Majorityrights Central > Category: White Nationalism

The American Third Position, acronym A3P, was launched on Monday.  Scroll down to the video of party chairman William D Johnson.  Respectable.  Conservative.  Organisationally, behind him sits none other than Kevin MacDonald who “as a Director of the American Third Position ... influences the course of the party and provides guidance to both the Chairman and President.”

There is very little information on the site about the future electoral strategy of A3P.  Too early, no doubt.  But if the BNP’s experience has had any impact at all, the party will seek to grow from the municipal level upward.  The winning of representation at state legislature level must wait - and it will likely be a wait of a decade, even two.

Anyhow, it’s evidence that the line that “nothing of substance was proposed at Atlanta” is a deception, and that the attitude among the people involved in this development towards their fellow white nationalists is one of palpable distrust and, perhaps, shame.  That is not the BNP’s attitude to fellow-nationalists in Britain.

With so little to go on it is dangerous to draw too firm a conclusion, but under KMD’s influence A3P will surely style itself a modern, common-sense party, but a party of the fourteen words.  I wish it well.  If it prospers it will have to survive and surmount a relentless attack from the usual quarter, including No Platform from a united political mainstream.  If it doesn’t prosper it will be attacked from an increasingly questioning body of WNs.

The current convulsions in the Regnery circus ... er, camp

... er, quarter occasioned by Alex Linder’s brutal but strategic attack on “conservatives” cannot go by without debate here.  Accordingly, I’m posting a comment I’ve put on an Occidental Dissent thread (as it happens, about the, to me, entirely irrelevant changes at Takimag).

The comment is addressed to an OD commenter called Stephen Elliott, who is new at OD and who I have assumed to be Friedrich Braun.  Mr Elliott took it upon himself both to castigate our colleague Captainchaos and to pass a negative remark about MR.  So the beginning of my response is a little personal.  But it quickly opens out into politics.

READ MORE...

This is a suggestion from Bo Sears.  One subject that sorely needs some attention is the kind of organisational requirements European-American nationalists need in place at each stage of the process of regaining control over their people’s lives and destiny - WAR for short!  Bo suggests that there are three such stages:

“1. Now, while we are weak.

2. Later, when we grow much larger in number.

3. And later still, when the actual winning of power and the type of government we might set up come under consideration?”

Now, there is the small matter of fashioning revolution of the mind between nos 1 and 2, and a revolution of the more obvious sort between nos 2 and 3.  So organisation has to change accordingly.  Analysis of the current dispensation, short and long-term strategy, and the means of dissemination of ideas all enter into the first period.  Mass mobilisation, whether it is in a political, migrational or military form applies to the second.

But let’s have some more detailed thoughts.

Lee Barnes, as I mentioned recently, has a blog titled 21st Century British Nationalism.  Since the BNP and the EHRC went head to head in the courts last week Lee has been blogging profusely, obviously moved by the need to resolve several difficult questions.

Two or three days ago he put up a post defining British nationalism by explaining that the enemy in the ranks is White Nationalism and the overt racialism on which it is predicated.  It contained this passage:

British Nationalism is a political movement designed to represent and promote the interests of the Indigenous British people, whilst white nationalism represents the interests of all whites worldwide.

This difference is of fundamental importance in relation to issues like immigration.

A white nationalist welcomes mass immigration into the UK as long as the immigrants are white eg Polish, Russians etc regardless of how this affects the interests of the indgenous British folk.

A white nationalist would never support the slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’ as that would mean that all immigration into the UK from white nations would have to be stopped and whites who are not British would be denied access to British jobs - whilst the fundamental aim of white nationalism is the compulsory repatriation of all non-whites and them replaced by whites from anywhere in the world, the fundamental aim of British nationalism os to put the interests of the British people first.

The fact that the policies of white nationalism if enacted into law would destroy British culture by importing into the country millions of culturally disparate whites from around the world to replace culturally british non-whites and at the same destroy the unique ethnic gene lines of the indigenous British folk groups via the mixing of the different ethnic sub sets of the white race into one homogenous racial enetity is irrelevant to white nationalists - white nationalists do not care that the indigenous British could become extinct in our own country along with British culture as long as Britain was filled with whites.

To what extent this view is shared by senior party members I cannot say.  Perhaps it is only the view of Lee (who blogs as “Defender of Liberty”, btw).  But, anyway, it commended a path that, essentially, trades principle for an allegedly enhanced prospect of power, however distant.  I think such a move is highly agreeable to the Establishment, the more intelligent members of whom probably know that they won’t kill the party outright.  But they might train it to become harmlessly “cultural” and “civic”.

Anyhow, I couldn’t agree with Lee on the WN issue either, so ...

READ MORE...

I invited and received from Prozium a response on the subject of the utility of Michael O’Meara’s TOQ article on the mythicisation of a white American republic.  Here, I am just going to make a very few remarks about the reply and set down a few principles to clarify the terms of debate.  I will not be posting on this subject a third time, except to comment on the thread if required.

