By Nick Grifford:
I am not a racist. I am not just saying that to appear clever or coy, given the following definition of the ubiquitous word I simply am not: racist: noun; a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Superiority is, much like beautify and, in many respects, wisdom, subjective. What through the lens of one man or tribe could be viewed as “superior”, may well be considered as valueless or base by another; a universal yardstick or divine adjudicator does not exist. In order for any notion of superiority to carry weight it must be entirely exclusive, it then reorientates to give rise to healthy competition and meaningful development among similar peoples rather than persisting as a self-congratulatory sense of temporal achievement.
In this respect, Englishmen should not be pitted against West Indians in the one hundred metre sprint; East African architecture should not be compared with Austrian; North America must not be forced to compete with China in the production of vast quantities of cheap consumer goods, etc. In the context of human beings, there is no superior or inferior there is only difference, and these prodigious differences must be clearly identified and widely accepted rather than – as they are today – either ignored and concealed or put into service as a rod to beat us with.
And these differences hinge on DNA; they are racial differences. China, for instance, does not possess mechanically superior machinery bestowing upon it the technological edge over the USA (in fact, much of the blueprint of industrial China comes from the US), China has the Chinese. In terms of the products both countries fabricate, it could be argued that the American-made goods are superior as they generally tend to endure far beyond the life span of their ‘made in China’ equivalents. However, in terms of initial purchase cost, the Chinese-made goods are usually far less expensive and therefore, in the opinion of many cash-strapped consumers, they are superior. Again, this concept is totally subjective.
But by far the most damaging consequence of the superiority principle was – and is – the importation of fundamentally dissimilar peoples into formerly all-white countries and their colonies for the purposes of utilising said immigrants (or natives in much of the colonial world) for manual labour. Provided that one ethnic group regards itself superior to another, it is inevitable that, in some instances, the former will subjugate the latter; enslaving them and retaining them to undertake work and services considered beneath the “superior” breed. Now this is not a moral point, there must be no ‘sins of the father’ outpouring of compunction, it is a matter of survival, proliferation and development – the three key propositions that absolutely must be employed to estimate and establish every aspect of our existence and endeavours.
In the first instance, a nation catered for by slaves is not inclined to struggle and without constant pressure there can be no serious development. Secondly, a society that becomes decadent begins to venerate the individual above the group or the whole and imbues within each citizen spurious but emphatic “rights,” a process which often impairs the proper functioning of a nation. Evolutionary mavericks tend not to reproduce in any significant numbers and this detrimentally affects our proliferation – an awareness that was more ably expressed by Oswald Spengler in his Decline of the West: “When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard ‘having children’ as a question of pro’s and con’s, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro’s and con’s.”
Lastly, it is frequently the case that even a vociferous belief in the racial superiority theory gives rise to the arrogant assumption that generations of the “superior” people would never stoop so low as the interbreed with the “inferior” castes, tribes or races. This conviction is not enough to prevent it from occurring and any study of the Indo-Aryan influence on hinduism (specifically the Rigveda) and the ancient Indus Valley region of modern-day India is tantamount to this. Sadly, one only need to go so far as the local town centre to experience the results of only a few decades of race-mixing and dysgenic mating.
Because superiority is, in essence, a vague dogmatic sensation, it does not provide the necessary safeguards required to occlude large-scale miscegenation, but which the proper study of anthropology and racial difference could deliver. Because the emotive assertion of superiority has been so easily challenged in recent years, it now has long-term consequences for our survival as a race.
As in all things, it is incumbent upon us to take the scientific approach and demonstrate rather than opinionate. With this in mind, I am not a Racist or a White Supremacist, but I am racially-conscious and, most certainly, I am a White Separatist.”
By Nick Grifford © 2014
# # # #
Max Musson
- Edit
While I thank you for the article, Nick, I don’t agree with the main thrust of your argument, based as it is, upon a viewpoint of moral universalism.
.
The criterion applied in comparing the attributes and abilities of the various racial groups do not have to be objective in any absolute sense in order to be considered valid. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as you say, but if we White people are in our case the beholders, then as far as we are concerned, it is the beauty that we perceive through our eyes that counts. Another race’s equally subjective perspective on beauty – or the factors that ought to be taken into account in determining ‘superiority’ – should be of no relevance to us, we must learn to practice moral particularism, i.e. we must judge matters from the standpoint of ‘what is good for the White race’.
.
Furthermore, it does not automatically follow that believing one’s people to be superior in terms of the attributes that are important to us, will lead to multiracialism and miscegenation. The belief in racial superiority does not necessarily correlate to a desire for social supremacy in which the different races co-exist ‘cheek by jowl’ in the same society, albeit in different castes.
.
What is essential is a desire for racial separation. Then in a future racially homogenous society, the scope for miscegenation would be largely eliminated irrespective of one’s perceptions of relative superiority, and in our lexicon the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ would have no meaning.
Nick Grifford
- Edit
Hello Max,
Of course I appreciate your standpoint – it is common among White nationalists – but, and in my opinion, it is not borne out given the historical evidence. I have provided some examples of when the notion of superiority, even if adopted without thought of exercising prepotent activity (such as slavery), tends to result in just that. Recent instances being South Africa, where the White population had become dependent on Black labour, and North America – the two share disturbing parallels.
A sense of distinct racial (although they are in fact separate subspecies) disconnection may well have served these folk more valuably than an indistinct awareness of superiority. Over the course of the last sixty years we have witnessed the effects of malicious groups, such as international Jewry, have had on these postulations. In essence, they have attached “white supremacism” with the ultimate modern evil: Nazi Germany, and have therefore not only stifled debate but turned reality on its head.
Biological difference is not circumstantial, nor is it open to exhaustive misinterpretation; it is based on scientific certitude. It is concrete and could provide our people with a solid plinth upon which they are capable of resisting miscegenation and genocide.
Unfortunately, the superiority principle – whether or not you or I truly believe it or not – is transient, especially when taken in the modern context of practically irresistible enemy propaganda. In a few generations time, millions more White people will buy into the emotive lie of “equality”, which would be impossible if scientific evidence were the basis of our ideology rather than cultural achievement, beauty, etc. Both things can be distorted, as we have seen in the extolling of modern (Jewish-influenced) art; Negro models, such as Naomi Campbell, hip hop and trance music, etc. Society is easily manipulated but elemental truths can only be concealed.
If we allow pride in our race to develop into hubris then we are doomed to repeat our past mistakes and our progeny may not possess the necessary armour to contend with the surgical lies of our enemies.
Thanks for posting the article.
Regards,
N.G.
Steed
- Edit
Well said Nick. I share your sentiment. I wrote an article along these lines awhile ago too: Compassion and Identity. I find it counter productive when (white) Nationalists refer to non-whites as various animals. It doesn’t help our cause in any way – it is a base level lashing out at best. Potential recruits will be put off by it and as such our opponents will revel in it as further ammunition. Our best position is to talk about how we wish to preserve diversity on this planet and how endangered our white race(s) are.
Nick Grifford
- Edit
In addition, comparing A with B with a view to establishing superiority is open to interpretation and opinion, and what happens if some of B’s virtues are considered superior to A’s?
For instance, “African-American” males are on average, and judging by several decades of athletics, better short and long distance runners; they appear to be more aggressive; their rate of fecundity is higher than ours; they can labour – provided the correct motivation – in far hotter climates; based on their population ratio, they are better boxers, etc. These traits could be regarded as “superior”. In terms of landmark human accomplishment, the aforementioned pales into insignificance when compared to the White race, but how superior is an extinct tribe? And how superior is the White population of the modern era?
The superiority notion is meaningless – and allow me to state that one can believe whatever one wants, the determining factor is the code by which one lives – and falls into the brutal hands of our enemies. The distinct and separate principle, however, provides an aegis that the proponents of “diversity” have little to counter; a display of not “superiority” but of genetic and cultural difference. In this respect we are out-witting them, which is something we have failed to do for over one hundred years. By applying the superiority rule, Jews could be considered superior to Whites could they not? But again, this is open to interpretation and may never be resolved while both our tribes exist.
Another thought: If Western Spring is actively recruiting, how far will the superiority platform get them? Would they simply not be preaching to the ever-shrinking choir? How many ‘fence-sitters’ are likely to be won-over by “white supremacy”, something that has been drummed into them since before birth as an evil, illogical theory and has become almost memetic.
Finally, decisively validating (proving if you will) superiority is extremely difficult and relies on comparisons that the audience may either not understand or believe. The truth of racial difference is far easier to quantify, explain and demonstrate – I speak from personal experience so I am acutely aware of how affective it can be; without this most excellent tool, a handful of White children may not now be walking the planet.
jackdaw
- Edit
I AM a racist, though not on a personal level. I’ve known many black and asian people, more than most of the self-hating white liberals out there. I dont hate them because of their race. But when we look at the BIG picture it would be mal-adaptive, bordering on mental illness to not resist the race replacent that is being enacted in Europe, Racist seems to be word applied to such resistance
AAA
- Edit
Perhaps then you are a racialist (one who recognises that races are different and with an attendant belief that they should therefore remain separate and entire) rather than the Bolshevik construct, ‘racist’.
.
‘Tis such a shame to constantly see the ‘racist’ cliche being used and adhered to in our lexicon without firstly apostrophising it on the grounds that is a a concept, a theory, of the mind rather than objective fact. Such buzzwords, such weapons of the tongue, are being wheeled out almost monthly: Islamophobia, homophobia, sexism…I’ve even heard ageism and regionalism (in the context of inter-shire banter, say between football fans in Lancashire and Yorkshire) being mooted.
.
This double-speak/State-speak has in part gained traction because it has not been sufficiently questioned, ridiculed, rejected, and opposed. We have instead submitted to the psyops of our enemies and in a sense pocketed their handbook of rhetoric with fecund glee.
.
We’re all ‘racists’ now…
NEWS Reporter
- Edit
Whether you are or are not a racist is an irrelevance Nick Grifford?
I am not a brick wall!
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
As we all must know by now, the word “Racist” was coined by Trotsky, or those around him, as a deliberate ploy to wrong foot those who resist the absurd notion of equality. It’s part of the Marxist/Capitalist agenda to disorientate the Aryan enemy.
By saying “I’m not Racist but…” We’ve already been put on the defensive. The enemy has already won the first part of the argument because by denying that we’re “Racist” we’ve already conceded that racial consciousness is morally problematic.
The only solution is to grasp the nettle and take ownership of the word “Racist”. Sir Oswald Mosley once compared the term “Tory” with the word “Fascist”. He pointed out how the word “Tory” once had derogatory connotations and suggested that in time the word “Fascist” would sit equally as comfortably with patriots as the name “Tory” does in the modern Conservative Party.
katana
- Edit
I have to agree with Max’s take on this article, but let me get on the soap box.
.
I would go further and say that given the obvious objective, scientifically measurable, differences between Whites and non-Whites in terms of intelligence and propensity for violence we can say that Whites are superior if you value a safe, prosperous and civilized society. Normal people do value those things and so that plainly makes Whites superior according to our standards. Acknowledging such facts can be called “race realism”. It’s as simple as that.
.
But there is a tribe of “self chosen” people who have been central, behind the scenes, in changing White societies immigration laws, worldwide, to result in the mass importation of non-Whites into White societies because they see the character traits of non-Whites (lower intelligence and a greater propensity for violence) as ‘superior’ for their aim of destroying White societies. It’s as simple as that.
.
These “self chosen” people have also created “hate” laws and manipulated and brainwashed public opinion for so long now that many people nearly foam at the mouth at anyone who dares to state the obvious, the truth about racial differences.
.
So this deadly combination of mass third world immigration, along with mass brainwashing and punishment against commonsense reactions to it, brings us to this terrible state of affairs. Where criticism of it can cause loss of ones job, legal sanctions and social isolation. Where being a race realist gets you transformed into someone who not only sees the differences and superiority/inferiority of different races but crucially turns you into someone who must also automatically HATE other races.
.
Race realists are called by the enemies of Whites, “racists”. A very nasty smear word straight out of Orwell’s novels. It turns race realists into evil people who absolutely hate all non-Whites, who are closet Nazis at the least, and most importantly, would eventually want to gas six million jews again (the six million they missed the first time around, I suppose).
.
The end result of all these things is that some White nationalists favour taking a path of less resistance and declaring themselves not to be “racists”. I can see the practicality of that, yet I also see the long term futility of giving in to the enemies “word power”. As Orwell pointed out, the control of language is crucial to the control of thought. The word “racist” simply translates for the masses as “evil”.
.
Rather than tell the world that we are “not racist” I suggest that we tell the plain truth:
.
* We are race realists that can plainly see the differences in race. If you deny the differences you are blind (and likely stupid or heavily brainwashed).
.
* We are race realists that can plainly see that the qualities of our race are indeed superior in maintaining our race and culture that we want to have. Race mixing degrades and eventually destroys our race and culture.
* We are race realists that can plainly see that the ongoing mass immigration of non-Whites into White societies is a long term deliberate plan to destroy, to genocide, White societies. The people behind this slow motion genocide control our media, Hollywood, our academic institutions, financial institutions, governments and largely what the masses think and consequently “vote” for.
.
In conclusion, tying oneself in knots in explaining that you are not “racist” is futile and counter-productive. We must neutralize, destroy, the power of such words by showing their creators evil intent, the utter destruction of our decent and good societies.
“Anti-racism” is a code word for anti-White. It’s as simple as that.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
Attempting to dodge the old ‘racist’ assault is an impossibility. Just embrace it and when confronted with it simply say: Yes I am, what do you intend to do about it? Granted, it may not be quite safe enough yet to indulge in such a label-killer, but if all goes according to plan in the not too distant future we shall be able to say what whatever we flipping like.
Steven
- Edit
I don’t agree. The term is a leftist term but it will never be brought back into any kind of respectability (if indeed it ever has had respectable connotations and I don’t believe it has) It would be best to say we are RACIALISTS or RACE REALISTS. Enoch Powell when accused of being a ‘racist’ always said he was a racialist.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
I wasn’t actually talking about making it respectable – be it racialist or race realist the enemy will treat it the same as racist. They froth at the mouth and become more mental than normal over the subject of race! It is always worth seeing their faces when one actually answers in the affirmative, they freeze up for a few seconds and then begin twitching because you haven’t answered according to the way they are programmed to expect you to.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
There is satisfaction to be had by saying “I’m a racist, so what?”
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I would say if you are going up against this regime, you’ll get called a racist, Nazi & all the rest of it, even if it isn’t true.
They have become “shut up” words meant to shut down open debate.
Tokil
- Edit
Very true.
Maybe in the future the word Nazi will lose it’s effect.
At least the National Socialists governed in the interests of the NATIVE people. Did the National Socialists have an agenda to turn Germany into a foreign land? At least the National Socialists worked to provide a FUTURE for the NATIVE people. At least the National Socialists ran out the power of international finance which pulls the levers of our countries.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Our enemies are not going to oblige us by observing the niceties between the word “Racist” and “Racialist”. They are out to destroy us. True respectability can only be earned through one thing and that’s courage.
Tokil
- Edit
However
Take the bull by the horns and illustrate how accusations of ‘racism’ are tools of political repression.
Want to live around your own Kind? RACIST!
Have a preference
If they come back and say “oh those things are not racist…” which they will then turn it and say “…but what makes you racist is your lack of tolerance and respect…” you can attack them and say “well if that’s the case maybe you should tell that to those on your own sides when they call Nigel Farage a racist and William Hague a racist back in 2001. Do you expect the fact then that ‘racist’ is used as a weapon to slander those who speak for the future of the native people”.
