Chicago, 1971
In 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals. The subtitle is “A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” He wrote the book “in desperation” for young radicals “who have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world.”
Alinsky thought the Baby Boomers would “give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.” Rules for Radicals is concerned with means, not ends. It is a strategy guide for the “Have Nots” on how to take power away from the “Haves.” The book contains universal insights into the nature of revolutionary struggle.
A veteran community organizer, Alinsky was troubled by the means the Boomers were using to achieve their shared vision of utopia. Some radicals like the Weather Underground were resorting to counterproductive violent confrontation with the status quo. Some like the hippies and beatniks chose to drop out of the system. Some concluded the system was so rotten that it would inevitably collapse under its own weight.
More often, the young radicals of Alinsky’s elderly years became enamored with a radical critique of American society, and in their alienation from their middle class roots lost their ability to communicate with and influence their more conservative contemporaries. Many other radicals came to believe that American society was too reactionary and bourgeoisie to change and resigned themselves to apathy and defeat.
In frustration with the “rhetorical radicals” of the Far Left, Saul Alinsky articulated an alternative course, which he described as “realistic radicalism.” The purpose of “realistic radicalism” was to take all the wasted energy of radical circles and channel it in a more productive and effective direction. The basis for this program was Alinsky’s years of experience and theoretical insights working as a community organizer in the slums of Chicago.
There are too many gems of advice in Rules for Radicals to list here. No brief review can do justice to the importance of the lessons contained in this book, but Alinsky’s activist philosophy can be succinctly described as follows:
1.) Reality, Not Fantasy – Reality is the starting point of the organizer. The effective organizer doesn’t have the option of choosing his starting point. If he wants to be taken seriously, the organizer must insert himself as a credible authority where the masses find themselves on the political spectrum.
2.) Within the System – The organizer must work within the system to change it. He doesn’t have any other option. The only alternative to working within the system is a sink of ineffective and irrelevant rhetoric on the fringes of society.
3.) Political Realism – The world is an arena of power politics motivated by immediate self interest where “morality” is used as a rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self interest. In the American system, Alinsky sees “morality” as the “passport” for the pursuit of self interest.
4.) Converting the Masses – If the radicals of today are not willing to communicate and lead the masses, their ideological enemies are more than willing to do so. Winning over the masses or at least “impregnating” them with frustration and indifference (i.e., reformation) is a necessary prerequisite to social revolution. The “radical realist” has no option but to work among ordinary people and adapt to their existing beliefs.
5.) Communication – In order to be successful, the organizer must adapt his rhetoric to the experience of his target audience. People react to organizers in terms of their own experience. The importance of this lesson cannot be overstated.
Alinsky does not argue that radicals should abandon their own beliefs. His counsel is to gradually introduce those beliefs to the masses by working within their own experience to achieve what is possible.
In other words, don’t open your mouth and share what is emotionally pleasing to you, but instead think of your audience. Treating people like passive subjects without thoughts of their own tends to backfire on the organizer.
6.) Credibility – The first task of the organizer is not to open his mouth and say what he thinks, but to establish the credentials that will allow him to work within the mainstream power structure of the community. Legitimacy is the basis for effective action. People who are marginalized and stigmatized by their communities cannot act as a force for change within them.
7.) Wrong Reasons – In politics, the right thing is almost always done for the wrong reasons, and “realistic radicals” must resign themselves to this fact. From a White Nationalist perspective, an argument could be made that legal immigration must cease because of terrible economic conditions or the environmental impact of mass migration on cute Southwestern plants and animals.
8.) Against Ideology – Alinsky warns against “true believers.” He believes the organizer should stay ideologically flexible and pragmatic, constantly adapting his means to advance his permanent ends.
9.) Tactics – According to Alinsky, a tactic is what you can do with what you got. For example, millions of poor black people didn’t have money, but they used their bodies to create negative publicity for businesses with freedom rides and sit ins in the 1960s.
10.) Old Ideas – Alinsky believed that “new ideas” often have to be introduced in the familiar garb of “old ideas.” Countless examples of this comes to mind: Martin Luther King, Jr. disingeniously cloaked the Civil Rights Movement in the legitimacy of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and introduced the radical new concept of “social equality,” an idea to which the Founders were viscerally opposed, as the very fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence.
11.) Organization – For Alinsky, organization and power are synonymous. When an organizer enters a community, he should dedicate himself to building up a mass power base, adapting his rhetoric to achieve that initial goal.
“Rules for Radicals”
Let’s take a day off from anti-Semitism and analyze the White Nationalist movement from Saul Alinsky’s perspective.
Rule #1. Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
White Nationalist organizers publicize their small numbers by holding small rallies and demonstrations which are usually disrupted by a larger number of counterprotestors. The message sent to the local media is that White Nationalists don’t have the numbers to challenge the prevailing power structure.
Rule #2. Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
White Nationalists take great pride in demonstrating to ordinary people that they do not identify with their customs and beliefs. As we saw in Knoxville, White Nationalist organizers think denouncing Christianity, parading around in Nazi uniforms, flying the swastika, and conforming to media stereotypes is the appropriate way to communicate with their target audience.
Several commentators on Occidental Dissent have repeatedly shown in the comments that they dislike the Tea Party and are against the 50% of Americans who support that movement. White Americans are even more supportive of the Tea Party.
Rule #3. Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
White Nationalists usually conform to the prevailing media stereotypes. Many come across as hateful, race obsessed, alienated from America, enamored with foreign ideologies like Nazism, and obsessed with Jewish conspiracy theories. The most prominent “rhetorical radicals” in the movement endorse genocide as a litmus test of White Nationalism.
The most notable exception is Jared Taylor. He does not project this image. This is without a doubt his greatest asset when it comes to communicating with ordinary people who are not White Nationalists.
Rule #4. Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
White Nationalists emphatically reject this idea. We have seen this repeatedly in the comments. When Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin challenged the NAACP and Al Sharpton to live up to their own rhetoric of colorblindness, which they are clearly unable to do (telegraphing to moderates that “racism” is a bogus concept), White Nationalists claimed that Beck and Palin were moving Americans in a more anti-racist direction.
Rule #5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Granted, White Nationalists are highly talented at ridiculing their opponents. As we have seen, this can be done more intelligently though within the mainstream where the stakes are higher and the opposition has no choice but to respond.
Rule #6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
White Nationalists haven’t really come to grip with this idea. The tactics proposed by White Nationalists usually consist of public marches and protests. Clearly, White Nationalists hate public exposure because the vast majority of them cannot be persuaded to show up at public events or even participate in a conference call.
