Europeans today bend over backwards to kiss the Turkish rear end).  We can swap stories of anger and atrocities.  Or, we can break the cycle and adopt the Salterian view of universal nationalism.  Now to you, that’s the ex-bully begging for mercy when he is “down and out.”  But, you yourself admitted that the white man showed a restraint even when he was on top. Imagine a Genghis Khan with the H-bomb!  Imagine the Ottomans or Saracens with modern European technology.  All of Europe would have been enslaved and/or destroyed.  With the capability of doing the same to the colored world, we did not.  And now the colored populations are exploding with the white man’s medicine and hygiene, and are armed with the white man’s technology.  And now, you say you want revenge.

Very well.  But, we are under no obligation to roll over and accept it.  Please forgive us - despite that we may be poor shadows of our ancestors - for wishing to fight back.  Oh, great vengeful Sabra, note that there are a few white men left who are as angry as hell, who know their history (their full history, not the one-sided PC crap they you spew), and who say: “no, we are not going to oblivion quietly!”  Since, as I agree, most whites are feckless cowards, oblivion may beckon.  But at least some of us can look ourselves in the mirror and say that we tried to do something against it.

Once again, I thank you for being honest about your intentions.

Posted by JW Holliday on July 25, 2005, 09:00 AM | #

GW is correct, folks like “Sabra” do wonders for balkanization; keep up the good work.  The name “Sabra” suggests a NEC origin?  Are you then one of our ‘magnificent’ Non-European “Caucasian” geniuses?  Just curious…

From the Persians to the present, the NECs have been tormenting Europe and Europeans, and indeed, one must think our forebears - as Sabra suggests so much sterner and superior to ourselves - must have been filled with righteous anger at the vicious predations of brown men in Europe over the centuries.  And then there were the yellow Huns and Mongols, who slaughtered entire cities, leaving piles of bones behind.

Too bad for them that the Reds and Blacks were too backward to transverse oceans and deserts, for they too I am sure would have joined in with the Browns and Yellows in the unprovoked despoilage of Europe.

And then of course, we have the rich history of colored peoples dispossessing and destroying each other.  Another thing dropped down the memory hole.

That’s OK though.  Whites need to see the clear dividing line.  Helps with the balkanization, and all that.

Posted by Stuka on July 25, 2005, 09:00 AM | #

Sabra wrote: Now that he’s not in control…he cries and sues for peace.

No one here is crying and suing for peace. Quite the contrary. Increasing numbers of whites are demanding war. And, eventually, we will get it. It’s inevitable.

Posted by Splinter on July 25, 2005, 09:06 AM | #

@Mark Richardson.  I can’t find information about 2003 and 2004 but I have a link to the 2002 figures… http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/02key.htm ... and yes Europe is dropping as a major supply of immigrants and New Zealand is taking it’s place.  If you have some newer figures that would be good.

Also the total migration has been slowly decreasing over the decades according to this.

@GuessedWorker, this is where I left the last conversation, no I don’t feel any obligation to my genetics or to my race’s genetics.  My DNA does not seem to impose on my decission making much at all. That may make me “castrated” in some peoples eyes, but to me it just doesn’t make sense.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 25, 2005, 09:10 AM | #

The Opium Wars, the Holocausts, the Trail of Tears, the Scramble for Africa, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Aboriginal suppression…there is scarcely a corner of the world outside of Osaka whose men were not scorched by European fire and whose women were not raped by European knaves.

Dear Fence Sitters, the Non Committed, the open minded:

If Sabre’s version of history is correct - and it is not - why allow whites to survive at all. Obviously, we are a threat to the peace and good order of thw world - just kill us off, that is what ought to be done.

But, remember too, someone educated Sabre, someone and some institutions have taught him this rubbish, and remember too there are millions of others like him that relish the raping of our daughters, the enslavement or our sons.

I believe it was Silverhand that refered to whites as a virus!

Wake up folks or the mad dreams of Silverhand and Sabre will come true.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 25, 2005, 10:11 AM | #

Splinter,

Yes, and I replied that there are other ways beside genetic similitude to come to the right understanding.  Are you of student age.  You have time if so.

Posted by JW Holliday on July 25, 2005, 10:35 AM | #

Splinter,

If you keep on talking about how you “feel” rather than what you *think*, then yes indeed some of us may think you are “castrated.”

