What does it mean to be WHITE? Not racially white, not even a racially aware white who could technically fall under the wide umbrella of "White Nationalism". I mean WHITE - in its most ideal form. What are we striving for? What is important to us, not only as a race, but as a community? What type of behaviors, beliefs, and ideologies do we find acceptable, not acceptable, and debatable? Where do we draw the line between being inclusive and exclusive? Where is the balance between quantity vs. quality?
These are the questions that I find myself asking in the wee hours of the night. What is it we are ultimately working for? What are the landmarks along the way? The stepping stones, so to speak. What is the ultimate goal, how do we get there, and what achievements will we have to make along the way?
For me, personally, I believe there are many levels of "Whiteness". I believe in Exclusionism over Inclusionism.....Quality over Quantity. I believe that you must first have a firm foundation upon which to build. It is a slow approach, but I believe it's the one that is necessary for us to accomplish "the vision".
Each of us has our own unique view on what this "vision" is - and that is the first problem. Until we are unified in what the goal should be, we are nothing but rats running around in a maze. I would never realistically expect all of us to hold hands in unity, however - there should be things that we all can say we are working towards.
I believe, at a minimum, first and foremost, the goal is to prevent the declining numbers of the white race on this planet. That should be what we are ALL working towards. Keeping our race from being bred out and extinct. Anything and Everything beyond this scope is secondary in nature, this is the MOST important thing.
So, where do we start? Who do we consider a "brother", the "opposition", the "enemy", and the "unawakened"? For this is much more complex than just "US" versus "THEM".
First off - we start with the racial standard. Who is (racially) White? A person of wholly European descent. You must look white, not a mixed breed. While not a believer in the one drop rule (would be extremely difficult to verify at this time), I believe that anybody that identifies with a non-white in their woodpile should be considered non-white. If you tell us about your family's Cherokee Princess way back, we will believe you, and consider you non-white. If you then claim you were mistaken, you must prove it! How can we ever take you at your word if you change the story?
Secondly, we look at awareness. A racially aware person MUST recognize and believe there are quantifiable differences between the races. While this realization does not necessarily have to be based upon hatred of the non-white races, there must be a desire to separate from the non-whites... a rejection of multiculturalism as an ideology. Diversity, be it racial or philosophical, is not our strength. This awareness applies to all non-white races. The belief in a "Good non-white race" is a dangerous belief. It is not a matter of degree, it is totalitarian in nature. A person is either white, or non-white. That is what it all boils down to in the end. Remember, this is a struggle for the survival of our race. At this time, I don't care which non-white race is "more like us or better than the rest". That is for discussion way down the road.
Thirdly, we look at beliefs. This is where things get very confusing, for we each have our own belief systems. Be it politically, religiously, economically, or personal in nature. This is where most of the division can be found, and the source of most strife within our ranks. I personally believe that there can be various "clans" or specific groupings - specific denominations if you will - of racially aware whites. I do not believe the answer to our dilemma’s can be found in trying to create an all encompassing umbrella to unite all racially aware whites under a common banner. I believe that each enclave should have its own specific ideologies when it comes to beliefs, and leave the other enclaves alone. Ultimately, if we understand and accept this idea, if we all find our own "place" where we feel comfortable and represented, then there will be less strife and division as a whole. I say this because, no matter which group a person finds themselves in, we all believe in the ultimate goal (to prevent the extinction of our race) and the first two standards - Who is racially White, and who is a racially aware white.
As to my personal view on a WHITE belief system.
The easiest thing to do is list the beliefs and behaviors that I find unacceptable. While people with these beliefs may meet the first two standards, I would not want them in my specific community. Let them find and make their own place.
I believe that religion or lack thereof is a personal choice. I find Anti-White religions such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc to be unacceptable. Judeo-Christianity is a serious problem for me as it offers support for Jews and Israel. Whether Christianity originated as a non-white religion or not is a moot point for me. There are two reasons for this. Number one, there is a difference between a Non-White religion and Anti-White religion, and they are not one and the same. Number 2, even with Christianity's non-white ties to the past, over the past 2000 years it has been adopted by white cultures and peoples from around the globe and is an every day belief by whites.
I find no problem or conflict with Atheists, Christians, Pagans, and Agnostics (even though they are annoying) as long as they are not militant in their presentation of their views. We all can and do get along with each other if we respect each other’s religious beliefs, and not attempt to convert or demean another group within the White Religious belief system (or lack thereof). I guess that, in summary, I have tolerance, and believe others should have, for people's religions as long as they are not Anti-White in nature.
Politics and Economics:
Once again, there is room for much discussion over the finer points about various political ideologies within our community. There is only really 1 form of poli-economic that I find absolutely abhorrent, it is blatantly Anti-White in practice, and does not belong in a white community. Communism/Marxist socialism is the antithesis of White Pride and spirit.
I do not consider philosophies such as democracies, representative republics, National Socialism, and capitalism to be inherently anti-white in nature. These ideals could all be run by a white government, for whites, and greatly benefit the community. Like any form of power, it can corrupt. However, that in of itself does not make these ideas anti-white. Now, for some people, Poli-economics is an extremely important part of their ideologies and they will not be tolerant of other forms. Once again, this illustrates why there needs to be specific sects or denominations within the community. The needless infighting between two opponents over poli-economic systems will not help further our cause when neither side of the argument is going to listen, objectively, to anything that is going to be said.
Homosexuality, transgendered, pedophilia, gender identity disorder - whatever you want to call it - is an abnormality that occurs in nature. This does not mean that it should be accepted or embraced as anything other than what it is - Abnormal. There is much discussion as to the cause of homosexuality and other gender disorders, as well as possible treatments, cures, etc. These are important discussions in order to reduce the amount of gender disorders that will appear in future generations.
However, embracing and accepting gender disorders in society is a different story than being resigned to the fact they exist. While there is nothing that we (scientifically or medically) can do to prevent gender disorders from appearing, they do not have to be tolerated in society in any way, shape, or form. There is a whole slew of information that indicates how gender disorders are unhealthy both on a personal level, and societal.
I believe in zero rights for homosexuals. IE, no pride, no celebrations, no allowances, no special considerations or grouping, no privileges based upon sexuality, no public displays of affection. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors is truly their business, and I don't think we should be in the business of peeping in windows. That being said - since we cannot at this time prevent gender disorders from appearing in the gene pool, we can no more prevent it from occurring than cancer, we must institute a zero tolerance policy. This zero tolerance policy ensures that the behavior will stay behind closed doors until such a time that we can affect a cure or treatment. No openly homosexual (or other gender disordered people) will be permitted to be in our community.
Continuing with the Exclusive over Inclusive mindset, I see no reason why we would want to bring all of our current societal problems with us into our own communities. Convicted criminals is an area that we must address, as it covers a large portion of the population that may indeed be racially white, and racially aware. There are also considerations that need to be made based upon what specific acts / crimes do we forgive, and which ones we do not tolerate.
I'm afraid it will all come down to a case by case basis, especially considering the large percentage of repeat offenders. When a person displays anti-societal behavior repeatedly, this is not the type of person we should be bringing into the fold. Beyond the scope of what I consider the obvious, such as Murderers, Rapists, and Pedophiles (and even these records need to be examined due to the crooked justice system in the west), do we want whites who are habitual drunk drivers, woman beaters, multiple drug addiction convictions, etc?
I believe the idea of what we are attempting to accomplish is the creation of a new society, based on our ideal principles. I do not consider it wise to bring all the problems with us from our old society if there is no need. Given the blatant and undisguised bias against the white man in our current society, there is no doubt the justice and penal system will be full of white men whose real crime was to be white. We need to take this into consideration while attempting to prevent an influx of habitual criminals and dregs of society from being welcomed with open arms.
Belief in the Traditional Family Unit:
The best scenario and environment in which to raise children (our hope for our future) is with the influence of BOTH parents in the children's lives. One mother, One father. Each parent has their ideal roles in the rearing of children and the family at large. I believe in the model that time, nature, and evolution has proven to be the most ideal. A strong family is guided by strong parents. The father is the head of the household, and responsible for providing a safe and secure existence. The mother PARTNERS with the father to provide a loving and nurturing environment. Our men and women need to learn that in raising a family (and in order to develop a strong union) they must be each other’s PARTNERS.
The belief in the traditional family unit embraces the natural order of things. Things like "Militant Feminism" which attempt to REVERSE the roles of the man/woman, or elevate the woman above the man are extremely detrimental to the traditional family unit. Misogyny, like wise, is just as detrimental to a healthy relationship, by attempting to elevate the man above the woman (by pushing the woman down) and results in a dysfunctional relationship.
Neither of these views have a place in White Society as they are both abnormalities, promote unhealthy relationships between men and women, and are a provide a poor environment to raise our children in.
That would be my ideal vision for a basic set of beliefs, the minimal standard, that I would be extremely comfortable with.
Tolerant of varying Religious beliefs (except Anti-White Religions)
Tolerant of varying Political/Economical Systems (except Communism/Marxist Socialism)
Zero Tolerance of Homosexuality and other gender disorders
Case by case examination of criminal records
Traditional Family Unit
I personally believe that this is a rather "inclusive" umbrella, as it allows for the greatest amount of varying opinions within the personal belief category. If other sects wish to be more exclusive (say a NS only style political system) and not tolerate discussion or debate about a particular belief - I do not see this as being Anti-White or necessarily detrimental to white society or the future of our race.
Now what? How does this all play out? How to we gather people to this standard of Whiteness? What are the roles of the internet forums? What are the practical solutions in real life?
The very first thing any group or organization must do is define themselves. What do they / we stand for? How does a person know if they want to belong to an organization if that organization doesn't have a simple mission statement, declaring its purpose, intentions, and minimum standards. The only reason an organization or group would not have a defined mission statement is because they INTENTIONALLY want to be vague as to cause confusion, chaos, etc, amongst its membership. Nobody feels comfortable in a situation where they don't know what is/not acceptable.
Having defined standards and a mission statement is a far cry from creating a cult mentality. A cult mentality is unhealthy, ungrowing, and completely and utterly directed from one person, the "leader". This is a far cry from what we should be attempting to do. What white organizations should be attempting to do is gather large amounts of people who have the same core beliefs or principles together in order to change the current political/ideological environment we find ourselves in. Ultimately, we are trying to save the White Race from extinction.
Currently, what I have seen from Pro-White organizations is one extreme to the other. None of which are being extremely effective in countering the issues we face, let alone the systematic destruction of our race. I will explain in detail. Once we know the problems, what isn't working per se, we can then attempt to identify what possible solutions will work. That is another trait, I'm afraid, that is sorely lacking amongst our people. We are great at pointing out the problems, but have a tendency to stop there. We need to be willing to offer potential solutions to the problems, and THAT is what we should be discussing. Unfortunately, most of what I see in the current environment is a continuous barrage of bitches, gripes, and moans, with a heavy sprinkling of "social" conversation (what makes you happy?, what did you do today, my feet hurt, look at the cake and donuts I made today). Let me explain fully.
To identify the ineffectiveness of our current strategies and ideologies, I will analyze the four Pro-White internet forums that I am familiar with, Stormfront, White News Now, Vanguard News Network, and SAIQ. Once the analysis is complete, of course, I will put forward what I think needs to be done to correct the situation.
I will start with Stormfront, as it is the largest of all the forums, and its problems are the most complex.
First off, I must say the Truth is dangerous to Appearances. I can only look at statements that Admin and Staff have made to glean the truth about Stormfront's real purposes. Only by identifying the actual, real purpose, can we analyze what is wrong with it, and how it could be corrected.
First and foremost, I believe that Stormfront currently exists to create income. To generate $7500, SF's primary purpose, to be used for whatever purpose. Now, personally, I have no problem with this. I perfectly understand all of the reasons that this revelation will always be vehemently denied, from tax liability, to laws governing businesses. However, some of the membership there will completely deny this reality and vehemently attack any who state such. Even now, I am waiting for the SF Nationalists (those whose loyalty to Stormfront is greater than their loyalty to the White Race) to begin the attack. I am addressing the intellectuals in the crowd, those who may be able to look at SF with an objective lens.
A few of the reasons why I believe SF exists to produce $7500 a month. Once again, I have no problem with this, as it can still be an effective vehicle for our folk, which I will explain in depth later.
We have to go no further than the Editor In Chief's own words as an indication, and the benefactor's (Mr. Black) indication that he does not agree with SF's own policy on who is considered white, using post count and funds contributed as justification. And do I really need to point out the fact that no matter how many times the fund raising goal is missed, no matter how badly it is missed, that SF never goes away, never downsizes? How does any person, business, or organization "keep the lights on" when they do not generate enough income to cover the bills? And yet it remains unchanged, even operating in a severe deficit.
There is absolutely nothing wrong (ideologically or in practicality) with the policy for banning members who make the congregation uncomfortable. It is sound financial sense. I firmly believe that SF can accomplish their primary goal of providing a source of income AND be a more effective resource and tool for our folk, however. First and foremost, I see a complete lack of standards and willingness to enforce those standards. Please, let me explain.
Once again, when discussing who is acceptable, we speak of being Racially White, Racially Aware, and a certain set of personal beliefs that are considered (or not considered) acceptable. Once these issues are addressed, they need to be set in stone.
One of the biggest ideological problems I have with Stormfront is it's unwillingness to enforce basic principles of "who/what is accepted". Stormfront addressed the "Who is racially white" question. If you read closely, there is a fundamental difference in opinion between Dr. Pearce and John Law as to whom they consider "White". And yet, both definitions are portrayed as policy, even though the definitions are opposed to one another. Admin and staff portray these opposing philosophies as their standard, and yet fundamentally, Mr. Black does not believe it as written.
So, once again, which standard is THE standard for "who is white"? Choose a standard, get rid of the other one if you don't agree with it, and then ENFORCE the standard. I will explain later, why this is important, and would actually be healthier for Stormfront's primary goal (to provide income) and actually become a better asset to the folk.Originally Posted by Don Black Stormfront
Just when I thought I couldn't hate this board any more, with all its varied external and internal drama...along comes this thread.
I agreed with Pierce. But I've never agreed with our late administrator John Law's assertion, that someone telling us they have Indian blood means they are a troll who identifies with non-Whites. I've had many previous years real world experience. It never occurred to most of those I met wanting to join the Klan or whatever group that they were non-White, and they certainly looked White in most cases.
So we've since had hundreds who thought they were WN thrown into the mudpit of Opposing Views, because they said they were, maybe 1/64th Amerindian. As will likely happen to MoJoe.
But MoJoe illustrates my point. He's got 1900 quality posts since January of last year. He was almost a Lifetime Member, having contributed $830 in the past year. Not likely a troll. Now, he's learned he's the opposition.
But what's the alternative? We'd have the one-droppers screaming about how Stormfront has become "almost White" Nationalist, with everybody else just confused.
I'm surprised by all the faith in DNA testing, btw. You would need to believe that "Whiteness" is like gold, which can be distilled and accurately measured by DNA markers. Unless you're CI (and I'm surprised they haven't found this thread yet), and you believe the White Race descended directly from Adam and Eve, or you believe, as promoted by the late Bob Miles, that we're space aliens who came from the North Star, you're going to find a lot of evolutionary mixture.
You'd also need to assume the DNA companies aren't skewing the results to make sure our tiny "movement" becomes even tinier.
As Pierce noted, Jews love these arguments. They can reduce our position to absurdity.
Did I tell you how much I hate this board?
It appears to me that Stormfront is trying to be "everything to everybody" within our white (and apparently "mostly white") community. It took almost a year for the staff and admin to create an official policy on homosexuality, and only after a ridiculous amount of heated discussion and bannings. Why is there such a complete lack of stated principles and enforcement of those principles? That is the question. I can only guess, but I believe the thought being that the more ideologies allowed and tolerated, the more people will become members. The greater the membership, the greater chance to derive income (donations) from the membership as the primary goal. A secondary goal would be to reach a broader audience, thus rising overall awareness.
I have seen what appears to be, an attempt to widen the umbrella, by loosening of standards into almost nothingness. I firmly believe this is an attempt to both garner more donations (secretly) and to honestly attempt to bring more people into the "fold" or "sect". It appears to be a quantity over quality philosophy. I firmly believe this to be the wrong approach to creating a strong and dedicated membership, and increasing the numbers of that membership. I will use two analogies to illustrate this fact.
A Strong Foundation:
Consider SF (and all other Pro-White groups or sects) as a house. People are invited into the house to learn, socialize, and discuss issues of the day. As more and more people start filling the house, more and more stress is applied to the basic foundation of that house. Cracks begin to appear in the foundation and are pointed out by a few of the people visiting. The owner of the house has a decision to make. Does he fix those cracks, and have to limit the number of future people that visit, or does he ignore those cracks, and put a thin veneer over those cracks to make the house even more attractive to even more people? Does he heed the words of those that indicate a problem (and make the other guests "uncomfortable" by doing so) and consider their suggestions upon how to fix it? Or does he banish those people as "trouble makers" that were bringing down the party, kicking them out of the house?
It appears the owners of the house decide to banish the people that point out and talk about the tough questions - that are willing to point out the flaws - even if they offer solutions upon how to fix them. The thin veneer is put down, to soothe things over with all the people visiting and living there. All is good, the party continues, and even more people are invited in. The thought is, the more, the merrier. The more people that are brought into the fold, the stronger we become.
The problem is, when the first strong wind of opposition, when the earth begins to quake, the cracked foundation will fail, crumbling down around all those people. A home built upon a cracked foundation cannot withstand any adversity.
A membership that is premised on a weak message, with so many varying philosophies and ideologies, is NOT strong enough to withstand and endure. This is what happens when a place tries to be everything to everybody in order to create a larger audience than what can (healthily) be sustained. The result will be a constant amount of diametrically opposed ideas within the membership itself. This type of atmosphere is a breeding ground for arguments, individual cliques being formed (alliances), and ultimately disruptive drama. Until the cracks in the foundation (specifically what is, and what is not acceptable as far as ideologies) are identified and fixed, there will always be an unnecessary amount of in-fighting.
A church can only exist as long as there are members within the congregation that are willing to support the church's efforts and existence through donations. There is always the issue of expanding the church's influence and activities, and raising enough donation money to support those activities. Each church desires to grow and expand, to reach more people and increase its congregation. It is a natural and healthy thing.
Churches start out small, preaching a consistent message to its congregation. A small, vibrant, and dedicated congregation is the result. Many people begin to hear of this church, and venture in for a sermon or two. Some of these visitors are of the exact same mindset as the congregation, and decide to stay. Many, however, decide that the particular message being preached is not exactly to their liking and go elsewhere. The church leadership sees how many people are leaving because of the message, and see's all the potential donations and members leaving the church for elsewhere.
Even though the church has been preaching a specific denomination for all this time, and has a small, strong, and loyal group of believers, the pastor decides to change the message - to attract others from a different denomination. And so, the message of the church changes.
This new, hybrid message, isn't true to either denomination's teachings. The result may be an increased audience for a short while, however, donations begin to wither away. This happens because neither group fully believes in what is being taught anymore. The smaller, more faithful group becomes disenfranchised because of the changed ideology and message. The larger, newer audience does not really identify with the message (as it is a hybrid) and not true to their philosophy either. This results in a larger audience as a whole, but less donation as nobody really believes in what is being taught.
The different denominations begin to splinter off from one another, each forming its own group within the congregation. They segregate themselves by where they sit, surrounding themselves with like minded parishioners, driving wedges amongst the individual groups. Infighting is common in the congregation now because of the inconsistent message. Donations go down as a result.
This type of mistrust and division is evident amongst the members of Stormfront by the number of "cliques" that can be found, the groups, the alliances, the superiority and condescending attitudes some of the SM have towards the non-paying members, and the recent revelation that several of the members hoard any and all Private Information they gather in dealing with other members of the site (whether by PM, e-mail, telephone calls, text, and Skype).
When the membership cannot feel comfortable and safe dealing with each other.....those who are supposed to be "brothers and sisters in arms"......it is an undeniable indication that there is something seriously broken.
I only have a little experience with Vanguard News Network, admittedly. However, it did not take me long to develop an opinion. VNN appears to innately understand the "sect" concept that I spoke of earlier. Most of the membership there has a particular set of personal beliefs they all share in common, vehemently. While some people, especially outsiders who do not share the exact point of view can not or will not appreciate the place for its brutal honesty, VNN is very comfortable with its own skin. There is virtually none of the big umbrella approach, quite the opposite actually. The membership there looks upon outsiders in an almost combative and distrustful way. It borders on xenophobic.
There is very little tolerance for any ideas that do not subscribe to their exact ideology, and most are quickly rejected quite harshly. The lax rules concerning decorum are refreshing for the dejected and angry, and frightening to the timid or mild. The hands on approach that Mr. Linder utilizes with his regular participation on the board is a breath of fresh air compared to the hands off approach you see elsewhere.
All in all, VNN has taken the opposite approach that Stormfront has taken, and the usual member is quite different than you find elsewhere.
White News Now, once again, has a different philosophy than elsewhere. I see WNN has molded itself after Stormfront in several ways, but has a much more focused ideology and philosophy. WNN has a specific mission - a politically motivated one - that focuses on the American White population. The atmosphere is one that discourages any conflict between its membership and philosophies. Conversation and discussion on highly contested cursory issues is discouraged, somewhat, as these topics usually end up causing the focus to move from their primary goal (political change in America).
WNN has also identified itself with the "sect" concept, quite well. They have their nitch, and try to fill that role and effect change politically through support of the American Third Position (A3P). Information flow on WNN is slow, whether that is due to the narrow focus, a lower membership, or a combination of both is unclear. Where Stormfront has conflicting philosophies as to what is acceptable and VNN puts nothing off limits in a more free for all atmosphere, WNN has a very low tolerance for things outside the scope of their philosophy and sphere of influence. At times, it appears that WNN is almost a "preach to the choir" type of place. Conflict of any sort is discouraged, and this has an effect of limiting outside ideas or points of view from being discussed.
Straights Against Islam and Queers (SAIQ) is more of a small group, as opposed to a "forum" in its current stage. Originally comprised of only Stormfront members, it has broadened its membership some as time has gone by. SAIQ centers itself on the Traditional White Family Unit, and was created as a response to the Stormfront chaos of conflicting ideologies found there, specifically the ideals that are in direct conflict with the traditional family unit. While all members are decidedly against Islamification, homosexuality, and any attempt to create "friendly relationships" with or acceptance of these groups within white culture, SAIQ addresses all issues from a traditional point of view.
The problem with the group itself is the "preach to the choir" atmosphere. Members are extremely like minded, with very similar ideologies and personal beliefs. Because of the private nature of the group, very little of what is discussed by its membership is seen by the outside. This makes it very difficult to effect change in any meaningful way on a larger scale.
So where do we go from here? What are the answers to the problems? Where do we all fit in? Is there a place for all of us? How do we effect change? How do we organize ourselves, as a whole, to create an atmosphere where change is possible? These are the questions that I have been thinking about. I've touched on some of the answers earlier, and will revisit them, as well as tying each individual point together in a broader sense.