Rule #7. A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
White Nationalism is based in cyberspace. There are no White Nationalist tactics (for example, boycotts) that are effective or drag on for any extended period of time in the real world.
Rule #8. Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
White Nationalists haven’t accepted any of the key premises of working within the system, starting where people are at today, communicating with people in terms of their own experience, or prioritizing reality over the internet. They have never gotten this far.
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
This presupposes White Nationalists have successfully organized their communities. Once again, White Nationalists haven’t gotten this far either.
Rule #10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
White Nationalists are unwilling to construct viable alternatives to the status quo. Their successful rhetorical attacks on conservatives are not followed up with a realistic alternative capable of convincing Whites in the mainstream that White Nationalism is a vehicle capable of advancing their interests.
Rule #11. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
White Nationalists prefer to blame the Jews instead of individual Jews. It is much easier for ordinary people to grasp the evil of Bernie Madoff than Jews in general. A sharper pronged attack wouldn’t be deflected and would have a greater chance of success in introducing implicit Whites to the Jewish Question.
Final Thoughts
In almost every case, White Nationalists flunk the test of “What Would Saul Alinsky Do?” They reject reality in favor of the internet. They refuse to start where people are today. They reject the mainstream as hopelessly corrupt. They refuse to communicate with ordinary people in their own terms.
White Nationalists insist on doing the right thing for the right reasons. They insist on ideological purity. They refuse to see the strategic wisdom of diluting their ideas and introducing them to the mainstream under the cover of old ideas. They have utterly failed in the task of creating organizations or a viable alternative to the status quo. As a result, they are powerless and rudderless, and find themselves adrift on the sea of historical change.
What Would Saul Alinsky Do?
“Activists and radicals, on and off our college campuses – people who are committed to change – must make a complete turnabout. With rare exceptions, our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle class society. All rebels must attack the power states in their society. Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, warmongering, brutalized, and corrupt. They are right; but we must begin where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the people are in the big middle class majority. Therefore, it is useless self indulgence for an activist to put his past behind him. Instead, he should realize the priceless value of his middle class experience. His middle class identity, his familiarity with the values and problems, are invaluable for organization of his “own people.” He has the background to go back, examine, and try to understand the middle class way; now he has a compelling reason to know, for he must known if he is to organize. He must know so he can be effective in communication, tactics, creating issues and organization. He will look differently upon his parents, their friends, and their way of life. Instead of the infantile dramatics of rejection, he will now begin to dissect and examine that way of life as he never has before. He will know that a “square” is no longer to be dismissed as such – instead, his own approach must be “square” enough to get the action started. Turning back to the middle class as an organizer, he will find that everything now has a different meaning and purpose. He learns to view actions outside of the experience of people as serving only to confuse and antagonize them. He begins to understand the differences in value definition of the older generation regarding “the privilege of college experience,” and their current reaction to the tactics of a sizeable minority of students uses in campus rebellions. He discovers what their definition of the police is, and their language – he discards the rhetoric that always says “pig.” Instead of hostile rejection he is seeking bridges of communication and unity over the gaps, generation, value, or others. He will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle class behavior with its hangups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting, profane actions. All this and more must be grasped and used to radicalize parts of the middle class. . . .
The middle classes are numb, bewildered, scared into silence. They don’t know what, if anything, they can do. This is the job for today’s radical – to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say, “You cannot cop out as have many of my generation!” “You cannot turn away – look at it – let us change it together!” “Look at us. We are your children. Let us not abandon each other then we are all lost. Together we can change it for what we want. Let’s start here and there – let’s go!”
It is a job first of bringing hope and doing what every organizer must do with all people, all classes, places, and times – communicate the means or tactics whereby the people can feel that they have the power to do this and that and on. To a great extent the middle class of today feels more defeated and lost than do our poor.
So you return to the suburban scene of your middle class with its variety of organizations from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches, and clubs. The job is to search out the leaders in these various activities, identify their major issues, find areas of common agreement, and excite their imagination with tactics that can introduce drama and adventure into the tedium of middle class life.
Tactics must begin within the experience of the middle class, accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity, and conflict. Start them easy, don’t scare them off. The opposition’s reactions will provide the “education” or radicalization of the middle class. It does every time.”
Does it all make sense now?
Nothing succeeds like success. They are winning and they have a disciple as President and as Secretary of State. Good stuff.
@ Hunter
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, all of the founding fathers, and just about all American politicians up until 1965 could be classified as “White Nationalists” both in word & deed.
The Jew Alinsky was a practical politician, and his tactics are no different than let’s say George Washington Plunkitt, or George Washington.
Politics is hard work. And although, the technology has changed since Washington’s day—basic human nature hasn’t.
I’ve mentioned “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall” as a key read before. Better than Alinsky in my opinion.
Eric Burn’s “Infamous Scribblers”, a book that has important parallels to today’s internet is another must read.
So, is it possible that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are actually lifelong White activists, fighting to reverse the tide of Color?
@ Discard
Don’t hold your breath.
One thing about Alinsky, that is somewhat creative, is that he invented a “political judo” that used the opponents momentum & resources against themselves.
A lot of good stuff here from HW.
A certain myopia in “why-we-fail” ruminations like this, though, always comes up —
We are not living in the 1920s or a similar time, when politics is “open”. It’s not as simple as “change tactics, you dummies!”.
Racialism was defeated by 1945: Capitalist-Liberal-Democracy and Socialism used the demonization of racialism as a major source of negative-legitimacy thereafter. (“These were the most evil, evil, evil men ever to walk the Earth; their theories were evil; but luckily for all of us, [insert Ideology — e.g. “Democracy”] saved the world by defeating them!”). Historical inertia forced racialists had to cede ground year after year. Eventually “the right-wing” became the joke it now is. The demonization continues: The Holocaust-Myth remains untouchable, even now, 70 years later, despite its obvious falsehood.
Alinsky was not necessarily a genius. He just had history on his side. (The same applies to “the Left” generally).
Change will not come soon.
When the opportunity does present itself by means of a Ruling-Ideology collapse (e.g., a 1918 or a 1989), it’s better to have “ideological-purity” than to be so terribly watered down that you’ve long since drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
It’s like the 1800s in Europe: Nowhere then was there any chance of serious blood-and-soil movements taking power. After 1815, the European order was mostly static. Occasionally rambunctiousness would bubble up, but it didn’t stick. The vague aristocratic order ruled.
Yet quasi-racialist “voelkisch” romanticism was strong. Intellectuals, way outside the political power structure, hammered out what became a cohesive ideology by the early 20th century. When history opened up in November pf 1918, groups animated by “voelkisch” concerns seized the day. They came to control most European states by the mid 1930s. (The communists have the same story of political development, but failed to take power in a single state except Russia in 1917 [and its subsequent conquests]).
What number is the rule about making your own movement look stupid?
I’m not involved in the White Nationalist movement anymore.
I think White Nationalists have many worthwhile ideas. I think their analysis of reality is mostly on target. I am just convinced they are not willing or capable of reversing our racial decline.
“I’m not involved in the White Nationalist movement anymore.”
Are you shutting down the blog?
Of course not.
I don’t have any objection to White Nationalist ideas. If the White Nationalist movement succeeded, I would be the first to join the White ethnostate. As I said above, I just don’t think White Nationalists are willing or capable of bringing about their desired revolution.
The closest analogous movement to White Nationalism is American communism. Once upon a time, explicit communists suffered all the penalties of social ostracism and employment discrimination that White Nationalists now endure. Those penalties forced the vast majority of communists underground.
Ultimately, American communism succeeded in breaking down racial barriers. It was the demise of American communism that led to its own eventual success. The mainstream Left coopted significant portions of the communist social and economic platform.
Communism was absorbed into the American mainstream only after it was broken down into its component parts and diluted into a more palatable form. As “civil rights,” feminism, environmentalism, “social justice,” progressivism and a hundred other names, communism triumphed in America.
That’s what I am trying to explain to these White Nationalists.
As “immigration reform,” “border security,” race realism, Darwinism, plain old nationalism, English only, anti-multiculturalism, nullification, states’ rights, secession, “fiscal discipline” and so forth, White Nationalism will eventually be absorbed into the mainstream Right.
It might not be called “White Nationalism.” I think it is inevitable that White Americans will take on all the characteristics of a beleagured minority group over the next decade. The process is already well advanced.
@Hunter 5:05
One issue at a time. Very good analysis.
@Hunter Wallace
You sound demoralized. Do you follow the White Rabbit?
>Rule #6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
One activity that White people enjoy, is learning new skills for fun and to increase their employment prospects.
I have seen it mentioned elsewhere, that we should create our own online White Nationalist University, which offers short courses for our people.
Achievement in these courses, will be recognized by fellow White Nationalists and also it will mean that we can favor our own, when we offer employment opportunities.
Another advantage is completing certain courses at this University, will give our young people the means to think clearly and resist and return in kind, the psychological attacks coming from the anti-White system.
We already have great thinkers and highly educated people in our ranks and we already have the means of distribution, so why aren’t we doing it?
“I’m not involved in the White Nationalist movement anymore.”
Although I am friends with people that consider themselves WN, I have carefully reviewed the prospects of each ideology in the milieu and I’m dissatisfied with the prospects they have to seize political power. I am fine with different groups operating in different areas as they see fit but there has to be a large enough voluntary association to make any political project worthy to survive. I focus on tribes to do that since I don’t see hope of doing it on a bigger scale. If I did I would change my tune. I don’t mean to sound negative or critical of individuals when I think various projects have no chance of making a real impact but we are obligated to challenge ideas and strategies that don’t get results.
I agree with your observations on the fourth rule, from the likes of the Stormfront rhetorical radicals you’d think if it wasn’t for that “evil disinformation agent” Rush Limbaugh the left would have been defeated years ago. But in reality how much worse would things have been if the New York media had gone totally unopposed for the last 20 years without the few lone voices of talk radio offering an alternative? I doubt they would have spontaneously rallied around WN. As if making yourself irrelevant and being confined to shortwave radio is preferable to pulling a few punches and doing something. This is like Americans 30 years ago expecting every single dissident who lived in the Soviet Union to come out in public and telling the KGB exactly how much they hated the regime. Instead of forming foolish cults like Matt Hale’s preposterous “Creator Cathedral” or what ever tom foolery he and those boys were involved in, imagine how much more effective he could have been if he kept his mouth shut and became a lawyer? That was a prime example of what doesn’t work.
There are a lot of valid points in Alinsky, BUT:
(1) White Nationalism is not going to be adopted and implemented piecemeal if White Nationalists cease openly to advocate the consistent doctrine. If White Nationalists do not advocate White Nationalism, nobody else will do it. We need to be explicit, because if we do not maintain a radical core, there will be no source from which our ideas will spread outward in ever-widening, ever-weakening circles into the great muddled middle that makes policy.
(2) It is naive to think that the people who run the Tea Party are anything more than tools of the establishment to channel popular discontent in ways that take energy, idealism, and resources that could endanger the establishment . . . and then waste them. Sure, the Tea Party might not be able to contain these forces. But let’s not fool ourselves, it won’t be from lack of trying.
(3) Communist ideas were adopted by non-Communist groups not merely by osmosis, but by active subversion of said groups by committed Communists. I am all for White Nationalists who cannot be explicit to subvert more mainstream groups.
I, for one, am glad that “Hunter” is no longer involved with the White Nationalist movement. He is mentally unstable and cannot be trusted. But I think that the time has come for him to adopt a new identity and leave WN behind. Clearly, he has been thinking along these lines:
http://fromtheprovinces.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/review-rules-for-radicals/
Is “John Pelham” to be “Hunter Wallace’s” new/next identity? If so, what is the point of posting the same material under different names? The man behind “Hunter Wallace” needs to come up with a completely new identity. You are either implicit or explicit. Pelham/Wallace can’t have it both ways.
“Rules for Radicals” was written by a Jew intent on the dispossession of white gentiles in America and the enfranchisement of black and brown. It was a blueprint for how non-whites should conduct political warfare against whites. That’s not to say we can’t learn a thing or two from the book but the Jewish author and his reasons for writing it are worth mentioning.
The “starting point” for non-whites, especially urban negroes, was an overwhelming hatred of whites. Just read Obama’s books to learn that he had to adopt a virulently anti-white mindset in order to be considered “black enough” and thus gain the trust of the black masses of Chicago. The starting point for the white masses is low taxes and fair treatment for all races. Oh, and unrequited love for the state of Israel. No thanks.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that all we have to do is borrow some pages from the playbook of the radical left keep in mind that the media and universities were very sympathetic to the black and brown underclass and still are the last time I checked. You can now add the Obama regime to that list. Tons of Jewish money didn’t hurt either. White nationalism/race realism/paleo-conservatism enjoys none of these advantages.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that all we have to do is borrow some pages from the playbook of the radical left keep in mind that the media and universities were very sympathetic … White nationalism/race realism/paleo-conservatism enjoys none of these advantages. [–Mr. Dithers]
Exactly.
