Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Acting White: The Building of a "White" Movement

This post is about angry, frustrated, scared white men conspiring to take back, or otherwise ‘save’, this country from its downward spiral. What this post is NOT about is a simple knee-jerk reaction to people too easily branded as racist, anti-Semitic, Europhiles. Specifically, the conversation upon which I peek is about whether this conspiracy, to take back, is advanced or encumbered by the anonymity of leading bloggers on the subject.

I will start by saying that Dennis Mangan, the subject blog-owner of Mangan’s Miscellany, is a friend of mine. We have met in person, comment on each other’s blogs, and exchange email on many topics. This is not to say I agree with all that he professes or him with me, we clearly do not. However, I respect and sometimes agree with him, and certainly agree with his right to say his thoughts aloud in his real name, without fear of retaliation, physical or professional. He says that he is not fully able to speak freely, and I agree with him.

I believe he is not free to speak because, with varying degree, none of us have this complete freedom. When someone says something others do not like, they attack on two fronts. You hope they attack just the words, but they often attack you personally as well, from calling you names to trying to get you fired from your job, or banished from your industry. Blacks are accustomed to this continuum of response from hostile whites, but whites, particularly males, are newer to the bite of losing a job or promotion when the words that flow from their mouths upsets sensitivities, whatever the race.

As for the content-driver of this white male conspiracy, 'diversity gone wild', I often see their point, while I certainly do not resemble it. Mono cultures benefit from simplicity. They marshal well, free of distractions of difference, like band members of the same age, same orientation, same hometown, same socio-econ background – the Beatles/Rolling Stones come to mind. Alternately, diverse cultures benefit from transference and broader starting approach/solution sets – Earth, Wind, & Fire, to continue the popular band analogy.

I'm not sure Dennis is better off anonymous or named, but I do not believe privacy/anonymity is so easily maintained, once determined people set about figuring out a person's identity. This is especially true when and if the rhetoric reaches such a pitch that authorities become concerned with public safety.

So what am I advocating? The challenge is to read broadly, not just stuff you like. Mangan’s blog site, discussions like 'Building a Movement', and the web in general, have the unfortunate character of capturing people who are simply looking for an excuse to selfishly venture beyond moral and legal boundaries, right next to others looking for righteous answers to difficult issues. The latter, as contributing dissidents, need to speak in a heard voice, while the former deserve a monitor for their treason-leaning mischief.

Lastly, I do not care if mutineers have difficulty holding onto their day jobs, but free speech needs to remain truly free for everyone, especially people with whom I disagree.

James C. Collier


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Louis said...

The white movement is already here. For years many of us have been underground;fear of losing your job, or going the way of Theo Van Gogh has kept it that way. However, times are changing and more and more of us are having an "awakening".

I have no qualms with any ethnic groups, nor do I care about the Jews. I'm part of the new white nationalist movement that seeks a place in this country for only whites. My concern is not the US, it's white people of all stripes.

You should be preparing your own people James Collier; this country isn't going to last forever. We are not your enemy though.

ding7777 said...

Perhaps the use of pseudonyms allows debates on the merits of an issue and NOT on the personality of the debater.

Consider that pseudonyms were routinely used during the debates over ratification of the United States Constitution.

Publius (pro Federalists Hamilton, Madison and Jay) vs Brutus (anti-Federalist Robert Yates.

Anonymous said...

Interesting subject matter here, but I shouldn't be surprised since the link to Mangan appeared a few days ago.

First off, it is not only white men that constitute the movement. There are many white women and even minorities who object to the insanity this country is descending into.

One reason you see so many white men, though, is that the movement is largely a reaction to the anti-white anti-male doctrine of political correctness and multiculturalism. Many white women are happy to jump on the PC bandwagon, though its anti-white manifestations hurt their brothers and sons, because it offers them gender-based preferences. Likewise, many minority men are on board, even though they are disproportionately affected by the anti-male family courts, because they receive race-based preferences.

