Although he has been mentioned here before by several commentators, I’ve never followed the blogger Guy White. Robert Lindsay recommended a post of his this morning though and I decided to take a look. The question being posed: Is Pro-White activism harmed by radicalism?
Guy White and Robert Lindsay seem to think so. In support of this theory, White boasts of a recent jump in his traffic. He then proceeds to draw the dubious conclusion that “Average Joes” are now flocking to his site. Lindsay’s support of this theory is especially interesting given his well known commitment to Stalinism which puts him far outside the mainstream progressive left. The success of his own blog is also evidence against the notion that radicalism is such a loser. For Lindsay, radicalism (his eclectic mix of race realism and communism) seems to be working out quite well.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to Guy White that pro-White activism of any sort is “radical” by definition. In the United States, any confession of white pride is enough to get one instantly branded as a racist and white supremacist. It is not an exaggeration to say that nothing is more politically incorrect, more thoroughly taboo than white racial consciousness. You can’t be “respectable” and “radical.” You have to choose, but the “moderates” (who are from a middle class background) are unable to grasp this truth.
The “moderates” are victims of a self delusion. They look at the racialist fringe, which they spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing, and draw huge distinctions between themselves and their more radical brethren. These distinctions only exist though in their own minds. The “moderates” are still radioactive to the mainstream and to everyone with pretensions of respectability. As a consequence, they remain just as isolated and contained as anyone else.
Consider Ian Jobling. He is the most famous exponent of the “moderate” point of view. Several years ago, Jobling broke with Jared Taylor over his failure to condemn anti-Semitism. He went on to blame Taylor’s links to radical anti-Semites like David Duke as the reason American Renaissance had failed to garner mainstream attention and respectablility. Jobling confidently started his own website and smugly awaited mainstream attention and success.
It wasn’t forthcoming. His little trafficked forum is still dwarfed by the likes of Stormfront and VNN. Jobling failed to capitalize on his one asset: when you lack mainstream respectability, when you don’t have to give lip service to America’s court etiquette, you are free to tell the truth. Trying to keep a foot in both worlds, one in mainstream neoconservatism, the other in beyond the pale racialism, doesn’t seem to impress anyone.
Here’s another irony which escapes the “race realists”: the most successful “mainstreamer” American racialist was, in fact, none other than Ian Jobling’s bête noire, the hated David Duke who won the majority of Louisiana’s white vote in two of his political campaigns in the early 1990’s. He is also the author of Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. Duke’s success in politics contradicts the “race realists” who insist that we ignore the Jewish Question out of political expediency.
Is pro-White activism harmed by radicalism? To a certain degree, yes. Is extremism one of the major factors keeping White Nationalism out of the mainstream? Probably not. If every neo-Nazi in America were to vanish tomorrow, the public image of White Nationalism would remain unchanged. The mass media, the universities, the government and all other critical institutions would remain in the hands of our sworn enemies.
The “moderate” vs. “radical” division isn’t as important as the one between liars and honest men. Whites began to lose control over America the moment they began to call themselves “conservatives” and engage in self censorship. One verbal concession led to another. Traveling down that road again will only invite the same results. We shouldn’t ever shrink from discussing any topic openly and honestly out of fear of the political consequences.
From his site, it looks like he equates pro-white radicalism with national socialist Germany.
He goes on to say that any ideals NS Germany had were wrong or a bad idea for modern American racialists. That’s a bit vague. Their ideas on race certainly weren’t much different from traditional America, except against Jews.
Arguing against collectivism is one thing, but not everything NS Germany did was wrong, I’d say most of what they did was right on target.
I would say though, that dressing up in “Nazi” uniforms like Bill White did, is never going to take hold in America.
David Duke learned that the Klan is outmoded as well. He’s still paying for that mistake every time he does a mainstream interview.
It seems to be what he’s basically advocating is a Jew-friendly white nationalism. Something Joe Sixpack can get behind!
Well, if white nationalists can manage to supply free beer and sports to the masses they may be able to win!
What I’d rather say is that there are definitely some anti-social elements in white racialism. Alex Linder’s VNN forum is an example. This I find is detrimental and counterproductive. Insulting your target audience and attacking other white racialists who don’t agree with you is counterproductive.
WW2 was undoubtedly the biggest disaster ever to befall the white race. We still haven’t recovered from it. I see little reason to praise the Allies. Their victory resulted in the demonization of racialism, nationalism, anti-Semitism, and eugenics. It was the final triumph of liberal capitalist democracy in the West.
It wasn’t enough to defeat Nazi Germany. “Racism” had to be defeated everywhere it was found: the Jim Crow South, Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa. Even the mildest whiff of nationalism in Europe these days invites hysterical reactions from the liberal multiculturalist establishment. They don’t even have free speech over there anymore.
Two arguments come to mind about that.
One is NS Germany was our last hope. It was RAHOWA, and now we’re picking up the pieces. If only NS Germany could have won, we’d all be better off.
The other is that NS Germany demonized racialism, because of the Holocaust and the war. So now racialism is doomed because of the Germans.
I don’t buy the second one, although I understand the perception. I think that has more to do with the Jewish spin on it than the reality.
I think we would be better off racially for sure, if Germany had won.
Some like Edgar Steele think that it would have been bad if Germany had won because collectivism is anathema to white individualism and freedom.
You are nothing without a niche.
Dennis rodman got noticed because he acted like a women and died his hair. Insane Clown Posse gets noticed because they dress up like Clowns and make fun of rap.
I’d rather be in VNN’s position than Jobling or Guy White’s. I repeat, you are nothing without a niche when you have the competition of Democrats and Republicans.
Of course, that being said, I think the pro-white movement as we know it is pretty laughable.
“If every neo-Nazi in America were to vanish tomorrow, the public image of White Nationalism would remain unchanged.”
Quite correct. There will always be some mental defective around for the media focus on.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5687144/White-supremacist-planned-a-race-hate-terrorism-campaign-court-hears.html
“He was smoking and being abusive on a train and was arrested at Lowestoft for the public order offences, including urinating at the station.”
“Detectives found he had turned the bedroom of the house that he lived in with his parents in Reading, Berks, into a bomb factory containing canisters of weedkiller, timers and other components.”
“He had the parts which, if assembled together, would have created devices which if ignited would have caught alight and caused flames and fire.”
“He had been unemployed for 10 years after being sacked from his last job for being drunk.”
Yep, this is the sort of guy Pierce had in mind. Good thing they got rid of him before he could set an example for all the other racists.
Jobling’s effort to be mainstream by excluding ‘extremists’ (anyone who questions whether Jews and Whites might have conflicting interests) is like someone trying to get clean by washing all the microorganisms off his skin. He’s neurotic.
There are definitely some anti-social elements in Judaism as well. The Lubavitchers of Postville, Iowas, are but one present day example that attracts little attention. The Klan, Nazis, Rhodesia and South Africa are all widely demonized for racism because racism=anti-Nordism. For instance neither Italian nor Spanish fascism get near the attention despite their devotion to a racialist identity.
I think my posts about serial killers on si were more “politically incorrect” and “shocking” than WN. Too bad people can’t take a joke.
‘wonders whether Jews and Whites might have conflicting interests’
A friend in Belgium gave me an autographed copy of Robert S. Griffin’s no-nonesense collection of interviews One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race. I already possessed a copy of the Cambridge U. collection of interviews of the WN leadership entitled Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America edited by Carol M. Swain and Russ Neili. I liked Griffin’s book better because it was ordinary people, including women, talking about the subject instead of this businessman’s brunch sandwiched between a biased academic introduction and an even more biased bibliography. I especially liked the interview with Alex Linder in One Sheaf, One Vine because his irreverence and crudities made me laugh out loud. Alex Linder is the H.L. Menken of the movement. He doesn’t want to be politic he wants to provoke and he’s the only spokesperson for white issues, besides his pal Craig at Podblanc, who uses humor, hyperbole, irony and outrage to get the message out. So, I think Alex Linder is
great. I wish he would resume his Radio Istina broadcasts because they were educational and painless thanks to his well developed sense of the absurd. He makes Kevin Macdonald and E. Michael Jones funny. He
gets the TGBMFJFT (Transgendered Black Muslims for a Jew Free Tibet) 2009 Tolerance Tingles Award because he’s the cracker that cracks us up.
“Guy’ ‘White”, sorry to say, is a supplicating fool on the JQ. It is really that simple! (What is his ethnic background, BTW?)
This fool even had the au/men-dacity to claim that murderous soviet jew commissars in the red army–not the Landsers of der Deutsche Wehrmacht–were “fighting’ on ‘behalf of Europe’s Whites”:-( . Truly a deranged individual!
“As Sunic points out, in both Europe and America, White attitudes towards Jews have come to be defined in modern times by mendacity and intellectual servility. Faced with a political, academic, and media establishment — the current masters of discourse — configured around a colossal concentration of Jewish power, Whites have not only trained themselves to avoid Jewish wrath by keeping any critical opinions about Jews to themselves, but they have also learnt to curry Jewish favor by flaunting their admiration for Jewish superiority and achievement, by piously demonstrating their conformity to Semitically-correct cognitive structures, and by loudly championing Jewish causes — even when these run directly counter to White interests. Sunic correctly suggests that, in as much as this fuels Jewish hubris, such an unhealthy relationship approaches a limit where it exists one crisis away from detonating into violent anti-Semitism. ”
“I am Not Racist, but . . .”
~ Alex Kurtagic
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/06/i-am-not-racist-but/
“Alex Linder is the H.L. Menken of the movement.”
I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time… thanks for that.
