Out of curiousity

[Sulla the Dictator]

What is the precident you "white nationalists" cite for your movement? In terms of the SCALE of your goals and the methods you use, what historical 'political' movement/group do you feel is closest to yours?

This doesn't necessarily need to be a group with the same objectives or ideology.

[Thomas777]

What is the precident you "white nationalists" cite for your movement? In terms of the SCALE of your goals and the methods you use, what historical 'political' movement/group do you feel is closest to yours?

This doesn't necessarily need to be a group with the same objectives or ideology.

Originally, America's political and civic culture was underscored by an understanding of America as an Anglo-Saxon, Protestant republic. Later, the American community was opened to European, Christian immigrants of varying denominations (with some substantial friction). When human populations became more mobile in the 20th century, the Traditional American community lobbied to guarantee the maintainenance of their unique way of life and such efforts were largely successful (the 1924 Immigration act comes to mind).

The precedent that I invoke is the Traditional understanding of America and its community...as understood by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and essentially every American executive who served in the White House before LBJ.

[Kodos]

Sulla I share your distaste for nazis etc but what do you think of old fashioned nativists?

[sainte-marthe]

I'm not really a "white nationalist" (more of an old fashioned 'racist', even though I don't like the term) but I agree much of what Thomas already noted. Most of what I'd like to see would amount to no more than a lot of what existed until mere decades ago. Some of this is more related to social mores and demographics rather than "just politics", though.

[Ahknaton]

Ironically, Israel is a pretty good role model for a nationalist ethno-state on which to model a "White" nation. My ideal WN state would be to White people as Israel is to Jews: founded explicitly as a homeland for people of a particular identity with an immigration policy geared towards maintaining an unassailable demographic majority but tolerating of a small minority of citizens not of that identity. Minus the suicide bombers, of course.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well, I wasn't being too clear. Its a strange question to ask. :p

What I meant was, since most of your recognize that as of right now your politics are shared (And that is a loose term, considering the divisions even within that) by a small minority of people in the US and elsewhere, what historical movement do you see as a valuable model to adopt in order to change that?

For example, do you identify with the Nazis? Paramilitary groups which serve to support a temporairy political organization with the goal of reorganizing the state itself?

Or the Bolsheviks, with efforts to rouse working class and intellectual support first, with a revolutionary model in mind?

Or the Civil Rights movement, peaceful non-violent demonstration with the goal of achieving legislative success?

That type of thing. Not limited to those choices. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla I share your distaste for nazis etc but what do you think of old fashioned nativists?

I think they were too static. Their desires for some kind of cultural (ignoring the specious 'racial' claims :p ) purity would have cost America its explosion of industrial growth.

[Thomas777]

Well, I wasn't being too clear. Its a strange question to ask. :p

What I meant was, since most of your recognize that as of right now your politics are shared (And that is a loose term, considering the divisions even within that) by a small minority of people in the US and elsewhere, what historical movement do you see as a valuable model to adopt in order to change that?

For example, do you identify with the Nazis? Paramilitary groups which serve to support a temporairy political organization with the goal of reorganizing the state itself?

Or the Bolsheviks, with efforts to rouse working class and intellectual support first, with a revolutionary model in mind?

Or the Civil Rights movement, peaceful non-violent demonstration with the goal of achieving legislative success?

That type of thing. Not limited to those choices. :p

I think that most reasonable White people agree with me. John Q. Public does not like the fact that there is a burgeoning slum developing in his neighborhood on account of unrestricted, illegal immigration. He does not like it that his kids are subjected to daily assaults upon their heritage and folkways in public schools. He does not like it that luminaries like the Clintons, Teddy Kennedy, Chucky Shumer, and Dick Durbin gleefully announce that he will soon be a minority and get his just deserts. John Q. Public does not like any of this because its an attack upon him, his traditions, his heritage, and his way of life. I believe that I am just another John Q. Public who is really sick of this shit...and this situation is fast approaching critical mass. Mind you, it is not going to culminate in some cataclysmic event or violent revolt, for obvious reasons...but the battle lines are being drawn and the direction in which things are moving cannot be abated. White people are essentially seceeding from urban life, and they are identifying less and less with the status quo.

[Thomas777]

I think they were too static. Their desires for some kind of cultural (ignoring the specious 'racial' claims :p ) purity would have cost America its explosion of industrial growth.

Did the desire for cultural purity cost Japan its explosion of industrial growth?

