National Socialism And The White Nationalist Movement

[Amalekite]

Originally Posted by billwhite

If you're going to fight the uphill battle for a revolution, you might as well fight for what you want, instead of what you think might be mildly easier to achieve.

That's not a bad attitude. If you set out to do what you want, you might actually achieve a fraction of your objectives.

That being said, I think it's wise to set objectives that are realistically attainable. Otherwise you run the risk of becoming a jaded, cynical old man sitting around waiting for "peak oil" to happen, or of giving up altogether.

BTW, I liked the series of articles you wrote about miscegenation not being a threat to white survival. Very interesting angle.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by alex

I disagree with almost everything Herr Linder has said.
Indeed i find this libertarian worldview downright dangerous for ns.First of all: the market doesnt regulate itself.If left alone the market will not produce "riches" for the entire Volk.

I said the market had to be constrained in a political system, that is regulation. The market, not government, will indeed produce riches. Today you can walk into any store and with perhaps $2000 buy all the non-food goods you'll need for the rest of your life. Necessities are so cheap and easily produced that the real difficulty becomes finding new unworthy groups to extend credit to buy stuff no one needs in the first place.

The rich would be getting richer and the poor will be getting poorer.Even in all-white countries.

The poor today in human countries are inconceivably richer than the poor in other centuries. The poorest nigger in America is worlds richer in a purely money sense than average White Americans back in the thirties.

If the market were so perfect things like the Communist and the National Socialist movement would never have existed.These movements did exist as every socialist movement because of the very real exploitation of the working masses by the capitalist swine.And its neither the "all perfect" market nor the "low taxes" which have brought riches to the masses,but it was socialist reforms proposed by the state and/or the unions.Without the pressure from the working masses on the economy for socialists reforms,today we would still have 10 year old children working 12 hours a day.

Instead they're spending that time in school doing worse than nothing, in many cases. Children can't work real jobs until they're 16, which is foolish. Ninety percent of the population can't handle college material, so the extra years of schooling are wasted, or schooling in name only, or political indoctrination. The idea that the state makes the people rich is not merely ludicrous it is the opposite of the truth. The state makes people poorer. Unions are great if you have a job, but if you don't have a job, the union will keep it that way. Unions are the reason so many people in Europe are unemployed.

[Alex Linder]

Compare Hong Kong and China. HK is rich, China -- until it let the market work, was dirt poor. Same ethnic group in both countries, offering a perfect test case.

Cthulu asks about health care. Well, I will tell you that to the extent health care is screwed up it's because of government involvement. The government and its handmedia blame insurance companies, but then, that's what the govt does: fuck things up and blame someone else and demand more power. If you think I'm wrong, then you name me one thing the government does well? War in Iraq? Social security? Delivering mail? Affirmative action? Road maintenance? Rock catchers to Pluto? Crime policing? The government's core competence consists always and only in one thing: preventing the rise of competing gangs.

'Health care' is like any other good, you get what you pay for. Costs have rocketed purely because of government involvement, and there is no other reason. It is a perfect parallel to politics: no one can speak the truth because the vested interests are too strong to be opposed.

I used to write about telemedicine, the use of computers to project specialist expertise to distant places, theoretically a way to save costs, by avoiding patient travel. The government typically funds all sort of telemedicine demonstration projects, typically dreamed up by some female professional grant-application writer. These typically costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then reporter Al calls 'em up and asks how often they're used: "Oh, about once a month. The doctors are still getting used to the system." In other words, money is taken from producers and earners and wasted. The guys who really made telemedicine work? I recall a white male doctor down in Lousiana who rigged up his own fetal monitoring system, with not a dime paid for by government. He devised a system allowing him to track fetal heartbeats of women with problem pregnancies from his office, rather than the women having to come in all the time. Actual progress in this world is almost never the result some government plan, and almost always the result of one patient, careful, thoughtful white male sitting alone at his desk or workbench in the middle of the night.

[Joe_J.]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

I said the market had to be constrained in a political system, that is regulation. The market, not government, will indeed produce riches. Today you can walk into any store and with perhaps $2000 buy all the non-food goods you'll need for the rest of your life. Necessities are so cheap and easily produced that the real difficulty becomes finding new unworthy groups to extend credit to buy stuff no one needs in the first place.

