Alb 1293, Bouthillier Arthur

> “It is believed that in the Neolithic age, northern Europe had one
> original language from which most of the modern European languages have
> derived, and that between central Europe and western Asia were tribes
> which used only one… and thence into India and even further into
> Australia, creating the Aborigine tribes.”

I think you are misinterpreting what the book is saying. Like he said,
“one original language from which most of the modern European languages
have derived.” The ‘and’ portion that follows ( “and that between central
Europe and Western Asia were tribes which used only one” ) refers to the
source of that language being in eastern Anatolia about 6,000 years
ago. For other sources, see “The Early History of Indo-European
Languages” by Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V.V. Ivanov in Scientific
American, March 1990. Additionally, you could check “The Origins of
Indo-European Languages” by Colin Renfrew, Scientific American Oct ’89.

Additionally, the link between genetic lineage and language is quite
strong. Quoting “Using Genes to Track Down Indo-European Migrations”
by Leslie Roberts in Science, 4 Sept 1992, “Sokal’s group found that
genetic and linguistic distances are strongly correlated….” after
mathematically removing extraneous factors, a “significant partial
correlation between genetic and linguistic distance still remained.”

Although I don’t have a good source handy, the genetic and linguistic
distances between the Aborigines of Australia and Aryans is quite
large. The best source I have to support that is an article
(for which I don’t have the title) in Scientific American April 1991;
see the chart of page 145.

Anyways, I’m not talking about racial purity since there is evidence that
“White” includes several closely related racial groupings. I’m talking
about White ethnicity. We are a different people from the non-Whites and
we wish to pursue a future that maintains that difference.

The important issue is that we Whites do exist and that we have rights
as well. One of our rights is for self-determination. I don’t find the
current program of the government acceptable. I am only voicing my
opinion that this government does not represent White interests and
that our interests would best be pursued in an all-White country.

> White is right????

Sure is.

> FUCK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a nice day 🙂

J. Smith > One land, one voice,

One people, one purpose: White Power

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From oneb!!!!!
not-for-mail Sat Dec 4 13:47:19 PST 1993
Article: 3469 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 2 Dec 1993 18:19:20 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

> no, you are, white- (sorry, White-) power freak that you may be, still
> a citizen of the United States of America and subject to its laws.

There is a contract binding me to the U.S. Gov’t and compelling me to
follow its laws; however, I can change the nature of that contract.
Additionally, I’m not obligated to engage in a contract from which
I don’t receive adequate compensation.

> your right to nationhood is absolutely conditional to you not breaking
> any of America’s laws as you strive for nationhood.

My right to nationhood supercedes U.S. Law; it is a human right.

> if you feel that you are not being treated fairly by the “jewish
> occupational government,” or whatever the fuck you call it, bring
> it up with your government.

Oh, I will.

> hey, if you don’t like it, go somewhere else and build your homeland
> there. we give you the option. if you don’t follow it, you either
> don’t care enough about your cause, or you don’t have balls to put up
> or shut up.

No. We have the right to do it right here.

> discontentment is not an excuse for breaking laws when there is
> an alternative.

Where have I advocated breaking laws? I think it is YOU who is
advocating breaking the laws. Whites have a right to self-determination
wherever we are. If you would attempt to interfere with that, then you
are denying us our rights and are “breaking the law.”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From oneb!!!!!!!!uunet!!!!not-for-mail Sat Dec 4 13:49:51
PST 1993
Article: 3474 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!!!!uunet!!!!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 2 Dec 1993 19:47:48 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

> false. the present government is foundering in a sea of bureaucracy,
> and it is struggling to get on its feet once more.

False. The present government is foundering on bad principles.
These bad principles have brought it and the people down.

> if that calls for a loose interpretation of the Constitution, then so
> be it.

And what redress will we Whites receive for damages up ’till now?
Suddenly everything is peachy keen? Government hegemony is not the only
problem; that can go away. But what about the loss of White self-
determination? Our ability to choose our future has been forever
damaged. Within 10 years, Hispanics will be the majority in California.
Gee, that was really in the political interests of Whites. What about the
multi-cultural mess we face? Gee, that was in our cultural interests.
What about the loss of industry and control by foreign interests over the
domestic economy? Gee, that was in our economic interests. What about the
millions of White babies killed by its abortion laws while it brought
in millions of non-White immigrants? Gee, that served our population’s

> the government does not willingly denounce the Constitution.

