White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Young White Advocates

A very encouraging recent trend is the emergence of some very talented young people in the movement for White advocacy and cultural preservation. One of the reasons I was attracted to American Third Position was the presence of young men willing to go out into the street and very publicly proclaim their beliefs. Young men are the backbone of every revolution in history, and the revolution to take back America and the West will be no different.

Of course, it’s still rather dangerous to do so, as I discuss in an article on the A3P website (Being White in Public) two A3P people manning a booth in San Juan Capistrano were harassed by a Latino gang. Vastly outnumbered, they had to withdraw.

Peter Brimelow has recently documented the obvious fact that although there was a media-driven moral panic about the Hutaree militia, the left has repeatedly engaged in violence and intimidation:

“Political violence” in the U.S. and throughout the Anglosphere exclusively comes from the Left. Who shut down the recent American Renaissance conference with death threats? (An atrocity, incidentally, that the Washington Post did not deign to report, although it happened in its home town). Who prevents Ann Coulter or Tom Tancredo from speaking on campuses? Has this ever happened to any Left-wing group or speaker?

As I note in the article, Anti-Racist Action is quite upfront about their willingness to resort to violence to keep White advocates off the streets. We have to be willing to be publicly visible. I think one of our first priorities should be to loudly and proudly participate in public events aimed at explicit White advocacy. Doing so in large numbers would make it very difficult for the left to shut it down.

The encouraging thing is that the number of intelligent, articulate young people who are willing to do that. These people have somehow grasped the depth of the problem faced by their people in the  teeth of wall-to-wall propaganda directed against White identity that they have endured throughout their school years and the enormous social pressures they face as adults against advocating for their people.

Another very promising group of young people is Youth for Western Civilization — an organization aimed at college students that certainly deserves financial support as they try to fund a full-time staff. (Needless to say, A3P is also deserving of financial support and for the same reasons.) Kevin DeAnna, the founder and president, is a very articulate and effective spokesman for the preservation of our culture and traditions. And he understands that in the end it’s about the people who will make up the country. His excellent video, linked below, shows the true face of the immigrant invasion: Ethnocentric and unassimilable non-Whites with historical hatreds against Europeans; commitment to far left ideologies rather than constitutional government and the rule of law; trampling on the American flag while waving their own flags; minority activist organizations like La Raza, often with an explicit ideology of conquering the US for their people — well-funded by corporate America and leftist foundations; unions of public service employees such as the Service Employees International Union, led by Andy Stern, that are committed to big government and non-White immigration;  and sell-out politicians like Dick Armey who are attempting to influence the Tea Party movement to welcome immigration amnesty as somehow good for the Republican Party.

As the film shows, Armey is indeed a sell-out, receiving huge fees from pro-immigration activist groups. One of our biggest problems is that it is financially lucrative for  Whites to become whores for the interests of people who hate them. Funding organizations like A3P and Youth for Western Civilization means that a critical mass of young people have a viable career option in what amounts to pro-White activism.

As DeAnna says toward the  end of the film, if the Republican Party accepts amnesty, it really means the end of the country. He is absolutely right. And the sad thing is that even if amnesty is defeated, it will simply slow down the process of White displacement. Unless the illegals are deported and legal immigration is stopped, White America is doomed. That is the position of American Third Position.

Bookmark and Share

March on America from Western Youth on Vimeo.

Christopher Donovan: Frank Rich is Right About One Thing

Christopher Donovan: The rage isn’t, in fact, about healthcare.  Nobody is throwing bricks through windows in defense of insurance companies.  Bricks get thrown when people are angry about very fundamental things, like racial displacement.

So, Frank Rich, the Jewish New York Times pundit with a history of white-bashing, is at least half right in the notorious Sunday column that drew 606 reader comments.  He is more correct on that point than “Laurie from Bartlett, NH”, a “tea party” sympathizer and one of 606 commenters on the column:

Dangerous piece. Horrified when I read this because this writer obviously has never attended a “tea party” and knows not of what he speaks. The Americans who are giving of their precious time,limited funds and heart wrenching courage should NEVER be demonized and misstated like this.There were 10,000 people in Nevada today,there will be thousands in Boston on 4/14…these are faithful,hardworking,honest Americans. They have seen the takeover of our biggest freemarket institutions by government. They are frightened,concerned and,yes,angry. How dare you misinterpret and misrepresent the message of this great uprising. This has NOTHING to do w/race..it has everything to do with what our fathers,grandfather,greatgrandfathers fought for..LIBERTY!! LIBERTY!! LIBERTY!!!

Laurie from Bartlett, NH

Rich is more correct on the white rage point than even the venerable Pat Buchanan, who weakly suggests in this reaction column that because some non-whites think immigration needs controlling, the “tea party” crowd isn’t necessarily white resistance by another name.

But Laurie is wrong.  Pat Buchanan is wrong.

It is about race.

Where I part sharply with Frank Rich, of course, is whether the white anger is justified — and requires organized action by whites to act on that anger.  He dreads the prospect, while I cheer it.

But Frank Rich, to my mind, is only part of our problem.  “Laurie from Bartlett, NH” is an equally bedeviling problem for white advocacy.  Here’s a (no doubt) conservative white woman who appears to have convinced herself that “This has NOTHING to do w/race…”  It instead has to do with “LIBERTY!!”  Among the liberating aspects of race realism and white advocacy is the abandonment of the belief that anyone anywhere is motivated by abstractions like “freedom” or “liberty”.  Of course, they’re not.  Blood and soil is more like it.  It seems to me that a more important task for us to persuade “Laurie from Bartlett, NH” to shake herself from slumber and realize what’s really going on.  I don’t think debating with Frank Rich will do any good.

There are fewer more disturbing trends than your average white conservative’s hyperventilating that “I’m not a racist” and “race has nothing to do with it — it’s about the free market!”  Trust me, white-conservative-in-denial:  admitting that race is real — and that whites have legitimate group interests — is like untying that other hand from behind your back.

As a reader service for TOO, I waded through all the comments.  Most, disappointingly, cheered Rich on.  Some openly disparaged whites, like this likely Jewish commenter:

We can’t say the GOP is not diverse. They run the gamut of white billionaires, white millionaires, white run-of-the mill McMansion “owners”, white trailer inhabitants, white gun nuts, to white oolitical opportunists, etc., etc.,

Anne Green from Columbia, MD

The “conservative” responses all took the tack of “Laurie from Bartlett, NH”:  don’t smear us tea party activists as “racists.”

There was, that I saw, a lone pro-white comment:

what a disgusting article. the real people who face discrimination are whites (that is, people of european descent). white students are purposefully rejected from colleges just because of affirmative action for ‘minorities’ (who will very soon become the majority.) meanwhile, white adults are denied jobs just for the color of their skin! this, my friend, is racism.

whites are becoming a minority in the usa, canada, europe, australia, etc. europe will become majority muslim. and yet, it is a sin to want to preserve one’s heritage? in the usa, we have indian groups, asian groups, black groups, but white groups are racist!

it is about time we fight for our rights, and values and culture. it is not racist, everyone else is doing it. it is just fighting against racism and discrimination that is facing whites all over the world.

John from USA

Quite right, John from USA.

As a post-script, I’m doubting that my letter will run in the NYT.  Here’s a piece by letters editor Thomas Feyer that sheds light on why.  He is, he says, the son of “survivors of Nazism.”  Where does this crap end, for God’s sake?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

John Derbyshire, Sam Francis, and the War on Middle Class White Americans

John Derbyshire’s “No Life on MARS” is valuable mainly because he quotes a 1998 essay by Sam Francis as follows:

Today, the main political line of division in the United States is not between the regions of North and South (insofar as such regions can still be said to exist) but between elite and nonelite. As I have tried to make plain … for the last 15 years, the elite, based in Washington, New York, and a few large metropolises, allies with the underclass against Middle Americans, who pay the taxes, do the work, fight the wars, suffer the crime, and endure their own political and cultura1 dispossession at the hands of the elite and its underclass vanguard. …

The leaders of the alien underclass, as well as those of the older black underclass, invoke race in explicit terms, and they leave no doubt that their main enemy is the white man and his institutions and patterns of belief. … Middle Americans now face [the imperative] of constructing their own autonomous political movement that can take back their nation rather than assisting the new underclass and the globalist ruling class in breaking it up. The time left for us to do so is shorter than it has ever [been] before in our history.

Francis also pointed out that the elites had developed a powerful new weapon against Middle Americans in the form of mass immigration. The result is what we see now: Accelerating White dispossession and the polarization of politics along racial/ethnic lines rather than social class lines.

As usual, Derbyshire fails to mention any role of Jews as a critical part of the anti-White elite and the historic role of Jews in creating an elite that is hostile to the interests of middle class White Americans. (This is unlike Francis who, in a chapter in Race and the American Prospect written shortly before his death, described Jews as “as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class, providing ideological justification of its structure and policies, disseminating its ideological formulas to the mass population, formulating and often implementing specific policies, and providing much of the specialized educational training essential to the transmission and perpetuation of the technocratic skills of the elite.”)  In addition to being vastly overrepresented in all areas of the elite, Jews have allied themselves with the “alien underclass.” The Black-Jewish alliance is over a century old, and now Jewish groups are busy aligning themselves with the myriad ethnic groups that will soon make up the American majority.

Derbyshire is right to be pessimistic about the prospects of White Middle American anger for really changing things. What it really comes down to is the lack of intellectual leadership able to challenge “liberal ruling-class rhetoric about ‘nativism’ and ‘racism.’” “The Tea Partiers will be marginalized by appeals to political correctness, a thing easily done as practically all of them are white.”

This is quite correct, and it points to a reality that Derbyshire underplays. This is fundamentally a low-level race war between middle class Whites and the people who would displace them. It’s not just the alien underclass that is favored by elite opinion. The coalition commanded by the ruling elite includes not just the underclass, but all non-Whites as well as sexual minorities and aggrieved feminists. Moreover, it’s notorious that mainstream “conservative” intellectuals have knuckled under to this rhetoric as well. Hence the furor among respectable conservatives over the establishment of AltRight and the constant harassment and vilification of any murmurings of White identity on the part of activist organizations like the SPLC and the ADL.

This is really what it comes down to, but we certainly can’t blame middle class Whites for the fact that they are not up to challenging the consensus on race. Middle class Whites respect elite opinion and trust the basic institutions of the society. They are strongly patriotic. They are intellectually insecure when it comes to thinking about race, subjected as they are to constant media images of racially conscious Whites as Klansmen, Nazis, psychopaths, and intellectual cretins. And “conservatives” like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly keep telling them that the main problem is those nasty Democrats. These media conservatives bend over backwards to show that they have signed on to elite opinion about race. It takes a great deal of intellectual self-confidence and a very thick skin to withstand the onslaught of the intellectual and media elites who occupy all the prestigious positions in society, especially since many of the middle class targets of this onslaught could lose their jobs for asserting a White identity.

Until White identity and interests are legitimized, it’s certainly naïve to suppose that respectable middle class White people are going to start complaining about their displacement in explicitly White terms. But they will not be an effective political force until they do so. Although they will be in the forefront of the looming battle on illegal immigration (and that is certainly all to the good), they will remain silent in the face of the much greater problem of legal non-White immigration. (Glenn Beck on legal immigration: “I’m not a racist. [Illegal immigration] isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.”)

The war against middle class White America is therefore a war that “cannot tell its name” — it can’t be labeled for what it is but must masquerade as a moral crusade for certain abstract concepts like “diversity,” and “tolerance.” The Tea Partiers are left with no alternative but to fight back with their own abstractions, like “limited government” and “individual freedom.” The liberal establishment has nothing to fear from this.

That’s why the White middle class revolution has to be top-down in the sense that it must have an intellectual vanguard that legitimizes White identity and interests among the broad mass of White people. Until then, there will be much rage but no basic change. And this implies that a huge part of our energies must be directed at legitimizing the simple idea that White people, like everyone else, have ethnic interests.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: On Shutting Down Pro-White Meetings

Kevin MacDonald: William Sheldon’s current TOO article (“Pro-White Conference 2.0”) offers suggestions on how to avoid the aggressive tactics typically used against any meeting that has overtones of White advocacy. The recent cancellation of the AmRen conference and the cancellation of three speeches in America by BNP leader Nick Griffin (including one scheduled for AmRen) indicate a need to come up with a counter strategy. As Sheldon notes, the face-to-face meetings that are enabled by conferences are a crucial ingredient in any organization. Quite a few people attend conferences not so much to hear the speakers but to be able to network with like-minded others. 

Sheldon’s strategy of using Webinar technology would probably work — provide the benefits of a pro-White conference without drawing the attention of their Leftist opponents. It is an excellent prescription for a group that must remain underground in order not to expose its members to the usual costs of being associated with White advocacy (job loss, etc.). 

The downside is that pro-White advocates would be implicitly accepting their status as an underground movement. Such meetings could essentially go on forever without effecting real change in the direction we all want. 

It seems to me that we have to get above-ground visibility. We have to make noise and have a public presence if we are going to make real progress. We have to get in people’s faces and have the courage of our convictions. Hence perhaps Nick Griffin’s “frequently voiced despair over U.S. politics, given its lack of white nationalist parties” (in the WSJ article).

This is one thing that attracted me to American Third Position. The young men who are the backbone of the party go out onto the streets with signs and pamphlets advocating deporting illegals and other issues related to pro-White advocacy. They are not afraid of people spewing in-your-face hostility at them. (Guess what? You may be called a “racist” or a “Nazi.”) They do not hide away in secret conferences or restrict themsleves to discussing issues among themselves on private email lists. 

Nick Griffin dealing with hostility. The caption in the MailOnline: Heavy with hatred: The BNP leader Nick Griffin, typically surrounded by his security men

Quite clearly, the left is well aware that public visibility would be the beginning of the end for their dominance of public discourse. That’s why the mainstream media has given almost no coverage to the cancellations of AmRen or Nick Griffin — the only exception I have come across is a brief mention in the Wall Street Journal. The article is noteworthy for not mentioning anything about the obvious implications for public discourse in America. The tone of the article is that some meetings of far right crazies got shut down — expressed in the same manner as a story on the cancellation of a meeting of the local school board because of a snow storm. Imagine the outrage if meetings of La Raza or the NAACP were shut down with similar tactics. 

Meetings at privately owned facilities are problematic because businesses are likely to cave under the pressure of the left and I suppose that is their right as property owners.  Some people have suggested using government-owned facilities because denial by such a facility would raise First Amendment issues. I think this is a good idea. And we should be ready with attorneys willing to argue on our side if there are attempts at disruptions or if the government attempts to cancel the event for reasons like “public safety.” And we need security forces; and ways to identify the people who are doing the disrupting. 

And it should all be out in the open.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon: Multiculturalism — An Open Letter to Israel Shamir

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon:  A few weeks Israel Shamir wrote a controversial essay called The Poverty of Racialist Thought in which he took issue with Kevin MacDonald on the subject of multiculturalism. Yesterday I received from him (in an email) an advance copy of his recent follow-up essay: Part 2 of The Poverty of Racialist Thought. He was kind enough to seek my opinion on his new essay, along with the opinions of eight other people far more qualified than myself. 

As I understood this to be an open invitation to discussion, it occurred to me to send my reply to Mr Shamir for publication to the Occidental Observer. I thought the feedback from commentators here could only be beneficial to all concerned: to myself, to Kevin MacDonald and, above all, to Mr Shamir. 

Please note that Part 2 of Shamir’s article has not yet been published. This critique of mine addresses issues raised mostly in Part 1 — see the link above — but which are alluded to and further developed in Part 2.

Dear Mr. Shamir: I read your recent essay, The Poverty of Racialist Thought, with great interest. It is crackling with original ideas, many of them highly subversive, as one would expect from a controversial writer such as yourself!  The main bone of contention between you and Kevin MacDonald is obviously multiculturalism. This is a subject I’ve alluded to only briefly and tangentially in my articles, while dealing mostly with other topics. 

I have enormous respect for KMD, a man who is not only moved to pity by the plight of the Palestinians but who is also deeply concerned at the way his fellow Americans are having their traditional culture subverted and alien values thrust upon them—values which, I think you will agree, are positively satanic: namely, contempt for Christianity, sexual perversion, mind pollution and mendacity in the media, the uglification of daily life, and the systematic demoralization of the masses.    

I feel strongly, as I know you do, about the double standards involved in the fact that organized Jewry promotes multiculturalism in America while insisting that Israel should remain  monocultural and Judeocentric. It’s also of great concern that racial tensions between various ethnic groups in America should be deliberately ignited in order to distract and debilitate the different groups at the expense of the Master group — organized Jewry. It is considerations like these which undoubtedly exercise KMD’s mind and the minds of all Americans who feel they are “losing their country.”  

To portray these beleaguered White Americans  as “White Supremacists” or “racists” is, in my humble opinion,  a low and dirty trick. As disgraceful as calling critics of racist, apartheid Israel with its black record of war crimes — men like Judge Goldstone — “anti-Semites”.  

I do believe with total sincerity, however, that the use of the word “White” is a tragic mistake — from a public relations viewpoint, if no other and that this word should be avoided if possible.  “This word ‘WHITE’ is the bugbear,” I wrote to KMD a few months ago. “If only a less abrasive and more emollient equivalent could be found.”  You echoed my own sentiments when you said to me in a previous email: “Whites are indeed a misnomer and KMD should give thought how to change it. Christians? Logos believers? Let us give it a thought and share it with KMD.” 

I have racked my brains for a suitable alternative to “Whites”, but have been unable to find one. I don’t think “Christians” would satisfy KMD  with all that that term connotes now. It has to be clearly understood that KMD does not view this matter of multiculturalism, as you and E. Michael Jones do, through the prism of religion. His training as an evolutionary psychologist gives him an entirely different perspective. It’s all about different races competing for resources in a cut-throat Darwinian environment. It’s also about the chronic conflicts that multicultural/multiracial societies have been prone to throughout history and about the psychological reality that people tend to become isolated, politcally disengaged, and mistrustful in multicultural/multiracial societies. He points out that no one has come up with a way to get rid of race as a touchstone of conflict within human societies, and he just doesn’t see that happening in the future.

Between the biological approach of KMD (genetic interests meshing with cultural constraints) and the metaphysical approach of E Michael Jones (Logos), there would appear to be an unbridgeable chasm.  

A final word on KMD’s position — a position I regard as entirely reasonable, because scientifically defensible. He believes that there are many meaningful commonalities between Europeans [“Whites”] at the genetic level. This is because they have similar genetic interests and a natural, instinctive solidarity in spite of their religious differences. That is to say, a European atheist and a European Christian have more in common ultimately than a European Christian and an African Christian. It follows from this that a marriage between a European atheist and a European Christian, which helps to produce children of pure European stock, is to be preferred to a marriage between a European Christian and an African Christian — a marriage that could only result in miscegenated children or “half breeds” — children who would not only be genetically removed from their parents but totally alien to their grandparents. 

In an ideal world, Mr Shamir, all such children would turn out to resemble Dumas père or Pushkin. Proud to be what they are and uniquely valuable in God’s variegated world. In the real world, however, they face many serious problems. If they were happy with their pigmentation, why the incessant and growing demand for skin-whiteners? Even in India there is color prejudice. Indeed, it is India that produces the best skin-whiteners and exports them all over the world. That tells you something.   

There is also the delicate question of IQ. If the IQs of Whites and Blacks were equal, and if this could be adequately proved, there would be no problem. But if Whites are much smarter than Blacks, as is often alleged, then intermarriage can only result in a general diminution of IQ. When diversity entails a general deterioration of intelligence and culture, this surely has to be deplored. This “diversity” is celebrated in America by the Jew-controlled media but, curiously enough, is abominated in Israel. Losing one’s racial identity is apparently good for Whites but bad for Jews. I have to say it: these double standards suck.   

To give KMD his credit, he honestly believes that if we identify on the basis of religion that does not take account of ethnicity at least implicitly, as E. Michael Jones does vis-à-vis his Catholicism, the White race will eventually be destroyed. I think KMD is right to be concerned that the race that gave us Dante and Shakespeare, Leonardo and Botticelli, Mozart and Beethoven, may soon become extinct as a result of malevolent immigration policies designed to serve the interests of one group and one group only: organized Jewry — the group you yourself castigate and criticize in veiled terms as “predators” and “the Masters of Discourse.” 

I’ll conclude this critique by saying that this is an infinitely complex subject. I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I  see through a glass darkly, only too conscious of my intellectual limitations. You will therefore pardon me, I hope, if I’ve said anything foolish or inappropriate. I have no wish to offend anyone. 

Kind regards and blessings, 

Lasha Darkmoon.

Bookmark and Share

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name

Tom Sunic’s "Camp of the Holy Ghosts"

Tom Sunic’s “Camp of the Holy Ghosts” raises a number of important issues. Should White advocates curry favor with Zionists in the hope of getting Jewish support for their aims? Sunic thinks not: “Such pathetic comments by the Vlaams Belang or the BNP, and by some American White advocates, won’t help their White constituents in the long run, nor will they appease their Jewish detractors.”

I suspect that is correct. The only reason the organized Jewish community would really get behind White advocacy in a quid pro quo for support of Zionism would be if White advocacy already had substantial power — which it does not. Jewish power and influence will be directed at supporting their own ethnostate of Israel and dispossessing Whites in the Diaspora for exactly as long as that strategy continues to work. If White activism makes headway, Jews will certainly attempt to participate in order to promote Jewish interests within that new environment.

If this is the case, then it certainly makes sense for at least some factions of White advocacy to continue to document and critique the role of Jewish power and influence in the dispossession of Whites, if only in the interest of historical accuracy. But I also think that Whites who understand Jewish influence are simply more aware of how things work and therefore less likely to succumb to Jewish ideologies like neoconservatism as a solution for White dispossession. For example, it horrifies me that even people like Glenn Beck — probably the most implicitly White mainstream conservative and regarded as an extremist by the ADL — is nevertheless solidly in favor of legal immigration:”I’m not a racist. [Illegal immigration] isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.”

Another important point in Sunic’s article is the contrast between Catholicism in Eastern and Western Europe:

The Catholic Church in Central and Eastern Europe is a projection of local White national identity and not so much the symbol of spiritual salvation. Catholic Poland, Slovakia, Croatia and Hungary take special pride in calling themselves “antemurale cristianitatis”, or “antimurale occidentis — i,e,, the “bulwark of Christianity” and the “rampart of the West” — first against Turkic Islamic invaders, then against godless communism.  Seen in retrospect, communist repression in Eastern Europe strengthened the role of the Catholic Church and the White consciousness of its congregation. By contrast, in Western Europe the liberal system is now quickly turning the Catholic Church into a multiracial clearing house.

Catholicism and Christianity in general have been harnessed to the power of the multicultural left which has reigned supreme since WWII. The power and influence of the multicultural left has permeated all aspects of Western intellectual and political life, including all mainstream Christian sects. But there is nothing inherent in Christianity that implies that it will inevitably cooperate in the suicide of the West. What is needed is to change the secular power structure and to actively encourage ethnically defensive forms of Christianity.

Bookmark and Share

Ted Sallis: Taking a Initial Look at the American Third Position Party

Ted Sallis: The American Third Position Party (A3P) is a new political party that purports to represent the interests of the white American majority.  As such, it is a refreshing change from the standard Republicrat/Democan one-party system and gives hope that, finally, the political system can be used to further our specific group interests. 

These are early days and one cannot make any definitive conclusions about A3P at this point.  However, some progress has been made, and the party has put forth some initial positions on major issues, so it is worthwhile to examine these. Readers are urged to look at A3P’s program and policies.  I have no major disagreement with their stance on crime, economy, education, etc.  Instead, I would like to take a closer look at two of their major policy initiatives. Emphasis added to all quotes. 

The following summarizes the party’s key positions on immigration:

 To safeguard our identity and culture, and to maintain the very existence of our nation, we will immediately put an indefinite moratorium on all immigration. Recognizing our people’s right to safety, and respecting the sanctity of the rule of law, we will immediately deport all criminal and illegal aliens. We believe, too, that American citizenship should be exclusive and meaningful. As such, the American Third Position will end the practice of automatic birthright-citizenship for children of illegal aliens. To restore, with civility, the identity and culture of our homeland, we will provide incentives for recent, legal immigrants to return to their respective lands. 

This is good – stopping the influx, deportation of illegals, and an end to the concept of “anything goes” birthright citizenship.  Even more impressively, the possibility of repatriation of “recent, legal immigrants” is brought up – the only instance of an American political party raising the “R” issue.  I would like even more – a more comprehensive repatriation program for example, but this is a good start. Also: 

Immigration affects our culture. It affects the way we feel, act, and operate within a community. It affects whether or not we can have actual communities at all. It affects our welfare and livelihood in ways that are immeasurable, aside from the efforts we go to in protecting against it. Immigration erodes our culture and sense of identity. In cities where many cultures meet, there is an atmosphere of hostility. Neighborhoods become atomized, and a true community is never established. 

True and good, but it’s not only culture. Not surprisingly, I would like to have seen a more explicitly Salterian mention of the actual physical, demographic, biological effects of immigration.  They add: 

While we accept that ethnic minorities are, and will always be, part of America, we want our will to be observed and exercised as it should be, and as it should have been. We have a right to sovereignty and to exercise our will as a people. We want an America that is recognizable to us, one that we can feel comfortable in. We believe that this desire is not unique to our nation or our own people, and we believe that all people’s have a right to sovereignty. Accordingly, we will stop all immigration into America, except in special cases. To help restore our national identity, we will offer generous grants to recent immigrants who have a desire to return to their countries of origin. While this can be easily repositioned by a media who is hostile to our people or to a political establishment who relies on recent immigrants for votes, we only mean to create a system of mutual benefit, where the wills of both parties are observed and respected, as they should be. Wherever a recent immigrant has a need to get back home but is without the resources to do as much, we will lend a helping hand. 

I don’t know about the first set of phrases, but I understand that this party needs to navigate within the streams of the politically possible – for now – and that a too radical program at first may be difficult.  A contrasting argument would be that it’s a mistake to start off too moderate.  An initial moderate stance may “lock in” this moderation and prevent future shifts toward more radical positions since, having attracted a mass of more moderate supporters at the beginning, the party would be loathe to lose that support by shifting towards more radical solutions to the pressing problems of race, culture, and nation.  Truth be told, I’m more supportive of the latter mindset – that it is better to lay your cards on the table at the beginning and build in depth with more revolutionary support.  Of course, the assumption here is that the A3P leadership and I actually agree on these more radical ideals.  It may be that our vision is not congruent, and that the party program is what it is because that’s what the party leaders want it to be.  And, of course, A3P leadership has the right to formulate their own party’s positions as they see fit.  I merely make suggestions and offer some contrary views.

The A3P also has an excellent position on space exploration.

This is important; I am a very strong supporter of space exploration (both manned and unmanned).  This is part of Western Man’s Faustian soul, will yield important information and discoveries, and, hopefully, eventually lead to Western Man’s expansion into, and colonization of, space (assuming of course we are not first Third Worldized out of existence).  That the A3P has included space exploration as a key part of their program is therefore encouraging and demonstrates a willingness to look at long-term objectives, and also the ability to look beyond the standard “right-wing fare” (immigration, economy, crime, etc.). 

One point though is that they should go beyond space exploration and put together a broader position on overall science and Technology.  In other words they should also: encourage the development of alternative and novel sources of energy, promote advances in biomedical research (which should include not only basic research and that aimed at disease therapeutics, but also research on race and eugenics), stimulate development of advanced computing, and encourage continued and expanded research into the fabric of the universe and of reality itself (e.g., astronomy and, especially, both theoretical and applied advanced physics, cosmology, etc).  Further, Americans need to be in the lead of what can be called “global disaster abatement” – research aimed at investigating and, if possible, preventing asteroid strikes, super volcano eruptions, pandemics, environmental degradation, etc.  While some of the latter may seem like “science fiction,” that is more a function of our limited knowledge and imagination than it is to any real limitation of the possibilities. 

The A3P can also state an interest in Western cultural artifacts – an interest in opposing the current “Winter” of our High Culture, and its sewer-like degraded atmosphere, with a contrasting encouragement of Western cultural rebirth and the creation of a civilization that can make us, our ancestors, and our posterity proud.

In summary, there is some more work to be done and I hope that a bit of constructive criticism will be appreciated.  However, all in all, A3P seems at this point to be a very positive development, and I wish them well.

A major concern is that the landscape of “movement” history is littered with the scattered remnants of past projects that, initially, looked promising and generated enthusiasm, but quickly petered out due to lack of progress and direction, infighting, the action of infiltrators and agent provocateurs, diminished interest of activists with short attention spans, and the ability of the establishment to use a variety of methods to thwart nationalist progress.  We can hope that things will be different this time.

Bookmark and Share