2010: In Retrospect

In 2010, Arizona provided the model for change


2010 was the year that I came full circle in my political views. I completed my orbit through White Nationalism and ended up back where I started.

In 2001, I started out as a racially conscious, pro-White Southerner who was growing alarmed about immigration and changing racial demographics. I bitterly resented anti-White racial double standards and the sewage pulsating through our culture.

The real irony here is that I haven’t changed my views on anything important:

(1) I still believe in racial differences.

(2) I am still pro-White.

(3) I still resent our cultural decline.

(4) I am still opposed to immigration and changing demographics.

(5) I am still opposed to affirmative action, political correctness, and multiculturalism.

(6) I still believe a White ethnostate is the ideal solution to our racial predicament in North America.

(7) I am still completely aware of the Jewish Question.

(8) I am still explicitly racial conscious.

That has always been the case.

Yet I have really changed this year. I’m now a lot more like I was before I got involved in the White Nationalist scene.


This biggest change is that I have accepted the fact that White Nationalists are unwilling and incapable of reversing our racial decline. It was a bitter pill to swallow.

It doesn’t matter that they are right about the negative consequences of White racial decline or the extent of the Jewish power. If they are not going to do anything about these problems, and continue to let one year fade into the next, then we are forced to look elsewhere for solutions.

Simply put, White Nationalists lack the means to accomplish any of their objectives, and show no real interest in coming up with a practical plan to curtail Jewish power and secure a White ethnostate.

It is honestly much worse than that.

I could sit here for hours and explain why this is the case. It will suffice to say that extreme alienation, a failure to communicate, fantasism and escapism, an unwillingness to start where people are today, and an addiction to a false rhetorical radicalism is the root of the problem.

I’ve concluded the only way to advance White Nationalist ends is through working outside the White Nationalist movement.

The Model

2010 was also the year that the fog lifted over the whole question of how to reverse our racial decline. This has always been the single biggest failing of the White Nationalist movement: the lack of any road map to achieving our objectives.

The solution is to work within the mainstream, radicalize conservatives, move the goal posts, win victories at the margins, build confidence and momentum, and use racial polarization to delegitimize the mainstream media, defang the charge of racism, and gradually nudge the political spectrum into explicit territory.

I could also spend many hours explaining why I believe this. The Tea Party, Arizona, and Kris Kobach’s victory in Kansas have given us a model that can be adapted to our own subversive purposes.

I know from first hand experience that White Nationalists won’t organize as White Nationalists in the real world because of their fear of social ostracism and employment discrimination.

The way around this is the same route American communists took in the wake of McCarthyism: break up the White Nationalist agenda into bits and pieces, dilute the rhetoric, and organize in the real world around smaller policies.

Instead of having a “National Alliance,” which will accomplish nothing of significance because it goes outside the experience of our audience, you can organize, say, a Jacksonian Club of Marietta around the objective of changing immigration policy in Atlanta and Washington, and can be very effective at pushing radical ideas into the mainstream.

The Obstacle

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was of invaluable assistance in pointing me in the right direction. In retrospect, it is hard to believe how long it took me to get around to reading that book and digesting its lessons.

Alinsky spent much of his time in Rules attacking the counterproductive alienation that flourished in the hippie counterculture of his day. He pointed out that the middle class background of the radical leftwing activist was an invaluable asset to his cause.

In order to go forward, the radical has to go backward to where he came from, and use his middle class background to connect with his audience and organize his people for change. In my own case, that meant coming to terms with the ways of White Alabamians and developing a real sympathy for them.

You can’t communicate with or really help people you don’t identify and sympathize with. I doubt the vanguard will ever digest that lesson.

Final Thoughts

I’m looking forward to next year. I can’t remember a year that I have anticipated more than 2011. I am cautiously optimistic that a breakthrough is coming which will make several of observations made above readily apparent even to skeptics.

A pro-White model that works. Who thought they would ever see it?

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Quality leadership is the key. A grass roots effort always requires that the leaders emerge from the core membership. The followers will gravitate to the ones who can give direction, and focus to a movement. Thankfully our race is blessed with educated and capable people. It just remains to indentify and support those that can make a movement from a rable of malcontents, drunks, and anti-social elements amongst us.

  2. That’s a great poster. It brings up the issue, Is it really Naziism to want to control your own borders? Answer the question, Mr Compassion.

