One of the things I’ve often mentioned is that I have an account at Stormfront.org (the neo-Nazi sympathetic “premier” white nationalist site) and enjoy watching the war of words between broad-church racialists (who would include phenotypically compatible non-European Caucasians in the movement) and narrow-church racialists (the most extreme of which limit the volk to Germanic peoples). Generally, they seem to end in accusations of homosexuality & requests for photographs to confirm that the other persons in the debate is a Jew (you see, in this case, Godwin’s Rule will not apply, for obvious reasons!). But for a more tempered and measured debate in this vein (this between narrow-church and middle-church factions), see this debate in The Occidental Quarterly:
First, Richard McCullough’s The Ethnic Gap presents the narrow-church Nordish agenda. Michael Reinzi responds with The Reality Gap & Tristan Torriani with McCulloch, Nordishism & Enlightened White Separatism. There are interesting points on both sides-but I think the key problem is that there isn’t a sharp demarcation line for who exactly is white-so those expelled from the magic circle of racial purity but just on the other side of the fence are the loudest in their protests. Another thing I have noticed, and both southern European writers (by extraction) exhibit this, is to contrast themselves with those who are further out from the idealized form of the race which they wish to identify with-in this case, one of the writers attacks Persians as being unlike the peoples of the Mediterranean in physique and coloring. This is ironic because on Stormfront Persians & Turks do the same to Arabs, while no doubt an Arab “white racialist” would disparage Indians & Ethiopians.
Comments are closed.