On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Wade Michael Page, a racist skinhead, opened fire at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee, killing six worshipers and wounding three others. It is a terrible act, and I wish it had never happened. But why did it happen? We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but I can say three things with confidence.
First, if the Sikhs had not been in America, Page could not have killed them. As far as I know, when I was born, there were no Sikhs in America at all, much less whole Sikh communities and Sikh temples. When I was a kid, Sikhs were an exotic people I read about in National Geographic who worshiped at a golden temple in the Punjab, not in the suburbs of Milwaukee.
I am not blaming the victims, mind you. I am sure that they were decent people who came to the United States to better themselves and their families. No, I blame the people who brought them here: the creators and sustainers of non-white immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity.
I have nothing personal against Sikhs. Of all the non-European ethnic groups in America, I find Hindus and Sikhs to be the most agreeable. When I was in India, Sikhs were always the most reliable and honest cab drivers. When I lived in Berkeley, Muslim cab drivers would refuse to transport my dog, so I would specifically request non-Muslim cab drivers . . . and the company would send Sikhs. Their cabs were decorated in colorful anti-Muslim and Sikh nationalist slogans. Obviously, there’s a ticking time bomb in Berkeley’s much-celebrated diversity. One day, swords will be drawn and towel-heads will roll.
This brings us to the reason why Sikhs do not belong in America: they add to the racial, ethnic, and religious diversity that is our greatest weakness and source of social problems. Before 1965, America’s biggest problem was the racial diversity of whites, blacks, Amerindians, East Asians, Jews, and other people from the Near East.
This diversity caused friction, which at best wore away racial, cultural, and religious differences. At worst, these tensions gave rise to distrust, alienation, hatred, violence, and social upheaval. After 1965, America opened its doors to the rest of the world, enormously compounding the diversity problem. The Sikh temple massacre is just one of the dividends of out-of-control diversity, and there will be many more to come.
This is why the North American New Right advocates the creation of racially and ethnically homogeneous homelands for all peoples. We believe that it is best for all peoples to have their own homelands where they can live according to their distinct racial, ethnic, and religious identities, free of the destructive forces of diversity.
In the case of recent immigrant populations, the best solution is for them to return to their homelands. I also think that is the best solution for groups like Jews, Japanese, and Chinese who have been in America for a long time but still maintain strong ties to their homelands. In the case of indigenous peoples and some older immigrant populations (including the descendants of African slaves), territorial partition would seem to be in order.
Second, the easiest and most comforting explanation for such a rampage is that the shooter is “crazy.” This may well be the case. There is no shortage of crazy people in the White Nationalist subculture. It is all too tempting and easy to simply disown Page and label him “one of them”: one of those evil, crazy racists who are fundamentally different from the rest of us, the “good,” “sane,” “tolerant” people. But the truth is, Wade Michael Page was “one of us.”
By “one of us,” I simply mean that he was a white man, and all white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even the multi-culty Kool-Aid drinkers who pursue status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.
Page and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Page may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Page at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
Third, Page’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people then dying in a gun battle with the police — is a product of what I call “Old Right” thinking. By the Old Right, I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. The skinhead subculture to which Page belonged is a hotbed of Old Right thinking, rife with fantasies of race war, lone wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from the skinhead movement and other contemporary “Old Right” tendencies. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.
This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.
Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.
Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence. Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way, and we don’t have to all be rocket scientists to do it, since anyone of even moderate intelligence can make real progress by simply repeating Bob Whitaker’s talking points.
Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not innocent immigrants. Moreover, killing innocent people (and at a place of worship!) has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for immigrants. (Even I feel sympathy for them, and I would deport them tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose gun rights must be taken away.
So Page’s choice of targets was superficial and frankly stupid. Was he even thinking about the larger good of his people? Or was he merely indulging in blind, self-destructive spite? How exactly does behaving like repugnant maniacs help White Nationalists establish ourselves as representatives of the long-term best interests of our people?
I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and a propensity to wildcat violence and rigorously screen out such people, and (2) we need draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches.
I just hope I don’t have to do this often.
Is Nicki Minaj Super Bass-ed?
Pope Francis, Enemy of Whites
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 370 Greg Johnson, Mark Gullick, & Stephen Paul Foster Ponder The Deep Questions
A White Nationalist Take on 9/11
Remembering D. H. Lawrence:
September 11, 1885–March 2, 1930
Le Nationalisme Blanc est-il haineux ?
The Counter-Currents 9/11 Symposium
Bobby Fischer & 9/11