[Menydh]

For what is worth, these are some notes that I've written to answer the usual babbling of your usual American WN, on pages 11 and 12 of this thread on Stormfront.

Notice that if I ever post there, I do it as a guest with a name. So the posts may or may not be approved by the SF staff.

As I have got acquainted with your individual identity through reading the few rants on this discussion, while I cannot reasonably expect you to understand anything of what I'm going to say next, I'll write it anyway for those who have better abilities than yours.

In no particular order..

Fascism was one particular ideology from the 30s, built around a particular understanding of nationalism (19th century romantic nationalism to which, for the record, I do not adhere). As a 30s doctrine in Europe, Fascism did not have to define anything in the line of race relations. Nationalism in any form, being an European phenomenon, it is concerned with ethnicity and not with race. For any ideology built around the tenets of nationalism, race relations are left to the chapter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs --or of Colonial Affairs if for any strange and obsolete reason, there is a need for one.

Therefore, the modern days phenomenon of immigration in Europe transcends the issue of race because it doesn't matter what a race an immigrant is, he is above all not an ethnic member of the community.. of the nation. An altogether different matter is that any given nation may assimilate a few individuals who belong to a different nation with an ethnic identity and traditions which are close to theirs.

Why would this be so hard to understand for so-called "white nationalists"? Well, perhaps because nationalism is a misnomer when used to define white racism or supremacism. And it takes a nationalist to understand things as basic as this one.

Back to Fascism, it must be said that it was not an international doctrine or ideology. Therefore it is odd that there should exist a so-called Fascist movement outside Italy, much more so in the U.S. of America. I should not need to say that in Europe people are well acquainted of what it means that Americans "adopt" any style from here. It is, without an exception, turned into a circus. And so you get "hollywood nazis", "white nationalists", "american fascists", and what not.

But enough with Fascism now.

If one wants to speak about honesty, one should first start by being honest himself and not use a label (nationalism) that does not honestly define what he is. White nationalism is a badly defined idea that does not evolve from any concept of nation, but that it actually comes to define a relation between different races in a same space.

That I call it racism (or racialism, if you prefer, to give it a less striking name). As I do call racism (or racialism) the universalist (read masonic) idea that all peoples have to mix to become a one human "nation".

If you paid attention you might have started to see some relation between so-called "white nationalism" and so-called "anti-racists". A second relation would be that both use misnomers, since those so-called "anti-racists" do in fact define the enforcement of a pre-constructed relation between different races, within a same space.

But hold it for a moment.. there could be true anti-racist people just as well. Yes, and these might well be nationalists. I, for one, would be more honoured in meeting one Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the Zulu chief founder of the Zulu Inkhata Freedom Party and a man who has struggled for the ethnic preservation and sovereignty of his people, than I would be in meeting any of the petty white racist troublemakers that you call leaders back in America. At least until he accepted to co-operate with the ANC government of Mandela.

There are more coincidences between universal racists and white racists. The fact that both are well connected with the Freemasonry. You might ignore that just like the universalist idea of a one human race as opposed to a species and racial diversity, is of a masonic origin and that many of the American presidents among which are some who you take as models of your "white country", were well known Freemasons too. As there was Freemasonry involved in the WASP movement of which your WN movement is but an offshot constructed by the necessity to obtain more support for the same ends. Or perhaps just similar.

But how would you explain this to someone who states things like

"Jews could've created the European Union, but not Freemasons. I never heard of 12 being sacred in Freemasonry."

without even stopping at thinking if what he is saying has any basis whatsoever, or if it is yet another piece of trash collection of the "blame the joo" WN style?

Judging from what you write, little could you know about the Pan-Europa of the half-Austrian and half-Japanese, Freemason count Coudenhove-Kalergi, and how this is at the foundations of the European Economic Community first and now the European Union.

You see, another huge difference between nationalists in Europe and American racialists is that over here we choose to educate our own.

This difference should not come as a surprise, since "white nationalism" itself is a semi-doctrine strongly based on a sense of egalitarianism, as it pretends to appoint a level to all its adepts on account of the race disregarding the superior concept of the individual's superior quality. Here, again, so-called white nationalists are no different to so-called anti-racists. After all both are a product of this modern world of decadence.

As for your saying that

"'Liberal' implys rejecting Capitalism."

it is not necessary that you understand that a discusion between you (or any other individual of white nationalist adscription) and a European nationalist (or any other individual with a minimum culture background), is not going to take anywhere.


p.s. on Stirpes we respect English nationalists, as we assume that they know and respect the diversity of the identities of the peoples of Europe. It is the thugs from the British National Party, not surprisingly a white nationalist party, who have had to confront arguments which they are unable to contest and therefore their way out is to accuse Stirpes of "anti-English" (when they are not pro-English since "British" is a mulitcultural concept that includes white, blacks, asians, etc.). This applies not only to the white nationalists of the BNP, but all others.