Home » anti-White » What’s in a name?

What’s in a name?

I was reading this thread, in which the discussion of labels like ‘alt-right’ vs. ‘pro-White’ came up. There were some differing opinions. Someone says that the ‘pro-White’ label is too much for the ‘normies’ out there, and that ‘alt-right’ does not have similar negative connotations. Obviously I am paraphrasing, but you can read the long thread for yourselves.

I would have added a comment or two of my own but lately it seems that I am not able to get a comment posted on Blogger blogs, and in any case I am not part of the ‘Ilk’, though I am in agreement with much of what is said there.

I’ve given a lot of thought as to which, if any, of these labels are the ‘best’, and as some may notice, I tend to use varying terms, depending, sometimes interchangeably though there are subtle differences amongst them. When I first began blogging, a decade ago, some of the present-day labels had not even been coined. I had definitely not come across ‘alt-right’ at that early stage; I am fairly sure it wasn’t used. When I first began blogging I spoke of ‘Americans’  and ‘old-stock Americans’ more often than ‘Whites’ because at that time it was considered ‘extremist’ by many people even to speak of White people, especially to imply that Whites have distinct interests. I sometimes called myself, and was called, a ‘paleocon’, or ‘hard right’. I’ve been described as a ‘right-wing dissident’ by another blogger and for a while I identified as a ‘traditionalist’ although that label means something quite specific in Catholic circles. I’ve called myself a reactionary or a restorationist. Above all I am not doctrinaire or an ideologue.

Right now I would be most likely to identify as an ethnonationalist/ethnopatriot, and I consider myself an advocate for White interests. But terms like ‘ethnopatriot’ sound a little too — what? Academic for average people, I suppose. Even more so is the term ‘Identitarian’– too intellectual-sounding and abstruse for many people, and the political movement of that name is not something that speaks to everyday people; it’s very European and Ivory-tower-ish.

I don’t agree that the term ‘pro-White’ is too much for the so-called normal people. I mean, how can we say that with certainty? Has anybody run focus groups to see if people find that term scary or alarming? Just because the media and the rest of the left shun any label with the naughty term ‘White’ in it, does that mean that most people would recoil from it? Normal White people would be ‘pro-White’. Period. Those who are not actively for their own folk, and who would be scared off by terms like ‘pro-White’ are decidedly not normal, but are the product of half a century of mind-conditioning and politically correct browbeating. They need deprogramming like all cult members.

In the discussion someone says that the term ‘alt-right’ would be better because the alt-right implies that we are ‘for all races.’ Really? How does that follow? I don’t think most people would take that meaning from ‘alt-right’ and I think the very idea of being ‘for all races’ sounds awfully multicultish to me. We can’t be all things to all people and that’s where ‘Americanism’ went wrong: the attempt at making ‘America’ a place ‘for all races’. Christians know we can’t serve two masters. We can’t be fully for our own folk if we have to be ‘for’ everybody else too.

My feeling toward other peoples does not include being responsible for them or fixing their problems. My Bible says that God sets the bounds of nations — geographically, and also by DNA, by blood, implicitly.

And if we don’t look out for our own interests, certainly nobody else will; the rest of the world seems to see us as being here to serve and cater to them, to our own detriment. Let each people be self-sufficient and stay in their own territory, and we do the same.

So what’s in a name? I don’t know what label ‘works’ best in the sense of ‘selling’ our cause to the uninformed, easily-fooled masses out there. I am not a PR person, or a huckster expert at persuading unwilling people to buy a product.

And I do think that to shy away from a certain label because it will ‘turn people away’ is exactly the sort of thinking that the ‘respectable right’/cuckservatives engage in. That kind of timidity, of catering to the deluded masses and the cowards out there, is not something we have the luxury of doing; compromising, or trying to soften our ‘image’ to appeal to the weak-minded people will only result in precious time being lost.

Truth matters. Our situation is urgent. Time is short. Stand for the truth and honest people will be attracted naturally. The rest, who value the opinions of ‘society’ more than the truth, are not people we should want to attract.

The majority is never needed in order to bring about change. The ”counterculture” was brought about by a minority of fanatical people plus a lot of mind-numbed, passive ‘normal’ people.

Advertisements

One thought on “What’s in a name?

  1. A powerful piece well-timed VA. Alt-right is a comfortable term of evasion for the GOP mainstreamers to move right in and take it over and turn it into more hesitation while our chances run out.

    Whites are already a minority in public schools. The absolute number of Whites under 20 has done down in almost every country in America. There is a map floating around with that.

    Whites aged 25 to 30 are more likely to be never married than not in most urban places and many others too. They never catch up to replacement population fertility.

    We can’t have another Lou Dobbs phase. You in effect point out that Alt-right is not just a risk to go that way, but the new alt-righters, many Libertarians looking for jobs with the establishment, will push it hard to go that way.

    Pro-White is much harder to co-opt by career pushing establishment want-a-be types. If we can’t be pro-White now, when?

    The GOP Congress seems determined to keep any Trump revolution at minimal levels of actual pro-White action. That can’t be called out except by using terms like pro-White.

    This is something the left understands extremely well. They don’t hesitate to go into a church and desecrate it to push their agenda. They have no restrictions. They use terms intentionally so that they can call out normies and shame them into compliance with their agenda.

    We need calling-out terms of our own. Alt-Right doesn’t hack it. We need pro-White to call out GOP Congressmen who vote for legal immigration or taking down the Confederate Flag.

    Our schools are dying because they are not White, not because they are not alt-right. To call out any problem as due to insufficient alt-rightness is to be absurd. Right now, I have to suspect it was deliberately crafted that way.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s