I started trying to rewrite this page in December of 2005. I decided to leave the page more or less as it was, and just insert new comments. This isn't really supposed to be an essay, it's just a dialogue I'm having with myself. Most of the new comments are in boxes like this, but I also added some new material at the end in the regular page format.
As I said on my home page, if you are looking for a fanatic who never has mixed feelings or second thoughts, you are on the wrong site.
I want to begin by making a first pass over this subject on a very coarse-grained level.
I am, in some sense, pro-white. Later I'm going to question whether "pro-white" is really an appropriate or even a meaningful expression, but for the moment it will do.
So, on the most general level, what do I mean by pro-white?
This is from an interview with Mike Tyson:
"The other day I saw a show on Court TV. There was this kid who got convicted of murder. A skinny Caucasian guy. He got 20 years, and he thought this was a good deal. He had no idea -- his life is over! They're gonna fuck him. I said to myself, They're watching this right now, and their mouths are watering!" He puts his head in his hands and screams so loud, the cups on the table rattle. "Owwww!"
That's the reality of black and white. In everyday life, outside the prison system, most people pretend it's not happening. I am one of the few who keeps it in view. In jail, there are no nuances. No ambiguities. It's very basic. All the pretences of society are stripped away, and if you didn't know what color you were before, you will find out as soon as you arrive. See What happens in American jails and prisons and the hardtime page for the ugly details.
Society tries to impose a belief system on us. We are supposed to believe that it's "wrong" to distinguish ourselves from other races - it's wrong for us but not for them. It's "wrong" to prefer our own culture, our own music, our own people. We are supposed to melt together into an undifferentiated mass. I don't buy into that belief system. I stand outside it, which makes me eccentric, to say the least. Some people would say it makes me un-American, insane, whatever. That's too bad.
A few years ago David Duke made a speech against affirmative action at Cal State Northridge. I went to Northridge but got there too late to see the speech. It was sold out, so I left. It turned out I should have stayed. The next day I read an article in the paper, which said a woman from Bakersfield got in a fight with some anti-Duke demonstrators. She had a pro-Duke sign. When they tried to take it away from her, she hit one of them with the sign, and a scuffle ensued. She came all the way from Bakersfield (a 3-hour journey) to express her support for David Duke. When I say I'm pro-white, I mean I'm on her side.
Wait a minute. There is something unreal about this discussion. If I am pro-white, it doesn't show. I grew up in one of the whitest places on earth, and I left as soon as I could. I am the last person who would be described as "whitebread." I have spent most of my adult life in college towns and cosmopolitan neighborhoods in big cites. When I was in Austin, I lived in an apartment building with about 50 tenants, and at least 15 languages were spoken in that building. I like it like that. In the near future, I will probably leave the US and move to another part of the world. I won't be living with my own tribe.
However, it is still true that society tries to impose a belief system on us. I agree with David Duke that we are all under attack, whitebread or not. I am still against affirmative action and all anti-white programs. As I have said several times on this site, my position is basically defensive. If I could just go ahead and live my life, I wouldn't be doing this.
If "pro-white" means we have a right to defend ourselves, then yes, I am pro-white.
Now, having said that, it's time to make a second pass over this subject. In jail there are no ambiguities, but most of us are not in jail. We do have to take nuances into account.
Is "white" really the relevant concept?
Our ancestors didn't think they were superior just because their skin was white. It was their minds that made them white. They were superior because they did things. They composed symphonies, proved theorems, discovered the laws of nature, invented machines, built cathedrals, explored the world, established complex states, and planned their battles strategically. They did things that no one else did.
150 years ago, Europeans didn't have to talk about "white power." They stood among other people like grownups among children. Their superiority was self-evident.
In the 20th century this was no longer true. We started talking about "white power" only after we had lost the thread. In fact I don't think the expression "white power" was ever heard before the 1960s. It was only when blacks started talking about "black power" that white activists started talking about "white power." It wasn't even our idea. We were just copying somebody else's idea.
Our ancestors thought of themselves as English, French, Dutch, etc., not merely as "white people." Their identity was specific, not generic. They fought for their country, their king, and their church. Sometimes they just fought for personal power. They didn't fight for the white race as such.
I'm not saying they weren't racially conscious at all. Of course they were. Four hundred years ago, Queen Elizabeth complained that there were "too many niggers and blackamoors" in London. But she was the Queen of England, not the Queen of the white race, whatever that would mean.
Americans think of race in terms of "the white race" versus some other race. First it was white vs. Indian, then white vs. black, more recently white vs. asian or latino. In Europe, it's white vs. white.
Europeans have a much more fine-grained concept of race. You have the French race, the Danish race, the Polish race, and so forth. Each nationality is a race. Even in Britain, you have the English race and the Scottish race. When somebody from London moves to Scotland, the Scots throw eggs at their house. To Americans, this is bizarre. They are all white, aren't they? They are all British, aren't they? Well, the Scots don't think so!
"Race" was originally an even more fine-grained concept. It was the same as Latin "gens," meaning extended family, clan, or tribe. In the 18th century, it was assimilated into the concept of "nation." In the 19th century, anthropologists came up with the new idea that there are about five major "races" in the world. This concept is indefensible, and it should be abandoned.
The Jews have their own concept of race. Kaballah teaches that there are 72 races. Of course one of them plays a special role. The reason the Jews hate us so much is that the Germans tried to usurp that special role. That is the unforgivable sin.
The ancient Greeks divided humanity into Greeks and barbarians, not white and nonwhite. In the middle ages and early modern times, Europeans divided humanity into Christians and heathens, not white and nonwhite. Within Europe itself, people were divided into the nobility and the villeins (villagers). Both nobles and villagers were white, but that wasn't the point. The nobles weren't just white, they were a race within a race.
This line of thought brings us to the Nazi idea of race, which is different from both the standard American idea and the traditional European idea.
Hitler didn't think in terms of "the white race." Poles and Russians are as white as Germans, but he tried to push them out of the way to make lebensraum for Germany. He said the basic dividing line in Europe was the line that ran between Germany and Poland, i.e. the line that separated Aryans from Slavs. Slavs are as white as anybody. Poles and Russians typically have blue eyes and blond hair. (Look at Vladimir Putin, for example.) Nevertheless, Slavs were considered to be a separate race, inferior to Aryans. Germans still despise Poles. Poles are slovenly. They are alcoholics and thieves. Poles are the niggers of Europe (at least that's how the Germans see them), but they have white skin.
Now, however, it is the Eastern Europeans, particularly the Russians, who are leading the way in racial consciousness. They don't feel guilty about being white. They don't feel obligated to invite millions of nonwhite immigrants into their countries.
Even within Germany, he wasn't everybody's Führer. He didn't have much use for communists, no matter how pure their blood (communists weren't all Jews, far from it). He didn't have much use for drunks and other lowlifes, either, and here too purity of blood was no excuse. Winos were liable to be sent to concentration camps, regardless of how blue their eyes were.
Hitler wanted to promote a certain mentality. You might think of it as a "first world" mentality as opposed to a "third world" mentality. This is an anachronism, since those concepts were not invented until about 1970, but nevertheless "first world" is a good synonym for "Nazi." The Nazi mentality is the opposite of slovenly. Nazis were supposed to be healthy, energetic, briskly competent, and, most important, happy. When I saw the Ministry of Illusion series of Nazi films, one of the most striking things was the spirit of joviality that infused most of the movies. The Aryan sense of life is captured in the words of a popular song: Alles klar, alles klar, es war wunderbar!
In Mein Kampf (Chapter 4 of Volume 2), he wrote
If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality.
In his essay on The State (Mein Kampf, Volume 2, Chapter 2), he wrote
The differences between the various peoples should not prevent us from recognizing the community of race which unites them on a higher plane. The conflict of our times is one that is being waged around great objectives. A civilization is fighting for its existence. It is a civilization that is the product of thousands of years of historical development, and the Greek as well as the German forms part of it.
In other words, as a political leader he was Führer of the Germans, but his larger aim was to revive European civilization, which is not and never was specifically German. Anyone who thinks Hitler had a simplistic idea of race would do well to ponder these two quotations. The first one says that not all Germans have the same "worth," and the second says that there is a "community of race" extending beyond Germany. In Nazi philosophy, race isn't the same as skin color, nor is it the same as nationality.
If there is a concept of "worth" that is independent of and prior to the concept of "race," this invites the question: why talk about race at all? Why not just talk about worth? Hitler's idea of race may not have been simplistic, but it's not necessarily coherent either. As with so many aspects of Nazism, the problem is that Hitler never really thought things through. He talked about "blood," which makes no philosophical or scientific sense.
If you read Mein Kampf all the way through, it turns out that Hitler didn't go on and on about race. That's not what Mein Kampf is about. Yes, he was a racist, but that was in the background most of the time.
I'm not saying it's impossible to have a coherent concept of race. You would have to begin with a philosophy of mind. You would have to have a theory of how mind relates to physical reality. You would have to introduce the concept of resonance -- certain languages, certain thoughts, certain music, etc. resonate with certain structures in the brain. You would have to make the ontological point that races are not sets with well-defined boundaries, they are a quite different kind of entity. This could be done, but it's a large subject that I won't go into here.
Then what is the point of this discussion? This is _precisely_ what I should go into here... Come to think of it, what I am getting at in this paragraph is pretty close to the Jewish concept of race, mentioned above.
The neo-Nazi concept of race seems to be pretty inclusive. It's similar to the American concept, in which just about any Gentile with white skin qualifies, regardess of whether they are Teutonic, Celtic, Slavic, or whatever. All neo-Nazis are working together for a common cause. Nationality is no longer important. Nevertheless neo-Nazis describe themselves as "nationalists." Go figure.
Neo-Nazism has very little in common with the original National Socialism of the Third Reich. As I said above, Hitler didn't go on and on about race. National Socialism was, first of all, an economic program. It was also an attempt to create an independent nation, i.e. independent of the Jews and their international financial system. It was also an attempt to go back to pre-twentieth century music and art.
Neo-Nazism is just about the stupidest thing there is. For neo-Nazis, race is the only issue. They have nothing to say about economics or art. They are not merely failing to say what needs to be said, they are invoking the most unattractive possible combination of ideas, and doing exactly the wrong thing, the one thing that is guaranteed not to work. They charge at the red flag, and the matador calmly steps aside and stabs them as they go by.
I am referring to American neo-Nazis here. I don't know if this applies to European neo-Nazis, since I have no contact with them.
In any case, the post-Nazi idea of race is rather different from the Nazi idea. I emphasize the fact that races (however they are defined) are not frozen in time. They evolve. The Aryan race as it presently exists is a step on the way to something else.
Quoting again from his essay on The State, Hitler wrote
The Weltanschauung which bases the State on the racial idea must finally succeed in bringing about a nobler era, in which men will no longer pay exclusive attention to breeding and rearing pedigree dogs and horses and cats, but will endeavour to improve the breed of the human race itself. That will be an era of silence and renunciation for one class of people, while the others will give their gifts and make their sacrifices joyfully.
He is talking about eugenics here. Those with defective genes will renounce their right to reproduce, those with healthy genes will give their gifts to the race by having children.
This concept is obsolete. We are entering a new age in which we can modify our genes directly. Yes, we are going to improve the breed of the human race itself, but it's not a matter of some people having more children than others.
The question is: what does it mean to "improve the breed"?
What are we going to become? Which direction are we going to go? When we can become whatever we want, who will be our model?
I am a racist in the sense that I choose to go in one direction, and not in another. I don't want to go back to the jungle. I don't want to be a monkey, I want to be a man, in the fullest sense of the word. I want to emphasize and amplify the differences that separate me from Africans (and from anyone who has a third-world mentality).
My models are men and women like Archimedes, J. S. Bach, Michael Faraday, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas A. Edison, Henry Ford, Linus Pauling, Hannes Alfven, George Orwell, and Leni Riefenstahl. In a different vein, I might mention Jack LaLanne, Ida Rolf, and Joseph Pilates.
I should also mention Herlinde Grobe and Sandra Mareike, who write songs for Bianca, and of course Bianca herself. As I approach the Transhuman metamorphosis, I want Bianca's music to resonate in my mind and in every cell of my body. German music, not African music.
Finally, I want to mention Sarah Hughes, whose ecstatic performances are the best example I have ever seen of "strength through joy." That's what it's really all about.
This is the section that most needs to be rewritten, and the more I think about it the more I realize that it is the weak link in my whole website. The home page and the Nazism and Transhumanism page also need to be rewritten.
What does it mean to ask what "we" are going to become? There is no "we." When genetic engineering becomes available, people will go in whatever direction they want. It will be like dying your hair or going to a plastic surgeon - an individual thing, not a group project. Biotechnology is not going to produce a new race. It is going to allow some people (the ones who can afford to use it) to make incremental improvements of various kinds.
What does it mean to evolve in the direction of George Orwell or Thomas Edison? Genetic engineering might be able to improve your brain cells, but it could not give you Orwell's radical honesty or Edison's creativity. It might give you the athletic ability of Sarah Hughes (although even that is a stretch), but it could not give you the gracefulness and joie de vivre that make her so special.
If you want to emulate Orwell, Edison, Franklin, or any of the others mentioned here, or all of them, you can do that now. Nothing is stopping you. Transhumanism has nothing to do with it.
Not only that - at this point in my life, my models are Chinese and Japanese as well as European. Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming and the Qigong masters he writes about are more important than Ida Rolf and Jack LaLanne.
So there is not much left of "the post-Nazi idea of race."
I guess what I was trying to say in this section is that as far as I am concerned, improving the breed does not mean breeding better Storm Troopers. I don't want to live in a society centered on war. Nor do I want to live in a society in which improving the breed means replacing white people with Mexicans, Africans, Arabs, and Asians. In other words I want to live in a society that is fundamentally different from both America and the Third Reich. That point is still valid, but it could be made without any reference to evolution.
This is a good place to emphasize the difference between neo-Nazism and post-Nazism.
In the discussion above I said that "first-world" is a synonym for "Nazi." Unfortunately that's not all there is to it. The Nazis were militaristic. They were, after all, goose-stepping fascists. Neo-Nazis want to continue that tradition. They want to create a police state. Post-Nazis are interested in a very different aspect of German-ness.
Please note that Joseph Pilates is on my list of role models. He was a German. The Kaiser asked him to teach his exercise methods to the German Army, but Pilates was a pacifist who didn't want anything to do with the army. He left Germany and moved to England, and eventually ended up in America.
If Joseph Pilates had stayed in Germany and accepted the job the Kaiser offered him, it is possible that Lance-Corporal Adolf Hitler might have learned the Pilates methods, and that would have changed him profoundly. That would have put him in touch with himself in a totally new way. Since this is an exercise in counterfactual history, let's take it another step, and suppose his experience with Pilates led him to explore other kinds of bodywork. He might have discovered that there are other ways for human energy to express itself, besides screaming and marching. He might even have allowed a woman - a woman! - to give him a massage. - No! No! Don't let her touch me!
That would not only have changed him, it would have changed history. He would have been a different kind of man, a different kind of German, and a different kind of Leader. His Movement would have delivered on its promise of national renewal.
Whiteness per se can't be the basis of a successful political movement.
Please note, I didn't say whiteness can't be the basis of a political movement. I said whiteness per se can't be the basis of a successful political movement.
The concept of whiteness does motivate some people, but not enough to make much difference. Most people are American first, and white second; or Christian first, white second; or Democrat first, white second; or white-collar professional first, white second; or athlete first, white second; and so forth. There is usually something else that comes first. For most people, whiteness isn't even in second place, it's pretty far down the list. It's just one small part of who they are.
I don't think this is going to change. Whiteness will never be of paramount importance to most people.
