Posted by Johan Van Vlaams on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:13 | #

An informed man counts double.

In each edition of the Flemish nationalistic internet publication ‘t Scheldt, see http://www.tscheldt.be/
a full page is dedicated, written in Afrikaans,  to the Afrikaner’s plight in South Africa, a society dominated by blacks only.

Awareness about the ultimate consequences of immigration certainly is a factor of the success of white nationalism in Flanders.

For your information: Afrikaans is very close to Dutch. A comparison of Afrikaans with 40 Dutch dialects shows that Afrikaans, being number 23, is closer to Standard Dutch than 18 (other) Dutch dialects, see http://afrikaans.nu/pag5.htm  So the Afrikaners can lament, giving all the gory details to the Flemish, about their shocking situation. In that respect they play a home match.

See also for instance the information campaign of MFP John Vrancken, http://www.john-vrancken.org/zuidafrika/zuidafrika_index.htm

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:03 | #

This is pure realpolitik, and apparently requires marriages of convenience with Jews and Sikhs – at least, we should play the Asiatic’s faithful wife.  Less pragmatic nationalists are outraged.  But it is a strategem calculated not to scare the electoral horses - and, undeniably, that pays dividends.

1. Why don’t they say that? And if they aren’t honest on this issue then how can they be trusted going forward on other issues?

2. Where is the evidence that this ‘pragmatic’ approach actually succeeds? Are we to believe the recent success in the polls is related to the new rainbow alliance with Jews and Sikhs? Where’s the evidence of that?

Even in the Germany of the 1930’s the politics were not purposively preservationist.

Possibly but definitely contra KMac.

Posted by Daedalus on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:04 | #

Is White Nationalism even applicable to Europe? Has race ever been an explicit aspect of European national identities in the manner typical of Americans from the seventeenth to mid-twentieth centuries?

Posted by AD on Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:20 | #

The questions then shifts to one of personality.  Why, for some, is fidelity worth marginalisation, when marginalisation has been proven unnecessary and, obviously, unproductive?

Because being productive matters less than revenge at this point(for some). Worst case scenario for “unpragmatics”: immigration slows down, list of crimes of the last 40 years get forgotten and the guilty go free. A sense of injustice drives alot of people. Many would sooner see us lose the West as long as the malaise gives us a free hand to bump off the traitor-class and everyone on redwatch.

Posted by Francisco on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:19 | #

I am unfamiliar with Salterism, would someone kindly point me in the right direction for more information on this?

Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:26 | #

“We can see why pragmatism is disdained even when it delivers results”

Which are, what?  The BNP’s meager electoral accomplishments?  What are, exactly, these results.

“and why a preservationist solution is thought partial and inadequate even though, ultimately, it is the one aim common to all.”

Is it?  Who are the pragmatists who endorse that solution?

“The questions then shifts to one of personality.”

Back to that again.  Fundamental differences of ideology are reduced to a personality quirk.  On the one hand, EGI is paramount, but if EGI is dispensed for “pragmatism”, then it is “personality.”

“Why, for some, is fidelity worth marginalisation, when marginalisation has been proven unnecessary and, obviously, unproductive?”

Is this an explanation for the presence of anti-majoritarian, anti-preservationist libertarian land baron leftists on the blog?

Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:28 | #

“I am unfamiliar with Salterism, would someone kindly point me in the right direction for more information on this?”

You are in the wrong place here, Francisco. 

However if you google “Taylor Salter” or “American Renaissance Salter”, you can come up with the reviews from that journal.

Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:34 | #

One more point.  The combination of media propaganda, relatively weak white ethnocentrism (coupled with what KMacD labels ‘altruistic punishment’ directed at whites by other whites), Rubin’s “social pricing”, negativism toward anything that smacks as “nazism” (even independent of the media propaganda), and the often unfortunate behavior of some individuals who are WN (or are labeled by the media as such) has resulted in the marginalization of pro-white nationalist sentiment.

Marginalized movements often attract marginal people (which in turn, feeds back to amplify the problem), thus resulting, at least in part, in the problems of WN.

One reason why Jared Taylor is so valuable (putting aside the whole JQ issue) is precisely that he himself is not a marginal personality, but an articulate, intelligent fellow who made a name for himself (business, IT, well-received book on Japan) before he ventured into WNism.  Not coincidently, Taylor has promoted Salter’s work in AR, and sold off the last stock of the first edition of Salter’s book.

