Republican Governors Reject Trump’s Offer To Ban Refugee Resettlement

Mainstream conservatism is worthless.

Axios:

“Republican governors in several predominantly red states announced this week that they plan to continue to accept refugees — despite President Trump’s executive order allowing state and local governments to block refugee resettlements.

The big picture: While Republicans widely support Trump’s restrictive immigration policies, local and state officials have been unwilling to push out those who have been forced from their homes and gone thorough stringent vetting processes required to become a U.S. refugee. …”

AP:

“NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee won’t stop resettling refugees, Republican Gov. Bill Lee said Wednesday, rejecting the option offered to states by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The issue forced Lee, who campaigned on his Christian beliefs, to consider his own experience helping refugees and weigh it against the will of fellow Republicans in the Legislature. GOP lawmakers had sued the federal government over its refugee resettlement program and legislative leaders hoped Lee would accept Trump’s offer.

“The United States and Tennessee have always been … a shining beacon of freedom and opportunity for the persecuted and oppressed, particularly those suffering religious persecution,” Lee said in a statement. “My administration has worked extensively to determine the best outcome for Tennessee, and I will consent to working with President Trump and his administration to responsibly resettle refugees.”

Here is a chance to stop refugee resettlement in its tracks. Trump isn’t the obstacle to a positive outcome on this. Most Republican governors would continue to flood their states with Third World refugees though because their corporate donors want the cheap labor.

About Hunter Wallace 9521 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

61 Comments

  1. smoke in the wind. Drumpf is well aware

    that all Republiscam pols are open borders/cheap shitskin labor.

    as Drumpf himself has always been. It’s another one of his

    “gee, but I tried…” moments.

  2. It’s marginally about cheap labor. Primarily its about Jews destroying European peoples. If this sight doesn’t start acknowledging that fact soon, we’ll know it’s compromised / controlled. BTW…this comment like many others is unlikely to see the light of day. More proof.

  3. Un-f-ing-believable.

    Trump does something right for a change and the conservative Republicans block it.

    Conservatism is an anti-white, anti-American ideology.

    I’m a liberal. We’re the real racists.

  4. That’s really how it goes with Republitards. Always being fake and telling lies. The Republican base likes the idea now of Nationalism. So Trump and some Republicans play the game on it but it’s all talk. The Republicans will never be seen as racist….ever unless the Jews say invade an Islamic country. So in other words only Jews and other races can be proud and survive. The Republicans are all for Islamics and people from India owning Gas Stations. Money Money Money. However the Jews print the money so Republicans are more for the Jews. Most Republicans couldn’t care less about racial identity. All they care about is Jew Money. I stopped playing the game a few years ago. Democrats and Republicans are both the enemy of Southerners and White Nationalism. Deo Vindice !

  5. DEMONCRAPS FORCE CONSERVATIVE GOVENORS TO TAKE REFUGEES! EVEN WHEN THERE OUT OF OFFICE!!!

    STILL THINK THE DEEP STATE IS FAKE!?!

    #WWG1WGA

    #MAGA

    #KAG

  6. White people are just too stupid, sanctimonious, and bought off. They live in fairyland always pretending they will be a majority as that status massively slips away.

    Republitards once again will turn easy red states purple and then blue with the never ending refugee programs. These people then bring relatives over and just like that you get another Omar type in Congress. Suddenly others get wind of these states changing and move there.

    Republitards never want to speak of the obvious- without huge white support they go the way of the Whig Party the way they have in countless non white places in Merica. White people are truly some of the most absurd and naive people on the planet despite their ability to create cool stuff and areas.

    Democrats outright say time is on their side because of more non whites. Republitards simply shiver at the thought of actually doing the theory of duuuhhh and bring in more white people! Gee, there are only millions of them waiting in South Africa alone. Is that “study” on South Africa Trump ordered still being studied? Too many white people are so tiresome with their flag waving, tax cut cuckery. But mention the obvious on race and they run for the hills.

  7. Some of the most bloody and violent conflicts in world history, including civil wars, have started because an antagonist badly miscalculated the rage and hate of vast and large segments of the population. Various kings, governors, and rulers in history assumed a level of passivity and acceptance of further antagonisms on the part of their subjects. Thousands of battlefields and graveyards testify as to the foolishness of such an assumption.

    When I read stories like this, I wonder if history is about to repeat itself.

    Yes, I understand these governors are only thinking of pleasing their corporate donor masters, but anyone with a decent IQ who spends time among the average white working-stiff living in states like Tennessee, knows that time and patience is growing short.

    The English thought the Scotts would roll over. The Romans assumed the Germans would give up and learn to live with Pax Romana. The North couldn’t imagine that Southerners would actually fight back when they were resupplying Ft. Sumter. All of them badly miscalculated.

    • It was the Southerners who badly miscalculated when they attacked Ft. Sumter, believing that Britain and France would come to aid of “King Cotton”. And, unlike Scots and Germans, Southerners utterly failed to establish their own country.

  8. Europeans are being replaced through the actions of elitist puppets in both parties. Those Whites are traitors to their voters and their tribe.

  9. Which makes it even more painful to read Youtube, FB, IG, etc comments from these dolts with their chants of “The DemonRats need to be voted out #RedWave” even more painful and infuriating. The “MAGA” normies are bad enough… But these “conservatives” who don’t realize that the Republican party doesn’t deserve an ounce of their support are far worse

  10. Take that shining beacon of freedom and stick it up your ass. It’s all about flooding this nightmare of a country with cheap brown labor, voters and consumers. But don’t worry, after Blump wins a second term he’s going to build that wall and own the libturds.

    • Trump isn’t going to build the wall. The rhetoric of doing so is worth something, however. In large part because it brings out all the loons and puts them at center ring of the Clown World circus we have going on in ‘Merika.

      It is amazing sometimes how many more or less normal people out there walk about with their heads mostly stuck in the sand for half their adult lives and more. I have explained to dozens of people over the years some of the more deviant practices of homosexuals and lesbians, as a good example of what I’m talking about. Almost invariably their jaws drop and they are in total disbelief. They have simply been walking around oblivious to all of this, believing that homosexuals are mostly like us, they just have a preference for finding the “love of their life” within their own gender, and what’s wrong with that, right? I’m not exaggerating; there are lots and lots of normal people out there who are literally that ignorant about what homosexuality really is.

