San Francisco, CA
Greg Johnson has written a new article at “Counter Currents” about “Explicit White Nationalism.” He divides “Explicit White Nationalists” into two groups: the “silents WNs,” who prefer to remain anonymous, and the “explicit WNs,” who are open about their beliefs.
Johnson’s aim is to reduce tension between the two groups on the internet by convincing them to adopt a “couple points of etiquette.” Under his proposal, the “explicit WNs” would refrain from ridiculing the “silent WNs” as cowards and outing their real world identities; the “silent WNs” would refrain from mocking the kooks and sociopaths who are “explicit WNs” and demoralizing the activists at meetings with all their reasons for choosing to stay anonymous.
According to Johnson, “a natural division of labor” suggests itself, which will allow “Explicit White Nationalists” to build a “winning team.” The “explicit WNs” should go public with their beliefs and stand firm for their principles. The “silent WNs” should “write checks” or “stuff cash into envelopes.”
This is based on the theory that for “a silent majority to become self conscious” some people “have to speak out.” This “courageous minority” has to “declare themselves” and “hold their ground long enough” for “the less courageous to gin up the courage to join them.”
By some mysterious process, the crowd will grow by adding “layer upon layer of ever more timid and tepid people” until it reaches a critical mass and becomes a mass movement. Then the opportunists will cast their lot with the resistance and the “new majority” will carry the day.
So write your checks today.
The Merits
Before criticizing this article, I should point out that it is not without merit. Some of this advice would be helpful if it were taken to heart:
1.) First, destructive criticism doesn’t serve any useful purpose. White Nationalists have more than enough reasons to be demoralized. If criticism should be entertained within the movement, it should always serve some constructive end.
2.) Second, browbeating the anonymous “silent WNs” is a waste of time, doesn’t work, and always backfires. They prioritize maintaining their middle class lifestyle over their ideological beliefs. Haranguing them about character will not compel them to endure social ostracism and employment discrimination.
Criticism
Several problems with Greg Johnson’s rosy scenario are readily apparent:
1.) If Johnson’s advice were taken to heart, the effective result would be less acrimony on White Nationalist websites, which less than 1% of Americans actually read.
It is the equivalent of giving an idle automobile an oil change. The car would run smoother, but it still wouldn’t go anywhere, as it lacks a transmission. It would remain stuck in the driveway, sitting there, with less bickering going on among its passengers.
How so?
Apply Johnson’s advice to the National Socialist Movement. In this case, the bargain struck between “Explicit White Nationalists” would result in the “silent WNs” refraining from criticizing the outlandish characters in the NSM and sending them money to feel better about themselves.
What would that accomplish?
It doesn’t matter how long the NSM “holds their ground” or “speaks out” about the Jews. The “less courageous” will never “gin up the courage to join them.” In fact, it is a mistake to assume that a lack of courage is even the problem, as that is not what is holding the “silent majority” back from joining these fools.
The “silent majority” truly despises the NSM. They dislike Neo-Nazis and Americans who worship Adolf Hitler. They dislike what the NSM represents and associate them with genocide. No amount of patiently waiting will ever result in an NSM victory in the United States.
The NSM is too far outside of the experience of ordinary people.
I fully recognize that White Nationalists are not synonymous with the National Socialist Movement. I’m only using them as an example to illustrate the larger point: you can’t ignore the negative public perception of White Nationalism.
If you ignore the problem, you will fail to communicate with your audience. If you fail to communicate, there won’t be any steady sedimentation of Whites converting to White Nationalism. Instead, there will likely be an erosion, as apathy and disillusionment saps the ranks of the converted.
Indeed, this is what we see today: White Nationalist organizations are smaller, less organized, and more dysfunctional than was the case just a decade ago.
You can stand firm convinced of your own righteousness, but you will be standing for long time, probably forever. That’s a wish, not a strategy.
2.) Without the means to connect with a mass constituency (and none are proposed here), no one is going to respond to the call of White Nationalist revolutionaries, recognize their legitimacy, or even be aware of their very existence.
3.) A radical with a moderate following is a leader in his community. A radical with a radical following has a debating society of anonymous people in cyberspace.
The job of the radical is to lead and organize moderates locally, not organize other radicals a thousand miles away. In every society, radicals are always a small minority of the population.
4.) Without the means to reverse our racial decline, no one has any reason to support Explicit White Nationalists. The vast majority of people who favor changing America’s immigration laws work through effective organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA.
5.) Power comes from organization. White Nationalists are unwilling to organize. Their lack of organization comes from social ostracism and employment discrimination.
The sedimentation of “layer upon layer of ever more timid and tepid people” presumes that there will in fact be enough Explicit White Nationalists to create viable organizations. Reality suggests otherwise.
Four decades of this “layering” hasn’t produced any White Nationalist organization of any substantial size. It has produced plenty of hopelessly dysfunctional ones.
6.) This whole scenario privileges ideas and rhetorical purity over organization and activism. The inevitable result is threefold: a failure to communicate with our target audience, a failure to set realistic short term goals, and a failure to establish legitimacy in our communities.
The ultimate result has long been on display: no power, no influence, no progress, using the internet as an escape valve, retreating into fantasy worlds, vicious infighting within the movement, apathy, and a crushing sense of defeatism.
Proposal
Giving people money to stay in their comfort zone and continue to do what they are already doing is unlikely to work. You should only give to political causes when you get something of value in return, say, a book that you enjoy reading, or effective action that produces substantial change in the real world.
“Standing firm” is not a strategy.
It makes sense to “hold your ground” when you have things like legitimacy, a mass following, roots in a community, influence over the political process, and actual power. When the Republican minority in Congress “held their ground” on healthcare, they reaped a political windfall.
But White Nationalists have none of these.
In part, this can be laid at the doorstep of White Nationalist intellectuals, whose job it is to provide clarity and solutions to problems. Unfortunately, White Nationalist intellectuals haven’t done the best job at identifying the problems that are holding back the movement.
– An unwillingness to engage the mainstream.
– A failure to communicate.
– An absence of political realism.
– The idea of organizing radicals.
– Alienation from the target audience.
– A rhetorical radicalism untethered to effective action.
– A refusal to accept nothing less than instant, transformative change.
– Prioritizing rhetoric over organization and legitimacy.
– Creating unnecessary obstacles between activists and the target audience.
These are a few of the most important problems that come to mind.
Mission
Right now, there are plenty of White Nationalists scratching their heads, wondering what can be done to reverse our racial decline, who are not satisfied with the existing methods and organizations, which don’t seem to be producing much in the way in change.
What should you do? Go solo.
My humble advice: first, you want to be taken seriously, and you want to get the attention of your target audience, which is your local community. Without legitimacy, no one is going to pay you any attention, or listen to what you have to say.
You won’t be the “advocate” of anyone. Much less a “White Advocate.”
So you should listen first. Research your district. Sketch out the consensus on social and economic issues that prevails in your community. Plant your flag at the furtherest rhetorical point to the right where you have a consensus and mainstream legitimacy.
Establish trust. Develop personal relationships with important leaders in your community. Get them to work together and support causes you care about. Determine the rhetorical goal post immediately to their right which you have a realistic chance of moving them to. Then select tactics appropriate to your resources and audience to nudge them in your direction.
Everyone has done this with a friend. Your friend trusts you. He looks to you for guidance. You know his political views and limits. If you want to influence your friend, he has to think you are on his side. You have a pretty good idea of how far you can get him to go.
So maybe you are having a few beers one night. You are watching the news in a bar. Barack Obama is on television defending some absurd policy. You take advantage of the opportunity to lead your friend into drawing the right conclusion from the experience.
In a collective setting, where dozens or hundreds of people are drawing the same conclusion, the effect is even more powerful. That is the job of the radical organizer. It is to gently lead people in a new direction by allowing them to draw their own conclusions from polarizing experiences.
First you must have your “passport” into the community. So work on acquiring that above all else. This means setting aside your rhetoric until you are on the inside.
It is just like chasing a woman.
You don’t go outside of her experience and “stand firm” in resolute defense of dorky, eccentric behavior. You catch her eye. You come across as sane and normal. After she develops an interest, you proceed from there. Maybe she will accept your quirks and values after becoming attached to you.
That’s not immoral. It is a sensible course of action. Only a fool plays cards by showing everyone his hand.
Conclusion
In many ways, White Nationalists are guilty of segmenting their world. They understand how to influence their own friends and family. They understand how to attract mates. These lessons from other spheres of life would be helpful when applied to their political beliefs.
While helpful, toning down the tension between “Explicit White Nationalists” on the internet is unlikely to accomplish much, even if that were possible. If White Nationalists want to win, they must do something beyond “standing firm” for principles which our society rejects.
They must create the means to move the masses in their direction, come up with a winning strategy, and select tactics appropriate to their audience and resources to accomplish their objective: changing our society.
How many more decades will it take for them to do that?
I always got the impression that the “Asiophile” rhetoric was a way of trying to moderate the message to ordinary people by trying to not sound too hardcore. If Taylor set public policy I doubt he’d keep the door wide open for more riff-raff from the East.
Jupiter,
1.) You haven’t cited any facts or made any logical arguments in this thread. All you have done is come on here and repeat your well known mantra that “NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS ARE GETTING SCREWED BY ASIANS.” Everyone I have spoken to is annoyed by this and most of them are opposed to Asian immigration.
2.) I’m saying that FAIR and NumbersUSA have influence over the Senate. In contrast, White Nationalist rhetorical radicals have no influence at all. So if anyone should be criticized here, it is the people who are wasting their time and energy, not the few who are successful at defending our interests.
3.) Oh yeah. IQ differences are non-existent. I’m sure your audience has been swayed by your beserker writing style and constant spelling errors.
4.) Has anyone seen me trash Kevin MacDonald, Steve Sailer, Peter Brimelow, Jared Taylor, David Duke and so forth?
5.) You haven’t offered any constructive criticism of Taylor. Your criticism is that Taylor should abandon the rhetoric of racial differences, presumably, for it will be easier for the Left to portray pro-Whites as unhinged extremists who are motivated by hatred and racism.
6.) You are comparing apples and oranges. Non-Whites are explicitly racial. Most Whites are not. Your message is thus guaranteed to backfire.
7.) I’ve lost count of the people I know who mock your posting style. When I was in Virginia, I had a roommate who would repeatedly scream “NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS” while cooking breakfast for the lulz. This guy is a White Nationalist.
8.) I’m not an HBD nerd. Your posting style is annoying as hell though. I agree with them on that point. You beat the same dead horse in every thread, make the same spelling errors, and use ALL CAPS in most of your comments.
9.) I’m not an enthusiast for immigration period. If NumbersUSA is successful, then legal immigration will cease. I’m betting they have a better shot at persuading Congress to take a harder line on immigration than you do by screaming about “NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS” in our comment threads.
Jared Taylor is smart enough to know his audience. They dismiss him as a white supremacist.
He responds by going outside of their experience and pointing out that Whites are not superior to non-Whites in every respect. In any case, I haven’t seen Jared Taylor argue anywhere in favor of Asian immigration. Thus, I don’t know why Jupiter is raising hell about a non-existent issue.
Hunter Wallace,
I very recently sent you an e-mail.
This is quite long, but covers a lot of ground.
Notus Wind,
I’m interested in hearing more about your conversations with normal white conservatives. That they are not yet ready for the white nationalist solution is, unfortunately, pretty obvious, but are you saying that they lack any white identity at all? I don’t find that to be the case in my conversations with such people, and I hope that’s not the case with you either. In any event, again, I’d be interested in hearing more.
@ Hunter
It is amusing that you continue to insult “intellectuals,” accusing them of having their heads in the clouds, when it is you who exhibit the worst characteristics that you attribute to intellectuals. You sit around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ignoring the plain reality in front of you. You advocate “solutions” that have no basis whatsoever in reality, but consider yourself practical. When you are called on this, you resort to telling outright lies about fellow white nationalists.
I notice that you’ve changed your tune on any number of points, and have adopted quite a few of my arguments. Arguments that, when “debating” with me, you responded to with smears. You take reasonable and even insightful analysis, mix it with dreadfuly awful analysis, and then throw in a few brazen smears for good measure. If that’s not indicative of the absolute worst behavior of “intellectuals,” I don’t know what is. Hide the crap within a quality glossing, and smear anyone who calls you on it. Textbook case.
This is indeed a complicated subject, but certain basic facts are pretty damn simple. Even a brain dead moron should understand the points that I’ll make. Of course, as dishonest intellectuals do, you’ll obfuscate, smear and lie in response, but that’s par for your course.
1. There are well over 100 million non-whites in this country. Expelling them would be an enormous task, requiring tremendous strife and tears. Normal, sentient human beings understand this. People do not take drastic steps unless they are convinced that they are necessary. They will exhaust other alternatives first. This is normal and natural.
2. Even if you say, “Well, fine, we won’t expel 100 millions non-whites from the country. We’ll break away and form our own country instead, where not nearly so many people will be affected.” Doesn’t matter. Functionally, it’s the same as option 1. As long as ZOG is powerful, it’s not letting us go peacefully, no matter what. We aren’t allowed to have an all white pizza parlor, much less an all white nation. As long as ZOG is strong, it would take enormous suffering and pain to create an all white homeland, even a small one. We can focus on fairness, and try to create a homeland where it will displace the fewest people. Doesn’t matter. Our opponents aren’t interested in fairness. They want us dead.
So we’re back to struggle and strife, tears and suffering. Normal whites understand this, at least implicitly. They know the System would do whatever it could to destroy us, and and that this would be true no matter how reasonable our proposals. See again point number 1: People do not take drastic steps unless they are convinced that they are necessary. They will exhaust other alternatives first. This is normal and natural. In the only context that they know, ANY effort to save whites from destruction would be considered drastic.
3. As the result of the above, white nationalists appear to normal people to be offering a solution that will end in nothing but tears. It doesn’t even matter what the particular solution is: normal whites know that the System will oppose us no matter what. I’m shocked, shocked that more don’t sign up. Truly amazing, itz.
In short, you can’t offer a drastic solution without first convincing significant numbers/elements that it is necessary, that more moderate solutions won’t work. So what do you advocate, Hunter? Don’t convince anybody, intellectuals are a waste of time.
Sounds like a winning formula to me.
Anyone that doesn’t understand the above points is beyond hope, and should switch over to World of Warcraft post-haste. But really, most white nationalists do in fact understand that “organizing,” as you have advocated, is simply not feasible at this point. It accomplishes nothing except providing dandy targets for the ZOG, and can do nothing more than that until the cultural ground is better prepared. No doubt ZOG agents absolutely love what you have advocated, but it won’t bring us one step closer to a white homeland. Of course, that’s why they love it.
Hunter, people aren’t nearly as stupid as you assume. Many will sacrifice in exchange for real gains, few for no payoff whatsoever. Hey, here is my selling point: “Join my dandy new organization. We advocate a drastic solution that we haven’t bothered convincing people is necessary. Intellectuals are a waste of time. Please folks, restrain yourself, there is room enough for everybody!”
Sure. And if you instead create a “moderate” group, why should people join you? There are plenty of moderate groups out there, with plenty of funding. Why join yours? If you don’t dilute your message, you’ll get nowhere. If you do dilute your message, you’ll accomplish nothing. Why waste the small number of people/resources that we have, people who understand the full nature of the problem, on a moderate cause that there are already tons of “normal” people working on? They don’t need our help, nor do they want it. What is accomplished, other than squandering what little we have?
Subversive infiltration, on the other hand, is fine for those who are so inclined, and may prove to be an integral part of the strategy, but it alone will hardly win us our own land. In fact, on its own, it simply CAN’T win us our own land. Still, you’re making some progress if that is your new position. Not much, but some.
So, given all of the above, does that mean that our cause is hopeless? Not at all. Many revolutionary movements have succeeded under far worse conditions. The System is bleeding legitimacy, which is a prerequisite for revolutionary change. In fact, the System is inherently unustainable, a truth that becomes more apparent with each passing day. Racial conflict, on multiple levels, is inevitable. That doesn’t mean that our victory is inevitable, but it does mean that we will have an opportunity.
This will do us no good unless there are more of us, many more. White nationalists have thought their way out of the box, and understand a fundamental truth: we need our own nation in order to control our own destiny. All other roads lead to our destruction. White nationalism is a necessity for our survival, not a luxury or a preference. I could spend a lot of time explaining why this is the case, but hopefully it is well understood in our circles.
However, it is NOT well understood outside of our circles. It really isn’t. Most people, including those whites who are our natural target audience, do not understand this. They think a moderate solution will save the day or, in the alternative, that there is no solution at all. They are wrong, on both counts. But have we convinced them of the necessity of our cause? Nope. And you heap derision upon those “intellectuals” who seek to do so, who seek to prepare the cultural ground so that we don’t appear as combination jackbooted thugs/space aliens. Yeah, let’s attack those worthless intellectuals – that’s the ticket. Utterly amazing.
Simply put, there just aren’t enough of us. There aren’t enough of us who understand the full picture. In personal conversation with normal whites, I can almost always elicit some level of racial awareness from them. They know they are white, and they don’t like what is going on. But do they understand the need for our own nation? No, they don’t. It’s just that simple. See points 1 and 2 again. They aren’t remotely convinced that such a radical step is necessary. They’ve seen news stories on marching Nazis, but haven’t seen any of our intellectual work. And I’m talking about cream of the croppers, not average joes (who aren’t going to read our work any more than a Revolutionary War soldier read Locke – but he was influenced by it nonetheless).
This is entirely within our power to change. Your solutions, on the other hand, not only won’t work, they are simply beyond our capability at this time. I advocate something that can be done in the here and now, you advocate unworkable pie in the sky. So, who is practical and who has his head in the clouds?
How hard is all of this to understand? I can see the smears, lies and general obfuscation now, anything to avoid an obvious truth. Again, one of the absolute worst characteristics of dishonest intellectuals.
Not too long ago, you did a piece on the American Revolution. The overall analysis was flawed, but not too bad. Somewhat useful, even. But of course, after providing a nice survey, you slip in your ridiculous whopper, namely that “intellectuals” had little to do with the Revolution. It was a revolt by the common man. O.K., well, there have been tons of revolts involving the common man, all over the world. Why don’t they ALWAYS lead to the formation of a constitutional republic? Why not even most of the time? Why, I wonder, do they in fact lead to all sorts of results: theocracy, socialism, military dictatorship, etc? Hmmm…a real mystery, a real brain teaser. However could this be?
The obvious reality is that there is one critical reason (not the only reason, but a vital one) why the revolutionary government took on the form that it did: the ideas of the enlightenment had spread far enough that it made sense. Such wouldn’t have happened with a peasant revolt circa 1500, nor did it happen in most countries during the many revolts of the 20th century. Why? Different ideas had currency in different times and places. Those rascally intellectuals again.
You’ll no doubt return to the dishonest (intellectual style) claim that the revolutionary soldier didn’t read John Locke. Of course he didn’t. But he operated in a context in which such ideas had spread, and the creation of the Republic made sense. In other contexts, at other times, in other nations, such a result would have seemed ridiculous – but not in America in the late 18th century. The intellectuals of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had prepared the cultural ground (just as the socialist intellectuals of the 19th century prepared the cultural ground in a very different way, paving the way for the socialist/communist victories of the twentieth century). The common man didn’t need to read Locke, or Marx, or whoever, but things wouldn’t have turned out as they did without rascally intellectuals like them.
You then throw in the whopping non-sequitur that this vague revolt by the common man is how we’ll get the white ethnostate. Huh? When hardly anybody even knows what it is, much less convinced of its necessity? Why is that inevitable, when there are so many other possible outcomes? Why haven’t we gotten such a nation already? The obvious answer is that it’s not inevitable, but it is entirely possible. We have truth and nature on our side, but if we won’t deign to spread our ideas, then we’re going nowhere fast.
Other times, you offer ridiculous analysis of Republicans, crediting them for stopping bad legislation, heaping them with praise, while deriding white nationalists for having no influence. Um…duh? It’s a shocker to you that, in a given System, there are going to be relatively better and worse elements? You can’t understand that the Republicans fully support the reduction of whites to minority status in this country, legal discrimination against whites, miscegenation, and every other policy that is leading to our destruction? It is a hostile System, and Repubicans are part of that System, even if they throw us a bone or two every now and then. Someone kicks you in the teeth, takes a piss on your carpet, but then throws you a quarter. He’s your friend?
By your “logic,” the American Revolution itself would have never happened. There were elements in Parliament that were relatively more favorable to the colonists, and we should have supported them while deriding the would be Founders as having no influence. To you, the corrupt Czarist regime was the future, because people in it had influence circa 1900, but the Bolsheviks did not. Didn’t turn out that way, did it?
Reality check, Hunter: revolutionaries don’t have influence…until they do. Is this so hard to understand? Deriding them as having no influence, while praising a chunk of the System because it threw you a bone, while fully supporting your destruction, makes no sense at all.
Given all of the above, there is no question that our main effort has to be the spreading of our ideas. The history of successful revolutionary movements is clear on this. We need far more people to understand the necessity of having a land of our own. Far more people. This is entirely doable, and outside forces are conspiring to our advantage. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I don’t believe that your attempts to derail and obfuscate the truth will succeed. No doubt, however, you will continue trying. More non sequiturs, more whoppers, and more attacking the options that are currently open to us, while demanding the options that are not. Meanwhile, calling others unrealistic. It is to laugh.
I’m relatively new posting here, and it’s still unclear to me if I have a place, but as a recent outsider it’s striking how much vitriol is going around in these forums. Why all the internal anger and ad hominem arguments? Without having seen this I would have expected being relegated to the fringe would bring WNs closer together and engender cooperation and constructive criticism.
My perception is that the war naturally has many fronts, and those operating on each make important contributions. Why, for example, attack Mr. Taylor’s efforts [Jupiter] when it is obvious that, had he not undertaken them, we would not be as well off? Considering your criticism, are you saying the sum of his work is not a blessing for the WN community? I don’t know any flawless people, but I wouldn’t turn away or belittle anyone’s net contribution to the effort, either.
Elijah: “I’m relatively new posting here, and it’s still unclear to me if I have a place, but as a recent outsider it’s striking how much vitriol is going around in these forums. Why all the internal anger and ad hominem arguments? Without having seen this I would have expected being relegated to the fringe would bring WNs closer together and engender cooperation and constructive criticism.”
Certainly, one would think that, but it’s not the case. Part of it is the natural jockeying that takes place within any revolutionary movement in order to determine the direction of the movement. This is the historical norm, if not terribly pleasant to witness. To outsiders, it seems ridiculous, like a tempest within a teapot – these people who have no power yet squabble incessantly. But there is a logic to it. It’s a battle for the steering wheel.
Eventually, the issue gets settled, one way or the other. When the time comes, most people will fall into line and put aside their differences, for a time anyway. Show me a successful revolutionary movement, and I’ll show you one that had a lot of personal acrimony and infighting before it achieved power. Eventually, somebody’s got to gain control of that steering wheel, and let’s hope it can be done more peacefully than some historical movements have resorted to. For what it’s worth, I think it will be. We’ll work it out.
As for me, my general rule is to not open fire until fired upon, at least where white nationalists are concerned (obviously, those who aren’t white nationalists are legit, but that’s not what we’re talking about here).
However, there are exceptions. When someone engages in lies, smears and general dishonesty, they make themselves fair game. They’ve earned the vitriol.
As for Jared Taylor in paticular, to my knowledge, he does not engage in these vile behaviors. I understand the criticisms of him and his approach, but he is not claiming to lead the white nationalist movement. He is not claiming to define it. He is not struggling to gain control of the steering wheel. He is not claiming that his way is the only way, nor is he seeking to snuff out the more radical types.
If he were doing these things, I would take issue. But he is not, so I don’t. Instead, I praise him for what he does well, and he does some things very, very well. But I also point out that more is required than his way offers. Far more, but that is not to belittle what he has accomplished. He’s done a lot and I wish him well, while remembering that he is not the solution, but a preliminary endeavor.
Jared Taylor has an important role to play in spreading the idea of racial differences, and the idea that whites as a group are under attack. Spreading those ideas are good things, not bad.
He helps dispel the media image of us as jackbooted thugs. He’s also a great source of quotes and insights on how to talk to “normals” without scaring them off.
All of this has value, even though it ultimately can’t get us where we need to go. It will, however, help. It’s part of the foundation.
I have a great deal of respect for him, even though I understand that far more fundamental and powerful ideas must also be spread before we can hope for success. And, to my knowledge, Taylor doesn’t seek to interfere with that process. He does his own thing, and doesn’t interfere with others doing the same. He’s not attacking, nor does he deserve to be attacked. Instead, he should be praised for the many good things that he’s done, without forgetting that far more is required.
Trainspotter:
How about putting together a brief, but somewhat detailed, list of just what “our ideas” consist of…….
Elijah,
Of course you have a place here- why not? People who are not even WN’s post here regularly (like Andrew Yeoman, for instance) though I wonder what those individuals hope to accomplish. As far as the “vitriol going around the forums” is concerned, welcome to the world of White Nationalism! As one clever person on this forum once described trying to organize whites; it is like herding cats. This is our biggest and most fundamental weakness, and Professor McDonald pointed same out in an essay entitled “Is the Madoff Scandal Paradigmatic?” (Occidental Quarterly, Sept. 2010): “Jewish people are easy to organize, white people are not”. On this forum and others like it, you have proof therof.
WN’s constantly say that they wish to establish a white nation, but there are always objections to who is included in this (as yet nonexistant!) nation based on religion (must be “Christian”, must be Pagan, must be atheist, etc.), or even nationality. I have seen arguments on this forum in the past about the “degree of whiteness” of Slavic people as opposed to Nordics, etc., and other such trivial nonsense. In essence, this disunity does not exist among our opposition (and especially among Jews, who are “one people” no matter what differences they may have among themselves, and no matter where they happen to live). The disagreement and lack of unity is not confined to perceived differences among whites either, it is inclusive of ideas and accompanied by a high degree of self-rightousness regarding the relative merits of “my stance on this issue vs. yours”, and too often accompanied by vituperative remarks and attacks on character. Indeed, the whole history of the WN “movement” is full of this sort of thing.
Excellent response there, Trainspotter. About methodology, anyway. I know nothing about Wallace’s behavior.
Hunter, Jupiter, M, Svigor, Political Pessimist, Celestial Time, et al.
Many good points have been made. Let’s review them so that we can systematically discuss them. I will first summarize the points and try to draw out a few connections.
1. Hunter argues that explicit WNs, both “mainstreamers and vanguardists,” continually fail because they are unwilling “to start where people are at today“ and because they “prioritize their rhetoric over organization and activism.” He goes on to argue that WNs and others need to “start where people are at today“; since most white people don’t even identify as whites, WNs and other need to work with them at that stage. Political Pessimist agrees that compromise is necessary.
2. Jupiter argues that explicit WN is necessary and would work if the appropriate methods is used. Generally, he argues that WNs need to ‘focus unrelentingly on the race-replacement issue.’ He reasons that if things get bad enough “White Americans will either fight back or be a persecuted racial minority” and that WNs can encourage White Americans to fight back, instead of allowing themselves to become a persecuted minority, by bring race replacement to the fore. Specifically, he argues that WNs need to tap into the ‘nasty-hostility to asians in America’ and drop the ‘Hernstien and Murray garbage.’
3. Contra Jupiter, Celestial Times argues that since WN offers people little that is positive and so much that is negative, people will not accept it. He contends that Jupiter’s dilemma of “fight back or be a persecuted racial minority” is a false dilemma. Instead, Celestial times argues that most Whites will just give up their “desire to have race the core value” and assimilate into liberal-multiculturedom. Chuck concurs. He maintains that given the negative image of white identity, let alone White Nationalism, and the positive reinforcement to assimilate, most White people will not fight back and will avoid being a “persecuted minority” by assimilating.
4. Hunter and Jupiter envision different ends for WN. For Hunter, the goal of White Nationalism is “creating a White ethno state.“ For Jupiter, the goal of White Nationalism is to reassert ethnic primacy over the US and fight race replacement. Hunter, agreeing with one faction of the WN movement concedes that the US is lost. Jupiter, following another (vdare, Alternative right, A3P), does not agree and moreover passionately argues against the end goal of white separatism. Jupiter is, nonetheless, fine with White separatist rhetoric and it brings to fore the issue of race-replacement.
5. Jupiter contends that arguing the Hereditarian Hypothesis (inter-racial differences in IQ) is fruitless. He argues that it would more fruitful to spent the time focusing on immigration; moreover he argues that the hypothesis is evidently incorrect. Political Pessimist concurs with Jupiter in regards to the fruitlessness of arguing the HH. Following Hunter’s concern about starting where people are at today, Political Pessimist argues that the focus needs to be on the cost of diversity and any discussion of differences need to be made “in friendlier terms”
6. Svigor, countering Jupiter, contends that arguing the Hereditary Hypothesis is a “necessary part of ethnopatriotic rhetoric.” He argues the HH frees Whites from ‘white guilt’ and undermines the Liberal-leftist position
We have several underlying questions here:
1. How committed are white people to their heritage?
2. What is the long term goal of WN — a white ethnostate or a reassertion of white ethnic primacy in the US.
3. Should WNs Be explicit about WN or not?
4. If WNs are explicit should they Mainstream their positions?
5. Is it better to work with Whites in their own terms or to try to push them to accept WN?
6. How off putting is the image of White identity and WN to average person and — that is, what level of resistance are WN working against?
7. How important is it to build a positive WN image?
8. In terms of gaining support, how effective is it focusing on the issue of ethnic determination and/or the negative aspects of others and/or diversity”
9. In terms of gaining support, how effective is focusing on immigration/ race-replacement?
10. How effective is arguing the HH?
I hope we can see that these questions are all interrelated. You will notice that I put “How committed are white people to their heritage” at the top of this list, because, in my opinion, this is the most important questions to answer before discussing WN goals, rhetoric, and tactics. This is often overlooked. A good deal of the disagreement here can be traced to differences in answers to that question.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Checher and others, for example, argue that a White ethnostate is necessary to shore up white ethno consciousness and prevent ethnoracial dilution. Race, accordingly, is presumably not enough of a core value to keep Whites together in a multiethnoracial society or at least a multiethnoracial society with a Liberal/hostile elite. The issue with the Liberal/hostile elite, of course, ties into the JQ.
Jupiter seems to hold that race is enough of a core value to allow for a continual White US (ie assimilation is not a problem) if only whites were to organize. This leads him to see white separatism as unnecessary. Additionally, since he thinks that white assimilation is an implausible option, he concludes that whites are faced with the dilemma of either fighting or facing discrimination as whites; this influences this assessment of WN strategy.
Celestial Times and Chuck hold that race is not core enough to allow for Jupiter’s dilemma and, therefore, that a strategy of focusing on race-replacement is insufficient to force white consciousness and with it white assertions of ethnic primacy. Both hold that the image of White identity and WN is so-off putting and the anti-white conditioning so thorough, whites will opt for assimilation.
Hunter seems to agree that whites will not opt for WN, given the current image of WN and so disagrees with Jupiter. As such he argues that WN need to work with whites where they are at and not be explicit about WN
While Chuck disagrees with Jupiter’s implicit assessment of White ethnic fidelity, he concurs with the need for an explicit WN. According to Chuck, whites will only sigh onto WN if they have an explicit white identity and they will only sign onto an explicit white identity if there is a positive and supportive white identity to sign onto.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
This question is related to that of “How off putting is the image of White identity,“ which in turn is related to a number of other questions:
————————————————————————————–
Political Pessimist argues, for example, that whites should not discuss the Hereditary Hypothesis since it is off-putting, but must build ethnic consciousness first.
Alternatively, Svigor argues the HH is needed to undermine white guilt which undermines the possibility of white ethnic consciousness
Trainspotter,
1.) What are these characteristics that I share with the White Nationalist intellectuals that I have criticized?
– Do I openly worship Adolf Hitler as a religious figure? Greg Johnson.
– Do you see me calling for the destruction of Christianity? Alex Linder.
– Do you see me calling for the overthrow of republican government? Greg Johnson.
– Do you see me endorsing Spenglerian historical determinism? Greg Johnson.
– Do you see me deriding American conservatives? Alex Linder.
– Do you see me defining White Nationalism as being synonymous with genocide? Alex Linder.
No, it is clear my approach differs radically from their own. I favor working within the system, organizing moderates, and using polarization to move the political spectrum in a pro-White direction.
Greg Johnson and Alex Linder favor “standing firm” in favor of Explicit White Nationalism. They are content to remain isolated on the fringe without the legitimacy or power to change anything in their communities.
After reading this post and other recent blog entries, how could any objective observer arrive at the conclusion that this is what I am advocating?
2.) I have changed my tune, but clearly I haven’t adopted any of your arguments, much less your perspective. You could say that I have been influenced by Saul Alinsky. I’ve reviewed two of his books on community organizing.
3.) Expelling 100 million non-Whites from America would require White Nationalists being in a position to wield incredible political power.
As things stand today, White Nationalists have no power or political influence. Most don’t even have the desire to take the most rudimentary steps toward acquiring that political power.
4.) A struggle of strife, tears, and suffering – do I have to remind you that you are unwilling to face down a digital camera? When Albert Jackson tried to organize the Jacksonian Club, the two of us were able to raise five people on a conference call, out of the two hundred that had expressed interest.
If you are trying to say that Explicit White Nationalists lack the character it takes to win, I recall making just that point repeatedly to you a few months ago. People who won’t participate in an anonymous conference call are not about to face down the U.S. federal government in reality.
5.) White Nationalists have nothing to offer the disillusioned masses. I have made that point repeatedly. There is no viable alternative to the status quo. That’s why the White backlash to the Obama administration has been channeled into the Tea Party instead of the White Nationalist movement.
6.) Legitimacy is required to convince “a significant number of people” in any community of anything.
7.) Intellectuals who say that nothing can be done to reverse our decline because “the Western High Culture has died” or “we are in the Kali Yuga” are a waste of time. The same is true of those who add to the alienation that already exists between White America and White Nationalists.
8.) I haven’t advocated organizing White Nationalists on this website since the beginning of August. Having to interact with so many people like you, who passionately argue in favor of doing nothing, was sufficient to convince me that organizing White Nationalist radicals was a waste of time.
9.) By “preparing the cultural ground,” Trainspotter means wasting the 2010s on anonymous internet posting on obscure White Nationalist websites, not unlike how the Laptop Luftwaffe wasted the late 1990s and 2000s on the same fruitless activity.
10.) Clearly, Trainspotter is right that the White masses will join effective organizations. This explains the relative success of FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Tea Party when compared to dysfunctional White Nationalist organizations like the National Alliance or NSM.
11.) I don’t advocate creating another “moderate group.” It makes much more sense to join the Tea Party and influence it in a more pro-White direction on immigration. There are other organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA which are worthy of our support.
12.) The whole idea of “leadership” is based on moving people from Point A to Point Z. That means starting at Point A. So it is clearly nonsense that moderating the rhetoric, or staying within the experience of our audience, accomplishes nothing.
13.) The millions of alienated White conservatives and independents in the mainstream clearly do need our help. They need real leaders who will prove true advocates of their interests.
14.) The only alternative to subversion is organization. Trainspotter here is perhaps the most persuasive piece of evidence on OD that White Nationalists are unwilling to organize. If that is the case, then everything we do should be based on that premise.
15.) Trainspotter is right that political conditions are improving. If I remember correctly, I have repeatedly pointed out that the system is losing legitimacy over the past three months.
Unfortunately, White Nationalists are not in any position to take advantage of this opportunity, having wasted the last two decades on anonymous internet posting.
16.) I have heaped derision on those “intellectuals” because they have consistently gone outside of the experience of their audience. That is the fundamental reason why they have failed to communicate their message to a mainstream audience.
17.) Care to explain how worshiping Adolf Hitler as a religious figure or advocating the destruction of Christianity is supposed to “prepare the cultural ground” in states like Alabama or Tennessee?
18.) That’s precisely why a radical leap from Point A to Point Z never works and why starting at Point A and proceeding to Point B, moving the goal posts, is what is called for in this case.
19.) Trainspotter ignores the reality that “intellectual work” (such as Tom Paine’s Common Sense or John Locke’s Second Treatise) is invoked to justify a decision which the people have made for themselves for different reasons altogether.
The American Revolution was already underway when Tom Paine published Common Sense. Americans were already in revolt when they started to take an interest in John Locke.
20.) If you read the book that I reviewed, the whole point of the book was that “ideas” did not cause the American Revolution, but were only invoked as justifications for it.
21.) How are we incapable of infiltrating the Tea Party or supporting FAIR and NumbersUSA?
22.) Umm … let’s see. How long again had Massachusetts been a constitutional republic before the Revolution? The colonies had been allowed almost total self government for generations. That’s why they rebelled when Britain reasserted its control.
23.) Americans ignored John Locke’s work all the way up until the outbreak of the American Revolution. There was no slow preparation of the cultural ground going on in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hardly anyone was reading Locke in the colonies at that time.
24.) The American Revolution was launched before Americans had even decided on the goal of independence, much less an independent constitutional republic. The action on the ground began long before the ideas coalesced around it.
25.) As a matter of fact, the Republicans have stopped “comprehensive immigration reform” and the “DREAM Act” several times now. Likewise, if it had been up to White Nationalists to defeat this legislation, we would have gotten the Bush amnesty five years ago.
26.) Ordinary Americans didn’t share Thomas Jefferson’s fawning embrace of the Enlightenment. They revolted to preserve THEIR OWN TRADITION of self government, which the British imperial authorities were trying to take away, not over some fashionable French nonsense that no one in Bumfuck, New Hampshire had ever heard of.
27.) Why? Because the British were never able to exercise effective control over their American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Americans had always been free and self governing. This lack of control, itself an effect of distance and the state of technology, is precisely why the British were unable to put down the revolt once it started.
28.) As we have seen, you are the best example available why the “spread of ideas” is insufficient to produce a White ethnostate, as those “ideas” and the thousands of others who have been exposed to them can’t be persuaded to lift a finger in the real world to reverse our decline.
29.) Trainspotter’s alternative to working within the system, where 99% of Whites are today, is another fruitless decade of anonymous internet posting.
30.) Someone has to be mature and realistic enough to hold the line on immigration. It’s not like the Laptop Luftwaffe is capable of doing so.
31.) It makes sense to praise the effective; criticize the ineffective. You have it exactly backwards.
32.) Trainspotter is clearly utterly ignorant of how the Continental Congress came into being. Hint: there was already a powerful insurgency in the New England countryside over two years old.
33.) The Bolsheviks didn’t conquer Russia on the basis of their ideas. That’s laughable.
34.) Okay. You focus on “spreading ideas.” After posting over 50,000 anonymous comments on the internet, I am ready to try something else.
35.) There isn’t any White Nationalist movement to speak of. There is only a rhetoric in cyberspace.
You are unrealistic, delusional even, if you seriously believe that another decade of internet posting is going to change anything. I’ve been around far too long to believe that one.
Trainspotter is the best refutation of his own argument:
Someone who is passionately obsessed with White Nationalist ideas, but who is unwilling to act on those ideas, and who compensates for his lack of a viable political outlet by blowing off steam on the internet, which effectively accomplishes nothing.
If exposing people to White Nationalist ideas was sufficient to get the job done, then Trainspotter and the thousands of other White Nationalists like him would be a valuable resource at our disposal instead of an escape valve that props up the status quo.
The ultimate result of this idea of “preparing the cultural ground” is that invaluable time, resources, and energy fizzle out in obscure corners of cyberspace. I’m sure our leaders are pissing themselves at the scary thought that Trainspotter is “spreading ideas” at Majority Rights with Soren Renner.
Jared Taylor is a valuable resource because he stays within the experience of his audience, at least more so than other pro-White leaders, and goes outside the experience of his enemies.
Trainspotter: Thanks for the reply. I hadn’t considered that perspective on the state of the beginning of a revolutionary movement before, so it’s encouraging to a degree. Introspecting, I think what bothers me most about it is not that these conflicts occur, but that the rancorous tone some people have towards one another here implies the absence of the natural benevolence towards other whites we need, and may imply the presence of unrestrained self-interest.
Concerning the steering wheel, I have a tendency to support and follow people that have developed positive leadership characteristics and have the experience to understand the importance of listening before deciding, and of providing effective feedback when called for, but who most especially care more about mission success than who is driving. There is a type of thinking some have that lead them to value a movement for what it can do for their ego, rather than to value their ego by what it can contribute to the goals I believe we share here.
In my own life I try to strictly adhere to the nonaggression principle. My perspective on Mr. Taylor – limited as it is – has been similar to your own. Seeing the interactions here without history means I’m unable to come down on either side, but the anger and personal attacks are nonetheless somewhat disheartening.
“The good news is that statements of Jewish power are becoming more common all the time, both on the power of the Israel Lobby and the power of Jews [in] the media. In the long run, frank discussion of Jewish power would also mean a frank discussion of how Jewish power compromises the interests of White Americans. That would really be the stuff of which revolutions are made. And even without an above-ground discussion, Whites with any degree of political sophistication are starting to “get it” and that in itself is a major step in the right direction.”
~ Dr. Kevin MacDonald
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3527
It is worth contrasting Trainspotter with Saul Alinksy.
Both have strong views about how to create revolutionary movements. If Saul Alinsky could join us, he would point out that change comes from power which comes from organization. So the real question is how do you organize people into a mass movement capable of exercising power.
He would analyze every idea in terms of whether it contributes or detracts from the goal of organizing and building power. Anonymous internet posting does not seem to quality. It doesn’t lead to any organization or power.
It is just a way to waste time, stay within your comfort zone, and entertain yourself. Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals as a corrective to the rhetorical radicals of the Far Left who talked endlessly about power and revolution without showing any interest in translating their ideals into effective action.
@Oldtimer “Of course you have a place here- why not?”
I’m a strong philosophical libertarian, and that seems to have almost as bad a rep as multiculturalism around here. It’s paradoxical to me because I think it’s complimentary to White Nationalism, but people seem to associate the philosophy with political libertarians they dislike, or with open border and multicultural policies that are not compatible with every variety of libertarianism. Knowing that, I come here with a focus on determining how I can contribute the most to the movement considering my abilities and circumstances. As we talked about in the other thread my short term goal is establishing a SharePoint site and secure email as part of an intranet.
Hunter: “If exposing people to White Nationalist ideas was sufficient to get the job done, then Trainspotter and the thousands of other White Nationalists like him would be a valuable resource at our disposal instead of an escape valve that props up the status quo.”
The lies didn’t take long. It is obviously not my position that spreading ideas is “sufficient to get the job done.” That’s not my position at all. My position is clear: it is a necessary precondition for white nationalists to have any chance at all. How do you successfully organize when people view you as a jackbooted space alien? How do you get people to take the drastic step of supporting a white nation when you haven’t bothered to convince a significant number of its necessity? When most don’t even know what are arguments are? When most of even the smartest whites have never even heard the case for it? Magic? Voodoo?
But then, you believe that the Republic was formed out of nowhere, and that the communist/socialist intellectuals of the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the communist/socialist victories of the twentieth. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise, just pointing out how mindnumbingly ignorant and stupid your position is.
I refute position after position that you smugly advocate (which isn’t difficult, becaues they are incredibly ridiculous), and all you can do is sniff and snarl.
Hunter: “The ultimate result of this idea of “preparing the cultural ground” is that invaluable time, resources, and energy fizzle out in obscure corners of cyberspace.”
Ureal. Remember guys, this clown is trying to play the role of strategist. He believes that we don’t need converts, we don’t need to spread our message. A relative handful of intellectuals online, spreading our ideas, are to be subjects of attack. I mean, if all twenty of them held picket signs instead, thank of all the progress that we would make. O.K., well none, but it’s just fun to snark and snarl. Since when should we let reality stand in our way?
Intead, organize…even though you will be viewed as a jackbooted space alien. Brilliant strategy, Hunter, just brilliant. Of course, not a single revolution in history would have won in the entire course of human history had they taken your advice, but by all means, don’t let that stop you from advocating it.
Hunter: “I’m sure our leaders are pissing themselves at the scary thought that Trainspotter is “spreading ideas” at Majority Rights with Soren Renner.”
Majorityrights has done more to gain some degree of intellectual respectability than you have, you’ve simply profited by it and other sites as a free rider. Others built up the intellectual wing of the movement, you then glommed onto that, then attacked it. Senseless. You filled a market niche for a distinctly American, intellectually oriented site. Then you pissed all over it.
In any event, there are few intellectuals that have the time and talent to be good at it. I don’t have the time, and it is debatable whether I have the talent. I will damn sure not criticize those who do. But that’s your thing.
Hunter: ” I’m sure our leaders are pissing themselves at the scary thought that Trainspotter is “spreading ideas” at Majority Rights with Soren Renner.”
If our ideas spread, I guarantee you they will be pissing themselves. If our ideas don’t (in other words, if we take your advice), they won’t. Certainly they would far rather only have to worry about your juvenile, nutjob attacks on those goshdarned intellectuals. They are quite happy with our current situation where almost nobody even knows about our true position. The mind wanders while considering why you seem so happy about it as well. I’m sure of one thing: something is rotten with you.
Hunter: “It is worth contrasting Trainspotter with Saul Alinksy.”
In the sense that you mean it, there is no contrast. Saul Alinsky was an opponent, but he understood reality, in contrast to you. He published Rules for Radicals in the early 70’s, I believe, and operated in a completely different context than white nationalists do today. Leftist ideas had been well developed in the nineteenth century, and by the twentieth century, they had real power bases across the country and the world. They had entire nations by that point.
In this country, they already had a largely sympathetic mass media, they had strength on college campuses across the country, and in the legal system. They had all sorts of resources, from warm bodies to lots of funding. The Brown decision was going on twenty by the time Rules was published. Totally, totally different situation. By the late sixties, early seventies, leftists were starting to dole out the punishments, not take them. It was “safe” to be Leftist.
Again, totally different situation than what we face. I guarantee Alinsky would roll over laughing at you if you claimed that white nationalists could use his model today. Now, we might be able to use his model tomorrow (or even parts today, molded by the totally different context in which we operate), or maybe not.
An obvious precondition to fully utilizing the Alinsky model is that we need more adherents than we have today. How many more? There is no precise answer for this, but there is a psychological one: when we reach the point where we start feeling our oats. When we begin to feel that we have the numbers to make a difference. Certainly not a situation like today where, for most white nationalists, the only other white nationalists they know are online. We need to get at least big enough where we start bumping into one another in the real world, at least occasionally. Or where the organizing that you advocate involves more than 6 to 20 behind a police cordon. We’re nowhere near that point yet, and your trotting out Rules for Radicals is a bad, bad joke. You really have no clue, do you?
You accuse others of having their heads in the clouds, but it is in fact you that advocates completely unworkable solutions that have no chance at all in the context of 2010. Context, Hunter, context. You are amazingly blind to it, assuming you are operating in good faith.
Hunter: “Both have strong views about how to create revolutionary movements. If Saul Alinsky could join us, he would point out that change comes from power which comes from organization. So the real question is how do you organize people into a mass movement capable of exercising power.”
Again, context. Alinsky understood this, you don’t. That’s the real contrast here.
It’s hard to read this thread and not come away with a sense of futility. Celestial Time’s very astute observation is particularly disheartening. I mean really, if tens of thousands of Black-on-White rapes hasn’t caused the fathers and families of those women to wise up to the point of speaking out against the diversity regime, then it is hard to imagine what will, or if anything will, short of a comet strike.
@Hunter: I know that the tone in the debate between you and Trainspotter is getting ugly, but I hope that you’ll be able to let the posts (at least hitherto) stand. I ignore the vitriol and who the authors are, and read the arguments clinically, and it’s one of the most interesting debates in a long time.
Christ you two, you’re totally talking past each other at this point.
Trainspotter:
briefly (very) how do you propose to ‘spread our ideas’? something new I hope. The past 20 years of pro-white advocacy and internet presence have produced absolutely nothing. Explicitly pro-white ideas are as reviled as ever.
RE: ‘preparing the cultural ground’ – i.e., exactly what Hunter has been advocating for the past little while here. Starting with mainstream conservative groups that contain our audience of interest, and advocating from within these groups continuously for issues on the edge of mainstream space, successively pushing things ever closer to our ideal. If WNs can’t or won’t organize en masse (lack of numbers or will), then this is the next best way to ‘organize’ in the revolutionary sense.
What is the alternative and more productive use of our efforts? Talk to people in person? Feed them explicitly racial ideas, one by one? Probably not so smooth right off the bat, so we’ll start slow. Nice and easy from totally safe topics like immigration, globalization, and federal over-reach. Great, keep it up. Prepare that cultural ground. Hey, why not do the same damn thing on a national scale within the context of extant, agitated groups of mainstream white people?
As for Hunter:
I sincerely hope that you are acting on your words. I think you’re right on the money, and have been so for a while now. I just hope its not all talk, as good as it is.
Hunter: “Greg Johnson and Alex Linder favor “standing firm” in favor of Explicit White Nationalism. They are content to remain isolated on the fringe without the legitimacy or power to change anything in their communities.”
They’ve both influenced more minds than you have.
Hunter: “No, it is clear my approach differs radically from their own. I favor working within the system, organizing moderates, and using polarization to move the political spectrum in a pro-White direction.”
And how are you going to do that? Where are your adherents? You’ve stated, time and time again, that you don’t need adherents. I’ve stated time and time again that your position is absolutely, hysterically nuts. Alinsky types have/had adherents, and always sought more. Where are yours? Do you have a magic wand, or is the Adherent Fairy going to provide them to you special delivery?
Hunter: “I have changed my tune, but clearly I haven’t adopted any of your arguments, much less your perspective. You could say that I have been influenced by Saul Alinsky. I’ve reviewed two of his books on community organizing.”
Sure you have, but that’s neither here nor there. As for Alinsky, you don’t understand him at all. He understood context, you don’t.
Hunter: “4.) A struggle of strife, tears, and suffering – do I have to remind you that you are unwilling to face down a digital camera? When Albert Jackson tried to organize the Jacksonian Club, the two of us were able to raise five people on a conference call, out of the two hundred that had expressed interest.”
I’m not surprised. Again, you have no grasp of context, so no doubt everything is quite frustrating to you. Nothing works as it should, right? Someone like Alinsky was concerned with what works. You aren’t. There are important tasks that are within our capabilities right now. We are capable of expanding our adherent pool right now. You attack those things, and demand instead that people do things that offer no payoff, and at least some risk. Why should they? Why should they involve themselves with sketchy characters, at a time that the movement clearly can flex zero muscle? How does meeting with you create a white ethnostate? I feel bad about Jackson though, he seems like a good guy. Hopefully he won’t learn the wrong lesson from all of this, but of course that’s up to him.