The case can be made (convincingly) that mass immigration stifles industrial progress and technological innovation. I really don't see where you are going with this...how is technology enabled by allowing companies to avoid bidding on labor markets?

[Anarch]

When everyone else was doing their flag waving during the National Bolshevik Phase™ I went and read Lenin and Stalin :D

Gramsci's war of position plus vanguard of the revolution. The Bolsheviks.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Did the desire for cultural purity cost Japan its explosion of industrial growth?


Yes, as can be seen by an open, Westernized Japan after our occupation of it. :p


The case can be made (convincingly) that mass immigration stifles industrial progress and technological innovation.


Thats the lesson you took away from 19th century America? Really?


I really don't see where you are going with this...how is technology enabled by allowing companies to avoid bidding on labor markets?

A developing industrial base can't afford to dicker with the workers.

[Thomas777]

Yes, as can be seen by an open, Westernized Japan after our occupation of it. :p
Japan essentially has outlawed immigration...it is not really "open"...and thank God for that.



Thats the lesson you took away from 19th century America? Really?
Yes. When companies don't have to bid for labor markets, it becomes cost prohibitive to develop technology to remove the human equation from production. That is one of the reasons why the South remained an agrarian backwater and the Union won the war. As an aside, nobody in the 19th century suggested that the entire nation of Mexico be imported to America to ease the overhead on corporate profiteers.



A developing industrial base can't afford to dicker with the workers.

In the 19th century, unrestricted immigration was not permitted, so this is niether here nor there...and it is not longer applicable to the current debate.

[Fade the Butcher]

What is the precident you "white nationalists" cite for your movement?

The Indian Removal Acts, Operation Wetback, American Colonization Society, Wilmot Proviso, Chinese Exclusion Act, anti-miscegenation laws in 41 American states, Buck v. Bell, Confederate States of America, sterilization laws in most American states.

In terms of the SCALE of your goals and the methods you use, what historical 'political' movement/group do you feel is closest to yours? This doesn't necessarily need to be a group with the same objectives or ideology.

The nineteenth century free soil movement and the eugenics movement during early twentieth century America.

[Fade the Butcher]

Kudos to Tim Wise for unearthing this.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wise02032006.html

"When Texas announced its secession from the United States, its leaders issued a "Declaration of Causes." . . . The Texas secession delegates went even further than those in most other Southern states, by declaring:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the government of the various states and of the (federal) confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

[Dan Dare]

What is the precident you "white nationalists" cite for your movement? In terms of the SCALE of your goals and the methods you use, what historical 'political' movement/group do you feel is closest to yours?

This doesn't necessarily need to be a group with the same objectives or ideology.

In my view the whole notion of a "movement" is quite silly.

All that is really necessary is the emergence of a leadership cadre that understands the corrosive effects of Cultural Marxism, and dedicates itself to reversing the direction of the Long March through the Institutions. Once that repressive apparatus has been dismantled, the many necessary reforms in areas such as immigration, educational and social policy, and so on will fall naturally into place.

From a societal level, probably the closest model of a historical 'group' that we should seek to emulate is the Anglosphere of the late Victorian and Edwardian era. This model would of course need to be tempered by application of the more rational aspects of 20C European-style social-democratic socioeconomic policy, and it should be assumed that it will be able to draw upon our contemporary technical, scientific, and economic knowledge.

[Fade the Butcher]

I made a long post on the old Phora about how the roots of White Nationalism can be traced back to the nineteenth century free soil movement.

http://www.explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=341

"The Wilmot Proviso was not a statement about racial equality. Wilmot himself described the resolution as the "White Man's Proviso," arguing that he wanted to protect western territories for "my own race and own color."

[Fade the Butcher]

More on that here.

"This is because securing the Territories for free White labor, and not citizenship for Negroes, was always the real issue in the minds of the Free-Soilers and the later Republicans. The Free Soil argument was that the presence of slavery was an embarrassment to American democracy and that it impeded the "manifest destiny" of the United States to extend a great economic empire of White freedom across the continent and throughout the world. In relating why all future Territories should be closed to slavery and why California should be admitted as a free State, David Wilmot, author of the aforementioned Wilmot Proviso, said: "The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves, and our children — for the emigrant that seeks our shores — for the poor man, that wealth shall oppress — for the free white laborer, who shall desire to hew him out a home of happiness and peace, on the distant shores of the mighty Pacific." Such was the substance of a three-hour speech in Congress in 1850 delivered by William H. Seward, who was also a member of the Free Soil party, and who would later serve in Lincoln's presidential cabinet as Secretary of State:

The population of the United States consists of natives of Caucasian origin, and exotics of the same derivation. The native mass readily assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic, and these constitute one homogenous people. The African race, bond and free, and the aborigines, savage and civilised, being incapable of such assimilation and absorption, remain distinct, and, owing to their peculiar condition, constitute inferior masses, and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. The ruling homogenous family, planted at first on the Atlantic shore, and following an obvious law, is seen rapidly and continually spreading itself westward, year by year, subduing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this great political community, which, as fast as it advances, breaks into distinct States for municipal purposes only, while the whole constitutes one entire, contiguous, and compact nation.

It is clear that Seward did not view the Negro, whether slave or free, to be a part of this "great political community" which he foresaw spreading itself across the continent. In his "Irrepressible Conflict" speech, delivered at Rochester, New York on 25 October 1858, Seward stated, "The interests of the white race demand the ultimate emancipation of all men. The white man needs this continent to labor upon.... He must and will have it."(4) (http://www.crownrights.com/blog/ebook/six.htm#N_4_) Two years later, his views had not changed: "The great fact is now fully realized that the African race here is a foreign and feeble element, like the Indians, incapable of assimilation,... and that it is a pitiful exotic, unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard."(5) (http://www.crownrights.com/blog/ebook/six.htm#N_5_) According to Republican Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio, the solution to the "Negro problem" was therefore not only the abolition of slavery, but the removal of the Negro race entirely from the country:

The Senator from Illinois [Douglas] and my collegue [Pugh] have said that we Black Republicans were advocates of negro equality, and that we wanted to build up a black government. Sir, it will be one of the most blessed ideas of the times, if it shall come to this, that we will make inducements to every free black among us to find his home in a more congenial climate in Central America or Lower Mexico, and we will be divested of every one of them; and then, endowed with the splendid domain that we shall get, we will adopt a homestead policy, and we will invite the poor, the destitute, industrious white man from every clime under heaven, to come in here and make his fortune. So, sir, we will build up a nation, renovated by this process, of white laboring men.

[Fade the Butcher]

President Andrew Jackson's Case for the Removal Act
First Annual Message to Congress, 8 December 1830

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/andrew.htm

It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it Promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude.

Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the General Government in relation to the State authorities. For the justice of the laws passed by the States within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this Government. As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a Government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.

With a full understanding of the subject, the Choctaw and the Chickasaw tribes have with great unanimity determined to avail themselves of the liberal offers presented by the act of Congress, and have agreed to remove beyond the Mississippi River. Treaties have been made with them, which in due season will be submitted for consideration. In negotiating these treaties they were made to understand their true condition, and they have preferred maintaining their independence in the Western forests to submitting to the laws of the States in which they now reside. These treaties, being probably the last which will ever be made with them, are characterized by great liberality on the part of the Government. They give the Indians a liberal sum in consideration of their removal, and comfortable subsistence on their arrival at their new homes. If it be their real interest to maintain a separate existence, they will there be at liberty to do so without the inconveniences and vexations to which they would unavoidably have been subject in Alabama and Mississippi.

Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and Philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. To follow to the tomb the last of his race and to tread on the graves of extinct nations excite melancholy reflections. But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted. Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the conditions in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?

The present policy of the Government is but a continuation of the same progressive change by a milder process. The tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites. The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to a land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual. Doubtless it will be painful to leave the graves of their fathers; but what do they more than our ancestors did or than our children are now doing? To better their condition in an unknown land our forefathers left all that was dear in earthly objects. Our children by thousands yearly leave the land of their birth to seek new homes in distant regions. Does Humanity weep at these painful separations from everything, animate and inanimate, with which the young heart has become entwined? Far from it. It is rather a source of joy that our country affords scope where our young population may range unconstrained in body or in mind, developing the power and faculties of man in their highest perfection. These remove hundreds and almost thousands of miles at their own expense, purchase the lands they occupy, and support themselves at their new homes from the moment of their arrival. Can it be cruel in this Government when, by events which it can not control, the Indian is made discontented in his ancient home to purchase his lands, to give him a new and extensive territory, to pay the expense of his removal, and support him a year in his new abode? How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement. . . .

May we not hope, therefore, that all good citizens, and none more zealously than those who think the Indians oppressed by subjection to the laws of the States, will unite in attempting to open the eyes of those children of the forest to their true condition, and by a speedy removal to relieve them from all the evils, real or imaginary, present or prospective, with which they may be supposed to be threatened.

[Fade the Butcher]

what historical movement do you see as a valuable model to adopt in order to change that?

The racialist/eugenics movement during the early twentieth century would be a good place to start.

For example, do you identify with the Nazis? Paramilitary groups which serve to support a temporairy political organization with the goal of reorganizing the state itself?

I find the Third Reich interesting, but I don't see it as a model, as National Socialist Germany did not have a substantial nonwhite population to deal with. The ideas that interest me like racial nationalism, darwinism, eugenics and so on were pioneered in America and Great Britain long before they were transplanted to the continent. Early America, aside from its infection by Enlightenment philosophy, is without a doubt the best model to imitate. Early America was rife with racial conflict.

Or the Bolsheviks, with efforts to rouse working class and intellectual support first, with a revolutionary model in mind?

I do find Leninism interesting in this respect.

Or the Civil Rights movement, peaceful non-violent demonstration with the goal of achieving legislative success?

The Civil Rights Movement was not peaceful. This is a myth that has been created and sustained by the media. King and his followers went out of their way to provoke violent confrontations with the police, as was the case in Birmingham. This is even acknowledged in the mainstream literature on the subject these days.

[Dan Dare]

Where'd Sulla go?

Perhaps he's a little put out that there's not as much heelclicking, goose-stepping and 88ing as he'd hoped to stimulate when launching this particular little exercise.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Where'd Sulla go?

Perhaps he's a little put out that there's not as much heelclicking, goose-stepping and 88ing as he'd hoped to stimulate when launching this particular little exercise.

Or maybe he's waiting for that flood from Fade to stop and other people to answer.

[Fade the Butcher]

I find it amusing that Sulla and Potyondi spend so much time arguing with Dan when he is such a fan of Churchill.

[Fade the Butcher]

Or maybe he's waiting for that flood from Fade to stop and other people to answer.

Didn't you ask for precedents?

[Donny the Punk]

I find it amusing that Sulla and Potyondi spend so much time arguing with Dan when he is such a fan of Churchill.
What's Churchill got to do with it?

[Dan Dare]

Didn't he veto the bombing of Auschwitz?

[Hakluyt]

I think they were too static. Their desires for some kind of cultural (ignoring the specious 'racial' claims ) purity would have cost America its explosion of industrial growth.

How tragic that would have been...

[Fade the Butcher]

What's Churchill got to do with it?

It seems like you guys would be on the same side in these debates, but that's not the case.

[Donny the Punk]

I wouldn't know. I doubt it affects my life very much either way.

[Fade the Butcher]

Didn't he veto the bombing of Auschwitz?

Actually, I think Churchill did give the order to bomb Auschwitz but it was never carried out.

[Dan Dare]

Actually he told the Air Staff to study it, but when they reported back that it was all too hard and he didn't press the matter.

Some other trifling matter concerning a second front or some such nonsense came up in the meantime.

[Hakluyt]

I'm not a white nationalist or a racialist, but as any emphasis on a sense for ethnic continuity tends to be maligned for precisely the same reasons, I will count myself as part of that 'crowd' in a very limited way.

My historical precedents for this point of view are: pan-Britannic nationalism, Red toryism in Canada, cultural ecology (or 'deep ecology' - both the 19th century and 20th century strains), early Canadian biculturalism/multiculturalism, and a selection of ideas from the German and English blood-and-soil philosophers.

Unhistorically, but still meaningful as a 'precedent' for policies, the contemporary study of kinship dynamics presents as potent a case for homogeneity as anything drawn from the past.

[Kodos]

I think they were too static. Their desires for some kind of cultural (ignoring the specious 'racial' claims :p ) purity would have cost America its explosion of industrial growth.

There would have definitely been a big negative if Tesla for instance was kept out of the country... still in general lower class immigration from non northern european protestant lands has been a net drain on the country, and an endless supply of cheap labor long term reduces incentives to employ labor saving technology...

[Sulla the Dictator]

Didn't you ask for precedents?

I was responding to the suggestion from Dan that I started this thread to rebutt every reply rather than actually wanting an answer. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

I find it amusing that Sulla and Potyondi spend so much time arguing with Dan when he is such a fan of Churchill.

I still argued with you when you were a fan of FDR. :p

[Ahknaton]

I'm not a white nationalist or a racialist, but...
:rofl:
http://bogusimage.com

[wintermute]

What is the precident you "white nationalists" cite for your movement? In terms of the SCALE of your goals and the methods you use, what historical 'political' movement/group do you feel is closest to yours?