Sometimes, when white people are forced to live with other races at close quarters, whiteness becomes a lot more important to them. But even then, there is usually something else that has priority. Class almost always trumps race. Even Tom Metzger, who says race is everything to him, is working-class-anarchist first, white second. He doesn't have much use for rich white people. As far as Tom is concerned, if you are rich, then you are part of ZOG, no matter how pure your blood is.
A few years ago I was reading a white power magazine, and I saw a picture of a bunch of skinheads at some kind of meeting. Obviously those guys don't live in the same world I live in. I live in a room full of books. They just want to hang out and drink beer. I thought, What am I doing here? Why am I reading this? The fact that we are both racially conscious doesn't mean we can work together.
A lot of people are racially conscious, up to a point, but we don't form an effective political force, because we have nothing to bind us together.
Orthodox Jews have the Torah to bind them together. They aren't just a race, they are a race plus a religion, and that's what keeps them together across the centuries. That's what makes them a force to be reckoned with, even though they are a small fraction of the population. Jews fight among themselves. They don't get along with each other any better than I get along with skinheads, but it doesn't matter, because they have a center to hold them together.
The very idea of a race that separates itself from the rest of humanity was a Jewish invention. They are the only race that exists by design. Other races exist only by accident.
Recognition of that fact has to be the starting point for any discussion of the racial situation.
We have no Torah. There is no such thing as an Orthodox White Person. In the long run, a race without a center can't compete with a race that does have a center. The appearance of Judaism was a major evolutionary event. Other races can't compete with the Jews any more than reptiles could compete with mammals.
We have to have a center. It could be the Torah itself, or some variation on it such as the New Testament, the Koran, or Marxism; or it could be a new version of Hellenistic philosophy, or it could be something entirely new.
One of the strange notions that has gained currency in the white power movement is that Christianity weakens us. Well, think about it: when did we reach our zenith? When did white people rule most of the planet? When did the sun never set on the British Empire? When we were Christian. We were stronger then than any time before or since. When we started losing our faith, toward the end of the 19th century, that was when we started losing our strength.
The Bible was our center. It held our society together, because it held our minds together. The human mind has to have an organizing principle. Theologies create minds.
As long as we were pagan, we were hillbillies and small-time raiders (Vikings). We were not a factor in the world. It was only when we became Christian that we became the leading race in the world.
When I say "we" I am talking about northern Europeans. Southern Europeans, around the Mediterranean, had been a major factor in the world for a long time before they became Christian. But they had their own theology, or at least their own philosophy, which amounted to the same thing as monotheism. Alexander the Great studied under Aristotle when he was in his early teens, and Aristotle in turn had studied under Plato. Alexander created the first of the great world empires, and founded a civilization, the Hellenistic civilization, which lasted for centuries. He couldn't have done it without Aristotle's philosophy, which was the organizing principle for his mind.
He couldn't have done it if he had been raised as a Viking and learned Nordic mythology. In that case he wouldn't have had an organizing principle. In Nordic mythology, there is no center. The Nordic gods don't fit together into a unified cosmos. There was no Nordic Plato, there was no Nordic Aristotle, there was no Nordic Euclid, and therefore there could not be a Nordic Alexander.
Berserkers don't build civilizations. They don't build much of anything.
Alexander didn't build much of anything. What he did, basically, was take over the Persian empire, which was already there. He destroyed Persepolis, which was the greatest city in the world at that time. See In Search of Zarathustra by Paul Kriwaczek, pages 142-150. It is true that Alexander founded the city of Alexandria, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes to give him credit for what happened there 100 years later.
Genghis Khan was a pagan. He had never heard of Aristotle, and he had no concept of a unified cosmos, but that didn't stop him from carving out an immense empire. In any case, we shouldn't be thinking about empires. That's irrelevant.
There is no easy way out of this. I'm not suggesting that people should start going to church all of a sudden, and go through the motions of being Christians. That would be worse than useless. In earlier times, people didn't go to church for the good of the white race. They went because that was the reality they lived in. It's not the reality people live in today.
It's not just a matter of belief. Belief is a red herring. Yes, it's impossible for modern people to believe a lot of things in the Bible, but that's not the problem.