Very accurate statement. That is indeed what is happening. The fed mortgage companies are putting niggers into homes that they will be booted out of once interest rates rise, credit card companies will give cards to anyone (a game that I refuse to participate it-the jewsury game ) and etc.

The poor today in human countries are inconceivably richer than the poor in other centuries. The poorest nigger in America is worlds richer in a purely money sense than average White Americans back in the thirties.

They are but that is never good enough for the nigger, is it? I find it hilarious how the nigger will ape the elite in perhaps a car, clothing, etc. but cannot get beyond that and into the real nature of the higher classes, such as higher thought or cultured, mannered behavior. But they are niggers, so it comes as no surprise.

Instead they're spending that time in school doing worse than nothing, in many cases.

Yes, the time is spent on leftist indoctrination. Kind of like the dialectical marxism classes the USSR had in its schools, although the Soviets still managed to teach its students higher math and etc.

Unions are great if you have a job, but if you don't have a job, the union will keep it that way. Unions are the reason so many people in Europe are unemployed.

Unions are useless. Just a personal note: we have a IBEW (electrical workers) union where I live. There are no union jobs here, though. Being a member would simply be a waste of dues for me.

Were the jews not the biggest proponents of unions back in the early part of the 20th century? I know that many had communist ties, including one that demonstrated in Gastonia, NC in the 30s and which led to a riot and several people being shot.

Now the jew is pushing the anti-union, "New World Order" side of the issue. They have made the union superflous by working around it. Unions don't even fit in the equation anymore. A company can simply move to China or Mexico where unions are not a concern.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by deathtozog

They are but that is never good enough for the nigger, is it? I find it hilarious how the nigger will ape the elite in perhaps a car, clothing, etc. but cannot get beyond that and into the real nature of the higher classes, such as higher thought or cultured, mannered behavior. But they are niggers, so it comes as no surprise.

You can't make a nigger rich by giving it money, any more than a nigger is poor because it doesn't have money, or homeless are "homeless" because they don't have houses. Rich, like poor or homeless, in the vast majority of cases is a consequence, not a cause. If you control your behavior, if you have the genes that predispose you to control behavior -- genes which most whites have but many niggers lack -- and you make the right choices, you will become rich, even if you start with nothing. In a democracy that worships equality, of course, none of this can be mentioned. If others are richer than we are, it must be because they're evil or crooks. The jew media eggs people into thinking this way. It teaches niggers that the white man oppressed them, when in fact he elevated them; it teaches the poor that the rich oppressed them, when in fact the rich gave them jobs.

Just because something is what you morally judge bad, alex -- kids working long hours -- doesn't mean there is a better alternative available. It doesn't even mean that it actually is bad. Those hard-working kids sure weren't wiggers, even if their skin was coal-black.

Yes, the time is spent on leftist indoctrination. Kind of like the dialectical marxism classes the USSR had in its schools, although the Soviets still managed to teach its students higher math and etc.

The Soviets had to stick to reality to the extent it strengthened their military, otherwise it was straight jew indoctrination. I have a bunch of commie books I got in East Germany, there's nothing like an ABC book of Marxist-Leninismus.

Unions are useless. Just a personal note: we have a IBEW (electrical workers) union where I live. There are no union jobs here, though. Being a member would simply be a waste of dues for me.

The point about capitalism is that it evolves, it is never the same thing twice. It is incredibly fast-moving, and that's what people fear about it. Wal-mart doesn't have a union and its people vote against it.

Were the jews not the biggest proponents of unions back in the early part of the 20th century? I know that many had communist ties, including one that demonstrated in Gastonia, NC in the 30s and which led to a riot and several people being shot.

They're on both sides of everything. Captialists, management, workers, commies, whatever's "good for jews" "in the moment."

Now the jew is pushing the anti-union, "New World Order" side of the issue. They have made the union superflous by working around it. Unions don't even fit in the equation anymore. A company can simply move to China or Mexico where unions are not a concern.

These days I think protectionism makes sense, at least to an extent. If we had a culture that gently tapped people away from extreme materialism, then they'd be satisfied with non-material pursuits, and since we can get all the stuff we need easily anyway, we could afford the higher costs protectionism entails. We could keep our nation a true nation, which is incalculably more important than any additional economic costs.

Economic protectionism is part of political protectionism; part of looking out for the family that is the nation is looking out for its jobs and its market, and not simply allowing global efficiencies to push markets down to third-world levels.

[Cthulhu]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Compare Hong Kong and China. HK is rich, China -- until it let the market work, was dirt poor. Same ethnic group in both countries, offering a perfect test case.

Cthulu asks about health care. Well, I will tell you that to the extent health care is screwed up it's because of government involvement. The government and its handmedia blame insurance companies, but then, that's what the govt does: fuck things up and blame smoeone else and demand more power.

'Health care' is like any other good, you get what you pay for. Costs have rocketed purely because of government involvement, and there is no other reason. It is a perfect parallel to politics: no one can speak the truth because the vested interests are too strong to be opposed.

I used to write about telemedicine, the use of computers to project specialist expertise to distant places, theoretically a way to save costs, by avoiding patient travel. The government typically funds all sort of telemedicine programs, typically dreamed up by some female professional grant-application writer. These typically costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then reporter Al calls 'em up and asks how often they're used: "Oh, about once a month. The doctors are still getting used to the system." In other words, money is taken from producers and earners and wasted. The guys who really made telemedicine work? I recall a white male doctor down in Lousiana who rigged up his own fetal monitoring system, with not a dime paid for by government. He devised a system allowing him to track fetal heartbeats of women with problem pregnancies from his office, rather than the women having to come in all the time. Actual progress in this world is almost never the result some government plan, and almost always the result of one patient, careful, thoughtful white male sitting alone at his desk or workbench in the middle of the night.

This is below your intelligence.

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

'Health care' is like any other good, you get what you pay for. Costs have rocketed purely because of government involvement, and there is no other reason. It is a perfect parallel to politics: no one can speak the truth because the vested interests are too strong to be opposed.

Who are these vested interests? The companies doing business with the government? The market corrupting the government officials?

National Socialism is a worldview. The government exists to serve the people. That is its sole purpose. It can not be bought, it cannot be sold. It protects the workers and it protects the market. Both must work together for the best interests of both.

Hong Kong has public housing, and state health care ect., unfortunately there is growing poverty in Hong Kong due to recent market reforms.

BTW: Switzerland provides government healthcare.

[Amalekite]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

There's too much inaccurate characterization here to discuss fully, but VNN's basic view is racial dictatorship now, power devolution later. We have always taken the hardest possible line on the jews. When jews and coloreds do not exist in our nation, there can be no recurrence of judeo-neocon-liberal insanity.

Ideally, a White U.S. would function like Switzerland. Extremely heavily armed individuals, living in their various communities as they see fit, but with an unbreakable common commitment that the state, the federal government, exists to defend the race that created it. As long as government carries out its one duty, defending the race, the vast majority of the rest of the decisions are better left to local Whites to decide. I don't want Bill White making housing decisions out of Washington any more than I want Kevin Strom making marriage decisions.

Thanks for making your position clear. I didn't think you were a "National Socialist" like so many here, because it wouldn't make sense to run the forum the way you do if you were. But I had a hard time figuring out what your views were.

I find your vision far more palatable than the re-hashed authoritarian schemes I've often seen expressed on VNNF. I can accept that an authoritarian form of government might be a necessary transitional step on the way to something better, but an authoritarian government is not what I want my children and grandchildren growing up under. Anyone who tells me that this is necessary for "my own good" is as much my enemy as the worst Jewish tyrant. Sadly, I've come to realize that Zionists and neo-Nazis may be two sides of the same coin.

I also want to express my appreciation for making VNNF a "free speech forum." I don't think you get to hear that often enough. :cheers:

[billwhite...]

Originally Posted by alex

I disagree with almost everything Herr Linder has said.
Indeed i find this libertarian worldview downright dangerous for ns.

Alex came out of the conservative mileu. His views are tainted by it.

It is my opinion that white racial political doctrines that fall short of national socialism reflect a lack of development that comes from a lack of understanding of the current real world situation.

One cannot, for instance, dissolve government housing overnight. Too many people are dependent on it, and we would put a large portion of the white race out of their homes if we did. Similarly with disability, SSI, TANF and the whole host of welfare.

