We care deeply about the future of Europeans wherever they may be, which is to say that we care about Whites and Western Civilisation, and we believe our civilisation can be carried forward only by the biological descendants of the people who created it.
Whites have the right; we have a duty to remain the majority in our lands to see our culture thrive. A hundred years ago virtually all Whites understood this. In Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, they were all rooted in a particular people: the people of Europe, and they couldn’t have imagined allowing themselves to be displaced by others.
Today whites are supposed to welcome displacement; we’re supposed to believe that we should open our homelands to every kind of outsider, all in the name of diversity. Of course, some of us know better. Every day more and more of us know better. We know that diversity, for us, is a slow suicide, and we refuse to help build a future in which our children will be minorities: perhaps hated minorities in the nations our ancestors built.
Our refusal to commit suicide is, of course, healthy and normal. People who don’t commit suicide, whether as individuals or groups, are normal. That’s why there was no good word to describe people with our beliefs in the past: just as there is no word to describe people who put their pants on one leg at a time or people who eat when they’re hungry. These things are so normal, so universal, that no one ever thought to give them a name. However, these days whites are the only people for whom wanting to survive is not considered normal. Think of it this way: what do you call a Māori person who prefers Māori culture, listens to Māori music and prefers to be around other Māori? A Māori. But, antithetically, what do our detractors call a White person who prefers Western culture, listens to classical music and prefers to be around white people? A white supremacist.
A Māori or anyone else for that matter, who has a racial identity is so obviously normal that no one even notices. This is true all around the world. What do you call a Japanese person who thinks Japan should stay Japanese or an Israeli who thinks Israel should stay Jewish. How about a Tibetan who doesn’t want their country turning Chinese or a Nigerian who wants Nigeria to stay Nigerian? Nothing. But what do you call a Frenchman who thinks France should remain French? All manner of names.
For only White people are our normal, healthy, and universal preferences considered a sickness. Only we as a group are pathologised by the likes of Freudian psychoanalysis and told that our natural tendencies are unnatural and bad. This, of course, is false. Our opponents have words for us, but they’re all slurs, white supremacist is their favourite. Anti-Whites like it because it’s supposed to make you think of slavery and lynching; they want to make us sound morally loathsome. Neo-Nazi is another particularly egregious slur because it conjures up thoughts of extreme authoritarianism and mass murder. And then, of course, there’s racist. Racism, a word which previously connoted the want to preserve races, is now used as both a pejorative and a red herring. But remember, however, it’s never racist for Māori to want to preserve Māori institutions or to want to spend their time with Māori people; that’s considered healthy for them.
Our opponents know that they can’t successfully dismantle our ideas in an honest intellectual debate. That is why they often resort to smears and slurs that deliberately misrepresent our genuine beliefs while attempting to make us seem completely unreasonable to the average onlooker. These tactics are also used to intimidate regular folk, not dissimilar from us, into silence. Many people have concerns about the rapidly changing demographics and culture in New Zealand. However, they dare not speak up in case some nasty tattletale comes along and accuses them of being something they aren’t.
This is why it is so
“A Māori or anyone else for that matter, who has a racial identity is so obviously normal that no one even notices.”
Bro, it’s difficult to take you seriously if you haven’t figured out the difference between race and ethnicity yet.
Maori maintain both ethnic and racial identity. The part to which you are referring was placing Maori, along with other groups, in a broader category in order to emphasise the disparity between those broader groups and Europeans as a broader group. The comment does not deny their idiosyncratic ethnic identity.
What is the difference between race and ethnicity? Can you tell me? The Bible says a leopard doesn’t change its spots. White man, no matter where he goes, is still a white man: the law is written in our hearts. So how can one white man be different from another? Nature exists, nurture does not. The Bible says race exists, but doesn’t mention ethnicity… I will take God’s Word over any pseudo scientific wafflings any day of the week.
Since it’s unlikely that A Non will respond to you, I will, Kiwi Bloke.
Ethnicities are, although often negligibly different, idiosyncrasies that have come to occur within broader groups as a result of both geographic and sexual selection pressures.
I would say that there is no equality between individuals the same way that there is no equality between races. However, we do share an innate (spiritual, cultural and physical) bond with those in our group. Where one has strengths another has weaknesses. That is an immutable fact of nature. In essence nurture is nature, although, it is somewhat obtuse to say so given that culture can evolve, or devolve, at a much quicker rate than our physical selves. Therefore the distinction is often made between biology and sociology in the case of nature and nurture. However, the distinction is often used maliciously to usurp identities and traditions to forward a particular agenda so I am inclined to agree with you.
Thanks Mike E. Yes, we are in agreement. It irks me mightily when people, mostly all leftys, speak about ethnicity and race; everyone but whites are allowed a culture and to be racially aware etc. Obviously the Dutch are different to the French and English, but only by culture, not by race! A black person in France is not a Frenchman; yes, he may live there and speak French, but to sujest that the black would naturally do what a white Frenchman does is silly. Race is everything as God says in His law of Kind after Kind. Leftys want to use terms like ethnicity to forward the melting pot nonsense.
Quite right. It is a rather contrived effort to conquer us from within. Stay strong, mate.
I love how they use the word diversity
I mean really!!!
