In Part 1 we discussed the ‘ruling class’ and the ‘country class’ as described in Angelo Codevilla’s recent Spectator article, and modified his descriptions to fit racial realities. His article ends with this paragraph:
How the country class and ruling class might clash on each item of their contrasting agendas is beyond my scope. Suffice it to say that the ruling class’s greatest difficulty — aside from being outnumbered — will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class’s greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough.
Well, luckily for us, this subject is within our scope, and we don’t see it as much of an ‘imposition’ to ‘impose’ on any universalist loyalties to systems which serve the ruling class.
Many white advocates believe the electoral system is a lost cause. However, whites still make up over ¾ of the electorate in this country. In our discussions regarding the ‘Southern Ethnostate’, the case was made that even in the states of the Deep South where whites make up the smallest portion of the electorate of anywhere in the US, whites acting together can defeat the alliance of the ruling class and their nonwhite dependents. Even stronger is the concept that the ‘Republican Party’ is hopelessly corrupt, an opinion which Codevilla shares.
This is based on the misconception that American political parties are organic entities with a set of values, the way they are in most of the rest of the world. They might better be seen as pseudo-legislative bodies. Instead of forming coalitions after the election the way they do in most countries, here they form them into ‘party’ coalitions before the election. The ‘Democrat Party’ in fact is a coalition of the Black National Party, Partido de la Raza, the Organized Labor Party, the Feminist Party, the Gay Party, the ‘Green’ (more like ‘Watermelon’) Party, and the Liberal Party.
Like it or not, the U.S. is inherently a ‘2-party’ system. The reason for this is partly because of our ‘winner take all’ elections. Yet, all Anglo countries have this system, and most of them have at least 3-4 large parties plus some minor and regional parties. What America has that these other countries don’t is a separate and strong executive branch. If you can’t compete for top dog, you’re not in the race. Whereas for example the Liberal Democrats in Britain can force themselves into the administration with a third place finish, as they did recently, Ross Perot ended up with absolutely nothing after a strong third place finish in 1992. This is why even strong ‘third parties’ such as the Populist Party and Progressive Party ended up being assimilated by one of the two larger parties, as did more recent ‘third party’ movements such as those led by George Wallace and Ross Perot. In the past, even these ‘third parties’ started out from regional bases, but politics are far more nationalized than ever today along ideological lines, with non-ideological regional differences minimal.
American political parties can’t kick out renegade officials like Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, the way most political parties in other countries can. The ‘Republican Party’ disavowed David Duke, and he still almost won. Today, they might just have to stomach a ‘David Duke’ who didn’t have a history of being a KKK leader and being photographed in a nazi costume. Witness the change of Sean Hannity from viciously attacking Ron Paul to becoming a defender of Rand Paul.
Candidates are usually elected by the voters, in the ‘primary elections’. Party officials are elected by lower officials, which are elected by even lower officials, on down to the lowest level which are elected by local voters. Derek Black of StormFront was elected to one of these bottom-rung positions. David Duke’s allies at one point dominated entire areas of Louisiana. Political parties are also losing strength due to campaign finance laws, and ‘lobbies’ such as MoveOn.org and the NRA often prove stronger than the ‘party establishments’.
Most importantly, this divides up the electoral battle into 2 different battles. Instead of trying to take on the entire electorate all at once, you only take on about 1/6 of the electorate in the primary election for your first battle. Only about 1/3 as many voters vote in primary elections as in the general elections in November, and they are split between the two parties, so about 1/6 of the electorate more or less, depending on the general party orientation of the place. Then if you win this battle, you will have the votes of many people in the general election who vote mainly based on political party. Remember, we’re not out there to represent the ideology which currently has taken hold of this party, but to shift it. If you can’t get people to register to vote with the appropriate party identification to enable themselves to vote in these major party primaries, you’re certainly not going to be able to get any significant number of people to commit to voting for a candidate for a ‘third party’.
Many people think it is a lost cause to attempt to win electoral control of the country to put in place a white-friendly government. They may be right. Yet, for each of the alternative paths suggested, this strategy still represents the best course for the time being.
Many white activists favor secession of one part of the country or another, and focusing on that region. Maybe it’s the deep South, where whites already vote as a bloc. Maybe it’s the northwest or northern New England, with their still mostly white populations and independent spirit. Maybe it’s the post-industrial Ohio Valley and upper Appalachia, which are still largely white and have suffered heavily but never benefited from the global economy.
In the two secessions most familiar to us, the separation from Britain which led to the formation of the United States, and the attempted secession of the south/eastern states in 1861, the movement had to come from the state legislatures in order to have legitimacy. In the separation of Ireland from the United Kingdom, and the ongoing attempts to do the same for Scotland and Wales, the establishment and control of a legislature is again a key factor. In order to get a successful secessionist movement in a state legislature, one must first get secessionists elected to the state legislature. For the above reasons, this will be most successful using one of the major parties as a vehicle, perhaps the Democrat Party in Vermont or West Virginia, or perhaps the Republican Party in Texas or Alabama. Once in the state legislature, these people can help push laws which contradict bad federal policies on issues such as gun rights and immigration. Even if a federal court attempts to invalidate such laws, the battle will alert many people to the tyrannical nature of the federal government, and strengthen the will of the people in that state to resist the federal government
Many whites think that the U.S. will collapse in on itself for a variety of reasons, and that only a small remnant can survive. Yet even here, the political process is useful. If the Federal government implodes, people will look to state and local governments. In the meantime, we can promote policies which enable people to evade federal tyranny, such as making it easier for people to home-school and engage in small-scale farming, as well as combating domestic spying and the abuse of police power, or at least discouraging state and local law enforcement from participating in this tyranny. Most importantly, this will help you form networks and alert more people to the tyranny of the federal government. More people will listen to or perhaps even come out to support someone running under a major party label than something they never heard of.
