“Judgement of a person on the basis of race is like judgement of a person on the basis of hearsay, rumours, gossip – it shows a lack of honourable character on the part of the individual who so judges.” – David Myatt
Of all groups claiming to oppose Jewish power, White Nationalists* (who also go by other names such as Pro-Whites, White Advocates, White Separatists, White Identitarians, Anti-Anti-Whites (yes, really) etc.) are the most counterproductive. Their very presence taints the heroic image of anti-Zionist activism in the eyes of non-racist newcomers, perverts its purpose in the eyes of racist newcomers, and impedes every effort for unifying all non-Jews against Jewish domination. Clear-thinking anti-Zionists correctly identified WNs long ago as useful idiots led by Zionist agents to forment interethnic tension. As Aryanists, we moreover emphasize how WNs themselves have proven no different from present-day Israelis in their way of thinking about their own group interests. Either way, they have no place within any serious anti-Zionist movement, but should be considered part of the enemy in the broader anti-tribalist movement that we have proposed, for by their ethnocentrism they have already rejected our motto of UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY.
(* Obviously WNs are not – despite the name they give themselves – nationalistic in any serious sense, as their allegiance is not to any country but rather to the international “white” diaspora, much like how Jews’ allegiance is to the international Jewish diaspora. The quickest way to disprove WN claims to nationalism is to ask them whether they would prioritize a “non-white” person from their own country over a “white” person from another country. What WNs mean by their crude abuse of the term is that they want countries where only “white” people are allowed to live.)
The strategic significance of WNs in the psychopolitical war is evident from the history of Jewish involvement in White Nationalism and neo-Nazism. From direct Jewish leadership (such as Frank
Cohen ‘Collins’ of the National Socialist Party of America), to close collaboration between WNs and Jews (such as Jared Taylor and the many Jewish speakers and writers for American Renaissance), we should consider how racial identity is promoted by Jews to turn its adherents into convenient weapons for their ends. Almsost all genuine anti-Zionists have had this experience: every time we try to start a serious discussion about Zionism, WNs hijack it and turn it into a rant about the need to stop “black” men from having sex with “white” women and other racist nonsense, so that almost all the discussion time that could have been spent on positive planning ends up being spent on kicking the WNs back out. Hence many anti-Zionists today agree that in an alternate universe where WNs never existed, we would have in all likelihood already defeated Jewish power by now.
External link: The Plague of White Nationalism
“For a time perhaps we might be successfully dealt with by a coalition of the Goyim of all the world, but from this danger we are secured by the discord existing among them whose roots are so deeply seated that they can never now be plucked up. We have set one against the other the personal and national reckonings of the Goyim, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth over the past twenty centuries.” – Protocols of Zion
Popular racist books (notice anything about the authors?)
That some WNs speak out against Jews does not mean they understand what is going on, because their description of Jewish goals is incorrect. Typically, they believe that the Jewish goal is to exterminate all so-called “white” people. It never crosses their mind that ”white”-looking Jews depend daily on the existence of “white”-looking non-Jews to camouflage their own presence. If all “white”-looking non-Jews were removed from the picture, Jews would instantly become so conspicuous in their positions of control that they would no longer be able to infiltrate society. While different anti-Zionists have different speculations about Zionist strategy, only WNs are idiotic enough to suggest with a straight face that the Jewish goal is to blow their own cover.
On the other hand, Jews have good reason to encourage WNs to believe that this is the Jewish goal, as the WNs who spread this notion (whose absurdity is obvious to everyone except themselves) thus destroy by association the credibility even of more serious critics of Jewish behaviour.
“And this was worse than if it had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; for the pretence gave rise to a false sense of security among people who believed that the enemy had been taken by the ears; but, as a matter of fact, the people themselves were being led by the nose. The Jew readily adjusted himself to this form of anti-Semitism and found its continuance more profitable to him than its abolition would be.” – Adolf Hitler
See it yet?
Worse, Aryanists have been required at every turn to distinguish ourselves from WNs due to the latter’s spurious occasional adoption of the term “Aryan”. WNs advocate a tribalist double-standard of in-group altruism and out-group indifference - an attitude that cuts directly against the grain of Aryan universal compassion. This not only ensures that WN draws no noble individuals, but moreover results in a semantic nightmare where the least noble individuals – the ones likely to be drawn to WN – refer to themselves as “Aryans”. If Jews are trying to bury the true meaning of the term “Aryan”, this has certainly been a cunning way to do so.
As a matter of fact, since “white” is the name of a Gentile tribe, the notion of a “white Aryan” is as oxymoronic as the notion of a “Jewish Aryan”. No self-respecting Aryan would ever want to associate with “whiteness”, a racist concept created by the British Empire and other colonial powers for the purpose of segregating the colonists from the colonized populations (in the same way that the concept of Jewishness was created to keep Jews distinct from non-Jews wherever Jews have lived among non-Jews), whereas National Socialist Germany morally sided with the colonized populations around the world, as it perceived Weimar-era Germany as a de facto colony of France under the Treaty of Versailles (hence official NSDAP statements such as: “German-Chinese friendship stemmed in good part from the hard struggle of both for independence”), and supported folkish integration as the superior alternative. In Hitler’s words, “The misery of the nations has not been relieved but has increased. The deepest roots of this misery, however, lie in the division of the world into conquerors and conquered.” And however much National Socialist Germany was able to say in public in solidarity with “non-whites” was already toned down compared to what it actually felt, as Hitler also explains: “Diplomats are estranged from reality … They tried to persuade me to address a proclamation to the Arabs, completely disregarding the fact that, until our troops were in Mosul, such a proclamation would be stupid, for the British were quite prepared to shoot any and every Arab who rose to support our actions.”
Hitler himself was not considered “white” by “black” Americans during the 1930s.
Even some WNs now agree with us that National Socialism is incompatible with WN.
“Hitler only wanted to restore all that the Treaty of Versailles snatched from Germany. First Alsace and Lorraine, then the Sudetenland and Danzig Corridor. When Rudolf Hess flew to England he also asked for the devolution of their African colonies.” – Miguel Serrano
“It is not a question of one nation in Africa having lost its freedom – on the contrary practically all the previous inhabitants of this continent have been made subject to the sovereignty of other nations by bloody force, thereby losing their freedom.” – Adolf Hitler
Indeed it was in order to distance Germany from the crimes of the colonial powers that NSDAP publications generally avoided referring to any of the people of Germany as ”white”, preferring the romantic and open-ended term “Aryan” to refer to non-Jewish Germans in general. When Hitler did (on the rare occasion) use the term “white”, it was usually with a negative connotation directed at the colonial powers, for example: “The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world – materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis.” The same is true of such as Alfred Rosenberg, for example: “The white race has dishonoured itself. It has disintegrated an entire culture and precipitated a just rebellion against itself.” It was on this account that National Socialist Germany was so highly regarded among non-Western countries of the time. Perhaps the clearest demonstration that Hitler did not consider Germans to be “white” comes from his discussing Japan’s WWII activities, when he first states: “The Japanese are occupying all the islands, one after the other. They will get hold of Australia, too. The white race will disappear from those regions.” but then goes on to say: “Thanks to the Germans whom the Japanese will employ in the archipelago, we’ll have excellent outlets in those regions.”
WNs often retort that non-Western states have also practiced colonialism in the past, yet are not condemned for doing so. This is a lie. States throughout history have practiced imperialism (ie. expansion of territorial domain), but not colonialism. The ancient empires (including Rome) integrated the conquered peoples as citizens. The Western colonial empires, in contrast, were historically unique in their practice of segregating the conquered people as “non-whites”, and thus subjects but not citizens, thus Goys in effect. Hitler explicitly noted the difference between imperialism and colonialism: “Can anyone assert that colonization has increased the number of Christians in the world? Where are those conversions en masse which mark the success of Islam?” (Similarly, Western slavery was indeed more despicable than other chattel institutions (including Roman) throughout history because it alone exhibited willingness to do to “non-whites” what it had already recognized was wrong for “whites”, in contrast to other institutions who did not display this double-standard. Hitler notes of the Roman system: “The Roman slave was not at all what the expression encourages us to imagine to-day. In actual fact, the people concerned were prisoners of war (as we understand the term nowadays), of whom many had been freed and had the possibility of becoming citizens.”) Had but any of the post-Renaissance empires been willing to follow the Roman model instead of the Western model, they would surely have escaped condemnation. As they did not, it is perfectly justified for us to condemn them while sparing Rome and other integrationist empires, including the Third Reich. Even as National Socialist Germany was about to fall, Hitler had this to say of colonialism: “I feel much more sympathetically inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant islanders. Later on, the Germans will be pleased that they did not make any contribution to the survival of an out-dated state of affairs for which the world of the future would have found it hard to forgive them.”
