20 May, 2014

WNs vs. WNs, Again

Posted by Socrates in 'Native Americans', American Indians, history, History for newbies, racism accusations, Socrates, white nationalism, White Nationalists, White philosophy, White thought, Zionism at 2:45 pm | Permanent Link


“Nationalists who despise Jews often go against their own principles when it comes to Israel, claiming that the Jews have no right to have a state in Palestine. Johnson makes the observation that supporting such ideas, while easy for the European New Right, delegitimizes the existence of White America, a nation built like Israel on land that once did not belong to it.”

I don’t think you can compare America to Israel re: “stolen” land. Whites in America didn’t really steal land from the Indians. In general, the Indians were wanderers who didn’t actually “own” land [1].


[1] “North America was inhabited only by wandering tribes who had no thought of profiting by the natural riches of the soil.” — Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835. Many Indian tribes had summer and winter camps, and they would move with the seasons. Some tribes followed the buffalo. Granted, a few tribes had permanent dwellings, e.g., the southwestern Anasazi Indians

  • 9 Responses to “WNs vs. WNs, Again”

    1. Antagonistes Says:

      I think America compares to Israel quite favorably.

      The Indians were here; perhaps they did not “own” the land but the land supported them just as surely as it supported a European who “owned” it.

      The European settlements disrupted the game flow and seasonal migrations.

      Two different ways of life—

    2. Thom McQueen Says:

      That’s right, ANt. The land is a woman and many men compete for her love.
      The one who wins, takes his pleasure and his responsiblility, and that’s the way of it. The others must leave.

      It is the same with bodypainting. Many were there before me, and you. But we have persisted and bested them.

    3. CW-2 Says:

      Suppressed archaeological evidence suggests European man, namely ‘Cromagnon Man’ or similar, were in North America long before Asiatics crossed the Bering Strait.
      Anyway, let’s not allow ourselves to be distracted by any talk of ‘whose land’, that is a typical jew tactic. In America you will be fighting the beaners, while in Europe we will be fighting the mudslims. A difficult war on two extended fronts. A better course of action will be to take the war to where it belongs, to the jew’s front door.

    4. Brian Says:

      Has it been proven that Asiatic Indians were here first?


    5. Tim McGreen Says:

      But that’s the problem, CW, the Jew is found everywhere! In Central Asia, the Near East, Europe, the New World, Australia, South Africa…all those locations have wealthy, well-established hives of Jews. So taking the war to the Jew’s front door is, I’m afraid, easier said than done. And despite the vast distances that separate one Jew hive from another they have an excellent communications network that can be activated at a moment’s notice. If one hive is attacked the other hives will unify into a swarm to defend it. Perhaps you remember the murder of the Yeshiva student Yankel Rosenbaum in Brooklyn? Or the arrest and trial of sweatshop owner Leo Frank in Atlanta? Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. We need to develop some kind of Berg spray to neutralize all those hives.

    6. Mark Says:

      If Israel were established in the 18th century, Johnson’s argument would ring true; however, Israel’s existence came about in 1948 – after the lessons of World War II and the creation of the United Nations.

      Did not World War II and the Nuremburg trials provide notice (unlike the ex post facto laws applied against the defeated Germans) of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or military conquest?

      Did not the creation of the United Nations – without which Israel would not exist – instruct players on the world stage not to acquire territory by war or military conquest?

      Were our forefathers guilty of the acquisition of territory by war or military conquest, in violation of international norms?

      Israel, in contrast, holds the world record for ignoring United Nations Security Council resolutions, including prohibitions against the acquisition of territory by war or military conquest and repeated rejections of the Palestinian right to return:

      December 11, 1948: Resolution 194: Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property.

      November 22, 1974: Resolution 3236: Recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights, including the right to self-determination and the right of return.

      November 24, 1976: Resolution 31/20: Expresses deep concern that no “just solution” to the “problem of Palestine” has been achieved, refers to the problem as the core of the Middle East conflict, and reaffirms the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians, including the right of return and the right to national independence.

      December 2, 1977: Resolution 32/40: Reaffirms the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,” including the right to national sovereignty and the right of return.

      See e.g., http://www.itisapartheid.org/Documents_pdf_etc/IsraelViolationsInternationalLaw.pdf.

      Johnson cleverly and conveniently avoids the thicket of issues fostered by World War II and the creation of the United Nations. Johnson, thus, is nothing shy of a “New Right” huckster for trying to conflate the American dispossession of Native lands with the Israeli dispossession of Palestinian lands.

    7. Mark Says:

      Moreover, Native Americans now enjoy a plethora of “special” rights unique to Native Americans, i.e., self-rule on tribal lands and certain accommodations in order to restore their sovereignty, preserve their culture, and grant them a better chance at equal opportunity; rights that Israel denies Palestinians. See http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/.

    8. Mary O Says:

      When White people fought for the land out west, they were driven by such horrors as the Land Clearances in Scotland, the famine in Ireland, and the general displacement caused by the Industrial Revolution which resulted in widespread Dickensian poverty in the large cities of Europe. Did they have any choice but to push west, take land to build farms and produce food and security for their children?

      Early Americans were interested in living independently, and building their own small communities: their “invasion” of Indian territory was only piecemeal & sporadic. They were not aggressive on the world scene, they did not monger for endless war, and they did not interfere with any other nation’s internal politics. Yes, they may have threatened the Indians in some cases, but not global stability.

      The “Israelis,” on the other hand, don’t seem to have any reason for taking Israel away from Palestine at all. They could just as easily live in peace in the region if they so needed to indulge their foolish and sentimental fantasy that they ever had a “homeland” there.

    9. Mary O Says:

      Possibly the very early English settlers intermarried with the Indians in sufficient enough numbers that they changed their sense of racial identity. Could that be the real reason that Irish, Scot-Irish and German immigrants faced discrimination in earlier times? Is that why many of these “Anglo-Protestants” didn’t look too English? Is that why they picked up the “Chosen” cult so easily, finding an affinity through the Asiatic element of their culture with Semites? Could this possibility partly explain faux-Buddhism and other “Eastern” cultural trends among the upper classes? And, why they failed to provide us with good leadership? And, why we have too much White vs. White? Do they identify with us today?