We have created a large class of white people in this country who do not work, do not produce, and have no desire to do so. We must reawaken in them their working class tendencies by weaning them off of government services and bringing them back into the world of productive labor.

I think if Alex had some more practical experience with organizing people, his views would mature and he would be a much better and more effective leader than he is now.

Without meaning to insult him, I have always detected from Alex a hesitation to cross the boundaries between talking about ideas and acting on ideas. Alex is a perfectionist, and he doesn't like to engage in activities that he doesn't feel he can execute perfectly. His fear of failure, or appearing to fail, or really of being subject to legitimate criticism, keeps from having some of the learning experiences he needs to realize his potential.

He also is not very social, and I don't think has the broad interaction with the working class necessary to understand their position in the US today.

VNN, and, now, the Aryan Alternative have done much better than I ever thought they would, but in order for them to continue to grow, their leadership has to continue to grow.

[Alex Linder]

Who are these vested interests? The companies doing business with the government? The market corrupting the government officials?

Oh, man. "The market corrupting the government officials." Reverse that.

The government doesn't precisely "corrupt" the market, it distorts it. It passes regulations -- always in the name of clean air or some other good -- that private business is forced to comply with. These regulation almost always make things worse - more expensive, less available. Then the politicians run to their media, and together they start shouting about corporate greed! That is exactly how the system works.

National Socialism is a worldview. The government exists to serve the people. That is its sole purpose. It can not be bought, it cannot be sold. It protects the workers and it protects the market. Both must work together for the best interests of both.

That's a nice theory. I doubt there's any government that doesn't claim the same. Those who claim to be "public servants" are the greediest mofos of all, and they rely on Joe Public taking them at face value.

Hong Kong has public housing, and state health care ect., unfortunately there is growing poverty in Hong Kong due to recent market reforms.

I don't know about now, but whatever minor socialism it may endure, it has always had low to no taxes, and that is the reason for its phenomonel economic success.

BTW: Switzerland provides government healthcare.

And how many people go to Switzerland for healthcare? They come here, because in spite of our socialism, we still have most advanced health care. If the government would get out of the way completely, it would become even better. Instead we're very likely to get Hilary Clinton in 2008, with renewed call for a single-payer system. Socialized health care is precisely the kind of nostrum that sounds good to the fool in the street who cannot understand cause and effect. Socialized health care means people dying in waiting lines. There are economic laws at work that no political theory can falsify, altho the govt and complicit media will do their corrupt best to hide connections.

[billwhite...]

Originally Posted by Amalekite

I find your vision far more palatable than the re-hashed authoritarian schemes I've often seen expressed on VNNF. I can accept that an authoritarian form of government might be a necessary transitional step on the way to something better, but an authoritarian government is not what I want my children and grandchildren growing up under.

Ironically, Alex's view of the world is more "authoritarian" than the national socialist one.

I find it strange someone would not see it that way. How do you think Alex's system could work without strong state authority?

[billwhite...]

I would also add this, before I head out this morning:

The "market", as envisioned by capitalists, is an inherently anti-racist institution. Market thinking always leads to the capitalist class (those who provide the capital for businesses) exploiting the workers, because the capitalist mentality calls for the return on their investment without regard to the good of society or to those who work for them. The "pure market" of authoritarian capital led directly to the demand for socialism -- which the Jews perverted into Bolshevism and internationalism.

The "market", because its only logic is return on investment, demands the sale of more goods to a more and more homogenized consumer -- hence globalism -- and the dissolution of those boundaries -- racial, national, cultural, religious, et cetera -- that impede the flow of capital or which reate local variations in the demand for good (that create niche markets that large capitalist enterprises cannot efficiently address).

Thus market thinking is always anti-racist thinking. Such thinking came out of the first protestant, then Masonic thinking of the 16th through 18th centuries.

For a racial dictatorship to impose itself on the market is a denial of market ideology. There is no system in which "the market" can serve the interests of the group short of fascism, and no way in which it can serve the race short of national socialism.

[Cthulhu]

Well if you want to see Whites riot you tell them that it is good for their children to be working 12 hours a day at the age of 10 and create conditions where that is permissible.

Like I said before and which you apparently did not understand is that the White workers did not enjoy being exploited. And whether the Jews were present or not you would have had to deal with the fact that Whites did not like their treatment at the hand of the markets. If you want to return to that state of affairs then the White masses will again seek redress and you will have to get the billy clubs out and start beating them over the heads.

Your idea that the government corrupts the companies rather than the companies corrupting the government is like saying the junkie is corrupting the dealer.

[knightowl]

Hey Bill White! I saw you on Current Affair. I also heard you on a radio show. I can't remember if it was VonBluvens or Hal Turner. Keep stirring up the shit. I can't wait to see how it all goes down in December!

[Amalekite]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Switzerland provides government healthcare.

Are you sure of that? A relative in Switzerland recently had to have (essential) surgery done. I think they paid for it out of their own pocket (then again, it's possible they went to a private hospital to avoid the waiting list at the public one).

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by billwhite

Alex came out of the conservative mileu. His views are tainted by it.

I think they're deepened by it. I know the best the Anglo-American conservatives have come up with, and I know the best the nazis and Germans have come up with. I feel confident that Burke and Hitler and Jefferson and Mencken would read the best on VNN/F and substantially agree.

It is my opinion that white racial political doctrines that fall short of national socialism reflect a lack of development that comes from a lack of understanding of the current real world situation.

One cannot, for instance, dissolve government housing overnight. Too many people are dependent on it, and we would put a large portion of the white race out of their homes if we did. Similarly with disability, SSI, TANF and the whole host of welfare.

This is a conservative insight, that an existing situation although bad, can always be made worse by fools who think improvement is easy. Still, in short order the stock could be sold off, people made to understand there's a new order, and it doesn't include heaping scoops of welfare. Just like mexicans after a few of their invaders were shot, they'd get the message real quickly.

We have created a large class of white people in this country who do not work, do not produce, and have no desire to do so. We must reawaken in them their working class tendencies by weaning them off of government services and bringing them back into the world of productive labor.

True, many do not realize how many are on variations of AFDC, WIC and SS supplemental.

I think if Alex had some more practical experience with organizing people, his views would mature and he would be a much better and more effective leader than he is now.

Without meaning to insult him, I have always detected from Alex a hesitation to cross the boundaries between talking about ideas and acting on ideas. Alex is a perfectionist, and he doesn't like to engage in activities that he doesn't feel he can execute perfectly. His fear of failure, or appearing to fail, or really of being subject to legitimate criticism, keeps from having some of the learning experiences he needs to realize his potential.

He also is not very social, and I don't think has the broad interaction with the working class necessary to understand their position in the US today.

VNN, and, now, the Aryan Alternative have done much better than I ever thought they would, but in order for them to continue to grow, their leadership has to continue to grow.

Allowing the cops to dictate the manner in which we exercise our rights seems rather contrary to the spirit of those who first secured them. As far as rallies, although you never know precisely how they'll play out, they need a good deal more "production" than we've seen so far.

[Amalekite]

Originally Posted by billwhite

Ironically, Alex's view of the world is more "authoritarian" than the national socialist one.

I find it strange someone would not see it that way. How do you think Alex's system could work without strong state authority?

Alex was talking about a strong, but limited, central government, with everything else being handled at the local level. A confederation, really. Participation would be voluntary, although there wouldn't be any reason not to join. Am I missing something?

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Well if you want to see Whites riot you tell them that it is good for their children to be working 12 hours a day at the age of 10 and create conditions where that is permissible.

That work got us where we are today, so there's no need to repeat it. If it hadn't been better than the alternative back then, they wouldn't have taken those jobs.

Like I said before and which you apparently did not understand is that the White workers did not enjoy being exploited. And whether the Jews were present or not you would have had to deal with the fact that Whites did not like their treatment at the hand of the markets.

Yes, I recall the giant boats they swarmed onto to take them back to the old country.

If you want to return to that state of affairs then the White masses will again seek redress and you will have to get the billy clubs out and start beating them over the heads.

In the name of everything good and holy the government does all imaginable monstrous things. It sprays Iraqis with "Willy Pete"; it sends trillions of your dollars to Israel; it sits on efficacious drugs and disseminates poisons called "vaccines."

Your idea that the government corrupts the companies rather than the companies corrupting the government is like saying the junkie is corrupting the dealer.

The only reason private industry is involved with government at all is that govt has grown so big that it regulates nearly everything, and industry can't do anything without prior approval. Dealing with government becomes a necessary part of doing business, which makes things worse for everybody.

You probably believe that government regulation makes things safer, which is like believing in fairies, except where there is no evidence for the existence of fairies, there is positive evidence that government regulation makes things more expensive, more dangerous, and just plain worse.

[Malleus]

I'm going to take this point-by-point here. I usually don't feel this need to speak my mind on these topics but here I feel compelled.

I have said that there is no white racial struggle without national socialism, and that that position is reflective of the general position of the National Socialist Movement.

NS'ism is great, but if memory serves, the KKK had 4 million + members – long before the concept of National Socialism even existed.

When it is said that there is no white nationalism without national socialism, that is exactly what is meant. It is impossible to struggle for the interests of the white race without inevitably coming to the national socialist worldview.

I happen to agree, in a sense, simply because we are rapidly approaching the point where the bones of the corpse of “democracy” are beginning to show. I've spoken for years of a “Nationalist Idea,” because of the simple facts that democracy is digging its own grave by decimating the working class and shipping in millions of muds to displace the White middle class base. People are growing tired of the constant corruption and abuse they must tolerate under “democracy” so the pressure for a genuine alternative is building.

I say “Nationalist Idea” because what the future portends as an alternative will inevitably be more Nationalistic in nature (as a simple matter of organic evolution of this political organism) and I also do not have a crystal ball to predict what it will shape out to be. It could be a paradigm shift within the present government (which I doubt) or it could be pressure from without to let in new leaders with a new idea (most likely) or it could even come on the heels of a out-and-out revolution.

There are a number of reasons white activists do not call themselves national socialists when, in fact, they are contributing to such a struggle. These divide into three types:

One is the activist who is struggling for the white race but does not have a fully developed ideology. These activists are proto-national-socialists. They are national socialists that do not have a full enough political development to identify themselves as such. With this type of activist, the National Socialist Movement urges unity.

The second is the activist who is a national socialist but who is convinced that national socialism cannot win, and thus disguises their national socialism as something else. These are the activists who attack the National Socialist Movement's approach as "too bold", as "dated", as "having no appeal". These are activists who wish they could achieve national socialism but, lacking the will and the confidence necessary to struggle for it, are content to struggle for something else -- something approved, or which they believe could be approved, by the current Jewish system of exploitation and oppression. While these activists are always welcome to attend National Socialist Movement events and consider a conversion, there is little room for "unity" between us -- because their fear of their own selves causes them to reject us as a living negation of their approach.

The third type of activist is the activist convinced of some other doctrine, but also convinced, separately, of racial theories which contradict it. Constitutionalists, libertarians and the "Patriot Movement" fall into this category. The US Constitution, the ideology of libertarianism, and the "Patriotism" of the "Patriot Movement", all rest on a belief system that holds at its heart the fundamental equality of man, or that a system should exist that makes pretense of such equality. Sometimes these men argue that in a "true" system of equality, natural differentiation will occur anyways, since given an equal playing field, the inequality of man will create and perpetuate economic and social inequalities. But they ignore the paradox that, if an equal playing field creates and perpetuates inequality, why should the equal playing field be created in the first place, as oppose to a playing field that separates men along the divisions men inevitably fall into?

I fall into none of the above cases. For one, I have a fully developed ideology which I adhere to: Creativity. It works for me, on a personal level. (e.g., In the mornings before I trudge off to do my duty to society, I sometimes review the 16 commandments to inspire myself to do my duty and perform a good service for the community, even a sick and dying one. http://www.overthrow.com/creator/ner/ner-2-04.asp ) So this scratches out category one.

Category 3 doesn't apply, either. I'm aware of lefty communist, “democratic” and “anti-racist” theories, but they are all dead ideologies and can be dismissed with a simple notation: Any political system or Idea which does not take the absolute reality of race – and of racial differences – in to account is doomed to failure.

This leaves category two, which doesn't apply largely in part due to my views on the tactics of the group approach (including NSM and other groups), more than anything else. Having watched Matt Hale & Co. go down in flames, and having observed other groups come and goo like farts in the wind, I have come to conclude that the group approach is doomed to follow the dinosaur. As mentioned earlier, the KKK had over 4,000,000 members at its peak. They didn't win. The German-American Bund had 40,000+ members in the 1930's. They didn't take the nation by storm either. The various racial political groups that coalesced in the 1970's had the support of a broad swath of the White working classes, even if they wouldn't leave their homes to support any political ideas. These groups didn't go anywhere either. Now we have the comings and goings of a fair amount of White Nationalists groups of various forms and sorts: NA, NV, etc. These also fail to polarize the crowd.

So the final question becomes one of, essentially: having done the same thing, over and over, for years on end (to wit: “Join my social club and we'll 'win'”), and having met with the same failure repeatedly, I ask you, Bill White, what's going to work this time? What will be different this time around that hasn't been tried before?

Rallies? Been there, done that.

Group meetings and lectures? Seen it.

Running for office? Check.

Publicity stunts? Quickly forgotten by the lemmings.

Forums and internet-based mental masturbation? Covered.

Mass distribution of literature and flyers? Yep.

As you can see, this is largely a question of tactics. The ultimate failure of White Nationalism is the latent inability to think in new dimensions. So again I ask, what's going to be different this time around?

In the white nationalist "scene", there are three centers of leadership right now. There is the group around National Vanguard, Stormfront and David Duke, the group around Vanguard News Network and Alex Linder, and there is the National Socialist Movement and its broad coalition.

There is a fourth arm of this triumvirate you speak of. A hidden arm. And this is composed of those who are Awakened, who are Aware, yet are not attached to any groups, entities or movement. They are waiting for something to change. When they will act, and what they will do is entirely up to them.

In life you only get what you ask for. If you ask for a "far right" conservative government that embraces the principles of the Constitution and had some mild understanding of racial reality, you will get that -- and it will, over time, turn into exactly what the last government in the US of that nature turned into -- a neo-conservative state dominated and exploited by Jews and ex-communists.

Good point, but this begs the question as to what Idea or government can be installed and “written in stone” such that it cannot and will not be perverted by jews, neo-cons, anti-social liberals, etc. What's going to work this time around, that we haven't tried before?

VNN would do well to develop and advocate for a coherent world view more sophisticated than "simple" white racialism. One can refer all questions to the interests of the race, but one cannot answer all questions by the race alone. What is a proper housing policy for a white government? What is a proper penal policy? Some questions have obvious answers -- black crime against whites must be addressed, for instance -- but how should it be addressed? And how should white crime in a white society be addressed? It is by answering the more sophisticated questions that a real national socialism develops.

Does National Socialism contain all of these answers within, say, Mein Kampf?

See, here's one of the issues I take with NS-ism. In all honestly, I feel it worked well with 1930's Germany. It worked stupendously, in fact, and it genuinely solved the problems that Germany was facing, hands down, in record time. The outright successes of National Socialism and their attendant economic miracle was the direct precipitator of WW2, in part because the rotten party politicians didn't want to look bad by comparison.

However, I question where it can be carbon-copied onto the political realities of 21st century America, an America so watered down politically that words count for more than action in the political sphere; there are only two parties with no real competitors; the notion of a private armies and particular party uniforms and symbols has never been explored; and the lemmings are so brainwashed that they hate anyone with a divergent view in general and a “nazi” in particular.

So the National Socialist Movement stands apart from the other trends in white nationalism in that it is not willing to pursue a reformist path and it is not willing to accept the leadership of those who do not have a fully developed and coherent social, political and economic worldview. The National Socialist Movement represents the highest degree the white liberation struggle has achieved in the United States, and, as such, its organization and its tactics represent the only option for white nationalism and white people.

Sounds good. This entire Western Culture needs a top-to-bottom cleansing and reformation which will kick out all of the cultural parasites and culture distorters and install a new government under a new Idea which will prepare the Western peoples for their Cultural Mission. If National Socialism is the vehicle to do so, then I'll admit the "errors of my ways" and help push it along. I first need to be sold on the idea that the failures of the past will not be repeated, and ultimately that this time around a group-based party approach will work before I do so, however.

[Lisa]

Bill White said: One cannot, for instance, dissolve government housing overnight. Too many people are dependent on it, and we would put a large portion of the white race out of their homes if we did. Similarly with disability, SSI, TANF and the whole host of welfare.

We have created a large class of white people in this country who do not work, do not produce, and have no desire to do so. We must reawaken in them their working class tendencies by weaning them off of government services and bringing them back into the world of productive labor.

