Review: Toward the White Republic

Michael O'Meara's Toward The White Republic

(Editor’s Note: I received the long anticipated Fall 2010 “secession issue” of TOQ in the mail today. Over the next week, I will be reviewing the six essays on secession which are included in this volume. I plan to wrap up this series with a culminating essay on secession based on my own thoughts.

If you haven’t already done so, subscribe to TOQ and follow along the discussion. Since Kevin MacDonald took over as Editor, I have received two issues over the last six months. The venerable journal is back on track and remains a “value added” product which is well worth the small cost of subscribing to.)

Michael O’Meara’s prize winning essay “Toward the White Republic” won the 2009 TOQ competition on secession. Thus, it seems appropriate to start the reviewing process here. Last year, I had a few thoughts about “Toward the White Republic” which were largely positive. I’ve since reread the essay with a fresh pair of eyes.

At the outset of this review, I would like to emphasize that I only reviewing the essay.” “Toward the White Republic” has since been expanded into a 160 page book. I haven’t read the book (only some of the essays therein) and this review isn’t a judgement on its content. At some point, I will purchase a copy of the book (you should to) and review the complete volume, but that will have to wait until another day.

As an essay, “Toward the White Republic” can be divided into four parts: a definition of White Nationalism, a history lesson about White identity, a polemic against racial conservatives, and a prescription for action. Last August, I focused exclusively on the “mythic” aspect of this essay, which provoked a series of negative responses at Majority Rights. Today, I will reflect and expand upon the complete product.

Definition

O’Meara begins “Toward the White Republic” with the observation that a terminological change has redefined the pro-White movement. In the 1990s, pro-Whites abandoned “white supremacy” in favor of a rhetorical commitment to “White Nationalism.” Instead of attempting to recapture control of the United States, pro-Whites slowly converged on the ideal of creating a separate, autonomous White ethnostate in North America.

But everyone who subscribes to the “White Nationalist” label hasn’t embraced the revolutionary, separatist project. Some White Nationalists continued to hold out hope that America could be “restored” through the existing political process. These “mainstreamers” advocate working within the system to achieve White Nationalist ends.

O’Meara calls them “racial conservatives.” The Council of Conservative Citizens would seem seem to fit this description. Matt Parrott of Hoosier Nation comes to mind. Yesterday, Parrott advocated “restorationary radicalism” with Kievsky on Radio Free Indiana.

I see nothing to dispute here. If I was forced to split hairs, I would only quibble with O’Meara’s assumption that White Nationalists are synonymous with revolutionary vanguardists. In theory, I see no reason why secession couldn’t be accomplished peacefully through the mainstream political process.

The Velvet Divorce between the Czech Republic and Slovakia is one such example. Québec’s constant threats to secede from Canada is another closer to home.

History Lesson

After defining White Nationalism, Michael O’Meara moves on to explore the historical roots of White identity. He interprets White Nationalism as an American variation on ethnonationalism. Once again, O’Meara is on solid historical ground. This section was easily the most persuasive part of the essay.

What impressed me the most was that O’Meara seems to understand that the emergence of White racial consciousness in America was an organic process, not an imported abstract ideal from Europe. It was a pragmatic response of English settlers to living in an alien environment. White unity was a strategy for dealing with race war with Indians on the frontier and keeping large numbers of negro slaves in bondage.

Hostilities with Britain in the American Revolution and War of 1812, which lingered on into the 1890s, finally killed off the “English” aspect of American national identity. Westward expansion and the absorption of large numbers of European immigrants reinforced White racial consciousness until well into the twentieth century.

Under the Roosevelt administration, the first cracks began to appear in the seemingly invincible facade of White America. This was due less to a Jewish conspiracy than to America’s own geopolitical ambitions after the Second World War.

The Soviet Union challenged American global hegemony with its own version of universalism. In order to counter the success of Soviet propaganda in the Third World, American policymakers began to advocate desegregation; letting a genie out of the bottle which eventually led to the decompiling of White racial identity.

To his credit, Michael O’Meara is one of the few White Nationalists who seems to understand this. Jewish influence played a starring role in the decline of White America, but it was only one factor among many contributing to this result. The perversion of America’s own republican ideals was likewise important.

Polemics

Further into “Toward the White Republic,” O’Meara steps on to much shakier ground, in which he attempts to defend secession and revolutionary vanguardism from its racial conservative critics. Foremost among these, O’Meara takes aim at Sam Francis, who was dismissive of the idea of a White ethnostate.

The first and most common criticism that O’Meara responds to is that a White ethnostate is “a fantasy … pure and folly.” He responds to this line of attack by arguing that the “objective forces” opposing secession are less important than the “subjective will seeking its triumph.” If the will to secession is strong enough, reality will crumple and give way.

This doesn’t strike me as a persuasive rebuttal.

It doesn’t matter how hard you try to bend a spoon with sheer will power, psychokinesis only works in Hollywood movies. In order for White Nationalists to be successful in achieving their revolutionary objective, they will logically have to amass an incredible amount of power and physical force in a circumscribed geographic area, say, the Pacific Northwest, something which hitherto they haven’t shown any signs of doing.

O’Meara himself doesn’t show much interest in the nuts and bolts, the practical, how-to side of revolution either.

Moving forward, O’Meara responds to Francis’s criticism that any call to dissolve the United States will only serve to alienate conservatives and nationalists. His only counter to this argument is “that ship has sailed” and “the flag-waving, Constitution-worshiping types” who “believe there is something sacred about the United States” will “never be mobilized for the sake of racial preservation.”

At the stroke of a pen, Michael O’Meara writes off the 42% of Americans who identify as conservatives, who account for well over 50% of White Americans, and an even larger percentage of Whites in the South and West. Who then is supposed to create the White ethnostate?

The 20% of Whites who are liberal progressives? The remainder of Whites who identify as moderates? They are even less likely than conservatives to be rallied around the ideal of a White ethnostate.

By writing off 90% of White Americans, O’Meara reopens himself to the charge of “fantasy ideology,” or engaging in wishful thinking untethered to political reality.

Finally, O’Meara responds to the criticism that White Nationalists don’t have the military resources to secede and defend a White Republic. He dismisses this line of attack with the argument that Francis doesn’t understand “fourth generation warfare.” The rotten Judeo-American colossus only knows how to defeat standing armies and is incapable of defeating a popular insurgency which would secure Russian support.

This is another criticism which shouldn’t be treated so lightly. It brings to mind the overconfident Confederates (and there were far more of those) who put their faith in King Cotton, Southern chivalry, and British and French military support triumphing over Yankee materialism and numerical superiority. Secession didn’t work out for the Antebellum South and there is even less reason to think it would work out for White Nationalists in the Pacific Northwest.

The fact is, this scenario is based in large part upon the wishful thinking of vanguardist revolutionaries like The Order who were crushed by the authorities within recent memory. When Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, the Clinton administration used his “domestic terrorism” to demonize White Nationalists and rally public support behind the federal government. The movement had to carry this albatross for years.

This scenario also presumes that the U.S. military is incapable of defeating insurgencies because of the Vietnam Syndrome. Law enforcement alone was capable of defeating White Nationalist insurgents in the 1980s and 1990s. What about the insurgencies that the U.S. military defeated in the Philippines, Nicaragua, or more recently, the Sunni insurgency that Bush and General Petraeus defeated in Iraq?

The U.S. military has devoted enormous resources to counter-terrorism and defeating “fourth generation warfare.” White Nationalists underestimate its resilience at their own peril.

Prescription

When all is said and done, Michael O’Meara’s solution, or the means by which his secessionists are to acquire the White ethnostate, is creating a “physical force wing” of White Nationalism analogous to the IRA and turning “to the methods of Connelly and Pearce.”

