Deep South: The Racial Challenge

50 Comments

1. OT:
   Hunter, have you heard about this school incident in NC? A teacher tells a student its criminal to criticize Obama.

   http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/20/NC-teacher-screams-student-Obama

   http://www.salisburypost.com/News/051912-North-teacher-on-video-qcd

2. Good grief. Hunter put all that thought and time into proposing a Southern White Ethnostate and all you can do is post a link to some stupid vid? Start your own blog if you want to post news items, Gomer.

   Off topic, indeed!

3. You should delete these three posts Hunter, and not let your thread become an Incogman style free for all. If one cannot stay on topic, don’t post at all, for god’s sake!

4. We need to start developing the forum. If commentators could start their own discussions, traffic would increase.

5. “Note: The White Nationalists need to jettison their “we are not white supremacists” talking point. The creation of a White ethnostate (whether it be in the South, or in the Northwest, or anywhere else in America, even France and Sweden these days) necessarily requires the reestablishment of white supremacy.” – I have to agree here, the world isn’t fair, and arguing “we just want fairness” is quite simply a loser.

6. Expediency will demand that you give the niggers at least one entire state of their own. I suggest that it be Georgia.

7. The creation of a White ethnostate … necessarily requires the reestablishment of white supremacy.

   Thank you for making this point, which one would think would be obvious, but apparently, for some, is not.

   It should be equally clear that the abolition of universal franchise is also an essential ingredient. Even among Whites. Sorry ladies, but women’s suffrage, at the very least, has got to go.

8. @analogman
   yes but the “reenslavement” of women (as it would be termed by the kikes/lib-yankees) would divide our base unnescessarily. that should come later, after the establishment. then of course we have the whole “post-christian” nature of the west to either reconstruct or remove entirely. as christianity is essentially jew worship, it seems prone to manipulation by the “priestly” (read liberalism, jews,evangelicals) what we need (opinion here) is an ideology based in science promoting the continuation of the white race, you know the inventors of the modern world. the greatest ape to ever live on planet earth, you know with the most beautiful women on earth, you know the pale monkeys who invented proximity fuses and atom bombs. this worship of the virtues of “europeanism” would not necessarily require the disenfranchisement of women, because the whole liberal concept of “social constructs” would be eliminated through A) physical demonstrations of masculine power over feminine (wink, wink) B) empirical studies

9. Disenfranchisement should be done primarily through weighing the vote according to the amount of taxes paid. This would effectively disenfranchise the great majority of Negroes. Additionally if most women return to traditional roles of wife, home-maker and mother this would also reduce the political influence of women by reduction of income earned and taxes paid by women. The primary means of reducing the Negro population should be through elimination of the welfare state and a system of private discrimination. Additionally the enormous cutbacks in government will reduce the Negro element in the middle class thereby also reducing political influence. These three combined will push the Negro to a host more welcoming of his parasitism. The reduction in the size of government and the elimination of the welfare state will require effective disenfranchisement while Negroes are still part of the political system. On its face Negro disenfranchisement will have to be color-blind unless the opportunity exists for openly racial reforms.

10. Dear Conchobar:

    I am a Christian. If you are against Christians and Christianity, you are against me.

    If you choose to be my enemy, that suits me just fine. You have no ability to harm me, and I don’t need your friendship.

    But ask yourself: Did you come here to make enemies, or to support the cause of white people? If the latter: how does making white enemies help white people?

    No need to reply. Just think about it.

11. “It should be equally clear that the abolition of universal franchise is also an essential ingredient. Even among Whites. Sorry ladies, but women’s suffrage, at the very least, has got to go.” – Women can be stakeholders, but certainly no one that isn’t a stakeholder has any business voting.

12. The 14 million African-Americans present the largest problem. The greatest challenge would be putting them down and restoring white supremacy. An ethnostate won’t be made here in a day. It could easily be created though in an independent nation-state over an extended period of time.

    The greatest challenge would be the secession. By orders of magnitude. Given secession, the rest would be total gravy by comparison.

    1.) Structure the tax code such that blacks are faced with staying and paying, or going and saving.
    2.) End all welfare for non-Whites.
    3.) Disenfranchise non-Whites; no more voting unless you’re White.
    4.) Restore Freedom of Association to Whites. I.e., no more taxing Whites to pay to educate blacks – blacks can pay for their own education. No more integration, so no “in” for blacks in White communities.
    5.) Gov’t jobs for Whites only.
    6.) End public schooling for non-Whites (or end it altogether, I’m game either way).

    There are tons of measures that, combined, would have 90% of the black population gone in short order.

    The idea is to do this stuff over a long enough period that blacks will get the picture and leave in as orderly a fashion as possible. As the remaining population is increasingly hard-headed (the ones with a clue having increasingly left for greener pastures), the measures to encourage them to leave become increasingly authoritarian.

    Eventually, you’re left with a hard-core “don’t give a fuck” black population with totally psychopathic personalities and a mean IQ around 60. These, you can wall off in Bantustans. Turn it into a hyoomanitarian nightmare, give it lots of press, and stick it under Yankee-Judea’s nose. Make sure the camps are on the border, prisons with 3 walls (guess which one is absent).

    The White Nationalists need to jettison their “we are not white supremacists” talking point.

    Why?

    The creation of a White ethnostate (whether it be in the South, or in the Northwest, or anywhere else in America, even France and Sweden these days) necessarily requires the reestablishment of white supremacy.

    So?

13. – I have to agree here, the world isn’t fair, and arguing “we just want fairness” is quite simply a loser.

    To you. For the vast majority of normal White folks, it’s a winner.

14. Expediency will demand that you give the niggers at least one entire state of their own. I suggest that it be Georgia.

    We’ll give them all of Yankee-Judea. And Yankee-Judea will welcome them with open arms, singing hymns up on the hill. And freed from the evil White racists, they will finally create their paradise.

15. Thank you for making this point, which one would think would be obvious, but apparently, for some, is not.

    He didn’t even come close to making the point. It was a non sequitur.

    It should be equally clear that the abolition of universal franchise is also an essential ingredient. Even among Whites. Sorry ladies, but women’s suffrage, at the very least, has got to go.

    So? What’s your point?

16. “It should be equally clear that the abolition of universal franchise is also an essential ingredient. Even among Whites. Sorry ladies, but women’s suffrage, at the very least, has got to go.”

    It won’t work, at least not until you’ve established a state that is nomially stable and doesn’t follow the current banking, tax and welfare system. Most won’t buy into it if you just take the franchise from them. You’ll get another pufferdaddy telling people to “vote or die”.

    Just one problem with a land requirement to vote is how can one be a stakeholder in a society when via property taxes you don’t own the land? You’re just a long term renter from the state even if you have the title deed. Typical renters may have serious roots in an area but to some that means they should have no vote? Renters pay property taxes baked into their rent. It can due to market forces be less of an impact but most landlords aren’t gonna eat that property tax themselves.

    Sorry for the earlier OT post, I should have posted it in the forum.

17. “To you. For the vast majority of normal White folks, it’s a winner.”

    Then I wish them well of it, but I do not believe that they will be successful at defending their rights.

18. “Just one problem with a land requirement to vote is how can one be a stakeholder in a society when via property taxes you don’t own the land?”

    There are more problems then that, but there are problems with universal sufferage as well. There is more than one way to define a stakeholder though, just property ownership, or even being a taxpayer merely scratches the surface of the issue. a married woman with children is obviously a stakeholder, and yet wouldn’t necessarily register as one with the above schemes.

    It may simply be that just making voting difficult is the best way to weed out “bad” voters. That is certainly the strategy that the republicans are going down.

19. “This would effectively disenfranchise the great majority of Negroes. Additionally if most women return to traditional roles of wife, home-maker and mother this would also reduce the political influence of women by reduction of income earned and taxes paid by women”

    I’ve floated this idea before: Rather than wholesale disenfranchisement of women, give married couples 2 extra votes.

    Steve Sailer has conclusively demonstrated that married women begin to vote (Republican) in their husband’s interests.

