Archive/File: people/b/bouthillier.arthur alb.0194
Last-Modified: 1995/01/09

From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Sun Jan  2 15:41:31 PST 1994
Article: 3824 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: END THE HOLOCAUST DISCUSSION....
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 13:32:03 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <940102.48723.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1993Dec19.172738.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <9312212017591.mike60.DLITE@delphi.com> <1993Dec21.212838.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <931226.05472.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g6umm$csg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
Since I decided you probably were directing those questions at me, I have
answered them:
 
1.  What benefits that are derived from groups?
 
Access to resources, opportunities for income, enjoyment from the company
of the members of the group. Additionally, it ensures that an organized
society working to create better conditions for one's progeny exists. It
also provides protection from other hostile groups.
 
A group is a community of like-thinking individuals working cooperatively
for the benefit of the group and its members and for specific ideals. It
provides more than economic benefits; it also provides social, cultural,
and political benefits. Additionally, if it is properly founded, it will
provide these things for one's future generations.
 
Additionally, the group provides moral consistency and ensures that one
is in the company of people with similar moral viewpoints.
 
2.  What duties does tigger avoid (you do pay your taxes, right, tigger?)
 
He is not fulfilling a functional part in the advancement of his people.
He's not promoting a white society. He is putting the interests of
non-whites ahead of whites. He is fighting against our group identity and
social norms.
 
What he advocates is not in the interests of whites (or Whites). He
should be advocating the cessation of non-white immigration and
increased social responsibility to create a legacy for future generations
of the body of people who exist within our current borders but most
especially for whites.
 
A society requires more than taxes. It requires positive activity toward
the fulfillment of its ideals and negative activity against things that
tend to destroy it.
 
In fact, what he advocates is not in the interests of any society unless
that society hopes to benefit at the expense of another society.
 
3.  Since when is the ideal of liberty shitty?
 
First, the problem is not liberty, it's what you do with your liberty. You
can have your liberty but don't think that I'm going to want to have a
political and social contract with you. Liberty means letting people
do what they know is right, not forcing people into accepting socially
undesirable behavior.
 
Second, what exists in this country is far from liberty. The government
violates white's property and association rights. These are fundamental
rights required for freedom to exist. Freedom is not on the increase in
this country; every day a new law is passed somewhere, every day a right
is lessened. This government is too large and is ruled by illegitimate
concepts and concerns. In the process, it is destroying our communities
and society.
 
Third. Don't give me your liberty crap. You don't believe that whites
should be at liberty to deny non-whites access to their property. Do
you believe that whites should be at liberty to create all-white
communities? Do you believe that whites should be at liberty to form
all-white corporations? Do you believe that whites should be at liberty
to create a government which represents only our interests? I do.
 
Arthur Pendragon
White Freedom is White Self-determination


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Tue Jan  4 08:04:49 PST 1994
Article: 3840 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Race
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 94 04:29:02 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <940104.16142.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <757540680-0-9558@chop.isca.uiowa.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
> I am curious, since you seem to know so much about race and all, I
> was wondering why race really makes people different.
 
People are different. Race, because it has most often developed
parallel to ethnic groups is often a good indicator of heritage.
 
It is in the recognition of their own heritage that people most
often come to identify their own personal loyalty.
 
Additionally, my ethnic group is composed entirely of people from
a single race. Therefore, I can immediately identify a lot of people
who won't value my own heritage above all others. Therefore, race
is often a good indicator of value and ideals.
 
> I mean, people may look different, and talk different, but what
> difference does it really make?
 
It makes a lot of difference. It affects what happens in the society,
it determines the values and goals of the people in the society, it
affects their loyalties and their ideals. It affects everything about
what a society becomes. It affects the future that one's progeny will
face.
 
> We are all people, and one of the tenets that this country was founded
> on the basis that "all men are created equal"...
 
Don't misrepresent the Declaration of Independence; I think you should
finish the sentence in which that phrase appears. How are people
"equal?" As it says:
 
     "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
      Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,
      liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights,
      governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
      from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of
      government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of
      the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
      government, laying its foundation on such principles, and
      organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
      likely to effect their safety and happiness."
 
How are all men equal? In the rights they hold, not in how I have to
value them. What is the purpose of the government? To serve my ends.
If the government doesn't secure my pursuit of happiness or isn't
founded on principles that are likely to effect what I perceive as
important, then I have a right to demand representative government.
 
I don't deny that non-whites don't have those rights, however, I also
am not obligated to conjoin with them in a society and under a government.
 
Additionally, don't lie about what this country was founded on. This
country was founded to represent the interests of whites in these
United States. Until the 14th Amendment, non-whites couldn't even
be citizens.
 
The United States was founded to represent white interests; however,
that government has become a mutant self-serving disease which has
corrupted the interests it was designed to serve. The U.S. Gov't is now
dangerous to white interests.
 
> I guess what I am asking is, what's your rationale for racism?
 
What's your rational for genocide against the white race?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                            APendragon@delphi.com
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Wed Jan  5 23:40:52 PST 1994
Article: 3858 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: END THE HOLOCAUST DISCUSSION....
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 00:51:32 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <940106.03092.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1993Dec19.172738.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <9312212017591.mike60.DLITE@delphi.com> <1993Dec21.212838.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <931226.05472.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g6umm$csg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <940102.48723.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g9dco$snb@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
> True, but does a group need to share facial features to act in such a
> way?
 
First, a group does not have to share facial features to be able to
provide those few things. However, consistency with historical
background does.
 
Second, it is more than facial features. It is social ideals and norms
and language, and history and tradition and aesthetics. See, I'm a
product of a society which originates in Europe. Over the last few
centuries, we Europeans have developed a certain outlook and culture
which is greater than our individual ethnic communities; we have come
to call it "the white race" or "the White nation" or "the Aryan race"
or just "Europeans." We have shared common heritage, religions, music,
art, we have fought against each other, we have made our peace with each
other, we have come to respect each other, to have common aesthetics
and we have come to see ourselves as a unique people separate from the
other peoples of the world. Additionally, we want to maintain our
distinction and heritage.
 
What you seem to be forgetting is that we whites have an established
social system and it is only because of the efforts of non-whites to
impose themselves upon us with the help of the government that we are
facing the problems we have today. I see no need to change the nature
of our society and any government that tries to destroy our society is
illegitimate at best and a hostile enemy at worst.
 
> I was not born to any group from which I benefited.  I had to earn/
> "charm" my way into them.
 
That may be true; it happens. However, it doesn't seem likely.
America was founded as a white nation to provide certain benefits to
its people and you have probably benefitted in many ways from that.
Obviously you don't own this network although you have access to it;
you have probably benefitted from the schools paid for collectively
from many different people before you came along. These are some
examples of the benefits of membership.
 
Although you may not have been raised by your parents, you either
benefitted by the collective efforts of a system to ensure that
children of residents/citizens of this country are raised in good
homes, or your parents themselves raised you and provided you with
many opportunities at their own expense.
 
> Hey, if you need help raising children then you should do the world a
> favor and not father any.
 
No, I don't agree with you. Raising children requires the concerted
effort of communities. After all, a family is itself a small community
dedicated to a number of things (of which raising children might be
one). But even then, educating the children, or even feeding them
often requires the coordinated efforts of many people.
 
The needs of people are often best met by a community of people who
are dedicated to their mutual welfare.
 
> In other words, he doesn't subscribe to the idea that people who
> share his ancestry have a claim to his time and effort.
 
Yes, that's probably true, even though he may have benefitted from
the efforts of his predecessors, or may yet benefit from the
system/society they created.
 
