4:13 PM UTC
Very interesting article, but I'm going to have to disagree with a few things.
While blacks and whites may have been pitted against each other for the cynical exploitation of both, the only way we're going to achieve a system where whites aren't exploited by other whites is in an ethnically homogenous society. We need a high average IQ, and a high level of social trust. Whereas with blacks and whites living together the common culture becomes confetti culture, as cultures are expressions of our race's instincts. (http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/05/confetti-culture/)
Also, I'd say that it's no longer the "white" media in charge, try to look at board of the New York Times, Jews make up the plurality. They're the driving force, they were the driving force behind the civil rights movement as well as the lobbying to change the US's immigration laws.
I think the best thing to do is the give the blacks a few states of their own, cut out a few city states and leave them to their devices ( Chicago, New York, Portland) , let California secede and maybe give some of the mestizo states back to Mexico. Leaving a smaller, but whiter and stronger America.
Moadisox, thanks for prodding me to consider this question anew.
I agree that the homogenous society will be less exploitive of the majority and that the Hebrew element in America has been largely a force for exploitation and social fragmentation, all the way back to the Dutch Jews who trafficked white slaves here circa 1620, to the Vice President of the Confederacy.
However, it is a fact, that all Semitic peoples are Caucasian—meaning white. If you wish to build a society that excludes Berbers, Moors, Jews and Arabs, you must first abandon the catchall macro-ethnic term, "White" which has been used to exploit Caucasians throughout the modern period.
If you go to Aryan, then you must include Indians of the top castes, Pashtun Afghans and Iranians.
I know that the idea proposed by white nationalists is to include all "whites" except for Jews for now and then purge out Non-Nordics later, with the status of Alpine and Med peoples a subject reserved for those who buy Stoddard's racial outer dyke theory. This is disingenuous and I appallingly without honor.
Although I am no WN, I propose the Aryan route, with delineated status limits on non-Nordics and an Islamic exclusion rule, as Islam is an ideology of racial negation, and a Jewish exclusion rule as Jews belong to a unique ethno-religious "tribe" that has a roughly 1000 year history of undermining host societies in order to promote it's survival as a polity without a homeland, and the refusal to stop this practice once a homeland was reestablished—which demonstrates tribal malice. Some other religions and ideologies would have to be excluded on a case-by-case basis.
The problem with the term white is it is a term that is taken to mean Caucasian [even though none of us are white, but shades of pink and beige] and that this fantasy designation—supposed to invoke sentiments of cultural purity—was the very tool that British empire builders and slavers [including Jews] used to elicit loyalty and military service from the European folk they hated, despised and are currently discarding.
I too, would like to see California Succeed and New York as well—for these are not—in terms of culture and morality—member states of the United States, but proto-nodes of a global macro-polity, the evolved ideal that the British were working toward when they developed the cults of White Supremacy and The White Man's Burden, a puppet show aimed at getting us stupid palefaces to go along with the rising of Glorianna, the Secular, Global Goddess who would eat all of her young in the moral cradle.
I would like to take one more step and note that the globalist ideology promoted by many, many secular Jews, is, in any rational end game, a death sentence for traditional, tribal Jewry. There is also the fact—a deep fact of my life over decades—that once a person—no matter how smart—decides that most of the nation's problems are because of nefarious actions taken by these elite Jews [most of whom are secular, a point that should not be overlooked] that it therefor follows that all Jews, from rag-picker or Rothchild, are programed from birth, like some robotic demon, to destroy and negate all other human cultures and that every one of the world's problems are, by design, the will of Jews, for Jews. The slide into this pit of a thought process is so precipitous that causes and effects can no longer be seen clearly, as if every shoe made in China serves a Zionist purpose, as if every word printed in Japanese serves only Zionism. What such a belief amounts to is that Jews are a superior master race, and I've known too many Jews to buy the argument that they are all better than the rest of us, and worse still that they are more loyal to each other than the rest of us—for their knives of betrayal that are often turned on the host society are first honed shafting their own.
Any rational person who reads score upon score of newspaper headlines, and TV show story lines, and movie plots, authored by people with Jewish last names, that are all scathingly critical of white gentiles and bombastically laudatory about the sainted martyrdom of blacks and Jews, must conclude that the secular Jewish intellectual class is working to destroy the remains of Christendom. Since the resulting birth of a global UltraState, which will be programed to eradicate national boundaries and negate all cultural distinctions in the dehumanizing quest to reduce all humans to a mono-crop of light brown Afro-Asian-Euro hybrids [I have read gleeful articles on the end of red heads and blondes as a global good] would naturally bring about the end of the Japanese, Swazi and Jewish ethno-states, is the divisive function of the Jewish-American secular elite a tool in the hand of some cabal of Rabbis seeking to enslave all gentiles in order to bring about the fall of Israel, or are they the tool of something or someone bigger?
To phrase it differently, how often has the obvious, gross tool of destructive means been the architect of the destruction?
How often has the gun, the knife, the stick, the stone plotted the death of its victim?
For, when I am being asked to believe that a loose cabal of playwrights, lawyers and bankers—who have largely discarded and shat upon their unifying faith—were the architects of the social fragmentation they have openly implemented, I am being asked to believe that the gasoline and the match have conspired to set the world on fire rather than the arsonist who put them in place.
I understand that your position on the Jews is that they serve a demon-godSatan if you will. That is a religious position. I have no problem with religious positions, including the Islamic position that I should be slaughtered for being a heathen or the Hebrew position that I'm an inferior human fit for humane slavery, or the Christian position that I will suffer an eternity burning in hell. Faith is faith and has no burden of proof. I can accept the notion that a group of people would conspire against others at the behest of a greater power, a god, a devil. But, I won't buy the fact that a group of notoriously materialistic people are cohesively conspiring against all other people for the purpose of facilitating their own ethnocide. If they are smart enough to outsmart the world powers then they can certainly see that the success of globalism would mean the same thing for Israel now as the success of Rome meant for it 2000 years ago. So, yes, I am willing to entertain the idea of a devil-god as more likely than a tribe aggressively bent on suicide.