Political Correctness = Cultural Marxism

Well... I think the nukes will of course be taken into custody by the majority people who built them.

You need to consider that polarization is dividing america into Black White and Hispanic areas. If you think Hispanic areas will remain economically successful when whites flee, well, keep thinking that way ;-) Its the reason why California's economy is collapsing.

 

Not to mention a cheap source of canon fodder in the form of underpriveldged youth.

I for one want to see the old ideals of an integrated nation of all races become true in the US. And profit shouldn't be our sole or even close to our primary goal. It should be considered a nice side effect that may occur when humans relate and accept all other humans. I am tired of seeing my world constructed based on economic theory, without regard for humane considerations.

 

Nope, you leave everything exactly where its at, there are plenty of nuclear weapons in the north. The Calexas Confederation will need the the nuclear weapons to defend ourselves when you all remember where the oil is.

We will see how economically successful the whites are when they have to pick thier own fruit.

 

If you cant design them, you cant have them. It would be irresponsible to let Mexico, an underdeveloped 3rd world country to have nukes. A certain civilizational development is needed before a country can have nukes, and they need to build them themselves.
Everything owned by white people would be sold for the market price and Mexicans could buy everything in the southwest back: homes, building etc. They wouldnt be able to buy the skilled white manpower though. So all those powerplants, hospitals, schools that need a whole gamit of technical professionals to run them would not be staffed. How would things work in Mexico's new territory? I want you to look very carefully at Zimbabwe. It was once the breadbasket of Africa. Whites were forced out. The country is in chaos, and a tinpot dictator terrorizes the people who are begging for a return of colonial rule. Prophetical.

Besides, you are gonna need to sell your oil for hard currency as it will be the only useful product you will be capable of producing. Surely you dont think technology companies will find suitable employees among a massive population of campesinos with 2nd grade educations do ya?

As for how successful whites will be on their own...Well, consider that Mexico is a third world country because it is full of Mexicans. They come to America begging for oppurtunies from white people. Just the cold hard reality brah. You know it, I know it and so does everybody else. I'm just politically incorrect enough to tell ya. Up until 1965, America was 90% white European and was a superpower, and achieved that without the aid of "Diversity" or "multiculturalism." The country has been in decline ever since then.

PS. I do hope you get your Mexi/Texifornia. I get the feeling though, that, prosperity will not come to your people. I hope it does, but have my doubts. Your new lands will have ALL of the same problems Mexico has. A white ethnostate would no longer be saddled with transfer payments in the form of welfare and racial preferences for non-Europeans. White people succeed everywhere they go. Homogenous ethnostates will automatically bring a close to alleged "white supremacism" since other racial groups would have their own societies which can function any way they want. Everyone wins. Koombaya!

 

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

The Origins of Political Correctness

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

for anyone curious

 

Are you planning to force relocate people ? Because if you aren't I don't see Silicon Valley relocating to Columbus Ohio, or Hollywood relocating to Gary Indiana or Dell moving its operations to Helena Montana. I am white, and even if your ethnostate utopia comes to pass, I will not abandon my home and business, I will stay put, I have no reason to move.

 

By all means please stay LOL ;-)

You will be one of the few who does. Most will gladly leave because they downt want to stay in a 3rd world dump. And umm yeah, silicon valley and hollywood will relocate because the people who would work in that industry simply would no longer be in california. Too much crime, business unfriendly etc. There would be no such problem in a white ethnostate. All would be done voluntarily. I'm guessing you're one of those loony multi-cult utopians who still believe in the dream of an integrated society... Snickering...

editing my post:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM

I dont think you will be allowed to live in the new Southwest by the management. Gringos not wanted ;-)

 

I will, thank you very much.

Nope, I am a Texan.

 

Obviously, this would require the mass movement of large population groups into homogeneous regions from regions which are currently mixed, or isolated enclaves. But the only alternatives are a return to domination of the other groups by one, as under the secular Sunni rule of Saddam Hussein's Baath party, or complete chaos and civil war. Iraq has proven once again that multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster.

I know where they are getting this information. Its from The Marine Corp Small Wars Manual(1940, still used today) section SWM 1-13 and I quote

It also goes on to say that if a government cracks down "too hard" in trying to govern itself, in "multiculturalism" it will ferment all the "most violent" revolutions in history. Basically only those of us on this forum are smart enough to understand the future that is the America that our children will inherit.

