Your last comment has brought a fairly heavy burden of thought. The comment is not to be lightly responded to. Having slept on it, I am still not entirely sure how to reply, except to say that I am persuaded that you are largely right.

So, let me just offer one or two remarks in partial response. You can make of them what you will.

Ultimately, I don’t see how we achieve what we want by working entirely within the existing system, since the existing system is going to be stacked against us demographically.

Like you, I don’t see how we achieve what we want by working entirely within the existing system, either. However, as a classic Burkean conservative I fully expect significant factors to develop out of my sight. I do not expect to see the whole picture, so to speak.

A civilization, even when broken, is far too complex a thing to be repaired according to a deliberate plan prepared by any concert of human minds. One does rather what one can, by his lights, to improve the civilization we have inherited, ere we pass it on to our children. The rest lies in God’s hands.

Like you, I can foresee no practical means exactly to solve the ethnic problems which confront us; but I can rather easily foresee measures—indeed, entirely practical, realistic measures—which if implemented would greatly help. We halt immigration, or mostly halt it if a complete halt should prove politically impracticable. We ban Islam within our borders, or at least make the practice of Islam sufficiently irksome that most Muslims tend either to lapse or to emigrate. We subsidize the voluntary emigration of troublesome classes of recent immigrants. If possible, we eliminate laws against petty, private racial discrimination, especially laws enforced against individuals and small businesses. We restigmatize miscegenation, though with a generous allowance for existing mixed marriages and their children. We modify the tax code to encourage prosperous heritage Americans to have more children. As I have written of at some length elsewhere, we end means-tested federal “welfare.”

If we could only do some, most or all of these things, it could buy us another two generations to solve the basic problem you identify. That’s a long time. A lot can happen in two generations. Especially, a lot of unforeseen things can happen in two generations. Calvin Coolidge was right to observe that “If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.” These are words to live by.

I do not see any of the measures listed as being politically unrealistic. (Many conservatives seem to thing the welfare measure politically unrealistic, but you must read carefully what I wrote. The measure does not necessarily end, say, food stamps—though personally I do think that food stamps ought to be ended—but it does at least put food stamps on the same footing as Social Security and in-state tuition: if available, then equally available to the rich as to the poor. The rich after all are the ones who pay for the food stamps: why shouldn’t they get them if they want them? If you do not think that such a measure could be popular then you and I are not acquainted with the same populace.)

If we could only accomplish something like the program listed, we should leave the next generation in an incomparably stronger position to re-evaluate the National Question and to decide on a coherent program of action as from that point forward. My view is that the kind of program listed heaps the plate before our own generation high enough, as it were. We should not now seek to do much more.

I am not against racial separation in principle, but like you I cannot see how to get there from here. What I can see is—well—how to climb to a high vantage point from which our children should be able to see how to get there, if there then is still somewhere it makes sense for them to get.

Ultimately, I don’t see how we achieve what we want by working entirely within the existing system, since the existing system is going to be stacked against us demographically. Unless we start engaging in massive voter fraud, corruption, intimidation and assassination of government officials, and so on, which would do great damage to us by denying us the moral high ground in our own eyes.

This is another valid point, which I would subscribe.

A Burkean thought or two occur to me regarding your usage of the word ideology, but these particular thoughts do not flow smoothly from the above, so let me save them for a later time. Otherwise, this comment of mine is not headed anywhere in particular, so let me end it here, except to invite Stephen—if he should follow through on his threat to headline this conversation—to save at least me embarrassment by redacting the conversation for spelling, grammar, inadvertently omitted words and the like (a blog’s electronic comment-submitting widget is not conducive to careful editing by the submitter).

Howard

Your points are well-taken and thought-provoking.

My intention in mentioning the American Revolution was only to point out that revolutions begin with small, dissatisfied groups meeting privately and writing under pseudonyms, because it is dangerous to be publicly known to be in favor of overthrowing the current power structure. But I think your point that our goal should be a nonradical revolution sounds valid, if it is at all possible to do so.

Working from power positions within the existing framework is certainly important and I have made that point in other forums where some have suggested white men stop joining the armed forces as a sort of protest. The last thing we want to stop joining is the armed forces, in my opinion.

At the same time I think there is a distinction to be made between the revolution in Russia where Yeltsin climbed on the tank, and our situation. In the Russian situation, mostly anyone could switch allegiances and be accepted. The tank commander could switch to Yeltsin’s side and fit right in. And so they could gain control of the whole society by getting the agreement of power holders who would be willing to change sides because they’d know they could seamlessly fit in with the new side.

But in our case, where our people are shrinking as a proportion of the population, and our “enemies” (or opponents) are of other ethnic groups, they will never come over to our side and we wouldn’t want them to. And I don’t see them letting us separate peacefully. When we’re looking for historical analogies, we’re going to have to look for situations where two or more different identity groups of different ethnicities were competing for control of a country. That means that analogies from European history might not often apply. The situation in South Africa might be one of the closest analogies.