As Salter makes clear, humans have not really evolved to “feel” an instinctual obligation to defend ethnic genetic interests.  Or, perhaps, given non-White ethnocentrism, it may be that only European Caucasians are generally not evolved to have such “feelings”, given origins as hunter-gatherers in relatively sparsely populated marginal ecological niches.

But, we have brains (most of us, anyway), and we can think rationally (I hope) and we can, if we are objective, evaluate our ultimate vs. proximate interests.

So much for what you “feel.”  Another problem here is the GC-like comments suggesting that whites defending their interests will result in some sort of apocalyptic catastrophes.

Here I talk of the USA.  I’d like to see a signficant portion of whites organize on a racial (and Western-cultural) basis, and practice strict “identity politics.”  That will not only help them survive in an increasingly hostile multicultural state, but - since multiculturalism is based upon majority passivity - help undermine the multicultural project itself.

With increasing balkanization and a disintegating multicultural consensus, people of all races will want separation.

Look now.  Even in today’s repressive multicultural regime, even after decades of incessant pro-diversity propaganda, white Americans still will, if they are able, move away from concentrations of non-whites.  Integration in the USA today is based upon enforced government diktat - something all the “libertarians” should consider.

Breaking the chains of multicultural repression, including the power of the ideological/propaganda machine, will result in an exponential increase in voluntary separation, that can then be formalized into the formation of ethnostates.  Of course, there are lot of “ifs” here - and the establishment will fight tooth and nail to prevent this from coming to pass.

But, it is possible to achieve separation in the USA via evolution, rather than revolution.  Revolution may occur - most likely started by non-whites and not whites - but note that I am expressedly promoting a peaceful evolutionary alternative.

I believe that Svigor on his website has discussed methodologies to promote separatism, for example, using economic incentives for people to move toward concentrations of their own people.  Gee ... given all the effort the USA has put into achieving half-hearted integration, a fraction of that effort toward segregation and separation would yield terrific results.

With respect to Europe, things are different - there we are talking about the ancestral homelands of the European peoples, and they have no where else to go.  They must expel the invaders ...

I though must deal with America, and I see potential for wrecking the multicultural regime through what Geoff calls 3.5 generation warfare, including expanding such into politics and a variety of race-based organizations and projects ...

Posted by Kubilai on July 25, 2005, 10:46 AM | #

GW,

I did not “awaken” until my late 30’s.  Prior to that I was happy to live in a multi-cult utopia and bought most of the drivel that was spewed by the MSM.  I guess you could say I was “slow learner”.  Well, look at me now mom and dad.  That is why I do not think age is extremely important in ones awakening, though I do agree that the older one is, the harder it is to turn them. 

I think Splinter (and Silverhand) is at the zenith of his indoctrination though his world is showing cracks and he has trouble letting go to what has been instilled in him from his birth, probably.  It does take time to realize what you have been told is an abject LIE.  I think Splinter is in his late 20s or early 30s, while Silver is in his early to mid 20s.  I think Splinter will eventually come around.  It may take years still, though he has the signs.  It’s too early to tell with Silver.  Whether I am right or not is yet to be seen because I am just a stupid optimist in our people.

Splinter, you have a wealth of information here and other places/books that are linked to.  Please read as much as you can with an open mind and DO NOT constantly fall back to your comfort zone.  Traverse farther out each passing day and see what happens.

As to Sabra, Splinter and Silver should read his post THOROUGHLY and glean a couple of points.  1) his absolute hatred of Whites despite his outward “politeness” when in his usual day job which is indicated in his opening of “Mr. Guessedworker”.  2) he was educated in the west and possibly born in the west, though he is someone who will never “assimilate” and he has many, many friends.  So people should be cognizant of the fact that our model non-Whites DO NOT like us.  They like the money and the comfort and hide their true intentions.  This should be glaringly obvious from his post.

Posted by Kubilai on July 25, 2005, 11:29 AM | #

Taking my own advice and reading Sabra’s post again, I find it hilarious that he can hardly hold back his pent up rage.  It took only half a paragraph before he started spewing vitriol and vengeance.  This is what the MSM hides from us.  He also admits to being an “invited” immigrant.  Funny, no asked me about letting him in.

Posted by Svigor on July 25, 2005, 11:35 AM | #

I think the reality, then, is not rights-based (and certainly not “ideas” or culture based, Splinter) but genetic.  Peoples in possession of their homelands are territorial for genetic purposes.  Territories are a fundamental security for the transmission of the particular genes which distinguish peoples.

