The problem with big-tent movements and blogs

We all love to speak our minds. Some of us feel so strongly about it we actually start our own blogs. Invariably we find like-minded people in the vast blogosphere and forge new alliances. That’s all find and dandy. The problems start when we reveal that we have opinions that range beyond the single issues upon which many of those alliances were forged.
Practically everybody here agrees that race is real, that white people exist and that white people have a right to exist. But what about homosexuality? What about the role of government? What about Christianity and religion in general? Obviously we don’t all take the same positions when it comes to these other matters. Most of us can find it in our hearts to agree to disagree and focus on our common causes.
But a lot of people have opinions that they feel cannot be compromised. They will have nothing to do with individuals who hold contrary views. The author of the now defunct blog Latte Island found this problem serious enough to cause her to stop blogging. She wrote me:

Hi, I’ve stopped blogging.  Here’s why:  my bias towards inclusion of all possible allies seems to be a lost cause.  Every major story, even this thing with Petraeus, has the usual chorus of, look, the women are responsible, the gays are responsible, everything would have been better if we could put women back in the kitchen and having babies, the gays should shut up with their demands for special privileges, etc.
Okay, if that’s what pro-white people want, fine.  I’m a feminist, and I like having the right to work instead of having babies. Not everyone is called to motherhood.  It’s always been like that.  Social conservatives are just making stuff up about how, in the good old days,  everyone was happy in the kitchen and closet.   I don’t think homosexuality is the cause of the fall of Rome and America.  When I read stuff like that, I laugh and think, it’s too bad these otherwise intelligent people don’t even realize how many gay people they already know and like.
But it’s all really the fault of the Jews, of course.
Do you remember Ian Jobling of White America?  He hasn’t been heard of in quite a while, for the same reasons as me.  After a while, you give up on  people who would rather hate on some of their own people, than be a bit more permissive and win.
I voted for Romney, because he’s a big tent pragmatist like me.  I wouldn’t have voted for one of those bible-thumping bigots the right loves so much.

Though Latte Island and I do not have identical views, I share her enthusiasm for big-tent pragmatism and I do agree with her that it’s self-defeating to harp on divisions that don’t need to be deal-breakers. Nor do I believe I’m compromising my principles by befriending proponents of big government or Christians or pagans or what have you.
Human stupidity, whose blog is still very much alive and well (and who has written a very nice series of articles on the George Zimmermann/ Travvon Martin case, which I recommend) has also been struggling with this problem. He has some well-founded, but controversial, opinions on diverse topics – and he’s found that expounding on one topic will alienate his allies in other topics. I’ve had similar concerns – but my readers appear to be more forgiving (thank you!). I’m pretty sure that Robert Lindsay has the same issue, but I’m also pretty sure he doesn’t care. It’s a certain state of blogger nirvana where you can speak your mind and some people think you’re crazy – but you don’t care because you’re having fun.
One solution, if you haven’t reached your blogger nirvana yet, would be to have separate blogs for each issue. But then somebody discovers that it’s the same writer and it becomes a scandal. Better to be upfront about your beliefs; if they’re too crazy to share, it might be time to trade them in for new ones anyway.

This entry was posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The problem with big-tent movements and blogs

  1. soren says:

    Sorry, but this lady is an ***** who purposely selectively reads and hears to justify her own bigotries… which as a bigot I’m fine with be she should own up to what she’s doing herself.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Sorry soren, but I felt it necessary to edit your comment a bit due to my own stated policy of not allowing name-calling in comments. And I realize it’s a grey area since Latte Island is not (yet) a party to this discussion. But she was a fellow blogger and a friendly one at that.

    • latte island says:

      soren, what have I not owned up to? I’ve always tried to make it clear that I mainly objected to the way social conservatives tried to dominate the conversation, not the existence of social conservatism per se. If only people understood federalism, and the necessity for some allies to live in different communities and mind their own business. But dominance and nit-picking are more important than freedom.
      So, enjoy your big government, big religion, big race (human race), and big man president. To borrow what Golda Meir said about the Palestinians, pro-white people will have freedom of association when they love white people more than they hate women and gays.

      • Zimriel says:

        Is it “hatred” of women that you see on the Right, or is it resistance to women holding political power over men?
        These are clean different things.

