Delegitimizing the ethnic character of North America

From the comments section in the “About us” page, others may freely join in the debate:

Peace Loving Whitey says:

Addressing the owners of this site———

I really cannot believe that racism masked under a thin facade of politically correct nationalism would be so prevalent in 2014. I myself am a White American of Anglo descent, and I have no problem with non Whites. I live in a mostly Japanese American town with one black guy and plenty of Irish Americans and a few Jewish Americans. The black guy is a law abiding citizen, and aside his vernacular accent, is culturally indistinguishable from.most White guys. Many of the Japanese second generationals have way higher levels of intelligence than I do, and I am a MENSA member.

What I do not get is why far right conservatives such as you folk must always bring race or ethnicity into the equation. Why can’t you just focus on preserving traditional American culture without being anti-non-White-immigration or racist?

I do respect your right to freedom of the press, but I will ask that you substantiate your viewpoints with facts rather than just attacking Liberals.

0
0

 

Rate This
Dota says:

We do focus on the preservation of western values but sadly, that can’t be accomplished without preserving the White and Anglo Saxon character of North American societies.

Let me ask you this instead. Suppose Mumbai was half white and that white half spoke fluent Marathi and Hindi. Let’s assume these white Mumbaikars also have a high birthrate and would soon displace Marathi Indians as the dominant majority. If Mumbai ever became dominated by Marathi speaking whites, would other Indians accept them as Indian? I think not. This is because their collective memories and experiences are rooted outside India. Try the analogy with Shanghai or Tokyo.

We don’t have a problem with non whites really, our grievances are directed against the traitorous WASP and Jewish elites that would sell out Western civilization for a few worldly shekels. They are the ones that responsible for our suicidal immigration policy, gender bending feminist lunacy, and post modernism.

0
0

 

Rate This
  • Peace Loving Whitey says:

    But understand that the United States is sitting on land that never belonged to White Europeans. The United States was always a multicultural country, and at one period in time the amount of blacks in the Confederate States outnumbered the amount of white residents. Remember that several of our states were recently annexed from Mexico, and that Native Americans were wrongly forced off their land. I can understand keeping Europe a white run coalition of nations, but America and Canada are two different stories.

    0
    0

     

    Rate This
  • Bay Area Guy says:

    The United States was always a multicultural country

    Not exactly.

    The U.S. has always had diversity, but for most of its history it was not “multicultural” in the sense that liberals use the word today. In fact, very few societies even today are “multicultural.”

    Check out this post on the differences between diversity and “multiculturalism.”

    https://occidentinvicta.com/2013/12/23/diversity-and-its-discontents-the-significant-differences-between-diversity-and-multiculturalism/

    We don’t advocate deporting all non-white people and recognize that creating a homogenous white state is no longer feasible at this point. However, we do believe in the maintenance of a white majority (even if it’s not an overwhelming one) as well as promoting the white character of our societies.

    I must say that your whole statement regarding the theft of American Indian land is mighty white of you. I don’t see too many other peoples acting like their people have no right to their nations on account of the historical conquests of their ancestors. For example, I don’t see many Turks saying that they should give Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) back to the Greeks.

    The way I see it, it’s a little silly to make a moral argument that today’s immigration policy should be based on righting historical conquests. Today’s white people shouldn’t be denied the right to national sovereignty and border regulation just because a few of their ancestors did some naughty things.

    0
    0

     

    Rate This
  • Bay Area Guy says:

    Nevertheless, I have been enjoying this stimulating conversation. You’re so far one of the few people who can disagree with us in a civil manner.

    0
    0

     

    Rate This
  • Peace Loving Whitey says:

    At one point in time the amount of African-Americans outnumbered Whites in the soon to be Confederate States.

    The thing is, Greeks have a state. Native Americans are essentially a stateless people. What White nation would want to relocate to a reservation? And why are you trying to brush off American Indian Genocide as insignificant because of its occurrence in the past rather than in the present? Native Americans deserve a nation. Can you give it to them?

    I understand that you do not want to deport all non-White people. But attempting to staunch non White immigration or attempting to prevent a non White group from becoming a majority is immoral. They have just as much of a right to this land as you do. All the Whites here were descendants of immigrants, and the majority of Whites can trace their ancestry to latter immigrants, while the majority of African-Americans can trace their ancestry back to prior inhabitants.

    You act as if the prescence of non-Whites in America threatens your existence. While black Americans do commit the vast majority of interracial crimes, like I stated earlier most of them were here before most of you. If you don’t like it go back to Europe. The alternative would be akin to an extraterrestrial asking Earthlings to go to Mars because Earthlings commit more interspecial crimes against E.T.s than vice versa. Blacks were here first.

    As for the other groups, such as East Asians; their crime rates are lower than the White crime rate. They have contributed to American history, they have a legitimate claim to the States.

    Texas used to belong to the Native American ancestors of today’s Mexicans. The Anglo pioneers took over and seceeded from Mexico to the States. Mexico didn’t like that so they rightfully fought to get their land back. They lost, U.S took Arizona, CA, Nevada, and NM. And now you are worried about the Mexicans in those states taking your jobs? Good! Let them. If they charge cheaper then you have been outcompeted. It is not their fault, they merely competed with you and won.

    I am not a Jew. I am pureblood WASP and trace my ancestry prior to Ellis Island. I am not some “Whimpy White” either. I have been in my fair share of street fights and I have emerged victorious the overwhelming majority of those times. I am not afraid to speak my mind either. I do not feel the need to apologize to anyone for slavery or colonialism, but I do feel the need to put greedy White Nationalists in their place.

    I have no objections to White Nationalists in Europe.

    0
    0

     

    Rate This
  • Dota says:

    The thing is, Greeks have a state. Native Americans are essentially a stateless people. What White nation would want to relocate to a reservation? And why are you trying to brush off American Indian Genocide as insignificant because of its occurrence in the past rather than in the present? Native Americans deserve a nation. Can you give it to them?

    Native Americans never had a nation to begin with, they were oblivious to the very concept of nation. This certainly does not excuse the atrocities they suffered over the centuries but which race is pure? The old world is full of examples of conquest and ethnic cleansing. What makes western crimes more abhorrent than the rest?

    I understand that you do not want to deport all non-White people. But attempting to staunch non White immigration or attempting to prevent a non White group from becoming a majority is immoral.

    Really? It’s immoral to defend the national identity of your nation? It’s immoral to resist the ethnic displacement of your people? Gee, that must make Japan, China, India, Israel, pretty much the entire world immoral.

    You act as if the prescence of non-Whites in America threatens your existence.

    Yes it does. They bring along alien values that are antithetical to the Protestant values that have shaped the US and Canada. In small numbers these non whites may assimilate and live in peace, but in large numbers, they threaten the fabric of North American society. Especially when Whites practice universalism while these people cling onto tribal interests.

    While black Americans do commit the vast majority of interracial crimes, like I stated earlier most of them were here before most of you.

    Blacks and Native Americans/Aboriginals are not the problem as they are as American as their white counterparts. Immigrants are the problem and we’ve drawn that distinction quite clearly throughout this website.

    I am pureblood WASP and trace my ancestry prior to Ellis Island.

    I’m sure your ancestors would be proud to see their progeny cheer on their own ethnic demise.

     

     

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Asia, China, Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, India, Israel, Jewry, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Delegitimizing the ethnic character of North America

  1. Peace Loving Whitey says:

    Well the genocide of Native Americans was the single greatest genocide in history. 96% of all Native Americans died after establishing contact with colonial non-Eriksonian Europeans.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genocides_in_history

    The Mongolian Empire at its most brutal only shaved off 50% of China by contrast, and ultimately withdrew from China, leaving the Han Chinese a sovereign people.

    The Native Americans did not have the same concept of land ownership as the Whites, but they did use the entirety of the land range for farming, hunting, gathering, and relocating. Therefore they are morally obliged to this land. If you choose to ignore that moral obligation then I suppose you will not mind being pushed out of Europe by Native Americans?

    Also back to the concept of land ownership; Whites do not have a concept of atmospheric air ownership. If extraterrestrials were to annex your oxygen and use the very same argument of your lack of oxygen ownership as justification to asphyxiate 96% of Whites, would they be morally justified?

    However, if we were to then allow Whites to continue residing on Native American land despite the above, then why not play it both sides and allow various ethnicities and religious groups to mass immigrate into American land? Only 72% of Americans are White, and if we control for White Hispanics that number falls down to 63%. More than half of all births in the USA is non White. Therefore, America is no longer a White Nation and non Whites have just aas much of a stake to it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demographics_of_the_United_States

    Let me remind you how hypocritical the both of you are. On your About page it states that Dota is a Muslim and a non-White, and an immigrant. Bay Area Guy is half Greek, and Greeks are not WASPs.

    You are using the classical anti “White guilt” argument. Well let me tell you that I feel no White guilt. I do not wish to compensate anyone, I am driven to do this because it is a moral obligation. If I was a Nigerian or a Russian I would feel the same way.

    Your cynical assertion of what you presume my ancestors would think about my sociopolitical beliefs are irrelevant.

    The majority of Whites are no different from the majority of Blacks or Asians. They all approve of multiculturalism, and this is backed by statistics. Voting Romney is in no way an indicator of an opposition to multiculturalism. However, approval rates on interracial marriage, school and housing integration, etc. are reliable indicators.

    I oppose black nationalists just as much as the white ones, but only the American ones. The only nationalism I am neutral to in America is Cherokee, Crow, or another Native American nationalism.

    • Dota says:

      First of all, these extraterrestrial analogies are a bit silly and a pointless attempt at trying to draw us into bogus hypotheticals.

      The Mongolian Empire at its most brutal only shaved off 50% of China by contrast,

      I’ll lay long odds that 50% of China’s population was probably greater than 90% of the Aboriginal population. You’re also forgetting the horrific ethnic cleansing in Iran by the Mongols. I don’t see the Mongolians opening up their borders to mass immigration. Do you want to continue playing this game?

      However, if we were to then allow Whites to continue residing on Native American land despite the above, then why not play it both sides and allow various ethnicities and religious groups to mass immigrate into American land?

      Because this logic is idiotic. America and Canada were meant to be WASP societies governed by western European values. America and Canada can effectively provide their citizens with an excellent quality of life so long as they remain white and governed by aforementioned WASP values. Inviting the alien third world into our backyard will not undo the genocide of the aboriginals.

      If you care about non whites and aboriginals, you ought to fight for a white Saxon America (and Canada) that can continue providing their citizens with a high standard of living. None of the other nations in the world feel this way. The Japanese and Turks haven’t (and refuse) to acknowledge the horrific crimes committed by their forefathers in China and Armenia.

      Do you honestly believe that when Mexicans become the majority they will treat whites with the same tolerance and acceptance that the former white majority bestowed upon them? Dream on. Ditto for Indians, Arabs, Asians ect… White culture accommodates moral universalism easily enough but these non whites cling to tribal interests. Have fun being the minority in that society.

      Let me remind you how hypocritical the both of you are. On your About page it states that Dota is a Muslim and a non-White, and an immigrant. Bay Area Guy is half Greek, and Greeks are not WASPs.

      I will not speak for BAG, but as for myself, I do what I do because I am a loyal Canadian. Canada has given me a good life and I resent being used as a political tool by our parasitic elites to dis-empower the white majority that has given me so much.

      • Huax says:

        I’m cutting in here, and I apologize – but:

        You’re also forgetting the horrific ethnic cleansing in Iran by the Mongols. I don’t see the Mongolians opening up their borders to mass immigration. Do you want to continue playing this game?

        The Mongols did indeed open up their borders to their empire. The Mughals, Golden Horde, Yuan China etc. were all multi-ethnic and multicultural. They invited tons of Arabs and Persians into China who were later slaughtered when their insufferable arrogance toward the Han Chinese became a flashpoint.

