Kemp’s Advice, Vanguardism, Mainstreamism and the Need to Keep Our Options Open

I have been watching the debate over the BNP spokesman Arthur Kemp’s short article outlining what will be his central themes in his upcoming book “Can America Be Saved” with intense interest.  The resulting debate this short post has unleashed in WN circles has been both healthy and helpful.

Kemp’s post also dovetails into the discussion at this site, and elsewhere, regarding the tactical dispute over the “maintreamists” and the “vanguardists,” in that at first glance Kemp’s advice seems to fall squarely in one camp while seeking to toss the entire other camp out of the movement altogether. 

My view is that this reading of Kemp’s advice is simplistic.  The core advice offered by Kemp is valuable, but due to some rather common misunderstandings on Kemp’s part regarding the very different political, cultural and legal culture of the U.S. as compared with his own U.K., his advice misses the mark on some points.  This causes him to stumble into making certain assertions which—while well-intentioned—were misread by American observers. 

My purpose here is attempt to bridge the gap and give my own reasoning on why I believe Kemp is largely correct. 

I. Vanguard vs. Mainstream: A Continuum Not a Choice 

There has been a lot of discussion about these two approaches and their relative merits and demerits, but to date all such discussion has mistakenly assumed that the two approaches are incompatible with each other.   

In light of the current American situation, I do not believe we have yet passed the point of no return with regard to the United States of America.  There are still hundreds of millions of European-Americans here and the prospect of their awakening and returning the nation to a stance of demanding a European-American majority is not at all out of the question.  It is not likely, given the absolute triumph of Liberalism, but “not likely” is not the same as “impossible.”  It does not take too much imagination to envision future scenarios in which the White majority is brought, kicking and screaming, to its senses. 

In this respect, we are fortunate with regard to enemies. Blacks will continue to push the grievance machine, making it ever-more evident to even the most staunchly apolitical that there is no real solution to that political problem.  Latinos will continue to act with a high degree of cultural confidence—especially in those portions of the nation once under Mexican sovereignty—resulting in an ever-increasing number of counter-productive mistakes, like the Mexican flag waving of 2007.  Both together will continue to use their political muscle to leverage payouts, positions, contracts, favors and other government goodies to their co-racial brothers, further alienating the massive American working and middle classes. 

While on the more sophisticated level, the financial and business elite have over-played their hand badly.  So badly, in fact, that they were forced to raid the U.S. Treasury and capture the regulatory agencies and executive bodies entrusted with regulating financial affairs right out in the open.  While, the system being what it is, they have largely gotten away with this to date, this does not mean that the working and middle classes are unaware of what has happened.  Given the daily headlines, the bail-outs, the special deals and the obvious and open corruption of the lobbying system, the average White American is well aware—to varying degrees of sophistication depending on education, intelligence and personal interest—that life in these United States in the Year of Our Lord 2009 operates under two very different sets of rules.   

In short, our enemies are doing a bang-up job of discrediting themselves and, note, that all of this negative publicity has caused a readily-observable backlash of average American anger even though there is not one single organized political entity leading those average Americans. 

To say that we have raw material which has resulted in a correlation of forces in favor of a nationalist enterprise is an understatement. 

Given those objective conditions, and given further the obvious level of racial and financial hubris exhibited by our enemies, it would be foolish to simply concede the playing field with putting up a fight. 

It is in this light that Kemp is quite right.  There is a fight to be had at the moment and the current state of nationalist forces to engage in that fight is laughably pitiful.  In fact, I have grown increasingly convinced that it is this fact—the fact that our organized and effective forces are so weak—that has lead a too-large number of WNs to conclude that our chances of success out in the open are hopeless. 

This is confusing cause for effect.  If my enemies lay weakened before me, ripe for the kill, the fact that I have no effective weapon at hand with which to immediately take advantage of my enemy’s momentary vulnerability does not mean that my enemies’ weakness is an illusion.  What it does mean is that I need to find an effective weapon post-haste.

Which is what Kemp is talking about.  What, in America, would such an effective weapon look like?  Given the target rich environment, the first weapon to be picked up is good, old-fashioned, open, democratic and forceful political work. 

II.  The European-American PAC Idea: Not Good Enough

However, this is where Kemp’s lack of practical experience with the United States betrays him.  While he has diagnosed the first task ahead of us correctly, his proffered solution—a PAC of all things—appears woefully inadequate to American eyes. 

For the sake of our British comrades—and let’s take a moment here to step down from our fake Internet world and really appreciate the fact that the BNP has created something real on the ground in the real world, a fact that renders any failure on the part of American comrades to at least give The Cousins a fair hearing inexcusable—let’s take a moment to discuss why such an approach is simply not adequate to the task at hand.  To my mind, there are at least five major reasons why such an approach will not work and tens of minor reasons that are likely to cause major headaches. 

Let’s just focus on the five.

First, PACs are specific legal entities, controlled by the Federal Election Commission, with a host of regulatory powers and requirements that would require, among other things, providing publicly available lists of donors to the United States Government and the army of left-wing organizations who would finally get the answer to the question “Hey, how do we get a comprehensive list of people we need to have shot as soon as the Revolution comes?”

Second, contributions to PACs are sharply limited and may only be used for election-related expenses.  If the EURPAC wants to fund the development of home-schooling curriculum for White parents who want to opt out of the Diversity Machine, too bad. 

Third, electoral success means just that, winning a seat in a local, state or national legislature or some executive office.  Coming from a Parliamentary system, where such a seat means something—after all, in the UK you aren’t the executive power unless you are the legislative power, meaning that if you promise if elected you’re going to implement Policies A, B and C, you actually get to implement Policies A, B and C—it’s easy to see where Kemp misses the boat on this one.  In the American political system, such seats mean nothing other than time-wasting on large committees until fund-raising prowess and seniority do their magic work, and even executives find themselves effectively powerless in the face of the Civil Service, aka The Permanent Government. 

Fourth, neither the legislature or the executive ultimately hold power in the American system, since nothing that contravenes the Constitution is legal and you can be damn sure that anything EURPAC candidates do will be found to violate the Constitution, one way or another. 

Fifth, even if EURPAC succeeded in electing such persons, the de-centralized nature of the current loose two-party system means that anyone elected is free to pursue their own agenda.  Instead of electing a wave of reformists on the same page, we’d have hordes of mini-Kings, each with his own preferred idea on how best to move forward. 

No, this approach will not work.  What is needed instead is exactly what Kemp dismisses, an “American National Party.”  I prefer the “Conservative Party of the United States,” but feel free to salt to taste.  It doesn’t matter what the exact name of this party is (so long as it’s good) but in essence the third party track is the only way to effectively compete.  This is so for three main reasons. 

First, despite the best efforts of some of the top legal talent and some of the biggest money around (I’m looking at you, Mr. Soros….), the Bill of Rights traditions have retained enough force to protect political speech and freedom of association.  In short, the new Conservative Party would be laboring under a number of very strong and well placed legal protections, protections not to be had in the game-as-usual of Pac-Man. 

Second, on all of the issues important to WNs—ALL of them—there are no substantial differences between the current two parties.  There is no point pretending to be a Republicrat or a Demopublican when everyone knows that what you’re really after is offering a complete alternative.  And with both parties really nothing more than de-centralized fund raising machines, there is no real point or gain in power in capturing the brand.  All that would do is saddle to newcomers with baggage to no real benefit.  Instead, the new party must seek to replace one of the two in much the same way the original Republicans came on the scene.  That is, focus on the central dilemma of the age (it was then slavery, it is now race), demonstrate clearly that the entrenched interests of the current two party system are inherently incapable of dealing with that political dilemma, make it clear that there can be no break of the political logjam without dealing with that political dilemma and, well, there you have it.  While it is true that the American political system mitigates against third parties, this is only true right up to the point that it ceases to be true.  The Communist Party of the Soviet Union mitigated even more strongly against the existence of even a second party, but nevertheless disappeared like a phantom in the night when a political problem arose that it was constitutionally unable to talk about, let alone deal with. 

Third, no such WN political initiative will succeed without the backing of a broad, popular movement.  Drips and drabs of political candidates for office as usual is not the kind of thing that is going to galvanize a currently apathetic and profoundly cynical and non-political population into a movement.  To be blunt: no one marches in the street to get Republicans elected. 

III. Practical Mainstreaming

Those serious issues aside, however, the fact is that to be viable and to attract our fellow whites, this new political organization must, at a minimum, following Kemp’s advice.  Our new WN movement must present a credible, intelligent, witty, humorous, competent and thoughtful visage.  Such a movement has no time for quasi-Christian sects, neo-Nazis (of all things, I mean, come on) or profanity spouting ultra-racists.  To the extent that we present our case in the vocabulary of values White Americans respect—preserving our race, honoring our forefathers, keeping the covenant with earlier generations, passing along our heritage to our children—and doing so out of our deep love and concern for us, for us as a unique people with just as much of a right to a future and a homeland as the Mexicans, the Chinese and the Jews, all honor adheres to us. 

But wait, I hear you say, what the hell good will that do?  No matter how good our intentions, no matter now much we rid ourselves of negative and backward tendencies, no matter how hard we try to play kissy-face with the heavily-Jewish media or other powers that be, they are STILL going to call you Nazis, extremists, kooks, fascists and other really, really bad names.  So, what’s the point? 

The point is this: amongst the people we are trying to reach—the only people that matter—the charges won’t stick. 

If we do in fact lie in bed politically with toy Nazis and those who are still holding out hope that Americans will sit down and really, really re-think whether its honor and respect for Abraham Lincoln is deserved and well-placed, then such charges leave us with no leg to stand on. 

But, if we have done our work right, instead of weakening us or harming us, every time our enemies resort to such low tactics, there will be 2, then 5, then hundreds of Whites who will see through it and who will conclude that when a liberal says “Nazi” or “Racist” what they’re really doing is demanding that White European-Americans shut the hell up and submit to their own obliteration. 

It is in this way that silent supporters, cadres and, finally, open support builds up.  Half of White America already knows that when a liberal or a black leader speaks about Whites the result is bullshit.  Why don’t we help get that number up to closer to 100% ?

IV. Our Platform: Nothing Special Gets Us a Foothold 

What would such an alternative platform look like?  While the purpose of this short essay is to outline a synthesis of Kemp’s ideas with the major currents of modern American WN thought, a short sketch of what such a new Conservative Party (or whatever it ends up being called) would offer is helpful insofar as even a simple platform reveals itself amenable to strong minority support from real-existing Whites.  Again—important!—the purpose of this sample platform presented here is not to demand that this is the only such platform that could be set forth or even that this presents the best possible ideas, but to illustrate how easily WNs could construct a broadly-popular platform with the real possibility of attracting mainstream support. 

If presented properly, I don’t see how anything less than 10% of European Americans would support the following simple platform: 

            A.  A Return to Republican Government

— Removal of the Administrative State

— Replacement of cabinet officials with ministers responsible to the House

— A return to common law rule, wherein elected ministers have broad authority with minimal procedural and judicial review.

— Official recognition of the United States as a European-American state with tolerance and respect to minorities currently present.

             B.  Social Solidarity

— Establishment of English as the only official language at all levels of government and in public commerce

— Absolute color-blindness and a prohibition against any government classification with regard to race/sex/ethnicity/sexual orientation

— A halt to legal immigration for 40 years

— An absolute end to illegal immigration and the prosecution of illegal immigration profiteers.

             C.  Educattion

— Dismantling of the Big Education/Big Finance/Big Union racket in higher education

— Establishment of uniform, excellent secondary schools

— Establishment of respectable, excellent skilled labor and business schools

— Establishment of publicly supported universities with entry by competitive examination

             D. Health

— The establishment of a National Health Service

— The establishment of a new food policy with a focus on local areas of production and supply; the suppression of over-processed foods

           E.  Energy

— The construction of a French-style nuclear grid

— The construction of a Quebec-style hydro grid

— The re-introduction of sensible public transport, clean, safe, with rules that are enforced

             F.  Commerce

— A return to a nationalist, American economy

— The dismantling of globalist economic institutions

— A return to the honoring of labor, respect for the working man

— An emphasis on lowering the cost of family formation, the one-income rule

             G.  Foreign Affairs

— An end to the Cold War and National Security State

  A return to the maxim that we are friends of liberty everywhere, but keepers only of our own

— A repudiation of any universalist or human rights mission giving the United States the right to judge the performance of other countries

— The adoption of a Civilization Model of foreign affairs, allowing each its place

            H.  Latin America (a more important element of Foreign Affairs)

— The establishment of Puerto Rican independence

— The regularization of relations with Mexico with a demand for reparation for costs imposed by illegal Mexican settlement

— An effective border keeping the Latin and the Anglo spheres in North America peaceful

             I.  Civil Service

— Civil Service to return to serving at President’s pleasure.

— Massive reduction in Federal workforce, departments.

            J.  Military Service

— The re-establishment of the War Departmen

— National franchise rights dependent on term of service

— The re-establishment of the military academies, with new academies for American diplomats and American intelligence officers.

 V. Vanguardism: There is a Certain Genius in the System

Given the weakened state of our opposition and the opportunity this presents us, we owe it to our people and to our country to attempt to change course.  Perhaps things will go well.  Perhaps a platform like the one above—which seems rather radical at the moment—will seem blindingly obvious in 2029. 

We have no way of knowing.  But there are two things we do know. 

First, the sheer size, complexity and wealth of the current system means that it will not easily unravel.  I believe those who are awaiting a general collapse will be waiting a very long time indeed. In any case, it won’t go gentle into that good night. 

Second, that the same remarkable forces that now have constructed a world where an order is placed in Oklahoma, turning on a order for various parts in China, Mexico and Vietnam, getting to the same place in Illinois for assembly and then showing up in that store in Oklahoma before the all-important customer blows his top will be mobilized in that system’s defense.  And there will be millions of very well-connected and powerful men and women with a real stake in the current system, be it financial or simply emotional. 

Therefore, we must be prepared to see the mainstream effort fail. 

But, what does this mean, to fail?  Is our right to exist as a distinct European-American people contingent on nose-counting?  Our right is our right is our right, even if only some small band of us agree.  Our existence is not negotiable nor subject to a veto.

Which is why, while we’re doing our damnest to turn to tables on the current power elite, who I believe strongly are much more fragile then they now appear, we will at the same time be working sub-rosa, below the ground, in the shadows and in secret to prepare the ground for that horrible day when there really is no hope other than going our own way and saying good-bye to the country of our forefathers. 

We must not be idle. We must be scouting good land—here and elsewhere—and recruiting experts in fields from animal husbandry to tool making to arms manufacture to carpentry.  We must lay the groundwork in secret for what would in effect be a gigantic withdrawal, a Retreat, a flight to a new place to force ourselves anew. 

Thus, mainstreamism and vanguardism are not distinct choices we must make.  They are the flip sides of the same coin, the open blade and the veiled dagger, each to be used when the time is right.



  1. Good article, but one small correction: There are definitely not 100’s of millions of Whites in the U.S. The overall population is about 330 million and Whites are technically about 2/3 of that, putting us at 220 million. But the miscegenation rate is extremely high, making a huge percentage of Whites effectively non-White. I’d say we are currently at 150 million if you also eliminate all the non-Whites who are counted as such. And the uneven birth rate, of course, is rapidly shaving points off even this 50%.

  2. Go to a ToysRUs or BabysRUs store sometime and look at all of the mixed race couples. In Houston, TX, the cross-breeding rate is easily over 50%. Soon most every white family will have a dark foreigner married into it. If something’s gonna happen, it better happen quickly.

  3. Europeans, nota bene. Once you get to about 25% foreigners in your country, you’ve effectively reached critical mass. The population will begin intermarrying, chain immigration will speed up, and your percentage of the population and overall influence will fall much more rapidly than you would expect. Your nation’s extinction is much, much closer than it appears.

  4. I’ll add support for BNP, whatever their tactics compromises and battles may be, no complaints from this side of the ocean.

    I prefer the “Conservative Party of the United States,” but feel free to salt to taste.

    No one has the luxury of anything official or bureaucratic or militant or even mainstream. Any theoretical CPUS is going to have to be a loose coalition of southern Dixie whites, independent libertarians elsewhere, regular conservative whites, and compromising Republicans (as much as it pains me to even include them).

    we must be prepared to see the mainstream effort fail

    We certainly need to think outside of narrow partisan politics, and that includes narrow partisan third-party politics (mostly irrelevant anyway). Since USA is a winner-takes-all and not a parliamentary system, any actual official election wins will have to be through one of the political parties. But that’s mostly irrelevant at this point.

    Any “occidental” vanguard is going to have to be cultural first and backed by a variety of barely-organized social groups. Think white flash mobs, to appropriate the latest jargon.

    more fragile then they now appear

    They really are. Once a critical mass is no longer paying attention to Hollywood/New York media, there’s really no stopping us. The only reason white people are watching Hollywood American Idol and New York FOX News, is because the so-called “vanguard” whites haven’t created any alternatives. Once they do victory is inevitable.

    flip sides of the same coin


  5. I can’t think of a damn thing that American white people agree on aside from not wanting to live in black majority neighborhoods. I would imagine any white ethnostate, jew free or not, would fairly swiftly break up into smaller units based on diverse values – secularists and Christians, rural and city people, social democratic vs. libertarian, eager to trade globally vs. not eager, probably others that I can’t think of. People aren’t going to agree on whether to have a National Health Service, that’s for sure.

  6. Your party platform is weak. A strong platform has to appeal to ordinary people, and be at least superficially constitutional assuming you eventually stack the Supreme Court. Your platform is too theoretical, too intellectual. The platform needs to be populist.

    Even though your intent is to use the party to educate and organize whites, since you assume there’s no way to win politically, you have to make a credible effort. You can at most demand a single constitutional amendment, and that had better be a slam dunk, a winning populist issue. I’d suggest ending birthright citizenship, though that might be amenable to stacking the court.

    A strong platform should include some of your suggestions:

    – A halt to legal immigration for 40 years

    – An absolute end to illegal immigration and the prosecution of illegal immigration profiteers.

    – The establishment of Puerto Rican independence

    But also needs to clearly spell out an economic nationalist platform that will protect high paid jobs for Americans.

    – Replacement of the income tax with heavy tariffs.

    – Laws against economic treason. Aiding our competitors by educating their people or selling them high technology will be punished with long prison sentences for both the CEOs and the board of directors. This also means no more educating asians in our universities.

    – All tax supported education will be for citizens only.

    – Heavy tax penalties on corporations that outsource.

    – An immediate jobs program putting men to work rebuilding our infrastructure, the goal being the reduction of real unemployment to under 5% within six months of the nationalist party taking power.

    I would recommend against including a national health service since, with the presence of poor blacks and hispanics who can never pay enough taxes to carry their weight, all general entitlements are wealth transfers from whites to non-whites.

  7. I forgot the most important plank:

    – Default on the national debt. Universal debt forgiveness.

    Yeah, that one is probably unconstitutional but it’s worth including just to listen to the jews scream bloody murder.

  8. OldRight

    Default on the national debt. Universal debt forgiveness. Yeah, that one is probably unconstitutional but it’s worth including just to listen to the jews scream bloody murder.

    Fuck ’em. I didn’t vote to be usury slaves of the Jew mafia.

  9. By the way, defaulting on the national debt is (or was) part of the Libertarian Party platform.

    But they almost never mention it.

  10. Great post Matamoros — a ton of excellent information is contained therein.

    I have also taken some preliminary steps to build a White Nationalist 3rd party platform (working name: “The American Freedom Party”) over @ — there I intend to create the platform (from A-Z) of a populist-oriented White Nationalist 3rd party, laid out in simple language that everyday people can understand. I haven’t been working too closely on it lately due to a shortage of time, but I have a million ideas in mind regarding the direction it ought to take, including many of the ideas you have laid out in this post. Maybe some of us here on this website and elsewhere can work together collaboratively to create a viable platform for a new populist and White Nationalist American 3rd party? There are some sharp political minds here for sure.

    Mat:”First, the sheer size, complexity and wealth of the current system means that it will not easily unravel.”

    Actually, I think it is quite the opposite, i.e. the more complex and convoluted a system is the more likely it will slowly (entropically) break down in to simpler and more manageable levels.

    I am pretty sure what is is currently happening in the USA and elsewhere is a general breakdown or weakening of the system (via the natural laws of entropy) because it has reached unsustainably complex levels. An economist wrote about this recently in an article entitled “Complexity Kills” –

    The main problem with the creation of a new pro-White 3rd party in the USA is that if it ever achieved any measurable level of success it would obviously start to siphon off votes from the Republicans, thus leading to even more victories of the anti-White Democrats. Probably the best we could hope for in the near-future via the creation of a populist and White nationalist 3rd party is to begin to influence the American Right enough to start adopting some of our ideas, working to change the overall American political culture in a more White Nationalist direction.

  11. I want to keep this discussion on point. The key question is not whether or not the sample (and quickly dashed-off) platform is ideal, but whether a simple 10 point program, assuming a decent public campaign and publicity, would bring the hypothetical new party to 10%. The point is NOT to quibble over the ideal platform, that is an argument for another time.

    The POINT is that we are very viable in the real White mainstream right now, especially given the disgrace on Wall St, the utter and obvious bankruptcy of pop culture and the absolutely obvious uselessness of either political party.

    With that in mind, I think we should adopt Kemp’s reasonable views and construct a mainstream alternative…..and, in the meantime, begin planning for the real-life equivalent of the retreat to Helm’s Deep.

  12. Matamoros – and evey-one else here – I would like a sincere answer, by all of you, to my follwoing question:

    What are each of YOU doing to racialize/awaken/etc your fellow unawakened Whites?

    I DEAL with “respectable, Mainstream” Whites.


    So………let’s start form THERE.

  13. Also – what to do about Jews infiltrating the most fetal of efforts at establishing White identity?

    They are ALWAYS there. Immediately, ASAP.

  14. Good article and good comments. THIS is what Americans – White Americans – and the nationalist movement are in need of: the outlines of a political alternative that covers the spectrum of what makes a nation work; not just obsessing over the race issue.

    Of course, the greatest part of what makes a nation strong is a homogeneous, diligent, culturally unified population.

    Americans are a practical, non-idealistic people with an eye on the bottom line, due to our history and composition. Stressing that racial/cultural homogeneity is part of a successful, well-running machine of a society will appeal to Americans more than will romantic visions and utopian idealism – at least for the current situation.

  15. Whites will support a party that plausibly offers them prosperity, security, and peace. Here are ten policies that we could push in the present system:
    1. End affirmative action and all other racial set asides and quotas.
    2. End all immigration, not just for 40 years. Repatriate all illegal immigrants, criminal immigrants, and immigrants who take more from the system than they contribute.
    3. Radical educational reform abolishing PC and returning to discipline, fundamentals, Eurocentrism, and strict meritocracy.
    4. Make English the official language of government, signs, business, education, etc.
    5. Adopt an America first foreign policy, with a stress on non-interventionism. Dismantle the bases overseas and bring the troops home. (Military bases are big sources of money for the local communities. Why not bring them back to America?)
    6. Pursue vigorous suppression of crimes committed by non-whites against whites, including racial profiling.
    7. Replace the income tax with a tariff on imported goods, which will protect the jobs of American workers.
    8. Complete freedom of association in hiring, education, housing, etc. allowing for self-segregation.
    9. Promote affordable family formation, including a long term commitment to returning to a one income earner/one stay at home parent model. (#3 and #8 will contribute to that goal as well.)
    10. National debt repudiation.

  16. I think it would be a good thing if a White Party would bleed enough votes from Republicans in marginal districts to elect Democrats. The more Republicans whose careers are ruined, the better. The faster the Republican party is destroyed, the faster sensible people will come over to a White Party.

  17. WHITEY said “Since USA is a winner-takes-all and not a parliamentary system…”. In fact, it is the several states that have a “winner takes all system” (commonly referred to as “plurality system” or FPTP – First Past The Post), since each state decides in what manner it will select its members of Congress.

    Maine, for example, uses a combination of plurality and proportional systems when selecting its delegation to the House, while most other states use a majority system. Theoretically, a state can let a monkey throw dart to select the members (although the constitutional clause that the feds must “guarantee the states a republican form of government” might kill that idea in court, but you get the point).

    This means that proportional representation can be introduced in smaller states without a superhuman effort, although it would take a lot of work. This, in turn, can make WN representation a lot easier to achieve. That is something to fight for. After all, who isn’t for better representation for the people, right?

    Furthermore, we may not be alone in wanting that change. I believe that our “friends” in ethnic interest groups might be very interested in FPTP, in order to control their own “territories”, without having to go through Whities or Jews in the Democratic Party primaries. That is another interesting aspect that is food for thought.

    Just my 4 1/2 cents (adjusted for inflation and tax increases)

  18. OK – I will try again – taking a different tack:

    We form a White Party.

    We go up to Whites at a shopping mall.

    “Hi! We are members of the White Party. We’d like to tell you about our platform”.

    What happens next?

  19. “C. Educattion”


    “So no one has to be shot, is that right? no bullets fired from either direction?”

    If we gained a political footing they would definitely attack us, and I think it would be far more aggressive than how they behave towards the BNP.

    If you’re genuinely proposing we keep all of the non-whites currently here, like the HBDers do, then we will definitely have to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws and segregation. Otherwise we will end up like Brazil.

  20. The point is this: amongst the people we are trying to reach—the only people that matter—the charges won’t stick.

    A goodly portion of our lot could use daily megadoses of this passage. Christ, is it really that hard to grok?

  21. Actually, I think it is quite the opposite, i.e. the more complex and convoluted a system is the more likely it will slowly (entropically) break down in to simpler and more manageable levels.

    I tend to agree with this. Ygg mentioned this, how the central government only grew to the monstrous size it did to protect us from the Red Hun, and now that the Red Hun has collapsed, so too should the federal monster. Instead, it went adventuring, in search of new Huns to justify it’s monstrosity.


    So………let’s start form THERE.

    Also – what to do about Jews infiltrating the most fetal of efforts at establishing White identity?

    They are ALWAYS there. Immediately, ASAP.

    Re white identity, it’s a complex process, but it begins with “you don’t have to be interested in race; race is interested in you.” Race is reality. Sticking our heads in the sand won’t change that.

    Re crypto-Judaism, this is one of the reasons I think some sort of parallel Euro ethnopatriotism for Jews might be a good idea. So, a Jew’s in line to join the ranks, but when he gets to the front of the line a bureaucrat sends him to the line for Jews.

  23. Furthermore, we may not be alone in wanting that change. I believe that our “friends” in ethnic interest groups might be very interested in FPTP, in order to control their own “territories”, without having to go through Whities or Jews in the Democratic Party primaries. That is another interesting aspect that is food for thought.

    We should be doing more thinking along these lines, as to how to make common cause with disparate forces in American politics. There are a lot of discontents and interested parties, and most of them share a few basic common interests. E.g., libertarians, Constitutionalists, the Christian Right, and yes, non-white ethnic blocs.

  24. Excellent post. This is the thinking that moves us forward. This is what gives WNs hope, and scares the shit out of our enemies.

    It is individuals, not merely ideas or ‘culture,’ that move people. Personality matters.

  25. Mark,

    If you’re genuinely proposing we keep all of the non-whites currently here, like the HBDers do, then we will definitely have to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws and segregation. Otherwise we will end up like Brazil.

    I want to warn you that I’m going to critique your thinking here, Mark. So brace yourself. You have a tendency to blow your lid so if you don’t feel like doing that right now, don’t read on.

    You’ll end up with “Brazil” (you’re not essentially already there?) even with such laws. (Actually, you’ll end up with India; Brazil still has recognizable northerners in the low millions.) That’s the whole point of separation.

    It’s a simple point, really. There are no taboos on discussing every single aspect of race one might care to bring up here so it’s not for that that this point is so very seldom understood. But isn’t understood. “Nah, never happen.” “Nah, I can’t see that happening.” Well just fuck off and die already if you can’t see it happening, you mental retardate. (Not addressing you here, Mark.)

    All else is a holding action until a stable, sturdy form separation can be achieved; that’s the sine qua non of permanent racial existence.

    Genetic obliteration can occur swiftly and/or violently, or it can occur slowly and/or painlessly (save for the psychic anguish experienced by those aware of the ineluctable outcome of the process under way). Given a choice, the latter is obviously preferable, and represents a set of policy proposals on its own, which are what all “HBD” proposals reduce to, whether HBDs know it or care to admit (to themselves or others) or not. And if one truly doesn’t care about race there’s nothing to be concerned about; it’d be like ingesting a poison that takes 200 years to kill you — you’ll be long gone by then anyway, so why worry.

    But if one does care, he’ll want to look beyond holding actions. In that case, it’s either expulsion or partition. Partition would be worlds easier to secure, and would be the intelligent first step even if expulsion were the ultimate desire. However, call me stupid, all this seems a long way off. Holding actions could endure for decades (and they may need to). That’s not good enough for most white activists: most are so hopping mad they want a racial solution right NOW. The problem is the hour was later than anyone thought even when Revilo made that point in the 60s. It’s much, much later now (see Rusty’s ToysRUS comment) but incredibly you still have cretins whose thinking is basically “white makes right” and that the masses are going to rise up any second now and throw off the oppressors, as if it were all just that straightforward. You even have your esteemed Greg Johnson proposing an essentially aracial platform but who can’t bring himself to word it in such a way that highlights its appeal to non-whites (a vote’s a vote, right?).

  26. Thanks for responding Svigor. No one esle has. I like this blog because the posters here-in are intelligent and thoughtful. The problem I have is that every-one seems ot be only interested in discussing theory.

    This is fine. However – theory and $5.00 will get you a cup of latter, at the Jew-owned Starbucks. I want ideas on practical application. I have stolen your “race is interested in you”. That’s great. I can uses that. I am on the frontlines TRYING to racialize a WHOLE LOTTA Whites who are still completely invested IN the “Tolerance makes be a better person” fraud.

    That is what I NEED. I NEED stuff I can USE. ”

    Now 0 if you think Jews are gonna be conned by the “Yes you can join us, but then oyu have to go somewhere else later” idea – please re-study Jews.


  27. Now 0 if you think Jews are gonna be conned by the “Yes you can join us, but then oyu have to go somewhere else later” idea – please re-study Jews.


    The general rule is that our policies with regard to Jews are not formulated with Jews in mind; they’re formulated with our folk in mind. So the point is not to trick Jews, the point is to deal with them in a way that is “good for the whites.” A parallel policy like this would constitute an attempt to appease the ethnopatriotic Judeophiles (who want to include Jews) and to contain them in their own “WN political ghetto” to prevent crypto-Judaic subversion. And it wouldn’t be “you have to go somewhere else later,” it would be “oh, sorry, this line is for us lowly goyim only; you chosen ones use that line, kthxbye.”

Comments are closed.