Advice for the Would-be Vocal White Nationalist
July 31, 2002
For many white people, one of the difficulties in espousing any brand of white nationalism is the realization that there will inevitably be unpleasant confrontations with hostile whites, and of course with non-whites and Jews.
Indeed, I believe that the specter of such confrontations is what keep many whites silent who would otherwise speak out on behalf of white nationalism.
The purpose of this short essay is to offer advice and tips to would-be vocal white nationalists, so that they might find speaking their minds a much easier and less daunting task.
It's much easier to talk positively about white nationalism when confronted by only a mirror, your loved ones, close friends, or ideological comrades. The trick, however, is to be able to voice one's innermost thoughts in any forum. Further, if a white nationalist befriends (or interacts in some context, e.g. employment, sports, etc.) a person who is non-white, and of course in every day life that does happen, how then might the white nationalist defend his position to the non-white. After all, one of the implicit strategies of the multiculturalists and diversitymongers is to so integrate society that such discussions become so uncomfortable and anguishing that no white will want to even attempt to defend white nationalism.
It is of course possible to take the "in your face" approach to such interactions. At this point in the historical dynamic, however, the reality is that most white people simply will not adopt such an approach, opting for silence and high blood pressure as their coping mechanism.
I suggest that it is possible for any person of European descent to defend the ideology of white nationalism, to verbalize his or her innermost thoughts, in most if not all circumstances. The whole endeavor, in a sense, boils down to context, style and delivery.
If more and more white people begin acquiring the confidence that they can look anyone (or at least most people -- we'll leave the JDL and New Black Panthers out of this for now) in the eyes and espouse white nationalism, then our cause will be greatly advanced.
So how is this to be accomplished?
Let's start by simply taking a few examples of ongoing controversies and studying how a would-be white nationalist can speak out confidently and sincerely.
1. The Holocaust.
Let's face it, this is a humdinger for most whites. The holocaust has been converted into a quasi-religion, and in typical fashion Jews have appointed themselves the experts in the field. Most whites do not have the time or inclination to wade through this minefield so they simply remain silent. To effectively rebut the Jewish position on this issue would require an advanced degree and extensive study, and even then many Jews are ready with non sequiturs, half-truths or outright lies, smears, and all manners of intimidation (e.g., financial, judicial, etc.). And when I say "to effectively rebut the Jewish position," I mean, to sway the opinion of the lemmings. So when a Jewish (or non-Jewish) person uses the holocaust as a weapon and/or a shield, how should a white nationalist respond?
I suggest that the white nationalist not attempt to take on the Jewish position in its element, i.e., pendantic agonizing over historical and scientific/technical details - a battle most whites will surely lose. Instead, I suggest this response:
"I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT LET US ASSUME THAT THERE IS A DEGREE OF TRUTH TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IN THAT EVENT, STILL I SAY TO YOU: IT IS HIGH TIME THAT YOU STOP GUILT-TRIPPING THE WORLD AND LET THE PEOPLES OF THIS EARTH GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF LIVING."
And if the Jewish (or non-Jewish) person responds by saying something like: "But we must never forget!"
Then the white nationalist ought to reply:
"WHY THEN HAVE WE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE 20 MILLION WHITE EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS MURDERED BY MARXISTS/JEWS, OR THE MILLIONS OF GERMANS MURDERED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL OF THE THIRD REICH? AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER EXAMPLES OF MASS MURDER THROUGHOUT HISTORY. DIDN'T THESE PEOPLE HAVE SOULS? WEREN'T THEY JUST AS HUMAN AND WEREN'T THEIR MURDERS JUST AS TRAGIC?"
Surely the person will respond, but now the white nationalist has seized the moral high ground, and wherever the debate goes from here, the white nationalist has at least held his own and shown others that they can effectively negate the opponent's campaign of guilt and intimidation.
A further point the white nationalist might make is this:
"IT IS NOW THE YEAR 2002. IT IS NOW MY PEOPLE, THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES OF THE WORLD, WHO ARE DYING OFF, IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES ADVOCATED BY MANY JEWISH PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. YET YOU DO NOT CONDEMN THIS, BUT RATHER REMAIN SILENT AND WORSE YET YOUR POLICIES ACT TO HASTEN MY PEOPLE'S DEMISE."
Another troubling topic for white nationalists is the mere suggestion that people of European descent have a distinct existence and have a legitimate interest in preserving themselves.
Usually, at the first mention of white rights and/or survival, even when adressing a friend, one popular response will be something like this: there is no such thing as distinct races, but rather there is only the human race. So how can you talk about the survival of something that does not exist? To this the white nationalist might respond:
"PERHAPS YOU MIGHT LIKE TO TRY TO SELL THE IDEA THAT RACE DOES NOT EXIST TO THE PEOPLE OVER AT LA RAZA, OR THE CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS, OR PERHAPS YOU MIGHT LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES REGARDING THE PALESTINIANS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT'S POLICIES TOWARD NON-JEWS IN GENERAL.
"IF RACE DOES NOT EXIST THEN ON WHAT BASIS ARE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PERKS AND PRIVILEGES DOLED OUT ON? IF RACE DOES NOT EXIST AND IF WE ARE ALL THE SAME, DIVERSITY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY IRRATIONAL POLICY, BECAUSE THERE IS NO "DIVERSITY" TO BEGIN WITH. EITHER THERE ARE SUBSETS OF HUMANITY WHICH DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER OR THERE ARE NOT - YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO BE FUNGIBLE, YET SIMULTANEOUSLY AND AUTOMATICALLY PEOPLE NOT OF EUROPEAN DESCENT CARRY WITH THEM A DIFFERENT CULTURE WITH WHICH THEY "ENRICH" OUR LIVES UPON ARRIVING IN THE HOMELANDS OF EUROPEAN PEOPLES? IF WE ASSUME THAT IMMIGRANTS NOT INDIGENOUS TO EUROPE POSSESS A DIFFERENT CULTURE SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OF EUROPEAN DESCENT, THAT REQUIRES THAT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURE-IMPOSED DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT AND THOSE NOT OF EUROPEAN DESCENT, I.E., THEY CARRY THEIR CULTURE WITH THEM AS BIOLOGICAL BAGGAGE: THERE IS NO OTHER LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT ONE CAN DRAW. AND WHAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURE-IMPOSED DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT AND THOSE NOT OF EUROPEAN DESCENT IF IT ISN'T RACE? LABEL THAT DIFFERENCE WHAT YOU WILL, BUT BEAR IN MIND WHAT SHAKESPEARE SAID ABOUT ROSES.
If the person to whom the white nationalist is speaking is truly a friend or at least someone whose feelings the white nationalist should care about, then that person will not become hostile or disassociate him or herself from the white nationalist simply because the white nationalist advocates the survival of his or her people.
At this time I cannot address the entire gamut of responses that a white nationalist can use to counter an opponent on all conceivable issues, but hopefully I provided valuable ammunition to counter two of the most potent objections the enemies of our people have in their arsenal. Besides, it's getting late and I'm getting tired. At any rate, just remember:
THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT OPPOSITION TO WHITE NATIONALISM!
So fight the good fight, and be of good cheer!