As I said then, it’s a rhetorical tool not a justification for pursuing EGI.  The idea is to expose enemies of (white) racial nationalism.

If a person has objections based on this or that, we can hash things out.  If a person thinks whites have no right to pursue EGI or racial nationalism, then no amount of arguing will matter; his goal is not to get at the truth, but to oppose us.

It’s like an (involuntary) statement of purpose.  Why let someone quibble about minutiae before answering the big question (and therefore tipping his hand)?

I hate to mention it but your problem is not with foreigners but rather with people of your own kind

The English could do the same but just do not want to

If some cretin breaks a damn causing a flood, I have a cretin problem and not a flood problem?

Why, that’s ingenious!

“The English” want to, they can’t John because an English minority runs the political system and the media, and that minority wants invasion.

Anti-WNs seem to think WNs love everyone whose skin is white - we don’t.  We don’t love the whites who sell us down the river, and we don’t want them in our homelands any more than we want non-whites.

Mistake #1 was killing, colonizing, and enslaving them, but not wiping them out. That was a big mistake. Mistake #2 was trying to kill us, but not wiping us out. That was a bigger mistake.

Err, you left out the part about voluntary withdrawal.

It must really suck having whites as one’s bogeyman.  We created the modern world, made a few half-assed attempts at colonization (the kind that left infrastructures that still haven’t decayed completely), ended slavery (unlike some), etc.  Now we are a bunch of spineless wussies afraid to pull the guns from our mouths for fear of offending the darkies, always on about how wicked we are and were.

It must really be humiliating to have that for a nemesis.

Sabra, why not pick up your balls and oppose Jews instead?  They at least are a worthy foe, not the equivalent of a babe in swaddling.

Posted by Svigor on July 25, 2005, 11:49 AM | #

Do you agree that European Caucasians should seek to secure their futures in their own lands?

As has been pointed out, this reformulation is problematic.  It doesn’t mention race, and uses “should” instead of “may.”

It has to include race because that’s what we’re talking about - the right of people to pursue their interests as a race.  We already pretty much have the right to pursue our own, individual futures; after all no one forces intermarriage (yet?).

It should include rights not “shoulds” because we’re not asking for advice, we want to know if self-determination is “allowed” to us.  This isn’t meant as a sort of poll to find out whether we have the right in question, but rather to find out if someone acknowledges that right.

There are three possible outcomes (ignoring twits who rewrite the question and answer their own strawman): affirmative, negative, and equivocation.

All three are good ones in my opinion.  Affirmative does just that, affirms the entirely obvious conclusion that pursuing the continued existence of one’s race is within one’s rights.

Negative is good too; it shows that our enemies don’t afford us the right of self-determination.

Equivocation is probably a true enemy of the white race’s most likely answer, and essentially falls out like a negative answer; who equivocates about a person’s right to choose his religion, or speak his mind, or petition the redress of grievances?

Do people (including whites) have the right to secure a future for their race?

Posted by Svigor on July 25, 2005, 11:52 AM | #

Yeah, I should’ve taken my own advice…

Do you acknowledge the right of every (white) person to secure a future for his own race?

...is better.

Posted by Svigor on July 25, 2005, 11:54 AM | #

@GuessedWorker, this is where I left the last conversation, no I don’t feel any obligation to my genetics or to my race’s genetics.  My DNA does not seem to impose on my decission making much at all. That may make me “castrated” in some peoples eyes, but to me it just doesn’t make sense.

Actually, EGI makes more sense than much of anything else.  Everything you are is designed to serve EGI.

Posted by Svigor on July 25, 2005, 12:03 PM | #

His answer: rhinos and other African animals are impossible to domesticate, unlike Eurasian beasts such as horses and cattle.

Ahh, Mr. Diamond. (for a tribe that isn’t greedier than the average human, Jews sure seem to love names like gold, diamond, pearl, cash, and money)

Which of the African continent’s inherent deficiencies prevented the invention of the wheel, I wonder.

Posted by ben tillman on July 25, 2005, 02:16 PM | #

To this I say, yes, I do not deny them the right to what they believe. By the same token those who do not want to secure such a future are entitled to a voice as well. What makes you right and them wrong?

Elementary:  the fact that they are giving away something that belongs to me as well as to them. 

No person has a right to dispose of the property of another.  “[T]hose who do not want to secure such a future” are NOT “entitled to a voice” because any such “voice” amounts to aggression against the rest of us.

Posted by ben tillman on July 25, 2005, 02:42 PM | #

Now that he’s not in control—for what is physical strength when the nervous system has been co-opted—he cries and sues for peace.

How helpful of Sabra to confirm my thesis.  The hijacking of our societal nervous system is precisely what his Tribe has done.  That, and the destruction—and inversion—of our societal immune system.

Posted by ben tillman on July 25, 2005, 04:35 PM | #

...for a tribe that isn’t greedier than the average human, Jews sure seem to love names like gold, diamond, pearl, cash, and money….

I believe the selection of such names was the result of gentile encouragement.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 25, 2005, 04:42 PM | #

Kub,

I too did not racially awaken until late into my 30s. And as far as the Jewish question goes, I was as clueless as John Ray until about one year ago.

Gulf war I and II were pivotal moments in my slow transformation, after Gulf War II things really sped up.

Posted by ben tillman on July 25, 2005, 04:49 PM | #

As for the “European Caucasians” not having rights, I don’t under this, I have all the rights any australian has, and I can say what I like as shown by Andrew Fraser in Australia.

You misunderstand.

I cannot speak to Australia, but in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. the legal rights of white “individuals” are inferior to those of non-whites.  But that is not the point.

The point is not that white people lack rights as individuals.  It is that white people are denied their rights as a group—or, rather, the right to be a group.  With organization forbidden to them, whites are defenseless against non-whites that maintain group identity.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on July 25, 2005, 11:58 PM | #

A big mistakes whites make is even bothering to convert non-whites to their cause. Surely none of us actually expect other groups to desire to promote our survival, often at their expense? We know how they feel, we know their interests are often in opposition to ours, why waste our time confirming it?

I have seen some of this silliness at GNXP, where wintermute and other whites crawl on their stomachs trying to persuade subcons such as GC that whites should be preserved (of course by ending subcon immigration and deporting nonwhites). Or razib, that screwing his nordic gf accelerates the demise of the white race. Pathetic?

We know what we have to do, it now comes down to executing, not debating nonwhites.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on July 26, 2005, 12:00 AM | #

That should read “mistake”, instead of “mistakes”. Poor editing, sorry.

Posted by Stuka on July 26, 2005, 12:30 AM | #

We know what we have to do, it now comes down to executing, not debating nonwhites.

Hear, hear! The time for talking, negotiating, and pleading is nearing an end. Time to start hunting Orcs.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2005, 01:08 AM | #

“We know what we have to do, it now comes down to executing [those plans of ours], not debating nonwhites [whom we’ll never persuade anyway].”

I agree with Stuka, that was an excellent point, ToC.  None of the other side’s dazzling success of the past three-and-a-half decades, not one jot of it, has depended in the slightest on their eliciting our prior approval before they acted.  Why should we seek theirs?  In fact, to do so would be a sure recipe for failure:  they’ll never grant it.  We should proceed as if they didn’t exist, exactly the same as they’ve always done in reverse.

Posted by Kubilai on July 26, 2005, 01:59 AM | #

Geoff, I think the 30s are usually the prime time for people that will ever awaken, do.  It probably has to do with getting “comfortable” with the daily and weekly BS and one looks to find answers to perplexing problems.  For you and I, that problem was race and how our world was turning upside down and no one was saying or doing anything about it.

Once people are past their mid 40s, they are probably liberal to the end.  Obviously generalizations and there are exceptions to this “rule”, however it is more often right than wrong.

Posted by Kubilai on July 26, 2005, 02:10 AM | #

ToC, I may be mistaken, however a little while ago you were speaking about GC’s epiphany about Jews or some such thing and it appeared you viewed him (or rather his “genius”) with almost a certain of degree of awe.  Your post tonight is quite the contrary.  I’m curious if anything has caused you to change your mind or are the two simply not mutually exclusive?  Again, forgive me if I’m mistaken.

BTW, I like tonight’s ToC much better. 

Posted by Kubilai on July 26, 2005, 02:12 AM | #

And I agree with Stuka and Fred.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on July 26, 2005, 05:46 AM | #

Kubilai:
My (very) brief assessment of GC: (a) very bright, (b) hostile to whites. I do consider the two memes to be independent of one another. Recognition of (a) doesnt mean I wouldnt repatriate him, given the authority. Also, I think u believe I’m one of those fellows whom, upon recounting positive attributes of certain coloreds, inevitably follows with an argument for their importation. I’m not one of those (cough, JJR).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2005, 09:10 AM | #

“My (very) brief assessment of GC: (a) very bright, (b) hostile to whites.”  (—ToC)

What one must understand about GC is he identifies very strongly—identifies completely, in fact—with non-whites against whites in this war on whites the other side’s waging.  You must think about that a moment and all it entails—all—and you’ll get the picture.  If you miss that and mistake GC for a gentleman you’ll be badly burned in short order, which is exactly what happened to me over there.  This individual is an extremely unpleasant little anti-white bigot.

Posted by just asking on July 26, 2005, 09:41 AM | #

GNXP: Who are they? Names? Locations? Occupations? Employers?

Posted by Guessedworker on July 26, 2005, 12:46 PM | #

Just Asking,

Gene Expression (aka GNXP) is a science-based blog of some utility except that its political stance is, whilst left-critical, heavily particularist for Asian-Americans.  Some MR posters and many of our commentariat have found that challenging the political status quo from a white or white-nationalist perspective leads to a forced departure.

That would not matter much in a purely political blog.  But given the nature of its principal subject matter GNXP lays claim to a certain objectivity.

You can visit it here and judge for yourself.

Posted by David B on July 26, 2005, 04:19 PM | #

As a passing GNXPer my short answer is ‘yes’.

But this has nothing much to do with whether the group concerned are ‘European Caucasians’ or not (and BTW, is this curious expression intended to distinguish Europeans from Arabs, South Asians, and so on, and if so where is the line drawn and why?); it is just a special case of the ‘right’ of the occupants of any territory to defend it.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 26, 2005, 05:45 PM | #

David,

I don’t think there is any such right.  I think there is, under normal circumstances, an inevitability.  Invaders should expect to meet with a defence.

The term European Caucasians is perfectly transparent.  It denominates those peoples possessed of the lands of Europe, North America and the Antipodes which, exclusively, are experiencing an invasion to which no defence is permitted.  Is that not precise enough for you?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 26, 2005, 06:46 PM | #

“But this has nothing much to do with whether the group concerned are ‘European Caucasians’ or not (and BTW, is this curious expression intended to distinguish Europeans from Arabs, South Asians, and so on, and if so where is the line drawn and why?)”  (—David B.)

He’s at it again ... That’s race-denial, David B.:  “OK, if race exists, I want to know exactly how many of them there are and where you draw the lines between them!”  (You’d think this guy’d be embarrassed ...)

“it is just a special case of the ‘right’ of the occupants of any territory to defend it.”

And that’s blatant nation-state denial.

OK, next! ... (We’ve got this one pegged completely ....)

THE GUY’S A FRICKIN’ RACE-DENIER, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!  WHY ANYONE BOTHERS WITH HIM ANY MORE IS A MYSTERY ...

Posted by Kubilai on July 26, 2005, 07:04 PM | #

Thanks for the clarification, ToC.

Regarding GC and his “genius”, I have run across many South Asians who are bright, probably due to self-selection from the initial phases of merit based immigration policies and/or higher education sub-selection.  They are ALL as conceited as our Mr GC.  I do not think all were anti-White, though there was a significant proportion that was outright hostile, despite no external threat to their goals/desires.  I am speculating here, however it would make logical sense, given their pomposity that ALL would be strict anti-White ideologues if they felt they were to be snubbed due to “favoritism” for Whites, instead of their own.  The degree of nepotism they practice is not only illegal if we actually had governments that were serious and diligent in tracking down these practices by everyone and not just Whites, but they are neck and neck with the degree seen by Chinese.  There are companies that employ ALL Sub-Cons and East Asians and no one even bats an eyelash.  Remarkable to say the least. 

This is why GC’s “genius” does not impress me in the least because there are many (Whites and non-Whites) with his level of genius, and some reside on this board.  Genius does not mean passive-aggressively trying to demean others with your “superior” intellect as he tries on his blog.  To me, that is indicative of insecurity not intellect.  That is the issue with Sub-Cons.  They relish respect though rarely deserve it and I have more respect for East Asians than Sub-Cons.  I know EAs do not like me and view themselves as superior, though aren’t in my face about it all the damn time.  Go watch a Bollywood movie and see how full of themselves Sub-Cons are.  I’m surprised how we’ve managed to get as far as we have without their help all these years.

I’ve digressed a bit too much here, however no matter what degree of intelligence GC has, one cannot overlook his seething hatred for anything White.  It was reaching pathologic proportion prior to his “leaving”.  I think we need to awaken GC to the fact that his services are extremely unappreciated here.  He needs to go back to India where the respect will be heaped upon him hand over fist.  That will ease his restless, super-intellectual mind.  No need to waste his talents on us dummies.  Oh wait, it is because of us dummies that he has been allowed to attend one of the most prestigious, albeit extremely liberal universities on the planet and secure a career that has allowed him to clandestinely spew anti-White propaganda despite the largesse and open arms approach of these same Whites.  I wonder what Whites would say if they came across his “musings”?  On the other hand, scratch that.  There are enough Whites on his site that just eat up his slag in typical, pathetic, toady, master & servants fashion.  At least the brown boy knows there are Whites who have no qualms in busting his literal and proverbial chops out in the real world.  I’ll take that…for now.

Posted by Kubilai on July 26, 2005, 07:12 PM | #

THE GUY’S A FRICKIN’ RACE-DENIER, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!  WHY ANYONE BOTHERS WITH HIM ANY MORE IS A MYSTERY ... - Fred

Yes he is, Fred my man.  He surely is.  We bother with him and his ilk because we are ABOVE them.  They are the ones who ban and suppress the God given right of free thought.  The chance of converting any of them is near nil if not even less.  The more important issue is to allow silent readers to make up their minds on which side has more merit.  One based on truth and honesty or one based on lies and totalitarian oppression of verifiable facts.

p.s. I know you know this. 

Posted by Kubilai on July 26, 2005, 07:29 PM | #

A call to Arcane, David B, dobeln and any other White poster on GNXP.  I would like to try an experiment.  Why don’t one of you write an entry on White EGIs with the slant toward how we are losing our respective countries on Liberal ideology based on suppressing these EGIs and see how far the tolerant master is?  Let’s entitle it “An Eye Opener for the Blind Faithful”. 

GW, the extremely tolerant man that he is, lets John Ray muse about his anti-White themes without retribution, so I do not see why your master would be any different.  He’s really “smart” after all. 

Posted by AndrewMcla00 on March 08, 2012, 06:51 PM | #

Michael D Farkas, the poet, can be most usually acknowledged for his intimate, youthful, in addition to sorrowful topics.Enthusiasm for Michael D Farkas emerged with the variety of several dangerous matters from currently taking place in the middle of the 20th century.  Quite a few have attempted to find out the identities of the themes in Michael D Farkas’, and yet with virtually no results, legitimate existence is questionble for the poet by seeking to create a record of the metaphors. The location of these topics?  The subjects themeselves have long been hard to track down and might have all been manufactured up.

           

Michael D. Farkas got his beginning in an talent school, in which he in the long run would not obtain any kind of essential achievement in his medium of portrait but alternatively had been coaxed by a friend to attempt to print a modest book of poems.  Farkas experienced prompt results within his neighborhood, enough to assist him rise through lower income and begin his latest job.




Together with so much assistance from his community, it comes as no shock as those individuals made up the substance for virtually all of his poems.  The new poet, Michael D Farkas, acquired a challenging time hooking up with his poetry the same way he did his art but kept it private.  Farkas went alongside with his success at writing poetry though some might say he was a captive to it.



Numerous say it was essentially comical Farkas was carrying out poetry at all since he clearly wished to be an painter.  He was making the effort to be something he was not, several would say.  This may well clarify precisely why Farkas’ earlier work contained unexplained bitterness.It is often detailed as if his hand is being compelled down on the page, and his only alternative is to lash out at his reader who simultaneously puts food on his desk while dimming the lighting on the stage of his ambitions. 



However success merely became more intense for Farkas. As his beautifully constructed wording gained in acceptance, the demands from his editors and admirers alike reached a fever pitch. Farkas could routinely neglect to appear and poetry readings and rejected to abide by with publisher’s deadlines. As his precious time for his paintings dwindled, Farkas started to take holidays to other countries and try to disappear there.  Farkas analyzed the culinary arts and quite possibly essentially printed his personal cook book during these tumultuous occasions. Not able to keep up with his tasks as a popular poet, Farkas’ was fired by his publishers and began to become a thing of the past After all was said and done, Farkas had composed several poems books.



These days, Michael D Farkas resides discretely off of his book sales and royalties.  The poet/artist now tries his best to not let it be known his location of residence to avoid interviews. Parallel to numerous fantastic authors, Farkas’ bears out his old age mostly alone, totally free to lastly do exactly what he desires.