      The same may be said of mostly the same people per this issue of destroying the culture with third world immigrants and the crazies who advocate for this. That is why it is helpful to our cause for Trump to trumpet (pun definitely intended) intentions of “building the wall.” And the louder the better. Because the sleeping normies I mention above can’t believe, or even fathom in their current state of mind, that the vast majority of human beings aren’t mostly like them – “basically good,” honest, loyal, patriotic, having or possessing essentially the same interests and desires and so on.

  11. The Chambers of Commerce across this fruity plain called ‘Merica have been one of the biggest thorns in our side on this issue for a long time. There isn’t a hair’s breadth of difference between Republicans and Democrats in the ruling elite on the truly important issues, as I’ve said so many times before I’m getting blue in the face repeating it. It’s a little better at the State level than at the national one, but not much. I never liked Gov. Fallin and certainly didn’t waste any energy voting for her, as opposed to voting for that other (female) nitwit who ran against her on the Democrat ticket. But credit where credit is due, she (Gov. Fallin) would at least listen to her constituents and capitulate to their demands on such things as federal funding for Obamacare, the stupid-beyond-belief teacher pay issue, gun rights legislation (albeit the constitutionally illiterate pot smoking libertarian gun nuts weren’t very happy with her, but consider the source) and that sort of thing. Might be time to organize another statewide letter writing campaign to the ol’ Gov’s office. In Oklahoma, (former) state reps like that belligerent Democrat halfwit, Terry Harrison, don’t run for re-election because they’re at least smart enough to know they’ll lose their re-election bids, but too stupid to understand why; they insult their constituents, then can’t figure out why “everyone is against me.” Terry Harrison might be half Jew.

    • Women don’t belong in politics.

      Innocence is a luxury awarded to women by nature.

      “Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long…”

      -Arthur Schopenhauer

  12. ” “Republican governors in several predominantly red states announced this week that they plan to continue to accept refugees — despite President Trump’s executive order allowing state and local governments to block refugee resettlements.”

    Clearly, voting the bastards out, does NOTHING. This is the grave FAILURE of ‘Democracy’ – if you have a weak, illiterate, low-IQ populace having the vote -the ‘demos’ the Ancient Greeks, (who gave us the concept of democracy) feared would destroy a nation, able to ‘vote’ the ENEMY in with only 50.01% of the vote…..

    THEN IT’S TIME TO JETTISON THAT FORM OF GOVERNANCE, AT ONCE!

  13. Unfortunately my state will continue to bring in shitskins because of our shitty white cuck governor Roy Cooper and his kike AG Josh Stein.. This is what happens when your state is overrun with kikes, northeasterners, beaners, Indians(dot heads), and Nigerians.

  14. “In truth, while America was founded upon the good intentions of many White Christian men, it was poisoned by the popular ideals of Liberalism and subverted from the beginning. As the words of Jesus Christ say in Revelation chapter 17: “17 For God hath put in their hearts to fullfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” Under this circumstance did the Untied States of America come into existence, and under the tyranny of that beast we all suffer today, as we have no control over the political destiny of our own nation.”

    – Bill Finck, Christogenea website

    DEATH to the Jew World Order

  15. Impeachment, removal, 2020 Dem victory or no Diversity keeps on chasing down the last White person unabated.

    • The burden is upon those entering the U.S.A. to show why they should be allowed entry, not upon the U.S. Government to show why they should be kept out.The “refugees” are not U.S. citizens and under U.S., international law and various UN treaties the “refugees” have no legal claim to enter the U.S. The “refugees” are allowed into the country by the U.S. Government as an act of grace, a gift, an act of generosity not something they have any claim upon. Whether it’s smart or stupid, good or bad to allow wogs to enter the U.S. is irrelevant, they have no legal claim upon the U.S. at all.

      It’s the positive duty of the U.S. Government to exclude these people from entry, a duty the Government owes the citizenry, not the “refugees”. This duty arises from, amongst other things, the mutual obligations between the U.S. citizenry and the Government such as paying taxes, military and jury service and the creation of an orderly, peaceful, productive country; something the “refugees” of recent vintage are absolutely incapable of. The reciprocal duties between the U.S. Government and real Americans also arises because of our ancestors, having founded the country out of a howling wilderness, passed it on to us like a priceless inheritance, not a roach motel for the world.

      If the “refugees” had any sort of legal claim upon the U.S. they would show a passport, military ID, drivers license or even tell the border officers what their claim is (even without documentation) and after a delay to check their bona fides, they would be allowed entry. Lacking these things their claim (sic) basically is: “Let us in because we’re here, dammit”. This is the same claim a burglar makes. A moral claim is not the same as a legal claim.

      This is no different in theory than me showing up at your door with ten filthy, illiterate, violent, misogynist, stone-age level relatives in tow saying: “Lemme in, I’m here, dammit”. Then, because I’m in your house, I and my wonderful, diverse fambly proceed to eat all your food, crash your car and burn down your house. For me and my fambly it’s then off to the next stupid, gullible White person’s house to do it again because: “Lemme in, I’m here, dammit”.

  16. Surprised I got a real response.
    But this country wasn’t founded out of the howling wilderness. It was stolen from the indigenous people. How can there be illegal immigrants on stolen land?
    On the legal end, once they are admitted into the country by the United States government, as part of international treaty rights, doesn’t that mean they are legitimate rather than illegitimate? And if you are going to pursue the line of thought that says it is about legal citizenship rather than moral claims, aren’t African Americans, whose families have been here for centuries legitimate citizens of the country, rather than the sort of inferior parasites this site often makes them out to be?

    • “But this country wasn’t founded out of the howling wilderness. It was stolen from the indigenous people. How can there be illegal immigrants on stolen land?

      Be careful here Noah, I think this argument really applies much more to Israel where a Palestinian majority was systematically displaced as part of Imperial policy after WWI to secure funding when Great Britain was going broke. Palestine was not empty before 1947, it was mostly Arab, people who were systematically driven out where possible to establish the modern state of Israel. This policy continues through West Bank settlements.

