Jim Giles has an interview with Kevin MacDonald. A significant portion of it is devoted to quizzing MacDonald about Alex Linder and the ongoing debate here about strategy, leadership, and tactics. It is obvious that Giles has been following our exchanges quite closely.
I found myself in 100% agreement with MacDonald’s point of view. The only exception that comes to mind is the inclusion of negroes in a White ethnostate. Like Roach and Auster, MacDonald seems to think the toothpaste can be put back in the tube; that Whites can return to a society like the American North in the 1950′s. On the other hand, MacDonald doesn’t object to an exclusively White ethnostate. He thinks a racial partition of the United States is within the realm of possibility. So this isn’t really a point of disagreement.
MacDonald’s response to Linder was almost identical to my own:
1.) With regards to street activism, MacDonald is in favor of it, but doesn’t think it is the best use of his time. Some people aren’t cut out to be political leaders. They don’t have the personality type it requires. MacDonald believes that everyone should contribute in their own way. Their contributions should reflect their natural strengths. If Linder wants to engage in street level activism, that’s fine; instead of criticizing others, he should follow his own advice.
2.) MacDonald doesn’t approve of Linder’s version of anti-Semitism. He said that VNN was full of “gutter level talk,” name calling, vulgarity and crudity, among other things. This is counterproductive. MacDonald is trying to forge a rhetoric that appeals to educated people. His style is fact based, rational and informed by science. A caller chimed in and said that he was brought around by one of MacDonald’s kibbitzing essays at VDARE and that Linder’s extreme rhetoric had turned him away.
3.) As for the White ADL, MacDonald pointed out that he is engaged 24/7 in White Advocacy, as are other TOO writers. They don’t have the same amount of funding and their efforts are part time and amateur, but what they are doing is not essentially different from the ADL’s daily activities.
4.) With regards to writing essays, MacDonald made the unimpeachable point that small cabals of radical Jews were doing the same thing in the 1920′s and 1930′s. He obviously had the Partisan Review crowd in mind and their ideal of cosmopolitan Americanism. MacDonald pointed out that the changes imposed on our culture was “a top down thing”; academics changed their mind on race and Jews first and their views trickled down into the mainstream press and political parties. I’ve spoken endlessly about “discourse poisoning” and MacDonald clearly shares a similar perspective.
A few thoughts of my own:
1.) The efficacy of street level protests is questionable. The Tea Partiers have been rallying for a year now without much effect. Racialists don’t have the numbers or the media to match their efforts. For a rally to be successful, it will have to be more than a release for blowing off steam.
2.) Antisemitica, my side project, employs the style that MacDonald seems to favor.
3.) I’m more than willing to attend protests in my local area.
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
YouTube
I think its a mistake to judge street level activism solely in terms of practical output. The fact that thousands upon thousands of people have been willing to get up and get out tells me something is up and that it might contain the seeds of some sort of change.
What that change might be is anyone’s guess. Though I do find white people marginally more willing to discuss WN type issues post Obama election.
The efficacy of street level protests is questionable.
Street-level protesting is merely a subset, a particularly visible but ineffective subset, of street-level activism.
The Tea Partiers have been rallying for a year now without much effect.
These things can take more than a year. We haven’t even had a real election cycle, yet.
Racialists don’t have the numbers or the media to match their efforts
We don’t have what they got, but they don’t have what we got, either. We won’t know how good our hand is until we start playing the cards we’ve been dealt.
I definitely under no circumstances would accept the inclusion of blacks in a white ethnostate. But that should come as no surprise because I — like Madison Grant (and also Nazi Germany) — wholeheartedly support a strong eugenics program in order to increase the amount of Nordic blood in our population.
I have been trying on VNNF to make the point that a white ethnostate (outside of Europe) is not in the cards for the forseeable future.
I tried to explain the future of the pro-white movement, but no one listens to me over there because they really can’t appreciate genius.
What will happen is the white race will be saved and re-defined by a formal organization that explicitly defines who is “white” and who isn’t. The members of the group, call them “Whitists”, elect representatives to make this determination (i.e. who gets admitted into the group and who gets expelled from the group).
The two basic rules are as follows:
1. Admission: Only persons with no descendants may petition to be admitted into the group. The earliest age at which someone can petition to join is 18. The offspring of two members is automatically a member at birth.
2. Expulsion: A member is expelled from the group if he is shown to be guilty of having a descendant who is not a member of the group.
What this means is that members must limit their procreation activities to other members of the group. In this sense the group defines a race, the “White Race.”
And to ensure Whitists are singularly loyal to the White Race, they cannot have any non-Whitist descendants.
The White Race should ultimately encompass all white people who feel it is important that their descendants stay white.
The beauty of this plan is that it doesn’t depend upon creating a white ethnostate right off the bat, with all the attendant difficulties. At some later time, perhaps, the White Race can establish states, or take over the world, or whatever.
Note that I hope the nations of Europe ultimately will become strict ethnostates, so this mainly applies to non-Europeans.
The Man and Wikitopian are correct, that we shouldn’t be scoffing at the Tea Partakers. I deal with the public in a one-to-one setting, semi-confidential setting: Whites are experiencing a massive awakening unlike anything in the my lifetime (41 years). From the lowly redneck, to college deans, many of these in my area went to the Washington DC protest to be heard. The message may not be honed like the discussions on this forum, but the masses of Whites snapping out of the Zombified-American Idol-dom, to their first visceral seething anger, cannot be seen as anything but a huge positive for our side. Go Barry, Go! We might even have a “race on” now between collapse and rebuild, versus taking back the reigns of this puppy.
Mike
2.) MacDonald doesn’t approve of Linder’s version of anti-Semitism. He said that VNN was full of “gutter level talk,” name calling, vulgarity and crudity, among other things.
But this was true from day one, back in 2000. Yet MacDonald was more than happy to work with the vulgarians at VNN – for several years. Perhaps the explanation is that, in those years, nobody knew MacDonald’s name, and VNN was promoting him daily.
Not very impressive, Kevin.
I don’t think merely stopping immigration will be enough. Regarding what MacDonald said, allowing the millions of blacks and other non-whites that are currently here to stay and become citizens with equal rights, it defeats the point of a white ethnostate. It’s not good enough, miscegenation would happen over time especially without segregation and anti-miscegenation laws as he said he opposes.
There is a justification for deporting them, the same justification for creating a white ethnostate, our survival. There is a precedent for it and it could be an amicable transition.
The only people that might have a claim to a partition are the native Amerindian tribes.