Sunday, August 03, 2008

The Jackson Clarion-Ledger Explores Whether Or Not A Win By Barack Obama Or Ralph Nader Would Help The White Nationalist Movement

On August 3rd, 2008, the Jackson (MS) Clarion-Ledger published an interesting article entitled "Some White Racists Favor Left", exploring an increasing shift towards the left by people within the white nationalist community. Three leading white nationalist figures, including Dr. David Duke, August Kreis, and Richard Barrett, were cited in the article. Click HERE to read the full article; pertinent excerpts posted below:

One of America's best-known racists, David Duke, says he would probably vote for Ralph Nader for president this fall. The former Klansman's admission he would back a candidate who embraces affirmative action shows just how confusing it's gotten for white supremacists this election, said Leonard Zeskind, author of the upcoming book, "Blood and Politics: History of the White Nationalist Movement From the Margins to the Mainstream" (expected release date April 2009).

In the past, they've traditionally backed Pat Buchanan, first as a Republican presidential candidate and later as a third-party candidate. Without him, they feel they have no campaign voice, Zeskind said. "To compound the confusion, you have a Republican Party campaign that is pro-war while they're anti-war, and the Democratic Party is putting forward their worst nightmare."

While Barack Obama remains a target of hate for racists, a number of white supremacist leaders are quietly pulling for Obama to win, believing his victory would send whites back into their fold.

White supremacists' support for an Obama win has been reported by both Esquire magazine [June 13th] and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has noted hundreds of postings on Web sites by Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists on the subject. In a recent "informal survey" by Esquire, three of four white supremacists preferred Obama, while McCain was the clear favorite among black nationalists. The magazine lists five responses but doesn't say how many were interviewed.

White supremacists "think a black man in the Oval Office would drive millions of whites into their movement and possibly even set off the race war they have dreamed of for so many years," said Mark Potok, editor of the center's Hatewatch blog.


In a telephone interview from Italy, Duke called Obama a "black racist" endorsed by communists and predicted if Obama wins "it will absolutely change politics forever. European Americans will realize we've lost the foundation of our country". The former Klansman said he'd been told by others that if Obama becomes president it "paves the way for David Duke as president". Asked if he'll vote for McCain, Duke replied, "No way. I'm not going to vote for somebody I consider a traitor to our American heritage."

Duke cited McCain's support for the war and immigration as reasons he opposes him. "If I were going to vote, it would probably be third party," he said. "I would probably vote for Ralph Nader."

August Kreis of Lexington, S.C., national director for the Aryan Nations, supports Obama. "I'm not a stereotypical race hater," he said. Aryan Nations went bankrupt in 2000 after being linked to violence, which in 1984 included the $3.6 million heist of an armored car and the assassination of Denver radio talk-show host Alan Berg. Kreis insists the organization is different now. Those of African, Asian and Hispanic descent have visited his home, he said. "They know my beliefs, but I treat everybody like I want to be treated."

He called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, who authorized the extermination of 6 million Jews and others, "a man before his time, a great white man". Kreis plans to vote for Obama over McCain because "I don't want some old guy starting a war with Iran". He described Obama as a half-white, half-black "wild card. You don't know what he's going to do. He either fixes things, or they stay the same. If they get worse, he'll racially polarize the nation, which will bring more people to our side."

White supremacist Richard Barrett, who heads the Nationalist Movement in Mississippi, is keeping his own presidential preference close to his vest. He did vote in Mississippi's Democratic primary last March, but all he would say afterward was he was against Hillary Clinton. Barrett is predicting Obama will win, saying it will spawn "the greatest wake-up call in a generation".

Update: Since this post, Dr. David Duke has posted his response to this article on his website. His response also includes an audio of the interview.

Commentary: Overall, the article is reasonably fair in its description of the movement, although they seem to subconsciously regurgitate stereotypes. First, they use the term "white supremacist"; we are white nationalists. Second, they persistently refer to Dr. Duke as a "former Klansman", although he parted ways with the Klan nearly 30 years ago. And finally, they regurgitate the stock standard claim that Hitler "authorized the extermination of six million Jews", although there's no direct evidence that Hitler personally ordered the "Final Solution" nor is there any evidence supporting the "six million" figure.

This question is frequently thrashed out on the Vanguard News Network Forum, such as this particular thread. Many regulars support the idea of Barack Obama being elected under the premise that "worse is better". Indeed, some who disagree are automatically accused of supporting John McCain. There is virtually no support for John McCain on VNN Forum, except for maybe one or two regulars.

The problem with white nationalists voting for Obama is that it is horribly inconsistent with a cardinal principle of white nationalism - miscegenation is strictly verboten. In other words, if you would not sleep with a Negro, why would you vote for one? I have never slept with a Negro nor voted for one myself, and I'm not about to start doing either now. At least Dr. Duke understands the problem and chooses to support Ralph Nader instead. But others not so thoughtful want to jump on the Obama bandwagon simply because "worse is better".

In addressing this issue, the Clarion-Ledger commits the same grievous oversight as much of the white nationalist movement - they both tend to ignore Pat Buchanan-like alternatives to John McCain. White nationalists have at times discussed Liberatarian Bob Barr, Constitutionalist Chuck Baldwin, and National Socialist Brian Holland. Barr cut himself off from us earlier with some very ill-advised remarks, but Chuck Baldwin and, to a lesser degree, Brian Holland are still factors.

The "worse is better" alternative would be viable if the White population was better mobilized. The numbers indicate this is not yet the case. Too many Whites content themselves with bitching on the Web, writing letters to editors and public officials. We have not yet reached the civil disobedience stage. The Joe Horns are still the exception rather than the rule. Whites need to start learning and mastering passive resistance as a precursor to active resistance. Look what happened on a Canadian bus last week. A guy gets up and starts stabbing a passenger. Three dozen passengers were aboard; six or eight of them could have disarmed the guy, although with a few cuts and bruises. What happened? All of them ran like rabbits.

This is not a people ready for revolutionary action at this time. "Worse" will NOT be better for us. Whites will have to be forced away from the TVs and the computers and their normal routines for an indefinite period before taking mass action.

Racially-conscious Whites have no business voting for Barack Obama. If you would not sleep with a Negro, you do NOT vote for one.


Anonymous said...


Richard Barrett

Barack Obama going into the White House is the culmination of machinations
stretching back over many years, all within my generation and many within
yours. The "rock-concert" began among various activists, joined in by
assorted politicians and, eventually, catching you and others up in the
feeding-frenzy for change. Indeed, the shiny newness reflecting from the
dark and shunned created a sort of art-of-the-possible. "Catching the wave"
has meant trouncing the stodgy, rancid, corrupt and listless, replacing lethargy
with energy and dashing forward with a sense of "all bets are off." But, as
reality sets in, so does doubt, then, desperation, but, then, opportunity.

Those of us, who saw it all as a darkening, rather than enlightening, of the
nation, warned that throwing bones to minority and alien pit-bulls would,
eventually, result in the very mauling at hand. But, while Rightists seemed to
offer mere platitudes, Leftists delivered results. You were enthralled, captivated
and swept up in the cause of ending unjust, foreign invasions, generated by
lies and fueled by mercenaries. And, rightly so, because your idealism
matched your impetuousness. Why not employ the iconoclasts of yesterday
to topple the infamy of today? As a student or young worker, you would
benefit from "all ships rising" and the "powers-that-be" falling.

None of this took into account your blood, nationality or lineage and, although
you detected the tinge of hypocrisy in every hue of the rainbow, except your
own, being elevated, you were convinced that the thrusting of the "underlings"
over the "ruling-classes" was necessary in the "struggle for change." Those
of us who counseled that the nation, indeed, any nation, could be held together
only by the "patriotic glue" of "oneness," meaning one language, one blood,
one morality, one work-ethic and one way-of-life, seemed irrelevant when you
were seeing yourself as a heady "citizen of the world." But, then, the prospect
of all "hauled down," instead of "raised up," furrowed your brow.

Your trust has been shaken by the same dishonesty which, at first, aroused
your ire. You were seduced by Obama voting against the invasion and "coming
from out of nowhere." You were buoyed by the prospect of ending the atrocities
and saving the world. Then, with the election clinched, Obama told how he would
stop the Iraq-invasion, but persist in the Afghanistan-invasion. Did you hear
right? You wanted to dismiss the perfidy on the grounds that he needed the
"widest-range of votes" and would shed the 100-year (or was it 1,000-year)
invasion-plans of George W. Bush and John McCain once he took over.
But, you were beginning to perceive that there was more to it, than that.

The confluence of the "mega-rich" and the Communists is not some "accident."
Whereas it may have been Armand Hammer financing Leon Trotsky, one day,
and David Geffen, bankrolling Obama, the next, the "one-world" notion of
"tearing down the walls" between nations, peoples and cultures is called to
the tune of the same, certain "elitists," who are as aloof from you as Dick
Cheney is from the wage-earner. You could become cynical and say, "Well,
they are all liars, so I will just go with the ones who seem on top, at the
present time." But, something nudges you to want more than change, when
that most-tantalizing of aromas turns out to be that most-bitter of tastes.

You will have to "give it" to Nationalists for being consistent. They have
maintained that the investiture of Obama will be the long-awaited "wake-up call"
to rally you to your age-old, true colors. But, Inauguration Day is not just the
occasion to say, "We told you so," but to welcome you back to the people,
nation and principles, which you left behind. You wanted the "greed-is-good"
element kicked aside, but, as the "black-is-beautiful" crowd becomes ensconced,
you are looking around for the exits, mulling your next move. The seizure of
power by Obamans has taken a short span of history, but the overthrow will
be much quicker, sparing not only your blood, but the blood of humanity.

Communists have insisted that they are against all wars, but make exceptions
for various "favored" skirmishes and "chosen" personages. Nationalists,
on the other hand, recoil from "unjust" wars-of-aggression, but cleave to
shoring up defenses and repelling the barbarous. The Reds have, also,
claimed that "class-warfare," not blood, is the determinative, but you have
recognized that, despite their jargon, Marxists rely upon blood, except that
they promote the savage over the genius and the backward over the ascendant.
The "hard-core" Left will never "fit in" on the Right, but you can, if you act
upon your instinct that you are bonded with your own kind, upon your own turf.

So, you have taken part in the Obama "revolution," but the revolution now
in the making is even more propitious. Some may call it a "counter-revolution,"
but it is not just some throwback to the "good old days," before integration,
amnesty, "diversity" and internationalism. It is the brand-new day of the
All-American America. It is as telling as the Spanish, reclaiming Spain from
the Moors, and the patriots, toppling the crown from the King. As it sets in
that your "brothers" are not the AIDS-carriers of Kenya, but the freedom-fighters
of Afghanistan, that your comrades are not the barons of Wall Street, but the
assembly-line-workers of Spring Hill, you draw closer to home.

So, after the "mauling," that wondrous ability within you to change can get
revved up, for change, once again. Not only do you need not toss bones to the
pit-bull that has sunk its teeth into you, but you need not have the ravenous
cur around to bite you, any more. You tried the "experiment," obedient,
even, to Thomas Jefferson, who called for a revolution "every twenty years."
Our country was long-overdue for a shake-up and shaken-up it has been.
But, the great shaking-out is not finished, until you and your progeny, your
country and your honor are secure. The baton of Nationalism is extended, in
a manner and with urgency, as never before. All you need do is grab it.
Copyright 2008 The Nationalist Movement

Orion said...

AA, what is to be gained by voting for Bush II? Is voting for a white man who has a mud stepchild, who is tied to predatory capitalists (check out his wife, pure evil) in our interests as racially aware, working class whites? I don't see it happening. McCain will sacrifice more white boys in the interests of jewish wars. McCain will be much worse for Whites than Obama ever will.

Americans are not Canadians. We have a history of racial strife and there are millions of Whites who are sitting on the fence or tend to think our way. We also have a bloody history with millions of guns in the hands of all the races in this country.

So, who will further our cause? A black racist or a white traitor? We must think out of the box, practice guerrilla politics, bring the system down because there is nothing for "conservatives" to conserve. In fact, conserving what we have today is tantamount to racial extinction.

We must break free from the losing tactics of the past and think revolutionary.

On another note, it's interesting that you mention the holohoax, because David Irving will be speaking in St. Louis this coming Tuesday, August 5. I would greatly appreciate it if you could get the word out on VNN and any other forums you may belong to. You can find info on my blog or at where there is a list of cities he will be speaking at.

Thanks and Keep up the great work!


Anchorage Activist said...

Orion - rejecting Obama does NOT require accepting McCain. I reiterate - I have NO intention of supporting McCain. Even if I wasn't a WN, I would still reject McCain simply because I live in Alaska and he's opposed to opening ANWR.

Ironically, if WNs were to follow my lead and vote for either Chuck Baldwin or Brian Holland, that would take votes from McCain and get Obama elected. So the "worse-is-better" contingent would get what they wanted anyway.

My contention is that we don't really need to vote for a Negro to make that happen.

Orion said...

I see your point. It's just too bad third party candidates aren't a viable option. They system isn't set up for 3rd party candidates. I think that was the Founding Fathers biggest mistake.

Anonymous said...

A few follow-ups: