Posted on August 25th 2011
On White Nationalism
By Alex Linder
"It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty."
Our cause isn't truly a political position but a species-representation - we are a biological party, not a political party. White society by default, on a far deeper level than mere petty politics, is what white nationalism represents. It's not a religious thing either, because whites were white before they were ever christians, and they'll continue to be white longer after that happy day when the sick cult passes out of existence. In the sense that matters, we can't NOT represent our race. So we hardly need to appeal to people because we are identical with the people and their true interests. We aren't representing or appealing, we are the thing itself - the thing itself defending itself, in the biosphere, of which the formal legal electoral system is but a subcircle. If you need evidence that whites are already with us Whites, it's that on the deep life decisions, who to marry, where to live, whites choose white the vast majority of the time. Their race does matter to them, no matter how they compress the air coming out of their throats. We don't need to appeal to anybody, we not only represent them already, we are them and cannot not be them. We're just open about it. THAT is the only real difference between us and the vast majority of fellow whites: we are open about it. But, back on the petty party political level, what Haller doesn't get is that the type of 'appeal' conservatives like him never even think to question as necessary is not where it's at at all. The reason people don't join their formal political behavior with their informal unspoken feelings and behavior is fear. The jews have divorced our external from our internal by means of fear. It is fear, above all else, that we must overcome, in ourselves and in our people, if we are to regain sovereignty.
Only bravery gets out fear. We don't need to appeal to people, Leon. We need to LEAD them. Lead them means not making arguments that people already believe in but, at this point, not showing fear, and striking back at the enemy, verbally and, if we have the guts, like Breivik did, physically. Haller, what you conservatives don't understand is what I wrote above. If we're just another set of whores and panderers, we haven't a hope. The System can always offer more carrots and sticks. We have to be about what our people need. We must attract them with our strength, not our wimpy sales pitch. What have we to offer in the brummagem democratic way? Not a fucking thing. I mean, of course we do, but that aint the fucking point. You're cheapening and superficializing our cause by acting like we're just another variation of Republicans or Democrats. "Vote for me and I'll steal you 5% more from Pete than Bill will." Hunh-uh. We're the whole thing. Not a party position or platform. People will only join us when they see 1) we are not afraid (like the cowardly conservatives and Republicans) and that 2) we strike real blows against the enemy, which indicates we have a chance to actually win. Not just lose, get beat up, and go ever backward. How do we demonstrate the strength that eventually our coracials will accept as leadership? It starts verbally by using slurs. This is where you and MacDonald and Parrott and Yggdrasil and the rest are 100% wrong. Slurs show we will not be intimidated by System verbal taboos. Which is the prerequisite for showing that, in time, we will get to where we can ignore their other rules for whitemice as well. Truly, the continental verbal-political-strategic divide is the use of the term nigger. If you won't use it under your real name, you are not involved in serious politics. You are merely a conservative. Either use 'nigger' or be a niggler, to make a phrase of it.
We gotta be gross large powerful and scary as all fuck, Haller, like a great white shark maw coming up out of the water at the slick black jewmud-seal. Not bending backward appealing to dicks in Dockers.
A man is both a man, an individual, and a member of a larger group, perhaps a number of them. What the jews have done is see to it that the white man has no loyalty to either, so far as jews can enforce it. They have done all they could to reduce his power over his own family, and his ability to define his community. All that's left to him is promiscuous sex, sports fanage, and voting for one of the two wings of the governing party. If he's bothered by this, he can sit in a jail cell, or attend a church whose priestophile agrees with the government on the essentials - it's sort of a third political party to the Republicans and Democrats, catering to spiritual needs.
This isn't good enough. Our cause must be not abstractions and universals like the traditional christ cultist and neo-christians known as secular humanists favor, but a world and nation in which the white man can be and live as a man, individually, and a White, socially. So both his individual and his communal beings are satisfied. Then his material and spiritual needs are met in a way that fits and satisfies his nature.
What needs to be done to make our cause more attractive to our people is to stimulate their imagination in relation to race. Satisfy their spiritual needs by showing them their place in the race called Qwest. The thrilling, ongoing adventure story of the development of our race, involving chance, heroism, luck, and all the rest is more thrilling than the lugubrious lies around the semitic science-fiction character jesus. A White focus on strength, I believe will spiritually defeat christ-insanity - THIS is the main takeaway of the NS experience. Nearly all the top NS were ex-Catholics. That shows you that they knew in their bones and brains and found through experience that Catholicism does not have what it takes, and is not enough - not enough to protect, create or even imagine a society worth living in. They eclipsed it. The NS eclipsed Catholic society - and the priests know it. The E. Michael Joneses know it. That is why they fear it, and that is why they lie about it. For example, EMJ repeating lies out of the Pink Swastika he had to know were false. A serious man like Jones wouldn't do that except for a very deep reason. Jones breaks his own commandment when it comes to the NS. Out of fear. He knows NS has something better than his church has. He also knows that if Whites get back in control of society as briefly happened in '30s Germany, his church will fade like the dodo.
