His dream was that the NA would produce Hollywood quality movies (or at least film student quality movies) without the Hollywood content. Then we would distribute them over the internet. Of course he didn’t think that this was the ultimate goal of the NA, but he saw this as a realistic goal that could be achieved in the next several years if the then good growth of the NA continued and technology continued to be improved.

He thought we were still in a propaganda stage (using “propaganda” non-pejoratively of course, NOT as meaning lies; more as information meant to persuade; and the truth is totally our friend here). He wanted to strengthen the NA, and of course build a core group who could carry on the NA and expand the NA, but he thought that more people had to be reached, so that truly quality people could be found.

My point with the “remembering what White America was like,” “lets compare White and non-White areas”, and “how I became racially aware” was that these topics seem to really interest people. They can make good propaganda. And they would be fairly easy to do in writing, talk, or film. But if they do not appeal to you, they are not for you. Generally, if you found something which helped to make you pro-White, it will help other people too. Going with what interests you most and what you have the most knowledge of is a good idea.

In addition to making good propaganda (saying “building our own media” probably sounds better and would include distribution in addition to production), noting which people are reliable and which are not, and which people generally help, and which generally cause problems is extremely important. (Trite, but true.) These things are how we begin from where we are today.

P.S.: Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to decide that making pro-White movies is a good idea. It wouldn’t even take “a great leader” to do it. It would only take group a capable people under a good (meaning talented, reliable and HONEST) organizer. I think Dr. Pierce could have found an organizer and capable people if he had lived longer.

P.P.S.: My main point is that “what do we do?” can best be answered with we start with where we are now, do the best that we can, and set realistic short-term goals. Movie making is not possible for me (or, I think for you). Your podcasting on whatever topics strike you as best is very good goal.

“Here in America, we have a very difficult time figuring how to create a “White nation,” or even to visualize one. How many people are even thinking along those lines?”

People of a “certain age” (at least in many parts of the U.S.) can visualize a White America very well as we used to live in one! It wasn’t all White, and it was still under Jewish control, but to the more free-thinking people of this age group, it should be clear that a White nation is much more desirable than a non-White nation. I would not try to convince those who cannot see this that it is true anymore than I would try to teach my cat Algebra. I would spend my efforts on getting those who DO see it, first of all to admit it to themselves, and then to be willing to say it to others.

By creating or visualizing, I mean from where we are today. Yes, I can remember how it was, but where do we start in changing it back to that?!! I guess you are saying the way is to build our core group which is what we believe at The White Network. I wish William Pierce would come back to life in some form. 🙂

Well, if I think of White Nationalism as keeping white nations white, then I can grasp it. To be a White Nationalist is to want all traditionally European or Aryan, or European-settled, homelands to remain or return to being all White, then it makes perfect sense.

I agree in principle with that definition.

However, merely wanting something to remain, or return to it’s previous status, is not really enough though, is it?

To be a genuine White Nationalist with integrity, one must, I believe, actively engage in productive work for the advancement of the White Race –the White Nation.

I know you like your definitions to be stringent, Carolyn, so I hope you appreciate this small clarification.

As is the case with any terms, however, and as you surely already know, there are broad and narrow definitions of the term “White Nationalist”.

The broadest possible definition probably encompasses anyone with a vague sense of passively belonging to the White Race.

The most narrow definition probably refers only to a tiny and dispersed group of 100% pure Aryans who dedicate the entirety of their waking hours to the establishment of a global White super-nation.

The maneuverability between those extreme poles of definition gives White racialists of varying stages of personal and political engagement the room to find their own appropriate niche within White Nationalism.

I have been pretty much “retired” since the NA broke up, so I really do not know. Back in the day, such people existed on the internet — in “real life” not so much. 😉 Are things different now? I can’t say.

If I was you, I would not worry about what other people call themselves or what their ideas are. Since, as far as I know, there is not a major, quality, active pro-White organization currently (NS or non-NS) I think you are perfectly free to decide what your own ideas are and then to decide by which name to call them. If you are good at doing this, your ideas and your nomenclature will prevail.

“Here in America, we have a very difficult time figuring how to create a “White nation,” or even to visualize one. How many people are even thinking along those lines?”

People of a “certain age” (at least in many parts of the U.S.) can visualize a White America very well as we used to live in one! It wasn’t all White, and it was still under Jewish control, but to the more free-thinking people of this age group, it should be clear that a White nation is much more desirable than a non-White nation. I would not try to convince those who cannot see this that it is true anymore than I would try to teach my cat Algebra. I would spend my efforts on getting those who DO see it, first of all to admit it to themselves, and then to be willing to say it to others.

Younger people may not have ever experienced a White America, but they may have seen how poorly they are treated in multi-culti America. I would encourage the racially aware to read history and talk to older people and encourage the less racially aware to think in a pro-White manner (or even a less anti-White manner). You could talk about how Whiter areas of Texas differ from Mexican areas of Texas for example. “How I became racially aware” is also an interesting topic for many people.

