I tore something in my back yesterday while horsing around with the kids, and am on some medication for that. This post will likely feature more cognitive impairment than usual, but that’s okay. The central message of this post is that my cardinal motivations are neither intellectual, nor logical, nor rational. The message here is one which transcends abstract thought, so perhaps it’s fitting that I write it while those faculties are impaired.
The primary motivator behind my activism can be summarized in one word: patriarchy, the extension of fatherhood to encompass my extended tribal family. I believe that the purpose of a man is as surely the defense and stewardship of his family and his tribal family as the purpose of a hammer is to drive in nails. This is temporal, and yet it’s in the highest tradition of the biblical patriarchs and of Christ’s message of stewardship. This is instinctive, not rational, yet the scientific observations of Frank Salter, Kevin MacDonald, J.P. Rushton, Robert Putnam, and numerous other respected academicians and thinkers corroborate the optimality of what I would have chosen to do even if they had concluded it to be suboptimal.
I can’t help but feel that our movement suffers from a bit of an inferiority complex in intellectual pursuits, striving fruitlessly to persuade our enemies in academia that we’re credible and correct. We, being a gullible bunch, too easily accept the surface arguments of our competitors. We’re inclined to believe them when they declare that they think race is a social construct, or that intelligence is the product of exclusively environmental factors, or that disparities in reported crime rates are products of institutional bias. We’ve invested untold hours making summaries and bar charts of the same mountain of data, a mountain that grows steadily with each passing year.
But it’s to no avail.
I’m as guilty of this as the next guy. I’ve been corresponding with a reporter I met at the CofCC conference and have caught myself multiple times falling into the trap of thinking I’m corresponding with somebody who can be reasoned with. While there’s something to be said in favor of “the foolishness of preaching”, there are probably better things I can be doing with my time than engaging a thoroughly committed liberal in a private discussion. It’s not like she’s going to let a few facts get in the way of her secular religion (nor am I), and it’s possible (perhaps probable) that I’ll slip up and say something stupid which can be used out of context to discredit the organization and the movement.
Many in the movement fret about the anti-intellectual impulse among many White Advocates. But I suspect it’s inevitable. The practical result of our enemies’ complete domination of our educational institutions and our intellectual salons is that to be “intellectual” in this age is to be anti-White. While there’s definitely comfort in knowing that our worldview and our struggle is one which is supported by the latest genetic research and the most ancient intellectual traditions, the reality on the ground is that Professor MacDonald isn’t even allowed to share his most critical observations with his students or dedicate a class to these observations. In fact, up until some recent thuggish agitation on his campus, most of his students were unaware that he even held these heretical views.
We should take pride in our intellectual traditions, bearing in mind that the inventor of the automobile, Henry Ford, vigorously fought Jewish power. The inventor of the semiconductor and founder of Silicon Valley, William Shockley, demanded that our public policy account for the inferior intellect of America’s Blacks. The co-discoverer of DNA, James Watson, opined that Africans in general and Black researchers in particular just aren’t up to White standards. But the bottom line is that Henry Ford was terrorized in his death bed for his heresy. Shockley was driven out of polite society and stripped of his acclaim for his heresy. Watson, despite cravenly attempting to retract his statements, was robbed of his research institute for his heresy.
But it may be just as well, because to rest our justifications for our advocacy on anything abstract or intellectual is to invite the sophistry of our enemies. I see this all the time. As an example, I’ve heard some White Nationalists declare that they don’t want Mexicans flooding our country because they’re disproportionately criminals and burdens on our welfare system. So then some Jew who purports to be a traditional conservative makes a case that first generation Mexican immigrants don’t actually commit that much crime and have an economic impact that comes close to balancing out. Fortunately, another Jew retaliated with Talmudic sorcery of his own, winning the debate for our side. But my own aversion to being replaced by Mexicans had nothing to do with their criminality or welfare dependency in the first place.
Personally, I consider the overclass invaders like Jews and Asians to be more dangerous to our long-term interests than the underclass ones, anyway.
I can’t be defeated in a debate about race because you can’t defeat a vision. I’m no more likely to be persuaded by an argument to turn my back on my people than a mother could be persuaded by an argument to stop loving her child. A mother’s love has nothing to do with logic and neither does my sense of responsibility for the fate of my nation. Even if my race were the ugliest and stupidest race of them all, I would still rise to defend it. A good father will defend his son even if that son is ugly and stupid. Sure, I do think my people are uniquely intelligent, creative, and aesthetically pleasing. But maybe that’s simply the result of my own bias. That may well be. I’m biased and I make no apologies for being so.
While it’s difficult for me to convey with the written word the true nature of the vision that motivates me to keep fighting, I believe the following musical performance comes close to capturing its essence…