A revolutionary vanguard will be created which will be motivated by the mythic vision of a White ethnostate. In other words, O’Meara’s plan is Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet scenario, although credit isn’t given where it is due. This much has been plain (see the talk about surrendering territory) throughout the essay. Everything that is being proposed here is what HAC has been saying for years.

It suffers from the same fatal flaw: Explicit White Nationalists won’t participate in a conference call, have dinner with you at an IHOP, or drink a beer with you at a local bar. The vast majority of them are keyboard commandos and are perfectly content to stay way.

If Explicit White Nationalists can’t handle the softball methods of Matt Parrott, they aren’t about to “turn to the methods of Connelly and Pearce.” We are only fooling ourselves by pretending otherwise. If secession is to be accomplished, it will have to be done in some other way, one that is capable of reaching and mobilizing a far larger number of White Americans behind our revolutionary goal.

The Merits

There is a lot of merit in this essay. I still think the emphasis on myth is vitally important. When I wake up in the morning, I too am motivated by my vision of a White Republic, not by the abstract charts and graphs that are so popular in HBD circles. In this respect, I am not all that different from Michael O’Meara and his vanguardists.

A vision is needed to create evangelists. In my experience, the vision of a White Republic has been sufficient to create lots of evangelists; I have one internet evangelist in particular blowing up my Inbox right now, arguing in favor of the efficacy of ideas.

The weakness of O’Meara’s argument can be traced to means (strategy and tactics), not ends. How do evangelists effectively change the political spectrum? How do we close the gap between reality and our ideals? How do we make progress toward our long term goals? How do we build political power and break out into the mainstream? How do we close the gap between our beliefs and our behavior?

Right now, we aren’t making progress on any of these fronts. In my upcoming essay on secession, I will zero in on this and other issues which I think are important, which I don’t think have been sufficiently addressed here. I will attempt to build upon this idea of a “mythic vision” with the practical ways it can be translated into effective real world action.

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. “A revolutionary vanguard will be created which will be motivated by the mythic vision of a White ethnostate. In other words, O’Meara’s plan is Harold Covington’s Northwest Quartet scenario, although credit isn’t given where it is due. This much has been plain (see the talk about surrendering territory) throughout the essay. Everything that is being proposed here is what HAC has been saying for years.”

    Due credit is given Covington by O’Meara in ch.6 of his new book, in the essay titled The Northwest Novels of H.A. Covington.

  2. This sounds like a very fascinating work. I have read and re-read the origional O’Meara essay and I did not know that it had been expanded into a book. I shall add it to my reading list AT ONCE. Mr. O’Meara is a very good writer with many interesting ideas. As far as his advocating secession, however, I must say I disagree:

    “We have only to kick in the door, and the whole rotten facade will come tumbling down” – Adolf Hitler on the eve of Operation Barbarossa.

    Didn’t quite work out that way eh?
    Revolution and warfare are NEVER quite as easy as the armchair generals make it out to be. One commonality that I have noticed between Turner Diaries and Covington’s Northwest Republic novels is that BOTH assume their opponants will be degenerate pushovers. As already mentioned when Robert J. Matthews took Pierce’s book and attempted to apply it to reality he found out just how WRONG that was.

    “There is a lot of merit in this essay. I still think the emphasis on myth is vitally important. When I wake up in the morning, I too am motivated by my vision of a White Republic, not by the abstract charts and graphs that are so popular in HBD circles.”

    Over the last several months my mind has been percolating with visions of daily life AFTER the revolution, what it will look/smell/taste/be like to be the citizen of a real honest to god White ethnostate. How it shall be organized politically. How Whites will comport themselves and speak to one another. What manners will be like. The very fact that there will BE manners! The return of REAL music and how it will sound. All kinds of things! I should write them down if I ever get time.

  3. So let me see if I understand this.

    Step 1) Write off most White Americans as undesirables who don’t care about race.

    Step 2) Without the support of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians or 90% of American Whites, start a military insurgency against a US federal government armed with predator drones and battle-hardened troops who have done nothing for the last decade except fight the world’s most skilled and dangerous insurgents.

    If that’s the plan, it’s a non-starter. This is pure fantasy.

  4. “A vision is needed to create evangelists. In my experience, the vision of a White Republic has been sufficient to create lots of evangelists … How do we build political power and break out into the mainstream? How do we close the gap between our beliefs and our behavior?”

    What is needed, which many here are being to take notice of and discuss, is social organization. Before anything can happen, there needs to be a complex network of White social and political organizations, much akin to Jewish ones. These presently don’t exist, and, as such, Whites barely exist as a people — they exist as an aggregate. This is the important middle ground. The deconstruction of these organizations, these sinews which hold a people’s being together, is, after all, how whites were reduced to the position they are in — largely stupid animals, cut off from their collective unconscious and consciousness. It seems reasonable to suggest then that restoring some assemblance of these is a necessary step, before collective action can be engaged in. (One of the reason that HBD is rubbish, is because it focuses primarily on the individual, when social cohesion and social capital is of utmost importance for group success.)

    I think what you see, Hunter, is that Whites, existing as individuals, as they currently do would be incapable of seeking an ethnostate. While the vision of an ethnostate can motivate a people, as you rightly note, and while it can motivate some individuals, it can not motivate an aggregate of individuals, any more than the desire to survive can motivate an aggregate of unicellular Protists to crawl out of a swamp. To do this they need first form a larger organism, with the capacity to crawl. This is the value of racial conservatism — it, at least, represents a collective sense.

    Now, as you note a vision, can help bring individuals together, but they still need to first come together before they act — or be influenced to act in a certain way. How this can be done, is what we need to figure out. It might be worthwhile to look into the research on social organization and ethnic comunities.

    Here I think you are correct in focusing on conservativism instead of ethnonationalism. The problem is that it needs to be an ethnoconservatism or that an ethnoconservatims needs to be developed along side conservatism. Somehow organizations need to be formed and the cells the build the body needs to be attracted.

  5. LEW,

    That’s an excellent point. The U.S. military now has a decade of experience fighting Islamic insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many thousands of battle hardened veterans could the U.S. call upon to put down a White insurgency in the Northwest?

    The fact that the U.S. military eventually won in Iraq should throw a bucket of cold water on those who advocate guerrilla warfare. How much resources has the Pentagon thrown at counterterrorism and counterinsurgency training over the last decade?

    What sense does it make to identify with terrorists in the present political climate? The White population of the Pacific Northwest is hardly analogous to that Fallujah. They would likely cheer on any government attempt to crush an organization like The Order.

  6. I think we pretty good at creating “evangelists” inspired with a vision of a White ethnostate. I don’t think we have been using their time and energy as effectively as we could be.

  7. “I think we pretty good at creating “evangelists” inspired with a vision of a White ethnostate. I don’t think we have been using their time and energy as effectively as we could be.”

    Why do you think that? How many do you imagine there are? When I look across the various websites, I see, at most, a few thousand people. You need millions of people. Not 1500. Anf this needs to start with dozens of Hunter Wallaces — and occidental dissents — not 1. After that, they need to get funded, so they can be full time activists and so they can move offline and they can form European La Razas.

  8. “I don’t think we have been using their time and energy as effectively as we could be.”

    I think this is a good point, Hunter. There are relatively few people in the active White community. That means there is relatively little human capital and human resources. Given the limited capital, as you say, gains need to be made on the margins. As for those margins, not to beat a dead horse…

    While, I think you are spot when you say that online activism has little impact, and, worse, it often devolves into a delusional disconnect from reality — you are also correct that many people are unwilling to advocate for western culture offline. As such, you have to use what they are willing to do. To the extent there is an online Luftwaffe, the activities need to be marshaled to complete specific projects that advance your goals, if ever so little, and built a sense of community, if only a cyber community. You were absolutely dead on with when you noted that random anonymous angry-or-not postings do not advance the desired goals — or for that matter sites like Majority Rights. But less random activities could be more useful or cites that recruit and organize people to do specific projects. Why is there no WIDF (Western internet defense force)? Why is there no information page that responds to inane ideas — like Irish were not white. Now, maybe none of this is done because the quality of the online activists is so low that they cannot even organize online. But, at very least, finding that out would be useful.