If by pragmatism you mean accepting Taylor on the JQ so as to achieve long-term gains, then *that* is something that I agree with (not the “pragmatism” of consorting with anti-majoritarian “conservatives.”).

Of course, if negative feedback harms WN, then positive feedback can help.  More focus on guys like Taylor may help to attract more non-marginal people, and the hyper-extreme elements - often egged on and promoted by the establishment - should be de-emphasized.

The tough nut to crack is Rubin’s “social pricing.”  Increased mainstreaming of WN would help, but to break the logjam WNs more infrastructure building, and support for guys like Taylor.  To attract more non-marginal people, there needs to be more support from the community (ideally, the white community but more practically at this time, the WN and racially-aware paleoconservative community), and some ‘compensation’ to at least partially counter-act “social pricing.”

If you see how a wealthy celebrity like Gibson has ‘social pricing’ put upon him just for a drunken tirade, the scope of the problem becomes clear.  The typical WN does not have Gibson’s $600 million to fall back upon.

If a guy like Taylor is unable to devote himself full time to AR, this does not reflect well on the nationalist infrastructure, at least in America.  One problem has been that WN leaders have had the cult-like “armageddon is around the corner” mentality - either sincere or to drum up their more fiery members for immediate support - rather than the long-term building mentality that was needed.  Even the Black Muslims - with all we say about the IQ and behavior of blacks - have done a credible job of building a self-sustaining infrastructure. 

The other problem is support from the rank-and-file themselves.  I know of some here who constantly remind us of their contributions to the BNP; I am sure others here have made contributions to groups in their countries sans the bragging.  More needs to be done.  I wonder how many WNs spend money on Negro sporting events that could be better invested elsewhere.  Of course, the WN leadership needs to prove itself worthy of support.  The cycle feeds back on itself, marginalization leading to more marginalization. 

There will be no quick fixes, and we need far-sighted people who understand this.  Short-term tactics are fine and have their place, but ultimately a long-term strategy is needed.

The solution will not be, however, emulating the mainstream politicians and having “winning elections” the end or and be all of the goal. The goal is to achieve the promotion of white interests, all else are merely tools.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:15 | #

JW,

I am part way through carving the WN universe into manageable slices, from the point of view of turning part of it into a dynamic.  There is a method there, and everything will come out right.

After the next piece you can hang me out to dry if you like.  But this is not quite the moment.

Posted by J Richards on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:59 | #

Damn JW, you have extensively explained Salterism, and should have linked to the EGI page in response to Francisco’s query. 

All hope is not lost.  John derives perverse pleasure in antagonizing you, Steve Edwards, Al Ross, etc., and when he posts entries specifically geared toward this goal, then the best way of dealing with them is to ignore them; i.e., do not comment in them.  One should not feed trolls. 

——————-

GW,

You should link Salterism in the first line of your entry to the EGI page.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:07 | #

You are right, JR.  I’ve put in the link.

Posted by On Holliday on Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:17 | #

GW, I will await your next installment.

JR, you are correct, and I will attempt to take your advice, and that of Fred Scrooby, and ignore John Ray as much as that is possible.

Francisco, yes, you can take a look at the EGI archives here, mostly my articles as well as one by Matt.

A suggestion for NPI, AR, and other groups that may have the resources to do it: it may be of some utility to attempt a survey, opinion poll, interview-based survey, etc . - sampling a reasonable number of random whites throughout the USA to ascertain why it is exactly they do not support WN.

If questions could be crafted to prompt a reasonably honest set of replies, one could see if it can be discerned why whites either:

a) do not see white decline as a problem, or actually welcome it (assuming of course they even know the problem exists - a even more fundamental question), OR

b) are concerned, but do nothing about it.

Theories are fine, but it would be nice to have some actual data in hand, people stating the reasons why they behave in ways that frustrate many of us.  Solutions require proper diagnoses.

The same advice obtains for Mr. Putin: if you are really concerned about native Russian demographics, the solution is not to strut into a press conference (Putin being the only white man I’ve seen who struts more than Bush), and promise to throw a few rubles at the problem (immediately rejected by Russian women subsequently interviewed about the monetary compensation).

The oil money is flowing, and if Russia has the money to continuously upgrade their nuclear arsenal (to protect them from both “Comrade Wolf” and “Comrade Panda”), they have the resources to commission studies to ascertain - from the “horse’s mouth”, so to speak - why it is that young Russians are not procreating sufficiently.