I recently read a biography of Bernhard Riemann. He was a devout Lutheran. Every day, he faced God and examined himself unsparingly. Riemann wasn't a born-again idiot. He saw as deeply into mathematics as anybody ever did, Newton and Gauss included. He wasn't the kind of Christian who believes six impossible things before breakfast. He was a Christian not because of what he believed, but because of how he organized his mind.
In Riemann's time - he lived from 1826 to 1866 - it wasn't just geniuses who organized their minds. Most people did. They didn't go as deep as he did, but within the limits of their ability, they did as well as they could. In the pre-Nietzschean era, it was taken for granted that that's what civilized people do.
A few years ago a French politician wrote a book called Without Marx or Jesus. Well, if you reject both Marx and Jesus, you had better have Plato to fall back on. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you have neither Marx nor Jesus nor Plato to hold your mind together - and to hold your community together - Allah will move in. And that's what's happening.
On one of the 915 pages, I said "Going to a 915 meeting should be like leaving America behind, on many levels, and entering a different space, a magical space."
One way to enter such a space is by going to a cathedral. Imagine being one of the men who designed and built it. What was he thinking, as he conceived it? How did he feel, when he entered the completed building? If you can imagine that vividly, you have left America behind on many levels and entered a vastly different space. If enough Europeans did that, Europe would get its strength back.
If you want Europe to defend itself against the Moslem invasion, if you want Europe to have a future, the single most important thing you can do is be a European. Pick someone who typifies the European spirit - it could be a cathedral builder, or a composer (Palestrina, Bach, Handel), or an inventor, scientist, or mathematician (Leonardo da Vinci, Faraday, Riemann), or a philosopher or writer (Pascal, Leibniz, Goethe). Immerse yourself in his world and his mind. Try to imagine being him and thinking his thoughts. Try to imagine producing his work. Try to organize your mind the way he organized his. If enough Europeans do that - particularly young Europeans - then Europe will have a future. At this stage of history, we don't need the Hitler Youth, we need the Plato Youth and the Archimedes Youth.
Only then can we have Charles Martel Youth.
I don't know if it's possible for any such thing to happen. We lost the thread more than 100 years ago. Sometime in the 19th century, Europeans stopped trying to do what their ancestors had been doing for more than two thousand years - at least as far back as Plato. The mentality that gave rise to cathedrals and fugues is gone, probably forever. By the beginning of the 20th century the result was obvious - we went from Brahms to Schoenberg quite suddenly, like going from a warm period to an ice age in just a few years. However, I don't think the change was as abrupt as it appeared to be. To find the cause, you have to look farther back.
Please note that in the discussion above I said "in the pre-Nietzschean era." I think Nietzsche marked the beginning of the slide into the incoherence of the 20th century. I don't know if he was just expressing ideas that were already in the air, or if he introduced something new, but I am pretty sure that there is a direct path from Nietzsche to Schoenberg, Messiaen, etc. Here is another basic difference between post-Nazism and neo-Nazism: the neo-Nazis consider Nietzsche to be a mentor. I think they are idiots. As far as that goes, most of the original Nazis also considered Nietzsche to be a mentor, and they were idiots too. That is one reason I write about "post-Nazism" instead of just Nazism.
I think it is time to drop the whole post-Nazi thing and stop calling myself a Nazi of any kind, post- or whatever. Hitler's most radical idea was that it is possible to build a society in which "strength through joy" is the basic principle. A society like that can actually exist. I wish with all my heart that it were true. However, National Socialism was not consistent. It had no philosophical foundation. It was contaminated with Nietzschean ideas from the beginning. You can't combine "strength through joy" with nihilism. It's time to let it go and start over. Yes, the thought police are wrong, but that does not imply that Hitler was right. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
I want to emphasize as strongly as I can that when I talk about religion, belief has nothing to do with it. Christians still recite the same creeds now that they recited in the past, but the mentality has changed. Christians have gone from coherence to incoherence, just like everybody else. Compare 19th century Christian songs such as "Ave Maria" and "Amazing Grace" with the muzak you hear on Christian radio today. It's exactly like going from Chopin to Messiaen.
I am not totally pessimistic. Try to imagine how bleak the future must have looked in the year 1400, with the plague and the Catholic Church. No one could have suspected that in just a few decades the Renaissance would be under way, and then all the wonderful things that followed in the next few centuries. Our future may not be as bleak as it appears. You never know.
It may not be possible to go back to the 19th century, but that's not necessary. What we can do is leave the 20th century behind and move on to something else. The men of the Renaissance didn't go back to ancient Greece and Rome, they just got their inspiration from classical culture and then went on to do something new. That is still possible. Our music won't be the same as Mozart, but it will be just as coherent in its own way.
We should never stop trying to build a society based on "strength through joy."
Note added December 18, 2005
Does this subject need to be discussed at all? Yes and no. The main thing that needs to be said is that nothing needs to be said. The whole "race" issue is the matador's red flag, and we should not be charging at it. Just because they want us to talk about it doesn't mean we have to talk about it.
When someone accuses you of being a racist, don't take the bait! Instead of saying "No I'm not" or "Yes and I'm proud of it," you should shift the discussion back and talk about the accusation itself, and what your accuser is trying to accomplish by it. He or she is attacking you, and that attack is what you should focus on. Who is accusing you, and what is their agenda?
Nevertheless the subject does matter, in a certain sense, and it does need to be discussed. Here's why. Consider the following story from the Sidney Morning Herald:
Shamed suburb struggles to hide its scars
"It was a Sunday to die for. Perfect beach weather, clear skies with offshore winds brushing the waves of the famous "Alley" break into flawless little tubes. But yesterday it was the suburb that died of shame.
"Seven days after Cronulla became shorthand for racism, attracting international coverage as an unsuspected dark side of the Australian dream, none of the thousands of sons and daughters of "The Shire" dared a repeat defence of their place in the sun..."
The background is that Lebanese have settled in Australia, and they have been getting in turf wars with white Australians at the beach. Last week the tension erupted into a full scale riot. Now, in the aftermath, it is the whites who defended their place in the sun who are dying of shame. Why? Why are they in the wrong? Why are white people who defend their territory always in the wrong?
Why did the Australian government invite Arabs to come to Australia in the first place? The same thing is happening in the United States, Canada, and western Europe. White people - at least the ones who control the media and the government - feel that they don't have a right to their own country. No one else feels that way. People of other races don't feel that they are obligated to invite foreigners to immigrate to their countries. In China, for example, people from other parts of the world are welcome to come to visit, to take vacations, to teach, and to do business, but it would never occur to the Chinese to invite millions of foreigners to immigrate to China and live there permanently. It would never occur to them that there is something immoral or shameful about China being Chinese. They don't feel guilty. We do. Why?
If foreigners tried to tell Chinese people that they couldn't use their own beaches, the foreigners would be told what's what in no uncertain terms, and there wouldn't be any shame afterwards.
Leaving aside all the subtleties about what "white" means, the fact remains that of all the peoples of the earth, we are the only ones who feel guilty about our existence. We are the only ones who feel that we don't have a right to a country of our own. We are the only ones who feel shame on those rare occasions when we defend ourselves. Why?
December 19, 2005
What is to be done? Putting it more realistically, what, if anything, is to be done? The answer is not to form a neo-Nazi party with Glendower, Hotspur, and a bunch of misfits and losers. (See my comments in the September 6 entry of my home page.)
My answer, to the extent that I have an answer, can be found on some of the other pages of this site.
the 915 page - This page suggests that what is required is a philosophical reframe:
"...what I am driving at here is that we can't assert our right to exist because the same thing has happened to us - someone or something has made us invisible and inaudible. Trying to advocate a pro-white position or a pro-pot position, let alone both, in any public forum is like talking into a vacuum. You can say the words but they don't register. They have no effect.
"With some issues simple advocacy may work, but it's a waste of time if you want to bring about deep cultural change. You have to address yourself to the structure of the dialogue, not just be a player within it. You not only have to look more than one move ahead (which is already more than most people do) - you have to redefine the game itself. The question is not who wins the argument, but who can make it impossible for his opponent's argument to be heard."
the stories page - The problem is that we live in somebody else's story. The only way we can turn the situation around is to be the storytellers:
"Reality is, ultimately, our only weapon. Setting up an obvious contrast between unreality and reality is one of our basic strategies.