Yeah, Alex Linder, Bill White, Hal Turner and Glenn Miller, a true pantheon of the white racialist movement.
This Guy White fellow is a twit.
“All the Nazis would’ve been Afrocentrists if they were born black.”
Yes, if they were Negroes, they would put Negro interests ahead of the interests of any other group. Guy’s not very bright.
Prediction: Guy White will eventually pull a Madoff on his hit counter.
To Prozium:
“Consider Ian Jobling. He is the most famous exponent of the ”moderate” point of view. Several years ago, Jobling broke with Jared Taylor over his failure to condemn anti-Semitism. He went on to blame Taylor’s links to radical anti-Semites like David Duke as the reason American Renaissance had failed to garner mainstream attention and respectablility. Jobling confidently started his own website and smugly awaited mainstream attention and success.”
The problem, Prozium, is that you assume Jobling’s motivation in condemning antisemitism is simply to gain mainstream attention and success. Actually, he seems to genuinely believe in the truth of his statements, believe it or not. Thus, however much mainstream attention he receives is irrelevant. Since his insane ‘views’ on the Jewish question are treachous and evil, our business is to adopt a ‘no platform’ policy towards him. Don’t link to him. Don’t talk about him. Don’t give him the oxygen of publicity. He doesn’t exist.
Sadly, Jobling’s strategy to gain mainstream appeal may not be working in America, but it is working in Europe and Britain. Griffin et al have adopted the same approach. The difference, of course, is that the European nationalists actually something more than create websites about racialism. They are actually out leafletting, forming political parties, and spreading their philosemitic views. So much the worse for the pro-white movement.
For Lindsay, radicalism (his eclectic mix of race realism and communism) seems to be working out quite well.
Indeed. I am up around 1,800 visitors/day now. I honestly don’t know why. I don’t know why anyone would want to read my stuff. But they keep coming back. Plus I abuse my commenters a lot, and they keep coming back for more of that too. I don’t get it. People are masochists?
“They are actually out leafletting, forming political parties, and spreading their philosemitic views. So much the worse for the pro-white movement.”
It’s called Realpolitik. White racialism combined with anti-Semitism has no buyers in Europe or elsewhere. Not after W.W. II.
Regarding Ed Steele, he is wrong to assume that that the traditional White society was not collectivist in nature. Kevin MacDonald makes the same error. The feudal, Catholic, pre-Revolutionary Europe was highly collectivist. It’s probably because they view European history through and individualistic and libertarian American prism that Americans favor.
I’m writing an essay on this topic.
What I find annoying in American writers like Huffington, Steele, and MacDonald (to name just those three) is that they generalize about Europe much too much. Europe is not and never was a gigantic and undifferentiated blob. Anyone who puts Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Europe or Northern, Southern, and Eastern Europe in the same basket isn’t a serious analyst.
“He went on to blame Taylor’s links to radical anti-Semites like David Duke as the reason American Renaissance had failed to garner mainstream attention and respectablility. Jobling confidently started his own website and smugly awaited mainstream attention and success.”
Actually, Taylor did get some traction with the mainstream conservative movement in the 90’s. He got a few articles published in NR and won the endorsements of a few pundits. Then the neocons, Joblings heroes, came in and purged conservatism of anyone who might be sympathetic to white people.
FB, I hope you realize that the leadership of the BNP are not really philo-semites. I doubt many other European nationalists are either, even the ones who say they are. There is a difference between avoiding talk of Jews in propaganda aimed at the masses and adopting a Jew neutral ideological understanding. The former may be necessary for the time being, the later will surely lead to failure in the end.
The old BNP website years ago had a bunch of articles on the ideological development of the party that would be very helpful for Americans to read. Essentially, these articles laid the theoretical blueprints for all the success they’ve had in this decade. Everything they said they would do, they did. Everything they said would happen, happened. They predicted the Pakistani riots in the north of England years before they happened, when almost no one outside of the cities affected was even aware of the problem. They predicted the “asylum seeker” flood before it happened. NG also announced that he was going deep cover on the JQ. Remember, Griffin is not coming from the populist conservative right like some of the ideologically weaker Euro-nationalists are, he was a close associate of William Pierce.
“It’s called Realpolitik. White racialism combined with anti-Semitism has no buyers in Europe or elsewhere. Not after W.W. II. ”
Their motivation is irrelevant: my point is that the philosemitic strategy is working to some extent. Americans white nationalists don’t adopt it, the European nationalists do. Jobling adopts this approach, but he doesn’t create political parties or even does much to popularize his website. Personally I think the truth about the Jews and the Holocaust should be made known at all costs, regardless of the negative publicity it will generate, because truth is a good thing and will be of benefit to mankind. It doesn’t matter if we become further marginalized in the short-term: in the long term, truth will eventually emerge and we will come out on top.