I agree that it is invaluable having our people in power positions. But when I try to think through how we might get to where we need to be, I have difficulty seeing how it can happen peacefully. Perhaps we can win some sort of de facto separation where we are still part of the U.S. but in practical terms are left alone in our territories in the way that some areas in other countries are ungovernable by the central government.

Ultimately, I don’t see how we achieve what we want by working entirely within the existing system, since the existing system is going to be stacked against us demographically. Unless we start engaging in massive voter fraud, corruption, intimidation and assassination of government officials, and so on, which would do great damage to us by denying us the moral high ground in our own eyes.

Regardless of the particular path our movement ends up taking, there are certain things that are givens: we will need to have a clear, positive, moral ideology that we can explain to people we hope to convert; we need to form some organization that can serve a central rallying and organizing role; and we need to work ourselves into as much wealth and power as we can so we have the connections and resources necessary.

My vision is of a massive movement of white men, determined, self-disciplined, clear in their purpose and their moral justification, who stand up and say “no more” to the non-whites. Who say “we are separating from you and you’re not going to stop us. We won’t use any more violence than we have to, and we won’t hurt you if you don’t try to stop us, but we’re through with you.”

I have read your comment in detail, with interest. The question with which you finish is an important one.

After all, isn’t that how the American Revolution occurred?

Respectfully, I believe that the answer is no. I believe rather that that is how the French Revolution occurred.

Our revolution was led by the existing American elite, who wished to preserve as much of the existing structure of colonial society as they could, who fundamentally were interested in escaping their political dependency on London, not in remaking the country. Our revolution did not seek to alter the demographic composition of the nation, nor its culture, nor even its legal and political principles. It was the mildest of revolutions.

Even so, fourscore and seven years on, it took a bloody Civil War finally to settle it.

What you seek is a radical revolution, in the true, original sense of the word “radical.” In all of history, I cannot think of a single radical revolution which directly had a happy result.

They sound good, but they don’t work.

To hope to succeed happily, a nonradical revolution must enjoy support from some of the already existing concentrations of power within the existing society. I am all for the tea parties, but they are political rather than revolutionary instruments.

You don’t have to play by your enemy’s rules. You can play dirty, if that’s what it takes. But you simply must play for power where the power already is.

The proof of this lies not in theory but in actual, historical experience.

It is instructive that the men who have claimed power in post-Communist Russia, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, are both men who, prior to the downfall of Soviet communism, had risen high within the Soviet communist party. The patriotic tank-company captain who, at the critical moment in the siege of the Russian parliament, turned his tanks over to Yeltsin was in a position to do so only because, through years of reliable service under the Soviet communist system, he had risen to, and been entrusted with, the command of a tank company. None of these men were tea-party activists. They were serious, practical men whose acts, in the end, made all the difference.

We badly need people like you, who actually understand that which our nation faces, which is why one hopes that you will channel your energy into slow, steady, productive channels, building real power against a future day of action. We need you to be governor of your state on the day the revolution comes, but to do that, you must patiently work within the existing system now. Only then will you really stand in a position to help the revolution along.

Short cuts are not possible.

Even the much (and largely rightly, but paradoxically also usually mistakenly) reviled Adolf Hitler understood this principle. He never overthrew Germany’s constitution until he had first made himself the master of Germany’s state.

You don’t have to follow the rules, you don’t have to play fair, but work within the system, you must, if you really want to help. I hope that you will, because your spirit is right.

Howard

I asked myself first what is the goal I want to see achieved? The goal is a nation for my people and my people alone. We can’t share a nation with other people without this same problem eventually arising one way or another, and so every proposed solution short of separation is actually a non-solution.

So, how do we achieve this goal of a separate nation for our people? First, can we achieve it through peaceful political action within the framework of this existing nation’s laws and government? I think the time when that strategy could work has passed. The reason is that what we desire would require constitutional amendments. The bar is set very high for amending the Constitution, and with the population percentage of whites at only 65% and falling (and a significant proportion of those whites are progressives who would die before they’d help us), I think the possibilities of peaceful, within-the-system action getting us our own nation are very small.

What that seems to leave is revolution. Anything short of that simply is a delaying action, in my opinion. As long as we share a nation with non-whites who reproduce faster than us and are allowed to vote, we are destined by the simple laws of mathematics to become a minority.

But a revolution is a huge step, especially for mostly-comfortable middle-class people who for the most part have never been in so much as a fistfight in their lives. We have families to support and jobs we need to keep. Revolutions, I believe, usually build on the desperation and anger of a significant group of hungry, furious people. And we’re just not that hungry or that furious yet. We’re worried; we suffer minor inconveniences sometimes; we resent the privileged, unqualified minorities getting jobs through Affirmative Action; but other than things that mostly bother us on principle or that bode ill for the future, there’s no real desperation yet. So an actual revolution seems beyond the realm of possibility.

But I too feel the desire to join something where I can be with others of my people and talk and build comradeship and ties and knock around ideas and listen to speeches by the leaders among us. The problem is that the members of any organization that sprang up that was explicitly devoted to white nationalist interests would be under attack by the progressives in every manner they could devise, including especially economic attacks like getting people fired.

So it seems to me that while we are in this phase where the hunger and anger are slowly building, we need to be developing the themes of who we are, what we stand for, and what we want as clearly as possible so that we can present a reasonable, disciplined yet passionate appeal to all of the white people who sense that things are going badly but don’t yet have a framework or set of principals that they can examine and get behind. We need a set of clear and simple principals that state our moral case for separation and ethnic identity. People have to be able to feel good about joining us.

And as for meetings, it seems like at this phase it needs to be small gatherings in people’s living rooms, away from the prying eyes of progressive enemies, where people who are invited individually can meet with a small group of like-minded people they can trust and knock around ideas and build ties.

At some time in the future the moment will be right for a bringing-together of these numerous, anonymous “cells” for whatever sorts of action – demonstrations or revolution – are necessary. But right now it needs to be about clarifying and refining our purpose and our message and our principals, and building ties in small groups.

We need to start a quiet movement of “tea parties” or “colloquiems” or “salons” or some other term that expresses the idea of sensible, decent middle-class white people (it will and I believe, should, mostly be men) who are quietly forming bonds and building purpose.

After all, isn’t that how the American Revolution occurred? Wasn’t it at first just small groups of men meeting to discuss the pressing issues of the day?

We ought to do not one but many things. We ought to harass persistently on all fronts. We ought to wear them down.

Neither the current liberal establishment nor the current “conservative” movement had much power as recently as 1963. If they achieved power by wearing down the old New Deal/Dixiecrat establishment, on the one hand, and the old Rockefeller Republican establishment, on the other, is there a reason we cannot now wear them down, in turn?

I feel reasonably confident that we can. Our foes are not eternal. For once I even think that, though few of us yet realize it, we shall have the wind at our backs, which we have not really had since about 1963. You are right to write of “passivity, lack of clear thinking, lack of loyalty, and venality.” These are advatages to us, persistent advantages our corrupt foes no longer have effective means to foreclose. We can exploit them.

If you do not think that an ethno-nationalist can, say, win election to Congress, maybe you are right, for now; but, though it be trite to say it, I know how to ensure that an ethno-nationalist does not win: let him not run.

And if we keep striking flint to steel we may eventually get fire. So be it. For now.

That’s right. How many forgotten, failed conservative politicians preceded the rise of Ronald Reagan, and thereby paved his way? And, anyway, to the extent to which we work subversively within existing channels of power, like the Republican party, are we so sure that we cannot win? If you campaign for “God, guns and Skynyrd’s America,” if you pick your battles and don’t try to counterreform the entire nation all at once, then who is to say that you cannot win? I’ll not say it. Let the voters decide.

Some readers will dismiss such sentiments as mere cheerleading, but I such dismissal to be counsel of despair, and ill timed counsel, at that. The wind is at our backs, now. It’s time for us to start harassing the enemy.

I am afraid that I concur in your conservative distaste for street protests but, on the other hand, matters have reached such a pitch that, if you organized a street protest, I might well show up.

But there is no power in them.

It will take us fifteen to thirty years to build power. The Marxist Gramsci called it the Long March through the Institutions. Like the Roman, who learned from his terrifying foe Hannibal how to fight, we have learned something from Gramsci and his ilk. It is well to remember that the consequent empire of the Roman outlasted Hannibal six hundred years.

We are going to turn their captured artillery against them. It is going to be a long, long fight.

I think that our side has more stamina than theirs. I am willing to take fifteen to thirty years to prove it. I can afford to take the long view. Can’t you?

Our liberal foes cannot.

So we capture the sheriff’s office, then the local county Republican party chairmanship, then the school board. We persistently try to intimidate Congress into voting down legislation like that June 2007 immigration amnesty which blessedly did not pass. We win a state legislative seat or two, then gradually build our numbers on Capitol Hill. It can be done. It has been done before. The truth stands on our side. Gramscian harassment, turned against the Gramscians, who were false, is likely to prosper.

The most “conservative” among us are unable to explain why it would be wrong to reduce whites to 1% of the population, though even the most liberal of us must see that there would be something wrong with this.

So, the popular support for our position is latent, inchoate, hobbled by the prevailing structure of taboos. Again a Gramscian strategy is indicated, because the popular support is real and growing.

Howard

Thank you, MaryJ.