← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Brother Rat (Old VMI)
Thread ID: 13094 | Posts: 34 | Started: 2004-04-09
2004-04-09 03:03 | User Profile
Better than just me and my family.
"According to Census Bureau projections, whites, now about 69 percent of the population, will drop to 50.1 percent by 2050. More than a quarter of those surveyed said that will be a good thing. Fifty-six percent said it will not matter, and 13 percent said it will be a bad thing."
[u][color=#22229c]I[/color][/u] will hang with Bad.
[url="http://www.badonicus.blogspot.com/I"]http://www.badonicus.blogspot.com/[/url]
For Kinism from "Cracker's Last Stand", BR
Poll Finds Improved U.S. Race Relations Updated: Thursday, Apr. 8, 2004 - 5:58 PM
By CHAKA FERGUSON Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK (AP) - A majority of Americans support affirmative action, believe race relations have improved since the civil rights movement and approve of interracial marriage, according to a new poll.
Still, 49 percent of blacks said they had experienced some form of discrimination in the month preceding the poll and 62 percent believe they are treated somewhat or very unfairly.
"The good news is there is a sense of optimism in the respondents to the poll. There is a real sense that America has changed for the better," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a coalition that includes AARP, unions and religious organizations.
However, Henderson said, the poll also "shows there is a gulf, not only in perception, but in reality" when it comes to differing views on discrimination.
The Gallup Organization poll, commissioned by the AARP and the LCCR, was released to coincide with next month's 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that declared school segregation unconstitutional. It will appear Friday in the May-June issue of AARP The Magazine.
Gallup said it is the organization's most comprehensive survey on race relations.
In the poll of adults 18 and older, nearly 90 percent of whites, 73 percent of blacks and 76 percent of Hispanics said race relations had somewhat or greatly improved.
Americans of different races are increasingly comfortable living together: 78 percent of blacks, 61 percent of Hispanics and 57 percent of whites said they prefer to live in a mixed neighborhood.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans support affirmative action, a finding that Henderson called a pleasant surprise. "Americans in a general manner accept the equitable principle that, for every wrong, there is a remedy," he said.
Sixty-three percent, however, said that "race relations will always be a problem in the U.S."
According to Census Bureau projections, whites, now about 69 percent of the population, will drop to 50.1 percent by 2050. More than a quarter of those surveyed said that will be a good thing. Fifty-six percent said it will not matter, and 13 percent said it will be a bad thing.
Tyrone Miller, a 47-year-old black man from the Bronx, suggested that behavior has changed, but some attitudes have not.
"Minorities are pulling the American economy, so if you really want to make money and get ahead, it's not profitable to be racist," said Miller, a security manager. "But that doesn't mean you'll be invited to that person's home."
Among other findings:
_73 percent of Americans approve of interracial marriage. In a 1958 Gallup poll, when the question was posed only to whites, just 4 percent supported mixed marriages.
_21 percent of whites said they have been a victim of reverse discrimination.
_56 percent of whites, 38 percent of Hispanics and 21 percent of blacks said all or most of the civil rights movement's goals had been achieved.
The telephone survey of 2,002 people, conducted between Nov. 11 and Dec. 14, had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
The pollsters did not interview enough Asian Americans to draw any statistically valid conclusions about their attitudes.
On the Net:
Gallup: [url="http://www.gallup.com/"][color=#333333]http://www.gallup.com[/color][/url]
AARP: [url="http://www.aarp.org/"][color=#333333]http://www.aarp.org[/color][/url]
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: [url="http://www.civilrights.org/"][color=#333333]http://www.civilrights.org[/color][/url]
(Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
2004-04-09 06:46 | User Profile
Brother Rat,
Given how long Marxist have ruled America; the Fact that 43% Whites don't want non-white living next door is not all that bad. We must fight to make sue that number goes up!
[QUOTE] Americans of different races are increasingly comfortable living together: 78 percent of blacks, 61 percent of Hispanics and 57 percent of whites said they prefer to live in a mixed neighborhood. [/QUOTE]
Any you the same "Brother Rat" who was on the assaultweb.net, that posted on the CSA forum? I get sick of the PC Morons on Forum, but always liked "Brother Rat's" Posts. I gave up on AW some time back.
Is this your post. [url]http://www.assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=005179[/url]
I hate false PC Confederates!
2004-04-09 20:58 | User Profile
Often I am tempted to assume that our support levels are higher than they actually are. Right now practical resistance to the coercive ethnic blender is only possible in the rural areas of the Old South still not polluted by atomized Yankee surburbanites.
This makes Ygg's review of At the Crest of the Tidal Wave by Prechter even more important. For if we were to extrapolate these attitudes into the future, it is quite evident the white race is destined to die.
Clearly, for there to be hope, we must be living in extraordinary times- a delusional mania of millenial proportions.
God help us if we are really as stupid and passive as this survey suggests.
2004-04-09 21:18 | User Profile
It looks like 31% of people think the vanishing white population is a good thing. I wonder how many of those are self-loathing whites?
2004-04-09 23:49 | User Profile
13% and proud!
As they say, blood is thicker than water, and when times get tough for whites I'd bet that they will pull together in some form or other, exactly how that'll happen I don't know, but it will.
Right now our people are lazy and apathetic, they have it too easy. Too much media brainwashing, and political correct madness going on, BUT when the marxist vail of security and comfort are striped away and the "monster" is exposed, hard cold reality will take hold.
Don't count out the "sheep" just yet, just hope they awaken and soon. Time will tell..
CSA
2004-04-10 02:45 | User Profile
Not too sound overly ignorant, but these kinds of polls are often a crock. Everything depends on the results that are desired. Do you think the people designing these polls want to find that whites dissaprove of their dissappearance?
I have seen plenty of polls that claim a majority of Americans dissaprove of affirmative action, and by wide margins. They were commissioned by equaly august bodies.
Unless you actually see the poll questions written out--as is usually the case whenever the issue is deemed serious--it is safe to discount the poll.
In any case, here you are telling people that something is going to happen. Being Americans, of course they think it is good. How could the future definetly be worse than the past? That's heresy. However, if you were to ask Americans whether they would prefer more immigration that more quickly reduced the white majority, you would get an overwhelming 'no' from whites.
People think about affirmative action, but the poll here is either junk or otherwise not believable. But people don't think about becoming a minority -- partly because they don't always believe it will happen, and partly because they just haven't thought about it, period. Also, there is the fact that people wont admit certain beliefs about race even if you tell them you are conducting an anonymous poll. (At present, everything pro-white has to be sugar-coated on all sides). So while the poll is not necessarily contradicted, I would say that it's tendentious, basically a shot in the dark for most, and is otherwise just not really picking up racial feeling.
2004-04-10 03:04 | User Profile
I agree that it is probably a bit too pessimistic to take this poll as the gospel truth about American attitudes.
I did a bit more math:
70% of Americans are white 60% of whites are Republicans
If you assume that nearly 100% of the 13% are white Republicans, then this puts us at 30% of Republicans based on the math. If you assume that Republicans are 55% male, and that 80% of the 13% are male (a safe assumption), then this means that approximately 45% of white Republican males are essentially with us.
And this is probably a biased poll. How's that for a Tony Robbins spin on the situation?
2004-04-10 03:14 | User Profile
Yes, that is a good point. Because most woman wont stick up for the white race unless they see a male they respect doing so first. I think this is a way of women goading men to be more assertive.
Also, one might wonder what the 'it wont matter' means. I don't think this is an entirely off response, given the options. I would rather see whites at 30% population with a strong racial sense, than at 80% with little or none. After all we, have to plan for the long-term, not just the next fifty years.
In other words, you might reads this as 'It doesn't matter, because the white race will persevere no matter what.' I think, deep down, that is the white feeling and, quite possibly, the white reality.
2004-04-10 03:38 | User Profile
I think the more likely explanation is that women are less inclined to give an aggressive answer to an anonymous pollster. It is a myth that women are less conservative- married white women vote for Reps about as often as white men.
