From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar  2 09:40:21 PST 1996
Article: 25827 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news-feed.iguide.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Racism Was: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 2 Mar 1996 09:47:42 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 262
Message-ID: <4h95fu$gl9@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@infor <4f54m9$14h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fco4r$me@newsource.ihug.co.nz>  <4g9lms$7rs@soap.news.pipex.net> <4gvkoq$6o6@smooth.asgo.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host26.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14806 alt.revisionism:25827 can.general:71170 soc.culture.jewish:35630 soc.culture.usa:79794

Elias Halldor Agustsson,  aka The Scarecrow says:

>> ...Remember, *I'M* the self-avowed nationalist; I'm the one opposed
>> to internationalism.
>
> This is terrible!!  Ever wondered what made Ancient Greece (which you
> so extol for "racial awareness" or whatever you call it) great?

Elias, whether Greece was great or not is an opinion, not a fact.
It was common that the ancient Greeks considered non-Greeks to be
"barbarians." Do you think this is part of what made ancient Greece
great?

International business must be controlled which is why every
country of the world has strict controls on it. However, in the
U.S., the barriers are falling as social order is too.

> To put it short: to demand that business interests will be subjected
> to an ever increasing flood of idiotic regulations imposed by fanatic
> anal retentives guided by completely irrelevant principles of "race"
> and such. 

Elias, it seems that you, lacking a clue about what I'm saying make
things up to satisfy your inane viewpoints. "Anal retentive?" What's
that mean? From *MY* viewpoints YOU'RE the anal retentive (especially
after looking at your home page).

> Such regimes existed in antiquity, but none of them enjoyed success. 
> Greece and Rome were not among them.

Elias, such regimes as you prefer existed in antiquity, but none of
them enjoyed much success. Greece and Rome WERE among them.

> Hmm ... how about 1200 years of the Eastern Roman Empire?

So is longevity alone how one measures an empires greatness? Come
to think of it.... is an empire what you're suggesting? Now who's
the one with delusions of grandeur? I don't want a "great empire"
but rather a good country. You are an imperialist; I'm not. I
measure the greatness of a country with how well it fulfills its [my]
people's needs. That may not make it the "greatest" country around
but it will definitely make some people happy.

>> You use the label "anti-white" to describe everyone who does not
>> share your racial ideology.
>
>> Big deal.
>
> Well, good to know that you don't deny it.

And you label "fascist" or "nazi" anyone who does not share your
liberal democratic/marxist ideals.

>#                                                      Therefore, I
># group ALL things into the two categories, those things that support
># the White nation (pro-White) and those that are harmful to the
># White nation (anti-White). I feel that any social group must
># accept its own existence as the ultimate good.
>
> I wonder, do you have a mind of your own, or even a conscience? I
> ask, because it seems to me that such a simplistic and impersonal
> mind-set could be very easily be coded into a robot.  Are you an
> automaton?

Absolutely not. However, after years of consideration and hardship,
I have come to an understanding of what *I* know to be good and it
apparently *ISN'T* the garbage you spout.

># Not very. I've never said that tolerance was a virtue.
>
>So, you mean to say that you do not even accept the lowest common
> denominator of tolerance.

I've never said that.

>  By the way, how are you going to spot those whose ideology isn't
> quite up to scratch?

Same way that you do. For example, how do you know that my viewpoint
doesn't match your ideology? You don't seem to have any problems.

># Probably not as much as you'd like to see.
>
> Meaning anything less than complete freedom of expression. 
> That stinks.

I've seen your "complete freedom of expression" expressed throughout
the liberal democracies. I'm not impressed. I've seen how you liberals
support "complete freedom of expression" and the fact is that you
guys are full of it; you support freedom to agree with you and
nothing more. The result of the attempt to get "complete freedom
of expression" among you social democrats has resulted in 120 million
deaths in this century.

> I wonder how far you'd want to press your fetish for homogeneity. 
> Should we all wear Mao jackets, perhaps?

Absolutely not. The fact is, a Mao jacket represents the results
of YOUR viewpoint taken to its conclusion, not mine.

> Well, what are you going to do about the millions who will be
> consumed with the intention of murdering you in your sleep?

Treat them as what they really are: my and my people's enemies.

> And why the heck haven't they yet done so?  What is stopping them?
> You don't need millions of people to start a new state, look at San
> Marino.  

But that's my point, Elias. I've never said I wanted Two Hundred and
Fifty Million in my White Homeland Republic. At a minimum, I think
that our security demands about 5 million of us. That is an acceptible
number to me. The rest of you can go to hell for all I care.

> I presume that your "whites" are all quite content with the present
> state of affairs.

Definitely not. Are you saying that those hundreds of millions who
were forced to live under communism must have been "quite content"
with their state of affairs because conditions happened to be as
they were? Most Whites that I know of think that the current political
situation is abhorent; however, most are too consumed trying to make
their own lives work without knowing what to do. Social and
political movements *DEVELOP*; they take time.

> So, why haven't you all marched off to some lonely place and
> proclaimed a new state for yourselves?

Excuse me? Are you stupid or something? You obviously don't understand
the variety of opinions of various nationalists in North America. There
exists this thing called "The Northwest Imperitive." It stands for
exactly that. However, it is becoming obvious that people like you
are going to impose yourselves on us no matter where we try to live
so we might as well try to get as much as we can. It serves our
people's interests to gain as many natural resources as we can
manage.

># You're putting words in my mouth. I've never stated my views
># on those particular issues. Again, what are you going to do with
># those who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of your multi-ethnic,
># multi-racial empires based purely on ideology?
>
> Uh ... exactly the opposite.  You are the one who is proposing a
> state that is only based on ideology.  You know, the ideology of
> "whiteness".

Uh...exactly the opposite. The more I argue with liberals and others
of their ilk, the more I realize that you fall into two broad classes:
the pathetically ignorant (but mouthy nonetheless) and the downright
dangerous. You are beginning to fall into the first category.

*EVERYONE* has an ideology. You have an ideology; I have an ideology.
Some people's ideologies are more organized and consistent while 
other's aren't.

To deny that a state has any basis other than ideology is either
downright ignorant or malicious. The "democracy" or "anarchy"
or perhaps "nihilism" that you are spouting is based on YOUR own
ideology.

All republics are based on codified *PRINCIPLES* (which are ideas)
and hence on ideology. The issue is *WHICH* ideology will be
embodied by the state that represents me. If I have anything to do
with it, the state that represents me won't embody your ideology.

You're the one who is advocating multi-racial empires. You are the
one who uses the Greek and Roman empires as the examples of "great"
states. I would deny that at those times that they were empires
that they were great. Greece became an empire under Alexander when
he spread his influence across the known world. That was just prior
to the time that Greece ceased to exist. The Roman empire expanded
at the expense of the Celtic peoples. It waged a several hundred
year war against the Celtic peoples until it brought them under
its jurisdiction. I don't think that there was anything "great" in
either of those two cases. You're the one who is advocating
multi-ethnic empires as the best basis whilee your multicultural
ideology is its basis. Get a clue.

The United States government becomes less and less a good government
as it comes to represent such imperial ideals (and ideology) as your
own.

So, the issue is: Whose ideology will be represented in the
governments that rule over Whites. I prefer a nationalistic
ideology over your multi-ethnic imperialistic ideologies.

> Now, what was this thing you said about homogeneity?

I don't think that I've ever said anything about "homogeneity."
I challenge you to show me something I've said about it.

> So, who will have the privileges in your ideal society and according
> to which criteria will they be distributed?  "Whiteness"?  or just
> any spur-of-the-moment decisions?

In White society, Whites will have the most privileges.

