Print this post Print this post

Whites—Are We Still Worthy?

1,572 words

Many racially conscious whites of my personal acquaintance have no hope at all of their race regaining any real influence—much less control—of any aspect of American life: political, legal, religious, social, cultural. Some believe we can never even aspire to a seat at the table of power along with the Negroes, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, feminists, labor unions, corporate plunderers, Jews, Muslims, illegal aliens, socialists, pornographers, “free-traders,” environmentalist fanatics, animal-loving lunatics, the education cabal, the “disabled,” the professional “poor,” atheists, “humanist” clerics, crooked law enforcers, government bureaucrats, venal politicians, activist judges, and the myriad other enemies, traitors and bleeding-heart weaklings that today run what used to be “our” country.

My friends have a litany of excuses why we would be foolish even to dream of power, much less actually attempt to take back a modicum of influence: We have no money. Our “man on the white horse” has not arrived. Our enemies are too powerful. Our families might suffer. Our lifestyles might suffer. Our people are too deracinated, dispossessed and dispirited. The government will not allow us to speak or act. The courts will stop us. We would be impoverished . . . jailed . . . killed.

Even worse than all of that—we would be called “racists” by the media, and people would whisper about us behind our backs!

Far from being an optimist myself, I readily admit that things look pretty bleak. As a group, we have fallen in just two generations from undisputed ruler of the world to being trod underfoot by the very Third World masses we viewed then as literal nonentities.

But it’s time to take another look at our prospects. First let us compare our current wretched state with that of another group whose prospects were even bleaker within our own lifetimes—a group that is now on the verge of accomplishing something that has never been seriously contemplated in the history of mankind.

Organized homosexuals have already made same-sex marriage a reality in several nations and the People’s Republics of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, and are poised to force this bitter pill down the throats of the rest of America, despite the opposition of at least 70 percent of this nation’s inhabitants. This is the very definition of power! The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education is a veritable footnote in contrast. Even the establishment of the State of Israel over the bodies of that land’s rightful owners pales by comparison.

The “gay rights” movement’s beginnings were truly humble. In 1961, Dr. Frank Kameny of Washington, D.C., founded an activist local chapter of the low-key Mattachine Society, devoted to achieving full equality for homosexuals. Kameny dared to write letters to members of Congress, introducing his organization and offering to meet with them and discuss its goals.

Rep. Paul C. Jones (D-MO) responded frankly: “I am unalterably opposed to your proposal and cannot see how any person in his right mind can condone the practices which you would justify. Please do not contaminate my mail with such filthy trash.” Rep. Charles Chamberlain (R-MI) wrote: “Your letter of August 28 has been received, and in reply may I state unequivocally that in all my six years of service in the United States Congress I have not received such a revolting communication.” Could a reasonable pro-white organization really expect a worse response than this?

In a 1963 letter, the American Psychiatric Association refused to meet with Kameny or to “publicize your meetings.” But barely a decade later, the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of “disorders,” one of the first great victories on the “gay” path to power. Also in 1963, Kameny was invited to testify before a House committee on a bill to revoke his group’s status as a nonprofit entity—due entirely to the nature of its cause. (The bill did not pass.)

In a 1965 letter, Vice President Hubert Humphrey advised that federal civil rights laws were not “relevant to the problems of homosexuals.” Kameny’s correspondence and other papers were donated a few years ago to the Library of Congress, which eagerly accepted them.

In April 1965, a group of homosexuals picketed the White House to protest “discrimination” against them. There is film footage of then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk at a White House briefing, making a snickering mention of the event going on outside and evoking hoots of laughter from government officials and newsmen alike. Although the media demonstrably knew of the event, the only press mention it received at the time was in the Washington Afro-American newspaper.

Nobody in power insults or laughs at the homosexual lobby today, and no important media outlet refuses to cover its activities.

How did this group—even smaller and more universally despised then than whites are today—even more severely handicapped by laws, regulations, custom, and violence than we are today—manage to attain such overwhelming power within little more than a generation?

First and most obviously, they believed in themselves and their cause. Although their goals must have seemed like fairy tales (no pun intended—really!) at the time, these people were serious enough to take tremendous risks with their careers—and their very lives, to make the financial sacrifices necessary to fund their movement, to persevere despite the virtually unanimous condemnation and disgust of every important sector of society: religious leaders, media outlets, the psychiatric community, businesses, government officials, politicians and judges at all levels throughout the nation, as well as many of their own family members and friends.

It may sound almost juvenile, but they took Margaret Mead’s flawed aphorism to heart: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” (The fatuousness of the quote, of course, is proven by the world-changing reigns of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the heirs of Mohammed, and others who hardly fit her goody-goody description.)

Most of all, the homosexuals refused to take no for an answer. They refused to surrender under the slings and arrows of their enemies. Setbacks made them redouble their efforts. Gradually, one small victory at a time, they achieved the incredibly powerful position they enjoy today.

By contrast, whites have generally seemed almost eager to surrender before the fight starts. The “massive resistance” promised to combat school integration—one of the earliest and most powerful blows to white dominance—turned out to be a farce, led by political traitors who vowed during elections to fight the federal government, but who betrayed their followers by capitulating abjectly once in office. Some, like Ernest Vandiver of Georgia and George Wallace of Alabama, went so far as to carry out symbolic charades in an effort to preserve their political viability, but not a single one had the stomach to actually defend the rights of his state and its inhabitants. Their followers meekly caved in and retreated along with the leaders.

The vehemence and universality of media condemnation, the fear of lawsuits, criminal prosecution, tax audits, actual violence, and “what people will think” have kept almost all but the most marginal of our people from speaking out during four decades of assaults on whites—and especially on white males. (Wasn’t it a master-stroke to divide whites by making women an official “minority,” thereby giving them a stake in white male degradation?)

Nearly every large city today has a homosexual newspaper, and many are incredibly large and profitable; pro-white publications can be counted on the fingers of both hands, and profitable ones are non-existent. There are thousands of nonprofit homosexual groups, political action committees, lobbying, legal, and “civil rights” organizations; there is not a single national group that seriously attempts to advance or defend white interests. Every year there are headlines boasting of more open homosexuals being elected to Congress, state legislatures, and local offices; no politician seriously seeking office will even mention his whiteness—except when he is apologizing for it. No politician rejects out of hand the support of homosexuals; not a single pol dares openly court the “white vote.”

“It’s all well and good for homosexuals to go public in their cause,” I hear my readers thinking at this point, “because they had nothing to lose. But I have a family, and a job, and responsibilities. I just can’t take the risk of being a white activist.”

Au contraire, my dispossessed and dispirited friends! Granted that the “gay liberation” movement was at bottom utterly selfish on the part of its participants, it did cost many their families—parents, brothers, sisters, even wives, husbands, and children—as well as their reputations, careers, livelihoods, and, in some instances, their lives.

In this case, your family—your children and their offspring—are the very reason you must take the risks necessary to re-assert the rights and, eventually, the dominance of the white race. Our crusade is not a selfish one, but the natural, age-old, selfless impulse to make life better for our children than it was for us. The fear and terror that modern society has deliberately created to keep our people in subjugation is unquestionably daunting, and it is easy to understand how many whites simply cannot believe success is possible—but none of this can be an excuse not even to try!

Are whites not, as a group, just as talented, resourceful, inspirational and creative as the homosexuals of 1961? Can we not match them in faith, dedication, determination, and the spirit of self-sacrifice? If we are not, and if we cannot, then we deserve to lie forgotten and unmourned in the dustbin of history.

TOQ Online, April 20, 2009

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

5 Comments

  1. Evan
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Obviously more needs to be shown than merely that other identity groups organize and that we have a high level of objective merit, skill, intelligence, etc. It needs to be shown that we have numbers that will in fact stand and deliver. No one can decisively show that, so it makes sense that not every racially conscious white be automatically on board with a racially-rooted movement and idea.

  2. Chubby
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Evan,

    What “numbers” are you talking about? Number of followers? Number of IQ points? Number of activists? Number of meritorious qualities that deserve preservation?

    • Evan
      Posted September 7, 2010 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      Yeah, numbers of people. Whites with backbone need to exist and be heard in numbers.

  3. Chubby
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Doug,

    You disregard one very powerful ally that the homosexuals had in their fight: the media. What do you imagine would have been the result of their efforts without this heavy weight in their corner? I think William L. Pierce described very powerfully and clearly the problem in his essay “Individualism and Alienation” from which the following is exerpted:

    I’ll give you a very recent and shocking example of how this works. Do you remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the homosexual who went into a bar in Laramie, Wyoming, last year and tried to get a date? Two of the men in the bar gave him a good beating and then left him tied to a fence, where he died of exposure. Of course, there’s no way you could forget that case. It has been a cause celebre in the national media ever since it happened. It has been on every television screen in America again this week in connection with the trial of Aaron McKinney, one of the men accused of killing Shepard. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton have given solemn commentary on the case and have cited it as a reason for why we need to have an expanded “hate crime” law to protect homosexuals from heterosexual White males. Half the Christian preachers and rabbis in America have publicly deplored the “hate” they say was responsible for Shepard’s death.
    Now I’ll tell you about another case involving murder and homosexuals that I’m certain you haven’t heard about, unless you happen to live in northwestern Arkansas and read the newspapers there carefully. Less than three weeks ago, on September 26, two adult homosexuals in the town of Rogers, Arkansas, grabbed a 13-year-old boy off the street, took him to their apartment, drugged him, and tied him up and gagged him so that no one could hear his screams, and then they raped him to death.
    The 13-year-old boy was Jesse Dirkhising. The two adult homosexuals are Davis Don Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown, each charged with capital murder and six counts of forcible rape. I mention these names to help you search for information about this horrible crime on the Internet, so that you can verify for yourself what I’m telling you. Try the Internet site of The Morning News of Northwestern Arkansas, the local newspaper there, which has been virtually the only newspaper to carry news of the murder.
    As I said, this vicious rape and murder of an innocent child by two adult homosexuals occurred less than three weeks ago, and it’s been totally blacked out of the national news. At the same time the beating death of homosexual Matthew Shepard, who made the mistake of looking for a date in the wrong bar, is still receiving national news coverage every day, more than a year after it happened.
    Why? I’ll tell you. It’s because other groups in this country want it this way. No individual in America has the power to black out the news of the homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising. And no individual has the power to give the enormous, non-stop national coverage to the beating of Matthew Shepard that we are seeing. This is the result of a collective decision — a racial decision — by the Jews who control the news media in America. The message the Jews want to send to White Americans is that homosexuals are innocent victims and that heterosexual White males are aggressors who prey on them. And so they give us the news that fits this message, and they black out the news that doesn’t.

    I mean, really, think about it. Which is the more newsworthy crime: the beating to death of Matthew Shepard by two men he approached for a date or the kidnapping and raping to death of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising by two adult homosexuals? The Jews do this manipulation and distortion of the news for a reason: a collective reason, a racial reason. And it’s working. Idiot White women and idiot White Christians are joining the homosexuals around the country in even more candlelight vigils in memory of Matthew Shepard. But there will never be a candlelight vigil for Jesse Dirkhising. No one will ever hear about Jesse Dirkhising — except those of you listening to me now.
    That is the way this world in which we are living works.

  4. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted September 6, 2010 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    I don’t see the homosexual and white racial movements as being comparable. Homosexuality post-1933, and even before (especially in England), was solidly grounded in elite culture and prevailing political correctness at top levels. That makes a huge difference.

    Homosexuals weren’t out of the closet in the 1960s to the extent they are now, but they were nevertheless plentiful among American, British, German, and other elites throughout the 20th century, and even the 19th. They occupied top-level positions in the arts, Hollywood, Washington, London, and elsewhere. They have always been useful to Jews as a battering ram against white society, and have been protected for that reason as well.

    George Wallace, a fascinating political animal and elemental force of nature, was no revolutionary. (Also, he was philo-Semitic). Yet, until 1968 at least, I have no doubt that his path was far more difficult and dangerous—indeed, a few orders of magnitude more so—than that of the homosexuals. He was crippled and subjected to enormous pain for the rest of his life by an enigmatic assassin who intended to kill him and came within a whisker of succeeding. That put an end to his crusade.

    Whites have little to learn from homosexuals. In fact, apart from minor (but still useful and instructive) points, there is no genuinely useful historical analogue to the white experience except for the Whites in Russia and subsequently the White Russian diaspora, various other anti-Communist forces and movements, and, of course, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Central Europe for a couple of decades in the 20th century.

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    The Wagnerian Drama

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance