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.

“What you mean, ‘we’?”

For those of you who may be too young to get the reference in the title, it’s from the punch line of an old, pre-PC joke. It went something like this:

The Lone Ranger says “Looks like we’re surrounded by hostile Indians, Tonto.”

Tonto replies: ”What you mean ‘we’, White Man?

In this latest from Fred Reed, he uses the word ‘we’ in a similarly questionable way. Writing about the recent political/racial violence directed at Trump supporters, and looking at the overall context — illegal and legal immigration out of control, warring ethnic/religious/racial groups, Reed says:

Somebody needs to take command to end this nonsense before it becomes irremediable. But is it possible? There is no nice way to do it. The scum will ignore niceness. The police would have to beat the living dog-snot out of rioters, charge them with assault, and put them in slam for the maximum. Controlling them would require martial law in cities in insurrection and the shooting of arsonists and looters. Universities would have to expel without recourse of misbehaving college children. These would take stomach, which we do not have.”

While I can find little with which I can disagree there, I can’t help questioning the word ‘we’ as he uses it. What you mean ‘we‘, Fred? Most of your readers are still in this country, while you are ensconced in Mexico — the land from which many of our enemies are coming — and you are married to a Mexican and raising Mexican children. So who is this ‘we’?

Maybe my patience has long since worn too thin but I consider that anybody who appears to have thrown in his lot with Mexico and the Mexican people is no longer part of the American ‘we’, or the White ‘we.’

Most pro-White men condemn White women who marry outside our folk and who bear children of another race, and rightly so. But strangely few people mention the irony of Reed implicitly including himself in the American ‘we’ or the White, Anglo ‘we’ when his choices say that he prefers Mexicans over his own folk.

Actions speak louder than words. Marrying and producing children with a genetically distant mate says that you have no real loyalty to, or even real regard for the future of your own folk. I suspect at heart, despite Reed’s blunt way of writing, he is more of a libertarian — even a ‘colorblind’ libertarian than a nationalist: you know, the right of the individual over the duty to the kin-group, the people to whom you belong by blood.

Deny it though we might, we’re part of an unbroken chain: we are part of our ancestors and we owe them allegiance. We owe it to them to follow their example and carry on the heritage, to keep faith with the past. We are not ‘islands’, entire of ourselves.

And we owe our posterity something. We owe a future to the unborn generations. We have no right to let their future be stolen.

Reed’s children, Mexican as they are (by birth, genetics, and very much by phenotype) have a home and a people in Mexico. Will our progeny have a national home at all? Will their children be absorbed into the ‘huddled masses’ eventually, or be despised in the country their ancestors founded?

Loyalty to our own folk is something that must be rediscovered. In these times we will see testing of this loyalty, and find out who is ‘of’ us and who is not.

Anti-whites ‘fuel nationalism’

…Specifically White nationalism, which someone named David Marcus thinks is a bad thing, a uniquely undesirable form of nationalism. David Marcus says Whites must not tribalize, like every other group of people on the planet do; we must look at others only as individuals, not as members of a group.

I guess that is to be expected coming from someone named David Marcus; there is a definite pattern of Jews discouraging ethnocentrism or ethnopatriotism on the part of White ‘gentiles’, especially Christians, while claiming the right for their own people to be the most ethnocentric and nepotistic people on planet Earth.

As some of you reading this know to be true, I was a latecomer to acknowledging the Jewish role in what is happening to White countries. Maybe I was just unwilling to touch such a radioactive subject, seeing how anyone who criticizes or even notices patterns among Jews is slapped down as an ”anti-Semite” who is thereby discredited.

But at a certain point I could not avoid noticing the part played by Jews in promoting multiculturalism, and cultural Marxism in all its forms, as well as opposing the influence of Christianity in our society. And it is obvious that Jews have, because of the victim culture, been placed above scrutiny heretofore — which is the ultimate form of political correctness.

The Jewish question aside, it is indefensible to deny Whites the simple right to secure and promote their own ethnic/genetic interests, especially in a world in which everyone else asserts their own tribal/ethnic/racial/religious identities, often in the most militant and aggressive ways. And yet we, and we alone, are carefully monitored and censured if we dare to think of ourselves as a discrete group with ethnic interests of our own, or heaven forbid, to assert our identity.