But, it's more than that. He has refused to subscribe to the idea that
anyone has a claim to his time and effort. He appears to subscribe
to the viewpoint that any collective identity is a disease which
must be erased.
 
> As for cessation of nonwhite immigration, once again you are making
> too much out of something that is only skindeep.
 
Again, it's more than skindeep. It's historical and cultural.
 
>  " We don't need freedom of speech; we need freedom after the speech."
 
That's a funny saying.
 
> True, bet  why are you reacting to that in such a couterproductive way?
 
Am I reacting to it in a counterproductive way? Maybe you mean "you" in
a more collective way. I can't accept full responsibility for the
actions of my comrades. I advocate what I know is right and do what I
can to have them do what is right also. That's all that I can do.
 
> Worrying about skin color is completely irrelvant.  Read a few
> libertarian publications.
 
I have, I'm not very impressed. Libertarianism is not a prescription
for how one SHOULD live, but is a prescription for how one should NOT
live. It advocates solutions from government when what should be
advocated are particular social systems.
 
>> Deny access to their property?
>
>No problem.
>
>> All white communities?
>
> Sure, so long as no properrty is siezed in the process.
>
>> All-white corporations?
>
> Ditto.
>
>> Create a government that represents only our interests?
>
>  Sure, so long as you do not rule over or displace any nonwhites,
> nor sieze their  property or restrict their liberty...
 
Then you and I don't have any problems and can come to some mutual
understandings.
 


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Wed Jan  5 23:41:13 PST 1994
Article: 3857 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Race (AND PENDRAGOON'S STUPIDITY)
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 00:37:55 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <940106.02275.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <757540680-0-9558@chop.isca.uiowa.edu> <940104.16142.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <1994Jan4.140950.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <2gdpog$npl@news.delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
>> WRONG BITCH!
>
> Can you say Dred Scott? I knew you could!
 
One of my teachers today just told me that one of the very first laws
passed on formation of the country was the Immigration and Naturalization
Act of 1790. According to him, it said that only whites could be
naturalized. More proof about the true intentions of the founder of
Republic.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                            APendragon@delphi.com
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Wed Jan  5 23:41:35 PST 1994
Article: 3859 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Fools...
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 94 01:00:11 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <940106.03611.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1994Jan5.040856.13856@mixcom.mixcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
>  Come on, do you really believe that you are superior to every other race?
> To every other religion? Your aren't.
 
First, obviously you feel you are superior to those to whom you are referring.
To call them fools implies some degree of "superiority" that you are able
to decide who is or isn't a fool, as well as decide that there is some
objective standard to which you subscribe.
 
Seriously though, is saying that a thing is desirable the same thing as
saying it is superior? Is a preference for a thing the same as supremacy?
If so, then can we call you a non-white supremacist since you obviously
are saying that a society composed of mixed races/nationalities/ethnicities
is to be preferred to a White one.
 
>  I'm as about as Aryan as you can get. Third generation American, with all
> my ancestors coming from Northern Europe, in and around Stuttgart to be
> exact.
 
Then you should be proud of that and work to create the best for your
people.
 
>  So grow up, and if your really a proud member of the White race, show
> it by having enough pride not to down-trodden your fellow man!
 
I'm a proud member of the White race and I don't advocate "trodding down"
other peoples. However, I have my preferences and I will pursue what I
know is good. I cannot say that the loss of political/cultural/economic
self-determination is good for whites. Therefore, I advocate what I
think will be in my/their/our best interests.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                            APendragon@delphi.com
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!news.delphi.com!not-for-mail Wed Jan  5 23:43:05 PST 1994
Article: 3856 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!news.delphi.com!not-for-mail
From: apendrag@news.delphi.com (APENDRAGON@DELPHI.COM)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: e: VVZ
Date: 6 Jan 1994 00:34:11 -0500
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <2gg7sj$jci@news.delphi.com>
References: <16F3513966.MTTT022@URSUS.BKE.HU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.delphi.com

Hermann, I must agree with our detractors, unless the media is
making up this stuff about old Vlad, he is starting to sound like
a real asshole to me too.

