If you are a typical American, you have never heard of Tsenacommacah. Even the history buffs and anti-racists who read this website have probably never heard of it before. I myself had never heard of Tsenacommacah until two weeks ago. The name sounds unfamiliar to English-speaking ears.
Tsenacommacah – An Alien Land
What is Tsenacommacah? Why is it so important? Why would a White Nationalist be compelled to visit such a place? What relevance does Tsenacommacah have to the discussions that go on here?
“Tsenacommacah” has another name that should be more familiar to our readers: Eastern Virginia.
“Tsenacommacah” (or “densely inhabited land”) was the homeland of the Powhatan Indians. In the seventeenth century, their lands stretched along the Atlantic coast from the southern bank of the Potomoc River to the southern bank of the James River and around a hundred miles into the continental interior.
They were the brutal overlords of an Indian confederacy that included over thirty tribes scattered across Eastern Virginia. “Werowocomoco,” the capital of “Tsenacommacah” (located near the York River in present day Glouchester County, Virginia), should also be an unfamiliar term.
The Powhatan Indians were an Algonquin-speaking people. Racially speaking, they were Amerindians. Technologically, they were still in the Stone Age when the English arrived in Virginia. They were non-Christian pagans who practiced human sacrifice and worshiped an extinct pantheon of deities. They subsisted off hunting and fishing and New World crops like maize, squash, and beans.
The United States of America owes nothing to the Powhatan Indians or the other aboriginal tribes of Virginia. America, as we know it today, was as likely to spring from the Powhatan Indians as France was from the genius of the Neanderthals.
Tsenacommacah/Virginia
In 1607, the “Native Americans” (104 Englishmen and boys) arrived in “Tsenacommacah,” a land which they called “Virginia” in honor of Queen Elizabeth I, the fair skinned “Virgin Queen” of England. At the time, the English used the term “Virginia” to refer to the North American coastline above Spanish Florida; North Carolina was “south Virginia” and New England was “north Virginia.”
A year before, in 1606, the Virginia Company (a private for-profit joint stock enterprise) received its corporate charter from King James I of England. By the terms of the charter, the Virginia Company was charged with establishing a colonial settlement in North America. The English had used similar joint stock companies for decades to promote trade with Russia and India.
The purpose of the Virginia colony was fourfold: 1.) to provide a release valve for the teeming English underclass (who had no prospect of advancement in the overpopulated mother country), 2.) serve as a source of raw materials for England and a potential market for English goods, 3.) challenge the Spanish claim to the Atlantic seaboard of North America, and 4.) bring the indigenous Indian tribes into the Church of England.
The colonists were instructed to find a defensible, uninhabited area along a major river about a hundred miles inland from Chesapeake Bay. Such a fortified location would stand a better chance of resisting attacks by the Spanish from their bases in the Caribbean. Dropping anchor on an unsettled island or inlet, as opposed to an ideal location, was a calculation made to avoid antagonizing the local Indians.
The English wanted to establish good relations with the Indians. Their mission was to convert them to Christianity and mobilize them as allies against the Spanish. The Indians were also seen as trading partners; engaging with them in commerce was thought to work to the advantage of both parties.
This is why the English selected a small island in the James River connected to the mainland by a narrow peninsula as the site of their colony. “Jamestowne,” named after King James I, was a “waste area” of the local Paspahegh Indians, vassals of the Powhatan chiefdom which ruled all of “Tsenacommach.” The swampy, disease infested island was only used by the Paspahegh for seasonal hunting.
At the earliest stage in Virginia history, this much is clear: the English did not come to “Virginia” with the farsighted, long range ambition of creating a race-based North American empire at the expense of Amerindians. Their motivations were selfish, moral, religious, economic and geopolitical.
Jamestowne – Virginia Beachhead in Tsenacommacah
On May 14, 1607, the English colonists began their occupation of Jamestown island on the James River. They began construction of a defensive fort. Within two days, the English were visited by the Paspahegh Indians who left after a violent dispute. Two weeks later, the Paspahegh attacked Jamestown with an assault force of 400 Powhatan Indians, but were repulsed by English gunfire. Over the next two weeks, the Paspahegh continued their attacks on Jamestown while the colonists rushed to finish their fortifications.
Unable to dislodge the English from “Tsenacommacah,” Wahunsunacock (Chief of the Powhatans) arrived in Jamestown in June and announced a ceasefire. The English and Powhatans started to engage in limited trade. Through the fall and winter, the English continued their exploration of the Chesapeake and James River Basin.
While exploring Chickahominy country, another vassal of the Pohwatan Confederacy, Captain John Smith was captured in December 1607 and ordered to abandon Jamestowne and leave Paspahegh territory. The Powhatans had never reconciled themselves to the annoying English presence in “Tsenacommacah” and had only traded with the colonists to acquire strategic metal goods.
In 1608, the Jamestown colonists and the Powhatans went to war. After failing to abandon the colony, the Paspaheghs and their Powhatan allies attacked Jamestown; in self defense, the English retaliated by attacking and burning neighboring Paspahegh villages. With their superior weapons, the English had the better of the fight.
Over the next decade, the Powhatans tried ever ruse imaginable to exterminate or expel the English from “Tsenacommacah”: full frontal military assault, economic boycott, siege and starvation, guerrilla warfare, feigning friendship while plotting genocide. At one point, the Jamestown colonists were even reduced to cannibalism and temporarily abandoned the settlement, only to find the resupply ship from England waiting for them in Chesapeake Bay.
Jamestown alternated between peacetime and wartime footing. After every savage Powhatan attack, the English colonists would convince themselves that the Powhatans wanted peace … and this time it would be different. They intermarried with the Indians; for example, John Rolfe famously took Pocahontas as his wife. They traded strategic military goods like swords and rifles with them. They built schools for Indian children and invited the Powhatans to live amongst them.
In 1622, this naive policy culminated in a 9/11-style massacre of 1/4th of the Jamestown colonists in a surprise attack by the Powhatans. The Powhatan chief Opechancanough spent years trading with the English, tolerating the expansion of their settlements, allowing them to carry on missionary activity. He lulled the English into a false sense of security and struck at the right moment.
The Powhatans attempted to kill every last English man, woman, and child in Virginia. It was genocide.
Virginia Extirpates “Tsenacommacah”
After the sneak attack, the Virginia Company lost its charter and Virginia became a crown colony. The English colonists abandoned their attempt to convert the savages to Christianity. The General Assembly bluntly declared, “The termes betwixt us and them are irreconcilable.” The “extirpating of the Salvages” and the “winning of the Forrest” were now declared essential to the security of the colony.
So the English built a wall across the peninsula between the York and James Rivers. By attempting to exterminate the colonists, the Powhatans forfeited their claim to “Tsenacommachah.” The English expelled the Powhatans from “Virginia” and seized 300,000 acres of land for the secure development of their posterity.
By 1625, Virginia had rebounded from the Powhatan attack. 1,218 English men, women, and children were living in 21 settlements along the James River and Eastern Shore. The English settlers had begun to think more like racial nationalists, less like religious crusaders.
Lessons of Jamestown
A few instructive lessons can be drawn from Jamestown and Colonial Virginia:
1.) The Jamestown colonists did not require an elaborate abstract philosophy to justify their actions. They were not White Nationalists in any sense of the word either. White racial consciousness only developed later in Virginia after several generations of Englishmen had been born in the New World.
The colonists were simple men. The keyword here is men: when the Indians attacked, they retaliated. When the Powhatans attempted genocide, the English responded in turn. The English were self assertive and willing to take whatever practical steps were necessary to defend their interests.
2.) The English and Jamestown colonists had a mercantile mentality. The colony was conceived and justified on the basis that its prosperity would benefit the English nation.
3.) The policy of assimilation was a complete failure and led to disaster after disaster. The Spanish placed their trust in the Powhatans and the result was the demise of their Ajacán mission. The English attempt to assimilate the Powhatan resulted in the annihilation of 1/4th of the Virginia colonists.
4.) The greed of individuals undermined the colony. Unrestricted trade with the Powhatans undermined the value of English goods and passed along English military technology into the hands of the enemy. The brutal conditions endured by indentured servants sapped the unity of the colony. See also chasing after gold and a route to the “South Sea” instead of pursuing agricultural self sufficiency.
5.) White solidarity was a myth. The Spanish attempted to undermine Jamestown from the beginning. Several Germans artisans went over to the enemy. There were numerous runaways from Jamestown who ended up living among the Indians.
6.) Intermarriage eroded the English identity of the colonists and laid the groundwork for the 1622 massacre.
7.) It was a mistake to leave the colony in this private hands of a for-profit corporation. This error was later rectified when Virginia became a royal colony.
8.) The most important lesson to take away from Jamestown is that “blood, sweat, and tears” – not any abstract philosophy – is what enabled “Virginia” to supplant “Tsenacommacah.” The English burned Indian villages up and down the James River. They sailed up the James and its tributaries in their boats and pacified the countryside with a mobile strike force armed with rifles and heavy armor. They burned Indian fields to reduce the Powhatans to starvation.
Ultimately, the English succeeded after they finally adopted a realistic appraisal of their military circumstances in Virginia. They built the wall across the peninsula, expelled all the Indians, and imported as many White colonists from England as possible. They forbid trading with the enemy. They thought squarely in terms of their own self interest, not wishy washy idealism.
Strong men won the day.
Visiting Tsenacommacah
On Friday, I traveled with H. Rock White into “Tsenacommacah” to see for myself how “Virginia” was born. I wanted to walk in the footsteps of the English colonists and see the sights which must have been so familiar to them.
We visited Jamestown, Colonial Williamsburg, and Yorktown: the beginning, maturation, and capstone of Colonial Virginia. I took photos of all three sites in Colonial National Park. We shot video on the scene in Jamestown and Yorktown.
I couldn’t help but notice that character was the essential ingredient in the success of all three enterprises. The colonists were strong enough in mind and body to establish an English beachhead in “Tsenacommacah.” They were strong enough to transplant English civilization into Virginia. Finally, the colonists were strong enough to secure military victory at Yorktown.
Can you imagine White Nationalists living in the material conditions of Jamestown? Can you imagine White Nationalists having such a “let’s go” action oriented attitude toward dealing with the enemy in the real world? Can you imagine White Nationalists marching on foot from New York to Virginia with George Washington to face down Lord Cornwallis and his cannons?
If you can’t imagine any of these scenarios, you have identified what is wrong with the White Nationalist movement. Ordinary men didn’t have to read Martin Heidegger, Savitri Devi, or Guillaume Faye to conquer a continent. All they needed was balls, weapons, and a clear sense of their own interests.
Note: The photos and videos associated with this post will be uploading in the morning.
Just to satisfy my curriosity, exactly who is it that has been telling you that the reason not enough has been done is because people think we have to first read the works of the people you have been mentioning?
I’ve lived in the South my whole life and it’s disappointing to discover how many “whites” mixed with the Indians. I tried to organize some Euro-American groups only to receive the common answers: “but i’m part Indian” or “i’m American not European”.
This inability of “white” southerners to organize racially forced me to reexamine my views of them and come to these conclusions:
1) The original English settlers were too individualistic, self-fish, and short-sighted to hack it in Europe. The bottom of the barrel of Englishmen, essentially chased out.
2) They mixed with the Indians, becoming even more individualistic, self-fish, and really, just plain stupid.
Try getting 3 of them to work together on anything that doesn’t involve worshiping black athletes or drinking beer, and you’ll find it’s damn near impossible.
You make a good point about the futility of arcane and abstruse philosophizing.
However, an exhortation for whites to unthinkingly advance their self-interest will fall on deaf ears. Furthermore, white racialists brutishly, crudely, and unthinkingly acting to promote white racial interests will do nothing but play into the hands of our opponents.
The obsession many white nationalists have with violence, race war, and physical means is woefully misguided and dangerous. We cannot achieve racial preservation through physical means, including violence.
Poisonous ideas, specifically a false morality, are what are destroying us. It is only by defeating this false morality that we can achieve racial preservation.
“Morality is a weapon, and the moral battlefield will decide the fate of our race.”
“We should not condemn violence per se in a pacifist sense. There are situations where the moral and legal traditions of our race regard it as warranted and proper, and even necessary. There have been many situations in the past where decisive battles helped to save our race, the Teutoberg forest and Chalons being good examples. But our present situation is not one of them. Our opponent is not destroying us with an army, but with a morality. We cannot defeat that morality by any physical means, including violence. Rather, violence directed against it only tends to confirm and strengthen its claim to moral superiority. When we encounter people who should naturally be on our side who are shocked and angered by our ideas, their outrage is a moral reaction, based on a morality that is destroying us. Even if we succeed in disassociating ourselves from the negative associations already mentioned, many will still oppose us because of a morality that says it is wrong to even be concerned or care about racial matters. But until we do disassociate ourselves from these negative associations, we will never even have a chance to enter the moral battle and come to grips with our moral foe. It is the most dangerous and life-threatening foe our race has ever faced, and it cannot be defeated by violence, only by a superior morality.”
Richard McCulloch, “Creating a Moral Image,” Instauration, August 1989
Actually I’m not that surprised that white Southerners have Indian blood.
If you look at the stereotypical “redneck” that Hollywood movie usually portray, they generally have broad faces, high cheekbones, and somewhat narrow, thin eyes, all Mongoloid traits.
Nice article Mr. Wallace. A lesson to be had yet again. Those that do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Every different race of people on this planet except the Aryan man is a racist, and in order for us to survive we dam well better become racist and fast.
I agree, a fine article.
Just try to imagine being in Britain and piling into wooden boats to cross the whole Atlantic ocean with no modern maps or high-tech navigation equipment, and then accurately landing an the target destination (Virgina), and then carving out a settlement from scratch in the untamed wilderness using primitive tools while surrounded by savages. In my opinion, those acts alone show the courage brilliance of the White man, and I doubt these men were the bottom of the barrel even if they were from the British underclass.
They were, unfortunately, infected with many of same pathological ideas that infect the White man today (focus on money, willingness to miscegenate, etc.).
Instead of going into a war footing immediately and staying on a war footing, they made the horrible mistake of assuming these Indians would be open to reason — and they paid the price. But unlike today’s White man, they eventually came to their senses, fought back, and established a permanent beachhead for what would eventually become old White America.
I’d say this episode in history shows the best and the worst of the White mindset.
“All they needed was balls, weapons, and a clear sense of their own interests.”
Wrong. They had a shared morality (my codeword), that unified them, and was innate. They would think of abandoning this as much as severing their own carotids.
mike
MGLS,
What would you have us do? Start a debate club? A prayer group? Is that how we defeated the Indians or won our independence from the British?
Mike,
The moral scruples of the colonists prevented them from securing the area for almost 15 years. It was only after the Indians attempted to wipe them off the face of the earth that they summoned the will to take action.
As for the Powhatans, they didn’t lose because they lacked capable leadership or the will power to defend their lands. They lost because of their inferior military technology.
This post was about the earliest history of Virginia. In this period, Englishmen were attempting to colonize North America. These men were not born here. They were Europeans, not Americans.
They were not “Southerners.”
I could have easily made a post about the Puritans in New England. They also tried to convert the Indians to Christianity and mix with them. They had “praying towns” for Indian Christians. In New England and Virginia, this sort of millenarianism was set aside after the Indians attempted to exterminate the colonists.
By the 1620s, the English colonists in Virginia had started to believe that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Neither the Puritans or the Virginians arrived in the New World as racial nationalists with explicit racial consciousness.
Racial consciousness emerged organically in the seventeenth century. It grew out of the colonists experience with dealing with Indians and negroes. After several generations of English colonists had lived in North America, they started to think of themselves as White men.
Before anyone else draws a false conclusion, I am not saying that we have to pick up guns and establish White independence like our ancestors. We are in a radically different situation from our ancestors.
The point of this post is that our ancestors had the character that enabled them to succeed. Our task should be much easier. We don’t have to face anything like bloodthirsty savages on the frontier, starvation, or the British Army.
All we have to do is awaken our neighbors to their impending doom.
However, an exhortation for whites to unthinkingly advance their self-interest will fall on deaf ears. Furthermore, white racialists brutishly, crudely, and unthinkingly acting to promote white racial interests will do nothing but play into the hands of our opponents.
The obsession many white nationalists have with violence, race war, and physical means is woefully misguided and dangerous. We cannot achieve racial preservation through physical means, including violence. @MGLS
Out-of-the-park homerun, Mr. MGLS!!
Yes, many of these types are not only a danger to themselves, but to us as well. They should be reminded there is a time and a place for everything, and they should control their narcissistic and selfish impulses.
*You know, when you are not endlessly debating Reginald — you make a heck of a lot of sense and have a lot to offer us here.
Gentlemen, we really need to drop this worshipful view of these English Settlers, Constitution, Founders, and Their Government and put them into perspective.
So they sailed across the Atlantic…difficult yes…but Leaf Ericson and the Vikings did it long before in more primitive ships…Columbus and the Spanish started in 1492…long before the big English migration.
So they eventually defeated the stone age North American Indians…but look at the handful of Spaniards who defeated the Incas with much greater odds against them.
So they rebelled against their rightful King (even if he was unfair) and established a constitutional republic….but their ancestors haven’t controlled the levers of power in government for the last 100 years, during which time, this monster they created has been destroying us and our European brothers.
Why worship this system and its creators which has failed in a 1000 different ways: Economically, Socially, Politically, Judicially, etc…??
Did they do some difficult things, yes, but put them into proper perspective for God’s sake.
“We don’t have to face anything like bloodthirsty savages on the frontier”
Hunter, consider. The frontiersmen, all of them more or less skilled with a firearm, if needed, shot to kill the bloodthirsty savages, and there were no charges of murder brought up.
But we may soon face, when welfare ends due to the inability of state gov’ts to collect sufficient funding from taxing a productive populace, riotous hordes of hungry people and a police force that has been gutted due to funding cuts and/or replaced by the coethnics of the hostile non-Whites. At that time the term “bloodthirsty savages” is likely to, quite objectively, be fairly applied.
But this anti-White gov’t will certainly, at least until total collapse, will certainly prosecute any White man who metes out frontier justice.
So because “our own” gov’t has tied our hands behind our backs, the situation we may face may well be MORE difficult.
1.) The Vikings did not establish a permanent settlement in North America. They didn’t establish anything like a racial nationalist state either.
2.) The British colonies could have imitated those of Spain or Portugal. That was not the case. From a Spanish perspective, Virginia was worthless because it was not full of gold and silver.
3.) Peru and Mexico never resembled Virginia.
4.) The “rightful King” attempted to incite a slave rebellion among negroes and was allied with Indian savages on the frontier. He was also restricting White settlement to east of the Appalachians. In any case, the British monarchy is more degenerate today than the American Republic.
5.) I’m not “worshiping” this system and its creators. I am fully aware of its flaws.
6.) I am tracing the evolution of racial nationalism.
MGLS, you make a lot of good points. At this point in time, hooligan type violence is extremely counter-productive.
However, morality is not static, and there are some positive trends we can get behind.
