Jonathan Tilove of the Newhouse News Service penned an article relevant to our Movement, "Brighter White Nationalists May Emerge From Shadows." Tilove's article suggested that the high quality of discourse he found at the 2002 American Renaissance conference might indicate that the White Nationalist movement is gaining influence and breaking into the "mainstream."

The Tilove article has caused "the other shoe to drop" in the conservative camp. Scott McConnell, a columnist for the New York Press and a former Buchanan operative, distanced himself from White Nationalism and AR in his latest piece, "Minority Whites." It is a sloppy piece that attempts to offer some reasons why McConnell believes White Nationalism is unworkable as a coherent political force, either practically or theoretically. I'll recount and refute his arguments, and put forward a theory as to why he wrote his hit piece.

McConnell organizes his reasons for his skepticism of White Nationalism under four headings. The first of these is "White People, Who are They?" Here, he suggests that the concept of "White men" is artificial. Many will recognize this argument as a variant of the usual liberal line asking us to define "White," while hinting that it is impossible to do so. Anyone, who has become so dishonest and petty, that he will argue even obvious terms such as "White" might as well pin on a yarmulke and not bother the White Nationalist movement ever again.

In America the various peoples of Europe have accumulated and assimilated, and nicely so since there is a common genetic and racial heritage. Most European-Americans are blends of the various White ethnicities. That is what we have to work with. This White population served America well until the multi-racialists clamored to assimilate the inassimilable (non-White races) beginning in the 1960s.

McConnell is unable to perceive "White culture," and suspects it does not exist. Maybe it is because he is like the fish that lives its entire life in water, unable to fully appreciate its aquatic environment. However, there are plenty of Blacks, and corporate sensitivity training films, that readily identify White culture as "evil." Many Blacks also laugh at White cultural notions of time and schedule-keeping, excusing the characteristic, chronic tardiness of Blacks as "CPT: Colored People's Time." Columbus Day celebrations, for instance, are another aspect of "White culture" that must be eradicated, in the eyes of non-Whites. McConnell's blindness to "White culture" is akin to that of the student who toured the university: He sat in the classrooms, browsed the libraries, ate in the student union building, met the professors and spoke with other students, but said he never saw "the university."

McConnell's fourth argument against White Nationalism, "It Means Giving Up on America," exposes his blind spot. McConnell writes, "while there is no such thing as 'White culture' there is still a recognizable American one&it obviously includes Blacks." This fourth argument, based on a denial of "White culture," is as meaningless as his first argument that a "White" race doesn't exist. Perhaps, he should pin on two yarmulkes.

Blacks are an integral part of "American" culture, for McConnell. This shows that McConnell's political ideology is hopelessly moderate. Before the 1960s-era "Civil Rights" legislation imposed by the Federal government, most Americans saw themselves as occupying quite a different nation than the Blacks. McConnell also fails to mention the friction that the Confederate flag generates within the Black community. He misses the separatist tendencies that come with having an exclusive television network, BET, as well. McConnell permanently fixes his gaze upon the horizon, over which lies that mythical place where all the Blacks "assimilate."

McConnell's second and third arguments, "We'd Feel Too Guilty" and "It's Against My Religion," both boil down to the same sentiment that White Nationalism is somehow immoral. McConnell writes,

"Any effort by American Whites to construct their own exclusionary political institutions, separate from American Blacks, would be crippled from the outset by intense feelings of guilt and unworthiness."

(Where's my airsickness bag?) McConnell obviously doesn't consider the notion of White self-defense and protection from ordinary Blacks of any importance. All he can ponder from his ivory tower world is guilt over changing direction from a path that leads to chaos and destruction. One might as well spend a month in hell and then complain about having to leave. McConnell continues,

"Most Whites would understand it as a fundamentally selfish act, and no one can accomplish worthwhile goals without believing them to be good."

McConnell is clearly a weak-minded individual, who can't stand up and think for himself without having a panic attack. He must live in dread of straying from the kosher political playpen that he feels so secure in. McConnell's concern is a good example of the "racial nihilism" and misplaced altruism that Richard McCulloch discusses in The Racial Compact. McCulloch states,

"Racial preservation requires racial separation. Members of one race should not take offense or be resentful if members of another race seek to be separate from them, as required both for independence (sovereignty, self-determination, or racial freedom) and continued existence or preservation. It should not be regarded as a provocation, slight, demeanment, disparagement, insult or criticism of other races, but recognized and respected as a requirement for life and independence."

Jared Taylor's June 2001 American Renaissance article, "Arguments for Our Side," handles the "selfishness" issue in much the same spirit as McCulloch quoted above. Taylor notes that non-Whites never concern themselves with whether their political machinations are "fair." Taylor realizes that Whites are highly genetically inclined toward altruism. Taylor thus offers the sound advice that "you should always emphasize that you want nothing for Whites you are not happy to grant to all other peoples: the freedom to be left alone to pursue their destinies."

H.A. Scott Trask, in his July 2001 AR article, "The Christian Doctrine of Nations," addresses the religious variant of the "selfishness" issue that McConnell raises. Trask refutes the idea that racialism is un-Biblical, and McConnell acknowledges this, stating, "Christianity has co-existed with racialism for much of its history." Indeed, in 1 Timothy 5:8 the Apostle Paul writes that "&if anyone does not provide for his own&he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." The principle holds for the race, which is an extended family.

In Leviticus 18, God tells Moses that "intermingling of seed" (interracial breeding) is forbidden. God also cursed Babylon, an early multi-racial empire. All multi-racial states in history have turned away from God. Look at America today. The Federal government fiercely tries to eliminate "God" from classrooms or any public place. The Word of God was meant to be taken to all the people of the world, but God never said that everyone would listen. In fact, Jesus compared spreading the word to different people to planting seed in different soil. The seed would die in "rocky soil" while the seed would prosper in fertile ground. Christianity has prospered among White people. When Blacks are left on their own, they often revert to witchcraft and voodoo. Interbreeding the races undermines the foundation of Christianity, which is why God has forbidden this.

American Renaissance addresses McConnell's concerns in back-to-back issues. McConnell must have missed these important issues, as he writes, "I browse AR when it comes, but it doesn't really speak to me." Yeah, right. That sounds like the guy, who reads Playboy just for the articles.

The purpose of the AR conference, which is McConnell's topic, is to answer precisely the kinds of common, fallacious arguments he presents. McConnell treats the current state of thinking on these issues as given, unchangeable and even true. Our job is to challenge the validity of those arguments, and convince Whites that they should not feel guilty about defending their interests, nor should they see it as selfish or immoral. McConnell instead throws his hands in the air and claims that Whites will never change their minds.

McConnell must be the textbook definition of a moderate conservative, in the narrow sense: aimed at preserving the status quo. He states, "it may be impossible to experience the modern Protestant liturgy&while entertaining racialist visions." The trouble is, the "modern" Protestant liturgy, and "modern" mainstream conservatism, is just the warmed-over liberalism of thirty years ago. That is a status quo not worth preserving. Yet, McConnell's writing drips with the desire to hold on to the way things are now, not the way things were before America was hijacked and befouled.

The manner in which McConnell structures his article is very revealing. He really only has two arguments against White Nationalism that he breaks up into four, as if to make his piece more impressive, much like the schoolboy who pads his essays with filler in order to reach the minimum page length his teacher expects. McConnell is a professional writer, so why would he resort to such juvenile tactics?

To borrow a phrase from McConnell, he published his article as a "fundamentally selfish act." He deliberately structures his straw-man arguments as a means of achieving political redemption in the eyes of "the powers that be." He is manufacturing his own "mainstream" credentials by performing a little "historical revisionism" on his autobiography. Now McConnell can tell those who fired him from the editorial staff of the New York Post for being too politically incorrect, "See, I was on your side all the time."

Not that McConnell was ever fully on the side of White Nationalists. His chief virtue was that he at least used the word "White" in his columns and challenged the occasional PC taboo. McConnell's columns, by articulating the idea that Whites might have interests of their own, may help some Whites (who are more courageous than McConnell) start moving down the road to White Nationalism.

McConnell sees that White Nationalists are winning, and that they are serious. If McConnell actually believes his two arguments, then he may be nervous that White Nationalists are not willing to settle for tinkering around the edges of the current System. McConnell has concluded that now is the time to make amends with the System before the fun really starts.

I congratulate White Nationalists for reaching the stage where the feint-hearted moderates on our side feel the need to bail out. These lukewarm deserters fear that their own comfort and security within the System are threatened by the growing progress and visibility of White Nationalism. Sides are being taken, and true lines are beginning to be drawn. Those who know they won't be able to take the coming heat are getting out of the kitchen. Those on our side remain true and dedicated political fighters. Our day draws ever closer.