      • “the women are responsible, the gays are responsible, everything would have been better if we could put women back in the kitchen and having babies, the gays should shut up with their demands for special privileges, etc”
        All of which is true, of course. You say it like it’s a bad thing.

      • SFG says:

        Eh, you are technnically correct, but I think the history of movements and who is willing to join stigmatized movements is such that any pro-white movement will also be socially conservative, antisemitic, etc. It’s not logically necessary–you can draw the circles any way you want–but it is sociologically necessary. Which is why I think Jay may well wind up in hot water if his movement actually goes anywhere…but it won’t, America will just brown and turn into Brazil.

  2. Douglas says:

    As one of those Bible thumping bigots, I can still see a need to compromise when working in the political rhealm. I believe there is a similar line in the movie, “Braveheart”, when William the Beuce is speaking with his father. His father explains that it is easy to follow someone who stands for something like William Wallace, but it is those who compromise who get things done.
    All that said, there are certain core values I will not compromise. On those issues, I will not go along to get along. However,I can hide them until the primary foe is defeated.
    I am a big fan of Lawrence Auster. He is a traditional conservative and spends time to point out those so-called liberals. However, he does point out, as he has done recently, that there are times, such as voting for Romney, when we must make a compromise.
    It would have been more classy if she would have simply given her reasons for shutting down an quit without name calling the very thing she was complaining of others about.

    • latte island says:

      Douglas, believe it or not, I usually worked very hard to take the high road and not insult allies. But after reading so many comments about how people like me are destroying Western civilization, and that California, where I live, should fall into the sea, I realized it was okay to express my annoyance. If you read Auster honestly, you’ll see his language is a lot less classy than me at my worst. Auster is a phenomenally gifted writer, and I wish him the best personally, but his blog manners aren’t an example for anyone.

      • Zimriel says:

        And I’ve never suggested that California should fall into the sea.
        What I have advocated, is for California to be un-made as a State and for its component parts to be reorganised on a county-by-county basis. Because, as a State, California is destroying itself, and it is destroying the nation at large. If you don’t agree with that obvious truth, maybe you really shouldn’t blog, or else you should find a side that agrees better with you.

    • Zimriel says:

      Robert the Bruce, I think. (As a side note, his dad was just ripping off Alec Guinness’s speech in “Lawrence of Arabia”.)

  3. countenance says:

    On the other hand, I just let it rip with exceedingly few reservations or inhibitions. People can either read me or not. One thing I discovered is that many people neither like know-it-alls no grok snark; that’s their loss.

  4. Here is the George Zimmermann and Trayvon Martin self defense killing case.
    The race and iq would interest most people here. go to the bottom of the page and follow to prior pages.

  5. Atheist Race Realist says:

    Being socially conservative is correlated with being religious. Being religious is correlated with being a race realist. So this is why there are so many socially conservative race realists.
    Don’t ask me why this is, I have no clue. But from my own experience in life the only people I know who are race realists are those who did not attend college. The more educated you are the less likely to be a race realist. The educated people who are race realists are those with a high enough logic ability to overcome the ridiculous amount of “learning” that goes on at college.
    I was once even told that in Anthropology that women and men are exactly the same. Seriously.
    There may be a correlation between being religious and not going to college which might explain it. With a quick Google search I found a wiki page that basically says that it depends on the religion and the results seem to be all over the place.
    I am pretty liberal on social issues myself, an atheist and a race realist. I find that on race realist websites I am quite the minority. I’ve always wondered why but I don’t think there is an easy answer.

    • SFG says:

      It’s historical. Probably for the same reason Jews are (usually!) liberal–Left and Right are alliances more than cohesive viewpoints, and people are less often puzzling out a philosophy than they are picking a team they fit in with–Red, Blue, or (in this case) White or Brown. Liberal race realists (and recall, a race realist is simply anyone who recognizes reality–this doesn’t necessarily correspond to a political viewpoint) tend to be more afraid of a fascist or social-conservative outcome than they are of BRA. You have to admit the Fascists, Falange, and Nazis didn’t exactly have a great record over the long term. The new strand of European nationalism that doesn’t make territorial claims might be a little more successful.

    • Douglas says:

      This may be true, but many who attend college are thoroughly indoctrinated into the modern liberal agenda. Fortunately for me, I completed college late in life and was well grounded in my beliefs and logical reasoning.