  9. If Explicit White Nationalists can’t handle the softball methods of Matt Parrott, they aren’t about to “turn to the methods of Connelly and Pearce.” We are only fooling ourselves by pretending otherwise. If secession is to be accomplished, it will have to be done in some other way, one that is capable of reaching and mobilizing a far larger number of White Americans behind our revolutionary goal.

    I propose that the problem has less to do with cowardly followers than with our organizational infrastructure and lack of a compelling vision. While we are growing, both the CofCC and I, Parrott, have a lot more we’ve got to get right we can hope to achieve widespread mainstream appeal. One of those things, among other things, is the vision.

  10. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The only thing holding the 21st century USA together is money. When the Federal Government goes bankrupt, you will get not just 1, but several white ethnostates springing up naturally without any need for an organized effort on our part. Including in the SWPL regions of the mid Atlantic and Northeast.

  11. We don’t need war fantasy, period. We whites are ruled by taboo, strike those down then the clowns who rule like the Wizard of Oz are bit players destined for the ash heap.

    In other news the taboo against calling out “multi-culturalism” has fallen in Bavaria, it has been pronounced “dead.” We should see how our Rabbi tormenters take this news, maybe they desire this since the moslems have no holocaust taboos. Anyway I want war crimes trials of these rabbis and their conspirators on charges of genocide.

  12. Governments as overwhelming powerful as the US government need to trip themselves up by overextending their power on multiple fronts that are so intertwined that over extension is impossible to reverse. We saw this with the USSR. When and if that happens, ideas and organizations need to be somewhat in place already. This is our project. Think general war in the Middle East, collapsing dollar, separatist movement in “Aztlan”, peak oil, all coming together in a perfect storm of disorder for this just-in-time propositional state, and who know, gods willing, we might see a White Republic delivered to our doorstep. At some point real fighting will be necessary.

  13. Matt,

    It’s quite easy to demonstrate otherwise: if there wasn’t any social ostracism and employment discrimination in the mainstream, far more people would show up at rallies and join and participate in White Nationalist organizations.

    If there were no negative consequences to going public as a White Advocate, the movement wouldn’t be bottled up on the internet right now. The root cause of our predicament is fear.

    Now, we can either identify the real problem and confront it honestly, or we can pretend that the failure lies elsewhere, say, in the personality of the individual organizer or the “lack of a compelling vision.”

    If there was a “lack of a compelling vision,” why do we have thousands of internet evangelists who are unwilling to do anything in real life? If they are not already motivated by a “compelling vision,” why are they wasting so much bandwidth (like bombarding my Inbox with emails) when they could be doing so many other things?

  14. Any future fighting will have to be led and fought by White men with combat experience. White men with combat experience tend to be conservatives who believe in the Constitution and vote Republican. These are the conservatives that O’Meara condescendingly writes off.

  15. The instance I hear talk about some fantasy Northwest Republic I know I am dealing with someone with no sense of reality. The place is San Francisco North or Massachusetts West, the whites there are some of the least racial in the country and would call the cops on any white they suspected of being an anti-government insurgent. People fleeing bad neighborhoods move a few dozen miles out into the country outside the Rust Belt cities, not all the way across the country to a rain-soaked hippie coffeehouse paradise or the frozen desert on the other side of the Cascades. What whites want is the formerly functional, affluent society we had a few decades back. Yes the minority parasites have to be dealt with to restore that, but white people want someone who will do that but not say it. They want all kinds of aracial justifications such as “colorblind” hiring and college admission practices that in reality mean that the incompetent minorities currently getting an undeserved free ride will be purged by more competent white applicants when put into practice. However this would be couched in rhetoric about how it’s “Kings Dream” that makes the whites feel warm and fuzzy instead of guilty about what they are saying. Liberals never tell the true reasons for their policy, they don’t say they are flooding the nation with third world foreigners and giving them preference in every avenue of life because they hate white people and want us gone. Instead they lie and couch it in fancy rhetoric. Especially considering half the electorate is female, they want trouble handled in the way a female rejects an unwanted advance. With false excuses meant to be hints on why she can’t go out with you that night, or “we can still be friends.” Not a blunt, honest rejection that contains words that are just too hard to tell to someones face.

  16. Hunter,

    It’s quite easy to demonstrate otherwise: if there wasn’t any social ostracism and employment discrimination in the mainstream, far more people would show up at rallies and join and participate in White Nationalist organizations.

    That’s an oversimplification.

    Social ostracism and employment discrimination are certainly factors that dissuade folks from Crossing the White Rubicon. But these factors are neither singular nor definitive. Under the right conditions, people are willing to subject themselves to overwhelming social ostracism, as our Freedom Rider opponents did when they visited the South. Under the right conditions, people are willing to take real personal risks, up to and including vaporizing themselves.

    You are correct that there’s a sizable and growing number of people online who are captivated and yet essentially paralyzed. I assert that this only confirms my case. There are at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of White Americans who more or less share our tribal perspective on the current situation. But they have neither a destination envisioned nor a vehicle capable of getting them there.

    Now, we can either identify the real problem and confront it honestly, or we can pretend that the failure lies elsewhere, say, in the personality of the individual organizer or the “lack of a compelling vision.”

    Most people aren’t willing to hop in a vehicle that’s obviously broken down, especially when the drivers clearly have no idea where to drive the vehicle if they were to get it started. If the organizers and visionaries can resolve those problems, then the onus will be on ordinary people to invest their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the project. But only then.

  17. LEW,, I don’t know that O’Meara “writes off” the Whites whohappen to be conservative so much as the bankrupt ideas of conservatism itself.
    What exactly is it at this point we are conserving, anyway?

  18. Nightowl, the Northwest is not all Portland, Eugene, or Seattle. Tacoma, right outside Seattle is pretty red, as in redneck. Eastern Oregon, for example, is not filled with coffee houses. Washington is a strong 2nd Amendment state, unlike the Bay Area. Idaho, enough said.

  19. Godan: My comment was based on this quote from O’Meara:

    “that ship has sailed” and “the flag-waving, Constitution-worshiping types” who “believe there is something sacred about the United States” will “never be mobilized for the sake of racial preservation.”

    Now, it’s only one sentence out of an entire book so I am definitely open to being corrected if that passage does not represent the gist of O’Meara’s position on racial conservatives; however, if the passage is an accurate summary of O’Meara’s viewpoint, it seems clear to me he is writing off not just conservative ideas but also White conservative people as well.

    Using the kind of condescending and dismissive phrasing that is common in anti-American WN circles, O’Meara wrote that the Constitution worshiping types, that is, the people, will never care about racial preservation. This statement suggests that the ideas and the people are the problem, not just the ideas. I don’t know what to call that other than a complete write off. If it’s true that conservatives will never care about racial preservation, then there is no point in White Advocates working with them or trying to persuade them that racial preservation is important.

    As for what we are trying to conserve, I’d say its Western civilization and Western culture, and, in a narrower American context, some semblance of life as it existed in pre-1965 America. Of course at this point that that will be an exercise in restoration rather than conserving as Matt Parrot pointed out in his radio show the other day.

  20. Alternative to white cantons:

    1. Catalytic event
    2. Rural, exurban, and suburban Americans (a.k.a. whites) declare Independence from and war on Urban America
    3. Cities blockaded as world weighs its response
    4. Urban America exported to other continents

    This isn’t going to happen without major actions from the Big Boys in Business, Military, and Government.

    If later on today your football game was interrupted by news that New York, Washington D.C., and Hollywood had been destroyed by “terrorist” nukes; would that be enough of a catalyst?

    Call it the “Jericho” Solution.

  21. LEW,

    You don’t have to like O’Meara. I for one am more aligned with his way of thinking and criticizing than I am say the Tea Party Express, who pay much attention to flag and constitution. There are many divisions within our movement, and that is undoubtedly the way it is going to stay. I don’t think we need to preserve Western culture so much as build upon it, as it is an extensive culture, so what part would we preserve? Some would like a contemporary reinstatement of Christendom, others the Enlightenment, still others the classical era. We can all agree that something has gone very wrong, and that something needs radical attention, or our type of person gets swallowed up genetically by other races, an ignominious end for a great people.

  22. Matt,

    That’s an oversimplification.

    Social ostracism and employment discrimination are certainly factors that dissuade folks from Crossing the White Rubicon. But these factors are neither singular nor definitive.

    It is overwhelmingly the most important factor. Granted, it is not the only factor deterring White Nationalists from organizing, but it shapes all the other factors.

    The other major factor would be the presence of kooks and sociopaths in White Nationalist organizations. But that is only an effect of the lack of deterrence by powerful taboos on those personality types; the same taboos that deter the normal White Nationalists from joining pro-White organizations.

    This is what leads to the impression in the mainstream that White Nationalists are all crazy Neo-Nazis. The Neo-Nazis have the biggest street presence because they are so heavily selected for dysfunctional personality types.

    Under the right conditions, people are willing to subject themselves to overwhelming social ostracism, as our Freedom Rider opponents did when they visited the South. Under the right conditions, people are willing to take real personal risks, up to and including vaporizing themselves.

    The Freedom Riders had the wind of the Supreme Court blowing at their backs which had already ruled against segregation in interstate transportation. They were also coming to the South from the North where there was no segregation in their own communities and the media was heaping laurels upon their for their moral courage. It was easy to be a “Freedom Rider” in those conditions.

  23. Most people aren’t willing to hop in a vehicle that’s obviously broken down, especially when the drivers clearly have no idea where to drive the vehicle if they were to get it started.

    True.

    1.) Why is the vehicle broken down?

    2.) Why don’t the drivers have any clear idea of how to get to the endzone?

    The vehicle is broken down because it lacks the momentum necessary to give the impression it is capable of winning. That is caused by the failure of the normal White Nationalists to join and participate.

    At the same time, the failure of the drivers to have any clear idea of how to get to their destination is due to the failure of White Nationalist intellectuals, who have failed to diagnose other major problems, namely, an unwillingness to start where people are today and going outside their experience, which results in a failure to communicate.

    If the organizers and visionaries can resolve those problems, then the onus will be on ordinary people to invest their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in the project. But only then.

    We can solve the problem. White Nationalists aren’t going to like the solution though. Most of them don’t have the temperament to start within the mainstream where people are today. They don’t have the patience or willingness to interact with moderates either.

    Note: I enjoyed the podcast. Keep up the good work.

  24. Hunter,

    My main concern is the genetic survival of our people. If the Tea Party Express ever finds its explicit racial spine, I will be right there beside them, but I won’t be paying lip service to perspectives I disagree with, such as the conservative take on World War II.

  25. Godan’s,

    It should be obvious that conservatives need to change. It is equally obvious that we need conservatives to win. I also observe that adopting a hostile attitude toward conservatives, treating them as the enemy, isn’t the most constructive approach to winning them over.

  26. “When I wake up in the morning, I too am motivated by my vision of a White Republic … . In this respect, I am not all that different from Michael O’Meara and his vanguardists.”

    To paraphrase Pearse: To refuse to fight would be to lose. We have to keep the faith with the past, and hand down a tradition to the future.
    Pearse gave his life for his vision. Are we willing to die for the White Republic? Are we even willing to come out from behind the veil of anonymity?

  27. H- It gets a little complicated. Neo-Cons do have a bit,.maybe more than a bit, of the enemy in them, whereas Paleocons were easy enough for many of us to like. How can you blame people for not liking such as Bill Buckley? Or Bush? On the other hand, people advocating the White cause are pretty much obliged to not treat other Whites as the enemy, at least not most of them. It is easier often to dislike the party, but not necessarily the party member. I don’t suppose you are crazy in love with the GOP.

  28. Hunter,

    [ostracism/unemployment] is overwhelmingly the most important factor. Granted, it is not the only factor deterring White Nationalists from organizing, but it shapes all the other factors.

    If they desired to act but were frozen primarily by status threat, then they would manifest this in other ways. They would subscribe to AmRen, donate anonymously to any number of the available organizations, be an underground audience for pro-White popular music, and vote for explicitly White candidates from the secretive confines of the voting booth.

    “Crossing the White Rubicon” with explicit White Advocacy is merely one of numerous ways that a person’s passion about saving his people manifests. Since it’s not manifesting in the other ways that are not affected by status threat, the parsimonious conclusion is that status threat is not the primary problem.

    The other major factor would be the presence of kooks and sociopaths in White Nationalist organizations. But that is only an effect of the lack of deterrence by powerful taboos on those personality types; the same taboos that deter the normal White Nationalists from joining pro-White organizations.
    […]
    This is what leads to the impression in the mainstream that White Nationalists are all crazy Neo-Nazis. The Neo-Nazis have the biggest street presence because they are so heavily selected for dysfunctional personality types.

    They don’t have the biggest street presence, and it’s more than a little tiresome to have people who purport to be on our side chronically underestimating the sharp street activism going on and incessantly carrying on about a handful of marginal characters. The Knoxville rally was barely attended, barely reported, and would already be entirely forgotten by the entire world were it not for your attempts to pretend like it’s emblematic of the movement.

    It was easy to be a “Freedom Rider” in those conditions.

    Plenty of them got beat down and plenty of these agitators even died violent deaths. So I don’t know if “easy” is the appropriate adjective. My point is that people can and will face boggling odds and deadly risks if enraptured by a “mythic vision”.

    The vehicle is broken down because it lacks the momentum necessary to give the impression it is capable of winning. That is caused by the failure of the normal White Nationalists to join and participate.

    This is transparently circular. All movements start with zero participants, therefore all movements are integrally doomed to failure.

    At the same time, the failure of the drivers to have any clear idea of how to get to their destination is due to the failure of White Nationalist intellectuals, who have failed to diagnose other major problems, namely, an unwillingness to start where people are today and going outside their experience, which results in a failure to communicate.

    We both agree that WN intellectuals are failing. The answer isn’t to give up on intellectuals and intellectualism. Boiling their dysfunction down to an “unwillingness to start where people are today” is another example of your habit of oversimplification. You fail to account for the risk of political cuckoldry and the fact that these infiltrators would have no tangible moral or material support.

    Your “one true way” explicitly entails leaving the taboos untouched, despite the fact that they’re cracking and wobbling.

    We can solve the problem. White Nationalists aren’t going to like the solution though. Most of them don’t have the temperament to start within the mainstream where people are today. They don’t have the patience or willingness to interact with moderates either.

    I pretty much agree with you on this. Where we appear to differ is that I believe it’s both possible and advisable to be explicitly pro-White while engaging the mainstream. The wind is really at our backs, now.

    Note: I enjoyed the podcast. Keep up the good work.

    Thank you and congratulations on accomplishing some major personal goals. I could stand to shave off a few pounds, myself.

  29. I have been a revolutionary opponent of the existing regime for about 50 years now (since about the age of 12 or 13, when I started reading books). I do not write off the American people. I appeal to the Gothic, Aryan spirit I see in them because I know it is what will free them from the system — and yes it is ultimately a question of consciousness.

    To Matt, re ‘the vision thing’, the best work in my view is the recently translated “Archeofuturism” of Guillaume Faye and his soon to be translated “Our Struggle: Manifesto of the European Resistance.”

  30. Godan,

    Very good points well taken. I’m not a Tea Party/GOP conservative either. If I was, I wouldn’t be here. If I had to give myself a label, I’d say I’m a White Advocate and conservative in the tradition of the American CCofC.

    I would note, however, that at least in the passage that Hunter Wallace quotes in his review, O’Meara takes aim not at the mainstream GOP or the Tea Party conservatives, but at Samuel Francis, a man who understood the importance of racial preservation as well as anyone, and who was a hardcore enemy of the mainstream GOP, and who attacked the mainstream GOP often for working against White interests.

    O’Meara, nevertheless, appears to write off Samuel Francis completely, at least in that quote, which is consistent with a longstanding trend among the found in the anti-American sector of — the tendency to view everyone but them as deficient, useless, or an enemy.

    I don’t dislike O’Meara, and didn’t intend to suggest such. He is fighting for White racial preservation, and judging from his bio at CC has done substantial original research and written several books, which is certainly a lot more than I’ve ever done. I wish him well.

    My objection is to this notion that American conservatives should be dismissed out of hand rather than persuaded of the importance of racial preservation, and to the notion that all conservative ideas, including all America Constitutional principles and political values, not some but all, are inherently incompatible with White racial preservation. I’m not sure if O’Meara goes that far.

  31. A certain physics professor often said, unless and until we can capture the real reigns of power–the media–nothing will change.

    I think he was right.

  32. “I appeal to the Gothic, Aryan spirit I see in them”

    I take it you mean their latent ethnocentrism and not some spook in the machine.

  33. “By writing off 90% of White Americans, O’Meara reopens himself to the charge of “fantasy ideology,” or engaging in wishful thinking untethered to political reality.”

    Think about it. 10% of White Americans equates to tens of millions of people. Tens of millions who would by definition have pledged their support to a truly invidious proposition: a new nation on the North American continent for Whites only. That is a quite sizable vanguard regardless of context. And moreover, realistically, for such a proportion of our people to have ballooned to that number the socio-political zeitgeist would have shifted accordingly. There would most likely be tens of millions more closer to throwing in the towel on the United States as presently constituted, as O’Meara adumbrates.

  34. Matt Parrott says: Under the right conditions, people are willing to subject themselves to overwhelming social ostracism, as our Freedom Rider opponents did when they visited the South. Under the right conditions, people are willing to take real personal risks, up to and including vaporizing themselves.

    Those “right conditins” will ONLY manifest themselves when the system collapses in toto as Weimar Germany did in the Depression or old Soviet Union did 20 years ago. yes the vision NEEDS to be there, I agree, but when the state/economy has accordioned in on itself and money is WORTHLESS how does anyone here expect ZOG to wage war upon the myriad insurgencies that will doubless be tearing the nation apart? Who believes those “battle-hardened troops who have done nothing for the last decade except fight the world’s most skilled and dangerous insurgents” will be willing to fight and die for free, or with few/no weapons? Are Predator drones THAT cheap after all? No. For now however underground activism is the only way forward.

    Michael O’Meara says: To Matt, re ‘the vision thing’, the best work in my view is the recently translated “Archeofuturism” of Guillaume Faye and his soon to be translated “Our Struggle: Manifesto of the European Resistance.”

    Thank you for your book, and these recommendations! I shall be reading them as soon as I can. what advise can you, a vetern, give to someone new to the WN struggle who wishes to remain underground? I have only been awakened these last two years or so.

  35. The “Vision” is easy for authentic Americans: the Pilgrim Fathers who were, in fact, the Fathers of America for almost 350 years.

    Their vision was informed by a set of circumstances curiously similar to our own, the difference being they had the courage and fortitude to do it.

    When I think of the travail and suffering of my kin, the Brewsters, I am awed into silence. Knowing what they did — for me, their blood posterity — provokes deep shame that I have not begun to do my fair share to keep their dream alive through this current generation. When I expand my look back to other elements of my family no less noble and no less honorable, the effect is magnified.

    There is no need to create a new mythology. The original — that of the Pilgrim Fathers alone and cut off — is quite sufficient. Of course, it is necessary to reclaim that history from the Bolshevik revisionistas but that’s not so hard as it might seem. Merely a recounting of the standard histories would make plain their righteousness and the lies of the revisionists.

  36. Think about it. 10% of White Americans equates to tens of millions of people. Tens of millions who would by definition have pledged their support to a truly invidious proposition: a new nation on the North American continent for Whites only. That is a quite sizable vanguard regardless of context.

    The 10% of White Americans who are explicitly racially conscious are overwhelmingly Christians in the Deep South. They are the “racial conservatives” or the Sam Francis constituency.

    And moreover, realistically, for such a proportion of our people to have ballooned to that number the socio-political zeitgeist would have shifted accordingly. There would most likely be tens of millions more closer to throwing in the towel on the United States as presently constituted, as O’Meara adumbrates.

    If we can’t even win over the racial conservatives, we might want to consider giving up.

  37. If they desired to act but were frozen primarily by status threat, then they would manifest this in other ways. They would subscribe to AmRen, donate anonymously to any number of the available organizations, be an underground audience for pro-White popular music, and vote for explicitly White candidates from the secretive confines of the voting booth.

    Not really.

    1.) You can download the latest issue of Amren for free. What’s more, there are thousands of White Nationalists (the Linder constituency) who simply don’t like Jared Taylor because he is not radical enough for their tastes. Those people wouldn’t support Taylor under any circumstances.

    2.) It doesn’t follow that White Nationalists would anonymously support the CofCC either. The CofCC doesn’t have the momentum or image of a dynamic organization (because most WNs are too scared to get involved). The rhetorical radicals aren’t going to support the CofCC because of its position on the Jewish Question.

    3.) Pro-White music can be downloaded for free through file sharing services.

    4.) There are no explicitly White candidates running in their district to vote for.

    Quit pretending that employment discrimination and social ostracism are not the major deterrent. It explains why there are tens of thousands of White Nationalists posting on the internet under anonymous pseudonyms and over a hundred thousand reading White Nationalist sites on a daily basis.

    A simple poll should be sufficient to resolve the issue.

    “Crossing the White Rubicon” with explicit White Advocacy is merely one of numerous ways that a person’s passion about saving his people manifests.

    In some cases, yes. I would grant that is true.

    In others, no. In some cases, the individual “Crosses the White Rubicon” because they are either mentally ill sociopaths or unemployable; the two usually run together.

    Why is it that 99% of the manifestation of commitment to White Nationalism consists of posting anonymous comments on the internet? There must be a compelling explanation.

    Well, because it is safe, easy to do from the comfort of your own home, because there are no consequences, and it is the most readily available escape valve for racial resentments.

    Since it’s not manifesting in the other ways that are not affected by status threat, the parsimonious conclusion is that status threat is not the primary problem.

    A show of hands should be sufficient to dispel this illusion. Maybe I will start a poll on Stormfront.

    They don’t have the biggest street presence, and it’s more than a little tiresome to have people who purport to be on our side chronically underestimating the sharp street activism going on and incessantly carrying on about a handful of marginal characters. The Knoxville rally was barely attended, barely reported, and would already be entirely forgotten by the entire world were it not for your attempts to pretend like it’s emblematic of the movement.

    They really do have the biggest street presence in the White Nationalist movement. I never criticized the NSM because of the numbers they turned out in Knoxville. There were more people in Knoxville than there were at your Al Sharpton protest in Indianapolis.

    What’s more, the NSM has been holding rallies like Knoxville all across the country, including in Illinois, Minnesota, Arizona, and California. I wrote about several of these. They are easily the most active White Nationalist organization on the street today.