“The Left” succeeded because of historical inertia after 1945, not because of any “innate tactical brilliance” they had or have.
If anything, what they’ve been peddling turns more people away, all things being equal. But historical inertia is very powerful.
“They refuse to see the strategic wisdom of diluting their ideas and introducing them to the mainstream under the cover of old ideas.”
That’s because it failed repeatedly. How did things work out for all the Dixiecrats turned Republicans? Did they get what they wanted or did they get screwed?
Obviously, our arguments need to be presented as well as possible, but there is a point where watering down changes the fundamental nature of the thing.
We need a balance, and clearly, the GOP establishment is too far in the direction of watering things down. The Tea Party is only a shade to the right of them. Their main beef overall seems to be that the GOP has not lived up to it’s stated principals, which themselves are completely incompatible with racial survival. On the issues that matter most — non-white immigration and inherent racial differences — the Tea Party is indistinguishable from our worst enemies.
It’s one thing to say that WNs should work with or engage the Tea Party types. But you seem to be arguing that the Tea Party movement by itself is capable and even likely to achieve pro-white goals.
I should note that lots of people on Stormfront support the Tea Party and have for years been making the same kinds of arguments that Hunter has been making of late. There is a whole Tea Party sub-forum with many posts. Some people there are even more “mainstream” — advocating voting for people like McCain and Bush and arguing that Sean Hannity is a secret WN. People on this blog keep using Stormfront as shorthand for costume nazi types, but those people were banned years ago.
Greg,
For my own amusement, I have allowed your comment to pass through the filter. There are several charges in your post above that I want to shoot down.
1.) Unlike Matt Parrott, who writes for your website, I am not bipolar. No one in my family has bipolar syndrome. Bipolar syndrome is genetic. The complete absence of bipolar syndrome in my immediate and extended family refutes the idea that I suffer from that illness.
Now, it is true that I suffered a stress induced psychosis in 2008, was misdiagnosed as bipolar, was doped up on drugs for several months, and said a few crazy things on the internet, but that is the extent of the matter.
It later became utterly clear that I was not bipolar (i.e., my response to the medication) and that incident was best explained by stress and sleep deprivation. I do not suffer from any mental illness. I do not take any medication related to any mental illness. I don’t even take pills for depression or anxiety like the majority of Americans.
The only two drugs I consume are caffeine and alcohol. My Virginia roommates who write for this website can confirm this.
What’s more, I understand you spread around the libel that I was suffering from a bipolar episode in July, which living in San Francisco, CA over 3,000 miles away you were not in any position to know.
Gregory Hood, H. Rock White, William Rome, Mike Capatano, Kyle Rogers, Louis March and numerous others who either lived with me or interacted with me throughout that period can testify that you are a liar. You fabricated that story completely out of your own imagination.
2.) Unlike Alex Linder, I am not a psychopath. I do not suffer from any of diagnostic criteria of psychopathy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy
3.) Unlike yourself, I am not a sociopath. I do not suffer from any of the diagnostic criteria of sociopathy:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
I would suggest that Greg Johnson simply “move on” and do activism in some other places. O.D. is now going on a positive way, it’s not embarrassing to be here as no one is going off the deep end in the comments sections.
The posts are solid, informative and entertaining. Indo European Whites from all over the world can now come here and know they are around bright, solid White folks, working to do what is possible given the world we live in – and it’s not Germany 1930s or 1950s Eisenhower America.
Hunter Wallace is obviously very bright and very sane – he’s able to secure friends and G.F. in the real world, he doesn’t come off as kook, nut case loner, loser, societal misfit that can’t function in the real world we live in year 2010.
And all should be safe and assured that O.D. isn’t going “Neo Conservative” , “Fox/GOP establishment” – no one is pushing Zionist wars against Iran or celebrating the bombing of our kinsmen the Serbs, Germans etc.
When White boxers from the UK/Eastern Europe step in to the ring against brutal Black “American” brothuuuuhs from “The Hood”, we’re rooting for our White “brothers” from the UK/Eastern Europe. And we are happy to note that our White kinsmen from the UK/Europe are dominating Blacks in boxing now.
Yeah baby!
Kindness means loving your own kind.
And our kind here is bright, sane and now on a successful path.
14 Words.
These WN websites work best under the “pst, come over here and listen to this secret about how the world works, and then go back to your normal life.” Instead of “pst, come over here and join a cult, start using strange jargon like ‘joo’ and ‘mud’, and frighten away your friends, family, and employers.”
Whose to say how many normal people have secretly read politically incorrect thoughts on Race, Immigration, Jewish Power and kept their mouths shut and are finding ways to deal with it without being explicit about it. The goal on a politically incorrect blog should be to influence powerful people, not as a road to power in itself, that will only lead to disappointment because nobody who comes out in the open will ever get any power or respect even if the establishment were to adopt all their ideas.
Moving on to the substance of your post.
1.) Explicit White Nationalism has failed. The cause of that failure isn’t hard to discern.
Power comes from organization. White Nationalists are either incapable or unwilling to organize in the real world. Thus, White Nationalists remain powerless to reverse our decline, and use the internet as an escape valve to blow off steam and pass the time.
Why don’t White Nationalists organize? They are afraid of social ostracism and employment discrimination. It is that simple.
In theory, White Nationalists could rise up and overthrow those barriers, but there is no evidence they are willing to do so. Thus, if explicit White Nationalism is to have any success at all, some other force must destabilize those barriers, or break the logjam so to speak.
It is the only conceivable way explicit White Nationalism can succeed.
2.) The only two social movements in American history that are somewhat similar to White Nationalism are communism and eugenics. In both cases, communists and eugenicists were forced underground after the Second World War. Both the communists and eugenicists faced social ostracism and employment discrimination like White Nationalists do today.
In the 1940s and 1950s, the eugenics movement went through a transformation. It broke apart and the various pieces reemerged under different banners.
Eugenics became “population control,” abortion, birth control, family planning, and so on. Now it is “genetic testing,” IVF, and selective abortion. Most fetuses with Down Syndrome are now aborted because of genetic testing.
