Saturday Afternoon: Bomber Command Memorial - national pride or national obscenity?

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2012-07-14 13:56

July 14, 2012

Carolyn Yeager and her guest Judith from England examine the meaning and implications of the Bomber Command Memorial recently opened in London with an unveiling by Queen Elizabeth. Picture at right shows the enthusiastic, if elderly, crowd celebrating the occasion. Highlights of the program:

  • Peter Hitchens' editorial in The Daily Mail minimizing the real horror of the carpet-bombing of all German cities (even while disagreeing with it);
  • Walter Ruthard's letter to Hitchens strongly objecting to what he wrote, or what he didn't write;
  • Matthys' letter to Peter Hitchens and Hitchens' replies, which focus on the "Holocaust equivalency" question;
  • Hitchens' two emails to me that again bring up the "holocaust equivalency" question;
  • Carolyn and Judith try to sum up the essential problems preventing an objective discussion between Britons and Germans on WWII;
  • What prevents an objective discussion on all the problems facing the White community.


28 Responses

  1. Etienne

    July 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Bollocks! (with reference to J’s reticence)

    I pass no judgement on them because of it, but it might be residually pertinent to note the Hitchens brothers’ mixed origins, at least where the holocaust is concerned:
    Peter is an Anglican I gather.

  1. Carolyn

    July 14, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    Etienne – This is really interesting stuff, especially from the Tablet Magazine. We do have to remember, though, that Jews want to make as many people Jewish as possible!

    In late 1987, Hitchens learned that he was Jewish. When his younger brother, Peter, introduced his Jewish girlfriend to their maternal grandmother—Dorothy Hickman, née Levin—she took the occasion to announce that this nice young lady was marrying within the faith. Hitchens’ brother (presently a rather staunch Christian) told his brother this.

    “My initial reaction,” (Christopher) Hitchens would recall of learning that he was Jewish, “apart from pleasure and interest, was the faint but definite feeling that I had somehow known all along.”

    Must Hitchens have been Jewish? Some would say no and would point as proof, first, to the fact that he lived over half his life in ignorance of his Jewishness, and second, to the fact that even the turn that defined the latter half of his career, though admittedly well-timed to his discovery of his heritage, did not contain anything explicitly Jewish about it. I would respond by gesturing at the scoreboard: (Christopher) Hitchens was a lifelong subversive who identified subversiveness with Jewishness; and a lifelong atheist who identified atheism with Jewishness; and, it did so happen, a lifelong Jew.

  1. Richard

    July 14, 2012 at 10:10 pm


    Nice show.

    Question: This is the second time I have you equivocate regarding the term, White Nationalist; why is that?

  1. Lurker

    July 14, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Someone pointed out somewhere that the brothers turned out quite differently even with this mixed parentage, taking sides almost.

    Christopher coming to identify more and more with his jewish mother & her roots, becoming lessleft-wing and more and more neo-con in his last years.

    Peter becoming more conservative and identifying with his father white, British, Christian origins. And certainly not neo-con.

  1. Lurker

    July 14, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    Posted that in haste.

    Was going to add that I believe the ex-Mrs Peter Hitchens would seem to be ethnically jewish. Which could make Peter’s kids jewish too. While he himself is an avowed Christian.

  1. Lurker

    July 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    The Czech Republic was only formed after the fall of the USSR in the 1990s. Czechoslovakia was formed in 1918 out of the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918.

    I understand what you meant but you must not make these kinds of elementary errors on air, the enemy will focus on stuff like that. You’ve got to have the basic historical facts locked down tight.

  1. Lurker

    July 15, 2012 at 12:14 am

    The pornographer referred to is Richard Desmond who owns the Daily Express. Desmond is jewish btw.

    Peter Hitchens used to work on the Express but left when Desmond took over, seeing it as morally wrong for him to work for someone like Desmond.

  1. Carolyn

    July 15, 2012 at 12:31 am

    Richard – For some reason I’m not comfortable using the term White Nationalist. I think it’s because it doesn’t have any meaning for me. Can you tell me what it means, like in a definition? I understand White Separatist, White Advocate, White Racialist. What is this white nation that White Nationalists are seeking? I understand the Northwest Homeland or Front to be a White Nationalist movement. White Nationalism would have to be moving toward something like this.

  1. Lurker

    July 15, 2012 at 12:32 am

    And yet another comment!

    One reason for the incessant coverage of Hitler/WW2/Nazis in the British media – WW2 is one of the few historical events the British are encouraged to be proud of. For the rest of the time the media promote the narrative of unremitting horror, abuse of children, peasants, workers, women people of colour, jews on and on. All of British history is portrayed as crime against designated victim groups. Even WW1 is seen largely as a crime against the hapless British troops.

    The only thing worse than almost all our history is defeat of Hitler/Nazis. Its about the only thing we are allowed to feel any pride in.

    The media/elite exhibit schizophrenia in this as they also get to berate people for living in the past, not forgetting the war and moving on into a bright multicultural future – while constantly referencing the Nazis etc.

  1. Carolyn

    July 15, 2012 at 12:45 am

    Lurker – The bulk of the articles are not so much about the defeat of Hitler, it seems to me, but about the evilness of Hitler and why he needed to be defeated. Thus it justifies what they did. I think the British leadership (and Jews) live in fear of their terrible crimes being revealed. They don’t have to worry about the rank and file Jews so the Jewish Press handles it differently. No one else has so much to hide from their own people as the British. Is that why they don’t care about destroying their own people with alien cultures? Makes me think of Stalin.

  1. Lurker

    July 15, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Not disagreeing Carolyn, just that there is more than one layer.

  1. Carolyn

    July 15, 2012 at 12:59 am

    Lurker – As I mentioned on the Saturday Afternoon program with Kairos a few weeks ago, one of the stereotypical complaints about Germans is that they lump all Eastern Europeans together, not making proper distinctions between the nationalities. I guess I am guilty of not making proper distinctions among their proper names. :)

  1. Etienne

    July 15, 2012 at 3:53 am

    I do agree with you Carolyn that we ought not to be reductive, particularly in dealing with such many-layered people and I appreciate your insight. Identified Jews can break the holocaust taboo, as Gilad Atzmon does, but it is perhaps an extra or at least a different step for them to take. As for Peter Hitchens, he seems well within the Anglican fold. At the end of the day we have to offer a home to everyone somewhere or we will lose influence and leave our countries a prey to even more immigration. It might be worth analysing why Kevin Macdonald’ evolutionary theses have not found any takers amongst mainstream politicians.

  1. Franklin Ryckaert

    July 15, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Christopher and Peter Hitchens Jewishness is rather complicated.
    Their mother Yvonne Hickman had a father who converted to Judaism when he married her mother Dorothy Levin, who had a Jewish father and a mother who had a Jewish father and a mother who had converted to Judaism. This makes the two Hitchens brothers Jewish according to Jewish law, while according to gentile ideas they would be called 3/8 Jewish. Surely this fact would have some influence on them. Jewish paranoia against Nazism and “racism” is well known.

  1. Richard

    July 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    White Nationalism is a term applied too, and embraces the concept of a ‘territory’, a ‘homeland’ if you will, and presupposes a Government administration which would guide this Ethno-State – for any government or territory must, of necessity, be predominately of one People, for one people.

    Mr. DeSilva has put this very succinctly in , as well as in (this is in two parts.

    This individual, it should be noted, was among many others who actually did fight for a ‘territory’ in which our people might secure an existence for themselves and their posterity (Robert Jay Mathews’ Silent Brothers).

    To quote the above author, as relates to exactly what WN’sm is:

    The White Nationalist, today, is also faced with a strange and, seemingly, plastic neo-nationalism within the white nationalist community. The concept of Pan-Aryanism, or ‘co-regional’ racial nationalism, encompassing the greater Folk-community (as seen by most American white nationalists) of all our ethnic subdivisions, and for the past twenty-five years has, increasingly, gained momentum and understanding in most of our ethnic-related National states world-wide. This was due, in no small part, to the propaganda value of David Eden Lane’s immortal words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.

    These simple words, implicit in the struggle for Western man’s survival, found resonance in every White nation on the planet, and has since been translated in every language native to our folk-community. Over the years, however, and for many different reasons, this aphorism of epic proportions, has been sidelined by a majority of the most recent proponents of the ‘new’ nationalism. As with all propaganda techniques, it is the responsibility of those who follow, to carry on a specific message, to maintain the body of works – the whole body of works – which were created, step-by-step, year by year, life by life, by adding too, not detracting from, these previous steps, these way-signs, of an embryonic future. In denying the birth of these ideas, the inception of these hard-won truisms and principles (such are the 88 Precepts), is to commit a third trimester abortion – to deliver a life into the hands of Charon before its time, and without the proper payment.


    The White Nationalist, as an individual motif, also stands in stark relief, in that he, like no modern equivalent, sees himself extended, a hundred-million fold, as a collective consciousness, a unique and imperative part of the whole; yet is not subsumed, nor inundated with any strident form of ‘communalism’, that group-think of yesteryear, of mass conformity and that pernicious form of altruism. White Nationalism, then, is this extended understanding, put forth into the world, as both a water-mark, or level of measurement, for others to follow, mould their world-view, and share with their fellows.

    The inference is clear, but one should read these works to get a better grasp of its larger meaning.

  1. EvelynHill

    July 15, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    “It might be worth analysing why Kevin Macdonald’ evolutionary theses have not found any takers amongst mainstream politicians.”

    Publically, that is. I am sure he, just like anyone else who is known for his views in “real life” as well as on the Internet, is approached by all sorts of people privately who say, “I totally agree with everything you say, but I can’t let that be known because of ….” I am sure he could tell “shocking” stories about whom some of these people are.

    Why?: the fear of the Jews, human nature, the actual power of the Jews, cowardice. More or less in this order.

  1. Carolyn

    July 16, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Richard – Nothing Mr. DeSilva wrote was helpful to me. What you said – “WM is a term applied to the concept of a ‘territory’, a ‘homeland’ if you will, and presupposes a Government administration which would guide this Ethno-State” – is. How do you propose this territory and government be sought for and achieved by White Nationalists? Lets get out of the lofty theory and into the practical here and now. How many who consider themselves White Nationalists are engaged in such endeavor?

  1. Richard

    July 16, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    @ Carolyn

    “How many who consider themselves White Nationalists are engaged in such endeavor?

    Not enough.

    The reason for this, is that the ‘so-called’ leadership of thirty years ago did nothing to support this movement; what we have today is, roughly what was present 30 years ago, and the belief in a viable, physical State, seems to be beyond most – many of which are new-comers, or simply keep plugging away at the jews instead of working with street activists, financiers, and those who are politically motivated in securing working grass-roots strategies.

    The Pace Amendment, for instance, was an early attempt at securing a bona fide political reality; even this, was only written about, but not actively followed up by the then, mains-stream ‘conservative’ ‘racial’ press.

    Apparently you really are not familiar with this struggle (i.e. WN), or have discounted it out of hand – in any event, there are tens of thousands who are familiar with this effort (more if you count the Europeans). Moreover, White Nationalism was a planned new beginning, one that would circumvent the ‘conservatives’ of the day, but this has proven harder than first anticipated; it seems that the pulp creators can make more money on public hysteria, or battling wars long lost, rather than looking forward to a more logical and revolutionary approach.

    Too lofty, you say?

    Perhaps the essence of the true revolutionary spirit is beyond the common man and woman, but the essence of a [white] government and homeland, is not. It takes both parts, however, to achieve this: Intellectuals (and those that spread these ideas)carry the burden of creation, and the common man and woman are convinced of the right or wrong of it, based on the delivery, and if we are lucky, will build a viable movement with true leadership. Ask as many persons under 35 where WN’sm came from, who promoted it, and who were its heroes and martyrs? The conservatives or new-comers won’t be able, but the Youth will, and are daily spreading this information.

    Tell me, what is a ‘white advocate’, ‘white reacialist’, or ‘white sepratist”?

    White Nationalism is ALL of this, with attention paid to a more corporate structure (i.e. putting real teeth into ‘political activism’), and a public persona like the TP movement, which is what was being done in the 70′s and 80′s – but once again, not backed by conservatives or financiers, except on a small scale – now, 30 years later, viola, we are back at square one.

    HC seems to be advancing a ‘type’ white nationalism/territorial imperative, and the supporters of the NWF are sincere, but it lacks the balance of the original intentions of the early creators, insofar as it is intended to include, firstly, a political/public assault, which then lends a certain legitimacy to this movement, with individuals courting State representatives – I, personally, have talked to several State Senators, and have received conditional and tentative support for the ‘idea’ of secession; the working model, for them, is still beyond them – but this is our job, to win them over – and that includes radio, tv, public spokesmen and the like – you cannot achieve this without first coming to a relatively pure ‘outlook’ on just what we are going to do in the future, besides talk about history or philosophy.

    Oh, by the way, what is the latest on the holocaust? Anything new there?

    Oh, yes, they just rounded up another ‘nazi’, 97 years old – and not ONE WN’st institution or organization that has the power to defend him, or any of our people from these cadaver hunters.

    Carolyn, you are doing a good job; your influence counts – use it.

  1. Hilmar

    July 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    To me White Nationalism simply refers to a global meta-nation loosely organized around the loyalist and active members of the White Race, each again belonging to their various respective sub-nationalities.

    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.

  1. EvelynHill

    July 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    I have called myself a “White Nationalist” since I became racially aware. It was the default term for people who were pro-White and more NS oriented. The “White Advocates” would say that they were European Americans and that they just wanted their voices heard among the Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, etc. They would swear that they were not “racist” or, heaven forbid, “anti-Semitic.” Perhaps “White Advocate” means something else today.

    “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
    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.)

  1. Richard

    July 16, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    @ Hilmar

    Well said.

  1. Carolyn

    July 17, 2012 at 1:01 am

    This is helpful, Evelyn. It’s the way I’ve always thought of White Nationalist. But I’m not sure how other WN’s define it, see? You admit that it’s not very clear and it depends on how each person uses it. Don’t a lot of those who call themselves White Nationalists want to stay away from, or even oppose, NS? I can think of a bunch of them.

    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?

  1. Carolyn

    July 17, 2012 at 1:16 am

    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. Even in the USA. That is a big order here though. But I think that’s what it should mean. Not just to take a section and carve it out as White. If the rest isn’t White, they’re not going to stay out, no matter how many guns you have. It will be eternal warfare.

  1. EvelynHill

    July 17, 2012 at 5:26 am

    “Don’t a lot of those who call themselves White Nationalists want to stay away from, or even oppose, NS?”

    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.

  1. Hilmar

    July 17, 2012 at 8:32 am

    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.

  1. Carolyn

    July 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    Hilmar – As far as a working definition goes, simply wanting European homelands to remain or return to being all-White is enough to be called a WN, imo. Heaven knows, there are few enough of those today. I don’t think it can include someone with only a vague sense of belonging to the White race, though, as every White person knows what their race is (whether they value it or not)! :)

  1. Carolyn

    July 17, 2012 at 12:36 pm


    “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. :)

  1. EvelynHill

    July 18, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    I know what Dr. Pierce was dreaming of when I was working for him: he was always asking to see video on the internet. He did not even have an internet connection at the time. It was too annoying. This was before Google, before almost everything that people think of now as “the internet.” It was mostly Usenet and e-mail. I had a cheap external modem and a dial up connection. And of course it was in West Virginia were the dial-up connection was poor even for the time. Just downloading your e-mail might take hours, so you can imagine what internet video was like. It was like a one inch square on which you could hardly tell if people or trees were being displayed. And it crashed in a few seconds. But Dr. Pierce wanted to see it every few months to see if it was improving. He insisted that one day it would be full screen with good resolution, not have constant buffering problems, and would be available everywhere. So, he was dreaming of YouTube. (Although I think it is safe to say that he would have preferred different ownership.)

    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.