Hunter: “If you are trying to say that Explicit White Nationalists lack the character it takes to win, I recall making just that point repeatedly to you a few months ago. People who won’t participate in an anonymous conference call are not about to face down the U.S. federal government in reality.”
Eh, that’s not my point. Of course you know that, but a little obfuscation is just par for the course, eh? Historically, most people who fought in revolutions did zilch before the revolution. But let’s not let facts get in the way of your argument. Let’s instead promote the ridiculous idea that whether people will have a senseless phone call with you, after all the drama you create and the smearing you engage in, is somehow an indicator of how they are going to be when things heat up. But since you so enjoy besmirching my character, I guess a little turnabout is fair play. I can EASILY see you skeddadling over the fence if things heat up, crying “I’m a moderate! I’m a moderate!” In fact, I’ll predict right now that’s what you will do. The way you’ve shamelessly lied about me shows that you are devoid of honor. That will inevitably manifest itself in other decisions in your life.
Hunter: “White Nationalists have nothing to offer the disillusioned masses. I have made that point repeatedly. There is no viable alternative to the status quo. That’s why the White backlash to the Obama administration has been channeled into the Tea Party instead of the White Nationalist movement.”
It was so channeled because, as you recommend, we haven’t done the groundwork. These people don’t know anything about us except the lies of the mass media. Why would they turn to us? Amazingly, you want this unhappy state of affairs to continue. And why would you want them anyway? You keep saying that we don’t need more adherents. You make no sense.
Hunter: “I haven’t advocated organizing White Nationalists on this website since the beginning of August. Having to interact with so many people like you, who passionately argue in favor of doing nothing, was sufficient to convince me that organizing White Nationalist radicals was a waste of time.”
That’s rich! Blame me, not your own utter failure at organizing. The reason you can’t organize is that you have absolutely no sense of context. And, for the record, I wasn’t really criticizing your activism prior to your senseless attacks on those goshdarned intellectuals. I might have uttered a few words of warning, but that’s about it. I only did that because I knew that you would fail, and I knew why. I tried to encourage you in directions where you could have much more of an impact. Now, having been the recipient of your lies and smears, I’m not even interested in that much. Now it’s just fair warning, hoping you don’t suck decent people into destructive endeavors.
Hunter: “By “preparing the cultural ground,” Trainspotter means wasting the 2010s on anonymous internet posting on obscure White Nationalist websites, not unlike how the Laptop Luftwaffe wasted the late 1990s and 2000s on the same fruitless activity.
No, I mean gaining more adherents. The internet is a poweful medium for spreading our ideas, and should be utilized. If it turns out that it can’t spread our ideas, I will be the first to say that we should stop. If the internet had been around a hundred years ago, the Left would have been all over it. But then, like Alinsky, Leftists are far more savvy than you are. They advocate what works, for them and in their context. You advocate the opposite of what works, for us and in our context.
Hunter: “I don’t advocate creating another “moderate group.” It makes much more sense to join the Tea Party and influence it in a more pro-White direction on immigration. There are other organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA which are worthy of our support.”
I’m don’t have a problem with that, but if we don’t spread our ideas, we won’t get a white nation. It’s just that simple, unless there is a White Nation Fairy that is going to deliver one to us.
Hunter: ” The whole idea of “leadership” is based on moving people from Point A to Point Z. That means starting at Point A. So it is clearly nonsense that moderating the rhetoric, or staying within the experience of our audience, accomplishes nothing.”
Again, context. The Left didn’t win just by blending in with others and abandoning their message. Instead, they operated along a continuum, with the hardcore creating the ideas and pushing them, and more diluted forms spreading out from that hardcore. It’s not either/or, but your entire argument rests on not understanding that.
Also, something else that you fail to understand (coming under the broad heading of context) is that it makes a difference which direction the ship is heading. In other words, someone like Alinsky might say something to the effect that the extremists should tone it down, but he operated in a context in which the ship was already moving in his direction. For example, today the country is becoming less and less white by the day. If you are a leftist, why rock the boat? Things are heading in your direction anyway. Why say things that would just scare the passengers? But if you oppose the direction that the ship is going, then you are faced with a bigger problem. Can you really infiltrate the crew and change direction that way? Or are you going to have to mutiny? Or maybe a combination? Tough call. Much harder questions, and that’s a big difference between our context and theirs. At this point, all the Leftist has to do is not fuck up too much. That, plus time, and he wins.
Hunter: “The millions of alienated White conservatives and independents in the mainstream clearly do need our help. They need real leaders who will prove true advocates of their interests.”
As long as you leave the field of ideas to others, these peoples heads will be filled with mush, and there won’t be much that you can do with them. All revolutionary movements understand this, which is why the Left invests so much in propaganda and academia. Hunter is utterly oblivious to all of this.
Hunter: “The only alternative to subversion is organization. Trainspotter here is perhaps the most persuasive piece of evidence on OD that White Nationalists are unwilling to organize. If that is the case, then everything we do should be based on that premise.”
Moronic.
Hunter: “Unfortunately, White Nationalists are not in any position to take advantage of this opportunity, having wasted the last two decades on anonymous internet posting.”
We didn’t create enough new adherents, that’s for sure. I’m entirely open for better ways than the internet to create adherents, but the evidence suggests that the internet is the best tool we currently have available. Of course, it is impossible to have such a reasonable discussion with someone like you, an advocate of the idea that we don’t need new adherents at all! Alinsky would be proud.
Hunter: “I have heaped derision on those “intellectuals” because they have consistently gone outside of the experience of their audience. That is the fundamental reason why they have failed to communicate their message to a mainstream audience.”
Again, you don’t get it. The intellectuals don’t generally (there are of course exceptions) target a mainstream audience. They target cream of the croppers, or at least college level types, and those in turn (teachers, media hacks, what have you) spread the message to a broader audience, or just influence their own friends and familes. It’s obvious that you have no clue how ideas are actually dispersed throughout a society, and how they transform a culture. This from a person living in the Kwa, a culture massively transformed by Leftist ideas.
Hunter: “Care to explain how worshiping Adolf Hitler as a religious figure or advocating the destruction of Christianity is supposed to “prepare the cultural ground” in states like Alabama or Tennessee?”
I don’t share those positions.
Hunter: “That’s precisely why a radical leap from Point A to Point Z never works and why starting at Point A and proceeding to Point B, moving the goal posts, is what is called for in this case.”
Eh, again, that’s true to a point. But you still need people creating a vision of the ultimate goal, a vision that is attractive to cream of the croppers, the opinion leaders. Again, it’s a continuum. It’s not one or the other.
Hunter: “Trainspotter ignores the reality that “intellectual work” (such as Tom Paine’s Common Sense or John Locke’s Second Treatise) is invoked to justify a decision which the people have made for themselves for different reasons altogether.”
Hmmm…then why didn’t they make those decisions before such ideas gained currency? Why have they so seldom made such decisions after those ideas were largely supplanted by leftist ideas? What, was there a Republic Fairy that died, only to give way to the Communist Fairy? It must be very strange to look at the world through your eyes, where things happen totally devoid of foundation and context.
Hunter: “If you read the book that I reviewed, the whole point of the book was that “ideas” did not cause the American Revolution, but were only invoked as justifications for it.”
Yes, it happened by magic. Not sure why other revolutions got such different results, and it sure is a coincidence that intellectual work invariably precedes revolutionary action, but let’s not bother ourselves with facts, eh? Magic is much more fun, and far less strenuous. I still can’t figure out why so many more people spout leftist ideas today than just a few decades ago, when I was a kid. Those rascally Fairies sure are busy.
Hunter: “How are we incapable of infiltrating the Tea Party or supporting FAIR and NumbersUSA?”
Go for it, but it’s going to be hard for a guy who doesn’t have adherents, and repeatedly claims that we don’t need more.
Hunter “Umm … let’s see. How long again had Massachusetts been a constitutional republic before the Revolution? The colonies had been allowed almost total self government for generations. That’s why they rebelled when Britain reasserted its control.”
Again, in Hunter’s world, enlightenment ideas either had no impact whatsoever, or they had zero impact until one day, one 24 hour period, they suddenly were in style. Again, absolutely no clue about context or the development of ideas and how they transform culture. Gosh, I wonder how we ended up with political correctness transforming our own culture, just in our own lifetimes?
23.) Americans ignored John Locke’s work all the way up until the outbreak of the American Revolution. There was no slow preparation of the cultural ground going on in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hardly anyone was reading Locke in the colonies at that time.
Hardly anyone had to. Hunter apparently thinks that the typical liberal, of whom there are tens of millions, all read Alinsky. Presumably, he also believes that the average feminist that you run into has read The Feminine Mystique. Because, see, unless you yourslelf have read a particular book, there is no way to be influenced by intellectual ideas. Ideas don’t percolate through a culture, oh no, no, no. That idiot liberal you ran into – he’s DEFINITELY read Alinsky, and the drivel of Steinem. Definitely. It’s just magic that some revolutions lead to a Republic, others lead to communism, still others to military dictatorship or theocracies. Just magic. There is no context to be considered.
Hunter: “The American Revolution was launched before Americans had even decided on the goal of independence, much less an independent constitutional republic. The action on the ground began long before the ideas coalesced around it.”
The half truths and ignorance that you spout are startling, but tiresome. I’m about done. It’s weird to argue with a modern advocate of magic.
Hunter: “As a matter of fact, the Republicans have stopped “comprehensive immigration reform” and the “DREAM Act” several times now. Likewise, if it had been up to White Nationalists to defeat this legislation, we would have gotten the Bush amnesty five years ago.”
I already addressed this in my first post, absolutely crushing this remarkably stupid argument. Anyone interested can read it there.
Hunter: “Ordinary Americans didn’t share Thomas Jefferson’s fawning embrace of the Enlightenment. They revolted to preserve THEIR OWN TRADITION of self government, which the British imperial authorities were trying to take away, not over some fashionable French nonsense that no one in Bumfuck, New Hampshire had ever heard of.”
They weren’t revolting over fashionable French nonsense, that much is true. The point is that a lot of intellectual work went into creating that “tradition” of which you speak, just as a lot of intellectual work went into the successful leftist revolutions of the twentieth century.
Hunter: “Why? Because the British were never able to exercise effective control over their American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Americans had always been free and self governing. This lack of control, itself an effect of distance and the state of technology, is precisely why the British were unable to put down the revolt once it started.”
No doubt, I explicitly stated that intellectual ideas were not the only factor, but nice straw man. But the ideas prevalent at the time had a tremendous impact on the form that the government took, just as the ideas that have dominated our own age affects the current government’s form and the laws we live under. Is this really that hard to understand?
Hunter: “As we have seen, you are the best example available why the “spread of ideas” is insufficient to produce a White ethnostate, as those “ideas” and the thousands of others who have been exposed to them can’t be persuaded to lift a finger in the real world to reverse our decline.”
Prime example of why you are such a gross failure at organizing.
Hunter: “Trainspotter’s alternative to working within the system, where 99% of Whites are today, is another fruitless decade of anonymous internet posting.”
My solution is to gain more adherents. Your way doesn’t do that, though I would love to be proven wrong. The internet has. But again, you absurdly claim that we don’t need more adherents, a more ridiculous position having rarely been heard.
30.) Someone has to be mature and realistic enough to hold the line on immigration. It’s not like the Laptop Luftwaffe is capable of doing so.
Let them “hold the line.” That’s fine. They do that occasionally, but their overall track record has been disastrous. Whites have been voting Republican for decades, and the country becomes less and less white, more and more politically correct, more and more miscegenation. But yeah, let’s get on the winning team. If all you want to do is slow the rot down slightly, then get behind the Republicans. But if we are to save whites as a people, we’re going to have to do better than that. Much, much better than that.
31.) It makes sense to praise the effective; criticize the ineffective. You have it exactly backwards.
There is strong evidence that the internet has been helpful in spreading our ideas. There is also considerable evidence that we an do much better. You, on the other hand, offer only a track record of ineffectiveness and failure at organizing (and at least relative success in writing online). So who is praising the effective, and criticizing the ineffective? That’s me. You do the opposite, demanding that we pour good money after bad, and ignore the areas in which we are getting at least some returns.
Hunter: “Trainspotter is clearly utterly ignorant of how the Continental Congress came into being. Hint: there was already a powerful insurgency in the New England countryside over two years old.”
Um, didn’t debate that point, nor did I say a single thing to contradict it. But I guess you had to work in “ignorant” somewhere.
Hunter: “The Bolsheviks didn’t conquer Russia on the basis of their ideas. That’s laughable.”
Yes, the Communist Fairy came in instead and created all of those communist countries. No need to worry about foundation or groundwork. We don’t need no stinkin context!
Hunter: “Okay. You focus on “spreading ideas.” After posting over 50,000 anonymous comments on the internet, I am ready to try something else.”
Try away, nobody is stopping you. I find it amusing how far you think you can get without adherents.
Hunter: “There isn’t any White Nationalist movement to speak of. There is only a rhetoric in cyberspace.”
Well, there are a certain number of people who believe in our vision. We need more people, many more. It’s that simple. But if we take your claim at face value, why are you attacking something that doesn’t exist? If it doesn’t exist, then you are going to have to start fresh anyway, right? So why attack a phantom?
Hunter: “You are unrealistic, delusional even, if you seriously believe that another decade of internet posting is going to change anything. I’ve been around far too long to believe that one.”
I, like your good buddy Saul, want more adherents to our vision. I’ll worry about the rest when we get them. If you can provide more adherents in some other way, then great. But you ridiculously claim that we don’t need any more, so I won’t hold my breath.
Trainspotter,
The way these conversations usually go is that I start off by telling some conservative that – end of the day – our political project is doomed because of the ongoing change in America’s racial demographics. I then proceed to rattle off what the polling data says about the voting patterns of the newer post-1965 immigrants as well as point out the changing voting patterns in the Southwest and Florida, which can (to a significant degree) be attributed to the ever increasing share of Hispanic voters in those regions. I then proceed to tell my conservative interlocutor why we shouldn’t expect these already established voting trends to change (in fact, they have been replicated across the Western world) and that we’ll need to get a larger share of the White vote in each election cycle in order to stay nationally competitive as a movement. But that, unfortunately, this is a losing strategy in the long-term as our people are projected to be a minority within the first half of this century and will inevitably be a minority of the voting population shortly thereafter. And therefore, conservatism is in the long-term doomed.
Up to this point I have deliberately refrained from articulating anything nationalist. I have only laid out the bleak facts (such as they are) in an attempt to force my conservative friend to come to grips with the essentially tragic nature of his cause.
But already the bromides come thick and fast. My conservative interlocutor begins to tell me about how he has a half-Asian friend who sometimes says conservative things and that Thomas Sowell is a great conservative intellectual who is also black and that he is no racist and that culture is what really matters and that we’re all mixed up anyway and that Jesus doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race and that racism is a moral evil and that Nazism isn’t the solution and that even if America becomes more mixed there will still be lots of White blood in the nation’s gene pool and that some of the most gorgeous women he’s ever met are of South Asian descent and that he’s got a Cherokee in the woodpile back there somewhere and that America is about freedom not Whiteness and that he thought about dating a Black girl once upon a time etc.
I am not deterred by this nonsense and remind him that even if he is indifferent to the future of White America (and I know he isn’t) all the things he cares about as a cultural and political conservative will be gone for good as the America of his birth slowly transforms into the new non-White America (a neologism to his ears) that the liberal elites have engineered for us. I then proceed to educate him about what’s happened around the world whenever political power has changed hands from the White to the non-White and that we can no longer afford to be indifferent about what the decline of our race means for our country.
At this point, the conversation can take many different directions. Sometimes I’ll talk about how racial egalitarianism is a false morality that has been programmed into of all us by decades of propaganda and how it’s all built on lies and comes from a strain of radical egalitarian thinking that was imported from Europe. Sometimes I’ll talk about what “White” really means and that we have a proud Western heritage as European derived peoples. Sometimes I’ll talk about how our struggle is no different from what’s happening in Australia with Asians and in Europe with Muslims (both Black and Arab) and that the whole of Western civilization is in the process of committing suicide due to a vast wave of third world immigration.
The conversation goes on a while longer but eventually reaches a point where my conservative interlocutor admits that I have a point but that he’s not ready to “go there yet” or that he’s “not comfortable talking about this kind of stuff”. This is scary shit to his ears and he’s starting wonder just what kind of person I really am.
Oats: “briefly (very) how do you propose to ‘spread our ideas’? something new I hope. The past 20 years of pro-white advocacy and internet presence have produced absolutely nothing. Explicitly pro-white ideas are as reviled as ever.”
I don’t know Oats, you tell me. The point is that we need more adherents, as we are incredibly thin on the ground. I’m all for discovering the “best” way, but until you can establish what that is, the internet seems to be, by far, the best horse that we’ve got at the current time. The only horse, really. I wish I could offer you satellite uplinks and television networks, but I can’t.
The good news is that it can work. Just a few years ago, I complained to a WN that I happen to know in real life that there were no good sites to send an intelligent newbie. Boy, has that changed. This change even impressed Hunter…until he decided to attack the very sorts of people who affected the change. The one positive development in the movie, and he now attacks it with vitriol.
I don’t think that there is any question that more people have been educated by the internet than what came before: silly marches in camos, a few tiny newsletters. So I disagree that it has been a complete failure, in fact I strongly disagree with that. But, at the same time, we haven’t done enough. We haven’t created the support base necessary to move on to the next stage. That, however, is within our power to change. If you’ve got a better idea, then have at it. But if it doesn’t involve meaningfully growing our numbers, it’s a non-starter.
So that’s the issue: how to get more adherents? With Hunter, you can’t even have that kind of conversation, becaues he claims that we already have enough. Yes, we do have “enough,” if enough means a sense that we are hopelessly outnumbered and isolated. How many people on here bump into bona fide WN in the real world, just in the course of everyday life, on anything resembling a regular basis? Few, I’d wager. Until that changes, the herd instinct won’t kick in, and rightfully so.
On the other hand, once we reach a certain point, we’ll be feeling our oats. There is strength in numbers. We don’t have that yet, and until we do, nothing much is going to happen.
And Oats, I’m not going to be brief, as this isn’t just written for you, or even primarily for you. I’ve had time tonight that I don’t normally have, so I’ll use it.
I’m not against infiltration per se. Maybe it will prove useful. But if a small group of guys do this, and eliminate the more radical websites…where will more radicals come from? Ten guys are supposed to, by infiltrating organizations, change huge numbers of people into white nationalists? That’s just moronic. It’s not gonna happen. That’s not to say that the ten guys couldn’t accomplish something worthwhile. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But the idea that they will transform the country using just that technique is beyond ridiculous.
The proper approach is to develop the intellectual wing, which will not require that many people (not many are good at it), and the activist wing can try its infiltration strategy, or whatever other strategies. Those activists that understand context may well accomplish something, those that don’t will not. Hint: berating people to do stupid shit with no payoff is not likely to get many takers. I know that’s hard to believe for some sorts.
Different approaches aren’t mutually exclusive, contra Hunter. There is no need to attack one or the other. Absolutely no need whatsoever. If you are of an intellectual bent, so be it. If you want to infiltrate, so be it. What is the friggin problem? I’ll tell you the problem: those who smear, lie, mislead and create completely unnecessary drama where there was none- and whatever sycophants sanction their behavior. Straight talk, brah.
If Hunter had said, “Hey, I’m going to try a new approach. I’m still a white nationalist, and I understand that some will be skeptical, but hopefully people will be patient and see if I generate positive results. If I do, I do, if I don’t, I don’t. I think I will, and ultimately it’s my decision.”
A few obvious dickheads aside, there would have been no problem. Hunter could have done his thing, and we’d all have hoped for the best. There would have been none of the bitter acrimony that results from lies and obfuscation, and made up smears. You’ve got to ask yourself why it wasn’t done that way, when it so easily could have been. The answer, of course, is obvious, but it’s one you might not like.
Trainspotter:
Adherents of what? What exactly are they adhering to? Is it simply some mystical invocation of White Skin Pride where, at the end of the day, people are supposed to be content with virtual politics, friendships, relationships, etc.?
Celestial: “How about putting together a brief, but somewhat detailed, list of just what “our ideas” consist of…….”
We want a land of our own. That’s non-negotiable. Anything else, up to and including where that land is to be located, is of course subject to debate.
Having said that, clearly it will take far more to win the day. We need to come up with an overall vision, an overall approach, that is compelling and attractive to our fellow whites, as well as facilitating our long term survival as a people. In my view – and it’s only my view – it needs to be a vision that cuts through the current left/right paradigm, rendering it obsolete. My vision is neither leftist or rightest, but a form of tribalism, if you’ll exuse the word.
I don’t pretend that my more fleshed out vision would have universal appeal among white nationalists, but the point is that we have to develop something that many/most white people can get behind at some point, or at least not vehemently oppose. I may be able to offer that, we’ll see. If I can’t, hopefully somebody else will. We need it, but that’s the intellectual work that few are capable of, and I’m not at all sure that I’m one of those few. It is absurd to attack those that are.
In any event, I plan to do something along those lines, just as a starter kit of sorts. Unforseen circumstances have largely wiped out my free time, and I expect that condition to continue for the rest of this year and into the next. I’ll do it when I can, but hopefully others more talented than I will beat me to the punch. Remember, the point is not the particular vision that I would espouse, but rather that we need a vision, a narrative, an aspiration, that can compete with those provided by our enemies. Charts and statistics are nice, but they don’t get you there, if you know what I mean.
Our enemies are great at this stuff, while we are absolutely terrible. Once again, they understand the field of ideas and how important victory upon it is, whereas the befuddled rightest doesn’t have a clue. He’d rather attack those goshdarned intellectuals, while not offering a competing vision or aspiration of his own. That is precisely, exactly the wrong approach.
Celesital: “Adherents of what? What exactly are they adhering to? Is it simply some mystical invocation of White Skin Pride where, at the end of the day, people are supposed to be content with virtual politics, friendships, relationships, etc.?”
Yeah, Celestial, that’s it. That will surely win us our homeland.
Also, for those few who may be following this thread, my response to Hunter’s lengthy post has not appeared.
HW, I have known you for 8 years now and sometimes you get carried away by your own arguments and adopt extremist positions that you don’t really believe in yourself. What role do you think intellectuals play in creating a Zeitgeist that makes (revolutionary) change possible? I think that your argument that the influence of thinkers is nil or irrelevant to historical events is untenable. I’m sure you know that.
Trainspotter:
Such a simple, concise, and non-threatening way to sell an idea, even a caveman can do it. OK, now how many White Nationalists do you believe have the desire or ability to make brevity a fundamental selling point?
Anyone ever noticed how difficult it is to be a “real” White Nationalist?
Oats said: “Christ you two, you’re totally talking past each other at this point.”
This seems to be the case. Maybe Trainspotter and Hunter could use the following categories to classify activities, groups, and the methods so that we could see exactly where the disagreement is:
1. Significantly beneficial
2. Marginal beneficial
3. A waste of precious time
4. Marginally detrimental
5. Significantly detrimental
In my assessment, Trainspotter makes a good point in saying that 1) there are many things that need to be done, 2) of these educating people is one rather important thing that needs to be done and 3) doing this requires there to be an educational/ informative dimension to WN, that acts as a place for inquiring people to go to learn more. Since we don’t have many people in academia — this means an internet presence. Hunter points, nonetheless, are spot on. And internet education has limited utility. And these sites often become a time sink and a madhouse for delusion.
One point to take aways from this is that Internet activity itself needs to be better organized to cut down on time waste (or cut off detrimental activities) and to maximize exposure. Hunter’s posting rules is a good example of implementing such organization. Of course creating good sites and imposing organization take skill.
Another point is that this internet activity needs to be connected back to the ground. On way to connect these, a method a friend used to use, is to create business cards listing the different sites — presently I have two boxes of cards, the conservative/ something is wrong set and the race conscious set.
Celesital: “Adherents of what? What exactly are they adhering to? Is it simply some mystical invocation of White Skin Pride where, at the end of the day, people are supposed to be content with virtual politics, friendships, relationships, etc.?”
………………………………………………………………………………………………
CT, White/Western/IndoEuropean identity is an identity. Identities, whether religious, ethnic, or political need to be actively maintained and reinforced. Moreover White/Western/IndoEuropean identity is stigmatized, making an adherent someone who consciously identities as a white person and who sees themselves as part of (and involved in) a white ethnoracial community. One useful thing about the anti-White propaganda is that if you can pull enough people over — it can be used as a solidifying force.
Anyone can be an influencer. The only question that ultimately matters is whether that influence is positive or negative. In the case of Greg Johnson and Alex Linder, their “influence” has no impact on the political spectrum, which is to say that they are ineffective. The only success they can point to is making others similarly ineffective and unable to communicate with their peers.
Joining mainstream political groups. Supporting effective organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA.
I have said that we don’t need useless rhetorical radicals who are only blowing off steam on the internet. If the number of anonymous White Nationalist keyboard commandos were to double or triple within the next ten years, the circumstances of White Nationalists would hardly change.
Saul Alinsky was focused exclusively on organizing communities in the real world. His goal was not to simply convert people to his ideas. What if they adopted his ideas? Then what? Without an organized resistance, nothing would ever come of converting people to those ideas.
Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals specifically as a corrective targeted at fringe rhetorical radicals like yourself who passionately argue in favor of doing nothing effective.
I don’t waste my time anymore trying to organize people like yourself. You don’t have the courage to face a digital camera. The idea that you are ready to die for a White ethnostate, as you once claimed in another thread, is laughable.
Saul Alinsky pointed that the only alternative to working within the mainstream was political irrelevancy and marginalization on the fringe. In other words, exactly what you prescribe.
This much is true. We could work within the mainstream to give the Tea Party a tougher edge on immigration. We could easily organize moderates around uncontroversial issues.
Nonsense. There is an immense payoff to be realized in changing the composition of the U.S. Senate on immigration. What is the payoff of posting 20,000 anonymous comments on Majority Rights? Nothing that I can see.
Albert Jackson has seen my prediction come true. People like you refuse to organize. Without an organized resistance, White Nationalists are powerless. They use the internet as an escape valve to blow off steam when they could be doing more effective things with their time and energy.
The men who died in the American Revolution were willing to face the British army and death itself for their cause. You are unwilling to talk on the telephone, meet someone at a bar, or face down a digital camera. Quit pretending to be a revolutionary.
As a matter of fact, I was not the host of the conference call, and the failure of the conference call to generate a higher response rate was hardly my fault. It was due entirely to the fact that White Nationalists are unwilling to stand up for their own beliefs … even in social situations as trivial as an anonymous conference call.
I’ve stood up for my beliefs. You are just a coward who stalks comment threads on the internet, talking hard about revolution, beating your chest, and egging on others to take actions you are unwilling to take yourself.
If I were to give you a microphone, would you be willing to say any of this before a city council meeting in your town? We both know the answer.
White Nationalists have had forty years to lay the groundwork for viable organizations in the real world. Of course the fundamental reason why that never happens is because people like Trainspotter are simply afraid to stand up for their own beliefs in public.
Ordinary people take a look at White Nationalists and draw the conclusion they are incapable of doing anything about the issues they care about. Instead of joining the White Nationalist movement, they built the Tea Party from scratch.
And no, we don’t need legions of more ineffective rhetorical radicals who do nothing but suck up bandwidth on the internet. There are already enough cyber dung piles of anonymous comments to stretch from here to the moon and back.
White Nationalists refuse to organize because of social ostracism and employment discrimination, not because of the individual organizer, whether it be Albert Jackson or myself.
Posting anonymous comments on the internet has less of an impact than just about any possible action that comes to mind.
Sucking people into destructive endeavors? Like what? Posting another 100,000 comments on White Nationalist blogs and forums? If that changes anything, I will physically eat this keyboard.
When you boil Trainspotter’s prescription down to its essentials, it amounts to nothing more than “spreading ideas” by posting anonymous comments on the internet, which is exactly how White Nationalists have spent the vast majority of their time for the past sixteen years to no effect.
You are delusional.
1.) Working through FAIR and NumbersUSA and the political mainstream repeatedly stopped “comprehensive immigration reform” and moved the goal posts on immigration.
2.) Posting tens of thousands of radical anonymous comments on the internet changed nothing at all.
Correction: without power, we won’t get a White nation. What does it matter if thousands of disorganized, powerless people hold a bunch of radical ideas? It doesn’t matter at all to the people who possess power. Such a “resistance” doesn’t pose the slightest threat to their dominance.
Americans had been “free” for generations before the American Revolution. In fact, the American Revolution was fought in the name of the British Constitution, not in the name of the Enlightenment.
Thomas Paine published Common Sense …. after Lexington and Bunker Hill. The notion that his “ideas” caused the Revolution is ridiculous. Even Common Sense didn’t have anything like the circulation that would have been necessary to spark the Revolution.
Notice that Trainspotter has no response to my point. The American Revolution was already in progress BEFORE the Continental Congress declared independence or created a constitutional republic. The Constitution itself was written years after the Treaty of Paris.
Ordinary Americans took matters into their own hands. They precipitated the American Revolution. They were the horse. Congress was the cart. These people were not enamored with the Enlightenment ideas that Trainspotter attributes to them.
We don’t need 10,000 more rhetorical radicals posting anonymous comments on the internet.
That “tradition” was an organic response of English colonists to environmental conditions in the New World. Americans were “free” because their circumstances dictated they would be “freedom.” Any White settler could move to the frontier and have all the “freedom” he wanted.
No, it is a fact that John Locke’s Second Treatise was ignored in the American colonies all the way until the outbreak of the Revolution. It became popular in the context of a Revolution that was already in progress when it was used to justify a rebellion which the people had already started before reading any of his work.
The “form the government took” was the form of government that had existed in the colonies for generations before the American Revolution. The union of the colonies and independence were both practical responses to a crisis which less than twenty years earlier no one was advocating.
The American Revolution didn’t happen by magic. It was just a crisis that spiraled out of control due to the polarizing tactics of the insurgents and the British Parliament.
There was no “intellectual work” that caused the American Revolution. Thomas Paine published Common Sense after the first shots were fired at Lexington. Locke’s Second Treatise became popular in the context of the Boston Massacre and a decade after the Stamp Act.
You can drop this ludicrous argument that I am personally to blame for your failure to act in the real world. Your decision not to get involved in White Nationalist organizations has nothing to do with what I happen to be saying on this website.
Those are the positions of several White Nationalist intellectuals whose cause you are championing.
Umm … if memory serves, Lexington and Bunker Hill came BEFORE Thomas Paine and Common Sense, not afterwards. And then, only a fraction of the colonists read either Common Sense or Locke’s Second Treatise.
The American Revolution was launched BEFORE the colonists had settled on an independent constitutional republic. It took years for them to reach that conclusion. Even after the first shots had been fired, few people in the colonies believed it would lead to independence.
What we have today are White Nationalist leaders who are at Point Z braying about the cowardice of people at Point A. They have shown no willingness to start at Point Z and gradually lead people in their direction. Instead, they demand that everyone at Point A be instantly teleported to their own radical position at Point Z.
What has been the effective result of your conversion to those ideas? Entertaining yourself by posting anonymous comments on the internet. Which changes nothing.
What is the use of creating more “adherents” like yourself who do nothing but talk?
Really? It looks to me like the ordinary conservatives whose heads are so full of mush are more successful at fighting the Left on immigration than White Nationalist rhetorical radicals.
The Left succeeded because it learned how to stay within the experience of their audience. White Nationalists fail because they go outside the experience of their audience. It is really that simple.
The Red Army came in and created all those communist countries.
We don’t need useless adherents. What good are they?
I’m attacking ideas that neuter people and prevent them from acting effectively to reverse our decline. Your idea that we need to double or triple the number of keyboard commandos certainly qualifies.
Clearly, you don’t know the first thing about Saul Alinsky. If Alinsky were here, he would point out the uselessness of rhetorical radicals who are merely “copping out” of the hard work of organizing and building power.
We don’t need 20,000 more keyboard commandos typing REVOLUTION into comment threads.
You have been “converted” to those “ideas.” Thousands of others like you have been “converted” to those ideas.
Guess what? You are powerless. You are unwilling to do anything to reverse our decline. Anything but talk about revolution. Talk is cheap.
The failure of White Nationalist organizers has nothing to do with me personally. It stems entirely from the unwillingness of people like yourself to prioritize your beliefs over your comfortable middle class lifestyle.
Where is the return of anonymous internet posting?
Do we really need 20,000 more Trainspotters on the internet talking about revolution on the internet and doing nothing in the real world?
Their track record is superb compared to that of the Laptop Luftwaffe.
White Nationalists have been braying about our racial decline on the internet for the last sixteen years without gaining control of a single city council or county commission.
You are not even capable of getting elected dog catcher. Much less capable of saving the White race. What number of anonymous comments will be sufficient to save the White race?
Trainspotter,
I dispute this “necessary precondition.” It is not a “necessary precondition” of White Revolution for Americans to be transformed into neutered rhetorical radicals who are incapable of and unwilling to interact with their more moderate peers. 1,000,000 anonymous White Nationalist internet comments is not a “necessary precondition” of anything.
Very simple.
You abandon the rhetoric that makes you sound like a “jackbooted space alien” and organize people around uncontroversial issues where a consensus already exists.
You don’t try to convince them of that at all. In doing so, you will only go outside of their experience and fail. Instead, you convince them to adopt the rhetorical position immediately to their right, and then the next one, and then the next one after that.
Why is that?
Maybe it has something to do with the crushing lack of legitimacy that prevents White Nationalist memes from circulating among a wider audience.
Every successful communist revolution can be attributed to a capture of power. Similarly, unsuccessful communist revolutions, or unsuccessful White Nationalist revolutions for that matter, can be attributed to a failure to capture power.
If anyone here is stupid enough to believe that 20,000 more keyboard commandos posting 10 million more anonymous comments on the internet over the next decade will change anything for White Nationalists, I have nothing further to say to them.
We don’t need thousands of more bullshit anonymous talkers in cyberspace like yourself. We have more than enough of those already.
They should be attacked.
When they advocate erecting fresh new barriers between White Nationalists and White America, for example, the great idea of “destroying Christianity,” someone should point out that they are only making our task more difficult.
It doesn’t matter whether you and Alex Linder hold picket signs that say “Gas the Jews” and “Hitler 2012” or just write about it on the internet, either way, you are failing to communicate with your audience.
Big Von and Soren Renner querying each other about the metaphysics of Heidegger? BORING. IRRELEVANT.
The last thing I want to be is to be a clown entertaining thousands of fantasist bullshitters, navel gazing talkers, and cyberspace revolutionaries. I want to change the world, not talk about it. If this website served no constructive purpose, I would shut it down without hesitation.
Whatever. The last essay I transcribed at TOQ Online was about Hyperborean supermen from Atlantis who mated with Lemurians to produce mongrelized races.
Discourse Is War!
For the last time, what number of keyboard commandos and anonymous comments will be sufficient to produce White Revolution? A million wasn’t enough. A billion maybe?
http://master-morality.blogspot.com/2009/02/take-back-our-money-t-bom_01.html
[TAKE BACK OUR MONEY – (T-BOM)]
I said I was going to post here anymore. But this will be my last post.
My criticism of Jared is a constructive criticism. Go back and read my earlier commets where I state very cearly that I believe that Jared has accomplished. I also believe there is room for improvement in his public pitch to his fellow Native Born White Americans.
I agree with all of Trainspotters points.
It is now time for those of us in the revolt against the race-replacement of the Native Born White Majority to openly confront our fellow White Americans-especially Tea Partiers-about imminent race-replacemnt..it is one minute befiore minute. It is for this reason that I have 0 tolerance for Hunter Wallace’s shennanigans.
Just yesterday I had a dialogue with four Tea Party activist and brought the issue up immediatetly..and for the ones who didn’t get it..all I had to do was construct clever thought experiments-no sane person would want a billion and a half people-mostly nonwhite and armed the teeth- living in America….mix this in with acess to Yellowstone…and for the hostile socialist who was taken on the four Tea Partiers it was easy enough to expose his genocidal intent towards Native Born White Americans…”do think Native Born White Amerians should have large families like they did in the past”. This is the rap that Jared Taylor, Pete Brimelow and Richard Spencer should be given in public
Some White Nationalist would rather speak to these Tea Partiers about mind-numbing-eyes-glaze over psychometrics..even put up billboards!!! All I can say is that they are without a clue and possibly insane. It is a losing strategy. Jared is a fool-as is Richard Spencer- for pushing this stuff..it will always sidetrack an intense and focused discussion about the imminent race replacement of the Native Born White Majority at the hands of high fertility muslim,asian,hispanic and african legal immigrants.
It is only a matter of time before Jared and Spencer come up against someone with a deep grasp of psychometric and econometric issues along with a deep grasp of the deep conceptual issues in biology..and when they do they will have the bottoms kicked in publicly. They fact that neither of them -and HBD types in general- don’t understand this only goes to show how clueless they are….and in the meantime, the race-replacement issue is sidetracked and a public rallying of our fellow Native Born White Americans is a still birth.
I’m out of here.
Jupiter,
1.) I’m sure there are other sites where people will be glad to see you hijack their threads and scream “NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICANS” all day. Not really.
2.) Your criticism of Jared Taylor is destructive. Abandoning the rhetoric of racial differences is a silly idea. The last thing Taylor wants to do is come across as a stereotypical white supremacists who is motivated solely by hatred of non-Whites.
3.) If your performance here is any indication, your “confrontation” with the Tea Party is likely to end badly, namely with them dismissing you because you show little real interest in their views.
4.) Attacking Richard Spencer, Jared Taylor, and Peter Brimelow is an even more retarded idea. All three are better communicators than you are.
5.) Most Whites believe that racism and oppression are sufficient to explain racial differences. What is your great piece of advice? Reaffirming that belief.
6.) You’ve already said everything you were going to say here anyway.
Notus Wind,
Thanks for that explanation. I know exactly what you’re talking about, and have gotten some version of those responses myself. However, in my experience, I don’t think that most whites are that far gone. True, there is some mush floating around in most everyone’s heads, as the Leftists have been very effective at spreading their ideas, but I don’t think that the typical white – at least not the ones I run into – are particularly supportive of the multiracial project. A significant minority are, but most are not.
