Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites
In Moving Forward Prozium cites me favorably as one of the handful of people who write about White Nationalism in the blogosphere on a semi-regular basis. I'm nonplussed and will respond by expressing some recent thoughts.Late last week I met Prozium and a few other pro-Whites I have until now known only online. I'm neither a leader nor a joiner, and have for a variety of other reasons so far been disinclined to engage openly. I'm having a change of heart lately and like Prozium I am becoming more interested in activity and collaboration offline.
Before anyone else bothers I'll point out myself that the focus of my writing here hasn't been on White nationalism per se, but mainly on jewish influence and the White/jew faultline, the purpose being to educate myself and my few visitors to various double standards and acts of jewish malfeasance. I'm growing tired of this, disgusted might be a better word, but it's something I felt a need to do. I had climbed similar learning curves on islam and immigration in the years before, and my more recent focus has been a logical continuation of that self-education. It has also been a response to various anti-anti-semites who have since my awakening come with nothing but disinformation and dementia (see Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin and White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism).
I am prepared now not only to join Prozium and state openly that my ultimate goal is a jew-free, White ethnostate in North America, but also to say that I've come to this position after deep consideration, having gathered substantial information and arguments in support. I understand that racialism and separatism are among the most frowned upon concepts in today's public discourse, never mind criticizing jews. What I can also see clearly however is that the same rotten thoroughly judaized regime that makes this true also advances and celebrates anti-Whitism and the slow genocide of my kind, which has only accelerated as we've become more deracinated and obsequious. Now that the regime's nature is obvious to me I cannot do anything but oppose it and share what I've learned with others.
What Whites need to survive is at least one place where we are not guilt-tripped, harrassed, mugged, raped, murdered and ultimately bred out of existence by shitheads who hate us. We have never had a problem dealing with our own shitheads. It's with the non-White shitheads, and only in the last few generations, that we get all tangled up. What I know now is that it started with jewish emancipation. What Whites need to thrive is a culture composed and controlled by our own kind, exhibiting a confident and positive self-image. This has been less and less the case as jewish ownership and influence in our media, art, and entertainment has increased.
Whether we remove ourselves, or those who hate us, or some combination of both is not as important to me as the recognition that the status quo cannot endure. If we do nothing we will surely disappear, so why not resist? It is already open season on Whites, despite our disproportionate representation in the police and military. As we lose control of these institutions and our political and financial influence wanes we will see the hostility and violence against us increase dramatically.
A cold Winter comes. We must make preparations in order to see Spring.
Labels: white nationalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 10/13/2009 09:33:00 PM
80 Comments:
What is White Nationalism? Who are White Nationalists?
Via the West's darkest hour.
Tan, I'm looking forward to following your lead. Just wondering, but are there any other "big names" in this new think-tank?
Bonam Fortunam et Vale.
I checked out his blog. The guy is fairly smart and I agree with his opinions in general about Christians/post-Christians and about how the world has gone mad.
However, he's clueless, mendaciously so, regarding the jews.
Look at this statement:
(The Jews were a hundred percent innocent about this Caucasian/Indian 16th century mess, which makes me think that a great deal of anti-Semitism in the White Nationalism movement is paranoia.)
That's not even a logically valid statement. What has that situation of hundreds of years past to do with the very clear influence of the jews today, be it in media, business, finance, war industry, politics, show biz, etc? And indeed, how does he explain away their obvious (to me, anyway) dislike of Whites?
He seems like another dishonest anti-anti-Semite to me.
Yes, I had some discussion with Chechar on this point in A note to critical commenters.
He's been asked to think deeper. He'll have to come to his senses on his own.
Exercise caution, guys. Be extra paranoid. You need to work under the assumption that you are being monitored -- both online and off. It's likely that you were watched and probably photographed during your weekend meeting(s). And, it's likely that any group that you form will be infiltrated.
We need to make this movement pay. It can't be just sacrifice. If you study the movement in the US against white civ it had music labels, publishers, bookstores, night clubs, etc.
It worked inside big organizations and in little organizations. It got government grants. It won small victories. It got its point of view into school books and into every venue it could.
It helped its people make money and survive. We have to do all of that. We need to apply our business experience, legal knowledge, historical, and literary abilities in every way we can every time we can.
We shouldn't pass up any opportunity to gain advantage by co-opting the system or working outside it. Books written by our movement should be done well and published at the same prices as other books. We need to support our own infrastructure and price our efforts to do that. We must not sell ourselves short.
Glad to see you taking a more active role. You're a quality writer and a definite asset.
Republished at The Occidental Quarterly Online.
Tanstaafl, you're work exposing Jewish machinations has been invaluable. I hope you have all your blog posts backup somewhere safe.
Tanstaafl,
This is OT, but I noticed that you said over at Prozium/Hunter Wallace's blog the following: "The last time I saw you use that fallacious argument Hybernia Girl listed the television shows in Ireland. It was almost 100% straight out of LA."
I've been engaged in some debates regarding Jewish influence and was wondering if you had a link to where Hibernia Girl talked about this. Have been googling to no avail.
Thanks.
New Sisyphus is Matamoros. That was revealed at one point on Prozium's old blog where Matamoros was briefly a co-blogger.
Hibernia Girl rebukes him in the comments to Age of Treason: Something Unspeakable This Way Comes.
I miss HG.
I keep copies of the original posts and regularly download the entire site to save the comments too.
Tanstaafl,
Thanks for the link to HG's comments. Really appreciate it.
Arguing with Jews is extremely exasperating. They don't stick to and uphold general standards of honor, decency in debate that most people do. They will concede nothing, and will fervently repeat debunked, fallacious arguments ad nauseam. They are hypocritical to the core. Indeed they have been under intense pressure to select for such attributes and tendencies over their long diaspora history, so it isn't too surprising. It really was a matter of life and death - survival - for much of Jewish history. It's through debating them that you really get a deep glimpse into their quite abundant verbal skill, dexterity, and intelligence, and their fundamental dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Man, that short blurb was coldly inspiring.
That was the most coldly inspirational blurb that I've read in months.
Hi Tanstaafl,
I appreciate your blog. Im glad you have come to the same conclusion as many others about what is necessary: seperation and a White Ethnostate. Trying to reform this rapidly decaying nation, dominated by a hostile elite, where Whites are fast becoming a minority is probably not possible. As you have noted, a White Ethnostate is in fact essential to the survival of Whites, which can really only be achieved through some type of secession (ideally a divorce achieved peacefully, like the Czech-Slovak seperation or what almost happened with Quebec).
I think that with time, and as the decay deepens and becomes more apparent, more people will arrive at this same conclusion. I have some ideas about the subject of secession, and what could be done now to help bring it about, that I would like to send you for your thoughts. Is there some place that I can post this where you would be able to read it (or send it to you via email), and if so, would you be willing to peruse it and give me your feedback? Thanks.
Andy.
Is there some place that I can post this where you would be able to read it (or send it to you via email), and if so, would you be willing to peruse it and give me your feedback? Thanks.
I suggest you create a blog.
Tan,
One of your shortest, but most exciting posts! I wish you the best. Contact me, if you have the chance.
Flanders 476507
Very interesting. Thanks. Agree on the secession and ethnostate (although I am not american, but for americans). In South Africa, we just last week, had another 200 families, purchase a large piece of land, for a 'whites only village': Bitter Afrikaners go north to set up white only territory
Had one question. Sorry if it sounds dumb; but some of what i have read of those who strongly critique jewish corruption of european affairs, seem to either consider the whole Palestinian/Israel issue, as if
the Palestinians are innocent victims; or ignore (in my view) the Muslim Jihad 'conquer by slave and cannon fodder breeding' aspect.
This puzzles me.
On a final note: My original arrival intent was to inform you of following pages; look forward to reading more of your ideas. Thanks:
Why We Are White Refugees
http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com
Wake Up Whitey! (aka Population Policy Common Sense)
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=145534962085
Feel free to post any relevant Population policy issue link to Wake Up Whitey!, if you don't mind.
As noted, both are attempts to be bridges, for those still at their beginning stages of 'what the fuck' is going on, exisential search..
Regards
Lara
Had one question. Sorry if it sounds dumb; but some of what i have read of those who strongly critique jewish corruption of european affairs, seem to either consider the whole Palestinian/Israel issue, as if
the Palestinians are innocent victims; or ignore (in my view) the Muslim Jihad 'conquer by slave and cannon fodder breeding' aspect.
Opposing Jewish influence and power, while being sympathetic to Palestinian suffering at the hands of Jews IS NOT THE SAME THING as viewing all Palestinians as innocent victims, or being an apologist for Muslims, supporting Muslims, encouraging Muslim encroachment into the West, etc.
It's a testament to Jewish influence and power that naive and ignorant White gentiles and Christians have been manipulated to believe that they are the same thing.
Opposing Jewish influence and power, opposing Muslim immigration and encroachment, and being sympathetic to Palestinians who have been killed and displaced by Israelis are perfectly compatible views, and quite reasonable ones at that. It's through moral manipulation that people have been led to believe otherwise.
This "Andrea" character has a suspect posting history on other blogs.
Opposing Jewish influence and power, while being sympathetic to Palestinian suffering at the hands of Jews IS NOT THE SAME THING as viewing all Palestinians as innocent victims, or being an apologist for Muslims, supporting Muslims, encouraging Muslim encroachment into the West, etc.
No, I did not say it was.
Let me explain.
In my view, all or most disagreements, are a result of different interpretations of reality. I am okay with changing my interpretation, when I am given information, to show my former interpretation was based on incorrect facts or theories. This is not often understood by people who do not consider how they came to their 'beliefs'; and whose identity is tied up in those 'beliefs'; and accordingly feel threatened if facts emerge that require changing their conclusions; becuase that would affect their identity.
My views on this 'Jews' issue are a working hypothesis; I have not made any conclusions yet, so I continue reading views, from many perspectives. I have not come across one 'Jews as problems of the world' person, who wants to hold any discussion of thier views. All they want to do, is tell me what a moron i am for not thinking like them.
So, I have simply not explored the question, and just left it, for months now. After reading your post, I thought, I'd give it another try, maybe you would want to explain your views, by answering my questions. Maybe I could understand, your interpretation.
For example: nobody who argues against 'Jews' defines whom they consider 'Jews' to be, or I have not found where they do so. Are 'Jews' (in their view) anyone who reads the Torah, as their biblical book, those who live in Israel, or whom are 'Jews'?
Being someone who considers the clarity of anyone's particular definition important in terms of understanding that person; I consider this important.
Its the same when I say 'Kaffir', nobody bothers to ask me, what I mean when I say the word, they simply assume i mean what they consider a 'kaffir' to be.
There are dozens of different interpretations for the word 'kaffir', as there are for 'jews'.
So, I prefer to enquire from someone who has views that I may be interpreting incorrectly, from them what their interpretations are, so that I am clear what they mean; as opposed to walking around judgeing them, on my intepretations of what they said, which are incorrect.
Anyway, if you are interested in answering my questions, great. If not, I am not interested in a flame war. Most of my comments on blogs are stored at Practicing Radical Honesty SQSwans; so, if you prefer not to answer that is okay too. I won't be offended, I was simply curious; and thought that you -- unlike other Jew haters -- may be willing to explain.
I have two really good friends who are considered 'Jewish' by birth, but who are Christians, by religion. They don't sanction all that Israel does. During apartheid, the only country that stood by South Africa, was Israel.
Anyway, that is a bit more of where I am coming from, should you wish to discuss the issue. if not, no worries.
I have not come across one 'Jews as problems of the world' person, who wants to hold any discussion of thier views. All they want to do, is tell me what a moron i am for not thinking like them.
I have not come across one "jew-haters as problems of the world" person who wants to hold any discussion of their views. All they want to do is tell everyone how crazy I am for not thinking like them.
For example: nobody who argues against 'Jews' defines whom they consider 'Jews' to be, or I have not found where they do so. Are 'Jews' (in their view) anyone who reads the Torah, as their biblical book, those who live in Israel, or whom are 'Jews'?
Nobody who argues in favor of "jews" defines whom they consider "jews" to be.
Try practicing the open-mindedness you preach. You could, for instance, reverse the statements you make to see if you're putting jews on a pedastal they don't deserve to be on. If you're not jewish then you might ask yourself why you're doing that.
My perspective is easy enough to explain. You don't even have to put Whites on a pedastal to notice that the people creating and promulgating "Whites as problems of the world" memes tend to be jewish and that they like jews. It is an empirical measure of jewish power that their anti-White perspective is commonplace and accepted, while mine is regarded as hostile, insane, immoral, illegal, etc.
Taanstaafl
I don't think you are crazy; are you referring to me? I have never seriously acused anyone of being crazy in my entire life. As a joke, I may, but then I do try and make sure the person knows I am only joking and teasing. I am interested in your views, and I simply want to make sure that I understand what you mean, rather than misinterpreting you.
Nobody who argues in favor of "jews" defines whom they consider "jews" to be.
That is true. I am neutral on what I consider a 'jew' to be. But when I find someone who is positive about what they consider jews to be, then I do ask them to clarify for me, what they mean by 'jews', is it genetic, cultural or what?
Try practicing the open-mindedness you preach.
I'm not sure what you mean. the reason I am commenting here, is to attempt to understand your point of view, and to make sure that any interpretation i finally come to; is correct, according to your views.
No, I dont think I put jews on a pedestal, cause in general i am neutral about them, as a group. I am not jewish, at least not genetically as far as I know. Don't know of any ancestors who were jewish.
I do not remotely consider myself informed enough to come to anything close to a pro or anti working hypothesis on the 'jew' issue. It is for this reason I attempt to get information on all sides, and to make sure that I understand what the person is saying, not what I think they are saying; and to ask questions.
My perspective is easy enough to explain. You don't even have to put Whites on a pedastal to notice that the people creating and promulgating "Whites as problems of the world" memes tend to be jewish and that they like jews.
I have not noticed that. I don't think that whites are the problem of the world; but of those who I have come across who say so; I did not notice that those who did say so, were jewish, or that they like jews. I will be more alert in the future to exploring that possibility.
It is an empirical measure of jewish power that their anti-White perspective is commonplace and accepted, while mine is regarded as hostile, insane, immoral, illegal, etc.
I would agree with you that there is currently what could be called an 'anti-white perspective', and that it is commonplace and accepted; I am not saying it is not 'jewish power' (unless if you consider hollywood to be 'jewish power', then I'd would agree they forment this state of affairs), that has caused such a state of affairs; but I am not yet ready to accuse all 'jews'.
I honestly don't know what people mean when they say 'jews', so I am simply trying to clarify.
For example, when most people say 'kaffir' they may mean someone who is black; generally when i use it, i mean it in its original etymology: 'someone who knows the truth, but conceals it'. I choose to use it as such; cause I dislike people who deliberately conceal the truth, more than ignorant black people, and their savage like culture.
I would agree with you that many brainwashed by hollywood zombies; would as brainwashed zombies react and consider you to be hostile, insane, immoral. I don't; certainly not yet. If I do consider you any of those, I will say so, includiing telling you how I came to that conclusion, by what you said, or how i interpreted it. If I interpeted it incorrectly then my conclusion would obviously be incorrect too.
I would not even have raised the question, but I liked what you said about not being a leader/follower or a joiner; which I interpreted as you may be more open to sharing your views, a free thinker, on the jew issue, and I may learn something, or get some new perspectives, for my consideration on the issue.
Thats all. No offence meant. However, please do not feel obliged to discuss the issue. I was simply curious and thought I could get some new perspectives, to challenge my thinking on the issue.
Lara
"Try practicing the open-mindedness you preach."
This is a really weird freaking attitude. It was a fair question. Are the "problem" Jews the Ashkenazi? Ashkenazi and Sephardic? Anybody who reads the Talmud? Anybody who is genetically descended from Khazars? Anybody who has ever been related to any Jew in the past three or four generations? Anybody who votes or argues or contributes money to causes that can common-sensically be called "pro jewish"? Any Jew of any sort who is in a position of influence? Like, Richard Feynman. Nobel prize in physics, really smart guy, very good teacher, one of the best scientists who ever lived and an example to anyone who really seeks the truth, mostly stayed out of politics as far as I know, liked pretty women and married two and treated them right from what I've heard. Was he a problem Jew? I can actually come up with arguments why he could be viewed that way, but I'm not the one defining terms here. (For whatever it'w worth, if it was up to me to create a country I wanted to live in, I'd start off by excluding about 90% of the people currently calling themselves pro-white - heck, 90% of the white population, for that matter - as being nearly as bad in their own way as Jews or blacks. Luckily for everyone, I'm not likely to ever get that authority.)
Deliberately avoiding defining one's terms is not a good way to start. Even if it's just "I know it when I see it", that's better than yelling at her for asking the question.
Why is it important?
It is important to me, for the following reason; but it may of course not be important to others, depending on how they define 'important'.
Important to me means: Important is first, or it isn't.
For me, it is important, when I listen to someone, to understand what they mean; not what I think they mean.
Particularly when it comes to vague and abstract terms; as opposed to specific terms.
We cannot avoid vague and abstract terms, cause many things are vauge and abstract, in that many have different interpretaitons of what 'love', or 'justice', or 'jews', or 'racist' et al means. Most politicians exploit vague terms, instead of using clear specific terms:
Compare:
"We'll direct all our considerable resources to satisfying the needs of our constituents"
to:
"I'll spend $10 million of your taxes on a new highway that will help my biggest campaign contributor."
I cannot stand it, when I say something, and someone, who has no clue how I meant the words, or how I chose those words, based on my experience; without asking one question, accuses me of a whole slew of shit, without asking one question!
They have a completely and utterly incorrect interpration of what I said, and meant; but they insist their intepretation of what I said, was right! I consider that either ignorant (totally clueless in terms of active listening skills; or if not clueless, but deliberately avoiding listening, then its possibly malicious).
So, I try to avoid doing that.
When black people or white people have told me the same thing, about say 'neo-nazis'; or the 'awb', or any alleged group of people, that I am required to blame or hate; then I don't mind hate, or condemn, or praise or whatever.
For example, I hate black people who endorse and/or practice black culture that cuts off children's sexual organs, while they are alive, for voodoo muti medicine.
But I also acknowledge that not all blacks endorse such behaviour (although those who are silent are complicit; particularly if they are silent about the exposure thereof being labled as a 'racist').
I refuse to hate 'pro-white tribe nationalist', because, in the same way that I support Native Americans who wish to keep to their tribe, and want self rule, and don't want to be forced to be multi-culti freaks; I support any whites, or others, who want to do the same.
So, in the same way I ask here for a definition of 'jews'; I ask others to clarify their definitions of 'neo nazi'; 'racist', or 'racism', etc...
Back to important; before I consider the 'theory', I first need to make sure that I got the correct (i.e. author's) interpretation and meaning, of any relevant key words used in the theory.
Lara
Whether or not there are Blacks who are good or Jews who are good is a red herring. I have seen this tactic used so many times is has become nauseating.
But I will humour you anyway...
The different sects of Jews does not interest me. That is a Jewish problem and does not concern me. Whether they read the Talmud or the Torah is of no concern. Whether they are Ashkenazi or Sephardic, who cares. Whether they are of German Jewish descent or Russian...yawn. What interests me is that for the most part their entire community is hostile to Whites. You know the ones who control our institutions here in America? Those guys. If you want to do the tedious work of looking every one of them over with a magnifying glass in order to find out which "sect" they are a part of then go ahead but I have better things to do.
As for not liking 90% of Whites: If you do not like 90% of Whites then you have no stake in this discussion. If you have contempt for your own people then you are of no use to us. It must start with a love for your people and the future generations. It takes this love for your people in order for you to want lead them out of this mess we are in.
Andrea, lets face it, you are a multi-culturalist. You care about other cultures and people. Their concerns actually concern you.
See this is the beauty of becoming a White nationlist. I only have one concern. The future of my people and their advancement. This is the way Blacks and Jews operate and this is how Whites must operate in order to survive.
Zog,
When you use the term 'multi-culturalist'; I am assuming you mean, a multi-culti, is someone who cares about other cultures?
If so, its possible I am a multi cult, according to that particularl definition.
I care about lots of things, ideas, and people. Depends also of course on how you define 'care'. For me, If I care about someone, or something, then I make 'care' means I make a commitment to remain in conversation, with such person, to go wrestle with their ideas, to attempt to understand them, and to be able to agree to disagree where we finally know what each other mean.
To care about children, means that I do not pop out babies, like a savage on viagra. That before I bring a child into this world, I make sure that its father is seriously committed to fatherhood, as an adult, not just a genetic sperm donor.
Is Tanstaafl, also a multi-culti, when, or if, he says he cares about the suffering of Palestinians?
Are you saying that in order not to be a multi-culti, you need to not care at all about anyone or persons suffering, or ideas, or principles, or behaviours, from any other culture, or genetic lineage, than your own, or whatever you define as your own 'culture'?
Lara
If Tanstaafl said he cares about the suffering of Palestinians, that is his personal choice. However, I somehow doubt that Tan puts their interests over his own as other Whites do with Blacks, Jews, and Latinos. I seriously doubt that Tan would advocate going to war for them or advocate bringing all of them here to the United States. You have to put things in perspective and not make a equivalence out of someone saying they support the Palestinians over saying they want an open border policy that allows millions of people to flood the United States every year. I’ll let Tan defend himself as I’m sure he will do a better job then me.
Now, as to a “definition” of A Multi-Culturalist; it is a person who sits around pondering day and night over every culture on the Earth. If White progress were to hinder even one American Indian then they would want to have years of committee meetings to discuss it. Most would likely flat our reject it and refuse to budge an inch. These people are detrimental to us and must be stopped. They must become the fringe, not us.
You said you want definitions and explanations. I believe we must keep it simple. So let me answer your question as to whether for example I care about minority interests. Here is my answer: Nope.
You see, I am in an advanced stage of White nationalism. This means simply that I have one concern politically. That is that my people (White and European civilization and people) make it out of the 21st century healthy and thriving. Not one concern trumps that. It is that simple. How minority groups make it out of the 21st century does not concern me. If things do not change, then Whites will be leaving the 21st century existing in enclaves besieged by our great multi-cult friends. If Whites wish to survive out of the 21st century then we must begin to become ethnocentric.
However this is achieved is acceptable to me. Whatever path, by any means necessary that will save my people I will accept and help advance.
Zog Nation, thanks for your comments. I agree wholeheartedly.
This sanctimony over definitions is familiar to any White who stands up for his own. Jews themselves argue incessantly over who they are and what's good for them. Anyone who wants to understand this can ask them. Read their books, their news, their blogs. Just be prepared for an odyssey that never ends.
Though Lara/Andrea and Rollory never put their finger on it, their anxiety seems to be triggered by the term "jew-free". It seems they're afraid this might mean something bad for themselves or someone they care for, someday in the hypothetical White nation I'd like to exist. The fact that Whites have it bad right now, everywhere in the world, is of less concern to them. It's a good example of putting jews on a pedastal.
Rollory writes:
I'd start off by excluding about 90% of the people currently calling themselves pro-white - heck, 90% of the white population, for that matter
Thanks for making that clear. It's not exclusion that makes you uncomfortable then, you just disagree about who to exclude. In the wider world, behind all the hysterical, pseudo-moralistic posing against "hate" and "racism", this is what's going on. It's cool to hate Whites. It's ok to express racism against Whites. It's perfectly normal to say "throw those White hater/racists in prison". Curiously enough "White" is never defined, and nobody ever hectors anti-Whites about that.
What Whites should realize, and most will eventually, is that the anti-White assholes creating these ideas are very, very broad about who they mean by "White hater/racists". According to the jew-operated, jew-friendly, judaized media (OMG, there he goes again, what in the world does "jew" mean?), having white skin and not voting for Obama, attending a tea party, or asking questions at a townhall meeting marks you as a "racist". This filters down to the masses as "every White is a hater/racist".
Wow, appears i stepping in a volatile ego landmine here? ;-) anyway...
However this is achieved is acceptable to me. Whatever path, by any means necessary that will save my people I will accept and help advance.
Does 'any means' include not assuming that anyone who wants to have a conversation with you to understand what your views are, can be impartial and sincerely interested?
Or are your ego's so sensitive, that you require blind obedience and conformity to your views (even from someone who is not even clear what those views are); but they are just supposed to guess and assume?
I am sincerely interested in your views; but please do not feel obliged to have to explain them to me. If you are not interested in winnig hearts and minds, or explaining and clarifying your views; and expect me to be psychic; thats okay. Say so.
I'm not. Generally I only encounter such oversensitive opposition to questions, when the person to whom i am asking the question, realizes that they ain't thought their idea through: they don't have a defintion, and don't have the balls to say so.
If you are serious about your 'white state'; I'd imagine at some point in time, you may wish to file some legal paperwork, kind of secession minded stuff.. to clarify who is eligible...
You may find quite a few people interested.. and even more so, if you are interested in conversing and answering their questions...
Anyway.. maybe the kind of white state you want is one where people don't ask questions; tahts okay too. If thats what you want. no worries. its not what i want.
Anyway.. if you don't want to answer my question, clarify what you mean.. it's a bit like Bill Clinton's definition of 'sex'... so I am a bit confused about what you mean by 'jews'. Let me know when you have a more firm definition and I'd be happy to draw a conclusion on your views or discuss further.
Regards
Lara
Step away from the JQ, for a second, and let's use a Japanese example. In "some" Japanese bath-houses "some" Europeans were busting up, usually in a drunken stupor, these reputable places of business. What is to be done? Must the Japanese owner ask what is meant by a European? Or which European? Is it drunken Europeans, short Europeans and/or fat Europeans? What resources are available and how much should be attributed to discover exactly who the culprits are? How often do the police need to be called and how much of taxpayers money is to be spent on addressing the issue? It goes on infinitely.
What do a sane people like the Japanese do to stop some rude, disrespectful, sometimes inebriated Europeans from smashing up their bath-houses?
They put out a sign. It says Japanese only. It's called freedom of association.
It's done in Israel as well.
Chinese guest workers are brought to Israel to do "jobs Israelis won't do". They must sign a contract that says they will not engage in sexual intercourse with any Jewish women, even prostitutes. Why? Well it's like the New York Syrian Jews said. No matter which way you define Gentile,"We don't want Gentile characteristics".
Europeans, Japanese, syrian jews ... it's all so confusing!!!
Domo arigato Tanstaafl san.
Japanese only signs.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=209_1215044810
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debito_Arudou
"Please acknowledge it although it is very sorry, because only one of Japanese is asking to do the entrance store in our shop although I asked to come it to this special KING MOU."
http://www.debito.org/misawaexclusions.html
"Let me in you horrible racists!"
And somehow it's "racists" that are portrayed as the psychopaths.
One question I attempt to put (to multiculturalists) is , if white countries are so irredeemably racist, why are you so anxious deliver an endless stream of non-white victims to them. Would you have encouraged Jews to emigrate to Germany from 1933 onwards?
(Not to endorse the holocaust, just to use the meme against them)
"And somehow it's "racists" that are portrayed as the psychopaths."
Well Tan, as they say ... "He who smelt it, DEALT IT."
PS - Remember another 'Andrea' a while back there Tan?
Seems as if the two have a lot in common.
Anon,
If your comment was to me, I haven't said white countries are irredeemably racist, at all.
I don't think white countries should have to take any immigrants, if the people don't want any; and if they do, then they should choose which they want.
I have supported a zero population growth policy for the world, and I support any country who wants a zero immigration policy.
See for example:
Why We Are White Refugees, or
Wake Up Whitey!,
At Moving Forward, Prozium talks about what white nationalists can do to get your message and discussion to a greater number of people.
I am sincerely here, to attempt to understand you; you can treat that with vigilance, cause I may be lying, but still with a type of vigilant dialogue respect; or you can simply do all you can to chase me away, assuming I have fuck all to offer, or to bring to the conversation.
If you do the latter, to anyone, who is enquiry minded, and is impartial to your message, ie does not think you are racists, but is curious about your ideas; how many converts do you think you will get?
How many enquiry minded and critical thinking minded converts are you interested in?
I was that anon and comment wasnt directed at you Andrea. Just a general point.
Ok, no worries.
Am not even going to bother with the comment of Anonymous at 08/28, cuase I don't know what they dont understand about:
I have never accused anyone of being a 'racist'; let alone a 'psycopath'.
And I have come across some people who have some very strange (as in different to the mainstream) ideas. I simply listened and asked questions, and agreed where I agreed, or agreed to disagree; and sometimes we have continued the conversation; and sometimes not.
I just don't see the point of accusing someone -- anyone -- of being a 'racist'; cause generally the accusation is one of disgust at anothers alleged feeligns of superiority. Well what is the accusation of 'racism', but a feeling of disgust at another, from a sense of self rightoues superiority. I'd rather be more specific and say, i think i am superior to you, in maths, or ethics, or blah blah, and you are superioor to me, in hockey and debating. Or similar. that is more useful, in terms of clear and continued conversation, for me.
I am aware that not many agree, and many prefer not to wrestle with ideas, but to take the easy road and accuse others of being 'racists'. Mike Smith has an excellent piece of such kind of thinking, at The Infinite Monkeys and Godwins Law.
Can I give a sense of humour break? ;-)
A Man After My Own Heart
Do yourself a favour and take a look.. its short and sweet and a spade of a spade, and made me laugh.
Why aren't you over there asking him what he means by "negro"?
Oh, have I bruised your ego?
Yes, if all you have to say, over and over again, are complaints that you haven't been spoon-fed what you want, then please do move along.
Feel free to come back after you've studied up some on what "jew" means.
Taanstafl,
Bruised my ego! Considering my neurological scientific perspective on the factual reality of ego; ie an actual decision maker in the brain! Thats funny!
As for 'complaints'; do you consider any question to be a complaint? Spoon fed assumes that I have any attachment to any preconceived notion about what you should mean by 'jews'. I don't. I couldn't care less what you mean, whether its jews who read the torah, or anyone whom you think smells like a jew, or anyone with any jew in thier family for the last 4 centuries, or whatever!
I don't CARE! I simply don't want to make assumptions about what you mean by 'JEWS'. I wanted to know what you meant. Whom did you consider to be 'a jew'? If you had a white state, how would you define 'a jew', in order to make sure they were not let in?
I had no judgements about that, was simply curious; thats all. And asked a question.
You could have answered, 'in this article, i meant a 'jew' as anyone who fits the following.....
And i would have answered, 'oh thanks, now I got a better idea.'
Instead you appear to have vaguely declared your official definiton of jew (if you have one), to be a state secret. Okay! Hey if that makes you happy, no worries!
Feel free to come back after you've studied up some on what "jew" means.
Hmmmm, you are obviously seriously interested in recruiting hearts and minds for the white nationalist movement, aren't you?
Anyway... to each his own. If htat makes you happy. No worries. Take care.
When you are interested in telling me what YOU mean by JEW. Then I will better understand what YOU MEAN.
So, I shall bid you the best in your journey, hope you find what you looking for. Take care.
Lara
PS: I don't hold grudges, so if you change your mind, feel free to let me know.
I can't fix stupid.
You've been informed that jews define what jew means. Go hector them about it instead of blaming me for not providing you what you want the way you want it.
Just stop typing and leave already.
Hmmmm, you are obviously seriously interested in recruiting hearts and minds for the white nationalist movement, aren't you?
I'm not interested in telling people what they want to hear in order to recruit them to anything.
That string of CAPS reflects some kind of emotion.
Can you read? My opinion is found in a blog full of posts. Stop behaving like a child, acting like I'm somehow morally obligated to package it up in personalized form for you. I wasted a bit of time trying to do so, you didn't like it, and you have chosen to ignore it.
You've repeated yourself enough already. Go away now.
"Are the "problem" Jews the Ashkenazi?
Why is it important?"
When you're getting ready to pull a trigger, you'd better be pointing at the target you intend to hit.
I'm amazed - really mind-boggled - that this doesn't seem be clear here. The choice of target isn't something THEY get to define. Whoever is running the white ethnostate gets to set the rules about who is and is not acceptable. Are you aiming for zero ingress from the rest of the planet? If not (and I claim that is flatly impossible - feudal Japan couldn't do it - but if you want to try, be my guest), then at some point you have to make the sort of decision I am talking about, you can't keep evading it.
Andrea:
"in the same way that I support Native Americans who wish to keep to their tribe, and want self rule, and don't want to be forced to be multi-culti freaks; I support any whites, or others, who want to do the same."
What's wrong with this statement? I see nothing wrong with it.
Zog:
"It must start with a love for your people "
It's a particular European nation, and I do. If they survive the next fifty years, good, otherwise I'll have to start my own nation. I can't be bothered for American rednecks who can't think their way around simple logical sequences.
"It takes this love for your people in order for you to want lead them out of this mess we are in."
I am not going to volunteer to lead anybody except my own family, and you aren't going to make me. Anybody who wants to follow me can take orders, but they don't get to argue. Don't want to follow me? Good, that keeps things simpler.
Taan:
"This sanctimony over definitions is familiar to any White who stands up for his own. Jews themselves argue incessantly over who they are and what's good for them."
You're starting to look full of bullshit.
I am not arguing about who they are and what's good for them. I am arguing about who YOU think they are and what ACTIONS you are going to take as a result of your views. Their views have absolutely no power over this question. Until you get that through your head and stop THINKING in thrall to them, the only thing you're shooting is your own feet.
The Japanese bathhouse example is actually the only substantive answer anywhere in this thread, but it still leaves the question of how you define someone as Jewish if they don't come out and claim it themselves. There were enough cases in WW2 where German soldiers would discover a Jewish grandparent or great-grandparent that they themselves hadn't known about and get into trouble because of it. Albright was raised not knowing her background. If something like that comes up, the reaction is to toss them out the door the moment it's found? How far back do you go looking? If someone like Benjamin Freedman is on your side, do you kick him out as thanks? These aren't questions that THEY get to decide. It's YOUR decision. Failure to decide is itself a decision. And don't try to claim I'm guilt tripping you here, it's not my guilt and it's not my problem.
"Though Lara/Andrea and Rollory never put their finger on it, their anxiety"
You're also paranoid. My anxiety, as you put it, has been triggered and overtriggered for years. I already have no country, it's been given away to the Muslims. What the hell does it matter to me whether I am allowed into whatever contraption you build or not?
"Curiously enough "White" is never defined, and nobody ever hectors anti-Whites about that."
And? This is my responsibility because?
You seem to have skipped right over the part where I DID start defining (not very specifically but y'all don't care) what I'd want in my country. I'm not the one failing to meet my own standards.
"You've been informed that jews define what jew means."
'Hi! The Jews say we're not Jews. Let us in.'
No, that won't work.
When you're done being a raging dumbass, let me know.
"I am arguing about who YOU think they are and what ACTIONS you are going to take as a result of your views."
Bullshit. It's way simple. All that's needed is to know who you include not who you exclude. The Japanese are fully aware of who is Japanese. Everyone else is excluded. Who cares who they are? All that is required is that the state legally support a desire to freely associate.
“Never accept a convert or a child born of a convert,” Kassin told me by phone, summarizing the message. “Push them away with strong hands from our community. Why? Because we don’t want gentile characteristics.” ...
“It’s really a matter of statistics,” [Rabbi Elie Abadie ] explained to me. “Except for the Orthodox, the American Jewish community is shrinking, disappearing. In two generations, most of their grandchildren won’t even be Jews. But our community is growing. We have large families, five or six children. And only a tiny fraction of our kids leave. The Edict is what makes that true.”
Abadie and Kassin agree that the vast majority of SY youth abide by the strictures of the Edict. “Ninety-nine percent accept it,” Kassin said. “When someone doesn’t, it’s painful, but it’s better to lose a kid here and there and save the community. Families get sick over it, sure, but that’s how it is.”
Kassin knows this from personal experience. His sister Anna ran off with a gentile. Naturally it was a great scandal in the community, but the chief rabbi didn’t bend the rules for his daughter. “We cut her off,” Jakie Kassin told me. “We didn’t see her for 25 years. But we never stopped hoping she’d come back. Finally, after all these years, she made contact. We told her she was welcome to come back, but not with her husband or kids. She’s not here yet, but we do talk on the telephone.”
In addition to the strictures imposed by the Edict in instances of proposed intermarriage, any outsider who wants to marry into a Syrian family — even a fellow Jew — is subject to thorough genealogical investigation. That means producing proof, going back at least three generations and attested to by an Orthodox rabbi, of the candidates’ kosher bona fides. This disqualifies the vast majority of American Jews, who have no such proof. “We won’t take them — not even if we go back three or four generations — if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi, because they don’t perform marriages according to Orthodox law,” Kassin said. Even Orthodox candidates are screened, to make sure there are no gentiles or converts lurking in the family tree. ...
The force of the Edict is lasting: the children of people who have been excluded under the terms of the Edict are themselves declared ineligible to marry into the community."
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/11/syrian-jews.html
Again, the Syrian Jews of Brooklyn don't care about who is excluded, they only care about who will be included.
Rollory - There were enough cases in WW2 where German soldiers would discover a Jewish grandparent or great-grandparent that they themselves hadn't known about and get into trouble because of it.
Thats ringing an alarm bell for me.
I pretty sure Ive read that the Nazi state was OK with people who were 1/4 Jewish or less if they were not religious and married to a German. Something along those lines. Someone who had been in the army, unaware of their Jewish background was not likely to have much trouble.
I think we are encouraged to believe that the Nazis were obsessive about racial purity, rather than more empirical about it.
If you have a problem with one-drop rules you could always take it up with the syrian jews.
Berkman uses a combination of self-identification and the "giving rule":
This list is by no means an exact science. But those who we considered Jewish were those who were of Jewish descent or those who openly identified as Jews either personally or in thier giving.
Genetic tests may not be exact, but they are at least science.
"Extant records of self-identification coupled with genetic testing would suffice to create an effective "jew-free" filter."
Ok. That's the answer I was looking for.
I personally think the likes of Richard Feynman are worth making exceptions for, and that a society that isn't robust enough to resist whatever negative influences may come along with the good has some bigger unmentioned problems, but like I said I'm not the one making the rules.
"Good test to determine who is really pro-White and who is not: What is their attitude toward White people who work blue-collar jobs, listen to Country and Western music, drive pickups and likely Christian"
I'm two generations removed from subsistence farming. We got out of that by hard work, applied brainpower, and saving pennies, and we haven't left it so far behind as to forget the meaning of hard work. I have listened to country music, a lot of it. It is STUPID music for STUPID people. It is also irretrievably corrupted with feminism. I will look down on whoever I damn well please.
so now the litmus test evolves from self-awareness to genetic markers. Those with jewish ancestry but no affiliation or affinity to it are disqualified by dna.
Bring on that one drop rule.
"Those with jewish ancestry but no affiliation or affinity to it are disqualified by dna."
Why do you care?
I don't.
"I personally think the likes of Richard Feynman are worth making exceptions for"
Nuh-uh. If Feynman, et.al., really are all that, the useful things they have to say can be mailed to us, correspondence-school-like. No need to support him as a highly-paid professor in a university built by, paid for by, and originally intended for, Whites.
"It is STUPID music for STUPID people. It is also irretrievably corrupted with feminism. I will look down on whoever I damn well please."
Since you bear contempt for lower-IQ Whites, you are not pro-White. You are not the friend of the White race.
As a matter of fact, many, many C&W listeners have an IQ of 100. C&W is very popular in Wyoming among the oil field workers and ranchers. Because the oil field is extremely dangerous, "stupid" people don't survive long, and so, no, there aren't many "stupid" oil field workers.
And, the blue-collar, C&W-loving workers, the roustabouts, the directional drillers (a very demanding, high IQ job, btw) the petroleum engineers, are exceedingly useful and needed by a technological civilization.
In fact, I'd take 10 directional drillers for your one Feynman.
"Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy" is feminized? Huh? No. It's just clever fun.
"The moral basis for many jews "
That's my point. In one statement you set scientific genetic markers as an acceptable "filter" to remove jews from your domain. Your jew-filter is intended for all non-white genetic markers as well (including the gay marker). In other statements you allude that jews are self-described and self-defined (ie, jewish-americans, their exclusive racist behavior, moral basis, right of return, victimology).
So any individual with for example a great-grand parent of non-white lineage (as YOU determine) that shows a genetic marker regardless of his loyalty to YOUR cause should be excluded due to racial purity issues. [You could always include them but require sterilization].
You've come a long way OF.
Hi Taan,
Get up with me when/if you can make some time. Would like to have you back in for a roundtable on some of the late goings-on to get your perspective.
-Dietrich (vor)
"regardless of his loyalty to YOUR cause"
How about being loyal to the cause of freedom? Why this great consternation about freedom of association? Do you fear exclusion? Why would you wish to asssociate with such evil? :)
Let me in your country you evil racist bastards. Too funny.
In one statement you set scientific genetic markers as an acceptable "filter" to remove jews from your domain. Your jew-filter is intended for all non-white genetic markers as well (including the gay marker).
Yes, I realize how blasphemous it is to propose the opposite of what we already have.
I haven't written anything about homosexuality. I find it instinctively repulsive, and don't like seeing it celebrated or promoted, but I'm comfortable that it regulates itself biologically. Ironically, making homosexuality "normal" relieves the pressure to reproduce and thus diminishes the genetic impetus for gayness.
So any individual with for example a great-grand parent of non-white lineage (as YOU determine) that shows a genetic marker regardless of his loyalty to YOUR cause should be excluded due to racial purity issues. [You could always include them but require sterilization].
Playing on fear of exclusion is a neat psychological trick. We're all taught to fear the "hater" who wants to come and single us out. We're taught to single out "haters". Exclusion itself isn't wrong, the moralizing simply hinges on who is excluding whom. The trick is in making White people believe any exclusion is wrong.
The trick loses its power entirely once you recognize that we live under a regime in which being born White and not constantly apologizing for it makes you a "hater" worthy of exclusion.
This is about group interests, not the interests of any one individual. The cause is not purity but the continued existence of the larger group to which I belong. My preference is for separation, not sterilization or extermination. I will move rather than fight. Judging by "White flight", a large number of my kind behave similarly. Most haven't thought very deeply or spoken out about why. Most would probably react very negatively to what I say. This isn't a mystery to me - the psychological tricks are only able to partially override our survival instincts.
Most non-Whites and a disturbing number of misguided Whites favor unlimited immigration and forced integration, which empirically amounts to genocide. As I've already pointed out, these genocidal desires currently rule. Separation, by any criteria whatsoever, is among the least radical reactions.
Here's an interesting comment from Half Sigma's blog post "Ivanka Trump, convert to Judaism":
--I am Jewish, and this whole "conversion" business has struck me as a bit obtuse, being that most Jews are very secular. I might enjoy Italian food, and Italian culture but I certainly can't convert to "being Italian". --Posted by: steve | October 26, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Look at the recent Nick Griffin debate. Look what our great friends did to him. The blood in their eyes was totally obvious. They hate us with a passion. Even ordinary British people recognized it. There is no sense of fairness with our enemies.
Were suppose to treat these people with respect and give consideration to their thoughts and ideas? We're suppose to hand wring about individuals when we are facing this kind of hatred?
No thanks. It has made me even more bold in my radical thinking.
Tan - you either missed the point or decided it wasnt worth discussing. Although Im anti-racist (again all kinds), voluntary segregation is an acceptable no brainer. As you well know, Im anti-forced integration (both the genocidal invasion and the government mandated versions).
However, my point was related to the prior postings badgering on "define jew" and a proposed genetic filter. What is the value of a genetic filter if the individual turns his back on his lineage and supports your movement? Do they just represent reasonable losses? You are prepared to turn your back on people of questionable lineage?
(all rhetorical)
"Do they just represent reasonable losses?"
No, because "voluntary segregation is an acceptable no brainer."
How are these two principles held in concert? Exclusion is evil but an acceptable no brainer?.
you either missed the point or decided it wasnt worth discussing
I thought I did address your point. But let me try again.
First of all, how many drops it takes is moot if you consider segregation by counting drops immoral, unethical, or otherwise unacceptable.
Your point, setting this mootness aside, is that if I fall short of whatever line is drawn I'm thereby lost. The presumption is that there is only one place with one line, and that somehow, if I'm doomed to remain on the non-White side, that everyone, including Whites and most importantly me, would be worse off than we are now.
This is the implicitly pro-White presumption encapsulated by "Let me in your country you evil racist bastards." Even literal anti-racists like yourself presume that living amongst Whites is good and living amongst non-Whites is bad.
Focusing on where the line might or should be is a scare tactic, a trick, to keep Whites from drawing any lines at all.
As my response to "Why do you care?" was "I Don't", it should be clear that I dont assume the white side is better than the non-white side of the line. What I have been stressing is that once you move from a belief structure to a genetic purist structure there will be many "casualties" who believe in the movement but will be cast out on the basis of lineage they have no affinity or affilitiation to.
With the amount of genetic material shared over the generations, along with the predictable in-fighting within the new ethno-state from further "purists" (ie, aryans, anglo-saxons and the like), genetic testing will create far more problems than value.
It is thought provoking.
Anon - "voluntary" and "forced"
Are you suggesting they are equally acceptable or heinous?
Not sure what happened to the first comment but to reiterate, why do you erect bogeymen and barriers to free association? Why deny people, who desire to voluntarily associate the opportunity to do so?
Voluntary:
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : self-determining
3 : done by design or intention : intentional [voluntary manslaughter]
4 : of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will [voluntary behavior]
5 : having power of free choice
6 : provided or supported by voluntary action [a voluntary organization]
7 : acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation
Voluntary equals freedom however, for some, as yet unexplained reason, you wish to restrict free association by legal obligation. The only force being applied is forced integration. Whether Boston or the South integration was mandated and implemented by state coercion, either in court or at the point of a gun.
Anon-
"voluntary segregation is an acceptable no brainer"
If you choose to move and live among people of like race, creed, etc. the government should have no say in this. Unlike the current government-sanctioned forced integration (ie, your neighborhood is too white) of which there are many examples in the past and current. Hypocrisy abounds since I dont see the government forcing whites into non-white-dominated neighborhoods (unless you count eminent domain).
I re-read your posting and see I misread. You referred to "acceptable losses" in the pair. These are very different, one allows you to move voluntarily, the other forcibly restricts others from moving in.
If you dont like how your neighborhood is "changing" you can always move.
If you want a taste of "filtering" try moving into some of the exclusive jewish neighborhoods in New York. [exclusive meaning exclusively jewish]
"one allows you to move voluntarily, the other forcibly restricts others from moving in."
Where's the force? Two or more parties voluntarily engage in a contract that says you will not sell to B. The only time force comes into play is if state coercion is used to deny the legality of the voluntary transaction. It's a simple no I don't want to do business with you for a reason(s) or no reason at all.
Moving is not a solution because the freedom to voluntarily associate is denied by the state.
De facto segregation, as is obvious in almost any community in the US, is a "natural" state of affairs. So if you're not a Muslim, why would you want to live with Muslims? Why would you oppose de jure freedom of association unless there is some other agenda?
Still, you refuse to answer the question. Why do you deny the freedom of voluntary interaction?
"If you dont like how your neighborhood is "changing" you can always move."
Wow. Isn't this a kindly, generous, helpful piece of advice.
So what about those honest White families who saved for years to get a down payment to purchase a house in a good neighborhood with nice neighbors where their kids can grow up happily, attend the neighborhood schools, meet other nice kids for friends and play in the neighborhood parks? So what if they lose their life savings because the "neighborhood is changing, so they should just move"?
So what about them? They're just the White middle class that's being race-replacement genocided right out of existence.
Anon - where do I deny you the ability to "voluntary interact"? You want to control not only your property but the properties in your vicinity as well.
"Two or more parties voluntarily engage in a contract that says you will not sell to B." Unfortunately, if you are stupid enough to refer to "B" in racial, religious, gender and now sexual preference terms - you violate (or will violate) federal law.
If de facto segregation is natural, why are you finding it difficult to find a place to "voluntarily interact"?
Are they the same honest white families that vote for the same idiots to represent them or better yet dont have the "time" to research and go to the polls? Or the ones that buy into the multi-cult death of America and don't understand why half their kid's class is made up of ESL students? Or maybe the same ones' who go to church on Sunday and give money to the pastor to help sudanese refugees move to Minnesota?
As you fight to keep the black guy from buying the house across the street he CAN afford, or the half-jew from inheriting their uncle's house all in the name of the honest white family, you really just turn your back on the problem in the hope of a white ethnostate that has what chance of happening?
Clearly there is a desire to limit freedom. The concern for the wealthy AA and half Jew is greater than the concern for lost freedom. It is not control that is desired but the freedom to engage in contractual arrangements without state coercion. Currently, control of the property is reserved by the state by its denial of voluntary exchange, as you point out.Thus it is impossible for freedom of association to exist because i violates federal law. Voluntary interaction is denied by the state.
To whom will these well researched, politically astute people give their vote? Who offers to re-establish the freedoms that are lost?
What hope is there for the white family after their neighborhood goes black?
http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
Remembering Chris & Channon
Anon-
By my best estimation the contractual arrangement you seek goes well beyond the "voluntary interaction" you call for. You are looking for a binding contract for your property's sale, rental and/or conveyance that restricts the persons eligible to contract with during and after your lifetime. You would also like to see the "like-minded" be able to engage in the same contract for adjoining properties (infinitum or at least within a political and/or school district).
One man's freedom is another man's chains.
Comment moderation?
Some unhappy visitors?
Usually I moderate only the older posts, to prevent spam.
I turn moderation on for all comments occasionally when I'm having issues with people who have been asked not to comment here.
This post has hit the age limit.
The assertion is incorrect. Each time the contract is renewed, it is done so voluntarily. No one is chained and forced to enter a contract against their will. If the desire is to live with half-Jews and African Americans please do so. It is a choice that is made voluntarily, not coerced by the state. However, for some unexplained reason, it appears you abide a seething hatred of free association or maybe it's simply a seething hatred of whites who wish to associate freely.
In any case, the last word is yours.
So the like minded will convey property to the like minded - voluntary segregation.
You want individuals to waive their "freedom" by binding them contractually.
Post a Comment
<< Home