There is only one issue: White race survival.
But while we're waiting for the Thought Police (with a pump .12 gauge and plenty of ammo), how about another round of intellectual masturbation on philosophical topics?
In classical philosophy, it was considered axiomatic that identical causes have identical effects.
Of course, today the Jews have changed all that, and the effect is always the same, absolutely regardless of the cause. For example:
a) France had colonies in North Africa; France is full of Arabs.
b) Belgium never had any colonies in North Africa; Belgium is full of Arabs.
c) Britain had African colonies; Britain is full of blacks.
d) Germany lost all its colonies in 1919; Germany is full of blacks.
e) America fought in Viet Nam; America is full of Vietnamese.
f) Germany never had anything to do with Vietnam; Germany is full of Vietnamese.
g) America is a "nation of immigrants", so we are packed out with scum; nations that were never "nations of immigrants", like Italy and Ireland, are packed out with scum nevertheless.
And so on, mutatis mutandis . There are probably more Mozambicans in Germany than there are in Portugal, although Mozambique was a Portuguese colony. Why? Because there's more welfare in Germany than there is in Portugal.
This is called “manipulating the logical argument to get what you want regardless of the factual situation”, a practice followed by the Jews at all times and under all circumstances.
Well, two can play that game. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So how about this?
a) Wetbacks without amnesty are here illegally, and are criminals; they can get out.
b) Wetbacks with amnesty are here legally, and have been rewarded for breaking the law; they can get out, too.
b) European blacks came over voluntarily (to sponge off us); they can get out.
c) American blacks came over involuntarily, as slaves, and are sponging off us, too; they can get out, too.
Why not? What's the difference logically?
Same for European Arabs (with the possible exception of a few “ harki ”, loyal Algerians who came to France to avoid getting their throats cut by the FLN, while hundreds of thousands of others like them were abandoned); but that's a different story. There were 14,000 harki; that doesn't account for two million Arabs in France, 500,000 in Belgium (which never had anything to do with the war in Algeria, not to mention Britain, and every other country in Europe, where they are nothing but a nuisance, etc. etc.).
The White Race is the product of millions of years of evolution. OK. You don't believe in evolution; the same argument applies nonetheless. If the White Race is the product of Divine Creation, that makes it even more precious, rather than less.
Slavery, segregation, and apartheid were all justified on Biblical grounds, and quite correctly so, too; now the Christians tell us WE can't be racists, but the Zionists CAN be. The fact remains that the Bible does not advocate racial mixing.
The White Race has survived thousands of years of authoritarianism. It will not survive 250 years of democracy. This makes “ democracy” the worst form of government, bar none.
Not that I am not a believer in authoritarianism on principle. On the contrary, I think the U.S. Constitution is the greatest purely political document in history. But I want it the way it was originally written and intended.
For example:
a) If the Confederate states were not entitled to leave the Union under the 10th Amendment, they were still in the Union when the 1861-65 Secession War * ended. The 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments required the ratification of 27 states, which they never received. These amendments were never legally ratified, and have no binding force. Therefore, Blacks are not citizens and cannot vote. All politicians elected with their votes are in office illegally; all legislation passed by those politicians is null and void. This includes the Jewish-sponsored immigration bills that are turning American into a Third World country. This includes all the obviously unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions which are turning America into a garbage dump.
b) Contrariwise: if the Confederate states WERE entitled to leave the Union under the 10th Amendment, the same reasoning applies, and the same consequences follow nonetheless. The 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments required the ratification of 27 states, which they never received. These amendments were never legally ratified, and have no binding force. Therefore, Blacks are STILL not citizens and STILL cannot vote. All politicians elected with their votes are in office illegally; all legislation passed by those politicians is STILL null and void. This includes the Jewish-sponsored immigration bills that are turning American into a Third World country. This includes all the obviously unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions which are turning America into a garbage dump.
Slavery was forced on the United States of America before the U.S.A. became an independent country. The Commonwealth of Virginia attempted to abolish slavery in 1750 and was prohibited by the British Crown from doing so. One of the first acts of the newly independent United States was to abolish the international slave trade, becoming effective in 1807.
So if the niggers don't like it here, they can direct their complaints to the Queen of England. She's a nigger-lover, and what's more she's rich, so let her pay.
Which brings us to Free Trade. Some people are against Free Trade, but I'm for it. I think we need it (for about five minutes). Why? Because Free Trade destroys all the pretexts trotted out by Jews to justify unrestricted coloured immigration since 1965 (accompanied, of course, by the abortion of 40 million mostly White children in the US at the same time; what about their “ better life ”?).
For fifty years, we have been told that the “down-trodden masses” [to quote the words of Zionist kike Emma Lazarus – look at the way THEY treat people!] of Mexico, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Islands are flooding into the United States to seek a “better life”.
Well, capitalism certainly does produce a “better life” if material things are the sole criterion.
So I say: if China is good enough for the capitalists to invest in, then it is good enough for the Chinese to live there, in the “plenty” that capitalism created for them (assuming that such “plenty” really exists; if it does not, the same principle applies nonetheless).
If Viet Nam is to be the “New Frontier of Capitalism” (according to National Geographic Magazine), then it is good enough for the Vietnamese to live there. Same for all other countries (except for qualified immigrants the way it used to be).
All these countries have entered into highly disadvantageous (to them) financial agreements with Western capitalists. In some cases, Western investors will have recovered 100% of their capital in as little as 4 years. All this investment will be nationalized – sooner or later. Poetic justice.
So we tell them: OK, we invested x-zillion dollars modernizing your countries, you can have it. You can nationalize it. It's yours. We won't send in the Marines the way we did in Vera Cruz, Mexico, in 1914 and 1927, etc. But there's a catch. You gotta take back your people. Otherwise, swim, baby, swim.
After all, since the world is round, if you keep on going in any one direction, sooner or later you end up in the same place. That's how America got discovered in the first place. Or have we forgotten?
The wetbacks keep bitching about the “frontera falsa”, the “phony border”. So where, pray tell, is the “frontera auténtica”, the real border? It doesn´t correspond to the old pre-Mexican War border, or what the hell are wetbacks doing in places like Georgia and Vermont?
I say: it corresponds to the three-mile limit off the Atlantic Coast (or the North Pole, for all I care; how about the South Pole? Let them keep swimming until they get there).
That's where the “ frontera auténtica ” is. Let's see whether this “ aquatic life form” adapts to a marine environment.
Same thing for the Jews, who have been saying “next year in Jerusalem ” for 2,000 years, but who refuse to go there. OK. Let them negotiate with the Arabs on the swim back.
We weren't packed out with illegal refugees in the 1950s, and nobody accused of us being “Nazis” then. So what's happened since?
It's a Jewish verbal quibble, a semantic trick. Anybody who holds what used to be the beliefs of probably 99% of the entire White Race is a “Nazi”. (What about the Zio-Nazis?)
Well, I've got a little verbal quibble of my own. Americo Vespucci had nothing to do with the 1504 voyage which resulted in the discovery of North America. His claim to have done so is apocryphal (like Himmler's “Secret Speech”). The continent is misnamed.
So we rename the country: The United States of Aryanland. Anybody who isn't an Aryan can get out. Who decides who's an Ayran? We do.
Nobody ever gave us any authority to do this, but nobody ever gave the Jews any authority either (they bought their “authority” on the stock exchange, by manipulating interest rates, borrowing money, and buying up the mass media), so what's the difference?
ADDENDUM: On second thought, skip the “We” and make it “I”.
If “ democracy ” is a system in which “ minorities ” enjoy special status, and totalitarian dictatorship is government by a minority of one, then totalitarian dictatorship is the perfect form of “ democracy ”. Just read Chairman Mao's Little Red Book (or the speeches of Fidel Castro, for that matter).
It's no more absurd than anything else (for example, a mass-media-based "anti-racist" dictatorship of fanatically “racist” Zionist Jews). So why not ?
CARLOS W. PORTER
1996 (revised 2002)
* The 1861-65 conflict was not a “ civil war ” as that term is defined in international law; the term “ civil war ” was, and is, a Northern propaganda term intended to justify Lincoln's illegal invasion of the first seven seceding states which in fact caused the war, including the secession of four more states. As for “ freeing the slaves ”, slavery was never abolished in the North until after Lincoln was killed, and even then it was done illegally. Lincoln was a pathological liar just like F.D.R., Reagan, Clinton, and the Two Bushniks. For a display of the mental contortions indulged in by Northern imperialists to avoid admitting that the 1861-65 conflict was a “war of secession” and that Northern actions were illegal, see WHEATON'S ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1866 Edition, by George Grafton Wilson, with notes by Richard Henry Dana, a Northern fanatic (reprint available from www.wshein.com) . For example: war was never declared against the Confederacy, and the Confederacy never surrendered, because the Lincoln government refused to acknowledge its existence! “The United States could recognize no authority, either of a State or of confederated States, capable even of making a surrender. It would deal only with each army before it, and accept its separate surrender to the commander of the Union army opposed to it, as a military fact. The surrender of all the rebel armies left the confederacy [no capitalization in the original] simply to collapse. Neither its existence nor its disappearance was noticed legally by the United States” (p. 70-72, note by Richard Henry Dana). This is like discharging a shotgun at a ghost while proclaiming loudly that one does not believe in spirits. It was also a violation of the Constitutional provision that only Congress can declare war. All the seceding states had ratified the Constitution by State resolutions expressly reserving the right to secede under the plain language of the 10th Amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession, even today. It is purely a question of brute force, of naked political power. In fact -- in practice -- the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. As for the slaves, the defeat of the South was a disaster for the blacks, whether they admit or not. Reagan was one of the worst Presidents in American history, because it was he who first began the practice of amnesty for illegal immigrants. One might as well put the country up for auction to the lowest bidder. As for Bush, it would have been better if Gore had been allowed to steal the election, because more people hated him. Which is better, to eat shit and know it's shit, or eat shit and think it's ice cream? I think the first is better, because you'll eat less of it, plus you might kill the ice cream vendor who sold it to you. Hope springs eternal in the human "beast".
Further reading: THE REAL LINCOLN by Thomas DiLorenzo
LINCOLN UNMASKED by Thomas DiLorenzo
AMERICA'S CAESAR by Greg Loren Durand
THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR by Avery Craven
TIME ON THE CROSS: THE ECONOMICS OF AMERICAN NEGRO SLAVERY by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman
AMERICAN STATESMEN ON SLAVERY AND THE NEGRO by Nathaniel Weyl
(indeed, anything by Nathaniel Weyl generally).
Best source for reprint historical works on slavery, the Old South and the War Between the States:
search "google com" for "Confederate Reprint Co."
Reprinted titles include:
A Southside View of Slavery by Nehemiah Adams (1854)
A Debate on Slavery by Jonathan Blanchard and N.L. Rice (1846)
Liberty and Slavery by Albert Taylor Bledsoe (1856)
A Defense of Virginia and the South by Robert Lewis Dabney (1867)
The Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision by Elbert William R. Ewing(1909)
A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery by John Henry Hopkins (1864)
Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession by Beverley B. Munford (1909)
Slavery and the Remedy by Samuel Nott (1859)
The Negro: The Southerner's Problem by Thomas Nelson Page (1904)
The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion by Charles W. Ramsdell (1929)
The Philosophy and Practice of Slavery in the United States by William A. Smith, D.D. (1854)
White Supremacy and Negro Subordination by J.H. Van Evrie, M.D. (1868)
Many other items.
Return to ARTICLES PAGE
Return to CONTENTS PAGE