Eugenicists have used stealth to advance their agenda. For example, the Human Genome Project was sold to the public on the grounds that it could be used to find treatments for genetic diseases, but genetic research is now providing the critical knowledge that the old eugenicists lacked.
Sooner or later, the typical American family will be able to walk into a clinic and create a designer baby. Eugenics will have quietly triumphed by adapting to the existing political climate.
3.) The “radicalism” of White Nationalists consists almost entirely of posting anonymous comments on the internet. It is” rhetorical radicalism” which fifteen years of experience has shown to be utterly ineffective.
Similarly, converting people to White Nationalist ideas is a useless enterprise, as White Nationalists themselves are unwilling to act on those ideas in the real world.
Without organization and action, there is no accumulation of power. Without power, White Nationalists lack the means to change anything and cope by reading the next book or posting the next anonymous essay.
Sound familiar?
4.) You obviously have zero experience with the Tea Party. There is no vertical Tea Party hierarchy. The Tea Party is a horizontal, grassroots phenomenon.
It takes less than five seconds of speaking with these people to discern that they dislike the GOP establishment. In the real world, Tea Party candidates have been defeating establishment politicians in one primary after another.
So Karl Rove, Colin Powell, and Michael Steele control the Tea Party? No wonder Tea Party conservatives think White Nationalists are crazy.
Unlike White Nationalists, the Tea Party is effective. Instead of posting harmless comments on the internet, an escape valve if there ever was one, they have pulled the political spectrum in their direction.
The incoming House and Senate will be much improved on immigration … thanks to the Tea Party, not White Nationalists.
5.) The rhetorical radicals who post on these websites don’t have the patience or cunning to subvert much of anything.
Hunter,
Please stop attempting to disparage me on your blog. I’ve recommitted myself to focus my efforts on advocacy rather than infighting and I have walked back from some of the sharper statements I made during the dust-up. I ask that you do the same.
All,
Hunter is correct in asserting that I was diagnosed with sub-clinical bipolar disorder. It was over five years ago, during marriage counseling with my first wife. It didn’t involve any episode that adversely affected anybody. I’ve found since then that maintaining a regular sleeping schedule, eating a balanced diet, and abstaining from alcohol is sufficient to avoid the hypomanic and melancholic episodes altogether.
Even during the worst of it, in the middle of a nasty divorce, I was a fully functioning adult entirely in control of my actions. Since that time, I’ve maintained steady employment, maintained steady romantic and platonic relationships, and have done what I can to try to be an asset for my people.
I’m not devoid of flaws. I have several flaws. While I’m glad to frankly and directly discuss my shortcomings, I would prefer that it be done either in private or in a constructive spirit.
Please keep me and my issues out of this fight.
Matt,
If memory serves, you accused me on Majority Rights of being “mentally unstable,” and repeatedly told people that I was having some kind of breakdown. I find it strange that you would know this … in Indiana … and Greg would know this … in California … when I lived … in Virginia.
Personally, I don’t care that you are bipolar. I have never brought up the matter before. Just don’t toss stones when you live in a glass house. I am literally not bipolar and dislike having to repeatedly respond to rumors which people who have no physical interaction with me in the real world continue to spread.
“1.) Unlike Matt Parrott, who writes for your website, I am not bipolar. No one in my family has bipolar syndrome. Bipolar syndrome is genetic. The complete absence of bipolar syndrome in my immediate and extended family refutes the idea that I suffer from that illness.”
Mental illness is the result of a complex interplay of genetic, developmental and environmental factors. It’s not necessary to have a close relative have a disorder for you to have it too.
Furthermore, mental illness, personality disorders and developmental disorders are now though of as spectra on which everyone falls somewhere(the new DSM will reflect this).
Hunter,
I don’t know what you want me to do. It was inappropriate for me to publicly speculate on your mental health and your financial propriety from afar. It was a handful of comments, and that was truly the extent of it.
I stopped and retracted the remarks within days. I have established a clear record since then of trying to move on. When you’re mentioned in radio interviews, I change the subject. When people bring you up in other forums, I repeat my retraction.
The full extent of my public remarks should have been simply: I no longer associate with or support you. Everything else is beside the point. I no longer associate with or support you. Period.
If you would like me to personally apologize, you know my number. I’ll personally retract what I said and apologize for having said it.
I think people should try to put the worst things of the past behind them and move on to better, successful things in the future.
Try to put a decent, positive light on things – no one was killed, maimed, put in prison, raped, destroyed for life.
So people said some exaggerated or untrue things about each other – that happens all the time in the American “Movement”.
I was once smeared in WN forums with wild rumors that I was:
1) Too accepting of pro White gays like Pym Fortuyn
2) That I lusted after non White Women like certain Latin American Med beauty pageant winners
(Anybody note the contradiction there – I’m supposed to be “gay” but also a womanizer…. just something BAD that has to do with sex).
3) I finally got smeared and driven out of one WN board for admitting that I liked some Motown Music and Chicago Blues and thought White pop singers were OK to cover some of these songs in a White soulful way.
And all the time, I know the real reason there are vicious rumor smear campaigns against me was that I completely predicted the Ron Paul for President failures- Libertarianism doesn’t sell in Presidential Politics. Nothing traitorous or anti there, just recognizing political realities.
So my advice is for folks to just move on. No one has to be the one to apologize and say THEY WERE THE ONE IN THE WRONG.
Just say “You’re Sorry” and move on.
This is Hunter’s page, so others should move away and move on and do some positive activism in other places or better yet off the Net and in the real world.
Hope that helped.
14 Words.
If the object of abandoning the Democratic Party for the Republican Party was to stop the Civil Rights Movement, then the “Dixiecrats” succeeded. The South didn’t tilt Republican in Congress until the George H.W. Bush years.
The last piece of major civil rights legislation to pass Congress was the Civil Rights Act of 1990. The last major piece of immigration legislation was the Immigration Act of 1991.
What did White Nationalists accomplish in that period? A few banks were robbed. A few million anonymous comments were posted on the internet. David Duke enjoyed some success in Louisiana by toning down his message.
What else?
The real question here is whether we want to be successful or unsuccessful in establishing our credibility as organizers. If we want to be successful and relevant, a voice in our communities that people will actually listen to, then we must adapt our rhetoric to the experience of our target audience and set out to achieve what is possible.
The Tea Party has the right idea.
