Riposte to GW

A riposte.

 GW: 

Thorn, it seems to me that the problems confronting American WN are at least threefold, and they are fundamental.  In brief:

First, America is, and always has been, a Jeffersonian liberal project.  

More superficial “analysis” of America by Europeans. Jeffersonian ideals were only one thread in the American historical story. Men such as Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Burr (yes, I am non-ironically putting Hamilton and Burr in the same grouping; further, Burr’s earlier tropism toward decentralization doesn’t make him a Jeffersonian – the man tried to establish a personal empire, for godssakes) had a more “European” and more “traditional” and national view of America and its future. But it is much easier for the European right to throw around terms like “Jeffersonian liberal project” and “enlightenment ideas” and disregard undercurrents of American nationalism.

WNs simply do not understand that the liberal model of Man which they effortlessly exemplify is what they have to set aside.  

WNs exemplify – effortlessly exemplify! – a “liberal model of Man?” Examples please.

It is very similar with religious Americans who simply cannot grasp - forgive me for saying this again - that the Christian model of the soul seeking salvation lives inside the Jewish mind, and they have to get out.  They have to turn to their inherent truth ... to the authenticity of the natural identity.  

I agree about Christianity, but “the authenticity of the natural identity” seems to me to be just more empty philosophizing.

But they don’t even want to, and without the most remarkable leadership it may not even be possible anyway.

Talking about (American) WN “leadership” without mentioning the affirmative action policy is like talking about urban crime without mentioning race. Of course, I can understand where the Anglocentric GW doesn’t want to ask questions about his American co-ethnics.

Second, WN has to operate race-wide.  It’s proving hard enough to bring a single European people to political awareness in our time, but to do that across the whole of Europe, across the whole genetic distance of Europe’s peoples distributed across such a huge country, is an unimaginably difficult undertaking.

Nonsense. I talk more about this below, but you cannot label something as “an unimaginably difficult undertaking” if it has never been tried.  More to the point, in America at least, there is no real alternative. I understand that to the European Right it is always 1910 or 1920 in America, with fully disjunctive, unmixed, competing, mutually hostile, Euro-American ethnic groups, many of which are unassimilated. However, it is actually 2021, and White America is mostly composed of people of mixed European ethnic descent, and those who are unmixed are in many cases ethnically “outmarried” with mixed-ethnic children. Apart from the odd ethnic activist with a chip on their shoulder, the only Whites in America who take intra-European divisions seriously are the Nutzi freak fetishists of the “movement.” To everyone else, the idea is pitifully outdated at best, and freakishly weird at worst.

We can debate about what approach is best for Europe, but anyone who thinks that the “single European people” model applies to 2021 America is profoundly delusional. I of course promote the pan-European approach for Europe as well, which I have discussed at many forums (including and especially here at this blog), but as GW is specifically talking about American WN here, I’ll concentrate on the American situation, which, as I’ve stated many times, European activists know little to nothing about.

Third, WN is dominated by German-Americans, a significantly numerical and influential body of whom are principally concerned not to free whites from their current fate but to rescue the reputation of the Third Reich.  No progress can be made until that element is disavowed and marginalised.

I (somewhat) agree with GW here, but he doesn’t realize how this weakens his second argument. Again, one cannot say that a genuine pan-European approach (in America, at least) has failed, or is “an unimaginably difficult undertaking,” because it has never been tried.  If American WN is dominated by “German-Americans” and by others (e.g., Pierce) who are, or were, Germanocentric Nutzis, if American WN has been dominated by Germanocentric Nordicism, Hitler worship, and related memes, then how is this a “race-wide” operation?  The "movement" has always been out-of-touch with ordinary White Americans, and has never sincerely and genuinely attempted an authentic "White racial" approach.

Name me one - just one! - American 'White racialist" (sic) leader who was, or is, genuinely pan-European. Pierce was a Germanocentric Hitlerite and a Nordicist who painted a transparently false “pan-Aryan” veneer on the National Alliance to appeal to growing numbers of “racist” White ethnics.  KKK-Nutzi Duke’s racial fantasies are on display in My Awakening. Taylor is a HBD "race realist” whose Amren badmouths Italians, Hungarians, and Romanians as it praises Jews and Asians. Counter-Currents praises hyper-Nordicist “Wilmot Robertson” and tells us we need more men like Bill Clinton and Hubert Humphrey (and we know why). MacDonald has veered off into the fever swamps of HBD-Nordicism. Who?  I can continue the analysis, but the result will be the same. What GW dismisses as "unimaginably difficult" has never been tried, because the "leadership" of the "movement" have always been fixated on failed, past models of American racialism with roots in the early 20th century.

There is another problem here.  While I generally agree with the tone and meaning of GW’s third point, is isn’t really factually correct.  While it is true that most White Americans are ethnically mixed, and that some “leaders” may have Germans in their ancestry, the American “leadership” - the few "heroes" who have led us from one disaster to another - is mostly derived from GW’s beloved Anglo-Saxons: Taylor, Pierce, Johnson, Rockwell, Covington, Duke, Williams, Spencer, Roper, etc. (acknowledging that some of those may have a “kraut in the woodpile”). Who’s "German?" Gliebe? Linder? Who else? Who else is there who is or was prominent?  Klassen?  Strom is Norwegian. Carto was – what? – partly French?  Who?  If GW thinks that Yeager is some sort of serious American WN leader, he’s nuts. If anything, American WN "leadership" (and sensibilities) is WASP, not German (although individuals like Pierce fetishized Germans). 

The whole mindset of the "leadership" is decades out-of-date and it is no surprise that their approach does not resonate with the White American masses.

These are likely insuperable problems, and a change of branding, whilst it may be necessary in itself, isn’t going to even scratch the surface.  Right now white Americans are quite involuntarily testing the thesis that worse is better, as the Dem attack winds itself up.  Right now, it seems likely that worse is only worse.

GW, who, like other Europeans, has a non-existent grasp of American realities, leaves out many of the real problems of the American “movement,” which are discussed at this blog on a regular basis.