Therein may lie a solution, Mr. Putin.  Your ICBMs and SLBMs and other weaponry will not serve well if the fingers on the buttons are Central Asian Muslims.

Posted by Daedalus on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:06 | #

A good place to start would be to realize that “Whites” don’t think of themselves as “Whites,” but as “Americans” instead. For centuries, “whiteness” was a marker of the American ethnos, along with other traits like a commitment to liberal political principles, not an ethnicity in its own right. White Nationalism makes no sense. “Whites” are not and never have been a people in North America. IMO this is a confused legacy of postwar multiculturalism; a muddled attempt to imitate the black nationalist movement of the late 1960s/early 1970s.

White Nationalists, like the black nationalists that inspired them, turned their backs on their own national identity and have marginalized themselves in the process. Conservatives, of course, have eagerly inherited the mantle of American nationalism for themselves, which they construe in purely civic terms. If racial nationalism is ever to succeed in the United States, WN’s must first overcome their own alienation from society and recapture their own national identity. Fortunately, Jared Taylor seems to understand this. The same cannot be said of the more fringe types.

Posted by allotmentkeeper on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:01 | #

Seems Salter’s ‘on Genetic Interests’ will soon be available again - I know someone else was asking about it here last week.

http://tinyurl.com/q5kvb

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:37 | #

Forgive me, I don’t understand Daedalus’ comment of Aug. 3, 11:06 PM.  Could he re-state it, perhaps shorter and simpler?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:39 | #

“I will attempt to take your advice, and that of Fred Scrooby”  (—On Holliday)

Thank you.

Posted by Andy on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:22 | #

a) do not see white decline as a problem, or actually welcome it (assuming of course they even know the problem exists - a even more fundamental question)

  This problem is due in large part to the fact that most whites don’t understand (refuse to understand?) that race matters. If you buy into the idea that race isn’t real, then shifting demographics are less of a concern. Many whites seem relatively unaware of the fact that mixed-race societies are trouble, and that if enough blacks or hispanics come to populate their community or country, the type of society in which they desire to live will become an impossibility. 

There is also the racism factor. The average white is loathe to be thought of as a racist, both for reasons of pride and for more practical reasons.

Following from this, I believe that Legitimating Racism is the fundamental building block upon which any progress in securing a viable white future must rest. The public discourse on race needs to be won by the good guys. That race is a valid scientific concept with considerable predictive power needs to be generally accepted, both by the public at large and by the mainstream media. Ideally, after this, it would come to be accepted that what is now derided as “racism” is actually a very natural and healthy attitude. 

  Perhaps I am extrapolating too much from my own experience, as this was the case with me. Once I became a race-realist, I naturally gravitated towards the white nationalist position. I believe that until the public becomes more fully aware of the importance of race, any white nationalist movement will necessarily be marginalized.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:16 | #

This problem is due in large part to the fact that most whites don’t understand (refuse to understand?) that race matters.

Or possibly not hardwired to understand, or more accurately, disproportionately likely to favour individualism.

Which leaves the unaswered question of Darwin;

As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him.

The simplest reasoning because it enhances reproductive fitness one presumes. However, thereafter, at least for me, it gets tricky.

This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.

It implies more than that which GW asserted, outgroup sympathy, for Darwin, trumps self-preservation. It implies that out group sympathy enhances reproductive fitness. Not necessarily in the way of miscegenation, but in the sense of civilizing the savages, carrying the the struggle between our higher and lower moral impulses, to the uninformed, in the hope that a more civilized virtue will prevail.

Possibly GW will provide an answer with the third part of the trilogy.

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:11 | #

“good place to start would be to realize that “Whites” don’t think of themselves as “Whites,” but as “Americans” instead.”

This “citizenist” thought is why whites are being outcompeted by other groups

“For centuries, “whiteness” was a marker of the American ethnos, along with other traits like a commitment to liberal political principles”

Sounds like constitutional patriotism to me.  Is a Negro committed to “liberal political principles” an American, but a white, not?

“not an ethnicity in its own right.”

The problem to be overcome, in a nutshell?

“White Nationalism makes no sense. “Whites” are not and never have been a people in North America.”

Yet, “whites” have distinguished themselves from other groups on the basis of race since the beginning of the founding of the country.  I also find it hard to believe that it are only WNs who find more affinity with a European tourist, student, or immigrant than with a Negro or Chinamen who are “citizens”, and may believe in “liberal political principles.”

“IMO this is a confused legacy of postwar multiculturalism; a muddled attempt to imitate the black nationalist movement of the late 1960s/early 1970s.”

No, it is a recognition of the worldwide affinity, based on race and culture, of whites and the recognition that the problems are worldwide, even though of course, each country may need to solve things in their own way.  Stoddard was talking about white “comity” in the 1920s…

“White Nationalists, like the black nationalists that inspired them, turned their backs on their own national identity and have marginalized themselves in the process.”

There needs to be a balance between racial and ‘national’ nationalism.  The problem is that people can Taylor (or Duke, who does this now) can “wrap themselves in the flag” all they want, but as soon as they talk about race, or white interests, the hammer falls.  Any any “Americanism” that doesn’t support white interests is nothing more than constitutional patriotism/citizenism.

“Conservatives, of course, have eagerly inherited the mantle of American nationalism for themselves, which they construe in purely civic terms”

Like “liberal political values?”

“If racial nationalism is ever to succeed in the United States, WN’s must first overcome their own alienation from society and recapture their own national identity.”

Fair enough.

“Fortunately, Jared Taylor seems to understand this.”

Yes, but Taylor is a WN, and construes identity in racial terms, which is the whole point of the question.

“The same cannot be said of the more fringe types.”

Who are?

The problem here is that we all have ideas, theories. 

Someone needs to accumulate actual data.  One needs to hear what white people have to say for themselves, not what we think they may say.

Even, as important, although we need to work within the confines of reality, pragmatism is useful only insofar as it helps to achieve goals, not as a goal in and of itself.

If white Americans have been deluded, their delusions should not be reinforced - and as the nation falls apart, it can be easier to shatter these delusions.

Although Taylor is still a marginalized figure in America, there is a reason more and more people listen to him today than, say, 10 or 15 years ago.

The response to him in Texas - at the end of his debate, fairly positive - would have not occurred 10-15 years ago.

The problem is though, if we wait for events alone to wake up whites, it’ll be too late.

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:42 | #

A “racist” far-right of course existed in America before the 60s; however, if one wishes to identify a “turning point” with respect to WN attitudes at that time, one can look beyond mere copying of black nationalism.

Before the 60s, whites were demographically, socially, and politically (with the caveat of growing Jewish power) dominant in America (and Europe).  Then, it was quite easy to equate Americanism and whiteness.  And, the ethnic situation in America was quite stable in the period 1924-1965.  After 1965 however, the demographic shift accelerated, and the civil rights era, the counter-culture, the emergence of a viable American hard left (which later took over the right as “neoconservatism), and similar trends began to disassociate whiteness and America in many minds.  While WWII may have been the final nail in the coffin of white dominance, the coffin was lowered into the ground in the late 60s.  White America thought it could emerge zombie-like under the great White Hope Ronnie Raygun, who proved worse than useless with respect to race, and he was followed by the likes of the Bush family, Dole, Kemp, and McCain.  Raygun was probably the last disillusionment for the proto-WNs.  And the underlying ideological WN threads (chronicled in Coogan’s book “Dreamer of the Day”), which preceded the 60s, began to emerge.  Perhaps Rockwell was aping (pun not intended?) the black nationalists, but he was hardly a serious figure, with 20-20 hindsight.  To many, we are in the post-America era, with the racial conservatives missing the chance to lead a healthier white America around more “American principles” in the 60s and early 70s, when that may have actually had a chance of accomplishing something.

It may be of use to use flag-waving as the sugar to make the bitter medicine of racialism more palatable to the average white American moron.  If Taylor wishes to use that strategy, all well and good, but it is clear, he makes race paramount.  Americanism has been redefined by the left as multiculturalism, by the center as constitutional patriotism, and by the non-WN right as “citizenism” – all of which feed into whites’ pathology of aracial thought. 

My suggestion is to move away from theorizing, which can go on forever without utility, and attempt to gather data so as to make an empirical determination as to why whites eschew WN (of even the Taylorite variety).  Once we know – really know – we’d be on firmer ground as to what to do.

