While it is true that the National Alliance doesn’t emphasize participation in the mass democratic political process, Mr. Kemp’s claim that the Alliance is committed to a “do-nothing” mentality is incorrect.

The worldview of the National Alliance – which, as Mr. Kemp implies, is largely the thought and work of William Pierce – looks askance on mass democracy because the Alliance’s worldview is based on the leadership principle, not on what we might call the “popularity principle.” The main reason for this is that, historically, progress and innovation have been brought into the world by individuals or minorities; by leaders. In other words, there have been only a comparatively few number of movers and shakers throughout history, and the masses have usually been dragged along with the flow of change by the scruffs of their necks.

In contrast to the leaders, the masses are largely incapable of deciding what is good or bad for them, especially in the long run. Their primary method of deciding what should be done in their own lives is to answer the question: “What will be most pleasurable – or least painful – for me right now?” That is, the masses seldom look beyond the present.

The main problems with mass democracy are threefold. For one, it asks the masses to understand complex problems involving nations, business and trade, healthcare, education, and so on. This, they are largely incapable of doing, and most ordinary people would candidly admit this fact, if queried.

Secondly, in mass democracy there is minimal accountability. With democracy and parliamentary government going hand in hand, democracy always has plenty of culprits at whom to point when a legislative decision goes awry. On the other hand, there are also lots of legislators willing to take credit when something turns out well. With the leadership principle, all praise and all blame rest with the leader; that is, there is accountability.

Thirdly, mass democracy gives the masses the illusion that, by voting, they are in control of their own government. This is a lie, in that no one who is merely fed all of the information he possesses is really in control. It is, instead, the feeders of the information who are really in control.

And this brings us to those who are the feeders of information in the United States. It has been pointed out by many patriots over many decades that Jews are the principle power brokers in the American media world. Because of this media power, this minority of Jews is largely able to manipulate the mass democratic process. True patriots who have run for political office have been so swamped with negative publicity that they haven’t stood a chance. Over the years, White patriots trying to run for political office have been let down time and again. George Lincoln Rockwell ran for governor of Virginia in the 1960s, to no avail. David Duke ran for Congress from the state of Louisiana in the 1990s, to no avail. Many other not-so-well-known White patriots have run and failed in both local and regional elections. The only thing these patriots gained were threats of violence, loss of a job, and an empty bank account. The Jewish media wouldn’t let White patriots get even a foot in the door of the accepted democratic process.

Even legislators who were simply too pro-American have been run out of politics. These are men who weren’t pro-White; they were pro-American, which is to say: anti-Israel. They didn’t mention much about non-White immigration and non-White welfare queens with their swarming broods. They just didn’t take kindly to Israel being a thankless ingrate to American generosity and being a bully to everyone else in the Middle East. Names like former Illinois Congressman Paul Findley and former Ohio Congressman James Traficant – men who spoke out against the power wielded by the Israeli lobby and its detrimental effect on American interests – come to mind. With the Jews controlling the media, mass democracy in the United States is an avenue that, until now, has been closed to White patriots.

Perhaps those times are changing. Perhaps, as Mr. Kemp suggests, it is time for what he calls a European-American Political Action Committee (EAPAC). We in the National Alliance are all for such a development, because it can only raise awareness of the worldwide plight of the White race. The National Alliance would give such an organization its full support while, at the same time, proceeding with our own outreach and organizational efforts.

But we are skeptical of its formation and its success. Who will fund it? Who will get it started? Unlike in smaller White countries – Britain, for example – the Jews cannot afford to let America walk away from Israel. And the Jews have too much power in the United States – media, political, economic – that they stand to lose a great deal if American mass democracy starts opening its doors to White patriots. The EAPAC is a fine idea, but its prospects don’t look bright.

Even if an EAPAC does form – and honestly, I hope it does – this doesn’t address our fundamental concerns about democracy itself. History has shown that large numbers of people have difficulty making informed decisions and/or having the will to implement them. What the White masses need is a leader, an organization, to point the way. That’s what we in the National Alliance – far from being “do-nothings” – are actively trying to be.

California: South Africa Revisited?
http://www.vdare.com/boethius/100113_california.htm

Agent Chameleon says: “And they[Blacks] never identified as American.”

I could say Americans never identified as British, except until I would say the 1760s or maybe a bit later Americans did identify as British.

During the civil war blacks never challenged the Confederate government, and while that is interpreted as passivity, it could also be interpreted as nationalism or patriotism. I would argue that blowing up the old south was not in the best interest of blacks just like blowing up Iraq was not in the best interest of Iraqi’s, and the blacks knew it just like the Iraqi’s did. Also worth noting is that after the civil war blacks mostly chose Anglo Saxon type names, often with a preference for notable American historic figures.

Without claiming to be an expert in self identification by blacks with America, it seems to start declining during the very racist Wilson administration and progressively gets worse. You might find the history of Sen. LeRoy Percy interesting on this point.

I short I would not compare race relations today with those of previous periods.

Luis Magno says: “Take Manifest Destiny, for example. It degenerated into an ethnicidal force against the Spanish Americans even as the genocide of the Amerindians and the slavery of the Africans were being phased out.”

I think this is a bit backwards. The Mexican war was in the 1850s and pushed the US to the pacific. Wiser men prevailed, unlike today, and the US withdrew rather quickly from Mexico proper. I personally am amazed at fast people got stuff done in those times given the communications systems. Slavery ends 1865. The Indian wars are mostly over by 1880s.

Take Manifest Destiny, for example. It degenerated into an ethnicidal force against the Spanish Americans even as the genocide of the Amerindians and the slavery of the Africans were being phased out. This ethnicidal dynamic is now directed against its Anglo-Saxon originators by a deceptive group of alien infiltrating usurpers.

While I agree with you that animosity directed towards black people is wrong and counter-productive (for one thing, I don’t see the point in discussing IQ differences), you must remember that even though blacks were in America during its early days, they were never viewed as American. And they never identified as American. They were foreigners stuck on another continent against their will for many centuries. They adhered to many African customs that don’t mesh with Anglo-Saxon American culture.

There were two attempts major attempts at incorporating blacks into the American identity. The first was in the Reconstruction era, where blacks secured citizenship (which was fair) but Reconstruction failed at Americanizing blacks. The second attempt was the civil rights movement, which succeeded in getting whites to view blacks as “fellow Americans” but it seems that blacks don’t see things the same way. Like it or not, blacks are very proud of their own identity and I don’t think they will ever give it up.

And why should they? If civic nationalism is taken to its logical conclusion prior to the 1965 immigration act, back when America was roughly 90% white and 10% black, whites would have inevitably absorbed blacks into the white American identity, and black Americans would cease to exist, due to higher numbers of whites and miscegenation. I don’t think blacks would want that, and I can understand why many seek to preserve their own ethnic distinction. It’s no surprise that black females are vehemently opposed to racial mixing.

That’s why a future sane American white nationalist movement will need to acknowledge the legitimacy of other nationalist causes, such as black nationalism, and support the existence of a black American nation, located somewhere in the “Black Belt” or other such places.

What makes you think white people in the US are not happy with the way things are going? Until the financial collapse everything was just dandy for them.

Unlike the UK whites and blacks founded the US together, like it or not. I do not see much hope in a whites only movement that is directed against blacks. It has not worked out in the past.