There is no place for crypto-Semites like Nick Griffin, the Vlaams Belang, Geert Wilders, the Danish Freedom Party, the Northern League of Italy, etc., etc. — such people only serve to divert our attention from the real problem, which is Jewish infiltration into gentile society.
“There is a difference between avoiding talk of Jews in propaganda aimed at the masses and adopting a Jew neutral ideological understanding.”
The European nationalists are most emphatically NOT neutral. They are explicitly pro-Jewish. Griffin has said that the Holohoax happened and six million Jews were “murdered” by the Nazis (a laughable statistic). He says that Jewish members are “welcome to stay” and the BNP even has Jewish councillors. He has said positive things about Israel.
The European nationalists on the continent are even more fanatically pro-Jewish — take, for instance, Geert Wilders, or the Vlaams Belang.
These people, by welcoming the Jew, deserve to be tried and shot for treason.
“Guy’ ‘White”, sorry to say, is a supplicating fool on the JQ. It is really that simple! (What is his ethnic background, BTW?)
So just ‘what is his ethnic (and other) background/s’, BTW?
Did this ‘Guy’ just appear on the scene out of nowhere?
I don’t see the need for people on our side to label how they talk or think “philo-Semitic,” “anti-Semitic,” “white-supremacist,” etc. Don’t bring what you think of the Jews personally into the picture — we all have races and ethnicities we like more and like less. So do Jews. That’s not the issue. The issue is how must Euro-race peoples live so that they 1) survive rather than go extinct, 2) survive unmixed, that is, survive as themselves, not as some new mixed-race thing that they don’t want to become and which will be the equivalent of their disappearance, 3) not just survive but thrive and live in happiness, contentment, health, and optimism for the future? The Jews are looking for those things for themselves; so is every group. Regardless of whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to, Jews, we cannot tolerate Jewish forcing of open borders on us. Regardless of whether you love, hate, or are indifferent to Jews, we cannot tolerate Michael Eisner’s using the Walt Disney Company to propagandize to Euro-race kids the Jewish dream of changing every Euro-race person on the planet into a non-white. And so on. We can say what the Jews are doing that we consider intolerable and non-negotiable without getting into whether we personally hate, love, or are indifferent to, the Jews. We should avoid using or endorsing certain terms and concepts to describe ourselves: anti-Semitic, philo-Semitic, white-supremacist, right-wing, and others. (We’re not right-wing but centrists and we should insist on that.)
Just make very plain to the Jews that what they are doing we don’t like. Where it’s worse than “we don’t like,” such as in the case of Jewish-engineered open borders genocide, make that plain too: it’s worse than “we don’t like,” it’s genocide and nothing less, it’s deliberate on the Jews’ part, we consider it intolerable, we’re resisting it as best we can while we’re powerless to put a stop to it, and if ever we get the chance there’s going to be a huge reaction against it on our part, and we will not forget who is doing it to us. If they want to call that “anti-Semitism” the way the Israeli Water Engineer does (that’s his only counter-argument, everything is “anti-Semitism”), that’s their problem. We’re making arguments, Kevin MacDonald is making arguments, the Jews are only calling names. If someone in addition to the Jews is doing what we don’t like, the Lutherans for example, the Catholics, or absolutely whoever, make it plain to them too, in the same language. Don’t bend or compromise with anyone, any of the many and varied culprits who are doing this to us, be it the Jews, the WASPs, the Vatican, the communists, whoever.
Mark: “What I’d rather say is that there are definitely some anti-social elements in white racialism.”
There are “anti-social elements” found in every place on Earth where humans reside. Every group or movement has its ‘cranks,’ there is no denying that. However, the mostly harmless eccentrics found here-and-there within the pro-White movement can hardly hold a candle up to all of the utterly depraved fiends, international control-freaks, ultragreedy monsters, bloodthirsty war-mongers, and psychotically unhinged megalomaniacs who have been clearly exposed in both major/mainstream U.S. political parties as well as the sickeningly corrupt (Jew-dominated) American business world in just the last few decades. For instance, the U.S. legal authorities apparently just stripped that thieving head-vampire/hyperparasitic kike Madoff of 171 BILLION DOLLARS: yes, you read that figure correctly…171 BILLION DOLLARS! – http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_bi_ge/us_madoff_scandal – that’s more money than dozens of countries around the world are ‘worth’ (combined!) in terms of GDP and so forth – all that ‘money’ supposedly ‘owned’ (AKA HOARDED) by a one single Satanically greedy American Jew. Just you watch: ALL of the Madoff-esque bloodsuckers are going to ‘pay’ dearly for the untold damage they have done to us and our glorious countries! They will be begging us to take mercy on them before we even so much as lay our eyes on them or manage to muss up a single little hair on their maggot-like heads. Merely the sound of our heavy-booted footsteps walking slowly toward their tiny prison cells will cause them to immediately keel over because of massively excruciating heart-attacks and/or full-fledged strokes before we can even let them out of their cages for long enough to take them via leash to their trial.
Think back and try to remember the last time that very ‘nice,’ good,’ and ‘normal’ people ever truly made history, I mean really had an impact and changed the historical course of our world. That’s never really happened my friend…being a very weak/acquiescent/PC moderate or socially acceptable centrist will get you and your beliefs absolutely nowhere. Meanwhile, history is chock-full of dynamically interesting malcontents, rebels, half-crazies, non-conformists, anti-socials, rabble-rousers, (well-meaning) sociopaths, freedom-fighters, radicals, inciters, firebrands, disrupters, dissidents, agitators, revolutionaries, fanatics, resisters, DISSENTers, and so forth who, by virtue of their fanatically radical (i.e., non-moderate/centrist) vibrancy, take the demanded social/political/economic/religious risks and thus have the intensity, courage, dynamism, and vision to change our world (for both good and/or ill). Meanwhile, the cowardly moderates or indifferent centrists remain, as always, nothing more than passive sideline observers or minor participants in the making of history while the fascinating world-historical personalities mentioned above are the people who instigate, precipitate, and direct the necessary changes.
The way I see it, we pro-White activists of the early 21st Century have many of the above-mentioned qualities and thus are doing our part to wake up our fellow Whites worldwide from their stagnant suicidal stupor. In the coming years/decades, we will start to speak much louder in favor of White rights and thus begin to spread our pro-White ideas even farther afield – for our cause (permanent WHITE SURVIVAL) clearly deserves a wider following.
Just you watch – as the USA continues to fall apart and decay from within because of the chaotic and unsustainable multiracialism that has swamped us along with the Jewish plague that has infected us, the nation will of course become gradually more and more ripe for the spread and general acceptance of our pro-White message by the more ‘normal’ moderate/centrist Whites. This is already beginning to happen, actually – merely by the utter force and brutal honesty of our rhetoric, the pro-White message is starting to again percolate and seep in to the consciousness of many Whites in the USA, the UK, Canada, Russia, Ukraine, and numerous other White nations…it’s only a matter of time now before it finds itself firmly rooted there again. Then and only then (once that critical-mass has been reached) will the real pro-White work and pro-White struggle begin anew.
The rapid darkening of so many White nations is actually serving to hasten the arrival and eventual acceptance of pro-White activism on the national as well as international socio-political scene. The more non-Whites which keep pouring in to our White nations, as well as the neverending economic rape that we are subjected to by the plutocratic Jews, the more the instinctive White ethnocentrism and race-survival mechanism begins to again bubble back up to the surface in the minds of all of the increasingly agitated bourgeoisie Whites; next thing they know they’ll find themselves increasingly sympathetic to the pro-White movement, and they will naturally acquiesce to us without much resistance if we can provide them with the strong White leadership, White security, and White structure that they crave. There is no doubting that the collective White pulse continues to quicken apace – that’s an instinctually healthy sign that the collective White unconscious senses danger is near and is thus preparing to either flee from it or fight it. However, there can clearly be no more fleeing from it (for there is no where left to flee to) and as such we have no choice except to stand our ground and fight. WHITE MEN, WHITE WOMEN, WHITE CHILDREN: THERE CAN BE NO MORE COWARDLY ‘WHITE FLIGHT’ – WE MUST STAND AND FIGHT FOR OUR WHITE RIGHTS AND OUR WHITE LIVES OR ELSE WE’LL ALL PERISH IN THE DARK NIGHT THAT’S DESCENDING! – “RAGE, RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT.” [DT]
+ READ: “A NEW WHITE MYTH” @ http://www.toqonline.com/2009/06/the-myth-of-our-regeneration/#comment-393
FS: “We should avoid using or endorsing certain terms and concepts to describe ourselves: anti-Semitic, philo-Semitic, white-supremacist, right-wing, and others. (We’re not right-wing but centrists and we should insist on that.)”
That’s a very important point you make FS. I agree that we should avoid and vigorously refute being politically/socially mis-labeled as well as mis-labeling ourselves. These ridiculous political designations are nothing more than the basest slander used by the mass-media manipulating Jews and their treacherous allies to mislabel, mislead, and befuddle people with their incessant lies, misrepresentation, and sickening wordism/Talmudism.
I don’t really care what political orientation, religion, and/or economic ideology a fellow pro-White activist believes in or professes as long as that person also seeks to permanently preserve and protect the increasingly endangered White race (pro-White activism = WHITE SURVIVAL). Go ahead and be a ‘far-left’ Communist like Robert Lindsay or a ‘far-right’ Paleoconservative like Kevin MacDonald…just as long as you also want to permanently preserve and advance the interests of the White race like they both do I don’t care all that much about your personal politics or other beliefs. ‘To each his own…’
One of the most important ideas you’ve stated recently FS is that it is not at all “far-right wing” or “radically right” or “supremacist” to seek to preserve your ancient blood and native people, your race/ethnicity, your kith and kin, your racial territory/native soil, etc. In fact, as you have written before, wanting to preserve all of those basic/primal biological building-blocks is entirely healthy, normal, and even instinctual. Only people with sick minds and dark souls (like deracinated mass-media far-left nation-wrecking Jews) would label such things as “extremist” or “supremacist,” and only a sick or defeated people would just roll over and die and thus give up on preserving themselves.
However, I’m not sure about the centrist moniker you speak of. Note the above post for my thoughts about the weak-kneed centrism. We are in some senses now considered “radical” by the Judeo-establishment due to the fact that we are opposing the current race-replacement regime that has proven to be inimically hostile to the permanent racial/genetic/cultural continuity of Whites on Earth. The mass-media as well as academia manipulating Jewish brainwashers and liars have unfortunately been able to convince enough of the blank-eyed/clueless/gullible/naive Whites that ALL pro-White activists who stand up for White rights (or even mere WHITE SURVIVAL) are “extremists,” “fanatics,” “supremacists,” etc. They are obviously wrong – they are using their typically Jewish-distorted rhetoric in order to obscure the facts, but since they control the mass-media airwaves as well as the other organs of information flow they are the ones who get to set the standards for what is considered “rightist,” “centrist,” or “leftist.”
Because they control the rhetoric by using their lying and filthy wordism/Talmudism, ALL pro-White activists have been incorrectly pigeonholed as “radical right-wing White supremacist extremists” by them. Something has to change.
Why not call them “radical left-wing jewish supremacist extremists”?
“Then and only then (once that critical-mass has been reached) will the real pro-White work and pro-White struggle begin anew.”
White Preservationist, critical mass (or activation energy) is one way to think about this. I’ve been contemplating that support for pro-White politics is perhaps a trait that is (to some degree) Normally distributed. I wrote this recently at MR:
“I have to wonder though if maybe there’s motivation [for Friedrich Braun’s conversion to supporting the Geert Wilders approach] from seeing a lack of success for pro-White politics (make that complete failure, at least in NA). But maybe we should think about support for pro-White politics as another trait that is Normally distributed. We here are like callers in bird flocks. We see a predator and warn the flock. We’re much more sensitive to danger than the average person. But the average person will eventually feel the danger and react, even if it’s only to say “please don’t kill me” (these are the outliers on the curve for political will). The danger just needs to become more apparent. I’m relatively new to the pro-White movement, but those who have been around longer say that they notice a shift in public opinion (GW here and Kievsky at VNN both give the example of the comments section of online papers). Every day the danger line shifts into the denser regions of the curve. Our time is coming.”
It’s hard to believe that things can just keep getting worse until we’re all race-replaced. I was actually disappointed in the Ricci Supreme Court decision. Whites need to keep on getting humiliated and dispossessed until the message sinks in. We’ll quickly get back what has been lost.
Griffin wrote a document entitled “Who Are The Mindbenders.” Look it up and ask yourself if a philo-semite would write that.
If we are to move beyond Internet gabfests we must abandon revisionism, the J.Q., Nordicist phantasmagoria, Pagan folkways, and all that stands in in our way to come out of obscurity. All that matters is out ethnic genetic interests, our survival as a distinct people. Hence, our ontological foe is liberalism. In order to stand a chance against our decay and imminent disappearance from history, we must focus on exiting the liberal ideological paradigm and its handmaiden the multicultural religion.
We will never have mass appeal while talking about Jews and other shibboleths that instinctively disgust and repel that vast majority of our people. The moment you raise the J.Q. or revisionism you have painted yourself in the minds of your interlocutors as a crazed Nazi out to exterminate the Jews; and your audience will undoubtedly have none of it, besides the token delusional, marginal sociopaths.
The watchwords must be moderation and normalcy. That’s why I bring up Geert Wilders these days. He impresses me like nobody else on the scene. He doesn’t get lost in a labyrinth of irrelevant and counterproductive side-issues. I would prefer if he added some discussion of race/ethnicity to his repertoire, but I understand why he’s not doing it. Let’s not forget that the Nazi experience has effectively precluded any sane and rational discussion of race for at least three generations. In politics, if you need more than 5 minutes to define an issue for an audience, you lost their attention. That’s why the J.Q. is a political loser and even more so revisionism. Must White gentiles only have a vague idea about the Jewish role in Western societies; and a nationalist speaking negatively about them will produce in a Pavlovian way images of wicked Nazis taking poor innocent Jews to concentration camps to be gassed. Revisionist arguments are much too much technical and intricate to make sense to most. I’ve forced myself in the past to study them and it was like watching paint dry, so imagine what it’s like for the average slob. In any case, we’ve been programmed since our infancy to believe in the 6 000 000 figure. The vast majority cannot and won’t let go of it no matter what. I’ve had revisionists tell me in private correspondence that they became physically ill after studying revisionist literature, it was just so hard to accept that what they’ve always believed and held as sacred was false. I guess one could compare the feeling to religious disillusionment of the Victorians on their road to atheism. But all that is beside the point. Neither revisionism nor the J.Q. is necessary for our survival. On the contrary, I view them as hindrances. to those who stubbornly want to stick to the losing formula, I say what has radicalism on the J.Q. produced in post-World War II West? It’s anathema to the people you’re trying to reach. Every time some nutbar pops up and begins ranting about Jews it has set us back in all sorts of ways and created further barriers in its wake like anti-free speech laws. Actually, whenever I hear someone spouting off about Jews nowadays I view him as a probable agent provocateur working for Jewish organizations. If I’m proven wrong, we’re invariably in the presence of a misfit ike Bill White on his way to a prison cell. What has Alex Linder’s radicalism, for example, produced in at least 10 years of activity? To ask the question is to answer it.