In the meantime, we should, as the Marxists preach, do everything to “heighten the contradictions”, of which the present multicultural regime has many, as well as, as I’ve preached before, promote balkanization.  Citizenism actually does the opposite, it is a “quick fix” to stabilize the regime and plaster over white interests and the differences in the passive majority/focused minority dynamic.  Citizenism is designed to reverse balkanization, the very opposite of what is needed.  If “Americanism” is only some sort of thin veneer over a racial core of thought (a la Taylor), fine – Taylor obviously heightens the contradictions and promotes balkanization, he’s a polarizing figure.  If however, “Americanism” ends up – even if that’s not the intent – in promoting whites’ addiction to aracial thought and identity, that’s not good.

Whites are addicted to, and mesmerized by, the idea of being “conservative” and “American” in a non-racial way.  In the short-term, such an approach will win more of their attention – like “citizenism” – but in the long-term it will do more harm than good.  Reinforcing bad behavior to achieve short-term gain is not what I have in mind.  Note that I am not advocating hardcore neo-nutzism, etc.  Starting with a Taylorian (and not a Sailerian) approach, while, at the same time, nudging things from AR to TOQ, that can be useful.  But we do really need the empirical data on white attitudes.  Contra Sailer, I do not believe that will turn out to be some sort of irreversible trend in western thought toward aracialism, but rather a combination of stupidity, addiction to the easy way out, exploited lower ethnocentrism, selfishness, herd-like conformity, media propaganda, laziness, and fear of “social pricing” – a series of problems that can be tackled in turn once we understand what they are and how important they are for the white mentality (or what passes for it).

Posted by Matra on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:46 | #

Citizenism actually does the opposite, it is a “quick fix” to stabilize the regime and plaster over white interests and the differences in the passive majority/focused minority dynamic.  Citizenism is designed to reverse balkanization

I suspect a kind of Citizenism will have to be tried and only when it fails will the white masses move to the next stage advocated by most here.

Posted by On Holliday on Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:20 | #

“I suspect a kind of Citizenism will have to be tried and only when it fails will the white masses move to the next stage advocated by most here.”

I for one will not advocate, or promote, such a strategy.  Even if it succeeds, we lose.  If it fails, we lose time.

If others believe in it so much (e.g., Sailer), let them promote it.

Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:28 | #

This “citizenist” thought is why whites are being outcompeted by other groups

If you are referring here to civic nationalism, then I agree entirely. It was the inability of Americans to reconcile their racial nationalism with their commitment to civic nationalism that torpedoed the latter during the Second World War. Many scholars of race relations in the U.S. have written about the subject. You seem to have missed the point I was making. White Nationalists assert that “Whites” are a people and should secede from the United States to form their own country. OTOH, from the seventeenth century right until the mid-twentieth century, “whiteness” was a defining aspect of being an “American,” not an ethnicity in its own right.

Sounds like constitutional patriotism to me.  Is a Negro committed to “liberal political principles” an American, but a white, not?

Originally, the American national identity encompassed both civic and racial nationalism. Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, Wilson and so forth were all racialists, but they were also devoted to civic principles which they considered equally important. During the 1950s and 1960s, this national identify bifurcated, and white racialism was expunged from the American national identity. The White Nationalists who followed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement modeled themselves on the black nationalist movement of the late 1960’s/early 1970s and have sought the creation of a white ethnostate in North American ever since.

The problem to be overcome, in a nutshell?

That amounts to literally creating a people that have never existed before from scratch. It makes much more sense to recapture “American” and define “American” in racial terms.

Yet, “whites” have distinguished themselves from other groups on the basis of race since the beginning of the founding of the country.

This is true. You’re missing the point though. “Whiteness” was an essential aspect of being an “American.” In order to be considered a true American, you had to be white, at least until the aftermath of the Second World War. “Americans” were the people. “Whites” were not. “White” was a characteristic of being an American.

I also find it hard to believe that it are only WNs who find more affinity with a European tourist, student, or immigrant than with a Negro or Chinamen who are “citizens”, and may believe in “liberal political principles.”

European nationalists will quickly point out to you that they don’t think of themselves as “Whites,” but rather as “Germans” and “Irish” and so on. The stress upon “whiteness” has never been an important aspect of their identities, at least outside the UK. “Whiteness” took on salience in the colonies in which European settlers were thrown into competition with nonwhites. For example, there is a parallel tradition of racial nationalism in Australia, and another in South Africa.

No, it is a recognition of the worldwide affinity, based on race and culture, of whites and the recognition that the problems are worldwide, even though of course, each country may need to solve things in their own way.

