By Jane Everdene:
Far from being a purely modern phenomenon that the naïve insist will in time turn into some kind of utopia, multi-ethnic states have been tried over and over again for thousands of years but have constantly failed.
In fact the Semitic King, Sargon 1st, presided over the first multi-ethnic society when he conquered the Indo-European Sumerians – around 2,300BC.
For the first time in recorded history, an alien ruling class forced its will on a degenerating white population. (Note that the following is about policies of deliberate ethnic mixing rather than when this has happened incidentally).
As we know, civilisation results in a gradual degeneration because it causes the weakest to survive while allowing the strong to grow soft compared to the rigors of natural selection which they would otherwise have to undergo. These Semitic tribes had already been infiltrating Sumerian living space for decades. This was, of course, before the Jewish religion was properly founded. The traditional established pattern of government, by various local principalities with semi-independent towns – characteristic of all ancient White societies from ancient Greece to medieval Germany – was destroyed as this fierce dictator, Sargon, stamped his mark on the Sumerians.
Sargon declared himself a divine ruler and rebellion was punished mercilessly. Fortunately his tyranny was short-lived and faded with his death. The land was subsequently riven by uprisings and battles between the Indo-European and Semitic elements.
As the populations blended, the proto-Germanic blood died out and, following King Naram sin’s death, the Akkadian Empire decayed. In turn the remnant became dominated by a new wave from the north – the pale skinned, blond haired, Gutians. This pattern continued dozens of times during the following millennia.
The multi-ethnic rabble was repeatedly dominated by tiny, ethnically homogeneous tribal groups of Indo-Europeans. Whites, from the northern valleys: Hurrians, Cimmerians and Medes in turn lost their purity as they mixed with a multiracial population, and in turn became dominated by other peoples who had maintained their close genetic kinship and could thus advance much better as a result – but only so long as they remained a homogenous group.
Meanwhile let us consider similar events in ancient Egypt.
A few hundred years before Sargon‘s multi-ethnic tyranny, the Old Egyptian Kingdom, inhabited by Whites, had a celebrated isolation from foreign peoples , protected as they were by sea and desert. Alien influences were eliminated in accordance with the Egyptian religion. This held that in the beginning was chaos, out of which arose order. Order, symbolized by a seated goddess with a single feather headdress, being the will of the gods. Egypt’s “Golden Age” was under Sneferu and his family, who built the pyramids – from about 2530BC.
For a thousand years, Egypt was peaceful and stable without any slaves. Food was free, and foreign visitors remarked on the high fertility and numbers of children the Egyptians had.
The Egyptians scorned the “chaos of peoples” beyond their borders, whom they regarded as inferior.
Unfortunately, in 1860BC, Pharaoh Systostres III extended Egyptian influence too far, into Nubia. In time, as the hieroglyphs record, black skinned Nubian princes were attending school with the White Egyptian princes. (N.B. Nubians are a Nilotid race and are not Negroes, who are specifically west African. No Negro skulls have ever been recorded from Egypt.)
Further wars and conquests allowed the leakage of Asian and Nubian blood into Egypt in the following centuries. Egypt became ruled by foreigners, Hyksos – “shepherd kings” who were Semites (1785BC). The Egyptians later (1580BC) successfully got rid of the Semites, but they had been fatally weakened.
Then there followed raids by Indo-European Sea Peoples. These are represented on the rock carvings at Medinet Habu as having circular shields and horned helmets. Needless to say, the only people in the world at this time with this particular panoply were northern Europeans. The trail of Danish copper swords and amber all the way to Egypt suggest this was the first full migration of true Germanics southwards. Their descendants being the ruddy-skinned Achaens of ancient Greece.
Eventually, the genetic diversity in Egypt became too great. With this, altruism withered, the spirit of self-sacrifice perished, and Egypt became ruled by a new group of aliens who were less mixed and had their act together, working as a tribe, yet again.
However, Egypt’s Golden Age was now past and archeology records how building skills had deteriorated.
As a quick time-line: around the 7th century BC, Nubians/Kushites ruled Egypt. Following this, in 662BC, Egypt was conquered by Assyria – and in 525BC Egypt became a Persian province. Two centuries later it became part of the territory conquered by Alexander the Great: the foreign blood in Egypt had led to the inevitable decline of its civilization, and the consequential rule as a vassal state, by an ethnically homogeneous people, the Greeks.
Europe itself was threatened from the East by a multi-racial tyranny during the first millennium BC.
Darius, who ruled Persia from 522BC to 485BC, and Xerxes, his son, who ruled after him between 485BC and 465BC, had the Universalist dream of one world, one ruler. With Asia and Africa under his dominion, Xerxes moved on Europe. Xerxes killed off a large number, thousands, of women, who followed the army for the troops sexual relief, before the eve of the Battle of Thermopylae, in order to make the soldiers eager for European women. The attempted mass rape and bastardization of our race was famously challenged during this battle, by the 300 Spartans, heroic White descendents of the ancient Dorians from northern Europe, who had always refused to mix with those regarded as inferior peoples.
The Spartans, along with ten thousand other Greeks there, perished to save the race. Less famously, the Asiatic Universalists were finally defeated in the subsequent naval battles at Salamis and Platea.
Greece later became unified under Alexander the Great. He had become Captain General of all Greece, however, on conquering western Persia, he mysteriously succumbed to Universalist ideals. Some say this was due to his love for a Persian woman, others link it to events surrounding his visit to the Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem where he knelt before Rabbi Shimon the Righteous and pledged never to harm Jerusalem or the Holy Temple.
Having conquered all of Persia, he ordered all the Macedonians to marry Asians in an attempt to create a perfect mixed race world.
Up until this time, the Macedonians had a reputation for having red/blond hair. This soon changed. Persians were admitted into the army. To maintain social stability, Alexander used the krypteia (secret police) to kill enemies of the multi-ethnic state. Various Macedonian towns were burnt down for resisting his racially treacherous dream, and their occupants slain.
On Alexander’s death, the Macedonian/Persian Empire disintegrated, never to rise again. Each of Alexander’s generals became local governors, in time dividing the conquered territory again into: Assyria; Persia; Pakistan; Afghanistan; Turkey; Egypt; Arabia. All of these had been part of the massive Persian multiracial empire. The remnant forces of this multi-ethnic empire, racially mixed up, attempted to do battle against a new, significant and purely Germanic infant State.
That state was early Rome.
But now the might of Persia was fully rotted away and they had no idea how weakened they would be compared to the Romans.
On 22 June 168BC, the legendary Macedonian Phalanx, that had previously conquered the whole of Asia, formed up at Pydna in Greece. They were cut to pieces! At the end of the day, 20,000 racially mixed Macedonian warriors lay dead, while only 100 Romans perished!
This is evidence that racially mixed populations are no match in battle for populations that are much more homogenous. History has shown time and again the fate that comes with becoming multiracial. The population becomes weaker, less able to work as a team, less dedicated to the preservation and promotion of their state (which can’t be called a nation in its true sense). In time the Romans themselves fell for the same reasons.
They beat multi-ethnic Carthage (a culture based on trade, money and international finance), only to lose their own advantage by mixing with other ethnicities. The main reason that this weakens a nation’s ability to fight is because of the disunity it causes – quite apart from questions regarding the particular ability of the various ethnicities involved. Mixing up diverse ethnicities causes the spirit of self-sacrifice to be lost in a people. They don’t feel they are fighting for their own genetic future. They become a rabble that can easily be enslaved because their ability even to rebel is severely muted by their lack of cohesion.
The slave owners in the US knew the value of mixing the various African ethnicities together to make rebellion highly unlikely. Rootless and tribeless, people lose their will to resist.
