Some Comments Over at Roissy's

Update: 2009-04-29: 2nd update

I've actually done a bunch more posts (16+) on the second thread mentioned below. And they involve a lot of interaction with some other posters, including a typical Jewish, bad-faith douchebag. Head on over to Roissy's and check it out! I'm probably gonna be too lazy to copy all of these over to this post when you all can just read it all in context. That'll leave more time to finish up my giant post on subverting the MSM I hope to publish within a day or two.

Update: 2009-04-29

I've followed Latte Island's suggestion to copy the comments here as a courtesy. There are some very thoughtful commenters over at Roissy's though, so you might want to check them out in their full context, as well as some other commenters running other conversations that are interesting.

Original post with some editing

I've posted a number of somewhat long comments on two of Roissy's recent posts, discussing topics like Jews, Blacks, Whites, "civil society", immigration, etc.

The first thread discusses immigration and the demographic transformation of California.

First Thread: Text Message Of Dire Portent

First Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Second Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Third Comment	Local Copy of Comment

In the second thread I make much longer comments covering a variety of topics.

Second Thread: Sobering Thought of the Day

First Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Second Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Third Comment	Local Copy of Comment
Forth Comment	Local Copy of Comment

Roissy and some of his commenters are sharp and have interesting things to say.

If I make some more comments later, I'll add more links above. You all can also just jump to the thread and search for my handle, or you certainly might like reading over other folks comments as well.

I'm also working on a long post (and have been for a while) on ideas for subverting and replacing the mainstream media. I hope to have it finished in a day or two.

I'm curious whether folks like my giant posts, which I hope are somewhat logically coherent in covering a subject, or whether you all would like me to break them up into smaller chunks, perhaps with a "table of contents" post for a set of them. I'm not sure if they're so long, it gets to be a trial to read the whole thing.

Thread 1: Comment 1

Yeah, but how old are you G?

Are you over 45?

Thread 1: Comment 2

Well said Lucius.

To detail the implications of my question to G, California has radically changed demographically over the last 60 years, particularly since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

You can view the historical ethnic demographics for the US, including California at the US Census Bureau in Excel or PDF files.

The results for California (through 1990) indicate:

Year	%White	%Black	% non-Hispanic White
1940	95.50	1.8	89.49
1950	93.66	4.4	N/A
1960	91.97	5.6	N/A
1970	89.01	7.0	N/A but 76.27 from 15% sample, 78.00 from 5% sample
1980	76.18	7.7	66.60
1990	68.97	7.4	57.22
2006	59.8	6.2	43

The last line comes from the 2006 ACS Estimates according to Wikipedia.

So there have been large and rapid changes to ethnic demographics in California (no surprise).

Our traitorous elites would like to Californicate the rest of the country the same way if they can get away with it.

We shouldn’t let them.

Thread 1: Comment 3

@G

My point was that if you were a young man, you wouldn’t have been alive to witness the full scope of the demographic changes in California. You’ve only witnessed the latest incremental step in our out-of-control immigration, which might not look that radical if seen from the perspective of, say, ten years (although I’ve actually seen many natives report how much worse it has gotten over the last 10 years.

Thread 2: Comment 1

Obsidian said:

Voodude makes a powerful point that I’ve been thinking about for awhile now-why are people, who don’t live among or even near such “others” spend so much time thinking, writing, ruminating about said “others”? I mean, its pretty clear that Roissy and others, take great care not to rub elbows w/NAMs in any major way, if at all.

So…wassup with that?

To answer your point about rubbing elbows with NAMs, our "civil rights" laws deny the historic right of free association, so it is both illegal and abhorred by our "civil society" for a group of Whites to segregate themselves away (it's kosher for Jews though). As the country becomes more non-White, it will become more difficult to escape the third worlding of this country unless you have wealth or power. The old White ethnic neighborhoods of yesteryear that provided community and safety for non-elites are now a forbidden dream.

So why think about these issues? Because we're rationally analyzing the future of this country based on current trends and don't like what we see.

We already have plenty of evidence in from many areas of the country, like California, Florida, Arizona, New York, with the following results: wire-pulling-elites-living-in-gated-communities-with-lots-of-wealth? life is goooood! middle-and-working-class? life is not so goooood!

I personally get along well with foreigners and have always been interested in foreign cultures, languages and peoples. But in the same way that I respect those other groups and countries and don't think globalism should level all countries into controlled consumer cattle, or that the US should be imperialistically dictating to them, I respect my own nation and people and don't want to see it heavily colonized and transformed into something alien, particularly since this has been engineered very dishonestly. It's now "racist" to speak out against the transformation, while in 1965 it was promised that no such transformation would occur, in order to pass the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Likewise with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 where a "one-time" amnesty would be granted in exchange for future immigration control and border enforcement. They've lied through their teeth every time and deserve no more trust or credibility.

An example of what our elites have planned for us comes from america2050.org which is sponsored by some left wing foundations, global corporations and the Jewish J.M. Kaplan Fund.

Here's a quote:

America 2050 is a national initiative to meet the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as we prepare to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050.

America 2050 is guided by the National Committee for America 2050, a coalition of regional planners, scholars, and policy-makers to develop a framework for the nation's future growth that considers trends such as:

* Rapid population growth and demographic change
* Global climate change
* The rise in foreign trade
* Sprawling and inefficient land use patterns
* Uneven and inequitable growth within and between regions
* Infrastructure systems that are reaching capacity
* The emergence of megaregions

Look at the passion the Jewish J.M. Kaplan Fund has for "Migrations":

The Fund aims to support: a) comprehensive immigration policy reform for the United States; and b) the integration of immigrants into local and national communities. The former aim is pursued through grants for public education and advocacy. The latter is pursued by efforts, initiated by the Fund, to: bolster local immigrant-friendly policies and programs; highlight immigrant contributions to the commonweal; and establish, with the Migration Policy Institute, a new award – the E Pluribus Unum Prize – intended to honor government agencies, non-profit organizations, businesses, and individuals who have succeded in integrating recent immigrants and adding value to the larger community.

I wonder if the Kaplan family support the same policies for Israel that they do for the US? We've got plenty of third world non-Jews we could ship off to Israel so they too can enjoy the magically enriching benefits of diversity (Our Greatest Strength! TM) and marginalization within their own land.

Thread 2: Comment 2

Obsidian,

Thanks for your courteous reply. Let me answer your questions in two posts. Here's part one.

I'd be interested in hearing your ideas and opinions about the content of my posts.

I'm also curious if you believe our "civil society" is anti-White or not (e.g. Hollywood, mainstream media, academia, K12 education, government, etc)

Let me answer your second question first. Freedom of association is being denied to Whites when they can't create and participate in ethnocentric organizations, either legally or through social sanction. For example, the typical university has dozens of ethnic organizations catering to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews (as an ethnic group) and so on, but if Whites even establish non-racial organizations like Youth for Western Civilization, they are excoriated and shunned as racists and get their own $PLC bulletins. Again, this is NOT a White group, but they are effectively treated as if they were and considered beyond the pale.

So if Whites tried to establish White Engineers, White Student Association, White Lawyers, etc, they would be condemned as bigoted Nazis and their future career prospects harmed. Such are the blatant double standards governing our "civil society". Another example, in the House of Representatives, the Congressional Black Caucus has refused to seat White representatives who represent majority Black districts. Can you imagine our "civil society" approving of remotely similar behavior for any White group (such White groups aren't even allowed right now, meaning, they are technically legal, but anyone participating in an explicitly White ethnocentric organization is outcast as a racist Nazi, particularly by Jews, who have TONS of rabidly ethnocentric organziations for themselves)?

Another facet to traditional freedom of association was the ability of neighborhoods to legally control their ethnic or racial composition. This was overturned in the 1960s and unscrupulous real estate moguls used these legal tools to destroy ethnic neighborhoods, while making handsome profits and ensuring a constant supply of new customers with Whites continually being pushed to new, temporarily safe, expensive areas. In many cases remaining Whites and their children would suffer violence as the neighborhoods deteriorated. Detroit is a classic, if extreme, example. "White flight" was really ethnic cleansing against Whites in many cases.

You yourself have discussed the violent nature of Black urban areas in previous posts. Frankly many Whites want nothing to do with such environments. If a certain subgroup of Blacks prefer a thuggish and violent lifestyle, I'm OK with them pursuing such a life within their own spaces, but Whites, particularly non-elite, non-wealthy, Whites should also be allowed to pursue a healthy, safe environment for themselves and their families and defend their own spaces against violent aggression.

The next facet of your point revolves around the replacement for traditional freedom of association by the new implicit freedom based on wealth. So wealthy people can escape to nice areas filled with nicer people (excepting the recent trend toward Section 8 housing that intermixes some of the thuggish subclasses into areas they otherwise couldn't afford, although they normally target the middle class and not the rich). California now has many gated communities for just this purpose, analogous to long standing Latin American patterns for separating the classes. These were unnecessary before our recent "enrichment" by diversity.

So you are correct that since a larger number of Blacks are less wealthy, they are more limited in where they may live. It's not a legal restriction but an economic restriction that statistically affects Blacks more than most other populations.

One reason Blacks have a bad reputation as a group is their tolerance and coddling of the thuggish subclass responsible for so much crime and violence. Most Black leadership defends and excuses their bad behavior instead of properly condemning it. I also believe a disturbing portion of the non-thuggish Black majority shares this attitude and sympathizes with them, at least when they're sticking it to Whitey. Given all the anti-White propaganda coursing through our popular culture, educational system and so on, it's not too surprising that so many Blacks have a lot of anti-White hostility.

Thread 2: Comment 3

Obsidian,

Here's part two dealing with your first question.

The "short" answer for why Jews have both historically and currently are pushing so hard for third world immigration into America is that they consider this in their group interests. Professor Kevin MacDonald has documented in great detail in three books written during the 1990s. They benefit while displacing their traditional competitors, Whites, who they distrust as potential Nazis. This is demonstrated by a notorious quote by Jewish activist Earl Raab, from Chapter 7 of "Culture of Critique"):

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
(Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 1993 February 19, 23)

They are benefiting by displacing the traditional WASP leadership of the country while they fit in as "White" even though they have a great deal of hostility for the traditional population, which is frequently masked euphemistically as contempt for "flyover country". Many Jewish commentators including David Gelernter, Ben Stein and Michael Medved have discussed this.

An example of very disproportionally Jewish representation is their enrollment in top-tier universities, which then provide the most prestigious manpower for other elite institutions in government, media, academia, business, Wall Street, etc.

Look at the numbers of Jews attending various elite universities: THAT'S DISPROPORTIONATE! Where's the liberal and diversicrat outrage for 2% of the population taking 38% of Northwestern, 33% of Washington University (St. Louis), 30% of Yale, 28% of the University of Pennsylvania, 25.5% of Harvard, 25% of Brown, Columbia and Cornell, 21% of NYU, 18.3% of Michigan, etc? (NOTE: these are all outstanding schools and nearly all outstanding schools have way more than 2% Jews: do your own search: e.g. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is about 10% Jewish as is UC Berkeley: Those are large campuses that are 5 times disproportionate). Since Jews are categorized as White it turns out that (non-Jewish) Whites are strongly underrepresented at many elite universities, if we want to follow the affirmative action bean counting so sacred to our "civil society".

Of course, since Ashkenazi (European) Jews have an average IQ of around 110, it is to be expected that they will be somewhat overrepresented among the intellectual elites, but part of their disproportion also comes from ethnocentrism. For example, several years ago a study was done analyzing the citations of scientific papers and they discovered that Jewish authors tended to disproportionally cite other Jews and cite them more heavily, which could enhance their careers, since a major metric of academic success was how frequently your publications were cited.

Historically Jews across the broad spectrum of beliefs and organizations were nearly universally supportive of scrapping the traditional immigration restrictions, like the national origin quota, while in modern times, it is still extremely popular, but some dissenters have appeared, mostly because they fear the impact of Muslim immigration.