I guess, the first place that we must start is by understanding who we are, who we are trying to influence, who is working against us, and a realization of how monumental this task will be. Just looking at the rise of multiculturalism in America, for example, we have to fundamentally understand that this is a multi-generational fight! We, the people reading this right now, must be resolved to the fact that we will never see the fruits of our labor. That our children will be lucky to see a reversal in the tide. We, in fact, are laying the foundation to affect change not for our generation, or our children's generation, but our grandchildren's generation! This is an extremely difficult concept for most of us in western society to fully grasp, understand, and embrace. It is the harsh reality of what and how it must be done, however.
The most prominent attempt to create a multicultural society in America is most evident in WWI. Until the events that led to America becoming involved in international politics, America was content to deal with internal politics, even though it traded internationally. So, for the sake of argument, let us use 1917 as the benchmark date to begin (even though there has always been a push to create an MC society in America since it's inception, it didn't begin to gain much traction until very early in the 20th Century). The people and organizations that pushed for multicultural change began their big push at the turn of the 20th Century. It slowly began to gain traction, and world events led to specific needs and dangers that the acceptance of utilizing diversity (maximum man power) were purported to be the answer. Simple analogy, when at war, every warm body counts, regardless of color, creed, or ethnicity.
The Jew began creating "civil rights" groups in the early 1900's that would have a dramatic effect upon the traditional white family unit. The change they effected upon society, as a whole, was negligible throughout the first half of the century. Even into the 1950's, traditional values were the norm for the day. It was not until nearly 60 years later, that the first "harvest" was seen for their labors. For almost 60 years, the Jew toiled, without seeing any significant gains, and they did so relentlessly! The founders of their movement knew and understood they were in a multi-generational fight, and were content to pursue it as such. The civil rights revolution saw massive change, very quickly, in how our society viewed traditional values.
For a period of 15 years, the campaign to mainstream what were once marginal or fringe ideas took center stage. We saw Black entitlement, Feminism, Homosexuality, and communism/Marxist socialism take center stage as a society. These ideals went from fringe element to become first tolerated, then accepted as mainstream philosophies and lifestyles. Looking back upon this, we see there was almost 60 years of groundwork, laying the foundation, and then 15 years of aggressive posturing, to put these multicultural values on par with traditional white values. After 75 years, the originators accomplished their second milestone. Almost 40 years since, there has been a slow and continual push to continue the progression of these multicultural values. What was once fringe, became mainstream. What was once mainstream and equal to traditional values, is now becoming preferred. Diversity is now our strength, when it once was considered a weakness.
For 100 years, this battle has been waged. The originators knew they would never see the fruits of their labor. The second generation would not see the realization of their dream. And yet, this is how they fought their war. This is the exact same realization that we must have in order to survive. One of the things that work against us, in America especially, is a profound amount of impatience. One of the most devious things that multiculturalism has brought us is a "now" mentality......immediate results from our actions. Undoing one hundred years of gains simply is impossible in the short term. With the strengthening of the "now" mentality with each generation, it is going to become more and more difficult to reverse the trend. We must know this to our very core, and be resolved (and instill this into our children as a fact) to fight the long fight.
Now that we understand the scope of what faces us, how do we counteract it? Where do we all fit in? What type of message should we be saying to whom? Who are we trying to reach, and how important are the masses?
The first thing we must realize is there is no single message, or delivery method that is going to be appropriate for every situation. This is predicated on the fact that just like there are different "sects" or ideologies within our community, there are different levels or tiers of people we are trying to reach. This is a fundamental fact that we cannot ignore. For example, would you attempt to sate a full blown 2nd generation racially aware white with the same message you would use for a person who is just at the beginnings of their racial awakening? Absolutely not. We must tailor our message and delivery method for each individual group. We must not only define the individual groups we are attempting to reach by a quantifiable method, but then must decide who *we*, each individual sect within the white community, is targeting to reach. That, folks is the first step we must take to our re-organization into more effective communicators.
The mistake that I see now, with the political organizations and message boards, is the simple fact they are trying to be everything to everybody (for the most part). The idea that we can put forth a consistent message to encourage personal growth into real world activism for a full blown racially aware white, and a completely unawakened or newly awakened white from the same source, at the same time, is unrealistic.