Yesterday, the NSM and their local supporters held their “Stand in the South” protest in Knoxville, Tennessee. This protest was widely advertised on OD and other pro-White sites as an “ecumenical event” that would draw together the various strands of White Nationalism in a breakthrough rally over illegal immigration.
The video speaks for itself:
For months, “Biological Racist” and others heckled me on the OD forum and challenged me to “show up” in Knoxville or cease to be “relevant” in the White Nationalist movement. The Knoxville rally was described as the “tip of the iceberg.” You see, the “underground” was supposed to turn out at this event and “threaten” Jewish hegemony.
Needless to say, I was highly skeptical and made plans to be elsewhere this weekend. The event lived up to my high expectations: counterprotestors turning the rally into a circus, outnumbered White Nationalists screaming “Sieg Heil” on camera, innumerable individuals acting out their fantasies with discordant symbols in the streets, misfits with swastikas everywhere in plain sight, the blind following Cliff Herrington from Joy Of Satan Ministries on camera into a public carnival.
Fortunately, the immigration reform movement fell into more capable hands long ago. If the NSM and their White Nationalist allies were responsible for leading the fight against “comprehensive immigration reform,” we would have lost that war and every other one like it a long time ago.
In some corners, there is another voice in the pro-White community which advises a far different course of action from my own.
This voice judges others on the basis of their words, not their actions. Thus, the NSM is seen in a positive light because it has adopted an extreme rhetorical position that sounds pleasing to White Nationalist ears, even though their actions are ineffective and counterproductive.
Similarly, these people have nothing but contempt for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, or the so-called “pied pipers of implicit Whiteness,” because they have adopted a moderate rhetorical position that is not explicitly racial or anti-Semitic enough for their tastes. Their actions might be effective, but they give lip service to anti-racism and multiculturalism. Their tone is annoying and offensive to highly sensitive ears.
Who is really the gullible one here?
If you are right, but can’t do anything for me, why should I support you? If you are wrong, but are useful, why should I oppose you?
It’s not enough to be right.
Talk is cheap. Action speaks louder than words. Personally, I would say anything to move the goal posts. Words are meaningless.
I will drink the tea this time around, even if it is bitter and disagreeable, not the kool aid, even if it is sweet and tastes good. Because if the NSM is White America’s last chance, we have already lost, and I am not ready to give up just yet.
Are you really that hypocritical, shallow and short-sighted, Reginald? It boggles the mind.
Let’s look at the facts here, you have libeled me more than once and continue to do so. I did not attack his family. I responded to his attack on me. Just like I have responded to your negativity. You started all of this because you hate people of Northern European descent asserting their identity. If you don’t want to get into a fight don’t pick one.
Not everyone is going to agree with you on everything you say. If you are that insecure then you should stay on your personal blog and moderate every comment you dislike like a lot of others do.
You should also be aware that there were others with more influence than I have who wanted you gone and banned you from posting. I bet it just eats you up that others agree with me and you were thrown out. That’s why you feel compelled to make one last ditch effort against me, but you have nothing to go on so you must lie and defame.
“Not everyone is going to agree with you on everything you say.”
You’ve left comments which had nothing to do with expressing disagreement with the article.
For example here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/06/27/more-marriage-less-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-63163
You didn’t address any of my points at all, instead only launching an attack on the abstract concept of my being a contributor to this Blog, and to this absolutely disgusting attempt to imply that the articles I’ve written on the subject of rape are “degenerate”.
Never mind that Kevin MacDonald published two of my articles on the subject, never mind that Hunter Wallace praised one of my articles on this subject.
It’s just the sort of thing which horribly distracts readers from the point of the article. It would be one thing if you offered disagreement, but instead you just attacked me and viciously attacked my motives for writing the article.
It’s meaningless anti-communication and makes writing for this site far closer to being a waste of time than it has to be.
“You should also be aware that there were others with more influence than I have who wanted you gone and banned you from posting. I bet it just eats you up that others agree with me and you were thrown out.”
That’s a lie. I still have access to the Administrative Area of this website.
If Hunter Wallace wants me to delete my account he can do it right now on this thread.