  6. Zimriel says:

    What I’ve seen so far from “latte island”, here, are two straw-man attacks. One is that the “dark enlightenment” hates women (rather than opposes their role as political combatants). Another is that it wants California to be annihilated as a region (rather than dissolved as a political force).
    Latte Island sees the world in terms of politics, of power. If we resist the power of womanhood and California, to use the examples she’s given, she says we hate them.
    I disagree with that.

  7. On my own blog, I advocate an alliance of pro-White groups for the specific purpose of destroying Black Run America. For the duration of the war, I’m holding to a strict pas d’ennmis a blanc policy.
    But once BRA is gone? Forget it. As a white Christian traditionalist, I have precisely zero interest in living in a society where women can vote and homosexual acts are legal. I want to live in society with people who are like me — white and Christian — and in a society that reflects the eternal truths of our Western tradition.
    Why is this so hard to understand? For Pete’s sake — destroying feminism, sexual license, and the rest of it is the whole point. The New Whatever that comes after V-BRA Day is supposed to be different from what we have now. Why else would we build it? I support the devolution of the current social and political system so long as the result is better for white, Christian traditionalists, but if our new society is going to be another anything-goes liberal, secular fem/fag fest, I’d just as soon skip the whole breakup and stick with the nightmare we have now.
    So, with respect to Miss “Latte Island”: I think you are playing for the wrong team. I don’t insist that other whites agree with me on matters of morals and politics, and I’ll work with anybody on the White if our goal is busting BRA. But feminism and sexual “liberation” are part and parcel of the “Enlightened” liberal worldview that has gotten us into this mess, and if you insist on keeping to that worldview, the your true allegiance lies with the Enemy: the Global Luciferian Revolution, of which BRA is a part.

    • Atheist Race Realist says:

      “Global Luciferian Revolution” Nice one.
      Nothing screams crazy like a conspiracy with Satan.
      This is part of the reason why we are sunk. There are too many nut jobs associated with race realism and nationalism to ever get anywhere.
      Oh and let me destroy your theory real quick. Muslims don’t allow homosexuality and they hate women. Their societies are an absolute mess. Same with most of Africa. Just look at the recent Ugandan “kill the gays” movement.
      Women and homosexuality has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with the mess the US is in. If there were no other groups than Whites in the US Romney (as god awful as he is) would have swept the election. Whites can live peacefully and successfully while allowing homosexuals to live and women to vote.
      It just so happens that the same people who love open borders and diversity are also pushing hardcore feminism and gay rights. Oh and I heard they like chocolate ice cream. You should probably blame chocolate ice cream on the downfall of the US as well. I wouldn’t eat it anymore if I were you. It’s evil for obvious reasons.

      • Thanks for expressing your opinion. I ordinarily do not respond to atheists, since an atheist is not a human person, being instead merely a collection of matter thrown together by the random action of environmental forces through the process of natural selection. I limit my argument to human beings, which are rational creatures with immortal souls created by God.
        However, since a real atheist (i.e. one who is 100% sure that God does not exist) has no need to argue about the matter, I perceive that you are not in fact an atheist but rather a mere prideful and miseducated young person. I was once the same. Bearing this in mind, I have decided to respond to your post.
        First: your attempt to destroy my theory has failed, since 1) I never proposed any theory and 2) I don’t hate women, as you suggest I do. I d not think the word “theory” means what you think it means, and I love women.
        I detest Islam, which is a counterfeit of Christianity and which, as such, can bear little good fruit.
        Uganda is a mess because white Christians are not running the place,
        The “liberation” of mankind is part and parcel of the problem we face, That problem, which is rebellion against God, represents an attempt by man to become his own God, defining for himself good and evil, right and wrong, real and unreal. This rebellion began at the dawn of human existence and was instigated by Lucifer, the original rebel. It continued in various guises through the ages, emerging in its final form at the end of the Medieval period as the so-called Enlightenment. The rise of liberal ideology, and the liberal state, both proceed from the “enlightenment”, which seeks to cast down reality given by God and erect a temple of “reason” and “liberty” with human hands. Such an order cannot and does not work, as the trail of post-“enlightenment” human misery — misery on a scale never before known — attests.
        The Revolution continues. It is global, and it is Luciferian. Our current regime (Black Run America, or BRA) is merely the local instrumentality of this wicked and artificial world order.
        As long as BRA stands, my policy is pas d’ennemis a blanc. I will fight alongside anyone, from fudgepackers to feminists, in order to kill the monster regime. But I don’t fool myself into thinking that people who want to live in a “free” society are somehow on my side in the war on the GLR. I am a white, Christian traditionalist, and I wish to inhabit a nation of white, Christian traditionalists.If you are not a white, Christian traditionalist, you are not part of the nation to which I truly belong.
        We whites can and must join forces to slay the dragon of Black Run America. Come V-BRA Day, that alliance ends. Once BRA is destroyed, the ball-busters, butt-pirates, and others can go erect their own miniature copy of BRA somewhere else: Feministan, Homotopia, whatever. I will work to help establish a nation-state in which the traditional Western social and moral order is organic, and to hold at bay the Global Luciferian Revolution that opposes us all.
        As for your ostensible atheism: I’m not going to attempt to argue you out of your belief that the material is all there is. A truly rational person (e.g., Aristotle) will arrive at the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, but I can’t force you to reason. If you are interested in facing a challenge to your atheism, please feel free to drop me a line any time and I’ll be happy to oblige. You may also visit my blog.

      • Atheist Race Realist says:

        Since I can’t reply to you I guess I’ll reply to myself.
        I don’t debate the existence of God as I find it pointless. I’m not going to change my mind and you are not going to change yours. It’s not like we are debating anything that can actually be decided anyway.
        For the record I don’t have a problem with anyone practicing a religion or believing in God. I’m not one of those nutty atheists who insist that all religion icons must be taken down because it offends me. I actually like a lot of religious things and I particularly love Christmas.
        The problem is when you don’t use logic to decide what is right or wrong you just use some passage written by a guy 1800+ years ago who tells you what is right and wrong.
        It’s very easy to figure what is right and wrong out on your own. Killing – wrong, stealing – wrong, helping people – good. It’s all very simple. I actually find it sad that some people need a book to tell them that killing, stealing and cheating on your spouse is wrong. These are things that should be obvious.
        The real problem is when the same book that says killing is wrong also says that homosexuality is wrong, witches exist and should be killed and that women just cause problems and should be men’s subordinates.
        Oh and most religious people just think I’m going to Hell for not believing in God. I’ve never been told I’m not a real human before.

  8. StukaPilot says:

    Interesting discussion on all sides, and not much that this hoary old aviator can add. Let me just point out to Ms. Cafe-au-Lait that “voting for Romney” did not at all involve “compromise”…it involved sheer stupidity. Based on his actual political behavior (not campaign bunkum) he was/is as much a State Socialist as Obama, and a worse Zionist warmonger. This is a one-Party system, and has been for some years….and the Republicrat Party a neo-Con job (cf. Auster) aimed at getting Whites to support a globalist racket that fully intends to exterminate them.:
    White % of world population
    1900 30%
    2000 9%
    2100 (can Our Lady of Compromise extrapolate a straight line?)

  9. tamerofsavages says:

    While we can’t turn back Jacksonian democracy and the resulting subhuman suffrage we (racialists) can have higher standards for ourselves.
    No man or woman should dedicate more time to this ’cause’ than is absolutely necessary to understand the basics, until they are married and producing children. Too many spinsters and bachelors in this treehouse.

    • Gay State Girl says:

      “until they are married and producing children. Too many spinsters and bachelors in this treehouse.”
      Sigh, if only we could produce them in factories…
      While I understand the concerns of White Nationalists and eugenicists to hold their own against the exploding birthrates in the third world and abroad, but we do not possess the natural resources to satisfy the expanding birthrate you’re advocating, and our culture is already too child centric for my liking.

  10. Feminist Hater says:

    Any white lady who sees herself as a feminist is against white men. You cannot include your enemies in your alliance. That would be traitorous. Some times it is better to know your enemy and call them out. Feminists are not your ally.

    • jewamongyou says:

      That may be true most of the time but not all the time. Nobody will say he is “anti-white” but most people are unless they show that they are specifically pro-white. Latte Island has gone out of her way to show that she is pro-white, linking to my site and so forth. We may disagree with her on some issues, but I’d say that she is a better judge of her opinions than anybody else. Similarly, we can say that liberals are anti-white and this would be true at least 90% of the time. But a few are not.

  11. Gay State Girl says:

    I can’t see why intellectual white nationalists would want to be associated with the vanguardists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *