What is the White Nationalist Position on
Word Count: 2,021
The White Nationalist knows that all crime is based on race, as each race can, without exception, be shown to exhibit a certain ‘underclass’ which, amongst other things, commits crime relative to both its numerical strength and mental world-view. The difference, however, is the obvious disconnect between races and race-cultures (cf. Color of Crime, New Century Foundation1, Paved with Good Intentions, J. Taylor, Laird Wilcox, et al.) and has been dramatically itemized over the years.
Even without ‘the battle of statistics’ which, even now, rages on the pages of the Right and the Left, the empirical and anecdotal evidence surmounts the often casual and selective presentations of the so-called ‘national news’, and is lived and seen on a daily basis in both the large cosmopolis as well as the medium-sized multi-ethnic cities and suburbs; it is self-evident, that culture cannot exist in a multicultural environment. This is no less true for white culture, than it is for any other race-culture faced with the same dilemma, regardless of the propaganda foisted upon the nation by the so-called status quo. Moreover, it is also self-evident that over the years, due in large part to the white-ethnic retreat from its traditional national ethos based, in part, on its sense of propriety and respect for the institution of ‘law’ and religious interpretations of morality have, with more than a simple passive/aggressive relationship to themselves and those with whom, in many cases, are forced to interact, have become the ‘victimizers’ in most, if not all cases of criminal ‘pre-conditions’, that is, of thought-crimes.
The White Nationalist has been at the forefront in the battle of these ‘pre-conditions’ for the last two generations, as his penchant for ‘rights’, fairness, and traditional mores have placed him in the direct path of the multi-cult locomotive, bearing down upon all who cross the tracks of modern ‘progressive’ thought. From the selective and aggressive ‘minority’ placement in the workplace (i.e. from language to race, the selective hiring practice nominally began to replace the ‘white worker’ with the minority, and then began the inexorable ascent to his replacement in the workforce), to the social experimentation of the schools and academia, the forced ‘parity’ of wages, based not on actual talents, but on the value of ‘placement’ only, as a means to accept and balance the working opportunities of the quickly changing multi-ethnic labour force.
As has been said before, this is nothing but ‘communism’ in the very elements of state-sponsored ‘equality’ and the state-sponsored terrorism of ‘scientific and legal equality’ of Marxian thought and anti-western hatred and obfuscation of the ethnic-nationalist agenda of communism.
Criminal Activity and its Social Implications
Criminal activity is as native to the instincts, as is our moral injunctions against it.
The White Nationalist agrees that laws, ipso facto, create criminals. Dysfunction in any given social order is construed to be, as likely or not, liable for criminal activity. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Like Prohibition, ‘anti-smoking’, ‘anti-weapons’ laws, and other numerous classifications, which create criminals where there were none, is not a system of ‘law’ per se, but rather, it is the application of behavioral control, or modification of same, that has been designed to enhance a ‘new system’ of social change across the land. The modern ‘law giver’, in his vision of the world, says not to worry: He promises that it will bring that social harmony, peace, tranquility, and equality of the new world – a new world order in which all may comfortably rest assured that nature and nature’s laws, have been put aside, resting obligingly in the arms of equality under the ‘law’.
The White Nationalist knows that laws are necessary; yet, laws can, and do, of their own impetus, become ‘anti-law’ if, for instance, a ‘law’ or set of ‘laws’ becomes unsustainable to that very culture, people, or existing state by its sheer ‘weight of conduct’ (i.e. discipline, force, methods, etc.,) Moreover, with time, this weight of law becomes, of necessity, that specific tool of breakdown (if not its very destruction) within its normal sphere of influence, the nation/state. The overwhelming influence of these innumerable types of law brings not order, but anarchy. It is, in the final analysis, the end of order. The White Nationalist sees Law as a mechanism, which would circumvent a particular action, which would, in his mind, beget a reaction that, in the end, becomes dysfunctional to the whole. This is generally seen as a good; however, once built into the mechanism of the social order, laws will increase, never decrease. In this case, it is only nature’s way to cull out those areas of control/change, which hamper the growth and vitality of an existing host culture. This is the contest of multi-cultures in microcosm. The imbalance caused by this inevitable relationship brings with it friction and, ultimately, violent exchanges between any number of different groups, individuals, or special interest groups. Law then, in its abstract sense, becomes useless, based on the perceived human elements involved – existing turmoil is only exacerbated by the continued application of this classification of law.
The White Nationalist sees order as the prerequisite for the survival of any organism. Order is a man-made manifestation of the highest perception of organism. It comes from the discipline of ‘self’, and can only be carried out in larger social groups if the spirit is unanimous. In a heterogeneous population, simple diversity [of foreign bodies] is enough to throw the entire organism off balance. The attention paid to ‘control’ is increased in this environment. Those who rule in this environment are constantly on the move to enact laws that will, it is hoped, disrupt any activity as seen by those in power, which seeks to destabilize their authority. In our modern reality, those who seeks to maintain their power, see order in terms of control only.
It is control, and the means required to achieve it, that are not recognized forms of equality; it is force, which is the superior element – be that force ‘fire-power’, ‘legal jurisprudence’, or control of the institutional means of representative government (e.g. the ballot). This form of control, perforce, relegates the mass organism to impotency. In the latter case, in many instances, when the voice of the common man is stifled, and words fail to carry any weight with the ruling class, it becomes necessary, in a natural organic sense, to react in a hostile fashion against those areas of concern, which have failed to be addressed by those in power.
Thus it is that laws cannot contain reaction. The purpose of law, as stated before, is to control behavior. When this cannot be contained within the perimeters of past tradition (i.e. the force of patriotism, etc.,) an increase in law, as seen by the law-makers, must be present in the system. If not consonant with the spirit of the traditions and concepts of the founding body however, these ‘law-makers’ become the dysfunctional element in society. It would seem, however, that this is precisely the response that our modern reality has anticipated for those of the Western Race-Culture. It has been planned this way.
Containment is the key. Unlike Europe, America has a ‘so-called’ tradition of law and order based on a inverted concept of that which we, specifically, as Americans, hold dear: that of Democracy. As with all ruling authority, however, power and control are factors that must at all cost, be maintained. This, of course, is natural law. Containment of the population then, is imperative – such as was Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the War Between the States in our early history – all challenges to this inverted federal perception of government, has been denounced by Force, not by the general will and desire of the social group (i.e. ethno-state) but by the ruling power who spoke for the ethnic-state. The right or wrong of this reaction is not in question here – just the action. The action in the above examples was not done simply to maintain those in power, or strengthen their base, but rather to simply maintain the status quo. Today, our ‘legal’ nation-state, acts no different. We have been offered, as the status quo, the egalitarian principle of mass as the ultimate achievement in society. This principle of egalitarianism is seen as more stable and reasonable to the modern legal imperatives than, let us say, the stability and supremacy of the original Western stock above and beyond the other diverse and divergent racial elements present with them. This is true for both America and Europe’s status quo:
The Nationalist of Western racial stock faces the same consistent elements of status quo – on either Continent. The ‘american’ flag, the symbolic representative of that long and honorable tradition of nationalism, as a symbol of America, is no longer the symbol of the original presence of the Western race-culture. Let us be clear on this point: The ‘symbol’ of America no longer functions in any real sense as it did in its inception. This symbol, this flag, was a symbol of War – of that hostile act of belligerence and warfare against kindred, related by blood – Western blood. It was between white brothers. The fact that non-white elements played various parts in this conflict, on one side or the other, is of relative significance. The symbols, political technics, and the like, were founded by, and for, one people – alone.
The symbol of the flag represented an intrinsic stability inherent in a unified effort. This effort was War – an act of betrayal against a body politic which had led the Western experience for five hundred years or more in relative unbroken succession. But it was more; it was ‘order’ without law, it was law based on consent – not of the people, this a common fallacy – but in harmony with them. The cycle required to maintain this development was a continual trust and acceptance of both government [ruling body] and its charge [race-culture]. The acquiescence of this race-culture to the domination of any government (and why not – leadership is also an organic process) was consonant with their needs; it was not subservience to any dictatorial power. In fact, the race-culture was prepared to accept George Washington as King – something the Modern has forgotten, for a King was the ultimate recognition of the race-culture – the race-culture personified in the leader. The vast Indo-European history had proved this a working system. This ‘history’ of race-culture shows that systems are chosen because they work – for a short time, or a long time. Each, a prerequisite for the individual presence at that time.2
Law, like religion, is a construct of the ethnic-nationalist inclinations and proclivities of that specific and unique ethnic race-culture, and its traditions and mores are the baseline expectations of justice and law, even when engaged in War or revolution. Civil law, as well, is based solely on the experience and world-views with which a people adhere – common law, based on precedence, is strictly and absolutely predicated on a racial construct, and no other. The merging of Sharia Law, for instance, is not consonant with the racial proclivities and precedent law, of our white-ethnic inclinations. Moreover, religious instruction, as both a condition of moral certitude and legal affirmation does not remain fixed, but is modifiable over time, based upon the evolutionary progress of any given people, in this case, white ethnics and must, therefore, be consciously, and consistently maintained, in those directions which are reasonably reaffirmed by our history and spiritual needs.
1 New Century Foundation – 2717 Clarkes Landing, Oakton, VA 22124.
Cf. Frank Britton’s – Behind Communism – a very small and concise presentation of this anti-western thought for the novice to ethnic politics and the imperatives of race. Race is, in the final analysis, the only linchpin to both Culture and Revolution, and this will never change in the history of mankind; the only difference is that there are those who embrace this truism, and those who cower in fear in its shadow – History continues to show who, ultimately, remains the victor in this struggle. FLS
2 ROTW, op. cit., pg. 172.