Friday, September 01, 2006

Fear of Superiority

I was disturbed by Mr. David Pringle’s show on Wednesday night. I wrote this letter to him in response to that show, and I wish to share it with the few readers I have left now that my show and its blog is no longer linked on Mr. Turner’s page. Though I believe this letter will interest my readers because you are the cream of the Aryan crop, it is most necessary for those who have a certain mindset in our movement. I am not a white nationalist or separatist – I am a white racist. I will even go a step further and say I am also a white supremacist. If you are pro-white and cringed when you read the words “white supremacist” please read the following:

-------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Pringle:

I enjoy listening to your show, and I admire your dedication to white separatism. I wonder if you would indulge me as I expound upon a topic that you discussed with Phil from Omaha on your Wednesday, 30 August 2006 show. That topic was white supremacy.

If I understood your position, it seems you agreed with Phil that white supremacy is at the root of the illegal immigration crisis in this country, just as it was at the root of American slavery. I could not disagree more with this position. I believe that such an understanding of white supremacy is the result of a phobic reaction to the appellation “white supremacist”, which is similar to the phobic reaction some experience when labeled a “racist”. Even as the pro-white community begins to reclaim the word racist, and respond to the label with a dismissive “So what?”, must we still fear the label white supremacist? Must we continue to spew out the anti-racist line that designates white supremacists as bad, and thus proves their point that there are white people working to oppress others on the basis of racial difference, thus validating the existence of the anti-racists who pursue all pro-white people with such venom?

I assert that white supremacy is not at the heart of the support for the American military adventure in Iraq, support for Israel over Hezbollah or Hamas, slavery or its abolition in the United States, nor the current American illegal immigration crisis.

For the opposite to be correct, for white supremacy to be at the foundation of these ills, requires an incredible contortion of reality more worthy of our opposition than ourselves. Somehow we are meant to believe that it is white supremacism that led to our current interventionism in Iraq, that leads us to favor one group of nonwhite people over another in the Middle East, that was the driving force behind American slavery, and that motivates our politicians to open the borders to mestizo hordes! Such is a strange hodgepodge of positions to be sure.

If it was white supremacism that was the causative agent of these woes, I would rightly support your argument, but I have found a much more obvious and reasonable explanation for these policies that can explain them without the need to hold two contrary opinions in one’s mind at the same time. After all, for white separatists to believe that white supremacy is evil because white supremacy advocates the superiority of one people over another, and for those same white separatists to say that race-mixing is bad because it corrupts the bloodlines and destroys the advanced civilizations only white people can build is the height of doublethink.

The much more obvious and reasonable explanation for the aforementioned conditions is the phenomenon of Christian Elitism, which spans cultures, races, and centuries. It bridged the beliefs of both the abolitionists and the slave masters and defined their contest. To the abolitionists, slavery was an affront to God that cruelly ignored Christian brotherhood and Christian compassion for the sake of property and profit. To the slave masters, it was Biblically ordained that they could rule over their slaves, both as punishment for Ham’s sin and as Paul advised slaves to obey their masters. The supremacy of the white race was evident to both sides; it was Christianity that framed the conflict. And let us never forget that slavery and serfdom are traditions common throughout the globe and do not require racial difference for functionality.

Is it not the primary argument of those who support immigration, both illegal and legal, that it is Christian duty to feed and clothe the poor, to accept all people as brothers, to welcome the stranger and give him the coat from your back? When it came time to deport Elvira Arellano, did she decide to hide out among white supremacists? No, of course not, she fled to a church! Now she is untouchable due to the supposed sanctity of the Christian church. Was not the opposition to Irish, Italian, and Polish immigration in 19th century America framed in the context of fear of popery? Was it not the Protestant fear that Catholic immigration would undermine freedom of religion? And of course one can not underestimate the fear of economic competition. And if racial slurs against the Irish, Italians, or Poles were flung about, tell me how anyone could tell the difference between a Scots Presbyterian and an Irish Catholic except by where they went to Church on Sunday! Once these Catholic hordes lost their accents, they were indistinguishable from other whites and assimilated fully, which is the key difference faced by America with mestizo immigration. The labels of licentious, criminal, subhuman still stick to blacks hundreds of years after such accusations were long ago found inapplicable to Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholic immigrants simply because blacks have proven the stereotypes, and white Catholics have disproved them. Either way, once again we see that Christian Elitism frames the debate for and against immigration, while white supremacism is irrelevant.