It's the single or divorced feministas who are Democratic voters- and arguably, they aren't really women, just female.
2004-04-10 04:04 | User Profile
You could be right about women and polling. And I agree that in the younger generations, women are no less politically conservative than men (there is a lot of data on this).
But is one thing to be conservative, and another to give 'aggressive,' pro-white answers, whatever the situation. One might think it is a myth that most women need male leadership and re-assurance before they commit themselves avowedly to proclaiming the interests of the white race. But I would hardly see any reason to believe such claims. If women think white males are weak, they will be less interested in preserving the white bloodline.
2004-04-10 16:08 | User Profile
Women will be peaceful until they perceive a direct threat to their offspring. Once that happens, we men will be the ones holding them back and begging reasonableness and mercy for our enemies as they encourage us to wipe out every last one of them...
WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's taleââ¬â
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relationsââ¬âworm and savage otherwise,ââ¬â
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his angerââ¬âDoubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issueââ¬âto the scandal of The Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pityââ¬âmust not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversionsââ¬ânot in these her honour dwellsââ¬â
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictionsââ¬âin default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!ââ¬â
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful chargesââ¬âeven so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisonsââ¬âeven so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguishââ¬âlike the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justiceââ¬âwhich no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not governââ¬âshall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.
2004-04-10 16:43 | User Profile
I agree with what you say initially. My point would be that women need to see more of a direct threat now, but most wont do that unless men explain the threat forcefully.
2004-04-10 16:44 | User Profile
Since I can't influence what others think, I just have to be in the 13% myself and life life the best I can.
I have friends who generally agree with me, but they just....can't.....speak out against immigration. Many say, "You think things would be any better if Democrats were in charge of immigration?"
lesser of 2 evils reasoning, never fails....
2004-04-10 16:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]You could be right about women and polling. And I agree that in the younger generations, women are no less politically conservative than men (there is a lot of data on this).
[/QUOTE] That wording must have come from the GOP. It's a bit deceptive to not say that men have joined women in being non-conservative and not vice versa. Mothers have a lot of influence on children. Conservatism in general is threatened largely due to the post WWII efforts of the majority of women voters. It was women who decided to ally themselves with negroes for political causes and job preference.
When white men express themselves forcefully, it's called "rage" and someone wants to fine them or throw them in jail for it. Don't try to lay the misdirection of the women at the feet of men. The feminist chicks did it all on their own, along with their negroe/minority allies.
2004-04-10 21:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]You could be right about women and polling. And I agree that in the younger generations, women are no less politically conservative than men (there is a lot of data on this).
While its true that married White women are just as conservative as White men generally, that doesn't quite address the larger picture. A lot of the 'conservative' men are really men of the radical right (and thus not really 'conservative' at all), you might say, while the women truly ARE conservative and thus much less open to the sort of strategies and tactics necessary to secure our survival. After all, the desire not to give offense to anyone is a fundamentally conservative 'virtue.'
2004-04-10 21:53 | User Profile
Yes, I meant 'conservative' in the very broad sense of adhering to the ancient principles of family, race, religion, economics, etc. Here men and women favor different subsets of these principles. Mostly, we just have data about voting Republican to show sameness in thinking.
But I do think women have moved to the right. This is borne out be personal experience as well as polls. Gen X is more right-wing than are baby-boomers, and its women are less feminist.
The idea that women became 'misdirected' on their own is silly. Much of the blame lies at the feet of WASP males who (both literally and metaphorically) took it up the ass over the last few decades, and who wildely over-estimated their resistance to the power of organized Jewry and leftly-organized academia.
Yes, women are also to blame for their own errors, but there is plenty of blame to go around.
2004-04-10 23:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Yes, I meant 'conservative' in the very broad sense of adhering to the ancient principles of family, race, religion, economics, etc. Here men and women favor different subsets of these principles. Mostly, we just have data about voting Republican to show sameness in thinking.
But I do think women have moved to the right. This is borne out be personal experience as well as polls. Gen X is more right-wing than are baby-boomers, and its women are less feminist.
The idea that women became 'misdirected' on their own is silly. Much of the blame lies at the feet of WASP males who (both literally and metaphorically) took it up the ass over the last few decades, and who wildely over-estimated their resistance to the power of organized Jewry and leftly-organized academia.
Yes, women are also to blame for their own errors, but there is plenty of blame to go around.[/QUOTE] People believe what they want to. But, to say women are truly conservative more than ever is not factual. There may be more in the GOP, but that's not saying much. They may call themselves "fiscal" conservatives, which just means they want to use other people's money for their do-gooding social experimentation. Maybe it's mostly the east coast, but most American women around here have been an utter disappointment since WWII, exampled by your vulgarity about WASP men.
It is commendable you don't refute the women's collusion with minorities and filthy third worlders for job preference and positions of influence. There's not much defense there. If anyone took the bait, it's American white women with the victimized "I been done wrong too" mindset licking the boots of the minorities and politicians to gain political advantage. Got things to do. No time to state the obvious anymore than I have.
2004-04-18 04:59 | User Profile
Really, I have no idea what you are talking about. No, my vulgarity isn't an example of women being dissapointing -- particularly since I am not even female (not that it would if I were, either). Rather, your attitude suggests you are in touch with a 'conservatism for and from the common man' that has long-been chocking on dust, and will soon die out. Good riddance. Not a saleable product.
Face reality. Women got more right-wing on any number of measures, as Gen X entered adulthood. Probably this is mostly about fiscal conservativism, but aside from the racial kind, that's at the heart of things. I don't give a rat's ass about the 'avoiding vulgarity' conservativism; this has little place in white nationalism, aside from avoiding loud and disruptive Negro style behavior.
As far as women getting more racial 'conservative goes'--I have no idea. Supposedly, white girls were to shag blacks in the peace-and-love era. Whether they are more or less inclined to do so today, I have no idea, but they certainly seem to do it enough. Of course, of those who don't, there may be some more hard-core racialist attitudes. I can't say, because I have no way to tell what your average white american chick thought about race in the 1960's or early 70's.
2004-04-18 14:36 | User Profile
Whoa - I live in a severe "Red state" and I don't know of any far-right young women! You sure they exist?
Anyway, I don't think my generation (i'm 29) is more conservative than the boomers. What way? We're overwhelmingly more likely to support abortion and gay marriage, which will become legal in my lifetime. And less afraid of those poor, oppressed Africans coming over in boats to seek a "better life" in America.
It's hopeless. They say admitting the problem is the first step. I'm admitting we're finished and that I'll live in neighborhoods where the population resembles me.
-Jay
2004-04-18 16:59 | User Profile
As I said, Gen X is more fiscally conservative, and generally less willing to believe that government solves problems. (I said nothing about 'far right women.)
Gen X is fairly pro-choice, but is actually slightly more pro-life than the boombers. As far as gay marriage goes, that is definetely of some concern (why does this occur?). But, really, a basically stupid and meaningless issue.
I don't see any evidence that Gen X whites are more pro-immigration. I think you are mixing up the fact that there is not a lot of strong, vocal opposition here among our generation with the fact that there isn't much strong, vocal opposition in any generation.
I would suggest putting away the 'alchololics anonymous' rhetoric. We are so far from being 'finished' that it is ludicrous to mention the idea. After being hits with neo-Marxist mass media for a few decades, it is not suprising that people mouth ideals of 'tolerance' or the like. Whether this actually indicates a deep commitment to negro immigration and racial suicide is somewhat questionable. We will simply have to see what movements arise to deal with the issues; I have little doubt that whites muttering sweet nothings can be turned around to angry shots without even a thought to apparent inconsistencies.
The reality to face is that of Latino fertility. We can do little about it -- they are already here legally, and there is almost no chance they could be kicked out (not to mention that this would be immoral). However, non-white fertility might wane. More importantly, over the next 50 years, we might take steps to increase fertility massively among the more-nordic whites.