"The other basic strategy is to contain their dialogue within a larger dialogue - put them in the story. Write about them writing about us. They are constantly accusing us of hate speech. They will say that this page itself is hate speech. The idea is to reframe the story so the reader or viewer can see where the hate is really coming from."
What happens in American jails and prisons - This page concludes pessimistically that there is no answer. Our inability to stand up for ourselves is the result of the structure of the modern mind. That is where the random processes of cultural history have brought us, and there is nothing we can do about it.
the post-Nazi page - provides a context for the whole discussion.
Post-Nazism isn't really about socialism, or nationalism. It's about thought control. It's about freeing our minds. To me, the most important thing is not so much the Reich itself as the fact that they are lying about it, and, even worse, it's illegal to question their lies in Germany and many other countries.
Nazism and transhumanism - provides another context (but, as I said above, this page needs to be rewritten).
"After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their destestable practices... They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them." (Ezra 9:1-2)
December 22, 2005
Where are the students? - by Stuart Nussbaumer
"Last month when the number of U.S. dead in Iraq reached 2,000 there was a vigil in my neighborhood. About 300 people showed up, which was not surprising. What I did find surprising was the age of the participants: nearly every one was gray haired, like me.
"I do not live in Miami Beach or in a retirement community in Arizona but in New York City and right next to Columbia University which has some 20,000 students. That’s a lot of students. Yet, at the vigil I could not find a single antiwar demonstrator that appeared to be a student. Not a single one!
"Last week something did happen on Columbia campus that not only woke up the students but kicked the student body into a moral outrage. Student organization after organization condemned the crime. It was the talk of the “steps,” the hangout on campus. Angry words were spoken in the Student Center. A demonstration was supposedly being planned. And what horror had happened at Columbia? A hate crime!
"A very upset student told me, “It is inconceivable that this type of behavior would happen at Columbia. Totally unbelievable!” she hissed. It was clear that she was ready to attack."
I thought this was funny. Black humor, yes, but still funny.
December 23, 2005
Joining the cult - This is where the students are.
At Wake Forest University last fall, one of the few events designated as "mandatory" for freshman orientation was attendance at Blue Eyed, a filmed racism awareness workshop in which whites are abused, ridiculed, made to fail, and taught helpless passivity so that they can identify with "a person of color for a day." In Swarthmore College's dormitories, in the fall of 1998, first-year students were asked to line up by skin color, from lightest to darkest, and to step forward and talk about how they felt concerning their place in that line. Indeed, at almost all of our campuses, some form of moral and political re-education has been built into freshman orientation and residential programming. These exercises have become so commonplace that most students do not even think of the issues of privacy, rights, and dignity involved.
The problem is that 18 year olds don't have a fully developed sense of personal dignity and privacy. They are used to being pushed around and treated like shit. That comes with the territory when you're a kid. They don't know how to assert their rights, because minors don't have rights. When you are in high school, if your parents want to search your room they can, and in most places they can search your locker at school. College freshmen are entering a new situation, and it takes time to adjust. They are not kids anymore, and they do have rights, but they don't understand that yet.
Nevertheless I still think, as I have thought all along, that there are many students who don't want to join the cult, and eventually some of them will have enough balls to form some kind of organized resistance. A class action lawsuit might be the best way to do it, rather than a political movement. White students can't have a political movement. Everybody else can, but they can't. Of course "white" is the wrong concept anyway.
If any such students are reading this... please, don't just get drunk and paint graffiti on the wall in the middle of the night. Don't let them reduce you to that. It's time to grow up and take your place in the adult world. Whatever you have to say, say it in public. Whatever you do, do it openly.
Resistance starts here.
Or here, if you think the sword is mightier than the pen.
Remember what I said earlier: one of the things that distinguished our ancestors from everybody else was that they planned their battles strategically.