      The North American continent was for all practical purposes empty when European explorers discovered it. The few aboriginal inhabitants had no concept of “owning land” or nation hood, Europeans were just another tribe. There was no country or land to steal, the Indians had no civilisation, they were aboriginal hunter gatherers who led a nomadic existence in conflict with other similar tribes. There were no towns, harbors, industry or improvements to the land, agriculture was extremely limited and starvation was always a threat before and at the time of the arrival of settlers in Virginia and New England.

      The idea of “stolen land” was a late 19th century invention of a few writers later copied and enlarged upon by communists like Howard Zinn and Noel Ignatiev for polemical purposes, not serious history. If you don’t think the U.S. was a howling wilderness in the 17th century fly to Boston, drive west for 40 miles and go 20 miles north or south and see what you will find; nothing. That’s what the first pioneers found too but without 21st century technology.

      Read “The Invented Indian” by James A. Clifton, editor, Copyright 1990, Transaction Publishers, ISBN 0-88738-341-6 for more information as to how the Indians were truly “merciless savages” as described in the Declaration of Independence, preying upon each other constantly, not “noble savages”.

      Indians who were peaceful prospered under English rule. Starvation ended in New England after the founding of Boston in 1630. Their diets changed and Indians enjoyed pork, beef, tea, sugar European vegetables instead of only occasional venison, fish and native corn. See “Mayflower” l by Nathaniel Philbrick, Copyright 2006, Penguin Group Publishers, ISBN 0-670-03760-5 for a description of this and the cruelty of the Indians in King Phillip’s War against the English colonists and Indians allied with them.

      In short, English colonists (and French colonists in Canada) created a nation ex nihilo on an almost empty continent, the aboriginal inhabitants were few and far between and of vicious temperament. There was no land to steal, there was nothing and those few Indians who weren’t vicious survived and prospered. This nation, created by settlers was meant to ” . . . secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, . . . ” as the preamble to the Declaration states, not a roach motel for Third World failures.

    • “On the legal end, once they are admitted into the country by the United States government, as part of international treaty rights, doesn’t that mean they are legitimate rather than illegitimate?”

      Yes, if they entered the country legally, i.e. with the explicit permission of the U.S. Government, they are legitimately in the country and get Government documentation to prove that. Those who break in are like burglars and should be treated as such. Whether people, particularly Third World types should be allowed in to the country is a domestic political matter. It was at the heart of Trump’s bait-and-switch 2016 campaign on the question of immigration/amnesty.

      Your question acknowledges that the U.S. Government has the right to admit and therefore, also not admit whomever it wants. Treaties give the U.S. Government absolute authority to reject people and beyond that, the President has the absolute authority to shut down all immigration with an executive order as George Bush II did after 9/11. Trump could legally do the same today.

      The question of who is allowed to enter the U.S. is strictly a domestic political matter, no foreigner has anything to say in the matter. It’s a matter of prudential judgement (at least in theory) of the Government, not anyone’s right to become a U.S. citizen.

    • ” . . . it is about legal citizenship rather than moral claims . . .”

      Regarding moral vs. legal claims HW recently had an interesting piece about St. Thomas Aquinas and his “order of charity” which basically states that people have the deepest obligations to those closest to them, such as family then progressively weaker obligations the further removed while still retaining Christian charity towards all. We have deeper obligations to our countrymen than to foreigners and the same applies to them, even to the Third World vagabonds trying to break in to the country. It is this charity towards our families, neighbors and fellow citizens as well as future generations to exclude anyone we want that should be (but isn’t) reflected in immigration law and practice.

      It is a false and malicious inversion of charity to give away the patrimony of future generations to Third World vagabonds who hate us. It is the height of immorality reflecting the greed of the business class, the idiocy of so called “intellectuals”, the moral cowardice of clergy and corrupt politicians and the selfishness of ethnic minorities to flood the country with wogs.

    • ” . . . aren’t African Americans, whose families have been here for centuries legitimate citizens of the country, rather than the sort of inferior parasites this site often makes them out to be?”

      Yes, blacks are citizens, a question answered, for better or worse since 1865.

      The black population has been a problem since they were brought here as slaves. Thomas Jefferson described slavery as holding a wolf by the ears; “You can’t hold on but you don’t dare let go”.

      Blacks, among other people give the lie to the claim that race is just a social construct, they assert their own distinctiveness every day. Over a 400 year period blacks have remained distinct (just like Asians) and not assimilated.

      Blacks have massive problems of social dysfunction as shown by over representation in violent crime and other social pathologies such as out of wedlock births. This is why White people want to live separate from them.

      A normal, peaceful life raising children is not possible in places like Detroit or Baltimore because blacks don’t live that way. Not one in 1,000 White people has a KKK type attitude toward blacks in spite of what your idiot college professors told you, most White people just want to be left alone.

    • Hang on a second…

      Do you know who you are referring to, what sort of people you are calling as “indigenous” in the north Americas??

      Have you opened a history book to see who these nomadic tribes were?? Where they came from??

      and what “country” of theirs are you referring to??
      The so called “indigenous” had a country ???
      Really?? Are you sure???

      What was it called, what was its flag, What was its anthem/credo, what was its language what was its society like, what sort of laws did it have, what kind of Justice did it practice???

      Listen there mr/mrs/miss/ “Noah”…

      Ignorance IS NO EXCUSE FOR PROPAGATING LIES & FALSEHOODS.

      Either open a book read and learn about a subject before you write or say things that make you look like an idiot or SHUT THE F UP !

      • Noah, Noah, where are you Noah? Did you go back on the Ark to receive more pearls of wisdom from the animals? Stop talking to Noel Ignatiev and Howard Zinn, they are hateful liars full of bile directed against White Christian America.

        Get a refund from your college professors, they were full of shit and lied to you for pay so they could live in nice, White neighborhoods with no minorities.

        • I think you might be on to something…

          “Noah” must be a devotee of that dead Yiddish parasite, ” Noel Ignatiev ” !

  17. The Edomite Party is about finished. Might also accurately call them the Trotskyite party. They will never get the House back, and will lose the Senate and the Presidency permanently in 2020.

