”Portrait of the Artist’s Family” – Edward Burne-Jones
1,572 words
Many racially conscious whites of my personal acquaintance have no hope at all of their race regaining any real influence—much less control—of any aspect of American life: political, legal, religious, social, cultural. Some believe we can never even aspire to a seat at the table of power along with the Negroes, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, feminists, labor unions, corporate plunderers, Jews, Muslims, illegal aliens, socialists, pornographers, “free-traders,” environmentalist fanatics, animal-loving lunatics, the education cabal, the “disabled,” the professional “poor,” atheists, “humanist” clerics, crooked law enforcers, government bureaucrats, venal politicians, activist judges, and the myriad other enemies, traitors and bleeding-heart weaklings that today run what used to be “our” country.
My friends have a litany of excuses why we would be foolish even to dream of power, much less actually attempt to take back a modicum of influence: We have no money. Our “man on the white horse” has not arrived. Our enemies are too powerful. Our families might suffer. Our lifestyles might suffer. Our people are too deracinated, dispossessed and dispirited. The government will not allow us to speak or act. The courts will stop us. We would be impoverished . . . jailed . . . killed.
Even worse than all of that—we would be called “racists” by the media, and people would whisper about us behind our backs!
Far from being an optimist myself, I readily admit that things look pretty bleak. As a group, we have fallen in just two generations from undisputed ruler of the world to being trod underfoot by the very Third World masses we viewed then as literal nonentities.
But it’s time to take another look at our prospects. First let us compare our current wretched state with that of another group whose prospects were even bleaker within our own lifetimes—a group that is now on the verge of accomplishing something that has never been seriously contemplated in the history of mankind.
Organized homosexuals have already made same-sex marriage a reality in several nations and the People’s Republics of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, and are poised to force this bitter pill down the throats of the rest of America, despite the opposition of at least 70 percent of this nation’s inhabitants. This is the very definition of power! The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education is a veritable footnote in contrast. Even the establishment of the State of Israel over the bodies of that land’s rightful owners pales by comparison.
The “gay rights” movement’s beginnings were truly humble. In 1961, Dr. Frank Kameny of Washington, D.C., founded an activist local chapter of the low-key Mattachine Society, devoted to achieving full equality for homosexuals. Kameny dared to write letters to members of Congress, introducing his organization and offering to meet with them and discuss its goals.
Rep. Paul C. Jones (D-MO) responded frankly: “I am unalterably opposed to your proposal and cannot see how any person in his right mind can condone the practices which you would justify. Please do not contaminate my mail with such filthy trash.” Rep. Charles Chamberlain (R-MI) wrote: “Your letter of August 28 has been received, and in reply may I state unequivocally that in all my six years of service in the United States Congress I have not received such a revolting communication.” Could a reasonable pro-white organization really expect a worse response than this?
In a 1963 letter, the American Psychiatric Association refused to meet with Kameny or to “publicize your meetings.” But barely a decade later, the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of “disorders,” one of the first great victories on the “gay” path to power. Also in 1963, Kameny was invited to testify before a House committee on a bill to revoke his group’s status as a nonprofit entity—due entirely to the nature of its cause. (The bill did not pass.)
In a 1965 letter, Vice President Hubert Humphrey advised that federal civil rights laws were not “relevant to the problems of homosexuals.” Kameny’s correspondence and other papers were donated a few years ago to the Library of Congress, which eagerly accepted them.
In April 1965, a group of homosexuals picketed the White House to protest “discrimination” against them. There is film footage of then-Secretary of State Dean Rusk at a White House briefing, making a snickering mention of the event going on outside and evoking hoots of laughter from government officials and newsmen alike. Although the media demonstrably knew of the event, the only press mention it received at the time was in the Washington Afro-American newspaper.
Nobody in power insults or laughs at the homosexual lobby today, and no important media outlet refuses to cover its activities.
How did this group—even smaller and more universally despised then than whites are today—even more severely handicapped by laws, regulations, custom, and violence than we are today—manage to attain such overwhelming power within little more than a generation?
First and most obviously, they believed in themselves and their cause. Although their goals must have seemed like fairy tales (no pun intended—really!) at the time, these people were serious enough to take tremendous risks with their careers—and their very lives, to make the financial sacrifices necessary to fund their movement, to persevere despite the virtually unanimous condemnation and disgust of every important sector of society: religious leaders, media outlets, the psychiatric community, businesses, government officials, politicians and judges at all levels throughout the nation, as well as many of their own family members and friends.
It may sound almost juvenile, but they took Margaret Mead’s flawed aphorism to heart: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” (The fatuousness of the quote, of course, is proven by the world-changing reigns of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, the heirs of Mohammed, and others who hardly fit her goody-goody description.)
Most of all, the homosexuals refused to take no for an answer. They refused to surrender under the slings and arrows of their enemies. Setbacks made them redouble their efforts. Gradually, one small victory at a time, they achieved the incredibly powerful position they enjoy today.
By contrast, whites have generally seemed almost eager to surrender before the fight starts. The “massive resistance” promised to combat school integration—one of the earliest and most powerful blows to white dominance—turned out to be a farce, led by political traitors who vowed during elections to fight the federal government, but who betrayed their followers by capitulating abjectly once in office. Some, like Ernest Vandiver of Georgia and George Wallace of Alabama, went so far as to carry out symbolic charades in an effort to preserve their political viability, but not a single one had the stomach to actually defend the rights of his state and its inhabitants. Their followers meekly caved in and retreated along with the leaders.
The vehemence and universality of media condemnation, the fear of lawsuits, criminal prosecution, tax audits, actual violence, and “what people will think” have kept almost all but the most marginal of our people from speaking out during four decades of assaults on whites—and especially on white males. (Wasn’t it a master-stroke to divide whites by making women an official “minority,” thereby giving them a stake in white male degradation?)
Nearly every large city today has a homosexual newspaper, and many are incredibly large and profitable; pro-white publications can be counted on the fingers of both hands, and profitable ones are non-existent. There are thousands of nonprofit homosexual groups, political action committees, lobbying, legal, and “civil rights” organizations; there is not a single national group that seriously attempts to advance or defend white interests. Every year there are headlines boasting of more open homosexuals being elected to Congress, state legislatures, and local offices; no politician seriously seeking office will even mention his whiteness—except when he is apologizing for it. No politician rejects out of hand the support of homosexuals; not a single pol dares openly court the “white vote.”
“It’s all well and good for homosexuals to go public in their cause,” I hear my readers thinking at this point, “because they had nothing to lose. But I have a family, and a job, and responsibilities. I just can’t take the risk of being a white activist.”
Au contraire, my dispossessed and dispirited friends! Granted that the “gay liberation” movement was at bottom utterly selfish on the part of its participants, it did cost many their families—parents, brothers, sisters, even wives, husbands, and children—as well as their reputations, careers, livelihoods, and, in some instances, their lives.
In this case, your family—your children and their offspring—are the very reason you must take the risks necessary to re-assert the rights and, eventually, the dominance of the white race. Our crusade is not a selfish one, but the natural, age-old, selfless impulse to make life better for our children than it was for us. The fear and terror that modern society has deliberately created to keep our people in subjugation is unquestionably daunting, and it is easy to understand how many whites simply cannot believe success is possible—but none of this can be an excuse not even to try!
Are whites not, as a group, just as talented, resourceful, inspirational and creative as the homosexuals of 1961? Can we not match them in faith, dedication, determination, and the spirit of self-sacrifice? If we are not, and if we cannot, then we deserve to lie forgotten and unmourned in the dustbin of history.
TOQ Online, April 20, 2009
5 comments
Obviously more needs to be shown than merely that other identity groups organize and that we have a high level of objective merit, skill, intelligence, etc. It needs to be shown that we have numbers that will in fact stand and deliver. No one can decisively show that, so it makes sense that not every racially conscious white be automatically on board with a racially-rooted movement and idea.
Evan,
What “numbers” are you talking about? Number of followers? Number of IQ points? Number of activists? Number of meritorious qualities that deserve preservation?
Yeah, numbers of people. Whites with backbone need to exist and be heard in numbers.
Doug,
You disregard one very powerful ally that the homosexuals had in their fight: the media. What do you imagine would have been the result of their efforts without this heavy weight in their corner? I think William L. Pierce described very powerfully and clearly the problem in his essay “Individualism and Alienation” from which the following is exerpted:
I don’t see the homosexual and white racial movements as being comparable. Homosexuality post-1933, and even before (especially in England), was solidly grounded in elite culture and prevailing political correctness at top levels. That makes a huge difference.
Homosexuals weren’t out of the closet in the 1960s to the extent they are now, but they were nevertheless plentiful among American, British, German, and other elites throughout the 20th century, and even the 19th. They occupied top-level positions in the arts, Hollywood, Washington, London, and elsewhere. They have always been useful to Jews as a battering ram against white society, and have been protected for that reason as well.
George Wallace, a fascinating political animal and elemental force of nature, was no revolutionary. (Also, he was philo-Semitic). Yet, until 1968 at least, I have no doubt that his path was far more difficult and dangerous—indeed, a few orders of magnitude more so—than that of the homosexuals. He was crippled and subjected to enormous pain for the rest of his life by an enigmatic assassin who intended to kill him and came within a whisker of succeeding. That put an end to his crusade.
Whites have little to learn from homosexuals. In fact, apart from minor (but still useful and instructive) points, there is no genuinely useful historical analogue to the white experience except for the Whites in Russia and subsequently the White Russian diaspora, various other anti-Communist forces and movements, and, of course, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Central Europe for a couple of decades in the 20th century.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.