Print this post Print this post

Godspeed

1,044 words

In William Rome’s latest article at Occidental Dissent, he describes himself as a “Born Again Multiculturalist.” It’s the most complete exposition of a school of thought within the movement that appears novel at first blush, but is merely the latest avatar in a predictable cycle. While I like and respect William Rome and have a special bond with him as a fellow fedora aficionado, this essay simply cannot stand uncontested. It’s the perfect summary of everything that concerns me about “mainstreamers,” one that follows these compromises with modernity to their logical conclusions.

He describes how he had an awakening in college which compelled him “to dive headlong into the new and exciting world of [W]hite identity, politics, and activism.” But he ran into a couple major problems. His first problem is one most of us face, that of being at odds with the Zeitgeist and still imbued (often subtly) with lingering attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices from the decades of intensive immersion and indoctrination in the modern multicult. The dissonance was especially profound in his case, as his close friends and family are racially diverse.

His second problem is that the movement is defective . . .

The second problem was that the new world of white identity, politics, and activism seemed to be going nowhere. Petty feuds, jealousies, incompetence, and lack of progress seemed to be the rules of this new world. The enemies the cause was fighting against also seemed to be getting stronger. They controlled everything and any resistance was futile in the end. Even worse was that there were many within it who basically said that there was no reason to be fighting. All we had to do was sit around and wait for a mythical collapse that would magically awaken our people and bring our enemies crashing down. So why bother? Why completely alienate myself from all I had loved for a new world that seemed determined to go down in defeat? Or why completely alienate myself for a new world that was going to win without me having any impact in its victory? Either way it seemed I was throwing away the world I was happily born and raised in for nothing.

This paragraph left me sincerely baffled. Had he been under the impression that the movement was not dysfunctional? Had he been under the impression that he was going to get more out of this than he was putting in? Does he see no personal obligation to step up and lead when nobody else is doing so? When destiny calls for him to stand up and fight for his tribe, does he answer back, “What’s in it for me?”

Let me put this plainly: If your advocacy for your people is contingent upon getting along with other advocates or profiting from the experience, then turn back, now. You’ll only waste your time and our time. At this point, our burden is that of wading through a fever swamp of dysfunction, dysphoria, and sacrifice. I look forward to the day when that swamp is drained, when people can jump on the pro-White bandwagon for fun and profit. We’re obviously not there, yet.

For all its righteousness and excitement, the cause for white preservation truly offers nothing practical for those who join it. All it offers is hardship through academic and job discrimination, social ostracism, financial difficulties, and infighting.

Truer words were never spoken.

Having retreated from White Nationalism for the aforementioned reasons, he repeats the familiar Alinskyite Solution: Holding our enemies to their own rules. This simply doesn’t work in the reverse. It can’t. They know they’re being duplicitous and they have no interest in considering our arguments. They’re not going to waste time debating us or validating our perspectives. To believe that they’re going to play fair or give us an honest hearing, especially right in the wake of the second AmRen cancellation, is inexcusably naive.

You’re not actually up against the arguments they present. Taking on multiculturalism at face value may empower you to peel off some others who take it at face value. But it won’t change the power dynamic of the oligarchies allied against our survival. Diversity, tolerance, and multiculturalism are fig leaves over that which is too obscene for them to explicate. It’s not like our predicament is due to one big misunderstanding that can be cleared up by exposing some double-standards and insisting on everybody being fair.

But more importantly, the goal of validating White Americans as yet another equally valued team in the diversity coalition is not worth fighting for even if it were a fight that could be won. In your ideal scenario, we’ll still be displaced demographically until we are like the Whites of Brazil, cowering in walled-off ghettos with spikes on the gates to ward off the ever-present mob. I don’t just want my progeny to be proud of their identity. I don’t just want them to be an equally bright ray of light in a third world rainbow republic. I want them to be a true nation in full control of their destiny.

A large and growing subset of White people in America are Cosmic Americans, intimately tied in with diverse friends and relatives. They’re excited about diversity and don’t feel that preserving their heritage and traditions is worth making things awkward around the dinner table over. That’s fine. You and yours have a right to exist, too. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in assuring that Whites in the emergent Cosmic American nation are treated fairly. I wish your nascent Cosmic nation the best. But that’s not my nation.

Supposedly, ethnic nationalism for my own people is “outside peoples’ experience,” whatever that means. I don’t see what’s so confusing about it. Either you get that we have a right to exist or you don’t. You can either coast into the diverse America with all the hardships and sacrifices that decision entails, or you can choose to fight for the Traditional America, an America that actually belongs to you, with all the hardships and sacrifices that decision entails. If you don’t explicitly choose the latter, then you’ve implicitly chosen the former.

And if you’ve chosen the former, then you’ve chosen a different path from me and mine. Godspeed.

This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

92 Comments

  1. Mr. Dithers
    Posted February 22, 2011 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    I say no thanks to Willy Rome’s strategy of being some sort of covert white nationalist within a multicult milieu. It seems his grip on reality is about as weak as his buddy Guy Wallace.

    Demanding tolerance and fair treatment from non-whites racial groups who are incapable of those things while embracing multiculturalism isn’t a recipe for success. If anything it would be an exercise in futility and an act of capitulation.

    • Sam Davidson
      Posted February 23, 2011 at 6:42 am | Permalink

      “Hunter Wallace” and “William Rome” are casting off WN because “it’s been going nowhere for 10 years.” The irony is that mainstream conservatism has been doing even worse for sixty years. And we’re supposed to become mainstream conservatives to get results…?

      Mental insanity at it’s finest.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted February 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

        Sam Davisdon wrote:

        “Hunter Wallace” and “William Rome” are casting off WN because “it’s been going nowhere for 10 years.” The irony is that mainstream conservatism has been doing even worse for sixty years. And we’re supposed to become mainstream conservatives to get results…?

        Mental insanity at it’s finest.

        In reply, Sam’s comment is singualrly cogent.

        Coming to White Nationalism, which I also call Western Nationalism, from Conervatism is literally stripping away all that is false from what Conservatism claims to stand for; what is left is what is worth conserving, and that is Family, Faith, and Race.

        I wondered why Conservatism never made any headway, despite having, at one point, control of the White House, the House of Respresentatives, the Senate and a working majority of the Supreme Court.

        “If not now, when?”

        The Answer came to me when I read how Dr. Revilo Oliver was “dynamically silenced,” systematically neutralized, by the organization that should have been most aggressive in supporting him, his own John Birch Society.

        There is an invisible line, where Conservatives can not go, and that is the point at which they become effective – Race.

        Worse, when they get to Race, it is always in vague, couched terms, speaking of what is wrong with “them_ – IQ, measures of intelligence, cultural achievement, crime rates, dysgenic social systems – and NOT what to DO about it, from our perspective.

        In short, we could always complain, and we could never DO SOMETHING about it.

        Well, we could, but the Conservatives were structured as a very effective false flag, a controlled opposition that would never move towards what is positive about the White Race, and its creation, Western Civilization.

        Instead, we were allowed to moan and complain helplessly, and the worst of us felt, somehow, as if their political and personal imeffectiveness was a symbol of moral superiority – “No, I can’t DO ANYTHING about it, but I know about the ‘Insiders,’ the Trilateralists, the Bilderbergers, and they are so powerful that I am emotionally rewarded in my self-gelding behavior. Getting about time to watch Ole Miss on tv, isn’t it?”

        Who had actually proposed we actually Do Something about it?

        Rockwell, Pierce, Duke, Metzger, and a few others, all of whom could not make no more than the most marginal of differences in the status quo of that time.

        Then came Harold Covington.

        Covington had The Answer that the others dared not even dream about, and that is to simply not play THEIR Game by THEIR Rules, but to move in the direction of the one perfect solution to the Race Issue, our own Homeland.

        Playing with the Conservatives on THEIR turf, using THEIR terms, THEIR formulations, made us as effective as Charlie Brown, and the football was ALWAYS pulled away. To make the track record of O for One Hundred tolerable, Charlie Brown was told he was a “good sport,” and he was even “morally superior.”

        Conservativsm is to the White Race what football with Lucy is for Charlie Brown.

        It has LOST, totally and consistently, against every single Initiative of the Opposition – EVERY ONE – and then went on to fund them, offering, at best, the most nominal of token resistance in public, while fulfilling all of their funding requests, at all times.

        Affirmative Action?

        Check.

        Legalizing the Illegals?

        Check.

        Dramatic expansion of the Civil Rights Acts?

        Check.

        In short, Conservatism is a Controlled Opposition, and always has been, certainly post-Taft, when Buckley took control of the Brand Called Conservative.

        I am bitter that I wasted so much time and energy being a Conservative, when I could have been dealing effectively with the issues that will truly affect my Posterity.

        I will make up for the lost time, by focusing on the Northwest Republic as the only comprehensive solution for Western Civilization.

        And, again, from the Actions Speak Louder Than Words Department, look how Jamie Kelso was treated by these Conservatives, these people who claim to worship at the altar of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

        You have to be deliberately oblique to miss the obvious.

        These Children hate us, and hate us with a purity of purpose that will have them rejoicing at our failures. Not ONE of them came to Kelso’s defense, even as he was facing physical intimidation.

        They will laugh and sing at the death of the West, Western Civilization, and the White Race.

        To Hell with that.

        Let’s give them something to talk about.

        • Sam Davidson
          Posted February 23, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

          To be fair, Bob Mathews deserves far more credit than Covington. Mathews advocated for a White Republic in the Northwest and gave his life for this goal. I’ve never heard Covington admit this fact, but then again I’ve never listened to more than one or two of Covington’s broadcasts.

          • Posted February 23, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

            In his website Covington wrote: “Considerations of demographics, economics, and a history of commitment and martyrdom in the persons of Bob Matthews, Sam and Vicky Weaver, and Richard Butler dictate that the territory for this sovereign Aryan republic must lie in the Pacific Northwest.”

          • Sam Davidson
            Posted February 24, 2011 at 6:21 am | Permalink

            Thanks, Chechar.

          • Fourmyle of Ceres
            Posted February 24, 2011 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

            In reply to Sam Davidson:

            You wrote:

            To be fair, Bob Mathews deserves far more credit than Covington. Mathews advocated for a White Republic in the Northwest and gave his life for this goal.

            Chechar answered your question on one level, and I would like to make clear my concern that this is not a Covington versus Robert Mathews issue in the least.

            What I see the issue is on two levels, Movement Past, and Movement Future.

            Movement Past is the movement as self-gelding failure, going up to the line of effectiveness, and never making the next step forward. In short, it was “White,” without the “Nationalism.”

            Movement Future is “White” activism – politically effective activism – explicitly based around “Nationalism.”

            Movement Future might be defined as WN2/M – White Nationalism /Western Nationalism as a Movement.

            The first step for a Movement is to have a Cause, and that is, in good part, where those who came before us have failed.

            We have to find our Inner Child, our Inner Charlie Brown, and throw him down a well, get some damn testosterone injections, and move forward, and nothing so united what “The Cause” might be as a comprehensive definition of Where we want to do, Why we want to do that, and How it can be done.

            The Northwest Republic – which Bob Mathews actually tried to make work in microcosm – is the comprehensive answer.

            Where? The Northwest Republic.

            Why? A White ethnostate, explicitly based on Race as the foremost organizing principle.

            How? Uncompromising focus on making a White Homeland a reality, a place where the Adminsitration’s practice, for the last half-century, has been the genocide of White Children – the future of the White Race – at all points in time, and by any means necessary.

            I do not see a sharp distinction between Mathews and Covington at all, in terms of defining and supporting The Cause. I see no daylight between either of them in their justified contempt for Conservatives, and Conservatism.

            Indeed, I have dreamt of a day a Natural Leader like Mathews would represent us in the US Senate, today, and represent our own Racial Homeland before the international community, in time.

            We can learn from this.

      • Mr. Dithers
        Posted February 24, 2011 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

        Be careful. Guy Wallace will write a 5000 word post documenting all the “successes” of the conservatives and failures of WN. The fact remains that the conservatives have done absolutely nothing to reverse the race replacement policies of the last several decades.

        All one needs to do is point to the rapid demographic changes that will makes whites a minority much sooner than the projected 2042.

  2. Posted February 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    I think if we are just honest, we will say that a multicultural society is really not what we want. Most people don’t that. To pretend that we support that idea is a kind of dishonest shyster rhetoric that is all too prevalent in U.S. political discourse. Say what you really mean and what you really want.

    I have a little secret to share. Unless you are running for office, you lose nothing, you only gain, by stating a clear and pure message. The clear message, although it may be extreme, is what makes the impression and inspires some people. Apologetic mumblers are easily forgotten.

  3. Fourmyle of Ceres
    Posted February 20, 2011 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Phil’s comment below http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/02/godspeed/#comment-4720 has bothered me, and I realized why this is so disconcerting.

    A few threads back, Greg Johnson visited the concept of violence in politics – OUR politics, in the metapolitical framework. Remember, at the end of the day, politics reduces to force.

    I addressed the total attack – the total nullification – of AmRen, in what I still see as political kabuki.

    Kelso’s treatment at CPAC drove home the point that we are not allowed to be “aggressive,” and that’s fine.

    Kelso was not allowed to be assertive, and what looks like the threat of physical intimidation came into play. He had to be stopped – totally, absolutely – because he was linking the intellectual gelding of Conservative politics, to RACE – in particular, the genocide of the White Race.

    We should all download that clip and watch it, asking ourselves what we would do in similar situations.

    Is there even one of you who believes that, if Kelso had used the minimal amount of force needed to defend himself – to defend his person, not go on the attack, just defend himself – that he would be much the worse today for it?

    I think this event took place in the District of Columbia.

    How do you think Kelso would have fared before the justice system in those circumstances?

    How about you?

    What would you have done, what COULD you have done, in such circumstances?

    “Wise as serpents, and peaceful as doves” is probably what saved Kelso from a much worse fate than he suffered.

    And, we saw what happens when we try to peacefully even discuss a positive theory of Race in public, particularly with political activists.

    We are neutered, our message is nullified, and we even face physical reprisals, delivered with what seems to be the equivalent of impunity. More importantly, everyone watching gets a clean Visual Lesson – a Teaching Moment – on what happens when you preach the wrong perspective.

    Remember, this was a conference, run by an organization, devoted to Conservatism, a philosophy of virtual worship of “the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.”

    Do you want to see what a total fraud Conservatism is?

    Watch the video, Children.

    Watch and learn.

    Not ONE of the little members of the political class raised one word in the defense of Kelso’s First Amendment “Right” to free speech.

    Not ONE even thought of standing up on behalf of Kelso’s exercising their common “right” of freedom of speech.

    THAT is Conservatism – “We’ve got ours, the Hell with you.”

    This is a useful time to disabuse ourselves of the idea that we have these “rights” – a Wordism construct designed to geld us intellectually – that were referred to so often by the Conservatives.

    We don’t.

    As Terrible Tommy Metzger says:

    “You do not have ‘rights.’ You have privileges, and you only have them as far as you can effectively enforce them.”

    That is why the metapolitical focus is so important, particularly in the framework of a Northwest Republic.

    We can learn from this.

    • Posted February 20, 2011 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      @ “Kelso’s treatment at CPAC…”

      Thanks a lot for mentioning it, Fourmyle of Ceres! As James Edwards put it a few days ago, “this video makes it clear that the ‘let’s just infiltrate the GOP and conservative organizations’ approach isn’t viable.”

      In other words, mainstreamers are wrong. A convergence of catastrophes in Europe in the next decades that ends up with shell-shocked Pods, our only hope.

      • Posted February 20, 2011 at 11:38 am | Permalink

        P.S.

        LOL!: I just read a reply to an OD fan at the Political Cesspool thread on the Kelso affaire just linked above:

        Political Optimist writes: “I still believe we must work within the mainstream.”

        Reality says: That’s like saying Christians need become porn stars to reach out to the porn industry. You’re just going to make a fool out of yourself.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted February 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

        In reply to Chechar:

        Thanks for the head-up re Edwards.

        The take-home lesson from CPAC is this:

        Mainstreaming is simply a tactic that is doomed to failure, another round of Charlie Brown kicking (sorry!) TRYING TO kick the football.

        At all points, Conservatism, at the strategic level, has been defeated, with such ease as to make you think they are simply straw men, useful tools to bluff the fools (HT: Savitri Devi).

        Conservatism has accomplished exactly NOTHING at the strategic political level.

        At the tactical political level, you can not see Conservatism as “a racket to bluff the fools” (HT: Savitri Devi), as every single “Liberal” social initiative has not only been made legislation, it became all but settled law almost immediately thereafter. Civil Rights? Affirmative Action? Illegal aliens? In ALL examples, the Conservatives, in practice, have been the handmaidens of the Liberals, in purpose.

        Worse- and this is key – these programs were continuously expanded in scope and authority, including being given financial resources without the Budget or Finance Committees (House or Senate, doesn’t matter) making more than the most token, half-hearted of inquiries before doing what the One Party wanted them to do, anyway.

        The lack of anyone at CPAC even pretending that the documents they claim to hold sacred – the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights – are anything more than hollow pieces of paper, in practice, makes Conservatism what Buckley said it was – a business, nothing more.

        Again, Metzger, speaking from painfully gained experience, had it right:

        “You do not have ‘rights.’ You have privileges, and you only have them as far as you can effectively enforce them.”

        Conservatives, as we can see, have no interest whatsoever in protecting the rights of anyone who is not politically correct, in the eyes of the Liberals.

        We can learn from this.

        • Posted February 20, 2011 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

          A commenter named Larry has taken issue with OD-ers and mainstreamers at the Political Cesspool thread on the Kelso video, here:

          Larry says: Trying to “infiltrate” the GOP in hopes of using it to advance the causes of white people is ridiculous. It’s time to abandon all notions of conventional “right” and “left.” They are essentially the same ideology wrapped in a different package. Both want universal democracy, both support multiculturalism, both believe it is wrong for the government to step in and promote traditional values, both are completely worthless. The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.

          The way I see it, we are so far gone as a nation that only outright white nationalism/traditionalism can save us. Therefore, any attempt at infiltrating a decaying political party in order to get it to be slightly less degenerate is insufficient and a waste of time.

          Go ahead and keep reading the nonsense at Occidental Dissent and donating your hard-earned money to libertarian organizations and GOP candidates, you might as well be pissing it down a toilet. Here is my New Year’s resolution in regards to politics: If a group or cause or candidate is not 100% pro-white, I will not donate my time or money to it. A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

          • Posted February 20, 2011 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

            P.S.

            And now I’ve added a new entry in my blog containing more excerpts of that exchange of The Political Cesspool, here.

          • Fourmyle of Ceres
            Posted February 20, 2011 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

            In reply to Chechar:

            Thanks for the quote from “Larry.”

            He’s made some great points; let’s look at them, shall we?

            Larry wrote:

            Trying to “infiltrate” the GOP in hopes of using it to advance the causes of white people is ridiculous. It’s time to abandon all notions of conventional “right” and “left.” They are essentially the same ideology wrapped in a different package. Both want universal democracy, both support multiculturalism, both believe it is wrong for the government to step in and promote traditional values, both are completely worthless. The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.

            In reply, his summary sentences for this paragraph,“The interests of our people rise above all else. Everything else pales in comparison.” is exactly the right note – to look for anything other than the interests of our Race as being first, foremost, forever, and ALL Institutions as servants of that Purpose, is the height of folly, and an apt description of how we came to be where we are now.

            Larry wrote:

            The way I see it, we are so far gone as a nation that only outright white nationalism/traditionalism can save us. Therefore, any attempt at infiltrating a decaying political party in order to get it to be slightly less degenerate is insufficient and a waste of time.

            In reply, note the realization that attempting to take over a house filled with termites is more trouble than it is worth. It is much better to build a new house, with steel framing.

            Remember, being involved with any political party, other than for the purpose of learning how to organize politically, simply guarantees you will be everything but effective.

            And there are those who prefer it that way.

            Larry wrote:

            Go ahead and keep reading the nonsense at Occidental Dissent and donating your hard-earned money to libertarian organizations and GOP candidates, you might as well be pissing it down a toilet. Here is my New Year’s resolution in regards to politics: If a group or cause or candidate is not 100% pro-white, I will not donate my time or money to it. A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

            In reply, this sentence is particularly apt: A candidate who agrees with us on most issues but who states publicly that he abhors “racism” does more harm to our cause than good.

            Of course, by “racism” they mean policies and practices that are favored by the White Race.

            Four quick points:

            One, all that we have done has worked to the benefit of other races, as well. Our technology, our skills, our systems of governance, all have benefited the rest of the world far beyond anything of their own devise.

            Two, they hate us for this.

            Three, they all want to move to White countries.

            Four, when the Republicans ran with an implicitly racial focus, however limited, they usually won, and they usually won decisively.

            We can learn from this.

          • Junghans
            Posted February 21, 2011 at 7:34 am | Permalink

            Needless to say, Larry is absolutely right. Accept no substitutes to full-speed-ahead White Nationalism, by whatever name. To support anything else is to plough the sea.

    • Lew
      Posted February 20, 2011 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      I admire and respect Kelso for his courage in confronting that crowd with an explicit argument for racial preservation. I’m sure everyone does, as he took on about five or six people by himself in a very hostile environment. Watching the self-loathing of those Whites was painful. But CPAC is a gathering of mostly beltway GOP elites and neocons. What he did was akin to taking his argument into the boardroom of the Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard — an intellectual suicide mission. Despite how Kelso was treated, however, there is still some evidence from CPAC that not all conservatives are a lost cause. So far the emphasis in WN circles on the Kelso incident has been on the treatment Kelso received at the hands of one tiny group of conservatives milling about in the hallway. WNists have paid less attention to the fact that Youth For Western Civilization also had a presence at CPAC and were able to hold their event without issue. The people outside the YFWC event are likely the ones who would agree with Kelso in private.

      There was also a recent discussion on the A3P mailing list about renting space at next year’s CPAC. Apparently there were some folks from the A3P at CPAC this year attending events and talking to people, and they weren’t thrown out or asked to leave.

      • Posted February 20, 2011 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        @ “Youth For Western Civilization also had a presence at CPAC and were able to hold their event without issue.”

        This is deceiving. Watch that “Youth For Western Civilization” for yourselves. Those guys with Tom Tancredo as their keynote addresser never went beyond the limits of PC within current conservatism. We can imagine what would have happened if Kelso was present among the speakers.

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted February 20, 2011 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

          In reply to Chechar:

          You are absolutely correct.

          Tell you what.

          Next year, call and ask to attend as a reporter for the Vanguard news Network.