My previous post argued that mythicisation had not been employed to move public will in either of the two historically most recent attempts at nation-building by Europeans (Manifest Destiny and lebensraum).  Prozium disagrees but offers very little beyond post-facto romanticisations to indicate what inhabited the minds of the people of the time.  His sole concrete attempt to demonstrate a mythicisation process at work in Manifest Destiny is Thomas Jefferson’s dream “of an empire of liberty in Transappalachia and the Louisiana Territory.”  Let us be clear that Jefferson’s plan did not constitute myth, and very likely had no influence whatsoever over the men and women who walked and rode westward all those years later.  It probably had some incremental role in the politics of expansion.  But I think it would be a hell of a stretch to make more of it than that.

Prozium’s other justifications for the mythic cause (DW Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, and “Gone with the Wind” and “Roots”) are just puzzling to me.  They testify to the appetites of cinema and TV audiences in their respective eras.  But I have no idea what they are doing in this particular conversation, standing as they do at decades remove from the event in question.  Further, they demonstrate a resounding lack of interest in what myth is, and is not.

So let’s think about that, because until we know what myth is there is very little point in batting opinions back and forth.

READ MORE...

So Michael O’Meara beat off nineteen other entries to win the TOQ essay contest with his rumination titled “Towards a White Republic”.  We will pass over the oddity of someone winning an essay competition run by the publication for which he writes.  It’s not something I’ve heard of before.  We have to take editor Greg Johnson’s word that O’Meara’s offering was superior to the others, although I was permitted to read one of them in advance of its submission and, for scholarship and new thinking at least, it comfortably surpassed the winning entry.

That essay was of particular interest to me, it’s true.  It handled its subject with no less surety than the foundational work of a certain ex-MR specialist in that area (who is currently adorning the TOQ sidebar).  O’Meara plainly scored for style – he’s an easy writer to read.  But more than that, he was topical.  The star of the White American Republic is definitely rising in nationalist circles.

It is evident from O’Meara’s references in the essay to his own relationship with White Nationalism that he sees himself as something of an onlooker.  Rather, I think he is attached to the European New Right and its tradition of philosophical critique as opposed to creativity.  I say “opposed” and mean it.  In the West the world of ideas is cleaved between the Analytical or empirical, with its natural outlet in scientific enquiry, and the Idealist, with its appeal to mind and art.  There is no reconciling the two.

ENR Idealists disdain the Anglo-American Analytical tradition for its materialism and its spectrographic bloodlessness - though even the harshest critic among them is in no hurry to eschew the modern, technological world which is its fruit.  How could they?  The undeniable and wondrous progressiveness of science is an expression of the European sociobiology, eternally conflicted with a hostile natural world as that is.  It is of us.  Indians who live a life filled with the shades of god-like men and the symbols of ancient gods gave the world the Vedas and Sanskrit and the numeral system.  But they did not create modernity.  Only we did that.  We could not live as Indians live and be true to our questing nature.

And yet ... so harmful to our collective existence has the concentration on narrow proofs and material conclusions been, the question inevitably arises: can we survive at all as we are, without shades and symbols, without religiosity and romance, and without the cavalier and vague presumptions of Idealist thinking?

READ MORE...

By Diamed

As a moral principle, it is fatuous to say nothing can be done if it means having to hurt someone.  This objection is ridiculous - when the benefit outweighs the cost there is no reason not to hurt someone.  That’s the way the world works right now.  However, potential racists, especially women, may find this moral hold-up simply overpowering.  They would like things to be different, they would like everything we promise, but they’d rather all lay down and die … they’d rather close their eyes and wish all their worries away, than harm a single other person.

As a thought experiment, couldn’t we at least try to soothe these people and coddle their ridiculously oversensitive moral compasses?  If we could save the whole world without harming a single person, surely then they would start helping us and join in the salvation and survival of our own people?  The people who are largely their friends, lovers, fellow-believers at church, classmates, family, and the progenitors of their culture?  Even in this soon-to-be-majority minority America, whites will mostly stick to themselves, and de facto segregation is present everywhere.  Whites want what we have to offer.  They guiltily indulge in the joys of monoracialism and monoculturalism, keeping it secret from everyone how comfortable and happy they feel in the company of their own.  Overly effeminate, or simply raised with the ridiculous squeamishness of the modern world, their objection isn’t our ends but our means.  For those of us who realize the ends justify the means, this is just nonsense.  For those who don’t, it is a brick wall they cannot cross.

Let’s take this in context.  As we speak, 40,000 Americans die each year to car accidents.  Americans as a collective have agreed that the death of 40,000 Americans, many of them children or teenagers just starting the brightness of their lives, are worth sacrificing each year to the convenience of being able to drive everywhere.

The economy would be hampered without trucks and cars carrying large loads to places quickly, and each year, therefore, we sacrifice 40,000 virgins to the dark car god in the sky.  Whether people consciously or unconsciously decide their deaths are “worth it”, their blood is on our hands.  Under a different social system not a single one of them would have to die.

READ MORE...