No, it passes bad laws or makes judicial decisions that benefit the
State over the rights of people. It takes our property and does what
serves the State.

> the whole goal of the government’s interpretation of the Constitution
> is to make America a betterplace for *everybody*.

The whole reason that the Constitution was written was to benefit White
people. In foregoing that principle, it violated numerous rights of our’s
and led us to where we are today.

> meaning you’re gonna do whatever the hell you want and if you don’t want
> to do something, it must violate your rights. yeah.

No, meaning that we will pursue our rights independently of whether we
serve this State or not.

> you seek to find out how far you can push the Law. when you push too
> far, you claim that your rights are being violated and you were forced
> into action.

No, we seek to change the law. The only legitimate basis of contract
between myself and my government rests on its protection and promotion
of White interests and rights.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From oneb!!!!!
not-for-mail Sun Dec 5 20:37:34 PST 1993
Article: 3498 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 3 Dec 1993 04:56:11 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>

> no. the Constitution says, “ALL men are created equal.”

The Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their creators with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed; that whenever any government becomes destructive to
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and
to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles,
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

The government derives its powers from “…the consent of the
governed…” It does not derive its powers because I was born here. If
I don’t give my consent, any power that it imposes on me is illegitimate.
Now, I’m not saying that it is a path that should be chosen lightly nor
that it is something as simple as saying “that’s it, no more.” However,
the nature of the bond between me and this government is based on my
willingness to recognize its authority.

Additionally, the Constitution is not the source of my rights, but only
an expression of some of them. There are also other sources which
express certain other of my rights such as Human Rights and numerous
treaties into which the U.S. Gov’t has engaged.

> it doesn’t say “all WHITE men are created superior to allothers.” and
> there’s no apostrophe in “ours.”

The Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case that the Constitution
was a contract among Whites for the benefit of Whites.

> has the government ever taken *your* property? if so, give mean example.

Of course it has; it’s called taxes. Additionally, it limits my property
rights in other numerous ways by limiting the nature of contracts in which
I can engage.

> no, the legitimate basis of your contract with the American government
> rests on you being born in America

No, the legitimate basis of my contract with the U.S. Gov’t is based on
my recognition of it as my government. I have a right for expatriation
from this and any country. I have a right to choose my nationality, a
right for self-determination and a right to representative government.

By the deeds of heroes,
and the blood of martyrs,
all good comes to be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From oneb!!utcsri!utnut!!!!!!not-for-mail Sun Dec 5
23:51:45 PST 1993
Article: 3504 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!utcsri!utnut!!!!!!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: More questions for hermy
Date: 3 Dec 1993 17:37:15 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>

> Wrong. Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong. You do NOT have to PERSONALLY,
> INDIVIDUALLY, give your consent.

Most people just give their consent without knowing it. In case you hadn’t
noticed, there are numerous ways you give your consent. Everytime you sign
some document saying “I am a U.S. Citizen,” you confirm your consent.
Everytime you utilize one of the Federal Govt’s benefits, you give your
consent. Just as easily as one gives his consent, one can revoke his
citizenship by following the proper channels. Again, I don’t advocate
this for minor reasons.

> “The consent of the governed” is a little thing known as a majority
> (those things that happen when people VOTE).

Even if that were true, it would be all the more reason not to want to
engage in the future that people like you are advocating. If majority
vote solely determined my legal status, then I definitely don’t want
to be part of any government which makes non-Whites the majority.

Voting is but one way that consent is given. There are other ways that
one might or might not give his consent.

> So the Supreme Court recognizes the difference between Whites and whites
> just like you, eh?

At one time, this was a White country. At that time, the definition of
white was much different; it did not include Arabs and other non-European

> Now how would you suggest the nation pay for things like all the big
> state schools that pay for this computer system, armed forces which
> keep REAL “foreign occupation” from occuring, etc. etc.

Taxes. However, I would use them for White interests. I advocate that
all White’s taxes be used solely to promote White interests.

> Are you gonna send donations?

Until the creation of my White nation-state, yes. I donate my time and
money for my nation.

> Apparently not.

On what do you base this assertion? What is apparent that permits you
to say that?

> You have a right for expatriation. You do NOT have a right for
> expatration AND citizenship.

This statement is a little ambiguous; there are some things that I
would like to comment on but I would like you to clarify before
I respond. Would you please do that? The problem relates to your
use of the “and” in the second sentence.

I think you are mistaken about what citizenship is. Citizenship is
not the right to reside in a particular place. Citizenship is a
recognition of a contract between a person and a government. A Citizen
is the legal status of one who is entitled to certain privileges from a
government as well as who has certain obligations under that government’s
laws. Not all people residing in a given region governed by a particular
state have the right to citizenship. Most states of the world determine
citizenship by bloodline. It is only the U.S. (and one other if I remember)
who solely determines citizenship by birth in local (or by a loyalty
oath). Most states of the world determine citizenship “con sanguineously.”
I advocate the formation of a White nation-state that also determines
citizenship con sanguineously. That kind of government would best
represent White interests and aspirations.

Federal income taxes (as well as other Federal taxes and benefits) only
apply to U.S. citizens. That’s why many Indians don’t pay taxes; they’re
not citizens. In return, they’re not eligible for many of the “benefits”
that citizens are.

> This country is for citizens only. Go away, plot your nation-state,
> then come back and try to implement it so we can get a few more laughs.

What a silly thing to say. There are millions of non-citizens in this
country. Many of the Indians are not citizens (by choice) and are, in
fact, only nationals. Many of the Indian nations are quite autonomous.
All of these millions of illegal aliens that have come here are not
citizens; are you going tell them to go away too (I wish you would)?
Instead, people like you probably advocate that these illegals be made
citizens. How valuable can citizenship be if you are going to give it
away to everyone? I want citizenship to mean something and my government
to represent the interests of its White citizens (again as the U.S. was
intended to be).

I will admit that I have much to learn regarding legal status and
determinancy. But give me time, I’ll learn.

> Do you consider yourself a hero or a martyr?
> Why?

Well, I’m not dead yet, so I can’t be a martyr. As for whether I’m a
hero, no. I’ve not yet done anything significant and even if I did, it
would be for others to decide whether I was a hero or not.

> Go away, plot your nation-state, then come back and try to implement it
> so we can get a few more laughs.

No, I will use all available legal means to attain my ends and rights
and secure the interests of my people.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[email protected]
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

From oneb!!!!!
uunet!!!usenet Sun Dec 12 15:42:25 PST 1993
Article: 3562 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!
From: Arthur Pendragon
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Your Spoutings Are Irrelevant
Date: Thu, 9 DEC 93 21:00:22 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>

> I posted a very basic summary of Jewish philosophy a while back.
> I believe my words were basically
> “Look at the world around you. Learn from it. Apply what you have
> learned to your life.”

That is insufficient to define Jewish thought. Jewish thought relates to
a belief in a god and a morality which supposedly descends from that
god. The empiricism of which you speak must be diametrically opposed to
Jewish thought since it would tend to disprove theism.

From oneb!!destroyer!!!!!!!
usenet Tue Dec 21 18:49:04 PST 1993
Article: 3755 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!destroyer!!!!!!!usenet
From: Arthur Pendragon
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: White News Network (WNN)
Date: Tue, 21 DEC 93 00:24:39 EST
Organization: Delphi Internet
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>


Books, magazines and articles of interest to those with a White perspective.


No Remorse
BCM Box 5103

Helen of Oi! Records
R.K. Burridge
Flat 3
15 Spring Gardens
P038 1QX

Squadron Services
BM Box 46


Rampage ( A Skinhead Voice )
P.O. Box 19
LE67 1DS

Viking Skinhead Fanzine
B.P. 1337
76065 Le Havre
Cedex France

White Rock Music
P.O. Box 100
74111 Novy Jicin
Czech Republic

Pure Impact
Peter Swillen
M.V. Hongarijelaan 135
1080 Brussels

Biela Garda/White Guard
Martin Lucko

Nicholas Saas
Poste Restante
La Posta
46-48 Bd D’Anvers
67074 Strasbourg
Cedex – France

From oneb!!!!!
not-for-mail Sat Dec 4 07:34:01 PST 1993
Article: 3448 of alt.skinheads
Path: oneb!!!!!
From: [email protected] ([email protected])
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads
Subject: Re: Aryans are white ?????????????
Date: 2 Dec 1993 14:26:03 -0500
Organization: General Videotex Corporation
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Last-Modified: 1995/01/09