Yes. The black nationalists of the sixties made similar arguments.

Stoddard was talking about white “comity” in the 1920s…

The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was the culmination of decades of work by the Immigration Restriction League to shutdown immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Madison Grant was the president of the IRL. Are you familar with his writings about Alpines and Mediterraneans?

There needs to be a balance between racial and ‘national’ nationalism.  The problem is that people can Taylor (or Duke, who does this now) can “wrap themselves in the flag” all they want, but as soon as they talk about race, or white interests, the hammer falls.  Any any “Americanism” that doesn’t support white interests is nothing more than constitutional patriotism/citizenism.

I’m strongly of the view that racial nationalism needs to reassume its former role as a subset of American nationalism. The goal should be to make “White” and “American” synonymous, as was case for centuries in the United States. If you are wondering, I also reject civic nationalism for obvious reasons.

Like “liberal political values?”

In their view, being an “American” amounts to nothing but possessing citizenship and accepting liberal political principles. Unfortunately, “American” has indeed become associated with this sort of mentality, and we need to take it back.

Yes, but Taylor is a WN, and construes identity in racial terms, which is the whole point of the question.

Taylor has wisely chosen to rehabilitate the American racialist tradition. It’s no mistake that he publishes “American Renaissance” instead of, say, “White Renaissance.”

Who are?

I had Alex Linder in mind.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:38 | #

Darwin further states:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originallyacquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, ,even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

It is an interesting notion that continues to pop up in addressing ethno-centrism. For instance, Prof. Frank Ellis suggested that he would support repatriation if it was “humane”.

On another thread the suggestion of stopping immigration and repatriating Muslims received this response:

“DJ is that really true about the Germans paying the Turks to go home???

Now that isn’t a bad idea really…though it is costly…it is well worth it and humane…”

Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:43 | #

OH,

I suspect you might find this text useful, Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Intepretations. I own a personal copy. Anything in particular I should look up?

Posted by Daedalus on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:44 | #

There is little doubt that it was the Second World War, above all else, that broke the back of racialism in North America and Europe. The Nazis incited the bloodiest war in the history of the world and justified it on the basis of their own racial superiority. In the aftermath of the war, ideas that had become associated with the Third Reich: eugenics, racialism, anti-semitism, radical nationalism all fell into disrepute. The war against Nazi Germany mutated into a war against racism generally. In 1945, for the first time in American history, polls showed the majority of white Americans willing to give lip service to racial equality. The war transformed American racial attitudes, at least in certain sections of the union. The GOP ran on a civil rights platform in 1940 and 1944 against FDR. The Democrats formally committed themselves to civil rights at their national convention in 1948, splitting the Democratic Party in the process. The federal government committed itself to civil rights reform from the Truman adminstration on. In the aftermath of the Second World War, it was possible to attack and discredit racialists as Nazis, something that had not been the case before the war.

It’s a bit more complex on closer inspection. The different regions of America have such strikingly different histories with respect to race that they should be treated as seperate countries. For example, almost all of the New England states had anti-miscegenation laws at one time or another (Vermont aside), but had repudiated them in the course of the nineteenth century (Massachusetts in 1843, Maine in 1883). The same can be said of the Midwest with the exception of Indiana. At the same time, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Midwest and New England moved to outlaw racial segregation in public accomodations, housing, education and other areas. The North had moved into the “racial egalitarian” era long before the rest of the country.

The South began to construct its Jim Crow regime even before the end of Reconstruction in 1877. Eventually, every Southern state and most of the border states passed tough restrictionist legislation, hundreds of laws mandating racial segregation in almost every area: streetcars, railroads, health care, voting rights, education, public accomodations. The challenge to white supremacy in the South by the federal government in the aftermath of the Second World War reinvigorated Southern racialism. Southerners were outraged by court ordered desegregation and responded with the “massive resistance” movement of the 1950s and 1960s (nothing of the sort, interestingly enough, occurred in Europe or the American North). Eisenhower and Kennedy had to use federalized troops on at least three occasions—Arkansas in 1957, Mississippi in 1962, and Alabama in 1963 to impose integration on the South. In the end, the South never consented to integration, but was simply crushed by the power of the federal government. The Freedom Riders were mobbed in Mississippi and Alabama. Segregation was overturned in Brown in 1954, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ordered integration of public facilitites, and all of the miscegenation laws of the region were struck down in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

The West was much like the South until the Second World War. The region had a Jim Crow regime of its own for the most part (inspired by the Yellow Peril of Chinese and Japanese immigration, as well as Mexican immigration in the Southwest), with the exceptions of Washington and New Mexico, although it was always less harsh than its counterpart in the South. The critical difference is that the Western states voluntarily dismantled Jim Crow in the aftermath of the WW2. The miscegenation laws disappeared in the postwar period: California and Oregon in 1948, Montana in 1953, North Dakota and Utah in 1955, South Dakota and Colorado in 1957, Idaho and Nevada in 1959, Arizona in 1962.

I suppose you can say there was a “far right” in the United States prior to the ‘60s: the Silver Shirts, Father Coughlin, the German-American Bund, and so on. These marginal groups were in no way representative of contemporary mainstream American racialism. The vast majority of American racialists were white supremacists or segregationists who fought to maintain Jim Crow right up until Birmingham and Selma. They would later support George Wallace in his presidential campaigns. I don’t recall them ever describing themselves as White Nationalists.

George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party came onto the scene in the disarray of the post-Civil Rights Era. Rockwell never made much of an impact in American politics, but the racialist right in the U.S. was never the same afterwards. It is here that Rockwell left his greatest legacy. First, Rockwell inspired generation upon generation of Third Reich and costume fetishists, a problem that has continued right down to the present day. Second, Rockwell adapted much of the lingo of the black nationalists. The slogan “white power” is a good example. Third, it was Rockwell who married racialism to the JQ for the first time in American history. The segregationists/white supremacists had ignored the JQ for the most part during the Civil Rights Movement. Fourth, Rockwell’s group spawned the next generation of leaders who were active in the 1970s: men like William Pierce, Harold Covington, Cliff Herrington, and Matt Koehl.

The pedigree of “White Nationalism” doesn’t go much further back the late 1980s/early 1990s and seems to have evolved out of marginal National Socialist groups searching for a new identity. The white supremacists of Jim Crow America were not “White Nationalists.” They clearly thought of themselves as “Americans” and identified whiteness with Americanism. They had no inhibition about excluding and marginalized blacks and/or using the power of the state to maintain their political dominance. Furthermore, they were not particularly anti-semitic, nor were they interested in seceding from the United States to create an ethnostate for “Whites.”

In many ways, “White Nationalism” is thoroughly infected by multiculturalist memes that would have been incomprehensible to previous generations of American racialists. The willingness to surrender large swaths of America to nonwhites out of “fairness” is one example. Another would be the rootless mix-and-matchers who dress up like Stormtroopers. Another still would be the anational, identity politics of White Nationalists, which is merely an extension of the black, Hispanic, and Jewish ethnic/racial activism.

Jared Taylor and American Renaissance is the single exception of which I am aware, and perhaps David Duke to a lesser extent.

Posted by On Holliday on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 10:39 | #

We can debate the history of American racialism; what seems clear to me is that it *failed.*  It may be true that current WN may have been “incomprehensible” to Jim Crow racialists, but it is equally incomprehensible to WNs how these Jim Crow racialists let a group consisting of 3% of the population, in conjunction with white gentile globalist elites, essentially sieze the reigns of power from them and turn the USA into Amexico.

But then, as you say, the Jim Crowers did not make a big deal out of the JQ - which was a strength? 

Why exactly we should return to a failed policy, I’m not quite sure. Please note that I *am* a strong supporter of Taylor, and prefer his approach to that of Linder.  But to say that Taylor is an Americanist because of the title of his journal seems to ignore that a substantial proportion of the articles in AR (both in print and the news items on his site) deal with Europe and the worldwide racial problem.  By no means does Taylor restrict his interests to America.

It is true that German or Irish nationalists put nation first, as should those in America.  The point though is not to end the analysis there.  Taylor does not, and certainly not Duke, who recently attended a conference in Russia concerning the white world, attended by representatives of a large number of European nations.  Nation and Race can be complementary.  No one should argue that one trumps the other.

A further point is distinguishing leaders (here I talk about people of the stature of Taylor, not nazi wanna-bes) from the masses.  If you want to feed the masses the delusion of some sort of white Americanism - which, IMO, lost all credibiity after Raygun - fine.  Obviously, the masses believe anything.

Leaders, however, as well as the more informed among us, which one would hope this blog is, should understand that it is a racial problem, and that our broader EGI does not stop at the boundaries of one nation.