Back to the Roman disaster. Once money lenders had got control of Caesar, he became their agent. Impressed by the Egyptian leadership principles shown by Cleopatra, Julius Caesar saw benefits in absorbing other peoples and ruling in a Phaoroah-like manner. Rome had already done this, in a way, firstly conquering Etruscans, then Italians, later adding Gauls, Spaniards, Numidians, North Africans and Greeks. By maintaining themselves as a segregated elite, the Romans were able to manage this mixed empire for a time. But, low fertility, adoption, wars and the Roman people’s replacement with Asiatic slaves bled the Germanic element from Rome.
By the time of Rome’s collapse, the mongrel empire was incapable of any constructive activity. Germans who had been slaughtered with impunity by the Romans, now flooded into the Roman lands as conquerors. The final poison of a “religion of peace” and “love thy enemies” severely retarded Rome. Thus the western civilization was replenished with German “barbarian” blood in a pattern we see had occurred so many times before in so many places – if only until the next period of racial mixing brought them back to square one in the cycle.
The waves of Universalism (the ideology that favours cosmopolitanism, the mixing of ethnicites, and inclusivity of all of humanity) inflicted on the west have been roughly as follows: Babylonia; late Egypt; Persia; Alexander’s empire; late Rome; Christianity; Islam; Freemasonry; Communism and modern multi-racialism – the latter being the engine behind the New World Order forces of globalization.
This unnatural ethos of multiracialism, is a huge force, a revolt against nature and entirely devised by a man-centred rather than a nature-centred philosophy. It’s antithesis, it’s opposite, is ethnic exclusivity – loyalty to one’s own tribe. Indeed, it has been a long standing suspicion and accusation that Jewish tribal interests have used the ethos of multiracialism as a weapon to destroy rival nations while remaining immune from it themselves.
Under Communism, in the USSR, attempts were made to outlaw not only race and nation, but even family. Thousands from various nations were deported to other areas and forced to mix. Men of one ethnic autonomous region were deported to another. The Soviet army contained regiments that were ethnically mixed also. These policies were later reversed during WW2 as it became clear that regiments fought much better if they were of the same ethnic background and especially from the same region of the country.
Since Sargon, thousands of years ago, the Universalist dream of ending ethnic identity has never gone away, although it has been known by various names. Now its main thrust is to destroy nations, peoples and races beneath a heel and yoke of International Capital. Fortunately, history shows that a pure people or a politically revolutionary minority can beat the multi-ethnic horde, with determination, will and providence, when the time is right.
By Jane Everdene © 2013
# # # #
Max Musson
- Edit
An excellent article Jane. It’s amazing just how long this perverse notion of creating the ‘ideal’ coffee coloured people has persisted.
Despite attempts by Brahmins’ to preserve the racial integrity of Hindu society in ancient India, it took until the 19th Century before learned men and women in Europe began to document the folly of multiracialism and its role in the downfall of civilisations, but even so, it has still persisted until this very day as a central theme of the global conspiracy.
Let us hope that we can totally quash it now, before it destroys our Western civilisation.
Atlantid
- Edit
The article is not historically accurate in the slightest. Yes, Sargon spoke Semitic, but he descended from the Sumerian royal court, he was a cupbearer to a ruler of Kish, so there was no “alien ruling class”. Semitic speakers had been in the region from very early times, and were always part of the Mesopotamian population. Secondly, it is not known what language Sumerian was, its an isolate. So claiming the Sumerians were Indo-Europeans has no solid historical basis. Some Indo-European tribes did though move into the region. Sargon united Sumer with Akkad, which were two city-states, and then expanded this unification into an empire. Its unclear why this article is anti-Sargon. It also seems to limit the term “White” to Indo-Europeans, which is confusing.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Atlantid, there is amongst archeologists some dispute as to the race and ethnicity of Sargon, with some sources declaring him to have been ‘Indo-European’ or ‘Aryan’, and with others declaring him to have been ‘Semitic’. The veracity of Sargon’s identity depends very much upon the inclination and opinion of whichever archeologist is involved in the translation of the Kish Chronicle, of the ancient ‘King Lists’ of the Indus valley, of the clay tablets and other assorted inscriptions from around the Middle East, some of which appear to have been written according to Indo-European tradition from left to right, while others appear to have been written according to Semitic tradition from right to left, and many of which appear to contain both Indo-European and Semitic words in various proportions.
The essential truth to be drawn from Jane Everdene’s article is that Sargon ruled over a vast empire encompassing a variety of ethnic and racial types and that as a consequence of this, peoples of a racial type alien to that of the founders of Sumeria were given admittance to Sumerian society and thus began a process of miscegenation that led to the downfall of that civilisation.
The lesson for us in the modern age is that ‘success’ in the creation of a vast empire, has time and time again carried with it the seeds of the destruction of the founding race through subsequent miscegenation, and that our generation must not only struggle to prevent the genetic obliteration of our people – living as we do in the twilight of empire, we must learn that lesson well in order to avoid further repetition of the same mistake.
Atlantid
- Edit
Max, I don’t see it as miscegenation. There never was an Indo-European or Semitic race. These are linguistic groups only. If you’re talking of PIE’s or PS’s (Proto-Indo-Europeans and Proto-Semites) then yes, you could talk about physical appearance, but even this is problematic given the original speakers were never all the same. It all depends how you are defining race, what is “white”, and what qualifies as mixture etc.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Atlantid, you make the sweeping assertion that “there never was an Indo-European or Semitic race”, a statement which is comparable to the assertions of modern day liberals and Marxists that ‘race is merely a social construct’, when in fact human groups do vary significantly in terms of physical and mental attributes, and racial differences are a manifest reality.
You state that these “are linguistic groups only”, however distinct languages can have only evolved initially, in parallel with the evolution of distinct peoples, i.e. separately from other peoples with their different competing language forms.
The existence of a distinct Indo-European (Aryan) language group is therefore proof of the existence of a distinct Indo-European (Aryan) population group.
Atlantid
- Edit
There never was an Indo-European or Semitic race. This is simply a historical and anthropological fact. Yes, these languages had an original population who spoke them (hence PIE’s/Proto-Indo-Europeans), however these populations were already mixed (all populations were by the Neolithic, if not earlier). Most Indo-Europeans were depigmentated (blonde, fair skinned), I don’t dispute this, however to claim they all were is nonsensical. Further these original speakers were absorbed in other populations. Aryans certianly don’t exist today, what remains is their language, myths and patriarchal culture.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Atlantid,
Firstly, I should warn you that it is virtually impossible to prove that something never existed. Your assertion that neither an Indo-European or Semitic race ever existed is therefore simply an opinion, and one that you have adopted from similar baseless assertions made by politically correct anthropologists over the last 70 years or so since World War II. None of these politically correct anthropologists, no matter how eminent they may ostensibly seem, have ever been able to prove as ‘fact’ anything of the sort. Furthermore, your use of the term ‘proto’ is just a cop-out.
The term ‘Indo-European’ is a ‘fig-leaf’ term employed by anthropologists since World War II as a euphemism for what would have been universally described as ‘Aryan’ prior to that war, i.e. non-Semitic, Turkic or Hamatic caucasians.
I note you admit that at one time, “most Indo-Europeans [Aryans] were depigmented (blonde, fair skinned)”, which is strange since you began by asserting that they never existed!
Similarly, despite your description of Indo-Europeans [Aryans] consisting of two physical characteristics that are typical of some modern Europeans and no other modern race, and despite the fact that almost all modern European languages are classified as belonging to the Aryan [Indo-European] group of languages, you compound the foolishness of your earlier statements by asserting that no Aryans exist today other than in mythology.
No-one on this website has asserted that all Europeans, or all White people, all Indo-Europeans or all Aryans must by definition have blonde hair, blue eyes and lily white skin. That assertion is your ‘straw man’ argument.
As has already been discussed on this thread, many Europeans have a brunette colouration.
Atlantid
- Edit
Max, all populations were mixed by the Neolithic, if not earlier. This is simply historical fact. Therefore Indo-Europeans were not a race, nor Semites. Nor British, nor Native Americans, Japanese etcetc. You can find different racial types in all these populations from their ethnogenesis. Race and ethnicity are two very different things. Someone’s race is independent of their ethnic/nation/population affiliation. So as I told you PIE’s (Proto-Indo-Europeans) were mixed before the langauge even spread via migration.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Atlantid, I notice that despite my earlier rebuttals and exposure of the inconsistencies in your arguments, you continue to repeat the same baseless assertions. If your claim is true, that it is “simple historical fact” that all populations were so “mixed” by the Neolithic that no distinct racial groups have survived beyond that time, then you will have no problem proving this. Please post your proof here, or email your proof to me: [email protected].
Furthermore, please explain how the world has now come to be populated by peoples who are still racially distinct from others if all distinct racial groups had ceased to exist by the neolithic?
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
In response to Atlantid’s rather abrupt comment I think it fair to say that far from being, “not historically accurate in the slightest”, Jane Everdene makes many extemely pertinent points. Naturally, by its very nature, historical detail will always be open to debate and varying interpretations. However, the main thrust of Jane’s argument can not be denied. The pattern of multiracialism has always been one of Aryan peoples, forming an elite group, whereby a culture and civilization was developed, only to be destroyed by the corruption of race mixing. (I use the term Aryan to denote our common racial origin rather than as a strictly linguistic term). Indeed, Atlantid’s argument that the term Indo-European is confusing could only really apply if one wanted to be confused.
In her article Jane Everdene suggests that race mixing has been largely instigated by our racial enemies. This has been true of recent British history when, as we know, organised Jewry have put unrelenting pressure on different governments to pass various race relations Acts which have curtailed our free speech and led to the suffocating curse of political correctness from which we’re suffering today.
It is very interesting to note that Sargon reigned before the Jewish religion was properly founded, yet to look at his profile in the accompaying illustration it is fairly obvious that he was of a semitic type. That combined with his tyranical rule and the deliberate destruction of traditional patterns of White government leaves little doubt that Jane Everdene is right in her assessment.
Steed
- Edit
Interesting article, and I believe it contains a fundamental key to understanding the pressures put upon the white race today. It is as though there has been a non-human conscious, eternal force corralling mankind towards cultural and racial oblivion since time immemorial. It could just be the consistent desire to subjugate (through miscegenation) and destroy rival groups, but the pattern appears to be so consistent and powerful that I’m tempted to think of it as being Cosmic and Metaphysical in character.
The other point I wanted to make is that when this subject is raised eye and hair colour are always used as the crux upon which racial designation is made. “Blonde Mummies in China”, “Blue Eyed Pharaohs” etc. This is fine but if this is the criteria by which racial purity is measured then where does that leave the population of Britain (and the rest of Northern Europe) where only a minority have truly blonde hair and blue eyes? By most researchers’ own designations that makes Europe largely ‘impure’. Does that mean Europe is only fighting on behalf of its blonde and blue-eyed population? Furthermore, does that mean purity should be based upon appearance rather than ancestry?
News Team
- Edit
Referencing blond/red hair and blue eyes is simply an easily digestible way of making a strong point. That being; these people were caucasion/white. You could have an equally caucasion/white pharaoh with brown hair and eyes but it makes a less striking example and is not as clear a mark of race. Pure and impure are meaningless terms, evolution does not occur in one direction. In a future that we would not care to imagine, blonde hair could become a symbol of stupidity if disgenic patterns of behavior occur among our race.
Jane
- Edit
If we argue enough on the definition of the White race we can simply conclude that it is all too vague to bother with and simply acquiesce to oblivion. Is that apathy really what you aim to spread with your comment?
The population (even of White people) in Britain today are noticeably less fair than they were as recently as 1970.
Steed
- Edit
I’d be interested to know what you think has caused this darkening of white Brits since the ’70s if not miscegenation, if you care to offer your theory?
And no, I had no intention of spreading apathy, but your suggestion that there is a divide between the ‘Nordicists’ and ‘the darker’ is likely to spread apathy. Those ‘darker’ ones you refer to are not going join our cause if made to feel inferior, despite the fact that they could well be as pure-blooded as you or I.
