Swimming in Our Enemies

The Engelman controversy has been interesting. Not since watching Busby Berkeley’s Babes on Broadway (1941) have I seen so many knees jerk in unison. The hatred of Engelman, a poor soul who is driven to live his life on comment boards, is clearly palpable, like an open wound or a grisly, throbbing case of butt hurt.

Let me make my own position clear with regards to the now notorious article I published. I knew Engelman was a rather irritating Semitophile, but from what I saw he managed to conduct himself without resorting to crude or abusive language. I guess he didn’t need to. Just being Semito-friendly would be enough to yank quite a few chains in the Alt-Right. I knew all this and more, but allowed Engelman to continue posting comments because banning someone purely on the basis of their ideas is not something I tend to believe in. For one thing, it reveals a certain amount of fear.

Later when he contacted me through Gilbert Cavanaugh, someone who has written for us in the past, I decided to treat him as I would any other writer and disregard anything he may or may not have said elsewhere on the internet and just judge any submission on its merits. The second piece submitted What Will the Future Be Like? was reasonably interesting, so I decided “what the heck...”

I suspected that this would get the reaction it did get, and I felt that this reaction, more than the article itself, would prove to be more significant and interesting.

What I noticed first of all among the comments was something that I tend to associate with liberals, something I would describe as humourless, droning, brittle outrage. For the person involved, the mere fact that something has happened, been said, or allowed trumps everything else. In that instant the world has stopped turning and been remade. Nothing can ever be the same again. The glass has shattered. The dream is broken. A Manichean struggle has ensued. But why take my word for it? Here’s one of our readers batting down a newbie who was asking what all the fuss was about:

You must be new here. The rest of us have had to suffer through years of American Renaissance allowing Engelman to completely dominate threads at their forum with his anti-white, pro-Asian, pro-Jewish posts. He believes that Asians and Jews are superior to Whites and have a right to colonize White homelands and dominate over Whites. You do think this is OK?

Also:

For fuck's sake, we're surrounded and bombarded 24/7 by anti-whites in the media and we are forced to keep our mouths shut and walk on eggshells about our own dispossession lest we lose our jobs. The only refuge we have is on the Internet, on the FEW sites that supposedly that are pro-white news or issues site. But what happens when we go to American Renaissance? We are bombarded there by a senseless, uneducated anti-white who constantly tells us he can't wait for Asians to be our overlords, we cannot possibly hope to compete with Jews or Asians, that America is a "proposition nation" that should welcome non-whites into our lands. His posts are never touched but ours are removed regularly proving he is one of their mods.

Notice the flagrant adoption of the 'stations of the cross' of the perpetual victim: "suffer through years," "surrounded and bombarded," "the only refuge we have," etc. Personally, when people talk about being surrounded by enemies, I tend to think of the famous quote by the Spartan Dienekes about having shade to fight in. As for Engelman, I think it is highly unlikely that he is one of the moderators at American Renaissance. It is much more likely that he simply sticks rigorously to the code of conduct for commenters, whilst those who take issue with him infringe it because they let their emotions get the better of them.

Avoiding sunstroke.

This is partly because Jared Taylor is trying very, very hard to avoid the Jewish question. Naturally I disagree with this, but I can understand why Taylor wishes to do so, as the Jewish Question has become a kind of lightning rod for a lot of angst and rage in our society that does not have the time, sophistication, or emotional equilibrium to attain to a more complex understanding of the challenges of modernity.

Further down the same thread the same commenter, who goes by the name of Juggernaut3000, gives us additional insight into how he feels. This rather confirms my view of why Engleman is less deleted than his foes:

Being rude is OK...when it comes to standing up for your race - especially when that race, the White race, is facing genocide. Our enemies deserve far more than rudeness from us, they deserve nothing less than to be eliminated for implementing a world wide genocide against us.

Juggernaut3000 really reveals himself in this comment. His tone and style reminds me of nothing so much as your average agitated Leftist. Just as the Leftist will claim terrible oppression because sexually ambiguous people are forced to use gendered pronouns and Black people are not given money because of history, so Juggernaut3000 has his own deep fount of inexhaustible moral outrage.

