Friday, November 30, 2012

White vs. Non-White Nationalism

by Bill White

[It is true that Bill White is not one of the Movement’s favorite personalities, and that he and I have not been exactly simpatico in the past. But as far as I am concerned, White has now paid his dues and then some, through years of bogus imprisonment for the “crime” of publishing things on the internet that the United States government does not like. I am publishing Bill White’s material here for the same reason I cover the hideous Edgar Steele case on every Radio Free Northwest—because for whatever reason, White is someone whom the dictatorship wants to remain silent and unheard, and I refuse to allow the tyrant to decide who in this society may be heard and who may not. Bill White is someone the régime does not want us to hear, so we will hear him now. – HAC]

There has been a tendency in the United States, and internationally, to define resistance to globalist structures as national, rather than racial, movements. In the states of Europe, which roughly conform to ethnic and sub-racial groupings, and where the immigrant populations are still new enough to know them as outsiders, this camouflage can be useful.

However, in the United States, and when looking at the Third World, the national struggle is not the racial struggle, and this begs the question of to what degree White Nationalists can or should support non-white nationalism. Our collective enemy is internationalism, which manifests itself in many forms. In particular, the idea of the Elect or the Chosen when combined with internationalism is the enemy, because this divides the entirety of the world into two classes- the elite and the damned-and places all those outside of the elite as beyond and beneath the care of the elite. Thus, under both Communism and Capitalism, we find a small clique, the masters of the banks and the newspapers, struggling to seize control of the government and the economy—the oil, telecom, real estate—and to use them against the people.

Their method is to break down national institutions. Not just formal institutions—the bureaucracy, the military, the police—are corrupt, but social institutions, customs and mores, are disintegrated to merge the nation into the international structure. One can think of a disease, like Ebola, melting down the organs of the body to turn the body into internationalist soil, in which the elite may take root. These institutions are attacked because they sustain the social organism just as organs sustain the body. Thus., all cultural distinctiveness must be destroyed.

Because the globalists attack all people equally—White, yellow and black—there is a tendency to support non-white peoples in their nationalism, and this is correct. However, the globalists have created a solution to this, and that is so-called “anti-racism,” which is generally a cloak for the persecution of white and Jewish- more Jewish and less white as time goes by-on the other hand, we find the same white and Jewish elites insinuated into “anti-colonialist” regimes who are persecuting and expelling their white minorities. Maoist Third World Nationalism, whether expressed by white Irishmen who are welcoming black immigrants while to expel the British, or by the Jew-riddled regime of post-apartheid South Africa, is a modification of globalist theory as precarious as globalism itself.

The error among nationalists comes from confusing what we actually are struggling for—a resurrection of Traditional Indo-European society- with nationalism—a term not always synonymous. with a race or people. Nationalism is a product of the democratic struggles of the 17th and 18th centuries where the differentiated and hierarchical social structures of more traditional medieval and Germanic Europe were replaced by the “citizen.” In France, one was no longer a Breton, a Gascon, or a Norman, but a new thing, called a Frenchman. As long as this remained confined to minor ethnic variants among White people, it was controllable, but in America, where White, black and yellow men were all rammed together, the effect was worse than in the Soviet Union, where European and Central Asian Whites, and Asiatics were all made “comrades” with the Jew. The social-cultural organism is always racial, and while a nation can embrace it—as Adolf Hitler attempted to embrace his German people—the nation cannot define it.

This why nationalistic politics in America—focused on the international expansion of democracy, human rights and multi-culturalist legal notions, and on the cultural-historical references of the Constitution and American Revolution—are essentially false. America is several independent social organisms forced under one government- the government of the global elite Thus, no such thing as American nationalism can exist—it must always devolve into a Glenn Beck-style parody, defining itself purely in opposition to authentic nationalism among other peoples.

The exploitation of white working people by a white-Jewish elite does create international solidarity between whites working people and non-white national governments, such as, that of Chavez Venezuela. When Chavez defeats Zionist Jew like Capriles-Radonski, it is a victory against globalism. But, Chavez’s victory is a victory for the people he represents- the largely non-white mestizos of Venezuela. Chavez does not see himself in solidarity with the American white working class. Not understanding America, he sympathizes with non-white minorities, assuming all white people are exploiters, as he sees the white minority in his own country. Chavez would be unlikely to support white nationalism in America, because he would not want it in his own nation.

Because only those with a common biological and spiritual heritage can comprise a social organism, those not sharing that heritage must live apart from the nation- or we must have the multi-culturalist exploitation of internationalism. In the United States, this means expulsion of non-white peoples, or the division of the United States into multiple nations. In other nations, this means preserving White communities who are rooted in—and who have often founded—these non-White nations as either separate communities or separate nations.

Why can white people live in and apart from non-White peoples in non-White nations? Because just as there are caste hierarchies within Indo-European nations, there are racial hierarchies between nations. White people exist to teach and to raise up the standard of living for all people. Blacks are not capable of civilization without White guidance. The mestizo and Asian races are capable of maintaining civilization—but their civilizations were given to them by Indo-Europeans. In the former American colonies, white people are the driving force advancing their societies. White people used to have this function in Africa, as well.

So, while White nationalists in the United States want to see an independent Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina- we want to see independent nations built around the White colonial core. The shame is that white people worldwide are so enchanted by the lie of social democracy that their communities have often lost their national character—and allowed themselves to be displaced by a better-oriented, if less capable, non-White population. Thus. the constant tension and frequent errors within white nationalism. The international banking system must be broken to free White people, but we must not allow the persecution of whites by non-whites nationalists, and recognize that non-White nationalism must ultimately be subordinated, particularly when they are based on modernist notions such as socialism- and not on traditional structures such as Iran’s Shiite Islam.

Bill White #13888-084
FCI Loretto
P. O. Box 1000
Loretto, PA 15940


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home