Because to me is diversity not letting a culture and it’s traditions bloom. other cultures can admire other cultures as a unique diverse thing ..the diverse nature two cultures can even complement each other. But it is important in my opinion for that separate an healthy cultures to flourish a hold get diversity. THE Throw every race into a bag and create unnecessary economic pressure and the likes. This to me is actually the opposite to there rolling propaganda coin word diversity they use to erase culture and create mundane monolithic Anglo hating culture. Not diversity at all
Quite right, Neil. Diversity in name alone. By doing so they weaken us as a group. This allows us to be conquered far more easily than if we were united as a strong, healthy nation. Action Zealandia seeks to build a community for our people in order to help create a healthy nation. We hope to inspire others to do the same. Cheers.
Yes I have applied with you guys and am hopefully will be accepted 😊 totally agree the longer they mix the people the harder the upcoming generations will find it harder to identify with there culture. And zorg will make sure the history is gone as they already doing. Untill one day a generation wakes passively enslaved and conquered none the wiser eh.
Well, we hope to do something about that. All the best, Neil.
Where you say some Māori prefer to be around other Māori and some white people prefer to be around other white people, you’re mistaken to lump those people into two general groups. I could arguably even fit into the second group as I prefer to be around people who have a similar personality and taste in music to my own, but it’s inconsequential to me that most of those people happen to be white like myself. Non-whites who have the time of day for me are equally welcome. Likewise, most of the aforementioned Māori simply prefer to be around people who understand their culture and respect their way of life. Only a small percentage of them are bigoted and/or hostile, often even towards other Māori if they’re pale-skinned.
Who doesn’t prefer to be around people they get along with? Your problem is not the cultural aspects and music that you prefer. Your problem is that you complain about and feel threatened by what everyone else is embracing or listening to. Most of us understand that society has always been a compromise that progresses. You don’t have to like Māori culture being a significant part of New Zealand society, but it belongs here. I don’t like classical or most mainstream/pop music, but I still have to accept that I’ll hear it in supermarkets and malls. Māori face plenty of aspects of Western culture almost everywhere they go. A healthy white identity is one of being humble, friendly, empathising with what non-whites have to say, and adapting to societal shifts. Not one where you try to bend others to your personal preferences or clutch onto things that go out of fashion. A good example would be the V8 races on the streets of central Wellington – there simply wasn’t the space or popularity for them to continue. Do you then take up some kind of opposition against young generations and immigrants for not liking car racing enough? Of course not, that’d be pointless.
Even the Western Europeans facing the worst problems aren’t at risk of losing the majority in their own country. We’re extremely lucky to be so remote and not have let in more migrants than we can handle. Most of them integrate well, and would do so even better if it wasn’t for people like you disrespecting them. Often they’re escaping the negative aspects of their home culture rather than bringing those with them. They’ll keep cooking our fish ‘n’ chips as long as we keep buying them!
Hi Paul.
Firstly, yes, it is a broad generalisation. However, it is overwhelmingly true in all people to one degree or another. It is a question of how it manifests. For example, as we’ve mentioned before, there have been studies done (which are available online) that indicate that from birth babies present with the same ingroup biases. People prefer to be around people like them for more than the superficial, materialistic reasons you suggest. Any number of reasons, including smell, character traits, personality, bone structure and mannerisms can contribute to subconscious reasons behind why people prefer to be with some people and not others.
Secondly, no, white identity is not culminated in your vague, secondary and modern ideas of what it means to be European. Being humble and friendly toward outgroups — essentially putting up with them, making compromises — is not what made Europeans what we are today. Europeans did not conquor vast swathes of the world, develop immensely rooted philosophy and cultivate the high culture of a bygone era by pandering to lesser, outside groups, and apologising for their own strengths to make weaker groups feel comfortable. Your examples pertain to contemporary consumerist attitudes shrouded in a materialist, ego-based existence. (I.e. how something makes you feel about yourself in relation to individual pleasure). And you are applying this particularly modern notion of what it means to exist to eras and generations that thought antithetically to how you do.
It is funny that, in your final paragraph, you condescend to those whom you suggest you are defending. Although I can see that you are being sarcastic, your generalisation that Asians are hugely overrepresented in their ownership of small businesses such as takeaway shops and corner stores is funny nonetheless. It’s funny because you contradict yourself while attempting to maintain your seat on your high horse despite believing the same thing we do — that generalisations like the previously mentioned ones are most often true. And for good reason: because they are naturally occurring.
Despite your adherence to socially acceptable generalisation like ranjeet the dairy owner and Chow’s fish and chip shop, you draw the line there despite surely knowing that Asians in all regions of the country move into communities with other asians. In auckland, its howick and botany for chinese and sandringham for indians. People like living with people like themselves. And when they can, they bring elements of their own culture to them. For example, in Auckland city one notices there’s a lot of shops and eateries with chinese signs. And many of our so-called-integrated immigrants in auckland don’t speak english very well at all, they speak chinese. So they not only aren’t speaking the language because they can survive in their separate chinese community within auckland, but they are also catering to an ever-growing chinese community with their chinese signs and chinese food, in their chinese-run establishments.
The only way that this could be considered integration is if what defined integration is a shared currency in a shared city. Being as superficial and materialistic as this new definition is, it isn’t very surprising that global multiculturalism is put up with by so many, because all it requires to tick the boxes is the satisfaction of the individual whims of narcissists whose determining factor for friendship is supposedly music taste and food preference.