Many people might object that this ‘doesn’t turn people explicitly pro-white’ or that ‘an explicitly pro-white candidate or movement has no hope’. Unfortunately for us, most white people aren’t programmed to place being ‘explicitly pro-white’ at the top of their list. As Kevin MacDonald notes, white people are low on ‘xenophobia’ and high on ‘moral universalism’. We’re going to have to frame our arguments in terms of moral universalism, and perhaps in ‘American’ or ‘Southern’ or “Western’ civic nationalism.
We’ve got a good example to work off of: the people who put us in this awful situation to begin with. The jews did not become the most dominant group in modern day United States, and perhaps the world, by basing their political movements based on what is explicitly ‘good for the jews’. Even the ADL has pretended for a large part of its history to be a ‘civil rights organization’ dedicated to ‘combating hate’ against all ethnic and religious groups.
We have to do the same. Figure out which policies are good for white people and promote them on their own merits. Build coalitions of people who support these policies. Take every possible chance to drive those with the most anti-white polices out of the coalitions we participate in, for example those who support open borders and mass immigration.
This process should come naturally to us: most of us didn’t just wake up one day and decide to be ‘pro-white’ for the hell of it. Maybe we supported values which come naturally to white people, and eventually came to realize that these ideas are difficult achieve in a multicultural society or one which is dominated by jews. Maybe we got tired of anti-white discrimination and the marginalization of whites, and came to the realization that the only way to ensure freedom from anti-white tyranny is a ‘white ethno-state’. Maybe we noticed that new immigrants, and even long entrenched racial minorities, don’t view themselves as ‘American’ in the same that we do, and most likely never will. Maybe we noticed that everyone in the world was allowed to have an ethnic identity except for us. We need to get back to our roots, to what made us pro-white in the first place, and encourage these ‘implicitly white’ movements.
Our coalition is ‘beyond left and right’ in the sense that we don’t simply join in on one side or the other of whatever the talking heads on the media tell us is supposed to be the ‘Democratic’ or ‘Republican’ side of the debate today. It does not necessitate however that we disregard the way the country works in favor of the way we wish it worked and launch a Quixotic ‘new party’. Nor does it necessitate that we go out of our way to distance ourselves from labels which are favored by large portions of white people in favor of inventing new labels which will seem alien to most white people, thus leading them to reject or ignore all ideas emanating from such labels.
Those of use most aware of racial realities can and should of course continue to talk and meet with each other and promote our ideas. Yet, it won’t be enough, and likely never will be. White people just aren’t innately driven to that sort of thing, not nearly to the same degree other races are.
Many trends favor us. Our enemies are becoming more blatant in their agenda. Internecine squabbles between white people over such things as religion and socio-economic class are becoming less important. The media is democraticizing. More people read this site than if we walked around throwing photocopies of our articles on peoples’ lawns. Fewer and fewer people are reading, watching, and listening to the elite-approved ‘mainstream’ media than ever before, and far fewer still limit themselves solely to these sources.
Yet, we are in a precarious position. If we screw this up, we might not get another chance. We have to be smart about it, not barging forward waving our banners and screaming from the top of our lungs the most extreme version of our belief system at every opportunity. We have to do it intelligently, which means in a manner cognizant of the way our people, nation, and political structure function; and make sure that our plan of attack fits the battlefield.
Hunter, I spent a lot of time above explaining my position, as forthrightly as I could, and you continue to spend a lot of time misrepresenting it. If you had a dime for every straw man that you have created, you’d be well set for retirement. I’m guessing that, at some level, you know this. In all seriousness, it must be uncomfortable for you to resort to such lame arguments and obfuscations. I hope it is, anyway.
The reality is that the white nationalist movement can only provide meaningful support for a relative handful of top tier activists. For those that can’t operate on that level, going public serves only to provide a dandy target for the System, and generally accomplishes nothing of value for white nationalism. There is no point in a person going public when doing so doesn’t benefit white nationlism, puts himself at risk, and the WN movement can’t provide meaningful support. That’s not cowardice, or lack of character, or any of the other unjustified charges that you have been throwing around. It is wrong to advocate for people to go public when there is no upside in it for white nationalism, and when we know that the movement can’t support them at the present time. It is wrong to leave people twisting in the wind.
We’re a de facto underground movement. Our main function right now is the development and spread of attractive, appealing, white nationalist ideas. Most people don’t need to go public for this. We’ll be ready for the next stage when we’re ready for the next stage. I can’t put a precise time table on when that will be.
Simply put, that’s where we are at. You are drawing all sorts of unjustified conclusions, and making all sorts of unjustified charges as a result of this. White nationalists are cowards, white nationalists won’t step up, we are doomed, woe is me.