        In the end the Mongols retreated to Mongolia, eventually under Qing protection. No one is asking the Mongol “core lands” to be inundated with foreigners. Think of Australia, Siberia, the Americas as the white “Khanate”. A retreat to Europe is morally right not only because it permits the natives to actually decide their own destiny but because strategically it’s the best thing to do if you want the white race to survive the multicult backlash.

        “America and Canada can effectively provide their citizens with an excellent quality of life so long as they remain white and governed by aforementioned WASP values.”

        America does not provide most of its citizens with an excellent quality of life, not even non-rich whites. The elites have long been grinding down their poor to create more for themselves, starting with slavery to undermine white labor and then mass “poor” European immigration, ending with what you have today. The drivers at the helm of Western civilization have NEVER cares about the “white race”, only about themselves and their immediate family. This is true of the Athenian electorate, of Roman patricians, to kings and dukes, to your modern multicult overlords.

        “Ditto for Indians, Arabs, Asians ect… White culture accommodates moral universalism easily enough but these non whites cling to tribal interests”

        White culture does not accommodate moral universalism, or they would not have killed a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan to “free” them. Multicult is something the elites are willing to put up with because they pass the cost onto poor and middle class whites. They don’t live with non-whites, they don’t eat with non-whites. They have gated communities to sort it all out. The fake multicult image gives them more leverage to swindle and steal on a global scale.

        “I resent being used as a political tool by our parasitic elites to dis-empower the white majority that has given me so much.”

        How much have they given Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans?

      • Dota says:

        The Mongols did indeed open up their borders to their empire. The Mughals, Golden Horde, Yuan China etc. were all multi-ethnic and multicultural. They invited tons of Arabs and Persians into China who were later slaughtered when their insufferable arrogance toward the Han Chinese became a flashpoint.

        They did so out of self interest and not moral guilt. You might counter by saying that the west allows mass immigration for cheap labor but don’t forget that the idea is sold to the masses via moral guilt. Big difference.

        White culture does not accommodate moral universalism, or they would not have killed a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan to “free” them.

        This argument does not work Huax. There is a difference between the way individuals relate to one another vs government. States are inherently amoral wheres individuals are more moral. Apples and Oranges. I know that on an individual level the average Chinese person is reasonably tolerant (and has been historically) despite the intolerance of the Communist Party.

      • Huax says:

        I wouldn’t say the idea is sold via moral guilt. They certainly never consulted the majority of Americans on the majority of the laws that set the groundwork for America’s current situation. It’s just a post facto justification for a fait accompli. It’s for peacekeeping rather than an enabling ideology.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Well the genocide of Native Americans was the single greatest genocide in history.

      I think you have a distorted notion of what constitutes “genocide.” The U.S. only committed physical genocide against specific tribes such as the Pequots or scalp bounties in certain places like California (never Indians as a whole, or for the entire history of white-Indian encounters), they did not use infected blankets to a large extent (aside from British general Jeffrey Amherst), and the one thing that did amount to genocide were the forced assimilation policies directed against American Indians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which targeted American Indians as a whole and was intended as a cultural genocide.

      Simply killing someone in warfare and having them die through disease does not a genocide make. There needs to be a genocidal intent, backed up by a policy.

      The Mongolian Empire at its most brutal only shaved off 50% of China by contrast, and ultimately withdrew from China, leaving the Han Chinese a sovereign people.

      Incorrect on several levels. You seem to forget that aside from China, the Mongols conquered and slaughtered many other peoples. Not only did they decimate the population of the great medieval city of Baghdad and destroy the city (along with its final Caliph), but they also spread the black death (which originated in Asia) to Europe, resulting in the loss of 1/3 of its population. But they’re white, so I’m sure you don’t find their deaths as objectionable.

      I guess going by your logic, the Mongols also committed genocide.

      If extraterrestrials were to annex your oxygen and use the very same argument of your lack of oxygen ownership as justification to asphyxiate 96% of Whites, would they be morally justified?

      This is a fatuous argument. But anyway, you seem to believe that whites today must continue to pay the price for the crimes of their ancestors. Just to clarify, we are not saying that the crimes committed against natives were morally right. We just don’t believe that whites must continue to apologize and pay for events that took place centuries ago. There needs to be some cut-off point.

      On your About page it states that Dota is a Muslim and a non-White, and an immigrant. Bay Area Guy is half Greek, and Greeks are not WASPs.

      For starters, white does not equal WASP, so your second point is moot. Dota is also not a practicing Muslim, and despite being an immigrant, he recognizes the dangers of mass immigration and multiculturalism. It may not occur to you, but immigrants have to also deal with competition from other immigrants, and their quality of life can be adversely impacted by growing racial polarization and atomization.

      I am driven to do this because it is a moral obligation.

      The calling card of the white liberal: Embracing quixotic moral ideals over rational self-interest.

      The majority of Whites are no different from the majority of Blacks or Asians. They all approve of multiculturalism, and this is backed by statistics.

      Source, please. How exactly do they approve of “multiculturalism?” Remember, diversity and multiculturalism are two different things. Just because they may be cooler with interracial marriages and friendships doesn’t mean that white Americans approve of multiculturalist ideology.

      And besides, you should know that white people tend not to express what they truly feel on such surveys. Think of the “Bradley effect.”

      .

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        Oh, and I should also tell you that the Mongols did not just kindly withdraw and leave the Chinese people sovereign out of the kindness of their hearts. The Chinese revolted and kicked the invaders out, establishing the Ming Dynasty in the process.

        Do me a favor and pick up a serious book on history, and then get back to me.

      • Peace Loving Whitey says:

        First of all, these extraterrestrial analogies are a bit silly and a pointless attempt at trying to draw us into bogus hypotheticals.

        The extraterrestrial analogies are just as valid as any other. Remember, analogies are hypothetical, not literal. Any analogy is valid as long as it does not violate a rule of logic,

        Because this logic is idiotic. America and Canada were meant to be WASP societies governed by western European values. America and Canada can effectively provide their citizens with an excellent quality of life so long as they remain white and governed by aforementioned WASP values. Inviting the alien third world into our backyard will not undo the genocide of the aboriginals.

        The quality of life for Whites exclusively does not matter in this argument. What matters is the quality of humanity as a whole, including Whites. What America and Canada originally were meant to be governed by is an invalid argument, since there have been Amendments since then which nullify the original intention. And besides, if we were to go back in time like you suggest, since the continent of North America was “meant to” be in posession of Native Americans, why don’t you give it back and vacate?

        Also, you are arguing that the prescence of non-Whites degrades the quality of life for White people. Number one, you need to show statistical proof for that. Without proof your assertion is invalid. Anecdotes are invalid in this argument, you have to present clear and unadulterated empirical evidence which is peer reviewed by the mainstream social scientist community, because without that your argument is just as valid as an Afrocentrist or Black Nationalist claiming that Whites were created by albino slaves under the supervision of Yakub, or their other claim that the HIV retrovirus originated in the White man’s science lab to eradicate black people or to curb their sexual prowess.

        Number two, the Human Developement Index has been steadily rising, sometimes exponentially in the United States along with the non-White population. I am not claiming that non-Whites are responsible for this rise, but you claim that a large population of non-Whites degrades the quality of life. That is meaningless if measurements like the HDI can prove otherwise, and also infant mortality, age expectancy, and other reliable measures contradict your statement.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

        Notice the rise in life expectancy over the years.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

        Here is the HDI for the United States. Note its progressive rise.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate#UN_United_States

        Here is the infant mortality rate of the United States. Note is EXPONENTIAL decline.

        The thing is, the percentage of non-Whites has been increasing. So why is the quality of life in America ALSO increasing?

        Do you honestly believe that when Mexicans become the majority they will treat whites with the same tolerance and acceptance that the former white majority bestowed upon them? Dream on. Ditto for Indians, Arabs, Asians ect… White culture accommodates moral universalism easily enough but these non whites cling to tribal interests. Have fun being the minority in that society.

        What I “honestly believe” is irrelevant. What you “honestly believe” is irrelevant. What matters is what social scientists predict, and so far I haven’t seen any of them come forth and say that Mexicans will treat Whites differently when they are the majority. In fact, many of them believe it is entirely feasible for them to assimilate into White culture or to produce a subculture of equivalent value. Hence the term multiculturalism.

        You can claim that Whites exhibit certain traits more than others, but your assertions are meaningless unless backed by statistical evidence. I could say that based on my experiences Japanese-Americans are much more altruistic, benevolent, civil, docile, emotionally controlled, charitable, educated, intelligent, productive, and successful than White Americans, which is what I have experienced and foudn to be, but I cannot use that argument against you because I would need to find statistical evidence to back it up before I can say stuff like that.

        White Nationalism is just another “Nationalism” disguise for blatant racism, and it is not backed by empirical evidence. It is no different than some black guy claiming his race is trillions of years old and telepathically teleported to the moon and established Mars colonies. You guys both have no empirical evidence to back it up, and using “common sense” or anecdotes are not valid.

        It is also a hate movement. According to documented reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ADL, Stormfront.org is the largest community of White Nationalists in existence. Did you know that it is also linked to over 100 murders?

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/hate-crime-murders-website-stormfront-report

        http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/17/splc-report-nearly-100-murdered-by-stormfront-users/

        Another site called Vanguard News Network is also one of the largest, but not the largest (like Stormfront) White Nationalist communities and online prescences. Its founder and leader, Alex Linder, openly calls for the extermination of Jews and has a criminal record.

        I dare you to prove me wrong.

      • Peace Loving Whitey says:

        Why are my comments awaiting moderation? Especially the ones with links to reputable sources? Perhaps you want to tamper with or distort the evidence? I have a screenshot of all my comments and I won’t hesitate to bring it to mainstream light if you continue to do this.

      • Dota says:

        I have no idea. It seems that you are using different IP addresses and that might confuse wordpress. After one comment has been approved, the rest of them automatically are allowed in. Furthermore, we do not ban people for disagreeing with us, it happens all the time and you are certainly not banned. I’ll have to figure this out when I get back from work in the evening.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        And besides, if we were to go back in time like you suggest, since the continent of North America was “meant to” be in posession of Native Americans, why don’t you give it back and vacate?

        Why don’t YOU personally give up your land and comforts to some impoverished Indian living on a reservation, Mr. Good White Liberal? Set an example for the rest of us guilty whites to follow. Of course, you would never dream of actually doing such a thing.

        Also, you are arguing that the prescence of non-Whites degrades the quality of life for White people. Number one, you need to show statistical proof for that.

        No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that multiculturalism is actually a real benefit. Think about it. Say a nation closes its borders and says no to immigrants in order to preserve its racial and ethnic homogeneity. Sure, its population might age and it could eventually have to import large numbers of immigrants later. But for now, no irreparable harm has been done. Think of Japan and South Korea. However, if a nation does foolishly accept large numbers of racially alien immigrants, and those immigrants turn out to be a nuisance/problem, then you’re fucked. I’m sure the Swedes loved having immigrants and minorities riot in Stockholm about a year ago. But of course, thanks to the liberal sensibilities displayed by the likes of you, they can’t just deport them en masse. Now they have a permanent thorn in their side.

        So it is up to you to prove that multiculturalism is actually a real benefit.

        And no, you have to do better than simply making these correlation = causation arguments through stuff like decreasing infant mortality. I could just as easily make similar arguments. Today’s obesity rate, the prevalence of diabetes, mental illness, rampage killings (committed by both whites and non-whites), declining job opportunities (the decline of good jobs couldn’t possibly have anything to do with mass immigration and H1B visas, could it?), decaying infrastructure, the low quality of public schools in diverse and urban areas, need I go on?

        Here’s Robert Putnam showing clear evidence that diversity erodes social trust and causes Americans to be less civically engaged.

        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

        That is actually harmful for the nation’s health in the long run. In fact, it even pains Putnam to admit it because he’s a self-described progressive. He tries to claim that diversity is in fact a benefit, but the best he can do is claim that diverse countries have higher growth rates (again, a correlation versus causation argument) and make a food argument. Really, that’s it! Because being able to eat at a Thai restaurant is really worth completely altering the demographic balance of a nation.

        Not to mention that around 1960 (before the floodgates were opened), both the U.S. and Canada were overwhelmingly white immensely prosperous. Recent non-white immigrants and minorities didn’t cause those countries to bloom, they simply moved en masse to already successful nations, which is the real reason why diverse nations seem to have higher growth rates.

        You need to actually show a real benefit of diversity that goes beyond the tired “food argument,” and you likewise need to make an argument that goes beyond consumerist logic (ie. it makes fruit and vegetables cheaper). This country is way too obsessed with money as it is.

        Here’s Eduardo Porter citing credible research that shows diversity reduces the willingness to sacrifice for others, which certainly doesn’t bode well for society in the long run.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/business/yourmoney/29view.html?ex=1335499200&en=b309e1dd4e30aaac&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&_r=0

        Whether or not this can be overcome is irrelevant. It’s hard to call diversity/multiculturalism a strength when it’s something that has to be constantly managed and whose problems have to be consistently overcome.

        Likewise, the late Ronald Takaki (an anti-racist multicultural scholar) in his book “A Different Mirror” argued that racial tensions are always exacerbated by economic downturns. Do you really believe that your little diverse utopia will endure as resources become increasingly scarce and competition soars?

        Finally, your comparing us to Stormfront and Vanguard News Network (not to mention the murders they committed) is foolish and shows that you are not reading our blog in good faith. We are to Vanguard News Network as night is to day.

      • Mike Smith says:

        I think Americans are right to be worried about the long-term effects of mass immigration from Latin America. Here are the facts comparing Whites and Hispanics in the United States.

        U.S. Demographics By Year
        1960: 85 percent White, 4 percent Hispanic.
        2010: 63 percent White, 17 percent Hispanic.
        2050: 47 percent White, 30 percent Hispanic. (projected)

        Biology: Scientists can distinguish Hispanics from Whites with 100 percent accuracy through DNA testing. Race is a biological reality—not a social construct.

        Intelligence/Education: The average IQ for Hispanics is 89, compared to 103 for Whites. By eighth grade, 43 percent of Whites are proficient or better in reading, compared to 19 percent of Hispanics. Hispanics are 3x more likely to drop out of high school. Only 11 percent of Hispanics have college degrees, compared to 30 percent of whites.

        Wealth: The poverty rate for Hispanic adults is 27 percent, compared to 10 percent for Whites. Hispanics are twice as likely to be on welfare. Hispanics earn, on average, 29 percent less than Whites. 30 percent of Hispanics lack health insurance, compared to 12 percent of Whites.

        Mobility: The descendents of poor European immigrants reached the middle class in one or two generations. Hispanic families typically languish in the lower classes for four or five generations after coming to America.

        Health: Hispanics are 20 percent more likely to be obese than Whites.

        Family: Hispanic women are 3x more likely to have a child out of wedlock (the most accurate predictor of self-destructive and antisocial behavior of every kind). The Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as the White birthrate.

        Crime: Hispanics are 3x more likely to commit violent crimes, 4x more likely to go to prison, 2x more likely to join a gang, 3x more likely to get a DUI, 2x more likely to report domestic abuse, and 3x more likely to admit to littering.

        Politics: 71 percent of Hispanic voters supported Obama in the 2012 election, compared to 39 percent of Whites. 80 percent of Hispanics want bigger government, compared to 52 percent of Whites. Only 29 percent of Hispanics view protecting gun ownership rights as very important, compared to 57 percent of Whites.

        Identity: 47 percent of Hispanics say they consider themselves to be very different from the typical American. Just one-in-five say they use the term “American” most often to describe their identity. Hispanic Americans self-identity primarily by national origin (as Salvadorians, Guatemalans, Mexicans, etc.).

        Language: 80 percent of Hispanics speak a language other than English in the home, compared to 14 percent of Whites. 44 percent of Hispanics do not have basic English skills, compared to 7 percent of whites.

        Religion: Although Hispanics are 3x more likely to be Catholic than Whites, less than half of young Hispanics identify as Catholic. Hispanics are only 10 percent more likely to attend church.

      • Huax says:

        BAG, I have read countless first-hand records of whites raiding peaceful tribes and slaughtering civilians wholesale hundreds at a time. It might have been a series of small-scale incidents and not predominantly state-sponsored but nonetheless it was genocide. The Mongols likewise attempted genocide, but at least the Mongols took on the most powerful empires and faced armies, not women and children and old men.

    • Batterytrain says:

      First of all the native Americans aren’t native at all, they were Europeans in the form of R1b Solutreans and the Clovis culture that predate native American expansion into North Americans; you also have the Viking rune stones in New England and the Dakota’s and even a recently discovered Phoenician presence. Why did the Skraelings attack the Vikings? They obviously had a concept of territory so natives not knowing land ownership is a fallacy. Killing people and marking territory was the norm of Native Americans and most of the world back then.

      There were also non-Europeans such as Polynesians etc coming to the America’s. Secondly Native Americans themselves committed various acts of genocide and hostility towards each other routinely and they have various legends of taking over territory from “giant red-headed people in caves” and doing “killings” on them. Whatever the case, there is all sorts of recent evidence surfacing that illustrate the presence of different people that predate Native Americans and active during their movement into North America.

      Despite the fact that they had no concept of land-ownership, they segregated themselves from Meso-Americans and marked their territory when it came to tribal disputes.
      What this shows is that the Natives were migrants themselves and that they detested other migrants, other tribes and foreign people which shows that there really is no rationale for immigration and migration into North America at all and there is no sacred native card to shake around for some morally self-righteous tirade for pro-immigration positions.

      The way I see it, the Natives went to North America and set up a primitive territorial society that was never going to evolve without establishing a proper geological mark of territory and presence; but Europeans went into North America and set up a superior technological metamorphosing society, in the span of a mere hundred years, while terraforming the entire landmass to leave proof of a permanent mark which the Natives had failed to do. It was a free-throw that Western setters caught and gripped while pushing their society to the limits of human exploration towards the first space travel.

      A good example here would be America’s expansion and purchase of the South West territories.This case here illustrates how most non-Western people and immigrants into America think and their way of rationalizing. When America purchased New Mexico and most of the South West from Mexico which included major chunks of California, it was a worthless unfertile barren land with hostile Indians that had a history of quarreling and violence with Mexican Indio’s and Mexican forces.

      Since the Mexicans were not willing to go kill these people and were not able to terraform to settle/change the barren land, they sold this empty land with the rationale that Western settlers would kill the violent unpredictable natives that the Mexicans didn’t want to deal with, and also actually terraform and change the land into a valuable productive fertile region which they eventually did; once this happened Mexicans could enter and retake this land through conquest for their own use since the Settlers had already changed it favorably. We see this playing out now with the Mestizo migration from Mexico into these territories that were “taken” from them in the Mexican-American wars.

      I mean I don’t see Mexico admitting huge hordes of Latin American immigrants from other countries, whom they deport; in fact most of the Mexican immigrants in the U.S are de facto deportees made by the Mexican elites. I don’t see Japan admitting immigrants despite their past history of conquest and expansionism. I don’t see Israel admitting Ethiopian Jews into Israel even though they are one of the oldest Jew groups; Israel prefers to sterilize them while being a defacto settler colonial state in that region.

      I don’t see Russia apologizing for their expansion into Siberia and the Russian far East which was the Russian version of Western frontier expansion. I don’t see Somalia admitting West African migrants. I don’t see Turkey admitting or liking hordes of Syrian/Iraqi refugees. I don’t see the MENA countries admitting black migrants en masse, I don’t see tolerance for “Christians Middle Easterners” and “Assyrian immigrants” in the Middle East which is rightfully there’s. I don’t see Iran liking Balochi’s, Azeri’s or Turkic people in their country or even Afghans. I don’t see the Korea’s liking massive immigration. Hell even the Vietnamese, Burmese, having Buddhist backgrounds, don’t like Chinese, foreign, Indian, or Muslim immigrants. Tibetans or Mongolians don’t like the Chinese immigration. I mean look how the UAE and the Levant countries treat Asian/African/fellow-Arab/North Africans/infidels/foreigners in their countries!

      Race is real and liberalism is a mental disease and falsification that goes against reality completely.

      • Dota says:

        Again, we’re not brushing of genocide and we sure as hell aren’t justifying it. But this notion that western crimes are unique while giving other races a pass is just can’t be justified.

      • Peace Loving Whitey says:

        First of all the native Americans aren’t native at all, they were Europeans in the form of R1b Solutreans and the Clovis culture that predate native American expansion into North Americans; you also have the Viking rune stones in New England and the Dakota’s and even a recently discovered Phoenician presence. Why did the Skraelings attack the Vikings? They obviously had a concept of territory so natives not knowing land ownership is a fallacy. Killing people and marking territory was the norm of Native Americans and most of the world back then.

        I want to see proof for this. Show me that European Whites had a prescence here before Leif Erickson. The burden of proof lies on you for making an outrageous claim not backed by mainstream historians. You either show me proof or your assertion is invalid.

      • batterytrain says:

        Ok here are some:

        Native-Americans killing giant red-headed people and then recording about them:

        http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2011/04/americas-astonishing-war-against-the-cannibal-giants-566764.html

        http://www.nativevillage.org/Archives/2013%20News%20Archives/FEB2013%20News/Did%20Giants%20Once%20LIve%20in%20North%20America.html

        http://www.examiner.com/article/did-giants-once-live-north-america

        The Smithsonian destroyed the skeletons or took them and hid them as soon as they discovered skeletons that disproved the mainstream narrative.

        Here is another one about unknown giant mound builders that predated Native Americans:

        Either way they were all sorts of unknown mysterious people in North America predating the Native America’s and there is absolutely no rationale for Native American’s claiming the whole of North America. North America was sparsely populated by the Natives, it was too big and unsettled for the Natives to claim the entirety of the North American territories as their own let alone put a mark to say that it was entirely their continental land; not to mention they were mostly nomadic, migrated there from somewhere else and killed other tribes.

      • Huax says:

        Dota, I don’t understand where you get the idea that anyone is giving “other races” as pass on “genocide”. In fact China can’t even get a pass on two (or three, according to the majority fucktards that think Mao’s poor policy = genocide) fake genocides it never committed. The Turks are repeatedly taken to task for what they did in Armenia (and I do believe Constantinople should be returned to Greece) but they are too “important” in NATO to be casually pissed off.

      • Dota says:

        We’re talking about liberals specifically since these parasites have infested the upper echelons of academia and have the media megaphone at their disposal. It’s these individuals that peddle white guilt (with lots of Jewish support) and it’s their moral hypocrisy that we are addressing here.

      • Huax says:

        Likewise alleged persecution of Kurds and “marsh Arabs” by Saddam was used as a pretext for a war that killed millions and now apparently will kill thousands more if not turn Iraq back to pre-Sumerian days.

      • Huax says:

        The same liberal scum are in love with finger wagging at China and seem to believe they have the moral authority to micromanage every aspect of Chinese life and statecraft. You might agree with me when I say it’s more about the power trip they get than anything. But they certainly don’t restrict themselves to criticizing whites. If anything whites collectively are guilty of far worse than what the liberals crow about, but I once again I don’t believe in collective punishment.

  2. Peace Loving Whitey says:

    And I also see you have banned me. It is nice to know that when White Nationalists cannot properly refute arguments they resort to silencing the opposition.