If Israelis and Palestinians are of the same stock, namely the nearly all-encompassing nonwhite stock, how can a white supremacist support one side or the other? Would not a white supremacist find both sides equally unworthy? White supremacists would never intervene to help one nonwhite group over another! Only Christian Elitism can explain the behavior of American Christians (of all races mind you) actively supporting the Israeli’s and demonizing their Muslim neighbors. It is Christian elitism that allows Christians to see Israeli “Jews” as their spiritual older brothers and to sympathize with their kin accordingly. The state of Israel is believed by evangelicals to be a prerequisite of the return of the Christian God-King, to support said state is to support the divine manifestation of God Himself. How does white supremacism fit into this equation at all? What kind of white supremacist supports the continued existence of Israel? As we have seen, it is much less of a leap of logic to conclude that it is not white supremacy that motivates Bush and Company to support Israel, but their Christian Elitism.

The final piece of the argument you endorsed on Wednesday night was that the corporate capitalists of this country are white supremacists. I believe you even agreed with the fanciful description of multi-million dollar homes in which rich white people were serviced by their underpaid illegal immigrants. If you agree with this association, I argue you are much more in agreement with social Marxism, which states that it is rich whites that keep the races distinct for their own enrichment, and that, should the races unite, the white corporate capitalist pigs will be thrown down from their high places. But if we can accept that open immigration is supported in the country by concepts of Christian brotherhood, that our history of slavery in the United states was a conflict of religious interpretation, and that our current support of Israel comes from the Christian love affair with Israel and millennialism, we have all the components necessary to defeat the final assertion of the argument that white supremacy is the source of America’s woes, that corporate capitalism is white supremacy. In as much as slavery, immigration, and support for Israel are tied up in Christian sentiment, the wealthy in this country will direct their money to those ends. In other words, if we can accept that slavery, immigration, and support for Israel are not contingent on white supremacy but instead on Christian Elitism, than the direction of wealth into those ills is seen not as a similar ill, nor the driving force of those ills, but the natural outcome of the desire to perpetuate those ills. And we realize now that the rich, so-called white family, living in their mansion with their underpaid mestizo laborers do not go to a white power rally on Sunday, but to their neighborhood mega-church.

I will go further with this analogy. That multi-millionaire white family believes that they do not need to preserve the earth’s ecology because they are the last generation before the earth will be consumed by fire. They don’t feel the need to worry about illegal immigration, because they believe they will be raptured away before any final (race) war breaks out. They don’t care that Israeli’s are slaughtering Palestinians because they need the State of Israel and Armageddon for their God-King to return. They don’t feel conflicted about their vast wealth because they believe God has rewarded them financially for their faith in Him. And that family could have just as easily been of any race or ethnicity or background, as long as they accept the preeminence of Christian Elitism - as with half of the Bush Cabinet: Rice (and formerly Powell), Jackson, Gutierrez, Gonzales, and Chao.

Bush and Company are clearly Christian Elitists; they believe they have a divine mission to shape this Earth according to their ideas of what God wants manifest. Such a view is an incredibly more sensible causative agent for policies of mass immigration, foreign interventionism, and support for the state of Israel than white supremacy is! To label them white supremacist positions completely contravenes logic and smacks of a psychologically-induced immunological response that equates white supremacy to everything else that our Western culture now views as bad. It may be likened to the hysterical involuntary reaction one gets to Nazism, the Holocaust, the Klan, and to things that are even innocuously White in general; these things are bad because we are told so and we don’t need to think to know that they are bad!

I strongly urge you and others in our movement who express disdain for white supremacy to question the origin of that impulse. I believe you have been manipulated by anti-racist, religiously inspired moral condemnation of the phrase. The propaganda of our opposition urges instinctual condemnation of white supremacy as bad, just as it does every other word they can think of that follows the word White. The only bad words we should accept in our movement to follow the word White are race traitor. The concept of the White race traitor does not emerge from outside our movement, as those who have left our fold are considered by our enemies to have been cured. White race traitor is the only acceptable criticism of a white person that everyone in the movement will be able to heartily agree upon and that does not originate outside of us.

No matter how one comes to the pro-white movement or how one approaches the solution to our woes, not one of us should be disparaged for our beliefs as long as we have the interest of White people as our primary motivation. If you and others in our movement continue to believe you are not superior to non-whites, I will accept our disagreement and still admire your dedication to white separatism. Personally, I believe whites are superior to non-whites and that the only outcome that will ensure the survival of our race and a future for superior white children is a world without inferior non-whites. To capitulate in any way with our lesser is to prolong the inevitable and leave our race vulnerable to extinction.

Best Regards,
Adrean Arlott, Compulsory Diversity News

No comments:

Post a Comment