Of course, nobody born today should be blamed for colonial-era crimes. That is, except those who choose to perpetuate and self-identify with colonial-era concepts such as “whiteness”.
WN is nothing more than a Gentile rendition of Talmudism, where instead of the Chosen People being “Jewish people”, it is “white people”. This is explicit among believers of Christian Identity, whose central claims are that “whites”, not Jews, are the true Israelites of the Tanakh, and that “non-whites” have no souls. It is also implicit among all those who will blame so-called “non-white people” as a whole for any injury of a “white” individual by a “non-white” individual, yet at the same time refuse to hold either “white people” as a whole or even the notional abstraction of “whiteness” accountable for the much greater violence perpetrated throughout the colonial era by the colonizing forces upon the colonized populations.
“Homo Hubris is the name given to that new sub-species of the genus Homo which has, in the last three hundred or so years, become the dominant species inhabiting the industrialized countries of what is called “the West”.” – David Myatt
Hence follows every WN double-standard, from the hypocrisy of insisting that formerly “white” lands be returned to “whites” while formerly “non-white” lands need not be returned to “non-whites” (the same as the stance of Israel towards Palestine), to the paradox of demanding both freedom of association and criminalization of interethnic marriage, to say nothing of their cowardly use of the terms “anti-White”, “White Guilt-tripping”/”Culture of Critique” and “White Genocide” identical to Jewish use of the terms “anti-Semite”, “Blood Libel” and “Holocaust” to avoid dealing with criticism. (More recently, they have even started accusing us of “White Genocide Denial“. Where have we heard this one before?!)
WN presence in any serious movement (not just the anti-Zionist movement) invariably turns that movement into a joke. For example, WNs tagging along in anti-police-brutality movements are among the loudest complainers against police brutality when the victims are “white”, yet defend police brutality whenever the victims are “non-white”. The same pattern repeats in anti-abortion movements, where WNs are horrified by abortion when the aborted babies are “white”, yet simultaneously want to subsidize abortion of “non-white” babies. And again in pro-firearm movements, where WNs end up supporting firearm purchase by “whites” while simultaneously opposing sale of firearms to ”non-whites”. And when they are – quite understandably – kicked out of these movements, they accuse these movements of being “anti-White” (and actually believe their own accusation).
“No one feels sorry for you, because everyone is in the same boat.” – Joseph Goebbels
Fortunately, all our anti-Zionist rhetoric developed over the years can be re-used against them word-for-word with equal effectiveness, such as: “An anti-White is not someone who hates whites, it’s someone whom whites hate,” or: “The truth is anti-White.” If it is ridiculous for Jews to complain about discrimination against themselves when they are the ones choosing to perpetuate the Jewish identity invented by Jewry for the purpose of excluding non-Jews, then it is similarly ridiculous for WNs to complain about discrimination against themselves when they are the ones choosing to perpetuate the “white” identity invented by colonialists for the purpose of excluding the colonized. “Whiteness” is a racist concept, so of course anti-racists are anti-White! A favourite slogan of many WNs themselves is: “Anti-Semitism is a healthy response to Jewish behaviour.” In which case, by their own logic, anti-Whitism is surely a healthy response to “white” behaviour. If WNs accuse us of being anti-White, never deny it. Instead, proudly admit it, and then ask them to give us one good reason why we should not be anti-White!
WNs clog up the internet with comment spam accusing everyone of “White Genocide” (their term for interethnic marriage). If “White Genocide” would mean no more of their comment spamming, then the sooner the better.
This guy nails it.
WNs have been trained to defend themselves by saying that “racist” is just name-calling, but this is also easily refuted. If someone lies and we call him a “liar”, is that name-calling? If someone steals and we call him a “thief”, is that name-calling? If someone torments others and we call him a “bully”, is that name-calling? Similarly, to call someone who practices ethnotribalism a racist is not name-calling. These are not slurs, but valid labels for various kinds of unethical behaviour. (On the other hand, if we want examples of actual name-calling, we need look no further than the slurs used by WNs amongst themselves when discussing people of other ethnicities!)
WNs are fond of repeating over and over again the meme that the word “racism” was invented by Leon Trotsky (Jew). They are lying.
A well-known WN trick is to claim that if “Black Pride” is socially acceptable, “White Pride” should be socially acceptable also. This trick can be easily shot down by pointing out non-equivalence in the definitions of “blackness” and “whiteness”. “Blackness” is defined by possession of “black” heritage. “Whiteness”, on the other hand, is defined not by possession of “white” heritage, but by non-possession of “non-white” heritage. (For example, Zionist puppet Barack Obama, who has one “black” parent and one “white” parent, is considered “black” by most self-identified “black” people, but is not considered “white” by most self-identified “white” people.) Therefore, “Black Pride” means being proud to have “black” ancestors, which is not offensive. On the other hand, “White Pride” means being proud to have no “non-white” ancestors, which is of course highly offensive. In agreement with common intuition, and contrary to what many WNs claim in public, “White Pride” indeed implies contempt for “non-white” people as a whole.
Simply pointing out the non-equivalence in definition between “whiteness” and ”blackness” (or other groupings as the case may be) is a more potent weapon against WN denial of white supremacism than any PC argument that fails to expose the supremacism structurally intrinsic to the notion of “whiteness”. Therefore point it out as often as possible. It is key to defeating the “Every group except whites is allowed _____” trick that WNs use in many forms. Hence the increasingly popular new retort slogan: “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white because white is a code word for racist.”
Matthew Heimbach (Gentile) claims that a White Student Union is no different than a Black Student Union. Expose his bullshit by asking him whether his White Student Union considers Tiger Woods to be “white”, since most Black Student Unions consider Tiger Woods to be “black”.
Then, by WN logic, surely anyone who likes “white” men should go and live in hypothetical ”white” countries. Therefore, by WN logic, WN is wrong. Of course, logic was never WNs’ strong point.
Another fast way to shut down WNs with a minimum of hassle is to simply inform them that whatever they are ranting about is not relevant to you because you do not self-identify as “white”, but rather belong to your country, your town or even your local neighbourhood. As all WN rhetoric is based on people considering themselves “white” to begin with, by rejecting this premise, we dispel their entire repertoire. Or quicker still, simply tell WNs that the fact they even use the word “white”** in this day and age means you already know they have nothing worthwhile to say. The term “white” itself can be developed into a term of derision and dismissal. For example, when a WN speaks negatively about ethnic minorities, we can tell others: “Ignore him, he’s just being white.” (Again this is exactly the same as how we dismiss Israelis who speak negatively about Palestinians: “Ignore him, he’s just being Jewish.”) Ultimately, the term “white” could become a verb (just as “Jew” has become a verb in anti-Zionist circles e.g. saying “You’ve been Jewed!” to anyone who buys into Islamophobia), and we can simply tell a WN: “Stop whiting!”
(** Some WNs think they can avoid trouble by using the term “European” instead of “white”, but the same method as above suffices to expose them: simply ask why people with one “European” parent and one “non-European” parent are not considered “European”. Better yet, argue that any person born in Europe is European by definition, regardless of ancestry, and ask them to explain why they disagree.)