    Giving married couples 2 xtra votes, marketed as a “reward” for couples to do the (pro-Western-civ) Right Thing, would encourage marriage — which is good for White kids.

    Such a plan would also, de facto, disenfranchise Negroes (who don’t marry, by and large) as well as single mothers, who are a huge part of the problem of voting liberal because the “state” is their husband/provider.

    And it would also accomplish these important goals without the good-women-alienating, in-your-face kind of “You suck!” message that taking away the female franchise, entirely, would send.

    So married men, the folks that pay all the taxes by and large, so long as they do their manly duties of properly influencing their wives, would have 4X the voting clout of single women and blacks. De facto, you are giving the most power to the most responsible folks.
    But by keeping mum on your real goal of unseating the libs from power and marketing it just as being a carrot to encourage marriage, you can get the “Man-UP and get married” crowd on board, as well as the young guys who’d like to get married but go, “What’s in it for me these days?”

    You marginalize the degenerate Roissy’s and all the other termites feeding on the carcus of what’s left of our culture.

    And you don’t tick off the women — whom you NEED the loyalty of in order to have a White nation.

    What’s not to like?

20. 1.) Because it is an appeal to fairness that never worked.

    2.) Because it is disingenuous in that nationalism is the identification of an ethnic group with the state.

    3.) Because it is a double edged sword that delegitimizes nationalism by suggesting that the domination of one group in its own territory is necessarily a bad thing.

    4.) Because it is impractical given demographics. There is no region where creating an ethnostate would not necessarily require the establishment of white supremacy.

    5.) Because it is putting the cart before the horse: in order for there to be an ethnostate, Whites must first establish their dominance in a territory.

    6.) Because it is hopelessly abstract and unable to connect at a visceral level. No one has a clue where the ethnostate would be, what it would be called, or even what ethnicity would be the basis of it.

21. SPLC is down here causing trouble. An psychologist with years of direct experience working with blacks and white in a local public school system went off the reservation on Twitter. Local, Jew-owned media is slanting the facts against him. But, a lot of people here think just like this.

    http://www.wwltv.com/news/JP-schools-to-investigate-alleged-racial-remarks-by-district-psychologist-152351145.html

22. You’re right.

    Secession will be the greatest challenge. The negro will be the greatest racial challenge. Of course, I am counting on blacks to strike the first blow and initiate the crisis following the collapse of the welfare state.

23. Hispanic and Asian emigration will prove ephemeral. In a few years, it will be remembered as part of the bygone Sunbelt era. The Hispanics and Asians will leave as the economy collapses.

    At some point, Cubans will retake their own country. The Jews in South Florida are snowbirds. They will die off over the next twenty years. The Mexicans that stay behind in Texas are those in South Texas who have always been there.

24. The damnyankees in the Deep South are nomadic economic migrants. They were attracted to the Sunbelt by the now clearly ephemeral wave of economic prosperity driven by suburban expansion.

    We can also count on them to vacate. They are not sticking around here in the long haul. The future will be black vs. white for control of the Gulf States during a national economic collapse.

    Blacks will initiate aggression as the welfare state breaks under strain. In the process, they will topple the political and social counterpart to the Sunbelt economy.

25. The Sunbelt was built around the air conditioner, the automobile, and the suburb. It will die with these things too.

26. In the late 1960s, social peace was bought with the welfare state, cheap gas, and suburban sprawl. Even in California and Rhode Island, it is impossible to maintain the welfare state.

    Reality is forcing changes that the hopelessly dysfunctional political system is unwilling to make. In this game of musical chairs, the ever shrinking surplus wealth pie means that Democratic constituencies will be thrown into competition with each other.

    The Democratic solution is to raise taxes. The Republicans who represent the taxpaying class are seeing reality shrink their wealth. So every year the tax burden and the incompetant government and the parasite coalition becomes more resented.

    There is no conceivable end to the polarization. It is driven by the underlying logic of reality itself.

27. The feeling that your family, people, race, nation is special and the best is healthy. Every right person values their family over other families, and their nation over other nations. It is relatively recently that whites and only whites have been propagandized, enticed and fooled into valueing the other above their own. It’s sick, sick, sick. Hunter hit the nail on the head long ago. The sick, wrong-headed idea that we are all equal is the root of the West’s problems.

28. 1.) Because it is an appeal to fairness that never worked.

    I never really understand this kind of argument. We’re going to list all the things that WNs have tried, that didn’t work, then throw them out? That’s the whole house, in the junkyard. Including the kitchen sink. And the Confederacy, southern nationalism, White Supremacy, etc.

    Appealing to fairness has broader appeal than appealing to White Supremacy. As in, a lot broader. Not that they can’t both work, but I’m not the one favoring chucking one of the two out the window (another argument that I can never understand – one true way-ism).

    2.) Because it is disingenuous in that nationalism is the identification of an ethnic group with the state.

    Is there a point in there somewhere? A statement is not necessarily a point.

    3.) Because it is a double edged sword that delegitimizes nationalism by suggesting that the domination of one group in its own territory is necessarily a bad thing.

    White Supremacy suggests a lot more than that. If you want to suggest a nation for Whites, just say so. I don’t see the point of hanging the baggage of the term on the front of the bus. Sure, it’ll appeal to some people. So appeal to them with it. It’ll repel others. So don’t appeal to them with it.

    4.) Because it is impractical given demographics. There is no region where creating an ethnostate would not necessarily require the establishment of white supremacy.

    That’s another assumption I don’t share – the ethnostate. Now, I know that ethnostates are an inevitable goal because the only way to secure a people’s rights, sovereignty, freedoms, and future is via an ethnostate, but that’s something I think people have to work through on their own. Get them thinking about their rights, sovereignty, freedoms, and future, and they’ll inevitably come to this conclusion. But shoving the idea of ethnostates in front of them first is putting the cart before the horse. Which is why I’m an ethnopatriot, not an ethnostater.

    5.) Because it is putting the cart before the horse: in order for there to be an ethnostate, Whites must first establish their dominance in a territory.

    Haha. Did I see “cart before the horse” in my peripheral vision? Before “we” can do anything, there has to be an “us.” Which makes ethnostates and territorial dominance the cart, and racial identity the horse.

29. 1.) In the 1980s and 1990s, the people who had previously been known as “white supremacists” reinvented themselves as “White Nationalists.” By the 2000s, everyone who was pro-White had started labelling themselves a “White Nationalist.”

    White Nationalism amounted to a plea to the fairness of liberals: we really don’t want to oppress anyone, we just want to rule ourselves, so you ought to give us a White ethnostate.

    The plea was never entertained because WNs never had the power to even bring the other side to the table. Throughout that period, America absorbed millions of non-White immigrants, adding further diversity to previously White areas, and thus pushing anything resembling a “White nation” further outside the real of plausibility.

    Aside from that the concept of Whitemanistan has remained a purely abstract concept for thirty years. WNs still cannot even tell you where this nation is supposed to be called into existentence, what it is to be called, or who would create it.

    What kind of nation is that? A nation whose own advocates cannot even describe themselves? It is a pure abstraction, a proposition, that has no correspondence to the real world.

    Is that like Southern nationalism? Jim Crow? The Confederacy? No, because all those things actually existed, and never suffered from the same conceptual problems.

    The Confederates could name their state, tell you where it is located, what kind of government it was to have, why it had to be created, who would create it and so forth. Jim Crow emerged organically from Southern resistance to Reconstruction. It grew out of the soil of Southern culture.

    What is Whitemanistan though? It is just a refuge for alienated people. Conceivably, WNs could build upon the idea, fill in the blanks, but they haven’t done so, and pitch their case to the goodwill of our sworn enemies.

    OTOH, the Jews are destroying us. OTOH, they are so magnanimous that if simply appeal to their fairness, we will get a Whitemanistan, which sounds less like anything resembling a nation than a suburb.

    The result is that WNs are stuck in a discursive ditch – a ditch which after thirty years they have never escaped, as the nation has browned, making the idea of a start up White ethnostate less plausible than ever before.

    The enemy understands and responds to nothing but power.

30. 2.) White Nationalism is pure semantics.

    Nationalism is the identification of an ethnic group with the state. In an ethnostate, whether Japan or Germany, there is Japanese and German supremacy.

    In any “White nation,” Whites would necessarily be the dominant ethnic group with a monopoly on state power, which is to say that the whole concept is a type of white supremacy.

    It is disingenuous to pretend there is a difference between white supremacy and White Nationalism because white supremacy is necessarily built into the system.

    3.) What’s the definition of a White nation? A nation controlled exclusively by Whites for their own posterity, which is to say, a nation in which Whites are superior to other races.

    See, that’s why WN is a double edged sword: it says that it was an awful thing for Whites to be socially and politically superior to Non-Whites in the Jim Crow South, which was explicitly called the “White Man’s Country,” but the WNs turn around and make a sales pitch for a nation I’m which Whites are superior again, a nation that necessarily must be created in a multiracial society.

    4.) Most WNs define WN as the ethnostate.

    In order for a White ethnostate to be created, Whites must seize control of some region, establish their supremacy, and drive out non-Whites. The Midwest is the whitest region of America, but white supremacy would be required there too.

    There is no path to an ethnostate that doesn’t go through white supremacy. History has shown that rights, freedoms, and sovereignity cannot be preserved without white supremacy.

    Isn’t that the system we have now? A liberal free for all where every race and ethnic group can drop anchor and squat on our territory and shit out welfare babies?

    That’s not sovereignty. It is colonial subjugation.

31. We White Americans are in a Catch-22.

    We can’t have an ethnostate until we get the political upper hand. WNs can’t get the upper hand because we don’t have an ethnostate — we are trapped in MultiCulti Paradise where non-Whites (and feministas a/k/a White women who don’t have any sense) outvote us.

    So we have to disenfranchise the non-White and feminista voters in order to get the ethnostate. But the MultiCultis (and silly White Girls) aren’t going to vote to be disenfranchised.

    Therefore, we have to rethink our tactics. Stealth is what’s called for here. Let’s take a page from the anti-Whites who have MISLED us this whole time, promising goodies, knowing we’d take the bait, and the poison with it.

    That’s why I like my idea:

    Make it a political platform to give married couples an extra vote each.
    Market it as a reward for getting married, because it’s Good For The Children (which it is).
    Market it to the In Mala Fide types as here’s your reward for manning UP and making an honest woman of your main squeeze.
    Market it to single women (who really DO want their baby daddies to marry them) as, maybe THIS will be the carrot to get him to commit

    What we don’t talk about is the outcome that HBD would predict:
    Since Blacks don’t marry, their voting power will be diminished. (They have only two votes per couple, not four, so 1/2 the voting power as compared to status quo.)
    Since Single Women, particularly Single Mothers, vote for the Gov’t Sugar Daddy, their voting power will be diminished.
    Since women vote their hubby’s interests after marriage, as shown by Steve Sailer,
    and with two main sources of reliable Dem votes marginalized, the eminently sensible, tax-paying men of America (their votes leveraged by 4, since they and their properly-persuaded wives cast 4 votes) can VOTE INTO PLACE our pro-White New Golden Age.
    And no need to spit in the faces of good White women who vote for policies that benefit White men.

    Yeah, this idea is my hobby-horse, but consider:
    My plan is a way out of the anti-White Death Spiral, a way around the impossibility of voting for pro-White policies, a way to maneuver past the Multicult blockade, and no shots fired. We don’t even have to look like the bad guys, while doing it. We look like sweethearts, only concerned about what’s Best for All.

32. 5.) I agree.

    There has to be an “us” before anything else. At the same time, there has to be White dominance of a piece of real estate before there can be a White nation.

    Therefore, what sense does it make to condemn white supremacy, when a homogeneous White ethnostate (i.e., the endgame) presupposes just that?

33. Disenfranchisement should be done primarily through weighing the vote according to the amount of taxes paid. This would effectively disenfranchise the great majority of Negroes. Additionally if most women return to traditional roles of wife, home-maker and mother this would also reduce the political influence of women by reduction of income earned and taxes paid by women. The primary means of reducing the Negro population should be through elimination of the welfare state and a system of private discrimination. Additionally the enormous cutbacks in government will reduce the Negro element in the middle class thereby also reducing political influence. These three combined will push the Negro to a host more welcoming of his parasitism. The reduction in the size of government and the elimination of the welfare state will require effective disenfranchisement while Negroes are still part of the political system. On its face Negro disenfranchisement will have to be color-blind unless the opportunity exists for openly racial reforms.

    White & Confederate

    quoted for excellence

    wow Barb, that is an excellent idea as well

    personally I think the oriental asians will stay if we don’t push them out. The few I know seem to like the South and don’t care about much beyond being secure in their property and the chance to be prosperous. I don’t think they’d give a damn about the vote etc but I think they would also be the 1st to leave if they thought they would lose their property and prosperity.

34. Thank you, Stonelifter.

    I’m rather proud of my idea; I’ve thought a long time, HOW do we get around the fact that the people who should NOT have the power of the vote, are not going to willingly give UP the vote?
    They won’t — so we have to use misdirection. The legerdemain being, “Who, us? No, no, we don’t have it in for you! Not at all — we just want to encourage and reward marriage (innocent blinking). YOU want to encourage marriage, don’t you? Who could be against giving benefits to people who get married?”

    WE know, because of HBD realities, that blacks and single mothers, unmarried as they’ll be, will be disenfranchised AND Blacks and single mothers, being in general not particularly perceptive of unexplicated consequences, also won’t likely realize what’s really “up.”
    And if we REALLY wanted to disarm and confuse the libtards, we could throw ’em the gay-marriage bone. “Sure, sure, you give us [heterosexual] married couples 4 votes, you can have gay marriage! Fair trade, right?”
    (Meanwhile, we can quietly rest assured that gay marriage would be no real threat under such an agreement, because the actual numbers of gays married would be utterly dwarfed by the massive overweight in voting power by the millions of normal heterosexual marrieds whose power has just been doubled and who could then take back the bone. But since libtards are none too good at clearheaded thinking, they’d grab our offer, I’m betting.)

    Once normal married couples, composed of normal men wielding their normal and expected influence upon their normal wives, have doubled voting power, the Left, its power predicated on influencing Blacks and single women into voting leftist, shrinks into insignificance. At THAT point our ethnostate is ours for the taking.

35. There’s an easy to accomplish all your voting requirements. Poll taxes. No pay, no vote. Combined with intelligence test. Only one in six groids test at 100 I.Q. of your average White dufus. You know the guy with his hat on backwards. Single White women probably would not want to vote if cost them. Married hubby would pay for his wife I bet .
    My suggested subject for the test: the federalist and the anti-federalist papers.
    Segregation could be passed as noted earlier driving out the smarter groids. The dumber groids would eventually leave for the North.

36. I read a study once that claimed high IQ people seek novel solutions to non-problems and that the median White IQ of 100 ( the study didn’t mention race) would produce a more long term stable society.

    I’d prefer the super smart not vote

37. Stone- that’s why the stabilizing effects of religion, culture, family memory, etc. are there. Both to ‘ground’ the leaders of tomorrow, as well as to chain the less intelligent to something they can ‘get their hands around’ for stability’s sake.

    Tradition has some benefit, after all.

38. Stonelifter and Fr John: Interesting question, which Greek political philosophers considered, about the guidance and restraint of the average and the gifted by religious tradition.

39. I should say more than “tradition” as it is sometimes taken, but sincere belief.

40. Sorry Mosin, I don’t understand the question

    Ft John, if I recall correctly the paper also said average IQ men would keep and persevere traditional ways because we lack the novelty seeking and the old ways work.

41. Thanks Stonelifter

42. White & Confederate & Barb,
    i’ve read over your post again and still think they are well thought out

43. I’m not denying that Jews are a problem. What I am saying is that they are not THE ONE AND ONLY PROBLEM. They have WHITE ANTI-WHITE ACCOMPLICES.

    Right. You’re wrestling with a straw man. We knew that already, but it’s nice to have it in caps.

    This should be obvious but it took ME a long time to get it.

    So your straw man is owed to projection, thanks for coming right out and saying so.

    The plea was never entertained because WNs never had the power to even bring the other side to the table.

    Correct. So why act like it was the argument that was flawed?

    White Nationalism amounted to a plea to the fairness of liberals: we really don’t want to oppress anyone, we just want to rule ourselves, so you ought to give us a White ethnostate.

    Not so correct. WNism in this context is not a plea to the fairness of liberals; it’s an argument justified by fairness (justice), something whites find far more compelling than an argument justified by will-to-power.

    Consider it a rhetorical device, one that sets liberals up as the black hats and WNs up as the white hats.

    WNs still cannot even tell you where this nation is supposed to be called into existentence, what it is to be called, or who would create it.

    I consider that a feature. A few posts down you said no one can foresee how the breakdown or dissolution of the Beast will play out. I think no one can foresee how millions of newly conscious Whites will impact White racialism.

    I have no problem at all with people speculating about road maps to secession or ethnostates. I don’t think it’s fair to hold the lack of a road map against anyone else, though. And I certainly don’t think the map’s we wind up with after millions of Whites climb aboard is going to look much like the maps anyone is drawing now.

    Hey, if Whites are thinking, “gee, if they only had a road map, I might climb on board,” I say, “sign on and start drawing the map yourself!” For my part, I find leaving these things in the abstract is a strength. Even a rhetorical device. I can get people to use their own fucking imaginations, for once.

    What kind of nation is that? A nation whose own advocates cannot even describe themselves? It is a pure abstraction, a proposition, that has no correspondence to the real world.

    On the contrary, there’s nothing abstract about a nation of millions of Whites yearning for an ethnostate, to secure a future for themselves and their children. It’s a very concrete idea. As goals go, States are easy in comparison.

    OTOH, the Jews are destroying us. OTOH, they are so magnanimous that if simply appeal to their fairness, we will get a Whitemanistan, which sounds less like anything resembling a nation than a suburb.

    Again, the appeal is not to Jews. It’s a rhetorical device. I.e., “watch me, White man, as I present the Jew with the prospect of our having rights equal to his. Watch as he slaps my hand away. Watch him wiggle and squirm and try to lie his way out of the conversation.”

44. Whoops, forgot to delete the part I already posted. This is where I wish there was a delete button…

45. I’ll respond to you with your own words, HW:

    Aristocracy, tyranny, oligarchy, monarchy … anything, I don’t care, is preferable to being ruled by a “majority” of such people in BRA.

    Give us King George III back … in hindsight, he wasn’t half bad, nowhere near as tyrannical as the people who rule us today.

    Precisely. Why should I have to map out specifics, when just about anything will do? It just gives people something to nitpick. Alienates people over niggles (haha). Why bother? That’s what Nations do – they form States for themselves.

    I’m content with forming a nation, and letting it decide for itself what kind of State it wants.

46. Therefore, what sense does it make to condemn white supremacy, when a homogeneous White ethnostate (i.e., the endgame) presupposes just that?

    It doesn’t make sense to condemn White Supremacy (as long as we’re using our definition of WS, which is quite different from the mainstream’s). That’s why I don’t – no enemies on the right, etc (except when you’re triangulating 😉 ).

47. you guys are serious, at first i thought it was a joke then as it kept going, i was like no they are serious, then as it KEPT goin, i said this just isnt real,sounds to goofy to be real, there are no people who still think this way. i kept lookin to find some sort of disclaimer, it hit me, this is for real……………….wow

48. This is stupid as hell folk, Texas barely has a 11.8% black population, there are a lot of blacks and Asians together in North Carolina and Georgia, and Mississippi has the highest black density with a 37% black population. Where I’m from in Charlotte, NC t Asian people hang out more with black people, than them white folk. Smh.

49. Valuable discussion , For my two cents , if anybody requires to merge two images , We found reference here http://goo.gl/1tMLRH

50. I totally agree with the all questions you raised. I am sure there are many people who are faced with the same problems I recently had. I couldn’t find I mostly use http://goo.gl/vMl7GS to edit my PDFs. I think it also allows you to to create fillable pdfs and esign them.