4 July - Independence from Multiracial Evil Empire

[Back2reality]

4 July is a celebration of independence from the British Empire in 1776. It is celebrated as if the British Empire was objectionable for fascistic oppressiveness and unreasonable taxation demands. That is a Masonic falsification of history. Very few Americans even paid taxes, as they lived in clearings in the woods and ate squirrels and potatoes.

The real reason for British military intervention in the years prior to 1776 was that the Empire had come to an agreement with Red Indians to limit White colonization to 13 states and not allow our people to move beyond the mountain peaks of the Appellation mountains.

Following Daniel Boone’s discovery of the Cumberland Gap in 1775, White settlers with their high birth rate, had been expanding beyond the Appalachian peaks into Red Indian territory - expanding our race. Daniel Boone himself had 10 children. This achievement was the irritant that drove the British Empire to send troops to stop Americans breaking the treaty that the Empire had made with the Red Indians and drive back White settlers out of Indian territory.

Most settlers were fighters of Red Indians and expert survivalists and pioneers with families and children to protect. They were the wrong people to be picking a fight with.

White settlers of the East Appalachians were the Nietzschean type of self-reliant White man that couldn’t be told what to do by anyone. These people lived in a state of permanent warfare with Red Indians who would massacre and scalp them given half a chance. So, when the revolt against tax broke out amongst the wealthy in Boston, they found a ready pool of warriors willing and enthusiastic (for other reasons) to fight the British Empire.

History is written by the wealthy elite. They claim the American civil war was purely a matter of objecting to taxation, but to those who fought it was a war for the survival of the White race. The British Empire was treasonous to the White race. They enforced multiracialism and were also the main source of slave imports. They regularly used non-White troops - eg. East Indian colonials and Red Indian auxiliaries. The British Empire was run by corrupt businessmen and incompetent military leaders.

When the Boers later tried a similar revolt against the British Empire, a century later, their attempt failed because the British Empire had learned how to counter American style insurgency. This style can never work again, since military thinking has moved on. If the British Empire of 1900 had fought an American rebellion, they would have done so with the method used in South Africa: carve the country into 10 mile squares with thousands of miles of barbed wire on the scale only Julius Caesar would previously have conceived. Each square would have then been cleansed of rebels and their families put into “protective custody” ie the original concentration camps.

As regards celebrating the fourth of July, the real reason for Americans to rejoice is remembering the victory of White American settlers over the multiracialist British Empire.

[MarkMuses]

You rightly take some little known facts and then put your spin on them Back2reality, much of your lesser known points are correct although I note you omit the prescient details of the tax situation. The burden of tax, even for the Bostonians, was no more than in England. Boston smugglers, sorry dignitaries were out of pocket due to an actual tax reduction. That is what vexed them. The wider argument about no taxation without representation however has some currency.

So America which went on to virtually eliminate (perhaps I should use the 'g' word) the red indians (native americans for the PC crowd) should see the British Empire as fascist for honouring agreements with them? Tut tut. It's a thing called decency. A British trait you know. And before we go onto all the 'ills' of the British Empire, I would like to point out that just about every wrong was one of omission - rarely commission. And so yes, incompetence.

It happens when you govern one quarter of the World in the greatest empire the planet has ever seen. However, the British Empire learnt and was rightly guided by the many liberal movements that it gave life to.

When America is fit to govern one quarter of the world (or more) as (Niall Ferguson extolled) and in the face of comparably absent hindsight and back dated to buccaneering times in your bizarre space time capsule, get back to me. Until then, God Save the Queen. Oh sorry, America ditched that one. Ahem God Save the latest plastic embodiment of a head of state.

Thank you for the history lesson. May I remind you that Britain for all it's snobbishness and other faults, was, and is, the dogs bollox compared to the rest. Why? Because it's the done thing wot wot. No style without a smile :) Yes I am drunk. deal with it.

[Back2reality]

If you love Britain you should hate the multiracialist rulers.

A useful reference:
Royal Proclamation of 1763, British proclamation that established boundaries and governments for the American colonies that Britain acquired from France and Spain after the French and Indian War (1754-1763). These colonies included Québec, Florida, and Grenada. The proclamation also set aside a vast area of territory west of the Appalachian Mountains for the indigenous peoples, historically known as Indians. The establishment of this Indian territory angered people in Britain’s 13 colonies, which later became the United States, and helped spark the American Revolution (1775-1783). In what became Canada the proclamation had a lasting impact because it recognized a legal basis for indigenous peoples owning land throughout the country. It also committed Britain, and later Canada, to negotiating treaties with the indigenous peoples to acquire the land. (see Indian Treaties in Canada)
Royal Proclamation of 1763 - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_461511114/royal_proclamation_of_1763.html)

[pauli007001]

The only evil empire i know of is the NEW YORK Yankees,and they suck!:D.

[MarkMuses]

If you love Britain you should hate the multiracialist rulers.

A useful reference:

Royal Proclamation of 1763 - MSN Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_461511114/royal_proclamation_of_1763.html)

Okay on MC, in today's terms, I think it is a mess for all concerned. Globalism has run amok and while many think it an empowerment, I do not. I only see Western commercial virility wiping out races and cultures now, some of which I feel should be borrowed from and not trampled on and that includes my own country of Britain, and specifically England attacked from all quarters as strengh is argued as weakness. This is at once, our most strangely powerful pride and also weakness.

Let me help you out. So are you saying the native Americans had no right because they had not worked the land and so taken posession of it? Or is it because they were not of European extraction? The point I am driving at is would you under any circumstances have afforded land rights to the native Americans? It is I think a tough question because as in Africa, they did not have the nation state as we recognise it in most cases. Yet they were peoples of distinct identities (Africans being the most genetically diverse of all of course...and therein lies another discussion).

A racialist as opposed to a racist might very well be tested on such an issue. To defend the rights of others proves a case for racial diversity in contrast to supremacy. But I beg your pardon. You only mentioned multiculturalism.

Tell you what Back2Reality. I am not Commie even though I've been branded as such at times. I don't even know if race is significant, but I will not be lectured by either camp while I try to make sense of it. All I know is that things are not working out and that we need to cut the PC and start dealing with core issues. Unlike the late Thoreau (God rest his mis-posting soul), I am more than happy to dance on the edge of the PC abyss and test it with a warm heart. I will die one day as will you (I believe), so let us not speak falsely now as someone once said. What IS the truth? Returning to the point, was Britain wrong to adventure? Are all peoples entitled to fight for identity? And what of those of admixture?

All I know is that if we homogenate it will kill our diversity and so intellectual ferment. If we listen to neo-Nazis, the methods to homogenate us are well documented and horrifying. I just want the idea that people can co-exist without feeling that they have to destroy all semblance of their ancestry. With that we still have diversity and so ferment which, as any evolutionist will understand is essential.

[pauli007001]

Okay on MC, in today's terms, I think it is a mess for all concerned. Globalism has run amok and while many think it an empowerment, I do not. I only see Western commercial virility wiping out races and cultures now, some of which I feel should be borrowed from and not trampled on and that includes my own country of Britain, and specifically England attacked from all quarters as strengh is argued as weakness. This is at once, our most strangely powerful pride and also weakness.

Let me help you out. So are you saying the native Americans had no right because they had not worked the land and so taken posession of it? Or is it because they were not of European extraction? The point I am driving at is would you under any circumstances have afforded land rights to the native Americans? It is I think a tough question because as in Africa, they did not have the nation state as we recognise it in most cases. Yet they were peoples of distinct identities (Africans being the most genetically diverse of all of course...and therein lies another discussion).

A racialist as opposed to a racist might very well be tested on such an issue. To defend the rights of others proves a case for racial diversity in contrast to supremacy. But I beg your pardon. You only mentioned multiculturalism.

Tell you what Back2Reality. I am not Commie even though I've been branded as such at times. I don't even know if race is significant, but I will not be lectured by either camp while I try to make sense of it. All I know is that things are not working out and that we need to cut the PC and start dealing with core issues. Unlike the late Thoreau (God rest his mis-posting soul), I am more than happy to dance on the edge of the PC abyss and test it with a warm heart. I will die one day as will you (I believe), so let us not speak falsely now as someone once said. What IS the truth? Returning to the point, was Britain wrong to adventure? Are all peoples entitled to fight for identity? And what of those of admixture?

All I know is that if we homogenate it will kill our diversity and so intellectual ferment. If we listen to neo-Nazis, the methods to homogenate us are well documented and horrifying. I just want the idea that people can co-exist without feeling that they have to destroy all semblance of their ancestry. With that we still have diversity and so ferment which, as any evolutionist will understand is essential.

Lets go red sox?????............

[Back2reality]

Okay on MC, in today's terms, I think it is a mess for all concerned. Globalism has run amok and while many think it an empowerment, I do not. I only see Western commercial virility wiping out races and cultures now, some of which I feel should be borrowed from and not trampled on and that includes my own country of Britain, and specifically England attacked from all quarters as strengh is argued as weakness. This is at once, our most strangely powerful pride and also weakness.

Let me help you out. So are you saying the native Americans had no right because they had not worked the land and so taken posession of it? Or is it because they were not of European extraction? The point I am driving at is would you under any circumstances have afforded land rights to the native Americans? It is I think a tough question because as in Africa, they did not have the nation state as we recognise it in most cases. Yet they were peoples of distinct identities (Africans being the most genetically diverse of all of course...and therein lies another discussion).

A racialist as opposed to a racist might very well be tested on such an issue. To defend the rights of others proves a case for racial diversity in contrast to supremacy. But I beg your pardon. You only mentioned multiculturalism.

Tell you what Back2Reality. I am not Commie even though I've been branded as such at times. I don't even know if race is significant, but I will not be lectured by either camp while I try to make sense of it. All I know is that things are not working out and that we need to cut the PC and start dealing with core issues. Unlike the late Thoreau (God rest his mis-posting soul), I am more than happy to dance on the edge of the PC abyss and test it with a warm heart. I will die one day as will you (I believe), so let us not speak falsely now as someone once said. What IS the truth? Returning to the point, was Britain wrong to adventure? Are all peoples entitled to fight for identity? And what of those of admixture?

All I know is that if we homogenate it will kill our diversity and so intellectual ferment. If we listen to neo-Nazis, the methods to homogenate us are well documented and horrifying. I just want the idea that people can co-exist without feeling that they have to destroy all semblance of their ancestry. With that we still have diversity and so ferment which, as any evolutionist will understand is essential.

The White Americans wanted to expand, and they wanted territory. The laws of nature dictate that given an opportunity to do so, any biological life form will. Only Whites have this odd habit of agonizing over whether they should limit themselves for the sake of others whose survival is of no actual benefit to them, and who would, were the boot on the other foot (as it soon shall be in terms of whites becoming minorities in formerly white countries) would show the utmost sadistic brutality to any group who stood in the way of their own expansion and advancement. The red indians have a history of slaughtering other red indian tribes.
I fear for the future - I truly do.

[Pourquoi?]

"The red indians have a history of slaughtering other red indian tribes."

Like how whites have a history of killing each other?

"(as it soon shall be in terms of whites becoming minorities in formerly white countries)"

Like Red Indians in North America?

"Only Whites have this odd habit of agonizing over whether they should limit themselves for the sake of others whose survival is of no actual benefit to them"

I disagree. Completley.

"If you love Britain you should hate the multiracialist rulers."

What if you are mulitcultural? Half white, half black or whatever? Such people can still love Britain - as other ethnic backgrounds can love Britain and white British people (often for opinions such as yours) can hate (or be indifferent to) Britain.

Life ain't black and white, as it were.

[MarkMuses]

"The red indians have a history of slaughtering "Only Whites have this odd habit of agonizing over whether they should limit themselves for the sake of others whose survival is of no actual benefit to them"

I disagree. Completley.


That's interesting. Could you elaborate?

[Pourquoi?]

"That's interesting. Could you elaborate?"

"for the sake of others whose survival is of no actual benefit to them"

Is utter nonsense. We're all humans. Sod which race survives or not - many White British - and other nationalities and races - died in a World War fighting against facism which killed off people because of their race.

To suggest what Back2Reality seems to be suggesting comes as close as one could to suggesting the eradication of other races - particularly if they are in our way, as it were.

[pauli007001]

"That's interesting. Could you elaborate?"

"for the sake of others whose survival is of no actual benefit to them"

Is utter nonsense. We're all humans. Sod which race survives or not - many White British - and other nationalities and races - died in a World War fighting against facism which killed off people because of their race.

To suggest what Back2Reality seems to be suggesting comes as close as one could to suggesting the eradication of other races - particularly if they are in our way, as it were.

Culture insnt race though,is it?A multi ethnic society is a great thing!
but multi cultural is a bit divisive,in my mind!Multiethnicunicultural is the way forward!!!

[Pourquoi?]

"Culture insnt race though,is it?"

I don't believe I ever said it was.

"A multi ethnic society is a great thing!"

I agree. Back2Reality seems to disagree using words like 'biological life form' as opposed to culture.

"but multi cultural is a bit divisive,in my mind!"

It doesn't have to be. There are many advantages to mulitculturalism. The goal of any government should be to maximise those advantages whilst managing the down sides.

[Spades]

"The goal of any government should be to maximise those advantages whilst managing the down sides"

At what cost?

[Pourquoi?]

"At what cost?"

Whatever those managed downsides are.