“Griffin wrote a document entitled “Who Are The Mindbenders.””
He also repudiated that very document, and has said ever since that (1) six million kikes were “murdered” by the Nazis in the Holocaust, (2) Jews are welcome in the BNP, (3) he has a positive assessment of Israel, (4) Jews are not the enemy, but Moslems.
The truth is that the Holocaust is a hoax, Jews should be EXPELLED not only from the BNP but also from all other political parties and the nation at large, that Israel is an evil apartheid state that oppresses the Palestinians, and that Moslems are our friends and and allies in the struggle against organised Jewry. We are at a time when we should be uniting with the Moslem people, not shunning them.
Friedrich Braun:
Why don’t you join whiteamerica.us if you really hold these views on the JQ?
Who Are The Mindbenders return
s about 90 examples of fulminous indignation directed at Nick Griffin and what he wrote.
It seems most of them have simply copyied and pasted each other. The document itself is not in the list.
Yosemite, don’t tell me whom I should join. I find anti-Semite such as yourself increasingly disgusting. You people are invariably dregs and low-lifes.
Friedrich Braun writes:
shibboleths that instinctively disgust and repel that vast majority of our people
That disgust isn’t instinctive. It is deliberately cultivated by years of indoctrination and brainwashing. Coincidentally this is one of the scandalous things I gather Griffin discussed in his scandalous pamphlet.
If you point this manipulation out to someone who has been forced by reality to question the real shibboleths supporting the anti-White/pro-jew double standards that have become the norm then the force of that indoctrination can suddenly turn instead into disgust at being manipulated and against those doing the manipulating. After that every effort to manipulate only strengthens the conviction to oppose it.
By all means let’s avoid “a labyrinth of irrelevant and counterproductive side-issues”, but reality isn’t a side issue. I agree with Dasein’s point in 27. For “callers” this is the worst time to go limp.
Yosemite is a discourse poisoner, a term I think Prozium coined.
I agree with everything Tanstaafl said in his response to Mr Braun.
And btw, Tanstaafl, why do you denigrate my character by accusing me of being a discourse poisoner? I have the greatest respect for you and read your blog regularly. There are few issues on which you and I would disagree.
“I find anti-Semite such as yourself increasingly disgusting. You people are invariably dregs and low-lifes.”
And you philosemites are invariably effeminate, nerdy academic types with their heads stuffed in books and incapable of seeing the world around them. You have a nice day.
I say what has radicalism on the J.Q. produced in post-World War II West?
What have pro-Jewish attitudes produced in the post-World War II West? They’ve produced… the post World War II West.
I said this in a previous thread that came up on this issue… the problem we face is that we are not in control. Jews are in control. It’s that simple.
To do anything about racial issues, or anything else, we need to first get into a position of power, which necessarily entails removing the Jews from their current position of power over us. The Jews are not going to voluntarily concede power and they are not going to stop flooding the US with non-white immigrants, in direct contradiction to their own interests, just to benefit a bunch of white goyim.
To say that we should drop the Jewish question is to say that we should drop everything.
Yosemote/Yosemite writes:
why do you denigrate my character by accusing me of being a discourse poisoner?
You denigrate your own character. Richard Warman could be writing many of your comments. Under the current regime you’re providing grist that could serve to shut down this blog. If you want to talk trash do it on your own blog, not one of the few places where intelligent opinion and valuable information is shared.
Even if you avoid the Jewish Question, as Amren does, you are still not going to have mainstream appeal in America.