Instead of complaining on the internet about how much they dislike the growth of government and federal spending, something which is completely ineffective, they organize and knock off the politicians they dislike in the primaries, which has proven very effective.
This isn’t true.
In theory, the GOP is committed to opposing illegal immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and the growth of government and federal spending. In reality, that hasn’t been the case. The incoming Senate and House will be drastically improved on immigration. How is that incompatible with our racial survival?
Saul Alinsky was right: the most unethical use of means is the use of no means at all.
Rand Paul is indistinguishable from Conway on immigration? Sharon Angle from Harry Reid? Ken Buck from Bennet? NumbersUSA and the people who are actually in the trenches fighting on this issue disagree.
If Saul Alinsky was a White Nationalist, what would he do? He would have every White Nationalist radical inserting themselves into their local Tea Party and working to give it a harder edge on social issues like immigration and multiculturalism.
Alinsky would also be the first to point out that it is the job of opposition to radicalize moderates. He would advise using tactics that bait the opposition into a polarizing overreaction like, say, holding a “Restoring Sanity” rally in DC that mocks the Tea Party on the eve of the midterm elections.
Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are now completely identified with their audience because they happen to understand this.
It is a good idea to infiltrate the Tea Party. Pushing the Tea Party in a more radical position on immigration is something that can be accomplished right now. It is doable. It is a realistic goal.
How is that not a better use of one’s time than posting anonymous comments on the internet that 1.) either no one will read or 2.) which are so far out of tune with the mainstream that no one reading them will be persuaded to change their position?
I think the best ever WN was William Pierce. Listening to his weekly broadcasts and reading the articles in his magazine, I was always stunned by the clarity and simplicity of his message, written in the most able and artful prose. However frightful it might have been to have gone out and spoken like him, you knew with every word that what he said was simply the truth and that, were it not for the severe repression, everyone would have taken as simply common sense. In fact, at one time it WAS taken as common sense, and only nutcases thought there way into denying it.
I think a lot of people on this blog now would not be here were it not for this work of Pierce, either by his influence directly or by the influence of those he educated. By comparison, it seemed nearly every writer up until Pierce had done no better than to leave, as the press was found of ever repeating, “a crudely scrawled hand-written note left at the scene of the incident.” Not many intelligent people favored the cause, which seemed the cause of “ignorant racists.”
He made it plain that the problem with all the illegal immigration was not that the invaders were “illegal,” but that they were Mestizos and that we needed to oppose this out loud, since it was the only real issue and that the real issue needed to be dealt with realistically.
Kevin Alfred Strom did an able job of taking up where Pierce’s broadcasts left off. And he was, I think, becoming the equal of Pierce before being railroaded into prison on obviously false changes.
Nietzsche says–I think it’s in Daybreak–that the Greeks had discovered that whatever is well said will be believed. That’s an additional note on the theme of “style” which has been topical on this blog lately.
Speak the truth plainly, but well, to those who can hear it, and then let people do what they can!
We must help those who can and are willing to know the truth to know it. It’s extremely useful if people will just not nod approval and act delighted at an interracial couple or coo at a white woman’s stroller full of nigger babies, even if their job, etc. won’t allow them to “speak out” in public.
I see some here and elsewhere talking about some grand “we” and what “we” ought to do and suggesting “we” ought not frighten people with things like “Holocaust Denial.” But, the holocaust revisionists movement is an essential part of understand our problem, even if you don’t shout it out at cameras at a Tea Party. “We” (if I may) should support the truth in all its force and details, even one at a time, wherever and whenever possible. It all matters. And “we” are not a political party with a “platform” “we” all agree on.
If the sort of old 70’s style costumed Nazi protest that happened in Knoxville looks like it does to nearly any contemporary person, then drop it; it does damage to the cause.
So, we see that the people attacking Hunter have mental illnesses, no surprise there.
You know, Matt, it’s a little difficult to retract and apologize for those knives in the back. You’re really only here out of self-interest and to try to save face. Too little, too late.
If they dislike Hunter so much why do they keep coming back here and commenting? Their own blogs must be empty and not doing so well.
Psychiatric epithets are so degrading—people labeled with such diagnoses lose all credibility in respected society, yes even in the Tea Party—that I would like to see that all of us drop this rhetoric when discussing our differences, at least drop this vocabulary in public forums.
As to psychiatry itself, from the late 1998 to 2004 I studied the foremost professional critics of psychiatry and even corresponded with and met some of them. There’s even a professional journal (i.e., only MDs and PhDs publish there) that debunks the claims of biological psychiatry. I have a whole library on the critical literature on psychiatry, and have written hundreds of thousands of words in an anti-psychiatric blog in Spanish. Of all of this output I’ve translated only a few articles to English (here). In a nutshell, most of what the Big Pharma sells us is pseudoscience. If you could read a couple of my (amateurishly) translated articles, you will see that statements like this one in this thread—:
@ Mental illness is the result of a complex interplay of genetic… (the new DSM will reflect this)…
—have no real basis on science.
P.S.
Please don’t confuse me with the Scientologists. I’ve a whole blog debunking the nutty L. Ron Hubbard criticism to the mental health professions.
(1) If the anonymous online promotion of WN is a waste of time, isn’t it also a waste of time for “Hunter” to anonymously denigrate it online? If the latter isn’t a waste of time, then neither is the former.
“Hunter” needs to move on, break completely with the movement that he is “no longer involved with,” and reinvent himself yet again.
(2) It is a straw man to argue that, since the Tea Party has no single, formal, hierarchy, there is not an informal hierarchy, and that there are no strings attached when Dick Armey, Freedomworks, Sarah Palin, and Murdoch’s network offer their help, encouragement, and names.
“Hunter” admits that he was psychotic a few years back because of stress. I guess we should not worry now, because surely he has never been under stress since then, and he probably never will be in the future. Beyond that, his recent online behavior is clearly aberrant. And that is really all anybody really needs to know.
Specific diagnoses are irrelevant, and thus they are a thin reed behind which to conceal a vast bulk. Presumably, “Hunter” was taken to the funny farm and committed before he was given a specific diagnosis. Insanity is a phenomenon that is apparent even to laymen, although sometimes it takes a while to sink in.
Diagnosis and explanation are something else entirely. They are inexact and speculative and best left to experts.
Matt,
You have done me a service.
If it wasn’t for your actions, I would undoubtedly be in Virginia right now building up a CofCC chapter. Clearly, it was better for me to find out who I had gotten involved with in July before I wasted the rest of savings on that project and persuaded others to join your organization.
Instead of playing Florence Nightingale to the sick and wounded of the White Nationalist movement for another six months, I am back home in Alabama. I live closer to friends and family. I have a real job now.
I’m rebuilding my savings. My ex-girlfriend has moved in with me. I’m in far better shape. I am looking at a nice house in the mountains of North Alabama. I am buying a new vehicle soon.
As for politics, I have taken a sharp practical turn now that I have lost my illusions about White Nationalism. I’m more pragmatic and realistic than I was before. I have learned how to be effective and relevant in my community.
Greg,
It is funny that you of all people are accusing me of having mental problems. This comes from someone whose own roommate told me you are a sociopath.
Let’s review:
1.) Grandiose Sense of Self – Burning down the detritus of the White Nationalist movement so that the “North American New Right” of San Francisco can triumph over its ashes?
Yeah.
2.) Manipulative and Conning – Selling young people on the false idea that “White Nationalism” is changing, taking advantage of their idealism, and using them to promote yourself?
Yeah. Got that one too.
3.) Pathological Lying – Hunter Wallace works for the SPLC. My evil employer is persecuting poor innocent me.
Yeah. That’s another one.
4.) Glibness and Superficial Charm – You sold me on a lemon. You convinced any number of people to do your job for you.
Yeah. Check.
5.) Lack of Remorse, Shame, or Guilt – Sees others as targets and opportunities. The end always justifies the means. A perfect description of the real Greg Johnson.
Yeah. Got that one.
6.) Shallow Emotions – Feigns friendship to advance an ulterior motive. Remains cold and unmoved by what upsets normal people. That’s Greg Johnson.
Yeah. Up to six now.
7.) Incapacity for Love – When is the last time Greg Johnson loved a woman?
Yeah. Number seven.
8.) Need for Stimulation – Verbal outbursts? FUCK YOU, I don’t want to deal with you anymore. Living on the edge? You are attracted to fringe ideas because they are exotic and weird.
Yep. Number eight.
9.) Callousness/Lack of Empathy – You swooned for a genocidal maniac like Alex Linder.
Yeah. Number nine.
10.) Poor Behavioral Control – Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. Does this ring a bell to anyone who has the misfortune of knowing Greg Johnson?
Yeah. We are ten for ten.
11.) Early Behavior Problems – A history of behavioral and academic difficulties. Problems in making and keeping friends. Aberrant behavior like stealing. Does this surprise anyone who knows Greg Johnson?
Yeah. Eleven for eleven.
12.) Irresponsibility/Unreliability – How exactly did Greg Johnson lose his job? Not concerned with others lives and dreams. Hmm. Does making threats to destroy someone’s life count?
Yeah. Twelve for twelve.
13.) Promiscuous Sexual Behavior – Homosexuality would certainly qualify.
Up to thirteen now.
14.) Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle – Does this sound familiar to anyone who knows Greg Johnson’s work history? To anyone who knows who is sponging off in San Francisco today?
Fourteen out of fourteen.
15.) Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility – Hijacking the TOQ website? Stealing the TOQ back issues and distributing them to friends? Stealing the laptop? Stealing the books and selling them for profit?
Wow. A perfect score.
Yes Dr Johnson (and Hunter): but I used my above circumlocution just as a (rather obvious) attempt to suggest that the public image is important, especially if we want to make a dent on the Tea Party. They must not see us quarrelling with each other in this way (at lest not in a public forum).
Anyway: even Isaac Newton suffered a temporary “psychotic” (I just don’t like these words in the present context) breakdown. That doesn’t diminish Newton’s accomplishments. We are all human.
I used to be a chess fan and still hold an international rating of 2109. How many World Champions suffered from emotional (sometimes “psychotic”) breakdowns? Besides the Austrian Steinitz, the only two World Champions that America produced, Paul Morphy and Bobby Fischer, became paranoid later in their lives.
Emotional crises are a trait of some geniuses who have not processed the pain of their childhood and/or adolescence. Stefan Zweig wrote The Struggle with the Daimon: a psychobiography on Kleist, Hölderlin and Nietzsche. But even Zweig doesn’t delve really deep into their pain. But I am already sticking my nose in this dispute more than I should have. (Suffice it to say that I started the Wikipedia article on the Trauma model of mental disorders; take a look at it.)
If it wasn’t for your actions, I would undoubtedly be in Virginia right now building up a CofCC chapter. Clearly, it was better for me to find out who I had gotten involved with in July before I wasted the rest of savings on that project and persuaded others to join your organization.
Even if I am this “snake in the grass” that you and Mark are making me out to be, who singlehandedly ruined everything in Virginia, that’s me and not the CofCC. I’m not on the Board or in a leadership position of any kind, aside from being a chapter chairman in a different part of the country.
You continue to think kindly of several CofCC members, and haven’t actually been “wronged” by the CofCC itself. I think it’s unfair for you to drag them into this.
Instead of playing Florence Nightingale to the sick and wounded of the White Nationalist movement for another six months, I am back home in Alabama. I live closer to friends and family. I have a real job now.
I’m rebuilding my savings. My ex-girlfriend has moved in with me. I’m in far better shape. I am looking at a nice house in the mountains of North Alabama. I am buying a new vehicle soon.
Congratulations.
As for politics, I have taken a sharp practical turn now that I have lost my illusions about White Nationalism. I’m more pragmatic and realistic than I was before. I have learned how to be effective and relevant in my community.
I wish you the best of luck with that.
1.) It is not a waste of time to take people who are irrelevant and ineffective, neutered into active pacifism by rhetorical radicalism, and show them how to be relevant and effective.
I’m certainly glad someone took the time to do that with me. Imagine where Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be today without the influence of Saul Alinsky. Nowhere near the White House or State Department.
That’s for sure.
2.) I’m only going to become more adamant about exposing the false radicalism you are selling people on. I will not miss an opportunity to point out how irrelevant and ineffective your actions are at producing the change you profess to desire.
3.) You claimed the people involved with the Tea Party are “tools of the establishment” and that they were “wasting” the energy that could challenge the establishment.
This is directly contradicted by, where to start, Sharon Angle in Nevada, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Joe Miller in Alaska, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. The Tea Party has successfully challenged the GOP establishment and defeated them numerous times now. In several other cases, they challenged them and came close to winning, as in New Hampshire or Arizona.
In stark contrast, White Nationalists like yourself have TALKED FOR YEARS about how awful the GOP is for White people, but in four decades haven’t created a viable alternative to it, still less have you mounted any serious effort to overthrow its leadership.
Who is really the tool of the establishment here?
Is it the people who challenge the establishment and win, who are successful in pulling the political spectrum in their direction, or is it the people like you whose radicalism consists of talking about change only to do nothing to bring change about?
From where I am standing, Counter Currents looks more like the escape valve, not the Tea Party.
Matt,
In my case, your actions succeeded in casting a shadow over the entire organization. The fundamental reason people refuse to join White Nationalist organizations is because they are afraid of getting burned.
What was I supposed to tell people? Join the CofCC. So you can experience what I did after driving 600 miles round trip to Greenville, SC. Having misplaced my trust in you, I wasn’t inclined to find out who else I had misjudged.
I decided to call it quits right there.
Hunter,
Had I to do it all over again, I would have done it nearly the same, save for making a couple specific accusations that I couldn’t prove. I’m not here to grovel or beg for your forgiveness. I’m here to own up for the mistakes I made and ask you to please, PLEASE, stop dragging this out.
Matt,
At this point, it is water under the bridge. In my response to Greg Johnson, I only mentioned you as an afterthought, not to cause you injury, but to illustrate that he is an opportunist and a hypocritical liar. Honestly, I had not anticipated you showing up here.
If I could do it all over again, I would set the clock back to 2001, when I first got involved in White Nationalism. I would have thought to myself: these people are right about race, Jews, and White identity, and a White ethnostate sounds like a damn good idea, but they really don’t seem willing or capable of bringing about the changes they desire.
I wish now that I had learned a few lessons and moved on. Instead, I wasted six years, thousands of dollars, and countless hours of my time on a stupid, worthless vBulletin forum that changed nothing and still causes me nothing but misery. Looking backward, I could have focused on my own health, career, financial well being, and romantic interests.
There is no telling where I could have been by now. I might now be in an influential position where I have the power, resources, and legitimacy to effectively move others in my direction. Instead, there is a cyber paper trail of tens of thousands of anonymous radical comments, not a single one of which changed a damn thing.
Then there was the year I wasted doing Greg Johnson’s job for him. Then the thousands of dollars of my savings that was blown trying to organize people like “Trainspotter” in Virginia who write 30,000 word treatises arguing in favor of doing nothing.
It took me a decade to realize that the White Nationalist movement isn’t the most effective way to promote White Nationalist ends.
“If the object of abandoning the Democratic Party for the Republican Party was to stop the Civil Rights Movement, then the “Dixiecrats” succeeded. ”
That’s a puzzling statement. The Civil Rights movement got and still has almost everything it wanted.
“How is that incompatible with our racial survival?”
Because it doesn’t even mention legal immigration. Even with no further immigration at all, whites will be dispossessed by differential birthrates and miscegenation. And stopping amnesty doesn’t even stop further illegal immigration or repatriate the illegals already here. Rand Paul and the other people you mentioned, with the exception of Numbers USA(who have been around for a long time before the Tea Party), don’t even mention doing anything about restricting legal immigration, let alone mention the racial displacement that immigration is causing.
The Civil Rights Movement burned bright from Rosa Parks in Montgomery through the MLK assassination. It ebbed somewhat in the 1970s, lost further momentumn in the 1980s, and hit a roadblock in the early 1990s.
The Civil Rights Act of 1990 was the last real legislative triumph of the Civil Rights Movement. The brakes were put on further reform when Southern Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party and the GOP recaptured control of Congress for the first time since the 1950s.
They haven’t by any means gotten everything they wanted. MLK had moved on to crusading for wealth redistribution when he was assassinated. Five minutes alone in a room with Benjamin Jealous (or reading the latest Bob Herbert colum) is enough to remove any lingering doubt that blacks are content and satisfied with the status quo.
Having won the debate on “comprehensive immigration reform,” NumbersUSA is now calling for a time out on legal immigration. In contrast, White Nationalists haven’t won anything at all, nor have they played a significant role in stopping amnesty the last several times it has been defeated.
Posting thousands of radical anonymous comments on the internet is going to change that?
Securing the border, deporting illegal aliens, cracking down on employers, denying illegals access to the welfare state, attacking the 14th Amendment, and calling for a pause in legal immigration is much more effective in moving us toward the ethnostate.
It’s a start.
Realists take what they can get. Then push for more. A hundred small steps is infinitely preferable to no steps at all. Biting modestly is preferable to barking loudly.
Why should they?
Who is going to force them to move in that direction? Are White Nationalists going to challenge them from their right? Not by a long shot. They are content to complain on the internet.
The pressure comes exclusively from the Left which wields power because it is organized. At least up until recently when the Tea Party changed that.
Gentlemen, we all end up having to suck the sick sow’s hind tit from to time. As temporal cure to these maladies might I suggest one and a half tablespoons (must be taken thrice daily) of some of Britain’s finest Black Metal? (just hit DOWNLOAD, it’s all for free-ee)
“Having won the debate on “comprehensive immigration reform,” NumbersUSA is now calling for a time out on legal immigration.”
Numbers USA has always wanted to lower rates of legal immigration. It’s a group that is about 10 years old; it has nothing to do with the Tea Party.
This is a brilliant post.
I suppose it comes down to how the individual female defines “sexy”. In a multicultural wasteland like the Eastern Seaboard or just a plain cultural wasteland like the Rustbelt, the “foreign” anything will be viewed as “exotic” and “sexy.”
I think if Enrique or a clubber boy from Jersey stepped into a white honky tonk bar in Missouri or Georgia, they would be laughed out of the building, if not assaulted by the regulars for seeming a bit lavender. Their cultural critics openly admit they hate those two states, since they DO HAVE a different culture.
Very good article. I think there needs to be explicit organisations and individuals like A3P and the Dr Dukes but at the same time there needs to be *enough* people copying Alinsky like tactics.
One extra point i’d make is
“White Nationalists insist on doing the right thing for the right reasons. They insist on ideological purity. They refuse to see the strategic wisdom of diluting their ideas and introducing them to the mainstream under the cover of old ideas. They have utterly failed in the task of creating organizations or a viable alternative to the status quo. As a result, they are powerless and rudderless, and find themselves adrift on the sea of historical change.”
The left is / was like this too. That’s partly why Alinksy wrote his book. The point being it doesn’t actually take that many people to stir things up as long as they do it right and their agitation is in the clearly understood interests of the people they’re agitating.
Enough is all you need and enough isn’t as many as you might think.