This doesn't necessarily need to be a group with the same objectives or ideology.

Feminism, Gay Rights, PETA.

Anyone here or at VNN can kvetch 'til they turn blue about the socially destructive effects of these groups, but they all moved from initial, fairly intense social marginalization, ridicule, and hatred (with some associated violence), to tolerance, ubiquity, and then finally to legal hegemony, which they now enjoy (I'll grant that PETA hasn't gotten as far as the other two listed movements but - admit it - you think more about fur now than you used to, don't you?).

And, of the three movements, only feminism enjoyed backstage support (at the beginning) from the Jewish publishing/news racket. The NYT would not give fags the time of day until the mid-80s, on account of what is now called 'raging homophobia' (NYT to Gays: Drop Dead), and the Jews generally did not interfere again until they saw another possible proletariat to use to break society apart, i.e. the 'gay marriage' moment - five years ago to the present. Gays went from pariahs to fashion accessories in twenty five years. And remember: Jews HATED them. Podhoretz wrote essays in major magazines about how gays should be exterminated - down to the last one. This was the stupidest thing he could have done, as it roused Gore Vidal to action, which he did by by 'outing' (in the mid eighties) the whole neoconservative network and their aims. Some juicy quotes:

http://www.rense.com/general32/unbound.htm


In the spring of 1986, Gore Vidal, novelist and chronicler of US history, published an essay in The Nation which became instantly notorious. Called "The Empire Lovers Strike Back," its subject was the relationship of American Jewish neo-conservatives to the state of Israel. He chose as exemplars of the phenomenon, Commentary magazine editor, Norman Podhoretz, and spouse, Midge Decter (mother-in-law of Elliot Abrams of Iran Contra infamy; Abrams, a racial purist who disdains intermarriage, now serves as White House Director of Middle Eastern Affairs). Podhoretz and Decter had once been liberals, but an aggressive Zionism led them to pitch their tent in the Republican Party. Their aim was to use US economic and political heft to advance Israel's interests in the Middle East. The essay was vintage Vidal and it greatly provoked his critics. To ensure that no one took seriously what he had to say - to silence the debate before it started - he was rubbished as the worst kind of anti-Semite.

So, exactly what had Vidal said to earn this most feared of labels? In recent weeks we have heard a good deal about the cynical alliance between fundamentalist Christian Zionists in the US and Jewish settlers (supported by the right-wing Likud party) in the Occupied Territories. Sixteen years ago in a display of considerable prescience, Vidal wrote: "since spades may not be called spades in freedom's land, let me spell it out.

In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus Christers all in the interest of supporting the likes of Sharon as opposed to the Peace Now Israelis whom they disdain."

Central to Vidal's case was the indifference to US history which he discerned among these Jewish neo-conservatives. When he was writing a play set during the American Civil War, he recalls Norman Podhoretz asking him, "Why are you writing a play about, of all things, the Civil War?"

When Vidal explained that this was/is "the great, single tragic event that gives resonance to our Republic" Podhoretz replied, "To me, the Civil War is as remote and irrelevant as the War of the Roses." Vidal calls Podhoretz and his ilk Fifth Columnists (Israeli division) to indicate their extra-territorial priorities. They pursue political power not in order to make the US a better place, to right wrongs or to fight inequality here, but to promote Israel's pre-eminence in the Middle East, to confine Palestinians to a couple of Bantustans or, better still, engineer their expulsion to Jordan. Judith Shulavitz, writing last month in The New York Times about Podhoretz's new book, The Prophets: Who They Were And What They Are, observes that for Podhoretz the biblical prophet's message is: "the Jews are the people chosen to redeem the world's They will perform their divinely appointed duty only if they cling to the Covenant between God and themselves and support Zionism." Any appropriation of the prophets in support of social justice he dismisses as false - a Christian overlay or redaction.

Later, Vidal got even more vindictive. To Midge Decter's claim that he "hated America" - a reflexive neoconservative label even back than - Vidal replied, statesmanlike: "I do not hate America. On the contrary, I am America's premiere chronicler (ed. which is true, btw). On the other hand, I do hate your country - which is Israel."

Later, when asked about New Republic ediotor Leon Weiseltier, Vidal replied blankly, "He has very important hair". Ouch!

PETA hasn't 'won' in the way that feminists and gays have (which is to say, their mere whims are not law everywhere, there is no Title X for ferrets) but the societal change they've produced is phenomenal - even without the force of law, ordinary persons (what we here call sheeple) are all now concerned about 'beauty without cruelty', humane methods of slaughter, modified versions of vegetarianism and - let's be frank - how many women in furs do you see walking around in major American cities? My mother and my father's sister (I'm 38) regarding getting their minks as signs that they've arrived. Now, they never wear them.

These groups are important to consider for two reasons. One is, of course, simple strategy. How does a small group leverage strongly held beliefs of a minority over time? By what tactics? By what sacrifices? And at what cost?

IMHO, WNs should be poring over social histories of the women's movement from the fifties forward with these questions in mind: how much "theory" did those gals have when they set out to turn the world upside down? Did they use one group/approach, or many? How co-ordinated were the activities of the leaders of the major groups, left and center? How did they get news coverage? Is favorable news coverage all that important, or does Wilde's law hold in the political arena, too? I do know for a fact that Jewish networks in the academy did the dirty work of getting published materials into the classrooms, but a lot of that was handled in the chaos of the late sixties - there was a lot of open societal agitation (of a more gentle sort) that led into the sixties and left feminists able and positioned to move when society collapsed.

Even more interesting, because of the level of raw hatred invovled, are social histories of the gay movement. I think it fair to say that WNs of all sorts are more reviled than feminists, gays, or egg-throwing PETA lunatics ever were (I don't know, maybe gays were more hated, but that only makes studies of the social history of their movement more important.) I say this because the average level of irrational, "I will kill you now/ never speak to you again" was the man in the street's typical response to homosexuality in the 50s, at least in public (there were other men in black jeans leaning against brick walls who presumably felt differently about the matter). Now, except for LAGALABATATA (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491) parades and this damn marriage movement, they have everything they want, including 'tolerance'. I am convinced that most remaining homophobia - most - is a proper response to social and political excesses on the part of gays. But even so, gays as part of a coalition movement, have been successful in their anathema-to-accessory rise to fame. They have molded the culture in a way that we wish to, hence it is logical to study the means by which this was achieved.

Another group that goes too far but gets real things done is PETA. IMO, there is no way that a budding WN could know too much about this group, its operations and history. They are extremists from the get go - who are regularly and publicly reviled, and who do not have the press providing covering fire (Jews hate animals, too) - who have nonetheless relentlessly moved public opinion in their direction - even while they're being mercilessly ridiculed.

WN needs more social psychologists, lobbyists, and PR folk. This whole "were gonna rob some banks, blow up some buildings, and hide out in Idaho" strategy is not producing satisfactory results, at least from where I'm sitting (which, in downtown Austin, is several miles south of the Mexican border).

The very definition of insanity is to engage in the same action over and over, expecting new results.

Wintermute

P.S. I'm also a big supporter of the Bo Sears, Stanley Womack and the whole Resisting Defamation crowd , which patiently throws around the same tiresome diversity-mongering social worker language every time a newspaper or public figure treates European Americans in a "non-equitable" way that trivializes their "diversity". They, too, serve who only sit and aggravate.

[Kodos]

Feminism, Gay Rights, PETA.

Anyone here or at VNN can kvetch 'til they turn blue about the socially destructive effects of these groups, but they all moved from initial, fairly intense social marginalization, ridicule, and hatred (with some associated violence), to tolerance, ubiquity, and then finally to legal hegemony, which they now enjoy (I'll grant that PETA hasn't gotten as far as the other two listed movements but - admit it - you think more about fur now than you used to, don't you?).

And, of the three movements, only feminism enjoyed backstage support (at the beginning) from the Jewish publishing/news racket. The NYT would not give fags the time of day until the mid-80s, on account of what is now called 'raging homophobia' (NYT to Gays: Drop Dead), and the Jews generally did not interfere again until they saw another possible proletariat to use to break society apart, i.e. the 'gay marriage' moment - five years ago to the present. Gays went from pariahs to fashion accessories in twenty five years. And remember: Jews HATED them. Podhoretz wrote essays in major magazines about how gays should be exterminated - down to the last one. This was the stupidest thing he could have done, as it roused Gore Vidal to action, which he did by by 'outing' (in the mid eighties) the whole neoconservative network and their aims. Some juicy quotes:


I normally don't agree with antisemitic rants but I gotta agree mostly here, most early feminist leaders( though I trace the root of the problem to allowing women to vote in the 1st place) were jewish... most of em don't like fags.