At Imagine 2050, an anti-racist activist notes the difference between old fashioned white supremacy and White Nationalism. I respond:
I would only dispute the third criterion. White Nationalists don’t necessarily believe that non-Whites are racially and culturally inferior.
Most WNs admire Japan and consider it a model worth imitating. I believe Japan is superior to the United States in almost every way.
Here’s a more accurate list of our key beliefs:
1.) We want to create a White ethnostate in North America. Race would be the basis of citizenship in this republic. All non-Whites would be excluded.
2.) We believe multiracial societies are inherently unstable. Racial diversity is strongly related to social fragmentation. See Robert Putnam’s research. We would rather live in tight knit, homogeneous communities than diverse ones.
3.) We don’t believe in racial or cultural equality. Instead, we believe in a spectrum of racial and cultural differences.
4.) We believe Jews should be excluded from our proposed White ethnostate. For various reasons, their inclusion would be detrimental to our racial ideals.
By tirelessly hammering away–in a civil, intelligent, and engaging manner–at the few simple truths at the core of any viable white nationalism, this site has raised the stakes (and issued an intellectual challenge that will continue to resonate) in the arena of discussion. And we should never underestimate the necessity discussion. For far too long, our enemies have enjoyed the spectacle of a white nationalist perspective unable to get its foot out of its mouth long enough to make a positive lasting impression. Congratulations on the work you are doing.
Well said! The problem for our opponents, like many armies, is they are attempting to fight the last war. So long as we hold the actual high (sensible, factual, scientific) ground they can call us whatever names they wish without effect.
The White Nationalist Idea is beginning to percolate as we finally focus on a tangible goal: the creation of the all White ethnostate. We still can’t agree on the location or scope of that ethnostate, but we at least increasingly agree on the general objective. It’s amazing how little this was discussed just a few short years ago. The Idea is definitely rising.
What is necessary now is to:
1. Reach a consensus on our territorial objectives. Make the Idea as tangible as it can be. Make the Idea assume a mentally and psychologically digestible form. Is it going to be the Northwest? The South? Or to take from the Captain – “Take it all back…the Big Idea.” I happen to favor the Big Idea, but that may fail the tangibility test. We need a point of focus, so we’ll have to see on this one. Important debates are going to happen on this point. Let’s hope the consensus emerges.
2. Lay out a vision of the political structure of the new White ethnostate. For instance, I favor something along the lines of the Swiss system, with some important modifications. Point is, we need a broad political program that will convince people that life will be better with us than under ZOG. We can’t be Johnny One Notes. In my view, the best political platform will include some things that today would be considered leftist, while others would be considered rightest. We need to trash the current political paradigm and render it obsolete. More and more people can see that the current paradigm has failed, they just don’t see what can replace it. The answer to that must be: we will.
3. Developing a broad consensus on where we are going (and what we are going to do when we get there) is essential. The internet is a legitimate forum on which to hash out these ideas. Therefore, our “blogosphere” needs to be increasingly fleshed out and developed. This is happening, and it’s beautiful to see it. Sites like Occidental Dissent, Occidental Quarterly, MajorityRights, etc., are essential in this regard. May they prosper. But ultimately, we need to get real world. See Kievsky’s ideas over at VNN, or for that matter Linder’s proposals for a White home school curriculum (he’s right, it’s crazy that this hasn’t been done, with all of the bright guns in the movement) and a White ADL (harder to pull off, as compared to the no brainer of a HS curriculum, but I think we are reaching the point where it will become doable fairly soon).
4. Run off the fantasists, trolls, and naysayers. Losers who have nothing better to do than hang out on internet forums declaring themselves supermen, or bemoaning how we are all doomed because they saw some white whore with a negro at the mall, or aspires to be Pontificus Maximus Supremus Of All Jackanapes…who needs ’em? Certainly not a successful White movement.
Points one and two are happening, and Occidental Dissent is an important part of that. Point three hasn’t happened much if at all, although European Americans United has perhaps done some work in that respect. As to point four, well, I think the process of running off the freaks has begun, but it’s still got a long ways to go. We can’t make but so much progress on the other points until the fantasy clowns and naysayers are marginalized.
Hunter Wallace: I have noticed you support a White ethnostate (with absolutely no non-Whites in the White ethnostate) in North America. Logically, this could lead to a Black ethnostate in much of the American Southeast; would this bother you? If not, which states/sub-states do you have in mind giving to the Blacks?
If this is deemed unacceptable, then maybe WN’s could support giving Blacks a part of the Deep West or as much of the southwest Desert as possible. Caribbean islands, etc.? Or just back to Africa?
I apologize for drawing attention from the abstract romanticized view of racial ethnostates with absolutely no foreign races in each one; but if we are to strategize, I am just curious which practical measures you would support.
For example, I can see moral justiification for a velvet divorce between Florida’s Southern and Northern (Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, Indian River and northwards) counties. The Former could become a Caribbean Hispanic ethnostate, and North Florida could retain its non-mestizo heritage.
It’s interesting that there are hardly any comments at imagine2050. If you poke around their site you can see that they are a real organization with fundraising staff, etc, yet their blog gets less interest than Ian Jobling’s – or my little 3rd string, infrequently updated HBD blog, for that matter.
A quick search doesn’t turn up a 990 tax form, but I’ll bet they’re getting tax money one way or another.
There is one big omission in your statement of beliefs – what do you want to do with the non-white soon-to-be-majority that’s already in North America?
She absurdly thinks the tea parties and birth certificate conspiracies are “actually strains of a white nationalist movement testing the possibility of openly organizing and promoting the creation of an all white nation.”
While these movements are implicitly white and much of the anxiety that motivates them likely results from unexpressed concerns of racial dispossession, they are not pro-white. Indeed, they will go nowhere precisely because they avoid the issue of race. The tea party protesters will fall over themselves to say race does not matter and proclaim how anti-racist they are.
The birth certificate issue is a red herring. Fears of dispossession motivate the people worked up about Obama’s birth certificate. Instead of addressing relevant racial issues, they are instead concerned about where Obama was born. Does it really matter whether Obama was born in Kenya or Hawaii? No. What matters with regard to Obama is that he is anti-white and is not one of us. It is typical that WorldNetDaily and Free Republic are all over this diversion.
For anybody who is curious, Southern Florida is already minority White and almost majority Hispanic.
Northeast Florida and the Panhandle still have a solid White majority, at about 70% or so. The percentage is even higher, if you take out Osceola county, much of Orange county, and Duval county.
Sorry, I forgot to include Hillsborough county, for taking out of a hypothetical equation.
I agree with “The Man.” Well said!
Now, where should the ethnostate be located? What will we call it? How do we get the ball rolling? Are there any historical precedents to guide us? What were the driving forces in those precedents?
“While these movements are implicitly white and much of the anxiety that motivates them likely results from unexpressed concerns of racial dispossession, they are not pro-white. Indeed, they will go nowhere precisely because they avoid the issue of race. The tea party protesters will fall over themselves to say race does not matter and proclaim how anti-racist they are.”
This is absolutely right. These implicitly white movements will not, can not, ultimately go anywhere. They may or may not enjoy short term success, but long term success is out of the question UNTIL the race issue is faced square on. That’s why it is so important to develop our message, our “new paradigm” to replace the old paradigm that is failing. Miniscule as our power is today, only we have the correct diagnosis. Only our ideas actually address the fundamental problems that ail us. All else is simply flailing about. Long term failure is baked into the cake.
Either we succeed, or all is lost. Nobody else is going to rescue us, although it is certainly possible that, over time, implicitly white groups could become explicitly White – IF we are able to develop a coherent and appealing vision. We haven’t done that yet, not really. We have a great critique of the System, and that critique is spreading. But we don’t have a compelling vision, an attractive vision, of where to go from here. You can see this in some of the comments above, where people are asking legitimate questions about territory, about what is going to happen to the non-whites, and so forth. We don’t yet have a consensus on even these sorts of things (our supposed specialty), not to mention the broad political program that we need in order to not be Johnny One Notes.
Should we take a page from the Libertarian free-staters who are attempting to populate and transform politically, the state of New Hampshire?
We will need large numbers committed to moving to any designated territory. Isn’t this what Harold Covington was pushing with a northwest homeland? Doesn’t sound like there has been too much luck on that front.
Without any type of rational organization/leadership in place, any chance of actually creating a White homeland seems rather slim.
Plus, there is the added danger of grouping together only to have a large scale Waco type scenario play out, courtesy of our ever- so- White-friendly- government.
So, How do we proceed?
Folk’s, we have to look at things realistically from our current perspective.
The northwest homeland initiative is a valid construct, but only a semi-permanent solution should all else fail. It must nonetheless be fostered by enough dedicated people in case it becomes necessary.
The most logical direction dictates the establishment of “balkanized” micro-states, or segregated racial and cultural zones within the states.
Western New Yorker: Plus, it would be dangerous t o have virtually all Whites move to the Northwest. It would be easy for our racial enemies to suround us (with China’s help from the Pacific), and cut us off from our European cousins across the pond. This is a potential diaster in a very large scale.
I agree with holding the Northwest, but we need a strong presence in the Eastern US also.
Sorry; I mispelled surround.
Trainspotter,
1. Reach a consensus on our territorial objectives. Make the Idea as tangible as it can be. Make the Idea assume a mentally and psychologically digestible form. Is it going to be the Northwest? The South? Or to take from the Captain – “Take it all back…the Big Idea.” I happen to favor the Big Idea, but that may fail the tangibility test.
You don’t say.
Now, if you don’t want to look yeller before giants like the mighty Cap’n and The Admiral and Nordmacht(frei) and you’re in effect saying “I’m with you in spirit, fellas, alas..”, that’s one thing. But if you actually consider proposing such an idea, leading with it, making it a centerpiece of your message, I’m afraid you betray a severely compromised appreciation of just what constitutes a “new paradigm”: there’s nothing new about “I hate non-whites. Get ’em out of my country.” It’s bitter, old-style nationalism that clashes head on with what the vast majority are prepped to believe about the world — ie about human existence — and, more importantly, what they experience of the world, which is to say very few experience the other so negatively as to wish death on him or to destroy his livelihood, which is what they imagine running him out of the country is equivalent to.
On the other hand, a philosophy of racial live-and-let-live at whose core lies an appreciation of the benefits that accrue from racial homogeneity and racial similarity while relegating “hatred” to matter of contingency does constitute a new paradigm. Far more importantly, it lessens opposition because it requires the least amount of rethinking about the world, one’s country, one’s person, — consider it a kind of “racialist aikido.” In fact, I’d go so far as to say that, while the former (“Big Idea”) makes it all but impossible to support you, the “new paradigm” makes it all but impossible to oppose you.
What I imagine would gall a man the most is the thought of foreigners carving out a piece of his territory just-like-that, without even having to have fired a shot to do it. There are arguments that could be deployed which, if understood (hardly a given in this crowd), can diminish such concerns — but I’m out of time.
An ethnostate in North America based on the White ethnicities that are here now would be unstable and fragmented. You only think that Whites are homogeneous because they look that way in comparison to non-Whites.
Get rid of the minorities and the Red States and Blue States would be at one another’s throats. Regional differences and conflicts would be magnified in all sorts of unexpected ways.
Get rid of the minorities and the Red States and Blue States would be at one another’s throats. Regional differences and conflicts would be magnified in all sorts of unexpected ways.
And you think this is a relevant or interesting point why? There’s conflict in every state. No one with any intelligence expects some sort of paradise to emerge once the non-whites are removed.
Second of all, the red states and blue states are already at each others’ throats. 99% of the political conflict in this country is ideological rather than racial.
For the record, can you lay out how you plan to deal with mischlings or jews who support white nationalism (as long as it is inclusive of people like themselves) and wish to remain in your proposed state? And also what you would do with full-blooded aryans who despise what you stand for? This enquiring mind wants to know which of the two you prefer.
Whites appear to be the least “homogeneous” when it comes to organized racial survival.
Just because there may be strife and conflict resulting from an endeavor (birthing pains), doesn’t mean that one should automatically see such an endeavor as fruitless.
This would be a prime example of the defeatist attitude that got us in this mess to begin with!
We would obviously have to establish (enforceable) treaties to ensure success.
I have yet to meet a pro-White Jew who supports the exclusion of the “bad Jews.”
White Advocate,
To try to draw out definitive plans of action in this blog posting would be quite an undertaking! But it is something that we can discuss , with enough time permitted, in this sites forum.
That website is mostly a front for pro-immigration views. There are articles linking immigration restriction to eugenics, denial of health care to blacks, and other extraneous “no-no’s.” The ‘useful idiots’ who write those articles are probably funded by someone like the Cato Institute. Immigration reform enjoys wide support among the American population, even Hispanics, but the corporations aren’t going to let us curb immigration.
Hunter Wallace wrote,
“I have yet to meet a pro-White Jew who supports the exclusion of the ‘bad Jews.'”
Probably because they regard Jews as white.
How many “pro-white” gentiles do you know who support the exclusion of “bad white gentiles” from the entire nation (i.e. liberals), who believe, in other words, that white liberals should be deported to another country? Pro-white Jews probably view the matter in the same light with respect to liberal Jews.
Texan:
The article claims that an ethnostate in North America would be homogeneous. That simply isn’t true. Whether or not such an ethnostate would be a good thing anyway is another issue.
Nobody noticed that the anti-racist thinks the tea parties are examples of WNism?
As long as the jewish controlled federal government is intact and considered legitimate by most whites there will be no white ethnostate in its territory. The example of Serbia makes me think that a white ethnostate may be impossible anywhere on earth so long as the United States military is under absolute jewish control.
The fate of whites all over the world may be dependent on our ability to end jewish occupation of north america. Jews must be motivated to depart. I won’t get more specific than that.
Once jews have been removed the chance of being cut off from trade if we’re landlocked will be reduced. Right now all the coastal states with decent ports are multiracial trash heaps, and those whites that live there are hopeless race traitors.
