This is the first of what will hopefully be many weekly posts for our new book club. We invite you to read the “assigned” chapters of a selected book and discuss the material you’ve read. We’ll be kicking off the club with the introduction and first chapter of America Besieged, a compelling and comprehensive introduction to White Advocacy. We haven’t determined which books will be selected in the future, and would appreciate your suggestions.
Assignment:
Conversation Starters:
- Are ordinary Americans recognizing that something is very wrong? If so, how are they expressing it?
- What historical factors led to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act?
- When (if ever) will the visible and political impact of becoming a minority change the White American mindset?
X
X
This Project is Brought to you by
Matt, having already read the book, all I can add is an appreciative ‘thank you’ to Andrew and yourself for doing such a great job on it. It is easy to read and understand, and has appropriate, attractive graphics. It is the kind of introductory material that can be confidently directed at the average Anglo American neophyte. It is written in the kind of patriotic language that they can understand and relate to. It is a great tool for WN’s to use to recruit those amenable to a racial awakening. An entree portal to the ‘big tent’ of White Nationalism, so to speak.
I met a musician Sat. who evinced an interest in the subject of the Third World invasion and its threat to his kids future. I referred him to American Renaissance and Buchanan’s book STATE OF EMERGENCY. I wouldn’t hesitate to refer someone like him to Am. Besieged either.
Again, congrats on a job well done!
It’s a very well written book, Matt. Maybe you should put it on Lulu.com and make some money off hard copies.
I agree Kievsky, all good books should also be in hard copy.
Off topic, but I just noticed the new picture at the top. “Davy Crockett, White Man Extraordinare, Butt Strokes an Old School Cholo”, isn’t it?
Junghans,
Your assistance and support is much appreciated.
RE: Hard Copy
I take monetization very seriously. Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Having thrown thousands of my own dollars into this fight, I don’t feel a pang of awkwardness in asking others to chip in. I believe my associate is of a similar orientation. It would be his call, a call I would fully support.
A lot of people would prefer the hard copy to the free e-books, I’m sure.
Matt, you have done a real service to your people by putting this together.
I have noticed several errors of grammar thus far – I have Acrobat and would be glad to fix it up for you, at least the ones I am able to find.
I take it back – you write of Jews as “victims” and make no mention of their role in the 1965 Immigration Act, their media control, or anything else negative.
False flag.
MediaPatriot,
I’m not the author, though I fully support the author and you have my word that he’s firmly in our camp on the Jewish Question. A determination was made that certain prerequisites need to be established before the taboo against criticizing Jews is tackled. I would prefer not to work with somebody so paranoid and indiscreet as to declare me a “false flag” in a public forum with absolutely no basis, anyway.
1. Are ordinary Americans recognizing that something is very wrong? If so, how are they expressing it?
I believe that the 2012 hysteria and the recent interest in apocalyptic movies are both expressions of the sense of despair and decline that White Americans are intuitively sensing but lack the political vocabulary to express coherently.
2. What historical factors led to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act?
Professor MacDonald thoroughly details the central role of organized Jewry in ramming through this devastating legislation.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Immigration.pdf
3. When (if ever) will the visible and political impact of becoming a minority change the White American mindset?
Personally, I believe that the declining economy will force Americans to critically examine their personal and political situations. This is already happening to a limited extent, and will only accelerate in the years to come. Even if the economy does remain buoyant, which I believe is highly unlikely, the rapid social and aesthetic impact of the demographic tsunami will rob ordinary White Americans of their illusory views on race and society.
This period of uncertainty and disillusionment with the Jewish oligarchy is an opportunity to reach people with our message, but it’s only an opportunity. We must develop as a movement to the point that we’re capable of competently reaching people with our message.
Tons of stuff has been written about immigration, illegal aliens, etc. etc It’s all free, and all available on the internet.
It may have been Frosty Woolridge or Roy Beck, who first pointed out that immigration & illegal aliens was the Irish Roman Catholic payback for what they saw as their mistreatment in Anglo America? Kennedy maybe dead, but, Casey, Leahy, etc. are alive.
Regarding the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, there was one group in particular that heavily lobbied for it. Everyone should watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCSeSOVCfkk
.
I assume you didn’t like my comments about historical immigration patterns and American national origins, so I’ll leave that out and just post about naturalization and immigration restriction laws.
“The U.S. has always had a limited immigration policy. For example, the first naturalization law, in 1790, stipulated that an applicant must be a ‘free white person.'” –America Besieged, p. 7
The United States has not always had a limited immigration policy.
Yes, the 1790 Naturalization Act limited naturalization to “free white person[s].” However, it did not restrict immigration.
The first immigration restriction laws were the 1875 Page Act and 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.
More than 100,000 Chinese, ineligible for naturalization, immigrated to the United States before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed.
It was the 1924 Immigration Act that contained the provision that “No alien ineligible to citizenship shall be admitted to the United States unless such alien …”
MGLS:
“Yes, the 1790 Naturalization Act limited naturalization to “free white person[s].” However, it did not restrict immigration.”
If naturalization was limited to free white persons then wasn’t immigration of un-free, non-white people restricted? Doesn’t this fact support the assertion that the USA always had a restrictive immigraiton policy?
If naturalization was limited to free white persons then wasn’t immigration of un-free, non-white people restricted?
No, it means they were barred from naturalization, not immigration.
‘
More than 100,000 Chinese, ineligible for naturalization, immigrated to the United States before the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed.’
You raise a good point. The technological limitations of that time period probably made legislators say, “Well, we can’t seal the entire border – that would take millions of men – but we can prevent them from exercising legal personhood when they show up in our settlements.”
Recall that the USA had more frontier land at the time.
Posted this on a Kievsky thread then realized it belongs here. Pardon the duplication:
And speaking of books I’ve pretty much finished Matt’s WN 2.0 primer. My advice to him is to find out how micropublishing works. Harold Covington knows all about it. I think his book deserves/needs to be in actual bound format. Very useful for giving people the nudge when they are at the right point. “Here read this” and hand them a book. Most people will at least look through it. Most people won’t download and print 300 pages from a web site, even fewer will read that much on line.
MGLS says:
No, it means they were barred from naturalization, not immigration.
Jackson says: OK. Well that’s a failure mode. It’s not that different from having millions of illegals here now. I think we’ve collectively tried every variation of “we’ll let these people we really don’t want as part of our nation in just to do the dirty work, but not enfranchise them”. Slavery, guest worker programs (France, Germany), Aparteid, the current illegal immigration blind eye.
The all end badly.