One is a rebellion and antipathy towards intellectualism in general. By this we don’t mean serious academic/scientific research, but the type of stuff you hear from someone with a graduate degree in the humanities. People now more than ever hold ‘ivory tower elites’ in contempt, especially the ivy leagues, and large urban metro centers such as Manhattan, DC, San Francisco, etc.
The immigration debate has also changed peoples’ thinking. You can now hear ordinary white people talking about putting machine guns and land mines on the southern border.
Although libertarian individualism has been attacked by some in the ‘WN intellectual circles’, it is actually a positive development, because it defeats the concept that acting in self-interest is wrong. Most people think the ultimate moral thing to do is to send money to Africa to help starving children, or perhaps even go there yourself to volunteer. You can’t get people to support acting in the national self-interest if they think acting in self-interest in general is bad.
Also, the bleating you see on some sites about ‘zog committing war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc’ is counterproductive because it feeds into the mentality that such actions are indeed ‘war crimes’. Many WWII revisionists also fall into this category, especially the ones whining about ‘allied war crimes’.
Barb, you are also right in your post. That is why we must support gun rights and the right to self defense (‘stand your ground’ and ‘castle doctrine’ laws)
@ Hunter
Wait until you get to Bacon’s Rebellion. The classic American historians saw that event as a White supremacist revolt that sealed the fate of the indian & negro, and led directly to the establishment of our Constitutional Republic.
There has been some modern day mucking by Jewish influenced historians to give the negro a role in the revolt that they did not have. Something on the order of the rainbow confederacy, but, not as bad as that nonsense.
In a nutshell, the British Governor of Virginia attempted to give the indians and other non-Whites the same political rights as White people. This attempt by the British governor sparked Bacon’s Rebellion, and never again did the British government try to set up what mounted to a Spanish, or Roman Catholic colonial system in the American Colonies. Where non-Whites had the same rights as White people!
Earl
In assessing the conquests of Europeans in the Americas it would be useful to factor in the biological impact of Old World diseases on the Amerindians. I’m not sure how to quantify this, but my sense is that it played a much larger part in the race-replacement of the Amerindians than we normally like to think about, because it’s more gratifying to extol our ancestor’s proficiency in the development and use of gunpowder.
Maybe malaria, is what protected Africa from the fate of the Americas.
Our enemies don’t have a “false” morality, they don’t have any morality. They use the remnants of our own morality against us for their own advancement. It works extremely well. Again, Jewish influence.
Hunter Wallace: “Ordinary men didn’t have to read Martin Heidegger, Savitri Devi, or Guillaume Faye to conquer a continent. All they needed was balls, weapons, and a clear sense of their own interests.”
Excellent article overall, but this particular line misses the point. Of course they didn’t need to read Heidegger, et al. The point is that the ideas that they did hold, from whatever source they were drawn, were conducive to a violent and steadfast response to Indian savagery. In contrast, the ideas that dominate “white culture” today are not conducive to a determined response against anti-white depradations. We’ve all seen whites failing to act in circumstances that their ancestors would have jumped all over.
Another aspect is that the ideas that dominated the culture at the time of settlement contributed to the development of a strong character. On the other hand, the ideas that dominate the culture today do not, and in fact seem to be quite effective at undermining proper character development.
As the early history of white settlement shows, the whites had a culture that was healthy enough to get the job done, once the nature of that job became obvious. But there were serious flaws in their worldview, flaws that nearly led to their demise, either through direct extermination or through race mixing. Need I list the tremendous mistakes that have been made since then, not just here but in Europe as well? These mistakes were the result, at least in part, of a flawed worldview.
It’s not the case that the ordinary man must read Heidegger, it’s that we must develop better ideas and the basis for a sounder culture. If we don’t, we won’t regain our homelands. Or, if by some fluke we did regain them, we wouldn’t be able to sustain them in a world of instant communication and rapid transportation. The temptations to mix will remain.
If we are to win anything resembling a permanent victory, we must develop a culture that is conducive to the development of strong character, that much is true. But history shows this is not enough. There have been plenty of peoples in the past that had strong character, and yet their descendents are hapless, repulsive mongrels living in ignorance and squalor, defecating in the streets with flies buzzing about their faces.
Therefore, we must also develop a culture that is conducive to the preservation of our kind. We may well get a break in the form of an economic or political crisis that undermines the status quo (I think this is likely), but unless we win the battle of ideas, victory will remain either elusive or temporary.
The take away is that ideas and culture matter. If this weren’t the case, I doubt that our opponents would have spent so much effort and energy polluting our culture with false memes and degenerate notions. All of this is an attempt to alter our worldview, and this anti-white propaganda has had a devastating effect. We are indeed in a battle of ideas, and needless to say we have been losing. At this point, our opponents control almost all of the idea disseminating institutions that matter, so it will be difficult to spread even a very appealing, well developed, and sound worldview that is contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy. But it won’t be impossible, and initially it may only prove necessary for a positive worldview to be spread amongst a revolutionary vanguard, for wider dissemination later. We’ll see…but we have to start somewhere.
I’m wondering if the problem of miscegenation might not be self-correcting in our case. If the progeny of White/non-White miscegenation are considered non-White, and the predisposition to miscegenation is genetically influenced, won’t the purged White race be smaller, but more genetically resistant to this behavior?
As our race becomes less populous, will it also become more racially virulent?
Jimmy Marr: “I’m wondering if the problem of miscegenation might not be self-correcting in our case. If the progeny of White/non-White miscegenation are considered non-White, and the predisposition to miscegenation is genetically influenced, won’t the purged White race be smaller, but more genetically resistant to this behavior?”
Probably, at least in the short run. Certainly miscegenation selects out those who are most predisposed to race mixing, which is good. But as time marches on, you’re going to have more and more hybrids running around, and this will create an entirely different set of problems. Indeed, this is already starting to happen. The white who mates with a full blown African or squat mestizo is clearly defective. Good riddance. But what about the white who mates with someone who is half Japanese? Or a mestizo with considerable European features? Perhaps we would still say such a person is a defective, perhaps not. But is it not becoming a harder call, at least to a degree?
And that is precisely the problem. The lines become progressively blurred, which is precisely what the anti-whites want.
Even if we say such a person is not defective, clearly they are acting in a way that is diluting what we are, and turning us instead into a Brazilian style goulash. This leads to disaster on the macro level, even if it is not terribly obvious on the micro level.
The long and the short of it is that, yes, miscegenation has probably already removed quite a bit of the detritus from the white race. This is good, painful as it has been to observe. But if it is allowed to continue, it will progressively start to take down white elements that are otherwise healthy, eventually destroying us altogether. As I stated above, I believe that this is already happening. We may be shedding some of the scum, but we are losing some healthy elements as well.
Therefore, we require an ethnostate to protect our evolutionary destiny. I would go further and say that this ethnostate would be better off in the long run if it has some mechanism to gradually shed the detritus of our race, perhaps by making it viable for such people to move to a mixed nation. I want the defectives to be perfectly free to leave our gene pool, I simply oppose them being able to corrupt it. In other words, you don’t have to be a part of us, but you don’t have the right to destroy us. That strikes me as fair and equitable.
Americans need to be deprogrammed, not reprogrammed. We don’t need another abstract philosophy to replace the one that exists now. Thinking in terms of universal abstractions, not in terms of self interest, is one of the most important factors that has led us down this road.
Great article Hunter!
“MGLS,
What would you have us do? Start a debate club? A prayer group? Is that how we defeated the Indians or won our independence from the British?”
– Spot on! Other than Ghandi, I cannot think of any pacifist movements that have helped establish a nation, and even his involved some violence (though not by his hands). The following quotes of Ghandi are interesting in this regard:
”
“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.”
“Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind non-violence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which non-violence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one’s life. As a teacher of non-violence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief. ”
MGLS says “We cannot achieve racial preservation through physical means, including violence.”
– What little action has been taken so far on our part to preserve our race has only been bleating on internet forums about the wrongs done to us and appears to be of little practical utility, wouldn’t you say? So continued pacifist efforts in the name of some sort of higher “morality” do not seem to hold forth much promise. Pacifist social organisms (such as the Shakers of the 19th century) that claim the moral high ground amidst battle (which they literally did during the “Civil War” or War of Northern Aggression , as I would choose to name it) do not fare well in terms of longevity.
You follow your quote above, disavowing the use of violence with a quote from Richard McCullough: ““We should not condemn violence per se in a pacifist sense. There are situations where the moral and legal traditions of our race regard it as warranted and proper, and even necessary.” – When then, is the “right time” or “right situation”? How many more White lives need to be taken, White minds corrupted with multicult nonsense, White girls persuaded to interbreed with Darks(http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/07/15/hedgepath-murder-in-nc-editors-note-comments-have-been-disabled-due-to-the-nature-of-this-story/), how many more job opportunities do our young people need to be made to lose out on so another dark face can take their place in “our” economy, before you deem “the right moment for violent methods” has arrived?
“Our opponent is not destroying us with an army, but with a morality”. No, our opponent is destroying us with OUR sense of morality. Our opponent has NO morality. They (our opponent) recognize that in nature, there is no such thing as “morality”. Morality is a mental construct, and since we buy into it, it is the perfect weapon to use against us: i.e.: Their “morality”- Is it good for the Jews..” ours-“Is it good for humanity ?”
Every “person of color” knows and understands the mechanics of this simple device, and snickers into his/her sleeve when they accuse one of us of being a racist.
Hunter Wallace: “Thinking in terms of universal abstractions, not in terms of self interest, is one of the most important factors that has led us down this road.”
Is not the person who grows rich by hiring non-whites acting in his own self-interest? Is not the person who sells out his own people, perhaps spouting the party line in order to gain fame and fortune, acting in his own self-interest? Is not the guy who bangs the cute Asian chick acting in his own self-interest?
White nationalists may answer, “No, he is not acting in his self-interest, at least properly understood. His behavior is in fact destructive of the broader community, and ultimately of himself and his descendents.”
And we would be correct, according to our worldview. But…er…he doesn’t share our worldview, so he doesn’t see it that way. Which is the friggin point.
The problem that we’ve got today is that most whites are pursuing their narrow self-interest instead of what is good for the broader white community. Of course, in the long run this will make them (or at least their descendents) worse off, but to understand and appreciate that, not to mention exercise the self-discipline and integrity to act upon it, will require better ideas and a sound worldview. This worldview should eschew “universal abstractions,” in favor of an approach that facilitates the preservation of that which is most important – our people. You might think of it as enlightened self-interest, if you prefer – but the “enlightened” part requires an accompanying worldview.
Your call to act on self-interest instead of develop a worldview is a contradiction, because our worldview shapes our perceived self-interest. The worldview that dominates contemporary life encourages the pursuit of money and sex, and disparages concepts such as honor, integrity, and racial continuity. Hence the guy who hires illegals and bangs non-whites is, under the current status quo, acting perfectly in accord with his self-interests. In a healthy society with a healthy worldview, this wouldn’t be the case at all.
It still comes down, in large measure, to what the dominant worldview is. I find it amazing that you continue to attack this rather obvious truth.
Excellent article, Hunter.
One minor point I’d like to make though is that, while it’s true these men didn’t need some high-fluttin’ philosophical ideology to ultimately justify their existence, they didn’t have to deal with forces that were attempting to erode their identity and their very livelihood. The Indians may have wanted to eradicate the Englishmen from what they percieved as their land, but they didn’t apply psycological warfare to destroy their identity as Englishmen. These men were already born knowing they were European and took an unconscious comfort in their racial/ethnic identity.
As you pointed out, though, the confrontations with the savages gave them better awareness and reinforced their identity so that they began to truely fight for a collective racial interest.
The point I’m trying to make is that, unlike today, the average man of European extraction (in this case, Englishmen) had at least an unconscious awareness of what he was and who did and did not belong, thereby making it easier to fight for both his individual and collective racial interests.
@Trainspotter
Great responses,
Though I would argue that the dominant worldview is still racial. To my knowledge, it is only us Whites who appear to be attempting to disregard racial differences. I say attempt because, as we can well see happening already, common sense regarding race will once again pervade amongst us.
“Americans need to be deprogrammed, not reprogrammed. We don’t need another abstract philosophy to replace the one that exists now. Thinking in terms of universal abstractions, not in terms of self interest, is one of the most important factors that has led us down this road.” Hunter Wallace
I totally agree. I just don’t know how we’re going to do it. From personal experience, I found the spiritual discipline of Zazen very useful. But having hung around enough Zendos, I can tell you that there is strong tendency among westerners to confuse the discipline of Zen with the cultural trappings of the East.
In Zen terms, this equivalent to confusing the finger with the moon at which it endeavors to point.
For a very unusual interpretation of pre-war Zen in Europe, I recommend Hubert Benoit’s “Supreme Doctrine”. It was written in French in the early fifties, and has an introduction by Aldous Huxley, with the thinly veiled, but mandatory German bashing, which was enough to pass it under the noses of the Jewish publishing censors. The original cover was a beautiful calligraphic water-color, but has since been “modernized”.
Nevertheless, this book is still available, and is as subversively powerful as ever.
http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Doctrine-Hubert-Benoit/dp/1898723141/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1279499032&sr=1-1
MGLS,
What would you have us do? Start a debate club? A prayer group? Is that how we defeated the Indians or won our independence from the British?
There may come a time when action is necessary, but now is not the time, and any such time is a long way off. It is important not to get ahead of ourselves.
From the January 1976 issue of Instauration:
“Still another supporter has worked out a plethora of constructive solutions for the Majority’s resurrection, some of which may appear in later issues of this magazine. Meanwhile, he warned that Instauration should not be too negative and too concerned with our sickness rather than its cure. Our point is that the illness must be properly diagnosed before there can be an effective prognosis. An activist in the group said the time was long past for education and the deed must now replace the thought. We have heard this argument before; in fact it has been voiced up and down the land since 1930. The activist was told that until we can educate at least a small segment of our preachers, teachers and other members of the intelligentsia to see things our way, we will just be spinning our wheels. There is no deadlier enemy of activism than a false timetable.”
From The Ethnostate:
“Educate, arouse, act! These are the well-worn stepping-stones to power. But they should be traversed in that order. Arousal before education, acting before being properly aroused are invitations to failure. Misplaced priorities do not set the stage for momentous deeds.”
You’re exactly right that our task is to awaken and inform our race, and to show them that racial preservationism is right and moral.
Out-of-the-park homerun, Mr. MGLS!!
Yes, many of these types are not only a danger to themselves, but to us as well. They should be reminded there is a time and a place for everything, and they should control their narcissistic and selfish impulses.
*You know, when you are not endlessly debating Reginald — you make a heck of a lot of sense and have a lot to offer us here.
Thank you for the kind words, Amerikaner.
Our enemies don’t have a “false” morality, they don’t have any morality. They use the remnants of our own morality against us for their own advancement. It works extremely well. Again, Jewish influence.
People reject racism because they associate it with immorality. Our opponents’ positions are in fact extremely immoral, but it is this false conception of morality that is destroying our race. Creating a moral form of racism and defeating the false morality of our opponents is the key to racial preservation.
http://www.instaurationonline.com/pdf-files/Instauration-1989-08-August-pt1.pdf
See the article “Creating a Moral Image” starting on page 6.
“Our opponent is not destroying us with an army, but with a morality”. No, our opponent is destroying us with OUR sense of morality. Our opponent has NO morality. They (our opponent) recognize that in nature, there is no such thing as “morality”. Morality is a mental construct, and since we buy into it, it is the perfect weapon to use against us: i.e.: Their “morality”- Is it good for the Jews..” ours-”Is it good for humanity ?”
We are being destroyed by a morality that says it is wrong to be concerned or care about racial matters.
You follow your quote above, disavowing the use of violence with a quote from Richard McCullough: ““We should not condemn violence per se in a pacifist sense. There are situations where the moral and legal traditions of our race regard it as warranted and proper, and even necessary.” – When then, is the “right time” or “right situation”? How many more White lives need to be taken, White minds corrupted with multicult nonsense, White girls persuaded to interbreed with Darks, how many more job opportunities do our young people need to be made to lose out on so another dark face can take their place in “our” economy, before you deem “the right moment for violent methods” has arrived?
What violent actions do you propose, and how would such actions advance the racialist cause?
The morality that is destroying us cannot be defeated by violence. Violence simply confirms and strengthens the false morality that is destroying us. Irresponsible and ill-advised actions have unintended effects and play into the hands of our opponents. People view racism as immoral, and violence will do nothing but confirm their belief.
Regarding your examples, here is another excerpt from McCulloch’s article:
“On the subject of provocation, my thoughts turn to the article by David Lane, a founding member of The Order, which appeared in the April 1989 issue of Instauration. He mentions a 1983 incident where he and Robert Matthews encountered a very beautiful young blonde, her black husband and their mulatto child. The account ends with Matthews drawing his gun on the three of them. We are left to speculate about what happened next. The image of the beautiful young blonde is a very powerful one. I would say the most powerful of all. It arouses our strongest and most basic racial-sexual male protective instincts. To see such a one mated to a male of another race is very provoking. It causes great pain, anger and sorrow. But sad to say, I believe we have all seen similar sights. Such sights have a way of sticking in one’s mind. The first I remember was in 1968. Such a sight is a powerful motivator. How can you help them? How can you save them? You want to do something about it, to stop it, undo it or prevent it, and it is frustrating when you can’t. It makes you feel ineffective and helpless, even emasculated.
“What is to be done? What can we do? What action can we take that will be effective in saving our race and prevent further such tragic losses in the future? How effective were Matthew’s actions? Did he save the blonde, or any blondes? The blonde no doubt believed that what she was doing was morally proper and even morally superior. Drawing the gun on her did not change this belief, but only tended to confirm it. We cannot force people to change their moral beliefs at the point of a gun, and we certainly gain nothing by killing the very people we should be trying to save. Perhaps he should have told her that what he saw caused him great pain and sorrow, and explained why. Maybe that would have been more effective. It certainly would have required courage. As it is, I don’t believe his actions saved any blondes, rather I believe that his actions, by giving our opponents more grist for their propaganda mill, and undermining the moral image of racism, had the opposite effect of causing more to be lost. I do not believe this was his intent, but actions often have unintended effects, especially irresponsible and ill-advised actions that play into the hands of your opponent. If we can’t see that, we will be like blind men, and our race, with none but the blind to lead it, will surely be lost.”
Jimmy Marr: “I totally agree. I just don’t know how we’re going to do it.”
There is a reason that you don’t know how – it’s because it can’t be done. Just saying “we should operate on self-interest” doesn’t get us anywhere. The Randroids have based an entire philosophy on self-interest, publishing books like “The Virtue of Selfishness.” Are they white nationalists? Of course not. Instead, they attack white nationalism as a vicious and low form of tribalism.
This whole self-interest thing is a cop out, it doesn’t remotely help us get from point A to point B. It is our worldview that helps shapes what we perceive our self-interest to be. The flow may work the other way as well, but the point is that “self-interest” can lead to everything from the Cult of Ayn Rand, to hiring illegals, to banging some chick fresh out of a Subic Bay whorehouse. The idea that it inherently leads to white nationalism is provably, demonstrably untrue. Hence the need for a worldview.
I’m not sure that this is the best way to think about it, but to get where we need to go, we need to develop a worldview that properly defines and promotes our self-interest, as we white nationalists understand it. There are plenty of others, from Randroids to open borders advocates, who have their snake oil to sell, and they can appeal to self-interest too. The fact that their snake oil leads to nothing but misery and extinction does not necessarily diminish its appeal. We’ve got real competition, and we either step up to the plate or we will lose out. The facts may be on our side, but that matters little unless we can give them life in some appealing form.
MGLS: “There may come a time when action is necessary, but now is not the time, and any such time is a long way off. It is important not to get ahead of ourselves.”
I agree that it is important not to get ahead of ourselves, but action will become necessary, and I’m not sure that it’s going to be a “long way off.” Things are moving fast. Faster than we are, unfortunately.
It’s only been fairly recently that the ethnostate has become more or less a consensus amongst hardcore nationalists. That was a critical first step, but it is not enough. A much more solid intellectual foundation needs to be created to shape that goal into a compelling vision. Creating this foundation will be difficult, but it need not take all that long. I’m hopeful that we will have it within the next few years, though of course that is just a guess.
Does anyone on this thread have any insight into why Hunter is affecting this anti-intellectual populism and attacking me and the various European thinkers that interest me?
“Does anyone on this thread have any insight into why Hunter is affecting this anti-intellectual populism and attacking me and the various European thinkers that interest me?”
I don’t understand the anti-intellectual posturing either, Greg.
I see your point, Trainspotter. And I agree. The goal of deprogramming is attractive as a theoretical prelude to cognitive reconstruction of a radically different world view, but it isn’t a requirement, and as you assert, its probably impossible.
Either way, it’s pursuit is impractical.
So, whenever Hunter is not looking, let’s work toward building a world view. That’s really what his blog is all about. Even when he argues against it, he does so in the abstract. He has created a medium through which new world views are hashed out. Self interested or otherwise, he’s become a philosophical midwife.
Lest we become arrogant in this endeavor, let’s remember that a critical ingredient in a world view, is the world itself. And ours is changing. Which means we have job security.
“Does anyone on this thread have any insight into why Hunter is affecting this anti-intellectual populism and attacking me and the various European thinkers that interest me?” Greg Johnson.
Who cares? You look good under attack. That which doesn’t kill you will make you stronger.
I almost passed this article over since I thought it was just an explanation of tourist sites in Virginia of interest to white nationalists. I’m glad I toughed it out. There are some instructive lessons for racially conscious white people.
While the white Jamestown colonists were afflicted with a less destructive form of liberalism/universalism their minds weren’t yet deformed beyond all hope by Jewish propaganda. They could still learn from experience unlike today’s drooling white leftists. Fortunately for them the Jewish genius who invented the word racism had yet to grace this earth.
The absence of a Jewish elite to twist, spin and lie about current events meant that the colonists weren’t wracked by feelings of racial guilt and a sense of lifelong obligation towards Indians. As such, after violent clashes with the indians they acquired a firm grasp of racial reality and of the sanguinary task before them without slipping into a sort of Orwellian doublethink that would have stayed their hand. In order to survive they would give no quarter where Indians were concerned and resort to a bloody, scorched earth policy that didn’t even spare indian women and children. After all, savage Indians don’t understand the concept of chivalry and never spared white women and children.
The Jamestown colonists continued to shower good will towards the Indians through trade and intermarriage but this didn’t result in everlasting peace or secure them from Indian depredations. Today’s whites are literally hunted by feral, racist blacks after decades of welfare programs, racial set asides and an unofficial policy of institutional anti-white racism that was designed to mollify blacks and win their hearts and minds. Most black racial organizations condone violence against whites.
Detente towards non-whites in our living space didn’t work then and it’s not working now. Brought to its logical conclusion it will lead to our complete dispossession and demise. Non-whites only respect a stronger foe and only understand the language of force. Therefore, at some point in the near future American whites must adopt a two fisted and violent policy towards non-whites much like the white settlers at Jamestown. Meekness and passivity hasn’t exactly worked wonders for us and only invites more aggression.
Anyone who doesn’t think whites will be forced to physically defend themselves in the not too distant future is willfully deaf, dumb and blind. War is the continuation of politics by other means and barring some miracle America’s intractable race problem will be settled not by debate but by force of arms.
HW basically has it right. Too much thinking prevents decisive action, which is what will called for – sorry, MGLS – about two years from now, when ZOG’s already ongoing economic and political collapse suddenly accelerates. We just need a few basic ideas: closed borders, national autarchy, liquidate Zionist wars and ZOG itself, and finally, White Republic. There is going to be incredible violence whether we wish it or not, and whoever organizes violence more efficiently is going to win. As usual.
Considering our present situation, I would say that “anti-intellectual postering” is a good thing. The impact of European intellectuals on American culture has largely been negative.
The only exception that comes to mind is Darwinism. I would include eugenics, evolutionary psychology, and ethnic genetic interests, but all are more or less applications of Darwinism.
In part, this thread was prompted by the Oswald Spengler discussion, whom I consider among the worst of the bunch. I have been visiting historic sites across Virginia ever since I got here though. That was the primary impetus of this debate.
A. R. stated, repeatedly, “America never had any original philosophy, just a bunch of hand-me-downs from Europe.”
Trainspotter,
By nature, intellectuals are suited to analyzing ideas, and will naturally argue that ideas should be front and center. It is too easy though for intellectuals to get utterly lost and obsessed with their abstractions.
We’ve been debating these topics for ten years now. You have been around the scene longer than I have. When are we going to see the action that is always promised follow up these ideas?
From my vantagepoint, I have seen a decade elapse and our racial circumstances deteriorate to lows that I could not even imagine. I can cite dozens of great abstract debates about history and philosophy that have gone on in this time period. As for action in the real world that made a difference in reversing our decline, I can’t point to much of at all.
Intellectuals have been analyzing the causes of our racial decline since the 1920s. To his credit, Madison Grant followed up his ideas with action in the real world, but few racialist intellectuals today are willing to do the same.
I have no doubt that these people will still be talking about “ideas” in anonymity when they are on their deathbed.
Neener, neener, neener.
Trainspotter,
I haven’t said that we should operate on “self-interest” alone. If you watched the videos, I repeatedly hammered home the point that character also matters a great deal.
Why do you suppose Washington’s troops marched from New York to Virginia to face Lord Cornwallis and his cannons at Yorktown? To be sure, they hoped to personally benefit from throwing off the yoke of British rule, but they also had stern moral qualities that enabled them to face danger and the possibility of death.
The sad truth is that most White Nationalists today don’t have the guts to meet a comrade at a bar to throw back a few beers. Whereas our ancestors marched into cannon and rifle fire from British regulars, White Nationalists today cower in fear of being “outed” by leftists.
What if the Sons of Liberty had been content to sit around the taverns of Boston and discuss ideology all day? The American Revolution would never have happened.
We have thousands of White Nationalists sitting around in virtual taverns in cyberspace … and doing nothing else.
If anything is true, White Nationalists have a surfeit of ideas. We have more ideas than our ancestors who were proud to own a single book. It’s the balls and moral fibre department where we come up short.
I think white men have as much physical courage as they ever had. Right now, white men are disproportionately doing the fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What we don’t have is social acceptance, support networks, and a way to preserve your reputation if you openly engage in white nationalism. I know people whose own parents have disowned them for being “racist.” That, in its own way, is scarier than facing British bayonets but knowing that if you fall, you’ll be remembered as a hero.
Changing that mindset is where the battle of ideas comes in, and why the intellectual stuff is actually important. Unfortunately, whatever brilliant points we make, all this debate means little unless we gain a way to convey those ideas through the media, academia, or pop culture.
When we philosophize, we’re cowards.
When we take to the streets, we’re clowns.
When we patrol the border, we’re thugs.
Hunter: “We’ve been debating these topics for ten years now. You have been around the scene longer than I have.”
How is that? This blog was the first racialist site I ever posted to (when it was the Odessa Syndicate). I’m not sure that I’ve been posting for even two years, certainly not much longer than that. Possibly three. I saw value in what you were trying to do, which is why I started posting. I’m pretty new to the “scene.” I’ve never been a member of any white nationalist group.
Hunter: “When are we going to see the action that is always promised follow up these ideas?”
When we have a compelling vision, and when the circumstances are right. The first part we can control, the second part not so much. But it increasingly looks like fate will provide an opportunity in the form of favorable circumstances…if we are ready, which at the present time we aren’t.
Hunter: “As for action in the real world that made a difference in reversing our decline, I can’t point to much of at all.”
I understand your frustration, but there is a reason for this. You can’t put the cart before the horse.
Hunter: “Intellectuals have been analyzing the causes of our racial decline since the 1920s.”
It’s not enough to analyze the causes of our racial decline. We must synthesize a compelling vision for the future. If I remember correctly, I thought that was what Odessa Syndicate was supposed to be about. Now, a couple of years later, we’re finally getting some intellectual activity…and just as we get started, you sour on it.
Look, Hunter, if you can go out there and win us a homeland, by all means do so. Let me spell it out in the most unintellectual way possible: I just want to fucking win. I don’t give a flying fuck how that is accomplished, as long as we win. I don’t care if it’s peaceful, or involves the most horrendous violence. I don’t care if it’s at the ballot box, or dancing around a fucking maypole. Whatever gets the job done.
Having said that, I have given a lot of thought to these issues, and have studied a great deal of history. I’ve come to a clear conclusion: the intellectual foundation has to be laid first (NOT just analyzing the causes of our decline, but instead a powerful vision of the future); then the ideas must be spread as far as possible, this will happen through intellectual discussion, but also art and various forms of media, from music to cartoons to everything else; then action – in whatever form that may require.
Right now, our real world efforts don’t amount to much for a variety of reasons. Part of it is the sanctions that the System is able to deliver, but it’s more than that. You want to create a real world organization? I say fine, go for it. But I’ll tell you this: I personally know quite a few professionals who are WN or sympathizers. High quality people, extremely capable – cream of the crop. The kind of people that you need to really make an organization work. And, at this point, NONE of them would join a real world organization. Not one. Think about that for a minute.
Now, that can change. I believe it will change. In fact, I’m convinced that it’s going to change. Not fifty or a hundred years from now, but in the not too distant future. But White Nationalism hasn’t done its job yet, and right now that job is to build a positive intellectual foundation, and spread those ideas as far as we can. Once we get some real momentum, you’ll start finding opportunities opening up, and more people willing to involve themselves in real world activism, of one sort or another. But we don’t have the elusive “it” yet, that thing that really motivates people. You don’t get “it” from just critique, or analysis of our decline. You get it from a real revolutionary spirit, something that we still lack.
But again, if you can conjure it up out of thin air, then great. Like I said, I just want to win. But you CAN’T, so rather than bemoan that fact, why not do the work that CAN create it? Look at other meaningful revolutionary movements. They had the intellectual foundation first, it didn’t just came out of thin air.
It really baffles me that, just as the real intellectual ferment starts to get going – and you had an important role in that process – you would all of a sudden turn on it. It’s just getting started, dude.
Hunter: “If anything is true, White Nationalists have a surfeit of ideas. We have more ideas than our ancestors who were proud to own a single book. It’s the balls and moral fibre department where we come up short.”
And why is that? Did someone just wave a magic wand, and make it so? Of course not. Our culture has been destroyed, and degenerate ideas have replaced healthy ones. We can analyze to our heart’s content, and trace each of these negative ideas back to its root. That has value, and it certainly needed to be done. But I think we have pretty much accomplished that – our critique is solid. We only need to keep it up for certain propaganda purposes, and to educate newbies – but the heavy lifting has largely been done, so we don’t need decades of nothing but more of the same.
Instead, we need to create a compelling vision, spread it, and then help make it manifest in the real world. Anything else is putting the cart before the horse. So whether we have a “surfeit of ideas” is immaterial. We certainly don’t have a surfeit of ideas that can successfully motivate a revolutionary spirit, and it is THOSE ideas, not just any old thing, that we need to work on. Those ideas -winning ideas – are in extremely short supply. It’s our job to change that.
Hunter,
Personally, I share your frustation with the lack of action while agreeing with most of what Trainspotter & Gregory Hood have stated above. But there may be something else that I think that holds us back and is colored as cowardice.
Is there perhaps a fear of “Jumping the Shark”?
Street activism does not entail staying at home engaging in the online denigration of the efforts of others.
Greg,
No one is denigrating your efforts. If memory serves, you were the one who started this debate with the Spengler article.
No, Hunter, you started in with the Yockey memorial. Lena, a complete outsider, saw what was going on then. She’s not alone.