In his 2010 forecast, I was surprised that Kunstler didn’t include his usual dire warnings (Palinites with pitchforks) about “cornpone Nazism,” a subject he has endlessly harped upon in the past. Kunstler has become notorious for his scathing hatred of ordinary White people. Last month, he went so far as to describe the White working and middle class as “The Yeast People.” I’ve been following him for years and have never seen him use this kind loaded rhetoric to attack blacks and Hispanics for their sordid underclass culture, which by any honest measure is several orders of magnitude worse than comparable trends in the White community.

Kunstler’s attack on the BNP is especially revealing: “History is ironical. Perhaps this time the Germans will be the good guys, while England goes apeshit with its BNP. Wouldn’t that be something?” The BNP is the only political party in the UK which has raised awareness of the Peak Oil issue, which everyone knows is so dear to his heart, but Kunstler sees Nick Griffin as the leader of the bad guys. He implies that the BNP are Nazis.

Kunstler’s Jewishness, the source of his fear and loathing of White people, weighs more heavily in his mind than anything he has said about Peak Oil, suburbs, walkable communities, relocalization, or the automobile. I can’t help but wonder whether or not this animus is the real source of his social criticism.

From Antisemitica, December 28, 2009

In a moment of candor, Feinstein draws attention to the various Jewish writers who have “eroded” the Christian “religious tradition” and contributed to the secularization of the holiday. He speaks of his “barely concealed rage” at the audacity of an orchestra board representative who told him his concert program was “too Jewish.” In response, he defiantly promised the second night’s show would be “even more Jewish.”

I can’t imagine an offensive Christian article about Jews, one written in such a condescending and contemptuous spirit, ever getting published in the pages of the New York Times, especially in the holiday season. Apparently, NYT editors don’t believe their multiculturalist sensitivity is applicable to America’s Christian majority, but this is hardly a revelation.

It could serve as a starting point, however, for a much needed discussion of “Jewish Privilege.”

“Why Anti-Semitism?”
Antisemitica, December 12, 2009

Why label yourself an anti-Semite? Isn’t that adopting the discursive terms of the enemy? Why not use terms like “Jew-wise,” “Jew-aware,” or “Judeophobe” instead? This is a common strategic objection made by White Nationalists.

My answer:

1) The charge is true. An anti-Semite is a person “who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.” I advocate discrimination against Jews. Therefore, I am an anti-Semite.

2) Appearing disingenuous. I don’t want to appear disingenuous. I believe in calling a spade a spade. It is better to be honest and upfront about my views.

3) The charge can’t be successfully dodged. Jew criticism will always be labeled “anti-Semitism.” Since I am advocating the expulsion of Jews from North America, the charge of “anti-Semitism” is highly likely to stick.

4) The term hasn’t always had negative connotations. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anti-Semitism was popular in respectable circles. Critics of Jews openly labeled themselves anti-Semites. I wish to recapture this sense of the term.

5) Discourse poisoning. The charge of being “anti-Soviet” is laughed at today, but was once taken quite seriously in the USSR. Sometimes the best response to smears is ridicule and defiance. “Anti-Semitism” is a verbal bomb that can’t be avoided. It has to be defused.

6) Morality. Dodging the charge of “anti-Semitism” suggests there is something immoral about discimination against Jews. I believe this policy is both ethical and rationally justifiable.

7) PC. I don’t want to see liberal political correctness replaced by a racialist version. I use the term “anti-Semite” for the same reason I avoid using “European-American.”

Greg Johnson has asked me to address one of the thorniest issues in White Nationalism: the quarrel between the older, “vanguardist” wing of the movement and the newer, “mainstreamer” wing. In recent weeks, Arthur Kemp has thrown gasoline on the fire and a debate has raged here and at other sites. Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain have published books about White Nationalism that revolve around this division.

Origins and Beliefs

The lineage of the “vanguardists” can be traced back to a number of twentieth century neo-fascist fringe groups. The most prominent are William Dudley Pelley’s Silver Shirts, Gerald L.K. Smith’s Christian Nationalist Crusade, George Lincoln Rockwell’s American Nazi Party, William Pierce’s National Alliance, Glenn Miller’s White Patriot Party, Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations, Ben Klassen’s World Church of the Creator, and Cliff Herrington’s National Socialist Movement. Let’s be sure not to forget the oldest, most storied vanguardist group of them all, the Ku Klux Klan. A constellation of pro-White vanguardist organizations has existed on the far right since the Roaring Twenties.

The vanguardist wing has a few distinguishing characteristics: a willingness to advocate or resort to physical violence, esoteric rituals, symbols and dress, a strong or exclusive emphasis on the Jewish Question, a skeptical or hostile attitude towards democratic politics, a rigid attitude on doctrinal purity, a total rejection of incrementalism, and above all else, a belief that only a minority of Whites can be swayed to our political views, always combined with a focus on creating small organizations of the elect few. Insofar as they have a strategy, vanguardists dream of seizing power in the aftermath of their long anticipated “collapse” of the federal government.

In a certain sense, the “mainstreamers” have always existed. America was explicitly founded as a “white man’s country.” Racialists dominated American politics from the ratification of the U.S. Constitution until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Usually Southerners, these people were ordinary, respectable middle class businessmen, doctors, and lawyers, the traditional elites of the small towns, who found their racial beliefs under attack by a hostile liberal elite and the black underclass. They are not the sort of people who naturally gravitate towards the political fringe. The mainstreamers were pushed to the margins after America’s WASP ruling class was overthrown by monied, urban Jews in the mid-twentieth century.

The split between the “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” can be traced back to the aftermath of the Brown decision. Whereas the Klan resorted to violence and intimidation, the traditional Southern elite, the incipient “mainstreamers,” created the White Citizens’ Council. They litigated integration, protested in the streets, created sovereignty commissions, hoisted the banner of states’ rights, invoked interposition, engaged in economic boycotts, outright refused to comply with federal court orders, defunded or closed the integrated public schools, created private academies, and voted for George Wallace in his presidential campaigns. They promised and delivered “massive resistance” to integration.

In the final days of Jim Crow, the “mainstreamers” kept the “vanguardists” at arm’s length. They generally wanted nothing to do with them. Outside of the liberal imagination, there was no cognizance of belonging to a shared political movement. The mainstreamers were not the type of people who went around firebombing churches and lynching negroes. Typically, they hated fascism and took pride in America’s role in the Second World War. Many of them had actually fought in Europe. These people were FDR’s voters and the base of the Democratic Party. In every way, they considered themselves normal, decent, patriotic Americans who combined their racialism with a strong belief in liberty, federalism and Protestant Christianity.

Unlike the “vanguardists,” the “mainstreamers” are defined by their belief in engaging in democratic politics. They believe a majority of White Americans can be persuaded to share our views. They advocate an electoral path to victory. The “mainstreamers” reject violence, strongly disapprove of vanguardist esoterica, reject or downplay the Jewish Question, advocate moderation, incrementalism, and mass membership organizations. They reject the vanguardist myth of social collapse and attack fringe groups for their lack of a practical strategy.

Since the late 1980s, the “mainstreamer” wing has enjoyed a resurgence in the pro-White movement. According to Leonard Zeskind, Willis Carto was the trailblazer with Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party. David Duke is the most notable racialist to make the transition from vanguardist to mainstreamer. He took off the Klan robes, moderated his message, and successfully ran for elected office in Louisiana. The White Citizens’ Council evolved into the Council of Conservative Citizens. Jared Taylor, the most prominent mainstreamer, launched American Renaissance. Peter Brimelow launched VDARE. There are a number of other websites and bloggers pushing the “mainstreamer” point of view.

In the 1990s and 2000s, largely due to the spread of the internet and the death of “vanguardist” leaders, the “mainstreamers” wrestled back control of the pro-White movement from the “vanguardists,” who had dominated the scene in the 1970s and 1980s. The typical White Nationalist is now a middle class, White male professional unaffiliated with any organization. These people are usually non-violent, college educated and internet savvy. The majority of them have been recruited online and participate in the movement exclusively in cyberspace.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, I

Ever since the resurgence of the “mainstreamers,” a destructive myth has begun to circulate and gain traction, namely, that the “vanguardists” are responsible for the marginalization of racialists. If only the costume clowns would disappear, the Kluxers and the Nutzis, media access and respectability will follow, or so the theory goes. Hence, the triumphant mainstreamers can often be found advocating a massive purge of the vanguardists from the White Nationalist movement.

This theory rests on a severe case of historical amnesia. The “mainstreamers” once dominated the entire American nation, but they progressively lost control of it over two centuries and ruled only in the Jim Crow South by 1964. This historical process had been going on for over a century before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, before the crusade against fascism in the Second World War, and long before the emergence of any of the vanguardist organizations.

The Northeast was the first region of the country to succumb to anti-racism. The American Revolution was quickly followed by the abolition of slavery in the area. Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and New Jersey never passed anti-miscegenation laws. Pennsylvania repealed its anti-miscegenation law before joining the Union. In Massachusetts, the state anti-miscegenation law succumbed to abolitionist pressure in the 1830s. In the name of “liberty” and “equality,” the remaining anti-miscegenation laws and the few segregation statutes in the region were repealed in the wake of the Civil War.

The Midwest was strongly racialist in the Antebellum Era. Several Midwestern states imposed stiff fines on black settlers. Jim Crow was pioneered in the region. In the Midwest, anti-slavery was often synonymous with anti-black sentiment. As in the Northeast, racial attitudes weakened in the aftermath of the Civil War, and most of the anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes came tumbling down in the late nineteenth century.

The West held out the longest. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that it was sparsely settled. In this region, the Indian Wars were still fresh in the historical memory. Chinese and Japanese immigration represented a potent threat to White labor. A weaker version of Jim Crow prevailed in the West until the aftermath of the Second World War. From 1945 to 1964, the Western states voluntarily repealed their anti-miscegenation laws and segregation statutes.

In the South, racial attitudes hardened after the Second World War. White liberals like Claude “Red” Pepper and Franklin Graham were thrown out of office. Southerners dug in their heels and defiantly resisted the national consensus on race. Jim Crow was overthrown by force: Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans united in Congress to defeat Southern filibusters and ratify the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The latter piece of legislation revolutionized Southern politics and destroyed White voting power in the socially conservative Black Belt counties.

In 1945, White racialists controlled the Jim Crow South. We controlled parts of the Jim Crow West. There were explicit laws that mandated segregation and outlawed miscegenation in these regions. An informal system of segregation existed in the Northeast and Midwest, but White racial attitudes had dramatically weakened there. By 1964, they had collapsed in the Northeast, Midwest, and West.

In 1964, Jim Crow was overthrown in the South. The Southern anti-miscegenation laws were struck down a few years later in Loving v. Virginia. From 1964 to 1991, White racial attitudes collapsed in the South and steadily began to approach the national norm. Simply put, the South was Americanized as the national television, radio, and print media penetrated the region and changed its culture. Hitherto, the South had remained an outlier because Southerners had always gotten their news from local newspapers controlled by segregationist editors.

The Mainstreamer Catastrophe, II

At this critical junture, the “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophe from which they never recovered, one that had nothing to do with the “vanguardists.” The bulk of racially conscious Southern Whites responded to the defeat of Jim Crow by getting involved in conservative politics. They bought into the moderate argument that the way forward was to fight the Civil Rights Movement through non-racial arguments against “big government.” Instead of fighting the racial battle, they would focus instead on defending their culture. They would engage in “practical politics,” strategically retreat, and extract revenge on the hated liberals who had usurped control over the Democratic Party.

The first tentative steps in this direction were taken in the 1964 presidential election when Barry Goldwater carried several of the Deep South states. In 1968, the liberal integrationist Hubert Humphrey was defeated by Richard Nixon, Wallace carried the Deep South, and the Democrats lost every Southern state but Texas. In 1972, Nixon defeated McGovern in a landslide and Wallace won several Democratic primaries. In 1976, the South was lured back into the fold by Jimmy Carter, a Southern candidate. In 1980, Reagan wiped the floor with Carter, who had been discredited as an enfeebled liberal, and again with Mondale in 1986.

In the 1990’s, the Bush/Clinton years, American politics settled into its familar pattern. A socially liberal New England and West Coast became the base of the Democratic Party. A socially conservative South became the base of the Republican Party. The sectionalism of the two parties hardened under George W. Bush into the famous “Red State” vs. “Blue State” divide. The Obama/McCain electoral map masks the fact that Obama barely won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia.

To cut a long story short, the ex-segregationists became conservatives, got into the habit of voting for the Republicans, focused on “practical politics,” and became steadily deracialized over the next forty years. This is where their descendants are still at today: checking the box for every fraud with an (R) beside his name.

Vanguardists Triumphant

The “vanguardists” who gained hegemony over the pro-White movement in the late 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980’s didn’t win through superior arguments. They inherited the mantle of White leadership by default. The “mainstreamers” suffered a catastrophic loss of their base and most of them quit the field to get involved in conservative politics. The fringe groups left behind moved into the vacuum and recreated the pro-White scene in their own image. The media happily played along.

In the late 1980s, the “mainstreamers” began to stir again, but found themselves up against the backdrop of the previous twenty years, when the pro-White scene had sunk to an all time low in the United States. They found themselves branded Neo-Nazis and Klansmen in the press. The fringe group image stuck and lots of “mainstreamers” began to draw the erroneous conclusion that it was the cause of their predicament … which brings us to where we are today.

Vanguardists vs. Mainstreamers

There is a lot of merit to both sides of this argument. In the “mainstreamers’” favor, the “vanguardists” have attracted the dysfunctional, kooky, sociopathic types that are always found in fringe politics. They have been unable to create viable or stable organizations. The “vanguardists” have no strategy aside from waiting on a mythic social collapse. The costume scene is ridiculous, stagnant, and brings White Nationalism into disrepute.

In the “vanguardists’” favor, it is easy to talk about winning elections, but in reality it is a near impossible mountain to climb. The racial situation is so far gone that victory at present looks like a pipe dream. The “mainstreamers” might be able to achieve some political success, say, a few city councilmen or state legislators, but will never possess the majority required to enact necessary constitutional changes. The “mainstreamers” are following in the footsteps of the conservatives, but will never be as successful, and with all their electoral success the conservatives have nothing to show for it. They retort by pointing out that mass membership organizations are flypaper for the dregs of society. If that were not enough, the “mainstreamers” are accused of dishonesty and dishonorable conduct on the Jewish Question.

Synthesis

In my view, the critiques of both sides are more impressive than either of their platforms. I come down somewhere in the center of this debate. I can see a need for “practical politics,” but I am convinced that it shouldn’t be our primary emphasis. We should spend roughly 80% of our time and resources trying to change the culture; 20% on building momentum and attracting new recruits through political campaigns. Without a stable cultural foundation, which I define as pulling the national discourse on race in our direction, political victories will only prove costly and temporary.

There is a residual level of racial consciousness in the Deep South. We should take advantage of that and try to build a real world base in the area. If we can’t win in Mississippi and Alabama (winning is changing attitudes), we are doomed. It is conceivable that we could win a few state legislature seats and get on some city councils in this region. That will require a moderate platform: pro-identity, pro-immigration restriction, anti-affirmative action, anti-multiculturalism, anti-political correctness. For good measure, throw in some economic nationalism and cultural conservatism. This is not unlike what Kemp suggests.

The Jewish Question and White Nationalism are too radical for voters to digest. However, I don’t think they should be ignored. Along with racial differences, they should be the focus of educational campaigns. There will always be websites that focus on these matters and we could use more of them. These issues will have to be introduced incrementally into the national mainstream. Once again, “incrementalism” is forcing the mainstream right to become more like us, not the other way around.

The esoterica/costumes are weird, unnecessary, and off putting. Neo-Nazism and Third Reich fetishism are losers. Holocaust revisionism is an irrelevant waste of time. Better quality control is a no-brainer. A private, invitation only “vanguardist” organization could work; every social movement needs a capable leadership. I’m not opposed to creating pro-White political action committees. As Kemp says, it is too late to create a third party. It just won’t work in the American context.

After ten years, I have given up on waiting for “the collapse.” It could happen, but I wouldn’t bet on it. The recent economic crisis has shown that White Nationalists are unable to capitalize on fortuitious current events. We should hope for the best; prepare for the worst. If nothing else, that means keeping the pro-White flame alive like St. Benedict in the Dark Ages.

The Fringe

In dealing with the fringe, we should follow the example of the Left with the anarchists. We should keep a respectful distance and ignore them in public. Instead of slamming Neo-Nazis, we dismiss them as mostly harmless kooks and patiently explain why pro-Whites are driven to such extremes. Whenever possible, I think we should try to romanticize and rehabilitate our extremists. There should be an element of prestige to being uncompromising. The Left has done this with any number of figures: Malcolm X, Che Guevera, Stokely Carmichael, Rosa Luxemburg, etc.

Look at it this way: If a gangster like Omar from The Wire can be a sympathetic figure, President Obama’s favorite television character, why not Bob Matthews or David Lane? Murderers like Jesse James and Billy the Kid have been folk heroes before. The Klan was rescued from disrepute by a single film and went on to dominate Northern states like Oregon, Colorado, and Indiana. The Birth of a Nation was wildly successful. Unfortunately, it is one of the few examples of the Right successfully using film to change the culture.

Via the Overton Window, extremists can play a useful role in pushing the margins of our national discourse. Next to a William Pierce or Alex Linder, who are unthinkable, a Jared Taylor can appear merely radical, next to a Jared Taylor, a Pat Buchanan can look “acceptable,” next to a Pat Buchanan, a Lou Dobbs can appear sensible. The Left has mastered the Overton Window and has steadily pushed the cultural envelope in their direction by staking out ever more extreme positions and then running a “moderates” that appease them.

The best example of this is gay marriage. It runs completely against the grain of traditional Christian mores. It is a political albatross for the Left. It has gone down in flames in over thirty states. A few decades ago, gay marriage was unthinkable. Now the debate is over whether it is radical or acceptable. The same was once true of abortion, feminism, and civil rights. Gay marriage is starting to garner the momentum of inevitability.

Next to Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael, Martin Luther King, Jr. was seen as an acceptable moderate. FDR was seen as “moderate” compared to Huey Long nipping at his heels. The argument was successfully made that we had to enact civil rights reform, affirmative action, or the minimum wage/social security to stop radicals from swooping in and taking over. The fringe has been exploited and put to good use by more capable men in the past.

Final Thoughts

I will let this stand as my decisive statement on the issue. A reasonable “mainstreamer” movement is needed: one that incorporates “vanguardist” insights, one that doesn’t scapegoat the “vanguardists” for every setback, one that recognizes the fringe will always be around and has a role to play, and finally one that doesn’t slip into fantasism at our chances of political success.

From Occidental Dissent, December 2, 2009

At Majority Rights, Friedrich Braun has outlined his new stance on the Jewish Question, which is a 180 degree turn from his old material at The Civic Platform. Needless to say, I disagree with a number of his points:

1. Braun says that only a “Right” friendly to Israel and the Jewish community can succeed in the political arena.

In the United States, the “Right” has been defined by the philo-Semitic conservative movement since the 1960s. It has had a lot of electoral success … but so what? White Americans are worse off in every single way, racially and culturally speaking, than my grandparents’ generation.

Voting for conservatives isn’t an option for the pro-White movement. We get absolutely nothing in return but the scorn of these people and the tireless promotion of Jewish and non-White interests at our expense. It is better to do nothing at all – retreat from the public sphere and enjoy the pleasures of private life – than to support conservatives.

2. Braun claims that anti-Semitism is a political loser.

I’m not so sure. I don’t think the American public cares nearly as much about “anti-Semitism” as the philo-Semites insist they do. David Duke won the majority of the White vote in Louisiana. In Alabama, the race-mixing Holocaust denier Larry Darby won 43% of the vote in the 2006 Democratic Party primary for Attorney General.

In the popular imagination, I live in the heart of the Bible Belt. Everyone around here is supposed to be uber philo-Semitic evangelical Christians. I know my peers fairly well and this couldn’t be more untrue. Most of them are either irreligious or outright atheists. None of them care about the Jews. They don’t have any opinion on the issue.

3. The Right should put Jews in position of authority.

We already have the neocons in control of the conservative movement. A Right that puts Jews in a position of authority will never be anything more than a front group for Jewish interests.

4. There are plenty of racialist and rightwing Jews with whom we can build alliances.

Name them. I don’t think all of them combined could fill more than half of an Applebee’s restaurant. What’s more, these racialist and rightwing Jews are more interested in “fighting anti-Semitism” than any other pro-White cause. Bringing them into White Nationalism is tantamount to creating just another ideological vehicle for the promotion of Jewish interests.

5. White Nationalism hasn’t accomplished anything in the postwar era.

There is a good reason for that. After the demise of segregation, racially conscious Whites flocked into the aracial, philo-Semitic conservative movement where they became steadily deracialized. Braun is advocating more of the same. It will produce exactly the same result.

6. A friendly disposition towards Jewry will get us into the media and political area.

No, it won’t. It will get us about where Jared Taylor and American Renaissance are now. Jews will persist in their hostility to us. They will continue to relentlessly push their interests at our expense. We won’t get anything in return for abandoning our hostility to the Jews.

7. We must counter the Nazi image.

I disagree. We should wait for the “Greatest Generation” to die off and the Boomers to retire. Gen X’ers and Gen Y’ers don’t care nearly as much about the Jews.

8. Jews will bring vast resources into our movement.

No, they won’t.

9. Jews are moving to the Right.

No, they haven’t. See Steve Sailer’s recent column about American Jewry.

10. We should emulate Vlaams Belang, the BNP, the Front National, and Geert Wilders.

Why? They haven’t accomplished anything. Muslims continue to settle to Belgium, the Netherlands, France, and the UK. The only thing they have accomplished is watering down the “Right”; thereby pushing the next generation further to the “Left.”

11. It is time to adopt a winning strategy.

The conservative movement has already adopted the philo-Semitic strategy. Its existence is arguably the single biggest cause of White racial decline since the 1960s.

From Occidental Dissent, November 22, 2009

Arthur Kemp, author of March of the Titans: A History of the White Race, has written a new book about the failures of the White Nationalist movement in America. If this name rings a bell, it’s because he is the same guy who wrote about Nordics bringing civilization to China, Egypt, Greece, Italy, South America, and Easter Island. Now he is full of advice for racialists on this side of the Atlantic.

Kemp’s prescription:

1) Strip the movement of “cranks and crackpots” who infest the American ”right wing.” The short list includes Christian Identity nuts, Neo-Nazis, Neo-Confederates, the KKK, WW2 hobbyists, and skinheads . . . in sum, everyone offensive to the bourgeois sense of propriety.

2) Reject the National Alliance vanguardist approach.

3) Engage in modern democratic nationalism. Imitate the Ron Paul movement.

4) Reject Judeo-obsessivism.

5) Create a “European-American Political Action Committee.” Draw up an electable platform. Have EUPAC select and endorse Republican and Democratic candidates.

6) Target state senate seats.

Five years ago, I would have found Kemp’s argument a lot more plausible than I do now. I’m not convinced the White Nationalist movement is marginalized because it is infested with kooks and fringe characters. If all of the above types were expunged from the White Wing, which is not really possible in a liberal democracy, I doubt that our media image would change. The BNP’s treatment by the British media is proof of that. Our enemies will continue to smear us regardless of whether or not we wear costumes.

Kemp’s caricature of White Nationalism is twenty years out of date. The typical White Nationalist isn’t an uneducated, hate mongering, tobacco chewing Christian Identity redneck. Even our professional monitors like Leonard Zeskind and Carol Swain are willing to grant that much. White Nationalists are usually middle class, college educated, white male professionals who have joined the movement out of concern about third world immigration, multiculturalism, or affirmative action.

The debate between the “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists” has been going on since the 1980s in the United States. There is nothing original about any of Kemp’s observations. I’ve seen it all before over the years. David Duke famously took off the Klan robes and got involved in Louisiana state politics. He was running for president when I was eight years old. If there is anything to be said for the “mainstreamer” approach, it is that there wasn’t nearly enough follow up in the wake of the Duke campaigns.

White Nationalists targeting state representative and state senate seats is only plausible in the Deep South states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana) where white racial consciousness is still relatively strong. I’m not opposed to this. Building a base is a good idea. Unfortunately, no one except Jim Giles is doing it. I’ve complained before that there is no national organization on the ground trying to recruit explicit whites into White Nationalism.

As a radical political movement, I also think our time and money is better spent trying to change the culture than engaging in expensive, fruitless political campaigns. The mainstream right dominated the US from Nixon to Obama, but you would never know this from the state of our culture. If we can change the culture, political victories will naturally follow. Political victories that don’t capstone deeper cultural triumphs will only prove temporary.

Can America be saved? Possibly . . . but I remain unconvinced that plunging into mainstream democratic politics is the way forward.

From “Can America Be Saved?” II, Occidental Dissent, November 9, 2009:

The anti-Semite David Duke was the most successful racialist political candidate of the last twenty years. He was an elected member of the Louisiana House of Representatives for several years. He ran unsuccessfully for the Louisiana Senate, Governor of Louisiana, US Senator from Louisiana, US House of Representatives, and President of the United States. He won the majority of the White vote in two of his campaigns from Governor and US Senator. In Alabama, Larry Darby (a race-mixing, atheist, Holocaust denier) won 43% of the vote in the 2006 Democratic primary for Alabama Attorney General.

The only region of the country where racialists have any chance of political success is the Deep South (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana) where White racial attitudes are still relatively strong. I grew up in Alabama in the heart of the Bible Belt. From anecdotal experience, I know the statistics are misleading. People around here (in particular, the young) aren’t nearly as religious as the polls suggest they are. They don’t care nearly as much about the Jews as the philo-Semites suggest they do.

The anti-Semite John Rankin from Mississippi served 16 consecutive terms in US House of Representatives. He caused Rep. M. Michael Edelstein (D-NY) to die of a heart attack on the House floor. Theodore Bilbo was Governor of Mississippi and served two terms as US Senator from Mississippi. Anti-Semites can and have won races in the Deep South. The problem is not anti-Semitism. It is that there are no racialist candidates bothering to run.

Communists and White Nationalists

The communist position on race (in the 1910s and 1920s) was adopted by mainstream liberals (1930s and 1940s) and conservatives (1950s and 1960s). Glenda Gilmore documents this transition of radical anti-racist rhetoric from the communist fringe to the mainstream in Defying Dixie: The Radical Roots of Civil Rights, 1919-1950. The communists didn’t have to “move forward” because the mainstream left hijacked their issues.

. . . William F. Buckley . . . watered down the right out of political pragmatism and excluded some of its best minds like Revilo P. Oliver. Instead of fighting the culture war, mainstream conservatives focused on winning elections. The result: fifty years later the right has been routed by the left on every cultural issue. The last Republican presidential nominee was John McCain, a multiculturalist, anti-racist, open borders advocate. If that is winning, what do you call losing?

If White Nationalism ever hopes to enter the mainstream, we must pull the national political conversation our way (like the communist vanguard), not the other way around (like the conservative movement). This means the mainstream right has to become more like us, not us more like them.

Conclusion

Kemp is wrong about the “cancer” he describes. The kooks and fringe characters that he laments were the White Nationalist mainstream in the 1980’s. In the 1990’s and 2000’s, they were marginalized within the movement by a new breed of racialist. Carol Swain and Leonard Zeskind, hardly fans of ours, have documented this in The New White Nationalism in America (2002) and Blood and Politics (2009). The typical White Nationalist is a middle class, college educated white male professional who is unaffiliated with any racialist organization.

White Nationalists are attacked for who we are and what we represent, not for our previous associations. Unlike the conservatives, we represent a potent threat to the liberal mainstream. You can’t be “pro-White” and “respectable” in the eyes of our anti-racist elite. The philo-Semites resent having to make that choice and scapegoat the racialist fringe (the Neo-Nazis, Klan, Christian Identity, skinheads) for their loss of status. In doing so, they exaggerate the influence of the fringe out of all proportion to their actual numbers.

Put me firmly in the Buchanan camp. This one is a no brainer. I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican primaries, but his campaign was an electoral fiasco. Although he raised millions of dollars over the internet, Paul didn’t win a single state. In contrast, Mike Huckabee won Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, West Virginia, and Kansas. If Fred Thompson wasn’t in the race, Huckabee would have won South Carolina. He got 41% of the vote in Virginia, 38% in Texas, 12.5% in Mississippi, 12.1% in North Carolina, 8.25% in Kentucky.

Huckabee’s paltry showing in the last five Southern states wasn’t representative of his actual support. McCain had already been crowned by the media as the inevitable nominee after his wins in South Carolina and Florida and his Super Tuesday victories in the North. If Huckabee had won in South Carolina, which he lost only because of Thompson, he would have had the momentum to rout McCain in the other Southern states where he was the favorite.

Huckster presented himself as the “values candidate.” He was the “cultural conservative” in the race. McCain was the hawkish, “tough on defense,” 9/11 conservative. Romney was the fiscal conservative businessman. Guiliani was the social liberal. Fred Thompson aspired to be the Southern candidate. Tancredo and Hunter divided the “seal the borders” constituency. Ron Paul was the anti-state, bring home the troops, “End the Fed” libertarian ideologue.

The only reason Ron Paul succeeded to the extent that he did is because he was the candidate of a broader populist coalition that swelled his support beyond his traditional libertarian base. Paleocons and White Nationalists (myself included) overwhelmingly supported his candidacy. Unfortunately, Paul was never able to gain traction on the issues that would have propelled his candidacy to victory. He spent far more time talking about monetary policy than immigration, identity, or abortion.

I still vividly remember the Huckabee campaign in Alabama. Huckster’s message was simple: “I am one of you. These other guys are not.” It was pure identity politics. It was over-the-top “implicit whiteness.” He played “Sweet Home Alabama” on his guitar and spoke with a Southern accent. He had BBQ and sweet tea at his events (almost exclusively crowds of White people). He exuded a friendly, small town, down home, soft spoken aura. Huckster vowed to fight the culture war on abortion and other issues. He even signed the Jeff Sessions/NumbersUSA immigration pledge before campaigning in the South. I was highly tempted to vote for him after that.

Ron Paul raised $34.5 million dollars. Huckabee only raised $16.1 million. Yet Mike Huckabee handily stomped Ron Paul in every Southern state. What’s even more telling is that Huckster, not McCain, was the Southern favorite. If White Southerners are all ”Red State Fascists,” as Lew Rockwell claims, why were they so reticent about backing the McCain campaign? Even after Super Tuesday, Huck made a respectable showing in Virginia and Texas.

Huckabee was tarred and feathered as the “big government” candidate on FreeRepublic.com and other conservative websites for his deviations on trade policy. The pro-business GOP establishment relentlessly mocked him. They wanted a Romney vs. McCain primary. Huckster’s supporters were irate at the time and vowed not to support McCain in the general election. I suspect this played no small role in McCain going down in flames in Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina where White evangelicals are a significant portion of voters.

The 2008 Republican primaries clearly show that White Southerners care more about fighting the culture war at home than foreign policy or the relative size of government. Ron Paul’s anti-state rhetoric has far more appeal in the small Mountain West states like Montana and Wyoming than it does here. The majority of Whites dislike affirmative action. It is a winning issue in Blue States like California, Michigan, and Washington. Enforcing immigration laws is highly popular nationally. Most Alabamians prefer to deport all illegal aliens.

Where is the constituency for abolishing the Federal Reserve? Americans haven’t been highly motivated about monetary policy since the “Cross of Gold” days when the Populists fought against the gold standard. Cultural issues are passé for the GOP establishment, but not for the typical Republican voter, especially White Southerners. It is only media mavens who claim the culture wars are over. Gay marriage was defeated in Maine — that’s right, Maine — just the other day.

The Alternative Right would be foolish to swallow Ron Paul’s libertarian kool aid. It was a disaster in 2008. Paul significantly underperformed winning issues — bringing the troops home, ending abortion, enforcing immigration laws, abolishing affirmative action. He talked endlessly about libertarian abstractions — and lost. In contrast, winners like Huckabee and Obama appealed to the identities of their voters.

Obama was the black candidate to blacks, the non-White candidate to Hispanics and Asians, the post-Christian, interfaith candidate to Jews, and the postracial SWPL candidate to White liberals. He built a winning coalition out of cult-like following and identity politics. A successful Alternative Right candidate will have to mobilize the “implicit whiteness” of MARs voters. Ron Paul wasn’t able to do this. Mike Huckabee had a lot more success.

There is nothing wrong with the Pat Buchanan approach. He just had the misfortune of running twenty years too early when the damage done to America by free trade, imperialism, and third world immigration was still theoretical.

Kdo by měl vládnout?

Každý den, když si prohlížím internetové zpravodajství a diskusní servery, vidím, že otázka, jak by se měla rekrutovat skutečná vládnoucí elita, je ostrým bodem sváru mezi politickými komentátory. Až dosud jsem neměl osobně k problematice příliš co říci. Nechci ostatním vnucovat svůj názor. Být politikem by nevyhovovalo mé spíše introvertní povaze, je to úkol, který radši přenechám jiným. Bude lepší se tedy skutečně podívat na podstatu věci, než pokračovat v kypění debat bez znalosti patřičných souvislostí.

Zastánci Nietzscheho

Jak zde jistě každý bude vědět, zastánci a příznivci filosofa Friedricha Nietzscheho jsou jeho zanícenými obdivovateli a poněkud nezvykle interpretují teorie svého vzoru. Věří v kastovní systém kněží, válečníků a rolníků (dělníků), sami sebe jako součást úzké skupinky vyvolených, kteří by tvořili vládnoucí elity ve vysněném etnicky homogenním státě. Každý z nich věří, že každý člověk má svou niternou podstatu, panskou nebo otrockou, dominantní, či submisivní a od tohoto základu odvozují morální systém, korespondující s prvotním rozdělením lidí na silné a slabé. Tak jako Nietzsche hlásal „panskou morálku“, jeho zastánci chtějí o tom, kdo bude vládnout, rozhodovat „vyšší typ člověka“ a skoncovat s liberální demokracií.

