> Who are you including in the use of the word “our”?
By “our” I mean those who agree with me and for whom I have a
responsibility to care for. It means those members of my race who
would like to preserve their racial and cultural heritage as a distinct
nation on the face of this planet.
I obviously don’t mean people like yourself, who, despite the fact that
you are probably white, have no love or concern for white people.
> If you mean white people, I happen to be white and really don’t mind
> having some person of another race being in my neighborhood.
I do mind.
> Hell, that person can come over and have a beer with me.
Yeah, and you can watch “Fresh Prince of Bel Aire,” and “Arsenio Hall”
together. What a beautiful scene.
> Does this mean I can’t live in your nation-state.
I don’t want you. Obviously you have values which will only harm the
interests of Whites.
> If so, I would like you to set up a nation state …
I’m not going to set up anything for people like you; your future is
your own responsibility.
> … for people who don’t give a rat’s ass what color you are, cause
> that’s where I want to live.
Isn’t that just so typical of the anti-Whites? It is THEY who portray
this issue as merely one of skin color. Never mind that there are Asians
with skin color very close to us whites. Never mind that we have our own
culture and desire to remain a people. Never mind our economic, political
or culture interests because the non-whites are so much more important.
That you don’t even consider our interests worthy of any concern, nay, that
you are hostile to our interests, is proof of why we cannot remain under
the same government with people like you. Any such government would entail
the sacrifice of our rights for the benefit of people who ultimately
seek our demise.
The result of your program can only mean dissolution of my racial
nation, and the sentencing of my nation and its progeny to eternal loss
of freedom and self-determination where it must fight for survival
as a minority in a multi-racial empire. The only solution is White
revolution.
Arthur LeBouthillier
Better Living Through White Power.
From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!
nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill Sun Apr 10 20:35:31 PDT 1994
Article: 13128 of alt.discrimination
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!
nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!aelebouthill
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: White Whining
Date: 9 Apr 94 23:12:19 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 115
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Apr9.231219.1@clstac>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.is.csupomona.edu
> Or are you referring only to the idiot white separatist we’re having
> fun lampooning?
Please, keep up your “lampooning,” I think you’re doing my Cause a great
favor. You are showing people who might only mildly agree with me that
you will not consider their interests worthy in any way. You are showing
how illegitimate of a debator you are and how hostile you truly are to
white interests. Again, please keep it up.
> I have a black friend who, for a small fee, will pretend to be willing
> to buy a house near you. I think you’re going to run out of money
> very quickly.
No, it will only show people how hostile people like you truly are
and how you won’t let us pursue our happiness in any way. You verify
for me and them that there is absolutely no benefit to remaining under
a government with (and making available vital resources to) people like
yourself. You will justify violence.
> Suppose the deed to the house specified that no racial restrictions
> could be added to it (as is the case in effect in the US). Then you
> have no objections to the status quo.
Time to refinance it under a contract that won’t have that clause in
it. Also, selling it to someone who might refinance it under a contract
that does have racial restrictions does not violate the conditions of
that first contract. It is also possible to outright buy the house such
that the contract no longer exists.
Additionally, I have every problem with the status quo. I will use the
status quo where it is to the benefit of my nation and I will trash
it where it isn’t.
> (Of course, if you build your own island in the middle of the ocean
> somewhere, you may make whatever rules you like.)
Of course if we work real hard and establish our own government then
we could also make whatever rules we like and will no longer have to
put up with this chickenshit any longer.
> “I advocate the separation of non-whites. I could separate myself
> from non-whites, but that would cost me money, so I don’t do it.” I
> suppose you could claim that stand isn’t inconsistent.
Strawman; that is YOUR advocacy. Please show a little bit of legitimacy
in your debating tactics. What I advocate is more than the mere separation
of Whites. The separation of Whites is but one part and a means to another
end: the maintenance of a White nation. I would rather not discuss some of
the reasons why I must remain in a place that I don’t like. Should you
consider to still challange inconsistency on my part, I will no longer
argue and concede by stating “no contest.” It is not that you might be
right, but that I don’t wish to debate that particular issue further.
> Anyway, I didn’t bring up “inconsistency”, I intentionally used the
> phrase “put your money where your mouth is” which you have to admit
> you aren’t doing.
One “admits” (which you are demanding that I do) to a charge which in
this case is an implied charge of inconsistency. You have not shown
inconsistency adequately. Additionally, I don’t doubt that I might be
inconsistent in some manner (and I welcome your efforts to show
my inconsistency so that I might better myself in my activism for my
people ).
Lastly, I am putting my money where my mouth is. In fact, I put too
much of my money where my mouth is. I have limited resources which
must be meted out to support both my life and my activism. The balancing
of resources requires short term sacrifices for long-term gain.
>> As to what I intend, and what I am doing in process of it, I have
>> not discussed those things so you have little grounds on which to
>> imply my moral inconsistency.
>
> You don’t wish to set up racial homelands? Perhaps that’s only what
> you state, while your true intent is something more sinister?
Perhaps. But that’s not the case. I don’t wish to set up racial
homelands (plural). I wish to set up a White homeland/nation-state.
Whether there exists other such homelands outside of my own nation-state
is unimportant to me ( although I might be willing to ally myself with
non-whites who might also wish to realize their political independence
in a manner that is mutually beneficial).
> Who is the “our”?
Those who agree with me.
> How many people do you think actually agree with you?
I would say at least 15 to 20 million. Although insufficient statistics
exist to make a precise statement, a recent CBS/Times Mirror poll quoted
6 percent of whites and 7 percent of blacks as believing that separation
of the races is a worthy goal (I pad that to account for certain social
changes). Depending on how the question is stated, the racial “climate,”
how much effort is required to attain it, and the perceived benefit, I
think that the number could be much higher.
> (And just how much land do you think you’re entitled to, given that the
> people who conquered it disagree with what you want to do with it?)
We are “entitled” to sufficient land to ensure our survival ( I’m not sure
I would agree to the use of the word “entitled” in more serious debate for
several reasons but for the sake of “light” argument, I will use it). I
would like a bit more than the minimum land (perhaps anywhere from 50%
to 100% more than is required and I will always seek to maximize those
resources that are “horizontal” resources ). Full determination will
depend on further analysis of our national needs and capabilities.
Also, “the people who conquered it” do not disagree with me. “The people
who conquered it” created a White nation-state called the United States
of America which was corrupted by a power-hungry Federal government. One
merely has to look in the history of this country up until about the
second world war to see what “the people who conquered it” intended.
After all, I am a descendent of some of “the people who conquered it.”
From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!
aelebouthill Tue Apr 12 23:36:43 PDT 1994
Article: 13206 of alt.discrimination
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!
aelebouthill
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: White Rights
Date: 12 Apr 94 00:33:22 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 123
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Apr12.003322.1@clstac>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.is.csupomona.edu
> Tell me more about the “white cultural heritage”. What native
> language is involved? What are some “traditional white dishes”?
It’s called Western Civilization; read a book sometime. It consists
of many different languages primarily with the same root. There is
no single language although both English and French have served to
bind us. Language is not necessarily a requirement for ethnicity
and culture (although it helps).
> In Europe, very few people consider themselves “European”. They
> consider themselves French, Polish, Serbian, etc. etc.
But they all understand who white people are. And they know that they
are distinct from the non-whites. There are also many white racialists
and nationalists there. There are also many Whites there. Many Europeans
that I have met agree with the basic premises that I talk about.
> No more than I have for anybody else. Obviously, you’re not a member
> of my race (which is “human”).
I guess that just shows the illegitimacy of your category. For merely
believing in my race and ethnicity and advocating what I feel is best
for them, then I am not human (according to you).
I’m not a member of your nation (the human nation), obviously, but then
I don’t want to be.
> That’s right. I care about human interests. I guess you’re upset
> because that doesn’t include you.
Yeah right… You only care about the interests of those who want to
join in your shitty multi-racial mess. Count me out.
> There are plenty of ways in which you may pursue your happiness. Any
> way which doesn’t violate the rights of other people is fine with me.
Excuse me? Ethnicity isn’t a right? Self-determination of individuals
and nations is not a right? Property is not a right? Liberty is not
a right? Pursuit of happiness is not a right?
> Feel free to leave.
I’m not going anywhere. My rights exist wherever I am.
> Only in self-defense. (And I *don’t* mean defense of your stupid
> ideas, or your “rights” to determine what your neighbor can do with
> his property.)
Excuse me? That’s exactly what exists in this country in order to
support your multi-racial bullshit. I’m only doing what you seem
to find justified to support your cause.
My “stupid” idea of rights is based on Rousseau’s definition. With
regard to that, a right is a thing which only entails negative
obligation. The kind of rights that you talk about (often called
privilege) require positive obligation and are thus not rights. My
definition of right is in accordance with natural rights; yours is
a farcical nonsense based on your wishes and desires.
> Please explain how you can add a clause to the deed saying that the
> house can’t be sold to a black, while I can’t add a clause to the deed
> saying that no restriction can be put on who can buy the house.
I didn’t say that you couldn’t add that restriction. I was merely making
two points: 1) that the current government is violating contract law and
2) that contract provisions can be circumvented.
> I suggest Antarctica, it isn’t very inhabited. If you try to take
> my land away, you’ll get hurt.
I never advocated taking your property away. And if you or anyone tries
to deny me my rights (which is occurring right now), then violence is
justified.
> You mean the court won’t let you leave California?
Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
> In other words, well over 90% of all American disagree with you. I
> guess that means you should found your nation somewhere else.
I think much more than 10% will agree with me. And then again, it really
doesn’t matter if it is 10%. We would constitute a nation larger than
Sweden. That you could advocate the violation of a whole nation of
people’s rights is obvious of your own illigitimacy.
> The United State of America was never a White (by your definition
> distinguishing “White” from “white”) nation.
In fact it was. Read the Dred Scott case; that’ll tell you the true
founding ideals of this country. I can list a string of quotes from the
people who founded it and those that followed. Jefferson’s intention was
to send blacks away as soon as they were freed. Jefferson fits into my
definition of White, so does Abraham Lincoln. His goal was to maintain
a white nation (called the United States) and then to send the freed
blacks back to Africa. Unfortunately, he was killed before he could
implement that plan. With the congress implementing the silly 14th
Amendment, the true course of this nation-state was forever corrupted.
> The corruption of a nation by its own government is another
> concept I won’t bother doing more than laughing at.
It’s called the theory of elites and masses.
> So are a majority of American blacks.
That doesn’t make them white.
> Can you explain how having an African neighbor is more destructive of
> the cultural heritage of an Italian than having a German neighbor?
Any society requires an ideology to justify itself. In order to justify
the presence of non-whites, you must choose an ideology which is
divorced from a European ethnic identity. That’s what’s happening in
this country today. That ideology, divorced from ethnic roots and
seeking to supplant itself as the major one, would be terribly
destructive since it must say that ethnicity is unimportant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
APendragon
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!
clstac!aelebouthill Sun Apr 24 16:42:12 PDT 1994
Article: 13573 of alt.discrimination
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!psgrain!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!
clstac!aelebouthill
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: White Rights
Date: 24 Apr 94 10:53:38 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 9
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Apr24.105338.1@clstac>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
> If the government is to recognize racial provisions in contracts,
From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!
aelebouthill Sun Apr 10 20:35:13 PDT 1994
Article: 13127 of alt.discrimination
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!clstac!
aelebouthill
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: White Whining
Date: 9 Apr 94 21:22:59 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1994Apr9.212259.1@clstac>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.is.csupomona.edu
Last-Modified: 1995/01/09