    Plenty of them got beat down and plenty of these agitators even died violent deaths. So I don’t know if “easy” is the appropriate adjective. My point is that people can and will face boggling odds and deadly risks if enraptured by a “mythic vision”.

    It was easy because they had the law on their side and they could all go home to New York and New Jersey where everyone would praise them for their moral heroism.

    This is transparently circular. All movements start with zero participants, therefore all movements are integrally doomed to failure.

    White Nationalism doesn’t resemble any other “movement” that I recognize. Now, there is a rhetoric which is popular in cyberspace, but I wouldn’t call that a movement. The only movement in White Nationalism is the transmission of electrons across power lines.

    We both agree that WN intellectuals are failing.

    After much braying and chest beating in the comments, Trainspotter also acknowledged this in the comments.

    The answer isn’t to give up on intellectuals and intellectualism.

    1.) I wrote an essay about this, but never got around to posting it. “Anti-intellectualism” is a canard. Everyone has their favorite intellectuals and even more intellectuals they dislike. Maybe I should accuse you of “anti-intellectualism” because of your thoughts on Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

    2.) You admitted above that White Nationalist intellectuals have failed.

    3.) I criticized specific intellectuals with specific ideas that are clearly harmful to our efforts to convert ordinary White people. In particular, I criticized Francis Parker Yockey for his Europhile anti-Americanism, Oswald Spengler for his historical determinism, and Alex Linder for his exterminationism.

    Are you willing to defend the above?

    4.) The role of the intellectual is to criticize society. A society that passively accepts the criticism of intellectuals, without reflecting upon their ideas, quickly gets itself into trouble. That’s because intellectuals are often tragically mistaken.

    5.) I will continue to insist that the role of “intellectuals” and “spreading ideas” has been radically exaggerated. In physical fitness, “ideas” are about 10% to 20% of success. In travel and college football, the same is true: ideas are about 10% to 20% of success.

    What is the use of a coach without a team? The best coach in the world can’t do anything without a team. It is the team that wins games, not the coach. And what is the use of a coach who sits idly in the stands, refusing to play the game at all, who chooses instead to coach a virtual team in a videogame?

    Boiling their dysfunction down to an “unwillingness to start where people are today” is another example of your habit of oversimplification.

    It’s not an oversimplification. White Nationalists come across sounding like they are from Neptune. They approach ordinary people with a full frontal assault which largely consists of uncompromising radicalism. This results in a failure to communicate.

    You fail to account for the risk of political cuckoldry and the fact that these infiltrators would have no tangible moral or material support.

    Why is that?

    Because 99% of White Nationalism is safe anonymous internet posting. That in turn is traceable to employment discrimination and social ostracism.

    Your “one true way” explicitly entails leaving the taboos untouched, despite the fact that they’re cracking and wobbling.

    Well, there is a “one true way” if you think about it. As Alinsky said, an organizer can lack any vital skill but one: an ability to communicate. If an organizer cannot communicate his message, which involves speaking to people in terms of their own experience, he is doomed to failure.

    I pretty much agree with you on this. Where we appear to differ is that I believe it’s both possible and advisable to be explicitly pro-White while engaging the mainstream. The wind is really at our backs, now.

    The political wind is at the back of the Tea Party. Why is that? The Tea Party didn’t even exist two years ago.

    Why didn’t White Americans join the White Nationalist movement en masse after Obama was elected president? That was what was supposed to happen under the “worse is better” theory.

  38. Quit pretending that employment discrimination and social ostracism are not the major deterrent. It explains why there are tens of thousands of White Nationalists posting on the internet under anonymous pseudonyms and over a hundred thousand reading White Nationalist sites on a daily basis.

    A simple poll should be sufficient to resolve the issue.

    There was a simple poll recently, with Ryan Murdough receiving 13% of the Republican primary votes. This was definitely a victory, though it confirms that those willing to back an explicitly pro-White candidate are not quite capable of being a sustainable political bloc even in the absence of status threat.

    In others, no. In some cases, the individual “Crosses the White Rubicon” because they are either mentally ill sociopaths or unemployable; the two usually run together.

    Insulting White Advocates with anecdotal and vague examples. Having networked across a wide swath of the movement, I simply don’t believe they’re as nutty as you and the SPLC claim.

    Why is it that 99% of the manifestation of commitment to White Nationalism consists of posting anonymous comments on the internet? There must be a compelling explanation.

    Other people are making anonymous comments on the Internet for the same reason you are. They’re with us in the abstract, but are stuck in neutral by a lack of a vehicle or map. They know the train is going in the wrong direction, but they don’t know how to reverse its direction or safely jump from it.

    There were more people in Knoxville than there were at your Al Sharpton protest in Indianapolis.

    Not that much more, and it was a nationwide multi-organizational event advertised for months. Ours was an explicitly local event organized as a flash protest within a few days.

    The only movement in White Nationalism is the transmission of electrons across power lines.

    That’s pithy but off the mark. The Marxist radicals in Czarist Russia were a bunch of powerless coffee shop bullshitters…until they weren’t.

    I wrote an essay about this, but never got around to posting it. “Anti-intellectualism” is a canard. Everyone has their favorite intellectuals and even more intellectuals they dislike. Maybe I should accuse you of “anti-intellectualism” because of your thoughts on Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

    The essays you did get around to posting were explicitly anti-intellectual. It’s a positive development that you’re now offering a more balanced position.

    Are you willing to defend the above? [Francis Parker Yockey, Oswald Spengler, and Alex Linder]

    All three are extremely intelligent and capable of making compelling arguments for their positions, but it’s not about them. This isn’t about the individuals, but about their ideas. As you already know, I’m fully pro-American, do not accept a determinist historiography, and am morally repulsed by exterminationism.

    I will continue to insist that the role of “intellectuals” and “spreading ideas” has been radically exaggerated. In physical fitness, “ideas” are about 10% to 20% of success. In travel and college football, the same is true: ideas are about 10% to 20% of success.

    What is the use of a coach without a team? The best coach in the world can’t do anything without a team. It is the team that wins games, not the coach. And what is the use of a coach who sits idly in the stands, refusing to play the game at all, who chooses instead to coach a virtual team in a videogame?

    Pegging a percentage point on these things is silly. Both the coach and the team are 100% necessary.

    I’m Matt Parrott, not Trainspotter. I never argued for sitting in the stands.

    It’s not an oversimplification. White Nationalists come across sounding like they are from Neptune. They approach ordinary people with a full frontal assault which largely consists of uncompromising radicalism. This results in a failure to communicate.

    You act like you’re incapable of comprehending a system in which there are multiple factors.

    Failure to successfully engage ordinary people is a fatal problem, yet this problem is not the primary causative factor behind our failure. There are complex reasons why we fail to engage ordinary people, and other largely independent reasons why we fail to win.

    Why is that?

    Because 99% of White Nationalism is safe anonymous internet posting. That in turn is traceable to employment discrimination and social ostracism.

    I’m not trapped in this false dichotomy between posting anonymous Internet comments and engaging in real world explicit White Advocacy. The abstractions and paradigms you weave in your mind do not actually exist by virtue of your envisioning them. There is no dichotomy between people discussing this stuff on the Internet and people doing other stuff. There is little if any competition between these two activities. Do you seriously believe that insulting pro-White folks who choose to supportively comment on your website is going to drive them to infiltrate Rotary Clubs and Tea Parties in droves?

    And even if they did do that, and actually remained on course for the months, years, and decades, you’ve still failed to make a compelling case for how their doing that would accomplish quantifiable goal.

    Well, there is a “one true way” if you think about it. As Alinsky said, an organizer can lack any vital skill but one: an ability to communicate. If an organizer cannot communicate his message, which involves speaking to people in terms of their own experience, he is doomed to failure.

    You oversimplify the role of the movement into mere organizing, then oversimplify communication as “speaking to people in terms of their own experience”, then pretend like this one aspect of our struggle is the only one that exists. Plenty of us already get that, and you have people like Pat Buchanan and Geert Wilders who have been doing that.

    The political wind is at the back of the Tea Party. Why is that? The Tea Party didn’t even exist two years ago.

    Why didn’t White Americans join the White Nationalist movement en masse after Obama was elected president? That was what was supposed to happen under the “worse is better” theory.

    The political wind could be at our back if we don’t give up – if we work through our problems. These things can turn around very quickly, especially as historical events unfold. The fact that the Tea Party movement went from obscurity and millions of Internet comments to sweeping nationwide victory within a matter of months only proves that it would be unwise to ditch explicit White Advocacy in favor of Tea Party infiltration.

    The Tea Party succeeded because they recognized that they could no longer achieve their objectives through infiltrating the existing mainstream institutions. They refused to be cuckolded and led along any longer and built up a movement that was first dismissed as nutty and fringe but gradually reached people.

    I don’t support the “worse is better” theory and wish you wouldn’t waste everybody’s time with assertions that have nothing to do with anything. I was in favor of engaging ordinary conservative White Americans when Prozium was dismissing them as “retards”. I was in favor of real world activism when Hunter Wallace was herding everybody over to comment on Reddit. I was against dividing White Americans with petty regionalism when John Pelham was trying to cluster all White Americans who are neither provincial nor Republicans into the enemy camp.

    Oh, wait. My bad. You’re still in that phase.

  39. Anti-intellectualism is a liberal, left-wing attack meme used to disparage rightists because it fits their narrative that people on the right are stupid. Lenin, Trotsky and the Marxists used to accuse the National Socialists of anti-intellectualism all the time. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if Trotsky or some other Jewish Marxist coined the phrase “anti-intellectual.” In actuality, the National Socialists placed great value scholarship, propaganda, persuasive writing and abstract ideas — Hitler himself wrote a whole book outlining his ideas and program. So, contrary to what Jews and liberals tried to claim, the National Socialists didn’t reject the importance of all ideas just the ones they deemed harmful to German interests. Liberals are actually using the same technique today. The Left and the Jewish neocons are always accusing Ron Paul, Rand Paul and everyone else outside the approved mainstream of anti-intellectualism.

  40. There was a simple poll recently, with Ryan Murdough receiving 13% of the Republican primary votes. This was definitely a victory, though it confirms that those willing to back an explicitly pro-White candidate are not quite capable of being a sustainable political bloc even in the absence of status threat.

    Voting can be done safely and anonymously. If that 13% had been forced to declare their support of Murdough in public, he wouldn’t have received .5% of the vote. A hefty percentage of his vote total was also undoubtedly due to New Hampshire voters having no familiarity with Murdough or his positions.

    Insulting White Advocates with anecdotal and vague examples. Having networked across a wide swath of the movement, I simply don’t believe they’re as nutty as you and the SPLC claim.

    You aren’t being honest here. The White Nationalist movement is full of kooks and sociopaths. This is especially true of the Neo-Nazi wing which hangs out at VNN Forum. Look no further than the kook in the Q&A session at the 2010 CofCC conference.

    For the record, I haven’t said that all White Nationalists are mentally ill. I will assert that the mentally unstable are drastically overrepresented in street level activism because they are not deterred by social taboos.

    Pegging a percentage point on these things is silly. Both the coach and the team are 100% necessary.

    I’m Matt Parrott, not Trainspotter. I never argued for sitting in the stands.

    It’s not silly.

    If the “war of ideas” is the primary front, as some here have insisted, then “intellectual activity” should easily constitute more than 50% of our activity.

    Again, I will point to physical fitness, travel, and football. In weightlifting, only a small percentage of your time is used making mental adjustments. The overwhelming majority of your time is spent in dieting and physical training implementing those ideas.

    In travel, you need a road map to your destination, but you are going to spend by far most of your time either on the road or in the air. You have to start at Point A to travel to Point B. You can’t start at Point B fantasizing about what it would be like to travel there from Point A.

    Here are some other spheres of activity: organic gardening and dating. In both cases, you need to know what you are doing, but it is crazy to believe that you can think your way (in a virtual environment no less) to a garden or into a relationship with a woman.

    It’s probably in football though where we can see the biggest gap between ideas and behavior. Having a perfect playbook doesn’t translate into the perfect team. Plays that are poorly executed don’t gain yards. They result in turnovers and interceptions.

    There is a large gap between ideas and behavior where something called PRACTICE and TRAINING comes into the picture.

    You act like you’re incapable of comprehending a system in which there are multiple factors.

    I haven’t said anywhere that there is only one factor. I’ve only pointed to the most important factor in political activity, which is communication, where White Nationalists clearly receive poor marks. This is an area where there is a lot of room for improvement.

    Failure to successfully engage ordinary people is a fatal problem, yet this problem is not the primary causative factor behind our failure. There are complex reasons why we fail to engage ordinary people, and other largely independent reasons why we fail to win.

    Sure it is.

    White Nationalists have no legitimacy or authority to represent their communities. They speak for themselves and a small number of their friends and comrades. As a consequence, they remain marginalized without political power. The root cause of this is a failure or unwillingness to communicate by insisting on starting from a radical position outside of their experience.

    All three are extremely intelligent and capable of making compelling arguments for their positions, but it’s not about them. This isn’t about the individuals, but about their ideas. As you already know, I’m fully pro-American, do not accept a determinist historiography, and am morally repulsed by exterminationism.

    Translation: after all the criticism about “anti-intellectualism,” neither you or Trainspotter are willing to defend the intellectuals that I actually criticized, or their ideas which are politically indefensible.

    Other people are making anonymous comments on the Internet for the same reason you are. They’re with us in the abstract, but are stuck in neutral by a lack of a vehicle or map. They know the train is going in the wrong direction, but they don’t know how to reverse its direction or safely jump from it.

    Whose job is it to produce the road map? Clearly, that lies in the sphere of intellectual activity. If there isn’t a road map with a reasonable chance of success at hand, then someone has clearly failed.

    The essays you did get around to posting were explicitly anti-intellectual. It’s a positive development that you’re now offering a more balanced position.

    Specifically, which essays were these? You mean the one about Oswald Spengler? I criticized the idea of historical determinism which is a prescription for apathy and pacifism.

    I did say that most intellectuals are worthless. Are you willing to defend the American intelligentsia? They are almost universally hostile to White Advocacy. I think it is a good thing that Whites are tuning them out.

    That’s pithy but off the mark. The Marxist radicals in Czarist Russia were a bunch of powerless coffee shop bullshitters…until they weren’t.

    I’m glad that you brought up Communism. If memory serves, Karl Marx himself was a materialist and well known critic of idealism. Communists have never believed in triumphing on the strength of their ideas.

    Not that much more, and it was a nationwide multi-organizational event advertised for months. Ours was an explicitly local event organized as a flash protest within a few days.

    There were around 100 people in Knoxville. Maybe more.

  41. Anti-intellectualism is a liberal, left-wing attack meme used to disparage rightists because it fits their narrative that people on the right are stupid.

    Since August, I have written two Saul Alinksy reviews (Rules for Radicals and Reveille for Radicals) and two Lee Harris reviews (Next American Civil War and Civilization and its Enemies). I also reviewed the Breen book on the American Revolution.

    So people can quit saying that I am “anti-intellectual” or “hostile” to reading books. I have only warned against getting carried away with that behavior and losing touch with reality and the physical side of politics.

  42. The “Vision” is easy for authentic Americans: the Pilgrim Fathers who were, in fact, the Fathers of America for almost 350 years.

    Founders of New England, yes. But when the Mayflower came ashore in 1620 there was already an elected assembly meeting in Jamestown, not to mention the mid-Atlantic colonies had separate foundings as well. While I don’t advocate subjecting the Pilgrims to The Culture of Critique, reducing Americanism to the Pilgrims and nothing more is too restrictive to encompass the mythos of pre 1965 White America.

  43. The political wind could be at our back if we don’t give up – if we work through our problems. These things can turn around very quickly, especially as historical events unfold. The fact that the Tea Party movement went from obscurity and millions of Internet comments to sweeping nationwide victory within a matter of months only proves that it would be unwise to ditch explicit White Advocacy in favor of Tea Party infiltration.

    A number of lessons can be drawn from the Tea Party:

    1.) The importance of addressing fiscal issues like taxation and spending that hit Joe Six Pack in his wallet. This is far more effective than appeals to racial utopianism.

    2.) The stupidity of relying too heavily on the internet to convert people to ideas. You’re not going to reach many people on the internet. Of the ones you do reach, most will burn out or slip into a fantasy world because there is no real world outlet for their energies. The internet is no substitute for grassroots community organizing.

    3.) The fallacy of prioritizing ideas over action. The fact is, the Tea Party doesn’t have the best ideas or the most articulate spokesmen. It is driven more by a feeling that Whites are losing control of their country.

    What’s even more revealing is that it was action that created the market for the ideas. The Tea Party movement emerged before the Tea Party started to create a canon of its favorite intellectuals like Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek.

    The same was true of the American Revolution. It was the context of the Revolution that created the demand for John Locke’s Second Treatise and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. They became popular because they were justifications for a rebellion that was already in progress.

    4.) The Tea Party is firmly based in reality and within the mainstream. Thus, it had the fig leaf of legitimacy necessary to break out into wide swathes of the electorate.

    5.) It is a myth that the Tea Party emerged out of Ron Paul’s internet based presidential campaign. They are “natural libertarians,” not “ideological libertarians.”

    They are at odds with Ron Paul on any number issues. Paul doesn’t have anything remotely like the influence of Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck in the Tea Party.

    The Tea Party succeeded because they recognized that they could no longer achieve their objectives through infiltrating the existing mainstream institutions.

    The Tea Party is infiltrating a mainstream institution right now: the Republican Party. They are using that institution to achieve their objectives. They also have the support of all kinds of mainstream institutions like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, not to mention the support of some of the biggest Republican donors.

    They refused to be cuckolded and led along any longer and built up a movement that was first dismissed as nutty and fringe but gradually reached people.

    The Tea Party has always operated within the mainstream. There is nothing fringe about advocating small government, less spending, and tax cuts. They have used a mainstream message to sell fringe causes like repealing the income tax and direct election of senators.

    I don’t support the “worse is better” theory and wish you wouldn’t waste everybody’s time with assertions that have nothing to do with anything. I was in favor of engaging ordinary conservative White Americans when Prozium was dismissing them as “retards”.

    Correction: I’ve become more realistic and practical while you have drifted in exactly the opposite direction. Now you are writing for Counter Currents and ranting against the Jews all the time. As recently as 2007, you were on Ian Jobling’s website saying that the Jews are White.

    I was in favor of real world activism when Hunter Wallace was herding everybody over to comment on Reddit.

    When it comes to White Nationalists, internet activism is a better tactic than real world activism. Why? Because a “tactic” is what you can do with what you have. We have lots of people who act in cyberspace who are unwilling to act in reality.

    It makes more sense for keyboard commandos to spread their message on Reddit than it does to expect them to give up their anonymity and become “Explicit White Advocates” with you on the streets of Indianapolis. That is something they are capable of doing unlike what you suggest.

    I was against dividing White Americans with petty regionalism when John Pelham was trying to cluster all White Americans who are neither provincial nor Republicans into the enemy camp.

    Is that right? You’ve written a book called Hoosier Nation and now beat the drum against petty regionalism? I have it sitting right here on my bookshelf. It doesn’t get more provincial than that. When I was arguing in favor of a Southern Homeland, you were advocating a Midwestern Homeland.

    You were also more than willing to divide White Americans along ideological, religious, ethnic, and regional lines. If memory serves, that was your whole rationale for creating “Delightsome” in the first place where you could explore those ideas without having to interact with Nordicists, atheists, anti-Christians, pagans, gamers, and various other types of people you dislike.

    Back in August, I used to laugh when you would criticize me for arguing for Giles, Johnson, and Linder. I mean, honestly … how many fights did you pick with Scott Locklin, Mark, and Ferdinand Bardamu? How many times did you attack Richard Spencer and Alternative Right?

    Oh, wait. My bad. You’re still in that phase.

    I’m trying to spread pro-White ideas to a larger constituency. I’m trying my hand at organizing in Alabama. I am also trying to eliminate barriers where the “White Nationalist intellectuals” you so passionately defend are erecting new ones.

  44. One thing for the Tea Party is that it can be judged by the enemies it’s made. I spend a lot of time posting about movies and TV shows over at IMDB and you should just see all the body pierced type Cosmic Youth types over there who slander “Tea Baggers” at every opportunity with utter vitriol in their tone. Blacks also despise the Tea Party and see little difference between it and the folks who marched in Knoxville, to Blacks any movement that seeks to end their welfare free money parasitism is composed of nothing more than “raciss’ crackas” The left is scared to death of the Tea Party.

  45. I’m not trapped in this false dichotomy between posting anonymous Internet comments and engaging in real world explicit White Advocacy.

    I haven’t advocated any such false dichotomy. Clearly, I have spent months now pointing out that White Nationalists are unwilling to organize, and if they are unwilling to do that, they should look for some other way to influence their peers besides posting on the internet.

    The abstractions and paradigms you weave in your mind do not actually exist by virtue of your envisioning them. There is no dichotomy between people discussing this stuff on the Internet and people doing other stuff. There is little if any competition between these two activities.

    In Matt Parrott’s world, there is “little if any competition” between the volume of anonymous internet comments and Explicit White Nationalist organizing. The numbers suggest otherwise.

    Do you seriously believe that insulting pro-White folks who choose to supportively comment on your website is going to drive them to infiltrate Rotary Clubs and Tea Parties in droves?

    You misunderstand my purpose.

    I’m not trying to entertain people here. If my purpose was to entertain people and create the largest possible audience, I would spend most of my time flattering those who read this website.

    I want to win. That’s the only reason why I bother writing here. In order to win, we need people who are spending their time effectively. To my knowledge, I don’t know of another pro-White website that advocates using effectiveness as a litmus test to judge potential actions.

    And even if they did do that, and actually remained on course for the months, years, and decades, you’ve still failed to make a compelling case for how their doing that would accomplish quantifiable goal.

    The Left has created hundreds of these “People’s Organizations” and used them to accomplish all sorts of goals. The “One Nation” rally was the latest example. It was a coalition of an alphabet soup of leftwing organizations.

    You oversimplify the role of the movement into mere organizing, then oversimplify communication as “speaking to people in terms of their own experience”, then pretend like this one aspect of our struggle is the only one that exists.

    This is a straw man. I have said that those who fail to communicate will fail to accomplish any of their own objectives.

    Plenty of us already get that, and you have people like Pat Buchanan and Geert Wilders who have been doing that.

    So you like Pat Buchanan and Geert Wilders now? You also seemed to like the Republican Senators who defeated the DREAM Act … after blasting them just a few weeks before.

  46. HW:

    So people can quit saying that I am “anti-intellectual” or “hostile” to reading books. I have only warned against getting carried away with that behavior and losing touch with reality and the physical side of politics.

    Honestly, I have no idea what anti-intellectualism or an anti-intellectual is other than a left-wing attack meme. No one ever seems to define the term. If criticizing someone’s ideas makes one “anti-intellectual” then everyone is “anti-intellectual” and the term is meaningless.

Comments are closed.