2004-04-18 19:46 | User Profile
come on brother rat, sing along with me now..."hip hop, bippity bop...thumpity thump thump, gonna get u sucka"
2004-04-18 22:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]The reality to face is that of Latino fertility. We can do little about it -- they are already here legally, and there is almost no chance they could be kicked out (not to mention that this would be immoral). However, non-white fertility might wane. More importantly, over the next 50 years, we might take steps to increase fertility massively among the more-nordic whites.[/QUOTE]
If kicking the Mestizoes out of America is "immoral," then White survival is immoral. Either we're going to have a nation for our people, or some other people is going to have their nation here instead. And those people will probably kill you and your family, unless you can flee to some other country before they get to you. Get serious and quit worrying about the "morality" of not wanting to see everything we've ever built destroyed by filthy animals who will turn America (and Canada, eventually) into a carbon copy of Mexico. There's nothing noble about suicide.
2004-04-18 23:20 | User Profile
To the Women of the Confederacy
As true today as when OUR President penned this, and I re-dedicate it to all the OUR Southron Ladies who continue the Struggle. I will not name any, lest I leave someone out, so Ladies, these words are for y'all:
"TO THE WOMEN OF THE CONFEDERACY,
WHOSE PIOUS MINISTRATIONS TO OUR WOUNDED SOLDIERS SOOTHED THE LAST HOURS OF THOSE WHO DIED FAR FROM THE OBJECTS OF TENDEREST LOVE; WHOSE DOMESTIC LABORS CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO SUPPLY THE WANTS OF OUR DEFENDERS IN THE FIELD; WHOSE ZEALOUS FAITH IN OUR CAUSE SHONE A GUIDING STAR UNDIMMED BY THE DARKEST CLOUDS OF WAR; WHOSE FORTITUDE SUSTAINED THEM UNDER ALL THE PRIVATIONS TO WHICH THEY WERE SUBJECTED; WHOSE ANNUAL TRIBUTE EXPRESSES THEIR ENDURING GRIEF, LOVE, AND REVERENCE FOR OUR SACRED DEAD; AND WHOSE PATRIOTISM WILL TEACH THEIR CHILDREN TO EMULATE THE DEEDS OF OUR REVOLUTIONARY SIRES; THESE PAGES ARE DEDICATED BY THEIR COUNTRYMAN, JEFFERSON DAVIS.
from THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT
===== DEO VINDICE
:thumbsup:
2004-04-18 23:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]If kicking the Mestizoes out of America is "immoral," then White survival is immoral. Either we're going to have a nation for our people, or some other people is going to have their nation here instead. And those people will probably kill you and your family, unless you can flee to some other country before they get to you. Get serious and quit worrying about the "morality" of not wanting to see everything we've ever built destroyed by filthy animals who will turn America (and Canada, eventually) into a carbon copy of Mexico. There's nothing noble about suicide.[/QUOTE]
Very well put Kevin. On the question of morality this country since 1991 has killed over one million Iraqi's who never did the USA any harm at all. Our leaders thought it was in their interest to kill them and they did and the American people are perfectly allright with this because the media tells them to be allright with it. When the time comes when we control the media the American people will be just as allright with deporting 100 million third worlders from America and Europe.
2004-04-19 01:52 | User Profile
Excellent post - altho, I don't buy your figure that we've killed 1M iraqi's, that seems high.
Maybe 200K of their Republican Guard, which, obviously, involves war. I'd like to know how you arrived at 1M.
Be that as it may, even killing TEN Iraqis makes no sense, given the fact they did nothing to us. We're so concerned that Jessica Santillan get a free heart-transplant at Duke U...even tho she's illegal....but those Iraqi slime, by what right should THEY live?
Left is right. Up is down. America is...a joke.
-Jay
2004-04-20 21:56 | User Profile
Stripping American citizens of their citizenship because of their race is immoral. Of course, deporting illegal aliens is not.
But the alternative to immorality is not racial suicide. There are peaceful ways of dealing with our problems, such as secession, separatism under a libertarian arrangment, and increasing the white birth rate (along with strict border controls).
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]If kicking the Mestizoes out of America is "immoral," then White survival is immoral. Either we're going to have a nation for our people, or some other people is going to have their nation here instead. And those people will probably kill you and your family, unless you can flee to some other country before they get to you. Get serious and quit worrying about the "morality" of not wanting to see everything we've ever built destroyed by filthy animals who will turn America (and Canada, eventually) into a carbon copy of Mexico. There's nothing noble about suicide.[/QUOTE]
2004-04-21 00:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar] But the alternative to immorality is not racial suicide. There are peaceful ways of dealing with our problems, such as secession, separatism under a libertarian arrangment, and increasing the white birth rate (along with strict border controls).[/QUOTE]
Didn't you forget another viable alternative? Growing wings and flying to the moon? That's about as likely to happen as the above posted events.
-J
2004-04-21 01:42 | User Profile
Increasing the white birth rate is about as likely as growing wings and flying to the moon?
I hate to say this, Jay, but you sound like an idiot. I suggest you stop worrying about intellectual matters and leave the thinking to your betters. It's not clear how you have anything to contribute.
[QUOTE=jay]Didn't you forget another viable alternative? Growing wings and flying to the moon? That's about as likely to happen as the above posted events.
-J[/QUOTE]
2004-04-21 02:28 | User Profile
I actually like your optimism, Dark. I really hope you are right, and taht all the things you propose occur.
But unfortunately, I have a side to me that deals in cold hard facts. As of today, surely you'll agree that your scenarios look unlikely. Until there is somethign meaningful done about immigration, I'll continue to feel that way.
Isn't that logical to a degree?
-Jay
2004-04-21 02:43 | User Profile
There aren't any cold hard fact about the future of the white birth rate.
Well, I apologize for calling you an idiot, as you seem perhaps just bitter instead. All I can say is, we will survive whether we have open borders and one-child familes for the next 20 years, or closed ones and 5 children families. The issue is the long-term, and we cannot predict what advances in technologies and changes in social habits with occur over the next 50 to a 100 years. Thus we do not need to evict or kill citizens of non-white races to ensure our survival, contra what some others claimed.
The point is to deal with the possibilities that are available in an upstanding and moral way. Even if we have runaway borders and a merely replacement level birth-rate for the rest of time, a people with a will to remain distinct can do so. Territory matters a lot, but it isn't everything. Likewise, secession or a more racially-friendly federalism are real possibilites in the West. The chances of federal troops attacking a state that wanted to, say, overturn laws forcing integration are probably quite limited, and there could very well be a will to act in such a way in Midwestern or interiorer Western states in the future. Who knows? There is no way to tell one way or another.
The main possibility is an increase in the birth rate. No matter how bitter you are, there is no way to rule out its possibility. Just as there is no way to rule out the possibility that the Chinese might develop a virus that kills all non-Han on the planet. There is no way to tell. It is not really a matter of optimism. I would suggest the proper stance is closer to Socratic igorance.
2004-04-21 07:00 | User Profile
While increasing white birthrates is of course a step in the right direction the deportation of all or at least most of the non-whites in this country is our primary goal. This deportation includes illegal aliens , legal, naturalized citizens and the native born. Whites need their own living space to breed their is no reason why all future generations of whites must suffer a multi-racial hell for all eternity because of the decisions of the last two generations of white numbskulls and traitors.
No tears should be shed for the third world masses that will be deproted , do they shed any tears for us do they say " yo thats messed up whitey is losing Europe and America while we have South America, Asia & Africa all to ourselves I think we should go against our own people's interest and prevent us third worlders from taking over the west".
The answer of course is that they are all set to dance a victory jig over our collective graves. What even the most extreme White Nationalist wants for non-whites is much more humane than what the third worlders have in store for us.
This should be done as non-violently as possible but it must be done. As for American blacks perhaps they should be given a chunk of North America for their own instead of sent back to Africa, but the return to all white nations is the great 21st century struggle. Racial homelands are enjoyed by all other ethno groups and restoring that situation to whites is as moral as it gets.
2004-04-21 11:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Stripping American citizens of their citizenship because of their race is immoral. Of course, deporting illegal aliens is not.[/QUOTE]
Why is that immoral?
Assume that we win CWII and then begin to expel non-whites. Imagine further that we ensure that they're cashed out full value of their property and that we take pains to transition them to their lives in a new country.
Given that multiculturalism tends strongly toward social conflict and even to genocide ([URL=http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/04/rauch.htm]see here[/URL]) as a matter of demostrable scientific fact, then this would seem a reasonable attempt to make the best of a bad situation for ourselves while recognizing the legitimate interests of others.
I don't see why forced racial separation is immoral in and of itself. So long as the persons and property of racial outsiders are given their due, I think that our own survival outweighs artificial legal and social conventions that "celebrate" the severance of state citizenship from ethnic identity.
Regards,
Walter
2004-04-21 18:27 | User Profile
You can't put a general price on US citizenship. There is no way we can fairly compensate those stripped of their citizenship. If you want to make it a voluntary program, that would be something else.
Why is it immoral to strip people of the their citizenship based on race? Citizenship is a contract. So long as citizens keep up their end of the bargain, and refrain from treason and the like, the state has to keep up its end. Here the only way to the end the contract is for the citizen to renounce his citizenship.
Stripping people of their citizenship is a gross act of theft. It is wrong for that reason, among others.
Now perhaps you think that the evil of stripping people of their citizenship is outwayed by the evil of having to live with forced integration. That sounds like it might be a reasonable line of argument, but not one that I would agree with.
I think the major practical problem with deporting non-white citizens is that is more or less an all or nothing process. You either get most white to agree to this, or you don't. Once you have shipped out 100,000, there isn't really much reason not to ship out 10,000,000.
By contrast, there is much that is gradualist about increasing the white birth rate and moving toward more racially-friendly federalism and/or a more libertarian society. In this way, these proposals are more conservative in character and more likely to occur in useful ways.
Even secession has something gradualist (or at least partialist) about it, despite some evident abruptness. You don't need to get the whole country to break up to make progress there, just Iowa or Oregon or wherever. The main thing is to convince the residents of that state; moving for federal acceptance of de facto secession is the secondary problem.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Why is that immoral?
Assume that we win CWII and then begin to expel non-whites. Imagine further that we ensure that they're cashed out full value of their property and that we take pains to transition them to their lives in a new country.
Given that multiculturalism tends strongly toward social conflict and even to genocide ([URL=http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/04/rauch.htm]see here[/URL]) as a matter of demostrable scientific fact, then this would seem a reasonable attempt to make the best of a bad situation for ourselves while recognizing the legitimate interests of others.
I don't see why forced racial separation is immoral in and of itself. So long as the persons and property of racial outsiders are given their due, I think that our own survival outweighs artificial legal and social conventions that "celebrate" the severance of state citizenship from ethnic identity.
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-04-24 19:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Stripping American citizens of their citizenship because of their race is immoral. Of course, deporting illegal aliens is not.
But the alternative to immorality is not racial suicide. There are peaceful ways of dealing with our problems, such as secession, separatism under a libertarian arrangment, and increasing the white birth rate (along with strict border controls).[/QUOTE]
U.S. citizenship was never intended for nonWhites. The radical abolitionists who got it passed via the 14th Amendment were only able to do so by forcing Southern states to ratify it under duress, as well by not counting unreconstructed Southern states as part of the 3/4ths majority necessary for ratification. Additionally, Oregon and New Jersey both rescinded their ratification of the 14th Amendment, which would have prevented its being ratified by 3/4ths of the states, but the Secretary of State's office did not lawfully acknowledge their rescinsions, in accord with his duty at the time. Presumably, deporting "citizens" who's citizenship is the result of illegal chicanery - the moral equiavlent of a coup against the Constitution - is no more immoral than seizing stolen property from someone who has had it presented to them as a gift from the thief....