If not for the Jewish activism in promoting these policies, it never would've happened as thoroughly documented by Kevin MacDonald in his The Culture of Critique with Chapter 7 focusing on their role in overturning the national origin quota in 1965.

An excellent source for further exploring these issues is The Occidental Observer which contains many articles with copious links to additional sources of information. A basic philosophy of this site is that Whites should organize and behave ethnocentrically just as much as other groups, like Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Jews, are allowed and encouraged too.

Our civil society is now explicitly rejecting the color-blind society. For example, consider the many publically funded institutes at universities staffed by taxpayer-funded academics, like The Kirwan Institute.

Here's a full quote for context with particularly interesting parts in bold:

For some time now, the push for colorblind discourses, policies and practices around race and ethnicity in the United States has become more and more pronounced. Some justify this push with reference to the mistaken belief that nowadays racial identity has only marginal effects on a person's or group’s social interactions or access to social and economic opportunity. Some advocates for colorblindness go further: more than superfluous, they say, race talk of any kind is inherently divisive and pernicious.

At Kirwan, we agree that all too often implicit and explicit race talk has indeed been used to divide and alienate. At the same time, we believe colorblindness, though sometimes urged by people and organizations with the best intentions, is a mistake—one with profound consequences. The critical question is not whether to use race, but how to talk about race in a variety of contexts. That question is an empirical one we engage in through a number of projects. In some cases we specifically examine how people talk about race and how such conversations impact their behavior. In other work we look at how issue "frames" operate. And in still other projects we look at the efficacy of using class-based or universal policy approaches to racial matters.

In the Diversity Advancement Project, for example, the Institute is collaborating with the Center for Social Inclusion to develop strategies to increase public support for racial, ethnic and gender diversity in our public and private institutions. Our project on Democratic Merit aims to push colleges and universities toward greater investment in those communities and students whose success is needed to enhance the health and strength of our multiracial democracy. And in our projects on African American-Immigrant coalition building, we work to understand the conditions and contexts that facilitate constructive, institutionalized relationships across lines of race and nativity, and those that tend to undermine or preclude such relationships.

It is impossible to quickly summarize all of this work, much of it ongoing. What we can say is that context, audience, and environment all matter in determining how best to promote racial justice. We can also say that, drawing on our own efforts and those of numerous colleagues and experts, we expect to make steady progress toward agreement on how the findings of this growing field can usefully shape our collective social justice advocacy and activist practice.

Note that brazen advocacy and politics is pursued at an academic institution funded with public money and this is only one of many. Here's another one that also lists further such scams.

Of course for all their happy academic talk about "context", their idea of fairness and balance is Whiteness Studies, which is a direct attack on Whites, our identity, history, traditions and peoplehood, in constrast to EVERY other ethnic studies, which openly advocate for their ethnic group.

Consider one of the flagships of the Whiteness Studies movement, racetraitor.org:

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

The editors publish things in RACE TRAITOR because they think that publishing them will help build a community of readers. Editorial opinions are expressed in editorials and unsigned replies to letters.

Yeah, right. "White trash" shares a more exalted status than Oprah, Chris Rock, Michael Jordon, Colin Powell or Barack Obama.

I don't see these academics ferociously calling on anyone to smash the Black race, which they would do if they were logically consistent. Likewise, Jews are much more successful than Whites (and, by transitivity, vastly more so than Blacks), yet I don't see any of them trying to deconstruct Jewishness or dismantle Jewish privilege.

F*** them and their double standards and hypocrisy.

Kevin MacDonald documents how substantial Jewish influence was mostly responsible for these "cultures of critique" (of Whites).

Thread 2: Comment 4

@chicnoir

You're correct that such national-origin organizations are permissible. But most American Whites have ancestors from many different European countries. Many government and corporate forms, including for new jobs, ask me if I'm "white", not of Irish or German descent. And since White people are demonized by Hollywood and our media and legally discriminated against by our government, this only strengthens our pan-European identity as Whites.

Some Jews argue that the Palestinian people don't really exist because they supposedly don't have a historic existence. Well, given their treatment over the last 120 years by Zionists, even if they didn't really exist two centuries ago, they sure do now.

The existence of White identity is much, much older than the anti-White leftists claim, as discussed in the comments on this thread. A few more comments down from this one, I give some excerpts and some google book searches anyone can run to see some proof.

If the pan-African Black identity is "celebrated", then White should be too.

Likewise given a Jewish identity encompassing Mizrahis, Ashkenazis, athiests, Buddhists (still considered Jews) and the full spectrum of Jewish religious belief from Reconstructionist to Haredi Jews.

Likewise for creating a synthetic "Asian" identity for American consumption. In Asia, they consider themselves Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc, first, second and third over pan-Asian.

The key insight that killed my lifelong belief in the color-blind society was that the left, as it takes over our "civil society", is motivated by hatred of Whites instead of love of non-Whites, and this is reflected in the increasing anti-White policies, rhetoric and ideology. The color-blind rhetoric was just a tool to dispossess Whites of their traditional society and as we are marginalized, ethnic politics will likely rule the day and Whites will be a hated scapegoat class, similar to the kulaks genocided in the millions by Stalinist Jews in the 1930s.

Illegal Alien Amnesty: The Last Straw

The New York Times is reporting that Obama wants to legalize the current hoard of illegals in this country by pushing legislation through Congress this fall. Naturally, they're promising to enforce the border and require employers to check that new employees are legal. Gee that sounds familiar... Oh yeah, they promised they'd do both of these things to pass the "one-time" amnesty in 1986.

How well did that turn out again?

Of course, they followed this "one time" amnesty with a whole sequence of one-off amnesties, 500,000, here, a million, there, with NO ENFORCEMENT except a few token scraps on occasion for the cameras. Here's more history.

When selling IRCA in 1986, they claimed there were around one million illegals, but they ended up legalizing 2.7 million at that time AND another 400,000 in a subsequent amnesty in 2000 for those who complained they were improperly excluded from the 1986 amnesty. How many of these 3.1 million have used family unification to legalize additional millions of immigrants? This time Obama is throwing around the ridiculous 12 million illegal figure that hasn't changed for years, even though the actual number is likely at least twenty million and perhaps even over 30 million.

The pack of lies continues.

I think this amnesty would be the last straw.

If amnesty passes, the last shred of legitimacy in the federal government will finally snap. The Constitution is essentially dead letter with activist judges, bureaucrats, legal scholars and activists evicerating the traditional understanding of objective law by bending it to their will using postmodern sophistry like Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

We have the illusion of continuing our historic Republic, but, in actuality, a critical core has been replaced by elite betrayal, Cultural Marxism, non-White supremacism, particularly Black and Jewish, corporatism, corruption and raw anti-White ethnic politics, which all act against non-elite Whites and our descendants.

The system is seriously broken and there doesn't seem much chance is reforming it.

As I've partially discussed in past posts and intend to discuss in the future, the US has become structurally anti-White in all the major institutions of "civil society" (media, Hollywood, advertising, K12 education, academia, law, corporations, government, wealthy foundations, organized religion, etc). Immigrants with no history in this country immediately benefit from affirmative action that explicitly discriminates against Whites. As an added bonus, Whites get to subsidize their displacement by non-White aliens through high taxes. But this isn't good enough for the White-hating leftists pushing for even more anti-White hatred, vilification and discrimination. The lower we fall, the more they want to kick us in the head, stomach and family jewels. It is staggering how much more overt and vicious anti-White hatred has become over the last twenty-five years. If we don't start fighting back, it will get a lot worse.

If amnesty passes, we need to stop supporting the current regime, and strategize how we can intelligently perform mass civil disobedience and weaken its perceived legitimacy. Regardless of the result of the push for amnesty, we need to begin seriously subverting the institutions that are destroying this country and colonizing it with armies of aliens. Concomitantly, we must be build a wide constellation of alternative groups and organizations that can wean both our average and elite citizens away from the pernicious control mechanisms used to turn them against their interests (media, Hollywood, K12 education, universities, corporations, etc), or at least give a significant fraction the awareness and tools for resisting much of that control.

It is critical that we have many different, independent movements and organizations that cover a broad spectrum of beliefs. Obsessing about ideological purity hurts our broader cause. We need to build bridges to our misguided kin and sympathetic non-Whites. Likewise, we need to defend the rights of our more extreme brethren and encourage others to genuinely try to understand their perspective. We must break the leftist and Jewish (see Neocons and Lawrence Auster) strategem of manipulating Whites into condemning those further to their right. More on this later.

When I say "this country", I mean what really matters: our traditional population and its culture, history, values and character that make us distinctive, not some abstract, universal ideology making us easy pickings for our elite overlords, particularly the Jewish ones, who advocate diametrically opposed policies for Israel. An outrage of modern America is that our healthy patriotism has been harnessed by our enemies to manipulate many Whites into supporting causes directly against their interests, like Neocon imperialism, American exceptionalism hubris, proposition nation ideology, anti-White discrimination, among others.

I plan to discuss relations between non-elite Whites and other groups, like elite Whites, Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and so on in more detail later, as well as the fact that we must try to understand why some Whites have been co-opted to anti-White activism. One critical point: we must try to understand how they see the world, why they think their policies are highly moral and we must provide intellectually and morally persuasive arguments to rebut their strongest arguments while explaining our vision effectively.

One example of an anti-White institution is the Roman Catholic Church, which, for the last few decades, has relentlessly pushed open borders, propagandized its parishioners and transferred massive wealth from White members to illegal aliens and refugees, among others. A lot of Catholics aren't happy about this and some have voted with their feet by leaving the Church. A more constructive response is to start organizing, speaking out and talking with little old Catholic ladies, who normally leave lots of money to the Church, to educate them on how the Church has betrayed this country, its citizens and the Church's legacy. This isn't the Church of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen or Father Charles Coughlin. The Church would likely "rediscover its patriotism" if Whitey stopped paying the bills, or at least it might split into traditionalist versus social justice factions. Some rural parishes aren't getting the wall-to-wall indoctrination like the urban ones, so if they had more awareness of the problem, they could apply more pressure. Another approach is to pursuade millions of Catholics to convert to various Orthodox faiths that aren't agitating for the destruction of our country and people. A good chunk of illegal alien Hispanics go to church just to get free goodies and won't be contributing all that much to the Church's wealth in the future.

Similar efforts should be made in other churches fed up with the leftists gutting or inverting traditional beliefs in favor of "social justice". And the traditionalist dissenters shouldn't slink out quietly, but forcefully litigate to receive their fair share of church assets and property if the leftists don't want to share equitably.

Likewise for the rest of our "civil society" institutions now in thrall to evil or corrupt elites. More on this later.

The decline also reflects the cultural and moral decline of our mass population over the last half century. If we create alternatives to our current "civil society" institutions, we can reverse this decline, at least for a portion of our population.

If amnesty passes, I think the best we can likely hope for will be to break this country up into pieces, leaving those parts heavily populated by SWPLs, aliens, Jews and thuggish minorities the freedom to create their multicultural utopia, attempt to continue the American Empire for Israel and rabidly promote gay marriage, group marriage, child marriage, animal marriage, and whatever else they claim are inalienable human rights that are intuitively obvious to everyone decent. Whatever dudes. Nice knowin' ya.

To be clear I believe there is a small but important subset of certain minorities that is thuggish. A major modern corruption is that the ethnic leadership and a disturbingly large portion of the average folks within those minorities defend and excuse the thugs' atrocious behavior instead of anathamatizing it like Whites do for their own much smaller population of thugs. It's an important piece of evidence that they're behaving very ethnocentrically and we'd better behave likewise.

The more traditional parts of America can create a new and improved Constitution(s) that try to fix the fatal flaws of our current one and have more cohesive populations. By breaking up the country, we'll allow regional diversity where San Francisco can really step on the gas pursuing their philosophy to its logical conclusions without any concern for the "prudes" in Oklahoma. More power to 'em. I think it would be highly instructive for the survivors.

Roughly speaking we would break between the red states and the blue states, although there is no reason to preserve existing state boundaries, when many states have polarized subregions. There would be complications in handling a variety a urban areas, like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and so on, but in some cases they could have a good chunk of their metropolitian statistical areas and some countryside for additional growth while in others they might contain a much broader local region. The predominant population and values of the local community could determine the choices. I would anticipate some migrations between different regions by people wanting to live in an environment friendly to their values, culture, ethnic group or other interests.

There are many ways to partition the country and different approaches to how they would interrelate or not. To list just a few possibilities:

• Articles of Conferation style weak central government with more powers devolved to the states, including some states banding together to enforce common secured borders


• Breakup into several smaller independent countries, from two or three to twenty or thirty


• Varying levels of cooperation between countries, e.g. economies, transportation, R&D, etc.


• Different countries could have different Constitutions and follow different values and policies.
  
  For example, some could be ethnic nations, while others could be multiracial. The ethnic nations probably wouldn't be 100% pure, so much as overwhelming controlled by one ethnic group, and preferring to remain that way through strong control of the border and interior.


• Some ethnic states may choose to limit Jews so their own population could lead and develop its own culture and institutions without being displaced by this high-performance, highly ethnocentric elite, just like Black nationalist states would likely choose to limit the role of Whites so Blacks would occupy most of the leadership and elite positions. Other states would likely be dominated by Jews as the elites or crypto-elites, so they would still have plenty of places to flourish.


• Many details would need to be negotiated to disentangle existing commitments and allowing reasonably efficient transportation (this is secondary to sovereignty though)

There are many ideas related to breaking the US into more manageable parts and the notion is gaining momentum. It may also be possible to accomplish the division in a fairly civilized manner. Some models for the subsequent inter-American relationships would be the traditional American-Canadian relationship or the pre-EU modern Europe, where national borders were enforced but substantial interaction and trade still flourished. For this to become a reality, there must be many people exploring and developing many concrete ideas that can then be promoted among various segments of our population. More on this later.

Most Americans did not sign up for this highly risky social experiment that involves massively colonizing our country with low social capital or incompatible aliens. And frankly, even if some of the immigrants are great people with high abilities, like some Asians and even Africans (I know some professional Igbo that are impressive, including having very high marriage rates), why should our homelands be colonized, while their homelands remain ethnic strongholds. The con game is that pretty much ONLY Whites are being colonized.

If the elites think it's such a great idea, why don't we partition the country and try the experiment for fifty or one hundred years in perhaps 30% to 40% of the country and assess the results before committing the entire country. This is simple risk management.

Even worse, pretty much every White homeland in the world is simultaneously engaging in the same risky, essentially irreversible experiment. Whites need to wake up and take back at least a portion of our homelands for ourselves and our descendants. Sure, some Whites are culturally and racially suicidal. That's their right. But it's time the rest of us escape their insane gamble that will likely fail spectacularly with dire results for our people, forever.

Anti-White Bias: University Scholarships

This post supplements: Debunking "One Million White Ethnic Scholarships ..." by Chris de Morsella

Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and other non-Whites receive many racially-oriented scholarships without stigma. Searching for "Black Scholarships" or "African American Scholarships" yields many sites that provide real scholarships or tell how to get them. The same is true for "Hispanic Scholarships", "Asian Scholarships" and "Jewish Scholarships". Look at the huge list of large corporate donors for just one source of Hispanic scholarships (here's a separate large source).

Yet searching for "White Scholarships" or "Caucasian Scholarships" yields very few hits for getting scholarships. Many of the hits are people questioning whether any exist and how to get them if they do exist. Other hits are for scholarships where the family name "White" is part of the scholarship's name, like "Wayne F. White Scholarships". The first and only link on the first page discusses White scholarships as pretty much being limited to some scholarships for Whites to attend public Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBSUs) that want to increase diversity for legal reasons since they're overwhelmingly Black.

The second results page contained another link listing a few actual White scholarships which I analyzed in detail in my previous post. As I discussed in my previous post, almost no White racial scholarships exist while the ethnic White scholarships that do exist are NOT racial scholarships but only require ethnic ancestry that some non-Whites can also claim: e.g. 1/4 Italian or 1/8 Polish. There was also one link by an explicit White advocacy group but it appears to be very small and apply to youth education unless they're misusing the word "secondary education".

Many other hits related to a few provocative attempts to create tiny, token White-only scholarships, like this ABC News story: Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage about the controversial attempt by the College Republicans of Boston University in 2006 to establish a one-time $250 scholarship for someone at least 1/4 White. Naturally the politically correct, multicultural crowd were outraged.

From the Harvard Crimson article above (emphasis mine):

But in interviews last night, several Harvard students said that the Caucasian-only scholarship was divisive.

“An act such as this is probably not going to help people on the other side of the table understand where the BU Republicans are coming from,” said Jason C. B. Lee ’08, president of the Harvard Black Students Association. “We’re open to discussion, but we think it should be done in a less inflammatory way.”

Leaders of Harvard’s political community agreed, criticizing the means used by the BU Republicans.

“If they want to have a serious debate about affirmative action, that’s one thing,” said Eric P. Lesser ’07, former president of the Harvard College Democrats. “But if they want to resort to these gimmicks, then that’s despicable.”

“The statement they’re making is worthwhile,” said Mark A. Shepard ’08, the former vice president of the Harvard College Republicans, “but they are themselves engaging in discrimination to protest discrimination.”

“This idea is completely ridiculous,” Vijay G. Warrier ’09 said. “But if this scholarship is awarded, Indian-Americans should be allowed to apply because any reasonable usage of the term ‘Caucasian’ would include most Indians.”

All this outrage for a measly little $250 scholarship for someone who only has to be 1/4 White! The Black Student President thinks establishing a tiny scholarship for someone that is only 1/4 White is inflammatory? Wow. There are probably at least tens of millions of dollars per year in scholarships and grants ONLY for Blacks and it is "inflammatory" of Whites to create ANY vaguely White-based scholarship (1/4 White is not very restrictive)?

I'll take double standards for $1000, Alex.

There was a similar incident at the University of Rhode Island in 2006-2007 where the College Republicans ran an ad for a $100 scholarship and the Student Organizations Advisory and Review Committee tried to derecognize the College Republicans. The commissars only backed down when they came under public scrutiny by the national group FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

This outrage at creating token White racial scholarships while ANY non-White racial or crypto-racial scholarships are encouraged is a ridiculous double standard that Whites should stop tolerating. Expose the one-way Color Blind Con Game (TM) to your friends and family! Discussion among ourselves is an important first step in breaking the power of our corrupt anti-White "civil society". We need to be pragmatic in recognizing that various people are at different levels of receptiveness, so our advocacy needs to be thoughtful targeted to each audience based on how much reality they can handle at that time. More on this in a future post.

It's time for Whites to advocate for themselves EXACTLY the same way that Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and anybody but "hideous Whites" gets to do now. It's only fair.

We don't have much time left to fix our country because the demographics are going to be locked in soon. Once that happens, our options narrow considerably and the chance of serious ugliness increases. This topic requires more elaboration in a future post.

Probably the best we can hope for over the next three years is to prevent an illegal immigration amnesty and begin creating and strengthening alternative institutions to displace the societal control mechanisms that mentally enslave Whites directly against their interests (media, Hollywood, K12 education, higher education, advertising, etc). Again, more on this later.

Of course some of our strongest opponents are deracinated, leftist Whites and SWPL Whites. Special care needs to be taken convert more of our cognitive elites out of this subculture and to weaken its allure for our talented youth. Again, further thoughts in a future post.

Update: 2009-04-05:

It goes without saying one of our strongest opponents are a significant portion of the Jewish community, most of their organizations and many of their powerful members embedded in our elites. They have been and are strongly opposed to Whites pursuing ethnocentrism the way they rabidly do. See my Original Giant Post for my take on this with lots-o-links.

An interesting source discussing Jewish ethnocentrism is Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" which appears to be fully available here.