Any state we could establish as white-only would (assuming no global economic sanctions or violent attacks against it) experience an immediate rush of white immigrants.
As for the few non-whites living there, they could be offered a one time cash payment to leave and renounce any claim on residency. Would you be willing to pay taxes to finance a program to pay 5k to each non-white who left, never to return? I’d call that the best use of my tax money ever.
There’s no way you’re going to get all the whites in New England to move to Idaho, or vice versa. While it’s useful to have an end-goal (e.g., white ethnostate) in mind and to communicate it to potential converts, I don’t think white Americans are being sufficiently squeezed yet to recognize its benefits. But I think that will change. The future is open-ended and quite unpredictable. Personally I believe the US empire is in steep decline and the country is descending into some kind of civil war situation. The human damage and population relocations resulting from such a conflict may make white ethnostate(s) appealing. More probable, I would argue, are a series of white ethnostates, or European city-states or colonies, around the country.
The example of Serbia makes me think that a white ethnostate may be impossible anywhere on earth so long as the United States military is under absolute jewish control.
Good to know that something made you think.
So – more good thinking to be done:
How do we remove the Greater Judean military from Judean control?
By talking to other quirites about it so as to participate in beauty pageants as the majority of judges?
Or maybe we talk directly to the military, with a bigot-free agenda that appeals to their rightly-informed sense of attendance to national security.
Personally I believe the US empire is in steep decline and the country is descending into some kind of civil war situation.
A global “civil” war that will permit nothing of an ethno-state to arise amidst the general anarchy that would be required to preclude resolution of the situation by Federal forces (once again).
1. WNs don’t talk much about the Secessionist movement, but it’s moving the pile in the right direction, gets mainline respect and may be a catalyst for massive change. If nothing else, it’s likely to trigger a reaction that could accelerate matters. Though it’s not overtly pro-white, the other side sees it as such and may push it further that way. Or it could be co-opted. We should look at it as a fellow traveler at this stage.
2. Admiral makes a good point. Everything changes when violence enters the equation, and that doesn’t appear far off. Look what 9/11 wrought. Whites already seek mini-ethnostates when they choose housing, largely because of black violence and criminality.
The whitest clusters of states are in the northwest – the Dakotas, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Wisconsin and Wyoming – and in New England – Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island – excluding Connecticut, the least white New England state, which is also full of jews.
Utah and Kansas are also worth looking at.
NeoNietzsche
How do we remove the Greater Judean military from Judean control?
Remove the jews from Greater Judea.
“How do we remove the Greater Judean military from Judean control?”
Remove the jews from Greater Judea.
So, now we need some good thinking about a variant of the Chicken-and-Egg problem.
“The fate of whites all over the world may be dependent on our ability to end jewish occupation of north america.”
YES!
I do not want to hear any weenies mouthing off about ‘going back to Europe’.
The battle shall be here, in the United States!
“Get rid of the minorities and the Red States and Blue States would be at one another’s throats. Regional differences and conflicts would be magnified in all sorts of unexpected ways.”
I think you are overlooking some important things. Let’s look at some of these Blue States, like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Is it really the case that the typical Midwestern white man is going to be at the “throat” of the typical white man in the South? I just don’t see it, at least not to any great extent. In fact, when one looks at Red/Blue political maps at the county level, we see something very interesting: lots of the Blue States are in fact oceans of red. See here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
Puts things in a different light, eh?
What we really have in this country are a handful of areas which are full of toxic whites – much of New England, small portions of the upper Midwest, small portions of the Pacific Northwest. A few others (coastal California, Denver area, but not much of consequence). Of course, there are toxic whites everywhere, but they are only the norm in a handful of areas. The reality is that the typical white guy in western Pennsylvania has an awful lot in common with the typical white guy in South Carolina. They have similar voting patterns as well. Not identical, but not polar opposites either. What, pray tell, do you expect them to be at one another’s throats over?
In short, all nations are going to have some regional differences, but I don’t see anything about the broad masses of normal whites that would lead me to believe that they would be at “one another’s throats” in a white ethnostate. Just normal squabbling, nothing terribly serious.
The problem we have in this country, and have always had in this country, are the so called elites. Not the average white dude on the streets of Boise having some insane beef with the white man in Raleigh. All of this just sounds like yet another one of your lame attempts to strangle the baby in its crib.
” The problem we have in this country, and have always had in this country, are the so called elites.”
Good post, but this one sentence is just waiting for some deconstruction:
1.) problem we have ‘always had’? In my opinion the USA had been pretty good up until the Civil War, that is like a good 100 year run with few problems with the Elites.
After the Civil War, the South was allowed to institute Jim Crow and so there was another ‘good era’ for quite awhile… until massive Jewish immigration.
2.) ‘so-called elites’? Heck why not just call them what they are: JEWS!