White men, on the other hand, are stuck. Even the poorest white male students are labeled misogynist pigs if they demand male-only scholarships and preferential admissions, despite the fact that men are a rapidly shrinking minority on college campuses. Even the poorest white male workers are labeled racist if they oppose bringing in more foreign workers, despite the fact that unemployment is skyrocketing and the vast majority of recession-related layoffs have been men.

In short, white men have been disenfranchised from political discourse, unless they are willing to be a mouthpiece for the political correctness movement (a sort of "Uncle Tom", if you will).

I know I'm overstating the situation a bit, but only because this trend shows no sign of slowing down. As for "scared", I think that there are certainly some white men who feel like even if/when we find ourselves with no power left, the persecution will not stop. A larger part of us are more concerned that the "American identity" is being destroyed.

The PC movement sees the "American identity" as a racist, sexist oppressive hegemony. They revile the Founding Fathers as slaveholders, dismiss Edison and Bell as exploitative capitalists, and abhore celebration of European/American artistic tradition. In many ways, it's a modernist movement that insists upon discarding the principles and ideals of our forebears. I personally see it as a manifestation of the "me" generations' self-obsession, an assertion of modern man's moral and intellectual superiority over all who came before.

America certainly has a troubled history, as do most countries, but we have also pioneered much of the world's recent social and technological process. White men were often leaders in these areas, though they caused much suffering as well. What is offensive to me as a white man is the way the PC movement villifies me, personally, for the suffering while giving white men, neither personally nor as a whole, credit for the progress.

You will find a great deal of diversity of opinion among the "white movement". There are certainly some white supremacists, and due to the nature of the media we use it is difficult to exclude them. From there the attitudes range toward more moderate positions like mine.

I believe that America belongs to the whites and blacks who, up until the 60s, constituted nearly 100% of our population. I believe that English should be our official language in perpetuity. I believe that we are no more a "nation of immigrants" than any other country in the world. I believe we do have a distinct national culture, with our own values, literature, movies, food, and music like jazz, rock, and bluegrass that we created together. I believe that we should celebrate that culture while mourning and celebrating the culture of the indigenous Americans we conquered. I am not a Christian myself, but I believe that we should celebrate our Christian heritage without shame. I believe that we have no obligation to save or police the world, and no obligation to absorb the world's unwashed masses into our society.

I hope this summary sheds some light on the subject to those who do not understand. These are only my own views, but I hope they show that one need not be "scared" or racist to believe in a "white" or, more accurately in my case, an "American nationalist" movement.

As for my anonymity, I am not famous so my John Hancock would not lend any credence to what I say, and given the nature of the internet my John Doe could come back to haunt me. The PC movement is as dangerous as any rabidly self-righteous entity. They are the Crusaders and Inquisitors of our era.

Political Season said...

Having read the comments on the Building a Movement post at Mangan's site, my first reaction is to say that you have objectionable friends. I'm at a loss as to how one can be friends with someone who champions ideas that intend the subjugation of people who look like you. Humans are complicated, its not impossible I guess. I must confess to a quite visceral reaction to people calmly discussing the reinstatement of legal discrimination as a mechanism for maintaining control and power over non whites. People who want to do such things are rightly called white supremacists and the extent to which they would take such ideas is only limited by the degree of power which they have. Which is to say that people who think the way the commenters to Mangan's post do would certainly be happy to see non whites dead. Thats not a knee jerk reaction, thats a reasonable conclusion to be drawn if ideas like theirs are taken to their natural conclusion. Such people are clearly the enemy of me and my family. These are people who would gladly subjugate my children politically, economically, and physically rather than live side by side in equality in a pluralistic world under a shared American value system.

James C. Collier said...

A+A: One challenge of presenting a blog site is the range of comments and the association to you, the blogger, that will result. I have watched Dennis tread carefully as an advocate for whites while not stepping on blacks/others. Such admiration is not due to many (or even most) of his commenters, but I do not penalize him for this. I have warned him multiple times of the association issue, as I have had the same issue on this site.

