Do not employ or accept the terms of your enemy
Never accept the defamatory phrase “non-Hispanic White.” White men must never be defined by what they are not, especially not in their own White nations. Never pass up an opportunity to publicly hoist an anti-White activist by his own petard by vociferously condemning the use of any White racial slurs. The time of White tolerance of petty racial attacks is over. Whites must strategically take advantage of the emotional minefield that racial taboos present.
Excoriate and humiliate any anti-White, especially one who is not White, foolish enough to make reference to “crackers,” “rednecks,” “honkies,” “White bread,” “White boys,” “White trash” (Jay Leno does this routinely) or any other term demeaning to White men or women. Not only will this tactic instantly drain the credibility of the anti-White person, it will energize and inspire any observing Whites in the crowd to do the same thing in future opportunities. It is extremely rare to find a White man fighting back against attacks on the White race, so seize every opportunity to demonstrate that it can be done from a position of strength and that it carries moral weight.
Anti-racism is a code word for anti-White: never shy from the slander of being called ‘racist’
One of the strongest rhetorical weapons of the enemy is the word ‘racist.’ The good news is that all of its strength will disappear if the public no longer takes it seriously and realizes that it is a thinly-veiled attempt to silence White advocacy. James Edwards’ Racism Schmacism provides all the ammunition you need on this one. For decades, pro-White politicians and activists have shrunk back in horror whenever they hear the word. Destroy the credibility of the word ‘racist’ by confronting it directly and without fear. There are two options: point out that the accuser is using the modern-day equivalent of the word ‘heretic’ or simply explain that the word is only used to silence White people who are winning a debate. Shouting “heresy!” or “racist!” is an underhanded way to avoid difficult subjects, facts, or ideas. Using shaming language is an emotional appeal to crowd psychology that dodges any real analysis of the underlying arguments. Drain the potency of the word ‘racist’ to pave the way for public advocacy of White interests. Redirect the focus upon the accuser—“Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-White.”
Do not exhibit warning signs
Humans are heavily biased towards visual sensory input. Like it or not, a person’s appearance is a crucial causative variable in how ideas are received and evaluated. When a message is controversial or strains against the ruling dogma it is even more important for the spokesman to be aesthetically appealing. Those who are serious about raising White awareness and pointing out the hypocrisy of anti-White multiculturalism must be paragons of civility, not exemplars of barbarism.
Leave the swastikas at home. In a healthy White society, the swastika will be another symbol to study, admire, or criticize along with the rest of the ancient cultural symbols. Presently, America is not a healthy White society. Hence, the swastika is an instant deal-breaker for the overwhelming majority of the population. The demonization of the ancient Aryan symbol, which most racially-aware White scholars know predates Adolf Hitler’s particular manifestation by thousands of years, is indeed unfortunate, ignorant, and rather silly. But publicly reclaiming the history behind the swastika must be put aside to tackle far more important matters—the existence and continuity of the White race.
Avoid stereotypes
The Jewish-dominated mainstream media has spent billions of dollars promoting a caricature of the very worst type of White racial advocate. Everyone can picture this condescending portrayal of a White man who cares about his extended family. A shaved head, multiple tattoos, ragtag clothing, and a penchant for militaristic adornments are some of the familiar attributes. Whenever this sort of ruffian is depicted in a movie or television show he will invariably have a foul mouth, angry grimace, and obvious lack of education and tact to go along with his swastika tattoo and bullet bandolier. This is precisely the image that counter-productive and foolish White advocates present to the mainstream when they make brief cameos in anti-White documentaries or sensationalist reports on “hate in America.” The enemy exploits this phenomenon and likely cherry-picks White racial advocates for media appearances based on their lack of appeal to the broader masses. Successful White advocates must avoid these caricatures at all costs.
An effective persuader will be well-dressed, well-groomed, well-spoken, and well-informed. Be an ambassador of the White race, not a foil or scapegoat for the anti-White media. Leaders must look and act like they are worthy to lead. Spokesmen and proselytizers must inspire trust and exude confidence. Reading books about public speaking or practicing the art of presentation via organizations like Toastmasters can go a long way towards advancing White interests.
Undoubtedly, White advocates will be held to a much higher standard than non-White ethnic advocates, but this should pose no problem, as White men can rise to the challenge as always. After all, White advocates are men of European heritage—heirs of a proud tradition of scholarship, civilization, gentility, societal advancement, and moral evolution. Start acting like a White man.
Avoid the tripwires of massive propaganda
There are some topics that should be avoided when dealing with potential converts to the ideas of White Nationalism. Foremost is Holocaust revisionism. Please understand the distinction—talking about the Holocaust is important and effective in other venues but it is absolutely disastrous to bring it up around the vast majority of Whites. Unfortunately, the proverbial man on the street—who might be persuaded to entertain radical new ideas about White dispossession—will be instantly repelled by discussions of the Holocaust.
There is a reason why reactions to Holocaust revisionism seem almost involuntary. It is because they are conditioned responses built upon years of carefully-constructed propaganda, backed by billions of dollars, and spread by many influential figures in the media, politics, and academia. Do not make the foolish mistake of trying to broach the subject with a potential recruit who still suffers under heavy demoralization.
Another topic to be avoided in initial discussions is the defense of National Socialism. Again, please note that this is not an appeal to denigrate National Socialism or to strike it forever from rational discourse. This is merely a tactical suggestion to promote the spread of White identity and interests in the short term. America, like or not, fought on the side of the Allied Powers against Germany in the Second World War. Thus, any potential convert to White nationalism is likely related to or knows someone whose relative(s) fought against the National Socialist Germans decades ago.
It is far more productive to promote certain tenets of National Socialism without actually referring to the ideology by name. Staunch nationalism, ethnic pride, prioritization of the citizenry’s interests above money interests, and protections against foreign ethnic influence are easier to sell than explicit National Socialism.
Furthermore, the term “Nazi” has been adopted by anti-Whites to demonize any shred of White identity, White pride, or White advocacy. The only way that the word “Nazi” should enter into a conversation with potential recruits to White advocacy should be as a clever psychological maneuver to rob the word of its potency. Use this technique with caution: when describing a pro-White position—such as defending the existence of the White race or opposing illegal immigration—ridicule the enemy by adding: “For merely defending our people against White genocide, these anti-Whites will try to label me a Nazi.” The idea is to short-circuit the programming which conflates National Socialism with any sense of White pride, identity, or nationalism.
White interests are constantly tarred by the brush of National Socialism and this dishonest chicanery is a fine example of the planned dispossession of White Americans. Most pro-Whites have little to no interest in the tenets of National Socialism so they will recognize the devious red herring of conflating any White racial awareness with the rise of a historical bogeyman. From that simple realization, the door is opened to discuss how and why White Americans are being robbed of the right to self-organize and advance political goals.
Frame the issue according to the audience
Know the audience. Adjust the message to the right frequency to ensure that it resonates with the audience. For example, left-liberals will be unlikely to sympathize with a message of interracial violent crime disparities because they usually believe Black males are unfairly targeted for prosecution of rape, robbery, and murder. (Predictably, they rarely make the case that Northeast Asians seem to be unfairly ignored by the criminal justice system.) Instead of appealing to disparities in racial violence, take advantage of the penchant for environmentalism of left-liberals. Illegal aliens have been known to urinate, litter, and disturb the tranquility within public parks, parking lots, or downtown streets where they huddle en masse, waiting to be picked up for a day’s worth of labor law violations. If that does not work, bring up the explosive rebirth of infectious diseases that were once virtually eradicated but have since reappeared, thanks to the massive invasion of Third Worlders pouring across the Southern border and bringing all manners of virulence and pathology to America.
There are so many examples of anti-White policies or trends that a few will resonate with almost any type of potential White convert. Older White people can be reminded that a future for their White children and grandchildren will not be pleasant if it is under non-White rule, e.g. former Rhodesia and South Africa. Blue-collar workers and tradesman are well-aware of the fact that their jobs disappear and wages decrease due to a flood of illegal aliens in the employment pool. Law-and-order type White people are usually angered by illegal immigration strictly because it is illegal and flouts existing procedure. This legalistic outlook may need to be adjusted towards a sense of racial preservation, but for now, it can be used to create a stalwart force of propaganda, money, or grassroots efforts against the tide of non-White invasion.
Never pass up an opportunity to identify anti-White double standards
Many Whites can be easily radicalized through exposure to the astounding number of hypocritical policies and taboos that stifle White interests and advocacy. Myriad non-White organizations exist yet pro-White organizations are universally demonized. White men changing the culture of foreign non-White nations is called evil, imperialist, colonialist, and racist, yet a flood of non-White foreigners taking over formerly White suburbs, cities, and nations is supposed to be a wonderful example of diversity. Genocide in Tibet or Darfur attracts celebrity attention and endless news reports, yet worldwide White genocide is carefully ignored.
These injustices can be used to demonstrate to the potential White Nationalist convert that words like ‘anti-racism,’ ‘diversity,’ and ‘tolerance’ are nothing more than code words for anti-White policy and ideology. With enough talking points and real-world examples about the anti-White realities of life in America, even the most racially-unaware White person will begin to question the unsustainable tenets of multiculturalism and realize that White culture is designated for destruction under the master plan. Soon enough, the awakened White man might respond to an anti-White’s predictable ad hominem criticism of a pro-White position by saying, “In your opinion, I’m racist—you’re just saying that because I’m White. Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-White. You just want to silence White people by calling us silly names—that’s not going to work anymore.” Small victories can add up to significant breakthroughs.
Speak in the White voice to set the trend
Explicitly advancing White interests is currently heresy. Brave White men and women must steadily chip away at this taboo so that White advocacy can reach mainstream legitimacy. Lay the foundation for others to follow—boldly go forth where few White men dare to tread. Many White Americans become very uncomfortable if they mention their White heritage and they are deathly afraid of tying that heritage to a political outlook. This, of course, is due to decades of propaganda aimed at preventing White advocacy and instilling a superfluous sense of White guilt. No other group is afraid to combine a political outlook with an ethnic identity. Black Americans are free to say “As a Black man, I want…” and mestizos are never attacked for saying “As a wise Latina, I feel…,” but anti-White political correctness silences White Americans in this regard. This taboo can be eroded over time by consistently ignoring it as if it does not exist.
Calmly, confidently, and nonchalantly express political desires as a representative of “diverse White Americans,” “European-Americans,” or “men of European descent.” Choose how explicit the ethnic identification will be depending on the intended audience. Strangely enough, claims to European identity are accepted with less apprehension than claims to White identity, so take advantage of the disparity when needed. But if the audience is suspected to have strong racial loyalty feel free to preface pro-White talking points with the bold and direct, “As a White man, I realize…”
An important preliminary for future White advocacy is legitimizing and mainstreaming the fact that White people have interests to advance. White identity politics will not get anywhere unless the taboo of organizing around the White race has been destroyed. Speaking in the White voice will embolden others to do likewise. Every White Nationalist can contribute to this long-term project by talking to friends, family, and associates in a manner that reminds the audience that they are part of a distinct group that must advance its interests if it is to survive. Always speak with clarity and conviction, never retreat from anti-White defamation, and carry forth as a proud ambassador and defender of the White race.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Here are two additional ideas for claiming our identity.
First, deploy the thin edge of the wedge, not the thick edge. This means pull a single thread of the spider web to display its weakness before denouncing the hideous filth we have been reduced to living in. One baby step at a time, not the whole loathsome truth all at once with newbies.
Second, we have for several years deployed “supremacist” at anyone choosing to name (slur) us and it is a good attackback. We are now using the term “bully” as an attackback because the times have enabled this race-free label as more awful than racist or bigot. So add “supremacist” and “bully” in your attackbacks.
http://resistingdefamation.org
Excellent site. Thank you.
I like it. That’s I never felt shame to be called “a radical Muslims’ by the Israel’s professional hasbara thugs.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/nothing-wrong-being-a-radical-muslim/
Very good talking points and advice, Christian. Essentially, use reverse child psychology to your advantage, and always try to target potentially receptive White people. Pointing out the anti-White hypocrisy, unfairness and double standards is a good moral wedge, and works up a sense of grievance as well. Arguing with hard core Marxists or people of other races is a waste of time, and can lead to physical confrontation. So, go forth and sough those seeds of doubt, you may get some of the clueless thinking, or even activate their sense of ethnic identity!
Arguing against hardcore Marxists or people of other races IN ISOLATION is a waste of time.
But if there is a White or pro-White audience, then you are not trying to convert your enemy. You use the enemy as a punching bag and you put on a show to convert the rest of the observers.
They may not convert that instant, but once a strong idea or revolutionary thought is planted it cannot go away. It cannot be forgotten. Words can be highly subversive!
Excellent post.
Christian has been listening to Horus on FTWR #65, which is an even deeper peek into the hows and whys that make Christian’s advice so good. And people, please do go to the link to Resisting Defamation. They continually update and revise their guidebook there to fit the evolving situation.
Here’s a link to Follow the White Rabbit #65. The first hour is where the action is at: http://www.whiterabbitradio.net/audio/FTWR-65.mp3
Check out Resisting Defamation’s revised section on Slurs at http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/slurs9.htm
Wow, this is one of the best articles on TOO in a long time. It summed up so much. It really helps to stop and reflect on effective communication and public relations (formerly known as propaganda – not necessarily a bad word).
Also, the kind of person who is successful in one venue may not be good in another. For example, people who excel at written communication may not come across well in person. People who are effective at organizing street demonstrations (think of union guys) may come across as too harsh on TV. And if you’ve ever seen the books written by most TV or radio hosts, you know how lame they can be.
We all have a role to play, it’s a matter of finding where our particular strengths lie.
I encourage ANY and ALL pro-Whites to listen to every single one of Horus the Avenger’s podcasts. He will refine your points, I promise you. He has been influenced by one of the best pro-White propagandists and “coaches” of all, BOB WHITAKER. http://www.nationalsalvation.net
These are the people who brought you “White genocide” and “anti-White” and “anti-racist is just a code word for anti-White.” This seems so simple but trust me, there is a tremendous amount of contemplation and empirical research (real-world results, too) that goes into the messages and “talking points” presented.
Excellent article, Christian Miller.
When we start writing and talking from the perspective of a people who know we are trapped in the throes of an intentionally planned white genocide we will find a way out.
Great article, and exactly the kind of thing we need much, much more of. If this battle is to be won it will be won in the trenches, not in the clouds. This type of hand to hand combat is what we absolutely must learn and practice.
I like this advice. Since the left has no arguments to support their positions, they either attempt to intimidate or they use moral arguments. The moral arguments I think are what make PC so devastatingly effective.
So, it’s imperative that we show that the left is not only immoral, but hypocritical in the extreme, as everything they charge whites with they are far more guilty of themselves. If we can seize the moral high ground, the debate is won.
I think you forgot to mention the USSR and their murderous monks.Depending on the level of education of the audience , you might start by taking about the mass killings in USSR only 500 km from the German border in the 1920′s & 30′s. Never let the enemy forget they are sons and daughters of mass murders who haven’t yet repented. Repent now!
Peter,
When you mention the USSR’s, ‘murderous monks’, I take it you don’t mean Christian Orthodox disciples, rather that you refer to the murderous cabal of scheming Jewish shysters who were the real authors of the ‘Russian Revolution’ and who wiped out up to 8 Million men women and children just in rural Ukraine alone, by a deliberate program of mass starvation between 1930 and 1932.
Of course you do.
The late British writer Malcolm Muggeridge, wrote a book exposing this REAL holocaust of Millions of White Christians in the mid 1930′s, called ‘Winter in Moscow’. He claimed it was this book which inhibited his career as a writer because it named the Jews as drivers of this industrial scale ethnic cleansing of an entire class of Whites called Kulaks. He felt that Jews, who have controlled the Media in almost every White country for a very long time, never forgave him for telling the truth about their complicity in this mass extermination and this was the reason he never held a job as a senior Journalist after its publication.
Even today it nearly impossible to get hold of this book. The Jews don’t want the Goyim to get any ideas of what they have in store for them in America and elsewhere. If he were alive today I dare say he’d be suggesting Americans keep their guns.
Saying that you have a problem with immigration because illegal immigrants are more likely to litter is disingenuous and will be perceived as such. Don’t do that.
With liberals, there are actually lots of good points you can make that would be harder to make with conservatives. I would focus on the inherent contradiction between the types of societies they envision (e.g. high standards of living for the working and middle class, socialized programs, etc.) and multiracialism. Talk about the conflict that inevitably arises when you have lots of different ethnic groups in the same society and how that conflict is a drain on people, and that it wastes a lot of effort that could be used more productively. Talk about how the elites use “diversity” to keep the masses divided against each other and incapable of acting collectively in their own interest. Talk about how a sense of ethnic identity is a natural and fundamental human need and that it is cruel and unhealthy to deny this to White people. It’s also worth pointing out that a lot more White people would support the left on issues like opposing corporate power and offshoring of jobs if it weren’t for the cultural Marxist stuff.
Liberals are also going to be much more open to discussions of Jewish power than conservatives. Specifically, talk about how Jews have hijacked the left and turned it into a tool to serve exclusively Jewish interests, and how the focus on “diversity” is a part of this.
For dealing with Whites of whatever ideological persuasion, I think highlighting the Jewish role in all of this is good and should not be shied away from. We need to emphasize the fact that WE ARE BEING SUCKERED. All the “diversity” propaganda does not stem from some noble, high-minded philosophy – it is a gigantic con-job perpetuated by Jews who are not nearly so stupid as to abandon their own sense of ethnic identity. People like feeling like they are sacrificing for the greater good; they don’t like feeling like suckers. For obvious evolutionary reasons we have an intense aversion to being cheated. So get this thought into people’s heads: “supporting diversity = being a sucker”.
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of pointing out that diversity is a nothing more than a trick to destroy solidarity.
Re: environmental argument
It has worked for me in the past. But by all means if there are stronger arguments, use them! Thank you for pointing out some very good talking points.
Please note when it’s one-on-one you might feel like debating. When you have an audience, you make talking points. You leave strong ideas and you consistently spread your message. You don’t argue. You make talking points because they will linger in the minds of the observers.
Arguments dissipate. Talking points saturate.
I – Absolutely! Hear hear! Exactly. We need to STOP DEFENDING. We’re right. We don;t make excuses for our position. We do what-ever it takes. I’ve just cared the Hell out of every-one I’m dealing with, BY talking about Jewish malevolence, and subversion – and they are all stil talkng to me. They were all shocked – genuinely shocked – but I am ready to go in an instant. and I DO NOT EVER let up “on message”. NOT EVER. No mercy, no quarter. Whenever some-one is complaining about a horrible trend, or condition, I don’t miss an opportunity to point out the Jewish insitgation. I’ve todl Blacks, in person, when they are complaining aobut Whites, to not confuse Whites with Jews. And then, I porvide a few salient points. Bringing up the book, “The Secret Relationshiip between Blacks and Jews” does wonders. They are surprised and flattered that a White woman knows about “Black book”, couldn’t care less about the book being produced by the NOI, flattered even further when I tell them that he book is a great resource, and a work of genuine scholarship, and most Blacks know all aobut Jews. If you can pull off this conversation in front of a “Liberal” White, all the better. They witness a “racist” talking to Blacks, about something they have no knowledge of (if you want to draw in PC Whites – NOTHING works better than that which is fashionable. Nothing. ), and witnessing agreement, and accord.
Don’t back off the Jew issue. Ever.
I’ve found over the years, that the best policy is to avoid Jews, and avoid talking to them.
Miller’s article is too academic for me.
Good essay but it leaves out an important angle.
White people are individualists and most everyone else is collectivist. It is easy to get someone to see that collectivists might pose a threat to individualists. It also explains the behavior of whites and why they allowing this crap to happen to them.
Mmmm…nice little twist…
Great points! I try to put them into action daily in the office I work in. It’s so true that each case is different. Some people you can really pour it on with, others you have to dole it out in measured doses. No matter what, always exude white mindedness!
This is a very good, well-thought out, hard-hitting article. Thank you!
From time to time when I’ve been called ‘racist’ in public discourse I respond forcefully to the accuser (mustering as much self-righteous indignation as I can without laughing) by saying: “Just who do you think you are – the thought police?” This always puts them on the defensive (responding with a question always does) and embarrasses the heck out of them to boot!
Once and awhile you do have to ask a Roman Catholic political type, “who died and made you Pope”. That always shuts them up. LOL.
I would love to see someone run that one on Chris Matthews, Larry O’Domnnell, Rachel Maddow, or even Paddy O’Buchanan on national TV.
Great points!
I have found the line “You say that because I’m White” to be very effective in my workplace — to Whites and non-Whites that bash Whites who think it’s OK and hilarious, where the same commentary from me about a non-White would cost me my job.
It usually causes quite a reaction and a withering retreat — exactly the effect we want. I refuse to be shouted down by non-Whites as well, especially when I can’t avoid them. This tactic is used to make us cower and I won’t have it.
The most important thing Christian said in the article is to “Know Your Audience.” Yes. Many non-Whites, especially blacks, when losing a debate or argument, become physically violent. Many White lefties are impervious to anything except the PC party line. Nothing can be done about them, but Whites ARE waking up to what is happening around them, especially young Whites who are on the front lines of AA White displacement.
I see this in commentary, such as commentary about the recent McDonald’s beatdown. Several articles I read had the comment section disabled; others that weren’t showed a White awakening.
But, again, great, very important article.
Also, I think divide and conquer can be useful. It turns out that the video that Jason Speaks posted of two black girls beating a white “girl” until she had a seizure was actually of a transvestite being beaten.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if a white McDonald’s employee had stood filming (and laughing) while a black transvestite was being beaten by white girls (one of whom had been charged with assault at same McDonald’s last year – “did you call me ugly”) we would have held all about it on the mainstream media.
Very good points. And yes Boudica, it is important to remember there is no point in arguing with certain people. Sometimes we all have to cool off and think: What is the point in arguing with a black person about White Advocacy? Almost none. In truth, arguing with Jews is pointless, unless they are some rare exception.
The truth is, we do have a conflict of interests with other groups. Hispanics, blacks and other really can gain at the expense of Whites, and that is a fact. We need to get Whites to understand that fact.
Jason – it’s easy to get racist Blacks over o he White Side. Just ask them if they want to deal with Whites, for the rest of their lives, or do they want to be ruled by Jews?
Works like a charm…and we want to get every-one over to our side.
Please elaborate…
Fantastic article Christian!
Re: “Excoriate and humiliate any anti-White, especially one who is not White,”….
I disagree with this point. We should go after those who look like us but have no loyalty to us much more so. White anti-whites are dangerous creatures because they have far more influence on us than any non-white. Traitors are always the most dangerous enemy. Although we are the most individualistic race, we are still social animals who seek peer approval. Repeatedly shaming and humiliating fellow whites who push for our genocide may make the anti-white gun-shy after a while or, if it has no impact on the anti-white, a white in the audience could be less likely to become a genocidal anti-white.
Also consider that there are billions of dollars and legal systems at the disposal of non-white groups to defend their own (ADL, NAACP, etc) but there are ZERO white organizations specifically to defend anti-white whites. As our message gets out there, they won’t have a place to go.
I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Definitely concentrate on shaming and humiliating White race traitors — anti-Whites who think it’s cute to try to destroy their extended family. You are correct that they are extremely dangerous (as are all traitors).
I only meant that it is easier to humiliate a non-White if he dares to use a White racial or ethnic slur. I never hesitate to scold anyone, including a White man, for saying something like “cracker” or “White bread” in a public debate. But it is absolute dynamite when you catch a non-White using those words. That’s all I meant.
You raise an extremely important point — some of the most vicious anti-Whites are actually White themselves. They’ll ask, “How can I be anti-White, I’m White?” Your answer: “Have you ever heard of Benedict Arnold? You’re an anti-White traitor. Why do you hate your own people?”
Thank you Christian. You are right, and right, and also right. You give me a stout heart today.
Julian, you are a man “against time” (see Savitri Devi). I enjoy your work and take it as a huge compliment that you enjoy mine.
Thank you Christian Miller for this useful post.
That’s right, keep doing what you’ve been doing for decades with no success. Thankfully, our new found free flow of information will eventually swamp all of the canned propaganda, while you’re out there being careful of what you say. Aren’t there any men among you? Any who know that you don’t win a woman by being careful? The indoctrinated masses are, after all, very feminine. They’ll only be attracted to masculinity, so buy yourselves some popcorn and continue being careful.
Good point, Alfred. Beside the fact that timid approaches to getting the message across or “beating around the bush” with regard to subject matter concerning the genocidal war being waged against us in the hopes that we can get past the “years of programming” are not really necessary. Why? Because most whites are very well aware of what is happening to them-they are simply too frightened (ususally the fear of being jobless) to take a stand. Whites have moved en masse from California to other “whiter” states because they know full well the dangers facing them in Mexifornia. This and countless other indicators prove that whites (at least most of the more intelligent ones) are conscious of the dangers of their new “diverse” environment- they simply do not have the courage to face the danger head-on and to take effective action against it. To do so would require at least a modicum of ethnocentrism – concern for other whites and the future of our children, but no, we choose to either stick our heads in the sand like an Ostrich and hope the problem goes away or we choose to move to a new neighborhood. The problem with the latter solution is that we are running out of new neighborhoods to run to and the federal government is actually relocating our enemies squarely into those areas which it deems are “underrepresented by people of color”. One example is the US governments’ recent program to move Somalians to the state of Maine. You could not ask for a more undesirable neighbor. The same will happen to the Northwest US as well, as they expand their efforts to move undesirables into those states too. Sooner or later the white populace will have to face the fact that running away and/or verbal persuasion will not work. We are already a minority and the clock is ticking.
As Revilo Oliver said in a piece called “From a Lost World” written in 1987: ” Victims of ‘peace-itis’ loudly proclaim that you can’t depend on force. Actually, you can’t depend on anything but force. Diplomacy works only if backed up by force…..Peace is nothing but the aftermath of war or the interlude between wars… Whether people like us or hate us is irrelevant. Our choice is to be feared or to be the victim. There is no other choice”.
He goes on to say with regard to the South Africans (whites) : “Here we have an instance of an intelligent body of people so bemused by egalitarian propaganda that they wilingly condemn their own children to destruction. For this monstrous crime they fully deserve the racial extinction which will inevitably come with Black rule. Yet one pities the innocent children….That is the epitaph for South Africans, and it will be the epitaph for Americans.”
Wow.
OK, this is my third comment, but it’s important.
Curt wrote, “One example is the US governments’ recent program to move Somalians to the state of Maine.”
I decided to check this out on the internet.
Here’s what I found from the state of Maine’s official website (http://www.maine.gov/sos/kids/geography/Winner/moulton.htm)
“”Variety is the spice of life”. This phrase may seem cliché at times, but it is completely true for people around the world. Diversity is necessary and enjoyable in all areas of human life, such as diet, activities, and perhaps most importantly, community make-up.
An excellent example of this type of cultural infiltration is the Somalian influx into Lewiston, Maine in recent years.”
Unbelievable.
The absolute lie at the end of that first paragraph…
It bears repeating:
“Diversity is necessary and enjoyable in all areas of human life, such as diet, activities, and perhaps most importantly, community make-up.”
Straight from the state of Maine.
I ask people if diversity is so great, why is the US falling apart as diversity increases, and why is everyone at each others throats? The rather lamo country of China is set to surpass us in only 5 years.
Further, is it against the law to advocate for a peaceful break up of the United States? With all the upheaval in the Middle East, can’t we get our freedom just like the Libyan revolutionaries we are supporting with our bombs?
What is really left in the US for a white man? Who here would want to fight for it? Aren’t our differences now just too great to overcome?
@ Race Realist:
Yes Sir! Quite an eye opener isn’t it? Maine has been an almost lily-white state with a population of only 1,240,000, so it won’t be long before the whites there are a minority, I believe. Also, it is an expensive state to live in. My wife and I vactioned there a couple times for a few days at a time (all we could afford) and we know the cost of living there is very high. But not so for those Somalis! They are transplanted at government expense and food stamps and gov’t assistance are available for them right away. Now the natives of Maine get to experience diversity in all its glory. And its good for us, so says the state of Maine! “Dibersity be our stremph”!
Excellent article Christian.
“Anti-white to infinity”
“Anti-white is the cow with a million tits”.
I wonder how much of this Christian Miller has tried to put into practice.
“Destroy the credibility of the word ‘racist’ by confronting it directly and without fear. There are two options: point out that the accuser is using the modern-day equivalent of the word ‘heretic’ or simply explain that the word is only used to silence White people who are winning a debate.”
Christian Miller says that he advocates “confronting it directly” but he really does not. He leaves the assumption, that the word racism is and should be pejorative, unaddressed.
There is another option, which is just not to worry about being called racist. If you don’t seem concerned about it others will take notice.
“Using shaming language is an emotional appeal to crowd psychology that dodges any real analysis of the underlying arguments. ”
Quite right. Do you think you can win at that game?
The first half of the essay seems to be terribly concerned about what some other people will think or say, and I just don’t think that’s a very healthy focus.
I think that anybody who is authentic and rational is not going to need to be advised about, for example, whether it is a good or bad idea to wear a swastika.
Some of the other blanket advice, like not discussing the Holocaust or National-Socialism, is not universally valid. It depends on to whom you are speaking, and it also makes a big difference how you got onto the subject. There is a lot of criticism of Israel today, especially on the left, and if you are talking to a liberal that objects to Israeli policy, and knows of the criticisms about Israel’s use of the Holocaust, you just might get a fair hearing on the proposition that Jewish suffering has been grossly exaggerated: it’s almost a self-evident conclusion.
There is this media-generated stereotype that somebody that “denies the Holocaust” is just a Jew-hater that is so rabid that he will deny obvious facts. If you are relaxed and don’t insist on agreement, that will be much easier to overcome.
Be genuine, be thoughtful, and then you won’t come across as a Hollywood stereotype.
There is another way of looking at the subject.
– Chapter 12, Book I, Mein Kampf
–USN Commander George Lincoln Rockwell, In Hoc Signo Vinces
“Let us not crawl down amongst the rats begging for mercy or trying to out-sneak them and pretend to be rats ourselves! ”
The only rats I see are the anti-whites scurrying away from the anti-white label and the trolls desperate to divert attention away from that very important fact.
More slight of hands, PC talk, that has just done wonders for the white race! Your well meaning, however the only man who has done anything massive for the European Race held up the Swastica, was laughed at, then took most of Europe over! Your lets hide and pretend we are doing something tactics have been tried for 30 years, and the white race sinks and sinks lower; I would say to just about the weakest position the white race has had in modern era.
“More slight of hands, PC talk, that has just done wonders for the white race! ”
LOL
Where is the Political Correctness(exclusively anti-white) in anything Christian said?
“Your lets hide and pretend we are doing something tactics”
So what kind of legal and effective practical politics do you advocate to be used to destroy the anti-white PC religion?
The offensive :) works wonders.
Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White.
Anti-Whites are responsible for the ongoing Genocide attempt of the White race.
Anti-Whites are the most dangerous creatures on earth, they are the enemy within. Nothing rots more than that.
They gotta go.
Look at successful movements.
They almost always portray themselves as victims.
Victimhood is possibly the most effective way of creating social change.
So any kind of pro white movement should try to avoid any appearance of being a bully.
This might include being civilized towards those with whom one disagrees.
It also might include pointing out how the media bullies and intimidates and demonizes white people who care about their own race and do no wish to see it destroyed.
Most importantly, all white people should discourage other whites from using the n-word.
Look at the tea party. The media has a way of taking a handful of members of the tea party and framing the entire movement around them.
I live in Australia, and I have been a quiet reader of the Occidental Observer for many months now. I admire the fact that people in the United States are actually having this debate. Unfortunately, in my experience to date, there is no such discussion of any note taking place in Australia. My impression is that white people here are either too afraid to voice their real feelings, or they have become whole-hearted devoutees to the multi-cultural ‘white man = bad’ mindset which is taught to us from kindergarten right through to the highest academic levels.
Truely, it is late in the day and we have not even begun our labours to restore our house to its former glory – but mark my words, soon our work shall begin in earnest, and then all the world will know us by the mighty roar of our hammers.
John,
I’m also in OZ. Remember what they did to Pauline Hanson? For threatening the status quo, she was eventually JAILED and had body cavity searches every time one of her children visited her. I suppose she can count herself lucky to be alive, in Sweden Anna Lindh was Foreign Minister when she proposed a boycott of the criminal Israeli State. She was killed, by a, ‘lone nut’ with a hunting knife who literally carved her liver out in a shopping center.
I’m not the only one who suspects Austria’s elegant far right leader Jorg Haider was assassinated in his high powered VW Phaeton Sedan (the safest VW ever made) because he opposed the Left. So was Hollands anti immigrant Pym Fortuyin, who said ‘Holland is full’. Another ‘lone nut’ put a slug into his head just before an election he was a certainty to win.
So many lone nuts.
The unspeakable, murderous Zionist shysters have a ‘murder incorporated’ division to keep the herd in check and they use it from time to time. A prominent German politician named Jurgen Molleman, whose trademark shtick was parachuting into political rallies, was knocked off when BOTH of his parachutes failed to open. The odds of that are incalculable. They do have a sense of humor, in Lebanon they placed a large bomb underneath a prominent politician’s lavatory which was designed to detonate when he flushed it. It worked beautifully and blew the you-know-what out of the poor bastard.
“….Do not make the foolish mistake of trying to broach the subject with a potential recruit who still suffers under heavy demoralization….”
Communists and military-industrial officials always talk about “recruits” and “winning to our side.” There is really nothing to be recruited or won here. BY CONTRAST, we speak in our language of awareness, of knowledge, of learning, OF WAKING UP. That is our language, our word, not the military language of the right. This language was co-opted in the 60s, but remains ours. People need to simply realize who they really are, to make a decision to be who they really are, in their own history, families, trajectory to wherever they are in the world, etc.
We are not recruiting or selling goods. Rather, returning lost souls to themselves.
@ comment above: “Good essay but it leaves out an important angle.
White people are individualists and most everyone else is collectivist. It is easy to get someone to see that collectivists might pose a threat to individualists. It also explains the behavior of whites and why they allowing this crap to happen to them….”
This is very commonly said, and especially on this site, and even Kevin MacDonald falls prey to it, but it’s simply a lie. Read Albion’s Seed, for instance: http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-Cultural/dp/0195069056
History and genuine artifacts of our history and pre-history SHOWS CLEARLY that we have formed many tight groups and alliances, as well as enclosed gated communities (castles, lol), and even now, in the U.S. have many following in older tightly knit community structures, the Amish, many Mormon communities, Mennonites, etc. In earlier America, there were many apprenticeship structures and much, much more.
This false idea that we are “individualists” is often tied to the idea of our “creativity.” But these things are not mutually exclusive, and have not been historically. In fact, within our tightly knit communities (which are legend, in reality), we have unleashed our creative energy ten-fold. Early America was this way, without taxation, with plenty of land. We, in reality, excel at forming countless variations on community.
By taking the tack that TOO does (claiming we are like something out of an Ayn Rand myth), we X out, or deny more full discussion of our endless types of folkways and community structures, then these are lost, making us our own worst enemy.
Northern Europeans (primarily) made the U.S. constitution, mostly protestants and this form allowed for a great amount of creatively within a defined sphere. But it did not lack community. It’s just not the top-down heirarchical “community” of southern europe after rome, and the jews. The chruches, like the government, are more de-centralized, more self-starting, keeping it small, growing it local, chosing one’s pastors, not having to confess before some “authority” (of man), and so on. This DOES NOT MEAN there is no “community,” lol.
Although this is how it appears, often through the lens of South europe. Dr. Mac is a Catholic, so maybe it will appear that way to him, as structureless. But it is not. It’s just a looser, more de-centralized structure that allows for more creativity, in communion with God which is to be personal, and so on, just like the government structures that are now gone (with immigrants changing things).
Anyway, Northern Europeans have immense structure and community, it is just a little different. The structures tend to produce the strongest amount of possibility for creativity against a backdrop of lose structure and real community. (Real community is actually necessary for creativity, since it produces a ‘safety net’ from within which to let the mind roam. Seeds of Albion is a good book for acquainting oneself with this.
In fact, notice how Dr. Mac still speaks of the “wasp elite.” Now… what made this group, supposedly, was how they helped each other out, furthered their interests, etc. So…isn’t the WHOLE CRITIQUE THAT THEY ARE NOT individualistic, lol—- but rather formed an elite group.
If you think about it—- the whole U.S. is today FORMULATED on the idea of fear of Northern European solidarity. Obviously, if SO MANY IMPERATIVES are made against group formation, then it is a threat, and it has existed in the past— therefore they are not individualist, lol.
If they were, lol, there would not be a whole society (like u.s.) actually based in not allowing them to make groups. It just wouldn’t be an issue.
This—- is one of those places where your opposition defined your terms for you, imo (think about it).
@ comment above: “Good essay but it leaves out an important angle.
White people are individualists and most everyone else is collectivist. It is easy to get someone to see that collectivists might pose a threat to individualists. It also explains the behavior of whites and why they allowing this crap to happen to them….”
This is very commonly said, and especially on this site, and even Kevin MacDonald falls prey to it, but it’s simply a lie.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think the commenter was meaning that white people are not acting in the racial collectivist sense,which obviously is not a lie.
Hi Christian Miller – good piece, one of the best I’ve seen.
Would you be prepared to do some thinking about the strategy that would be based purely on arguments for whites to be equal partners in a multicultural society? I mean, the angle of actually being passionately pro-multiculturalism from the perspective of believing in the idea of peoples with strong identities and internal traditions living along side in peace. The point about this is that it’s the same basic idea that you use when you speak of avoiding certain topics with people, but it takes it to the extreme, thus removing all resistence.
I see this as potentially the most powerful strategy for waking people up in increasing number. – if people like you could think through the details and get something focused together. The reason is simply that there is actually a really truthful and morally obvious situation of unfairness toward white groups FROM WITHIN the concept of multiculturalism. Whites need to the comfort of a culture and a sense of people and history and destiny, just like any other group. And yet they are denied and usually this denial comes in the form of implicit and not necessarily intended or thought through prejudice.
Just the fact this is true, actually true, means that its reality can be appealed directly to people by simply being passionate about fairness and equality and the multicultural future.
You must see that it shouldn’t matter what does or doesn’t stick in the throat. It’s about waking up, in time. One man at a time isn’t going to do it. A snow ball dynamic has to be produced. This could be part of that, if as I say, people like you really sit down and crank through the details and come up with something script wise that people can start to use. Just think about it. Just consider it.
The bottom line is, we know, we know, that once a white person is seeing the unfairness and the discrimination, he’s on his way home.
Another thing to put to the left wingers who support immigration is to ask them about the non existing liberal traditions of the countries supplying us with new citizens. What kind of human rights records do they have, environmental activism, equality for women, etc. They will brush all that BS aside with the liberal idiots who invited them when the time comes for their revenge on the white man.
when you say “express political desires as a representative of ‘diverse White Americans,’ ‘European-Americans,’ or ‘men of European descent.’” the implication is that being a true american doesn’t require full European ancestory to qualify. Blacks, hispanics, and orientals in America are always referred to by their ancestral place of origin, hyphenated with “American.” I use the term “Native Westerner” whenever in a discussion where there is a non-nationalist present as to not sound so harsh that the word “white” usually does. Native Westerner as a term is especially helpful when speaking of immigration into Europe, because is holds that whites (Europe originally being the only place referred to as the West, due to its position at the western end of the “old world”) are the indigenous populations of those areas and rebuffs any point similar to, as a lefty might say “the children of immigrants born in the UK are just as just as British as anyone born here”