However, one thing is quite clear: even for those whites that are not supportive of the multiracial project, they have absolutely no vision of where to go from here. The Right hasn’t provided a vision, an aspiration, something that the normal white can latch onto and feel good about. The Left, in contrast, has its narrative of expanding freedom and inclusion, judging a man by the content of his character, fulfilling the American “promise,” etc.
Of course these are all lies, and simply provide candy coating to a reality of anti-white hatred and anti-white policies, but still, they have developed and spread some powerful ideas. The white, on the other hand, is reduced to a mere grumbler. He has no sense of direction, sees no way out, and either throws up his hands and concludes that there is no solution at all, or in the alternative he hopes that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams somehow mean that the dogs will be called off. Just tune into Fox.
That’s why this argument over ideas is so important, and why I got interested in it in the first place. I regularly talk to normal whites in order to feel out their belief system. I’m always trying to gauge the public pulse, see what’s floating around in the white public’s noggin. My conclusion is plain enough: whites have been disarmed in the realm of ideas.
We have reality on our side, the Left doesn’t. In fact, the Left is in constant struggle with reality, which is no doubt why it became so good at spreading these visionary memes, giving its adherents a sense of moral superiority.
The Right, on the other hand, reality being on its side, perferred its charts and statistics. Give people the facts and they will understand. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. It’s now 2010, and the lesson is clear: visionary ideas and powerful memes trump charts and stats, at least in the minds of most. The Left has understood this for decades. Their opponents STILL don’t.
Bottom line: visionary memes and attractive ideas work, and are so powerful that they can persuade large numbers of people to ignore that A is A, and that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Talk about power…THAT’S power. Getting people to ignore reality and their own self interest is power. The Left is very, very good at this. Religions are good at this. The Right is absolutely terrible at this.
The long and the short of it is that we either develop an appealing vision that works toward the long term survival of our people, something that is powerful and attractive, or we will continue to lose. As long as the Left is triumphant in the world of vision and ideas, any white outbursts will be directed into politically correct and harmless directions, as we are seeing with the Tea Party. It’s just that simple.
1.) White Nationalists have spent the last sixteen years “preparing the cultural ground” and “gaining more adherents” through anonymous internet posting.
What do White Nationalists have to show for all that wasted time and energy? NOTHING.
The effective cumulative result of sixteen years of anonymous posting over ten million radical comments on the internet is that White Nationalists can’t point to a single county commission or city council that they control anywhere in America.
2.) White Nationalists were having more success BEFORE the internet when David Duke was a national political figure and posed a serious threat to the GOP establishment in Louisiana.
3.) What sense does it make to spend the 2010s doing the exact same thing that failed in the 1990s and 2000s?
4.) Trainspotter continues to insist that we need more adherents. Is that right?
What about the thirty thousand hardcore White Nationalists that already exist? What about the hundred or two hundred thousand people who visit White Nationalist websites? Why aren’t they doing in the real world to reverse our decline? What makes anyone think the next hundred thousand will turn out any different?
5.) What sense does it make to take people out the mainstream who might vote, donate, influence, volunteer, and organize … and neuter them into ineffective rhetorical radicals who are content to post anonymous comments on obscure forums no one reads?
What if everyone who supports FAIR and NumbersUSA decided to become newly minted divisions of the Laptop Luftwaffe? We would have amnesty and many other awful things besides as soon as Congress reconvenes in its next session.
6.) At what point will White Nationalists realize that anonymous internet posting is a complete waste of time? It took me upwards of nine years and 50,000 anonymous comments to realize that. Can White Nationalists afford to waste so much time on a clearly fruitless activity?
7.) What sense does it make to take people out of the mainstream and expose them to the great ideas of White Nationalist intellectuals like Hitler was God, America needs to be destroyed, the High Culture of the West has died, Christianity must be eradicated, and so on?
Is there a pressing demand for still more alienated, socially autistic fantasists in the White Nationalist community?
8.) There is a large gap between “ideas” and behavior that has been ignored in this thread. As we have repeatedly seen, it is one thing to hold an “idea” (anyone can do that without suffering any consequences); quite another to act on those ideas.
This is the problem with the legions of rhetorical radicals on the internet. It doesn’t matter what ideas they hold. They are unwilling to act on those ideas. As a consequence, they are disorganized and powerless.
Instead of rectifying this situation, they only reproduce themselves and aim to make others who are less radical just as similarly ineffective and incapable of communicating with their contemporaries.
9.) The root of this whole debate is the unwillingness of intellectuals to leave their own comfort zone, their exaggerated sense of self importance, and their unwillingness to take risks that might expose them to social and economic penalties.
A risk-free revolution. There is no such thing. It is nothing more than a fantasy.
Hunter: “In the case of Greg Johnson and Alex Linder, their “influence” has no impact on the political spectrum, which is to say that they are ineffective.”
Revolutionaries, by definition, oppose the status quo. They seek to overturn the status quo and replace it with a new one. They are typically “powerless” initially, as that is just the nature of the beast. Your argument is nothing more than a demand to operate within the status quo. By your logic, there never would have been an American Revolution, as we would have simply supported those elements in Parliament that were relatively more favorable to us, and laughed at those silly revolutionaries. After all, Parliament was where the real power was…until it wasn’t.
Hunter: “Joining mainstream political groups. Supporting effective organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA.”
I don’t know that anybody is arguing against doing that. I’m certainly not. My position is simply that it won’t be nearly sufficient to win us our own land. It is you who are attacking and lying about what other white nationalists choose to do, not them attacking you for supporting NumbersUSA. To anybody following along, that should be all that you need to know.
Hunter: “I have said that we don’t need useless rhetorical radicals who are only blowing off steam on the internet. If the number of anonymous White Nationalist keyboard commandos were to double or triple within the next ten years, the circumstances of White Nationalists would hardly change.”
You’ve admitted that the development of attractive, pro-white intellectual sites influenced you. Now you attack them viciously, and apparently want them shut down. That’s just nuts.
Hunter: “Saul Alinsky was focused exclusively on organizing communities in the real world. His goal was not to simply convert people to his ideas. What if they adopted his ideas? Then what? Without an organized resistance, nothing would ever come of converting people to those ideas.”
If he has insufficient adherents, who exactly is he going to organize? The obvious answer is that you need both adherents and talented people who can organize those adherents. But again, Alinsky was operating in a completely different context than white nationalists are. As you are completely tone deaf to context, your organizational efforts are doomed to failure. Leftists like Alinsky get it, you don’t.
Hunter: “Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals specifically as a corrective targeted at fringe rhetorical radicals like yourself who passionately argue in favor of doing nothing effective.”
You don’t get Alinsky at all, not at all. His purpose was not to shut down Leftist intellectual work. You reveal a startling ignorance to claim otherwise. In fact, my approach is entirely compatible with Alinsky’s, at least as far as it goes (we face a different context than he did, so we will require a different approach). I have repeatedly criticized the costume clowns who do nothing but hurt our cause, as they are pretty much the spiritual brothers of the wacky leftists that turn everybody off. Alinsky would no doubt approve of my position.
Hunter: “I don’t waste my time anymore trying to organize people like yourself. You don’t have the courage to face a digital camera. The idea that you are ready to die for a White ethnostate, as you once claimed in another thread, is laughable.”
I don’t recall ever making such a claim, I suspect that is just another one of your lies. However, it is in fact true, of me and no doubt many, many others. You just don’t get it, do you? You honestly think because people won’t organize with unstable losers like yourself, that is somehow a reflection of their character. How many of the Germans who died valiently on the Russian front did anything during the revolutionary period? How many of those who died in Confederate ranks were involved in secession agitation?
The fact that people won’t get involved in senseless “organizing” that provides no payoff whatsoever is in no way a reflection upon their potential for martial valor. Most people aren’t going to sign up for pointless endeavors directed by losers and freaks.
Here we see even more irony – just as you accuse intellectuals of having their head in the clouds, it is you that offers unworkable solutions. You also claim that we need to reach people “where they are.” Yet you obviously have no understanding of people, of where they are, of why they do what they do. Instead, you draw completely unjustified conclusions about people, conclusions that are solidly rebuffed by all of human history. You are that guy who makes irrational demands, misinterprets everything and everyone.
Hunter: “Saul Alinsky pointed that the only alternative to working within the mainstream was political irrelevancy and marginalization on the fringe. In other words, exactly what you prescribe.”
Alinsky understood context, and part of that context is that the ship was already moving in his direction. You, on the other hand, have no understanding of such things. You just don’t get it, you are completely tone deaf.
Hunter: “This much is true. We could work within the mainstream to give the Tea Party a tougher edge on immigration. We could easily organize moderates around uncontroversial issues.”
Go do these things. Have at it. I’m not opposed to it, just saying that it is not sufficient to get a white land.
Hunter: “Nonsense. There is an immense payoff to be realized in changing the composition of the U.S. Senate on immigration. What is the payoff of posting 20,000 anonymous comments on Majority Rights? Nothing that I can see.”
Look, if the Senate gets better on immigration, I think that’s great. But that’s not what we’re talking about. There is no stigma attached in supporting Repbublican Senate candidates. That’s not revolutionary. If you want to just become a Republican, go ahead and be one. Become part of the System, the same anti-white system that has been eating our lunch all of these years. Look at how they are treating Russell in New York, a man who had the audacity to suggest that miscegenation might not be the greatest thing in the world. Yep, these people are our friends.
But again, you are tone deaf. Everything for you has got to be either/or. You can’t grasp that it can be a good thing if the Senate gets better on immigration, but at the same time the System is hostile to us (as are the Republicans in particular). If the Senate gets “better” on immigration, great. But the Republicans still support overwhelming non-white immigration, and a status quo that is killing us. But no, with you, either someone is a great guy or the devil incarnate. You have absolutely no sense for the lay of the land.
Hunter: “Albert Jackson has seen my prediction come true. People like you refuse to organize. Without an organized resistance, White Nationalists are powerless. They use the internet as an escape valve to blow off steam when they could be doing more effective things with their time and energy.”
As a general rule, revolutionaries start out powerless. That’s why they become revolutionaries. If they already had real power, they would simply be part of the status quo, instead of seeking to overturn it. You really don’t understand this?
.
Why wasn’t my post responding to your post (49) approved?
The long and the short of it is that we either develop an appealing vision that works toward the long term survival of our people, something that is powerful and attractive, or we will continue to lose. As long as the Left is triumphant in the world of vision and ideas, any white outbursts will be directed into politically correct and harmless directions, as we are seeing with the Tea Party. It’s just that simple. (Trainspotter)
NIETZSCHE AND THE DOMINATION OF THE DRAKA
(Steve Stirling tap dances in an ideological minefield)
http://thescorp.multics.org/22stirling.html
http://master-morality.blogspot.com/
Trainspotter,
I think you’re missing the point just a bit.
What I am trying to say is that I can present the nationalist vision of a new Western nation in North America and, moreover, explain why the political pursuit of something along these lines is both necessary and desirable to the satisfaction of my conservative interlocutor. He knows that if we were able to isolate ourselves from the racial other that we could create a great and desirable nation once again, like America used to be, and where the culture that he cares so much about can be given a new home that is established on the bedrock of his identity.
The problem is that decades of propaganda have convinced him that such a political goal is immoral. How can he justify excluding others when he himself is a mixture of English, Irish, and German? How can he justify being a racist Nazi to the outside world? How can he justify being part of a nation that would exclude someone as decent and nice as Pedro? How can he justify building a new Western nation when he has a non-White Cherokee ten generations back in his family line? Before someone can truly get on board with the nationalist vision in the current environment they must first reject the false morality that lies behind these sorts of questions, and that’s something that none of us can do for them. Perhaps in a few years from now White people will be so disgusted with the current system that they will have no trouble making this choice, but that hasn’t happened yet.
In contrast, consider how much easier it is to try to convince conservatives that we must separate from the federal government, which is a radical idea in its own right. Many conservatives already believe that the federal government is not acting within its constitutional bounds as articulated by the 10th Amendment, and if they haven’t already come to that conclusion then it’s a relatively straightforward matter to bring them up to speed. They already know that there are some laws that need to be enforced for which the federal government is not willing to enforce and that states should be able to enforce if we were really a constitutional republic. Ergo, in order to preserve the American vision and ideal (which they already know is under serious threat) we must separate from an unconstitutional federal beast! Notice, that we can make this argument without requiring the conservative to make choices and judgments that he has not already made somewhere along the line, probably after listening to the likes of Limbaugh or Beck. It can all be done within the mental framework of conservatism and doesn’t require a rejection of the false morality of egalitarianism, which can be addressed later after the System is broken.
This “NeioNietzsche” is my evil twin – pay no attention to him.