Some naive people mistakenly believe that WNs are merely overreacting after bad personal experiences involving hostile individuals who happened to have been of a different ethnicity. In fact, anyone who spends time listening to their conversations knows that the less hostile and more friendly and more socially integrated and more contributive a so-called “non-white” person is, the more threatening WNs consider him, on the grounds that he is more likely to encourage others to realize that ethnic background really does not matter. In contrast, WNs celebrate whenever a crime occurs in which the victim is “white” and the perpetrator “non-white”, as it allows them to spin their propaganda.
The quickest way to counter WN attempts to use petty crimes for their propaganda fuel is to point out that they are complaining about actions that are already illegal and which nobody is suggesting legalizing, so their complaints are redundant. By calling for action against entire ethnic groups in response to a crime committed by an individual, however, they are demanding no less than the punishment of innocent people for the deeds of the guilty.
Nor do WNs care about individual ”white” people either, or even see them as people. All they care about is the perpetuation of abstract “whiteness”, in relation to which “white” individuals are viewed as nothing more than expendable slaves. They would throw any number of “white” individuals under the bus so long as this contributes to the survival of “whiteness”. And a “white” individual who freely (indeed heroically) chooses not to serve “whiteness” is viewed by WNs in the way that an overseer would view a slave who refuses to work.
Some WNs deny white supremacism by claiming that they do not wish to rule over “non-whites”. Yet their entire stated ideology is about “whites” unilaterally getting to decide where “non-whites” are or are not allowed to live! What is that if not ruling over “non-whites”? (Case in point: when WNs talk about “sending all blacks to Africa”, they are talking as though “Africa” (which they rarely acknowledge consists of actual countries) still belongs to them as it did during the colonial era, so that they can “send” people there whenever they wish without permission from the relevant states.)
But they are not white supremacists, because they tell you they are not white supremacists, and if you don’t believe them you are “anti-White”.
Furthermore, we must never believe the WN lie that their ambitions are solely defensive, just as we have never believed that Israel is solely defensive. WNs will say that they have no interest in dominating others or taking the territory of others, but this can be proven as a lie even from their own motto. When they say “We must secure the existence of our people…”, it logically follows that if dominating others or taking the territory of others is conducive to ”white” security, that is what they will do. And it is quite practically obvious that the more domination and the more territory they possess, the more secure they will be, so their ideology actually commands them to dominate people and capture territory to whatever extent is beneficial to the security of their tribe, contrary to what they claim in public. Anyone who thinks ”white”-only intentional communities (“PLE”s) are not dangerous should study how Israel was created in 1949 from similar Jew-only intentional communities. The Palestinians are paying for their naiveity.
But they are still not white supremacists, because they tell you they are not white supremacists, and if you don’t believe them you are “anti-White”.
Anyone with any geopolitical sense is able to see that WNs want “white” ethnostates in the way that Jews wanted a Jewish ethnostate: as a launchpad for an eventual second round of colonialism as world resources become increasingly scarce in the none-too-distant future. Some WN leaders, from Ben Klassen (Jew) through William Pierce (Gentile) to Kai Murros (Gentile) have even admitted in their writings that this is the WN plan. As David Myatt warns us: “The slaughter which The White Hordes have brought to the world is unparalleled in human history – from the ravages of Alexander the Greek, … to the genocide of the Native Americans, to the so-called First and Second World Wars, to the hundreds of colonial wars in Africa, Asia and elsewhere … The White Hordes of Homo Hubris have committed and are still committing the error of hubris: of insolence; for they have consistently and for many centuries been the destroyers, par excellence, of The Numinous, and have, due to their character and nature, brought chaos, suffering, death and destruction to the world on a scale hitherto unknown.”
Some longtime and once extremely active anti-Zionists have become so demoralized by the WN degradation of Jew-aware discussion that they have even expressed to us that if the alternative to Jewish racism is ”white” racism, we might as well let Jews stay in power! As a consequence (and despite our best efforts to retain them), they have now quit anti-Zionist activism altogether. This gives some idea how just how damaging WNs have been to our work (which is hard enough even without them).
The true face of WN: “If Jews have it, we want it too!”
The first step in combating Jewish racism is to not become the enemy you are fighting, but to become its polar opposite. Boromir of LOTR, and Gentiles afflicted with Boromir Syndrome in the real world, do not understand this. Do you?