Jane
- Edit
My point, Steed, is the hostility against the Nordic identity from people who should accept its validity and existence. I am not suggesting any supremacy nor that those with a darker appearance are not members of the White race.
It is neverthless the case that there is scientifically known to be more genetic diversity and sub-saharan DNA in the south of Europe.
Considering how rapidly the same is happening to the north it is churlish to suggest there is any line to be drawn between northern and southern Europe. But we should want to see a reversal of this process.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Steed,
The process of evolution is one in which competing dynamic forces naturally occur.
Localised environmental pressures may cause one population group to evolve along a different trajectory to the rest of the species to which they originally belonged, such that they will begin to acquire a separate identity. This different evolutionary trajectory may confer a survival advantage on the new group and the group will in time become conscious of this and choose to stop interbreeding with the rump of the species to which they initially belonged.
At this stage, the new group will have become established as a new sub-species or racial group and if they continue to breed separately then over time cumulative genetic mutations will eventually create such differences that the two groups will no longer be interfertile and this is the point at which speciation will have taken place and the new group will have passed through the sub-species phase and will have acquired separate species status.
During the sub-species phase, despite being interfertile, the two groups breeding separately through choice on the part of the new group, and with differing identities, will begin to compete and the new group because of its survival advantage will begin to out-compete the rump of the species.
At this point survival through to speciation for the new group will depend upon them continuing to breed separately and thereby retain their separate identity and their survival advantage, whereas survival for the rump of the species will depend upon them inducing the new group to begin interbreeding once more, so that the new group loses it’s genetic advantage.
Within the lower orders of animals it is unlikely that the rump of the original species will be able to pursuade the members of any new group to resume interbreeding because their reasoning ability and communication skills will not be adequate.
Within competing human populations however, there is scope for the rump of humanity to pursuade individual members of a particular and relatively new subspecies that they should deny the reality of their separate new identity.
Furthermore, there is scope for a sub-species whose survival advantage is conferred by way of a highly developed aptitude for deception, to both fool the rump of humanity into not recognising them as a separate supremacist group, while at the same time acting in such a way as to induce other distinct sub-species with whom they are in competition to deny their separate identities, to adandon any thoughts of speciation and to allow themselves to be re-absorbed back into the rump.
Steed
- Edit
Okay Max, that’s all very good. However, your prediction appears to rely on the assumption that blondes are more intelligent, which in turn assumes that non-blonde whites are the result of distant miscegenation more so than blondes. Obviously, I agree that blond-ism – being a key trait of the white race – is desirable, but I know blonde drug-addicts and brunette geniuses. So for a superior sub-group of the white race to evolve, brunettes cannot be precluded. The law of dominant genes will thus ensure that those brunette phenotypes will remain a part of this evolving sub-group. The only way ‘darker’ phenotypes will be completely ousted would be an active form of enforced eugenics, which will both waste the intelligence of good brunettes and instill apathy in those brunettes who are made to feel less worthy of interbreeding with us.
I’m no expert, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with anyone here. But it seems to me that there are many questions and aspects – and the repercussions of – which are yet to be fully considered.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hold on Steed,
You are attributing to me assertions that I have not made. I have not made any ‘predictions’ that are dependent upon an assumption that blondes are more intelligent that brunettes.
Read what I have written again and you will see that your concerns regarding the fate of brunettes are misplaced. I am myself at the brunette end of the spectrum (or I was when I was younger and still had dark hair), and so there is no way that I would support notions that people such as I are in any way unworthy.
Steed
- Edit
Apologies then Max. I (wrongly) presumed that when you referred to an emerging sub-group of whites you meant a group with Nordic appearance versus a ‘darker’ rump. Again, I apologise.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
In reply to Steed, there has been a readily identifiable group that has done immeasurable damage to the Aryan race. As shown by Jane Everdene it was already there before the Jewish religion was properly founded but existed racially as part of the Semitic type.To look at Cosmic or Metaphysical reasons for this may provide a fascinating study but is not essential to our knowledge any more than we have to understand Science to know that fire burns and ice freezes.
As far as Nordic features of blond hair and blue eyes are concerned, it’s not true to say that only a minority of indigenous Northern Europeans have these features. It’s estimated that about 60% of Britons and about 80% of Scandinavians have blue eyes. Just a simple observation of those around us should be sufficient verification of this. As my innocent younger brother once said to a neighbour, “All our family have blue eyes except the cat.”
It may be true to say that obvious Nordic racial features are only part of the the kaleidoscope which makes up our Aryan identity. However, these features can also be an essential part of the way we recognize one another. Furthermore, I think it important to remember that as a post democratic group our trust should remain fixed on an aspirational elite which will evolve as a bridge towards higher forms, both in beauty and in intelligence.
Steed
- Edit
Well yes, fairly put. But how many Britons have both blonde hair and blue eyes? – that was my point. Presumably an aspirational elite would be made up of Nordics – this relies on the view that purity is determined by appearance not ancestry. My wife’s siblings are a mixture of blonde/blue-eyed and brunette/brown-eyed – same blood, same ancestry, different appearance. If the blonde ones are to become part of an elite and the brunette ones not, then it seems to me that there must be some metaphysical aspect to their having been ‘chosen’ over the brunette ones. Either that or we’re talking eugenics and the blonde ones are regarded worthier regardless of their blood-purity or intelligence. Just an example.
This isn’t an argument. I just feel these are important questions which the ethno-Nationalist movement rarely asks and which must occasionally be aired, for the sake of unity.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Steed,
Making mention of the existence of blue eyes or blonde or red hair among ancient population groups should not be regarded as an assertion that only people with these physical attributes are considered to be ‘pure bred’ Whites. Mentin of these characteristics in particular is merely a means of demonstrating that the population group concerned was of European origin, as light skin, hair and eye colour only occur naturally among European peoples. There will of course have been many others within any particular historic or extant Indo-European/Aryan/White European groups who will have had colouration that is somewhat darker, and who will never-the-less be just as valid members of the White race as those with the lightest of colouration.
You are right to question this issue of colouration. Too often an undue focus is placed upon mere colouration when a whole range of other physical and mental attributes contribute to our recognition of those people we feel are our people, those we recognise as ‘us’ as opposed to ‘them’.
Sight is the most important of our senses and in a world primarily composed of dark races, light colouration is therefore the most obvious of racial identifiers, but we should have the sense to recognise that not everyone of our people will be at the lightest end of the spectrum.
Steed
- Edit
Yes I agree Max. I’m not attempting to be argumentative. I just feel that some clarification is needed for the sake of those ‘darker’ Europeans, because I have known some to state that they will not join the fight if they are considered inferior and that there is no place in a new Europe for them or their descendents. This is particularly pertinent when we consider that one of the lies fed to us about Adolf Hitler was that he only accepted Aryans (which, generally speaking he did) but that Aryans were only those who had blonde-hair and blue-eyes, with honourable exceptions like Hitler himself. This, I believe, was a lie fed to us by the victors of WWII purely to sew disharmony and apathy among the European race so that all those brunettes (or blondes with brunette loved-ones) would support the destruction of everything Hitler stood for. We mustn’t do the enemies’-of-the-white-race work for them and I’m glad to see you agree.
Max Musson
- Edit
I agree entirely with what you have stated here.
frederickdixon
- Edit
All that really matters is that we Brits stay racially European, avoiding contamination by non-European genes. That is simply a matter of identity, remaining what we have always been, so that if our ancestors of a century ago were able to return a century hence they would find a people recognisable and welcome to them.
So I don’t need to believe that ancient empires fell through race mixing to know that race mixing is an unmitigated evil, but it is an interesting story, and if it helps to persuade others that race mixing must be avoided, so much the better.
Steve
- Edit
That would mean ruthless enforcement of the borders to keep non whites at a minimum inside European & countries wishing to stay “White” or European in culture & expulsion of some people, if not all, already here.
But then you have the mixed race population & what to do with them.
Steve
- Edit
Oh for an edit facility….that first European should read Europe!