Perhaps, I don’t believe that it has been tried effectively. You need to form alliances from the beginning. This won’t happen over night either. You need to cultivate an image of relative moderation. Your target audience is White gentiles and not the multiracial “mainstream.”. Geert Wildrs wasn’t mainstream three years and was considered an extremist. Other Dutch parties tried to do what Establishment parties successfully did elsewhere, i.e. draw a “cordon sanitaire” around Wilders, as they did with Le Pen, for example. However, that hasn’t worked out well in the Netherlands and we’re looking at the next Dutch Prime Minister. The media can no longer dismiss him as “fringe” or “protest vote” when he’s about to take over the country. What’s “fringe” about having the most popular party in the land? The journaille just shows its Leftist colors and assumptions. Yes, the System Parties and the servile peecee media did what they could to portray him as an intolerant fascist, but the charges haven’t stuck. This is in large measure because he always stuck to the message and cultivated members Jewish community and Israeli politicians. I note that the B.N.P.’s success can be seen as a vindication of the espousal of that line. What matters is our ethnic genetic interests and how best to secure the survival of our people. Everything else is a sideshow.
“—You denigrate your own character. Richard Warman could be writing many of your comments. Under the current regime you’re providing grist that could serve to shut down this blog. If you want to talk trash do it on your own blog, not one of the few places where intelligent opinion and valuable information is shared.—”
_____
You’ve just been schooled, ‘Yo-Semite’!
Thanks, Tan the Man!
FB,
In 2008, 57% of Dutch citizens said that allowing in large numbers of immigrants was the worst mistake in the country’s history. Assuming that the percentage of Dutch in Holland is ~80% and that only natives would say this (caveat being that there are small percentages of other Euro peoples in Holland), this means that over 70% of the Dutch feel this way. This is a pretty amazing result. In Canada, 50% of people think that immigration is a benefit (in 2004 it was even above 60%). Geert Wilders won 17% of the vote in the European elections. Based on the hostility the Dutch feel towards mass immigration, 17% doesn’t seem like very much. I’m not convinced that his success has anything to do with his attempted embrace of Jews.
Dasein, Wilders’s party has been around for only 3 years, I deem those results to be respectable in a multi party system with a proportional representation. Did you expect him to get 70%? I’m not saying that Wilders is perfect or that his approach is perfect. Both him and his movement are in some instances problematic. However, I’ll say this, few other Euro nationalist and identitarian movements have done better. Considering that any whiff of a Euro-nationalist stance brings up hysterical demonization and the usual vicious name-calling (i.e., the conjuration of Hitler and his menagerie.) from the media and the Establishment parties, I regard his successes as inspirational. He has figured an approach that can work in post-W.W. II Europe.
We already have Republicans who oppose illegal immigration. They strike a moderate tone – never mentioning race, never mentioning Jews, never appealing directly to whites.
Nick said he would have to repudiate some past positions for tactical reasons. No one with a brain believes that he really loves Jews now. The Jews certainly know he doesn’t.
FB, before you get too excited about Wilders, understand that his positions are essentially along the lines of mainstream Republicans in the USA who are anti-illegal immigration. Now, it’s true that puts him to the right of the GOP leadership, but its not clear it’s enough to save the Netherlands.
Also, you are putting WAY too much emphasis on the JQ here in so much as to how it relates to the successes and failures of nationalism in Europe. These parties have become more successful recently because the number of immigrants in their countries has increased dramatically in the last few years and the immigrants have become more badly behaved. That’s the biggest single factor by far. The second biggest factor is learning to do community based political work. In the UK, the England First Party, which is basically a tiny group of openly “racist” skinheads won two local elections a couple of years ago, which is one more than the BNP won in the 80’s and 90’s together. They did this on the strength of the increasing anger about immigration and community political work. The third factor is what you are trying to get at: not looking too crazy to the voters. The main way you do this is by using moderate language and looking respectable. Also, by crafting your policies so you can’t credibly be accused of fomenting genocide. You can still have rather strong positions if you present them well. Just talk like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. That’s all you have to do.
Finally, more radical groups like the NDP in Germany and Ataka(literally “Attack”) in Bulgaria have been doing very well too. The BNP is ideologically closer to the NDP than it is to Wilder’s party.
Just a small point of correction, it’s the NPD.
FB, you said at MR that Wilders’ party has a better policy than the BNP for fixing the immigration disaster, but in the interview you quoted it sounds like they favour total miscegenation (‘integration’), not large-scale repatriation. You mention EGI, but it’s not clear that race is even on the Freedom Party’s radar. Presumably Christian Negroes are no problem. I’d appreciate a link to their immigration policy if you have one. Thanks.
Wilders regularly advocates the repatriation of immigrants, I have yet to hear a Republican politician do that.
In this interview, for example, he speaks of expelling immigrants.
http://www.fdesouche.com/articles/47700
Wilders’ approach seems more effective to at least make some progress. It would set a great precedent.
Certainly easier for people to digest and support than a multi-front attack on all non-whites, Jews, the Holocaust, etc.
What has to be kept in mind is that Wilders offers the FIRST possibility of a political party coming to power in Europe that isn’t part of the multiculti/ liberal post-war system. This is why I find it exciting. I eagerly await to see what he will do once in office.