And it is hardly possible for anyone to deny that the percentage of Whites is fast diminishing in this upside-down world in which the most backward countries are seeing their populations explode, hence the spillover into Europe and North America as well as Australia and New Zealand. Wherever White people live, their relative numbers are shrinking in proportion to the population of the undeveloped nations. White people are a small minority of the total world population, and getting smaller. Yet paradoxically only Whites have been hectored about limiting family size or foregoing having children at all. Mother Earth can’t support more people — at least White people, apparently.

We are under an existential threat. And yet we are being told to think of ourselves only as isolated individuals with no kinship ties, cultural heritage, or history. We are just two-legged, tool-using mammals and that’s all the identity we need.

I would love to see this Marcus write the same piece addressed to the people of Israel and see how well it sells there. Or the diaspora Jewish community; are they willing to give up their group identity in favor of being ‘just individuals’?

And let’s not single out Jews; blacks are extremely ethnocentric. Think of the O.J. Simpson verdict; blacks cheered the verdict because one of their ‘own’ was getting off Scot-free, and they thought that was ‘justice.’ Blacks see everything through the prism of their race. Mexicans are nationalistic/ethnocentric to an extreme degree also; let’s see Mr. Marcus preach ‘individualism’ to Latinos, and warn against the extremists in La Raza or MeCha or any other nationalistic extremist organization.

This passe libertarian idea of ‘just individuals’ is inimical to our survival in today’s tribalistic world. Why should we alone be expected to give up our identity (which we have always had; it is not artificially created) and make ourselves vulnerable to the multitude of aggressive ethnic groups who have been introduced without our consent into our national home, our living space?

Mr. Marcus, like many of the deracinated ”right”, tries to make ”nationalism” a dirty word. “White” nationalism is a doubly-dirty term in the minds of such people because to them Whites are congenitally guilty of something. These same people use terms like ‘White nationalism’ promiscuously and inaccurately. They also conflate WNism with ‘Supremacy’, and that is dishonest or ignorant. Scarcely anyone wants ‘supremacy’ in the sense of ruling over other races. We simply want what all peoples have wanted: a place to be ourselves, amongst our own, in a land that is our homeland, our secure place. And the evil ”14 words” are about nothing more than the right to live unmolested amongst our own ethnic kin, the right to live and to ensure a future for our children, our progeny.

That is, after all, what brought our forefathers to this country. And when they established an independent nation here, they said explicitly that it was for themselves and their progeny. Not for the whole world, and most certainly not for those who were openly hostile or incompatible with this nation’s people, or for anyone who openly worked against the interests of the people of this nation.

Below the title of this blog, you will see the words ‘Ourselves and our posterity.’

From the beginning, this country was about securing the existence of our people and a future for their/our children.

Where is the evil in that? And why should we willingly renounce that?

Another mention of our English origins

I can hardly believe it: there’s yet another blog post which mentions the English origins of America. There have been a few such blog pieces in recent weeks from alt-right bloggers.

That’s the good news: there is renewed discussion of American identity and the loss of cohesion, but the bad news is: the comments. The comments are a depressing lot: please go over and read the piece and the accompanying comments. They are a mix of the usual canards and outright falsehoods mixed with some backhanded quasi-slurs against Anglo-Americans. Examples: the descendants of the English founding stock are ‘elites’ who subverted America, in collusion with you-know-who. This canard is repeated often on alt-right blogs and rarely, if ever, challenged. Another frequently heard comment: ‘there are no [pure] English people’ or ‘the English people are a mixture of peoples anyway, so, what’s the big deal if they are lost in the genetic blender?‘ Just for some perspective, the native indigenous English people in England are being brainwashed with the same falsehoods, and are told that ‘Britain has always been a multicultural multiracial nation’, because The Angles, and The Saxons, and the Danes, and the Vikings and The Normans — never mind that all these people are kindred peoples. Why does most of the world seem not to comprehend that basic fact?

I don’t have time to write a full response but I will do so later — though it seems futile to even try; as I’m just one person writing in obscurity here.