“…inside Europe & countries wishing to stay “White”…”
Steve
- Edit
There’s a danger of getting into too much hairsplitting over this, basically I think you know “white” when you see it!
Jane
- Edit
Yes, we should know who is White when we see it, and then we have to try and breed further from anything remotely ambiguous. After all, there is a continuum between all the races and it would be good to burn our bridges. This should be done without anyone complaining that they are not found to be “the fairest of them all”. People have every right to discriminate.
The alternative is inevitable blending throughout.
EnlitendPatriot
- Edit
I have to say, there is a fundamental problem with this ideal. Love, as they say. knows no bounds. In regards to this (as an example) what do we make of the stance of Israel? The Jews forever play the victim card, constantly reminding us (often falsely) of the evils of the Nazis for wanting to ensure the survival of the Arian race. Yet, they themselves are surely guilty of a similar ideal themselves?
As far as I understand things, they do not permit resident Jews to marry non-Jews and, if they do, they are not allowed to live in Israel. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. If I am right, are we to follow their example? This is not meant as a mischievous question, I am just honestly trying to establish what our `movement’ is standing for. Your views on this would be appreciated.
Perhaps we are talking of the set-up of a new separatist society similar to the Hamish community in the USA? Last week I watched a program on RT about a similar group of people (Old Believers I think they were called) who fell out with the Russian Orthodox church a long time ago who then moved to South America. They recently moved back to an isolated part of Russia to live in an autonomous society. I admired their independance and rejection of mainstream Russian education, social standards, etc, but, again, they shun family who do not maintain their ideals.
Steve
- Edit
Yes EP, I have heard similar things & have some concerns over how this would work.
If non white immigration is strictly controlled, then some people will simply have to move abroad.
I assume this & other white countries would have constitutions that state that they are “White” countries & operate on that basis to ensure their survival.
It would be taught in schools why this policy & stance was adopted.
It would not be democratic in the present sense.
What happens if a white woman gets pregnant by a non white while abroad or by a non white visitor to this country?
I think that would be a smaller problem then it’s now, where this is positively encouraged at the moment in adverts, even children’s TV.
We could set up isolated communities but that wouldn’t work unless there was widespread support for this.
The political establishment as of now wouldn’t allow this.
Though they say nothing of Jewish or moslem care homes & the like.
Steve
- Edit
“The stance of Israel”, well that gets to the heart of our problems, zionist hypocrisy & the whole; it’s OK when we do it but you can’t because it’s racist; & don’t call us Nazi’s because you’re anti Semitic, thing!
But increasingly people are seeing through this white guilt trip psych nonsense.
Steve
- Edit
“The political establishment as of now wouldn’t allow this.”
Except….
https://www.ramzpaul.com/2013/03/brown-university-hosts-anti-race-mixing.html
It’s OK when they do it.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Jane is absolutely right! Of course we need to burn our bridges in order to evolve genetically. As I suggested before, we’re an aspirational movement and should glory in the purer race which will grow from us. The old sentimental humanism and pig-headed universalism is a dead end for humanity. It’s a mark of the worst type of reactionary.
In reply to EnlitendPatriot, there’s nothing “guilty” about having a racial ideal, not even for Jews. John Tyndall once said, “My race is my religion.” We really must get our thinking out of the universalist cul de sac whereby we think that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the chicken. In order to progress we have to find the value system which is unique to our own Aryan race.
Steve
- Edit
One theory put forward by lefty liberals is that multiculturalism & blending of the races is the way that the world is going due to globalisation.
But of course anybody with experience of the world can see this is a lie, that a lot of the world’s races & population is not blending, that blending is only meant for the whites.
As we are only a small percentage of the overall numbers on Earth, blending would make us disappear without radically altering the African or Asian populations.
The only “whites” would be the Jews of European origin who ruthlessly enforce marrying their own kind & preserving their culture.
Which is exactly what we want to do & should do.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Steve seemsto have summed up the whole situation perfectly.
Steve
- Edit
Thank you!
I’ll try to continue in that vein.