But what about the kind of society which you represent? Who has
the privileges in it? It is obvious that when tribalism is
expressed by Whites, it's O.K. to do anything you can to destroy
us while when people like Jews represent tribalism that's O.K.

You are a hypocrite. We have just seen expressed by one of your
comrades (FreshAgain):

   You belong to this tribe called Judaism, which you can be
   born into if you have matrilineal descent (as designated by
   Ezra), or you can convert into.

Is tribalism expressed by Jews O.K. to you and tribalism expressed
by Whites not? In your ideology, do Jews have the privilege of
ethnicity ( and a national state to represent them ) while Whites
do not? Who has the privileges in your ideological state? Certainly
not Whites and I don't want to have anything to do with your
ideology.

Are you going to run over to soc.culutre.judaism now that you realize
that it really is a tribal/ethnic basis and call them Jewish Nazis?
Of course you won't you hypocrite.

> I wonder, will the judiciary in your ideal state ever grasp your idea
> of it?  

There is no doubt about it.

># What is the purpose of debate if it results in the destruction
># of all that I see is good?
>
> You are referring to your delusions of "race", yes?

No, your delusions of race.

> Now, how does this differ from clinical paranoia?

Are you practicing your pseudo-psychology without a license? That's
a crime in most countries of the world.

> I don't choose to call myself anything, since I never talk to
> myself, nor do I feel the slightest need to define myself.

Neither did I until I realized that there were people like you
seeking to destroy all that I thought was good. Then I had to take
a stand and fight for what I know is right.

> On  the other hand, I can think of several unkind definitions and
> names for you.

And I for you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

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




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar  2 09:40:22 PST 1996
Article: 25854 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!cs.utk.edu!gatech!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Lesson #1 about Race Issues: The Jew
Date: 2 Mar 1996 10:50:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <4h995n$h93@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4eifet$ip4@rl0001.rulimburg.nl> <4esl01$776@newsource.ihug.co.nz> <4etie2$t3j@infor <4f54m9$14h@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4fco4r$me@newsource.ihug.co.nz>  <4glnnt$4vi@gate.cyberg8t.com> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: host26.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.nationalism.white:14819 alt.revisionism:25854 can.general:71194 soc.culture.jewish:35688 soc.culture.usa:79823

Elias Halldor Agustsson, aka the Scarecrow  said:

># Therefore, your statement is false. First, the concept of nation
># has been developing for millenia. Of course, it is not a "finished"
># concept but is constantly being developed.
>
> No, it is not; I meant the modern idea of nation.

Yes, it does. Like I said, "nation" is a developing concept. It is
neither new nor modern. The only thing that is modern is the idea
that nations should rightly be self-determining in their own state.
What is modern about this is that it has become an organized
ideology justifying the nation-state. But, the idea of nation is
not new.

> The ancient idea of nation has no relevance to your politics, as
> it carried no political connotations.

It most definitely does. The modern definition INCLUDES the ancient
one; ergo, the ancient one is relevant. However, the point is that
you said that "nation" is a recent invention. I have shown you are
wrong. What is new is not the idea of "nation" but "nation-state"
(i.e. a state which is legitimated because it represents a nation).

> Wrong.  My Collins English Dictionary (1991) says in the
> etymological footnote [C16: From French, from Italian razza, of
> uncertain origin].  My guess is that it ultimately derived from
> Latin _radix_, which means "root" but that was never used in the
> connotation of "race".

Duh... Italian is derived from Latin. It is no wonder that it might
include the idea. Being at home, I don't have full access to the
resources to show its origin. If you would like to discuss the origin
of the word race, perhaps we can do so, although I don't think it is
vital. However, you asked "Ever heard of racism in Ancient Rome?"
According to some sources, the word race is originated in Rome (from
the Latin word ratio). Originally, the word ratio meant "to decide"
or "a reckoning;" it eventually came to mean "a class of" or "a type
of" because such things depend on decisions. Finally, it came to be
applied to ethnic "classes" and became race.

However, I'm sure you meant "racism" as "denigrating other races"
and therefore, I would say that, yes, I have heard of racism in
Ancient Rome. However, my example is not the Romans themselves
but the people they fought against: the Celts. Because the Celts
had a strongly lineal culture, it was common for them to denigrate
their opponent's lineage. The ancient Celts, on the battlefield
against the Romans would precede the fight with extensive invectives
about the Romans' lineages (as well as the greatness of their own).
So, if by racism you mean "denigrating another's race." Then I would
say, yes, racism as you mean it existed during Roman times.

> You have a peculiar penchant for ascribing all sorts of ideologies
> to extinct religions which hardly anything is known about.  

Extinct religion? It is a practised, although not thriving, religion
in the United States, Iran and India. Might I suggest that you check
out the Avesta Server at:

                http://cfa.org/~jpeterso/avesta.html

It is a server dedicated to the Zoroastrian religion.

> What is known first-hand about Zoroastrianism is very little, what
> is known about Proto-Zoroastrianism is practically nil.

Shut up. What *YOU* know about Zoroastrianism is very little. What
is known about proto-Zoroastrianism is quite extensive; that you
know nothing about it isn't my fault.

> But the means to that noble end, what about them?

What about it. The "means" is not the "end." The "means" is a
strategy applied by people to attain their "end."

> Well, leftists, as you call them, are terminally confusing words
> with thoughts. 

Ahh!!!! We've finally agreed on something! :-)

> You should feel comfortable in their company.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

># Therefore, whether popular meaning refers to equality in a
># particular way does not mean that it is a valid concept when
># studied in a technical manner.
>
> It is a quite valid concept in the context that it is used, which
> is quite technical, although it can be grasped by all without
> requiring any special training.  It simply means that people are
> equal before the law.

First, all legal systems recognize different standings (classes)
before the law. Therefore, all people are *NOT* equal before the
law. Even in the United States, Indians or Blacks are afforded
certain privileges before which Whites are not.

Second, that the law must be applied equally to all people does
not mean that the law regards them all as equals. With regard to
what you were earlier babbling about, Hammurabi's "revolution"
was merely to codify the law and place all under it equally.
That did not mean that all were equal under the law.

Third, the *PRINCIPLE* that all should be regarded equally before
the law is nothing more than ideology based on nihilism.

>#> I'm afraid that no decent person will consider Ourobouros the equal
>#> of Ms Finsten.
>#
># No, he's her better :-)
>
> I said "no decent person."

I read you properly.

> Well, you may be right on that point.  There is not really anything
> that implies the legitimacy of anything, is there?

As Aristotle showed, there is derivation from first principles.
When certain first principles are held as hypotheticals, then
other certain principles can be legitimated _with_regard_to_
those first principles.

>#># To reassert the question: To you consider yourself equal with me?
>#>
>#> The question is flawed.
>#
># I don't think that the question is flawed. It merely requires a
># simple yes or no answer. Why are you avoiding it?
>
>I am answered it in the next paragraph.

No you didn't. You merely said that you were driven by hatred. Again,
do you consider yourself equal to me?

> Hmm ... let me get that right:  the question about whether Ms. Finsten
> is equal to Mr. Ourabouros is about the fallacies that people like I
> promote etc. ... ?

No, the question is "What fallacies are you promoting?" In what ways
are you inconsistent? As I have shown, it is in your statement that
"all people are equal" but that you won't accept Whites ethnicity.

> You are right on one point.  I have an ingrained hatred.  I have an
> ingrained hatred towards all tyrants.  I have an ingrained hatred
> towards those who with shameless irrationality try to justify the
> imposition of a stupid and unpredictable regime over their fellow
> humans.  

Oh!!! That's why you hate yourself. ;-)

> In short:  I have an ingrained hatred towards people like you.

I've never assumed that your motives were based on anything but that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Arthur LeBouthillier
                              pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                    http://www.geopages.com/CapitolHill/1889

                        Official Nizkor Surveillance:
  http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/l/lebouthillier.arthur

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




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Mar  7 13:05:58 PST 1996
Article: 15098 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!news.jsums.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Evolution (was: Looking like an ape.)
Date: 7 Mar 1996 05:04:35 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4hlqp3$apu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4habtj$neb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host107.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:21185 alt.politics.nationalism.white:15098


Fresh? Fresh!! Is that you? I'm still waiting for that universal
definition of Jewishness which all Jews would agree to and which
does not include any people who are not considered Jews. It's a
simple question isn't it?

> Isn't Bob Matthews living in an urn on someone's mantleplace
> (probably William Pierce's)?

No, Bob Matthews lives.

Sincerely yours,
Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Thu Mar  7 13:16:55 PST 1996
Article: 21185 of alt.politics.white-power
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news.cyberstore.ca!skypoint.com!news3.mr.net!mr.net!chi-news.cic.net!news.cais.net!news.jsums.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Evolution (was: Looking like an ape.)
Date: 7 Mar 1996 05:04:35 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4hlqp3$apu@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4habtj$neb@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host107.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.politics.white-power:21185 alt.politics.nationalism.white:15098


Fresh? Fresh!! Is that you? I'm still waiting for that universal
definition of Jewishness which all Jews would agree to and which
does not include any people who are not considered Jews. It's a
simple question isn't it?

> Isn't Bob Matthews living in an urn on someone's mantleplace
> (probably William Pierce's)?

No, Bob Matthews lives.

Sincerely yours,
Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:27 PST 1996
Article: 15349 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Question # 1
Date: 12 Mar 1996 12:46:58 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4i3ro2$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)




Do Whites have ethnic rights?






From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:28 PST 1996
Article: 15350 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Question # 2
Date: 12 Mar 1996 12:47:36 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <4i3rp8$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



How long do you expect Whites to put up with a political and social
order which they find untolerable?





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:29 PST 1996
Article: 15351 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Question # 3
Date: 12 Mar 1996 12:48:04 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <4i3rq4$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



Do Whites have a right to self-determination?





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:29 PST 1996
Article: 15352 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Question # 12
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:04:49 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <4i3sph$fna@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



Do Whites have a right to representative government?





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:30 PST 1996
Article: 15353 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Question # 13
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:05:42 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <4i3sr6$fna@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



When will you recognize the existence of a White nation in North America?





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:31 PST 1996
Article: 15354 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 4th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:19:27 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4i3tkv$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966472snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> What is the difference between being white, White or Aryan?


white (wrongly) refers to all peoples who are neither mongoloid or
negroid. As the US Government uses it, it includes all peoples such
as Arabs, Jews, Pakistanis, Indians and a host of other peoples.

White is an ethnic identity shared by North Europeans.

Aryan refers to those things I mentioned in question # 3



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:31 PST 1996
Article: 15355 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 2nd question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:20:28 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4i3tms$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966424snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



> Who do you define as "White"? [capital 'W']

White is an ethnic identity held by people of Celtic, Germanic and
Slavic ancestry.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:32 PST 1996
Article: 15356 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 5th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:21:33 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4i3tot$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966493snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)



> Can someone be white but not White?

Of course. The US Gov't claims all sorts of people as white who I don't
consider White. Included among them are Arabs, Pakistanis and all manner
of other peoples.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:32 PST 1996
Article: 15357 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 6th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:23:03 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4i3trn$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966510snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Can someone be White but not Aryan?

I guess in a round-about way but not really. If White includes
lineal characteristics as part of its definition, then White
includes Aryan.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:33 PST 1996
Article: 15358 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 7th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:24:11 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <4i3ttr$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966540snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Can someone be Aryan but not white?

Whose definition of white are you using? According to the US Gov't,
all sorts of people whose heritage is not among the early Aryan
peoples are classified as white.



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:34 PST 1996
Article: 15359 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 8th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:25:14 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <4i3tvq$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966565snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Why do you hate Jews?

Why do they hate Whites?

Many Whites hate Jews because they see them as destroying White
existence.



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:34 PST 1996
Article: 15360 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 9th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:27:00 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4i3u34$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966586snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Why do you hate people with different skin pigmentation?

People who have different skin pigmentations are not White. They have
gobs of stuff which we consider anti-thetical to White existence.
Therefore, we don't consider them part of our nation/ethnic group/race.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:35 PST 1996
Article: 15361 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 10th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:27:56 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 6
Message-ID: <4i3u4s$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966612snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Why do you hate people with darker skin pigmentation from you?

The "darker skin pigmentation" is evidence of foreign blood relations.
"Darker skin pigmentation" is not a characteristic of White people.



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:36 PST 1996
Article: 15362 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 11th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:30:05 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <4i3u8t$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966643snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Do you think the Holocaust occured?

I don't know what you mean by "Holocaust." There were millions of 
people who have died in this century, not all of whom were Jews.
Over 120 million people have been killed by the Communists alone.
However, to refer to the deaths of Jews during world war 2 as
a "holocaust" while the deaths of others not during this period
is not a "holocaust" seems a little self-serving to me.



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:37 PST 1996
Article: 15363 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 12th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:30:29 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <4i3u9l$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966703snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> If there was no Holocaust, where did all the European Jews go?

Who cares?



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:37 PST 1996
Article: 15364 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 13th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:31:30 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4i3ubi$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966750snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Can you explain the disappearance of 6 million European Jews if
> the Holocaust didn't happen?

First, whether the number is "6 million" or not is not verified.

Second, I don't think it is as important an issue as to where the
hundreds of millions of White people will be going.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:38 PST 1996
Article: 15365 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 14th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:32:18 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <4i3ud2$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966782snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Do you think the world is controlled by a "Zionist conspiracy"?


Not personally. However, I do recognize that Jews are a highly
organized ethnic group.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 12 08:07:39 PST 1996
Article: 15366 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 15th question
Date: 12 Mar 1996 13:33:20 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <4i3uf0$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966813snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host15.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> If there is a so-called "Zionist conspiracy", how can racist and
> anti-semetic groups still exist?


Although I don't believe in a "Zionist conspiracy," I could recognize
that such groups could exist because there would be limits to anyone's
ability to control things.






From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 12:13:04 PST 1996
Article: 15564 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 2
Date: 16 Mar 1996 19:44:44 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <4if5nd$1uj@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3rp8$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i55bi$ld8@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host08.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Arthur LeBouthillier (pendragn@cyberg8t.com) wrote:


: How long do you expect Whites to put up with a political and social
: order which they find untolerable?

> I don't know, but African-Americans have been holding out for four
> centuries and counting.  Patience is a virtue, quitting a sign of > weakness.

What's your point? Are you saying that because blacks have suffered,
Whites should? That's justice. Blacks are not members of our nation;
that they might suffer for centuries to be admitted and face continuous
problems to do so is because they are asking something that is not
legitimate.

> BTW, YM "intolerable".  HTH.

Oh yeah? FOAD.






From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 12:13:05 PST 1996
Article: 15565 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 14th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 19:47:14 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <4if5s2$1uj@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966782snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4i3ud2$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i5693$ld8@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host08.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Mark Staloff,  said:

>Arthur LeBouthillier (pendragn@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
>
>: Not personally. However, I do recognize that Jews are a highly
>: organized ethnic group.
>
>   To quote my mother -
>
>   "For every two Jews, you have three opinions."
>
>   17 million people are quite difficult to organize.
>
> Mark

I know that this will be hard for you to accept, but your mother was
wrong. Obviously, they agree that they're Jews.

Love,
Arthur



From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 15:47:43 PST 1996
Article: 15569 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 8th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 21:49:33 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <4ifd1d$5ks@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966565snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4i3tvq$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i55ju$ld8@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Mark Staloff,  says:

>Arthur LeBouthillier (pendragn@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
>
>>: > Why do you hate Jews?
>
>>: Why do they hate Whites?
>
>> I love Whites.  At least, some of them.  They can be wankers at times,
>> but so can we all.

"Like" doesn't mean "love." That you might have some appreciation of
what we're talking about does not mean that you hold it with the same
degree of value that we do.

>: Many Whites hate Jews because they see them as destroying White
>: existence.
>
> And how does a Jew destroy White existence?  

By promoting ideals based on things other than our White heritage.
Come on, you can't deny that Jews have been highly influential in
the so-called Civil Rights movement. That is the first example of
Jewry promoting policies which are harmful to White existence. The
biggest organizer against White groups has been such Jewish groups
as the ADL and others. Their definition of "hate group" is often
tenuous and concentrates on whether or not that group promotes
something that Jews don't like.

Who has been arguing against me all these months? Most are self-avowed
Jews even when I've never said anything hostile to Jewry. That there
might be White Jews doesn't mean that all Jews are. Additionally, for
most Jews, their White heritage means nothing in comparison to their
Semitic heritage.

That Jews see Whites as "equals" means that they don't think we're
any more important than any others, not that we are just as valid
as any other group in establishing our existence.

> By trying to eliminate the use of English and German? By forcing White
> individuals to marry people of different cultures?

By condoning and accepting it. By assuming elite positions in our
society and promoting values and ideals contrary to our existence
as a White nation.

>  By committing acts of mass murder against Whites?  I don't see this
> happening.

Whites are a social and cultural group, which like any other such group
depends on the continuation of its culture and ideals to its members
and youth. I believe that it should be the only basis of membership
in my society. Jews have been the biggest backers of multi-culturalism
and the idea that America is not a White nation.

I used to think these kinds of statements were ridiculous, but I cannot
deny that, on examination, I see Jews as the most vocal and ardent
opponents to White existence and self-determination. Prove to me that
things are otherwise.





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 15:47:44 PST 1996
Article: 15570 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 9th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 21:50:17 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 5
Message-ID: <4ifd2p$5ks@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3u34$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i49vv$k2l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


> Answer the question: Why do you hate them?





From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 15:47:44 PST 1996
Article: 15571 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 9th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 21:52:24 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4ifd6o$5ks@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3u34$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i49vv$k2l@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

FreshAgain,  asks:

> Answer the question: Why do you hate them?

I don't know to whom you're addressing that question but I'll assume
it's me. I don't hate Jews; I hate what Jews are doing to my nation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 We must secure the existence of our people
                        and a future for White children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 15:47:45 PST 1996
Article: 15572 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 13th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 21:54:20 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4ifdac$5ks@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3ubi$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i4a2p$k3j@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

FreshAgain,  says:

> First, I can give you literally pounds of information fromthe mouths
> of genuine Nazis that the Holocaust did, in fact, happen, and the
> work  of three separate statistical projects, only one of them Jewish,
> that prove the number of 6 million Jews to be perfectly accurate.e

I really don't give a rats ass how many died. It's not relevant to my
Cause.

> Second, White people like you are clearly going to Hell; the sooner
> the better.

Fuck you too.


Love,
Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sat Mar 16 15:47:45 PST 1996
Article: 15573 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 12th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 21:56:12 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <4ifdds$5ks@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3u9l$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i4a0d$k2s@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

 FreshAgain,  challenges me:

> Answer the question: was there a Holocaust of 6 million Jews
> perpetrated by the Nazis during WWII?

Fuck off and die.

Love,
Arthur




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 17 11:51:40 PST 1996
Article: 15579 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 11th question
Date: 17 Mar 1996 01:33:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <4ifq5b$cpp@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <825966643snz@augur.demon.co.uk> <4i3u8t$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i55t8$ld8@decaxp.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host60.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Mark Staloff,  says:

>Arthur LeBouthillier (pendragn@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
>
>: > Do you think the Holocaust occured?
>
>: I don't know what you mean by "Holocaust." There were millions of
>: people who have died in this century, not all of whom were Jews.
>: Over 120 million people have been killed by the Communists alone.
>: However, to refer to the deaths of Jews during world war 2 as
>: a "holocaust" while the deaths of others not during this period
>: is not a "holocaust" seems a little self-serving to me.
>
> This is purely a semantic battle.

It is a semantic game that you're playing.

> It is not fair to women named "Gay" that their name has taken on
> added denotations in recent decades, but no one forces through
> name changes like that; generally, words come into common usage
> only because the mass of society decides that is how things should
> be.

Duh. The "mass of society" decides nothing of the sort. They pick up
what they hear in the major media. It's called "The Theory of Elites
and Masses." You are ignoring the reality that ideas and concepts
are generally formed by a small portion of a society, and then
conveyed by yet another small portion. The "mass of society" has
little input into that process.

> In any case, it is important to mention that the murder of 6
> million Jews during WWII is referred to as "The Holocaust", with
> a capital "H", and does not in and of itself preclude the existence
> of other holocausts.  

I've never said that it did. However, the fact that it is a
"Holocaust" to Jews is because it serves your interests and
existence to recognize and use that as organizing idea. What
about the 7 to 10 million Ukrainians systematically killed by
the Communists? Do you give that a special name? Why not?

> Jews have been at the forefront in publicizing abuses of human
> rights and massacres in places such as Bosnia and Armenia.

Jews are very selective in their "publicizing abuses of human rights."
When they themselves are the originators of those abuses, little is
heard about it. Little is heard of the abuses that they target toward
Palestinians.

Additionally, most of those things known as "human rights" aren't.

> In any case, you appear to accept the veracity of the Holocaust.
>

I have no problem recognizing that some Jews may have died in WW2.
However, whether they did or not is not relevant to White nationalism
in 1996.

The worst "Holocaust" in my eyes was the tens of millions of good
White Europeans who died in that war and at the hands of the
Communists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                 We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 17 11:51:41 PST 1996
Article: 15580 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 1
Date: 17 Mar 1996 01:44:05 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <4ifqp5$e6d@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3ro2$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i6k50$msr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host18.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Laura Finsten,  writes:

> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>
>>Do Whites have ethnic rights?
>
> What are "ethnic rights?  Can't discuss until the terms are defined
> clearly.

There are several definitions for the word "right." In Natural Law,
it means several things: a liberty to do anything that precedes the
law or a claim to a thing which is beyond the law's ability to take
away from us (inalienable rights). In Civil Law, a right is a privilege
recognized by the law for which an individual might make a claim under
the law.

Ethnic rights are an extension of International Law and Human
Rights. They state that peoples have a right to believe as they
wish, to organize as they wish, and to have barriers to the practice
of their ethnicity removed.

Ethnic rights extend from the Individual right to self-determination.
Because the individual has a right to determine his membership in a
group, and consequently associate as he feels, we Whites have a right
to associate ourselves as we please, most especially in public facilities
and to utilize our property and liberty to the ends of our ethnic group.

It refers to the recognition that we are a distinct ethnic group and
that we have the right to claim the same things as any other ethnic
group:

   1) We have a right to exist
   2) We have a right to laws which protect our existence as an
      ethnic group
   3) We have the right to White associations in all public facilities
      like all other groups do.
   4) We have a right to self-determination as individuals and,
      consequently, as a group.
   5) We have a right to form political associations and redress
      the government for our grievances against it.

As it applies to you (individually), it means we have as much a right
to demand that you recognize the existence of Whites as a distinct
group as you might demand that we recognize Jews.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                  We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 17 11:51:41 PST 1996
Article: 15581 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 2
Date: 17 Mar 1996 01:45:04 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <4ifqr0$e6d@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3rp8$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i6k6j$msr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host18.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Laura Finsten writes:

> Arthur LeBouthillier  wrote:
>
>>How long do you expect Whites to put up with a political and social
>>order which they find untolerable?
>
> I guess you define "whites" as those who find the present political
> and social order intolerable?

You guess wrong. I define White as someone who sees his Celtic,
Germanic and Slavic heritage as the basis of his society.

> How about, until the next election?

Oh we will. Obviously we are in the process of eliminating 
Affirmative Action. But anyways, as if elections solved anything.
Most of the intolerable laws have been imposed through the courts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
                            Arthur LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                  We must secure the existence of our people
                        and a future for White children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 24 15:11:49 PST 1996
Article: 15805 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!engr.orst.edu!news.BSDI.COM!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: 8th question
Date: 16 Mar 1996 21:36:31 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4ifc8v$5ks@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3tvq$g2o@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i49sd$k1u@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host01.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

> I'm both white and Jewish and hate neither.
>
> What do you make of that, Artie?

I don't think you can be both Jewish and White. You are either Jewish
or White. White is an ethnic identity based on one's Celtic, Germanic
and/or Slavic heritage. Jewishness is an ethnic identity which is
centered on one's Semitic heritage (although that semitism might be
tenuous). I dont' think the two are compatible.

The issue revolves around the idea of "primary" social group. White,
as I use it means that one sees one's White heritage as the highest
ideal, the basis of one's nationhood. As such, it entails the idea
that society should be structured around the promotion of that idea.
On the other hand, I don't think you could say that you believe that
your Whiteness suggests that society should be centered on that aspect
of your identity. Can you?

In fact, you Jewishness probably suggests that you consider the
interests of many people who are not White just as equal as any
other White in our society. Mine doesn't.

White has no meaning to you so don't pretend you're both White and
Jewish. White is just a skin color to you; not the basis of your
nationhood.

14 Words,
Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 24 15:11:50 PST 1996
Article: 15880 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 2
Date: 21 Mar 1996 13:02:09 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4irk0h$2kn@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4ifqr0$e6d@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4imjqj$og7@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host09.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

FreshAgain,  asks:

> Hmmmm
>
> My grandfather, who died last year, was a goy.
>
> He had blond hair and blue eyes.
>
> Yet he was neither Celt, nor German, nor Slav.
>
> No, my grandfather was an Italian.
>
> Was he white, Arturo?

Italy is a place-name, not a reference to lineage. There are many
different kinds of people in Italy. There are those of Celtic,
Germanic and/or Slavic heritage there. Judging by the way that you're
describing your grandfather, he was probably Germanic. The Germanic
and Celtic basis of Italy has caused increasing problems. The
"Lumbard" League represents those who are descendents of Celtic,
Germanic and/or Slavic peoples. They see themselves distinctly
different from the Southern Italians who are largely not of that
heritage. So, on that basis, I would say that Italy is merely a
place name and and not a nation based on blood.

However, was your grandfather a member of your "tribe?"

Arthur LeBouthillier




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 24 15:11:50 PST 1996
Article: 15933 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 1
Date: 22 Mar 1996 02:03:24 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <4it1pc$87@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3ro2$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i6k50$msr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifqp5$e6d@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4inaje$ckl@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host25.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)


Laura Finsten  says:

> Well, by your lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage definition, I am
> "White". 

Good. Then you must recognize that your nation and its interests
are being repeatedly violated by the Canadian Government. In any
way you measure it, the interests of your nation are being seconded
to internationalistic and government interests. Additionally, there
are White peoples whose self-determination and cultural and
political institutions are being seconded to internationalistic
concerns. Further, conditions have been created whereby the
future for Whites is getting worse. I don't keep detailed statistics
on Canada but here in the US, the government is hostile to our
existence and seeking to impose millions of non-Whites on us. It
is seeking to redefine history and the culture of this country to
accomodate more foreigners. Because of this, our future is not
secure. In the last 30 years, Whites have gone from being over 90%
of the population to less than 70%. Even should immigration be
completely stopped, entire regions will soon be taken up by non-Whites.

Although I will grant that the Canadian government is not as bad
as the United States Gov't with regard to these things, it is still
slowly violating White's national interests. It is giving away 
economic power to foreign entities, turning the political institutions
into "multi-cultural" institutions, turning your culture into a
multi-racial culture, giving territory away to foreigners (like
in Hongcouver, oops I mean British Columbia). It is slowly increasing
the percentages of non-Whites while White birthrates are falling.

> But my "ethnic" identity, if it can be called one, is Canadian.

I think it would be a state identity. Canada is the name of a State.
I'll grant that you might want to call yourself Canadian (I once did).
On that basis, that's fine. I don't expect that all Whites will want
to live under one State/Government. I only hope that they recognize
their existence as part of a larger White nation and help others in
any way possible.

> It is the only nation to which I can really claim to
> belong.  And it is a pretty good one, despite all of its problems,
> in my opinion.

Be careful of equating the nation and the state. The nation is those
things that I have talked about. However, the State is merely an
incorporated body which should (ideally) represent the nation. It
is obvious that even the Canadian Gov't is increasing the numbers of
non-Whites and giving special privileges to them. Be wary and ask
yourself "Does it really represent White interests?" "Will it sacrifice
White interests for other's (or its own) interests?"

> Are you suggesting that a "White nation" with ethnic rights should be
> recognised under the same international laws that have emerged
> recently to protect the rights of indigeneous people within the
> boundaries of states?

No, what I'm saying is that we Whites are a nation and it is our
right to demand recognition of that and that we are justified in
fighting for our right to self-determination as individuals and as
a group.

However, I think you are entirely confused. International Law is merely
an extension of Natural Law and natural law philosophy. Those ethnic
rights laws weren't created to "protect the rights of indigeneous people"
because such rights apply to all peoples. I don't recall that it says
"The Declaration of Indigenous People's Rights;" I believe it says
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" if I'm not mistaken. Anyways,
Whites have rights like anyone else. We have the right to self-identify
ourselves as Whites, to form associations and even form our own
governments. These things come neither from anyone else's declaration
but because we are human.

Are you saying that you support non-White peoples having more of
certain rights than Whites?

> If you are, it should be obvious why these laws would not apply to
> your "White nationals".  Unlike the cases for which those laws were
> designed, your complaint is not with a foreign colonial power imposed
> on you and "your people" against your will, but with your own, duly
> elected democratic government.

Ever heard of the Civil War? Yeah, the resulting government sure
was the "duly elected democratic government." And, being of French
Canadian heritage, I can assure you that we were politely asked
whether or not we wanted to be "Canadian."

There are no, not a single, "Democratic" governments on the
face of this Earth. There are numerous republics which parade
themselves as democracies, but that's not the same thing. I don't
recall reading that the 14th Amendment was voted on by the people.
In fact, I do recall reading that the various anti-White groups in
the 50's realized that they could never pass their programs through
the legislature so they set about abusing the judiciary to have their
viewpoints imposed on Americans. Sure, the government always does what
the people want!

Anyways, just because our beef isn't with a "foreign colonial power"
doesn't mean that our rights and national interests aren't being
violated. It also doesn't mean that we can't have our own interests.
Finally, governments can and do go bad; when they do, one must take
all measures to bring them back in line.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                      http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn/
                We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------






From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 24 15:11:51 PST 1996
Article: 15934 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 11
Date: 22 Mar 1996 02:11:02 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4it27m$87@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3scc$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i58kj$lve@decaxp.harvard.edu> <4ifp44$cpp@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4iiei5$i76@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4inknl$hg0@gate.cyberg8t.com> <827432728snz@augur.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host25.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

> There are organizations for Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans.
> Nothing prevented them being formed.

So what's your point? Like I said, there are few to no White
organizations (i.e. organizations on which the basis is being 
White). Although Irish and Italians might be constituent parts
of a larger White people, promoting Irish or Italian identity is
not promoting White identity. Irish and Italian are (to people
like you) acceptable identities but when we want to call ourselves
"White" and recognize our greater European existence, you assholes
do all you can to interfere with that. We have a right to call and
organize ourselves as Whites. For some of us, that is the more
important identity and the basis of our nation. This is the original
basis of what America was and is. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Arthur LeBouthillier
                             pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                      http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn/
                 We must secure the existence of our people
                       and a future for White children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 26 19:00:54 PST 1996
Article: 16150 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Re: Question # 1
Date: 25 Mar 1996 17:10:40 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 453
Message-ID: <4j6k2g$c7r@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References: <4i3ro2$f39@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4i6k50$msr@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4ifqp5$e6d@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4inaje$ckl@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA> <4it1pc$87@gate.cyberg8t.com> <4iuuob$cnn@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host23.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

Laura Finsten  says:


>>> Well, by your lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage definition, I am
>>> "White".
>>
>>Good. Then you must recognize that your nation and its interests
>>are being repeatedly violated by the Canadian Government.
>
> So relieved to hear that you approve of my lineo-ethnic and cultural
> heritage.

Then as you have clarified it, you are not White. You have said that
the basis of your nation is not merely your European heritage but the
decree of the State even should its whim support the inclusion
of non-Whites.

> So relieved to hear that you approve of my lineo-ethnic and cultural
> heritage.  But I must clarify something before my response to this
> can proceed.  My "nation" is Canada.

Mine's not; at least not as you define it.

> My national identity is Canadian.

Even were I to identify myself as "Canadian," there would still be
a component of blood relations in that.

> I was born here and on my father's side, my roots (at least on this
> continent) go back several generations.  I realise that you have
> difficulty with this notion, but that doesn't mean that it is
> either impossible or wrong.

In my opinion, it is wrong.

> While ethnic nationalism is emergent (or re-emergent) is some parts
> of the world, or among some segments of different countries'
> populations, nationalism founded on citizenship is also a reality. 

I don't think it is a valid way to identify one's nationality. In
this manner, the State defines the nation when the nation should
define the State. In my opinion, the Nation should define the State.

The only way that I would accept State Supremacy is where it explicitly
made provisions for the existence of the White nation.

Anyways, what is the opposite of ethnic nationalism. It is State or
Civic Nationalism. Although I grant that it can be legitimate when
it is chosen by its inhabitants (as in Switzerland), it is an
extremely dangerous habit to make the State the arbiter of the
nation. In most cases, Civic/State Nationalism is indistinguishable
>from  imperialism.

> In case you haven't been keeping in touch with the news in your
> former country, here there are a very large number of what you would
> call members of the "white nation" who fervently deny having any
> common "lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage" with Celts (the "English").

I've never called those people members of the "white nation" since
I have never once talked about the "white nation" (with a lower
case "W." I have talked about the White nation and in case you haven't
noticed, there are many of my "former" countrymen who support my
viewpoint.

Anyways, I don't think that it is necessarily bad that the English or
Irish might not want to maintain ties to their closer heritage.
However, I think that those of us of European heritage can recognize
a larger state of cooperation among ourselves. I don't want to impose
a single identity, merely ensure a hierarchy of identities above
which (or underlying) is a recognition of blood relations as the
most important.

> With the clarification I made above about who "my nation" is
> (Canadians), I actually agree with you to a certain extent that
> the vast majority of Canadians' interests are being seconded
> to the interests of international capitalism (and no, I'm not
> a communist).

Good. At least we agree on something (and I'm not a communist).
I would also say that the majority of Canadians' interests are
being seconded to State supremacy.

> I would rewrite this last sentence to say that "conditions have been
> and continue to be created whereby the future for most Canadians
> will continue to deteriorate."

And I would rewrite this last sentence to say that "conditions have been
and continue to be created whereby the future for most Whites will
continue to deteriorate (whether they are in Canada, the US, Britain,
or other European countries).

> What utter nonsense.  Neither your government nor mine is "hostile
> to whites".

Yes, my government is hostile to Whites. As I've shown in previous
posts, it has written laws to interfere with our property and
association, it has violated the national interests of those for
whom it was founded to represent, it seeks to suppress our identity
under its State nationalism (or doesn't make its State nationalism
equivalent to White nationalism), in short, it refuses to represent
the interests of Whites. It has repeatedly violated numerous rights
of ours in order to include non-Whites into our society, it has
repeatedly operated for the ends of the State in contrast to the
ends of the nation.

> I can't speak for your government, but mine consists almost entirely
> of "white" men.  Wealthy white men whose interests are largely related
> to ensuring that they and their "white" business interests are given
> first priority in national policy-making.

I thought you said that skin colour didn't matter to you. What does
the skin colour of these people have to do with at all? It is the
interests that they are pursuing that is more significant and those
interests are not the interests of White poeple. Therefore, whether
they are "white" or not is insignificant; they are still criminals
in my eyes.

> Wealthy white men whose interests are largely related to ensuring
> that they and their "white" business interests are given first
> priority in national policy-making.

No, those "white" people are pursuing their own interests at the
expense of White people's interests. Obviously they have no problem
seconding the interests of Whites for the benefit of non-Whites. Their
interests are their own personal economic power no matter what harm
that does to anyone.

> Redefining history by refusing any longer to pretend that this
> continent was uninhabited when Europeans decided to settle here?

Oh be real! No one has ever pretended that there weren't Indians
here. The thing that was different is that Indians were members of
their own nations or tribes and we had a separate national identity
>from  those people. So, at least you are admitting that there is an
attempt to change history to include non-Whites as members of the
nation.

> Redefining history by acknowledging the contributions of "nonwhites"
> in building our nations? 

No, redefining history so that they are members of our nation and
society whereas they previously weren't.

> By recognising that African Americans, Chinese, and Jews have been
> here for a long long time?

I can recognize that they've been there for a long time. However,
that doesn't mean that I make them part of my nation. In fact, I
recognize that they are separate nations which have rights as well.

> Gosh, if immigration had been completely stopped, you wouldn't be
> able to live there, M. LeBouthillier.  Don't you mean the immigration
> of "nonwhites"?

I do mean "stopping the immigration of nonwhites" more than I mean
the total elimination of immigration. But, I don't have a problem
with stopping immigration completely either. I would merely ensure
that any immigration be proven to help the nation.

> , and as has been true for most of this century at least, those
> "foreign entities" are predominantly American.

There are many foreign entities in this country. Heck, Hollywood
is one giant foreign entity. Those entities are foreign because
they represent international business interests (or foreign countries'
business interests) or because they represent no-ones interests but
their own. If you think that Hollywoods' influence has been less than
positive on Canada's self-identity and self-determination, it has been
ten times worse in this country (where they originate!).

>> turning the political institutions into "multi-cultural" institutions
>
> I'm afraid that the only answer I can find to this silly statement
> is "nonsense".

No, it's not. Whereas there abounded many institutions which promoted
White existence, the government has set about transforming all
institutions (both public and private) to serve the interests of
State Supremacy in place of private and national interests. The
ends of State Supremacy are the melding of different ethnic groups
into a single State identity. Don't tell me that there are any
government institutions which promote White interests; there aren't.
Those interests now say "We are all Canadians..." or "We are all
Americans... and that is all that matters, not one's race."

> Look at who holds the reigns of power in every province and at the
> federal level in Canada.  They are overwhelmingly "white" male
> businessmen. 

I thought you said that skin colour didn't matter. It's obvious that
the interests these people serve are not White.

> Look at who the policy makers behind provincial rulers like
> Harris and Klein are.  They are universally "white" and
> predominantly male.  Many of them are American.

Actually, those sound like Jewish names. Whether they are male or
white means nothing; the issue is whose interests do they serve?
Not Whites' interests.

Your position is so ridiculous it would be like saying if a bunch
of pasty-skinned communists took power of your country tomorrow
you would still say it is a White government. Garbage. Whose interests
and what ends are they serving? That is the more significant issue.

> Actually, Canadian culture is becoming seriously Americanised, and
> the US government, by shoving its "show business" down our throats
> seeks to escalate the process.  This is indeed a major concern to me.

There is nothing good about being "Americanized" even in America.
You have every reason to be concerned. Culture and identity are
the most important parts of a society. The "American" (actually
we don't want it either) view is that neither of these are
significant but in truth, they are the defining qualities of a
people and their moral quality. 

>> giving territory away to foreigners (like
>> in Hongcouver, oops I mean British Columbia).
>
> "giving away"????  M. LeBouthillier, please at least be honest.

Whether they are sold or not, territory is a national resource which
I don't think should be transferred to foreigners. Both countries are
in the process of "giving away" (trading for less than they are worth),
large tracts of territory as well as our national heritage and identity.

> This was one of Lucien Bouchard's complaints during the campaign
> leading up to the last referendum on Quebec separation, except that
> his observation focused on the "pure laine", not "whites" as you
> define them.  "White" national identity doesn't work too well there.

It can work there and it will. I don't think White identity necessarily
means that everyone has to live under one big government. It merely
refers to final ends and agreements about what we are doing as one
people.

> You see, unlike you, I don't identify with my skin colour.

I have never said that what I stood for was solely skin colour. I
must recognize that skin colour is an indicator of bloodline and
therefore significant but what I want is a society which values
its blood relations as the most signficant.

> I live and work in communities that are very mixed, with people
> of a variety of backgrounds.

So do I and I don't want to help that or increase that. I know
that I don't like it and I know that it is bad.

> I have friends and coworkers who are Jews, Catholics, atheists,
> Protestants and probably other denominations. Who are of African,
> Russian, Irish, Scottish, Japanese, English, Italian and other origins.

That's fine. I think that one can have friends of many different
backgrounds as long as one doesn't forget the end and interests
of his society and nation.

> We have much in common in matters that are far more important.

I would disagree with you. I have experienced living in that kind
of environment and I have found it less valuable and important than
my own people and their interests.

> I identify with things like national and other values (which are
> played out within the state in which I live).

The State should be a representative of the nation.

> The values that are a core part of my identity, though, would make
> me a "lineo-ethnic and cultural heritage traitor" in your estimation.

Probably so. And therefore, I don't think we should assume we are
members of the same nation any more. Because people like you have
seconded the true basis of our community in order to accomodate
foreigners means that you have dissolved the bond between us long
ago.

> I believe in equality under the law for all citizens. 

As do I.

> I do not define "citizens" in racial terms.

I do.

> While I agree that both your country and mine have problems, I do
> not see the either the sources or the solutions in racial terms.

To me, race is the founding idea of those societies and your ongoing
refusal to recognize that has caused many of the other problems.

> But international law also addresses issues concerning the rights
> of recognised states in relation to their citizens.  

That's because international law has been created by States; the
United Nations isn't a union of nations, but of States. The decisions
it comes to largely reflect the interests of States, not nations.

> This is a subject that has become central in my country of late
> because of the Quebec separatiste movement.

> From what I have read, international law does *not* support the right
> of any self-identified group of individuals within a state to secede
> from that state unilaterally.

Again, whatever those people who represent International Law have
decided may not be in my people's (i.e. nation's) interests. Anyways,
I am familiar with some of the conditions under which it does support
such things. It actually says that if such a people have control of
a metropolitan as well as agricultural region then it does support it
as somewhat tenable. Anything less than that it says is not acceptable
at all since it would only create the conditions leading to those 
people's
demise.

> Maybe we should both figure out which international declarations are
> relevant here and read up on them.  I think that you are melding
> elements of several different declarations and not taking into account
> international laws that are germane to this issue.  But I'm not sure,
> so I will try to figure out which are the laws and declarations I'm
> thinking (fuzzily, I admit) about and try to read them.

I won't pretend to be an expert on international law. Moreover, I don't
think I really care what those international laws state. If they are
not in my nation's interests, I don't see them as having any validity.
The only basis under which I would recognize such things is if they
presuppose the existence of Whites and our right to separate self
determination. Once those things are understood, then there might
be a reason for cooperating with them (all the while recognizing my
nation's basic sovereignty).

>> Are you saying that you support non-White peoples having more of
>> certain rights than Whites?
>
> Are you referring to affirmative action/equal opportunity or
> whatever it is called?

I was referring to those "rights" which you claimed were created
for the benefit of indigenous peoples. Are you saying that they
should have more of certain rights than Whites? In other words,
are you saying that all people AREN'T and SHOULDN'T be equal
before the law? Are you extending and/or supporting certain rights
which you do not extend to/support for White peoples? In other
words, are you creating certain things which non-Whites may make
a legitimate claim for which Whites may not?

> Well, Quebecers have been asked that question twice in the last
> fifteen years and are still with us.  I don't know enough about
> American history to understand your allusion to the Civil War.

Right, but you aren't saying that they're less than a percent away
>from  saying goodbye.

In the Civil War, the Southern States seceeded from the Union. The
Union then proceeded to wage war on them and forced their inclusion
back into the Union. After forcing them into the Union, it then set
about reforming all Southern institutions so that they supported the
Union. Therefore, the inclusion of Southerners into the United States
was not a voluntary act after their secession (nor was it voluntary
on the part of various Indian nations).

> Is it not the role of the judiciary in the United States to interpret
> the constitution and how it should be enacted in law?

Whether it is supposed to do that or not does not mean that those laws
are valid. Additionally, the founders of the US specifically separated
powers so that the Judiciary would have no executive power. In the last
half of this century, the Judiciary has taken on executive as well as
judiciary powers. Moreover, most of the basis on which that has been
done is arbitrary and has resulted in gross deprivations of Whites'
rights.

> I don't know what the 14th Amendment is. 

The 14th Amendment made citizens of non-Whites. Previously, non-Whites
could not be made citizens. It was passed immediately following the
war for Southern rights and under conditions which make its legitimacy
questionable (i.e. the Federal Gov't had declared martial law and had
disbanded the legislatures of several States).

> Are constitutional Amendments normally made by referenda in the US?  

No, there is a lengthy process which is usually quite difficult to
do.

> Is it a constitutional requirement that any constitutional amendments
> be made through that process?

No. There is a lengthy process which is described in the U.S. 
Constitution.

>> Finally, governments can and do go bad; when they do, one must take
>> all measures to bring them back in line.
>
> Ah the slippery edge of totalitarianism. 

Oh garbage! Everytime you liberals don't like an idea for a form of
government then you call it totalitarianism. In my opinion, the current
form of government is totalitarian. Totalitarian is largely a meaningless
term equivalent with "very bad, ungood." What meaningful criteria for
totalitarianism would you put forth that you could support your
implication that I am "slipping towards totalitarianism." 

> Existing democratic process, you argue does not work. 

They've never worked. Under the democratic process in ancient Athens,
the opposition parties were either killed or run out of town. THAT is
democracy. No process of rule is perfect and can be corrupted. Do you
state otherwise?

Any form of government may become bad and when it has, I'm not obligated
to support something that I'm fundamentally opposed to. Isn't that the
basis of your "progressive" thinking?

> Or at least it doesn't work for you.

Blah blah blah. The process is broken. It must either be fixed or
replaced. The process was instituted for the benefit of White people
that was a decision of the Federal Supreme Court which has been
ignored since the Civil War. And, even were it not created for the
interests of White people, we're not obligated to support something
that is so fundamentally against our interests and will.

> What would you replace it with?

A Constitutional Republic which has included in its Constitution that
it is emplaced for the purpose of continuing a White nation. 
Additionally,
I would add several safeguards against the government corrupting its
intended purpose with certain rights extended to the people among which
would be gun ownership, the right of free speech, etc.

However, before that arrives (which may take centuries), we must
ensure that the current system is hostile to our existence to the
smallest degree possible. That means changing laws, electing proper
representatives of our nation, forming ourselves into a more complete
national community etc.

> The process, not the racial composition of the electorate, I mean?

Only Whites may be citizens; there would be an oath which would
bind government officials from acting in ways harmful to the national
interest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                          pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn/
                We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Tue Mar 26 19:00:55 PST 1996
Article: 16154 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa,alt.discrimination,alt.news-media,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: White empowerment is not racist
Date: 26 Mar 1996 13:14:36 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4j8qjs$n60@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4itggo$o64@clam.rutgers.edu> <4j3ti5$i6c@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <4j476l$bas@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host14.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.african.american:113658 soc.culture.usa:81329 alt.discrimination:44811 alt.news-media:22354 alt.fan.oj-simpson:48082 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16154 alt.politics.correct:89292

Wayne Johnson,  says:

> It's kinda hard to call eleven months out of the year "White History
> Month".

Be real. Are you saying that those eleven months are devoted
only to Whites? I wish it were true. The other eleven months
the multiculturalists and imperialists use to say how much we
should "tolerate" each other. There is _NO_ time spent to promote
White heritage or identity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn/
               We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Fri Mar 29 16:56:00 PST 1996
Article: 16251 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.nationalism.white
Subject: Positively Racist!
Date: 28 Mar 1996 04:06:43 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <4jd38j$esi@gate.cyberg8t.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host08.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)

                           Positively Racist

"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."

     Ours is a noble goal: We must secure the existence of our people
and a future for White children. For all of the goodness this goal
represents, we are often unable to adequately communicate to our own
people the Cause for which we fight. We must recognize that our
Movement has been too negative for too long. This negativeness has
slowed down the positive work that must be accomplished and has
permitted many well-intentioned activists to be misled and misdirected.
If we are to learn and grow as individuals and as a nation, a new way
of examining our task is necessary. I propose a new viewpoint which I
call Positivism and Constructivism.
     If we are to attain our goal, we must recognize the manner in
which the negativeness has evidenced itself in our Movement. First
and foremost, there has been a constant siege mentality and attempt
to keep ourselves as a secret society. This siege mentality has
created the conditions where we often distrust and fight against our
fellow comrades and spend more time guarding what little we have from
our own Movement members than in actively promoting our goal together.
Because of this, I have watched one of our comrades after another
leave our Movement from frustration. I have also seen high quality
people not join our Movement because of the apparent negativeness
and disorganization; we have thus lost important new members because
of our own actions.
     We can lay some of the blame for this siege mentality on our
enemies. Causing in-group fighting has been an important tactic
used by our enemies against us. The FBI's Cointelpro program regularly
had agent provocateurs sow the seeds of mistrust and misdirection.
Even organizations like the ADL have used paid informants to sow the
negativity. Jewish military leader Shlomo Gazit outlined a program
of counter-insurgency depending primarily on sowing intergroup
mistrust, disaffection with leaders and misrepresenting the group
to its public. However, knowing that this is an important tactic
of our enemy, we must resolve to deny him these tactics.
     I offer a new viewpoint from which to evaluate our Movement
and our activities; I call it Positivism and Constructivism. Very
basically, Positivism is defining the positive goal you hope to
achieve and Constructivism means to do that work which will have
lasting effects. It offers a simple way to evaluate your own goals
and activity.
     Positivism can best be summed up as "Define the positive goal
you hope to achieve." This may seem like a simple idea (and it is)
but it is an important first step to accomplishing any goal. There
is one significant thing to know in accordance with Positivism: the
difference between a positive goal state and a negative goal state.
A positive goal refers to a goal state that you would like to
maintain or bring about to a greater degree. A negative goal refers
to a goal state that you would like to stop or bring about to a
lesser degree. Therefore, an example of a positive goal is to have
a White homeland; an example of a negative goal is to stop non-White
immigration. The importance of defining the positive goal that you
are working towards is that you can consider where to put your
efforts to get the best effect. You can put all of your efforts
into stopping negative states without ever attaining the positive
state that you hope to achieve because you are not allocating your
efforts in the most effective way. Considering things in accordance
with Positivism, you can plan better how to attain your goal.
     Constructivism can best be summed up as "Make your labor count
for something." It is possible to select goals which have little
effect on our eventual goal of having a sovereign homeland. You can
go out and get in a fight with a solitary Negro and get thrown in
jail for five or more years for the "hate crime," but what did you
accomplish? Our nation needs to build a number of institutions and
reach important milestones on the road to victory but instead, you
are wasting your time in jail for little or no benefit to our Cause.
Therefore, Constructivism entails selecting an important and
significant goal and working towards its attainment. But how do you
know what is important and significant? You must learn. Learning is
one of the most constructive things you can do in preparation for
work. By knowing beforehand what must be done and what to avoid,
you ensure the most efficient application of your efforts. Therefore,
by educating yourself and others, you ensure that you are the most
knowledgeable and skilled to attain the goals for our Movement. The
next most constructive thing you can do is engage more people in
the accomplishment of your task. By bringing new people into our
Movement and educating them to become productive in our Cause, you
bring more people to work on our goal while denying those people to
our enemy. Another constructive thing you can do is to lay a long-
term foundation to simplify the work of those who follow you or
create the conditions for others to accomplish their work better.
A good term for this is "building infrastructure."
     By examining our Movement positively and constructively, we can
bring a new vitality to it. We will deny our enemy the means to
destroy us from within by misdirecting us and turning us against
each other and we will deny them the opportunity to misrepresent
us to our own people. We will work efficiently toward the attainment
of our goal and we will lay the foundation for future Movement activity.
We will also make our Movement a more enjoyable place for our people
to come.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur Ed LeBouthillier
                            pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                      http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn/
                 We must secure the existence of our people
                      and a future for White children.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




From pendragn@cyberg8t.com Sun Mar 31 19:31:44 PST 1996
Article: 89292 of alt.politics.correct
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news1.agis.net!agis!news.cyberg8t.com!usenet
From: Arthur LeBouthillier 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa,alt.discrimination,alt.news-media,alt.fan.oj-simpson,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: White empowerment is not racist
Date: 26 Mar 1996 13:14:36 GMT
Organization: Cyberg8t Internet Services (800) 399-4NET
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <4j8qjs$n60@gate.cyberg8t.com>
References:  <4itggo$o64@clam.rutgers.edu> <4j3ti5$i6c@taurus.bv.sgi.net> <4j476l$bas@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host14.cyberg8t.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.african.american:113658 soc.culture.usa:81329 alt.discrimination:44811 alt.news-media:22354 alt.fan.oj-simpson:48082 alt.politics.nationalism.white:16154 alt.politics.correct:89292

Wayne Johnson,  says:

> It's kinda hard to call eleven months out of the year "White History
> Month".

Be real. Are you saying that those eleven months are devoted
only to Whites? I wish it were true. The other eleven months
the multiculturalists and imperialists use to say how much we
should "tolerate" each other. There is _NO_ time spent to promote
White heritage or identity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Arthur LeBouthillier
                           pendragn@cyberg8t.com
                     http://www.tripod.com/~pendragn/
               We must secure the existence of our people
                     and a future for White children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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