And, since the masses can “believe anything”, perhaps with the proper spoon-feeding, they can learn some truths as well, if they have the intelligence for it (questionable).

WN should not be dismissed simply because of people like Rockwell, nor because it seems inconsistent with a past that is dead.  That may be itself a difference of opinion. 

I see it better to attempt to hatch the egg rather than try to bring the dead rooster back to life.

But, hey, to each his own.

Posted by On Holliday on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:02 | #

WNs who support ethnostates do not do so out of some multiculturalist desire to be “fair” to non-whites!

They do not wish to live in a polity that is, or will soon be, 2/5 of African, Asian, Latin American, etc. descent and do not believe such a situation is evolutionarily stable (even with no further immigration, the demographics are shifting), or desirable.

If WNs reject living in a multiracial state in a condition of “equality” with non-whites, what are the alternatives?  To attempt to re-establish a “Jim Crow, non-whites are segregated second-class citizens” state which, while it may have worked with a 10% non-white, politically passive, population, would seem *now* to require a permanent police state to maintain such an apartheid system, with liberal whites and non-whites clamoring for “equality?”

WNs instead look toward repatriation or ethnostates.  The former is, of course, optimal (assuming the white liberals can be exiled as well), but the cost in blood lead some to accept the idea of trading land for blood.

Non-whites would be expected to not like that option either, but since there are elements in the Black/Hispanic populations already considering this, and since this would be, presumably, more palatable than repatriation, and since this would allow the possibility of a “diversity state” in which to dump white liberals, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea, compared to the alternatives.

Whether or not all here agree is one thing, but there is no “fairness” element involved- the question is, what is the *long-term* best option for America’s white population.

With respect to pragmatism, yes, doing nothing may be more “pragmatic” and maybe the idea of a “conservative white dominant multiracial state” may seem more “pragmatic”, but if the long-term prospects are poor, sp what?

And one can wonder whether forcing 2/5 of the population to a pre-1960s political situation is actually more “pragmatic” and “realistic” than pursuing ethnostates, an idea that may be forced upon us by Mexican revanchism.

That we are in this situation is not the fault of WNs, it was the “white American” regime of the past that snapped under the Jewish/colored pressure in the 1960s and abdicated first their political, and then their demographic, dominance.

Posted by Billy Joe on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:59 | #

With reference to the comments by Daedalus just above, I have one remark and one question.

(1) His statement, “In many ways, ‘White Nationalism’ is thoroughly infected by multiculturalist memes that would have been incomprehensible to previous generations of American racialists,” is particularly striking because of his reference to infection by “multiculturalist memes.”

(The meaning of “White Nationalism” is still being unpacked so I don’t know what it means, but I do know what infection by multiculturalist memes means.)

However, multiculturalist memes rule the education, media, entertainment, and social institutions that have power today, and quarrels with those memes are shut out of public disputations.

It’s kind of like, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” In fact, every argument or defense to be offered in the court of public opinion in behalf of majority rights can be phrased in multicultural memes. It’s not a bad thing to use today’s vocabulary to defend majority rights. It’s sometimes tricky, but it’s always possible. We have some experience…remember that the world itself is multicultural. We have the tools to handle that, don’t we?

Remember the Christian missionaries? The first thing they did when they went to a foreign land was to build a church, give food and clothes away, and write a dictionary with an entirely new alphabet if necessary.

That might be a good model. We’re lost in a strange land so we need to write our own dictionary with a new alphabet. There are dangers in the process, but it’s worth the chance we can break out of the prison in which we find outselves.

I hope I haven’t mangled or misunderstood Daedalus too much by these comments.

(2) My question has to do with this sentence by Daedalus:

“The Nazis incited the bloodiest war in the history of the world and justified it on the basis of their own racial superiority.”

I have heard that the Nazis were imbued with racial superiority for many years, but I have never seen any supporting evidence. It’s always been pretty clear to me that they would be considered Germanic focused (perhaps a kind of ethnicity superiority), but I have never read anything that identified them as race focused, unless you are using the old meaning of race where we had the Irish race, the English race, the French race, and so on.

History has taught me that they viewed the majority of Caucasians as unworthy, less than, and underfoot.

What statements or arguments do you rely on to claim that the Nazis were “racial” supremacists, at least in today’s meaning of the word “race”, instead of, say, ethnicity supremacists?

Thanks a lot.