  3. Mike Smith says:

    Great discussion. The crux of the argument revolves around the MORALITY of nationalism: Is it MORAL for Group A to tell Group B, “This our land. You can’t come in.”–especially if Group A stole the land from some other group in the distant past?

    I say, “Yes.” When it comes to nationalism, I believe in two somewhat contradictory ideas: The Right to Self-determination and the Right of Conquest.

    Right to Self-Determination: A nation is “a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.” If a nation has dominated a large piece of land for significant period of time, it belongs to them. They have every right to resist incursions by foreigners that threaten their identity and way of life. (Whether those incursions come via military conquest or mass immigration, the result is the same.)

    Right of Conquest: If one people gets conquered by another people and have no realistic chance of regaining what they lost, they should accept the situation.

    When Europeans were coming to the New World, the Indians had every right to resist and hold onto the lands where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years. However, Indians TODAY can’t go around scalping white people and blowing up federal buildings. Since whites have lived here for hundreds of years and Indians have no chance of driving them out, the white man’s claim to the land supersedes the Indians’ claim. Modern Indians have two choices: They can work within the white man’s system to preserve what autonomy they have left or they can assimilate into mainstream society.

    With whites rapidly becoming a minority in the countries their ancestors built, they have every right to resist further incursions by Hispanics, Muslims, Africans, and Asians. However, if enough time goes by and whites lose power with no hope of regaining majority status, they’ll have to accept the situation. For example, if Hispanics become a large majority in the Southwest and want to secede and become a part of Mexico, whites will have no legitimate grounds for denying the new majority their self-determination. It will be theirs by right of conquest.

    So, yeah: Whites have no moral obligation to surrender the lands their ancestors conquered. They have every right to resist invasions by non-whites.

    • Dota says:

      Good post. This is the reason I’m not opposed to a one state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

    • jalnicholl says:

      Well put. My proposal to deal with the situation, from a pro-white perspective, is to affirm the group identity as based on consanguinity. This isn’t white nationalism in the usual sense–I reject the demand for purity and accept mixed race people and families where non-whites have obviously been meaningfully assimilated by marrying into the group. The trouble with white nationalists is that they ignore this phenomenon, or at least don’t take it seriously. They would expel all the mixed race folks–somewhere or other!–while attempting to claim the moral high ground with a call to “universal nationalism.” Well, it can’t be universal if mixed-race people are left out in principle. And with miscegenation on the rise, racial purism is going to alienate more and more people as time goes on.

    • Huax says:

      Right of conquest is nothing more than legitimized robbery, murder and rape. A crackhead has right of conquest if he splits your head open with a tire iron and takes your wallet.

      Nevermind that, though. You’ll have to supplement that with a right of subterfuge because “legally” speaking you “bought” several parcels of land from Native Americans with specious instruments signed by people without the authority to sell anything.

      • Huax says:

        “However, if enough time goes by and whites lose power with no hope of regaining majority status, they’ll have to accept the situation.”

        I also think this is nonsense. If Sweden were overrun by Africans and there were only one Swede alive, I would support scrubbing the peninsula of life and repopulating the land with test-tube babies. There are things more meaningful than politics and social engineering.

    • What’s ironic is these Hispanics are more likely descended from the first settlers from Europe to the West than you are.

  4. Peace Loving Whitey says:

    I have a big cock

    • Jannik says:

      ´Good for you. Are you the same guy who claims he is a mensa member?

      • Dota says:

        It’s Coward. He’s been banned and he’s been trolling the blog ever since.

      • Tobias says:

        Really? Was the whole conversation him?
        Wasnt he usually against diversity

      • Dota says:

        He was trolling. He was pretending to be someone else so we’d approve his comments. We didn’t see through it this time but he was caught yesterday trying to post as ‘an offended negro’. I figured it was him and deleted his comment. He has ocd and so he’s going to do this over and over.

  5. Proud White Guy says:

    Those Native Americans so called are not even native. They crossed here from the Chinese glaciers, and if they dont like it here they can gtfb to China.

  6. Proud White Guy says:

    Im sorry guys but why do you entertain antis? Antis should be banned and honestly not allowed to vote. They cause too much trouble.

  7. Proud White Guy says:

    If handicapped people are stripped of the right to self determination, shouldnt non Whites be as well? They have an average of 60 for an IQ in their pureblood state. Only Whites have a history, everyone else was living in mud huts before us.

  8. JCNC says:

    The attempt to delegitimise New World nationalism by pointing to the historical displacement of natives is self-contradictory. This is because every piece if territory in the world has at some point been fought over. Those who live there now are the victors who have won or held it by force. Had the American Indians defeated the white colonists and expelled them, they would be the ones with blood on their hands (besides Custer’s and their own, I mean).

    But defending is not the same as invading, someone will say. That’s true, but the same people deny that mass immigration poses problems for the existing population and should be opposed by them. By that logic, the Indians should have welcomes the peaceful settlers who, after all, just wanted to buy land so they could prosper and live peacefully.

    But the Indians were there first! Let’s put aside the Solutrian Hypothesis and address the merits of this argument. Does prior occupancy of itself give the right to defence? This argument was had, for example (in a relative sense) in colonial Australia between squatters (pastoralists) and selectors (start-up farmers given land parcels by the government that already “belonged” to the squatters, in the latters’ opinion). Clearly other considerations must come into it, such as relative need (think population pressures in early industrial Europe), as well as the Lockean criterion of improvement through labour.

    In reality what we’re talking about is beyond petty right and wrong. We are talking about survival and identity.

  9. Bo Sears says:

    The problem with this discussion is that it puts the diverse white Americans on the defensive. We advocate “white authenticity” which means that we focus on how to make white American lives better, along with their children, and not be dragged into irrelevant discussions that can never be settled. No offense to the logical, reasonable participants.

    We advocate that white Americans determine whether or not they are trapped into self-degrading discussions that commence symbolically with “Why do you beat your wife?” We advocate attacking back at the speaker who persists in slandering our people as a bigot, hater, ad/or supremacist. We don’t advocate attacking back with the label “racist” because it is a disordered category of discourse. But “Whitey” is attacking those of us with a decent sense of self-respect, and even a minute spent on proposing logical, rational points to someone like him or her cannot be justified when that minute could be spent on educating young white Americans how to speak when hailed into a one-sided dock for mockery and silencing.

    • Dota says:

      Peace loving Whitey was a banned commenter called Coward who was trolling the blog using a new online identity. We could have deleted his comments, but figured we’d leave them on so we could refute these oft mentioned liberal arguments. Bear in mind, he’s not really a liberal, he was just posing as one.

    • Huax says:

      What “whites” are doing at present causes far more human misery than slavery, the Amerind genocide, the Holocaust, etc combined. But I don’t believe in collective punishment except in retaliation for the same being foisted upon me.

  10. Bay Area Guy says:

    @ Huax

    Wow, that’s a lot of comments to digest and respond to!

    What I will say is that one of the recurring themes of this blog is the struggle of everyday white people versus amoral and avaricious white elites. We oppose the immoral acts of white elites, are appalled by soaring income inequality, and denounce American wars of aggression and imperialism in non-white lands. We likewise recognize that the destructive imperialism engaged in by our elites plays a role in non-white immigration to the West. We believe that our elites should conduct a more humane and just foreign policy rather than saddling regular white people with the bill in the form of mass immigration.

    We defend and cherish the best of Western values, while at the same time being cognizant of certain ugly realities.

    Come to think of it, despite our past differences, as a Chinese nationalist who hates Western meddling with a passion, we probably have more common ground than we think.

    In my ideal system, the U.S. would not meddle in Chinese affairs or self-righteously lecture them about “human rights,” while at the same time not allowing large masses of East Asians to migrate to Western countries. I don’t think you’d find much about that platform objectionable.

    • Huax says:

      I wouldn’t, except the definition of “Western countries”. Frankly speaking the West has no moral right to 75% of the world’s arable land, most of it stolen in the most cowardly ways imaginable. Nor do they have rights to the vast majority of the world’s mineral resources, critical watersheds, oil and gas, etc.

      If we default to a might is right kind of thinking, logic dictates that non-white powers side with white elites in hollowing out your countries and utterly destroying Western civilization.

      • Huax says:

        Also to note is particularly because the West has a proven history of running amok whenever it gets the chance, hoovering up everything it can get its hands on – preying on weak and beleaguered people like the American Indian. “The West” doesn’t seem to care about 90% of whites, either.

      • Huax says:

        To clarify that garbled post: should be “also to note: this is …”

      • Dota says:

        You’re starting to cross the line.

    • Huax says:

      I’m not crossing any line set by the moderation policy as stated – but sure, it’s your blog.

      Let me see if I have this right – any land whites owned in the past belongs to whites (Europe) and any land whites “conquered” e.g. roughly 25% of the world’s land mass is also theirs.

      Do you see the strategic problem that poses? There’s no reason in the world for anyone to trust Western governments with so much power. It’s one thing to say you disavow Western expansionism and another thing to actually do something to make it impossible.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        @ Huax

        Dota was responding to Batterytrain (he’s since removed his latest comments), who was attacking you in an obscene and immature manner. We believe that he’s one of our former commenters (ie. Coward) that we’ve banned, and who’s been trying to troll us ever since.

        We oppose interventionism, wars of aggression, and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Short of giving the U.S, Canada, and Australia back to the natives and depopulating those lands of all whites and other non-natives, I don’t see what else one could really do.

      • Dota says:

        Huax my comment was addressed to coward who was sock puppeting battery train. You’re doing fine I’d like you to stay. I’ve deleted the trolls comments.

      • Huax says:

        That’s kind of disappointing 😦

        Is faux “batterytrain” also Xera? He sounds exactly like him. Maybe Xera really did kill himself.

        Short of giving the U.S, Canada, and Australia back to the natives and depopulating those lands of all whites and other non-natives

        I don’t think that’s too far-fetched, if say 1-2 million non-natives move to Europe/Africa/Asia a year on their own timetable. It might take a hundred years or more but it’s not impossible.

      • Huax says:

        Im gay dota can i suk ur dikk?

      • Dota says:

        Oh Coward you OCD retard. You really need to get a life. Still, credit given where due; you did a pretty good job sockpuppeting 2 commenters by impersonating their personalities quite well. Maybe you should use that intellect of yours to devise a painless method of committing suicide. I wish you all the luck in the world.

      • leeminh0 says:

        Lol Coward xD this did remind me when i did the same with Xera (with his original name, not batterytrain) and Axum and they noticed after a while xD xD xD xD good one ,i also fell with these 2 fakies, but I won’t do the same anymore 🙂

      • euroglory says:

        It would be even more Mind blowing if haux and xera turned out to be the same person. Remember those flame wars they had. By the way, xera killing himself isn’t a serious rumour is it?

    • Bo Sears says:

      “What I will say is that one of the recurring themes of this blog is the struggle of everyday white people versus amoral and avaricious white elites. We oppose the immoral acts of white elites, are appalled by soaring income inequality, and denounce American wars of aggression and imperialism in non-white lands.”

      This San Jose guy and our group, Resisting Defamation, agree completely with these sentiments, admirably captured concisely. We characterize events this way…all the diverse white Americans are caught up in a monstrous civil war fought in part with slanted media and vicious government policies designed around an anti-white narrative that is officially endorsed. That narrative silences the diverse white peoples out of shock and dismay at the various stories provided for their attention, like the hoax known as the March on Skokie which was our awakening when we discovered that each of the main protagonists were members of the same small ethnicity. We call these frozen moments in time “tableaux vivants” as they are carefully posed and repeatedly presented to keep those of us with a decent sense of self-respect silenced.

      There is a lot more to it than the campaign of defamation but, if you are interested in our take on that slice of Americana, check out Resistingdefamation dot org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s