    After the Edomite Party is reduced to meaninglessness, we can begin to finally get down to business. How is this Babel going to be partitioned?

    Hopefully we get some consensus on that before the big war comes, which will bring down ZUS permanrntly.

    The aftermath. It will not be pretty.

  18. You’re eager to point out that the indigenous Americans weren’t always in North America, but rather came over the Bering Strait from Asia. Yes this is true but… so what? Eight to ten thousand years occupancy certainly establishes some sort of claim to land rights under today’s standard of international law and any decent moral code. You point out that the country was much more sparsely populated. This is also true but once again… so what? Being lesser in number and technologically more primitive doesn’t mean that a group is unworthy of basic human rights, despite what you may think. Part of what I’m trying to point out is that much of the way you see the world is rooted in a sense of entitlement based on presumptive superiority, rather than any objective view of what groups have a right to what territory.
    The notion that the Indians were vicious savages is obviously a lie. I would try to avoid going too far in the opposite direction and stepping in “noble savage” stereotypes, but pre-colonization North America had far less wars than medieval and modern Europe. If killing tens of millions through war and intentional spread of disease isn’t genocide, but a country going through changing demographics due to immigration is genocide, than obviously you are not seeing things through a moral lens.
    You also point out modern Israel’s displacement of the Palestinians. This I actually agree with. You probably picked up on the fact that my name is Jewish and thought this would be a brilliant way to shame me, but I would basically agree that the modern Palestinians have a stronger historical claim to the land than the state of Israel. I don’t pretend to be super well informed on the issue, but it is possible for one’s sense of right and wrong to go beyond one’s ethnic identification. Probably something you will never understand… to your own detriment.
    How to manage the very normal cultural and ethnic tensions that arise in a multi ethnic nation is a separate question from just saying “What’s ours is ours and your group doesn’t even have a right to exist.”
    Meanwhile, if you are going to take the stance that what the law says is what should go regardless of who it hurts, then aren’t you obligated to cooperate with what you see as your government’s betrayal of you? I agree with HW’s basic critique that the GOP lies to and betrays its voter base in order to do the bidding of the international business class. Since much of the non white immigrant population gets let in legally, don’t they by your own logic, have a right to be here?
    I’m worried I haven’t phrased this in a concise, clear way. It’s tough to communicate with people with fundamentally different values than you but I am the victim of my own curiosity. I’m willing to clarify if need be.

    • Hello Noah,

      Some of the people who comment here are just shills trying to make the place look silly (if you aren’t familiar with the concept, look up ‘HollywoodNazis’ like Frank Cohen or FBI agents like David Gletty). My advice is to just ignore the more over the top ones – they’re often just plastic characters.

      Anyways, I will try to answer your questions since they appear to be coming from a place of genuine curiosity and, on the chance you’re working on a high school / college paper or news article, you deserve a few honest answers:

      1. Not everyone here has the same views or mentality. For example, I’m not a Christian because I find the religion to be irrational (a Rabbi / carpenter who turns water into wine?) and spiritually empty (if I don’t worship said Rabbi – with no proof of his godhood – my soul burns in hell for all eternity?). Others here are extremely devoted to Christianity and would consider my statement to be blasphemy.

      2. Regarding your questions about legality:

      Meanwhile, if you are going to take the stance that what the law says is what should go regardless of who it hurts, then aren’t you obligated to cooperate with what you see as your government’s betrayal of you?

      That question indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what Nationalism actually is. The crux of all Nationalist movements is the idea that you are entitled to promote your own group’s preservation and interests (moral justifications for this can be: the virtue of loyalty, pragmatic common sense, the fact that most humans have a deep instinctual dislike of traitors aka snitches get stitches, an appeal to nature, etc.).

      What this means is that most people in our movements want to change the law so that the law does not promote policies which harm our respective ethnic groups and our race.

      Since much of the non white immigrant population gets let in legally, don’t they by your own logic, have a right to be here?

      Laws exist to facilitate social well-being and protect the nation’s interests, if they’re not doing the latter then they deserve to be changed.

      3. Regarding this statement:

      You probably picked up on the fact that my name is Jewish and thought this would be a brilliant way to shame me, but I would basically agree that the modern Palestinians have a stronger historical claim to the land than the state of Israel. I don’t pretend to be super well informed on the issue, but it is possible for one’s sense of right and wrong to go beyond one’s ethnic identification. Probably something you will never understand… to your own detriment.

      – You are talking about shaming language but then follow up your statement with shaming language.

      – It’s actually very easy for me to apply my own moral code to other races (aka, I can argue that a good Chinese man is not going to promote destructive policies within his own nation, the 16th century African chief who sold his own tribesmen as slaves wasn’t doing the right thing, etc.). The long story short is that the concepts of loyalty and pragmatism can easily be applied to most situations. And right now it isn’t loyal or rational for self-hating Whites to promote policies which damage their race.

      – As for the Palestinians vs Jewish thing: the Palestinians are often very anti-European themselves and the Jews need somewhere to live… and I’d rather have them living in the Middle East than living in my country where they endlessly accuse men such as myself of being wannabe war criminals, brag about creating a powerful bloc within the media (see Joel Stein’s old article on this), accuse us of being haters for reposting said article, dress up in Nazi uniforms and claim to represent the pro-White movement (this is an actual thing), etc. We don’t need millions of Israeli Jews fleeing to the West.

      4. Regarding this statement:

      How to manage the very normal cultural and ethnic tensions that arise in a multi ethnic nation is a separate question from just saying “What’s ours is ours and your group doesn’t even have a right to exist.”

      Has HW ever said that any particular race doesn’t have a right to exist? AFAIK, he has never said anything of the sort. This website’s main purpose is obviously to promote the racial interests of White Southerners along with a lesser focus on other Whites.

      As for myself, if I landed on an alien planet filled with 6 inch tall purple people I would not just start squashing them under my boot and shouting (in a bad German accent), ‘Du bist inferior! Diese ist mein land!’ My own #1 political goal is to secure the existence of my own people (Germanics). Other issues are tangential to that one.

      5. You mention the fate of the American Indians, here are my thoughts on that topic:

      – None of my ancestors ever even met one of them. From a European perspective, or even the perspective of a recent White immigrant in the USA, American Indians just aren’t relevant to the issue of politics.

      – The fact that the mass settlement of racial foreigners ended badly for the Amerindians should not be taken as proof that Whites have some sort of moral obligation to embrace the mass settlement of racial foreigners. The common sense reaction should be, ‘ah so that ended badly for them, why would we ever allow it to happen to us?’ Only a very, very brainwashed person is going to feel a moral obligation to commit national self-flagellation because people who looked kind of like him conquered a foreign race 400 years ago.

      – Most areas of North America were populated by hunter gatherers so the total number of Amerindians in the modern USA & Canada was certainly far lower than modern pc interpretations would have people believe. The written accounts told by the White settlers (of arriving in empty land only to come into conflict with Amerindian tribes months or even years later) were probably accurate. This is because nearly all hunter gatherers are nomadic, have extremely low population densities, and have constantly changing tribal borders. The history of the Bantu vs San people of Africa can attest to this. As can the history of hunter gatherers in Asia and the Amazon.

      – The most densely populated region of North America was central Mexico and it was ruled by a stone age farming civilization that ritually murdered tens of thousands every year (look up Richard Townsend’s work on Aztec history). It was then conquered by Spaniards. I don’t feel any particular sense of loss at the fall of the Aztec civilization or any particular responsibility for things that Spaniards have done.

      It’s tough to communicate with people with fundamentally different values than you but I am the victim of my own curiosity. I’m willing to clarify if need be.

      If you’re curious about what White Identity and Ethnic Identity movements are really like, then I’d recommend focusing on some of the history & philosophy behind it. Edward Dutton has some interesting things to say (however, some of his ideas about people with genetic disorders being ‘spiteful mutants’ are just him shifting blame away from the actual lobbies who oppose us), Jared Taylor’s written a few books on White Identity, and there’s a wealth of info on Ethno-Nationalism on European websites (although most have been shutdown due to the recent mass bannings).

  19. The disease theory was not established until well into the nineteenth century. Your claim was proven to be a late 20 th century hate act by a fellow academic.
    Also your western ideas if human rights is quite selective. It’s genocidal as defined by the UN , look it up.

  20. I’ll try to go point by point. If I miss a bit sorry. This sort of exchange is new to me.
    “Some of the people who comment here are just shills trying to make the place look silly (if you aren’t familiar with the concept, look up ‘HollywoodNazis’ like Frank Cohen or FBI agents like David Gletty). My advice is to just ignore the more over the top ones – they’re often just plastic characters.”
    I don’t agree with that. Some of the people here are more incoherently angry than the main poster, but that doesn’t mean they’re shills who are purposely trying to discredit the ideology of white nationalism. I realize that HW’s point of view, and I guess yours, are more focused on the preservation and well being of white Europeans than the destruction of other groups. But there is a great deal of implicit disregard for the basic human rights of other groups. It’s not the out and out sadism of Nazism, but if they have to die to secure what you see as your rightful place in the world, then so be it.
    I’d be willing to entertain sort of a converse. As someone on the left, if I had to trade off banning all refugees in return for ending America’s involvement in the sort of imperialist wars and sanctions that destabilize nations and cause refugee crises, I would happily make that bargain. I actually agree with the basic nationalist view that different ethnic groups don’t naturally get along well, and yet, I still think some sort of framework of basic human rights has to take precedence in any decent world. Including the right to seek refuge when one’s own nation has been bombed to smithereens.
    I also do strongly disbelieve in the racialist notion that there are inherent genetic differences between races. There are strong human instincts related to social bonding based on common ethnicity, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible for people to socially bond with those who look different than them. It’s harder yes. But it is possible to recognize the person who looks and speaks differently than you as still being fundamentally human. A developmental psychologist named Ken Wilber would describe this as making the jump from an ethnocentric level of awareness to a worldcentric level of awareness.
    I don’t expect modern whites to feel any deep sense of emotional connection to the AmerIndian genocide which took place 400-500 years ago… but it’s still instructive. The North American continent doesn’t rightfully belong to people of European descent. Meanwhile the legacy of European colonialism is a large part of what triggered the destabilization of the world which is part of what is causing refugee crises now.
    I do reject the interpretation that to be White or European is to be inherently guilty of anything. I don’t believe in genetic guilt any more than I believe in genetic superiority. But given the legacy of colonialism and slavery, and how destructive it has been for other groups, it is completely understandable and normal for those other groups to have a sort of “Screw white people!” cultural sentiment. It’s a very normal emotional reaction to the patterns of historic abuse they’ve been subject to over and over again.
    Meanwhile people in your corner could take notice of the very obvious difference between a cultural discourse that makes you uncomfortable, hurt and angry, and the more serious persecutions that other groups have been subject to. Having to deal with hearing Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is nothing compared to being enslaved, being physically attacked, having one’s land stolen, having limited political rights in a country where you are a minority rather than a majority or plurality. Having the mainstream culture tell you that you are mean and wrong is not nearly as bad as having the mainstream culture tell you that you are subhuman.
    This conversation could branch out in a dozen different directions but I guess for now I will leave it there.
    I’m not writing a paper for school but this conversation is relevant to my intellectual development for some reasons I’m not going to explain here.

    • Noah wrote:

      I also do strongly disbelieve in the racialist notion that there are inherent genetic differences between races. There are strong human instincts related to social bonding based on common ethnicity, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible for people to socially bond with those who look different than them. It’s harder yes. But it is possible to recognize the person who looks and speaks differently than you as still being fundamentally human. A developmental psychologist named Ken Wilber would describe this as making the jump from an ethnocentric level of awareness to a worldcentric level of awareness.

      This isn’t my fight, and since I learned long ago that “debate” with an ideological opposite is a fruitless exercise and a fool’s errand, I’m not especially inclined to address this nonsense, at least directly to Noah. In any case, Noah should explain to the rest of us readers and contributors how it is he comes to the brilliant conclusion that I (and numbers of others who tend to agree with me on the point) believe that (1) social bonding between people of a different color is “impossible,” and (2) why he thinks we think it is “impossible” for us to recognize someone who looks and speaks differently than you and me as still being fundamentally human.

      I could go on about Noah’s historically illiterate take on African Slavery in the South, and blah blah, but first things first.

    • You have literally failed to produce a single rational, logical, or statistical reason why I should want my people to adopt policies which would make us a minority in our own countries. Instead you just keep going back to these statements about the suffering of nonwhites.

      In other words, your moral code is focused on guilt, victimhood, and persecution.

      That is not what Nationalism is about. We do not want to make policies based off of the idea that ‘something bad happened to X therefore he is a good person and deserves to live in Y’s country.’ That type of mentality – the idea that masochism is justified – is what you see in a battered woman who justifies her own mistreatment. It’s not something that will ever serve a nation or an individual well.

    • Noah, the problem with your philosophy is you and anyone like you speaking of Indians can do so only because you live in a still majority white place that has created the most advanced society. So you get to wax poetic about Indians while taking advantage of all the great stuff white people create. You can always move and/or give half of your money to such
      people, too, You will not, of course. Kind of like the Hollywood weirdos who yell about white people while at the same time making darn sure to live in overwhelmingly white areas. Actor Rob Reiner is always whining about Trump and white people while at the same time living in a 90 percent plus white area. Communist thug Michael Moore does the exact same thing among many others.

      Indians would rip out the hearts of conquered victims.They were stealing land from each other all the time. You can pretend their culture was equal when it clearly was not, The problem with today is everyone pretends all cultures are the same, Go take a walk through any ghetto area and you will come to a very different conclusion.

      Are you Jewish? Israel was taken in the late 40s. Israel is throwing Africans out of Israel as we speak. Non jews do not have the same rights as jews.

      I am not for killing anyone except savage criminals. The fact land was taken hundreds of years ago from a backward culture does not affect us today. Nobody wants to live in that culture. Whites create the best cultures and now so do a handful of Asian places. That fact may bother you but everyone wants to move to white places for a reason. And so do you.

  21. Most of those responses were straw man arguments.
    Putting aside questions of whether the Native culture was backwards (didn’t commit genocide and didn’t commit ecocide), my fundamental argument was that this land is rightfully there’s. Not simply based on accomplishment, although I would argue they had accomplishments, but as a matter of birthright. This country doesn’t rightfully belong to you in any fundamental sense (I understand the practical circumstances are different than the “shoulds” of an idealistic argument) so any argument that it is now being “stolen” from you by immigrants is inherently fallacious. Something that isn’t rightfully yours in the first place can’t be stolen from you.
    Does a group have a right to care for its own interests? Should a group be primarily motivated toward protecting its own interests? Yes. But that doesn’t give said group the right to commit atrocities like slavery and imperialism.

    Saying “Indians would rip out the hearts of conquered victims.They were stealing land from each other all the time. You can pretend their culture was equal when it clearly was not, The problem with today is everyone pretends all cultures are the same,” betrays your obvious ignorance and disinterest in actually being informed on the subjects you speak of. Because you fail to acknowledge that there were many different groups of indigenous people who can’t rightfully be spoken of through blanket statements like this. Hundreds of distinct tribes, rather than a homogeneous bloc. There were wars in pre-colonial North America but certainly less widespread and persistent than in Europe. But once again, my argument is still that this continent rightfully belongs to its indigenous people through birthright, even if their culture had been a barbaric and backwards one.

    “But Noah you benefit from modern society!” This is such a stupid argument that also gets trotted out in response to people with environmental concerns. Do I have to explain why this is stupid?

    “In other words, your moral code is focused on guilt, victimhood, and persecution.”
    No, my moral code is premised on basic human rights and what might be called a world centric level of awareness. It’s based on the radical idea that I should hold myself or my group to the same standards I would hold others to. That I/we do not have the right to inflict harm we would not wish inflicted on ourselves. These are basic moral concerns to those not blinded by entitlement and an unearned sense of superiority.

    • Noah, you are so full of it. Europeans were among the indigenous killed over the years by Indians. You speak from a perspective of a white guy living well in America only because of what white people created for you. Go do a rain dance with war paint while eating a bagel with lox, I noticed you glossed over Israel throwing out Africans today and them not giving equal rights to non Jews.

      Whites were the first people to end slavery while it still exists today in black and brown nations to the tune of about forty million slaves. Keep pretending the Indians were advanced. Lol.

      What guys like you need is a wake up call to the realities of non white culture. Please take a walk at night in any black and brown area. Better yet go move there Mister Pretend Egghead.

      You speak of stealing. Non whites steal from whites all day long be it actual things, be it technology, money, aid,etc. You live in a dream world.

      Now go work on a way to stop the history of African tribes from killing and stealing from each other since you have this pretend interest in it. Or is that only with white people? I can assure you whites found little interest when dealing with backward Indian culture.

      Whites have created far more than any group on the planet when it comes to rights, technology, science and on and on.

      You take for granted all of these things white people create for you and then have the gall to somehow push for white people to leave and have Indians take it. You really need to take that walk in Detroit and have to learn reality by five vibrant people uh colored. Did your rabbi money launder today?

    • No, my moral code is premised on basic human rights and what might be called a world centric level of awareness.

      Do you really think I’m daft enough to not notice that you keep talking about refugees when the vast majority of nonwhites in Europe & NA are economic immigrants?

      But once again, my argument is still that this continent rightfully belongs to its indigenous people through birthright, even if their culture had been a barbaric and backwards one.

      – I live in Europe so I’m the indigenous person in my country.

      – The ‘it’s their land by birthright’ argument cuts both ways. Germanics & Celts lived in Eastern Europe for thousands of years before the Slavs pushed westwards. I’d be more than happy to meet you halfway and say that the Redman deserves his own independent country in the Americas if you agree that all the land east of Berlin and west of Moscow that was once populated by Germanics is still rightfully ours [*insert scary goosestep noises*].

      These are basic moral concerns to those not blinded by entitlement and an unearned sense of superiority.

      You’re being awfully snarky, all I’m going to say is that I really hope for your sake you’re a woman because the estrogen is dripping off that line. Now that we’ve got the banter out of the way, here’s the rub:

      – The American Indians did not build the cities of North America, design the roads, fight the Civil War, etc. White Americans and Canadians have created most of the things we associate with modern America and, because of this, have become attached to the land. They don’t want to live in Europe and they don’t want to be part of a multicult society. You can either try to nag them into supporting a gigantic leftist nation or you can let them leave. Honestly, I’m surprised people like you aren’t happy at the prospect of an independent South.

      – Racial differences are real and they matter. See this:

      https://www.amren.com/news/2019/10/minnesota-transracial-adoption-study-michael-levin/
      .

      – Most people who live in the real world consider loyalty a virtue and would argue that stabbing your own nation in the back is not morally just. You’re just going to come back and say it’s more important to be worldcentric rather than nationcentric. We could go all year with that sort of round & round debate.

  22. What you said is borderline incoherent. Europeans were among the indigenous killed by Indians. Yeah that makes sense.
    I already said earlier that I completely agree that Israel’s theft of Palestinian land is wrong. Part of the viewpoint I’m advocating is that it is possible for one’s moral sense to go beyond one’s ethnic identification. I wrote this earlier but you obviously are more interested in berating me than actually considering anything I write.
    Criticizing a society that you reap some benefits from is not hypocritical. It’s a function of being able to see the world realistically and in nuanced terms. It’s not a spoiled or egocentric view of the world. That would be your viewpoint, that no other groups deserve to have their rights protected. That you are entitled to abuse them simply because their place in society makes you uncomfortable.

    • Hello Noah;

      A few non-polemical suggestions, in all seriousness. Feel free to comment here but expect people to push back, this ain’t the NYT where the censors from Pravda would look like amateurs. Many thanks to HW for providing this wide open platform too, there are very few like it on the internet.

      Second, a matter of style. Please use more spacing between your paragraphs for ease of reading, typically three or four sentences then a new paragraph or blank line. I believe it’s best to limit yourself to three or four paragraphs in a single response, post it then start another response if you have one.

      This makes it easier to read long responses/arguments, follow your reasoning and avoid repetition. Also, when making claims it’s helpful to use some kind of citation (if possible) when making claims of fact that aren’t general knowledge or are controversial.

      Many people who comment here are very knowledgeable and not the knuckle scrapers wearing swastikas with KKK hoods in their closets portrayed by the college professor/news media types. HW is exceptionally well educated on a variety of subjects, argue with him at your peril.

      Also, the South, where HW lives is commonly portrayed as backward, stupid, violent etc. I do not now live in the South but I lived there for several years and that portrayal is simply false, I will attest to that. Conversely there are many people in “liberal” areas of the U.S. who have nationalist opinions and no use for conservatism, Inc. and its manifest insincerity, money grubbing and general sleaziness. Looking at you here, Charlie Kirk, David French, et al.

      An acid type of humor is used in the comments and is part of what you get without censorship. It’s also a way to get a point across in a succinct manner. Mockery of people and things that should be mocked is a legitimate form of criticism. Satire is sometimes the best answer to frauds and grifters who have a glass jaw, they cannot take a rhetorical punch, don’t be like that.

    • Ummm Noah, you obviously did not get the point that many of the so called indigenous were Europeans over all those years. It was all different people fighting for land. In some ways I really don’t even blame you since the people who took over our history are exceedingly anti white.

      It is the same philosophy that speaks of the rare white on black incident in modern society while blowing off the fact 9 in 10 interracial attacks are black on white. Of course many if not most are hate crimes but the lying, disgusting politicians and district attorneys say nothing. Look at that college girl stabbed to death in New York by dark teen subhumans. It was obviously a hate crime but nogs go to rob money too so they call it a robbery as they do the hate crime. Happens literally millions of times.

      Schools are nothing but anti white breeding grounds. Blacks are always pretend victims while they bring astronomical crime rates wherever they go.

      The media is basically Jewish controlled slop. Look at all the hype suddenly with the anti Jewish attacks. Gee, this only happens to non Jewish whites everyday for the past 60 years straight with no end in sight. Heck, as far back as 1950 the white mayor of Detroit was warning of ” negro” violence and behavior. A place like Chicago had even more shootings and killings in the 1970s than today courtesy of who else? Blacks!

      So instead of dealing with real issues like low black Iq or us stopping welfare people from producing so many sprogs or the need to allow more white people in America, people speak of crap like Indians from 500 years ago and white people giving up land. Talk about a losing concept that would toss America into a ditch!

      Without white people giving trillions to Africa, Africans would have an even radically lower average age of death which for many nations there the average age of death is 48 to 52. How much help does Asia and Central America give? How about the middle east? A world without white people would truly produce an age of darkness.

  23. Part of what interested me about this website is that HW’s viewpoint is indeed more nuanced than many of the mainstream portrayals of white nationalism… but that doesn’t mean those portrayals don’t have any merit. When Richard Spencer says what he believes, I believe him. I am perfectly fine with acknowledging that it is a large group of people so yes there is diversity of opinion within that group. Obviously I come to this site expecting push back. Expecting agreement would be out and out delusional.

    “An acid type of humor is used in the comments and is part of what you get without censorship. It’s also a way to get a point across in a succinct manner. Mockery of people and things that should be mocked is a legitimate form of criticism. Satire is sometimes the best answer to frauds and grifters who have a glass jaw, they cannot take a rhetorical punch, don’t be like that.”

    Eh. When people jeer at me and curse me out, I tend to take the interpretation that it’s because they’re angry, rather than engaging in some sort of high level satire. I’m well aware that if I continue (I may just give up) I am going to be jeered at and cursed out.

    Anyway one part of HW’s writing that appeals to me is that he has caught onto what a grift mainstream conservatism or Republicanism is. Yes the GOP uses white’s fears of nonwhites to win votes while continuing policies that change the long term demographics of the country. Yes Trump’s 2016 campaign exploited this in an unusually direct way. I’ve also noticed that HW and others on this site seem to believe that Tucker Carlson is actually on your side, even though the rest of Fox News is in the bag for the GOP agenda. Really!? You really think Tucker Carlson is capable of producing content that goes against the interests of the network that owns his show? Is it possible he is also a grifter, albeit a skilled one? He wasn’t always saying what he is now. Maybe he’s changed his message to better pander to an audience like you. But his underlying message is still vote Republican for protection against the various bogeymen Fox has been screaming about for decades.

    There’s more to be said on this subject but I have to go now.

  24. Anyway, I believe the strongest word that can be said in defense of your segment of modern America is that you have been the victims of a well crafted and prolonged propaganda campaign. This combined with the very normal tensions that do arise in multi ethnic societies. I used to think of people like you as simply being monsters. I know you object to that portrayal of you. Hence the emphasis on HW being well read and not all white nationalists conforming to the way that you feel you are stereotyped in the mainstream media.

    Here’s the thing though. The reason people see you that way isn’t because of a media conspiracy against you. The reason people see you that way is that your ideology has inflicted massive damage on large groups of people for centuries. You might find not emotionally comprehend why it is so important that the mainstream discourse condemns the “evils of racism,” but the people inheriting the historical trauma of African slavery, or the Jewish holocaust, or the Native American genocide do need a society where they feel safe, where they feel like they have some protection against unlimited abuse and degradation. Even me engaging in this discourse with you in a relatively civil way is an exercise in emotional restraint on my part.

    “Well I don’t give a damn.” I know you don’t. Being incapable of empathizing with nonwhite perspectives is part of your worldview. I’m really not sure how to speak to you through the fear, and wouldn’t be speaking to you at all if this weren’t also relevant to my own development and understanding of the world.

    “Isn’t what you’re saying proof that different groups simply can’t get along and are better off separate?” The world doesn’t work that way anymore. It won’t work that way again anytime soon because of the imperialism and environmental destruction caused by current world leaders. Historically speaking, ethnically homogeneous societies were the norm for much of human history, but European colonialism and what resulted from it has destabilized the world long term. What’s done can’t be undone. It’s going to be exacerbated by climate change, which HW currently thinks of as a hoax, because he is that well educated.

    “But we didn’t choose these historical patterns and we aren’t responsible for what our ancestors did. We just want to be left alone, to live in a society where we feel comfortable.” That’s a very understandable, normal desire. It doesn’t mean it can happen. The other groups you see as subhuman would prefer to survive and have some political rights, rather than to be left to die. You should also recognize how much you economically benefit from these historical patterns of exploitation. Much of your (mine too) first world standard of living comes from exploitative arrangements with third world countries.

    “Stop whining to me about victimization and persecution.” Actually a good deal of your worldview contains a focus on what you see as your victimization and persecution. I’m trying to point out that what you see as a conspiracy against you is a natural, albeit complicated process of changing social norms that reflect the viewpoints and interests of groups that react to patterns of historical trauma, just as you are reacting. The fact that these people and these points of view scare you and make you uncomfortable doesn’t mean they have no right to exist.

    • Hello Noah;

      This is the last comment I will make on this thread, it’s gone on too long already.

      You wrote: ” . . . I also do strongly disbelieve in the racialist notion that there are inherent genetic differences between races. . . ”

      You are certainly entitled to your opinion but there is a growing body of scientific, specifically genetic knowledge that contradicts your opinion.

      Denying genetic difference between races is like denying that water freezes at 32 Deg. F and boils at 212 deg. F. (at 30 inches of Hg). It’s like still believing that there are only four elements; earth air, fire and water after water was split by an electric current into H and O about the year 1800.

      Browse The Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrstein (taught at Harvard, Jewish) and Charles Murray (MIT, Harvard); published by Free Press, 1994, ISBN 0-02-914673-9 for a book that makes the case for inheritance having a large effect on intelligence and factors of sociability i.e. violence, deferral of gratification etc.

      Another source: “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History” by Nicholas Wade who was a NYT science writer. Published by Penguin Books, 2014, ISBN 978-1594204463.

      “Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective” by Philip Rushton, Transaction Books, 1995, ISBN 978-0-9656836-1-6 who also argues that race is real, not a social construct and that race and social behaviors i.e. criminality have a genetic basis.

      “Genome-wide association meta-analysis in 269,867 individuals identifies new genetic and functional links to intelligence” by Jeanne E. Savage, Philip R, Jansen et al., June 25, 2018; Nature Genetics (UK) 50, 912-919(2018); abstract cited. More of the same, genome based analysis.

      More genetic research indicating the heritability of intelligence:

      Frontiers in Human Neuroscience; 2019; 13: 44. Genes, Cells and Brain areas of Intelligence. Natalia A. Goriounova and Huibert D. Mansvelder; doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00044, PMCID: PMC6384251 PMID: 30828294; this last source even published originally by a U.S. Government agency! (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6384251/)

      I could cite more but this is sufficient. The bottom line is that science i.e. genetics as a branch of biology is gathering more scientific evidence every day that violence, sociability, intelligence etc. has a huge genetic component, that environment is vastly less important for these traits than genetics.

      This scientific evidence contradicts a century of communist propaganda that it’s environment alone that shapes human behavior and that genetics has nothing to do with intelligence and behavior. If the environment i.e. “White Supremacy”, “Racism” were removed then blacks, Mexicans et al. wouldn’t do so poorly in life and be criminals, too. Thus saith the ruling powers who are wrong as a matter of science and have a true agenda of destroying White society, their minorities being their chosen weapon, the universities being the disease vector against gullible Whites.

  25. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism
    “Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation.”
    I know this won’t be convincing to you.
    “Although these IQ-based arguments for racialism are often used by white supremacists, taken to their logical conclusion, they would better support Asian or Jewish supremacy than white supremacy.”
    Wow. I will note that I’ve seen all the stuff on this site alleging a Jewish conspiracy to replace white people, calling us parasites etc. If “superior” races have the natural right to oppress other groups and take their land, doesn’t that actually morally justify the conspiracy you believe yourselves to be a victim of then?
    I’m not saying I take this view but it is a plausible interpretation of much of your worldview.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. MAGA: Jared Kushner’s “America First” Immigration Plan Only Changes The Composition of Legal Immigration – Occidental Dissent
  2. 2019 Traitor of the Year: Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.