 

haha, was just reading a book and found this in it:

"....the limits of tolerance, that its nothing to be tolerated because when the shit hits the fan you find out how much tolerance is worth...Nothing. and underneath all that tolerance is intense, passionate hatred (Angels in america, 90)."

 

The Inverted World

By The Realist • 12/10/06

Susan Sontag “The white race is the cancer of human history.”1 Susan Sontag’s words of 1967 express the central idea of the age that we live in. In the contemporary view, which I will dub the “whites as cancer” myth in honor of Sontag, whites are a destructive and malign force that is the major source of the world’s suffering. Fifty years ago, the West saw its history as the gradual ascent from barbarism to civilization and from dogmatism to Enlightenment. Today, the West sees its history as the gradual, but still imperfect, conquest of racism. Racism has, in sum, become the defining feature of the West.

This website is dedicated to the proposition that what the “whites as cancer” myth turns reality on its head, or is a sort of lens that shows us an inverted world. In reality, whites are the great benefactors of humanity, and have shown throughout their history a charity, generosity, and capacity for accomplishment that do not have any parallel among the other races of man. The “whites as cancer” myth causes a pervasive distortion of reality that prevents us from understanding and dealing with the problems the West faces.

To be more precise, the myth posits that:

1. Whites are the only “racist” race. That is, they are the only race that has believed itself superior to other races, and this belief has led them to treat other races in a uniquely cruel manner.
2. White racism and imperialism are the primary explanation for the failings of non-whites.
3. Whites deserve no credit for their superior cultural achievement. Indeed, they deserve to be blamed for it, as whites only achieved cultural superiority by keeping non-whites down and by stealing cultural innovations from them.

The “whites as cancer” myth does not affect merely how we view whites. Since it posits that whites are uniquely evil, the myth causes us not only to exaggerate the evil of whites, but also minimize, hide, and apologize for evil committed by other races.

When stated as flatly as this, the myth looks like an absurdity that could never compel any credence whatsoever. Anyone who pays attention to world news knows that races other than whites do show enormous cruelty to people of other races: think of the genocide committed by Arabs on blacks in Sudan, for example. And yet, the myth persists because we so rarely bring ourselves to reflect on it: our belief in the evil of whites is so powerful that it does not occur to us to defend them from slander. Defending the white race seems like defending pure evil.

The Inverted World will be devoted to explaining the nature, causes, and consequences of this myth and to inculcating a more accurate understanding of the nature of the races, which we will call race realism. Following thinkers like J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Arthur Jensen, we believe that most of the differences in cultural achievement among the races are rooted in innate differences in intelligence and psychology. We also believe, with Tatu Vanhanen, that racial diversity leads to conflict because the races normally seek to achieve dominance over each other. Race realism has political consequences. Since many non-white groups are not suited for the type of society whites have created, and since non-whites will naturally try to achieve dominance over whites, we believe we should work to maintain white majorities in nations that currently have them. As such, we are white activists.

History Textbooks as an Example of the Myth

According to this, whites are a cancer. To understand how pervasive and fundamental to our age the “whites as cancer” myth is, consider the vision of history taught in American schools. Nothing is a better indicator of the bedrock worldview of a society than what it teaches its children in school. Just like their counterparts in other societies throughout the ages, schoolchildren in America are taught an official view of history that is carefully vetted by the authorities.

In The Language Police, historian of education Diane Ravitch reveals the profound anti-white bias in American history textbooks. One prominent publisher’s guidelines for textbooks on American history, she writes, display “a barely concealed rage against people of European ancestry.”

They deride European Americans for exploiting slaves, migrant workers, and factory labor; they excoriate the land rapacity of the pioneers and mock their so-called courage in fighting Native Americans: “Bigots and bigotry,” say the guidelines, referring to European Americans, “must be identified and discussed.” European Americans, the guidelines suggest, were uniquely responsible for bigotry and exploitation in all human history.2

​

One subject in which textbooks show particularly egregious bias against whites is slavery. Certainly, slavery was an abhorrent practice and deserves to be condemned. However, textbooks assign the guilt for slavery solely to whites. Most textbooks imply whites brought the slave trade to Africa, hiding the fact that whites were merely taking advantage of a slave trade that was long established there3 and that it was Africans themselves who captured the slaves and sold them to slave traders. Furthermore, textbooks present the Western slave trade in grisly detail, but whitewash the slave trade practiced by non-whites. For example, the 2000 edition of Prentice-Hall’s The American Nation states of the Atlantic slave trade:

Below the decks of the slave ships, slaves were crammed tightly together on shelves. One observer noted that they were “rammed like [fish] in a barrel.” They were “chained to each other hand and foot, and stowed so close, that they were not allowed above a foot and a half for each in breadth.”



Records of slave ships show that about 10 percent of Africans loaded aboard ship for passage to the Americas died during the voyage. Many died of illnesses that spread rapidly in the filthy, crowded conditions inside a ship’s hold.4

​

However, according to Gilbert T. Sewall of the American Textbook Council, in American textbooks, “Islamic slavery does not exist or is presented as benign.”5 One textbook called Patterns of Interaction has this to say about black slaves in the Islamic world between 650 and 1600:

In most African and Muslim societies, slaves had some legal rights and opportunity for social mobility. In the Muslim world, slaves even occupied positions of influence and power. Some served as generals in the army. Others bought large estates and even owned slaves of their own.6

​

This statement is, while not inaccurate, certainly misleading. Slaves who achieved prosperity and positions of power were very much the exception, not the rule in Islamic society; most were employed in menial positions, just as black slaves in the Americas were. Moreover, the textbook fails to present the downside of Islamic slavery.

Arabs driving black slaves. One look at the Arab slave trade reveals the bias. First of all, historians believe Arabs took more Africans as slaves than whites did—from the 10th to the 19th centuries, Arabs took 14 million Africans as slaves; whites only took 11 million.7 While it is true that slaves did have certain rights in Islamic countries that they did not have in the Americas, the Muslim slave trade was just as brutal as that practiced by whites, and could also be portrayed in lurid terms. Muslims captured slaves in raids against African tribes during which captives were brutally treated. If the slave-traders decided they couldn’t use the Africans they had captured because of age or infirmity, they were put to death. So intense was the Muslim need for slaves that it frequently resulted in full-scale warfare against African tribes, with all the death and destruction that is in the nature of war.8 After being captured, the slaves were chained together and taken on long marches across the Sahara desert to markets. Due to thirst, malnutrition, disease, exhaustion, and the attacks of bandits, most of the captives did not survive the march. Indeed, for every slave who finished the march, three or four died along the way. The route the slave-drivers took was strewn with skeletons.9 Once they reached the markets, the traders practiced a form of cruelty against many male slaves unknown in the West: castrating them to make them eunuchs.

Nor is it less certain that Arabs had as strong a belief in their superiority to blacks as whites did and used this belief to rationalize enslavement. Historian Bernard Lewis cites many examples of racist beliefs among Arabs. A tenth century Arab writer attributes to the black man “a long penis and great merriment. Galen says that merriment dominates the Black man because of his defective brain, whence also arises the weakness of his intelligence.”10 Arab writers frequently compared blacks to animals and stated their subhuman status made them fit only for menial occupations.

A similar double standard applies to the depiction of World War II. In his review of textbooks used in Wisconsin schools, Paul Kengor of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute found they generally dwelt upon the American incarceration of Japanese, and emphasized the hate and cruelty shown to Japanese during this time. Yet the much worse treatment that white American POW’s received at the hands of the Japanese, including the Bataan Death March, goes entirely unmentioned in most textbooks. Furthermore, most of the texts make no mention of the Rape of Nanking, in which the Japanese gratuitously slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Chinese.11

The same double standard applies to the portrayal of Southern Africa. Students learn plenty about apartheid12 but little or nothing about Robert Mugabe’s dispossession of white farmers in Zimbabwe. As most of us know, the African dictator sent out thugs to take over white-owned farms in 2000; attacks on the farmers and their families were common, and many died or were injured. As a result of this and other persecutions, virtually all of the white farmers of Zimbabwe have now abandoned their farms and left the country. Mugabe gave the farms to party hangers-on who did not know how to use the sophisticated agricultural machinery. As a result, the country, which had been a food exporter before the beginning of black rule, plunged into famine and now relies on UN food handouts. What do textbooks have to say about this? Typical is Prentice-Hall’s World History: Connections to Today. In a section called “Zimbabwe’s Road to Majority Rule,” the textbook blames international sanctions for the country’s disaster and remarks “tensions over land ownership led to renewed violence” in 2000 without mentioning the cause and parties to the violence.13

The textbooks also present white racism and imperialism as the main reason for the suffering of non-whites around the world and hide non-whites’ own responsibility for their woes. Sewall writes,

European colonialism, according to world history textbook orthodoxy, is the source of all African woes. Patterns of Interaction states, for example: “The main reason for Africa’s difficulties was the negative impact of colonial rule. European powers did little to prepare African colonies for independence. In fact, the lingering effects of colonialism undermined efforts to build stable, democratic states.” Blasted African economies, ethnic warfare, genocide, and developmental barriers … may be mentioned in a brief and cryptic way; these conditions are neither explained nor cast in dire language.14

​

Textbooks also fail to give whites credit for their unique cultural achievements. First, as we have already seen, they state that it is colonialism and racism that have prevented non-whites from achieving economic and social parity with whites. Another way of minimizing white achievement is simply ignoring it. While giving glowing, and often fallacious, accounts of the achievements of non-whites, textbooks simply do not discuss what whites have accomplished. Reviewing a world history textbook, William J. Bennetta of the Textbook League, an organization that criticizes bias in textbooks, asks,

What do you suppose the Europeans were doing while those Indians and Africans were erecting temples, instituting “complex” societies, controlling fire, taking courses at Timbuktu U., and making sculptures? … There is not a single photo to depict European art or architecture. There is not a word about Dante, Erasmus, Brunelleschi, Bramante, or Leonardo… . All of these people, and the cultures they represented, have been erased.15

​

Also, textbooks imply that Western preeminence in civilizational achievement is a lie: Westerners actually stole their achievements from other peoples. Ravitch summarizes one textbook publisher’s guidelines thus:

Although the [Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley] document emphasizes the importance of racial and ethnic pride, it suggests that children of European-American descent need to have their pride reduced. European-Americans, it says, have received too much credit for achievements that really belonged to other cultures. Pasta did not originate in Italy, but in Asia, where Marco Polo learned about it; this is surely not a controversy many people knew about or worried about. During the Middle Ages, Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley’s guidelines say, European medicine was based on superstition, while Muslim physicians practiced real medicine.16

​

Textbooks have forgotten him. Finally, textbooks hide the uniqueness of white cultural achievement by exaggerating the achievements of other races. Ravitch gives as an example a passage from the American history textbook American Odyssey on the Anasazi Indians of the Southwest. The book presents the tribe as a Utopian society of egalitarianism and technological genius. Without kings, chiefs, or other authority figures, these Indians built not only four hundred miles of “roads and broad avenues,” but also multistoried “apartment complexes,” which were the tallest buildings in the world until larger apartment buildings went up in New York City in 1882. These claims are not sourced, and Ravitch found them impossible to confirm. She points out their improbability, however. The Anasazi left no historic records: how do the authors of the textbook know they had no chiefs? If the buildings really were taller than any others in the world, why can you find no mention of that fact anywhere outside the textbook? Ravitch found one fact that the textbook leaves out, however: many scholars have found evidence that the Anasazi practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism.17

Although the teachings of American textbooks are a particularly striking example of the “whites as cancer” myth, I could have used many other examples. As The Inverted World will document, the entertainment industry focuses obsessively on slavery, racial discrimination, and imperialism in the West, and, with a few exceptions, the message is the same: whites are the only racist race and are responsible for the sufferings of non-whites. The myth also pervades the news media: our next feature will examine the effect of the “whites as cancer” myth on the coverage of the Iraq war.

 

What Really Makes Whites Unique

As my title implies, the “whites as cancer” myth turns reality upside-down. Whites are indeed unique, but they are unique for their accomplishments and compassion, not for their cruelty.

To grasp the enormity of the textbooks’ distortions, we turn to Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment, which measures the contribution of various cultures to science and art empirically. A full 97 percent of significant scientific figures between 800BC and 1950 have come from the West.18 Murray’s list of major discoveries in astronomy, for example, starts with Pythagoras’s discovery that the morning and evening stars are the same, continues through Copernicus’s statement of the heliocentric theory and Edwin Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding in 1918, and concludes with Fred Whipple’s work on the composition of comets in 1949. Not a single non-Western figure is included in this glorious parade. The list of central events in the history of technology shows us that the equipment of modern life is almost wholly Western in origin as well. In fact, between the 11th century and 1950, all major technological innovations, from the watch to the steam engine to the computer, came from Europe and the United States.19

Perhaps even more striking is Murray’s list of what he calls “meta-inventions” in the sciences and arts, that is, the basic ideas without which the modern nations would have been impossible. Europeans are responsible for almost all of these. Logic, the systematic study of human reasoning, is a Greek invention. The Greeks also invented the mathematical proof, upon which the whole of mathematics is founded. These two Greek inventions gave rise to the scientific method in the European Middle Ages and Enlightenment. It was Europeans who created the very concept of science: they were the first to clearly articulate the method of hypothesis and experiment and to grasp that the world had a structure that was comprehensible by mathematics. It was Europeans who first mathematically formalized the idea of probability, resulting in the science of statistics. In the arts, Europeans were responsible for the invention of artistic realism. It was the Greeks who first thought of depicting the human form as it actually appeared rather than according to stylized conventions, and Europeans of the Renaissance and Enlightenment first created the realist novel. Perspective, which adds a third dimension to painting, was a creation of the European Middle Ages. Musical polyphony, or music that has two or more melodic lines, is another; before this invention, music consisted simply of a single melody without harmony.20

Buy this book from Amazon Murray does not deal extensively with political philosophy, but he does mention some meta-inventions in that field as well. Among them is the Enlightenment idea that humans have certain inalienable rights, among them the right to dispose of their own persons and labor.21

Murray’s book reveals in startling clarity how high the achievements of whites tower over those of the other races of man. Certainly, other races played a role, but enlightened, modern, scientifically and technologically advanced societies are almost entirely the creation of whites. Anyone who can read Murray’s book without concluding that whites are a race with special gifts that set them apart from the rest of mankind simply isn’t being reasonable. Science, artistic realism, and polyphonic music are priceless gifts that the white race has given to the rest of the world, but when do textbooks or the movies ever make this point?

Murray’s list of meta-inventions shows whites are unique not merely in their scientific and cultural accomplishment, but also in their compassion and respect for human life and freedom. Through their creation of the concept of human rights, whites brought the world into moral modernity, just as they brought it into technological modernity through their scientific inventions.

Of course, it is true whites have engaged in their share of cruelty and slaughter. The slave trade, the Holocaust, the genocide of Indians in the New World—whites were responsible for all of these, and much else besides. And yet these atrocities hardly make whites unique—slavery and slaughter are human universals, and for every atrocity whites have committed, one can point to one just as bad in the non-white world. Was the Holocaust really worse than the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Was the slaughter of Indians in the New World really morally worse than the slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda or that of the inhabitants of the Darfur region of the Sudan?

What is really unique about whites is the extent of their efforts to stop such atrocities by creating a moral philosophy that sets limits to the acceptable use of power and institutions that actualize that philosophy in the real world. Pre-modern texts like the Koran, the Old Testament, and the Homeric epics discuss slavery and slaughter in a tone that seems grotesquely matter-of-fact to us moderns, as though these were normal and unremarkable facts of human existence. Thanks to the work of white thinkers, activists, and politicians, the world can never see atrocities in this light again.

As we have seen above, textbooks portray the Western slave trade as a key mark of whites’ unique evil. We have also seen that they can only do this by whitewashing Islamic slavery. But another point needs to be made as well: whites are responsible for the abolition of slavery around the world. The Enlightenment doctrine of inalienable human rights convinced whites that they were morally obligated to eradicate slavery, and they have pursued this goal with remarkable dedication for the past two centuries.

The 17th-century English philosopher John Locke is generally deemed the originator of the modern concept of human rights. As Locke said, “[E]very man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”22 Although Locke himself defended slavery, his ideas led European intellectuals to oppose the practice. Thus the French Encyclopedia of 1765 declared in its article on slavery:

There is not a single one of these hapless souls … who does not have the right to be declared free, since he has never lost his freedom… . [T]he sale of this person is null and void in itself: this Negro does not himself, indeed cannot under any condition divest himself of his natural rights; he carries them everywhere with him, and he has the right to demand that others allow him to enjoy those rights.23

​

 

Popularized in the English-speaking world by Thomas Paine, who argued in The Rights of Man that humans naturally have the right to liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression, the idea of the rights of man became central to abolitionism in Britain and America. For example, early 19th century Abolitionists in Britain declared slavery to be “utterly inconsistent with the inalienable rights of men.”24

Under this pressure, Britain abolished the slave trade in its territories in 1807, and the Americans, French, and Dutch soon followed suit. By 1842, all the maritime powers of Europe had outlawed the slave trade. In 1834, Britain freed all of the slaves within its territories. Not only that, but Britain took it upon itself to stop the slave trade in the rest of the world as well. British law declared all slaving ships, no matter what flag they flew under, guilty of piracy, and the British navy regularly captured them. Britain maintained a fleet of ships off the Western coast of Africa for the sole purpose of stopping the slave trade, and spent the enormous sum of £10 million between 1807 and 1837 to exterminate the traffic. Between 1810 and 1846, more than 100,000 slaves on ships captured by the British were set free.25

The British also worked to end the Arab slave trade in Africa in the 19th century. Arab governments greatly desired the support of British military and diplomatic power, and, starting in 1840, Britain made the abolition of the slave trade a condition for getting it. During the rest of the century, Britain induced Tunis, Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and Oman to ban the slave trade. Britain used its military to end the practice: between 1875 and 1880, the British General Charles George Gordon led a campaign to suppress the slave trade along the Nile, and the British navy stopped slave ships in the region. By the early 20th century, the British, by then working in cooperation with other Western powers, had managed to cripple the Arab trade in African slaves, although slavery continued long after in some Arab countries.26 Most of the organizations devoted to combating the slave trade today, including the United Nations, were founded and are sustained by whites, and this goal is still a part of the foreign policies of Western governments.

The invention of abolitionism is as uniquely Western as the invention of astronomy or polyphonic music. While compassion towards members of your own ethnic group is a moral universal, abolitionism was rooted a compassion for the human race as a whole that had no parallel in any non-Western society.

Putting the World Right-Side-Up Again

Outside an American Renaissance conference. The “whites as cancer” myth has had disastrous consequences. So successful has the demonization of whites been that anyone who speaks of advancing white interests immediately summons up images of Hitler, slave-drivers, and the KKK. Take, for example, the public perception of American Renaissance (AR), a magazine devoted to promoting white interests. The articles it publishes summarize scientific research on race differences that are respected among specialist scholars. It also argues that whites ought to take steps to remain a majority in the West by restricting immigration. The views expressed in the magazine and at the conferences it holds bear no resemblance to those of neo-Nazis or the Klan. And yet, at AR conferences, crowds of protestors gather outside holding signs saying, “Change your name. You’re still the KKK,” and other such things. And people in positions of responsibility take these accusations seriously. While he was at the 2006 AR conference, Michael Regan, an Assistant District Attorney from Alleghany County, NY, stated, “You can see European Christian Americans are an endangered species” in an interview with the Washington Post.27 He was fired from his job for attending the conference and for his comment.

Since the “whites as cancer” myth prevents whites from speaking in their own interests, it requires that they approach issues that are vital to their well-being in indirect ways. Nothing is more essential to whites’ interests than maintaining a majority in their homelands, for, in democracies, it is the majority that dictates public policy. The example of Zimbabwe shows what can happen to whites when they are a racial minority in a democratic country: Robert Mugabe was put into power by democratic elections. Mass immigration, both legal and illegal of non-whites, will make whites a minority in America by 2050 according to the US Census Bureau. Yet you never hear any American politician arguing against amnesty for illegal aliens because mass immigration threatens to make whites a despised and persecuted people in their own country. While their own people face imminent demographic eclipse, all that mainstream white immigration reformers can say against mass immigration is that it might raise taxes, or allow a few Islamic terrorists into the country, or even increase unemployment among blacks! It is not certain that a cause that is deprived of its strongest argument can prevail. The same point applies to any number of political and cultural causes, from the campaign against affirmative action to the battle to maintain traditional American culture.

The world right-side-up again. Although the “whites as cancer” myth is the fundamental belief of our time, there is no publication that makes this myth its central subject. The Inverted World will remedy this glaring gap. We will explore the many consequences of the myth; we will root out its causes; and we will show how it can be effectively combated. In furtherance of the last goal, we will show why previous attempts to express white racial interests have failed. Some of our harshest words will be reserved for white activists who have made a mockery of their cause by seeking to advance it through lies and scapegoating. The Inverted World will not spare any group just and well-founded criticism. But white activists who demonize Jews or any other group are the worst enemies of the race realist cause, and we will treat them as such.

We ask for a revolution in ideas, followed by a revolution in politics. Our ambitions are vast, but the truth requires no less. The forces arrayed against us are mighty, and the road ahead of us is terrifying, but we have reason on our side, and we can win!


References

1. Susan Sontag, “What’s Happening in America (1966),” Partisan Review 44 (Winter 1967): 57. ↑
2. Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003), 44. ↑
3. Ibid., p. 153. ↑
4. Quoted in William J. Bennetta, “A History Book It Isn’t,” The Textbook Letter 11 (September-October 2000). Link ↑
5. Gilbert T. Sewall, Islam and the Textbooks (New York: American Textbook Council, 2003), 16 ↑
6. Quoted in Sewall, Islam, p. 16. ↑
7. Ibid., p.16 ↑
8. Murray Gordon. Slavery in the Arab World (New York: New Amsterdam Books, 1987), 131. ↑
9. Ibid., 160. ↑
10. Bernard Lewis, Race and Slavery in the Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 52. ↑
11. Paul Kengor, Evaluating World History Texts in Wisconsin Public Schools (Thiensville, Wi.: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, 2002) 10. ↑
12. Ibid., 12. ↑
13. Sewall, “World History Textbooks: A Review” (New York: American Textbook Council, 2004), 27-8. ↑
14. Ibid., 27. ↑
15. William J. Bennetta, “A Book of Far-Left Propaganda that Fosters Anti-Intellectualism,” The Textbook Letter (January-February 1997). Link. Quoted in Ravitch, 154. ↑
16. Ravitch, 37. ↑
17. Ibid., 153-54. ↑
18. Charles Murray. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts, 800 B.C. to 1950 (New York: Harper Collins, 2003), 252. ↑
19. Ibid., 163-66, 198-204. ↑
20. Ibid., 209-44. ↑
21. Ibid., 229. ↑
22. John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government, 27. ↑
23. Quoted in Davis Brion Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Western World (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1966), 416. ↑
24. James Walvin. “The Public Campaign in England against Slavery, 1787-1834” in The Abolition of the Atlantic Slave Trade, ed. Eltis, David and James Walvin. (Madison, Wi.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1981.), 73. ↑
25. C. M. MacInnes. England and Slavery (Bristol, UK: Arrowsmith, 1934), 182-83. ↑
26. Gordon, 161-207. ↑
27. Michael Laris, “Promoting ‘Preservation’ of Whites in Suit and Tie,” Washington Post, 26 February 2006. ↑

 

Dude I only read this much (at the bottom of this page) but I think you are right. I carnt understand why people dont just say what they think. So that everyone knows what they want. Except they needent do it by going round saying bad stuff and all that. Do you mean we should just say the N word if we feel like it because that might be a bad idea, but I think if we want to say that we think fascists should say what they think in that way then let them say it that way else noone can say anything that they think. As long as noone says we have to kill gays and other people and all that then its ok to say
maybe not I am just trying to make up my mind about stuff
This is what I mean. If this man can say this why carnt people say go home nazi hater

dude I just read this bit as well. I am beginning to see what you mean
But there is too much to read there. Are you sure people dont like whites this much. I have a friend who is black and he doesnt say this stuff about whites being like cancer. He just has a load of fun with us. really he dont think things like that at all

 

If they started saying "go home nazi hater " it would mean the person saying that sympathised with nazism. It therefore seems absurd to take part in a voting democracy when what you advocate would take away your right to vote. It is the reason why fascists and nazis are hypocrites. They use democracy with the intent to defeat democracy. However, that of course does not take into account that the liberalist politicians who actually are elected use the law to erode democracy once they gain power
Therefore while agreeing that free speech should include the right to say those things I am pointing out both the absurdity of saying them and the hypocrisy
Of course the absolute dishonesty of liberalist politicians and their corrupt paymasters - the capitalists - also falls into the category of the hypocrites
but theirs is worse it is also a hidden agenda and a corrupt one because their perversity is money and power