Intellectually heavy ideological arguments are difficult to be adapted and are long winded. The further you get into ideological arguments the harder it is to adapt to . If we look at our enemies their canned responses are very simple:
“I am shocked at the …, ….. outburst from Mr/Mrs….. We should all be tolerant and celebrate our……… society…”. It is though easy to counter as we know each of their language is double speak. Diversity=flooding white countries with non whites, anti-racism is just being anti-white, tolerance=appeasement. Why should we tolerate something now when it is only going to get worse. It’s illogical.
In the case of the ‘mantra’ they give people easy responses when they are accused such as “anti-racism is just a codeword for anti-white”. “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White countries for everyone”. “Are Tibetans who oppose the Genocide of their people “Tibetan Racists?” They are far from the be all and end all and should be followed or have before it speaking about the issue rises but it packs a defense and an attack in one.
BritishActivism
- Edit
When I first started on this path in life, I was pointed to a website which described a ‘racial compact’.
.
For me, it was an important turning point in dissecting the differences between what I was being called at the time – “racist” – and what I was actually thinking and generally supportive of. The website was by Richard McCulloch – and I believe it is still on-line today.
.
Chapters of the website I found interesting at the time included “Right and Wrong Racism” and “Racial Nihilism”, a term which I have remembered and which still use on various occasions when in heated discussions. I have not re-read it since then, but I suspect I would still largely agree with points being made there.
.
I would also agree with some other comment makers here that our opposition are never, ever, going to allow us to calmly dissect the differences between what they accuse us of being (and thinking) and what actually motivates us.
.
Whether it is race realist, racist, White Nationalist, Separatist, they could not care less and they are not interested in hearing the differences. They certainly don’t want to give us “a platform” to express our real cause to the masses – because they see it as dangerous.
.
That being said about being labelled by these people, I do not see the need to live up to their stereotype. I would not mind in the slightest saying that I have racial views, that I am a race-realist, or indeed, if really required, that I am “a racist”.
.
There is no point trying to “play the game”, “boxing clever” and hiding from these things in the hope that you will not be discovered at some point.
.
When you resolve yourself under such a strategy, where all you can talk about is jobs, houses, strain on the system, finances…. you essentially fail to guarantee any kind of future for indigenous Britons.
.
This is because you are helping to change the parameters and perceptions of what’s important, thus working against our solidarity as a people by reducing fundamental matters to just material gains and short term issues that people are comfortable discussing.
.
This practice has failed for 50 years – and it will continue to fail. That is my view.
.
In the old documentary (which may have been made in league with the Monday Club) called “England, Whose England?” the same old arguments are put forward as those you hear today from the mainstream right, like UKIP……Jobs, houses, strains on the health service, overcrowding…. at one point some posh speaking lady bemoans that ‘you cannot fit a quart into a pint pot’.
.
Here we are then, some 50 years later, hearing the same narratives and masks for what is really troubling us. The nation has “coped” – and the liberals take it for granted that we can continue to cope and continue to change, and they may well be right, for this is what has happened so far, and the “waves” of immigration have only got much bigger!.
.
What I mean by that is, after all, if the governments of the day do manage to create ample jobs, do manage to get on top of a “housing crisis”, fiddle with the rules on “welfare” and NHS usage – or at least can massage the public mood over them for long enough to allow the next “wave” of outrage to arrive (and the process thus repeat) – what are the arguments left for these kinds of parties and entities?
.
They would have kicked out all the legs of their stool – and they have nothing left to argue with. The public, only versed in thinking of their own financial losses and gains, or in terms of their jobs or welfares and school places – will ‘snooze on’ and not have the tools in their minds to deal with the real reasons and rationale as to why they ought to be objecting to what is taking place.
.
On this, we then get back to the matter of ‘racism’ – that of our real rationale and the difference between those attributed to us by our enemies as a stereotype and as ignorance.
.
If people want to take up a racial element to their struggle (and thus to their explanations of themselves and the movement to others), then they need to show that there is thought there, that there is rationale there, that there is sensibility there, that there is a case to be made.
.
Yes, the opponents will call us ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ and all the rest of it. I am not bothered by that myself, providing that we can all sensibly express ourselves and put forward our arguments.
.
What our opposition would really love us to do is just throw all caution to the wind and start using racial epithets, banging on about “Jew Scum” or “Muzzie scum”, banging on about all sorts of side issues and conspiracies and in the process forgetting the real fight in which we ought to be partaking.
.
That fight is not one of “hatred” but one of love and preference for our own, and for the continuance and survival of our own.
.
We are, or should become, experts in talking about these issues in respectable ways which people can understand, and hopefully in some cases, come to support. What our opposition do not expect is to find sensible and articulate people with a point to make.
.
They see us all as people who are too stupid to tie our own shoelaces, people who “rant” about things they don’t know about, people who are based on “hate” and “prejudice” and who “blame their misfortune on others” and thus “scapegoat” people to cover their own failures. People who are nasty, blunt, foul-mouthed, insulting and crude.
.
I am a “racist” – but I know that my foundations are based on none of those things I just said to be attributed to us. I am a “racist” – and even I cannot stand the “racists” described in the last paragraph. They can on occasion even make me cringe….so why should anybody else like them or take their points seriously?
.
Yes, we are always going to be labelled – but I would rather we were a good product being labelled rather than a bad product. The produce we provide should stand up to scrutiny and have some worth.
.
Playing up to the media stereotypes with a “screw you anyway, nobody likes us and we don’t care” world view is perhaps a personally satisfying thing for some people (as part of their sense of rebellion) – but they are not for me; and nor do I think it is a good idea to have that kind of thing attached to us.
.
B.A.
Max Musson
- Edit
Good points, B.A.
Steven
- Edit
Yes, BA. This fight is about LOVE for our own kind and NOT ‘hate’. I don’t ‘hate’ any other race or nation of people. ALL of us have a place somewhere in the world. I just LOVE my own and want to see them continue in existence. An Israeli Jew in Israel isn’t called a ‘racist’ for wanting to see Israel as the ‘national homeland of the Jewish people’ so it is patently unfair and unjust to label us ‘racist’ or ‘haters’ for WANTING THE SAME thing for our people.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me,
Think I’ll go eat worms.
Big fat juicy ones, Eensie weensy squeensy ones,
See how they wiggle and squirm.
Chomp off their heads and squeeze out the juice
And throw their tails away
Nobody knows how I survive
On worms three times a day.
Kradmelder
- Edit
This argument is self defeating for white nationalists. The minute you engage in it you have given the enemy the advantage in that you are defending your views against something sinister. You also deflect from the real issue, which is exactly what they want to do. If you say yes I’m racist, so what? What is your point? Can we discuss the issue. It is within my freedom of belief and freedom of association. In addition it is within the precepts of my Christian faith to choose a wife from amongst my own and each having their own land. As long as you don’t promote violence or hate against another race it is fully within western laws. It is just as valid as a muslim only marrying another muslim and only associating with them. Even multicultis accept this. Once you accept the term with no shame or apology it loses all effect. Yes I am racist. Yes I am white. Yes I am Christian. Yes My beliefs are to associate with other whites. Yes I am proud of it. Yes I want my children’s children to be white, not mixed race. So what? Exactly what law or religious precept or moral am I breaking? Is not agreeing with a liberal against the law?
Kradmelder
- Edit
Even the term racialist or race realist will not do. Nothing short of an admission that ‘we are all the same’, ‘race does not exist’, ‘we all bleed red’ (so does my dog, yet we are not the same), ‘Only environment accounts for differences between people’ will do. Yet these ideas originate from a race that doesn’t see themselves as the same but as a Chosen People, and see they have a right to homeland only for their tribe. What hypocrisy. Why should a white person defend something so self evident: the fact that races are different not only in appearances but culture and, abilities and level of advancement by all indices of civilisation? They will always turn the discussion to skin colour but not is not about colour at all. It always breaks down to ‘You can’t hate someone for their colour, they don’t steal because they are black etc. May as well discuss the colour of the sky. Just accept they call you racist. Like the old sticks and stones saying for children. White and proud brothers, white and proud. Call me racist, racialist, inbred, bigot, anti-Semite, redneck, ignorant or what ever other slur. It doesn’t bother me. Then allow me to call you a N*r, K*ke, etc. After all, if we are equal we should have equal right to slur each other. The fact that we have to use * to slur them while they don’t have to type Wh*te trash, B*got etc says it all.
WesternmostWhite
- Edit
The problem I have with the word “racist” is that when an indigenous people are simply wanting to remain the people of their territory, which every ethnic people need, in order to stay the ethnicity they have always been for substantial periods of time, then in today’s world where there is an agenda to break up these ethnic or naturally occurring blood associations, that by definition means that an ethnicity who merely disapproves of any demographic change to their historical territory, is “racist”, because it means a member of that ethnicity is expressing whether consciously or not, a preference for their own people, which by default means, they are expressing supremacy.
In other words, not one ethnicity on the face of the planet is allowed continue it’s existance, because it is in breach of exhibiting supremacism. Thus the 2 words are a con-word, because they make something which is natural and not implicit in hating other peoples, a sin, an evil, a societal norm seeing it not only as abnormal but horrid.
When in the light of the above, it is anything but, and it must be asked, then what is the problem with an ethnicity wanting to preserve and protect itself and finding joy in itself, it’s expression of living – it’s ancestral and cultural heritage.
Of course such a contrivance was meant only to be the concerns of the advanced white world, where it’s indolent and spoilt leftist thinkers spent their time in crucified anguish at the evil of the white man and where it was our accidental advancement which had placed us in a temporary superior position which led the leaders and captains of our race to exercise their supremacy in a cruel manner over all the other poor and innocent races. Temporary because such an artificial ordering of the world, was a chance happening, which would soon be put to rights, once the white man had been corrected, his ignorance dispatched and his evil tendency, tamed.
Thus the words racist and supremacist were really only ever applicable to one race, us, the evil dastardly whites and meant to make it sinful for us, in all our diverse nations and ethnicities, to exist at all. So I do have a problem with these 2 words, there origins and the source of there origin, to begin with.
Max Musson
- Edit
I don’t think a desire to preserve one’s own people can logically be described as ‘supremacy’. Racial supremacy can only exist where two or more races live cheek by jowl in the same country, such that one race can dominate the others. Most nationalists advocate racial separatism, in which each race can live in their own homeland with no capacity for racial supremacy to occur.
Kradmelder
- Edit
Max, what you describe is Apartheid. Separate Development. You know what the world reaction to that was. Only one state is allowed to practice that, being an exclusive homeland for one group: Israel.
The problem with it is one group will be more intelligent, harder working, more ambitious etc and will prosper. the other remains indolent and will see their neighbours prosper and will want to go and take it by theft or by violence.
That means even apartness must be secured by a supremacy of arms.
All of history has been ascending races or tribes, subsequently attacked by a conglomerate of ‘inferior’ tribes or savages wanting to take what the superior people have built up.
That is Europe and America today. Whites built up great civilisations, the third world pours in to take it. To resist, when whites do it, is called racism. Whether I defend my home against black thieves, my community against non-whites moving in, or a nation against immigration, it is all called racism.
Kradmelder
- Edit
I can just add, when Japanese keep their island for japanese only, when jews do it, when Indians do it, when blacks expel whites, that is not racism. Non-whites are entitled to defend their homelands as their exclusive preserve. It is only whites that are racist for the same behaviour. Very well then, I’m racist. This is my home, my family, my community, my land. I’m white and I wish all the above to remain white. I am entitled maintain what is mine and I am not harming another race to do it. I bear them no ill will, but good fences make good neighbours. Stay on your side of the fence and keep mending the fence so it is impassable. Hop over my fence to help yourself to what I have purchased or built, well then conflict will arise.
Max Musson
- Edit
The existence of a White homeland does not depend upon a state of racial ‘supremacy’ existing within it’s society and in terms of the interaction between and the relative influence, wealth and wellbeing of racial groups. This is because an exclusive White homeland would preclude the existence of non-Whites within our population.
.
The security of a White homeland against attack by outside forces does not rely upon a superiority or supremacy of arms either. All that is required is that we have the capacity to deliver such a ‘bloody nose’ to any aggressor that it is not worth their while attacking us. This is the nature of a deterrent. We don’t need to be able to easily win a war, simply inflict make all potential aggressors know that in any war against us, whether they eventually win or lose, we can inflict so much damage upon them that they will be much worse off as a result.
.
Most generals agree that in order to launch a successful military offensive, the attacking force needs to have either massive technical superiority, or else to outnumber the defending force by at least 2:1. Technical parity is therefore all we really need – technical superiority merely adds ‘icing to the cake’.
Kradmelder
- Edit
This is true Max, however, non-whites are already within white homelands in large numbers. So how would it be possible to preclude them within the population? I assume you are referring to white enclaves within a multiculti nation?
This in essence would be like former South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya and modern Israel. All were beset with conflict due to one group prospering. All were also outnumbered, hence relied on arms to secure their right to exist. They also maintained control of security because once security passes to the majority, the boundaries close in on you. All survived because as you say, they could give their enemy a bloody nose and never lost a battle. They were defeated strategically by internal undermining of will (largely by jewish groups inciting whites to question their cause and avoid service) and foreign intervention. Except Israel, which is propped up by American arms and money.
The expansion of non-whites across UK, not just London, is increasing. Being a minority is a real possibility. Crimes targeting whites will increase. The British, with a long history of an unarmed population and no national service, are a ripe plum. Internal crime and violence will result in white flight and abandonment of areas. In South Africa the response has been emigrate, retire to security complexes, or form private security companies and patrol your streets and keep your area safe. I follow the latter. The drawback is white males have done no service since 1990. The pool of men to secure homes is declining and ageing. Young whites are not interested. The british will face these choices. The blacks and muslims will not be content with the lower level jobs and ghettos. They will want YOUR home and land. And they will try and take it.
Max Musson
- Edit
Non-Whites are most unlikely to remain within enclaves created by Western Spring and they will definitely not remain within the UK under a Western Spring government. They will be actively and enthusiastically encouraged to seek places of abode elsewhere. I don’t think I need say more than that. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we will choose live cheek by jowl with ethnic minorities, interacting with them in ways that will make it necessary for us to adopt a relationship of racial supremacy. Racial separation will be our aim, not racial supremacy.
Kradmelder
- Edit
That would be an amusing sight. The flights out of Luton filled not with punters, but with Pakistanis on 1 way tickets to Islamabad, blacks heading for Lagos, Accra and Kingston, and muslims to Mecca. Bon Voyage! Best of luck in your homeland!
Max Musson
- Edit
There would indeed be a boom in business for every conceivable type of transport company, with cars and trains heading for the south coast, with ships leaving our ports and with aircraft heading south across the Channel, filed to capacity, and coming back empty.
.
Very quickly houses would become affordable again, congestion on our roads would be massively reduced, unemployment would disappear, crime would become a rarity again and the old and the very young would be safe to enjoy our parks and countryside once more, even after dark.
WesternmostWhite
- Edit
I never said the word “racism” = “supremacy” or that preserving one’s own race = supremacy. It is the definition as described in the article and indeed in the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries.
I have always asked European genocidalists what they mean by “racism” usually they ignore the question precisely because they do not know if it means it involves some sort of hate element or not.
But after the article above declared definition which seems to coincide with dictionary definition, then my comment logcially addresses why it is a con and wrong.