In his most recent article, “Mens arya in corpore arya” Manu Rodríguez writes (my translation):
We should consider Aryan blog contents as sacred spaces; as places for consensus and not for dissent. Let’s say you come here for addition and multiplication, not to subtract and divide. The comments to the posts must be constructive or positive; they should increase, supplement, enrich the text or proposal.
But in the next paragraph he adds:
There should therefore be excluded all comments not specifically Aryan: be them pro-Jewish, pro-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-Hindu or pro-Buddhist (or any other religious tradition or non-Aryan culture), and also the destructive or demoralizing critiques. They only foster division and sterile discussions in our ranks, and are the joy of the enemy.
There’s the rub. The second paragraph contradicts the first one, because in the American scene most white nationalists are also Christians. In such blogsites it is simply impossible to “exclude all Christian comments” and at the same time demand that “comments must be constructive.”
I am not quoting Manu to criticize him. Rather, I would like to say that nowadays it is impossible to pursue comradeship when the factions do not agree, and won’t agree, on pivotal subjects. For example:
• These days Greg Johnson has been entertaining his readers with homo apologetics, and apparently his blog does not let pass serious criticism on the subject. Since I consider the promotion of homosexualism as both culturally and racially destructive, does it mean that I must shut my mouth up?
• These days some well-known voices in the white movement have been labeling as “crank” the peak oil studies that, in my opinion, will represent the most important data later in the century—insofar as the death of billions in the Third World due to energy devolution will open a big window of opportunity for white racialists. Does it mean that when I listen the word “crank” to refer to serious scientific studies I must shut my mouth up?
Those are just a couple of subjects of what I have been discussing in the last week. But I could fill a page with other subjects that awake similar emotions among white nationalists, like the extent to which Jews are responsible for our darkest hour; whether or not Christianity is involved in the etiology of that hour; whether Hitler should be a figure of admiration or vituperation; whether or not 9/11 was orchestrated by Mossad; whether popular music, TV sports or Hollywood are toxic, etc.
Recently in one of those Aryan blogs, to use Manu’s term, a commenter stated that in other times I would have been burned at the stake for blasphemer (even though I did not blaspheme against Christianity in that blog), and another nationalist assented cheerfully.
Trolls… And I am afraid that we will have to wait until the balloon goes up to see under which banner survivors will start to organize.
Meanwhile the “white nationalist” scene will continue to be a trolling arena beyond belief, and we can do nothing about it except continue to write down the reasons for our differences.