Category: Hart

Lawrence Murray Speaks For Himself

And not for “White nationalism” in general.

Putting aside minor issues such as a misunderstanding of fascism, I see two major problems with that essay.

1. Pan-Europeanism.  Of course, there is no “official” definition of “pan-Europeanism” so people are in theory able to define it as they wish, even to the extent of a straw man definition.  That said, it probably is useful to have actual pan-Europeanists contribute to the discussion.

Murray and others define “pan-European” as a set of policy prescriptions, such as a “European super-state.”  That’s a very narrow viewpoint, which does not encompass what I see as the reality of what is meant by “pan-European.”

In my view, pan-European (no scare quotes) is more of an attitude, a meme, an ideology, rather than any specific policy initiative.  I would define pan-Europeanism as:

A meme that asserts that the interests and well-being of ALL peoples of European descent are of importance, and should be equally pursued.

That contrasts to Der Movement, which restricts its interest only to those peoples whose origins are to the north of Vienna and the west of Berlin.

The exact approach used to achieve the objectives of pursuing pan-European interests may vary.

2. The idea that we can have significant populations of non-White minorities in at least some areas of a “White ethnostate.”  That’s the Michael Hart ideal of multiracial “White separatism” and I reject that.  There is no reason why “ports” or “coastal cities” in any White state have to contain any non-White minorities whatsoever.  Why must Whites always accommodate the other, even in the context of racial nationalism?  Is this “cuck-racialism?”

An Ethnonationalist Idiot

Behold an idiot.

An idiot commentator at Counter-Currents states:

Northern Europeans are better than Mediterraneans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

Rephrased to be accurate:

Currently, Northern Europeans are better than Southern Europeans at creating wealth. Northern Euros aren’t going to want to prop them up.

There is no such thing as “Mediterraneans.”

Now, comments such as those fall into the category of the Professor Michael Hart school of racial nationalism.  Hart envisions an American White Separatist (sic) State that is essentially exactly the same as the current America (including being multiracial!) except that it would have no Negroes. Retards like the above commentator envision a White Imperium exactly like the current Europe except that the aliens would be gone and nationalists would be in charge.

Well, that’s not what I have in mind.

Any limited amount of internal national sovereignty would be predicated on each nation and people pulling their weight – economically, militarily, culturally, etc.  No one is going to “prop up” anyone else.  If anyone fails in their obligations, they lose their sovereignty until such time that they are straightened out, and during that period they will be run by the external centralized state.

But wait, some would say, these differences in performance are innate biological differences.  What can you do?  To the extent they are innate and biological (some of it is cultural, but then, what creates culture?), then this must be changed as well.  Eugenics is required.  The more degenerate any European stock is, the more dire need it is of the proper ruthless culling and selection for improvement.  Lazy, hedonistic, unproductive “Meds” will have no place in any Imperium; those types will be selected against in favor of their more productive co-ethnics.  The same goes for “Nords” like Merkel and those crying for joy at the sight of arriving refugees.  

Eugenics is compatible with EGI, as Salter clearly stated that sub-optimal alleles should be replaced to boost fitness of the overall distinctive genome.

Why does anyone believe that an Imperium is going to tolerate national incompetence or liberal race cuckery?

Who Would You Support?

After the last post’s unbridled humor, we now become serious.
See this.  Who would you support there?  The Russian Slavs or the bizarre alien yellow hordes, chanting swarming insects, part of the world of color, a rising tide of color, ready to submerge the White race?   I would support the Russians.  Others who call themselves “White nationalists” would support the Chinese.  There lies a division that can never be plastered over – a division between racial patriots and Asiaphilic race traitors. Note the brief clip starting at 7:00 in that video – that’s what some heavy breathing perverts say will be the future “border guards of the West.”  I mean, you just can’t make this stuff up.
Let’s consider some excerpts from Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color, which are relevant here.

It all comes down to a question of self-preservation. And, despite what sentimentalists may say, self-preservation is the first law of nature. To love one’s cultural, idealistic, and racial heritage; to swear to pass that heritage unimpaired to one’s children; to fight, and, if need be, to die in its defense: all this is eternally right and proper, and no amount of casuistry or sentimentality can alter that unalterable truth. An Englishman put the thing in a nutshell when he wrote: “Asiatic immigration is not a question of sentiment, but of sheer existence. The whole problem is summed[Pg 276] up in Lafcadio Hearn’s pregnant phrase: ‘The East can underlive the West.’”[166] Rigorous exclusion of colored immigrants is thus vitally necessary for the white peoples. 

Exactly. What kind of lunatic would want Asian colonies in White lands?

Unfortunately, this exclusion policy will not be easily maintained. Colored population-pressure is insistent and increasing, while the matter is still further complicated by the fact that, while no white community can gain by colored immigration, white individuals—employers of labor—may be great gainers and hence often tend to put private interest above racial duty. 

Yes, indeed, and not only “employers of labor.”  Stoddard couldn’t envision the day when White “men” on the Right would call for an Euro-Asian alliance based on their “measured groveling” to their Chinese wives, or their prurient fantasies about gun-toting Chinatrices.

Barring a handful of sincere but misguided cosmopolitan enthusiasts, it is unscrupulous business interests which are behind every white proposal to relax the exclusion laws protecting white areas.

That was then, this is now.  Today, we add HBD nerds, sexually frustrated masochists, and other flotsam and jetsam.  There is of course Jews like Hart; thus, while Daniel S accuses me of being a “troll for the Jews,” he himself advocates multiracial White separatism (sic) just as do Jews.

Indeed, Californian assertions that Oriental immigration menaces, not merely the coast, but the whole continent, seem well taken. This view was officially indorsed by Mr. Caminetti, Commissioner-General of Immigration, who testified before a Congressional committee some years ago: “Asiatic immigration is a menace to the whole country, and particularly to the Pacific coast. The danger is general. No part of the United States is immune. The Chinese are now spread over the entire country, and the Japanese want to encroach. The Chinese have become so acclimated that they can prosper in any part of our country…. I would have a law to register the Asiatic laborers who come into the country. It is impossible to protect ourselves from persons who come in surreptitiously.”[180]

And we won’t be able to protect ourselves from persons we invite in, either. Now the following is directly relevant to Daniel’s “border guards” idea.  After all, we’ve seen all of this before:

 Asia’s perception of what the war signified in this respect was instantaneous. The war was not a month old before Japanese journals were suggesting a relaxation of Asiatic exclusion laws in the British colonies as a natural corollary to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance and Anglo-Japanese comradeship in arms. Said the Tokio Mainichi Deupo in August, 1914: “We are convinced that it is a matter of the utmost importance that Britons beyond the seas should make a better attempt at fraternizing with Japan, as better relations between the English-speaking races and Japan will have a vital bearing on the destiny of the empire. There is no reason why the British colonies fronting on the Pacific should not actively participate in the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Britain needs population for her surplus land and Japan needs land for her surplus population. This fact alone should draw the two races closer together. Moreover, the British people have ample capital but deficiency of labor, while it is the reverse with Japan…. The harmonious co-operation of Britain and her colonies with Japan insures safety to British and Japanese interests alike. Without such co-operation, Japan and Great Britain are both unsafe.”[184] What this “co-operation” implies was very frankly stated by The Japan Magazine at about the same date: “There is nothing that would do so much to bind East and West firmly together as the opening of the British colonies to Japanese immigration. Then, indeed,[Pg 292] Britain would be a lion endowed with wings. Large numbers of Japanese in the British colonies would mean that Britain would have the assistance of Japan in the protection of her colonies. But if an anti-Japanese agitation is permitted, both countries will be making the worst instead of the best of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Thus it would be allowed to make Japan an enemy instead of a friend. It seems that the British people both at home and in the colonies are not yet alive to the importance of the policy suggested, and it is, therefore, pointed out and emphasized before it is too late.”[185]

Thus, a White-Yellow alliance means aggressive Yellow colonization of White lands (not the reverse of course – that would be “racist colonialist imperialism”).

The covert threat embodied in those last lines was a forerunner of the storm of anti-white abuse which rose from the more bellicose sections of the Japanese press as soon as it became evident that neither the British Dominions nor the United States were going to relax their immigration laws. Some of this anti-white comment, directed particularly against the Anglo-Saxon peoples, I have already noted in the second chapter of this book, but such comment as bears directly on immigration matters I have reserved for discussion at this point.

Anti-White abuse.  Why not?  The existential existence of colored peoples is denial of, and opposition to, the West, as Yockey indicated.

Our own acute labor shortage during the war, particularly in agriculture, led many Americans, especially employers, to cast longing eyes at the tempting reservoirs of Asia. Typical of this attitude is an article by Hudson Maxim in the spring of 1918. Mr. Maxim urged the importation of a million Chinese to solve our farming and domestic-service problems. “If it is possible,” he wrote, “by the employment of Chinese methods of intensive farming, to increase[Pg 294] the production of our lands to such an extent, how stupendous would be the benefit of wide introduction of such methods. The exhausted lands of New England could be made to produce like a tropical garden. The vast areas of the great West that are to-day not producing 10 per cent of what they ought to produce could be made to produce the other 90 per cent by the introduction of Chinese labor…. The average American does not like farming. The sons of the prosperous farmers do not take kindly to the tilling of the soil with their own hands. They prefer the excitement and the diversions and stimulus of the life of city and town, and they leave the farm for the office and factory…. “Chinese, imported as agricultural laborers and household servants, would solve the agricultural labor problem and the servant problem, and we should have the best agricultural workers in the world and the best household servants in the world, in unlimited numbers.”[189] Now I submit that such arguments, however well-intentioned, are nothing short of race-treason. If there be one truth which history has proved, it is the solemn truth that those who work the land will ultimately own the land.

Please read that last paragraph again. The situation is perfectly analogous: those who guard the land will ultimately own the land.  Daniel’s ideas, however “well-intentioned,” are nothing short of race-treason.

In the News, 11/6/15

Three news stories.

One: Leucosa watch: what can you say about a race of people so pitifully cowardly that they can’t even openly state their support for a mainstream political candidate?  We are talking about Donald Trump, for heaven’s sake, not David Duke. Donald Trump – celebrity millionaire, reality TV show star, a person slated to host “Saturday Night Live” (regardless of whether or not that’s cancelled, he was still invited – would Duke be?).  Newsflash to all those “Der Tag” “movement” types, who think a White uprising is just around the corner: if Whites are afraid to tell a pollster “I support Trump,” do you really think those same marshmallows are going to “take to the hills” and “smash the System?”  

Two: One benefit of Salter that it allows a quantitative (or at least semi-quantitative) discussion of the real costs of mass migration.   For example, see this “back-of-the-envelope” analysis of the costs of the mestizo invasion of America. That puts the contrast between ethnic interests and “economic gain” right to the forefront. You can not only put a cost in “child equivalents” on any scenario, but also invoke “dollars and cents” to put it into starkly economic terms. Only Salterism allows for ultimate interests to be duly recognized and discussed in this fashion.

Three: One Jew supports the work of another Jew, said work being just another permutation of multiracial separatism. Well, they are going to do what comes naturally to them. The bigger problem is with their Gentile enablers, who help give them a platform within the “movement.”

Strom, Conservatism, and the National Alliance

Some points of agreement, some points of disagreement.

I’d like to comment on Strom’s latest broadcast, on the topic of conservatism. Excerpts from Strom are in italics, my comments are in plain text.

Almost all non-Whites in America, no matter how conservative some might be in personal habits or family traditions, cleave to the liberal line and the Democrat party — because the Democrats are the party of White dispossession, payoffs to the underclass, and wide open borders. There is no hope that these people can ever be brought to support American conservatism. The more tradition-minded Blacks have their churches. The more tradition-minded non-White immigrants have their Asian or Muslim or nationality- or race-based groups to fall back on. Their conservatism is based on conserving their culture and preserving their people. Both liberal universalism and the new universalist, non-racial conservatism are alien to them. True belief in “everyone-is-equal” universalism is limited almost exclusively to White folks, whom the more intelligent non-Whites probably, and rightly, regard as crazy.
Nevertheless conservatives try to out-liberal the liberals when it comes to race. They make sure that the very few Blacks or Mestizos who show up at conservative events are highlighted in their publications. They lionize the very mediocre Herman Cain to prove to us how “non-racist” they are.
Despite the fact that almost all American conservatives are White, the conservatives and Republicans would rather have a limb amputated than do anything to secure the continued existence of White people — or even admit that they represent White interests. They can get away with this because they know that White Americans have nowhere else to go politically. They take Whites for granted. They can keep all their White support by just being a little less anti-White than the liberals. And they can avoid being called “racist” by the Jewish media by taking the same tack — shouting “slow down a bit” at some of the more outrageous anti-White policies of the regime in Washington, but never taking effective action or even speaking out against White genocide — or telling us who’s responsible for it…
…A better name for the conservatives would be the comfortable cowards. As long as they could move to a relatively safe suburb, smoke their imported cigars, puff themselves up with dogmatic 17th-century morality, engage in purposeless militarism and utterly empty patriotism to a flag and not a people, they were content. They like the comfortable reservation their enemies have allowed them in payment for their treason, and in their softness they fear a direct battle with those enemies. So they never fight one. They just keep on making deals (with people who are much better at making deals than they are) and selling out their children’s future, right to the end. Eventually, the children of those conservatives will be a tiny and hated minority, most of them unable to advance into even the third tier of the new elite, and will be forced to live cheek by jowl with the lowest peons of the Third World underclass that the billionaire Jewish elite is importing to our country. Whites are being pushed down to the proletarian level everywhere in North America.
That is an excellent summary of the stupidity, mendacity, and cowardice of conservatism.
One especially egregious example of how conservatives are given false hope and offered false solutions was brought out on this program several years ago by the writer Hadding Scott:
“For years the Republican party has tried to smooth over the differences within its coalition by deceiving the pro-White supporters of the party into thinking that their stake in the party is greater than it actually is. One especially clear example of how persons of pro-White sentiment are fooled is the Jewish ex-Marxist David Horowitz. Horowitz has written several books with titles like Hating Whitey, intended to be sold a White readership — White people who of course are starved for recognition of some of their problems such as anti-White crime and anti-White discrimination. Any White person who cares about his race and reads Horowitz carefully, however — which most people do not do — will be disappointed to learn that Horowitz the Jew has no interest whatsoever in preserving the White race. On the contrary, he complains that the more blatant anti-White policies actually backfired and have increased racial separatism. That is the kind of thing that worries Horowitz; he is not interested in the survival of the White race at all. But this fact is missed by many readers, who seem to regard his books simply as collections of useful anecdotes for complaining about how ‘unfair’ things are, a typical conservative playpen activity.”
Once again, we see the danger of Jews in not only conservatism, but the “movement” itself.  Strom could very well have discussed Hart’s vision of multiracial “white separatism,” as another example.  Or Weissberg or Levin or all the rest, always watering down the agenda, making it more “user friendly” for the tribe, and user-useless for us.
Pretending to be the ‘true’ exponents of ‘fair’ multiracialism will not stop the importation of cheap labor and the proletarianization of the White worker. It will not prevent the ever-more-numerous members of the more favored non-White groups from pushing our children out of the best schools. It will not close the wide open sluices of non-White immigration into the West. It will not stop the rape and sexual slavery of our children and women by peoples with a very different understanding of their value than we have. It will not stop the rising tide of non-White crime and corruption. It will not stop the open pandering to non-White interest groups by our careerist politicians. It will not stop the academic establishment’s pushing of multiracialist values on our students. It will not change the anti-White alien control of our mass media. Accepting the multiracialist values promulgated by people who want to kill you, and meekly asking for ‘fairness’ from those people and their employees is not a formula for success. It is a formula for death.
To all of you good people who are supporting efforts based on that formula, I urgently ask you to reconsider. At this late hour, only an affirmation that we are White and that we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that our race survives can save us. White people have an absolute non-negotiable right to exist, to organize and govern ourselves, to have our own exclusive territories for our nations and peoples, and to keep the products of our labor for ourselves and our posterity. Only by taking that uncompromising stand, and backing it up with all the wealth and will and power we can muster, do we have a chance to provide for future generations of our people. Only by stopping our pretenses and halting our retreat do we have a chance of being worthy descendants of our ancestors.
I’m 100% against multiculturalism.  I’m extremely radical and in fact have been getting more radical with the passing years, not less.  However, I see value in the idea of “democratic multiculturalism” as proposed by Salter and Duchesne.  That’s not compromise, but strategy.  Whites are so totally deluded, so frightened by any expression of racial self-interest, that one technique that may help is to demand a place at the multicultural table for Whites, AND to have that place at the table filled by real pro-White radicals.  That can be the first balkanizing step to destabilize the multicultural consensus.  Note I said ONE technique.  I’m not saying that democratic multiculturalism should be the only strategy. Certainly, at the same time, the more radical message promoted by Strom can be used as well.  There are some Whites already primed for the full message.  However, others will need some preliminary steps to get to that point.  Whatever works.

That is the message of the men and women of the National Alliance. As our society descends into darkness, we must be building alternative structures of community and communication and racial and cultural preservation, structures which will survive this dark time and emerge into a brighter future of our own making. We need your help.Stay a part of the more timid efforts if you like, but with a goal of radicalizing and enlightening your co-workers there. Tell the other Whites in these groups about the Alliance. Support the Alliance with all you can afford in time and energy. Give as much as you can to the cause of our children’s future. Use your influence and intelligence to add to our efforts — and make them better. Take a stand. The half-measures and pretending of the conservatives are really a kind of lie, and a rather weak and ineffectual lie at that. The National Alliance represents the uncompromised truth…[Strom continues promoting the National Alliance].
So, he admits that “the more timid efforts” can have value in the process of radicalization. But what about the National Alliance?

Look, I agree with Strom on most things (NOT on Putin, though), but here’s a point of important difference. The “National Alliance brand” seems to me to be greatly compromised.  Certainly, all the unfortunate events since the death of Pierce have really tarnished that brand to an extent that I wonder if it’s worth trying to revive.  But the problem goes deeper.  With the benefit of time and perspective, and with hindsight, some view the National Alliance even under Pierce as a disaster.  All the time, money, and support from members – to what end?  So Pierce could stay isolated on the mountaintop, engaging in serial monogamy with Eastern European women?  What was accomplished?  Then, with his screed Who We Are, Pierce was exposed as a radical Nordicist, who must have had contempt for all the “Meds and Slavs” contributing “membership dues” to his “organization.” Well, it can be argued that those folks were only fooling themselves – after all, one look at the National Alliance’s book catalog, or a careful reading of The Best of Attack and National Vanguard, should have been enough to reveal the truth of the matter.  But, still, all in all, the whole endeavor was fundamentally dishonest, it accomplished nothing, and many view the entire National Alliance experience, including and especially the tenure of Pierce’s leadership, as a net negative episode in the history of the “movement.”  Thus, this attempt to revive the Alliance, and link it to the “glory days” of the Piercian era, is not going to make a good impression on those who would rather see that past buried and something new created in its stead.