Anonymous said...

First off, only an idiot would judge a blog poster by the comments section.

Second, I re-read the comment section and there is absolutely none of what you claim to have seen there. I think there is just a "knee-jerk reaction" by people who have been brainwashed into multiculturalism where if they see the word "white" and it's not immediately followed by "racists", "privilege", or "evil" or some other disparaging term, they get scared.

These people are not Nazis, and they are not the Klan. They just want equality and freedom. Affirmative action is not equality. Diversity quotas are not freedom. I seriously cannot see how someone could read those comments and think they "would certainly be happy to see non whites dead".

This is a tactic commonly used to discredit and attack anyone who does not conform to the multiculturalist paradigm, but I don't think that you were intentionally trying to do that. I just think that like so many people in America you have been indoctrinated to believe that any white man who doesn't hate himself and his race must be a Klansman.

Political Season said...

I'm intelligent enough to spot something dangerous to me and mine, and whether you like it or not, people are judged by the company they keep. Birds of a feather is a bit of mother's wisdom for a reason and its entirely rational to make a judgment about Mangan based on the ideas he trades in and encourages discussion of.

I might comment that only an idiot could read the comment section and not see something quite sinister in it, especially if they were not white.

Here are a few examples: "What we want would, I think, require reestablishing legal racial discrimination, at the very least in immigration.. Catch that at the very least piece?

or this: the cause of changing the laws of the U.S. to enable the kind of discrimination that would ensure whites remained the majority and maintained political control is lost.or there's this: I believe racial intelligence differences are genetic.That kind of thinking, taken to its logical conclusion, is clearly dangerous to me and my family, point blank. You defend these ideas by saying that these people are not Nazis and not the Klan. By what measure? Because they have not oppressed, enslaved or killed anyone yet? Their ideas are identical to that of Nazis or the Klan. Were they to be empowered to implement such ideas, why on earth should I be expected to think their results would be any different for me and mine?

You say they just want equality and freedom, but people who think as you do apparently believe that for you to have those things, others must be denied them.

Ideas like these should be discredited and attacked. They are evil and deserving of marginalization. You accuse me of unwittingly attacking the views of people simply because they don't fit the multicultural paradigm (whatever that is). My friend, its not that deep or complicated. I don't even have to go in that direction, for example, to attack arguments for the idea that non whites are less intelligent as was articulated in that comment section. Despite the fact that people who think like Mangan's readers do believe non whites to be stupid, I'm smart enough to read the tea leaves on what happens if political and social policy starts getting made on the basis that I'm intellectually inferior.

I'm not indoctrinated into anything other than simple self preservation when it comes to this sort of stuff. All of these theories and ideas amount to nothing more than involved and complicated rationales for whites to have and keep power over non whites based on the presumption of inferiority.

Ideas like that portend nothing good for blacks or any other non white person. Its silly and intellectually dishonest to even make the argument or to speak of these ideas as benign in any way shape or form where blacks or other minorities are concerned. These ideas, taken to their logical conclusion (as these people wish to do) mean at best subjugation and at their worst, extermination for non whites.

To pretend otherwise is to engage in self delusion about what you believe.

Political Season said...

@James - Dennis may espouse a more watered down version of white supremacist belief than some of those who read his blog, but thats really irrelevant. The fundamental core of his beliefs and those who are less restrained in their commentary is the same, a belief in the cultural and intellectual inferiority of non whites ( a belief they will go to copious lengths to justify as fact).

They dress it up in high toned language and intellectualism, but for all of that obfuscation, the result of applying their ideas is harm to non whites as a strategy to maintain control and power in the hands of whites.

I would submit that you really waste your breath to warn Dennis about being associated with his more plain speaking brethren. He believes as they do, he simply prefers to obscure it, from himself and from others.

Louis said...

You say they just want equality and freedom, but people who think as you do apparently believe that for you to have those things, others must be denied them.


You've got things all mixed. White nationalists don't want to dominate you, or enslave you; we want to be away from you. SEPERATION! You've heard of "white flight" I'm sure? it's a natural extension of that. Di you read the post where Dennis talks about leaving California for the midwest and a different demographic situation? Well... there you go! he doesn't want to kill your kids, or put you in chains: he wants to be with his own people. Geez..

Anonymous said...

"whether you like it or not, people are judged by the company they keep"

So because Collier is friends with Mangin, and some people that you (for some reason) assume to be white supremacists post on Mangin's blog, Collier must be a white supremacist too, right? And since you're commenting on his blog here, that makes YOU a white supremacist!

"Their ideas are identical to that of Nazis or the Klan."

No, your exaggerations and extrapolations of their ideas make you think they are "identical".

For example, you quoted a person saying that private citizens should be legally allowed to discriminate based on whatever they want. Earlier you said that people with those kinds of ideas obviously want to exterminate all nonwhites.

Well the government discriminates against whites every day with policies like affirmative action. If you support that practice, does that mean that you want to exterminate whites?

"You say they just want equality and freedom, but people who think as you do apparently believe that for you to have those things, others must be denied them."

As I said before, affirmative action is not equality. It's institutionalized, state-sponsored racism against whites. It violates the guarantee of "equal protection under the law". I agree with JCC that affirmative action should be class-based rather than race-based, favoring the poor over the rich. It would still disproportionately favor minorities, but for the right reasons.

I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus has the right to deny membership to a white congressman (as they recently did), even though his district is all-black. That is freedom. I also believe that a private country club should be allowed to deny membership to a black family. But they are not allowed this freedom. Freedom should be for everyone, not just the "preferred classes".

"Ideas like these should be discredited and attacked."

If you disagree with my ideas, attack them and discredit them. Do not try to discredit ME with unfounded accusations of "white supremacy" or "Nazi" or "KKK". Do not try to discredit a whole group of people with blanket assumptions about what you THINK they believe. Do not try to make a "slippery-slope" argument that any resistance to the multiculturalist paradigm inevitably leads to genocide.

Intellectual honestly would require you to realize that your own black-centric viewpoint is keeping you from seeing the truth. You've lived for so long with these privileges - associate with who you want, believe whatever you want, demand whatever you want, without any repercussions - that you can't imagine what it's like to be afraid to speak your mind.

A white man recently lost his job and his degree being persecuted by a black-run "diversity" commission for being seen reading a history book about the KKK - a book that CELEBRATED their defeat in the courts. For being SEEN reading an ANTI-KKK book. Only after a year of litigation was he reinstated. You won't see this story on the news - it doesn't conform with their agenda.

JCC is intelligent enough to go beyond the typical "knee-jerk" reaction to anti-multiculturalism. He analyzes the source, processes the argument, and presents a reasoned retort. He acknowledges his own biases and inquires further instead of dictating what he believes to be absolute truths. That is why I respect him a great deal more than the average blogger.

"I'm not indoctrinated into anything"

This statement demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity and intellectual curiosity. We all have our own upbringings, but anyone who makes an honest exploration of the world around him will realize that his own beliefs are the product of his environment. Those who believe they are "not indoctrinated into anything" are the most impenetrably indoctrinated of all.

that dude said...

The "white power" movement are just angry white guys who can't compete on an even playing field. Without the affirmative action of white racism to give them job security, they are angry at college educated blacks (with our President being the poster child) and immigrant Latinos (as if they wanted those migrant farm worker jobs).

I'm glad a more sophisticated branch is developing that is smart enough to leave the overtly racist rhetoric behind and simply push for "all white" if they don't have them in West Virginia and Oregon already.

Hasn't this kind of nostalgia already been covered in GONE WITH THE WIND? White Men have to share the world, and they hate it. End of story.

Anonymous said...

There is a reason that we are feared: History baby. We are overrepresented in the hard sciences, who is going to replace us when we are gone? Chinese, Indians, they don't have any reason to come here.

All movements have started out small most of them started by white males we have brought down countries and civilizations.
Most of us are tech literate, military trained one way or another, and able to be radically single minded.

We will do it again. It is already happening in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Let white males take off work for a week see how long this country keeps working.

Anonymous said...

The "white power" movement are just angry white guys who can't compete on an even playing field.Hilarious. Ever heard of AA?

Anonymous said...

I really don't understand how my fellow black brethren can honestly contest the need for America to be a "majority-white nation". That conclusion requires a painful and frank self-honesty, to be sure, but it's the damn truth.

Let's be honest with ourselves and examine the fates of any polity in the modern era that has a black voting majority. (And don't give me any of that PC bullshit - it certainly isn't "racist" to observe the egregious disparities; if anything, the racism only begins to occur when forming the theory of their causation.) The resulting social indicators aren't exactly reassuring. The Kwame Kilpatricks and Marion Barrys pimp the public purse brazenly because their constituents allow it, even encourage it, to foster within the collective black psyche twisted exemplars of black success. The general pattern follows: political safeguards and thus the system itself are wracked to the point of failure, depressingly yet almost inevitably, and the dwindling tax base that follows this demographic revolution continues its inexorable flight while more and more of young and volatile are denied basic educations to escape their deteriorating circumstances. It salves the consternation of the black establishment to blame these ubiquitous commonalities on their pet shibboleths of "racism" or "discrimination", or to unhelpfully fixate on pre-existing inequities, but these are the wrong approaches. Indeed, there's a rank hypocrisy in the perennial cry of "racist!" to justify block voting - even the meanest and poorest "whites" I've conversed with try to communicate some sort of folk ideology, whether evangelical conservative or union liberal, Blue-dog liberal or Dixie conservative, whilst on the other hand my impression of black folk's voting methodology continually suggests that many of our electoral decisions are still based on nothing more than bald ethnocentrism (with the small caveat the national candidate not be opposed to the single-minded ideology of liberal social democracy with all its promised benefits, e.g. Clinton) - and this view is certainly not swayed by the astounding levels of support (93%?) Obama received from the African-American population in our most recent election. Those numbers suggest an incompetency or refusal to weigh important and immediate issues in favor of rehashing or reliving past wrongs. Take it from me, ethnic block voting is the terrible curse of a hundred different nations, and the United States boasts the incredible luck of not sharing in that same misfortune. It would be foolish not to safeguard our unique tradition.

Maybe the core problem is indeed a cultural one, and perhaps black people need more time rehabilitate that broken culture partly caused by the horrible legacies of slavery & Jim Crow. But those who have made terms with that history should take heed of the fact United States is the nation closest to the ideal to a pure meritocracy, that stringently binds itself in writing to be equally favorable to all races alike, and eminents like Alexander de Tocqueville painstakingly detailed the aspects of our "white" culture that enable this feat to emerge and sustain itself. In any case, it seems plausible that groups can and have eventually overcome those base inclinations; after all we are told that the Irish and the Italians did so after some struggle - so likewise, black political culture may need some years to mature. And note that despite our universal appreciation of our diverse immigrant history, no one now suggests that Tammany Hall-style machines are the political ideal for good governance, and those of the remaining diaspora who are culturally sensitive to their roots do not clutch at their throats in anger when their past ignobilities are tallied and admonished. So, in summary, the dismaying realities of modern day "black government", which too often walks hand in hand with rampant corruption and attendant policy stagnation, to the extreme detriment of most involved, should compel the true humanist towards the same conclusion - that black political culture is not fit to govern at present.

The word "white" is a somewhat uncomfortable term for me. It feels much more artificial than "black". I think it is because it fits so neatly into the idiot grammar of politics, which only permits diametrically opposing antonyms with no shades of gray differentiating the two, where the political operative uses the word "white" to appeal to those or contrast to others who are "black". In my opinion, the national African-American population are correctly referenced as "black", since there doesn't seem to be much variation in the basic culture across locales. The main point is that for many black people, their black features form a core of their self-identity, whereas I rarely see the same for "whites", who frame themselves more with occupation, interests, and geographical location. "Whites" feels like a forced grouping and thus ideally primed for power-keg racial discourse. Used too liberally, it sometimes signals the diatribe of a crank. Keeping that in mind, and to further characterize the argument's nuance, note that the slightly malevolent-sounding term "white rule" would be more appealing if it better conveyed the grand philosophies that are its core foundation; in other words, it is a fusion of the famous Puritan work ethic, combined with the heritage of liberal constitutionalism bequeathed to us by the English along with a common law system, as well as the notions and institutions of civic duty from the Roman Republic. Perhaps the idea is better stated as the primacy of the "Western" political tradition; however, it should be a particular flavor of "Western" politics, one bombastically cognizant, proud, and protective of US exceptionalism. Notice that these components map broadly over many different-hued people, from the pale Londoner to the tanned Italian, so there is no inherently "racist" notion.

When all is said and done, I'm simply not willing to entertain the suicidal notion that we cannot judge one political culture superior to another. There simply is no contest between our bequeathed cultural heritage as American citizens and the failed Third-World/social-democratic alternatives. The tradition that has cradled the astounding prosperity we enjoy today should be fought for; and fought for loudly and vigorously.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:24

Good read, but your post was mostly irrelevant. The US as a whole is in no "danger" of becoming majority-black.

What we have instead is a massive hispanic invasion, sporting dual allegiances, foreign cultural norms, and a disproportionately high birth rate. Right now we are at the brink, the point of no turn fast approaching.

Blacks and whites today must band together and say "no more", or the growing hispanic population will band together to block all immigration laws and enforcement. Either we stop unlawful immigration now, or it will not stop or even slow down until America is dragged down to a third world level.

Anonymous said...

Those angry and scared white males have done one hell of a job putting black males in prison, cutting them down in the prime of life, denying them the ability to procreate or find steady employment and keeping black male prisoner numbers higher than black male college attendees. Of course black males tend to help out what with AIDs rates and murder being much higher among blacks than any other group.

Not bad for a so-called dwindling group (which seems to still account for 75% of the population).

Anonymous said...

Fear mongers must be having a great time with topics and forums such as these now. It is fear mongers who spread the angst about multiculturalism, the "rewriting" of history texts, new laws being drafted that will abrige common sense and traditional American customs.

Angry White men? Perhaps. But I think it really has to do more with a changing of the guard - the transition of power as one group passes the baton to the next.

Consider all the issues the dominant group - more importantly, the dominant voting group group of America (yep, 55-75 yr old white folks), has witnessed over the last 10-25 years: Gay rights, multiculturalism, affirmative action, S&L/Banking failures, illegal immigration, costs associated with housing and caring for illegal aliens, crime rates increases as has incarceration rates. Now, they have a president (yeah, he ain't white either) who (according to reports) will bankrupt your grandchildren and worse of all: He's a socialist! My goodness, how can they not be scared?

Sarcasm aside, We have entered a new century with aging white folks looking to the past for solutions to problems not encountered there.

AWM (and the Republican Party)are clueless about the desired result of today's directions. They're told that soon (what, 50 years?) white America will be reduced to inconsequence due to the birthrate of illegal citizens and unchecked illegal immigration. They see the dollars that are being spent to prop up age old businesses and industries, and cannot fathom how they got into danger. More, they are fed (largely by FOX News) reports that today's youth (minority youth) will not have the skills required to man the machinery and keep the nation going - all while also be told that the quality of our nation's public educational system floats closer to the bottom of the pond.

I tend to think the anger (if there is any) is fed by the knowledge that they are largely impotent to do anything to change what's occuring now. Largely, but not totally: I don't believe Obama could have won without white, grey panther support, and the support of liberal or clear thinking whites. Maybe we can use this as a starting point as we move along in the discourse(s) of today, especially when we dialog to matters of race and what we (collectively) would like tomorrow to look like.

Personally, as I read the postings of these angry folks, I am reminded of the old wisdom concerning the teaching of pigs to sing. It's a useless waste of time, and it only annoys the hell out of the pig.

Anonymous said...

"I am reminded of the old wisdom concerning the teaching of pigs to sing. It's a useless waste of time, and it only annoys the hell out of the pig."

I agree. This statement demonstrates the futility of trying to incorporate Spanish-speaking Mexican high-school dropouts and fatherless Black gangbangers into our economy. These people will never achieve self-sufficiency and can only survive on the government dole.

We should cut off their gravy train and only allow the well-assimilated and productive members of society to procreate. Anything less would be suicidal and counterproductive.

Anonymous said...

Someone anonymously posted:

I agree. This statement demonstrates the futility of trying to incorporate Spanish-speaking Mexican high-school dropouts and fatherless Black gangbangers into our economy. These people will never achieve self-sufficiency and can only survive on the government dole.

Actually, the “teaching a pig to sing” axiom pertains to trying to force a stubborn person to make changes (or do things) against their will or nature. I don’t know how the rest of your post is applicable.

“We should cut off their gravy train and only allow the well-assimilated and productive members of society to procreate. Anything less would be suicidal and counterproductive.”

And who exactly would be in-charge of determining which individuals meet your rigorous standards? I hate to throw (what might be perceived) as a slippery slope into your argument, but such a thought is hardly new. In the early 1930’s (here in the United States and later in Nazi Germany), some enlightened groups decided they ought to do the same to the mentally ill for much of the same reasons you put forward. Hitler though shortly decided to cut his losses, and eventually most of the sanatoriums were cleaned out and the patients were simply put to death.

If we want “productive members of society,” then we need to provide means for groups to do just that, remove obstacles for achievement, remove incentives for not performing or contributing (not reward “laziness”), and promote a sense of personal responsibility that goes beyond parroting of slogans. Until then, I suspect we’ll see much of the same.

Eman said...

The burgeoning pro-White movement in America is NOT about White supremacy. This is about White survival and White preservation.

Whites are only about 10% of the world's overall population and dwindling rapidly - if something is not done soon to secure permanent territory and resources for Whites that are not constantly being encroached upon by hundreds of millions of non-Whites, Whites as a distinct sub-group of humanity will eventually become near extinct and/or disappear through extensive breeding with non-Whites. To put it succinctly, Whites are an endangered species.

Again, most of the newer pro-White activists ARE NOT WHITE SUPREMACISTS...we are White preservationists and all we seek is the survival of Whites in the long-term and our own living space where we can live without constantly being semi-invaded by millions of non-White immigrants who come to our majority White countries because we know how to build prosperous and stable societies.

matraily said...

Alden Merrill, your admission of defeat is graciously accepted with, malice toward none. In the future you should consider surrendering more explicitly.

Anonymous said...

To re-enforce: the idea of most modern white nationalists is as white seperatists not supremisists. They don't want to impose their will on others and they don't want the will of others imposed on them (like the modern PC media does).

There will always be people of all races who choose to live together in the multi-culutral style, and let them do it, but if some don't want to, why should we not be free to pursue our own destiny?

Oddly in these vastly multi-cultural cities you will see most groups clump together anyway in certain neighbourhoods. If anything white people are the least likely to do that from what I've seen (southern Ontario, Canada).

Of course all countries can trade with eachother and cooperate, but on a day-to-day basis, if you want to perserve your culture (black, white, asian, etc), religion and ideals it's easier and more peaceful to do being segregated. Imagine the black nation where your success or failure is only determined by your own people; you never have to worry about others keeping you down.

The driver is not hate of others, it's love of your own ancestry and people.