Can someone explain to me why the native people of Britain are excluded from the protections of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?Is she serious?Very nice writing by the maid, but her use of "indigenous" ruined it for me.Look, calling ourselves an "indigenous" people is a totally loser tactic. The whole "respect for the indigenous" thing is a great tactic invented to appeal to whites and ONLY whites. The purpose is to get whites to leave you alone, or get the help of whites against other whites, or get white help against non-whites.All of which requires and assumes white supremacy. If whitey ever went the way of the dodo, NOBODY would give a fig for "indigenous rights."It ain't gonna work against an invasion of Chinese, for example -- unless you can get whitey to ride to your aid.We are not just another "indigenous people". It's stupid to pretend we are. It ain't foolin' nobody.Certainly, non-white indigines are exactly that: They belong to the land. They are part of the scenery.Our land belongs to us.
Actually kulak you make a great point. It is indeed 'loser tactics'. By using the term we're already making a major concession. I'll have to watch out for that myself.
Thank you for alerting me to the Maid of Albion's Plea. This is our struggle, this is our time. We must not fail our race and our heritage of Plato, Shakespeare, Bach, and Beethoven. Our people have conquered the earth and put men on the moon. We must not now go quietly! Lions and cubs, when we pull together we are invincible!
The other things I don't quite like are 1) the female tendency to see oneself as the victim of vast dark forces, and 2) imaging our own doom."They will do this, they will do that. You will this, you will that."Bollocks!, say I.I'm not saying these things absolutely can't happen, but the truth is it's all within our power to reverse. Whether we die or live, from this day forward, has everything to do with us and nothing to do with them.It's not exactly empowering. That sort of self-annihilation imaging, is, well self-annihilating!The past is important only in that it may inform our course.Simply extrapolating the past into the future is retarded, but don't tell any economists or white nationalists.Ain't a goddamn thing inevitable, except one's own personal demise.
Kulak - agreed, good point. It's long past time to have recognized that laboriously laying bare our enemies' hypocrisy and double standards is an utter waste of time. It's like some earnest Christian believing he can talk a sociopath into understanding that lying and cheating and torturing are naughty. All that does is give the sociopath more useful psychological information on the best ways to manipulate stupid do-gooders.As you say, nobody but late-modern whites has any use for "indigenous rigths", except as a stick with which to beat fucked-in-the-head whites out of their patrimony. The non-white attitude to nations and migration is just a variant of the old "what's mine is mine and what's yours is ours", only this time with the addendum of "but only 'ours' for a short while, after which what is yours won't be yours at all any more, but all mine."UN charters don't enforce any "right" beyond that of globo-slime bureaucrats to leech off productive people and live above the law. No land belongs to any group absent the active will and the material means to hold it. In the not-too-distant past Europeans understood this as well as anybody else.
Bit too orotund for my proletarian tastes but I admire the sentiment.
Rohan swee and kulak .... my sentiments exactly. The problem arises though when our numbers are so small and the vast majority of the sheeple can't see beyond the X Factor.As an earlier post showed about Sweden being 20% foreign, the numbers will eventually tell against us.
As an earlier post showed about Sweden being 20% foreign, the numbers will eventually tell against us.Radovan, I certainly don't dismiss demographic concerns, but, as kulak says, only retarded economists and white nationalists mindlessly extrapolate the past into the future - and no where is this more common than in the area of demographics. To listen to these people talk, birth rates never rise and fall, there can't be any more than two or three Germans, or French, or Japanese, for that matter, of reproductive age (instead of millions and millions), and if any country finds itself at some point with an age-distribution that couldn't indefinitely sustain modern Ponzi pension and welfare schemes, that country may as well just lie down and die right now because GOD KNOWS IT'S UTTERLY FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE TO DITCH OR CHANGE THESE SCHEMES IN ANY WAY! Or struggle through a bad patch.Do any of these jokers really believe that, say, the Japanese are never going to turn it around, are never going to find a way out of the economic stagnation their oligarchs are flailing around in, are never going to see any change in fertility rates? And that Japan, with millions of young people, is OH MY GOD GOING TO DIE DIE DIE IF THEY DON'T LET IN JILLIONS AND JILLIONS OF NON-JAPANESE just because right now they're demographic distribution is top-heavy and times are tough? Uh huh. No population ever survives those conditions. The Black Death finished off Europe, dontcha know, by killing off the young and leaving too many oldsters around. Then they went into history's dustbin, which we remember as "the Renaissance".Furthermore, a good deal of the very high reproductive rates of non-whites, both within and outside of the West, are subsidized by whites. Stupid, and yes, for some European nations, perhaps ultimately disastrous - I'm no Pollyanna about this. But do you think these populations will just keep growing exponentially when the subsidies (in their many forms), and Western protection from Malthusian corrections, ends? Even our crazy-ass pandering governing class is not going to be able to keep up the subsidies for Mohammed's and Conchita's non-stop baby-party when the pension funds go up in smoke and other people see their one or two children going without medical care, or even enough food. The subsidees can riot and march through the streets until the cows come home, but if the money ain't there, it ain't there.
In that post about Sweden I made the same point as Rohan S. You just cannot extrapolate future population levels from current figures.Again, as he says, the fast growing black and muslim populations, who are overwhelmingly welfare-dependent, cannot be supported indefinitely.Either the native population will rebel, and/or their reproductive habits will change back to more normal levels.Either was, the doomsday scenario is by no means a done deal.
Savanat, you MUST see this!http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/blog/article/398653/Ha ha ha!!!! Dumbing-down extends EVERYWHERE!!!
Re population. Maybe it's risky to extrapolate, but the problem is that white reproduction rates have been low and stayed low for a very long time. And with one or two exceptions, show no sign of increasing.Also the simple mathematics, increasing geometrically - mean that population composition can change radically over a few generations. Kosovo is a perfect example of that.
I think you also have to take into account mixed marriages. Whites have recessive genes. When a dark Muslim male marries a white woman the children will be brought up as Muslim and will be darker skinned than than the white mother and have Islamic forenames and surnames. Their descendants will be Muslim and ethnically middle eastern, African or Asian, lost forever to the white Christian and secular population.
Wow. What a great site. Thanks for turning me on to it. A Regular Reader
Post a Comment