Yggdrasil Quibbles with Tom Lathrop
From: email@example.com (Tom Lathrop)
Subject: Re: Yggdrasil Quibbles with Tom Lathrop
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 04:00:42 GMT
Yggdrasil asked me some questions last February, and I wrote up the following answers, but never posted them. Because of last week's bombing in Oklahoma city (which has left me quite shaken) I want to post them now. They include some first thoughts on "the problem of extremism" as it affects white nationalism. Until last week I considered the extremists to be a highly embarrassing but basically impotent sideshow, and I had no idea how dangerous or how stupid they could be. I now think they represent the single greatest problem the white nationalist movement faces, and quite frankly I hope the government infiltrates the hell out of them. If you can't do it above ground you shouldn't be doing it!!!
Anyway, let's see if I can provoke some intelligent discussion here. I have a feeling some of you are not going to like what I have to say.
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tommy the Tourist (Anon User) <email@example.com> wrote:
'I fear I must quibble with a statement you made in a recent post. While making a worthwhile and important point, namely:
'The word racist can have yet another meaning. It can mean someone who commits violent acts against members of other races, simply because of their race. This is entirely unacceptable.
'You then follow with what I would consider an overstatement:
'Lathrop: "I am not willing to participate in a race war, and if that is what is necessary to preserve the separate identity of my people then I will simply concede defeat."
'If I may be so bold, I believe you meant to say that you are not willing to do anything to _initiate_ or _provoke_ a race war.'
Pretty much. I am not a pacifist, and if conflict were unavoidable I would most likely end up fighting on the side of the whites. But not necessarily. If white people were marching blacks off to death camps I would fight against that, even against my own people. Some solutions are simply unacceptable, period.
'Indeed I am in solid agreement with the sentiment that our _initiatives_ must all be peaceful. That is the reason for the extensive discussion of secession as a means of avoiding the conflict that accompanies more aggressive options such as forcible expulsion or outright slaughter (which we witness with increasing frequency in other parts of the world.)
'But I must confess I am mildly offended :) that you have not yet absorbed the full meaning of Yggdrasil's Lesson #2, which is that if you live in a multi-racial empire like the United States, then there is a high probability that race war will, sooner or later, find _you_ whether _you_ initiate it or not.'
Perhaps. But I have my doubts about the long term workability of separatism. I am not yet ready to give up the land our ancestors won for us. I am not yet willing to withdraw to one small segment of North America and watch the rest be flooded by the Third World. And I am afraid that, even if such a solution were arranged (and the odds against that right now seem staggering), in the long run a separate white state would not be able to hold out against the pressure of the Third World on it's very doorstep. I think it would be more productive to try to reverse the trends that are working against us. I think our main goals should be to stop Third World immigration, raise the white birth-rate, and instill in young European-Americans a sense of themselves as a distinct people.
'And if that were to happen, Tom, I would hate to think that you would simply concede defeat!
'Under such circumstances "simply conceding defeat" has certain immediate personal consequences that we are all pre-programmed from birth to avoid.
'While it may be a sad commentary on human nature, one cannot isolate one's particularist affinity for "living among your fellow whites" (which I take it you do now without much hindrance) from the recognition of more universal patterns of human behavior which dictate that the must humane and prudent means of pursuing world peace is to design each nation in such a way that its borders are drawn around a people as racially and ethnically homogeneous as reasonably possible.
'We should recognize all European-Americans as brothers and work toward a Czech-Slovak style solution to contain the open anger of our distant African cousins and the veiled hatreds of our liberal elites.'
'But if a Rwandan solution suddenly heads our way, I would like to believe that you and I can rely on one another for mutual self- defense.
Let me see if I can explain what I meant by "conceding defeat". I think that one of the most serious problems faced by white nationalists is the problem of extremism. The thing is, the "liberal elites" have been so successful in demonizing white racial consciousness that, to a large degree, the only people willing to openly support the white nationalist cause are those people who feel more strongly about their racial identity than anything in the world. In other words, extremists, and in some cases actual demons, people who will terrorize and murder to save the white race, people who will defend what the Nazis did, because they hope to do the same thing themselves. These people are extremely useful to the liberals, who use them to justify and validate their demonization of white racialism. This is a vicious circle that we must somehow break.
The thing is, there are a vast number of American whites who are quite uncomfortable with our current situation and direction, who do *not* want to see America become a crowded Third World country, but who simply are not extremists, and who recoil from the idea of racial violence and warfare. I number myself with these. I care a great deal about the future of the white race, but there are certain things I will not do to defend it. If it turns out that the only way to save the white race is through terror and genocide, then the white race will not be saved. I am willing to accept the possibility of defeat, and absorption into the Third World rabble. This would be a great shame, but such things have happened before, and I think it is liberating to look this possibility in the face and accept it. In fact, I think that without openly accepting and dealing with this possibility there is no way we can avoid the iron logic of extremism, which says that the white race must be preserved at *any* cost.
What I am trying to do here is find a way to open the door to a *moderate* white nationalism, a normal sort of nationalism that can be openly supported by your normal, average, respectable white person, who cares about the future of his race, but is not obsessed with it, and who cares about other things just as much. Without these people we will lose, and since these people will *never* march shoulder to shoulder with Nazis we must reject not only Nazism but the kind of thinking and values that lead to Nazism. The Nazis dealt a terrible blow to the West and to the white race, and like it or not we must deal with their legacy. This is what I am trying to do when I assert that some things are more important than racial survival, and that there are some circumstances when I would feel obliged to "concede defeat".
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. -- Ambrose Bierce
Back to Main Page
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.