The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/b/bouthillier.arthur/1994/alb.1194


Archive/File: people/b/bouthillier.arthur alb.1194
Last-Modified: 1995/01/09

Article 18506 of alt.discrimination:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:28 alt.discrimination:18506 alt.politics.correct:18128
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is Racism?
Date: 5 Nov 94 13:01:05 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 64
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov5.130105@clstac>
References:  <39gmob$be1@girtab.usc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <39gmob$be1@girtab.usc.edu>, plin@girtab.usc.edu (Po-Han Lin) writes:
 
> :                          WHAT IS RACISM?
 
> Again Rick Savage posts another article. And again he shows his lack of
> learning ability.  There is no white race ricky.

Mr. Po-Han raises an interesting point which must be dealt with. The issue
he raises has importance for understanding the agenda of liberals and other
anti-Whites.

If, as Mr. Po-Han points out, that there is no race, then how can there be
racism? Seriously, if race does not exist and there are myriad people who
are "racists," what then is this thing called racism (and why must it be
so vehemently suppressed)?

I think that the answer is simple: a race is a lineal ethnic group (an
ethnic group which identifies itself by the acceptability of certain
other bloodlines, as well as by the organization of society to promote
those bloodlines and their interests). By constraining bloodlines, the
people are best able to ensure the maximum efforts towards those who
are genetically closest to them; phenotype provides indicators of those
bloodlines.

The anti-racists and anti-whites must obviously have a tremendous problem
with white people organizing themselves and their society for our own
benefit. They use mind-twisting logic by saying things like "We are all
immigrants," which is a falsehood since an immigrant is one who immigrates
from another country. For example, I am not an immigrant. I am a
native American (which means that I was born in America) despite the fact
that I am not an Native American (which is a term used to imply that some
Americans are more native than others).

> All the people here were immigrants from other countries when the indians
> were the main populace, and yes, DIFFERENT races.

That is a falsehood. When a person is born within a country, he is not an
immigrant.

> Try posting an article to support germans, or britains, it would make you
> seem more intelligent.  Talk with your brain ricky.  Not post some outdated
> propaganda faqs.

But the Germans and Britains, together, form the White people (as well as
a few others). You seem to have problems with labels; if we Britains called
ourselves Nordics, would you feel any better about that? [Yes, despite the
fact that I am a native American, I am also British]. On what basis should
we organize ourselves? Territory? Should we identify ourselves and seek to
promote the interests of all of those people within a certain territory? By
government? Should we be patriotic, flag-waving Americans and organize
ourselves on the fact that we all have the same government? (I think this is
a bad idea). No, I believe that we should organize ourselves based on culture
and race; these are the only way to ensure the kind of future that is good
for our progeny.
 
> We must ensure the survival of our big nosed children

Blah blah blah. Just because you don't understand what we seek (or perhaps
you fear it), you must misrepresent our cause. Grow up.

Arthur LeBouthillier
We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children.



Article 45 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:45 alt.discrimination:18630 alt.politics.correct:18424
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is Racism?
Date: 9 Nov 94 19:04:53 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 127
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov9.190453@clstac>
References: <1994Nov5.130105@clstac> <39irrd$4of@newsy.ifm.liu.se> <1994Nov7.172639@clstac> <39ronl$98@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <39ronl$98@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>, kain@kaiwan.com (Sean Peterson) writes:
>>> Peter Modin -
>>> Is there some sort of limit
>>> when one can call oneself "Nordic"? When am I an Uebermensch? 
>>
>>What the hell are you talking about? Are you stereotyping me? I haven't
>>said anything about Uebermensch or such.
> 
> He hasn't attributed anything to you, so how is that stereotyping. He is 
> asking you a question to which you have yet to answer

Of course he is; he is assuming that I have an opinion on such things
as unter/ober-mensch. My point is that the assumptions in his question
are unestablished. For example, although I have opinions on issues
relating to Nordics, I have no opinions relating Nordics with Uebermensch.
I doubt very seriously that those two sentences were independent queries
without being part of an agenda: establishing my viewpoints linking those
concepts. Which, as I said, "what the hell are you talking about?"
 
>> On what basis should we lock out people we for some reason don't like, is
>>> what you mean. How can we devise a way to label us something, and people
>>> we despise something else?
>>
>>I don't know; 
> 
> Got it. Thank you for bunking your own grounds for distinguishing between 
> races.

I have done no such thing. Please establish for me where I have done such
a thing.
 
>>There are five basic interests that Whites have to ensure their existence:
> 
> Those are five basics for any nation, now why on Earth should membership 
> to such a unit be based on race or skin color?

Because that kind of society makes me happy. Moreover, I have never stated
that acceptence be based purely on skin color. I will say that not all
people are equally valuable to me. A racial society unites those people
who are most valuable to me and secures their unique biological needs
because that is what it is organized to do above all other interests.
It binds those people who are most important to me into one social unit
which is specifically organized to promote the mutual benefit of those
people.

> There is solidarity on basis other than race, how about creed, principle,
> common cause - as in lets make this nation secure the 5 above items for
> its citizens.

I agree: racial creeds, racial principles, racial causes.

> How about that right of sitting in the front of the bus? Are you 
> bemoaning that loss?

It is not a right to sit in the front of the bus. It is a privilege.
A right is that which imposes no positive obligations on another. In
order to secure the "right to sit in the front of the bus," you would
have to deny other things that are rights, like property, contract,
association and pursuit of happiness.

> Maybe the violations you speak of are actually measures to curtail the
> power of special groups with regard to excluding other Americans
> rightfully entitled to that power, recognition, prestige, wealth?

But that's the problem, they aren't entitled to power, recognition, prestige
and wealth at the expense of my rights.
 
>  >> Since they have a history of enslaving others because of their
>>> racist views...
>
>>Lastly, find me a major social group which hasn't had slavery. The Indians
> 
> Irrelevent. Modin cites that unequal treatment and discrimination are a 
> fact in the U.S. and that such a condition goes contrary to the ideals on 
> which the nation was founded. That or get rid of E Pluribus Unum.

E Pluribus Unum didn't apply to non-Whites. The constitution was a contract
among a body of people which was for their mutual benefit. Non-Whites were
not party to that contract; it didn't apply to them. You might read some
of Jefferson's writings with regard to that issue. He felt that the blacks
were not members of the nation and that they should be sent away so that
the nation could expand without their interference.

Despite the 14th Amendment, the Dred Scott case is the legal decision
which establishes the intents of the founders.
  
> Irrelevent again. The point is that slavery is over in the US and in most 
> of the nations of teh modern world, yet there is a legacy that survives. 

Yes, the legacy is that people like you attack people like me and try to
deny our rights in order to create privileges for your own special
protected group. The legacy is that YOU bundle all white people together
and attempt to deny us our rights because we are the same color as some
former slave holders. Fuck you. That you see us, our desires and interests
as no more important than dirt compells me to seek a new political compact
which promotes my ideals and interests.

> Your direction appears to seek to justify that legacy by the past. The 
> question is really, "can we allow this to continue?" What is your answer?

Victory or Valhalla. There will be a new White nation-state in North America.

Besides, you are full of shit. I haven't attempted to justify "that legacy
of the past." I haven't justified slavery; prove that I have. I am justifying
a new and better future.
 
>>> white by color, human by nature
>>
>>You means something different by White than I do. To me, White is the label
>>of a particular social group who happens to have light skin.
> 
> Sure it does? That would mean that White is a group open to all who adopt 
> the social habits and customs of "white" If that is so you wouldn't 
> object to black being member of that white group or to their 
> intermarrying.  Is that correct or is white as you employ the term really 
> *defined* by the race, which is something that cannot be so easily 
> altered or changed?

No, people foreign to the genetic lineage of my social group are not welcome.
Those who don't hold this group and its interests as the highest ideal are
not welcome either (no matter what their skincolor). My nation is a subset
of those with light skin (among other features) and who also hold the ideal
of a White nation and nation-state.

Arthur leBouthillier
Good is that which serves the White race.



Article 46 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.politics.nationalism.white:46 alt.discrimination:18632 alt.politics.correct:18432
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.discrimination,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: What is Racism?
Date: 9 Nov 94 19:28:15 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov9.192815@clstac>
References: <1994Nov5.130105@clstac> <39irrd$4of@newsy.ifm.liu.se> <1994Nov7.172639@clstac> <39roq2$c3@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <39roq2$c3@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>, kain@kaiwan.com (Sean Peterson) writes:

> This is not surprising in the least. The former certainly predate the 
> arrival of Indo-European speakers to the European continent. 
> 
> Science is quite at a disagreement with your myths. YThe idea of Aryans, 
> a much maligned and misused term, has been rehabilitated to refer to a 
> group of pastoral nomads who called themselves "Arya" or noble and 
> invaded northern INdia from their original homeland somewhere in southern 
> Russia.

"Science" is not in disagreement since science isn't a creature with
opinion. Some "scientists" might disagree but that is unimportant; the
thing about science is that it often consists of a specific body of
language which does not apply to everyday usage. Moreover, that these
things are myths is unimportant. Is your myth that America is a country
founded on "E Pluribus Unum" any more valid? Those who stated it meant
something specific which does not coincide with your interpretation of
it; yet you persist to assert that it is a significant founding principle
of the United States. 
 
Arthur LeBouthillier



Article 79 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:10647 alt.politics.nationalism.white:79
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Date: 17 Nov 94 17:43:15 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 35
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov17.174315@clstac>
References: <3aeildINNct2@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <3aeildINNct2@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>, talih@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:

> 	Why is it that the TV talk shows seem to get the most poorly
> spoken and generaaly odd people to speak for the movement? 

The typical example is when the Montel Williams show called a friend of
mine to be on their show. They said "We're looking for racists who hate
blacks." When my friend replied "Well, we don't hate blacks, we merely love
our own race," the representative of the show said "Uh...thanks, we're not
looking for that kind of people." They are dealing in ratings and they have
an agenda. They don't want good people. When that same friend of mine appeared
on the Geraldo show (with a number of Black nationalists), he agreed with
and got along fine with the blacks there. In fact, he and Michael McGee agreed
on a lot of things and after the show he approached him and they shook each
other's hand. I doubt that Geraldo will ever put that kind of racist on again
because it neither fits with his agenda or misconceptions. I was also asked
to be on that show, but I will not be on a show which doesn't conform to my
demands for reasonable discussion. The typical plan is to get so many people
with conflicting viewpoints that a fight or yelling match is virtually
guaranteed; short of a fight, at least no reasonable discussion will ever come
from that format.

> Can't there 
> be some kind of designated spokespeople or something.  And not EVERY proud
> white has a Southern accent. (Don't get me wrong, I love a Southern accent,
> but come on...).

There won't be a representative of "the movement" but eventually, the groups
will have their own designated spokesmen and spokeswomen.

Arthur LeBouthillier






Article 116 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:10821 alt.politics.nationalism.white:116
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Date: 21 Nov 94 16:57:11 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov21.165711@clstac>
References: <3aqeiq$8f8@floyd.santarosa.edu> <1994Nov21.170346.7473@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <1994Nov21.170346.7473@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, dw94ad@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (DAVID WILKINSON) writes:
> Neal Attinson wrote:
> 
> : From the Online Webster--
> : na.tion.al.ism \'nash-n*l-.iz-*m, -*n-*l-\ n : loyalty and devotion to a 
> :    nation; esp : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above 
> :    all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and 
> :    interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
> 
> 	I don't accept the part of Websters where it says esp. exhaulting 
> one nation over another and placing primary emphasis in the promotion of 
> it;s culture.  I am a nationalist.  I love my country.

Notice the definition said NATION not COUNTRY. The two are not synonymous.
A nation is a social group (i.e. ethnic group). English doesn't make
distinctions between love/pride of the State (Patriotism) and devotion to
a particular piece of real estate (a country). The love of one's people
(nation, a social group) is properly called nationalism.

> I am in a cause to keep Canada together.  You may have heard it but I 
> doubt it... "My Canada Includes Quebec!"  This is an example of nationalism.

No, that is an example of PATRIOTISM or IMPERIALISM (the desire to advance
a multi-ethnic empire).

> Trying to keep the country together, this is not putting down any other 
> nation.

Of course it is. In order to keep that country, you must supress or downplay
the nationalism of the Quebecois.

Arthur LeBouthillier
White is Right.



Article 10821 of alt.skinheads:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:10821 alt.politics.nationalism.white:116
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Date: 21 Nov 94 16:57:11 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov21.165711@clstac>
References: <3aqeiq$8f8@floyd.santarosa.edu> <1994Nov21.170346.7473@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <1994Nov21.170346.7473@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, dw94ad@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (DAVID WILKINSON) writes:
> Neal Attinson wrote:
> 
> : From the Online Webster--
> : na.tion.al.ism \'nash-n*l-.iz-*m, -*n-*l-\ n : loyalty and devotion to a 
> :    nation; esp : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above 
> :    all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and 
> :    interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
> 
> 	I don't accept the part of Websters where it says esp. exhaulting 
> one nation over another and placing primary emphasis in the promotion of 
> it;s culture.  I am a nationalist.  I love my country.

Notice the definition said NATION not COUNTRY. The two are not synonymous.
A nation is a social group (i.e. ethnic group). English doesn't make
distinctions between love/pride of the State (Patriotism) and devotion to
a particular piece of real estate (a country). The love of one's people
(nation, a social group) is properly called nationalism.

> I am in a cause to keep Canada together.  You may have heard it but I 
> doubt it... "My Canada Includes Quebec!"  This is an example of nationalism.

No, that is an example of PATRIOTISM or IMPERIALISM (the desire to advance
a multi-ethnic empire).

> Trying to keep the country together, this is not putting down any other 
> nation.

Of course it is. In order to keep that country, you must supress or downplay
the nationalism of the Quebecois.

Arthur LeBouthillier
White is Right.



Article 11151 of alt.skinheads:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:11151 alt.politics.nationalism.white:202
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: How the hell can you live with it?
Followup-To: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Date: 30 Nov 94 17:34:57 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 16
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov30.173457@clstac>
References: <3afv23$gbt@belfort.daimi.aau.dk>  <3agii8$i9s@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> <3ars8j$9l1@rc1.vub.ac.be> <3b41iu$9b7@charnel.ecst.CSUChico.EDU> <3be5n5$k30@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <3bgf4i$6md@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.is.csupomona.edu

In article <3bgf4i$6md@panix.com>, cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
 
> The individual should always be more important than the group.

I disagree with you.
 
> So long as people think in terms of groups, as opposed to individuals, 
> there will be ample opportunities for warfare, bloodshed, and bad 
> behavior in general.

As long as people think preferentially for the individual, there will
be bloodshed, bad behavior in general and social decay.

Arthur LeBouthillier
Good is that which serves the White race



Article 211 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:11197 alt.politics.nationalism.white:211
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Date: 28 Nov 94 19:55:30 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov28.195530@clstac>
References: <3aeildINNct2@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1994Nov17.174315@clstac> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pinto.is.csupomona.edu

In article , jugurtha@gladstone.uoregon.edu (Jugurtha) writes:
 
>     So, too, there are a lot of Black Nationalists out here--myself for
> one--who think Louis Farrakhan is a bad joke and the NOI in general a
> disgrace to the movement. But you won't see us on the next Geraldo or
> Sally Jessie. Wouldn't bring in the ratings. Might make us look like a
> viable alternative to rip-off scams like the NOI and the NAACP, and we
> can't have *that*, now, can we?

It is not for me to choose your leaders. I was merely citing particular
examples. Just as there are many different types of White nationalists,
there are many different types of Black nationalists. I understand the
point you are making. I have kept correspondence with some Black
Nationalists whom I respect. Besides the followers of Nation of Islam,
there are also followers of Marcus Garvey's nationalist cause.

The media in this country is not kind to ANY kind of nationalist except
perhaps an American flag-waving patriot.

Arthur LeBouthillier
14 Words



Article 213 of alt.politics.nationalism.white:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:11204 alt.politics.nationalism.white:213
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Followup-To: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Date: 28 Nov 94 20:04:17 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov28.200417@clstac>
References:  <1994Nov25.023653.25451@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pinto.is.csupomona.edu

In article <1994Nov25.023653.25451@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, dw94ad@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (DAVID WILKINSON) writes:
 
> 	But you may not be aware that Canada was built on comprimise, 
> maintained on comprimise and I don't think that it is our place to put 
> down the nationalism of Quebec.  In order to do this we must make 
> remaining in Canada seem a better option than separation.  This would be 
> more along the lines of our tradition of comprimise.

Canada was built on compromise? What country wasn't?

Anyways, if Canada (the government) can make concessions to the French
that makes them want to stay politically united with the rest of Canada,
that's fine. However, I think it is important to realize that nationalism
doesn't mean separatism. Nationalism means devotion to the nation and that
is an activity which is continually ongoing. Nationalism only becomes
separatism when nations feel that their best interests are served by
controlling their own destiny.

Arthur LeBouthillier
We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children.



Article 11197 of alt.skinheads:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:11197 alt.politics.nationalism.white:211
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Date: 28 Nov 94 19:55:30 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov28.195530@clstac>
References: <3aeildINNct2@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu> <1994Nov17.174315@clstac> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: pinto.is.csupomona.edu

In article , jugurtha@gladstone.uoregon.edu (Jugurtha) writes:
 
>     So, too, there are a lot of Black Nationalists out here--myself for
> one--who think Louis Farrakhan is a bad joke and the NOI in general a
> disgrace to the movement. But you won't see us on the next Geraldo or
> Sally Jessie. Wouldn't bring in the ratings. Might make us look like a
> viable alternative to rip-off scams like the NOI and the NAACP, and we
> can't have *that*, now, can we?

It is not for me to choose your leaders. I was merely citing particular
examples. Just as there are many different types of White nationalists,
there are many different types of Black nationalists. I understand the
point you are making. I have kept correspondence with some Black
Nationalists whom I respect. Besides the followers of Nation of Islam,
there are also followers of Marcus Garvey's nationalist cause.

The media in this country is not kind to ANY kind of nationalist except
perhaps an American flag-waving patriot.

Arthur LeBouthillier
14 Words



Article 11204 of alt.skinheads:
Xref: oneb alt.skinheads:11204 alt.politics.nationalism.white:213
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: aelebouthill@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Subject: Re: TV Talk shows
Followup-To: alt.skinheads,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.white-power
Date: 28 Nov 94 20:04:17 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 22
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Nov28.200417@clstac>
References:  <1994Nov25.023653.25451@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pinto.is.csupomona.edu

In article <1994Nov25.023653.25451@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, dw94ad@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (DAVID WILKINSON) writes:
 
> 	But you may not be aware that Canada was built on comprimise, 
> maintained on comprimise and I don't think that it is our place to put 
> down the nationalism of Quebec.  In order to do this we must make 
> remaining in Canada seem a better option than separation.  This would be 
> more along the lines of our tradition of comprimise.

Canada was built on compromise? What country wasn't?

Anyways, if Canada (the government) can make concessions to the French
that makes them want to stay politically united with the rest of Canada,
that's fine. However, I think it is important to realize that nationalism
doesn't mean separatism. Nationalism means devotion to the nation and that
is an activity which is continually ongoing. Nationalism only becomes
separatism when nations feel that their best interests are served by
controlling their own destiny.

Arthur LeBouthillier
We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children.


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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.