Grandstanding is one thing, but he's going a bit too far.

If anything, he will probably have the opposite effect from what
needs to happen. Maybe the rumours about his shady heritage and
work for the KGB are true.

  



From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Fri Jan  7 10:55:49 PST 1994
Article: 3870 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: END THE HOLOCAUST DISCUSSION....
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 01:57:48 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <940107.07068.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1993Dec19.172738.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <940102.48723.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>  <2gc0gn$hah@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
> "In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."
 
That does not discount the factors to which I am referring. After all,
how does the individual come the moral viewpoints he holds?
 
> I do not believe in societal / group morals, as I have said, morals are
> a PERSONAL decision.
 
But on what basis does one come to a decision regarding what he should
choose? Is morality self-evident and universal? If yes, how does one
discover it; if no, then what good is morality and, again, what should one
believe?
 
Even should one choose the Golden Rule ( "Do unto others..." ) as the
basis of his philosophy, one still faces the dilemma of what one should
do. Doing unto others offers no guidance as to what is good, what goals
one should have, etc. The Golden Rule offers no basis for prescribing
social or political policies.
 
> "does that make it conscientious or moral for them to vote to gangbang
> her?"
 
On what basis do you say it is wrong? Seriously. On what moral basis do
you say it is wrong? This is not a trick question, but merely an attempt
to better understand moral thought.
 
Additionally, it is whites who are being raped. Someone has decided to
take our property and distribute it for other's benefit. Just because
some assholes in Congress or the Supreme Court decided that it is best
for America to distribute our property for the benefit of the State and
other peoples, does not make it any righter than your rape example.
It is liberals, socialists and statists who have voted to rape whites.
 
> Once again, I do not believe in a blanket decision on what is right and
> what it wrong.. that is thought suicide.
 
What is "thought suicide?" Why is it bad? Additionally, you HAVE made a
blanket decision: you have said that it is impossible to make blanket
decisions.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                            APendragon@delphi.com
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Fri Jan  7 21:24:16 PST 1994
Article: 3886 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: END THE HOLOCAUST DISCUSSION....
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 23:14:24 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <940107.83664.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1993Dec19.172738.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <9312212017591.mike60.DLITE@delphi.com> <1993Dec21.212838.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <931226.05472.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g6umm$csg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <940102.48723.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g9dco$s=Organization: Delphi Internet
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos3a.delphi.com

 
> Pendragon, thanks for remaining flamefree.  I'll try to do the same.
 
No problem, I don't think anyone benefits from flaming.
 
> Taking pride in the achievements of a nation means also taking shame
> for its atrocities and shortcomings.
 
Oh, then you DO believe in racial guilt.
 
You are wrong; taking "pride" in one's nation means adhering to certain
principles and values. About what should one feel guilty?
 
> Americans can take pride in the nation the settlers built, but if they
> do so they must also bear the shame for the massacres committed against
> the Indians, the broken treaties, the relocationof Japanese-Americans,
> slavery, etc.
 
Life's cruel.
 
 Massacres against the Indians: the vast majority of Indians died of
      diseases. Indians also committed many atrocities. A great
      example of this is evident in the story of Pocahantas (sp?).
      Her tribe hailed from around the Great Lakes and then moved
      to the (now) Boston Area after massacring the local inhabitants.
      Slavery and murder were common among these "noble savages."
      Fuck the Indians; I didn't have anything to do with their demise,
      but I will be responsible if I let my own people face the same
      conditions.
 
 Relocation of Japanese-Americans. Waaaa! 2/3 of all internees during the
      war were of German heritage. Why aren't you whining about them?
      Again, fuck the Japanese.
 
Additionally, I don't advocate American nationalism since Americanism has
been corrupted from its true heritage. I advocate revelling in our white
heritage and rebuilding the institutions our people need to survive
independently and free.
 
> Taking pride in the achievements of a nation means also taking shame
> for its atrocities and shortcomings.
 
No it doesn't.
 
>  Why not just acknowledge that the world is shrinking, that national
> boundaries are losing their significance, and that one does not have
> to belong to any culture to enjoy from its heritage.
 
Because it's not true. The world is shrinking, state boundaries are
becoming irrelevant because capitalist, non-nationalist states have made
them that way and, lastly, people never change. This is a formula
for greater ethnicity/racism. History hasn't been written for the next
100 years so don't pretend you have some magic glasses. The future will
probably be one of increased tensions, nationalism, and genocide.
Increased ethnic migration will increase those ethnic tensions and new
ethnicities and ethnic tensions will arise to solve the social problems
of increasingly marginalized populations.
 
> Your nationalism sounds reasonable at first, but is the beginning of a
> downhill road towards a world best left only in our nightmares, because
> national seperation leads to balkanization, to fanaticism, and finally to
> a meaningless war.
 
Your internationalism sounds reasonable at first, but is the beginning of
a downhill road towards a world best left only in our nightmares, because
forced integration leads to genocide, loss of culture, totalitarianism and
finally to meaningless war. Look at the soviet union; it tried to eliminate
nationalism and now it is nothing but nationalism.
 
Your ideas are based on false premises of human nature and a desire to
play god by trying to decide for others what is good for them.
 
> This is because nationalism is the partial (later total) surrender of
> individuality to an abstract concept with little meaning.
 
That only shows how poorly you understand nationalism. The reason that
people fight for nations is because they provide MORE meaning than
anything else (especially multi-ethnic states).
 
> Yes, as a student at MIT, I take benefit from the work of founder
> William Barton Rogers and his successors, but who would benefit by
> exluding me from the place?
 
I don't know enough about the history of MIT to be able to comment.
However, I do know that a number of "Ivy League" schools regularly
excluded for whatever reasons. When property rights existed, people
COULD choose whom they wanted to admit.
 
However, the illegitimacy of your argument is obvious when one
examines the question: "Were these schools 'mediocre' when they
could exclude whomever they wanted?"
 
< Note: I don't know whether MIT had exclusionary policies in the past
        or whether it is a private school or not >
 
Who would benefit? Probably some other white who did not have as good
an SAT. It would mean opportunities for marginalized whites.
 
> Making the place Americans-Only may sound nice to some, but all it
> would mean is the invasion of mediocrity.
 
Nonsense, it would mean that those resources would be used to serve
American interests. Was there mediocrity at MIT before the gates were
opened to all?
 
>  The problems of today arise from the idea that people are entitled
> to things.
 
Within any contract, one is entitled to certain benefits; for any
contract to be valid, there must be mutual consideration. The problem
is that the contract of our government has been corrupted and the
distribution of entitlements is based on illegitimate concepts.
 
Additionally, the problem is not the belief that one is entitled to
things, but that one is entitled to them without responsibility or
reverse consideration.
 
> The only solution to the problems of today s a society with the
> complete absence of force.
 
And how are you going to "enforce" this absense of force? By force.
 
Also, to which "society" are you referring?
 
I just came across an article today which might interest you; its title
is "What is Moral, and How Do We Know It?" It is in the June 1993
issue of the Jewish magazine, _Commentary_. There are a few things with
this author's viewpoint on which I disgree , but I think he has
succinctly defined many of my own moral viewpoints.
 


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Fri Jan  7 21:24:51 PST 1994
Article: 3887 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Is VVZ genuine?
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 23:19:37 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <940107.83977.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1994Jan7.163956.7706@msus1.msus.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos3a.delphi.com

 
Thanks for rekindling my faith in Zhirinovsky, Hermann.
It's obvious that what he has said is being misrepresented and
taken out of context.
 
I think it is important to put into perspective the importance of
someone like Zhirinovsky. He has both the potential to bring great
advances for our people as well as great harm if he is not careful
of both his statements and actions. Whether he likes it or not (and
he obviously does like it), he is a representative for whites around
the world.
 
But considering the basis of his party, its platform and his obvious
dedication to the cause of our people, we can be assured that he great
potential to rekindle the spirit of White nationalism by working to
unify White nationalist groups worldwide.
 
My biggest hope now is that he will make significant enough changes to
help White South Africans before their fate is sealed like those of the
Rhodesians.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                            APendragon@delphi.com
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet Tue Jan 11 00:47:51 PST 1994
Article: 3961 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!news.Brown.EDU!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon 
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: END THE HOLOCAUST DISCUSSION....
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 02:35:10 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <940111.09310.APENDRAGON@delphi.com>
References: <1993Dec19.172738.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <9312212017591.mike60.DLITE@delphi.com> <1993Dec21.212838.1@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> <931226.05472.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g6umm$csg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <940102.48723.APENDRAGON@delphi.com> <2g9dco$s <2gt5i1$bbc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com

 
> The Japanese value conformity, while Americans value individuality, etc,
> etc.
 
"Americans value Individuality" is not a precisely correct statement;
it is a very broad generalization. A more correct statement might be
"Americans value Freedom." Freedom, and the idea of being free, has been
a part of our culture for all of recorded history.
 
A closer examination of most of American society (not on the frontiers)
would reveal a quite collectivist society based on strict social roles.
 
It is my observation that for all of the flag-waving diatribe of
individualism, most Americans are actually quite conformist. The sad
thing is that they are now conforming to an illegitimate government's
dictates.
 
Besides, I'm not an American (although I am a U.S. Citizen). I am White,
I am French, I am Celtic but I have never in my life identified myself
as American.
 
> One does not have to belong to any nation to share those values, and
> sharing those values need not come with any national pride.
 
I never said that it did.
 
>  If you stick to values such as honesty, hard work, and other values
> (stressed by just about any nation) then you can be proud of yourself
> for doing so without expressing any "national pride."
 
I don't have a driving compulsion to feel proud; I only feel proud of
fighting for what I know is good and right.
 
Also, just because the word "pride" is used to signify the emotional
experience one feels for his people and their accomplishments does
not mean that it is genuine pride. In fact, it is obvious to me that
it is NOT genuine pride; however, the fact that it is not genuine
pride does not make it any less significant or important. English
(and a few other languages) symbolizes that emotion as pride but I
don't think that pride is the proper word. I haven't developed an
adequate substitution yet but it appears to me that it is somewhat
different. Pride is an emotion one feels when one has acted positively in
accordance with his values and performed some action which raised (or
maintained) his social status. The emotion normally attributed as "national
pride" appears to me to be another phenomenon entirely; although it appears
to parallel proper pride, it has some other properties that make it very
un-"pride"-like. However, it's biological function appears obvious; it
serves group identity and group cohesiveness. For the purposes of argument,
I'm willing to equivocate it with pride.
 
> That would mean that I would take pride in Australia winning America's
> Cup a few years ago even though I did not take part in the race, that as
> an Israeli(immigrant-national from both sides, I am) I would take pride
> in Israel winning the Arab-Israeli wars and drying the malarial swamps
> of the Sharon even though I took part in neither.
 
Just because you're confused about your pride does not mean that I am.
Perhaps this will give you an opportunity to examine and understand your
own pride better.
 
> But if I take pride in accomplishments to which my only claim is
> nationality, why should I not take shame in atrocities that were
> committed by my countrymen (Australians poisoning aborigines, the
> massacre at DirYasin, etc.)?
 
You can if you want to; I don't feel any kind of shame for any actions
that occurred in the past. My own experiences have shown me that it is
very difficult to guage actions in the past from a contemporary viewpoint.
Often those "atrocities" occurred under other significant social pressures
and under completely different sets of morals/worldviews.
 
>   In my eyes, both are absurd.  I must not take neither pride nor
> shame in acts that I did not have a way of helping or supporting.
> I hope you share that opinion.
 
I'm not so sure that I do share that opinion because as I've said, I'm
not sure that I equate "national pride" with "personal pride." They both
are positive and useful emotions.
 
>> but I will be responsible if I let my own people face the same
>> conditions.
>
> Why?  You will not be the reason for their "demise."
 
As you said earlier, we are not on the same "bandwidth." My affiliation
with my nation implies responsibility on my part. My responsibility is
to work for the benefit of my people as well as to advance my own
interests.
 
>> The future will probably be one of increased tensions, nationalism,
>> and genocide.
>
> So should I just join the bandwagon?  Or, should I try to reestablish
> in America the ideals on which it was founded?
 
America was founded as a white republic based on natural law. That is
exactly what I am promoting although I don't think that the current
political institutions are salvageable; therefore, we whites must
reestablish a white republic for our own benefit.
 
>> Increased ethnic migration will increase those ethnic tensions and new
>> ethnicities and ethnic tensions will arise to solve the social problems
>> of increasingly marginalized populations.
>
> Well, advocating nationalism will only aggravate that.
 
But I want to aggrevate that. The only reason we face that kind of
future is because our government is bad and has not adequately protected
our interests. Building new institutions will only occur when the old
structures have been torn off their foundations. I'm not a "conservative."
I am a radical and work for a progressive White society.
 
Additionally, nationalism is based on human rights of individual
self-determination and group association. It expresses itself as a
collective attempt toward national autonomy. We never wanted the
presence of non-whites and we still don't; that hasn't changed. What
HAS changed is the numbers of non-whites because the government has
forced their presence among us and we have not fought adequately to
stop that.
 
>> Your ideas are based on false premises of human nature and a desire to
>> play god by trying to decide for others what is good for them.
>
> You must mistake me for a commie.
 
You're right. I thought I wrote that to Walsh. It was not intended for
you.
 
> Nationalism has always depended on the notion  of a nationl leader.
 
No it hasn't. Basque nationalism isn't founded on a national leader,
nor is Walloon, Flemish, Welsh, Quebecois, Latvian, Estonian, Jewish,
Vietnamese, English, or Inuit nationalism.
 
Nationalism sometimes does revolve around a national leader, but so
what? This is because nationalism is often only successful when it
is driven by the insight and drive of a single individual.
 
You express a trait common to liberals and libertarians; you have
thrown out the baby with the bath water. I have noticed that people
like you must justify why certain things are bad and in the process
you throw out what is good also. In order to continue to justify your
positions, you must always portray the opposite in hyperbole.
 
I think that if you examine the premises of Liberatarianism, the idea
is to provide the maximum amount of liberty for people. However, it
is guaranteed that given liberty, people will create ethnic/national
communities and seek political self-determination.
 
>> The reason that people fight for nations is because they provide
>> MORE meaning than anything else (especially multi-ethnic states).
>
> That is precisely what is so horrific about nationalism.
 
Gee isn't that horrible, people finding a common meaning and enjoyment
in their lives!
 
> Rogers founded MIT because he resented the way admissions in the
> University of Virginia which he left were conducted mostly by
> string-pulling.  The dogma of academic proficiency remains the rule
> at MIT.
 
Well, as a private institution, I recognize his right to utilize his
property in just about any way that is within the confines of just laws.
 
>> Also, to which "society" are you referring?
>
> Right now it is called Utopia, unfortunately.
 
Although I have not heard all of your viewpoint, what little I have
heard is not any "utopia" that I want to be part of.
 
> They were the best, but they could have been better.
 
"Better" in accordance with your definitions and goals (not necessarily
the founder's).
 
Arthur Bouthillier
Existence is Struggle

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor