Organizations such as the SPLC and ADL often accuse pro-white organizations of harboring openly hateful people, anti-Semites and lunatics. Unfortunately, this often turns out to be true. If a pro-white person, of healthy demeanor, wishes to join other pro-whites as an organization, he will discover that neo-Nazis* are also pro-white and also wish to attach themselves to these organizations.
What is one to do when he is privy to important truths – but the vast majority of other people who recognize those truths are social pariahs? Should he avoid all contact with any of them? If he takes this path, then he will be lonely indeed. He will find himself on a small rowboat in rough seas with no land in sight and all other boats and ships inhabited by the enemy. He will find that his avoidance of them will do him little good; he will still be considered an extremist and lumped in with the rest. If he chooses to avail himself of the networks built by those pariahs, then he will be lumped together with them in the eyes of the rest of humanity and his associations with them will be brought up over and over again as proof of his hate and ignorance.
Being pro-white is an unpopular position to take and, the way things are going, it will remain so for quite some time. But it is wrong to give up. To continue the fight, we need organizations to represent us and those organizations need to represent a wide range of attitudes. Some need to be geared toward suit-and-tie intellectuals while others need to be geared toward thuggish intimidation – depending on what is necessary at the time. A suit-and-tie intellectual is not very useful to whites who need physical protection from non-white thugs who are out to get him; the law is of little use in such cases. Send a group of tough street fighters and the situation might be diffused as the aggressors realize they picked the wrong fight. But it would not be appropriate to send the same street fighters, dressed to intimidate, to a public protest or to an interview with the media. Some organizations are more orientated toward racial science, while others would focus more on social issues.
An organizations might blend various approaches into one. But there is one attitude that some pro-white organizations should take care to be clean of: hatred toward people based entirely on what they were born as. It is one thing to have a distaste for blacks in general, but quite another to declare that one hates all blacks. Many, in the pro-white movement, hate Jews – some hate all Jews, regardless of affiliation. There is a reason the wider public disdains such hatred: it is stupid and wrong. By planting themselves in practically all pro-white organizations, these haters succeed in giving anti-white hate groups such as the SPLC ammunition to paint all pro-whites with the same brush. Thus, in a sense, there is not enough diversity in the pro-white movement.
What we need is an organization that promotes the interests of whites and has no connection, whatsoever, to neo-Nazi groups, the KKK or any other group that is associated with hate (even if that association, in the eyes of the public, is based on ignorance). Such a clean organization can then publicly boast that it opposes racial/ethnic hatred and that it is a strictly positive organization. Of course, it would still be accused of being “racist” but it would be a lot easier for this organization to win converts. The leaders of this organization would be very careful who they let in; anybody with past connections to “hateful groups” (I wish I had a better term) would have to go through a cleansing process of some sort and make public pronouncements that his motivation is to help people. Not to hurt them. There would be actual membership and dues would be paid. There have been some organizations that approximate what I am talking about – such as the EAIF, which unfortunately does not appear to have much recent activity.
Of course, for those pro-whites who disagree with the above conditions and philosophy, there are plenty of other groups they can join. While in Charlotte, some of us discussed founding such a group but, for the moment, it is only an idea. We have a name and, possibly, even a logo – but I shall not divulge any of this yet.
*There is always a problem with labels. When I say “neo-Nazi”, I mean somebody who hates all Jews and is not averse to violence. I fully realize that there might be some who call themselves “neo-Nazis” who do not fit this description and there might be others who do, but call themselves something else.
Bookmarks
- 4racism.org
- Alternative Hypothesis
- American Renaissance
- Amerika.org
- Black Pigeon Speaks
- CanSpeccy
- Countenance
- Counter Currents
- Dan from Squirrel Hill
- Diversity Chronicle
- Europa Unitas
- fleuchtling (refugees)
- Government and Corporate Anti-White Discrimination
- Hail to You
- HBD Chick
- Human stupidity
- It's Okay to be White
- John Derbyshire
- La Griffe du Lion
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Luke Ford
- Madspace
- Muunyayo
- Nimshal
- Nodhimmitude
- Occidental Dissent
- Reluctant Apostate
- Sincerity
- Soviet Men
- Steve Sailer's blog
- Taki's Magazine
- The Atheist Jew
- The Last Ditch
- The Mad Jewess
- The National Conservative
- The Politically Incorrect Australian
- The slitty eye
- The Unz Review (Steve Sailer)
- Those who can see
- Thuletide
- Utter Contempt
- VDare
Buy Your Coffee From These Patriots
JAY, Gerald from the conference here. Dubeaux is my handle on a lot of sites. Yep, this is such a thorny problem for our movement. Jews should be welcomed into our ranks, but Gentiles should be free to criticize Jewish behavior – as a generalization but not a universal – that is against the interests of whites. For example, the many Jewish groups & leaders advocating mass non-white immigration. We should point out to them that transforming the USA into a Third World nation harms Jews as well as Gentiles. BTW, I was wondering if the Stormfront folks would have been out in force if the original Charlotte conference had not been cancelled. What do you think?
You are absolutely right that people should be allowed to criticize Jews, or any other group. Individuals criticize each other all the time, but this doesn’t mean they necessarily hate each other. Unfortunately, any criticism of ethnic groups other than whites is considered “racism” and “hate”.
Stormfront folks usually do show up at Amren conferences so this one would probably have been no different. From what I’ve seen, they keep to themselves.
Do you mean they keep to themselves individually or as a group? Also, I had thought that this was your second conference. Have you been to others?
I like this idea.
It has my support.
It is one thing to have a distaste for blacks in general, but quite another to declare that one hates all blacks.
I tend to agree with you, in theory. But, in practice, most blacks cheer when famous black running backs get away with murder.
Yes, and we should certainly criticize this sort of attitude/behavior. But I think it is always a good idea to acknowledge the occasional individual black who does not fit this pattern.
http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/racist-blacks-and-perversion-of-justice.html
Re: Fred,
Actually this was my third. I attended in ’08, the makeshift one in ’10 and this one.
The Stormfront crowd mainly keeps to itself in that they do not agitate or provoke those they disapprove of, such as Jews. It seemed to me they cluster together as well – but, as an outsider, it’s hard to tell.
I always paraphrase Bukowski when I’m accused or racism:
“I don’t hate black people. I just feel better when they’re not around.”
Another good paraphrase is Aleister Crowley:
“Most of the public horror of racism so-called is because everyone knows him or herself essentially guilty.”
I highly suspect that those knaves among us who show up at protests, rallies and meetings donning swastikas are on the federal payroll. (Recall Hal Turner). Their presence is to discredit the movement, disjoint it from discourse on culture and render it not relative — at the best!
I worry that such efforts as those by James Edwards and CofCC.org are rife with such nonsense. Hopefully, in short order, we will get our collective act together.
To that end I’ve essentially written of David Duke. Not that I suspect he is another Hal Turner-style informer, but because his obsession with Zionism is a rabbit trail that is taking us FAR off course.
Give me more credible movements like AmRen and VDare.
For a pro-white movement to gain mainstream appeal, it has to explicitly repudiate antisemitism and avoid any contact with neo-nazi groups, Klan and other such scum. As AmRen’s sad example shows, it is not enough to simply proclaim neutrality. Jared Taylor is a charismatic man and could have become a great champion of the pro-white cause, but his continuing association with nazis and antisemites is both a moral and a political failure.
Nazis have managed to poison a lot of wells, including moral legitimacy of racialist outlook. Tolerance of antisemitism will forever relegate any pro-white movement to the margins of body politic, and deservedly so.
(Ian Jobling made a valiant effort to create exactly such a movement with his White America, but unfortunately he seems to have lost the will to fight the good fight.)
I’ve been searching for such a group for years. A group that focuses on cultivating positive European-American identity, rather than its nationalism on hatred against others.
The CofCC seems decent, but links to rather dubious indivuals like James Edwards. Alternative Right had promise, but Nazi commentators made me realize that I was not a good fit there. And American Third Position, headed by Kevin MacDonald, is certainly not for me. National Policy Institute shows promise, as does the Asatru Folk Assembly and the Bay Area National Anarchists. Hoosier Nation, not so much.
I eagerly await any news on such an organization you envision, and I offer to help support it, be it through activism, financial aid, or any other method.
Greetings
I found your blog, within the last week, from unamusement park.
I have self identified as White Nationalist for a little over a year now. Before my awakening, I was very much a Judaeo-Christion-Zionist. I am still culturely a Christian, having been raised as one. But I now see the differences Judiaism and Christianity. If Zionism = Jewish Nationalism, then I still support Zionism.
How do you self identify, Jewish, White, White Jew…?
I read a paper, paper lol, got it off google, some Israeli forget his name, lost the link, about the Khazar Empire. Their conversion to Judiaism, domination of the Slavs around them, displacement/ migration into Eastern Europe and developement
Greetings
I found your blog, within the last week, from unamusement park.
I have self identified as White Nationalist for a little over a year now. Before my awakening, I was very much a Judaeo-Christion-Zionist. I am still culturely a Christian, having been raised as one. But I now see the differences Judiaism and Christianity. If Zionism = Jewish Nationalism, then I still support Zionism.
How do you self identify, Jewish, White, White Jew…?
I read a paper, paper lol, got it off google, some Israeli forget his name, lost the link, about the Khazar Empire. Their conversion to Judiaism, domination of the Slavs around them, displacement/ migration into Eastern Europe and developement into the Ashkenazi ( did I spell that correctly?).
I have read of Jews being banned from certain occupations during the middle ages. Of Jews gaining positions such as tax collectors, at a time when tax collectors collected all they could and kept the extra.
Lending money to Gentiles at high interest causing the ruin of many. Of the Catholic Church setting up interest free lending to safeguard the Christians.
Jews maintained there beliefs and customs, not assimilating into the larger culture.
Is there not a history of antagonism/ exploitation on both sides? Where the Khazars not a Turkish people? Does this not make the Jews a people separate from Whites?
Much has been written about the Khazars, yet they remain shrouded in mystery. That they were a Turkic-speaking people does not necessarily tell us what they were racially. Apparently there were “white Khazars” and “black Khazars”. So some of them might have been white and others not. The consensus is now that relatively little of modern Ashkenazi Jewish heritage is from the Khazars. In other words, the story of the Khazars does not speak to whether Ashkenazim are white. As for me, I consider myself Jewish; it’s not important to me whether others consider me “white” or not.
Yes, of course there was abuse on both sides between Jews and gentiles.
What, do you think there’s an “International Race Line” somewhere in near Turkey? The borders of Europe are politically and culturally determined; they do not demarcate the boundaries if whiteness as a race. The indigenous peoples of Europe, the Middle East, West Asia, and North Africa all have substantially the same phenotype and very similar genotypes. They’re all Caucasian and have historically been considered white. The idea that Middle Easterners are “people of color” (indeed even the term “people of color”) is a relatively new and revisionist concept born of latter twentieth century political correctness and identity politics.
Even the dark brown skinned people of South Asia (i.e. India, Pakistan), who have never been classified as white, are in fact racially Caucasian.
Jews are most certainly white and Caucasian. Ashkenazi Jews aren’t even particularly swarthy.
You seem to be operating with some sort of Nordicist notion of white (a minimalist revisionist conception of whiteness which is ironically remarkably similar to the way the politically correct left likes to minimally define white). So-called “white nationalists” who seek to limit “white” to the paler nations of Northern Europe are “useful idiots” unwittngly doing the anti-whites work for them, cutting the white population in half (at least).
What is the heritage of the Ashkenazim?
Do you consider being Jewish the same as being German , American , Polish, etc…?
If you do not consider yourself “white” and do not care if any one else considereds you “white” ,what’s the interest in a “pro-white group”?
I consider the 14 words of David Lane ” We must secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children” to be the basis of White Nationalism. Is this an acceptable position, or hate?
BTW I feel WN is an American/ colonial thing with little to no application in Europe.
I’m pretty sure most Ashkenazim are mixed Mideastern Hebrew and European, in various degrees. I consider Jews to be a nation or a tribe, roughly the same way Germans, Poles etc. are tribes.
As to your question why I would care about pro-white groups if I’m not white, I addressed it in the “about” section.
I agree with Lane’s words.
BTW where are you? I noticed a 3 hour time difference. I’m in Mississippi myself.
I’m in the Portland, Oregon area. I appreciate your comments.
Okay, I admit it, I’m dense. I have read your about page 4 times. Twice before asking ” If you do not consider yourself ” white” , and do not care if anyone else considers you “white”, what’s the interest in an “pro-white group”.
Let me restate the question.
As a nationalist, I understand supporting all nationalist groups. But, as a White Nationalist I can be no more than a supporter of other nationalist groups.
In your post, you wrote of you and others considering “founding” a “pro-white” group. If you do not identify/consider yourself to be “white” , why are you considering “founding” a group? Not meaning to split hairs here. But, would not being a supporter of a “pro-white” group be more appropriate?
One criticism of Jews is that y’all are “wire pullers”. The difference between supporter and member might be enough to keep the group from being seen as a Jewish front group.
It’s all in how you look at the word “white” in “white nationalist”. You’re interpreting it as describing the nationalist. I’m interpreting it as describing the nationalism. I could also be a Fijian nationalist if I were to work toward that cause. If it makes you feel better to call me a “supporter of white nationalism”, then I’m okay with that. It’s just semantics.
No matter what I say or do, there will always be people who suspect me of being part of a front group, or an infiltrator. Since there’s nothing I can do about it, I don’t worry about it.
Interesting. I have found White Nationalist to have a similar attitude. When a white person awakens, becomes racially aware, we quickly realize that we will be called: racist, bigot, homophobe, islamaphobe, klucker, kkk, a nazi who wants to kill six million jews, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Many embrace what our enemy intends as a negative. “You want a Nazi, I’ll show you a Nazi”, in for a penny, in for a pound.
With liberal/ socialists Jews in positions of power and influence with the federal gvt, banking, news/ entertainment industry, it is an easy sell that Jews are acting as a group against us.
When I awakend, I was upset, to say the least. In a moment I had a crystal clear understanding of the problem. In the Anglosphere and Europe our leaders, a few Jews surrounded by white traitors, are attempting to destroy Western/ White civilazation.
They say there is a race problem. They do not flood Mexico with millions of non-Mexicans, giving them affirmative action and free health care. They do not say this race problem will only be solved when when Mexicans integrate/intermarry forming a blended race.
They do not flood Africa with millions of non-africans giving them AA and free health care. They do not say this race problem will end only when Africans integrate/intermarry forming a blended race.
They do not flood China with millions of non-chinese giving them AA and free health care. They do not say this race problem will only be solved when the Chinese integrate/intermarry forming a blended race.
They only say this to white countries. Only White politicians are doing it. Only White children are affected. It is GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your post and the replies have touched a nerve I did not realize was exposed.
By Anglosphere I mean the English speaking world, Great Britian, Ireland, Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand.
I see what you mean about white in WN.
The similar attitude I was referring to was the second part of your reply. You have a very heathy attitude about it I think.
I do appreciate your comments and please feel free to contribute in other threads as well.
“It is one thing to have a distaste for blacks in general, but quite another to declare that one hates all blacks.”
It is? It’s not a distinction that would matter too much too blacks (I’m sure they’d find both statements quite offensive).
I have only casually perused a few posts on this blog so I have no firm judgement as to its merit or demerit.
But I must say, statements like the one quoted above on sites like this make me think there needs to be something like “Poe’s Law” for the “White Advocate” blogosphere.
Poe’s Law states essentially that it is well nigh impossible to distinguish between genuine creationists in the blogosphere and satirical parodies of creationists.
I see something similar on sites like this. When I read a line like that quoted above, or see self-proclaimed “white nationalists” sing the praises of the GoP or Fox News or some conservative talk radio pundit, I find it very difficult to tell if the writer is being serious, or rather is trolling or engaged in some sort of political activist performance art. Because it just seems suspiciously convenient for the left to me that self described “white nationalists” or “white advocates” or “racists” would sing the praises of the left’s critics. The idea is, create an online persona of a racist, then praise people you want to discredit.
I haven’t seen “Jewamongyou” do this (it’s possible, I haven’t read much of his stuff), but the quote above is so ridiculous I can’t suppress the suspicion that he’s attempting something akin to what Sacha Baron Cohen does with the various characters he portrays. That is, make someone look foolish by getting them to think you think like they do, then say outrageous things and document them nodding in agreement.
I mean, come on. Are you seriously trying to suggest there is a significant moral or other distinction to be drawn between saying you have a distaste for blacks in general and saying you hate all blacks? Why? Because “distaste” isn’t as bad as “hate” and it’s not a universal distaste, just a “general” one which allows for the occasional “good black”? Or something.
Look, I think rational moral people can agree that political correctness and white bashing sucks and ought to be objected to. But “white nationalism” to me is just another form of identity politics. I honestly don’t care about race or ethnicity. It’s a condition of birth, not something to be either proud of or ashamed of. It’s like being proud you have 5 fingers or ashamed to have ears.
Mind you, I don’t deny that races exist or that there are differences between them. I just don’t care.
In my opinion, if your goals and objections are reasonable, they will ultimately resonate with a lot of people. If they’re cranky and crack potty, like “white nationalism” you will correctly be perceived as wearing a tin foil hat.
True, due to the scourge of political correctness, there is much anti-white and pro “identity politics” (so long as the identity isn’t white) tin foil hat nuttery being promulgated as legitimate in media and academia. That is bullshit worth resisting. But to denounce their tin foil hat identity politics nonsense with your own is pointless.
Just my two cents.
Frankly, my suspicion is that JAY is probably role playing here, but that is based on an extremely small sample of his writing so I could well be way off base. If he is I suspect he’s probably just curious as to what makes you WN types tick. In any case I mean JAY no offense here and hope none was taken.
Firstly, it’s hard to figure out why you see no distinction between hating all of a particular thing and having a general distaste for it in general. A person might hate all salads without exception, or he might just dislike them in general – but there are exceptions to the rule. I know people who have a general distaste for Jews, due to our overall liberal tendencies, But they have no problem with me. Are you asking me to deny what I’ve seen with my own eyes? As for how blacks perceive it, this makes no difference. Very few blacks are able to recognize such distinctions. The same holds for Jews and most other groups. They like to see things in black and white; no grey areas. But this is my blog, and I don’t give a damn what they think. These are my opinions.
Along those lines, it’s not my job to represent white nationalists as a group. White nationalists are not some monolithic entity. All I represent here are my OWN opinions – and you’re free to disagree with them. But your rhetorical question is correct. There IS a difference between “distaste” and “hatred”. If I encounter somebody I hate, and I have the opportunity to kill him and get away with it, I might do so. Why? Because I hate him. But I’d never consider killing somebody I simply have a distaste for; instead, I simply try to steer clear of him. I have a distaste for overripe avocados – but I just ate one. Why? Because I don’t hate them; I simply dislike them in general. This time I was hungry and that’s all I had.
I would suggest you look up the words “hate” and “dislike” in the dictionary if you have trouble with this.
As far as coming across as somebody with a tin-hat. I’m not going to change my mind about things simply because some people consider me crazy. Being called “crazy,” a “nut-job,” a “racist,” a “bigot,” or “ignorant” means nothing to me. Reasoned arguments will sway me.
“I would suggest you look up the words “hate” and “dislike” in the dictionary if you have trouble with this.”
Ok:
hate: to dislike someone or something very much
Source: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/thesaurus-category/american/To-hate-or-dislike-someone-or-something
If someone built a moderate, lawful, non-racist, pro-white but not anti anyone else organization many would come. Whites are 65% of the population. Most whites fear antiwhite crime/violence, job discrimination, and are vaguely aware of the white-humiliation campaign being run by Hollywood and the media. However, whites are risk adverse and moderate; they won’t join something polluted by racists or people who are too negative. Therefore the first successful white organization would need to be moderate, lawful, focused only on the issues that concern whites, have lawyers to wage lawfare, and be able to raise money through pressure campaigns.
Just can’t believe I read a Jewish person acknowledge that.
This blog’s readily slipping into my favourite blogs list 😉
—————
Some/many in the alt-right dislike/hate all Jews because, this is the time to say it, Jewry behaves and succeeds like they’d love to see Whites behave and succeed.
Or: they blame Jewry for acting the very same way they say Whites should act.
—————
All of what you correctly observed regarding the alt-right would not be a problem any longer if more, more politically moderate or neutral, Whites would awake to reality!
Since they all are in deep slumber, it’s only the most reactionary/aggressive to notice Whites are being bullied.
And of course, it’s going to be people who more often than not behave, and think, in otherwise disagreeable ways.
A good deal of non-submissive, non-asleep whites are quite the bullies, and that’s a little, or more than a little, unfortunate.