Zastánci Thomase Jeffersona

Ve Spojených státech představují tito lidé nejpočetnější část konzervativních a národních kruhů. Z jejich pohledu je nejlepší vláda ta, která má nejmenší moc. Na americkém systému nespatřují apriorně nic špatného. Věří ve stát a lokální vládu a instinktivně oponují shromažďování moci ve Washingtonu. Jeffersonovi zastánci by rádi přičetli úpadek porodnosti a civilizační pokles korumpujícími tlaku vnějších sil, jmenovitě Židů (či Izraeli) a argumentují, že rozumná rasová politika (založená na odmítnutí imigrace, pozn. překl.) by například mohla po odstranění této rakoviny vyvést Ameriku ze společenských potíží. V jeffersoniánském systému by byla vládnoucí elita delegována lokálními volby a hromaděním národního bohatství.

Zastánci Alexandra Hamiltona

Podobně jako zastánci Jeffersona, tak i zastánci pojetí AlexanderaHamiltona stále věří v republikánskou (samo)vládu, ale na rozdíl od prvně jmenovaných preferují silný, centralizovaný stát, oslabující lidský individualismus. Namísto volného obchodu, požadují „America First“, tedy víceméně soběstačnou obchodní politiku. Zastánci Hamiltona podporují silný veřejný sektor a regulovaný trh s cílem zabezpečit rovnocennou distribuci bohatství. Věří, že ústavní reformy mohou zbrzdit, nebo zastavit kulturní a etnický úpadek západní civilizace. Vládnoucí elitu by formovaly volby a akumulace bohatství v soukromé sféře.

Libertariáni

Libertariáni jsou podmnožinou zastánců Jeffersona, kteří věří v minimální stát. Tvrdí, že jediná funkce státu, která by měla příslušet státu, je ochrana práv jednotlivce: čili policie, armáda a soudy. Libertariáni odmítají veškeré pokrokářství devatenáctého století ve jménu individuální svobody. V ideálním libertariánském státě by se vládnoucí elita legitimizovala skrze participaci na tržní ekonomice a jako vládnoucí moc by byla omezena striktní Ústavou.

Fašisté

Fašisté (zahrnující nacionální socialisty a další různorodé odrůdy fašismu) požadují autoritativní stát v čele s mocným vůdcem s pokud možno absolutní mocí. Rádi by se zřekli liberální demokracie a nahradili ji vládou hierarchizované, režimu věrné byrokracie. Tato koncentrace moci a síly by byla užita ke zbavení se pro fašistický stát nežádoucích elementů (různých politických odpůrců, etnických skupin – Židů, atp.). Vládnoucí stav by se delegoval z vládnoucí strany, jejíž představitelé by zároveň tvořili lídry establishementu.

Platonisté

Nemohu najít lepšího slova, ale „Platonisté“ jsou v zásadě ti, kdo obhajují pravidla, stanovená Vládcem. Vládci budou vybírání na základě svého chování a morální hodnoty.

Konzervativní nacionalisté

Konzervativní nacionalisté věří v silnou, obrozenou vládu Christianitas. V podstatě to znamená, že požadují stát, postavený na hodnotách Evangelia. Někteří konzervativní nacionalisté preferují republiku, jiní monarchii, někteří teokratickou diktaturu. Ve všech případech je vládnoucí vrstva úzce spjata se zbožností.

Monarchisté

Požadují vládu krále a dědičné aristokracie. Vládnoucí vrstva je odvozena z královské krve.

Anarchisté

Chtějí zcela odstranit jakoukoli vládu. V jimi navrhovaném stavu není žádná vláda, politika neexistuje a stejně tak žádný mechanismus pro selekci elit. V beztřídní společnosti jsou si všichni teoreticky rovni.

Kde stojím já?

Po tomto výčtu nezbývá než zformulovat vlastní odpověď na vytyčenou otázku.
Politicky někde mezi Hamiltoniány a Platonisty. Domnívám se, že vláda může být dobrým silovým prostředkem v situaci, kdy potřebujeme mít silný stát k odvrácení invaze masového přistěhovalectví. Republikánský systém je osvědčený model pro zajištění kontinuity a mírovou výměnu moci. Myslím, že bychom nebyli moudří, kdybychom se těchto jistot vzdávali ve jménu některých vratkých idejí, vyjmenovaných výše.

Nejhorší aspekty republikanismu však spočívají v obchodovatelnosti s ústavními principy. Osobně například nevěřím v rovnost volebního práva. V mé osobní, hypotetické, ideální republice, by bylo případnému rozšíření volebního práva vyhověno jen za určitých podmínek. Volič by musel být inteligentní, kompetentní a mít určité morální minimum, postačující k tomu, aby využil privilegia generovat svou volbou vládnoucí elitu. Také vládnoucí vrstva by měla více moci než „lid“.

Z morálního (nikoli tedy politického) hlediska mě v těchto otázkách ovlivnil Alasdair MacIntyre. Stejně jako on, i já věřím, že morálka má smysl vždy pouze v určitém kontextu etablovaných tradic. Na světě máme celou řadu morálních řádů, každý z nich má vlastní historii, každý z nich vzešel z odlišných předpokladů a odlišných počátků. Je nemožné snažit se najít společný jmenovatel ideální vlády mezi nesouměřitelnými tradicemi a sdílenými morálkami jednotlivých společností.

Myslím, že současný stav západní morálky se stal obětí katastrofy, popsané MacIntyrem v předmluvě knihy „After Virtue“: ovládáme pouze malé části našeho koherentního morálního systému, termíny, které ztratily svůj kontext, když se jednou stali hodnověrnými a že racionálně uvažující jedinci jsou odkloněni do nihilismu tímto zmatkem. Nejsou zde žádné univerzální, objektivně platné morální principy analogické zákonům vědy. Namísto toho se morální filosofie stala praktickou vědou a popřela tak své poslání, o kterém hovořil Aristoteles: je to návod k tomu, jak realizovat daný ideál dobra. Jinými slovy, věřím tomu, že morálka (na jakémkoli stupni a v jakékoli společnosti), je redukovatelná na dobro. To je ale pro jinou diskusi.

To byly mé odpovědi. A jaké jsou vaše?

Who should rule?

Logging on this morning, I see that this has once again become a burning issue among the commentators. So far, I haven’t had much to say about the topic. I don’t aspire to rule over anyone. Becoming a politician isn’t a good fit with my introverted personality type. It is a task that I would prefer to leave to others. We have already had one commentator storm off the site because of a controversial turn in this discussion. It is better to discuss the matter now (in its own definitive blog entry) than to have it continue to spill over into unrelated threads.

Nietzscheans

As everyone here knows by now, NeoNietzsche is a passionate admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and subscribes to a peculiar interpretation of his theories. He believes in a caste system (warrior, cleric, peasant) and sees himself as part of the elect few who should rule in a White Nationalist ethnostate. Following Nietzsche, NN believes everyone has an essential orientation, master or slave, dominant or submissive, and that different moral systems correspond to this primordial mammalian division. As an advocate of “master morality,” he would abolish liberal democracy and confer elite status upon the “higher types” who are naturally born to rule.

Jeffersonians

In the United States, Jeffersonians are the most numerous in White Nationalist circles. In their view, the best type of government is the one that governs least. These people don’t see anything essentially wrong with the American system. They believe in state and local government and instinctively oppose the consolidation of power in Washington. Jeffersonians like to attribute our racial decline to the corrupting influence of outside forces, namely the Jews, and argue that racial sanity would quickly return to America after the excise of this cancer. Under the Jeffersonian system, elite status would be conferred through local elections and the private accumulation of wealth in a capitalist economy.

Hamiltonians

Like the Jeffersonians, the Hamiltonians still believe in republican self government, but prefer a strong, centralized state to a weak one. Instead of free trade, they want an America First trade policy. Hamiltonians support a strong public sector and a regulated market economy to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. They believe a few constitutional reforms will be sufficient to reverse our racial decline. In their ideal White ethnostate, elite status would also be conferred through elections and wealth accumulation in the private sphere.

Libertarians

The libertarians are a subset of the Jeffersonians who believe in a minimal state. They believe the only function of the state is to protect individual rights: military, police, courts. The libertarians would scrap the entire ediface of twentieth century progressive reforms in the name of liberty. In a libertarian White ethnostate, elite status would be conferred through participation in the market economy, as government would be hamstrung by a strict constitution.

Fascists

The fascists (this includes National Socialists and related species of fascism) want an authoritarian state headed by a dynamic leader with near absolute power. They would dispense with liberal democracy entirely and replace it with a racialized bureaucracy. This concentration of power would be used to rid the fascist ethnostate of Jews and other undesirable elements. Elite status would be conferred through rising in the party and pleasing its established leaders.

Platonists

For lack of a better word, the “Platonists” are White Nationalists who advocate rule by a Guardian caste or order. These Guardians would be chosen through breeding and merit. Exemplary Whites imbued with an unusual dedication to their race would enjoy rights and privileges that other citizens would not.

Christian Nationalists

The Christian Nationalists believe a strong, rejuvenated Christianity is a necessary component of a White ethnostate. In essence, they want an ethnostate based on Christian moral values. Some Christian Nationalists want a republic; some a monarchy; some a theocratic dictatorship. In all cases, elite status would be strongly connected to religious piety.

Monarchists

The monarchists want a king and hereditary aristocracy. Elite status would be conferred through the possession of royal blood.

Anarchists

The anarchists want to dispense with government entirely. In their proposed ethnostate, as there would be no government, politics would not exist and there would be no mechanism for selecting elites. In theory, everyone would be equal in this classless society.

Where I Stand

So, after all this, what is my answer to this question?

Politically, I stand between the Hamiltonians and Platonists. I think that government can be a force for good and that White Nationalists will need a strong central state to repel invasions by our multitude of enemies. The republican system is a proven model for ensuring continuity and the peaceful transfer of power. I think we would be unwise to dispense with it in pursuit of some of the more outré, untested ideas discussed above.

The worst aspects of republicanism can be dealt with through constitutional reforms. For one, I don’t believe in universal voting rights. In my ideal republic, the franchise would only be extended after certain conditions are met. Voters would be required to demonstrate they are intelligent, competent, and moral enough to enjoy the privilege of selecting our leaders. I also believe that the Guardian caste should have more sway than the average citizen. A real electoral college could be set up in which the Guardians could exercise a veto over bad popular selections.

Morally, Alasdair MacIntyre has been the major influence on my views. Like MacIntyre, I believe that morality is only logical within the context of established traditions. There are a number of moral traditions out there, each of them with their own history, each of them having different premisses as their starting point. It is impossible to properly reason across these incommensurate traditions.

I believe our moral discourse has been the victim of the catastrophe described by MacIntyre in the Preface of After Virtue: we only possess fragments of a coherent moral framework, terms which have lost the context which once made them plausible, and that rational people are diverted into nihilism by this disarray. There are no universal, objective moral principles analogous to the laws of science. Instead, moral philosophy is a practical science like Aristotle always claimed it was: it is a how-to guide for actualizing some given ideal. In other words, I believe that morality (at some level) is reducible to aesthetics. That’s a topic for another day.

These are only my answers. What are yours?

From Occidental Dissent, October 20, 2009

I’ve had mixed feelings about cryptos over the years. The most obvious objection to crypsis is the moral one: it is dishonorable to live a lie, to censor yourself and pretend to be something you are not, to give lip service to a cause you don’t believe in. The second objection is strategic: we can’t defeat our enemies by taking potshots at them from the shadows; we must assemble an army and confront them on the ideological field of battle. These are very powerful arguments and I have found them persuasive enough to openly fly the flag of White Nationalism at Occidental Dissent. There is no hint of moderation here.

On the other hand, crypsis is not without its merits. First, powerful states and individuals have made abundant use of spies and saboteurs throughout history. Our enemies have never blushed at using crypsis to advance Jewish interests at our expense. The mainstream right was hijacked and perverted by a handful of neocons who cloaked their revolutionary agenda in patriotic rhetoric. Second, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to have the same level of commitment to our cause. The cryptos will always be with us and it is better to make productive use of them than to alienate them.

Personally, I find both sides of this argument compelling. I think the vast majority of us should focus on carving out a space in American political discourse for White Nationalism. This is essentially what we are trying to do here. A minority of cryptos though could prove very useful in advancing our efforts. The most obvious way to help out is through donating to worthy causes. It is much easier to make a living in the mainstream than out on the fringe. We could also use some publicity. Most explicit whites have never heard of White Nationalism because of the media blackout.

The Venn diagram posted above can be used to illustrate the areas in which White Nationalism (center), paleoconservatism (left), and libertarianism (right) intersect and overlap. The cryptos in these two movements can help us by emphasizing the points we have in common. For example, the WNs, paleos, and libertarians share a common hostility to the American federal government; WNs and libertarians are opposed to anti-discrimination laws; WNs and paleos are opposed to third world immigration and cultural degeneracy.

A libertarian crypto could write a useful article about the anti-state tendencies within White Nationalism. A paleo crypto could do a piece on the steadfast opposition of White Nationalists to culturally destructive third world immigration. Similarly, White Nationalists can write about the aspects of paleoconservatism and libertarianism that we admire, but list our objections. We need to create an “interlocking chain” of cryptos from the mainstream to the fringe. In my previous post, I likened it to the conductors of the Underground Railroad in Antebellum times who funneled fugitive slaves to Canada.

That about wraps up my commentary on our little meeting. I’ve said just about everything that was on my mind. Over the next week, I will get back to the mundane task of writing about current events and related issues.

From Occidental Dissent, October 18, 2009

I’m not suggesting we create yet another White Nationalist forum. That’s about the last thing we need right now. Stormfront has already filled this niche and any similar project would only attract its rejects. Rather, we need a website that caters exclusively to intelligent, alienated, introspective college students who come online to discuss current events, politics, philosophy, history, race and topics of that nature. It would provide fertile soil for recruiting fresh blood into the movement. The best prospects could be identified and funneled upward as they mature into a higher tier of sites and networks, for instance, the racialist version of Lew Rockwell.com that we are aiming at creating here.

In a previous blog entry, I proposed building up a strong presence on Southern college campuses where White racial attitudes are still relatively strong. A crypto forum would prove a useful tool in identifying sympathizers on college campuses all across America. We could put bright, isolated people in touch with each other and seed academia with pro-White youth groups. When I was a younger man, I reached thousands of people this way, but I had a cavalier, nonchalant attitude and it never occurred to me to put this medium to any productive use. White Nationalism needs a tentacle of this sort to reach directly into the frat house and dorm room.

I’m too old to launch a project of this nature. I’ve outgrown that stage of my ideological development. Like Robert Campbell, I have already had my fill of these discussions, but I was reminded this past weekend that the rising generation below me hasn’t. These people are still going through that phase when they question authority. It is the ideal age to reach them. My younger brother and his friends have borrowed all of my old Nietzsche and Heidegger books. They would eat up an outlet of this sort if it were available.

A few points:

1) A “free speech” forum will degenerate into a circus. If any fool can register an account, the bad will chase out the good. I’ve seen it happen a million times before. In order for a project like this to work, it would require rigorous moderation to maintain a high level of discourse, like the filter in a swimming pool. The participants should be screened for intelligence and education, not ideological orientation. In this context, a smart anarchist is more interesting and useful to us than a dumb racialist.

2) The owners should be a consortium of older, more established figures in the movement. I have in mind men like Yggdrasil. These people could hand select the administrators and dispense with them as the occasion demands. This would forestall a situation in which a rogue administrator, who gets into a position of power by virtue of being a “friend” of someone important, is able to get away with wrecking an entire site.

3) A full time webmaster is indispensible. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to pay a clerk a small sum to take regular database backups and update the software. A friend of mine made the remark a few days ago that the NSDAP flopped as an organization until it hired its first full time secretary.

4) Such a website could be done for peanuts in comparison to the return it would earn. A vBulletin license and BlueHost hosting account is all it would take. You would also need 50 to 100 prescreened volunteers to get started and build momentum.

5) There is nothing resembling competition in the market. The closest sites don’t have the standards to attract and retain such an audience.

I have no interest in doing this. I’m fully committed to building up our presence in the blogosphere, or as I like to call it, the “second tier.” This would have to be someone else’s baby. I do need someone though working along these lines in the “first tier” below me. Combined, this “two tier strategy” could have a powerful impact.

In Cryptos (II), I will get around to addressing how moles could be used to funnel people into White Nationalism by stressing points of interest we have in common with other ideologies. I’ve had some second thoughts about these conductors of the pro-White Underground Railroad.

Note: I hope this post of mine proves eeevvvill enough to get special mention in the SPLC Intelligence Report or Jessie Daniels’ Cyber Racism.

From Occidental Dissent, October 17, 2009

For full visual effect, the Guardian has Terre’Blanche standing in front of the Boer swastika, which has been designated a “hate symbol” by the ADL. It was undoubtedly included to trigger the desired Pavlovian response: this man is a Nazi, the epitome of evil, dismiss everything he has to say. A similar picture of Nelson Mandela and Joe Slovo standing in front of the USSR’s hammer and sickle would have been given an entirely different treatment.

It would have been explained away as “resistance to oppression,” “solidarity with the working masses,” or some crap along those lines. The terrorist Nelson Mandela has his own statue in Parliament Square. He is one of the most revered figures in multicultural Britain. I shouldn’t have to explain the double standard: by definition, as oppressors of “people of color,” White Calvinists cannot be freedom fighters or a beleaguered minority worthy of our sympathy.

Terre’Blanche’s proposal really sticks it in the liberal craw: he has disavowed the use of violence, plans to petition the United Nations, and wants to organize a referendum on secession. In some ways, this is not unlike what the NAACP was doing in the 1940s.

Unfortunately, Terre’Blanche and the plight of the Afrikaners will continue to fall on deaf ears in the liberal West. No amount of rape, murder, theft and discrimination can make up for the crime of being born White in a non-White country.

From Occidental Dissent, October 4, 2009

I wish I could distill the essence of our attitude towards the Jews into a few choice paragraphs. If I was forced to try, I would describe the Jews as being like a “huge anchor” in American life. They overwhelmingly congregate on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Jews are massively overrepresented in culturally sensitive areas like the news media, entertainment media, the social sciences and liberal arts departments in our universities. The sheer weight of their numbers in these sectors, combined with their enormous wealth, intelligence, and ethnic networking, allows the Jews to distort our culture and pull our political system in an anti-racist direction.

Here’s another way of putting it: suppose you are having a pool party and 2% of your guests habitually urinate in the pool, changing the mood of the event. That is essentially what the Jews are doing to our racial and cultural discourse in America. They can always be found injecting poisonous memes into our national dialogue on these issues; memes which trickle down from our media and academic elite, and become almost universal over the course of a few generations. These degenerate ideas rot and weaken our social fabric.

A final analogy can be drawn to trying to run on a treadmill while wearing a 70 lb. backpack. The most objectionable aspect of Jewish influence is the fact that they openly and actively try to thwart our efforts to reverse our racial dispossession. Jews fund anti-White disciplinary organizations like the SPLC with millions of dollars. They use their media influence to portray White Nationalism in the most demonic, unfavorable light possible. They manipulate the status system to associate our movement with low status and immorality and its anti-racist counterpart with high social status and righteousness. They use cultural rabies (or political correctness) to control what passes for legitimate political discourse. If that were not enough, Jews harass our employers and pressure our friends and colleagues into engaging in ritual shaming. The cumulative weight of this oppression has kept White Nationalism bottled up on the fringe.

Quite naturally, White Nationalists want to cut loose that “huge anchor” pulling America in an anti-racist direction, eject the people who are “urinating” in our discursive pool, and cast off the “70 lb. backpack” holding down our movement. As Spock would say, it is only logical. I emphasize: this is not to say the Jews should be rounded up in concentration camps and exterminated. Rather, we believe they should seek refuge elsewhere, maybe in Israel where they already have a state of their own.

If the Jews were to disappear tomorrow, I am not naive enough to believe that all of America’s problems would be solved overnight. I’ve clearly said otherwise on multiple occasions. However, I will argue that White America would be indisputably much better off than it is now. I believe our racial immune system would kick into action and we could begin to recover. I don’t see that happening so long as Jews continue to enjoy their present level of wealth, power, and status in the United States.

I don’t expect anyone so new to the White Nationalist movement to grasp this. I struggled with the Jewish Question for a long time. Nothing in my background prepared me for what I discovered. It was the cumulative weight of the “ooh” and “ah” moments over the years (reading a book, watching a movie, interacting with them) that changed my mind on the issue. Once I was familar with the theory (that Jews are a negative influence on racialism and traditional mores), I began to see multiple confirmations and the emergence of patterns.

The dots are not hard to connect. In the Gentile nations, Jews seem to push the radical envelope everywhere they go, whether it be America, Russia, Poland, Germany or South Africa. At home, Jews build a huge wall to keep out all the immigrants they push on the West. Let them carry the banner of anti-racism and multiculturalism in their own environs, I say.

From Occidental Dissent, September 30, 2009

There are numerous interesting parallels. Like White Nationalists, the Fire Eaters spent decades in the political wilderness as a cornered minority. They were dismissed as “extremists,” “hotheads,” “ultras,” and “radicals” by their mainstream contemporaries. They chafed under the rule of conservatives whom they believed sacrificed Southern rights and honor. The Fire Eaters subscribed to a version of the ‘worse is better’ theory and worked to ensure the election of Abraham Lincoln and the defeat of Stephen Douglas. They were convinced that the Union was unsalvageable and only a minority of White Southerners were could be replied upon.

The Fire Eater strategy is of particular relevance to White Nationalism. It tackled an important question: how are the passive, fundamentally conservative masses to be awakened from their slumber? The Fire Eaters invested their hopes in separate state action by a handful of the most radical states. In the context of a national outrage, this would force the moderates into choosing between resistance or submission and allow the radicals to carry the day. The federal government would overplay its hand and the ensuing backlash would lead to a further wave of secession.

Their answer to this problem is worth considering in our times. Will anything short of troops in the streets and boots on the neck suffice to get the job done? In 2009, I seriously doubt even that would galvanize timid suburbanites, but much could change in decades to come. South Carolina wasn’t ready to leave the Union in 1833 over the “Tariff of Abominations.” The principle of secession triumphed in the South long before it was acted upon. The idea that Whites have legitimate interests must be established before a White ethnostate is given a serious hearing.

By 1860, the perpetuation of the Union had become a question mark. It was no longer taken for granted by all parties. A radical milieu had been advocating secession for almost thirty years. Fringe ideas had penetrated the mainstream national conversation. There is profit to be made in studying these precursors of ours.

Occidental Dissent, September 29, 2009

Here is my take on the points raised:

1) In order to swim in mainstream politics, you have to acknowledge a number of unwritten ‘ground rules’ that collectively constitute what it is referred to as ‘respectability’. These rules are set by our political and cultural establishment. Like Jim Crow social etiquette, Cultural Marxism is designed to preserve the power of our ruling class by controlling the boundaries of legitimate political discourse.

Foremost amongst these rules is the notion that whites aren’t to be allowed a positive racial identity or any sense of collective group interest. We are supposed to think of ourselves purely as atomized individuals. The only racial identity we are allowed (which can be expressed in public) is a negative one in which we must perpetually atone for the sins of our ancestors.

Hence, the MSM’s [mainstream media's] extremely negative reaction to the ‘implicit whiteness’ of the Tea Parties. The rednecks are going off script again. They’re getting uppity. The wrong sort of people are getting notions. A huge mob of ordinary white people aren’t kowtowing before the NYC Jews and showing them the customary deference.

2) Alex Linder once made a memorable point: you can either be radical or respectable. In our political culture, there isn’t a third option. Personally, I care nothing for ‘respectability’ as it is defined by our elites. In taking an explicitly pro-white stance, I have condemned myself to the political fringe.

I’m happy with the choice. No serious threat to the status quo will ever arise within the “synagogue of political correctness.” The gelded court conservatives who fret endlessly at the prospect of being expelled from the congregation are only fooling themselves that they can accomplish anything on the terms of the enemy. They are a controlled opposition. In participating in this anti-white system, they are giving it legitimacy and postponing the day when a serious revolutionary movement can rise to challenge the status quo.

Now, it is undoubtedly true that the fringe is a kook rich environment. Over the years, I’ve encountered every version of kook and conspiracy theory imaginable. In their defense, I will at least say this about them: at least kooks are colorful, bright and interesting, although deluded, they are usually entertaining. I would rather watch two kooks argue with each other any day than your typical banal GOP sellout vs. Democratic hack.

I’ve lost all interest in mainstream political discourse. Although I have tried many times, I can’t bring myself to read the mainstream conservative press, listen to conservative talk radio, or watch the conservatives on FOX News. Someone would have to pay me to do so.

They’re boring. I would much rather do something else. I can’t imagine being locked in a room with Mitt Romney for two hours. What an excruciating form of punishment that would be.

3) The fiscal conservatism which unites the disparate conservative coalition will never amount to anything. It is quite clear that the business interests which contribute huge sums to the GOP call the shots. They are solidly behind ‘comprehensive immigration reform’. If the GOP truly wanted to reduce the size of government, it would have done so when it controlled most of the state legislatures and all three branches of government.

Changing racial demographics will ensure a solid Democratic majority in the future. People like Frank Rich know this and crow about it. At some point, Obamacare will be passed, if not now then in a future Democratic administration. Unfortunately, the same is true of ‘comprehensive immigration reform’. There are still more radical bills yet to be written and signed into law. The end game we are headed to is a vast racial extortion racket in which whites are taxed to subsidize non-Whites. Obamacare is only the first sweet taste of this bitter cup.

When I look at the 9/12 protesters, I also see a lot of confused and alienated people, most of whom have yet to find their voice. Perhaps for the first time in their lives, they are starting to think of themselves as ‘outsiders’. Many now have a vague, unarticulated feeling that they are ‘losing their country’. They are outraged at being pushed outside the boundaries of ‘respectability’ by the MSM. As of right now, they are an opposition that dares not to speak its name.

This transition from feeling like an ‘insider’ to an ‘outsider’ is the first stage of radicalization. All of us in the White Wing have gone through it. Hitherto, ordinary Whites haven’t felt like ‘outsiders’ living under an alien regime, which is one of the fundamental reasons that White Nationalism hasn’t gone anywhere. If this process is allowed to continue, it bodes well for us; a sense of group consciousness could begin to gestate.

Which brings me to my next point.

4) In the short term, expect the Tea Partiers to do what they always do: in 2010, prostitute their votes to the system candidate with an (R) beside his name, undoubtedly at the urging of the loudmouths on conservative talk radio. Barring some major transformative event, this sort of kabuki theater will go on until national conservative politics finally becomes untenable due to changing racial demographics.

In our Byzantine political system, worse does seem better. We’ve finally settled that argument. I hope the (D)s trounce the (R)s. It seems to be the only way (R)s ever learn anything. Under (D) rule, the partisan (R)s feel like ‘outsiders’; (R)s radicalize when taunted as racists. Under (R) rule, the (R)s feel like ‘insiders’, loaf around in overconfidence, and disengage from politics. (D) rule is clearly better for White Nationalism. There is more radicalism in the air under Obama than Bush. We get more second looks.

5) I hope conservatism will continue its losing streak. I don’t want to see it win again. Racially speaking, we are always worse off when a conservative president leaves office. The rise of White Nationalism presupposes the death of conservatism. The most intelligent, forward thinking minds are always far ahead of the masses. Even now, the stark choice we are facing is submission or secession.

The Obama administration’s shtick about a “post-racial” presidency is mere public relations salve and pap for our weaker brethren. It is the product of a changing electoral calculus that will run against us in the long term. Underneath the surface, the sweet words of “Hope” and “Change” segues into millions of non-whites seething over their racial grievances.

Their real agenda is “Get the White Man.” As with Van Jones and Rev. Wright, it comes out in their more candid moments. This will become clear in the years ahead when Obama’s successors don’t have to cloak their anti-white program in the disguise of euphemisms like “Universal Healthcare” and “Green Jobs.” At that late date, legions of Uppity Whites will be the only force around to restrain the Minority-Majority. That’s what comes after conservatism.

From Occidental Dissent, September 24, 2009

Dr. Kevin MacDonald is a brilliant man whom I admire and whom I agree with on almost everything.  Dr. MacDonald states:

But what I take away from this is that the greatest danger to the cultural establishment is the existence of intelligent, well-written, well-documented, and fundamentally honest articles arguing for the importance of white identity and white interests.

Certainly, I am motivated to contribute such articles, to TOQ and to other forums, to assist in the process of promoting white interests.

I may agree with Prozium and Michael O’Meara considerably less than 100% of the time; however, I find no fault in their contributions to this series.  Prozium, who recently soundly thrashed Lee John Barnes [and here] of the British National Party and Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, writes:

I had a rare personality type (one that I suspect many intelligent racialists share) that inclined me to care far more about truth than social status.

I believe the same applies to my case.  For example, in a debate between, say, Jared Taylor and Peter March or Tim Wise, the “socially acceptable” position is to agree with March/Wise and mindlessly denounce Taylor as a “hater.”  But, which positions represents truth?  Represents logic?  Whose position in these debates, if followed through on, would lead to adaptive behavior for persons of European descent?  And whose positions would lead to maladaptive behaviors leading to the destruction of the West and its peoples?  Taylor speaks for truth and for adaptive behavior, thus it is Taylor, and not the establishment mouthpieces, who should hold our attention and support.

The usually insightful O’Meara submits:

At this hopefully not-too-distant point, when white Americans awake to their fate as a people in the grips of an ethnocidal regime, I expect TOQ to become the metapolitical organ NOT of a revitalized, racially conscious right, but of a revolutionary nationalism assertive of the white man’s unique identity. It is for this that I write.

The key point there is “revolutionary.”  I am not at all interested in any form of “conservatism” whether it is of the “traditional,” “paleo,” or, especially, “neo” varieties.  What I am interested in, politically, is palingenetic themes and an avant-garde and Futurist orientation.  If this sounds much like the textbook definition of “fascism” then, very well, I am a “fascist” in the true sense of the word — not in any way associated with the layman’s use of the word as some sort of pejorative against reactionary rightists who are, in no way, shape, or form, truly fascist.

Revolutionary, palingenetic, avant-garde, and Futurist politics — while of some importance in and of themselves — are, more fundamentally, the means to achieve certain ends.  What are those ends?  They are the preservation of our ultimate interests — the continuity and/or expansion of our unique genetic information (i.e., our genetic interests) — in the context of a sociopolitical system that will both ensure the long-term stability of those interests while providing the environment for Western man to express his true nature and reach for the stars.  To the stars should be our goal — literally as well as figuratively — instead of to the gutter which is to where we are presently descending in this era of globalist multiracialism and multiculturalism.

An important part of my work is promoting, defending, extending, and integrating the fundamentally important work of Dr. Frank Salter on genetic interests, particularly ethnic genetic interests.  Promoting is important since an unfortunate reality is that this work has been ignored by the people — including nationalist politicians and racialist activists — who need it the most.  The scant attention Salter’s work has heretofore received has been in inverse relation to its world-historical importance.  Defending the work is important because a mendacious group of individuals hostile to the ideals of TOQ have unfairly maligned Salter and his work; e.g., leftist “academics” (with “beautiful” mixed race relatives), Asian supremacists and their white puppets, etc.  Extension is important because I, and others, see Salter’s work as incomplete without the inclusion of genetic structure into the equation.  Finally, the work of Salter must be integrated into the philosophy of nationalism and ethnoracial identity.  Here is where the whole Empiricism (e.g., Guessedworker) vs. Myth (e.g., O’Meara and Prozium) debate went off the tracks.  This is a topic to be dealt with later; however, there is a misunderstanding perhaps between means and ends.

The ENDS in question are those described above, the preservation of European genotypes and the creation of environments where those genotypes, and the phenotypes resulting from those genotypes, can flourish.  The MEANS to achieve those ends can be flexible and dependent upon context.  For some individuals, rational empiricism will suffice.  For many (most?) others, some sort of overarching “myth”– some type of inspiring, not purely materialistic worldview — is required to motivate to engage in the battle to achieve the ends in question.  As long as a given type of “mean” does not harm the ultimate “ends” then whatever works is good.  One must be careful — very careful — to ensure that means do not conflict with ends; thorough analysis is necessary.  Any means, no matter how effective, that ultimately impair the achievement of the ends, are means that must be eschewed.  But as long as the means truly do help achieve the ends, does it matter whether these means are “myth” or empiricism?  It would be great if empirical rationalism could directly motivate; but the struggles to get people to digest the work of Salter suggests that the medicine of genetic interests must be sweetened with a healthy dose of “myth.”  These two perspectives need not be incompatible.

I also promote a form of pan-European nationalism which is wholly compatible with narrower focused interests in nation and/or subrace.  Here is where Barnes of the BNP is totally wrong.  Barnes completely misrepresents what “white nationalism” is about.  To him a Briton has the choice between either (1) being interested only in the British peoples without caring one whit about any other Europeans, or (2) being interested in all Europeans exactly equally and not caring if native Brits are replaced by Poles.  That is absolute stupidity; nothing prevents a British “white nationalist” from having as his primary allegiance his own national ethny, but also having a strong interest in the well being of the European peoples as a whole.  I certainly do not expect a BNP member to spend his time agonizing over ethnic competition between Russians and Chinamen in the Russian Far East; this activist has more pressing concerns in London, Liverpool, and Edinburgh.  On the other hand, why should this activist be completely indifferent about whether Slavs or Mongolids prevail on the Amur?  Why can’t a British activist invest his energies along a sliding scale of ethnoracial identity and genetic relatedness, with the most invested for his core ethny, but reserving a healthy portion for the greater race and civilization?  And can’t guys like Barnes understand that enlightened self-interest mandates a less purely provincial attitude?  How will the long term survival of the British peoples be better maintained — as part of a greater, white, European West, or as an isolated white island in a brown, black and yellow ex-”European” sea?  Doesn’t it matter whether the nation across the channel is a white, western, French France, or if it is a non-white Third World Islamic Republic?  There are none so blind and those who will not see — time for Barnes and cohorts to get Seeing Eye dogs.

Pan-European cooperation and solidarity need not be at odds with more restricted particularisms.  Both the whole and all constituent parts of that whole need to be preserved and defended.  This can, and should, be synergistic and not antagonistic.

I have other interests as well, but the major point here is that I wish to make the contributions that I am capable of, focusing on certain key issues such as genetic interests, nationalism, and politics, joining with others (e.g., MacDonald, Prozium, O’Meara) to create an intellectual Western nationalist vanguard to help save both race and civilization.

I’ve been asked these questions many times over the years. The standard answer (I genuinely care about my race and ethny), while undoubtedly true, isn’t much in the way of an explanation. It only raises further questions.

I can say for certain that I am not motivated by the incentives that matter most to our critics. I care nothing for money or status. In eight years, I haven’t taken a cent from anyone to write about race. Philosophically, I consider myself an Epicurean; I enjoy worldly pleasures in moderation, but try to keep my material needs to a bare minimum. In contemporary America, there is no greater kiss of death to your social status than advocating and defending White racial consciousness. I’m innocent of those charges.

I don’t expect to be rewarded for my racial convictions (or see my enemies punished) in any afterlife. I’m not a religious man. I don’t believe in any transcendent level of reality (the supernatural) beyond the material world.

I’m not driven by irrational hatred of Jews or non-whites. Until a few years ago, I had never heard of the Jewish Question. Like most Southerners, Jews were nowhere on my radar screen and I took a dim view of anti-Semites. If Jews were pro-white, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t believe any particular race is necessarily good or evil, superior or inferior, moral or immoral; there are extraordinary individuals and retrogrades in any group, as the data clearly show. There are plenty of non-whites that I like or admire on a personal level. So that isn’t it.

To be honest, I don’t think I am driven by moral outrage either. If you have read my blog, you have probably noticed by now that (unlike our opponents) I don’t really use moral invective to skewer our enemies. We’re not the ‘forces of light’ clashing with the ‘forces of darkness.’ Jews and Christians tend to see us through this distorted and false moral lens of Semitic demonology. Any student of history knows that racial mores vary considerably across history and societies. There is nothing sacred about the anti-racist status quo (or profane about its predecessor). It was conjured into existence by the media within the lifetime of my grandparents.

If I had to explain my unique circumstances, I would point to my background, intelligence, and personality. I grew up in the Alabama Black Belt where whites already have the misfortune of being a minority in many counties. More specifically, I grew up in heart of Wallace Country where my racial and political views came naturally to me. The region has a tradition of white populist radicalism that stretches back almost two hundred years. Undoubtedly, I imbibed it at some point in my youth.

In 1837, white settlers illegally arrived in the region and began the expulsion of the Creek Indians from East Alabama. In 1856 – 1857, Jefferson Buford of Eufaula, Alabama (an otherwise gentle scholar) led a brigade of 415 radicals to Kansas where they gained renown as Buford’s Calvary by participating in the bloodiest of the border wars. In 1857 – 1860, Barbour County was a hotbed of secession (the most radical county in the state). It was here that John Shorter and his fellow secessionists plotted the destruction of the Union. In 1861, Shorter rode to Montgomery to be sworn in as Governor of the Confederate State of Alabama. From 1874 – 1876, the Redeemers violently overthrew Republican rule in Barbour County and disenfranchised Negro voters. In the 1890s, Barbour County was the epicenter of Alabama populism. Most famously, George Wallace in the 1960s and 1970s launched his various political crusades (for Governor of Alabama and later President of the United States) out of this area.

White racial consciousness, White Nationalism, understanding of racial differences, secession, populism, radical politics: given our peculiar heritage and inclinations, it all came very easily to me. I was born and raised in a milieu that was (almost) uniquely receptive to these ideals. Growing up, I never experienced any peer pressure to conform to anti-racism. In my local area, “democracy” translated into a stark choice between white supremacy or black supremacy. All politics were/remain racial politics. The ideal of a colorblind or post-racial society could not but look like a utopian fantasy in this environment.

Unlike many of my peers, I was smart enough to see through the lies about race in the mainstream media. Their fairy tales blatantly contradicted my own personal experience. I had a rare personality type (one that I suspect many intelligent racialists share) that inclined me to care far more about truth than social status.

I really think this was a decisive factor. The ‘conspiracy of silence’ in the mainstream media about the reality of racial differences struck me as an endlessly fascinating puzzle. I was naturally intrigued by it, spent years trying to figure it out, theorizing about it, and was finally sucked into the White Nationalist underground in the process.

That’s my honest and best answer: in my own small way, I am carrying on a tradition in a land that cares for nothing but progress. White Nationalism is the logical extension of the perspective that White interests (as opposed to universal liberal abstractions) should be promoted and defended. Unlike liberalism, it is a system that suits us and our descendants in the long term. The Occidental Quarterly has no peer as a gathering place for the most intelligent minds committed to our racial salvation. I’m genuinely honored and humbled to be allowed to participate.

Libertarians tend to think in abstract terms. They have all sorts of theories about government, economics, and ethics. I’m impressed less by their abstractions and more persuaded by the empirical results that follow their implementation.

We’ve tried almost everything the libertarians recommend over the course of American history: the gold standard, multiple currencies, financial deregulation, private roads/railroads, absence of the Federal Reserve, absence of the income tax, cutting back government bureaucracy, legalization of drugs, laissez-faire capitalism, international free trade, federalism/small government, expansion of civil liberties, neutering the state, deunionization, no Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no Earned Income Tax Credit, no welfare system, no minimum wage or collective bargaining, no workplace safety standards, dispensing with virtue ethics, private schools, etc. We have a vast well of experience with radical liberty to draw upon. Yet the libertarians always seem to prefer their abstract arguments and deductive reasoning to historical ones. Why is that?

We know how free market laissez-faire capitalism ends: in vast concentrations of wealth (land and capital) in the hands of a privileged few, huge multinational corporations that tower over the remaining small businesses, monopolies and cartels, private transportation systems that suck every penny out of the common man, race replacement through ‘cheap labor’ immigration, a radicalized, uneducated and degraded proletariat constantly engaged in strikes and riots and infected with Marxism, environmental degradation, financial panics and depression, shortage of credit, depressed wages, a plutocratic elite that buys elections and corrupts the political system with its largess. It was a good system for the wealthiest few who didn’t use public services, at least for a while, until the top heavy economy periodically collapsed under its own weight in the inevitable cyclical depression.

The system is inherently unstable for both labor and capital and gave rise to the very social forces which succeeded in undermining and overthrowing it. If by some chance we ever were to return to Gilded Age conditions, history would unfold again in much the same way. It is worth noting that this is the degenerate condition that millions of Jewish immigrants found Americans in when they arrived on our shores. Their arrival in the New World was part of the ‘cheap labor’ glut that flowed out of Eastern and Southern Europe into Northern industry at the time. The Jews would later climb the same ladder into the American plutocracy used by J. P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford.

Aside from the small faction of libertarian ideologues, there is no constituency for returning to the  days of the Robber Barons. The working class justifiably balks at surrendering the handful of concessions won from Capital over the past hundred years. The middle class, still reeling from ‘free trade,’ clamors for ever more public services (which Obama promises to deliver). Even the wealthy realize that a managed economy is ultimately in their interest. It stifles labor militancy and the growth of radical class-based redistributionist movements. The government is also useful (as in the Panic of ’08) when it pulls their collective chestnuts out of the fire.

White Nationalists support ending non-White immigration and deporting the non-White labor force already in the United States. In doing so, we have earned the implacable hostility of the business community; both small businesses and multinational corporations alike depend on their non-White helots. We’re proposing a permanent and radical increase in the price of labor that will bankrupt any number of businesses. The only way forward to the White ethnostate is through a knife fight to the death with the pro-business lobby and the ethnic grievance organizations that are allied to them. That’s not a fight we can possibly win with a libertarian economic agenda that will alienate the working class and lower middle class.

Once the beast is subdued (the cheap labor lobby and its hangers on), White Nationalists will have to be permanently on guard to ensure it never rises from the dead. As you note, this could involve constitutional measures, draconian penalties for racial treason, a permanent class or religious order of “Defenders” charged with the responsibility of overseeing the culture and economy, a national academy to train the “Defenders,” government control of the media, public schools that indoctrinate our youth in the racial ideal, or some combination the above. Whatever the case, the salient point is that a transition to a White Nationalist ethnostate (a process likely to take generations) will require authoritarian measures which run against the grain of libertarianism, and probably not solely on a temporary basis.

Indeed, there is nothing “libertarian” at all about what we are proposing to do: overthrowing civic institutions and replacing them with a new Blut und Boden racial order, mass violations of sacrosanct individual rights and property rights, engaging in ‘aggression’ against sovereign individuals in the name of collectivism, engaging in racial and religious intolerance, imposing ethical and aesthetic standards on a libertine populace, etc. A true libertarian (whose mind is governed by universal abstractions) would never entertain such measures. In many ways, the White Nationalist worldview (based solely on collective self interest, not high-minded universal principles) is the polar opposite of libertarianism and the other species of liberalism.

If you really think about it, libertarianism has no future in a White Nationalist ethnostate. In selecting our form of government, our primary concern must be the nature of our elite, not the ‘rights’ of individuals. After a successful revolutionary struggle, I seriously doubt White Nationalists will want to go back to the days when America was governed by a shallow Judeo-Capitalist plutocracy whose primary qualification to rule was their ability to make money. Social mobility will have to be organized on some other basis than the Horatio Alger myth; perhaps along the lines of the “essentially religious civil servants” you described above. At a minimum, this would require a highly regulated economy, not the laissez-faire free market favored by libertarians.

Most importantly, the status system will have to be forever severed from the market economy, which is another blow against libertarianism. We’ve seen the mischief the advertising industry has caused by creating artificial needs and instilling sick materialistic values in the masses. This is closely linked to the low White birthrate, racial nihilism, and popularity of contraception and abortion in the West. You’ve already mentioned that status must be linked to values like duty, honor, and self-sacrifice in the new system. I would go beyond that and argue for a return to virtue ethics in your Home School curriculum. We need to move beyond the silly expressivist notion that each child should be allowed to nurture his own individuality. From our perspective, some values are manifestly superior to others.

In a White ethnostate, ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ would be knocked off the pedestal they now occupy in contemporary political discourse. More important considerations like community and the preservation of our genetic integrity would rise to the fore and take precedence. I seriously doubt we would break wholly with the tradition of individual rights or basic republican equality before the law. The old values would still have their place, but they would no longer be considered absolute, center stage, or universally applicable to all races. The market economy is also another likely survivor, albeit in a form unrecognizable to the one we are familiar with today.

I will stop short of saying that pro-Whites need an entirely new political philosophy. We don’t need to establish a new set of (false) universal principles which could later be invoked to sabotage our racial interests. Instead, we should take our direction from art and literature that reflect our racial ideals, and adopt a critical posture towards all systemizers and their fetish for abstractions.

As I pointed out to Evan McLaren last night, the disabling of the comment section at Takimag was about more than simple irritation with Captainchaos and friends trolling multiple threads. Justin Raimondo, John Zmirak, Paul Gottfried and others who write for that website have long held racialists in contempt (Tom Fleming at Chronicles is another) and used the opportunity created by the discord to purge our discourse from their environs.

Check out this new emotional outburst from Justin Raimondo aimed at the mild-mannered Jared Taylor. Politics makes strange bedfellows. There is something odd about an atheist libertarian homosexual engaged in an interracial relationship invoking “his legacy” of Christianity and conservatism in Randroid spittle to damn racialists. Ayn Rand famously hated both of them. Lawrence Auster was correct when he pointed out the other day that libertarianism/Objectivism is the purest negation of traditional conservatism which is about the preservation of larger wholes. Libertarians and Objectivists strive to abolish/neuter/level all higher social orders (race, ethny, nation, culture, faith, family) with their prescription of anarchy and their ideological poison of radical atomistic individualism.

Sound familiar? It should. Raimondo is correct when he quotes Buchanan in saying we come from different traditions. The pink banner he holds aloft is precisely the same one that was carried by the hippie/beatnik counterculture in the 50’s and 60’s, the antiwar movement of the 60’s, and the gay rights movement of the 70’s and 80’s. His social movement was pioneered during the twentieth century by radical Jews such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, F. A. Hayek, and Abbie Hoffman. It is a spiritual cousin of communism and has the same wrecking ball, destabilizing, disorienting effect upon white gentile culture at all levels. Oddly enough, Raimondo manages to accuse racialists of soulless materialism when it is precisely his form of unfettered consumer capitalism and its pornographic expressivist ethos that has disfigured the American landscape from coast to coast and continues to inspire our nihilistic youth to carve out piercings and kitsch tattoos into their pale flesh on a daily basis.

In Raimondo’s mind, only the rootless, autonomous individual exists; the implication being that only individual accomplishment can be a source of pride. For him it makes no sense to take pride in one’s race, family, ethnic group, nation, faith, or culture or to be concerned with the maintenance of these collective entities. He doesn’t conceive of art or science as practices in which the individual contributes to, builds upon, orients himself toward, finds meaning in centuries old traditions. As a libertarian, Raimondo acknowledges no debt to the past. As a homosexual, he has no reason to care about the plight of future generations. All he cares about are the almost nonexistent restraints on his “liberty” in contemporary America.

The White Nationalist project is simple enough to understand. It can be boiled down to fourteen words: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” What is objectionable about that? It is nothing more than a plea for the right to exist. It is not an injunction to lord over anyone. The whole Third World is flooding into the West. In contrast, what are libertarians demanding at this historical juncture? The quixotic abolition of the state, a state of anarchy or near lawlessness, all because the amount of freedom they now enjoy (which is near absolute) apparently isn’t enough for them to satisfy their most carnal appetites. What a pitiful, pathetic, contemptible worldview.

It should come as no surprise then that the denizens of libertarianism come from the most sordid corners of American life. Walter Block once wrote a book defending his laissez-faire constituency: the prostitute looking to ply her trade, the drug addict in search of his next fix, the homosexual who resents being labeled deviant, the habitual litterer who disrespects public property, the slumlord who exploits the poor, the libeler who maligns others, the Jewish usurer, the scab who breaks the picket line, the corporate shark who exports jobs overseas, the illegal alien who violates our national borders, and others amongst this case of “heroes” who stand to benefit from the end of the rule of law and final abolition of all restraint. In Raimondo’s bizarro world, the decent and indecent have switched places: the man who takes pride in his race, the man who puts the long term interest of future generations above satiating his every whim, is now to be the object of cultural opprobrium, not the libertine iconoclast who flaunts every custom, tradition, and authority in the name of his ineffable “rights.”

How on earth did a degenerate homosexual cosmopolitan like Justin Raimondo of all people come to be identified with hardcore cultural conservatives whose animating collectivist impulses are anathema to everything urbane libertines stand for? It all goes back to a “populist” political strategy first articulated by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell over a dozen years ago: libertarians would co-opt the electoral energy and funds of the isolationist paleocons and race-conscious rednecks on the far right as a leadership class and then redirect them towards “anti-statist” ends.  This electoral strategy finally bore fruit in the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution” last year which most racialists were fooled en masse into supporting.

Buchanan and the paleocons adopted a similar strategy in the 1990’s. In Buchanan’s own words, “The way to do battle with David Duke is not to go ballistic because Duke, as a teenager, paraded around in a Nazi costume to protest William Kunstler during Vietnam, or to shout to the heavens that Duke had the same number last year as the Ku Klux Klan. Everybody in Metairie knew that. The way to deal with Mr. Duke is the way the GOP dealt with the far more formidable challenge of George Wallace. Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues; and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles.”

Raimondo has never been able to mask his hostility towards racially conscious whites. It is a common attitude among the paleos and libertarians found outside the mainstream right. They want the page views, subscriptions, money, and votes of racialists, which they correctly perceive as a burgeoning movement ideally harnessed for their own ends, but not their input. White Nationalists are supposed to stay in their seats at the back of the far right bus while their self-imagined social betters occupy the driver seat; a situation analogous to the relationship between the GOP and evangelicals. “The rantings of losers living in their parents’ basement”  are not welcome in polite company (this doesn’t include pimple faced, pudgy libertoon high school students), but by all means do send in your $100 contribution to Ron Paul’s campaign coffers and vote for him in the Republican primaries.

The White Nationalist message has never been more prescient or warranted than it is today. Its predictions are coming true. While Barack Obama appoints a professional Hispanic to the Supreme Court and distributes race-based patronage to his multitude of supporters from the White House, Raimondo counsels whites to cling to the ridiculous fantasy of colorblindness in a color conscious world; we need more “individualism,” more “liberty.” Meanwhile, the other side pushes ahead for more ”diversity,” more “multiculturalism” in every aspect of life. It’s like the Polish calvary fighting the Wehrmacht.  Anyone with half a brain can see where this is going, what the end result will inevitably be for whites, unless more responsible men act.

White Nationalists need to shove aside Justin Raimondo and the rest of the libertarian fringe. Their retarded fantasy of dismembering the state is nothing but a distracting panacea. Discrediting the “Alternative Right” will be the first step for racialists in the years ahead. Raimondo and his associates should be confronted at every opportunity and exposed as the cowards, liars, impostors, and opportunists that they are.

Update: Some negative reaction to Raimondo’s article here and here.

It is better to stay politically irrelevant and racialized than powerful and deracialized. If the BNP ever has a Prime Minister like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush it will have been utterly and completely defeated.

* * *

Allow me to restate your [Barnes'] argument from a different perspective:

“The Communist Party USA is a political party. Therefore we must get elected into power, that requires a populist approach. In order to implement Marxist-Leninism, we must be elected. Politics is the art of the possible, not ideological posturing that alienates mass support.”

Your fundamental mistake is identifying power with the ballot box and engagement in democratic politics. In the U.S., the Socialist Party and Communist Party USA were able to get much of their agenda passed in spite of their political irrelevance. In contrast, the Conservatives who support the GOP have 40 years of electoral victories under their belt and almost nothing to show for it. A small minority of ideologues has utterly triumphed over millions of pragmatists.

The Left always wins in the end because it understands that power is about controlling discourse, not winning elections. The Right (like Barnes here) operates on the latter assumption, wins pyrrhic victories, then capitulates and surrenders. That’s why the British Left is trying so hard to force the BNP to change its constitution. In surrendering the language of race, you’re doing exactly what they want you to do; allowing the Left to control the discourse and dominate the national conversation on its own terms.

The inevitable result will be deracialization and a softening of nationalism. The boundry marker of legitimate public discourse will shift to the left. It is better to make a stand and push in the opposite direction even if it is politically expedient to do so.

* * *

[Barnes:] That’s your job. We are politicians who seek power.

Like all conservatives, you have it ass backwards: win the cultural war over discourse and power will follow; securing council seats and MPs is pointless unless you control the culture … you won’t be in a position to change anything without a public uproar.

[Barnes:] We have a great idea – its called GREAT BRITAIN.

You’re not doing a very good job of presenting it.

[Barnes:] Its not our job to act as propagandists for the white race, we are British Nationalists.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

[Barnes:] = Our values are British, our philosophy Ethno-Nationalism.

1.) Define ‘British values’.

2.) It is amusing to see you equate White Nationalism, a version of racial nationalism, with National Socialism, a version of ethno-nationalism.

* * *

[Barnes:] All truly long lasting revolutions are achieved step by step with consent, not with paroxsyms of violence imposed upon an unwilling populace.

Actually, I would argue that “long lasting revolutions” are “achieved step by step” in fights over discourse. In France and America, the rhetoric of liberty and equality triumphed before the first shots of revolution were fired. In the aftermath of World War II, the rhetoric of ‘human rights’ triumphed across the British political spectrum before the full implications of that idea were worked out in later decades. In the 1960s, Americans didn’t know that ‘civil rights’ implied self hating masochism or the worship of ‘diversity’. Ideas are always entertained before their consequences become apparent.

You’re proposing that British nationalists surrender the discourse of race out of short term political expediency. I’m beginning to think you don’t have the stomach for revolutionary political struggle. Persecution by the authorities, going to jail for one’s beliefs, refusing to compromise on principle, enduring hate and violence, even martyrdom come with the territory. It is what creates the necessary sympathy for a vanguardist cadre to metamorphize into a mass movement.

[Barnes:] The word Folk implies an indigenous people with an organic connection to the land, a national culture and a British Constitution.

Is this an accurate description of contemporary Britons, in particular the working class, a majority of whom have lived in urban conditions for almost a century now?

[Barnes:] As Americans you have a connection to the land based on history, but you are not indigenous to America and therefore I understand that you do not have a ‘Folkish consciousness’ – though I suspect those of you with English, Irish etc roots would understand what a Folk consciousness is if you returned to visit your ancestral homelands where your ancestors evolved and took a walk in an English wood or had a pint in a rual Irish pub or visited Newgrange or Stonhenge.

Anglo-Americans are as indigenous to the United States as the Normans or Anglo-Saxons are to Britain. A folk consciousness exists in rural areas of the American South as surely as it does in Britain, probably even more so given the leftward tilt of the British political spectrum, itself a product of urbanization.

[Barnes:] What you define as intellectualism eg Folk, Nation and Culture, are to us the antithesis of intellectualism – they are the organic realities of our everyday lives as opposed to an ideological viewpoint such as race which is rooted in abstract history and the ‘coldness’ of genetic research.

This ignores the fact that White Nationalism was an organic response to the conditions of the American frontier experience: in the wilderness of North America, the racial differences between White, Black, and Red were naturally more salient than the ethnic differences between racially homogeneous Europeans. The ideal that America was a ‘white man’s country’ emerged long before the advent of genetic science or the first attempts at scientific racialism in the late eighteenth century.

[Barnes:] We are rooted to this earth, you were torn from this earth and transplanted elsewhere – therefore you have never felt the power or beauty of an organic connection to the sacred earth of a Heimat, a homeland based on a natural and organic connection as opposed to loyalty to abstractions of history and civic nationalism.

Judging from the whiggers and chavs that now populate your country, I don’t see this organic connection to the land of which you speak so highly. Undoubtedly, it once existed in Britain (prior to the seventeenth century when ‘enclosure’ destroyed the British peasantry), but those days are long since passed. Like the Dutch, the British have been an urbanized people for over a hundred years now.

* * *

Barnes is arguing for inclusion of non-Whites in the BNP on the basis of Culturalism (to conform to the Equality Commission). His talking point about Eastern European immigrants is nothing more than spin meant to distract attention away from the real issue (the litmus test of BNP membership). In fact, he is expanding the definition of ‘Britishness’, not narrowing it.

The neocons whinge endlessly about “culture” and “shared values” when arguing against multiculturalist liberals. They are ideologues, not ethnonationalists. Like the neocons, Barnes associates racialism with Hitler and Nazism. Barnes is saying we should accept non-Whites into our fold who ’share our values’. How is this substantially different from Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity? It’s not.

His proposal essentially substitutes neoconservatism for ethnonationalism. It treats and harps on the symptoms of our decline, not the disease itself. It proposes an electoral strategy (not a cultural one) to ultimate victory. It is founded upon the textbook conservative argument that racialists are unelectable fringe extremists and the ‘pragmatic’ thing to do is to tailor one’s message to reflect (rather than direct) public opinion. It substitutes the ethnic basis of membership for an abstract/ideological one, albeit smuggled in the Halloween costume of ‘folkishness’.

The next logical step is to water down the message even further into Geert Wilders neoconservatism: a full throated embrace of Zionism and philo-Semitism combined with an aggressive posture against Islam in the name of defending liberal values.

From Occidental Dissent, September 8, 2009