          Have a friend run a booth for White Rabbit Radio, and the Northwest Republic, while handing out Whitaker’s Mantra on leaflets to the attendees.

          Let’s see just how “tolerant” and “inclusive” these people are.

          You can just imagine it when the C-SPAN reporters walk up to you:

          C-SPAN: “Yes, who are you and what media organization do you represent?”

          Chechar: “The Vanguard News Network.”

          C-SPAN: “I’ve never heard of you. What’s your philosophy?”

          Chechar: “No Jews, Just Right.”

          C-SPAN: “I’m sorry, we sem to be having technical difficulties. And you, sir, who do you represent?”

          Our Guy: “I represent the Northwest Front, which is organizng a racial homeland for the White Race. We have several books that outline our basic philosophy, and…”

          C-SPAN: “More technical problems, sorry. And you sir, who do ytou represent?”

          White Rabbit: “I represent White Rabbit Radio. We’re opposed to the genocide of White children. You know, people talk about Africa for the Africans, and…”

          Priceless.

          We can learn from this.

          • Amanda Bradley
            Posted February 25, 2011 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

            I think that’s a great idea. In addition, we would have much more success in talking to people when asking the questions rather than being on the defensive.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted February 20, 2011 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

        In reply to Lew:

        You wrote:

        I admire and respect Kelso for his courage in confronting that crowd with an explicit argument for racial preservation. I’m sure everyone does, as he took on about five or six people by himself in a very hostile environment. Watching the self-loathing of those Whites was painful.

        In reply:
        I did not see “self-loathing,” as they were not even THAT Racially Conscious.

        I saw open contempt, and animosity that rose all but to the level of criminal action.

        I saw mocking indifference to the Idea that Kelso had (so-called) “First Amendment Rights” worth protecting.

        I saw those who you would expect to be an ideal audience for Bob Whitaker’s Mantra – even given in sections – they were of the age to be parents.

        Their open contempt and passive aggression toward Kelso and his ideas is all we need to see about the futility of dealing with Conservatives on the all-important Idea of Race.

        And, that “self-loathing?”

        Hell, they were as happy and content as you could be!

        And, the actions of the two men who demanded – DEMANDED – Kelso’s property – a button – and went to strip it from him.

        Is that “loathing,” or does it open itself for an opportunity for police intervention?

        Did Kelso have the right to say “NO,” when they demanded the button?

        I don’t think so; that’s a “right” that fits right into Metzger’s Definition.

        What Kelso had was not a “right” to own his own property, much less speak his mind quietly and peacefully.

        No, in fact, these are mere “privileges,” which could be very expensive to assert.

        No sense chasing the football, Charlie Brown!

        Better to take that energy and intelligence, and form another Team, and play another Game.

        Instead of “Lucy and the football,” a favorite for how Conservatives treat us, why not, oh, “Rugby, with the Bastards?”

        COMPREHENSION:

        As Harold Covington has so often stated,

        “Every time we play THEIR Game, by THEIR Rules, we always lose.”

        Think The Game is rigged, Charlie Brown?

        Like to win ONE, for a change, Charlie Brown?

        Tired of approval dancing for people who intend to rejoice at the genocide of White Children, Charlie Brown?

        You wrote:

        But CPAC is a gathering of mostly beltway GOP elites and neocons. What he did was akin to taking his argument into the boardroom of the Wall Street Journal or the Weekly Standard — an intellectual suicide mission.

        In reply, CPAC made C-SPAN.

        Think an American Renaissance conference would be held on C-SPAN, if they were allowed to meet somewhere?

        CPAC matters, and the actions we saw regarding Kelso are the actions we will see regarding ANYONE who attempts to discuss Race from a Positive, White perspective.

        Remember, these “inside the Beltway” types, and their Posterity – Kelso was speaking to college age kids – view US as the Enemy, in an almost inchoate state of anger towards us.

        That’s why not ONE of these admirers of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, raised one hand – not even one voice – to defend Mr. Kelso’s right to speak.

        You wrote:

        Despite how Kelso was treated, however, there is still some evidence from CPAC that not all conservatives are a lost cause.

        In reply:
        Are all Conservatives “a lost cause?”

        In theory, no.

        In practice, for all that matter, yes.

        Worse, they are our Opposition at all points.

        You wrote:

        So far the emphasis in WN circles on the Kelso incident has been on the treatment Kelso received at the hands of one tiny group of conservatives milling about in the hallway.

        In reply, the “treatment Kelso received” was not contested at any point, in the slightest way, by any of the Conservatives, or the people who demanded – quite forcefully – a button be returned.

        Why the button being returned?

        Because Kelso was talking about Race – the one issue Republicans win on consistently – and they could not have Race identified with Conservatism.

        Listen to them explain, IN THEIR OWN WORDS, why they wanted the button back.

        Whose side are they on?

        That’s right, Charlie Brown.

        They’re on the side of the Management, and the Management serves at the behest of the Owners – who, in the words of Durant, “manage all.”

        Particularly the political kabuki we call Conservatism.

        You wrote:

        WNists have paid less attention to the fact that Youth For Western Civilization also had a presence at CPAC and were able to hold their event without issue.

        In reply, so could AmRen, because they are impotent on the Race issue.

        They will always stay inside the lines drawn by Others.

        Did even one of them attempt to use Bob Whitaker’s Mantra to frame issues?

        No.

        THAT would open the door to an explicit discussion of Race, opposing the de facto genocide of White children.

        That wouldn’t do, because, in practice, the de facto genocide of White children seems to be part of the policy and practices of the One Party.

        And Whitaker’s Mantra opens the door to this, explicitly, and lets us actually win one, for a welcome change.

        You wrote:

        The people outside the YFWC event are likely the ones who would agree with Kelso in private.

        In reply, no, they mocked him in public, and not one even raised their voice to defend his right to speak, his “Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.”

        Did anyone contact Kelso later and say they were sorry they did not come to his aid, and in doing so, support the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

        No.

        You wrote:

        There was also a recent discussion on the A3P mailing list about renting space at next year’s CPAC. Apparently there were some folks from the A3P at CPAC this year attending events and talking to people, and they weren’t thrown out or asked to leave.

        In reply, “DISCUSSION?”

        We are actually preparing to DISCUSS something?

        Let’s DISCUSS their renting space to Kelso, for an opportunity to discuss Whitaker’s Mantra.

        As for A3P, they seem to be a bit silent of explicitly dealing with the issue of Race. With respect to Professor MacDonald, A3P is as effective as the BNP.

        Until we deal forthrightly with the genocide of White children, which we will never be allowed to do at a Conservative meeting – ask Kelso – we shall always be Charlie Brown playing THEIR Game, with THEIR Rules.

        We will always lose, and isn’t that the function of a controlled opposition?

        Afterwards, we can all go to a nice restaurant and meet with the people who cheer on our Racial demise.

        What would be the common motto of such advocates for us?

        “Greet, eat, meet, retreat.”

        Especially the “retreat” part.

  4. Phil
    Posted February 19, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Both Matt Parrott and William Rome’s strategies are needed. In N.Y. City, Los Angeles, Miami and other cities Mr. Rome’s idea is the only viable way in 2011. Celtic/Germanic/Slavic European Americans are a minority in these cities. Demanding equal treatment in the multicult is the best you are going to get there. In other parts of America Matt Parrott’s strategy will work. But the demographics in the USA are changing really fast.

    Jamie Kelso’s interaction with those rich, sheltered young conservatives shouldn’t surprise anyone. These kids have grown up with Franz Boaz’s “race means nothing” ideology. Their reaction to Jamie was an emotional reaction. Jamie was challenging what they have been taught their entire lives. What do guys expect? There are also young people at CPAC who would agree with Jamie in private.

    When conservatives agreed with affirmative action, civil rights acts, and the 1965 immigration act back when these laws were first enacted, they didn’t or couldn’t see the future of 2011. The 1960s or even 1970s America was a vastly different place. Those conservatives simply didn’t understand how all of these laws would drastically change America.

    Matt, the “my way or the highway” approach isn’t, in 2011, beneficial to European Americans. In 1964, yes. But massive immigration means, in some places, European Amercians are going to have to take what they can get. I think this is appalling and disgusting, but that’s the reality in 2011 America. Ending birthright citizenship and stopping most immigration should be at the top of your list.

    This argument between Matt and William is not even necessary. Both ideas should be used, depending on the demographic of the area and the audience that is being spoken to.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted February 19, 2011 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

      In reply to Phil:

      I must disagree with almost everything you said, with the exception of proper political thinking – do what we can, on their terms, until we can do what we want to, on our terms.

      You wrote:

      Both Matt Parrott and William Rome’s strategies are needed. In N.Y. City, Los Angeles, Miami and other cities Mr. Rome’s idea is the only viable way in 2011. Celtic/Germanic/Slavic European Americans are a minority in these cities. Demanding equal treatment in the multicult is the best you are going to get there. In other parts of America Matt Parrott’s strategy will work. But the demographics in the USA are changing really fast.

      In reply, while I support doing anything rather than doing nothing, the idea that we will be able to “sneak up” on the professional Alynskyites is the height of folly. The model of hitting them with a variation of Bob Whitaker’s Mantra only makes sense if it will be used to draw attention to the situation before us.

      Anything else is political kabuki, the hallmark of the Conservative.

      You wrote:

      Jamie Kelso’s interaction with those rich, sheltered young conservatives shouldn’t surprise anyone. These kids have grown up with Franz Boaz’s “race means nothing” ideology. Their reaction to Jamie was an emotional reaction. Jamie was challenging what they have been taught their entire lives. What do guys expect? There are also young people at CPAC who would agree with Jamie in private.

      In reply, their reaction to Jamie was not just “emotional.” It was also intellectual – well, really, pseudointellectual. Their emotional state overpowered any chance for Jamie’s intellectual arguments to make headway. Further, Jamie’s phrasing of the issue hit with the emotional core for the young women – children. Again, they responded with the pattern that had been imprinted on them.

      As to what I expect from people who have been indoctrinated so effectively, I can only point out the obvious – Jamie faced physical intimidation from people solely for wearing a button – ideological purity triumphing over intellectual honesty.

      We will not be accepted by them, absent a major crisis where Family become first; that is the foundation of Race.

      And, not one would agree with Jamie “in private.”

      After all, that would require their having accepted his analysis to the point they could overcome the indoctrination.

      LOOK in the faces of the people Jamie was talking to; look in their eyes, look at their body language.

      LOOK at how they were amused by what he had to say.

      LOOK at how, once someone realized Jamie was discussing the issue of Race, people come by, go right up to Jamie, and TAKE the conference button from him.

      Now, THAT is the power of indoctrination, the soft prison of political control, and we are way late to the party.

      Notice, by the way, that not ONE of the students came to Jamie’s defense – even verbally – when he was approached by people who made him take the button off.

      THAT is the difference between the self-selected impotence of Wordism, and REAL political power, and THAT is all you need to know.

      You wrote:

      When conservatives agreed with affirmative action, civil rights acts, and the 1965 immigration act back when these laws were first enacted, they didn’t or couldn’t see the future of 2011. The 1960s or even 1970s America was a vastly different place. Those conservatives simply didn’t understand how all of these laws would drastically change America.

      In reply, total nonsense – and I am being very moderate in making that statement.

      WHY did CONservatives “agree with affirmative action, civil rights acts, and the 1965 immigration act,” all stunning refutations of state’s rights?

      WHY have CONservatives voted continuously even since to fund these programs with more and more funding, and allowed them to expand the domain of their influence ever more deeply into all of private life?

      The answer is obvious – the CONservatives AGREED with them, allowing them to pass with token resistance, and then funding them and supporting them, to the exclusion of the support of their now-helpless political base.

      Proof?

      The CONservatives never even tried to roll back ONE of these initiatives; ALL were funded to ever greater degrees, and their bureaucracies expanded by the day.

      You wrote:

      Matt, the “my way or the highway” approach isn’t, in 2011, beneficial to European Americans. In 1964, yes. But massive immigration means, in some places, European Americans are going to have to take what they can get. I think this is appalling and disgusting, but that’s the reality in 2011 America. Ending birthright citizenship and stopping most immigration should be at the top of your list.

      In reply, “ending birthright citizenship and stopping most immigration” are the totally ineffective goals the One Party wants us to focus on, and they have us beat on all grounds.

      “Illegal” immigration?

      To these people, the solution is simple.

      Make them legal.

      Reagan did it, this was called “Amnesty” then, it’s called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” now.

      “…stopping most immigration?”

      That’s another Red Queen’s Race; after all, we are not allowed to even slow down illegal immigration.

      These are nice little footballs for Charlie Brown to be trying to kick, while the One Party will have hundreds of ways to pull the ball away at the last second.

      You wrote:

      This argument between Matt and William is not even necessary. Both ideas should be used, depending on the demographic of the area and the audience that is being spoken to.

      In reply, the argument between Matt and William has forced a wonderful clarity of focus for those who wonder why the White Nationalists have failed at every political initiative.

      It’s simple.

      They came to White Nationalist from CONservatism, and that is where they were always betrayed – softly, quietly, behind the scenes – and never even felt the knife going in. It was true for Professor Revilo Oliver then, it’s no less true for us, today.

      Look at the total negation Jamie Kelso faced, and know that this did not come from mere ideological differences on the margin of political discourse. This came from “Animal Farm,” when there was the most remote chance of intellectual honesty leading to change. THEN, The Dogs – invisible until then – were loosed.

      “Some are more equal than others,” and the total physical intimidation brought to bear on Kelso served as an object lesson to the sheep; one that, I assure you, they will not soon forget.

      Neither should we.

      They denied his right to SPEAK – his right to EXIST in their political system, and they deny, and will continue to deny, and OUR Right to Exist, as a Race.

      We can learn from this.

    • Wandrin
      Posted February 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

      “But massive immigration means, in some places, European Amercians are going to have to take what they can get. ”

      The tactics should adapt to the surroundings but the goal should be the same.

      All of it.

  5. icr
    Posted February 19, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    This seems relevant:
    http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/22
    (…)

    Hedonism dissolves social cohesion and makes sacrifice for the common good seem irrational. Bureaucratic rule weakens the public spirit that arises from political participation, and so destroys the disinterested support it needs to be effective. Nor can proposals for trimming bureaucracy and improving efficiency, such as increasing the role of markets, save the situation, since they do not affect the root of the problem, the egalitarian hedonism and ultimate state responsibility for individual well-being that undermine personal moral ties and individual responsibility.

    Egalitarian hedonism is too abstract to impose concrete limits on either private self-seeking or state power. Unprincipled conduct in public and private life is the consequence. Attempts to dress hedonism in the language of human rights only aggravate its tendency toward abstraction and confer an unwarranted moral dignity on impulse and appetite. Through its very universality the modern conception of rights becomes empty, finding it difficult even to distinguish the rights of man from those of animals. Society thus becomes unable to establish the boundaries needed for its own defense. Plato tells us that a polity that rejects the good, the honorable, and even the commercially sound in favor of the pleasant will slide into anarchy and despotism, unable to maintain the standards required to secure the physical comfort and safety that are its bedrock demand. The appalling tyrannies that have disfigured modern times, as well as current statistics on crime and other social disorders, support his view.

    (…)

  6. Posted February 18, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    William “Fuck Dr. Pierce” Rome says: “[The ‘vanguardists’] repel people who don’t conform to their rigid ideology. I say fuck ‘em.”

    I say good riddance to the repellent Mr. Rome and his phony ‘WN’ pals. Our “rigid ideology” of uncompromising racial loyalty is something to which these deracinated souls can never subscribe. Their lives are one long compromise to racial loyalty after another.

    Quote from here: http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70500
    “What’s pathetic is that a constitutional whigger like William “Fuck Dr. Pierce” Rome over at “Hunter Wallace’s” OD Forum is somehow considered a ‘White nationalist’ writer at all while smearing a giant of a racial loyalist like Dr. William Pierce.”

  7. FWM
    Posted February 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    I see a shattered race every single day, demoralized, trivialized, degraded. I think White Nationalists are a group of guys who through intellect and insight, come to a true, long term understanding of what is happening to their race. They take the red pill, not because they have earned it, but despite what has been there upbringing. They take all of the same abuse we are all brought up with in public school, divorced parents, Mammon-worshiping, tax-free Christian Zionism, slimed-out Judaic Hollywood. This produces dysfunctional adults of low character. Covington hammers home about this all of the time, I gather having walked several miles in those shoes.

    White Nationalists come with this gem of insight, but with the average character of the tweaked out, D’Wan-loving, multi-cult, mudshark. We are no worst. We are no better. We are very much products of our environment, a decimated people and culture. There is no prize for the superlative subgroup that is the most odd or alienating. We all have it to a degree.

    This just makes it moot, insofar as it becomes a pissing match of status. Mr. Rome is welcome to all of the status he so desires. Hob-nobbing with Tyreek and LaShonda doesn’t do it for me AND I’m one of those transcendental, religious guys, who feels I must have been given this rare knowledge for a reason. Thus, I’m going to fight for my family, my people, and our shared traditions. A lot of braver and brighter people than me have felt that this was the right path. In fact, just about everyone I know from history that I admire has chosen this course.

    I like sleeping well at night. It is just that simple.

  8. Posted February 18, 2011 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    I’m surprised you’re not more enthused with young William’s plans. The guy is basically going into enemy territory and giving folks a first pass treatment, seemingly making them ideal grist for the phase-2 Parrott Process mill-works.

    • Posted February 18, 2011 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

      It’s a pleasure to catch you again, Randy.

      Had his essay been framed as a strategy, embracing multiculturalism and holding it to its own rules, I wouldn’t have had anything to object to. If the context made it possible that he was encouraging WNs to go behind enemy lines with this message, I would have held my tongue. But the fact that he embedded the article in an attack on ethnic nationalism, to an audience of ethnic nationalists, makes it clear that the purpose of the piece was to persuade the audience to abandon nationalism in favor of assimilation.

      It’s a worthwhile project to persuade urban hipsters to stop being ashamed of their heritage. It’s a bad project to persuade committed nationalists to dismiss our goal of a nation-state in favor of this White Hipsterism.

      • Gregor
        Posted February 18, 2011 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        Matt;

        “Had his essay been framed as a strategy, embracing multiculturalism and holding it to its own rules, I wouldn’t have had anything to object to.”

        I’m really angry at myself for accidentally zapping my response to “fourmyle” because what you style as “… embracing multiculturalism and holding it to its own rules …” is EXACTLY my point … both in my reply and in my earlier posts.

        Once it’s “held to its own rules”, we can take a “Seat” without apology. Of course the “usual suspects” will make a stink about it. but that very stench will play out in the minds of our targets, other Whites, as breaching the rules of “fairness” most Whites are endowed with. The goal is to be “inclusive” of our own, on terms they can understand, and to EXCLUDE the Enemy from moral legitimacy in terms of how our kinfolk understand “moral legitimacy”.

        A lot of the problem with this discourse is that we may be using the same words, but have different meanings attached. “Multiculturalism” is just this kind of word. It’s actually a double-edged sword that can be of use to us.

        So, if you have no problem with discourse as you described it above, do we still have a “problem” between us ??? (wink)

      • Cary
        Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:04 am | Permalink

        I read the Rome essays as seeking a way to speak of our goal (namely, working to obtain what is good for the diverse white peoples) in the kinds of communities that are, in fact, multicultural in order to speak directly in our white voices to the new-comers.

        I didn’t see that Rome actually accepted the principles of multiculture. I saw his ideas as accepting that part of multiculturalism that offers a difficult-to-assail white platform for white discourse with white people about white issues. The steps getting there are many and varied.

        There is nothing stopping us from consciously creating a pan-European, white community at any time, and understanding that white creativity will take many forms depending upon where we find ourselves.

      • Posted February 19, 2011 at 9:45 am | Permalink

        Aha. I see the distinction. I suppose it’s rather ironic to be lamenting a lack of group comity while engaging in the very type of activity which causes it.

  9. Sam Davidson
    Posted February 18, 2011 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    Matt Parrott made some good points. I’d like to expand upon his final thought:

    Either you get that we have a right to exist or you don’t.

    If a White American genuinely understands that his race and people are going through a catastrophic decline, being replaced by foreign races (which constitutes genocide), and lacking political representation in any political party and being repressed from forming viable political alternatives (especially in Europe), it becomes clear that –

    The only sane position for Whites is White Nationalism.

    The name does not matter but the positions do: an end to non-white immigration, the formation of all-white living spaces, an end to the anti-white political system. These positions don’t change because one is disgusted by some of the more crude or unproductive individuals associated with the movement. Not a damn bit. We are in this movement because our race has been backed into a corner and the enemy is closing in. The consequences of failure will be final and irreversible.

    Instead of watering down our message, appealing to the lowest common denominator, and effectively neutering ourselves in an attempt to look good in the eyes of the system which is determined to annihilate us, we should be forming a hard-line dedicated to the preservation of our race and drawing up plans to that end.

    Here is what South African Prime Minister Verwoerd said in 1961,
    “It is easy for this generation to protect itself. It is easy during the course of the next ten or fifteen years by means of gradual concessions, to continue living as always in the past, making money and being prosperous and avoiding unrest. But what then? Are not the children who come after us worth more than ourselves? The question we must ask is, what will happen to South Africa afterward?”

  10. Kievsky
    Posted February 18, 2011 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    This is a period of radical ferment in society, because of the gross mismanagement of the country. 20,000 people made a spontaneous demonstration yesterday. I’m not making a value judgment on the right or wrong of the Wisconsin public employees, but the fact is, 20,000 Americans got off their butts and showed up in the same place at the same time.

    That’s huge.

    It’s simply something that hasn’t happened in decades. They’ve kept a lid on things. They were even saying, “it’s the contagion from Egypt to Wisconsin.”

    One remark on the Wisconsin public employees, and American public employees everywhere, and all of us really, if the country goes bankrupt and there’s simply no money there, all the demonstrations in the world won’t make money magically appear.

    American society is very unstable. When the lid blows off, that will be the

    best

    argument

    ever

    against mutt-culturalism. Yee ha!

    • Ciaran
      Posted February 18, 2011 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

      Kievsky – the teachers are “rebelling” cause the Governor of Wisconsin is attempting to be responsible adult, and he’s cutting our Teacher Bennies Crack – cause there is no money left. China is not gonna pay for American Crackhead Bennies.

      The Teachers are Crackheads. They love thier inflated salaries, and goodies, and all that vacation time.

      Their presence, on the streets, is horrifying barometer of the dysfunction, and dysgenis.

      The citizenry of Egypt are rebelling in order to obtain the “right” to simply feed themselves.

      It’s really ugly in the shards of th USA. It’s not like Arab rebellion has spread – it’s like Detroit is Crap has spread.

      I am helping my husband judge the essays, written by local Middle and High School students, on various aspects of the US Government. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation are…no longer relevant….the children all think the structure of the US Government is a “democracy”. No one is aware of something called a “republic”.

      Skeery.

      So – do I possess any sympathies for the “teachers” in WI?

      Errr…no.

      Teachers in Wisconsin are BAD.

      I’s personally like to ship ’em all to Bahrain.

  11. Gregor
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    Agree with both Junghans and Karsten at the bottom of this thread. The Cultural Marxists seek our Genocide. But are the targets of any mind-changing discourse the Cultural Marxists? No.

    But isn’t it possible to use the “multicult” organizing platform to legitimize “whiteness” among the no-quite-totally-brainwashed segment of Whites? I really cannot see any other way to approach Whites, at this point, without operating INSIDE their obsession with diversity, and operating as a PART of that diversity, at least as a first stage.

    If we take the “hard line” stage while still having no legitimacy under the current system, isn’t that just beating our heads against a brick wall?

    Their programming can be broken by asking Whites if their end goal of “diversity” will be finally reached when all Whites are genocided. Yes, the Cultural Marxists have that goal, but don’t you think it’s possible to reach some level of indoctrinated Whites by showing them their own Genocide is the price they seem willing to pay for their ideology?

    To me, this strategic question of “to ‘join’ or not to ‘join'” but w/o losing identity or genetic mixing … this is the question that must be answered soon. If we’re totally outside the “system”, we have no power to evangelize to our “own”. We have to have some stage which SEEMS (to Whites) legitimate as a place to present our message to them.

    • Fourmyle of Ceres
      Posted February 18, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      In reply (again) to Gregor:

      You wrote:

      Agree with both Junghans and Karsten at the bottom of this thread. The Cultural Marxists seek our Genocide. But are the targets of any mind-changing discourse the Cultural Marxists? No.

      But isn’t it possible to use the “multicult” organizing platform to legitimize “whiteness” among the no-quite-totally-brainwashed segment of Whites? I really cannot see any other way to approach Whites, at this point, without operating INSIDE their obsession with diversity, and operating as a PART of that diversity, at least as a first stage.

      In reply:
      No.

      They have negated us culturally, economically, and politically, at all possible points.

      They intend to destroy us, and our Families.

      You wrote:

      If we take the “hard line” stage while still having no legitimacy under the current system, isn’t that just beating our heads against a brick wall?

      In reply:
      The “brick wall” is rotted.

      Ten dollars a galllon gasoline, and worse, will weaken it even further.

      The social contract that allows members of a nation to join a state has been softly violated since 1973; the rate of abrogation will only accelerate henceforth.

      You wrote:

      Their programming can be broken by asking Whites if their end goal of “diversity” will be finally reached when all Whites are genocided. Yes, the Cultural Marxists have that goal, but don’t you think it’s possible to reach some level of indoctrinated Whites by showing them their own Genocide is the price they seem willing to pay for their ideology?

      In reply:
      Thank you for realizing the power of the word “genocide,” a applied to the White Race.

      Now, apply it to “White Children” – paraphrasing Bob Whitaker’s Mantra – and consistently repeat that message, and you will change hearts, which is the first step towards truly changing minds.

      The guys at white rabbit radio are on this pretty hard, too; very useful site.

      We’re ALMOST back to the 14 Words!

      You wrote:

      To me, this strategic question of “to ‘join’ or not to ‘join’” but w/o losing identity or genetic mixing … this is the question that must be answered soon. If we’re totally outside the “system”, we have no power to evangelize to our “own”. We have to have some stage which SEEMS (to Whites) legitimate as a place to present our message to them.

      In reply:
      The damn world is our stage, and the Stars will be.

      And, every time a White Family ends up at 99 weeks, or on welfare, they are just waiting for our Message of Hope, and Answers.

      Seeking the legitimacy – the tolerance, much less the approval – of people who want to destroy us, is an act of folly worthy of Charlie Brown trying to kick the football again.

      Try, ty, try, Charlie Brown.

      There is no “try”; there is only do, or not do, and damn it, DO BETTER!

      Now, as to The Solution?

      The METASOLUTION, temporally, is the Northwest Republic, if only as an analytical model of what we COULD do, and what we SHOULD do.

      We can learn from this.

      • Gregor
        Posted February 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

        FourMyle — (again!)

        Funny that you should mention Bob’s Mantra. It’s something I actually USE several times a week. Until you talked about the Northwest Republic, I almost thought you might be “Simmons” in sock-puppet uniform.

        If you think my position is one of “Seeking the legitimacy – the tolerance, much less the approval – of people who want to destroy us”, you haven’t been paying attention. The whole point of discussing this “Multiculturalism” strategy isn’t to seek the Genocide Types approval, it’s to work from a position of legitimacy to REACH our own people and lead them out of the Enemy “meme-matrix”.

        It’s amusing to hear you recommend Horus and WRR to me/us. I was one of the first people “there” when Horus launched his operation. You make many ASSUMPTIONS about the “ignorance” you impute to others here. It’s those ASSUMPTIONS (as Simmons kindly reminds us on a regular basis) which are the target of BUGSER attack. Maybe you should glance in a mirror and see your own ASSUMPTIONS about people in this space?

        Both Mantra and Resisting Defamation tools are in play, and growing.

        But you STILL have not presented us with an alternate platform for activism-organizing which is “better” than infiltrating the mind of the “Multicult” by joining their own game (on a certain sub-rosa level), and rubbing their noses in their own crap.

        All of your posts so far have only been more whining about how bad the bad guys are and how hopeless our situation is. The White Rabbit “Meister” has much to say about that. I want to both work with that, and go beyond it to something effective.

        I’m not going to worry about the “Stars” until there is a place for us “Here”. To do otherwise would be silly.

        • Fourmyle of Ceres
          Posted February 18, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

          In reply to Gregor:

          You wrote:

          FourMyle — (again!)

          Funny that you should mention Bob’s Mantra. It’s something I actually USE several times a week. Until you talked about the Northwest Republic, I almost thought you might be “Simmons” in sock-puppet uniform.

          In reply, then you are aware that the Mantra variant replacing the word “race” with the word “children” seems to be a wonderfully effective tool.

          What is of greater importance is the “taking the war to the Enemy” with pattern arguments available on BUGS and Horus’s websites.

          This is of critical importance, as we address the issue of *ahem* what is to be done?

          If the Mantra stops them, for a second, then what?

          THAT is where Counter-Currents, and the Northwest Republic, come together.

          I’ll explain why this is important directly.

          You wrote:

          If you think my position is one of “Seeking the legitimacy – the tolerance, much less the approval – of people who want to destroy us”, you haven’t been paying attention. The whole point of discussing this “Multiculturalism” strategy isn’t to seek the Genocide Types approval, it’s to work from a position of legitimacy to REACH our own people and lead them out of the Enemy “meme-matrix”.

          In reply, it seems the entire patttern has been of “getting a seat at the table.”

          I can assure you, from painfully gained experience, these people are devoted to the destruction of our Race at a profound, almost inchoate, emotional level. They do not use Robert’s Rules of Order at all – or any rules, at all – other than to isolate you, today, so they can destroy you, and all you stand for, tomorrow.

          You wrote:

          It’s amusing to hear you recommend Horus and WRR to me/us. I was one of the first people “there” when Horus launched his operation. You make many ASSUMPTIONS about the “ignorance” you impute to others here. It’s those ASSUMPTIONS (as Simmons kindly reminds us on a regular basis) which are the target of BUGSER attack. Maybe you should glance in a mirror and see your own ASSUMPTIONS about people in this space?

          In reply, my assumptions are based on painfully gained experience, and what I see before me.

          I see a stunning combination of incompetence, among the ignorant, and what seems to be political kabuki, among the competent.

          I do not see anyone, absent a very few people, indeed, working on (1) how to be effective, (2) being effective, and (3) tying it all into an overarching goal.

          I see a System that has isolated and encysted – neutralized – the few competent people the Dream seems to attract.

          I see few – Whitaker standing like a beacon, and Duke – who bother to address how we get to be politically effective.

          I see a lot more Charlie Brown and the football, than I do the next William Luther Pierce, the next Harold Covington, the next Bob Whitaker – although “Dave” from BUGS might be up to it!

          You wrote:

          Both Mantra and Resisting Defamation tools are in play, and growing.

          In reply, so much the better. What’s next? Why, and how will it make a better world for our Posterity, our Children?

          You wrote:

          But you STILL have not presented us with an alternate platform for activism-organizing which is “better” than infiltrating the mind of the “Multicult” by joining their own game (on a certain sub-rosa level), and rubbing their noses in their own crap.

          In reply, look at light, and see how soft it is, and how easily it bounces from surface to surface.

          Now focus the light, and you create a laser – able to cut diamonds, and the hardest steel.

          It is this lack of disciplined focus that limits what Light we have to offer, what Light we bring to the situation.

          THAT is The Next Step that is well worth considering.

          Above all, the overarching framework – the metaframework – requires an Analytical Model that can be used to analyze the situation before us, and develop Creative solutions that are best for our Race.

          You wrote:

          All of your posts so far have only been more whining about how bad the bad guys are and how hopeless our situation is.

          In reply, not in the least.

          The “bad guys” aren’t just “bad” – they are evil, and are committing the greatest evil in 2000 years, as they joyously suggest and encourage the genocide of the White Race.

          You wrote:

          The White Rabbit “Meister” has much to say about that. I want to both work with that, and go beyond it to something effective.

          In reply:
          I’d like to “go beyond” Horus, to “something effective,” and something even MORE effective.

          Until we can answer The Question all politicians must answer; “Why should I even listen to you, much less vote for you?” in a short, consistent, message, we will never make headway.

          I like the Mantra, it also leads to the 14 Words, which gets the right people, from the perspective of the vertical component of Race, moving in the right direction.

          And that direction IS?

          Northwest, today, and, in time, to the Stars.

          You wrote:

          I’m not going to worry about the “Stars” until there is a place for us “Here”. To do otherwise would be silly.

          In reply, the good news is, you won’t be able to have your posterity walk Among The Stars (HT: Kevin Alfred Strom), UNTIL we have “a place for us here.”

          And what would such a “place” look like?

          The Northwest Republic certainly meets all of the criteria for a Racial Homeland from a physical environment level, and the Northwest Republic offers us an Analytical Model where we may begin to actually think, “How would the problems of what America has become be transformed in an all-White nation?”

          I am with Horus, et. al., every damn step of the way on this.

          That’s why I don’t worry about them letting us near their table.

          I’d just as soon we built a better table, that would attract better people.

          As to the kindness of strangers you seem to hope for, and rely upon, look at the recent video of Jamie Kelson at CPAC, and see how he was treated – see how the Mantra was treated – by a group that you would expect to be open to our positions.

          See how Kelso was neutralized, and in what open contempt he was held by those with the most to lose – their futures, and the future of their children.

          We can learn from this.

          • Gregor
            Posted February 18, 2011 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

            Nice response. Our respective wordisms aside, there is a convergence, we are on the same path.

            I watched what happened to Jamie. I’m not sure he could have performed better in that environment. There were definitely PC Officers present to keep things in line, and the “inner PC officer” of self-censorship was definitely visible. Nobody wanted to “step out of line” and risk social ostracism & stigma. They still want to get laid!

            A political conference like that isn’t the best place for “contact”. Jamie should have known that. You don’t take on Sauron on his own castle. But our first job isn’t attacking Sauron anyway, it’s to contact those endangered by him and get them inside our “talking point space”, which will require dealing with them in a “safer” zone.

            That “safer zone” is how I envision making a “clearing” … a “clearing” that’s not openly opposed to the Multicult “ism” on its face. That gives us a clearing to find a subset of Sauron’s victims who are able to see what their future won’t be if they persist on bowing to Mordor.

            It’s just a Clearing to gather forces for the next stage. It’s NOT joining Team Mordor.

            Thanks for your thoughts!

          • Fourmyle of Ceres
            Posted February 18, 2011 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

            In a quick comment to Gregor, the treatment Kelso received at CPAC is most educational; it showed the extent to which the future refused to even consider the red pill.

            Additionally, Kelso faced physical intimidation by people who told him to take off a button – they were THAT afraid of him being seen as representing their cause (small “c”).

            More’s the pity – the combination of physical intimidation, and self-censorship the college students displayed, simply makes dealing with conservatives an exercise in futulity.

            Here, in part, is why.

            Conservatism has failed, ten for ten.

            Those who claim to be for conservatism politically supported illegal immigration, Affirmative Action, all Civil Rights Acts, AND voted to enhance funding for all of them, even after they took political office.

            Meaning – they supported them, too, and all of the nominal opposition was simply political kabuki designed to keep everyone misdirected, and away from the truth.

            Two political parties, one common policy, one set of practices, and we are always on the wrong side.

            The dirty secret of those who support conservatism is this: they really want to be part of an economic and class-based aristocracy. They do not want to do The Work required to be worthy as members of a meritocratic Aristocracy, an organic Aristocracy.

            No, they want to be little baby Buckleys, as a matter of form.

            As a matter of substance, given the economy they face, they have no chance whatsoever of making that grade. The world when Harvard and Yale Class of 1950 ruled the world is GONE.

            That’s why we aren’t conservatives.

            We are Radical Americanists, and Revolutionary Traditionalists.

            Some of us are even both!

            Follow that White Rabbit!

            We can learn from this.

  12. Gregor
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    I really don’t want to live in a multi-cult. It will never be me.

    But if we are, in fact, in a situation of demographic “diversity”, an on-the-ground reality; and if we don’t have the power to kick them out right now.

    If you can name a better ORGANIZING PLATFORM than “Joining the Multi-Cult” as a legitimate demographic among demographics …

    I’d love to hear about it.

    • Posted February 17, 2011 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

      A better organizing platform is to frame and see ourselves as a legitimate nation among nations, not a demographic among demographics within an unstable and hostile regime. We need to rally around and solidify the “White American” ethnonational identity, borrowing from our founding identity, mythologies, and archetypes. Obviously, some aspects of the American Tradition must be improved upon, some bugs must be patched, but our Tradition brought the world its most inventive, creative, and virile nation in history and can achieve even finer hours for our progeny if we can restore it.

      This means embracing an authentically and specifically American vision, not as populist or corn-pone “mainstreamers” following Americans down the path to oblivion, but as Radical Americanists calling on them to follow our lead. Our actual work is that of proving ourselves to be our target audience’s most reliable advocates. When they realize they need advocates, and they will, we should be the obvious choice – reliable in both our goals and our capacity to achieve those goals.

      This is our time in the wilderness, an opportunity to prove to future prospects that we were there for them even in their darkest hour, even when doing so resulted in nearly universal opprobrium. While prophets of “the collapse” have cried wolf repeatedly over the decades, the boy who cried wolf did eventually encounter one. This nation’s elites are burning through their credit and their credibility at an impressive rate, with objective indicators of this reality piling up. Sooner or later God will cut them down.

      Our cardinal task is to be ready for our people when our people are ready for us.

      • Gregor
        Posted February 18, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Matt:

        “A better organizing platform is to frame and see ourselves as a legitimate nation among nations, not a demographic among demographics within an unstable and hostile regime.”

        These two concepts, “Nation” and “Demographic” are both the same thing and different things, at the same time … depending on how one “frames” them. The problem with framing as “nation within nations” is that the consciousness of our kinfolk has been trained to be against “nationalism”. That framing will not reach them on their own terms. To reach them on their own terms, they must be taken in baby-steps from the position of a legitimate “demographic” among many, to the position that the survival of the “demographic” requires the political structure of a “nation”.

        Idealized concepts of the American Nation or any White Nation just don’t, AT THIS POINT, have any power to resonate with most of the target audience. I wish it did, but can’t accept that it will.

        @ FourMyle … I wrote a reply to your inquiries, a long one, and then did something that zapped it before posting. I’m really pissed! It will appear, but not for a while. You asked some good questions, but you have not offered an alternative. More later.

      • Cary
        Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:37 am | Permalink

        “A better organizing platform is to frame and see ourselves as a legitimate nation among nations, not a demographic among demographics within an unstable and hostile regime. We need to rally around and solidify the “White American” ethnonational identity, borrowing from our founding identity, mythologies, and archetypes.”

        Beautiful. Let’s try out the old Articles of Confederation as our pan-Euro bylaws, and do just that. When does this happen?

        {Note: the Articles of Confederation were the original US organizing document uniting the 13 colonies back in 1776 -1789.]

      • Lew
        Posted February 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

        Re: our target audience’s most reliable advocates

        Out of curiosity, who is our target audience in your view? Which class or subset do you try to appeal to, or believe WNists should try to appeal to?

        Based on my years of experience around the movement, I don’t perceive that WNists have a target audience other than each other. For the most part, Internet WNism operates as a closed information system where people make the same arguments over and over again that are convincing to each other but no one outside the loop.

        William Rome, at least, aims to take the case for legitimizing a form of White identity outside the loop. He has a specific audience in mind (gen-y multiculturalists) and a specific message that might actually resonate with that audience given their assumptions and worldview.

        Because Rome has crafted a targeted message geared toward a specific audience, he probably has more of a chance of convincing people outside the loop to consider the legitimacy of White identity than most WNists.

        • William Rome
          Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

          Thank you Lew. Our cause we would be much better off today if we had had folks as intelligent as you dominatin it the last few decades.

        • Posted February 19, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

          My target audience is tradition- and family-oriented White Americans, with a special focus on conservatives from Indiana. I’ve both given this consideration a great deal of thought and have been executing this strategy for nearly two years. During this period of time, supporters and volunteers have been positively responding to this message, our monthly meetings have been well-attended, and every barometer indicates that we’re quantifiable progress recruiting folks who come from outside our movement.

          If you listen to my radio show, you may notice that I try to interview people who are not openly WN and even people who aren’t White, in an effort to reach outside of the ideological ghetto. I get your point and believe my work reflects an understanding of it.

          As I’ve previously stated, I have no objection to Rome’s strategy if it’s truly a strategy and that none of us actually believe that truly embracing multiculturalism, with interracial families and communities, is ultimately compatible with our cardinal objectives of preservation and self-determination.

        • Posted February 19, 2011 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

          @ Matt,

          Your work in Indiana is very commendable. But I cannot see how to create an ethnostate without civil war.

          @ Who is our target audience in your view? Which class or subset do you try to appeal to, or believe WNists should try to appeal to? – LEW

          The problem is that as long as most of the public is brainwashed, and TV remains in the hands of die Juden, the “audience” will behave as body snatched pods. Only after that grip has been broken can politics or activism be possible.

          In other words, stagnated in the trenches as we are, we must focus on the development and cultural propagation of our worldview and building a nationalist community (see e.g. my excerpts of Johnson’s second article on violence here).

          I would add that we can start building a nationalist community in the Northwest. If we grant credibility to what Covington just said in his latest podcast, slowly but positively racially conscious people are already starting to migrate there. No community bonds, no real movement can ever be born without its members living within driving distance of each other.

          And then, perhaps after the dollar crashes, or after Europe explodes in jihadist wars as well as Iran (and possibly Egypt) start to play with their nukes with Israel, we will be able to flee the trenches into real showtime.

          • Posted February 20, 2011 at 4:51 am | Permalink

            @ Chechar

            Your work in Indiana is very commendable. But I cannot see how to create an ethnostate without civil war.

            Too few White Americans understand the tribal nature of our struggle to successfully battle or lobby to a victory at this point. I’m not as sure as you that this will all play out violently, as I see our opponents choking on their internal contradictions and competitions in the years to come.

            Until I see the Northwest Imperative coalescing into viable and sustainable communities under proven leadership, I’ll continue to stick with my little Midwest Imperative. Where exactly we all end up is important, but secondary at this point to creating a “we all”.

          • Posted February 20, 2011 at 9:54 am | Permalink

            I wholeheartedly agree with you, Matt. Presently the NF is a mere embryo, an ideal of how whites should behave. I can only hope that, when the sh*t hits the fan horribly in Europe, white Americans will take note of where they’re heading too.

            Still, some of us in the suffocating trenches are so desperate to leave them and fight gallantly that…

  13. Posted February 17, 2011 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    At last I can connect with C-C after a month or so that C-C was “forbidden” in Mexico! (well… Telmex still has to answer my query why other internet servers in this country could connect this month with C-C, but not they).

    @ “My own wife has a half Hispanic nephew from her sister and another sister with two adopted black babies. These means my own kids have 3 non-White cousins for life. My politics haven’t led to any problems or family divisions yet, but it is something I’m concerned about for the future. So I can understand Rome’s position.”

    Rubbish. I have relatives with brown skin and that doesn’t mean that I have to relate with them. Unlike the Indians that migrate to California, at least my relatives’ skull structure is Caucasian. But it’s still a mestizo mess, and not even these mongrelized relatives would tolerate a single black in their family.

    I have turned down a couple of marriage proposals coming from women because they are not sufficiently white. And I’m planning to leave Mexico forever. In fact, shouldn’t a true nationalist consider seriously moving to an all-white area? If I could maintain my identity intact in a sea of semi-Indian mestizos, surely white Americans can in their much whiter states. If not, they are just phony nationalists and poseurs. Time to debunk the mainstreamers…

    @ Matt:

    Scarlet red for your quotations, here and in your blog, is a pain to our eyes. Wouldn’t dark red would do it?

    • Krieger
      Posted February 18, 2011 at 2:45 am | Permalink

      Chechar same here.

      I have a half black cousin living in a welfare ghetto in Philadelphia Penn. who I have never met and I am 36 years old. My mothers sister who had a black baby was cut off. We have nothing to do with her. I have never in my 36 years ever wished to “connect” with my aunt or my half black cousin. They do not exist to me.

      That is how many White families react to the black sheep of the family. Not all families embrace everything their defective siblings and relatives do. Rome, rather than be repulsed at his family wants to have his cake and eat it too.

      Rome wants to take his dysfunctional family and try to set it as a norm that we must all capitulate to. Forget it.

      • William Rome
        Posted February 18, 2011 at 4:43 am | Permalink

        This comments personifies the others here and all one can say is wow. The fact that all of you seem to mistake using a strategy based on life in today’s reality for an idelogical end goal hightlights why you’ll never get out of your self-imposed swamp.

        As a mututal WN friend of me and and Hunter in Virginia said, “White Nationalists are the dumbest people on the planet.”

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted February 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

          Rome, you are the one who writes:

          What white advocates need to understand is that they offer nothing attractive to those who come from the world I do. All they other is the gleeful destruction of their world; which would entail not only the tearing apart of their friendships but possibly their families. Why would anyone want to join them?

          And you make it clear that the world from which you come is one in which members of your family are married with blacks, friends with blacks, and eat chitlins and sip moonshine with blacks. Then there are your Hawaiian/Puerto Rican friends. And are you still hanging around with that Sikh?

          Well, the short answer is that the White Nationalist movement has nothing to offer people like you except pain. We offer only racial survival, which entails separation, which entails severing the ties that bind you to other races.

          White Nationalism offers nothing for people who are comfortable with your level of racial mixing. It has apparently taken three years for you to realize that

          After three years you have decided that you don’t want what we offer. That is fine. Godspeed.

          But have the decency to admit that what you are outlining is not another “strategy” for achieving White Nationalist aims. It is a rejection of our aims in favor of multiculturalism, which will destroy our race. Even if whites in multicultural societies manage to carve out a space of tolerance for themselves under the banner of multiculturalism, that is not the destiny that White Nationalists want.

          Yes, as Gregor and Wandrin point out, demanding a white space in multicultural America might be conducive to WN aims, e.g., by building a racially conscious white community and by educating people that multiculturalism is a lie, a mask behind which our enemies have created conditions that are leading to our genocide. If you try to hold multiculturalists to their professed ideals, you might accidentally promote our aims, but you will not achieve your aims.

          You’re not one of us. And you are confused if you think you are.

          You are as quick as your friend Hunter to smear with a broad brush. But you are right: somebody in this discussion is being stupid and disingenuous. I think it is you. The fact that you stuck it out with Hunter Wallace to the bitter end certainly leaves me with a very low estimation of your character and intelligence.

          • Gregor
            Posted February 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

            Greg wrote, “demanding a white space in multicultural America might be conducive to WN aims, e.g., by building a racially conscious white community and by educating people that multiculturalism is a lie, a mask behind which our enemies have created conditions that are leading to our genocide.”

            This is the key phrase that must be worked from in order to understand how we can use “MultiCulturalism”. It’s just another wordist “ism”, that’s been used as a tool against Whites, but it’s a double-edged sword we can use if we choose to do so.

            Once again, I ask the readers to think carefully about words. It’s correct that the Enemy version of the MultiCult is our nemesis. We don’t have to accept their definition and it’s obvious goal of White Genocide. Just like the Enemy has done in its “long march through the institutions”, we can get “inside” an institution and “re-orient” it’s meaning in ways beneficial to us.

            It’s almost as if some people are afraid of words. The Red Queen doesn’t have a monopoly on making words mean just what she wants them to mean. The White King can play games that mess up the Red Queen’s “game”, but only if we choose not be distracted by her insane definitions, and instead get INSIDE the words and the word games, and reorient them so OUR people will see how they’ve been targeted for Genocide.

            We can only “educate” our own people that Multiculturalism” is a lie if they are self-conscious of themselves as Whites. We shouldn’t be in too much hurry to “rip off the mask”. The mask of the Enemy cannot be removed if there’s no self-conscious “Us” already in place.

        • Posted February 18, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

          @ The fact that all of you seem to mistake using a strategy based on life in today’s reality for… Wm. Rome

          @ This strategy might well be hopelessly naive if it was attempted genuinely. It works very well if it’s attempted as stealth WN. Wandrin

          You say what you say. But the recurring image I get backlashed into my mind every time I hear these rationalizations is the one that appeared at the bottom of Matt Parrot’s disappeared article, “Why I’m Joining the SPLC,” the one at the bottom of the article: a white man with bunny costume grotesquely embracing an ugly black man on a bed.

          Is this the stealth jihad of pro-white mainstreamers? I’m shocked, shocked that more nationalists don’t sign up.

          • Wandrin
            Posted February 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

            “You say what you say. ”

            I do. And i say it most days inside one or more mainstream venues. I don’t promote anything, i just attack the multicult’s double standards. When someone cracks and hints at “what next?” i stay in character but point them at VDARE/Amren or BUGS or Hoosier Nation or BNP/A3P or something like that which is only one level up from the level i’m operating on.

            Once they’re at that level the next stage is places like this, MR, even your northwest front. Recruitment in stages.

            I’m not saying everyone should do it as then there’d be nothing to point to at the “what next?” moment. Just saying it’s easy and it works (up to it’s obvious limits).

          • Posted February 18, 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

            I am listening what you say Wandrin. Following FWM’s metaphor, Morpheus’ first step was to contact Neo thru a PC, then tell him to follow the white rabbit, and only after some adventures offering him the blue/redpill and violently unplugging poor Neo from the Matrix.

            I do the same. I never talk of Covington or of my beloved uncle Adolf at the first exchange. But that’s not the point. The point is if “embracing a black on a bed in bunny coustumes” (Matt’s sarcastic image) is good WN activism.

            Hell, no! I don’t need to hug Indians in Mexico to make a point when trying that an Iberian white becomes racially conscious.

          • Sam Davidson
            Posted February 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

            That’s definitely useful, Wandrin. There’s no problem with pushing people along the path to nationalism, so long as that’s ones goal.

        • Krieger
          Posted February 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

          To “Pip Pockets”:

          I have zero interest in reforming your collection of defective Whites. I will spend all my time aiming at people with some level of healthy racial attitudes but that need a little nudge in the right direction. Why seek out impossible odds when you can direct your aim at easier targets?

          Unlike you, I have managed to turn my entire family over to our ideas. Why don’t you clean up your own back yard first before you come lecturing the rest of us?

          Start with your own dysfunctional family. Isn’t Hunter always lecturing us how WN cant even bond with their own families enouph to convert them? Why don’t you try gaining a pair to convert your own family.

          How about this? Start by trying to convince your own family to stop pulling their pants down for every non-white they see and if they refuse, have the balls to walk away from them.

          Otherwise gimme a break and shut up.

    • Lew
      Posted February 19, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

      Chechar I’m going to venture a guess that you don’t have kids. It’s easy to advocate cutting off the family when you’re not the one who has to do it. If I cut off my kids from my wife’s sister with the adopted Black babies, I would also cut off my kids from their White aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents — in effect my wife’s whole half of the family — and for what? Because one sister decided to adopt some Black kids? The fact is, I’ve got no control over what my wife’s siblings do or don’t do, but as long as they don’t try to interfere with me teaching my kids about their European heritage, I’m inclined not to break off relations until moving to an ethnostate is actual possibility.

  14. Brutus
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Concerning this “what’s in it for me?” and if it is not enough and I don’t get some good return, why I’m going to take my ball away and play with someone else notion, I am reminded of why some people came to hate and denounce David Irving several years ago. It became obvious that these people gave him some money and actually thought they were going to get some big stock option like returns for their investment, and when that never happened they started all kinds of stories. I was like WTF? Did you guys not know you was not going to get rich off “stock” in Irving’s books?

    But this is exactly like what I am hearing from some of these WN’s today we have been hearing so much from lately. They must be under the impression it will be a way to “social network” and make new friends. And when they realize you are more likely to make enemies and lose “social respectability,” they are all talking about how “this is what is wrong with the movement.”

  15. Art
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    All this makes me think of the old Prussian Blue lyrics: “are you going to hide your head and wait and see who wins…”

    We should be encouraged to remember that the media is a narrow window. It shows what they want us to see. I think there are very many more Whites out there who absolutely agree with us re separatism.

  16. Jen
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
  17. Stronza
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    Y-a-w-n. Quite a few young girls fall in love with ponies; some kindly teenagers become vegan. Then their personalities develop fully, they realize these things are an inconvenience and that they aren’t really suited to the rigors of horse ownership or strict diets, and they leave it all behind. Same with some of “us”. A passing fad is all it ever was for them.

  18. icr
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    The use of overt verbal appeals to whites qua whites has been a technique of only the tone-deaf for many years. For example, even when Wallace gave his infamous “segregation forever” speech in 1963, he spoke not of “whites” but of the “Anglo-Saxcn Southland” . I’m almost certain that he made no direct reference to white racial interests in the 1968 race. If you don’t use “code words” or “dog whistles” to appeal to whites you’re considered vulgar and clueless and probably a dope. The libs considered the Jesse Helms “hands” campaign ad to be infuriatingly cunning.

    • Posted February 17, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      He’s not advocating playing an angle. He’s advocating sincerely embracing a racially diverse republic.

      • William Rome
        Posted February 19, 2011 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        Actually I am to the former, and no I’m not to the latter.

        • Posted February 19, 2011 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

          William,

          In this sentence, you appeared to argue against disaggregating from integrated families…

          Why work to destroy your family for a people who seemingly don’t want to be saved?

          In this sentence, you appeared to be advocating sincerely embracing a racially diverse republic [multiculturalism], not playing an angle [rhetorical tricks].

          But to hijack Multiculturalism requires more than rhetorical tricks. We need to truly be Multicultural.

          But let’s not quibble. Right here you directly told me what you meant, so that’s that. You’re advocating playing an angle and still embrace the pursuit of a White republic. Part of the confusion may be due to my defining White Nationalism as the pursuit of a White nation and you define it as a movement/subculture. If you’re only insulting and attacking the latter, then you could hypothetically still be the former.

          I suppose this could be resolved once and for all in one uncomfortable personal question: Will you abandon your racially integrated family to both struggle for and live in a White nation without them? It’s an excruciating decision, one that I presumed that you had answered in the negative. If so, I fully understand and Godspeed. If not, then I apologize for my presumption.

          Either way, I never intended for this to get as personal as it’s getting and I sincerely wish you the best.

          • William Rome
            Posted February 19, 2011 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

            Matt:

            *Sigh* I can’t believe how badly you are taking those quotes out of context, it’s unbelievable. With that first line you quote I wasn’t arguing against disaggregating integrated families: I was revealing a question and fear that is going to be felt by a large number young whites today when first being exposed to white advocacy and the idea of an ethnostate. The purpose was to reveal to white advocates (like you) a very real issue that they’ll be confronted with when first approaching whites raised in the Multicult Madness. Unless you realize this you’ll be DOA with them. As I wrote in my next post:

            “What white advocates need to understand is that they offer nothing attractive to those who come from the world I do. All they other is the gleeful destruction of their world; which would entail not only the tearing apart of their friendships but possibly their families. Why would anyone want to join them?”

            White advocates need to realize that their ideals scare the living Hell out of many young whites today because those very questions are going to be on the minds of young whites, that’s why I wrote them. White advocates need to think about this, figure out how to deal with it, and work from there. That’s why I wrote these: to help white advocates in overcoming these issues.

            The second line of mine you quote is so taken out of context it’s mind-bogging. What I was talking about is that in order to make this strategy of working within Multiculturalism effective, white advocates need to have a knowledge of other cultures. If you can actually talk knowledgably about Latin, black, Indian, ect. cultures with other white youths you won’t look like a phony. If some white advocate attempted the strategy I’m talking about didn’t know a damn thing about other cultures he would be exposed and discredited in a second. Just as someone who is attempting Hunter’s strategy of working in mainstream politics needs to know about conservative policies, issues, talking points, ect. to be successful and not be exposed and discredited, someone attempting mine needs to know the equivalent things, in this case other cultures. So they need to be “truly Multicultural” (ie: knowledgable).

            And when it comes to the White Repulic it’s not even on my mind yet. Why? Because it has no chance of coming about anytime soon. Is it needed? Yes. Do I want it to happen? Yes. Do I need to worry about its consequences on my family right now? No. Like Lew said above, until it becomes a possible reality there’s no reason to burden myself with thinking about its effects. When the time comes when I have to deal with it I will, but until then I’m focusing on the main goal of reigniting white identity within my peers.

            That’s why I said white advocates need to shut up about it publically at this time: it’s only a abstract fantasy that’s gonna scare newcomers off. If it is a bridge too far for the people of Hunter’s world, it’s much much bigger for the people of mine. I was (and am) talking about the rhetorical strategy of here and now not the long term goal of the end game when I say it shouldn’t be in discussion yet.

            The fact that my articles on Multiculturalism, which were written to help white advocates understand the mental and emotional barriers they face when approaching many young whites today and a new strategy to possibly overcome this, were met by gross misinterpritation by you and attacks on my character, dedication to the cause, and my family (whose story I shared to help) by commentators shows that WN’s are utterly incapable of not only understanding the world of the people they’re supposedly fighting for but also the ideas and strategies of those fighting for the same thing as them. WN’s will never bring anything about and those whites who love their race are better leaving them in their self-imposed ghetto instead of wasting their time on them. The WN movement is not the fight for the preservation of the white race, it is merely a vehicle for that end that has revealed itself to be a failure that only repels the very people it needs and supposedly fights for. Time to try something else.

          • Posted February 20, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

            *Sigh* I can’t believe how badly you are taking those quotes out of context, it’s unbelievable.

            I explained where I got the impression I got and politely agreed to accept your explanation. I wasn’t being malicious.

            The second line of mine you quote is so taken out of context it’s mind-boggling. What I was talking about is that in order to make this strategy of working within Multiculturalism effective, white advocates need to have a knowledge of other cultures. If you can actually talk knowledgably about Latin, black, Indian, ect.

            We had a definitional misunderstanding, it appears. I interpret multiculturalism as the integration of multiple cultures. You appear to be defining it as cultural literacy. For example, Kipling was intimately familiar with Indian culture and capable of speaking intelligently about it, but far from “multicultural”.

            That’s why I said white advocates need to shut up about it publically at this time: it’s only a abstract fantasy that’s gonna scare newcomers off.

            You have a right to that opinion. I disagree with it, and I disagreed with it in my article. Some of us believe that we need to paint a picture of what we’re pursuing, you don’t.

          • William Rome
            Posted February 20, 2011 at 6:44 am | Permalink

            Umm where’s the long comment I posted last night explaining in detail the ways Matt and others completely misinterprited what I wrote? Taken down to save face? Matt and Johnson afraid people will see what fools they made of themselves? You people are unbelievable cowards. Not only are too unintelligent to understand what someone is writing, but apparently you’re too cowardly to let people see what a mistake you made.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted February 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

            This will be your last appearance here Rome. I set your comment aside so I could determine whether you were just disingenuously retreating from your position, or whether Matt Parrott really had misinterpreted you, or whether you are just too muddle-headed to be interpreted at all. Thank you for sparing me the valuable time that would have been consumed parsing your atrocious blather. This really is turning into a long goodbye. So goodbye already.

          • ben tillman
            Posted February 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

            Greg:

            The answer is c, too muddle-headed to be interpreted at all.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted February 21, 2011 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

            I am inclined to agree, but in any case there is a large dose of disingenuousness podged in with all the rest.

  19. Lew
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    Unfortunately, as if we are not facing enough problems extended family relationships can make things complicated for White advocates of any strain. My own wife has a half Hispanic nephew from her sister and another sister with two adopted black babies. These means my own kids have 3 non-White cousins for life. My politics haven’t led to any problems or family divisions yet, but it is something I’m concerned about for the future. So I can understand Rome’s position.

  20. Evan
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    This paragraph left me sincerely baffled. Had he been under the impression that the movement was not dysfunctional? Had he been under the impression that he was going to get more out of this than he was putting in? Does he see no personal obligation to step up and lead when nobody else is doing so? When destiny calls for him to stand up and fight for his tribe, does he answer back, “What’s in it for me?”

    Asking, “What’s in it for me,” is one question. Asking whether and to what extent involvement is worth the tradeoff and risk is another, a rather obvious and basic one.

    I want to choke someone whenever activist types lose themselves in heavenly appeals to destiny, duty, and selfless sacrifice, especially when they do so merely because they’re grasping for a simple, unambiguous answer for desperation, for a plain “Why?”

    • Krieger
      Posted February 17, 2011 at 10:53 am | Permalink

      I agree but these are questions that should be asked before you pretend that you are an activist and an advocate for your people.

    • Posted February 17, 2011 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      I understand the urge to choke someone. I get that every time somebody who realizes what’s at stake concludes that fighting for the very survival of our people and preservation of everything we represent isn’t worth the attendant headaches and frustrations.

      But no hard feelings.

      I look forward to your participation after the risks have been mitigated, the problems have been resolved, and the path to victory has been definitively charted.

      • Evan
        Posted February 18, 2011 at 5:30 am | Permalink

        Same team. I just thought it was crappy writing.

      • Ciaran
        Posted February 18, 2011 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

        Sunshine Patriots are an eternal plague.

    • Wandrin
      Posted February 17, 2011 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      “merely because they’re grasping for a simple, unambiguous answer for desperation, for a plain “Why?””

      Brazil. South Africa. Zimbabwe.

  21. FORP
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    I think the “goal of validating White Americans as yet another equally valued team in the diversity coalition” is a worthy one, and hope that Rome and all those leaving for the mainstream can get the White/European identity at least in the discussion. Who knows what a few seeds planted in the mainstream can produce. If they can get just one artistic kid to connect to his European heritage then it could really change the world.

    Anyway, young people are probably better off exhausting what they believe are the mainstream options, or just being non-political, while building their professional and personal lives.

    • Posted February 17, 2011 at 5:16 am | Permalink

      Anyway, young people are probably better off exhausting what they believe are the mainstream options, or just being non-political, while building their professional and personal lives.

      There’s an important difference between patiently pursuing a long-term strategy in pursuit of a White republic and pursuing something other than a White republic. I believe our success depends on comrades openly advocating for a White republic, comrades patiently striving for a White republic while working within the mainstream, and even comrades posing as anti-White in order to infiltrate our opposition.

      I think the “goal of validating White Americans as yet another equally valued team in the diversity coalition” is a worthy one

      I wasn’t being entirely facetious when I wished him Godspeed. I do feel that it’s necessary to make plain that these are two very different struggles with two very different end goals.

      • VJV
        Posted February 17, 2011 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        “I do feel that it’s necessary to make plain that these are two very different struggles with two very different end goals.”

        Are the two struggles really that different?

        For one struggle, the goal is to awaken white racial awareness to resist anti-white discrimination. For the other struggle, the goal is to awaken white racial awareness to resist anti-white discrimination and establish a white republic.

        Take away the “white republic” part and the struggles are the same.

        Given that the chances of establishing a white republic are next to nil, the first struggle is actually the more reasonable one. Best of all, fighting for the first one certainly doesn’t preclude fighting for the second one, should whites ever get to the point where they are racially aware enough to press the advantage and separate completely.

        In other words, you’re looking for a reason to take issue with him that doesn’t actually exist. There’s nothing to be gained by being “more hardcore than thou” here.

        • Posted February 17, 2011 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

          In other words, you’re looking for a reason to take issue with him that doesn’t actually exist.

          You’re the one who’s starting drama. William Rome delivered a direct critique of nationalism to a White Nationalist audience in favor of a goal, not a strategy, a goal, of integrating into a multiracial society.

          There’s nothing to be gained by being “more hardcore than thou” here.

          I’m not being “more hardcore than thou”. I’m arguing for what I believe in, making the case for keeping our eyes on the prize – mastery of our destiny, nationalism.

          Given that the chances of establishing a white republic are next to nil, the first struggle is actually the more reasonable one.

          So you’ve given up on that goal. Fine. But don’t get personally testy and accusatory with me for making my case that it’s both possible and worth fighting for.

  22. Krieger
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 2:21 am | Permalink

    The fact is that Rome is a crybaby. He has thought about what this struggle really means and did not like what he saw. Rome was never really into this anyway. It was an experiment in the exciting world of taboo politics. He had a couple years of fun playing tough but the reality is that this is a real struggle that he doesnt have the stomach for. This isnt the movie fight club, this is the real thing and we have a real enemy who is extremely powerful. This enemy is not just going to walk away from that power on Rome’s latest whim or naive ideas about fairness.

  23. Karsten
    Posted February 17, 2011 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    He repeats the familiar Alinskyite Solution: Holding our enemies to their own rules. This simply doesn’t work in the reverse. It can’t. They know they’re being duplicitous and they have no interest in considering our arguments. They’re not going to waste time debating us or validating our perspectives. To believe that they’re going to play fair or give us an honest hearing, especially right in the wake of the second AmRen cancellation, is inexcusably naive.

    This is so obviously true, it staggers belief that it even needs to be said. How can anyone be so naive as to think that fairness or justice are at all the end goals of the proponents of cultural Marxism? They don’t want equality. They want power. Any history of the Frankfurt School shows that their “tolerance” talking points are, very consciously, simply weapons to be wielded, with the true goal being the cultural and even physical eradication of the white race. Some of the less judicious members of the Left even say so openly (e.g., Tim Wise).

    How can any rational person be so deluded as to believe that pointing out to the cultural Marxists that “they’re being intolerant too” is going to stop them? Of course they’re being intolerant! They pride themselves on their intolerance of what they consider “evil”! One of the Frankfurt School writers (I forget which–he’s quoted in the excellent Bill Lind video expose of the Frankfurt School) even has a worked-out rationale/excuse for why intolerance is something that their side can and should do, freely and aggressively.

    Jews don’t want “equality” with WASPs and Northern Europeans. They believe, as a so-called “light unto nations,” that they have an imperative to rule the world and to destroy any traces of Western culture and white power, which they deem outright evil.

    The whites who take the pushers of “tolerance” and “social justice” at face value are utterly and completely blind to the enemy’s true intentions.

    • Junghans
      Posted February 17, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

      Very, very well stated, Karsten. These ideological Marxists are indeed hell-bent on eliminating the White race, and are ultimately pushing for another Bolshevik bloodbath to accomplish their sociopathic agenda.

    • Wandrin
      Posted February 18, 2011 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      “He repeats the familiar Alinskyite Solution: Holding our enemies to their own rules. This simply doesn’t work in the reverse. It can’t. ”

      “This is so obviously true, it staggers belief that it even needs to be said. ”

      It’s the audience that matters. Obviously cultural marxists can’t be held to their private standards because they don’t have any but the multicult is built on the standards they pretend to believe in. Holding them to their standards can be used to break their hold on the audience.

      This strategy might well be hopelessly naive if it was attempted genuinely. It works very well if it’s attempted as stealth WN.

      So this is either stealth or surrender and only time will tell because if it’s stealth it’s better not to explain.

2 Trackbacks

  • By Movement Travails - Stormfront on February 21, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    […] Travails Godspeed | Counter-Currents Publishing ..His second problem is that the movement is defective . . . The second problem was that the new […]

  • By Goodbye to All That « Locust blog on February 19, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    […] woke up this morning and was genuinely shocked to read Matt Parrott’s reaction to my latest essay. Matt Parrott is someone I have great respect for. He seems to be a one man […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    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

    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

    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

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance