“Activism at this stage doesn’t matter. There needs to be a critical mass of the general white population that is receptive to a potentially revolutionary message before anything of the sort will make any headway. That requires much greater social problems and disruption than are yet present: ordinary people need to be feeling it regularly at the dinner table, and more immediate concerns than American Idol or X’s Got Talent. The iron is not yet hot, striking it now won’t accomplish anything.” —A commenter at Majority Rights
In Counter-Currents Publishing Greg Johnson has interviewed Harold Covington, the author of the Northwest Quartet. Only two questions and answers are cited below:
GJ: Can you explain the Northwest Imperative, and tell us how you came to believe in it?
Harold Covington: The Northwest Imperative is based on the conviction, an accurate one, that the United States of America in its present form is doomed, and that it is necessary to the physical survival of the White race that we establish a Homeland for all of our people worldwide somewhere on the North American continent. Economics, demographics, and logistics dictate that the best location for such a Homeland is here in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, we have a long history of commitment and martyrdom here in the Northwest: Bob Mathews and the Order men, Sam and Vicky Weaver, Gordon Kahl, and our latest martyr from the Northwest Front, Jeff Hughes of Vancouver, Canada.
The essence of the Northwest Idea is to reduce the problem to manageable proportions. We are simply too weak, disorganized, and too few to take over the United States, and we need to accept that just ain’t gonna happen. Instead of a whole huge continent and 300 million mostly hostile people to worry about, we reduce the problem geographically and demographically to three and a half states with about 12 million people, mostly White. Given the inevitable coming implosion of the United States and the collapse of the central authority in Washington D.C., when they run out of money to pay their mercenaries, bureaucrats, and enforcers, the Northwest Imperative is do-able in a way that no other plan we’ve ever come up with is do-able.
The Northwest Imperative also reduces the problem to that of a colonial war, and there are numerous models from the last century as to how to wage and win a colonial war. The objective is to make the disputed territory ungovernable and turn it into a massive rathole down which the occupying power bleeds money, manpower, and resources until it can’t stand the hemorrhage any longer and cuts its losses. The most important statement in any of my Northwest novels, so important that I have various characters say it over and over again in all four books, is this: “In a colonial war, it’s never the generals who surrender. It’s the accountants.”
GJ: Can you tell us what you are doing to promote the idea of a Northwest homeland and to prepare for its concrete realization?
Harold Covington: We have formed the “Party” of the Northwest novels, called the Northwest Front, although it isn’t really a Party yet and probably won’t be for some time. Right now it’s just what the name says, a broad front rather than a party. We have participation from people who are involved with other groups and from people who are involved with none. There is no formal membership status, no chain of command, and no hierarchy. We provide what support we can to anyone who lives here or who is willing to come here to the Homeland and work for Northwest independence.
Eventually that will have to change, of course. Eventually there must be a disciplined, fighting revolutionary Party of political soldiers, but that’s going to take us a while. White Americans are the sloppiest, laziest, most narcissistic and most undisciplined people in the world, and they simply can’t wrap their minds around a European concept such as the political soldier. Not yet. They will have to change, or they will perish from the earth.
Update of October 2010: Trainspotter responds to Hunter Wallace
Harold Covington has ranted a lot about the nationalists who spend all of their time in the internet. In the last few months, Hunter Wallace, the creator of the blogsite Occidental Dissent (OD), joined these complains and debated with the blogger Trainspotter in several threads. Of that mammoth exchange I will restrain myself to copy and paste 30,000 words, mostly written by Trainspotter.
By presenting the Trainspotter side of the debate my purpose is not to denigrate Hunter, whose replies to the below criticism amount to more than another 30,000 words in his blog. Trainspotter’s final words in that exchange (“After this post, OD is off of my radar. I will not be checking this thread again”) moved me to archive his comments here so that his long critique of Hunter’s “iron-is-already-hot” approach (see epigraph at the top of this entry) is readily available in a single post, compared to being scattered through several threads from July to October of 2010 at OD. Hunter’s approach on the other hand is altogether visible: it is appearing daily in articles of his newly reformed, pro-activist blog.
Since this entry is basically a book, let me say that Trainspotter’s point can be boiled down to a nutshell. Just search for the brown letters “There are well over 100 million non-whites in this country” way below. Trainspotter’s point of view can be compressed down to points #1 and #2. If the reader finds them sufficiently interesting he may read the whole thread. The OD thread that started a heated debate is titled:
It’s time to kick the intellectuals in the balls
Hunter Wallace in 2010
doing pro-white activism
at the heart of the System:
a Washington D.C. park
July 24, 2010 at 7:45 am
Andrew: “Trainspotter, in order to say this you are probably not personally familiar with the type of person we are addressing. The intellectuals we are talking about say as a badge of honor they are not an activist, that they are above such worldly concerns, and won’t devote any tangible support to making it happen. But they will talk a lot. Basically it’s a form of escapism for cowards. Some people retreat to World of Warcraft, some retreat into mental castles in the air. Both are bad for the movement.”
Andrew, I agree with you that there are a lot of worthless individuals, some of whom are intellectuals. But what has been happening over the last few days on this site is a general attack upon pro-white intellectual activity. It has not been qualified (as you have just done). This general, unqualified attack has been ridiculously stupid and ignorant.
The reality is that we are in a total struggle, and that means total—at every level. This includes the intellectual, spiritual, economic, physical, cultural, etc. We need as much activity as we can at each level. As I’ve said elsewhere, no single component can win without the other. Can intellectuals win the struggle on their own? No, of course not. But neither can street activists. Both are necessary. One component attacking the other is nothing short of ridiculous, and entirely misunderstands the nature of our struggle.
As I’ve also mentioned elsewhere (and I’ll mention again, it’s that important), people should study the white “tea parties” of the 50’s and 60’s, which were far more extensive than the modern Tea Party. By that I mean the Dixiecrats, [George] Wallace, Massive Resistance, Citizen Councils, all white academies, school walkouts, etc. There was a tremendous amount of white energy at the time. Lots of people joined up, stepped up, got involved.
What did it all amount to? Nothing. How many enduring victories? Not a single one.
The point is that “action” alone is not enough. Stepping up is not enough. I admire the successful street activist, but alone it is not enough. All of that energy, all of that effort, and nothing to show for it. Many individual success stories ([George] Wallace carried multiple states, running as an independent). Nothing at all to show for it.
Why was this? In part, because whites lacked a clear revolutionary vision. They did not seek to carve out their own land, but rather attempted to work within the System. In other words, to resist the System, but ultimately accept its legitimacy. This was a fatal error. Further, they did not grasp the importance of the intellectual struggle or the spiritual struggle. This doomed them, and it will doom us if we don’t take heed. Their activism and rage was incoherent and misdirected, as they lacked a coherent worldview which could have seen them through to victory.
Unless we develop a coherent and powerful revolutionary vision, nothing enduring will come of any activism. The Left has won the battle of ideas, and as long as they remain victors in that realm, they will remain victors in all others as well.
Only intellectuals and spiritual types can develop the necessary worldview, the revolutionary vision that, if spread far enough, can turn into a revolutionary spirit.
What has been happening on this site in recent days is a bad joke. Since you’ve clarified, at least somewhat, what you mean by an intellectual, let me to do the same. I’m not talking about someone peddling more black on white crime statistics, or navel gazing over dead philosophers. Nothing wrong with that, and it’s probably good to have some pro-whites doing that sort of work. But what I’m talking about is different: I’m talking about the development of a worldview that can address our peoples needs at every level—economic, spiritual, cultural, etc. I’m talking about a vision, a way of looking at the world that can compete with and replace the Leftist paradigm.
There is no question that there are many smart people in white nationalism, but we have failed to put that intellect to good use. We still can’t even agree on the basics—where the white nation (or perhaps nations) will be, how to get it, what we are willing to do, etc. We are a movement with no clear goal, much less a revolutionary vision that inspires a willingness to sacrifice. To attack intellectual activity in general is ludicrous. On the other hand, to attack pro-white intellectuals for their failure to provide a compelling and coherent vision is perfectly justified. It’s time for those of us interested in intellectual endeavors to stop navel gazing and get down to brass tacks. Until we do, not nearly enough people will believe in our cause, much less sacrifice for it in the real world. It is my sincere belief that we can’t win without solving this problem. I hope this clarification helps.
From the thread Intellectshuals:
July 24, 2010 at 12:23 am
Hunter: “Illiterates could build a nation. Without reading a single book, they came to America, survived in the wilderness, wiped out the Indians, built the towns, won the important wars. We need a master treatise to build an organization?”
Yep, and then we lost our country. I wonder how that happened, Hunter? Have you gotten out of OD headquarters and actually talked to normal white people, instead of just pro-white types? Do you have any grasp of the pure tripe that their heads have been filled with? The reality is that whites lost the battle of ideas, and we won’t survive as a people if this remains the case. You counsel us to not even fight it, much less win it.
Our struggle is a holistic one, to be fought at every level, from the street to the intellectual, from the spiritual to the economic. There is no contradiction between one component and another. Intellectuals will do their thing, street activists their thing, and so forth. When the movement achieves vibrancy, a positive synergy will develop between the elements. No single element can win without the others, and childish foot stomping will not alter this reality.
But what do you do? Publish nonsense like “kick intellectuals in the balls.” If your and Andrew’s theory is correct (it obviously isn’t), then don’t worry about the intellectuals. You don’t need ’em, dude. You don’t need anything! So why kick them in the balls? What do you care? They are irrelevant. Just do your own thing, win us a white homeland, and call it a day. After all, it’s so fucking easy.
But then, that would require you to actually believe your own bullshit, which doesn’t seem to be the case. There’s something else going on here, but I’ll leave further speculation aside.
The truth is that this battle has to be fought at all levels. One criticism that I will make of pro-white intellectuals is that they need to get down to brass tacks. If people want to discuss Evola and Yockey, that’s fine, but I’m only interested in what we can learn from them and move on. We need to focus on crafting winning ideas that can compete—and win—at every level. I’m not interested in reliving the 30’s, I’m interested in winning the struggle of our times. That means the intellectual and the street, the spiritual and the economic—everything. A worldview, if you will.
The Left has polluted our people and our culture. You aren’t gonna beat that just by running around with a nifty sign. It is childish, and frankly just plain stupid and ignorant, to believe otherwise. Sign holders have their place, of course, and we’ll need them. But the idea that they are going to win this thing alone is so laughably stupid that I can’t believe anyone with an IQ north of room temperature could possibly entertain the notion.
Hunter: “Ultimately, I realized that White racial consciousness never emerged from the European intellectual tradition. It grew out of the New World colonial experience. When Englishmen started to live among Indians and negroes, ‘whiteness’ became a badge of ethnic identity.”
Um…no shit. Is it registering with you that we still live among them, more and more with every passing day? Look what’s happened. We’re being destroyed. Why is that?
Hunter: “If we don’t start thinking of ourselves as Whites again, Americans will disappear and be replaced by stronger, more self assertive peoples.”
This is absolutely true, but your setting this up as being in conflict with intellectual activity is utterly unfounded and disingenuous. There is no conflict. The reality is that we have a hostile System with a boot across our necks. Currently, our people aren’t willing to throw that System off. We’ve already had our “Tea Party” in the 50’s and 60’s with Dixiecrats, Citizen Councils, impeach Warren campaigns, [George] Wallace (who won several states as an independent), Massive Resistance, all white academies, and much, much more. In fact, the white “tea parties” of the 50’s and 60’s were far more extensive and successful than the Tea Party of our times. And yet what did it accomplish?
I’ll answer: absolutely nothing. As a simple walk outside of your front doorstep would show, we’ve lost on every single point. We’re still being flooded with non-whites, miscegenation is an ongoing disaster, white culture has been destroyed, etc. Why did all that energy fail utterly in delivering a single positive result?
Simple: they took your and Andrew’s advice. They had no real intellectual leadership, they had no clear vision. They lacked a meaningful worldview which could have seen their agenda through. They weren’t revolutionary, they did not seek to have their own nation. They simply joined up and got involved. That’s enough to solve the problem, right? Of course it’s not. I know that you are well aware of this history. Andrew probably isn’t, but you are. Why do you counsel something that you know perfectly well is useless?
This website, which had so much promise at one point, is fast becoming an embarrassment. It’s worse than publishing childish drivel, though that would be bad enough. It is counseling that which has provably, demonstrably led to our defeat and dispossession. If this is a passing frustration, that’s one thing. I hope that to be the case, but frankly, I’m not all that confident. Increasingly, it seems more concerned with cannibalizing the white nationalist movement, not promoting it.
From the thread Revolt of the Country Class Part 2: Herding the Cats
August 3, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Let Limbaugh do his own thing. Instead, we are needed in the task that only we can accomplish: the creation and spread of revolutionary ideas. If we don’t do the Limbaugh thing (or whatever mainstream personality that you might have in mind), who will? Limbaugh will. However, if we don’t create and spread a revolutionary vision, who will? Nobody.
H. Rock White: “What good did the Libertarian Party ever do? Did any Libertarian Party candidates ever get elected?”
With all due respect, you’re missing the point. It is undeniable that the Libertarian Party has been unsuccessful at getting candidates elected to major office. That is not its value. What it did accomplish is more fundamental: it greatly assisted in creating a lot of libertarians. It helped create a real libertarian identity and facilitated the spread of libertarian ideas. Instead of just being a few scattered cranks and oddballs, libertarians became a movement of cranks and oddballs (sorry, couldn’t help myself).
If the small number of libertarians back in the seventies or eighties had simply kept their views to themselves and failed to develop a viable identity of their own, we would have never heard of these people. They would have gone precisely nowhere. Libertarians would still be, in practical terms, Martians. Ignore what I’m talking about, and white nationalists will remain Martians as well.
Hunter Wallace: “Good luck with that project.”
It was my understanding that, until recently, this was your project. Is this official confirmation that it no longer is?
Hunter Wallace says:
August 4, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Trainspotter, You have argued in favor of creating a “compelling” and “revolutionary vision” to motivate White Nationalists. The internet is a big place. What’s stopping you?
August 4, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Hunter, I notice how you completely evaded my rather straightforward and substantive question.
As to your question, I’ll answer: nothing in particular is “stopping me.” The purpose of my commenting here was to help contribute to what I mistakenly believed was the purpose of this website: the development and spread of white nationalist ideas. Making those ideas more attractive and more appealing, and facilitating their spread. How difficult is that to understand, especially given that you have said as much yourself?
But don’t worry, Hunter. You’re right, the “internet is a big place.” Too big to suffer childish, disingenuous nonsense for long. Right now, the only thing giving OD whatever credibility it has left is that there are still some excellent contributors/commenters here. How quickly you’ll lose them is anybody’s guess. If what you are hinting at is an impending ban, there is no need to pick childish squabbles in order to justify it. It’s your site, continue to run it into the ground as you please.
August 5, 2010 at 9:58 am
Hunter: “What ‘childish, disingenuous nonsense’ are you referring to? Isn’t that just another way of saying you are angry because I pointed out the obvious?”
Your entire manner of arguing is disingenuous. You distort and misrepresent. For example, you continue to claim that my position is that if people read philosophy books, they will suddenly be inspired to hit the streets. Absolutely ridiculous. What I am actually talking about is quite simple: white nationalist ideas have to spread in order for the white ethnostate to come about. As long as we are viewed as Martians, people aren’t going to support us. Talk about stating the “obvious,” I don’t see how things can be more obvious than that.
But apparently, according to you, people are going to support the white ethnostate, even though they’ve never heard of it, don’t understand it, and believe that you are a nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-million-jews. That’s laughably, obviously nuts.
The guy who posts here that is most involved in street activism, Yeoman, regularly spreads defeatism. He believes that we will lose. I’m not terribly surprised by this. Our street activists will continue to get nowhere until our ideas have been successfully spread further into the culture. This should be obvious, but you continue to take issue with it. The proof is in the pudding, Hunter. Why should people rally to something that they’ve never heard of, much less been persuaded of? Why should they rally to something that nobody they respect has ever heard of?
Hunter: “You want a ‘revolutionary vision’ to inspire the masses, you want action in the real world, you want a White ethnostate, you want to expel the Jews… but you are content to let someone else do all the heavy lifting and make all the sacrifices.”
What sacrifices are you talking about? You use a pen name, I use a pen name. You keep claiming that I expect you to make sacrifices, and I’m tired of this false claim. It is a lie. I’ve been polite about this, but since you continue to press the lie, I’ll address it.
You aren’t a leader. You don’t look like a leader, you don’t talk like a leader. Those two things might be corrected, but you have other issues that prevent you from being a leader. This is o.k., by definition the vast majority of people aren’t cut out for leadership. You aren’t an exception to the general rule. So I don’t know where you get the impression that I expect you to get out and man the barricades. I most certainly don’t. Your talent is in writing, or at least was until you started arguing like a Lefty. You write under a pen name, like most people here. Nobody is advocating that you take any risk beyond that. So cut the crap about a “rotten deal.” Yet another example of your disingenuous misrepresentation of my position.
The truth of the matter is simple: until our ideas spread further into the culture, our street activists are going to have a tough time. Perhaps a very charismatic, highly capable guy might beat the odds, but the general rule will hold. That’s the reality of the situation. I’ve been a street activist before, as a libertarian, and I know what I’m talking about. I’ve personally seen how ideas spread, and I’ve also studied historical movements. The patterns are obvious, and it is mighty curious why you continue to deny the obvious, especially when you’ve said as much before.
Using the internet, white nationalists have the opportunity to make our ideas appealing and attractive, and spread them far enough that our street activists will have something to work with. Until that time, don’t be surprised when the guys who take it to the streets keep saying, “We will lose.” Most people don’t rally around Martians.
But here’s the thing, we’re going to win. The ideas are spreading, and there is really nothing that anti-intellectual clowns can do to stop it. They may be able to slow it down a bit, but not stop it. Sorry, too late.
August 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Hunter: “If your method of changing minds was successful, I would find your evidence persuasive.”
People don’t rally around Martians. You keep saying that there are several hundred thousand white nationalists. That’s approximately 1 out of every 600 to 800 whites. To the rest you appear as a Martian, and many have been conditioned to see you as a nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-million-jews. Good luck in the street with those numbers. You’re going to really accomplish great things, the street is ready for you. No need to do any preparatory work.
Hunter: “I think it is more likely that people who have never heard of a White ethnostate, but who are a defiant pissed off mob that acts in the real world (like the Sons of Liberty), can inadvertently stumble into a revolutionary scenario than people who do nothing but read books and talk on the internet all day will act to translate their fantasy world into reality.”
Great, so go find us this mythical mob that is going to give us an ethnostate even though they’ve never heard of it. Bring back a unicorn while you are at it, maybe throw in a couple of elves. Dude, I wish it were that simple. It isn’t. This is serious business in front of us, and you aren’t serious at all.
Hunter: “Yeoman is pessimistic about White Nationalism because he acts in the real world and has taken the measure of those who don’t. As I became more active myself, I have noticed that my own pessimism and disillusionment has grown.”
Exactly. You put the cart before the horse, you hit the street when it isn’t ready, then you come back and spread defeatism. You suffer the delusion that, despite the fact that only one person in 800 on the street has any idea what you are talking about, that somehow it’s going to be a rousing success. It boggles the mind.
Hunter: “Quite obviously, you don’t consider yourself someone who is willing to take action in the ‘leaner years,’ but once other people have done all the heavy lifting, broken into the mainstream at great personal expense to themselves, then you will be ready to jump on the train.”
I’m tired of this false charge, so now I’ll be blunt. You are a liar. I’ve clearly stated, multiple times, that this is not my position. I’ve been polite about it, but that doesn’t cause you to desist from the lie. I’ve not advocated that anyone go public. Right now, the most important thing is to prepare the cultural ground so that those who do go public will have something to work with. The most important work is spreading the ideas so that we aren’t Martians. Nobody here needs to go public in order to that. You use a pen name, I use a pen name. Most people here do. We can still help develop and spread ideas, not follow some clown into public who has no idea what he is doing. The day for going public will come, but it’s not here yet.
Hunter: “Being a ‘street activist’ in the White Nationalist movement is probably the most thankless job in the world. I know exactly where Andrew Yeoman is coming from.”
So do I. As a libertarian, I was a street activist for years. I know how utterly useless it is unless the cultural ground has been prepared. By your own numbers, maybe 1 person in 800 has any idea what you are talking about. If you want to repeatedly stick your finger into the electrical socket, have at it. I’ve advised you not to, because it is a waste of time. Why are you so anxious to get other people to engage in activities that have no positive value, and will only get them damaged? The street activists are not going to have anything to work with until the intellectual elements of white nationalism do their job.
Hunter: “The ‘truth of the matter’ is that White Nationalist ideas will continue to spread in cyberspace, as Don Black at Stormfront has found out, and as he will tell you, even if you reach millions of people nothing will come of it.”
Ridiculous. The entire history of successful movements says otherwise. This is why it is important to keep people like you away from the street. You can’t handle it, and it causes you to go into despair and defeatism mode. We’re not going to be defeated, we’re going to win—but only if we can prevent people like you from misdirecting others, convincing them to put the cart before the horse, and getting them damaged and burned out for no gain whatsoever.
Hunter: “Whereas Joe Six Pack watches sports and sitcoms, White Nationalists entertain themselves by posting anonymous comments in cyberspace. It is just another way to pass the time.”
Maybe, but again we see your disconnect from the real world (as much as you like to disparage keyboard commandos). Only a very small portion of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, you name it, get involved at a meaningful level. White nationalism is no different. The fact that only a small portion of Americans were involved in the War of Independence didn’t stop them from getting their own country, and it didn’t stop liberalism from destroying it. A movement doesn’t have to get everyone active, but it does need to reach a critical mass where it is no longer viewed as a Martian exploratory force. There is a distinction here, one which I am sure you will ignore.
Hunter: “White Nationalism will continue to grow horizontally: the people who agree with the ideology will increase, but that will be the extent of it.”
Says a guy who has no clue about how movements work.
Hunter: “If they wanted to, White Nationalists could win. Even Harold Covington’s scenario has some degree of plausibility.”
Armed revolution would require relatively few people, but even there you need a vision and a critical mass. Covington, with his fictional novels, has probably done more to create a vision than anybody else in recent years, but it’s still not there. The vast majority of white nationalists don’t buy into it, including me. At least Covington is trying, but I don’t see you moving to the Northwest.
Hunter: “If you took a snapshot of the White Nationalist movement in 2010 and compared it to a snapshot taken in 2000 and an earlier one in 1990, the result would be identical.”
Not true. What we are seeing is the maturing process of white nationalism, the gradual development of appealing ideas, and the spread of those ideas. The foundation is there for good things to happen. At one time it appeared that you were going to be a part of that. Now it appears that you won’t be.
August 6, 2010 at 2:48 am
Hunter: “The growth of White Nationalist sites on the internet didn’t translate into real world action.”
Sorry that things don’t move on your time schedule, but welcome to the real world. In a situation like ours, it is not necessarily the case that X increase in overall supporters leads to an equal and immediate increase in real world activism.
We are, for the time being, a de facto underground movement. Many, many successful political (and religious) movements have had to operate like this. You claim it’s the end of the world, history says it’s not. But being realistic would deny you the opportunity to indulge in expressive individualism and faux chest thumping.
Hunter: “It is your turn now. I’ve given a shot. When you give it a shot and you succeed, I plan to still be around. You can return here in triumph and crow about your newfound success. Of course that will never happen.”
Let me get this straight. You had a clumsy and senseless encounter with Imm, so you’ve done your part. Therefore I, not a collaborative effort of white nationalist intellectuals, must single handedly deliver a winning vision. And if a I don’t, it means that the self-evident assertion that street activism isn’t going to go anywhere as long as we are perceived as Martians is somehow untrue. Makes perfect sense, in bizarro world. Alice, this is getting curiouser and curiouser.
Hunter: “The Tea Party is a successful political movement. In a single year, under the ‘intellectual leadership’ of people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, it has grown from nothing to the support of over 40% of Americans.”
The Tea Party is tapping into a huge American tradition that precedes Beck and Palin by centuries. Of course, you don’t understand how ideas spread through the culture, so this eludes you.
Hunter: “It just so happens that I am in complete agreement with Harold Covington on this point. Covington himself has identified the reason that White Nationalists have failed to answer his call.”
Yes, if someone doesn’t believe in Covington’s plan, it is because they lack character. If someone doesn’t want to follow you clumsily into some senseless street encounter, it is because they lack character. It couldn’t be because they don’t support the plan. Nah. It’s that they have no character. When a real leader arises, and a real movement develops, and a real struggle occurs, we’ll see who has character and who doesn’t. But right now, none of that exists. You can talk tough and engage in faux chest thumping, and consider yourself brave for “confronting” the oldest, weakest, scrawniest street activist on the planet—Imm—but that doesn’t change the bottom line: until we spread white nationalist ideas further into the culture, we aren’t getting anywhere. When, by your own numbers, only 1 in 800 whites have any idea what we are talking about, the street isn’t going to be a particularly rewarding place. Perhaps there will be a few exceptions, but the general rule holds.
Hunter: “If ideas were sufficient to produce action, White Nationalism would have started experiencing explosive vertical growth years ago, as more people than ever before agree with those ideas.”
Produce what action? What exactly would be effective? If you expect a particular action, you’ve got to show how it would be effective. You don’t do that. You just keep repeating, kind of weirdly, that people should take some sort of undefined action. What exactly?
Hunter: “There is a critical difference between White Nationalism and all the other movements cited above: if you are a White Nationalist, you are subjected to social ostracism and employment discrimination.”
Absolutely, so it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee, instead of claiming that people have no character simply because they refuse to join in senseless activities.
Hunter: “Go join the ‘intellectual elements’ of White Nationalism and do your job. Go forth and prepare the ‘cultural ground’.”
I thought that was what we were doing here—trying to make white nationalist ideas more appealing and spreading them. Boy was I wrong. That’s the only value this site had, until you initiated the circular firing squad with an absolutely senseless attack on white nationalist intellectuals.
Hunter: “You keep saying this works. Show us the money. Prove it.”
Lol! Yes, I need to “prove” to you that so long as we are seen as Martians, we won’t achieve much success on the streets.
Hunter: “So you are going to act in the ‘leaner years’ and not outsource that task to others? I’m calling your bluff. Let’s see your cards.”
Outsource what? Act, doing what exactly? I state as plain as day what the deal is, and yet you continue in your quagmire of expressive individualism. Apparently, if someone isn’t engaging in senseless activity, he’s not “acting.” If he’s not strutting about, he’s “outsourcing.” And of course he has no character.
Hunter: “Like I said above, you are not willing to ‘go public’ in the ‘leaner years.’ You are going to ‘prepare the cultural ground’ by posting anonymous comments on the internet.”
Welcome to reality, Hunter. Welcome to the world of a de facto underground movement. But I am supposed to “go public,” even though it would accomplish nothing except hurt me and help the System. Thanks, dude. You clearly have the best interests of white nationalists at heart. Very touching. And, of course, you don’t even specify what this public action would be, how it would have a meaningful payoff, what it would accomplish.
Hunter: “I said above that you are not willing to go public in the ‘leaner years.’ Instead, you believe that other people should be charged with that task and should make all the sacrifices and entail all the hardship that entails.”
After this pleasant debate is over, I want absolutely nothing to do with you. If I comment here at all, it won’t be to you (except perhaps to address your lies). This is a bald faced lie. I have never advocated that anybody go public, I’ve only counseled against it. I have said that those who insist upon doing so should be supported, and I’ve tried to do that financially. That’s it. Your critics have repeatedly called into question your basic honesty. I didn’t want to believe them, and extended every benefit of the doubt. You have proven that they are far more right about you than wrong.
Hunter: “In the event they are successful, then the so-called day for going public will come, and then you will hop aboard the White Nationalist train.”
More bald faced lying. That is not my approach at all, as I’ve made clear numerous times.
Hunter: “I’m learning a lot how successful movements operate here. I’ve learned that doing nothing in the real world, reading the next book, and posting the next anonymous comment is ‘what works’ and will bring about the White ethnostate.”
No, you’ve learned to lie, obfuscate, and misrepresent.
Hunter: “It is worth noting that nothing seems to have stopped you from being a libertarian street activist for years. Of course that was safe and no risk was involved.”
Sure, a helluva lot less risk. But the point still stands: when the cultural ground isn’t prepared, street activism doesn’t accomplish much. Hard to do well when only 1 in 800 people have a clue what you are talking about, and the other 799 see you as either a Martian.
Hunter: “I was confounded by this paradox: the more I did to advance the cause; the harder I pushed myself; the more sacrifices I made; the more I stepped up to the plate; the more viciously and consistently I was attacked by other White Nationalists.”
Funny, I don’t remember these attacks. The site was going along nicely, growing and prospering, until you spread acrimony and conflict with your senseless, self-indulgent attack on white nationalist intellectuals. It was you who started the circular firing squad. But given your propensity for turning truth on its head, I’m no longer surprised that you claim the opposite.
Hunter: “A purple unicorn is more likely to appear on my doorstep tomorrow than you are to create the ‘revolutionary vision’ and stand up for your beliefs in the real world.”
Lol! Keep it up, destroy what little credibility you may have left. Don’t let truth and reality get in your way.
Hunter: “In fact, many of them are. Plenty of ordinary Americans and unsophisticated people seem to be willing to act in the real world, unlike some people.”
Lol! Yes, that refutes what I have been saying. Good show! You really have a firm grasp of the situation.
Hunter: “There was more real world action before the internet provided the perfect means for indulging in escapism.”
Great. Tell me the benefit that it provided. What was the payoff, exactly? Why didn’t it win us our ethnostate?
Hunter: “My position all along has been that ideas are not sufficient to produce action.”
Nobody is making that claim. The argument is that the spread of white nationalist ideas into the culture is a precondition of success at the street level.
August 6, 2010 at 3:18 am
Hunter: “Trainspotter, You were the one who resurrected this debate for the sixth or seventh time. I don’t even read those websites anymore.”
I’m not sure that I resurrected it, but I know who started it: you, with your self-indulgent attack on those horrible white nationalist intellectuals. Yep, they are the problem for sure.
In these past several weeks, it has been like dealing with a different person. If this thread causes a well-meaning white nationalist to avoid senseless behaviors and instead concentrate on something where he might be of real use, then it was worth it. I think this discussion, such as it is, has gone on more than enough to accomplish that objective.
August 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm
I particularly emphasized that I found your lies and misrepresentations about my position on street activism repugnant. Needless to say, you couldn’t handle that. In your manic and obsessive way, your “last word” is now rambling post after rambling post. I engaged in debate, what you are engaging in is harder to say.
Virtually every line that you spout is a misrepresentation in some form or another. At least you are consistent. I’ll not spend the time to address each one, as I have already done so. However, I will address one of your more pernicious lies. Not for your benefit, as I don’t particularly care what you believe. My purpose is to prevent white nationalists of good will from being bamboozled, so I will explain (again, for their benefit) my position on this subject, as opposed to allowing your misrepresentations to go unchallenged.
As a people, we are in great trouble. This is obvious. It is certainly the case that we, as white nationalists, are not “doing enough.” In such a terrible state of affairs, the person who starts demanding that others go public, get involved in the real world, do something (what isn’t exactly clear) can very possibly misdirect someone, especially young idealistic types, into engaging in activity that doesn’t help white nationalism in any way, and in fact only serves to hurt the idealist.
When a person considers whether or not to go public, one very basic question that he needs to ask is “Will my going public help white nationalism?” Obviously, every person needs to answer this question himself, but he should not be cajoled by faux chest thumpers and wannabe tough guys. Clearly there are some people that, by the very nature of what they intend to do, have to go public. Want to run for office? You’re going to have to go public. Want to do media interviews? You’re going to have to go public. Obviously. There is no way around it.
But how many people can do these sorts of things? Can you run a professional radio show, year after year? James Edwards can. Can you create a meaningful internet radio station, and develop an impressive lineup of programming, keeping it going year after year? Dietrich can. Can you write scholarly research on issues of great importance to the white nationalist cause, and speak well to boot? McDonald can. Can you give great lectures and media interviews? Jared Taylor can. Can you be a real contender for major office, write important books, produce quality media and be effective on the lecture circuit? Duke can.
So yes, obviously, there are people who, by the nature of what they do, must be public. Those people will also get, as they should, the lion’s share of white nationalist financial contributions. I realize that, wherever money is concerned, there are going to be problems and questions raised. That seems an immutable fact of life, and there is always the chance of it becoming a racket.
But, generally speaking, those who are capable of creating real value for white nationalism deserve our financial support. It is unreasonable to expect great activists to give it their all, while worrying whether they can pay the light bill this month. Now, there may come a day when white nationalists will be expected to give their lives for a new nation, but that day isn’t here. It is only reasonable that those talented people who truly add value to white nationalism be supported financially by the movement, at least to a reasonable extent.
Yet there is the rub. The white nationalist movement, at its current stage of development, can only support a fairly small number of people. Demanding that average white nationalists go public and “act,” without any sense of the efficacy of the act, is senseless. We can’t support these people, and it is wrong to leave them twisting in the wind. Maybe one day we’ll be able to say, “Hey man, go for it. If you get burned, you’ve got a job waiting for you at Euros Forward.” But we can’t do that today. We can only support the most talented handful, the top tier. Unless you can operate at the level of that top tier, you’re probably going to be left hanging.
Hell, this doesn’t just apply to the average white nationalist, but to the well above-average white nationalist. Look again at the names that I mentioned above. Whatever criticisms or quibbles you may have with them as individuals, they are undeniably a pretty talented group of guys. Can you do as well, or better? Be honest with yourself. If not, why should you suck up (or at least hope to suck up) finite white nationalist resources? Anyone who wants to go public should consider this carefully. Unless you truly have something of particular and great value to offer, most likely you will not get real support, fraudsters like Hal Turner notwithstanding.
If you don’t have something of particular value to offer, something that requires going public by its nature, what are you going to accomplish? Is engaging in self-expressive individualism actually helping white nationalism? Not that I can see. Maybe I’m forgetting something, but with one exception, I can’t think of any street activism in many, many years that has actually benefited white nationalism. There is simply no payoff there. The one exception, and I’m not entirely convinced that it was necessary, was [Alex] Linder’s Knoxville protests. Linder, damn near single handedly, forced that issue onto a much wider audience. He kept hammering away until, gradually, the story spread. He did most of this online, but I’ll grant that the protest (which technically didn’t go well at all), may have been a factor in getting the story out. Even there, it was mostly the internet that got the job done.
Other than that? A big goose egg, as far as I can tell. This isn’t unusual. As a former libertarian, I don’t believe our street activism twenty years ago had any meaningful impact either. We were Martians, putting the cart before the horse. What worked was writing and spreading ideas. When libertarians gained access to the internet, this process gained speed and reached a critical mass where street activity and real world organizing started to become effective. Those damn keyboard commandos, I know. The ideas had to spread first, then the rest comes naturally. I stopped street activism well before I ceased to be a libertarian, as it was pointless to do it as a Martian.
White nationalist street activists are in a far, far worse position than we were. They aren’t just Martians, they are martian-nazis-who-want-to-kill-six-million-jews. They are victimized by a System that has all manner of ways to abuse them. We didn’t face any of that, but it was still pretty much pointless, until the keyboard commandos did their job and spread libertarian ideas far enough for street activists to have something to work with. Then all of a sudden you get the Ron Paul Meetups all over the country, tens of millions of dollars raised, and the antecedents to the current Tea Party. The Tea Party may not be libertarian in a pure sense, yet it clearly evolved out of the Ron Paul movement.
There is simply no point in putting the cart before the horse. For white nationalists, that’s just going to make themselves dandy targets for the System, while accomplishing nothing of value for white nationalism. There are of course exceptions to the rule, and I try to support them. But what would I accomplish by going public? Right now, all I’m able to do is casual writing and offering some modest financial support to worthy people when I can. Going public isn’t going to change that, at least not for the better.
I’ll also note that I admire the people that I mentioned above, and I don’t pity them. You try to spin it as if I’m sitting back while they sacrifice. The truth is that I don’t think I have a better life than them, as you falsely suggest. I’d rather be free to do white nationalist work all the time, but again, I don’t currently offer enough of value to do that. Is David Duke to be pitied? I don’t think so. What a life he has had! Pretty amazing stuff. I don’t pity the guys who have something real to offer by going public, and who get enough movement support that they don’t have to worry too much about the light bill. The guy I pity is the one who gets himself damaged by going public for no valid reason, doesn’t get support and is left twisting in the wind. That is a damn shame, I’ve seen it happen, and I fucking hate to see it happen. It deeply bothers me, and I will do what I can to prevent it.
It is the purpose of this rather long piece to prevent you from doing this to someone, with whatever waning influence you might have left. Believe it or not, I still give at least a slight shit about what happens to you, despite your lies and misrepresentations. That’s why I counseled you not to go public. I didn’t want to see you harmed when no good could come out of it. You aren’t effective at the sorts of things that real world activists do, and you are or were good at things that do not require going public—writing (pre dishonesty).
So in any event, I’ve made my decision for myself. I’m trying to give food for thought to others who may be grappling with a similar decision. At the current time, I don’t believe that my going public would help white nationalism in any way. The only real effect it would have is that I would probably be in less of a position to donate financially to those who actually offer real value by virtue of their public status (and unless I offered something of equal or greater value, I would not feel justified in soliciting funds). My real value at present is in my writing, which I think some people benefit from. I can do that with a pen name.
So long as they offer real value and are not merely engaging in chest thumping and self-indulgent posturing, I admire those who have gone public. It is, frankly, heroic. I encourage people to support them. Our greatest and bravest talents need to be able to focus on the Cause, not worrying all the time about making rent.
But I do not admire expressive individualism for its own sake. Unless someone really offers value by going public, I say don’t do it. We’re at the idea spreading stage anyway, and “convenient” or not, it’s the truth. I stopped generic libertarian street activism, not because there were social penalties (there weren’t), but simply because it was not effective at that point in time. I realized that other things had to be done first, and I was right. Back then, I called it exactly as it ended up happening—not in precise detail, but the general pattern. And I’m right this time, too. Been there, done that, learned something along the way. Here is a bit advice: you can either learn from other’s mistakes, or you can learn the hard way.
I have a vision of what is in front of us in broad sweeps, but of course I don’t know the details. What I do know is that, as of today, it is pointless for most white nationalists to go public, and therefore I counsel against it. We are a de facto underground movement, and we need to learn to operate that way. To me that means radicalization, the development and spread of white nationalist ideas that can challenge the status quo, and Kievsky-style taqiyah where that makes sense. No need to provide dandy targets. Plenty of underground movements have been successful, and white nationalism will be as well. But we need to shun the bamboozlers, the liars, the obfuscators. Not to mention the blowhards who couldn’t identify a pattern if it bit them on the ass.
That’s it, Hunter. My position is not at all what you claim, and your continuing to lie about it only reduces what little credibility that you have left.
August 8, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Hunter, I spent a lot of time above explaining my position, as forthrightly as I could, and you continue to spend a lot of time misrepresenting it. If you had a dime for every straw man that you have created, you’d be well set for retirement. I’m guessing that, at some level, you know this. In all seriousness, it must be uncomfortable for you to resort to such lame arguments and obfuscations. I hope it is, anyway.
There is no point in a person going public when doing so doesn’t benefit white nationalism, puts himself at risk, and the WN movement can’t provide meaningful support. That’s not cowardice, or lack of character, or any of the other unjustified charges that you have been throwing around.
You are drawing all sorts of unjustified conclusions, and making all sorts of unjustified charges as a result of this. White nationalists are cowards, white nationalists won’t step up, we are doomed, woe is me.
If you had broader experience in life, you’d realize that most of the charges you level against white nationalism are either blatantly untrue, or are true of movements in general. Only a small percentage of liberals meaningfully contribute to liberal causes, the same with conservatives, or any other movement. Attrition and turnover are high in almost any political movement or organization, and so on. Most of the negatives that you attribute to white nationalists in particular, in fact apply to all people. You rail against white nationalists and have yet to realize that you are railing against human nature itself. This line is a great example:
“The hatred, pettiness, and malice: those traits came exclusively from the people who claim to share my own ideological beliefs. Jeffrey Imm has caused me far less trouble than other White Nationalists.”
News flash, Hunter. It is normal to have more problems within a movement or organization than without. When I was active as a libertarian, it was libertarians that caused me the most grief. Some real pains in the ass. Now that I’m not a libertarian, amazingly libertarians don’t cause me problems. Why would they? I rarely come into contact with them. I have some friends who are or have been very active in the Republican Party. Guess who causes them the most grief? If you guessed other Republicans, go to the head of the class. Same with Democrats, same with political groupings in general. When you are part of a political organization or movement, you’re going to bump heads with others in the movement that see things differently, and want a different result. This is normal and natural, but you can’t seem to get it. Who do people have the most arguments with, members of their own family, or the family down the street? The answer is obvious.
That’s just life, Hunter. That sure as hell doesn’t make Imm a good guy, or what have you. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t, but I guarantee you that if you became a Leftist and got involved with their causes, the people that would cause you the most grief would be… rum roll please… your fellow Leftists.
So Hunter, I’m not trying to be rude when I say, “Grow up.” You claim that, because we are penalized by the System, white nationalism won’t succeed, because it will always be more rational to avoid penalties and sit it out. But history tells us a different lesson. If what you are saying is true, then most wars would have never been fought, most movements would have never enjoyed success, nobody on the bottom would have ever come out on top. And yet history tells us something very different. Oppressed movements have been able to achieve success, wars happen, revolution (both peaceful and not) happen, life happens.
You ignore all of this, in favor of a simple calculus that is easily refuted by even a cursory knowledge of history, and human nature itself. Yes, people do tend to sit it out… until the day comes that they don’t. The whole point of a revolutionary movement is to figure out how to get to that day of action, and do the necessary preparatory work. But no, when someone points out the need for preparatory work, you launch into all manner of ridiculous insult. It’s quite apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.
August 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Even if what I wrote above [not cited here - Chechar] on fundraising proves not to be useful (and anyone is welcome to run with it), the point is we can improve in a thousand ways. Running around complaining about human nature, shaking one’s fists at the sky, calling honorable men cowards and falsely claiming that they have no character, is not the way to go. It’s wrong, it’s dishonest, and from a purely utilitarian standpoint it won’t be effective.
Hunter, I’d be lying if I said that I wasn’t disappointed in you. It’s obvious that I am. Disagree all you want, but please refrain from misrepresenting my position, and let’s leave it at that. I won’t forget the good work that you’ve done in the past. It was your writing that inspired me to start regularly posting, as opposed to mostly lurking. In a particular time and space, you created a helluva site. Not many people could do that. Good luck to you and, believe it or not, I mean that.
Hunter: “Everything you said in your last two posts above reinforces what I have been saying.”
Lol! Um… no it doesn’t. I simply described a very specific issue—fundraising—and how white nationalists need to get better at it if our capabilities are to be improved.
Fundraising is a problem with virtually all groups, all across the political spectrum. The idea that this problem is something unique to white nationalism is laughable. Instead of taking a broader and more realistic view of the situation, you are convinced it proves that, uniquely, white nationalists have no character, can’t win, everyone is pathetic, and the end is nigh. I guess white nationalists have cooties too.
Hunter: “In all three cases, there is a dedicated minority that is the exception to the rule.”
Sure. All/most movements are like this. Yet some of those movements triumphed. That’s the point, Hunter. All the rest is just adolescent foot stomping.
You remind me of those guys who keep saying that the Germans could have won World War II. It’s certainly true that they could have, if they had been flawless, making essentially no mistakes. The problem is, the Allies made mistakes too—massive ones. It’s not terribly reasonable to say, “I could have won, if only I had played flawlessly and completely without error, but you still made all of the same grievous errors.” I mean, it can be fun to hypothesize, but it’s all rather silly to base life upon being able to erase all of your mistakes, but the other guy is still stuck with his.
That’s essentially what you are doing. Yes, Hunter, we would win if, in contrast to all of our opponents, we could fully mobilize all people who held white nationalist views, while the opposition languished at very low participation rates. We would have hundreds of thousands of selfless, dedicated WN, and the opposition would have… Jeffrey Imm and a few metrosexual antifa. Our movement would be immune to the realities of politics, circumstance, and human nature. Everyone else would still be hobbled by these things.
It’s ridiculous. It goes from ridiculous to disgusting to start charging honorable men with having no character, and all of the other things you have been doing.
A remotely astute person says, “We have assets that we can develop and work with.” A Chicken Little, on the other hand, lapses into meltdowns, recrimination, and repugnant insults. I guarantee you that many, many people that you are insulting have far superior character to you.
Hunter: “No, I am not saying that. If you had followed my argument, you wouldn’t be misrepresenting what I have said.”
Let me tell you something, pal. I’m not misrepresenting a damn thing. I’ve dealt directly with the assertions that you have made. If you’re going to engage in sail trimming now, do so, but don’t accuse me of doing what you yourself have done to an absurd degree. If you didn’t mean to uniquely target white nationalists with your criticism, you sure took your sweet time clearing up that little misconception. I call bullshit, but whatever. We’ll work with that.
Hunter: “If those barriers were removed by a miracle, White Nationalists would act in the real world and build vertical momentum tomorrow.”
Yes, then we could all go live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Hunter, what I’m trying to get across to readers, and maybe even you, is that you deal with where you are, not fantasy repudiations of human nature and political reality. There are many, many things that white nationalism is capable of, even as a repressed movement. I’d rather focus on that.
Hunter: “In the second scenario, a magic wand is waved and the character of White Nationalists is utterly transformed. White Nationalists are now courageous, generous, loyal, patient, reliable, honest, diligent, and righteous. They have the fortitude and integrity and confidence and determination. Their behavior has been transformed in a way that complements their minds.”
Sure, if I had a magic wand, I’d take the second scenario. I’d love to be able to repudiate reality and human nature, bypass the tough preparatory work that needs to be done, and be able to magically rig things in our favor. But what if Jeffrey Imm had a magic wand? What if the neocons had a magic wand? Point is, anybody can play fantasy games.
August 9, 2010 at 8:37 am
Having read over my above reply, I don’t care much for the tone of it. I stand by everything I say substantively, but I should lay off the sarcasm a bit. You’ve been more or less civil in your tone, despite making some extremely insulting accusations. I should have reciprocated… perhaps on both counts. There I go again.
Hunter: “I see you have conceded the key point of this entire debate: if White Nationalists were men of outstanding character, they would act in the real world, break the taboos, and move to the ‘next stage’.”
Come on, Hunter. I explained this above. Yes, if white nationalists were immune to reality and human nature, we would win. If we were able to fully mobilize every white nationalist, but our opponents languished at low levels of participation, we would win. But that is pure fantasy. So, if it makes you feel any better, I “concede” that if we were able to live in Fantasy World, our victory would be assured.
But we live in the real world, and we are not immune to these things. In the real world, few people of any movement are particularly active. High turnover and low activism rates are normal. That’s reality. Yet, historically speaking, revolutionary movements have managed to win again and again. I’d rather focus on that, on how actual movements attain actual victory, despite suffering from all of the familiar (and immutable) drawbacks.
Hunter: “What good is recruiting the next 100,000 White Nationalists if the 100,000 we already have now won’t do anything beyond entertaining themselves by reading blogs and forums on the internet?”
You have already acknowledged that we have a dedicated minority (as all movements do). Recruiting the next 100,000 would gain for us the dedicated minority contained within it. That means more talent, more money, more capabilities. Of course, the benefits would be greater than even that, but I’m focusing on what you have already conceded. Why in the world would you not want that? It’s a complete no brainer… yet you argue against it.
Hunter: “The people who call themselves White Nationalists are unremarkable in their character and behavior.”
White nationalists run the gamut, from the superb to the mediocre to the not so impressive. So does everybody else. Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the human condition. As we pass through this vale of tears, we will not be exempt from reality.
Hunter: “Show me an example of a nation-state surrendering a sizable chunk of its territory because of the threat posed by anonymous people posting a billion radical comments on the internet.”
As your argument crumbles…
Hunter: “Such a ‘stupid claim’ is precisely what you have been arguing all along: that
White Nationalists are men of perfectly sound character (i.e., brave, generous, upright, loyal, gracious and respectful), but haven’t been exposed to the ‘revolutionary vision’ or the ‘right ideas’ that will prompt them to face down a leftist with a digital camera in the real world.”
No, my argument is that white nationalists are not exempt from reality. Right now, we have low participation rates, but so do most movements at most times. Historically, all movements have faced these sorts of problems. Our particulars may be different, but some problems are eternal. Yet some movements still manage to win. Human nature is not an insurmountable problem.
The simple reality is that “action” without an animating vision is pointless, and our history proves this conclusively. The System will win every time. Right now, we have the beginnings of such a vision, but only the beginnings. A rough consensus has developed on the need for a white ethnostate. But where? What are we willing to do to get it? Why is it worth the tremendous sacrifices that will be required? How can we free more and more people from the prevailing orthodoxy of political correctness? How can we create a vision that more and more people can buy into, so that they can move from being mere grumblers to something else?
Successful movements answer these sorts of questions, and work like hell to spread the answers. White nationalism can do this, but so far it hasn’t. Just when the intellectual momentum starts building to address these issues, you go ballistic. Just when it was beginning to come together, you seemingly attempt to break it apart. It’s too late for that, though. We’ve lost some time and good will over this, but the overall process will continue. Intellectually, we’ve come alive. I don’t see any real turning back now.
Hunter: “You would rather not focus on the fact that A.) the real barrier to real world action is social ostracism and employment discrimination…”
What do you mean? I’ve addressed this issue head on. White nationalism is, de facto, an underground movement as a result of this reality. Plenty of underground movements have achieved victory, and we can too. But it’s going to take more than demanding action without answers, or faux chest thumping.
Hunter: “…and B.) real world action is necessary to break those taboos…”
What real world action? Exactly what are you advocating that is going to break those taboos? I’m all ears, but you don’t offer answers. There has been plenty of activism over the last couple of generations, yet the taboos are still in place. Your way doesn’t work. My way will. We need to develop a compelling vision and spread that compelling vision. The history of successful underground/underdog movements supports my view. It does not support yours.
Hunter: “…and C.) that strong character, not reading the next Oswald Spengler book, is the sufficient factor for White Nationalists to rise up and break into the mainstream.”
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. The idea is to develop and spread an animating vision, not get people to read Oswald Spengler. Don’t be absurd.
Hunter: “That’s not the strong suit of intellectuals. Thus, we see intellectuals furiously arguing against the idea for their own self-serving reasons.”
Not at all. The proof is in the pudding, Hunter. If street activism by itself were effective, we’d have won our ethnostate back in the 50’s or 60’s. Clearly it is not sufficient, in the absence of a compelling and animating vision. Time is running out, we can’t afford another wasted generation.
You are setting up a false dichotomy: either action or intellectual development. Either the cart or the horse. That is an absurdly false choice. I am saying you can’t put the cart before the horse, not that you don’t need both. It’s a no brainer.
From the thread Restoring Honor: Glenn Beck and Implicit White Nationalism:
August 30, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Hunter: “Glenn Beck now has the attention of the White majority. By adapting his rhetoric to political reality, he can lead the White majority to a more radical position. What’s the alternative?”
You say he “can” lead Whites in a more radical direction. Let’s assume for a moment that is true. What evidence do we have that he is even on our side? What evidence do we have that he is anything but a well-paid entertainer? Very little that I can see.
Even if we assume that Beck could conceivably be on our side, or in time come to be on our side, it is clear that he does not require our help. He has an enormous audience, enormous resources, and clear access to the satellite uplinks (the fact that he has this access should give you pause, but apparently it doesn’t). Why are you promoting him? He doesn’t need your help. He’s not asking for your help.
You berate white nationalists for not having created real world organization. You still fail to appreciate how difficult this is to do. Twenty years ago, as a young whipper snapper, I was involved in the Libertarian Party, which was already about twenty years old at the time. It’s gone nowhere fast, even though it is not persecuted as white nationalists are. The value of the Libertarian Party was not in “creating a viable alternative,” but rather in assisting the spread of libertarian (small L) ideas. Today, libertarian ideas have spread far beyond the limited confines of the Party, and that is its real accomplishment. Its spinoffs are everywhere, from the Cato Institute to Lewrockwell.com. The Tea Party itself, while certainly not libertarian in a pure sense, can trace roots back to the Ron Paul phenomenon.
As ideas spread, at least some of the new converts will have talent and resources. This should be obvious…but apparently it isn’t. Your conclusion? We don’t need more converts.
In any event, my experience with the LP did make an impression on me. I learned a valuable lesson: don’t put the cart before the horse, and first things first. Anything else has failure baked into the cake, and as such is a waste of time.
So here we are, back to the spread of ideas, which is both the most important thing at this stage in the game, and pretty much the only thing that we can do well in our present situation. You admitted that the increasing quality of white nationalist discourse impressed you. Why do you find it so hard to believe that it can impress others? It obviously, provably can.
But your conclusion is to take the one thing that really seems to have the potential to take off, mock it, and refuse to spread the ideas yourself (you admitted as much in an earlier post, when you acknowledged that you don’t even try to educate interested parties about WN).
So again: you demand that white nationalism does what it cannot do (at least at the present time), and undercut that which it can do. Result, if people take your advice: failure baked into the cake.
As for whether Beck is a net gain or loss for us, that is certainly arguable. Long ago, on this very blog, I emphasized that the Tea Party was inevitably on a collision course with non-whites, no matter how much inclusive bilge it spewed. This has proven to be absolutely true. The polarization will continue, but without an intellectual foundation that only we can provide, it will ultimately go nowhere. I don’t have a crystal ball, but my predictions so far have been accurate, so you might want to consider that I have at least some idea what I’m talking about.
There are forces that are out of our control, and they will inevitably lead to even further polarization. But unless white nationalist ideas spread, it will all come to naught. We’ve seen outbursts before: Dixiecrats, Wallace, Citizen’s Councils, etc. (you never seem to ask yourself why these earlier movements, some of them huge, ultimately amounted to nothing). What all of these earlier outbursts lacked was an intellectual foundation. It is our job to provide that, yet you mock the task. You’d rather send people to Beck, giving him help that he doesn’t need and hasn’t asked for, instead of focusing on where you would have the most leverage, which is in creating an intellectual foundation for the radicalization of whites.
Each man should contribute where, given his circumstances in life, he can have the most impact. Is sending help to Beck, help that he doesn’t require, leveraging your talent? It’s laughable.
There is little point in complaining about the lost decades of white nationalism. The milk that has been spilled has been spilled. Unless you have a time machine, why bother? You keep presenting this false choice: either support the Tea Party (which doesn’t require our support) or create a viable real world organization (which we can’t do at present). No, Hunter, that is not the choice, it is in fact not a choice at all.
What we can and must do is obvious. Unless far more people than today have at least a somewhat positive impression and understanding of white nationalist objectives, we by definition can’t become players in anything other than a tiny pond. Yet again, you mock that which we can do, and instead choose to fixate on that which currently remains beyond our abilities, or focus on milk that has long since hit the kitchen floor.
Leverage, Hunter, leverage. If you don’t understand what I mean, give it some more thought.
August 31, 2010 at 5:43 am
Hunter: “He doesn’t have to be on our side. His actions are creating racial polarization within the mainstream. Whereas Glenn Beck reaches millions of White people, White Nationalists reach a few thousand, and the ones they do reach are counseled to do absolutely nothing to reverse our decline in reality.”
That polarization will come to nothing unless white nationalist ideas are spread. What is happening must be leveraged, not surrendered to as you advocate.
Hunter: “I’ve learned from experience how futile it is to attempt to reform the White Nationalist movement.”
Misdirection. There is no need to “reform” the white nationalist movement. Either someone is effective at spreading the ideas or they aren’t. What’s reform got to do with it? Small, ineffective organizations should be ignored, not reformed. As a general rule, reform only makes sense if the organization in question is reasonably powerful and something can be salvaged from it. I don’t know any WN organizations that fit that bill.
Hunter: “I think it is more likely that the mainstream will radicalize—through a neverending series of racially polarizing media spectacles—than the fringe will ever get its act together and create a viable alternative to the status quo.”
You keep speaking past my point. If white nationalist ideas spread, and other groups are influenced by it, then all’s the better. That’s called leverage. Sending people to support Glenn Beck is not leverage, it’s just a disappearing act hyped as something else.
Hunter: “After eight years of sitting on the sidelines, I joined two White Nationalist organizations. In both cases, the two people whom I trusted the most in those organizations later viciously turned on me.”
You put the cart before the horse, and it didn’t work out. I don’t know the particular facts of what happened with you, but I do know that white nationalism is not capable of fielding meaningful organizations right now. So why join? You were having far more effect, and enjoying far more leverage, spreading your ideas. But no, you needed to join some ineffective organizations. When that doesn’t work out, you bail on the other as well. To put the cliché meter into overdrive, not only do you put the cart before the horse, but you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Hunter: “False analogy. White Nationalism is taboo. Libertarianism is perfectly mainstream. The former are subjected to social ostracism and employment discrimination. The latter are not. You are comparing apples with oranges.”
Um, dude, I said the same thing. I love how you restate what I say, and then throw it back at me as if you’re telling me something new. Hunter, I made it very plain that white nationalism is persecuted (I used that precise word, in fact), while libertarianism is not. I’m not comparing apples and oranges, simply pointing out that it is extremely difficult to form a viable mass organization even under the best of circumstances. That sort of thing seems clearly beyond our capabilities at this time. The one thing that we can do is spread our message, make our vision as attractive as possible, and gain converts. The more people you have, the more is possible. You’ll of course deny this most obvious fact of political movements.
Hunter: “White Nationalists failed to create a viable alternative to the status quo. Now they have missed the boat when their historical opportunity to emerge as a credible force passed them by.”
There is definitely some truth to this, but you overstate the case. In any event, milk spilled is milk spilled, there is no point in whining about it. The only question is, what can be done from this point forward? You yourself admitted that in recent years white nationalist discourse improved and became more attractive. There has been more intellectual energy recently than at any other time in our lives. You’ve said this yourself. Why not expand upon that, gain new converts and new talent, and take it from there? Why not concentrate on what we can do, as opposed to crying in our cups over what, at present, we can’t do?
Hunter: “Libertarians have built institutions in the real world to translate their ideas into public policy.”
I said this, but most of what they have built simply has to do with the spread of ideas. The few exceptions, such as the Libertarian Party, have been largely ineffective. Lewrockwell.com has had far more effect than the mass organization LP, just as Occidental Dissent WAS having (and for all I know, could still) far more effect than some infiltrated, ineffective, numbnuts organization. For whatever reason, you just can’t get that through your head. We’ve seen, in our lifetimes, the spread of libertarian ideas, yet you never question how they did it. And that’s just one example, history is full of various ideas spreading. There is a particular way that ideas spread, and you are counseling the opposite of that way.
Hunter: “To the extent that libertarians had any success at all, it is because they moderated their message, as we saw with Ron Paul, and even more so with Rand Paul.”
Again, you don’t understand how a message spreads. The “true believers” don’t tone down, nor should they. If they did, they’d never be heard from again. Instead, what happens is that, as the message ripples out from the center, it becomes diluted. You are mistaking an effect for a cause, and this is a critical error. For example, as the libertarian message spreads out from the center, you start running into more and more people who say something like, “Yeah, I’m kind of libertarian.” That’s normal, but it would be crazy for Lew Rockwell to do that, or Rothbard when he was alive, or whoever. That would have signaled that the movement was dead. It amazes me that you can’t grasp this distinction. The same distinction applies to someone running for office as opposed to a “keeper of the faith.” One must tone down, the other must not.
Hunter: “It’s not obvious.”
It’s not obvious that a political movement benefits from more converts? What are you smoking?
Hunter: “We had plenty of talent and resources here. I moved to Virginia and used my savings to build the White Nationalist movement in that region. I was doing literally everything in my power to promote White Nationalism.”
Here again, you just don’t get it. Hunter, you’re a very smart guy in some ways, but astonishingly thick headed and confused in others. I love how you throw around the world “plenty.” We have “plenty” of white nationalists, resources, etc. No, you don’t have plenty.
Sure, speaking in casual language, we can use the word plenty. But in real world political organization, you can’t use the term that way. Then it’s a matter of how many members you can get, or votes if a third party, or whatever the metric is. It’s very measurable. By that standard, white nationalism does not have “plenty” of anything. The only way it has a chance of gaining plenty is by winning far more converts. It’s that simple, but this basic truth eludes you. If only one in a thousand new converts is willing to commit talent and resources, then that has real value. So the obvious thing to do is to try to gain more converts, but you counsel against it. I’ve been around political types all of my life, including the guys who actually win elections, and never has someone said that they didn’t need more converts/supporters. Never. Yet you say it. It boggles the mind.
Hunter: “When people are converted to White Nationalism, they lose their common sense and their sense of realism, and thus their ability to communicate with and influence their peers.”
That’s ridiculous, and contradicts your own statements on the improved level of white nationalist discourse.
Hunter: “Ten years of experience with White Nationalism taught me that nothing will ever come of that movement. You can take that statement to the bank. It is worth its weight in gold.”
According to that logic, libertarian ideas would have never spread because the Libertarian Party went nowhere. But, factually, that’s not how it turned out at all. For some reason, you continue to insist that a handful of lame, ineffectual organizations “are the movement.” That’s absurd. Instead, they are what they are, a few grouplets of ineffectual organizations, nothing more. Why do you fixate on them so, and measure everything by them? Again, it’s absurd. White nationalism is, at present, a dream, just as “liberty” is the dream of libertarians, or “equality” that of leftists. Dreams can be powerful, if they are made to be so. It is our task to make our dream attractive. The dream cannot be tied to any particular organization, to do so misses the point entirely. A particular organization is merely a vehicle for the dream, not the dream itself. If the vehicle is defective, it should be discarded as such.
Hunter: “There is plenty we can do in our present situation. We can disrupt the status quo in all sorts of ways. We can vote, raise money, hit the streets, polarize and radicalize our peers.”
I’m all for radicalizing peers, but the idea that sending people to Fox is radicalizing them is pretty ridiculous. The best way to radicalize is to spread our ideas, as other successful movements have done. You offer us nothing new, but seek to distract from that which provably works. Why is that?
Hunter: “You will make every excuse imaginable for not doing a single thing in the real word to change our circumstances.”
Says the guy who is absolutely clueless about how real world politics works. Refusing to do something that is utterly pointless is not the same as making excuses. I’d rather invest my limited time and resources in something that can get at least a moderate payoff. I spent enough of my youth wasting time in stupid endeavors, and those were under far more favorable circumstances then white nationalists face. Then I did something totally alien to you: I actually studied and thought about how movements succeed. Joining infiltrated, ineffectual organizations with a disproportionate amount of kooks did not make the list.
Also unlike you, I didn’t make the mistake of overestimating the importance of such organizations. They aren’t the movement in a meaningful sense, any more than the Libertarian Party has a monopoly on libertarianism. Lew Rockwell left the Libertarian Party, but he did not leave libertarianism. In fact, he had far more impact on libertarianism once he concentrated on his site.
Hunter: “The federal government no longer has that legitimacy. As I have been trying to explain to you here.”
As someone who has been hammering on the same theme, I hardly need it explained to me. You counsel us to take a golden opportunity and piss it away by becoming Foxtards. I counsel the spread of our ideas, the gaining of more and more people who share our views, and therefore employing leverage to the greatest extent possible. Beck doesn’t need your help. He’s not asking for your help.
The idea of the ethnostate, however, needs all the help it can get. Instead, you’d rather fixate on irrelevant white nationalist organizations, instead of studying how revolutionary ideas actually gain currency.
Hunter: “Compared to the White Nationalist movement, which exists exclusively in cyberspace, all of the above look wildly successful in comparison.”
Ideas exist in people’s minds. Once you truly have “plenty” of adherents, in a meaningful sense, those ideas will inevitably be made manifest in the real world. We aren’t there yet, and the proof is in the pudding. Sorry that putting the cart before the horse leads to laughable results…but it does. The whole cyberspace thing is a cop out. If the Marxists of a century ago had access to the internet, they would have been all over it. It’s just a tool, nothing more. In the past it might have been flyers. You focus and fixate on the wrong things.
Hunter: “If White Nationalists are dysfunctional and incapable of reversing our decline, that fact needs to be front and center. I’m quite bitter about my own ‘lost decade’ and the thousands of dollars and hours I pissed away on that project.”
Again, the white ethnostate is a vision, a goal, an aspiration. The more minds and hearts it wins, the better. This has nothing to do with the existing organizations which, for the most part, appear either dysfunctional or irrelevant. But again, you can’t make this critical distinction.
Hunter: “Thus, we are left with no other option than to find some other movement with the ability to do the job, even if we have to nudge them in the right direction.”
My strategy works perfectly for this. If you actually wanted to nudge them in the right direction, you would leverage your talent by spreading white nationalist ideas and forgetting the existing organizations.
Hunter: “Do you think that you will acquire ‘leverage’ over the U.S. federal government after posting the 30,000th anonymous comment?”
Yes, Hunter. It’s very obvious that’s exactly what I mean. LOL! But if we could get back from La La Land for a moment, I’m referring to intellectual leverage. Lew Rockwell understands this. Apparently, you don’t.
Hunter: “I can say that I tried to actually to do what you advocate. In return, I got nothing but grief and knives in my back from the people I was trying to help.”
You didn’t do what I advocated. You insisted upon getting hooked up with ineffective organizations. Had you followed my counsel, you wouldn’t have made that mistake, but you ignored my counsel before, and you will ignore it now. Whatever, some people have to learn the hard way. You could have accomplished far, far more as the WN Lew Rockwell instead of getting involved in the silly machinations of ineffective organizations. White nationalism isn’t an organization, and it’s not a membership list. It’s a goal and an aspiration, a dream, just as “liberty” is to the libertarians or “equality” is to the leftists. That’s its power, and that’s why it must be spread, rather than screwing around with Jeffrey Imm or playing with the Going Nowhere Fast Brigade. The physical manifestations will come later, if we do what needs to be done. Until you get that, and I mean really get it, you understand nothing. Apparently intelligence doesn’t enter into it.
Anyway, I think two lengthy posts exhausts my ration for right now. I just don’t have the time to do much more at present, so you get the last word. Try to restrain the love.
August 31, 2010 at 4:42 pm
All of this discussion has a tiresome sense of deja vu to me. It’s the 1970s all over again, i.e. back then white Populist and other “right-wing” white organizers were out there, trying to organize and direct the angry white masses who objected to school busing (Boston), abortion, high fuel costs (truckers, farmers, etc marching on Washington DC), protests against leftist/obscene school text books (West Virginia), and so on. For a while it actually looked like a white revolution might be in the air, a perfect storm that would flush the rats out of Washington DC.
What happen? Reagan got elected.
So, we “won”, right? No, we lost. The Establishment won, again. Under Reagan and the GOP, nothing was done about correcting the 1965 immigration “reform” which was flooding the USA with non-white legal immigrants. Under Reagan and the GOP, the first trickles of the coming massive flood of illegal immigration began, thanks to non-enforcement of the border and non-enforcement of immigration and labor laws due to treasonous actions of Reagan administration officials (for instance, massive importations of illegals to work in meat packing plants began under Reagan, destroying tens of thousands of high paying, unionized, white jobs—and officials in the government who tried to stop this were fired). And most important, under Reagan we got the first amnesty of illegal aliens, without anything more than a thread-bare promise to fix the borders later.
We got fooled, massively, by Reagan/GOP promises to be the party of white, working class and middle class interests. Instead, we got amnesty and outsourcing. Reagan and the GOP were, are, the party of elite globalist interests.
Now we are to believe that people like Glenn Beck are the answer to our prayers? Really? Someone employed by “mamzer” Rupert Murdock is secretly working to bring the whole rotten edifice of post-white America down? I don’t believe it. I’d sooner believe in Antarctic Nazi flying saucers than this steaming pile of manure. It’s a delusion, a Ghost Dance, a belief in some magical transformation that is about to take place for which there is no rational evidence.
We’ve been here before. There was plenty of “implicit whiteness” in the 1970s—much more than there is now—not to mention plenty of “explicit whiteness”. The Establishment knew how to deal with this disturbing outbreak of rebellion amongst the peasants—and so the “Reagan Revolution” was born.
Glenn Beck is different this time? How?
Hunter: I cringe every time you refer to the neo-nazis as “white nationalists”. The term “white nationalism” was popularized in the 1990s online on Usenet by people like Yggdrasil (long before your time) to get away from any association with these costumed clowns. And here you are associating the term with the most useless group that has little if any real connection with white nationalism, the costume fetishists, and you talk as though they are the essence of white nationalism, which they are not.
Hunter/Fade: I’ve watched you online for the past, oh, almost the past decade now, from the original phora days (not the current one). I can’t help but notice that you are forever falling for “enthusiasms” instead of solidly building on past experiences; no sooner does a new enthusiasm seize you, then you throw away everything you learned and believed before and embrace a new agenda. This is not healthy and not the way to build for the long term. So today you denigrate “white nationalism” (which you falsely confound with the neo-nazi costume fetishists) and promote the “implicit whiteness” of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party. When you have become disillusioned with this, as you inevitably will, what then? Some other new enthusiasm, no doubt, but will you have learned anything? I write this knowing full well that you will probably dismiss this out of hand, but I put it here on the record anyway, for others to make note of.
It is time to face facts. Nothing we can do now is going to stop the tidal wave of demographics. If we have failed over the past three decades to stop it, knowing full well what was coming, we can’t do anything about it now. It is a fait accompli. Even if all immigration were stopped today, we would still be in deep trouble. But immigration won’t be stopped; the powers that be will not let it. All the rest of the anti-white agenda won’t be stopped either: affirmative action and the rest. It’s not even up for discussion anymore within the Republican Party, which used to oppose it at least rhetorically. Nowhere on the agenda is there anything remotely pro-white, and Glenn Beck trying to steal the mantle of MLK isn’t going to change that.
What can be done? Well, what can a defeated people do? Unless we are physically wiped out, we always have the hope of recovery. The most important thing is to move people from implicit to explicit whiteness. This will be easier once our complete ruin as a nation is absolutely obvious to even the dimmest bulbs out there, once the anti-white agenda is out in the open and we can no longer claim to be the Majority. Once it is obvious to even the dumbest white sheeple that this isn’t a white nation, that we are a persecuted minority, then all this dumb talk about taking “our” nation back will stop.
It is not “our” nation. The USA is a vast holding company for the globalist elites. “It ain’t your country”: once that realization hits the vast majority of whites, disillusionment with the current system will set in, and they will need to be made aware of the mere possibility of white nationalism. Once that possibility is acknowledged, once it enters the minds of whites, many other ideas and things become inevitable, that are not possible now. But this is a work of decades and a work of propaganda and education. Marches, rallies, elections, politics—these are not the foundation work that needs to be done first.
White nationalism is still only a possibility; no one is prepared to fight and die for a white nation. No politician fears the white nationalist voter. Thus Obama for instance can simply waive away the issue of affirmative action with a sneer, because he knows it is a non-issue. The day that whites start rioting in the streets, start voting as a bloc for white interests, start punishing and ostracizing whites who don’t put white interests first, start acting like a white nation instead of a disorganized collection of individuals, is the day that politicians start taking white interests seriously. You can’t be a player if you don’t have a team, and whites don’t have a team.
The project (not yet a “movement”) of white nationalism is to get whites to learn to think and act as a team. Until that happens, no white politics is possible.
Is Glenn Beck teaching whites to think and act as a team? Is he sneakily, stealthily, slowly inching towards the merest possibility of teaching whites to think and act as a team? Hell no. And it is insane delusion to think otherwise. Don’t believe me? Watch and learn. I’ve been watching this game for over thirty years now, and I know a bait-and-switch when I see one. Reagan could play the corny “I’m-just-a-regular-guy-like-you” game, too. And like Beck I’m sure at some level Reagan was “sincere”. But at the end of the day he got his paycheck from the same people that Beck works for.
Why am I bothering to write? This will all be obvious soon enough. Just wait. It may take a few more election cycles, but it should be obvious to anyone who isn’t waiting for the Ghost Dance to make the enemy’s bullets harmless, or waiting for the Nazi flying saucers come down and save us all, or waiting for Glenn Beck to magically transform a mamzer-owned TV show into the engine of white consciousness and revival. All three hopes are equally delusional.
That’s not to say that some good things might not come out of the Tea Party and some good things might not come out of Glenn Beck (it is an ill wind that blows no good), but some good things came out of the 1970s/80s New Right and some good things came out of Reaganism, but in the end, they betrayed us. We have to get beyond them.
August 31, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Lurker, good comment above. You covered a lot of ground and, a few quibbles aside, I found much to agree with.
One particular point bears repeating: you are absolutely right that the costume clowns should not be lumped in with white nationalists. Some of the “nazis” seem to have bought into the master race ideology, and seek supremacy and dominion over non-whites, as opposed to the self-determination of an all white ethnostate (where there would be no non-whites to have dominion over). And, whether by intention or not, that message of dominion is exactly what their 1930’s finery conveys to our target audience. It is not representative of our actual message.
That’s not us, that’s not white nationalism. What we want is plain and clear: self-determination for our own people. There is nothing sinister about it.
Obviously, the media will always conflate us, there is no getting around that—until we control the media. But we can and should have more clarity on the issue, at least amongst ourselves. It comes down to defining who “we” are—not in the media’s eyes, but in our own—which is yet another prerequisite for moving past square one. It really staggers the mind to consider how much intellectual work needs to be done, and how little has been accomplished in that department. When you get right down to it, we haven’t even established who “we” are. Pathetic, but at the same time amenable to remedy.
September 1, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Junghans and others, thanks for the comments. I appreciate it.
(To Hunter, I’ll say that the most important part of this post is at the very end. I expect a retraction of your smear.)
Hunter: “I believe the costume clowns [neo-Nazis] should be lumped in with White Nationalists. They are an important and revealing aspect of the White Nationalist movement. Here’s why: the reason the costume clowns are so prominent and get so much attention is because literally no one else (aside from a few people in the CofCC) is willing to do what they do.”
As I and others have pointed out, the issue is whether the costume clowns are even advocating the same thing that we are. If we are advocating self-determination in our own lands, and they are advocating something substantively different, then there is a distinction. A factual, provable distinction. Naturally, you deny the obvious.
Hunter: “People like yourself are unwilling to stand up for your beliefs in the real world and create a viable alternative.”
Everything that I’ve said, in through one ear and out the other. I personally have spread the white nationalist message to many people, online and off. I’ve also contributed financially to advocates of our cause. I’ve done what my personal circumstances allow, something everyone has to determine for himself. You are not the arbiter of these things, Hunter. It is increasingly bizarre that you think you are.
On the other hand, I write under a pen name, as do you. I have no interest in joining ineffective organizations. You demand others do something in the “real world,” but you don’t specify what that something is, or demonstrate how it would be effective at anything other than providing names and faces for those that wish us ill. Yes, Hunter, we are a suppressed viewpoint. Instead of taking that reality and working with it, you seem to demand that people make things easier for our opponents, while achieving nothing for white nationalism.
In any event, I guarantee you that many people here do in fact spread our ideas in the real world, but apparently that isn’t real enough for the self-appointed arbiter who writes under a pen name, offering not workable solutions but plenty of insults. You’d rather they act in a way that harms them, while accomplishing nothing for white nationalism. I’m shocked, shocked, that more people haven’t followed your eminently sensible advice on this subject.
Hunter: “It all boils down to social ostracism and employment discrimination.”
Dude, I think we all get that, but plenty of persecuted movements have achieved success. I’m interested in how to spread a belief system even under suppressed conditions, and I’ve explained what needs to be done. I’m interested in what we can do with the resources that we have, under the conditions that we face. You’d rather foot stomp and lash out at others for the fact that reality doesn’t conform to your whims and wishes.
You demand that we play the other guy’s game and on his terms, even though it demonstrably doesn’t work. I’m advocating a different approach, something that we can actually do with the resources that we have.
Hunter: “The crushing taboo against ‘racism’ keeps White Nationalism bottled up in cyberspace and leaves reality as a stage for the kooks, sociopaths, and expressivists within the movement to act out their fantasies.”
Sure, there is truth in that. Of course, you don’t help matters by doing the media’s work for them by falsely equating “master race” costumers with advocates for self-determination. Further, the internet is a tool, a tool that is changing the world. Had it been available one hundred years ago, the Marxists would have been all over it. It is one of the few tools available to us right now, and it is our job to max it out. We haven’t done that. Guys like Lew Rockwell understand this, while you now pretend not to.
We see a pattern here: you ridiculously claim that WN doesn’t require additional converts, an utterly ludicrous position. You do the media’s work of blurring the distinction between advocates of self-determination and advocates of a very different ideology. You attack the tools that are available to us (while using them yourself), and instead demand that white nationalists take actions that are demonstrably ineffective, and only serve to hurt the white nationalist in question while providing fodder for our opponents. Opponents, I might add, that are gleeful we are playing their game, not ours. Are you trying to win the award for the worst advice ever? But again, Wanderer is probably correct that you do understand these things, and your current behavior is governed more by the personal than anything else.
Hunter: “You keep saying about that White Nationalism is about nothing but self determination for White people. If memory serves, I made just that point to Alex Linder and Jim Giles in December, who were promoting the idea at the time that White Nationalism is synonymous with genocide. I vaguely recall you taking their side. Is that not your recollection?”
Now you are moving from misrepresentation to straight out lying, and about a serious matter to boot. I certainly never endorsed that position, and the fact that you “recollect” otherwise calls into question many statements about your interactions with others. How many of your other supposed recollections are false, I wonder?
I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that I was foolish in doing so. I expect a retraction of this false statement, and don’t try to hide behind your use of vaguely and/or putting your lie in the form of a question.
Hunter: “That is my honest recollection. I remember you defending Linder at the time. Maybe I am wrong on that point. I will go back and check the relevant threads. Didn’t you have a huge fight with Mark about your defense of Alex Linder?”
I sure did. He was doing what you are doing now: smearing me with an absolute lie. I sent you an email, one of only a handful of emails that I’ve ever sent you, complaining about this very thing, being accused of advocating extermination when I had done no such thing. I didn’t appreciate it then, and I don’t appreciate it now. Shall I post the email that I sent you, which made my position abundantly clear, and makes you out a liar?
Hunter: “I’m not sure why you are accusing me of being a liar. I simply said that was my recollection of your position. I said I would revisit the archives which should settle the matter.”
I’m accusing you of being a liar because you are one. Here is the email that I sent to you on December 19, 2009, about this very subject. You responded to it, so don’t pretend that you didn’t get it. Here is the text, precisely as it was sent to you:
Hunter,That’s it, Hunter. I don’t know how I could have made my position any clearer than that. You are spreading lies, plain and simple. I expect a retraction.
I realize that you have had a rough couple of days, and have been shabbily treated. You’ve got a lot to think about, and I understand that my complaint is not likely to figure all that high on your list of priorities.
However, it cannot be left unsaid. You gave Mark the final word in the mea culpa thread, before closing it. He used that final word to spread yet another lie, that I advocate extermination through sterilization. I have advocated no such thing, and I don’t particularly appreciate that readers of that thread (of which I have no doubt there will be many) may be left with that false impression. I would ask that I either be allowed to respond, or that his post misrepresenting my position be deleted. Or an editorial comment added, whatever. Mark is making very serious misrepresentations (genocide, for chrissake), and it is not reasonable that these be allowed to stand unchallenged.
From the thread Standing firm:
October 10, 2010 at 9:51 pm
This is quite long, but covers a lot of ground.
It is amusing that you continue to insult “intellectuals,” accusing them of having their heads in the clouds, when it is you who exhibit the worst characteristics that you attribute to intellectuals. You sit around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, ignoring the plain reality in front of you. You advocate “solutions” that have no basis whatsoever in reality, but consider yourself practical. When you are called on this, you resort to telling outright lies about fellow white nationalists.
This is indeed a complicated subject, but certain basic facts are pretty damn simple. Even a brain dead moron should understand the points that I’ll make. Of course, as dishonest intellectuals do, you’ll obfuscate, smear and lie in response, but that’s par for your course.
1. There are well over 100 million non-whites in this country. Expelling them would be an enormous task, requiring tremendous strife and tears. Normal, sentient human beings understand this. People do not take drastic steps unless they are convinced that they are necessary. They will exhaust other alternatives first. This is normal and natural.
2. Even if you say, “Well, fine, we won’t expel 100 millions non-whites from the country. We’ll break away and form our own country instead, where not nearly so many people will be affected.” Doesn’t matter. Functionally, it’s the same as option 1. As long as ZOG is powerful, it’s not letting us go peacefully, no matter what. We aren’t allowed to have an all white pizza parlor, much less an all white nation. As long as ZOG is strong, it would take enormous suffering and pain to create an all white homeland, even a small one. We can focus on fairness, and try to create a homeland where it will displace the fewest people. Doesn’t matter. Our opponents aren’t interested in fairness. They want us dead.
So we’re back to struggle and strife, tears and suffering. Normal whites understand this, at least implicitly. They know the System would do whatever it could to destroy us, and that this would be true no matter how reasonable our proposals. See again point number 1: People do not take drastic steps unless they are convinced that they are necessary. They will exhaust other alternatives first. This is normal and natural. In the only context that they know, any effort to save whites from destruction would be considered drastic. [Chechar’s emphasis]
3. As the result of the above, white nationalists appear to normal people to be offering a solution that will end in nothing but tears. It doesn’t even matter what the particular solution is: normal whites know that the System will oppose us no matter what. I’m shocked, shocked that more don’t sign up. Truly amazing.
In short, you can’t offer a drastic solution without first convincing significant numbers/elements that it is necessary, that more moderate solutions won’t work. So what do you advocate, Hunter? Don’t convince anybody, intellectuals are a waste of time.
Sounds like a winning formula to me.
Anyone that doesn’t understand the above points is beyond hope, and should switch over to World of Warcraft post-haste. But really, most white nationalists do in fact understand that “organizing,” as you have advocated, is simply not feasible at this point. It accomplishes nothing except providing dandy targets for the ZOG, and can do nothing more than that until the cultural ground is better prepared. No doubt ZOG agents absolutely love what you have advocated, but it won’t bring us one step closer to a white homeland. Of course, that’s why they love it.
Hunter, people aren’t nearly as stupid as you assume. Many will sacrifice in exchange for real gains, few for no payoff whatsoever. Hey, here is my selling point: “Join my dandy new organization. We advocate a drastic solution that we haven’t bothered convincing people is necessary. Intellectuals are a waste of time. Please folks, restrain yourself, there is room enough for everybody!”
Sure. And if you instead create a “moderate” group, why should people join you? There are plenty of moderate groups out there, with plenty of funding. Why join yours? If you don’t dilute your message, you’ll get nowhere. If you do dilute your message, you’ll accomplish nothing. Why waste the small number of people/resources that we have, people who understand the full nature of the problem, on a moderate cause that there are already tons of “normal” people working on? They don’t need our help, nor do they want it. What is accomplished, other than squandering what little we have?
Subversive infiltration, on the other hand, is fine for those who are so inclined, and may prove to be an integral part of the strategy, but it alone will hardly win us our own land. In fact, on its own, it simply can’t win us our own land. Still, you’re making some progress if that is your new position. Not much, but some.
So, given all of the above, does that mean that our cause is hopeless? Not at all. Many revolutionary movements have succeeded under far worse conditions. The System is bleeding legitimacy, which is a prerequisite for revolutionary change. In fact, the System is inherently unsustainable, a truth that becomes more apparent with each passing day. Racial conflict, on multiple levels, is inevitable. That doesn’t mean that our victory is inevitable, but it does mean that we will have an opportunity.
This will do us no good unless there are more of us, many more. White nationalists have thought their way out of the box, and understand a fundamental truth: we need our own nation in order to control our own destiny. All other roads lead to our destruction. White nationalism is a necessity for our survival, not a luxury or a preference. I could spend a lot of time explaining why this is the case, but hopefully it is well understood in our circles.
Simply put, there just aren’t enough of us. There aren’t enough of us who understand the full picture. In personal conversation with normal whites, I can almost always elicit some level of racial awareness from them. They know they are white, and they don’t like what is going on. But do they understand the need for our own nation? No, they don’t. It’s just that simple. See points 1 and 2 again. They aren’t remotely convinced that such a radical step is necessary. They’ve seen news stories on marching Nazis, but haven’t seen any of our intellectual work. And I’m talking about cream of the croppers, not average joes (who aren’t going to read our work any more than a Revolutionary War soldier read Locke—but he was influenced by it nonetheless).
This is entirely within our power to change. Your solutions, on the other hand, not only won’t work, they are simply beyond our capability at this time. I advocate something that can be done in the here and now, you advocate unworkable pie in the sky. So, who is practical and who has his head in the clouds?
How hard is all of this to understand? I can see the smears, lies and general obfuscation now, anything to avoid an obvious truth. Again, one of the absolute worst characteristics of dishonest intellectuals.
Not too long ago, you did a piece on the American Revolution. The overall analysis was flawed, but not too bad. Somewhat useful, even. But of course, after providing a nice survey, you slip in your ridiculous whopper, namely that “intellectuals” had little to do with the Revolution. It was a revolt by the common man. O.K., well, there have been tons of revolts involving the common man, all over the world. Why don’t they always lead to the formation of a constitutional republic? Why not even most of the time?
Why, I wonder, do they in fact lead to all sorts of results: theocracy, socialism, military dictatorship, etc? Hmmm… a real mystery, a real brain teaser. However could this be?
The obvious reality is that there is one critical reason (not the only reason, but a vital one) why the revolutionary government took on the form that it did: the ideas of the enlightenment had spread far enough that it made sense. Such wouldn’t have happened with a peasant revolt circa 1500, nor did it happen in most countries during the many revolts of the 20th century. Why? Different ideas had currency in different times and places. Those rascally intellectuals again.
You’ll no doubt return to the dishonest (intellectual style) claim that the revolutionary soldier didn’t read John Locke. Of course he didn’t. But he operated in a context in which such ideas had spread, and the creation of the Republic made sense. In other contexts, at other times, in other nations, such a result would have seemed ridiculous—but not in America in the late 18th century. The intellectuals of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had prepared the cultural ground (just as the socialist intellectuals of the 19th century prepared the cultural ground in a very different way, paving the way for the socialist/communist victories of the twentieth century). The common man didn’t need to read Locke, or Marx, or whoever, but things wouldn’t have turned out as they did without rascally intellectuals like them.
You then throw in the whopping non-sequitur that this vague revolt by the common man is how we’ll get the white ethnostate. Huh? When hardly anybody even knows what it is, much less convinced of its necessity? Why is that inevitable, when there are so many other possible outcomes? Why haven’t we gotten such a nation already? The obvious answer is that it’s not inevitable, but it is entirely possible. We have truth and nature on our side, but if we won’t deign to spread our ideas, then we’re going nowhere fast.
Other times, you offer ridiculous analysis of Republicans, crediting them for stopping bad legislation, heaping them with praise, while deriding white nationalists for having no influence. Um…duh? It’s a shocker to you that, in a given System, there are going to be relatively better and worse elements? You can’t understand that the Republicans fully support the reduction of whites to minority status in this country, legal discrimination against whites, miscegenation, and every other policy that is leading to our destruction? It is a hostile System, and Republicans are part of that System, even if they throw us a bone or two every now and then. Someone kicks you in the teeth, takes a piss on your carpet, but then throws you a quarter. He’s your friend?
By your “logic,” the American Revolution itself would have never happened. There were elements in Parliament that were relatively more favorable to the colonists, and we should have supported them while deriding the would-be Founders as having no influence. To you, the corrupt Czarist regime was the future, because people in it had influence circa 1900, but the Bolsheviks did not. Didn’t turn out that way, did it?
Reality check, Hunter: revolutionaries don’t have influence… until they do. Is this so hard to understand? Deriding them as having no influence, while praising a chunk of the System because it threw you a bone, while fully supporting your destruction, makes no sense at all.
Given all of the above, there is no question that our main effort has to be the spreading of our ideas. The history of successful revolutionary movements is clear on this. We need far more people to understand the necessity of having a land of our own. Far more people. This is entirely doable, and outside forces are conspiring to our advantage. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I don’t believe that your attempts to derail and obfuscate the truth will succeed. No doubt, however, you will continue trying. More non-sequiturs, more whoppers, and more attacking the options that are currently open to us, while demanding the options that are not. Meanwhile, calling others unrealistic. It is to laugh.
October 10, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Elijah: “I’m relatively new posting here, and it’s still unclear to me if I have a place, but as a recent outsider it’s striking how much vitriol is going around in these forums. Why all the internal anger and ad hominem arguments? Without having seen this I would have expected being relegated to the fringe would bring WNs closer together and engender cooperation and constructive criticism.”
Certainly, one would think that, but it’s not the case. Part of it is the natural jockeying that takes place within any revolutionary movement in order to determine the direction of the movement. This is the historical norm, if not terribly pleasant to witness. To outsiders, it seems ridiculous, like a tempest within a teapot—these people who have no power yet squabble incessantly. But there is a logic to it. It’s a battle for the steering wheel.
Eventually, the issue gets settled, one way or the other. When the time comes, most people will fall into line and put aside their differences, for a time anyway. Show me a successful revolutionary movement, and I’ll show you one that had a lot of personal acrimony and infighting before it achieved power. Eventually, somebody’s got to gain control of that steering wheel, and let’s hope it can be done more peacefully than some historical movements have resorted to. For what it’s worth, I think it will be. We’ll work it out.
As for me, my general rule is to not open fire until fired upon, at least where white nationalists are concerned (obviously, those who aren’t white nationalists are legit, but that’s not what we’re talking about here).
However, there are exceptions. When someone engages in lies, smears and general dishonesty, they make themselves fair game. They’ve earned the vitriol.
As for Jared Taylor in particular, to my knowledge, he does not engage in these vile behaviors. I understand the criticisms of him and his approach, but he is not claiming to lead the white nationalist movement. He is not claiming to define it. He is not struggling to gain control of the steering wheel. He is not claiming that his way is the only way, nor is he seeking to snuff out the more radical types.
If he were doing these things, I would take issue. But he is not, so I don’t. Instead, I praise him for what he does well, and he does some things very, very well. But I also point out that more is required than his way offers. Far more, but that is not to belittle what he has accomplished. He’s done a lot and I wish him well, while remembering that he is not the solution, but a preliminary endeavor.
Jared Taylor has an important role to play in spreading the idea of racial differences, and the idea that whites as a group are under attack. Spreading those ideas are good things, not bad. He helps dispel the media image of us as jackbooted thugs. He’s also a great source of quotes and insights on how to talk to “normals” without scaring them off. All of this has value, even though it ultimately can’t get us where we need to go. It will, however, help. It’s part of the foundation. I have a great deal of respect for him, even though I understand that far more fundamental and powerful ideas must also be spread before we can hope for success. And, to my knowledge, Taylor doesn’t seek to interfere with that process. He does his own thing, and doesn’t interfere with others doing the same. He’s not attacking, nor does he deserve to be attacked. Instead, he should be praised for the many good things that he’s done, without forgetting that far more is required.
October 11, 2010 at 12:55 am
Hunter: “If exposing people to White Nationalist ideas was sufficient to get the job done, then Trainspotter and the thousands of other White Nationalists like him would be a valuable resource at our disposal instead of an escape valve that props up the status quo.”
The lies didn’t take long. It is obviously not my position that spreading ideas is “sufficient to get the job done.” That’s not my position at all. My position is clear: it is a necessary precondition for white nationalists to have any chance at all. How do you successfully organize when people view you as a jackbooted space alien? How do you get people to take the drastic step of supporting a white nation when you haven’t bothered to convince a significant number of its necessity? When most don’t even know what are arguments are? When most of even the smartest whites have never even heard the case for it? Magic? Voodoo?
But then, you believe that the Republic was formed out of nowhere, and that the communist/socialist intellectuals of the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the communist/socialist victories of the twentieth. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise, just pointing out how mind-numbingly ignorant and stupid your position is.
I refute position after position that you smugly advocate (which isn’t difficult, because they are incredibly ridiculous), and all you can do is sniff and snarl.
Hunter: “The ultimate result of this idea of “preparing the cultural ground” is that invaluable time, resources, and energy fizzle out in obscure corners of cyberspace.”
Ureal. Remember guys, this clown is trying to play the role of strategist. He believes that we don’t need converts, we don’t need to spread our message. A relative handful of intellectuals online, spreading our ideas, are to be subjects of attack. I mean, if all twenty of them held picket signs instead, thank of all the progress that we would make. O.K., well none, but it’s just fun to snark and snarl. Since when should we let reality stand in our way?
Instead, organize… even though you will be viewed as a jackbooted space alien. Brilliant strategy, Hunter, just brilliant. Of course, not a single revolution in history would have won in the entire course of human history had they taken your advice, but by all means, don’t let that stop you from advocating it.
Hunter: “I’m sure our leaders are pissing themselves at the scary thought that Trainspotter is “spreading ideas” at Majority Rights with Soren Renner.”
Majorityrights has done more to gain some degree of intellectual respectability than you have, you’ve simply profited by it and other sites as a free rider. Others built up the intellectual wing of the movement, you then glommed onto that, then attacked it. Senseless. You filled a market niche for a distinctly American, intellectually oriented site. Then you pissed all over it.
In any event, there are few intellectuals that have the time and talent to be good at it. I don’t have the time, and it is debatable whether I have the talent. I will damn sure not criticize those who do. But that’s your thing.
Hunter: “I’m sure our leaders are pissing themselves at the scary thought that Trainspotter is “spreading ideas” at Majority Rights with Soren Renner.”
If our ideas spread, I guarantee you they will be pissing themselves. If our ideas don’t (in other words, if we take your advice), they won’t. Certainly they would far rather only have to worry about your juvenile, nutjob attacks on those goshdarned intellectuals. They are quite happy with our current situation where almost nobody even knows about our true position.
October 11, 2010 at 1:19 am
Hunter: “It is worth contrasting Trainspotter with Saul Alinksy.”
In the sense that you mean it, there is no contrast. Saul Alinsky was an opponent, but he understood reality, in contrast to you. He published Rules for Radicals in the early 70’s, I believe, and operated in a completely different context than white nationalists do today. Leftist ideas had been well developed in the nineteenth century, and by the twentieth century, they had real power bases across the country and the world. They had entire nations by that point.
In this country, they already had a largely sympathetic mass media, they had strength on college campuses across the country, and in the legal system. They had all sorts of resources, from warm bodies to lots of funding. The Brown decision was going on twenty by the time Rules was published. Totally, totally different situation. By the late sixties, early seventies, leftists were starting to dole out the punishments, not take them. It was “safe” to be Leftist.
Again, totally different situation than what we face. I guarantee Alinsky would roll over laughing at you if you claimed that white nationalists could use his model today. Now, we might be able to use his model tomorrow (or even parts today, molded by the totally different context in which we operate), or maybe not.
An obvious precondition to fully utilizing the Alinsky model is that we need more adherents than we have today. How many more? There is no precise answer for this, but there is a psychological one: when we reach the point where we start feeling our oats. When we begin to feel that we have the numbers to make a difference. Certainly not a situation like today where, for most white nationalists, the only other white nationalists they know are online. We need to get at least big enough where we start bumping into one another in the real world, at least occasionally. Or where the organizing that you advocate involves more than 6 to 20 behind a police cordon. We’re nowhere near that point yet, and your trotting out Rules for Radicals is a bad, bad joke. You really have no clue, do you?
You accuse others of having their heads in the clouds, but it is in fact you that advocates completely unworkable solutions that have no chance at all in the context of 2010. Context, Hunter, context. You are amazingly blind to it, assuming you are operating in good faith.
Hunter: “Both have strong views about how to create revolutionary movements. If Saul Alinsky could join us, he would point out that change comes from power, which comes from organization. So the real question is how do you organize people into a mass movement capable of exercising power.”
Again, context. Alinsky understood this, you don’t. That’s the real contrast here.
October 11, 2010 at 3:01 am
Hunter: “Greg Johnson and Alex Linder favor ‘standing firm’ in favor of Explicit White Nationalism. They are content to remain isolated on the fringe without the legitimacy or power to change anything in their communities.”
They’ve both influenced more minds than you have.
Hunter: “No, it is clear my approach differs radically from their own. I favor working within the system, organizing moderates, and using polarization to move the political spectrum in a pro-White direction.”
And how are you going to do that? Where are your adherents? You’ve stated, time and time again, that you don’t need adherents. I’ve stated time and time again that your position is absolutely, hysterically nuts. Alinsky types have/had adherents, and always sought more. Where are yours? Do you have a magic wand, or is the Adherent Fairy going to provide them to you special delivery?
Hunter: “I have changed my tune, but clearly I haven’t adopted any of your arguments, much less your perspective. You could say that I have been influenced by Saul Alinsky. I’ve reviewed two of his books on community organizing.”
Sure you have, but that’s neither here nor there. As for Alinsky, you don’t understand him at all. He understood context, you don’t.
Hunter: “A struggle of strife, tears, and suffering—do I have to remind you that you are unwilling to face down a digital camera? When Albert Jackson tried to organize the Jacksonian Club, the two of us were able to raise five people on a conference call, out of the two hundred that had expressed interest.”
I’m not surprised. Again, you have no grasp of context, so no doubt everything is quite frustrating to you. Nothing works as it should, right? Someone like Alinsky was concerned with what works. You aren’t. There are important tasks that are within our capabilities right now. We are capable of expanding our adherent pool right now. You attack those things, and demand instead that people do things that offer no payoff, and at least some risk. Why should they? Why should they involve themselves with sketchy characters, at a time that the movement clearly can flex zero muscle? How does meeting with you create a white ethnostate? I feel bad about Jackson though, he seems like a good guy. Hopefully he won’t learn the wrong lesson from all of this, but of course that’s up to him.
Hunter: “If you are trying to say that Explicit White Nationalists lack the character it takes to win, I recall making just that point repeatedly to you a few months ago. People who won’t participate in an anonymous conference call are not about to face down the U.S. federal government in reality.”
Eh, that’s not my point. Of course you know that, but a little obfuscation is just par for the course, eh? Historically, most people who fought in revolutions did zilch before the revolution. But let’s not let facts get in the way of your argument. Let’s instead promote the ridiculous idea that whether people will have a senseless phone call with you, after all the drama you create and the smearing you engage in, is somehow an indicator of how they are going to be when things heat up. But since you so enjoy besmirching my character, I guess a little turnabout is fair play. I can easily see you skeddadling over the fence if things heat up, crying “I’m a moderate! I’m a moderate!” In fact, I’ll predict right now that’s what you will do. The way you’ve shamelessly lied about me shows that you are devoid of honor. That will inevitably manifest itself in other decisions in your life.
Hunter: “White Nationalists have nothing to offer the disillusioned masses. I have made that point repeatedly. There is no viable alternative to the status quo. That’s why the White backlash to the Obama administration has been channeled into the Tea Party instead of the White Nationalist movement.”
It was so channeled because, as you recommend, we haven’t done the groundwork. These people don’t know anything about us except the lies of the mass media. Why would they turn to us? Amazingly, you want this unhappy state of affairs to continue. And why would you want them anyway? You keep saying that we don’t need more adherents. You make no sense.
Hunter: “I haven’t advocated organizing White Nationalists on this website since the beginning of August. Having to interact with so many people like you, who passionately argue in favor of doing nothing, was sufficient to convince me that organizing White Nationalist radicals was a waste of time.”
That’s rich! Blame me, not your own utter failure at organizing. The reason you can’t organize is that you have absolutely no sense of context. And, for the record, I wasn’t really criticizing your activism prior to your senseless attacks on those goshdarned intellectuals. I might have uttered a few words of warning, but that’s about it. I only did that because I knew that you would fail, and I knew why. I tried to encourage you in directions where you could have much more of an impact. Now, having been the recipient of your lies and smears, I’m not even interested in that much. Now it’s just fair warning, hoping you don’t suck decent people into destructive endeavors.
Hunter: “By ‘preparing the cultural ground, Trainspotter means wasting the 2010s on anonymous internet posting on obscure White Nationalist websites, not unlike how the Laptop Luftwaffe wasted the late 1990s and 2000s on the same fruitless activity.”
No, I mean gaining more adherents. The internet is a powerful medium for spreading our ideas, and should be utilized. If it turns out that it can’t spread our ideas, I will be the first to say that we should stop. If the internet had been around a hundred years ago, the Left would have been all over it. But then, like Alinsky, Leftists are far more savvy than you are. They advocate what works, for them and in their context. You advocate the opposite of what works, for us and in our context.
Hunter: “I don’t advocate creating another ‘moderate group.’ It makes much more sense to join the Tea Party and influence it in a more pro-White direction on immigration. There are other organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA which are worthy of our support.”
I don’t have a problem with that, but if we don’t spread our ideas, we won’t get a white nation. It’s just that simple, unless there is a White Nation Fairy that is going to deliver one to us.
Hunter: “The whole idea of ‘leadership’ is based on moving people from Point A to Point Z. That means starting at Point A. So it is clearly nonsense that moderating the rhetoric, or staying within the experience of our audience, accomplishes nothing.”
Again, context. The Left didn’t win just by blending in with others and abandoning their message. Instead, they operated along a continuum, with the hardcore creating the ideas and pushing them, and more diluted forms spreading out from that hardcore. It’s not either/or, but your entire argument rests on not understanding that.
Also, something else that you fail to understand (coming under the broad heading of context) is that it makes a difference which direction the ship is heading. In other words, someone like Alinsky might say something to the effect that the extremists should tone it down, but he operated in a context in which the ship was already moving in his direction. For example, today the country is becoming less and less white by the day. If you are a leftist, why rock the boat? Things are heading in your direction anyway. Why say things that would just scare the passengers? But if you oppose the direction that the ship is going, then you are faced with a bigger problem. Can you really infiltrate the crew and change direction that way? Or are you going to have to mutiny? Or maybe a combination? Tough call. Much harder questions, and that’s a big difference between our context and theirs. At this point, all the Leftist has to do is not fuck up too much. That, plus time, and he wins.
Hunter: “The millions of alienated White conservatives and independents in the mainstream clearly do need our help. They need real leaders who will prove true advocates of their interests.”
As long as you leave the field of ideas to others, these peoples’ heads will be filled with mush, and there won’t be much that you can do with them. All revolutionary movements understand this, which is why the Left invests so much in propaganda and academia. Hunter is utterly oblivious to all of this.
Hunter: “The only alternative to subversion is organization. Trainspotter here is perhaps the most persuasive piece of evidence on OD that White Nationalists are unwilling to organize. If that is the case, then everything we do should be based on that premise.”
Hunter: “Unfortunately, White Nationalists are not in any position to take advantage of this opportunity, having wasted the last two decades on anonymous internet posting.”
We didn’t create enough new adherents, that’s for sure. I’m entirely open for better ways than the internet to create adherents, but the evidence suggests that the internet is the best tool we currently have available. Of course, it is impossible to have such a reasonable discussion with someone like you, an advocate of the idea that we don’t need new adherents at all! Alinsky would be proud.
Hunter: “I have heaped derision on those ‘intellectuals’ because they have consistently gone outside of the experience of their audience. That is the fundamental reason why they have failed to communicate their message to a mainstream audience.”
Again, you don’t get it. The intellectuals don’t generally (there are of course exceptions) target a mainstream audience. They target cream of the croppers, or at least college level types, and those in turn (teachers, media hacks, what have you) spread the message to a broader audience, or just influence their own friends and families. It’s obvious that you have no clue how ideas are actually dispersed throughout a society, and how they transform a culture. This from a person living in the Kwa, a culture massively transformed by Leftist ideas.
Hunter: “Care to explain how worshiping Adolf Hitler as a religious figure or advocating the destruction of Christianity is supposed to ‘prepare the cultural ground’ in states like Alabama or Tennessee?”
I don’t share those positions.
Hunter: “That’s precisely why a radical leap from Point A to Point Z never works and why starting at Point A and proceeding to Point B, moving the goal posts, is what is called for in this case.”
Eh, again, that’s true to a point. But you still need people creating a vision of the ultimate goal, a vision that is attractive to cream of the croppers, the opinion leaders. Again, it’s a continuum. It’s not one or the other.
Hunter: “Trainspotter ignores the reality that ‘intellectual work’ (such as Tom Paine’s Common Sense or John Locke’s Second Treatise) is invoked to justify a decision which the people have made for themselves for different reasons altogether.”
Hmmm… then why didn’t they make those decisions before such ideas gained currency? Why have they so seldom made such decisions after those ideas were largely supplanted by leftist ideas? What, was there a Republic Fairy that died, only to give way to the Communist Fairy? It must be very strange to look at the world through your eyes, where things happen totally devoid of foundation and context.
Hunter: “If you read the book that I reviewed, the whole point of the book was that ‘ideas’ did not cause the American Revolution, but were only invoked as justifications for it.”
Yes, it happened by magic. Not sure why other revolutions got such different results, and it sure is a coincidence that intellectual work invariably precedes revolutionary action, but let’s not bother ourselves with facts, eh? Magic is much more fun, and far less strenuous. I still can’t figure out why so many more people spout leftist ideas today than just a few decades ago, when I was a kid. Those rascally Fairies sure are busy.
Hunter: “How are we incapable of infiltrating the Tea Party or supporting FAIR and NumbersUSA?”
Go for it, but it’s going to be hard for a guy who doesn’t have adherents, and repeatedly claims that we don’t need more.
Hunter “Umm … let’s see. How long again had Massachusetts been a constitutional republic before the Revolution? The colonies had been allowed almost total self government for generations. That’s why they rebelled when Britain reasserted its control.”
Again, in Hunter’s world, enlightenment ideas either had no impact whatsoever, or they had zero impact until one day, one 24-hour period, they suddenly were in style. Again, absolutely no clue about context or the development of ideas and how they transform culture. Gosh, I wonder how we ended up with political correctness transforming our own culture, just in our own lifetimes?
Hunter: “Americans ignored John Locke’s work all the way up until the outbreak of the American Revolution. There was no slow preparation of the cultural ground going on in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hardly anyone was reading Locke in the colonies at that time.”
Hardly anyone had to. Hunter apparently thinks that the typical liberal, of whom there are tens of millions, all read Alinsky. Presumably, he also believes that the average feminist that you run into has read The Feminine Mystique. Because, see, unless you yourself have read a particular book, there is no way to be influenced by intellectual ideas. Ideas don’t percolate through a culture, oh no, no, no. That idiot liberal you ran into—he’s definitely read Alinsky, and the drivel of [Gloria] Steinem. Definitely. It’s just magic that some revolutions lead to a Republic, others lead to communism, still others to military dictatorship or theocracies. Just magic. There is no context to be considered.
Hunter: “The American Revolution was launched before Americans had even decided on the goal of independence, much less an independent constitutional republic. The action on the ground began long before the ideas coalesced around it.”
The half truths and ignorance that you spout are startling, but tiresome. I’m about done. It’s weird to argue with a modern advocate of magic.
Hunter: “As a matter of fact, the Republicans have stopped ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ and the ‘DREAM Act’ several times now. Likewise, if it had been up to White Nationalists to defeat this legislation, we would have gotten the Bush amnesty five years ago.”
I already addressed this in my first post, absolutely crushing this remarkably stupid argument. Anyone interested can read it there.
Hunter: “Ordinary Americans didn’t share Thomas Jefferson’s fawning embrace of the Enlightenment. They revolted to preserve their own tradition of self government, which the British imperial authorities were trying to take away, not over some fashionable French nonsense that no one in Bumfuck, New Hampshire had ever heard of.”
They weren’t revolting over fashionable French nonsense, that much is true. The point is that a lot of intellectual work went into creating that “tradition” of which you speak, just as a lot of intellectual work went into the successful leftist revolutions of the twentieth century.
Hunter: “Why? Because the British were never able to exercise effective control over their American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Americans had always been free and self governing. This lack of control, itself an effect of distance and the state of technology, is precisely why the British were unable to put down the revolt once it started.”
No doubt, I explicitly stated that intellectual ideas were not the only factor, but nice straw man. But the ideas prevalent at the time had a tremendous impact on the form that the government took, just as the ideas that have dominated our own age affects the current government’s form and the laws we live under. Is this really that hard to understand?
Hunter: “As we have seen, you are the best example available why the ‘spread of ideas’ is insufficient to produce a White ethnostate, as those ‘ideas’ and the thousands of others who have been exposed to them can’t be persuaded to lift a finger in the real world to reverse our decline.”
Prime example of why you are such a gross failure at organizing.
Hunter: “Trainspotter’s alternative to working within the system, where 99% of Whites are today, is another fruitless decade of anonymous internet posting.”
My solution is to gain more adherents. Your way doesn’t do that, though I would love to be proven wrong. The internet has. But again, you absurdly claim that we don’t need more adherents, a more ridiculous position having rarely been heard.
Hunter: “Someone has to be mature and realistic enough to hold the line on immigration. It’s not like the Laptop Luftwaffe is capable of doing so. Let them ‘hold the line’.”
That’s fine. They do that occasionally, but their overall track record has been disastrous. Whites have been voting Republican for decades, and the country becomes less and less white, more and more politically correct, more and more miscegenation. But yeah, let’s get on the winning team. If all you want to do is slow the rot down slightly, then get behind the Republicans. But if we are to save whites as a people, we’re going to have to do better than that. Much, much better than that.
Hunter: “It makes sense to praise the effective; criticize the ineffective. You have it exactly backwards.”
There is strong evidence that the internet has been helpful in spreading our ideas. There is also considerable evidence that we can do much better. You, on the other hand, offer only a track record of ineffectiveness and failure at organizing (and at least relative success in writing online). So who is praising the effective, and criticizing the ineffective? That’s me. You do the opposite, demanding that we pour good money after bad, and ignore the areas in which we are getting at least some returns.
Hunter: “Trainspotter is clearly utterly ignorant of how the Continental Congress came into being. Hint: there was already a powerful insurgency in the New England countryside over two years old.”
Um, didn’t debate that point, nor did I say a single thing to contradict it. But I guess you had to work in “ignorant” somewhere.
Hunter: “The Bolsheviks didn’t conquer Russia on the basis of their ideas. That’s laughable.”
Yes, the Communist Fairy came in instead and created all of those communist countries. No need to worry about foundation or groundwork. We don’t need no stinkin context!
Hunter: “Okay. You focus on ‘spreading ideas.’ After posting over 50,000 anonymous comments on the internet, I am ready to try something else.”
Try away, nobody is stopping you. I find it amusing how far you think you can get without adherents.
Hunter: “There isn’t any White Nationalist movement to speak of. There is only a rhetoric in cyberspace.”
Well, there are a certain number of people who believe in our vision. We need more people, many more. It’s that simple. But if we take your claim at face value, why are you attacking something that doesn’t exist? If it doesn’t exist, then you are going to have to start fresh anyway, right? So why attack a phantom?
Hunter: “You are unrealistic, delusional even, if you seriously believe that another decade of internet posting is going to change anything. I’ve been around far too long to believe that one.”
I, like your good buddy Saul, want more adherents to our vision. I’ll worry about the rest when we get them. If you can provide more adherents in some other way, then great. But you ridiculously claim that we don’t need any more, so I won’t hold my breath.
October 11, 2010 at 3:20 am
Oats: “Briefly, how do you propose to ‘spread our ideas’? Something new I hope. The past 20 years of pro-white advocacy and internet presence have produced absolutely nothing. Explicitly pro-white ideas are as reviled as ever.”
I don’t know Oats, you tell me. The point is that we need more adherents, as we are incredibly thin on the ground. I’m all for discovering the “best” way, but until you can establish what that is, the internet seems to be, by far, the best horse that we’ve got at the current time. The only horse, really. I wish I could offer you satellite uplinks and television networks, but I can’t.
The good news is that it can work. Just a few years ago, I complained to a WN that I happen to know in real life that there were no good sites to send an intelligent newbie. Boy, has that changed. This change even impressed Hunter… until he decided to attack the very sorts of people who affected the change. The one positive development in the movie, and he now attacks it with vitriol.
I don’t think that there is any question that more people have been educated by the internet than what came before: silly marches in camos; a few tiny newsletters. So I disagree that it has been a complete failure, in fact I strongly disagree with that. But, at the same time, we haven’t done enough. We haven’t created the support base necessary to move on to the next stage. That, however, is within our power to change. If you’ve got a better idea, then have at it. But if it doesn’t involve meaningfully growing our numbers, it’s a non-starter.
So that’s the issue: how to get more adherents? With Hunter, you can’t even have that kind of conversation, because he claims that we already have enough. Yes, we do have “enough,” if enough means a sense that we are hopelessly outnumbered and isolated. How many people on here bump into bona fide WN in the real world, just in the course of everyday life, on anything resembling a regular basis? Few, I’d wager. Until that changes, the herd instinct won’t kick in, and rightfully so.
On the other hand, once we reach a certain point, we’ll be feeling our oats. There is strength in numbers. We don’t have that yet, and until we do, nothing much is going to happen.
And Oats, I’m not going to be brief, as this isn’t just written for you, or even primarily for you. I’ve had time tonight that I don’t normally have, so I’ll use it.
I’m not against infiltration per se. Maybe it will prove useful. Ten guys are supposed to, by infiltrating organizations, change huge numbers of people into white nationalists? That’s just moronic. It’s not gonna happen. That’s not to say that the ten guys couldn’t accomplish something worthwhile. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But the idea that they will transform the country using just that technique is beyond ridiculous.
The proper approach is to develop the intellectual wing, which will not require that many people (not many are good at it), and the activist wing can try its infiltration strategy, or whatever other strategies. Those activists that understand context may well accomplish something, those that don’t will not. Hint: berating people to do stupid shit with no payoff is not likely to get many takers. I know that’s hard to believe for some sorts.
Different approaches aren’t mutually exclusive, contra Hunter. There is no need to attack one or the other. Absolutely no need whatsoever. If you are of an intellectual bent, so be it. If you want to infiltrate, so be it. What is the friggin problem? I’ll tell you the problem: those who smear, lie, mislead and create completely unnecessary drama where there was none—and whatever sycophants sanction their behavior. Straight talk, brah.
If Hunter had said, “Hey, I’m going to try a new approach. I’m still a white nationalist, and I understand that some will be skeptical, but hopefully people will be patient and see if I generate positive results. If I do, I do, if I don’t, I don’t. I think I will, and ultimately it’s my decision.” A few obvious dickheads aside, there would have been no problem. Hunter could have done his thing, and we’d all have hoped for the best. There would have been none of the bitter acrimony that results from lies and obfuscation, and made up smears. You’ve got to ask yourself why it wasn’t done that way, when it so easily could have been. The answer, of course, is obvious, but it’s one you might not like.
October 11, 2010 at 4:21 am
Celestial: “How about putting together a brief, but somewhat detailed, list of just what “our ideas” consist of...”
We want a land of our own. That’s non-negotiable. Anything else, up to and including where that land is to be located, is of course subject to debate.
Having said that, clearly it will take far more to win the day. We need to come up with an overall vision, an overall approach, that is compelling and attractive to our fellow whites, as well as facilitating our long term survival as a people. In my view—and it’s only my view—it needs to be a vision that cuts through the current left/right paradigm, rendering it obsolete. My vision is neither leftist or rightist, but a form of tribalism, if you’ll excuse the word.
I don’t pretend that my more fleshed out vision would have universal appeal among white nationalists, but the point is that we have to develop something that many/most white people can get behind at some point, or at least not vehemently oppose. I may be able to offer that, we’ll see. If I can’t, hopefully somebody else will. We need it, but that’s the intellectual work that few are capable of, and I’m not at all sure that I’m one of those few. It is absurd to attack those that are.
In any event, I plan to do something along those lines, just as a starter kit of sorts. Unforeseen circumstances have largely wiped out my free time, and I expect that condition to continue for the rest of this year and into the next. I’ll do it when I can, but hopefully others more talented than I will beat me to the punch. Remember, the point is not the particular vision that I would espouse, but rather that we need a vision, a narrative, an aspiration, that can compete with those provided by our enemies. Charts and statistics are nice, but they don’t get you there, if you know what I mean.
Our enemies are great at this stuff, while we are absolutely terrible. Once again, they understand the field of ideas and how important victory upon it is, whereas the befuddled rightist doesn’t have a clue. He’d rather attack those goshdarned intellectuals, while not offering a competing vision or aspiration of his own. That is precisely, exactly the wrong approach.
October 11, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Thanks for that explanation. I know exactly what you’re talking about, and have gotten some version of those responses [to “normal” whites] myself. However, in my experience, I don’t think that most whites are that far gone. True, there is some mush floating around in most everyone’s heads, as the Leftists have been very effective at spreading their ideas, but I don’t think that the typical white—at least not the ones I run into—are particularly supportive of the multiracial project. A significant minority are, but most are not.
However, one thing is quite clear: even for those whites that are not supportive of the multiracial project, they have absolutely no vision of where to go from here. The Right hasn’t provided a vision, an aspiration, something that the normal white can latch onto and feel good about. The Left, in contrast, has its narrative of expanding freedom and inclusion, judging a man by the content of his character, fulfilling the American “promise,” etc.
Of course these are all lies, and simply provide candy coating to a reality of anti-white hatred and anti-white policies, but still, they have developed and spread some powerful ideas. The white, on the other hand, is reduced to a mere grumbler. He has no sense of direction, sees no way out, and either throws up his hands and concludes that there is no solution at all, or in the alternative he hopes that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams somehow mean that the dogs will be called off. Just tune into Fox.
That’s why this argument over ideas is so important, and why I got interested in it in the first place. I regularly talk to normal whites in order to feel out their belief system. I’m always trying to gauge the public pulse, see what’s floating around in the white public’s noggin. My conclusion is plain enough: whites have been disarmed in the realm of ideas.
We have reality on our side, the Left doesn’t. In fact, the Left is in constant struggle with reality, which is no doubt why it became so good at spreading these visionary memes, giving its adherents a sense of moral superiority.
The Right, on the other hand, reality being on its side, preferred its charts and statistics. Give people the facts and they will understand. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. It’s now 2010, and the lesson is clear: visionary ideas and powerful memes trump charts and stats, at least in the minds of most. The Left has understood this for decades. Their opponents still don’t.
Bottom line: visionary memes and attractive ideas work, and are so powerful that they can persuade large numbers of people to ignore that A is A, and that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Talk about power… That’s power. Getting people to ignore reality and their own self-interest is power. The Left is very, very good at this. Religions are good at this. The Right is absolutely terrible at this.
The long and the short of it is that we either develop an appealing vision that works toward the long term survival of our people, something that is powerful and attractive, or we will continue to lose. As long as the Left is triumphant in the world of vision and ideas, any white outbursts will be directed into politically correct and harmless directions, as we are seeing with the Tea Party. It’s just that simple.
October 11, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Hunter: “In the case of Greg Johnson and Alex Linder, their ‘influence’ has no impact on the political spectrum, which is to say that they are ineffective.”
Revolutionaries, by definition, oppose the status quo. They seek to overturn the status quo and replace it with a new one. They are typically “powerless” initially, as that is just the nature of the beast. Your argument is nothing more than a demand to operate within the status quo. By your logic, there never would have been an American Revolution, as we would have simply supported those elements in Parliament that were relatively more favorable to us, and laughed at those silly revolutionaries. After all, Parliament was where the real power was… until it wasn’t.
Hunter: “Joining mainstream political groups. Supporting effective organizations like FAIR and NumbersUSA.”
I don’t know that anybody is arguing against doing that. I’m certainly not. My position is simply that it won’t be nearly sufficient to win us our own land. It is you who are attacking and lying about what other white nationalists choose to do, not them attacking you for supporting NumbersUSA. To anybody following along, that should be all that you need to know.
Hunter: “I have said that we don’t need useless rhetorical radicals who are only blowing off steam on the internet. If the number of anonymous White Nationalist keyboard commandos were to double or triple within the next ten years, the circumstances of White Nationalists would hardly change.”
You’ve admitted that the development of attractive, pro-white intellectual sites influenced you. Now you attack them viciously, and apparently want them shut down. That’s just nuts.
Hunter: “Saul Alinsky was focused exclusively on organizing communities in the real world. His goal was not to simply convert people to his ideas. What if they adopted his ideas? Then what? Without an organized resistance, nothing would ever come of converting people to those ideas.”
If he has insufficient adherents, who exactly is he going to organize? The obvious answer is that you need both adherents and talented people who can organize those adherents. But again, Alinsky was operating in a completely different context than white nationalists are. As you are completely tone deaf to context, your organizational efforts are doomed to failure. Leftists like Alinsky get it, you don’t.
Hunter: “Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals specifically as a corrective targeted at fringe rhetorical radicals like yourself who passionately argue in favor of doing nothing effective.”
You don’t get Alinsky at all, not at all. His purpose was not to shut down Leftist intellectual work. You reveal a startling ignorance to claim otherwise. In fact, my approach is entirely compatible with Alinsky’s, at least as far as it goes (we face a different context than he did, so we will require a different approach). I have repeatedly criticized the costume clowns who do nothing but hurt our cause, as they are pretty much the spiritual brothers of the wacky leftists that turn everybody off. Alinsky would no doubt approve of my position.
Hunter: “I don’t waste my time anymore trying to organize people like yourself. You don’t have the courage to face a digital camera. The idea that you are ready to die for a White ethnostate, as you once claimed in another thread, is laughable.”
I don’t recall ever making such a claim, I suspect that is just another one of your lies. However, it is in fact true, of me and no doubt many, many others. You just don’t get it, do you? You honestly think because people won’t organize with unstable losers like yourself, that is somehow a reflection of their character. How many of the Germans who died valiantly on the Russian front did anything during the revolutionary period? How many of those who died in Confederate ranks were involved in secession agitation?
The fact that people won’t get involved in senseless “organizing” that provides no payoff whatsoever is in no way a reflection upon their potential for martial valor. Most people aren’t going to sign up for pointless endeavors directed by losers and freaks.
Here we see even more irony—just as you accuse intellectuals of having their head in the clouds, it is you that offers unworkable solutions. You also claim that we need to reach people “where they are.” Yet you obviously have no understanding of people, of where they are, of why they do what they do. Instead, you draw completely unjustified conclusions about people, conclusions that are solidly rebuffed by all of human history. You are that guy who makes irrational demands, misinterprets everything and everyone.
Hunter: “Saul Alinsky pointed that the only alternative to working within the mainstream was political irrelevancy and marginalization on the fringe. In other words, exactly what you prescribe.”
Alinsky understood context, and part of that context is that the ship was already moving in his direction. You, on the other hand, have no understanding of such things. You just don’t get it, you are completely tone deaf.
Hunter: “This much is true. We could work within the mainstream to give the Tea Party a tougher edge on immigration. We could easily organize moderates around uncontroversial issues.”
Go do these things. Have at it. I’m not opposed to it, just saying that it is not sufficient to get a white land.
Hunter: “Nonsense. There is an immense payoff to be realized in changing the composition of the U.S. Senate on immigration. What is the payoff of posting 20,000 anonymous comments on Majority Rights? Nothing that I can see.”
Look, if the Senate gets better on immigration, I think that’s great. But that’s not what we’re talking about. There is no stigma attached in supporting Republican Senate candidates. That’s not revolutionary. If you want to just become a Republican, go ahead and be one. Become part of the System, the same anti-white system that has been eating our lunch all of these years. Look at how they are treating Russell in New York, a man who had the audacity to suggest that miscegenation might not be the greatest thing in the world. Yep, these people are our friends.
But again, you are tone deaf. Everything for you has got to be either/or. You can’t grasp that it can be a good thing if the Senate gets better on immigration, but at the same time the System is hostile to us (as are the Republicans in particular). If the Senate gets “better” on immigration, great. But the Republicans still support overwhelming non-white immigration, and a status quo that is killing us. But no, with you, either someone is a great guy or the devil incarnate. You have absolutely no sense for the lay of the land.
Hunter: “Albert Jackson has seen my prediction come true. People like you refuse to organize. Without an organized resistance, White Nationalists are powerless. They use the internet as an escape valve to blow off steam when they could be doing more effective things with their time and energy.”
As a general rule, revolutionaries start out powerless. That’s why they become revolutionaries. If they already had real power, they would simply be part of the status quo, instead of seeking to overturn it. You really don’t understand this?
October 11, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Hunter: “The men who died in the American Revolution were willing to face the British army and death itself for their cause. You are unwilling to talk on the telephone, meet someone at a bar, or face down a digital camera. Quit pretending to be a revolutionary.”
Again, completely tone deaf. How many men who died in the American Revolution were involved in pre-war agitation? How many Confederates? How many Germans? Yet they fought and died when the time came. But again, according to your “new” philosophy, there would never have been an American Revolution. We would have simply supported the relatively more favorable elements in Parliament instead, that’s where the “real” power and influence was.
Hunter: “As a matter of fact, I was not the host of the conference call, and the failure of the conference call to generate a higher response rate was hardly my fault. It was due entirely to the fact that White Nationalists are unwilling to stand up for their own beliefs… even in social situations as trivial as an anonymous conference call.”
What would it have accomplished if they had participated in the call? Most people understand that we simply do not have the strength in numbers to become effective “organizers” at this point. They understand context, you ignore context. You have the exact opposite mentality of the effective organizer. You don’t ask yourself why people should want to do A, or what the payoff is. You just berate them for not doing it.
Here is the reality of our current context: we are too thin on the ground to have a sense of our own strength. We aren’t feeling our oats, there just aren’t enough of us. Until that changes, most people won’t organize, because they’ll assume that nothing good can come of it. And, generally speaking, they’ll be right. We either get more adherents, or nothing is going to happen. It’s just that simple. And that is my focus: what can we do to get more adherents? So far, it appears that the internet is the best horse that we have in our stable. But if someone can go out and get the adherents some other way, I say great. Even then, it would be absolutely idiotic to not employ the internet, instead we’d just add another horse to the stable. But you have to attack the only horse we’ve currently got. Makes perfect sense.
Hunter: “I’ve stood up for my beliefs. You are just a coward who stalks comment threads on the internet, talking hard about revolution, beating your chest, and egging on others to take actions you are unwilling to take yourself.”
If I met you in person, you wouldn’t be calling me a coward. You are a big mouthed, blubbery punk. All hat, no cattle. After seeing your picture, it is obvious you couldn’t fight your way out of a paper bag. Worse than being a fat punk, you are a liar. I’ve egged on precisely nobody to do anything that I don’t do. I’ve encouraged support of the intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement. That is hardly egging people on or beating my chest, liar.
Hunter: “If I were to give you a microphone, would you be willing to say any of this before a city council meeting in your town? We both know the answer.”
Says the liar who has no grasp of context, and uses a pen name. In any event, saying this in front of city council would accomplish precisely nothing, except give them a target to beat up on. And you wonder why people won’t follow you? What you advocate is all cost, zero payoff.
Hunter: “White Nationalists have had forty years to lay the groundwork for viable organizations in the real world. Of course the fundamental reason why that never happens is because people like Trainspotter are simply afraid to stand up for their own beliefs in public.”
I stand up for my beliefs all the time, and have paid a price for it, you lying fat punk. I’ve lost money, social and career opportunities, something I guarantee that you haven’t lost because you’re too much of a dysfunctional pill popper to have had them in the first place. I talk about my views all the time in the real world, and have successfully educated many people in the process. But no, I’m not interested in telling my views to a largely black city council, which would accomplish zilch but make me easier to hurt. I’m not interested in “going public” right now, because there would be little or no payoff, and a lot of cost. I’ll pay the freight in the way that I choose, and will not be drawn out of my position by a lying punk.
Hunter: “White Nationalists refuse to organize because of social ostracism and employment discrimination, not because of the individual organizer, whether it be Albert Jackson or myself.”
Don’t put it off on Jackson. Take responsibility for your failure. The real issue is that there aren’t enough of us. When there are enough that we begin to sense our own strength, real organizers will emerge, not lying punks.
Hunter: “Posting anonymous comments on the internet has less of an impact than just about any possible action that comes to mind.”
How many new adherents has your “organizing” provided? By definition, the internet has accomplished far more than any of your organizing.
Hunter: “Sucking people into destructive endeavors? Like what? Posting another 100,000 comments on White Nationalist blogs and forums? If that changes anything, I will physically eat this keyboard.”
You don’t need to eat the keyboard, it doesn’t look like you’ve been missing too many meals. I’m glad that 100,000 comments have been posted to forums. Those comments educated a lot of people, which is more than can be said of your context ignorant, tone deaf “organizing.” Here is the thing Hunter. If you can go out and get better results, people will be happy and will adopt your methods. But you can’t do that. You can’t deliver. So you instead lie and smear. Big mouth, zero results.
October 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Hunter: “When you boil Trainspotter’s prescription down to its essentials, it amounts to nothing more than ‘spreading ideas’ by posting anonymous comments on the internet, which is exactly how White Nationalists have spent the vast majority of their time for the past sixteen years to no effect.”
It’s laughable that it didn’t have an effect. It’s educated large numbers of people. Without it, we probably wouldn’t exist at all.
Hunter: “You are delusional. Working through FAIR and NumbersUSA and the political mainstream repeatedly stopped ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ and moved the goal posts on immigration.”
More clownishness. I’ve repeatedly said that I have no problem with people supporting those organizations. I’ve also said that it won’t win us a white homeland. Anybody reading understands this, but you pretend not to.
Hunter: “Posting tens of thousands of radical anonymous comments on the internet changed nothing at all.”
Revolutionary ideas have to be developed and spread somewhere. The Left controls academia, the media, and all of the important cultural institutions. I wish we had more than the internet to work with, but it is insane to attack those who utilize it. Absolutely nuts.
Hunter: “Correction: without power, we won’t get a White nation. What does it matter if thousands of disorganized, powerless people hold a bunch of radical ideas? It doesn’t matter at all to the people who possess power. Such a ‘resistance’ doesn’t pose the slightest threat to their dominance.”
Again, completely tone deaf to context and history. Revolutionary ideas have to start somewhere. This would be obvious to a reasonably sane person. Those ideas ultimately have to be transformed into power, but that can’t happen until they are spread much further than they are today. Normal people understand that we are too thin on the ground, and that being too thin on the ground has consequences. They live in the real world. You, being completely tone deaf and oblivious to context and reality, can’t understand this.
Hunter: “Americans had been ‘free’ for generations before the American Revolution. In fact, the American Revolution was fought in the name of the British Constitution, not in the name of the Enlightenment.”
Dude, you just can’t argue with ignorance. If you can’t understand that the ideas of the Enlightenment had real world impacts, just as the socialist ideas of following centuries had real world impacts, and the leftist ideas of our own time are having real world impacts, then I can’t help you.
Hunter: “Thomas Paine published Common Sense... after Lexington and Bunker Hill. The notion that his ‘ideas’ caused the Revolution is ridiculous. Even Common Sense didn’t have anything like the circulation that would have been necessary to spark the Revolution.”
Again, Hunter thinks that ideas come neatly packaged in a particular book, and that’s all there is to it. He cannot understand the centuries of cultural accretion, the development of ideas and concepts, that made the American Republic possible. No, it was all in a particular pamphlet, and since that pamphlet wasn’t read until after Bunker Hill, then it didn’t matter. Hunter, honestly, you’re just not very bright. Some of your writing may make you appear intelligent, but you have no grasp of context, nuance or broad trends. You are unable to see connections or patterns, and that makes you, functionally at least, not very bright at all. As Gump would say, stupid is as stupid does.
Hunter: “Notice that Trainspotter has no response to my point. The American Revolution was already in progress before the Continental Congress declared independence or created a constitutional republic. The Constitution itself was written years after the Treaty of Paris.”
Um… I’ve responded to your point many times. What more to say? Anyone who can’t understand the philosophical undercurrents and trends that preceded the formation of the American Republic is simply not competent to comment on these matters. Again, to you, everything happens in a vacuum, a void. There is no foundation, no context, no accretion of ideas. I guess it’s magic.
Hunter: “Ordinary Americans took matters into their own hands. They precipitated the American Revolution. They were the horse. Congress was the cart. These people were not enamored with the Enlightenment ideas that Trainspotter attributes to them.”
Again, you are a literalist. You cannot grasp the broader cultural context in which these people lived, and why certain ideas made sense to them and others didn’t. No, to you, because the typical revolutionary soldier had not hung out in French salons, it must mean that ideas and context don’t matter. It is to laugh.
Hunter: “We don’t need 10,000 more rhetorical radicals posting anonymous comments on the internet.”
They’ve educated significant numbers of people. Not “enough,” but significant amounts. Your organizing has, on the other hand, accomplished nothing other than spectacular failure. So who has the better track record?
Hunter: “That ‘tradition’ was an organic response of English colonists to environmental conditions in the New World. Americans were ‘free’ because their circumstances dictated they would be ‘freedom.’ Any White settler could move to the frontier and have all the ‘freedom’ he wanted.”
If ideas don’t have real world impacts, then how is it that so many people hold leftist ideas today? Where did those ideas originate? How were they spread? Magic? It’s amazing that you live in a society that has been radically transformed by ideas, something we all see everyday, and your conclusion is... ideas have no impact, and they never have. It’s purely coincidental that the American Republic was formed on the heels of the Enlightenment, and the communist/socialist tyrannies were formed after the development of leftist theory. All purely coincidental.
Hunter: “No, it is a fact that John Locke’s Second Treatise was ignored in the American colonies all the way until the outbreak of the Revolution. It became popular in the context of a Revolution that was already in progress when it was used to justify a rebellion which the people had already started before reading any of his work.”
Yes, they operated in a vacuum. Ideas don’t matter at all. It’s purely coincidental that some revolutions resulted in a Republic, and others in socialist states, and still others in theocracy. It’s all purely coincidence, with no context or foundation. Also, because the typical person hasn’t read The Feminist Mystique, that means that feminist ideas haven’t transformed our society. Makes perfect sense.
Hunter: “The ‘form the government took’ was the form of government that had existed in the colonies for generations before the American Revolution. The union of the colonies and independence were both practical responses to a crisis which less than twenty years earlier no one was advocating.”
Yes, ideas don’t matter. I think you’ve proven that conclusively. Lol!
October 11, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Notus Wind: “I think you’re missing the point just a bit… The problem is that decades of propaganda have convinced him that such a political goal is immoral.”
How am I missing the point? In fact, that is exactly, precisely the point that I was making. The Left has created a vision, a narrative, an aspiration that gives its adherents a sense of moral superiority and righteousness. The Right has not done this. It trots out its charts and statistics, but these do not impart moral superiority. These do not create a powerful vision, or the effect of “I have a dream…”
In short, the Right has been disarmed in the realm of ideas. Often, a white conservative will preface his comments with “I know it sounds bad to say, but…” In other words, the truth is “bad.” It’s immoral. It’s unattractive.
The Left has been so effective in this department that you get Beck/Palin fawning all over the socialist Martin Luther King, and ridiculous drivel about our black Founding Fathers. That is how triumphant the Left has been in the vision/idea department, and how impoverished the Right.
The bottom line is that the Left creates powerful narratives, which lead to a powerful vision and moral superiority. The Right doesn’t do this (and clowns like Hunter say that we shouldn’t do this, and attacks those who try), and so it loses.
In order to win, we need numbers. You can’t win if you are too thin on the ground, which we are at present. But the only way to get the real numbers that you need, and to marshal them into an effective force, is to imbue them with an appealing and powerful vision. Until we can deliver that, we can’t win. It’s just that simple. None of the lies, smears and obfuscations that Hunter is peddling will change that.
You talk to normal whites in the real world, as do I. We’ve both found, essentially, the same thing. I think any non-kook who talks to normal whites will understand what we are talking about. The usual suspects, on the other hand, will have nothing of it.
October 11, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Mark: “The absurdity of how a small group of sociopaths, homosexuals and autistic nerds [Chechar’s note: presumably the posters at VNN, and the intellectuals of other blogsites] could save Whites would make a good comedy show.”
The irony of this statement is beyond rich. That is precisely what you people are, dysfunctional weirdos that no quality person would want to associate with, and then you wonder why you can’t organize so much as a lemonade stand. Who even wants to be around you at all, much less take risks on your behalf? No normal white person, that’s for sure.
October 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Erik Nordman: “I may be totally off here, but I think that the division of labor between Hunters’ mainstreamers and Trainspotter’s intellectuals could well complement each other. Why fight?”
You’re not off at all. There is no necessary conflict between those who choose to develop and spread ideas, and those who choose more mainstream approaches. Hunter is about creating strife and disinformation. There is no real conflict.
The Left understands this. They have their intellectual wing, an endeavor that has been so successful that huge numbers of white conservatives now accept premises that originated in the Frankfurt School. How did the idea get from the Jewish professor’s desk to the conservative’s head? It’s just like the recipe for rabbit stew: first, catch a rabbit. Obviously, the idea has to be created. Then it has to be spread by whatever means are available. Not by the means we wish we had available… but by what’s actually there. In our case, this largely means the internet. Hopefully we can do better than that over time.
Of course, the Left also has radical groups, mainstream groups, and infiltrators of various kinds. Nothing wrong with this, but I would maintain that it is the proliferation of and acceptance of their memes, especially in the minds of white conservatives, that has proven the most effective. Triumph on the field of ideas, and your enemy is disarmed. We see this all around us.
I’m interested in an antidote. Hunter is opposed to one. There are talented people who may be able to provide such an antidote, and it’s certainly worth a try. Such people, and they are few, would be utterly wasted if all they did was join some mainstream organization like NumbersUSA. They have the potential for far, far greater leverage.
To suggest that the members of the Frankfurt School should have disbanded, stopped developing ideas, and just held up picket signs outside of a factory, is so absolutely ludicrous that it is hard to imagine someone suggesting it. Yes, Marx should have refused to write, and instead “organized.” In fact, as a result of his writing, Marx ended up spawning countless organizations. Ideas have leverage that no individual activist could ever hope to compete with, as the activist operates within a context that is shaped by ideas.
It’s really quite simple: unless we can offer a narrative and vision that can supplant the Leftist ones, we aren’t getting our own land. Sure, we can support mainstream organizations and slow down the non-white tide a small amount, maybe push back the day of our destruction marginally, but that will be about it. As long as the anti-white memes dominate, even in the minds of conservative whites, we will lose.
Hunter Wallace says:
October 13, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Trainspotter: “Hunter is about creating strife and disinformation. There is no real conflict.”
There is a “real conflict” between the “mainstream approach” and Trainspotter’s psychopath hero Alex Linder who defines White Nationalism as extermination of the Jews.
Trainspotter: “I’m interested in an antidote. Hunter is opposed to one.”
Trainspotter wants to spend the next sixteen years doing the exact same utterly fruitless activity that White Nationalists have been doing for the last sixteen years: posting anonymous comments on the internet.
What is the effective result of this activity? A few more divisions of the Laptop Luftwaffe in anonymous comment threads on websites that no one reads. Thousands of more people diverted from productive real world activity into the cyberspace equivalent of wasting their time playing a Dungeons and Dragons videogame.
October 13, 2010 at 7:49 pm
My time on this blog is coming to an end, as it impossible to argue with lie after lie, misrepresentation after misrepresentation.
I’ve made my position clear: unless we develop a vision that can supplant the ones that the Left provides, we will lose. It’s that simple. Context matters. That’s not the only thing we have to do, but it is a necessary thing.
In response to this position, the dishonesty spews forth. It’s often been said that the Left lies and smears because it has to, because the truth is not on its side. That’s what is happening here.
Let’s look at some of the more recent lies and misrepresentations. Keep in mind that this is just a tiny sampling.
1. Hunter claims that I egg on others to do things that I won’t do. Anybody who reads my posts knows this not to be the case. If anything, I’ve argued against going public, because for most people and in our current context it will be all cost, and no payoff whatsoever in terms of getting a white land for ourselves. In fact, it is Hunter calling people cowards for not going public with white nationalism, while he himself writes under a pen name. These bizarre contradictions don’t seem to bother him in the slightest. He eggs people on (with zero success, but still) while pointing his fingers at those who do not. His claims are literally the opposite of the truth. In addition to being dishonest, his positions make no sense. He calls people yellow and cowardly for not going public, but demands that we infiltrate mainstream orgs. Well, once you’ve gone public, good luck with the infiltration. Look at what’s happening with Russell in New York right now. Hunter’s position is so ridiculous that it makes rational debate impossible.
2. Hunter claims I’m a 14/88 internet tough guy. Again, anybody who has read my posts knows this is not the case. I support the development of white nationalism’s intellectual wing precisely to counter the internet warrior image. Again, Hunter’s claims are the opposite of the truth.
3. He claims that I make extreme rhetorical statements that are damaging to white nationalism. Again, anybody who reads my posts knows that this is not true. I’m in favor of developing ideas that will be appealing to normal whites, and provide an antidote for the Leftist garbage that now fills so many heads. Once again, opposite of the truth. Anybody see a pattern?
Just above, he claims “According to Trainspotter, White Nationalist intellectuals are absolutely sacrosanct and off limits to criticism.”
That’s not true at all. I’m an advocate of intellectuals developing the ideas and memes that we need to triumph against our opponents. The idea that I endorse what any particular “white nationalist intellectual” says is beyond ludicrous. In fact, white nationalist intellectuals, and intellectuals of the Right in general, deserve criticism for their utter failure to develop ideas and memes that can compete with the Leftist ethos.
He also goes on to say, “In his worldview, Soren Renner and Constantin von Hoffmeister are more important than, say, David Duke almost becoming Governor of Louisiana. I completely disagree with that perspective.”
That’s not my perspective at all, just another misrepresentation. But of course, David Duke disagrees with Hunter, which is why he has spent so much time researching and publishing. Duke’s a pretty remarkable guy, and very talented in many ways—the philosophical and the practical. He does not behave at all like Hunter does, nor does he at all espouse Hunter’s positions. To compare the two is ludicrous, comparable to comparing a man with the gum on someone’s shoes.
I will say that even someone as talented as Duke, and he’s a very, very rare bird, is limited in what he can do in the current context. His political activity in Louisiana was wonderful, but ultimately it has not stopped the anti-white tide at all. In fact, the rot has only accelerated since then. Anti-white ideas are far more widespread today than they were even at Duke’s political apex, which in the scheme of things wasn’t that long ago.
The lies above are just a tiny sampling of what Hunter has been doing. He’s told far greater whoppers in the past, for example accusing me of advocating genocide when I had done no such thing. He literally makes this stuff up out of whole cloth.
I’m done here, but you can guarantee that he will put a response in, and you can further guarantee that his points will be the literal opposite of the truth.
As for personal matters which can’t be verified one way or another, I’ll just say this. Despite all of his chest thumping (while bizarrely accusing me of the same, which again, anybody who reads my posts knows isn’t how I operate), does anyone seriously believe that Hunter has been in so much as a single fight in his whole life, much less won? I mean seriously, if you were in a foxhole or a barfight, would you want Hunter watching your back? Really?
I thought so. But I don’t like getting into the personal too much, because anybody can claim whatever they want. I’m more interested in the verifiable lies, and for Hunter, they are legion. So, unusual circumstances aside, I’m done here. I’ve come to the conclusion that Hunter is a distinct negative when it comes to white nationalism, and newbies/lurkers have been warned. Draw your own conclusions, but this guy is not good news.
October 13, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Hunter: “In July and August, Trainspotter argued in favor of White Nationalists going public in ‘the leaner years.’ He repeatedly said that those who refused to go public should financially support those who do. So he can’t sit here and argue that he hasn’t urged actions upon others that he himself is unwilling to undertake.”
I’ll take the time to respond to one last lie, as this one is an absolute whopper, and about a subject that is of particular importance to me. I won’t be checking this thread for future lies, so just assume that I reject Hunter’s statements in their entirety.
My position was, and is, that those who don’t go public should be willing to financially support those who do. I did not encourage people to go public, and I certainly didn’t egg on anybody to do so. In fact, I discouraged people from going public, because our ability to support those who do is limited, and few have the talent to reasonably expect much financial support. Some are going to do it anyway, and obviously I hope it turns out to be worth it for them, but I have certainly not encouraged, much less egged on, anybody to make such a decision. Instead, I’ve encouraged the opposite. Don’t go public in the current context unless there is a damned compelling reason to do so. To claim otherwise, as Hunter has done, is a bald faced lie, made up out of whole cloth.
Duke and a few others can pull it off, but most can’t. Most people who go public are going to make no meaningful impact, and are simply going to be left twisting in the wind. They will also limit their future options, up to and including gaining influence in various non-WN orgs or entities. Again, my position was and is the exact opposite of what Hunter claims. He’s just engaging in pathological lying.
I don’t have the time or inclination to respond to lie after lie after lie. After this post, OD is off of my radar. I will not be checking this thread again, but I’m confident that the lies will pile up. Hunter has convinced me that his dishonesty goes way beyond the norm even for scumbags, far worse than what I have seen in even the most disgusting of Leftists.
[Trainspotter leaves OD]
A nationalist blogger is like the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins, the humble custodian of the ring before the tribulation days finally hit the Middle-earth. Before those terrible days and without an extensive Fellowship of the Ring firmly established—elves, men, dwarfs and the king of Rohan—, it was not Bilbo’s duty to leave the Shire by himself and rush straight ahead into Mordor. Bilbo didn’t even know that the One Ring had to be destroyed.
Yes: those nationalist bloggers who have become conscious of the burden that they bear may play a major role in what Harold Covington calls the Northwest Imperative, just as Sam, Pippin, Frodo and Merry in the J.R.R. Tolkien saga. The good news is that our day, and the narrow window of opportunity that will be opened, is coming: probably during the lifespan of some of us. The bad news is that not everyone will be alive to see the ethnostate.
Meanwhile we must study and distribute copies of the intellectuals’ pamphlets, like this one that I have briefly reviewed this month...
November 2010 update (slightly modified on January 2011):
I have now read what in terms of the internal chronology of the Northwest Quartet is the first novel, although the latest that Covington wrote, The Brigade. If the reader has purchased a copy of Toward the White Republic and is already captivated by O’Meara’s slim pamphlet but wants to expand on these ideas through further reading, I cannot recommend more strongly this thrilling novel. I liked it so much that I have already ordered the rest of the Quartet and will devote the following weeks to read carefully more than a thousand pages in the other three books...
Yes: Covington’s work is downloadable for free. But I would advice purchasing the copies of the Quartet and study them as legitimate printed books in order to plan a Revolution.
Of the several climaxes of The Brigade, one almost brought me to tears: when the blonde Kicky appeared covered in deep-red blood all over CNN and in every other damned TV channel: “Looked like she was ready to take on the whole Portland police force single-handedly.”
I am tempted to agree with Covington that the Northwest migration is the only available plan to save the white race from extinction. Covington’s precursor William Pierce wrote: “Our political goal must be nothing more or less than the building of a power base for a White people’s revolution led by National Socialists. Keeping this single objective always in mind, we must be prepared to use whatever methods and take whatever path will lead us most surely to that objective.” Finally, let me quote from a couple of pages of The Brigade where Covington seems to write about his own role as the “Old Man” in the coming Revolution:
“And that, Mr. Ekstrom, is what the white race has been waiting to hear from men like you for a hundred years,” said Morehouse with a nod. “You know that we were in a very similar situation, back before the Party was formed? The Old Man himself Came Home in 2002, but for years he simply sat all alone in a series of cracker box apartments or trailers or boarding houses, pounding on a computer that grew older and crankier as time passed. For years he looked for those out-of-state license plates to come over the hill, begging and pleading on his knees with his fellow white people to come to his side and help him, and for year after year, no one came. He asked only for a hundred good men, or women. One hundred people who were willing to place the future of their blood and their civilization over their own personal welfare. And for year after year, no one came.”
“And then what happened?” asked Ekstrom.
“Then they came,” replied Morehouse simply. “We refer to this among ourselves as The Awakening, and we still don’t understand it fully. Don’t get me wrong when I say this, because we’re not a religious movement, rather the reverse in fact. But the best and most comprehensible way that I can put this, is that it had to be some kind of divine intervention. God decided to give His most wonderful and yet wayward children one final break before He threw the white race onto the scrap heap of history. He reached into the hearts of one hundred people and moved them, changed them, so that they let the scales fall from their eyes and they knew they had to put something above their own well-being; that they had to live for something besides a job and a paycheck and a shopping spree at the mall. One day it just kind of began, and one hundred people stopped worrying about themselves and went out and began packing the moving van. The Old Man had his first hundred, and they became the nucleus of the Party that was formed when they came to the Homeland and were in place. Without that first hundred people, there could have been no Party, because it was they who set up the infrastructure of the migrants would have something to Come Home to.”
For a splendid review of the whole Northwest Quartet in The Occidental Quarterly, click here.