If you had broader experience in life, you’d realize that most of the charges you level against white nationalism are either blatantly untrue, or are true of movements in general. Only a small percentage of liberals meaningfully contribute to liberal causes, the same with conservatives, or any other movement. Attrition and turnover are high in almost any political movement or organization, and so on. Most of the negatives that you attribute to white nationalists in particular, in fact apply to all people. You rail against white nationalists and have yet to realize that you are railing against human nature itself.
This line is a great example:
“The hatred, pettiness, and malice: those traits came exclusively from the people who claim to share my own ideological beliefs. Jeffrey Imm has caused me far less trouble than other White Nationalists.”
News flash, Hunter. It is normal to have more problems within a movement or organization than without. When I was active as a libertarian, it was libertarians that caused me the most grief. Some real pains in the ass. Now that I’m not a libertarian, amazingly libertarians don’t cause me problems. Why would they? I rarely come into contact with them.
I have some friends who are or have been very active in the Republican Party. Guess who causes them the most grief? If you guessed other Republicans, go to the head of the class. Same with Democrats, same with political groupings in general. When you are part of a political organization or movement, you’re going to bump heads with others in the movement that see things differently, and want a different result.
This is normal and natural, but you can’t seem to get it. Who do people have the most arguments with, members of their own family, or the family down the street? The answer is obvious.
That’s just life, Hunter. That sure as hell doesn’t make Imm a good guy, or what have you. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, but I guarantee you that if you became a Leftist and got involved with their causes, the people that would cause you the most grief would be….drum roll please…your fellow Leftists.
So Hunter, I’m not trying to be rude when I say, “Grow up.” I mean it sincerely.
The reality is that white nationalism is a movement in a particular stage, and a particular situation. It is not doomed at all. Many, many movements have succeeded after facing penalties far more severe than what we face. We need people with the maturity and broadness of vision to understand where we are, how we have to operate, and how best to get to the next level. You aren’t offering any of that.
You claim that, because we are penalized by the System, white nationalism won’t succeed, because it will always be more rational to avoid penalties and sit it out. But history tells us a different lesson. If what you are saying is true, then most wars would have never been fought, most movements would have never enjoyed success, nobody on the bottom would have ever come out on top. And yet history tells us something very different. Oppressed movements have been able to achieve success, wars happen, revolution (both peaceful and not) happen, LIFE happens.
You ignore all of this, in favor of a simple calculus that is easily refuted by even a cursory knowledge of history, and human nature itself. Yes, people do tend to sit it out…until the day comes that they don’t. The whole point of a revolutionary movement is to figure out how to get to that day of action, and do the necessary preparatory work. But no, when someone points out the need for preparatory work, you launch into all manner of ridiculous insult. It’s quite apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Our job is to find our way, work with what we have and move on the next stage. Many, many other suppressed movements have done this, and we can too. Foot stomping, straw men, and misrepresentations are not helpful.
Hunter: “As it happens, Dietrich has chosen to quit Voice of Reason because he is similarly disillusioned with the unreliability of White Nationalists.”
I knew that he had taken a leave, but I had not heard that he quit. Can your claim be verified?
In any event, Dietrich’s position, as far as I know, is not at all the same as your position. For example, he has complained about the low quality of white nationalist leadership. That is a fair criticism. I think he overstates it a bit, as there are definitely some talented guys in the first tier, but still. Unfortunately, beyond the talented few there are certainly plenty of wack jobs. White nationalism currently has a serious leadership problem, no doubt.
I don’t know if he has been public about it, or even if it is true at all, but there is some suggestion that he is disgusted at the lack of financial support for VOR, given that the site has millions of downloads each year, but typically doesn’t draw enough support to cover modest, but not insignificant, operating costs (approximately $300 a month). This is also a legitimate critcism. White nationalists need to dig into their pockets at least somewhat in order to support worthy projects. Dietrich and Mishko shouldn’t have to come up with $300 a month (or, really much of anything beyond their time), every month, to provide the service that they do. Even for someone of limited means, a 25 or 50 every now and again isn’t going to kill them.
Hell, even a minimum wage worker should be able to kick in a 20 once in a while, even if only once or twice a year. He shouldn’t be late on the light bill to do it, and he shouldn’t let his kids go hungry, of course. But every person is capable of at least a modest, annual contribution. Aggregated across the movement, that could add up.
Of course, fundraising issues aren’t unique to white nationalism, but it’s still a reasonable criticism, and it can’t be ignored.
White nationalists should promote the idea that yes, we are largely underground, and yes, we realize that there is no point at the present time for most people to go public. But there are talented people out there and worthy projects, and if you aren’t going public yourself, it is a moral obligation to make financial contributions that are commensurate with one’s means. Don’t starve the kids, but deprive yourself of one evening of eating out, or some other form of entertainment. Staying in one night covers your contribution, and you’ll probably feel pretty good about yourself afterward.