  3. White Nationalism is just a term people use to describe their own politics, or a term others use as a handy vehicle of denunciation. One could say “pro White politics” and mean the same thing as “White Nationalism”. And then another could come along as say, “Pro White politics doesn’t exist. It is only an internet phenomenon.” Which isn’t true at all since many of us cast votes or spend money in the real world based on pro White political views. In other words, action leaps the confines of the internet.

  4. Johnson is spinning golden oldies from William Pierce:

    If we seek true liberty, what we must do first is establish among ourselves, the men of the West, or among some carefully selected portion of ourselves, a common purpose based on true idealism. Then we must smash the present System, which thwarts that purpose, and build a new society in which the individual achieves self-fulfillment through service to the whole, and the whole advances by giving the widest possible scope for such service to each individual.

    From Attack!, no. 5, 1971,

    Now with the benefit of exactly forty years of hindsight, we can see that the present System wasn’t smashed, and that the idealists only succeeded in marginalizing themselves.

    The first thing we should have done is organize the masses and establish ourselves as respected leaders in our communities. Then we could have gradually pulled the political spectrum in our chosen rhetorical direction.

    The neocons didn’t smash the system. They infiltrated and took over the conservative movement. After installing themselves in positions of power, they purged everyone who was pro-White, and redirected a small government, low tax movement toward promoting their own Zionist ends.

    Wouldn’t it have been better if William Pierce and the White Nationalist vanguard had done what Irving Kristol and the neocon vanguard succeeding in accomplishing?

    Instead of retreating to the mountaintop in West Virginia.

  5. You raise some excellent points. I do feel I want to protest the way you are raising them, though. The fact that this seems to have become very personal between you and Greg Johnson sullies a debate which is important.

    For, while I think it is hard to deny that the theories and activist ideas of William Pierce didn’t work out, for many reasons, Johnson is still perfectly correct in asserting that being radical, wanting deep change at the very root of Western civilization, does mean taking radical, clear stands when necessary. Becoming completely subsumed in a mass of Alabama implicit-white conservatives who clearly lack ideological direction and center would indeed mean continuing the american conservative tradition of moving down the wrong path – any successive change (which would seem to be the only option – at the moment it also seems to be a possible option for the first time in decades) needs to be in the right direction.

    Also, I don’t really care for your contemptous remarks regarding Guillaume Faye which, I assume, are probably meant for a large segment of the New Right in general. Certainly, some of his ideas are absurd beyond belief, but he also offers a very precise criticism of many aspects of the West of today (and, incidentally, agrees with you on numerous issues). This kind of thinker – radical, sometimes off and sometimes on the mark, has been abundant in all successful movements. The left is full of utopians, extremists and general excentrics (not quite to the same degree as the right, given the left’s collectivist tendencies, but still). To believe that the path to victory would be to all become extreme conformists and only use the language of the contemporary political landscape is actually as aburd as Faye’s genetically engineered drones. I do understand that this is not the point you’re trying to make, but critique can be phrased far more constructively than has been the case the last few days (on both sides, I might add).

    Am I wrong to assume that there are personal issues involved in this, apart from the political ones? Once again: I think many agree with many of your points (just as many have the greatest respect for Greg Johnson’s work), and the discussion would befenit greatly from moving at least somewhat out of the gutter and onto a level of principles. Isolationist, extremist “avantegardism” has a long history of failure, but so has “realism” gone too far – having given birth to some of the most corrupt varieties of pseudoconservatism in the West. I think both sides in this discussion would benefit from acknowledging that, and then move on to constructive discussion of precise issues, rather than bash the other over the head continously.

  6. Lawyers can play a key role in working within the system but still at the same time be inspiring to the movement. The Left has lawyers bringing all manner of cases and saying all manner of things. We need that as well.

    Leftist lawyers straddle the line or come up to the line or go over the line. Once you are admitted to the bar, the bar is very reluctant to disbar you. When you are advocating for a client, you can advocate forcefully. You can also say you are just advocating the client’s case as a justification for bringing up issues or advocating arguments.

    We need a network of lawyers to look to. People go to law school in middle age not just out of college. Its best to keep your pro White views hidden until you are admitted to the bar as some cases have shown.

    People have been going to law school instead of technical fields to avoid competition with immigrants. That has made law overcrowded. Law students can come out with large debts. This won’t get better until immigration is stopped. There are many lawyers out there who could fill the niche of some form of pro White advocacy.

    Litigation requires money which gets us back to building a financial network. We need to get the establishment’s money allocated to our cause. This is fundamental to working within the system, getting the system to fund your people and your advocacy. This means not the Michael Steele types getting RNC chair but the Haley Barbour who then have staff who are sympathetic to our views. They allocate money to lawyers sympathetic to our view who advocate for clients and causes that advance our views.

  7. Hunter I agree with you, but do we have time? Working as you suggest I would think takes a lot of time. The left had time; I don’t know if we do.
    In part I will answers my question. We don’t have time but if things such as you describe in Prairie Fire in Kansas move forward we will not gain time but we will gain circumstances that multiply the power of all actions taken.
    I don’t know quite how to put it. Heat makes the pot boil quicker. And we will benefit the most from heat as the anti white left now has the most to loose since they are clearly on a track to victory.

  8. Turncoat … you say?

    What is there to turn on? Did you accomplish anything for White people last year? What about over the previous forty years? I haven’t turned my back on White people at all.

    Working through the GOP to shutdown immigration and stop amnesty is far more valuable than whining on the internet every night and doing nothing to solve our problems.

  9. SolGuru,

    (1) My personal animosity toward Greg Johnson is less important than the substantial ideological differences between us.

    (2) We’re using a different standard to measure radicalism. Johnson measures radicalism on the basis of words and ideas. He is a rhetorical radical.

    I measure radicalism on the basis of action. In my view, successful action in the real world, actions which sold to the public with moderate rhetoric, is far more “radical” than venting in cyberspace. I am radical realist.

    (3) We are clearly moving in the right direction now in Alabama and Georgia. This will become obvious when both states pass Arizona-style immigration laws and other restrictionist agenda items.

    (4) I haven’t read Guillaume Faye’s book. It is clear though from the reviews that he advocates creating man-animal chimeras, decerebrated human clones, and semi-artificial biolithic creatures: Soylent Green, The Terminator, and The Island of Dr. Moreau rolled into one.

    Needless to say, those ideas are counterproductive in a North American context. We don’t need to be associated with ideas like that.

    (5) I’ve criticized Faye on that specific point. I also think the Septentrion idea is pure fantasy.

    (6) I’m sure Faye is right about many other subjects.

    (7) I don’t plan to continue the exchanges with Greg Johnson. I intend to move in a more productive direction this year.

  10. hunter, i think you are a WN in paleocon clothing. you provide a palatable discourse to the average fox viewer. there are many jobs to do to further our cause. White advocacy is not a monolith, so there is a place for you, taylor, covington and linder. all do a great job in their niche. there is a progression of WN. you just don’t go from watching fox news to posting on vnn in 24 hours. thanks for doing your part.

  11. HW: “I’ve concluded the only way to advance White Nationalist ends is through working outside the White Nationalist movement.”
    …”I know from first hand experience that White Nationalists won’t organize as White Nationalists in the real world because of their fear of social ostracism and employment discrimination.”

    I have followed the peregrinations of OD as well some of the other Net-based WN/hard right/racial realist sites for some time now.

    It seems to me (I am over 60) that the basic problem with your current stance is the word “only” in the first sentence quoted above. If you said “best” or “most productive at this time”, then you would be making an unexceptionable assertion, one which can be backed with many of the arguments you bring to bear.

    But instead you seem to go out of your way to keep picking the scab of your disappointments with the WN scene. Contrast the genial response of Yggdrasil (to whom many of us owe an enormous debt for his well-researched and thoughtful contributions) to Greg Johnson with your own snide and destructive comments.

    It should be obvious that such an enormous task as the recalibration of American cultural and political thoughts and attitudes as is being undertaken by us all at this time requires a multi-pronged effort. While vigorous debate is to be expected and welcomed throughout the movement, the dismissive attitudes exemplified by both “Vanguard” and “mainstream” currents towards each other are usually counter-productive to the overall effort. We need to take a broader view. If we see ourselves as possibly ever VICTORIOUS in our efforts to throw off the existing elite structure, it will require the best efforts of BOTH vanguardists and everyone else.

    The fact that the Vanguardists exist at all serves long-term to “move the goalposts” of acceptable discourse, so that the work of the “mainstreamers” is actually helped. Notice how our enemies prevailed. This is particularly true when the intellectual level is generally high, as it is overall with Greg Johnson’s site. While you deplore the difficulties that Vanguard can cause the mainstreamers by adopting sometimes eccentric or “anti-American” stances, you overlook the appeal that they make to young, intelligent seekers who are trying to figure out how matters got so dismal for whites.

    I see Spencer’s Alt.right site as in some ways “midway” between OD and Counter-Currents. It strives to “mainstream” discussion of “Hardright” perspectives while still being true to racial awareness in a way that the old Paleos have basically given up on–view the ongoing depressing capitulations to Zionism represented in Chronicles for example. You seem to have moved decisively towards mainstream political activism. Good for you. By all means, we will listen to your perspectives and work locally where appropriate to further our ends. But you of all people need to be constantly aware of the need to not sacrifice the long-term goals in the service of the day-to-day need for compromise involved in the game of electoral politics. I think your own misgivings on this point are an element in your dismissal of the “vanguardist”.

    If you look at the history of revolutionary movements, you will see that this whole “vanguard vs Mainstream” opposition (in many guises, eg among the communists it was sometimes enunciated as “red” vs “expert”) is an unavoidable element of the movement as a whole, giving it an identifiable structure.

    I, for one, look forward to learning from all of you, and taking whatever actions seem promising at the time. Happy New Year, and best wishes.

  12. Hunter,

    Great post … I feel much the same way. I remain a WN of a sort – it’s a broader tent than often acknowledged – but remain semi-rooted in paleoconservatism (not a very useful term either, really, per Dr Gottfried). It’s easy to forget that a lot of the paleo ‘stars’ have always held de facto WN positions, long before that term was coined. Indeed, most ‘traditional conservatives’ in the USA 50-60 years ago had unexamined WN-like views, before they were told it was evil, etc.

    The WN “movement” is really mostly an online thing, not to denigrate the Web here. The undoing of any political traction is rooted in the reality that most WN “activists” are very odd ducks – some are clinically insane, I’m sure – while more than a few are FBI provocateurs (sure of that too).

    So you are showing a useful path so what Whites in the USA might have a future. Basically it’s the old Trotskyist “entryism” strategy which worked like a charm whenever the Stalinists weren’t hyper-vigilant. I’m far from certain of that path working – I worry deeply about what this place will be like when my kids are my age – but I am quite certain that current WN “activism” represents a dead end or worse.

    Keep it up and BTW — Happy New Year!


  13. There is room for more than one approach to white activism. I applaud Wallace, Johnson & Spencer for their contributions to our cause.

    Strong, intelligent people are often competitive and given to attack each other at times. We should endeavor to be civil to one another because excessive combativeness will be viewed as weakness by our enemies, who will send their agent provocateurs to work among us.

  14. rV: “Strong, intelligent people are often competitive and given to attack each other at times.”

    Agreed. It is not like the original colonists loved each other, but they came together when it counted.

  15. I went to a party last night. With affluent, politically-well-connected, absolutely lovely people. I did not talk about Race. (One of the other fellows brought up Race, however, regarding his work, in a very “diverse” town. iwas extremely sympatheitc, needless to say. ). I had a lot of fun. I talked about what these lovely, lovely, lovely people were interested in.

    I had a lot of fun. They had a lot of fun. It was very sincere. I like these folks. They are WONDERFUL people. I made them laugh.

    I was invited back.

    I will gladly go – as I genuinely like these enchanting people. I used to have a lot of fun. I haven
    t been fun, for a decade, in my trajectory form 9/11/01, til now. But I am going to remember the “flies with honey” bit. I can be very charming. I’m a good conversationalist (Told this by othoers. Not bragging). My goal, for 2011, is to remember to be charming, fun, and diplomatic. And cheerfully helpful, when imparting ahhhh…”senstive” information.

    We must do what we do cause we truly love and care about our Wonderful Race.

  16. Spectator,

    If you or anyone else can explain how the vanguardists are of any value to the pro-White cause, the clarity added to this discussion would be much appreciated.

    Every day someone comes on this website to say that the vanguardists have a useful role to play in this struggle. I have seen this idea of a “multipronged” attack floated several times now.

    (1) What is this useful role?

    (2) What is this multipronged attack?

    It seems to me like you want everyone to get along. You want to see the good in everyone. That’s an admirable sentiment.

    Unfortunately, this desire to see everyone get along obscures your ability to see the damage that vanguardists inflict upon White Nationalism on a daily basis and their unwillingness to do anything constructive to reverse our decline.

    Let’s look at immigration.

    (1) The vanguardists attack conservatives who agree with us that immigration is a problem.

    (2) They attack the Republicans who support tougher restrictionist immigration laws.

    (3) They advocate losing as a strategy.

    (4) They sincerely want to empower our worst enemies in Congress.

    (5) They counsel White Nationalists to surrender and reject the political process.

    (6) They yearn for the destruction of our nation and eagerly await the collapse of Western civilization.

    (7) They come here to spread defeatism and express their own radical sense of alienation.

    (8) They want to portray White Nationalism in the most unsympathetic light possible to turn off as many White people as possible from our cause.

    I have drawn the correct conclusion that I cannot work with these people. They have deliberately set out to make our task more difficult. They are indistinguishable from our opposition on immigration.

    I know from experience that I can work with conservatives on these issues and win victories. That’s what I will continue to do in 2011.

  17. for the purposes of this conversation, can there be an absolute distinction made between a paleocon and a WN?

  18. “For the purposes of this conversation, can there be an absolute distinction made between a paleocon and a WN?”

    White Nationalist doesn’t mean White Nationalist anymore, it means the part of White Nationalism that veteran White Nationalists have come to despise. Once upon a time anyone advocating in favor of a White ethnostate would have been considered WN by defintion. Such is the way meanings change.

  19. The paleocons have many of the same problems as White Nationalists. They have also allowed their alienation to get the best of them.

    I’m not referring to Sam Francis or Pat Buchanan here.

  20. darwin,

    I’m surprised more people aren’t taking a stab at distinguishing Paleoconservatisim from WN. For one thing, WN is in theory a world wide ideology, whereas Pc is strictly American. Also there is a difference of emphasis. Pc does not emphasis race to the degree WN does. Also Pc has a very low level of esotericism in its theoretical framework. No metapolitics for these level-headed, and stuffy, advocates. Not a very successful attempt on my part, but at least I tried.

  21. The paleocons are just as bad as White Nationalists when it comes to nursing a radical sense of alienation, rhetorical radicalism, wasting time on sterile navel gazing, and escaping into history and fantasy worlds.

    Again, I would like to stress this is not true of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis, but it is an accurate description of Tom Fleming, Clyde Wilson, and John Zmirak.

    Does anyone here remember when Zmirak used to fantasize on Takimag about restoring the Habsburg Empire?

  22. No number of “one step forward, two steps back” in the right-wing political ghetto is going to change anything. Only National-Anarchists have achieved a consistent and radical break from the moribund political outlooks that hampers the right-wing.

  23. That is a complex question and I only have the time for a short answer: By discarding the dogmas that have not worked and embracing a revolutionary paradigm that encourages our people to do what needs to be done by themselves and in ways (and areas) that we can have an impact on such as culture and direct action.

  24. Hunter, I respectfully disagree with you that what works in leftist cities does not work in Heartland America.

    You are aware that many Tea Party grassroots activists were carrying around their own personal copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” aren’t you? That is how they ejected the entrenched Republican incumbents.

    They were not as loud and irritating as leftist rioters at the Democrat Convention in Chicago back in ’68, but their quiet riot still ambushed the Republican establishment. And one of the main reasons that Lindsey Graham had his “Come to Jesus” moment on immigration was that he was publicly outted as a closeted gay by a pro-borders enforcement activist. Very Saul Alinsky, if you ask me.

  25. The time for a peaceful resolution ran out in 1870 when the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified.

    Amendment Fifteen
    1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    The United States can’t be made into a White Nationalist country with the current Constitution, which provides no mechanism for deporting non-Whites or denying them the vote.

    Constitutional amendments will be needed to create a White Ethnostate in the United States. For example the 15th Amendment will need to be superceded.

    We need 38 states to amend the Constitution, assuming 50 states remain in the union.

    If 13 or more states are hopelessly anti-white then there’s no peaceful, legal way to create a White homeland in North America.

    There are now four states where Whites are already a minority, Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas.

    The most hopeless state is Hawaii, with the largest percentage of nonwhites in the union. New Mexico and California, both with just 42% Whites, can be written off.

    Texas is an unusual case where Hispanic political apathy and strong White conservative solidarity have kept it from going the way of California. But to amend the constitution to create a White Nationalist US we don’t just need states to avoid becoming pure blue, we need them to be pro-white. It’s hard to imagine the 52% of non-whites in Texas staying home when the legislature starts considering a constitutional amendment that would lead to their eventual expulsion or disenfranchisement.

    That’s four states down.

    I don’t have much hope for the six states (other than California) where Republicans gained little or nothing in the conservative/white backlash of 2010, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and Washington.

    That’s ten states down.

    Now add the usually blue states that only went red for some offices because of a wave election, and mostly due to economic issues. Most obvious is New Jersey. I leave thinking of two other states where a White nationalist constitutional amendment can’t pass as an exercise for the reader.

    The only realistic conclusion is we don’t have a lot of wiggle room. Every slightly reddish state would have to ratify a radical right wing racist constitutional amendment for it to pass.

    I don’t know if that makes the mainstream approach a fantasy, but it sure looks like a long shot.

  26. I want to encourage young Whites like Andrew Yeoman to continue to hit the streets where they live (Left Blue State areas) and fight for our people, our culture and fight corrupt systems.

    Andrew Yeoman and NA are not electing Conservative US Senators in blue states, that’s not their aim and it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to do that.

    But Andrew Yeoman and the NA are being effective. They are not sitting on their butts, hanging out on the internet and wasting their lives in fantasy land.

    Lots of Whites do live in Blue state urban areas and we have to find some ways for racially conscious Whites to live, survive, do activism.

    Chicago is really looking bad from a Conservative Red State perspective these days. Some of us are looking for some action. Hey Andrew – do you have any Chicago NA organizers yet? Would I have to wear Black anarchist T-shirts or could I pass with a long sleeve Chicago Black Hawks Black T?

  27. What serious positive effect has Andrew Yoeman had? I haven’t seen it. San Francisco is still trending down, an absolute jewel among American cities has been completely lost to leftists- multi-cultis and is now becoming quite unpleasant to even visit, much less live in. Much of Oakland is still defacto a no-go zone for Whites.

    Berkeley is still churning out PhDs for minorities, creating the next level in the unending liberal ideology, doing studies to support minority issues, and generally being a tool for our oppression. The “Bay Area” provided Nancy Pelosi to head the most anti-White Congress in history, and she masterminded the horrible DREAM act which came within a hair of passage.

    The only thing I’ve seen Andrew do is posit on a few boards about his strange synthesis of White Nationalism and Anarchism. It’s like the two ugliest fat kids in high school finally starting to date in April of their senior years. Everyone says: “of course! it only makes sense”. If there is a more disreputable, ineffective, largely theoretical political movement than White Nationalism it is Anarchism. Like the WN movement they have nothing to show for decades of writing and pamphleting. The high point for the Anarchists was when the went main stream and became labor-unionists back in the 1920s. Other than that their only claim to fame are a few bombings which achieved nothing, other than tarnishing their image among most Americans irreperably.

    I’ve seen him go out and fight with other Anarchists. The skinheads used to do this sort of thing in Boise and Portland back in the 1980s. It achieved nothing, other than making everyone hate them, giving the liberals an excuse to form human rights commissions and rename streets after blacks and latinos to prove how diverse the community is.

    The best trend in Portland has been yuppies decideing the inner-city ghetto is a convenient place to live, re-christening it with various names (Alberta Arts District, Mississippi neighborhood, etc.) and moving in. Slowly the blacks are being priced out of the area, the street drug dealing is going away, the gang banging is moving to the far edge of the city, where it is much easier to avoid, the decrepit black businesses are closing and being replaced by nicer yuppie stuff: bike shops, organic pantries, small restaurants and pubs serving local micro-brews.

    No one has bothered to battle anyone in the streets to accomplish all this, they have simply bought or rented property and made changes that are in keeping with their ideals an aesthetics.

    People who can take seriously concepts like “National Anarchism” has having any hope of transforming a region are operating in a highly theoretical universe far away from what’s going on. Far better to take over a neighborhood and make it defacto white than contest on the streets with the far-left.

  28. Jackson,

    Agreed mainly, although I would point out the NA has at least the potential to draw off Whites attracted to NA’s youthful and trendy aesthetic, but such is about the extent of it. Skinheads probably do that better anyway.

  29. M,

    The Fifteenth Amendment was also a dead letter in the American South for almost a century. The South also became whiter from 1870 to 1964. Blacks ceased to be a majority in Mississippi and South Carolina.

  30. The Fifteenth Amendment was also a dead letter in the American South for almost a century. The South also became whiter from 1870 to 1964.
    Hunter Wallace

    Conservatives promote law and order. The South resisted with civil disobedience and insurgency.

    The same conservatives who oppose illegal immigration because it’s illegal will fight you to the bitter end on non-white citizen’s right to vote.

Comments are closed.