I think if Alex had some more practical experience with organizing people, his views would mature and he would be a much better and more effective leader than he is now.

Without meaning to insult him, I have always detected from Alex a hesitation to cross the boundaries between talking about ideas and acting on ideas.

Well then smartie pants, tell us....."WWBWD - What Would BillWhite Do"? Huh?....((((ANSWER ME))))...LOL I realize that this discussion is all over the page, addressing many points of fact and issues; but your comment here just leaped right out at me. I think it is you Sir who is being impractical and rather tend to complicate a fairly simple matter. Your mind-set only serves to reinforce and validate the mind-set of those living off the government dole, IMO.

There is but one way to "awaken" the leeches of society - you light a fire under their butts - give them 6, maybe 9 months lead time and tell them their free ride ends on the end of it. They will sink or they will swim, but in any case, they will be responsible and accountable for themselves - and that is as it should be. Able bodied people oughta be working and paying their own way - end of story. The only exception, IMO, would be the truly physically disabled......and in that case, we should hold next-of-kin responsible for their welfare and offer something, but very little, by way off monetary support for their care - not a living.

A drug addict or drunk doesn't get "weaned" off his drug of choice - he/she puts it down....stops using....stops putting the substance into his body or his body will never stop craving it. A younger mother doesn't "wean" her baby off of the bottle - she takes it away at the appropriate age and hands him a cup to drink out of........and he does it, 'cause it just comes natural to him. That's why we don't see 10 year olds walking around with a baby bottle hanging from his lips.

Keep it simple Billy.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by billwhite

I would also add this, before I head out this morning:

The "market", as envisioned by capitalists, is an inherently anti-racist institution. Market thinking always leads to the capitalist class (those who provide the capital for businesses) exploiting the workers, because the capitalist mentality calls for the return on their investment without regard to the good of society or to those who work for them. The "pure market" of authoritarian capital led directly to the demand for socialism -- which the Jews perverted into Bolshevism and internationalism.

'Market' is simply a term attached to buyers and sellers making arrangements for exchange. Whether or not race is taken into account depends on the parties involved. Libertarians don't even agree. Some say, a la WSJ, that we should have open borders, as each man is a free agent. Others say individuals can form nations that can make collective decisions against individual political 'market' choices. Who can say what is right? No one, in an absolute sense. But we racialists assert our right to form a nation, and if we have the strength, then we can exercise our right. That means we have the power to constrain the (political) market with regard to choices about who becomes a member of our collective. The market is race-neutral; it is necessarily neither racist nor anti-racist. It exists where it is allowed to exist, just as water takes the shape of its container. Just like water, it will escape where you give it a crack, as the inducement to financial profit is always strong in men, even if they achieve that profit by illegal or immoral means. The best that can be done is use education and media to persuade men against materialism, while recognizing the market's centrality to rational production and exchange of goods and services. Hitler recognized that. I believe my policy is Hitlerian, but I don't have a full understanding of what exactly Hitler did. The key is to make sure that anybody tempted to destroy or undermine the racial basis of the state understands that, a la Singapore and drugs, he will face the death penalty. At that point one has done the best he can to constrain the natural market system while enjoying the efficiency it alone offers.

The "market", because its only logic is return on investment, demands the sale of more goods to a more and more homogenized consumer -- hence globalism -- and the dissolution of those boundaries -- racial, national, cultural, religious, et cetera -- that impede the flow of capital or which reate local variations in the demand for good (that create niche markets that large capitalist enterprises cannot efficiently address).

True, but the market can be limited by the political choices of the state it serves. China has shown this, and the we-under-the-jews have shown the opposite. China makes the aracist or anti-racist market serve racist China; whereas the jews use it to grind up whites, mexes and blacks and thereby serve their racial interests.

Thus market thinking is always anti-racist thinking. Such thinking came out of the first protestant, then Masonic thinking of the 16th through 18th centuries.

The market is but one consideration among others. It has its place, but its place is not everyplace. No snuff movies, no importing mexicans to do our dirty work. When the difficult political problem is solved, the easy market problem follows immediately.

For a racial dictatorship to impose itself on the market is a denial of market ideology.

Or, it is a market decision made by the collective known as the nation.