Silver: “But if you actually consider proposing such an idea, leading with it, making it a centerpiece of your message, I’m afraid you betray a severely compromised appreciation of just what constitutes a “new paradigm”: there’s nothing new about “I hate non-whites. Get ‘em out of my country.”
Dude, no need to be childish about this. My vision is nothing like the cartoonish strawman that you attack.
So, to be serious, here is the issue as I see it. As a disclaimer, I of course advocate nothing. What follows is merely a brief and highly incomplete discussion of hypotheticals.
Marketing: your cartoonish strawman aside, you are absolutely correct that there is a severe marketing problem with anything that goes beyond a fairly small state secessionist objective. By small state I mean something along the lines of the Northwest proposal. Then it can be reasonably put forth, in highly simplistic terms, “We’ll do our thing, you do yours. Let’s have a divorce.”
Military/Political/Economic Reality: Problem is, I am highly skeptical of the viability of the small state solution, either short term or long term.
As long as the System has strength, it will not let a white ethnostate be carved out of its territory. Not so much as an acre, much less the entire Pacific Northwest. The only way to “win” is to undermine the System to the point that it can no longer effectively function as a continental government. And the only way to do that is to deny it effective control over most of the country, not just a slice of it. So, if my premise is correct, why not retake most of the country, the vast “normal hinterland,” rather than settle for a slice? You’re going to have to do it anyway.
When it comes down to it, our elites only really care about a few relatively small parcels, such as the BosWash corridor. Maybe a few islands outside of that, but not much. They despise flyover country. Flyover is simply a resource to be exploited by them, and it’s also full of whites that they want to genocide. They won’t leave flyover quietly in the night, but at the end of the day they do not care about it in the same sense that they do Boston or New York. They simply care to hurt it, abuse it and exploit it.
Why not make flyover country too inhospitable for them, and deny its resources to the system? If that were to happen, the System could not function as it presently does. It would be reduced to a rump state. But as long as it is greater than a rump state, it will use all of its power to crush the white ethnostate.
In other words, my premise is that the System has to either be destroyed entirely or at least so reduced that it can no longer aspire to imperial status. As long as it sees itself as possessing imperial strength, it will use its strength against whites. And if allowed to remain in a position of strength, it will have a never ending horde of non-white cannon fodder to throw at us, of course equipped with the latest in white technology.
If I’m wrong about that, then the small state solution might work. But, obviously, I don’t think I’m wrong. So in my view we have to take back much more of the country than a small slice – not out of any macho bravado but for the simple reason that I believe it will prove necessary. With Fourth Generation warfare, small numbers of people can disrupt effective control over huge stretches of territory. That’s what serious revolutionaries would have to do. Again, not advocating anything, but that’s how I see it.
Further, going beyond the prospects of its initial formation, I seriously question the ability of a small white ethnostate to maintain itself on a continent that will, by default, become almost entirely non-white. There will be military, economic and social pressures that will make it very difficult to survive in such an environment.
Again, this has been a highly superficial and incomplete discussion of an extremely complex subject. For instance, I’m not even touching on the wisdom of leaving an enormous nuclear arsenal in the hands of what would become a rabidly hostile Brazil North.
So that is the dilemma as I see it: for marketing purposes, I think small state probably works better (I emphasize “probably,” as I’m not entirely sure). But, ultimately, I think that (hypothetically, of course) we are going to have to go for a much bigger slice in order to be viable. I think this is a case of good marketing being in conflict with military/political and economic reality.
Logicar Omega: “..problem we have ‘always had’? In my opinion the USA had been pretty good up until the Civil War, that is like a good 100 year run with few problems with the Elites.”
I basically agree with your fundamental point, though I’m somewhat skeptical of even the early New England elite. Even the old Southern elite, which in many ways I admire greatly, managed to allow the importation of our Noble Savages, a mistake of truly epic proportions. So, yeah, I’m going to stick by my position that we’ve “always had” problems with our elites, though of course today they are far greater. What we need is a new elite that is solidly committed to the preservation of our people. I don’t begrudge them wealth and status – IF they are committed to the preservation of our people, and can be removed if they are not.
If we have that, we’ll have no meaningful problems between the white man in Dallas and the white man in Cleveland. Certainly nothing like the Monitor suggests. Certainly nothing that a relatively decentralized system can’t handle.
“’so-called elites’? Heck why not just call them what they are: JEWS!”
LOL! Again, agreed. But we have to also acknowledge the failures of the historical white elites, and make sure we do better next time. The Jewish problem is straightforward: they must absolutely, positively, no fucking exceptions, be excluded from the coming white nation. Making sure that the emerging white elite (and one will emerge, obviously) is committed to our survival in the long run, well, that’s going to require a great deal more care, not to mention room to screw it up. Again, we’ve got to get it right this time.
As long as the System has strength, it will not let a white ethnostate be carved out of its territory. Not so much as an acre, much less the entire Pacific Northwest. The only way to “win” is to undermine the System to the point that it can no longer effectively function as a continental government. And the only way to do that is to deny it effective control over most of the country, not just a slice of it. So, if my premise is correct, why not retake most of the country, the vast “normal hinterland,” rather than settle for a slice? You’re going to have to do it anyway.
…
Why not make flyover country too inhospitable for them, and deny its resources to the system? If that were to happen, the System could not function as it presently does. It would be reduced to a rump state. But as long as it is greater than a rump state, it will use all of its power to crush the white ethnostate.
In other words, my premise is that the System has to either be destroyed entirely or at least so reduced that it can no longer aspire to imperial status. As long as it sees itself as possessing imperial strength, it will use its strength against whites. And if allowed to remain in a position of strength, it will have a never ending horde of non-white cannon fodder to throw at us, of course equipped with the latest in white technology.
If I’m wrong about that, then the small state solution might work. But, obviously, I don’t think I’m wrong. So in my view we have to take back much more of the country than a small slice – not out of any macho bravado but for the simple reason that I believe it will prove necessary. With Fourth Generation warfare, small numbers of people can disrupt effective control over huge stretches of territory. That’s what serious revolutionaries would have to do. Again, not advocating anything, but that’s how I see it.
Further, going beyond the prospects of its initial formation, I seriously question the ability of a small white ethnostate to maintain itself on a continent that will, by default, become almost entirely non-white. There will be military, economic and social pressures that will make it very difficult to survive in such an environment.
The Dawning of The Light.
“I have yet to meet a pro-White Jew who supports the exclusion of the “bad Jews.”
I would imagine what they would insist upon is equality under the law with Gentiles in the new ethnostate. That is, by all means throw out anti-white Jews, as long as you throw out anti-whites as well. The white Quaker who reveres John Brown gets treated as ruthlessly as the Jew who reveres John Brown. And “Jew Gottfried” is is given the same rights and privileges as “Hunter Wallace.” That OK?
If it’s not, you’re a bigot. Even worse, you’re a fool and a supporter of policies that hurt white people. Why would it be in the strategic or tactical interest of whites to to antagonize an entire people when many of them are not necessarily their enemy, by assuming that in fact they always are? There are many reasons, good and bad, legitimate and illegitimate, to explain why Jews have historically engaged in anti-White activities. Trying to prove the oppositie, as this Guy White fellow seems to be trying to do, is ridiculous. But at this point in time, I would argue that Jews have attained so much power in white societies, and they have pissed off the Muslims and minorities so much with their Zionism and with their success in urban environments, that it is now more in their interest to ally with whites against the Third World. Many of them might recognize this and conceiveably support race realist/HBD or other pro-white advocacy. We should at least invite them to do so. Meanwhile, one of the main things stopping them from doing this is the sort of ding-bat anti-Semitism that we see here.
“My younger son Jonathan, who has clerked for a while for Sonia Sotomayor, produced several of the speeches that this judge has delivered since going to DC, including the new Justice’s praise of a “more perfect union” given earlier in the week. Jonathan is a gifted wordsmith, who has also done well as a corporate attorney. He and I obviously do not share the same political views, but I can still feel pride for what he has accomplished—and what he has avoided.” – Gottfried
http://www.takimag.com/article/my_son_is_sotomayors_ghost/
What do you suppose Gottfried’s reaction to having his son excluded from the ethnostate would be?
The Jewish compulsion to subvert is genetic.
@ White advocate;
I don’t see how referring to rational criticism of Jewish behavior by some of the posters here as “ding-bat antisemitism” is really going to make anyone consider such a union.
How about if these soon to be converted to our cause Jews you speak of, initiated this detente by using their power and influence to dismantle the multitude of anti-White organizations such as the ADL, SPLC, etc. Why is it always us who must jump through hoops to appease them?
If such an alliance worked, Amren would be more than just a redundant blog of Black on White crime stories.
“What do you suppose Gottfried’s reaction to having his son excluded from the ethnostate would be? ”
As I said, I suppose he would be fine with this as long as anti-white Gentiles are summarily excluded as well. But truth be told, WHO CARES what he thinks? What I want to know is what the law SHOULD be. Why should Gottfried’s child be treated more harshly or more arbitrarily than, say, the child of a National Socialist who has turned against his father’s faith?
“The Jewish compulsion to subvert is genetic.”
Even when such subversion goes against Jewish interests? Even when Jews are on both sides of a subversive issue? (Think Stephen Jay Gould’s equalitarian attacks on Hernestein and Murray’s Bell Curve, and the sponsorship and support of Herenstein and Murray’s work against equalitarianism by Jewish magazines like Commentary, the New Republic, The Public Interest and The Weekly Standard and Jewish-dominated publishing houses like The Free Press.)
agree
Trainspotter, I agree with almost everything you wrote. I think our chance of success in reversing the anti-White policies of the United States is slim to none, but the thought of our nuclear arsenal being held by ‘Brazil North’ is indeed frightening.
“How about if these soon to be converted to our cause Jews you speak of, initiated this detente by using their power and influence to dismantle the multitude of anti-White organizations such as the ADL, SPLC, etc. ”
How could they effectively argue that Jews should be pro-White under a scenario where — as you would have it — they were excluded from pro-White organizations? Why SHOULDN’T they be anti-white, or anti- white nationalist, if white nationalists want to summarily exclude them from white nationalism, and would physically remove them from the future white ethnostate.
“Why is it always us who must jump through hoops to appease them? If such an alliance worked, Amren would be more than just a redundant blog of Black on White crime stories.”
I assume an example of “jumping through the hoops” is having to abide by Jared Taylor’s rule that anti-Semites can’t get on stage at AmRen conferences and “name the Jew” (though they can attend, prominently sell their books, network with other attendees, and speak on other topics). They also can’t “name the Jew” in the comments section of the website. Frankly, given how small the movement is, it doesn’t seem that much of an imposition, and it is certainly better than throwing one side or the other of this debate under the bus in order to appease extremists on either side of the divide.
Personally, as someone interested in the Jewish question, I wish more discussion of this topic was possible without people freaking out, something along the lines of the dialogues that VDARE and the Occidental Quarterly have hosted between Kevin MacDonald and his opponents. I also admit that the philo-Semites and the anti-anti-Semites are oversensitive and overemotional on this issue. On the other hand, as I said above, just how do you expect the Jews who want to be a part of white nationalism to react to people like you who want to summarily exclude them?
I also fail to see why you think American Renaissance would be more effective if it was anti-Semitic. Would it attract more members? Get more press? Persuade more silent Middle American Radicals? I see no basis for thinking any of this.
” I basically agree with your fundamental point, though I’m somewhat skeptical of even the early New England elite. Even the old Southern elite, which in many ways I admire greatly, managed to allow the importation of our Noble Savages, a mistake of truly epic proportions.”
Yes I certainly see your point.
The self-righteous Puritanism of yesterdays north-easterners was only a pre-cursor to the self-righteous liberalism of their descendents! The slavers also have to share some responsibility.
However, as the late great Dr. William Pierce pointed out, these issues amongst the elites were ‘held in check’ so to speak until the arrival of ‘you know who’:
“We had, of course, plenty of destructive undesirables of our own already
here. Even before the Civil War psychopaths such as John Brown murdered
their fellow Whites on behalf of Blacks and attempted to “equalize” the
races. After the Civil War we had even more hate-crazed egalitarians
attempting to punish Whites — mostly White Southerners — for being
better than Blacks. Some, like John Brown, justified their murderous
egalitarianism on Christian grounds, but after the Civil War and the
shameful policies directed against Southerners during the Reconstruction
period, there was no large-scale, systematic effort by Whites, Christian
or otherwise, to mongrelize and degrade America. We still had an
abundance of crazies and haters around, but without an organizing force
behind them they were a potential rather than an actual danger.
Such an organizing force appeared after the Jews had fastened their grip
on America’s mass media of news and entertainment and brought the
lemmings under their influence. ”
http://www.natall.com/pub/2002/051102.txt
(sorry for double post)
“Even when Jews are on both sides of a subversive issue?”
Listen with the whole Bell Curve thing the Jews are just warning the dark dusky masses that if they do not do as Jewish Civil Rights activists say then the machinery of the Zionist Occupied Government will be turned against the likes of the Nation of Islam instead of the Aryan Nations!
It is a warning shot across the bow of sensible coloreds like Farrakhan who see that there is indeed a Jewish Question in addition to their dislike of the ‘White Devil’
” Why SHOULDN’T they be anti-white, or anti- white nationalist, if white nationalists want to summarily exclude them from white nationalism, and would physically remove them from the future white ethnostate.”
Lets re-phrase this:
Why shouldn’t they be anti-semitic or anti-zionist, if Jewish Zionists want to summarily exclude them from Israel, and would physically remove them for the Israel??
If Jews are White folks, why can’t say… someone with German blood be welcomed to visit Israel, I mean we are all White folks right?? Right?!?!?!? Well I certainly am not going to hold my breath and wait to be welcomed aboard like apparently Gert Wilders is trying.
Trainspotter,
Our views have more in common than you might think. Read the following with that hypothesis in mind and I’m sure that by the end of it you’ll agree.
Marketing: your cartoonish strawman aside, you are absolutely correct that there is a severe marketing problem with anything that goes beyond a fairly small state secessionist objective.
I disagree that anything beyond that degree of smallness creates a severe marketing problem. It’s ‘take it all back’ that creates the marketing problem. The heart of the marketing problem is that the only thing anti-racists hear when racialists talk race is that white racists hate non-whites so much that they not only don’t want to live around but never want to see or even hear of non-whites ever again and they demand every single non-white be expelled from every square inch of sacred White Land.
By small state I mean something along the lines of the Northwest proposal. Then it can be reasonably put forth, in highly simplistic terms, “We’ll do our thing, you do yours. Let’s have a divorce.”
I think you can “reasonably” put forward a great deal more than the NW proposal. I doubt many of the non-white immigrant-descended care very much about territory at all. It’s the ‘system’ they loath to be divorced from — the legal, economic and cultural structures they’ve inherited. I think they’d be quite happy to settle for the ‘city-states’ (while you get the bulk). I don’t get the impression that the various non-white groups like each other much at all and only band together to whatever extent they do in order to fend off whites, who they fear would deport them (or worse). I have a hunch that if they believed a better deal was possible and that the only thing preventing that better deal being realized was a pack of jewish megalomaniacs they’d almost run the revolution for you.
And the only way to do that is to deny it effective control over most of the country, not just a slice of it. So, if my premise is correct, why not retake most of the country, the vast “normal hinterland,” rather than settle for a slice? You’re going to have to do it anyway.
Ah, but “most” is not the same as “all.”
In other words, my premise is that the System has to either be destroyed entirely or at least so reduced that it can no longer aspire to imperial status. As long as it sees itself as possessing imperial strength, it will use its strength against whites. And if allowed to remain in a position of strength, it will have a never ending horde of non-white cannon fodder to throw at us, of course equipped with the latest in white technology.
No argument there.
Further, going beyond the prospects of its initial formation, I seriously question the ability of a small white ethnostate to maintain itself on a continent that will, by default, become almost entirely non-white. There will be military, economic and social pressures that will make it very difficult to survive in such an environment.
I’m not so sure about that. Again, non-whites don’t like each other. It’s jews far and away who keep the coalition together. The trick is to get them to realize jews are everyone’s problem. (The solution to which, needless to say, isn’t “to kill all the jews” — contrary to the lies of Lyin’ Larry Auster.)
Again, this has been a highly superficial and incomplete discussion of an extremely complex subject.
I don’t think it’s fair to call it superficial. Let’s say… inchoate. But you’re correct that much more can be said and most urgently needs to be said. Shouldn’t that mean the discussion should revolve around these issues, rather than, say, Nietzschean esoterica? Just wondering.
So that is the dilemma as I see it: for marketing purposes, I think small state probably works better (I emphasize “probably,” as I’m not entirely sure). But, ultimately, I think that (hypothetically, of course) we are going to have to go for a much bigger slice in order to be viable. I think this is a case of good marketing being in conflict with military/political and economic reality.
Again, they’re not necessarily in conflict. Let me illustrate by way of example. A very simple, straightforward Republican strategy could be to market an ‘internal racial rearrangement’ [substituting whatever for ‘racial’] based on Republicans’/conservatives’ ‘acquiescence’ to ‘multicultural reality’,’ the sentiment behind it being something along the lines of “We disagreed that multiculturalism [or if possible multiracialism] was a good idea, but since America insists on pursuing it, we want to do it correctly, and that requires granting peoples the living space required to be who they really are. Ethnic conflict results from contact, not from ignorance. Granting peoples the permission to live apart will reduce conflict, and reducing conflict will lead to a greater appreciation of the lives of others. No other force tears at the seams of delicate multiracial social fabric more powerfully than interracial crime so we propose sterner punishments across the board for any instance of it, regardless of whether or not it was motivated by racial hatred.” [Imagine a street scene: “Hang on, man, this shit’s interracial. Fuck it. Let it go.”]
“Why shouldn’t they be anti-semitic or anti-zionist, if Jewish Zionists want to summarily exclude them from Israel..”
That’s a stupid comparison. Germans or Frenchmen are also excluded from Spain, Italy, Russian, as well as Israel.
By the way, I won’t go so far as to say Jews are fully European the same way as Anglo-Saxons and Nordics are. The latter have been in Europe for many millenia, the Jews for just one or so. But they are mostly European. They have assimilated to a great degree, they’ve contributed to and adopted and interacted with European culture, and there is in fact a significant and growing admixture of Aryan blood into their gene pool. I’m simply arguing that Jewish support for anti-white politics was made worse by anti-semites who refuse to accept them as whites under any circumstances. I’m also arguing that Jewish ethnocentrism and hostility towards pro-white movement is decreasing, and would decrease more if it that movement had no quarrel with pro-white Jews.