“What do you think of Frank DeSilva?”

Frankly, I have never read anything of any length by him. His style just doesn’t appeal to me. I am sure I would have devoured it when I was becoming first waking up however, if I had encountered it then. Not having read him, I can’t really comment on his ideas. I could analyze what he said in the short quote above, but what would be the point? I am sure you can do that for yourself and also decide if reading more by him would be inspiring or informative for you.

As for how a White country is to be created: I would totally leave that one alone! The first step is obviously to get enough people of the right sort to decide that this is what MUST be done. Who knows what conditions will exist when this step is accomplished? So how can a “how” be decided? Jews are always trying to distract White Nationalists (for the lack of a better term) by asking a thousand “how” questions, or by bringing up a thousand heart-string pulling examples. What about the 1/4 Japanese, 3/4 White girl with blonde hair and blue eyes? Would she fit in your White nation? How would you move all those people? Are you going to use violence — are you totally denouncing violence? What about this? What about that? What about these 500 other things?

There is no reason at all to go there. If you said you were planning to visit Yosemite in a couple years, but you have to wait till you have more vacation time and you want to save up some extra money, would anyone ask you what airline you are taking? You do not know if you are taking a plane and renting a car or driving your own car. You do not know if you will be staying in a tent or staying in the Ahwahnee Hotel. This will all depend on future conditions. The same is obviously even more true for a establishing a White American nation. For now we can discuss the “why” and, more generally, the “what” but we cannot discuss the “how” because that would be useless speculation.

“According to your description, David Duke would today fit White Advocate … no?”

Again, no current information. But back in the day, how David Duke presented himself depended a lot on what group of people he was addressing! 😉 I think a consistent, honest message is best.

Sorry for the length of this; and again, excuse the spelling and grammar.

Here in America, we have a very difficult time figuring how to create a “White nation,” or even to visualize one. How many people are even thinking along those lines? What do you think of Frank DeSilva?

You’re quite right about White Advocate, so I should stop using that. But it’s a good term to use with people who are not White Nationalists and would be turned off by the word. 🙂 According to your description, David Duke would today fit White Advocate … no?

Well said.

“Nation” used to be used as another name for “race” or “ethnic group”. Even in the public schools, I was taught that “nation” meant a people and “country” meant an area of land (usually with one government). We were told that a country might contain many nations and that a nation might not have a country. We were even told that a country with many nations was almost sure to be dominated by one nation with the others being treated badly — or it would be unstable with the various nations competing for dominance.

So the term “White Nationalist” always seemed natural to me. I was surprised to hear Carolyn say she didn’t understand it. [I was also surprised by Richard’s (too me) overly complex definition.] To me, what I learned in a regular California public school in the 1960’s and 1970’s meshed perfectly well with the slogan, “my race is my nation.”

It might theoretically be preferable to be able to call oneself an “American Nationalist” with the “White” implied, just as “White” is implied when someone calls himself a German Nationalist or a British Nationalist. But Americans have been brainwashed for so long to believe that anyone living in the U.S. is an American, that this is impossible without confusion. So I call myself a “White Nationalist” with “American” implied.

I do not really think it matters what one calls oneself as long as one is working for White interests.

Here is the definition of “nation” from dictionary.com:
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
2. the territory or country itself: the nations of Central America.
3. a member tribe of an American Indian confederation.
4. an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

This is more PC than what one would find in an older dictionary, (where #4 would be higher up and race in addition to language would be emphasized), but you can see that the definition of “nation” as almost meaning “ethnic group” still stands.

By saying that I am a White Nationalist I think I am pointing out this old definition of “nation” and saying that my ethnic group needs its own country and needs to be in charge of its own fate.

(Sorry for any spelling or grammar errors in this.)

It refers to a nation without borders, you could say (the Basque, for instance, or the Saami also maintain their national and cultural identity, but are still denied officially recognized statehood).

A nation that each loyalist carries with him or her, wherever he or she may tread upon this Earth.
Sounds romantic, I know, but it’s true nonetheless.

If it was called “white nation-statism” or “white countryism“, then you would have a point asking about the geographic location, but since the term refers specifically to white nationality, and thus to the racial; ethnic element, rather than statehood or territory, the term makes perfect sense.

O.R.I.O.N. = Our Race Is Our Nation.

Please note: this obviously does not mean that we should ever refrain from pursuing concrete political objectives in order to establish territorially demarcated states based exclusively upon White ethnicity and culture.

But the flexibility and global open-endedness of O.R.I.O.N. and W.N. could prove politically advantageous.
We’re deep into the 21st century and the rules of the game are: there are no rules. Keep ’em guessing. Don’t define yourself into a corner, Carolyn.