But am I being flippant? Yes and no. On the yes side, White genocide is happening in the sense that Whites are demographically sliding into minority status in a number of their key homelands, and, yes, there is definitely a Jewish component to this, with Jewish groups and Jewish media having a long history of pushing for a globalized, open borders world that threatens the continuing existence of the White race.

This is all known and can be taken for read by any frequenter of this site and the other websites, like Counter-Currents, Radix, and The Occidental Observer, which form part of the Dissident Right.

Andy and his world famous nostrils.

But we also have to live with the fact that our genocide does not involve anybody shoving us at bayonet point into gas chambers or burying us alive in quicklime. The Jews might be able to favour a particular message with their media and money power – and they clearly do so – but it has to be faced that it is a message that we White people have full veto rights on, yet, collectively and in the mass, we do little to stop it.

In Andy’s follow-up Vblog there was another typical comment (or mantra) that is frequently invoked in our comment threads:

"That which is not specifically for our people, turns against our people with time."

Give me a dollar for every time I've seen that. Yes, there is some truth in it in a George-W-Bush-9-11 sort of way, except that the subject of the sentence – "our people" – is deeply problematic, because a great part of our people, in fact the vast majority, is not at all specifically for "our people."

When is fear paranoia, and when is genocide suicide, and who in fact is the White race? Can there even be a White race without a racial consciousness that extends beyond a few thousand outcasts forced to use aliases? And if there is not such a race then what is the whole point of basing a nationalism on it?

The condition of White nationalism in the early 21st century is bedevilled by paradoxes, complexities, and contradictions, which partially explains why loading the entire burden onto the back of the Jew is so attractive for some – but doing so is like listening to half a telephone conversation. You are liable to misconstrue.

One of the main paradoxes is that we are like the proverbial priest trying to save the agnostic alcoholic from ending up in the canal. Our attentions, no matter how laudable, are not wanted. The White race has effectively told us to "bugger off" and has headed straight for the nearest ideological off-licence to drown his consciousness. Nor is the day at hand when we can ensure our survival by creating racially conscious communities. Unless you are prepared to isolate yourself from friends and family and go live as part of some transitory cult, probably headed by a manipulative sociopath, that is simply not an option.

In fact, the point at which independent White communities become feasible would also be the point at which we would stand a chance of winning the greater struggle, by which I mean a widespread nationalist awakening. To then ghettoize ourselves at that point would be self defeating, removing the catalyst at the point of reaction – yet another of the great paradoxes of White nationalism.

For White nationalists, the White race’s continued somnambulism is deeply dispiriting and painful. Many of us instinctively feel that if we can’t achieve a White homeland in reality, we can at least do it virtually, by selecting and deleting particular Facebook friends, patronizing only the most out-and-out purist websites, and buying a lot of books we later fail to read.

The Daily Stormer, which I have described in the past as being effectively a Jewish Surpremacist site, certainly understands how to turn the butt hurt of White nationalists to its own account. But just as actual ghettoizing makes us impotent and separates us from the only true hope of the White race – the Great Awakening – so virtual self-ghettoizing has a similar effect.

To keep our intellectual vigour and, more importantly our ability to transmit our own ideological insomnia to our target group, we need to constantly keep our friends near and our enemies nearer still.

In the 1930s, everyone’s favourite Chinese despot Mao Zedong said that "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." This is typical of the cowardice of communists, hiding behind innocent women and children to commit their acts of atrocity. This is not the way of proud nationalists, nor is it even possible as most of our people still oppose us. For us there is only one option available: Swimming among our enemies.

What does this mean? First, it means that we must not isolate ourselves by being drawn only to the most totemic and emotionally reassuring elements of White nationalism. But we must also not isolate ourselves intellectually by turning our forums and sites into echo chambers and comfort zones that can then be safely ignored. That is what the Liberal Left wants, because they know that if our ideas touch their ideas, their ideas die.

Alternative Right
2nd July, 2014