The real scandal of white nationalism is not what you claim it is, but that (apparently) so few contribute in support of worthy projects. Since we don’t have accurate statistics on how many white nationalists there actually are, and what the aggregate amount donated each year is, we can’t be sure what the contribution rate is. My guess is that it is no higher or lower than liberal contribution rates, or conservative rates, or what have you. Can’t prove it one way or the other. What we do know in a broad and clumsy sense is that there are a hell of a lot of white nationalists out there, and its pretty damn ridiculous that worthy projects like VOR can’t even bring in enough cake to cover elementary costs. That’s pathetic, and yes it shows a great weakness in our movement.
In short, Dietrich’s criticisms (the ones that I’m aware of, mentioned in this post)seem fair and legimate, and I hope that he has not left VOR for good. I could be wrong, but I suspect that he hasn’t.
Your position has been very different than Dietrich’s, and without substantive evidence, I’ll not conflate the two.
Upon additional reflection, it occurs to me that there is so much that the white nationalist movement could do to increase fundraising for worthy projects. It would require absolute transparency, and the right psycholigical approach (don’t give us the $20 that would have been spent on the toy for your daughter, or your retirement, etc. Instead, give us the $20 that you would have spent on entertainment for yourself, and yourself alone. We aren’t asking to take the food out of anyone’s mouth, just that you make a minor sacrifice once a month, or at least once a year).
We aren’t asking you to tithe on your entire income, but we are expecting that you tithe on your personal entertainment or indulgence budget. Give us ten percent of that. I think that approach, if properly developed, could work. It also feeds into the idea of making a reasonable, ongoing sacrifice for the Cause, properly understood. That strengthens identity, investment, and a person’s moral standing in his own eyes. That can be powerful stuff.
Point is that someone with talent in fundraising could really develop something. I don’t have much experience with it, nor claim to have all that much talent, but back in my libertarian days I was once tasked with writing a fundraising letter for a state party. I was told that it raised more money than any prior fundraising letter, so it may be that I have a decent sense of what the target audience needs. Maybe, maybe not, but I think what I wrote above could be a starting point for what our particular audience needs to hear and understand. I don’t think they understand that right now.
We don’t need to hector people and burn them out. We’ve got to respect that they are volunteers, and therefore anything that they contribute is gravy. We don’t need to cajole people into making contributions that they really can’t afford. I’d much rather have 10 dollars a month, solidifying the person’s identity as a white nationalist, than a larger one time contribution. Slow and steady wins the race, not one time cash influxes.
White nationalism simply has to improve the fundraising situation, or it will remain limited in its capabilities. We’ve got certain specific technical problems that are going to have certain specific technical solutions. I’m not saying those are the only problems that we have, but for god’s sake, let’s work on them before having meltdowns of despair.
Unless something changes, I don’t plan on commenting here all that much longer. I’m basically just wrapping up loose ends at this point. It’s clear that I’m just not on the same page with where this site is going, and there are other sites that are more closely aligned with my vision. I’d rather post at a site where my position is debated fairly, not misrepresented. But before I go I’d like to leave readers with an appreciation that there are real things that can be improved, accomplished and achieved. Even if what I wrote above on fundraising proves not to be useful (and anyone is welcome to run with it), the point is we can improve in a thousand ways. Running around complaining about human nature, shaking one’s fists at the sky, calling honorable men cowards and falsely claiming that they have no character, is not the way to go. It’s wrong, it’s dishonest, and from a purely utilitarian standpoint it won’t be effective.
Hunter, I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t disappointed in you. It’s obvious that I am. Disagree all you want, but please refrain from misrepresenting my position, and let’s leave it at that. I won’t forget the good work that you’ve done in the past. It was your writing that inspired me to start regularly posting, as opposed to mostly lurking. In a particular time and space, you created a helluva site. Not many people could do that. Good luck to you and, believe it or not, I mean that.
Everything you said in your last two posts above reinforces what I have been saying.
1.) White Nationalists don’t have the character to win.
2.) White Nationalists won’t stand up for their beliefs in the real world.
3.) White Nationalists could support worthwhile projects like VoR, but they won’t do it even when they know it is the right thing to do. A few of them will, but that won’t suffice in the long run.
4.) If White Nationalists don’t stand up for their beliefs in the real world, the taboos against White racial advocacy will remain in place, and could even grow stronger in the absence of resistance.
5.) It will take a miracle or outside intervention to remove those taboos. White Nationalists won’t to it themselves.
Hunter: “Everything you said in your last two posts above reinforces what I have been saying.”
LOL! Um…no it doesn’t. I simply described a very specific issue – fundraising – and how white nationalists need to get better at it if our capabilities are to be improved.
Fundraising is a problem with virtually all groups, all across the political spectrum. The idea that this problem is something unique to white nationalism is laughable. Instead of taking a broader and more realistic view of the situation, you are convinced it proves that, uniquely, white nationalists have no character, can’t win, everyone is pathetic, and the end is nigh. I guess white nationalists have cooties too.
Dude, come on. Is Chicken Littlism a sign of good character?
By the way, can your claim that Dietrich quit VOR be confirmed?
Fundraising is only one aspect of the larger problem. There are hundreds of thousands of White Nationalists. They could easily support projects like VoR with $10 or $20 dollars a month.
The fact is, White Nationalists are too sorry to part with $1o a month, at least the vast majority of them. There are a few people who are incredibly generous whose private virtue reflects their character and commitment to the cause. They are the exception to the rule.
Similarly, there are a few people who stand up for White Nationalism in the real world. They feel it is the right thing to do. This minority can also be contrasted with the majority.
The majority of White Nationalists can’t be bothered to expose our views to millions of people on social networking websites. Clicking a button takes only a minute or two. It can be done safely and anonymously.
In all three cases, there is a dedicated minority that is the exception to the rule. The majority are too lazy and self centered to be inconvenienced into doing anything.
Do White Nationalists suffer from uniquely bad character?
No, I am not saying that. If you had followed my argument, you wouldn’t be misrepresenting what I have said.
White Nationalists are oppressed and discriminated against. That’s the critical difference. You can’t compare White Nationalism to libertarianism or conservatism because it is a false analogy. Conservatives don’t face the same kind of employment discrimination that strikes fear into White Nationalists.
Quit comparing apples with oranges.
If those barriers were removed by a miracle, White Nationalists would act in the real world and build vertical momentum tomorrow. As things stand today, those barriers remain in place and will likely stand and grow even more insurmountable.
White Nationalists know they are facing an obstacle which has to be scaled to get to the “next level.” It just so happens that every White Nationalist wants to exempt himself from that task. It never gets done.
Let’s imagine two hypothetical scenarios:
1.) In the first scenario, a magic wand is waved and the entire European intellectual tradition is instantly downloaded into the minds of White Nationalists. Does this change where we stand?
No, it doesn’t.
You now have the ability to carry on an intelligent conversation about Plato, Aristotle and Nietzsche for hours, but you aren’t any more willing to scale the obstacle that stands in the way of victory.
2.) In the second scenario, a magic wand is waved and the character of White Nationalists is utterly transformed. White Nationalists are now courageous, generous, loyal, patient, reliable, honest, diligent, and righteous. They have the fortitude and integrity and confidence and determination. Their behavior has been transformed in a way that complements their minds.
The obstacle suddenly doesn’t look so insurmountable. White Nationalists rise up and break the taboo.
Hunter: “Fundraising is only one aspect of the larger problem.”
Really? No! Really?
Hunter: “The fact is, White Nationalists are too sorry to part with $1o a month, at least the vast majority of them.”
It would be far more accurate to say that most PEOPLE won’t part with $10 dollars a month for a political cause. It’s not unique to white nationalists.
Hunter: “In all three cases, there is a dedicated minority that is the exception to the rule.”
Sure. All/most movements are like this. Yet some of those movements triumphed. That’s the point, Hunter. All the rest is just adolescent foot stomping.
You remind me of those guys who keep saying that the Germans could have won World War II. It’s certainly true that they could have, IF they had been flawless, making essentially no mistakes. The problem is, the Allies made mistakes too – massive ones. It’s not terribly reasonable to say, “I could have won, if only I had played flawlessly and completely without error, but you still made all of the same grievous errors.” I mean, it can be fun to hypothesize, but it’s all rather silly to base life upon being able to erase all of your mistakes, but the other guy is still stuck with his.
That’s essentially what you are doing. Yes, Hunter, we would win if, in contrast to all of our opponents, we could fully mobilize all people who held white nationalist views, while the opposition languished at very low participation rates. We would have hundreds of thousands of selfless, dedicated WN, and the opposition would have ….Jeffrey Imm and a few metrosexual antifa. Our movement would be immune to the realities of politics, circumstance, and human nature. Everyone else would still be hobbled by these things.
It’s ridiculous. It goes from ridiculous to disgusting to start charging honorable men with having no character, and all of the other things you have been doing.
The reality is that there are already significant numbers of white nationalists, but we need more. Many more. Several hundred thousand (whatever the number is) sounds like a lot, but it is a drop in the bucket. Even if most of the new people don’t do much, there will be a dedicated minority that will. So, if you prefer, think of it as multiplying the size of the dedicated minority. More blood means more talent, even if it is from a small percentage of the total. Again, that’s how real movements operate. They don’t devolve into adolescent foot stomping.
And yes, we need to do a better job of mobilizing what we have, improving fundraising, etc. There is much we can do. We have an increasingly attractive and appealing message, and the medium to spread it. A remotely astute person says, “We have assets that we can develop and work with.” A Chicken Little, on the other hand, lapses into meltdowns, recrimination, and repugnant insults. I guarantee you that many, many people that you are insulting have far superior character to you.
Hunter: “No, I am not saying that. If you had followed my argument, you wouldn’t be misrepresenting what I have said.”
Let me tell you something, pal. I’m not misrepresenting a damn thing. I’ve dealt directly with the assertions that you have made. If you’re going to engage in sail trimming now, do so, but don’t accuse me of doing what you yourself have done to an absurd degree. If you didn’t mean to uniquely target white nationalists with your criticism, you sure took your sweet time clearing up that little misconception. I call bullshit, but whatever. We’ll work with that.
You’ve now given ground/sail trimmed/made your original position better known, and acknowledged that white nationalists don’t have uniquely bad character. Good, that’s a plus. By making that concession, you are left with pointing to the repressed circumstances in which we find ourselves. You’ll lose that argument too, as it is a historical fact that many underdog/underground movements have succeeded despite facing far greater levels of suppression. By making that single concession, your whole position falls apart.
Hunter: “You can’t compare White Nationalism to libertarianism or conservatism because it is a false analogy. Conservatives don’t face the same kind of employment discrimination that strikes fear into White Nationalists.”
I’ve said this myself about ten million times, yet you shamelessly act as if you are pointing it out to me. LOL! It should be obvious to a brain dead moron that we are in a different position than other movements, but we can still learn a lot from them. It’s not all or nothing. To take your “logic” to its conclusion, we would be able to learn nothing from any other movement, because no other movement has been in precisely the same situation as us. That’s just juvenile. Why do you read so much history, if you believe that nothing can be learned from it? Are the pictures that good?
Hunter: “Quit comparing apples with oranges.”
Hunter: “If those barriers were removed by a miracle, White Nationalists would act in the real world and build vertical momentum tomorrow.”
Yes, then we could all go live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Hunter, what I’m trying to get across to readers, and maybe even you, is that you deal with where you are, not fantasy repudiations of human nature and political reality. There are many, many things that white nationalism is capable of, even as a repressed movement. I’d rather focus on that.
Hunter: “In the first scenario, a magic wand is waved and the entire European intellectual tradition is instantly downloaded into the minds of White Nationalists. Does this change where we stand? No, it doesn’t.”
LOL! I’m not making such a stupid claim. My claim, which should be obvious, is that we want more people to be white nationalists. Even if you, without historical justification, claim that multiplying our numbers would have no effect (a ridiculous claim by the way), certainly we wouldn’t be worse off if we had several million WN instead of several hundred thousand. Since we are capable of growing our numbers, why wouldn’t we do so?
Hunter: “In the second scenario, a magic wand is waved and the character of White Nationalists is utterly transformed. White Nationalists are now courageous, generous, loyal, patient, reliable, honest, diligent, and righteous. They have the fortitude and integrity and confidence and determination. Their behavior has been transformed in a way that complements their minds.”
Sure, if I had a magic wand, I’d take the second scenario. I’d love to be able to repudiate reality and human nature, bypass the tough preparatory work that needs to be done, and be able to magically rig things in our favor. But what if Jeffrey Imm had a magic wand? What if the neocons had a magic wand?
Point is, anybody can play fantasy games. However, in the real world, none of us have magic wands. Winners (and winning political movements) are able to comprehend the reality of the situation, understand the stage that they are in, and what they need to do with the assets that they actually have. Losing movements fail to do this, and perhaps descend into fantasy and recrimination.
Having read over my above reply, I don’t care much for the tone of it. I stand by everything I say substantively, but I should lay off the sarcasm a bit. You’ve been more or less civil in your tone, despite making some extremely insulting accusations. I should have reciprocated…perhaps on both counts.
There I go again.
I hope Dietrich hasn’t quit VoR. But even if he has, Mishko can use the money I just sent however he sees fit.
I hope it’s not too unwise to stick my nose in this duel (which reminds me the recent dispute in Majority Rights) but I would say something.
From October 2004 to June 2007 I worked for the Citizen Commission of Human Rights (CCHR), the arm of the Church of Scientology that makes anti-psychiatric activism. I did it for the money they gave me, while I have never been a Scientologist and notwithstanding the fact that I have always despised the cult.
What impressed me most during my years of activism is that they wasted a grotesque amount of time, money and effort in activism. Of course, I did it for the money they gave me, but I could never convince my Scientologist bosses to use their sponsors’ money to found a publishing house and publish the texts of the intellectuals who have criticized psychiatry in this century.
In short, CCHR’s Scientologists failed miserably because they make a vigorous activism without relying on the non-Scientologist intellectuals who have already debunked the psychiatric profession. The Scientologists have spent literally millions of dollars in activism whose net result has been counterproductive. In the 1960s and 70s lots of people had heard about the movement called “antipsychiatry,” a secular movement that had nothing to do with the Church of Scientology or CCHR. Today, thanks to the counterproductive activism by Scientologists, ordinary people erroneously relate all criticism of psychiatry with the Church of Scientology.
Bottom line: CCHR’s activism backfired. Any activist movement needs first to get their facts straight. Only then it starts to make sense doing some activism. Scientologists don’t have their facts straight. They are not based on a sound, secular criticism of psychiatry. They use Hubbard instead. Their activism was doomed since the beginning.
As to white nationalists, have they gotten their facts straight? Well, as Morpheus told Trinity in the first film, they are starting to believe (believe they can face the all-powerful agents of the system). The Jewish question and Third Reich nostalgia still divides some of us. But it is obvious that the intellect comes before the cart. Even Hitler read newspapers in Vienna and for years struggled to wrap his head around the Jewish question, besides being an avid reader of pan-Germanic nationalists and even of the American Theodore L. Stoddard before going into politics. Yet… only a financially bankrupt Germany created the right circumstances conducive to any chances of success.
Some economists believe that the Ponzi Scheme on which the West rests its house of cards will collapse within five to twenty-five years. If so, we will have our chance during our life spans. I see no need to criticize the intellectuals before the forthcoming Crash finally helps all of us to turn the tide.
If you talk to ordinary American conservatives, you will find that most of them aren’t particularly bright people, but they are involved in all sorts of real world organizations and activism. Every year, the conservative movement raises millions of dollars which is spent on the most retarded shit imaginable.
If you talk to White Nationalists, you will find that many of them are extremely bright people. I know plenty of White Nationalists who are overeducated to the point of absurdity. You can talk with them for hours about the finer points of philosophy and history.
The conservative movement is like a chicken that runs around with its head cut off. The White Nationalist movement is like a free floating brain absorbed by its own fantasy world.
1.) I know of White Nationalists who live hand to mouth. I also know of conservative activists who make six figure salaries. Come to think of it, I know of White Nationalists who pretend to be conservatives because there are no employment prospects in the White Nationalist movement.
2.) You can’t compare White Nationalism to conservatism, libertarianism, or liberalism. White Nationalism exists almost exclusively in cyberspace. That’s not true of the mainstream ideologies which all have a physical presence in the real world.
3.) It is not unreasonable to argue that White Nationalism would have a far greater physical presence in the real world (i.e., fundraising, organization, activism) if the character traits listed above – generosity, courage, integrity, and loyalty – were in greater supply than is now the case.
4.) I see you have conceded the key point of this entire debate: if White Nationalists were men of outstanding character, they would act in the real world, break the taboos, and move to the “next stage.”
5.) What good is recruiting the next 100,000 White Nationalists if the 100,000 we already have now won’t do anything beyond entertaining themselves by reading blogs and forums on the internet?
6.) Let’s review:
If White Nationalists were more generous, they would certainly contribute more financially to worthy projects like VoR.
If White Nationalists were more loyal, they wouldn’t viciously turn on each other.
If White Nationalists had greater integrity, they would be more inclined to stand up for their beliefs in the real world.
If White Nationalists had more courage, there would be more people breaking taboos and fewer anonymous posters on the internet.
If White Nationalists had more gratitude, they people who do sacrifice on their behalf wouldn’t burn out and would be inclined to sacrifice more.
If White Nationalists had more unity, they wouldn’t take so much pleasure in shooting down others in their circular firing squad.
7.) White Nationalism is about a 3 degree mental deviation from the American mainstream. The people who call themselves White Nationalists are unremarkable in their character and behavior. They are ordinary Americans who just happen to entertain some extreme ideas.
8.) Show me an example of a nation-state surrendering a sizable chunk of its territory because of the threat posed by anonymous people posting a billion radical comments on the internet.
9.) If White Nationalism can’t be compared to other movements, why do you continue to draw the comparison?
10.) Such a “stupid claim” is precisely what you have been arguing all along: that White Nationalists are men of perfectly sound character (i.e., brave, generous, upright, loyal, gracious and respectful), but haven’t been exposed to the “revolutionary vision” or the “right ideas” that will prompt them to face down a leftist with a digital camera in the real world.
11.) You would rather not focus on the fact that A.) the real barrier to real world action is social ostracism and employment discrimination and B.) real world action is necessary to break those taboos and C.) that strong character, not reading the next Oswald Spengler book, is the sufficient factor for White Nationalists to rise up and break into the mainstream.
12.) The “tough preparatory work” is forging the character necessary to act in the real world to break the taboo on White racial advocacy.
13.) That’s not the strong suit of intellectuals. Thus, we see intellectuals furiously arguing against the idea for their own self serving reasons.
@ “The conservative movement is like a chicken that runs around with its head cut off. The White Nationalist movement is like a free floating brain absorbed by its own fantasy world.”
Brilliant metaphor. All we need now is a Dr Victor Frankenstein-like surgery to glue one with the other. This does not necessarily have to be raw street activism. Rather, CofCC and even Tea Party presentations—Jared Taylor recently looked quite good in the former—would be a great starting point.
Hunter: “You can’t compare White Nationalism to conservatism, libertarianism, or liberalism.”
I’m not comparing them in the sense that you are suggesting. However, we can learn from other movements, past and present. Our particulars may be different, but we don’t live in an alternate universe either. The simple reality is that, historically speaking, there are plenty of movements that have succeeded despite facing obstacles as great or greater than those white nationalists face. History shows that there are very real, very specific things that we need to do. Indulging in fantasy is not one of them. Railing against human nature is not one of them.
Hunter: “I see you have conceded the key point of this entire debate: if White Nationalists were men of outstanding character, they would act in the real world, break the taboos, and move to the “next stage.”
Come on, Hunter. I explained this above. Yes, if white nationalists were immune to reality and human nature, we would win. If we were able to fully mobilize every white nationalist, but our opponents languished at low levels of participation, we would win. But that is pure fantasy. So, if it makes you feel any better, I “concede” that if we were able to live in Fantasy World, our victory would be assured.
But we live in the real world, and we are not immune to these things. In the real world, few people of ANY movement are particularly active. High turnover and low activism rates are normal. That’s reality. Yet, historically speaking, revolutionary movements have managed to win again and again. I’d rather focus on that, on how actual movements attain actual victory, despite suffering from all of the familiar (and immutable) drawbacks. Foot stomping and chest thumping aren’t helpful. Demanding that white nationalism be exempt from reality is not helpful.
Hunter: ” What good is recruiting the next 100,000 White Nationalists if the 100,000 we already have now won’t do anything beyond entertaining themselves by reading blogs and forums on the internet?”
You have already acknowledged that we have a dedicated minority (as all movements do). Recruiting the next 100,000 would gain for us the dedicated minority contained within it. That means more talent, more money, more capabilties. Of course, the benefits would be greater than even that, but I’m focusing on what you have already conceded. Why in the world would you NOT want that? It’s a complete no brainer…yet you argue against it.
Hunter: “If white nationalists had…” (more virtues, there would be better results)
I’ve told you I agree with this. If white nationalists were uniquely virtuous, if they were exempt from the realities that plague all over movements, we would win. Everybody else would be hobbled by mistakes and weakness, but not us. That’s fantasy. Here are the facts: plenty of underground/underdog movements have achieved victory. They were not exempt from reality and human nature when they attained victory. Yet they won, and so can we. Let’s concentrate on that, instead of fantasy.
Hunter: “The people who call themselves White Nationalists are unremarkable in their character and behavior.”
White nationalists run the gamut, from the superb to the mediocre to the not so impressive. So does everybody else. Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the human condition. As we pass through this vale of tears, we will not be exempt from reality.
Hunter: “Show me an example of a nation-state surrendering a sizable chunk of its territory because of the threat posed by anonymous people posting a billion radical comments on the internet.”
As your argument crumbles…
Hunter: “Such a “stupid claim” is precisely what you have been arguing all along: that White Nationalists are men of perfectly sound character (i.e., brave, generous, upright, loyal, gracious and respectful), but haven’t been exposed to the “revolutionary vision” or the “right ideas” that will prompt them to face down a leftist with a digital camera in the real world.”
No, my argument is that white nationalists are not exempt from reality. Right now, we have low participation rates, but so do most movements at most times. Historically, all movements have faced these sorts of problems. Our particulars may be different, but some problems are eternal. Yet some movements still manage to win. Human nature is not an insurmoutable problem.
It should be obvious that we require a vision, or we will get nowwhere. You demand that people act. O.K. Doing what exactly? What is the payoff? Crickets chirping. We’ve seen plenty of “activity,” and none of it went anywhere. In the decades following World War II, we had Dixiecrats, massive resistance, Citizen’s Councils, impeach Warren campaigns, Wallace winning entire states (as the Dixiecrats had done), all white academies, you name it. A phenomenal amount of activity. And look at where we are today. None of it amounted to anything.
The simple reality is that “action” without an animating vision is pointless, and our history proves this conclusively. The System will win every time. Right now, we have the beginnings of such a vision, but only the beginnings. A rough consensus has developed on the need for a white ethnostate. But where? What are we willing to do to get it? Why is it worth the tremendous sacrifices that will be required? How can we free more and more people from the prevailing orthodoxy of political correctness? How can we create a vision that more and more people can buy into, so that they can move from being mere grumblers to something else?
Successful movements answer these sorts of questions, and work like hell to spread the answers. White nationalism CAN do this, but so far it hasn’t. Just when the intellectual momentum starts building to address these issues, you go ballistic. Just when it was beginning to come together, you seemingly attempt to break it apart. It’s too late for that, though. We’ve lost some time and good will over this, but the overall process will continue. Intellectually, we’ve come alive. I don’t see any real turning back now.
Hunter: “You would rather not focus on the fact that A.) the real barrier to real world action is social ostracism and employment discrimination…”
What do you mean? I’ve addressed this issue head on. White nationalism is, de facto, an underground movement as a result of this reality. Plenty of underground movements have achieved victory, and we can too. But it’s going to take more than demanding action without answers, or faux chest thumping.
Hunter: “…and B.) real world action is necessary to break those taboos…”
WHAT real world action? Exactly what are you advocating that is going to break those taboos? I’m all ears, but you don’t offer answers. There has been plenty of activism over the last couple of generations, yet the taboos are still in place. Your way doesn’t work. My way will. We need to develop a compelling vision and spread that compelling vision. The history of successful underground/underdog movements supports my view. It does not support yours.
Hunter: “…and C.) that strong character, not reading the next Oswald Spengler book, is the sufficient factor for White Nationalists to rise up and break into the mainstream.”
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. The idea is to develop and spread an animating vision, not get people to read Oswald Spengler. Don’t be absurd.
Hunter: ” The “tough preparatory work” is forging the character necessary to act in the real world to break the taboo on White racial advocacy.”
If you figure out a way to make us immune to the problems that all movements face, be sure to let me know.
Hunter: “That’s not the strong suit of intellectuals. Thus, we see intellectuals furiously arguing against the idea for their own self serving reasons.”
Not at all. The proof is in the pudding, Hunter. If street activism by itself were effective, we’d have won our ethnostate back in the 50’s or 60’s. Clearly it is not sufficient, in the absence of a compelling and animating vision. Time is running out, we can’t afford another wasted generation.
You are setting up a false dichotomy: either action or intellectual development. Either the cart OR the horse. That is an absurdly false choice. I am saying you can’t put the cart before the horse, not that you don’t need both. It’s a no brainer.
Another one in the filter.
“We have to do the same. Figure out which policies are good for white people and promote them on their own merits. Build coalitions of people who support these policies.”
This is what nationalists in Europe do, but they don’t do this IN PLACE of talking about group identity. They do both and seek to racialize issues like crime, welfare, healthcare and housing.
I love that image… Very powerful
KKK x African American
I would love to print this for my office,
Anyone know how I can get an original?