No sane practical White man will seriously consider a way out of his people’s demographic cultural and political dilemma so long as he is at least able to toy with the idea of achieving more by way of violence.
Fortunately, violence is unnecessary.
On Violence
by Gregg Johnson
On the question of violence, White Nationalists need to demand both moral strength and intellectual clarity from our leaders.
The Illegitimate Question of Violence
These reflections on violence were provoked by two events in January of 2011. First, there was the wholly spurious attempt to link American Renaissance to the January 8 killing spree of Jared Lee Loughner in Tuscon, Arizona. Second, there was the equally baseless attempt to link Harold Covington’s Northwest Front to the bomb placed along the Martin Luther King Day parade route in Spokane, Washington on January 17. The bomb was safely defused, and Kevin Harpham, who had no ties with Covington, was eventually arrested and convicted.
Jared Taylor’s response to the attack on American Renaissance was entirely appropriate. He pointed out that it had no basis in fact and that the characterizations of American Renaissance were incorrect. It was also appropriate for Harold Covington to respond to the attempts to smear him.
But I do not think it is appropriate for other White Nationalists to respond to such smears by protesting their own innocence and posting legalistic disclaimers of violence on their websites.
These White Nationalists condemn violence, of course, because they are aware of the state’s awesome power to inflict violence on us. They desire to deflect this violence by telling the state: “You’ve got nothing to fear from us. We’re cute, harmless little fuzzballs. We’re chumps who will scrupulously obey the laws concocted and enforced by the people who seek to exterminate us. We don’t think violence will ever be necessary to get our people off the path toward extinction. We think that genocidal anti-white policies are all just a hideous misunderstanding. We’re all men of good will here, our rulers included. We think that the people who put these policies in place will yield power someday if we just get our act together and vote them out. And of course if we ever got power, we would not dream of making them answer for their crimes. We’ll just shake their hands, like the good sports we are, and say ‘Good show old boy. Better luck at the polls next time.’”
When people in our movement are falsely smeared as linked to terrorism, our first instinct should be to defend those who are attacked by pointing out the speciousness or groundlessness of the claims and the blatant anti-white bias in the media and law enforcement.
If, however, one’s first instinct is to say “I am against all violence,” that smacks of throwing the accused under the bus and covering one’s own ass. Protesting your innocence when you have not been accused of anything also smacks of a guilty conscience, which subtly concedes the legitimacy of the attack. That’s not leadership.
Rather than getting defensive, leaders should counter-attack.
One should never allow the enemy to control how an event is framed. If you allow the question “Do White Nationalists advocate violence?” to be posed by the enemy, it does not matter what your answer is. We lose either way.
The proper response is to change the question, to reframe the issue, and to put the enemy on trial: “Why do the media and law enforcement have a bias against racially conscious white people, such that they will run unsubstantiated smears linking us to violence committed by leftists like Loughner or unknown parties like the Spokane bomber?”
Anything less smacks of moral weakness and uncertainty.
The Legitimate Question of Violence
Continue….