You know what's the most unChristian creature on god's green earth?
A white baby.
A masculine society focused on strength, justice and independence will make the church, with its focus on love, mercy, and weakness, considerably less attractive, especially as people observe its undeniable well-orderedness.
What is needed, so far as WN put forward a positive vision, rather than a critique of AmeriKwa, a ZOG production, is, in my opinion, is to stress that our solution is the only one in which you have the independence that befits a white MAN, and you can exercise your whitemaniacal creativity and intelligence in the WHITE context most suited to its flourishing. Imagine a country in which you could be both WHITE and a MAN. Under ZOG, you can be neither WHITE nor a MAN. Under NS you can be WHITE but not a man. Under libertarianism you can be a MAN but not WHITE. I want to be both WHITE and a MAN, and I think about half of WN feel the same way I do; the rest are either outright NS or social-democrats (European type) or welfare-statists (American type). Men can agree that we need all-White nations without agreeing on the scope and role of the government within that all-White nation. This is fairly obvious, that there's no agreement on the deeper how-we-live-together stuff, that there's a basic split, but it gets confused because so many WN come from conservatism and essentially just add race to their politics. Leading outsiders and insiders alike to think that WN is just another petty party political option on the democratic-electoral menu rather than a fundamentally different and all-orienting worldview. Which is why I've insisted against all others, basically, that our practical political goal in this period ought to be attacking conservatives and replacing them in the eyes of the people rather than mixing with them and trying to influence them as MacDonald and James Edwards do. My view is that altho KM and Edwards call themselves (as far as I know) White Nationalists, or at least don't mind being called that, they are better viewed as implicit conservatives (IC). Because functionally that's just what they are - conservatives. Their mindset is defending/appealing, not attacking and attracting. While many of the ICs' positions overlap with WN/NS, the mindset is completely different. I see them as simply repeating failure patterns of the past without ever putting any conscious thought to why the Lindbergh on their party actually failed.
Back to my own view, WhiteMania, WhiteManistand, whatever you want to call it... In the setup I describe, no one is free to question or undermine the racial basis of the state - if they don't agree to it, they leave. If they feel they can only be men by living amud third worlders, they have either fought to prevent the birth of our new state, been killed, or fled abroad. If any of these are left after Whites take power, they will be dealt with in one way or another, but in no way will anyone ideologically opposed to the racial basis of the new states be allowed to remain within it. Race is NOT a matter that can be compromised, but it IS a matter worth killing over. The same goes for Catholics, or other goddists. If their religious weltanschauung demands race mixing, or race-neutralism at all levels, and they are actively going to teach and incite on that demand, then they too will be forced out of the new state. If they can live within the confines of the new founding on an explicit racial basis, then perhaps they can set up a neo-Maryland microstate for their type beneath the umbrella. But it must be absolutely clear that absolutely no political opposition to the basis of the new state will be tolerated. And if it is discovered, the leaders will be executed and the followers expelled or executed. Call it sicut catholicus non.
Beneath that federal level -- the collective racial defense umbrella -- white MEN may group themselves as they like, and build such subcommunities as they see fit. They could be welfare-statists, they could be libertarians. They could be 1001 other things I can't imagine. But they will be responsible for building their own intermediate institutions if they feel they need them. In this way their freedom, honor, need to assume responsibility and manliness are preserved. The central state provides the drainage - keeping anti-White shit on the other side of the borders and out of the streets. The dreams are the responsibility of the men themselves.
To me, what I describe is both possible and desirable. I fancy it is hard where needs hard, and loose where needs freedom. It takes into account both racial laws AND economic laws. For the great truth of our time, which has not yet been realized in minds and matter, is that the state is outmoded for nearly all, if not all, purposes. That means the state is the worst way of accomplishing almost any given task. I recommend WN take some time to educate themselves in the LIMITS of politics (read Burke, Kirk, and other classic conservative thinkers) and get up to speed on the latest triumphs made through private, voluntary arrangements (read lewrockwell.com). And then you've got VNNF for tying it all together through the insights of the best racialists on the 'net. Or at least a few dozen good smart white men on the same page seeking the same basic thing.
One counter view to mine is that genuine National Socialism has all the answers any white men need (adapted to their particular nation and circumstances), and we should simply don the swastika with pride and make our way forward.
I don't agree with that view, which I take to be the view of NSM, but it is psychologically right and strong, whereas the whining, remonstrating, complaining approach of, for example, the A3P ICs is psychologically wrong and weak - mere conservatism with a racial veneer.
That sums up my position. I don't wear swastika because I'm not a National Socialist. If I were a NS, I would wear it. I'm not NS because I don't believe the government should be running White men like children. I don't believe White men need public schools, socialized health care, or anything but collective racial defense out of their central government.
[ The above is from a forum thread posting. ]