The following is a very eloquent treatise that a friend wrote about WN and its inherent problems; members of this forum would do well to read it and discuss some of the things mentioned, and how we could draw from them for the betterment of our movement.    ----------------------------------------------------    Key Ideological Flaws of White Nationalism    PART I: Oversimplification    Outsiders often wonder what draws people to embrace ideologies such as White Nationalism(WN). Most opponents of the ideology will attribute it to simple concepts like ignorance, prejudice, or hate. These simplistic answers may bring comfort to those that wish to see the world in black and white terms, but they are wholly inaccurate. White Nationalism, like other ideologies of our time, is a product of material conditions, and that which draws people to this often misunderstood worldview is quite complicated. Pride, identity, and nationalism are part of the cause, of course; but there are certain key features of the ideology that make it appealing in world filled with uncertainty, complications, and rapid change brought on by the advance of capitalism. This article is primarily dedicated to examining those appealing features, in the interest of shedding some light on a movement or sub-culture that is generally mischaracterized and poorly appraised by nearly every observer, including some within its own ranks. In addition to this, it examines the inherent flaws in the ideology, rather than just dealing with some of its claims.    To understand White Nationalism one must look at the core beliefs of other worldviews that exist in American politics. Starting with the most mainstream, we have two major groups- conservatives and liberals. At the time of this writing, there are several key issues that can describe both groups. Conservatives are generally Christian, they believe in family values, unquestioning patriotism toward the United States, particularly in regards to military actions, and they tend to be hostile to government spending on social programs. Liberals by contrast, tend to support what they feel is progressive- gay rights, equality, and they at least still pay a lot of lip-service toward social programs and help for the working man. This is not to label each group in a definitive manner, because one can see grave inconsistencies within both the conservative and liberal camps. The basic premise here is that these two major groups have a list of key issues that more-or-less define them in the public eye. Aside from these mainstream and relatively moderate positions, there are those ideologies which have far more depth, possessing deep ideological roots. One example is the Libertarian movement, which at times seems to uphold liberal values, while generally supporting a conservative economic view that favors business and laissez-faire capitalism. To followers of the conservative or liberal view, this may seem like inconsistency, but in reality it is due to Libertarianisms core beliefs that revolve around liberty and individual freedom. Then there is White Nationalism, which also seems to borrow from the American right and left. This is because WN has a core belief- race.    Now we must examine what it means when we say that the core belief of White Nationalism is race. Essentially, what it means is that the White Nationalist worldview is based on the idea that race has been, is, or should be the determining factor in history, social issues, ideology, etc. What this means in short is that where a conservative may see a social problem as being the fault of government intervention, and a liberal may blame the religious right, WN adherents see a racial issue at hand. Factors like economics, environmental conditions, or religion are considered peripheral to the central issue of race. This creates a worldview which, superficially, is remarkably simple. Rather than considering a number of factors, a White Nationalist need only look at one issue.    The single issue of race is the first thing that creates appeal to White Nationalism. It is simplistic, reducing all issues to a matter of white versus non-white. Revered works of White Nationalist literature such as March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp portray nearly all of human history in the context of a struggle between races. On one hand this is attractive because talk of race as an important factor in society has become very taboo in the West, due to the needs of the capitalist system. But more important is the simplification this worldview provides- reducing nearly every complicated issue down to one word. Of course for those that are opposed to the machinations of modern society, there is a serious question that naturally arises when one notices those holding the reigns of power in Western society are themselves white. If modern society is anti-white, but the leaders of this society are also white themselves, how can one explain the contradiction if one assumes that race is a determining factor in history? Enter the Jewish Question.    Technically the Jewish question is part of the single core belief of White Nationalism, though it may seem like a separate core belief based on how it is treated in White Nationalist circles. It is not the purpose of this article to deal with the long history of anti-Semitism, but rather to analyze the role of the Jewish question in aiding modern White Nationalisms core belief by paving over an otherwise blatant internal contradiction. To begin, let us agree for the moment with White Nationalisms core belief that race is the deciding factor in civilization, history, conflict, etc. When we look at White Nationalists complaints about modern society however, we see that those in power during this time were themselves white. So did this white race suddenly decide, around the beginning of the 19th century, to start deliberately destroying itself by facilitating the influx of non-European immigration into European dominated lands? What caused the whites in charge to embrace and even enforce multiculturalism, feminism, socialism, and every other idea which is so fervently opposed by White Nationalism? The answer from White Nationalists though, is that these people in power were in fact not white at all, but Jewish.    Again, ignoring the dynamics and history of anti-Semitism, we must confine ourselves in the scope of this article, to examining some of the issues that make White Nationalism appealing to many people. As we have introduced White Nationalisms core belief in race, and its supplementary Jewish question, we approach an answer- simplicity. Both conservatives and liberals are more or less dependent on various pundits and ideologues to provide them with answers as to what policies and ideas are right or wrong in todays society. White Nationalists on the other hand, have a body of literature from long dead philosophers and right-wing leaders, but the simplistic core belief in the racial/Jewish question keeps the movement more or less in line. This means that while a liberal or conservative may see a news story and wait for some interpretation through a pundit or intellectual, a White Nationalist already has the tools he needs to form an opinion on virtually any issue.    In addition to simplicity, this also gives the illusion of independent thinking. On one hand, these beliefs are against the mainstream view, giving White Nationalism a certain feel of exclusivity. The feeling of knowing something that the general populace is completely unaware of seems to have powerful effects. While liberals and conservatives see a host of various loosely associated enemies, White Nationalists are convinced that they see the real cause behind all the trouble in the world, the international Jew. This gives the White Nationalist worldview a sort of revealed knowledge; as ancient mystery cults offered explanations for the processes of nature, White Nationalism provides a comprehensive answer for complex political problems in a simple package, the Jew. Also like a mystery cult, White Nationalism has its own sort of myth which explains the answer. Before explaining that myth, the reader must remember that the purpose here is not to analyze the specific history of these beliefs, but rather the general belief as we see it now; that is the currently held WN view of history.    Basically the idea is thus- The white race was a great and noble civilization, but it had one major flaw, altruism. This flaw has throughout history caused the race to accept into its midst the Jew. While the Jew was sometimes expelled and persecuted, he was never completely removed. Sometime around the 19th century, coincidentally the same era which saw the rise of capitalism, the Jew began to gain control over white gentile society. In the early 20th century, they were believed to have gained increasing influence in intelligentsia and the expanding media. At the same time, Jews are believed by White Nationalists to have been behind the rise of socialism in the form of the Bolshevik revolution and other Marxist movements. This was, and is still, seen to be some kind of attempt to overthrow the existing European order in favor of the Jews. What is rarely understood amongst White Nationalists is that if one looks at National Socialist or other contemporary literature of the time, those who claimed that Bolshevism was a Jewish plot to overthrow the world were simultaneously claiming that Jews already controlled the civilized world via high finance. This blatant contradiction, where Jews are supposed to have been at the helm of the great European empires while simultaneously working to shatter those same empires is rarely if ever noticed within the ranks of the White Nationalist movement. The idea of Jews being simultaneously behind modern incarnations of left-wing radicalism as well as the driving force between capitalist globalization is still maintained in the movement today.    How does the White Nationalist movement explain this blatantly obvious hole in the plot? In the tradition of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, there is the insistence of a two-pronged attack. The general answer given is that Jews do indeed disagree on their strategy for world domination, but they will always do Whats good for Jews. Notice the race issue there; the assumption that every race as defined by White Nationalists, must have and follow collective goals. Yet if we were to look back at the literature that served as the foundation of these views held by White Nationalists, such as the writings of Hitler, Ford, George Lincoln Rockwell, and so on, we would be convinced that the grip on the capitalist establishment of the time by the Jews was rather firm. If we were to play devils advocate and believe that there is some war-room planning amongst organized Jewry, what possible benefit could such a civil war between two worlds controlled by Jews possibly serve? If the Jewish goal was the suppression of the white race with Bolshevism, why did socialist regimes provide massive social benefits to their largely non-Jewish populations? For example, if the Bolshevik revolution was to secure a Jewish stranglehold on Russia, which had a mostly illiterate population, why build schools and universities which later eliminated illiteracy throughout the entire Soviet Union? In fact when one considers the actual proven achievements of the Soviet Union, one must wonder if White Nationalists would still be willing to attribute the Bolshevik movement to Jews- as the massive advancement of this part of the world far outpaces the growth of many Western countries.    Already we see some massive contradictions in the main core belief of racialism, but the reader may now be confused as to whether that core belief is more a matter of the race question of the Jewish question. I remind the reader that the race question is similar, and the Jewish question is related to it in the sense that the Jews are seen as a race. The difference lies in the idea that the Jews are, among the non-white races, one of if not the most advanced race besides the white race. This, coupled with their partial assimilation into European society, has allegedly given them the ability to corrupt society according to the White Nationalists and their historical predecessors. Thus the racial conflict between whites and non-whites such as Africans, Arabs, or Latinos is viewed as being largely the product of Jewish influence, which allegedly broke down the inherent racial awareness or identity of whites.    What are the mechanics of this view, exactly? Well one perfect example is the Bolshevik revolution. A number of outdated sources are frequently used to support the idea that the Bolshevik movement was dominated by Jews. The most telling example given however, is that of Lenin, who is said by White Nationalists to have been ¼ Jewish, as well as Kalmyk, German, and Russian. This is one of the most important claims because it demonstrates the mentality of this mode of thinking. While WNs see Lenin as a mixture of four more or less equal parts, the Jewish quarter of his heritage is supposed to have some mystical quality that links him to socialism. Let us see if this can really stand up to White Nationalist logic however.    Lenin was involved with something White Nationalists dont like, that is a seemingly egalitarian(in the sense that WNs and their ilk have historically grossly misinterpreted the nature of Marxist egalitarianism) ideology and a revolution in favor of that worldview. Of course millions of non-Jews were and still are involved in the struggle for Marxist socialism, but by Jewifying the ideological leadership the entire nature of Communism can be seen as Jewish as opposed to European. Now let us imagine for the moment that there is another person who is 75% non-white, such as an Arab, and 25% German. Let us go even further and state that this person is totally supportive of the White Nationalist idea. Would this person be accepted as white by White Nationalists? Of course not; the idea is simply ludicrous on its face. But when it comes to something that WNs oppose or generally despise, even the smallest amount of Jewish heritage is enough to paint the entire person as a Jew. And by extension the movement or enterprise in which that Jew is involved in becomes Jewish itself.    Of course there are many, many arguments against the claim that Bolshevism was Jewish, based not only on verified records from the Soviet Union and East Bloc but also on the writings of Bolshevik Jews themselves. None of this matters to the WN however, because when we see how WNs view and explain other social problems, it becomes apparent that even one certified Jew in the Bolshevik movement would be enough to make the claim that Communism is Jewish.  The glaring inconsistency does not stop there however, it also extends to the very definition of white. It doesnt take a lot of research on White Nationalist forums to find dozens of threads dedicated to determining exactly what is white. Should Iranians be considered white due to their Aryan heritage? Should they be excluded as mongrelized? Should they be accepted on a limited basis? What about Armenians? Georgians? What about someone who is 1/8 Jewish, 1/16, 1/32? Does the fact that a Jew can appear identical to a Norwegian suggest that even the lightest Iranian or Brahmin Hindu cannot be considered white? Clearly this is a serious problem, if the race issue is as clear cut as White Nationalists initially present it, why is so much time in White Nationalists discussions dedicated to determining just as to what white is?      By now the reader may still not understand the appeal of this worldview, seeing it as a conspiracy theory. It is my theory however, that in modern society conspiracy theories have a great appeal for several reasons, some of which I alluded to above. For one, conspiracy theories, regardless of how complicated, provide a more or less unified explanation of complicated events. The complicated conflicts of the modern world can be attributed to a shadowy group behind the scenes that secretly controls both sides. There is also an appeal to the ego, in the sense that the believer is convinced that he or she is aware of some hidden truth that the ignorant masses are unaware of as they go about their meaningless lives. Many adherents of conspiracy theories refer to non-believers as sheeple; White Nationalists prefer the term lemming.    While the reader may still not see the appeal of such conspiracy theories, these ideas are far more wide-spread than one would like to think. Conspiracy theories are not limited to those who believe that the moon landing was faked, that the world is controlled by the Illuminati, the Masons, or Jews, or that the attacks of September 11th were carried out by the US government. Mainstream conservatives indulge in conspiracy theories that the liberal media are deliberately concealing a smashing success in Iraq. Many mainstream liberals believe that the ultimate goal of the Republicans is to turn America into a Biblical theocracy, which would in fact be in direct contradiction to the ultimate capitalist interests of that party, regardless of its Christian base. There seems to be a paradox in the sense the while conspiracy theories cause their believers to feel like a small persecuted minority in an endless fight against an ever-elusive omnipotent enemy, belief in that single shadowy enemy is more comforting than acknowledging the incredibly complicated nature of society, economics, history, and politics. Look at the world of modern politics today: Free-market globalists, left-wing liberals, anarchists, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, Zionists, Marxists, Fascists, pacifists, conservative pundits, libertarians, American neoconservatives and European New Rightists. In a modern capitalist society dominated by entertainment media and over simplistic explanations of complicated issues, the idea of a single shadowy group behind it all provides a sense of understanding in a world that is difficult to understand.    In this context, the overall Jewish conspiracy is not something unique save for its long history. It is just one of many over simplistic beliefs that are prevalent in todays modern world. And the personal testimonies of many White Nationalists prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that while the overwhelming majority of the movements ranks are filled with former mainstream right-wingers, there are left-wing converts as well. This being the case, many of those who are so quick to condemn White Nationalism on a whim may not be aware that they too may hold beliefs that are either remarkably similar, or could even possibly lead them onto that path as well. To write White Nationalism off with some buzzword like racism is to ignore the roots of the ideology, and totally misunderstand the manner in which this worldview is caused by, interacts with, and affects modern capitalist society. It is not this authors aim to pass moral judgment on the ideology, but rather to explain that which so many find impossible to understand.    The purpose of this particular article is to examine a prominent ideological flaw of White Nationalism, in summation of this particular issue, the operative word would be oversimplification. This oversimplification also leads to a lot of hypocrisy, such as the aforementioned situation where a more or less European with some Jewish heritage, engaged in activity WNs oppose, is labeled as a Jew while someone like Field Marshal Erich Von Manstein is totally ignored despite his repeated admissions of being at least half-Jewish. In general however, the problem is that White Nationalism offers a false sense of enlightenment by offering a seemingly simplistic answer to the worlds problems that actually conceals grave contradictions. The feeling of enlightenment leads White Nationalist adherents to proceed totally unaware of the massive internal contradictions of other worldview. Attempts to question these inconsistencies leads to hostile reactions; the inconvenient questions are treated as clever attempts to complicate what are supposed to be simple concepts.    The question that must be put to White Nationalism, is whether an over simplistic view of the world could ever be remotely helpful for anyone. I for one am not the least bit opposed to ideas like advancing European culture, and I believe the idea of self-determination for all peoples also includes Europeans. Yet if these are goals of White Nationalism, how does mindless bigotry and superstitious anti-Semitism advance that goal? Reality is complicated; the capitalist system of today, and the effects of that system, are driven by complex and material factors, not mystical historical missions of some shadowy racial cabal pulling the strings from behind the scenes.      Key Ideological Flaws of White Nationalism    Part II: Internal Contradictions    In the first article of this series, I identified one of White Nationalisms key flaws as oversimplification. To be fair, the subject of this article may in fact be a more serious ideological flaw than that of the previous article, but I feel that oversimplification is a fundamental cause which leads to the subject of this article- inherent, repetitive, internal contradictions. In short, I feel that this particular subject would be better understood if its roots are examined in advance.    How does oversimplification lead to internal contradictions in White Nationalism? Since I am neither a social scientist nor a psychologist, I can only speculate. However, I feel that with my personal observation as well as the readers following up with their own research, the point I am making would retain at least some validity- if only to the extent that it makes the often misunderstood nature of White Nationalism clearer in the eyes of laypersons. My hypothesis in this case, is that an over simplistic worldview makes fertile ground for contradictory beliefs, as well as it removes the analytical process that would notice such glaring contradictions. After all, if life is as simple as White Nationalism preaches, based solely on race or race plus the Jewish question(itself merely a facet of the racial issue), what need is there to examine ones personal beliefs for glaring contradictions? If one views life more or less as it is, as something very complicated with many various conflicting factors, one would have to varying degree a sense for hypocrisy and contradiction. When everything is reduced to black or white, and this view is purported as some kind of revealed truth, the idea that there may be massive conflicts within ones own espoused worldview may be nonexistent.    Basically White Nationalism and its offshoots are rife with internal contradictions because they are ideologically bankrupt. They are long on lofty, spiritual, philosophical sermons and short on real, practical answers. From a historical perspective I would blame this on the lack of capitalist support for right-wing and Fascist movements since the end of the Second World War. When the ruling capitalist class needed protection from the growing socialist movement, they helped deliver power to Fascist movements or employed them in order to prop up dictators that would maintain the status quo. Political power forces a movement to adopt some practical measures and abandon some of the lofty philosophical and spiritual rhetoric. Yet the advance of capitalism has progressed to a point where the nationalistic beliefs of the right are in conflict with material reality of profit motive. Thus the real reason for far-right success, the support of the ruling class, no longer exists, thus leaving Fascists, National Socialists, and their ilk with nothing but their intellectually weak philosophy. That lack of political success seems to have led to the decline of concern for practical reality within the movement, which in turn leads to further degeneration of the philosophy and ideology as its adherents increasingly lose touch with material reality.    In the last article, we touched on such a glaring contradiction, one that in fact shows a serious flaw in the most basic idea of White Nationalism, the idea that race is the sole determining factor in human history and society. That conflict had to do with the Jewish aspect of the racial question, where people that do things that White Nationalists or prospective recruits oppose are said to be Jewish, and not white, if some percentage of Jewish blood can be proven or at least inferred. So as White Nationalists and their ilk have been anti-Communist, for example, Karl Marx is not German but Jewish, Lenin was not Russian but Jewish, and so on. In short, Communism was not German, Russian, Polish, or white, but rather Jewish because its early leadership is said to have consisted of Jews rather than whites. Of course many of the out-dated sources used to purport this idea is in fact fraudulent, misrepresenting the number of actual Jews involved with the Marxist movement, but this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The hypothetical scenario introduced in the first article juxtaposed the White Nationalist claim of Lenins Jewish identity with that of a 75% Arab, 25% individual who actually supported White Nationalism. The basic observation is that White Nationalists see Communism as negative, and ergo the quarter Jew Lenin is not white but a Jew, whereas even if our quarter white Arab were supportive of White Nationalism, he or she would most likely be denied the right to identify oneself as white. A clear contradiction.    To further demonstrate, let us ponder another variable; something more analogous to this contradiction. Suppose that black nationalist groups, or at least a large group of African Americans in general, were railing against the policies of a particular group of black political leaders in a city council. Suppose that one of these leaders was half white, another one quarter, and so on. Now what would the White Nationalist reaction be, were those blacks to cry that their oppressors were in fact not black, not even mulatto, but rather white? Of course this would be seen as absurd, but the general contradiction in one of White Nationalisms crucial beliefs is painfully obvious. Partial Jew, no matter how questionable as to their heritage, who engages in bad behavior by WN standards, is a Jew hands down. Partial white, regardless of behavior, is seen as something other than white.    This contradiction is necessary to the movement however, in order to preserve two particular key concepts, one being the inherently healthy and good nature of the white race, and the second being the need to explain how that race could be led to take so many actions against its own interest. Ignoring the historical evolution to focus on the modern White Nationalist movement, a key belief is that this concept of white has always been around in some form. Wars, exploitation, genocide, and other common features in the history of Europe are paved over by the concept of a more or less harmonious Western civilization. The current crisis of the white race has been presented as something new, as the result of a spiritual breakdown- the loss of racial awareness. Obviously if all history is a process of racial struggle, and these racial feelings are so natural, enough to truly supersede national, ethnic, tribal, religious, and economic divisions, there has to be some kind of explanation as to why a race, the white race in particular, would begin a process of social change that is said to be leading to its own annihilation. Enter the international Jew.    Even in the first article, I pointed out another common and rather old contradiction in the White Nationalist claim that Bolshevism was said to be a Jewish plot to overthrow a world that was said to be already run by the Jews of high-finance. Claims of Jewish domination however, also frequently conflict with other White Nationalists beliefs, particularly the eugenic or aristocratic ideal as well as their general aversion to anything Marxist. According to White Nationalists, or at least their ideological forefathers such as Pierce, Oliver, and Simpson, simply being white is not enough. Their must be an aristocracy of superior individuals.    The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 is labeled as the a revolt of the inferior masses against their natural betters. The idea that perhaps that superiority had less to do with genetics and more with the fact that most Russians of the era had no access to any kind of education didnt seem to cross the mind of White Nationalisms philosophers. The idea is that the clever Jews whipped up the stupid masses in revolt against those who were genetically predestined to rule Russia, with no regard to how poorly those natural betters had performed in their genetically determined leadership role. Of course the Jews that led these masses are not seen as anyones natural better. Likewise in the west, where Jews are said to have controlled the world through high finance and laissez-faire capitalism, the great minds of White Nationalism do not see those Jewish rulers as the natural betters of American, British, or German society. Strange that they would not see any parallel between the overthrow of the Russian aristocracy by the working class, and that of those said to be in control of Weimar Germany. After all, Weimar Germany was said to be in the death grip of wealthy Jews, and the NSDAP was made up of mostly working class Germans, many of whom recruited from the ranks of the German Communist movement. Incredible indeed how the labels of inferior masses and natural betters can change so fluidly.    The hypocrisy is so thick you can almost reach out and touch it; when the rulers of a nation or society are said to be Jewish, in the sense that they advocate behavior or ideas that oppose the White Nationalist ideology, that ruling class is said to be alien and oppressive. But if the aristocracy is not Jewish, then those rulers have been naturally selected to dominate society due to their superior genetic make-up, regardless of their actual performance or their demonstrable complicity in creating the discontent that threatens to overthrow or literally overthrows them. Of course even that is tricky because the definition of a ruling class as Jewish is dependent on whether the status quo meets the approval of the White Nationalists or their historical predecessors.    The list of contradictions espoused by White Nationalists is seemingly endless; such as the condemnation of non-white criminal behavior while Vikings who raped and pillaged across Europe are exalted as the epitome of European values. If we were to expand the scope of this work to include minor contradictions such as that, they would fill a volume of their own. That is why we need to focus on the core contradictions, that is those that are found within the movements core beliefs rather than the insignificant minor ones, however blatant the latter may be. Another key contradiction related to the aristocratic problem, is the movements condemnation of Boasian, environmental anthropology. Naturally the idea that mans ability is based primarily or exclusively on environmental factors is a big threat to the pro-heredity beliefs of White Nationalists. Yet here we see another major contradiction.    Heredity takes a major place in White Nationalist literature and thought, and it is the basis for eugenics. The reality that most White Nationalist rank-and-file are not aware of, another contradiction itself, is that if one reads the historical literature(particularly Which Way Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson)that laid the foundation for the modern movement, White Nationalism is not even racial nor national. Inherent superiority, passed on by heredity, was extended all the way down to the individual level, simply being white was never enough. The view that achievement was largely the product of environmental factors is a threat to this idea and thus in opposition to a core belief of White Nationalism. Thus we must try another experiment.    White Nationalists will extol the virtues of heredity, and regardless of whether they fully appreciate that view to the extent of someone like Pierce or Simpson, the general idea is that races have radically different and readily observable differences in general ability. Of course at the same time White Nationalists spend countless hours deriding the white masses for their lack of courage, honor, pride, independent thinking, ad infinitum. Would they attribute this to natural genetic flaws in white genes, that make whites more susceptible to self-destruction? Of course not! This is due to the Jewish media, Marxism, feminism, liberalism, democracy, and so on. Is it obvious yet? Other races fail because of hereditary inferiority, but whites can fail due to environmental factors just like those repeatedly provided by White Nationalists. The point here is not to attack the idea of hereditary differences between races or even individuals, but rather the idea that environmentalism can only apply to one race while the others are bound to the laws of genetics only.    What are some of the effects of these inherent contradictions, in the sense that they manifest in WN propaganda or behavior? Well the aristocratic belief for one is a good place to start because not only does it prevent White Nationalism from ever achieving any significant political success but it also ensures that White Nationalism will always have its problems with freaks and other social rejects. White Nationalist organizations, and the movement in particular, extols this belief and promotes itself as a sort of vanguard. If one belongs to a group that preaches the virtue of aristocracy and great individuals leading the ignorant masses, it goes without saying that members of that group will come to see themselves as members of that elite. Rare if ever is the occasion on which one will meet a WN who believes in the aristocratic ideal while simultaneously doubting his own superior qualifications. Surely if the aristocratic, eugenic ideal had any real depth, one would find movements full of people who accept their own inadequacy but are willing to serve those whom they see as the elite vanguard, seeing that this is the natural order. No, in White Nationalism every member is automatically inducted into the elite category, destined to rule after the revolution. When one is a member of an elite, what need is there to conduct oneself in a morally upright, intelligent, and mature manner? Furthermore, the groups exclusivity provides a sort of support group where members are constantly reassured of their own superiority, not limited to other races, but the mass of their own race as well.    Externally, this love of aristocracy ensures that the movement will never gain any significant political victory. In the past, Fascists could rely on the masses love of certain elements of the status quo, be it the Petit Bourgeoisie or religion, coupled with their backing from the ruling class. In modern times, even if the White Nationalists were able to amass some kind of true elite, how will they ever gain power by preaching an ideology that would basically require the masses subservience and servitude based on unseen genetic superiority? Of course some White Nationalists would respond that they could take political power by force, but it is highly unlikely that a significant number of whites in any given country would be willing to lay down their lives and sacrifice what little they have in order to submit to the unquestionable rule of a hitherto unknown and unproven elite.    That sense of self-assurance must surely explain a lot of the idiotic behavior and ideas espoused form the movement. Remember that the movement is based on very simplistic core beliefs, and as I have demonstrated, those core beliefs are rife with a number of glaring contradictions. Once one begins mouthing and repeating those core beliefs, they can gain acceptance into some part of the movement, and then they become one of the elite vanguard. The consistency or accuracy of their beliefs becomes unquestionable, so long as the overall consistency of the core belief, be it race or Jews is maintained. Claims and ideas are generally judged on whether or not they adhere to the core beliefs, rather than their coherency, logic, accuracy, or the impression they may have on the white populace as a whole.       Key Ideological Flaws in White Nationalism    Part III: No Sense of History    White Nationalists tend to pride themselves in historical knowledge, or a least their conception of history. The purpose of this part in the series is not to challenge the WN view of history. The WN version of history doesnt just contradict major events such as the Holocaust or the unjustified nature of Operation Barbarossa. The key ideological flaw here that is more pertinent, in the sense that it represents a source of many internal contradictions within the WN philosophy, is the lack of understanding of its own history- that is the history of the movement.    Technically, the White Nationalist movement is a relatively new movement in history. Those opposed to White Nationalism tend to pigeonhole the ideology as simply racism, and may believe that as such it has been around for a long time. In reality however, White Nationalism is rather new seeing that it is actually based primarily on membership in the white race as opposed to a specific nationality or religious group. Racists in the past, to the extent that one could even define that word, tended to include certain groups within their own race as potential enemies. The history of discrimination against Irish and Italians in America for example, bears testimony to the reality that racists of the past such as the KKK did not limit their enemies to blacks or other non-whites.  This reality is generally ignored by White Nationalists, as well as another more serious one- the reality of National Socialism. Regardless of their personal beliefs, most White Nationalists have a more-or-less favorable view toward Hitler, the Third Reich, and National Socialism as they understand it. This is something that the movement can never get around, no matter how many respectable-looking men in suits they can send to interviews and public speeches. The problem here is that National Socialism also did not represent pan-Europeanism, contrary to the claims of idealists like Otto Skorzeny or Leon DeGrelle.    The Third Reich represents Pan-German nationalism, and while it united the Volksdeutsche of various nations outside of Germany proper, it took some time before other Germanic people like Danes or Norwegians were seen as worthy of wearing the SS runes. Some nationalities were never granted the privilege, such as the Bosnian Muslims of the 13th Mountain SS division. This of course is a trivial matter but it illustrates the manner by which other European nationalities were still looked down on by the Nazi hierarchy. It is also worth noting that the increase in flexibility as to who was worthy to take up arms for the New European order followed the German fortunes during the war. In other words as the situation deteriorated, more peoples from as far as Central Asia were allowed to bear arms in the German forces.    Of course in addition to the foreign volunteers in the Third Reichs forces, the European Axis itself lends credence to the myth of a Pan-European front against Bolshevism that is so popular amongst White Nationalists. This façade also crumbles under closer examination. Inter-ethnic hatreds were strong amongst the Axis countries, and various petty conflicts existed between Germany and Italy, Italy and Croatia, as well as the greater historical hatred between allies such as Romania and Hungary. The violence of Croatian extremists in the Ustasa movement against Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia that it played a large part in the creation of the Partisan forces that would later throw the Axis out of Yugoslavia. In addition to this, many Axis countries had their own reasons to join the crusade against Bolshevism that were more materially rather than ideologically driven. This generally involved acquiring lost land. Bulgaria was so concerned with its own business that while it aided in the campaign against Yugoslavia and Greece, it refused to attack the Soviet Union.    Thus the myth of the great Pan-European crusade for white homeland is laid bare, and another alleged ancestor of modern White Nationalism proves to be an adopted-father rather than the genuine article. In all fairness, National Socialism did evolve into something at least superficially Pan-European many years after the end of the Second World War. The problem is that this post WWII National Socialist movement has never come to grips with that reality of its predecessor. It proceeds onward, preaching the greatness of the original National Socialist regime without acknowledging its fiercely nationalist nature and its clearly anti-European actions. The Nazis pan-European propaganda is trumpeted while indisputable facts to the contrary are dismissed as victors history, if not ignored entirely.    This issue strikes close to home because the author himself was an ardent National Socialist for several years. National Socialism conflicted with the Pan-Slavic beliefs I held at the time, despite the more or less favorable view toward the political aspects of the ideology that I had developed. During that time I fell for many of the semantic arguments regarding the Third Reichs treatment of Slavs. I believe I succumbed to the same failing that many more intellectual types have with regards to the White Nationalist movement; that is the tendency to look at the trees instead of the forest. I was looking at the trees of the Russian Liberation Army, Slovakia, the Serbian Volunteer Guard, Ukrainian Liberation Army, and so on. However I was blind to the forest of over twenty million people killed by an aggressive attack on the Soviet Union, as well as millions killed in inter-ethnic conflict spurred on primarily by the Axis Eastern European allies, which still have great impact today. Its not whether the obscure facts I discovered on Slavs in Axis service were incorrect, but rather a question of what relevance do they have in the context of indisputable history facts?    By now the blatant problem this contradiction poses must be staring the reader directly in the face. The White Nationalist movement glorifies and bases a lot of its ideology on a movement that was not racial in any real sense, and totally ignores this. But there is another element within the movement ideology that is also connected with National Socialism, and also heavily influenced a lot of fellow travelers in the pre-war and post-war era, namely eugenics. It is not the place of this article to describe the details of eugenics long history, but suffice to say that if one reads the literature of movement intellectuals such as Pierce, Oliver, or most importantly William Gayley Simpsons Which Way Western Man?, there is a heavy reliance on eugenics.    In a nutshell, eugenics is basically the idea that human potential is determined primarily by hereditary qualities, passed down via genetics rather than environmental factors. The argument goes that social problems are not determined by things like poverty or education, but rather people who are inherently inferior. Solving social problems us a matter of doing something with those inferior people, be it by sterilization or in the case of the Nazi regime, extermination. The reader might now jump to the conclusion that this relates to White Nationalism because the eugenics philosophy would go hand in hand with supremacist ideology, but to do that would be making the mistake that so many misinformed White Nationalists have made.    The problem with eugenics, all scientific arguments aside, is that it is not a racial ideology. Yes, the proponents of eugenics looked down on non-white races and discouraged miscegenation with them, but the concept of eugenics also rated different European groups and actually extended down to the individual level. So being German, or even Nordic, was not enough; bad behavior by such a person was still a matter of inferior genes regardless of whether or not ones genetic makeup was physically noticeable. William Gayley Simpson took this idea to its extreme, so much as to endorse institutions such as arranged marriages and even selective inbreeding in his magnum opus Which Way Western Man?. It seems that many historical racialist authors took to the idealistic view of eugenics, as a method for the advancement of natural evolution, ignoring the less romantic reality that entailed ruling class resistance to the demand for social progress. Eugenics was in reality the method by which social problems could be explained away as a matter of personal destiny rather than problems inherent the emerging capitalist society.    So once again, White Nationalists dont come to grips with their ideological heritage, the majority embracing only the racial aspects of eugenics rather than the whole concept. Its obvious as to why; enough experience with rank and file White Nationalists seems to suggest that a great many of them would not pass eugenic standards. Of course from the environmental perspective, many of the personal failings of White Nationalists are understandable as they are shared by many outside of the movement and even the race. Yet to conceding to that environmental view would represent a major threat to the White Nationalist worldview as well.    In fairness, many White Nationalist intellectuals such as William Pierce accepted the whole eugenic argument, extending to the individual level, but looking at the organizations and people associated with these individuals it becomes obvious that their eugenic standards were rather flexible. More importantly however, all eugenic arguments are thrown out the window by White Nationalists, including the leadership, when the question of Jews in power or their white accomplices is raised. Consider this quote from a broadcast of American Dissident Voices(the shortwave/internet radio show run by the National Alliance) by William Pierce.    This atrocious behavior on the part of the Communist troops was due in part to the nature of the Communist system, which had succeeded in overthrowing Russian society and the Russian government in the first place by organizing the scum of Russian society -- the losers and ne'er-do-wells, the criminals, the resentful and the envious -- under the Jews and setting them against the successful, the accomplished, the refined, and the prosperous, promising the rabble that if they pulled down their betters then they could take the place of the latter: the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.      Ignoring the repetitive Jewish association with Communism that is rampant throughout almost any White Nationalist publication, the sentiment expressed here is common amongst many racialist authors, particularly those of the older generation like Pierce. The Bolshevik revolution and the Communist movement was smeared as being a movement made up of rabble, naturally inferior people. This view is clearly influenced by eugenics; the proletariat are pre-ordained by genetic destiny to be proletariat, and their rebellion and resistance to mistreatment under capitalism is an affront against the natural order. In the above quote Pierce, like many of his ilk, never juxtapose their judgments of the Russian proletariat against the reality of the times. To claim that the Bolshevik movement was simply made up of criminals, thugs, losers, and the dregs of humanity, is to paint a large portion of the Russian and Soviet peoples with that very brush, seeing that millions, in fact tens of millions, sacrificed their lives for that system. People who were born into homes with dirt floors became scientists and engineers thanks to free education. Simple people from Central Asia studied at universities and brought electricity to their villages and towns for the first time. Ultimately they turned a near-feudal, almost medieval nation into a world superpower that sent the first satellite into space, as well as the first man. How generous and altruistic those Jewish master of the Bolshevik revolution were!    What had the natural betters, the successful, prosperous, and more refined done in Russia? They managed to lose a war to Japan in 1905, and incur masses of casualties on their own people in the meat grinder of the First World War. Strange how people like Pierce do not consider the proletarian forces of the Russian Imperial Army as the dregs of humanity, but when they got fed up with the hail of bullets, the poison gas, the appalling conditions of the war, and the corruption and carelessness of their more refined officers and joined the Bolshevik cause, they became utter scum. How sincere is ones belief in eugenics if a heroic European soldier can become a loser just because he gets tired of oppression by those whose superiority is in fact founded on material possessions?    The rank-and-file White Nationalist eats up the eugenic arguments thinking that it validates some sense of superiority, as well as it seems to fly in the face of leftist rhetoric that places the blame for non-white problems on social issues. What they dont seem to notice however, is the way it is applied to their fellow whites by their own ideological heroes like Pierce. How can one possibly claim that the ruling class of Russia was genetically superior to the masses? The vast majority of the country had no access to education and was illiterate. This is not because they were genetically inferior to the point that they didnt care or couldnt understand the value of education and literacy; it is because they simply had no access to education of any kind. Furthermore, the Russian Orthodox Church played its pacifying role in society, nurturing superstition in the illiterate peasantry. That same church was an instrumental part of the Russian ruling class of the time. The deck was stacked so heavily against the majority of Russians that it is simply ludicrous to claim that they were genetically inferior. If they were losers or dregs of humanity, it is because of a conscious effort on behalf of a small minority to leave the majority of their own people, their own blood, in the darkness of ignorance and superstition.    Of course theres a bigger contradiction which I already hinted to before analyzing the specifics of Pierces judgment on the Russian people. That is the total disregard for eugenic philosophy when it comes to the current ruling class, that is alleged to consist of the Jews and their helpers. If the Russian aristocracy represented the inherently superior people in that country, why arent the Jewish rulers of ZOG seen as genetically superior and thus fit to rule? If we are to believe that this small minority is so dynamic as to go from a scattered and persecuted Diaspora to the rulers of the entire Western world, shouldnt that suggest some kind of genetic superiority? And what about non-Jews in power such as Bush or Clinton? Could it not be said that despite whatever anti-white policies these people may enact, they have the power to enact it because their genetic superiority allowed them to reach the top, a feat which could not be achieved by such enlightened minds such as Simpson, Oliver, or Pierce? Impossible! The alleged accomplishments of the Jews, their domination of Western society, could never be attributed to hereditary factors by these individuals. Surely there is some other force at work, because it seems in regards to that question eugenics has taken a break.    So there we have yet another example of deliberately ignoring a major part of White Nationalisms ideological history by its followers and even some of its leaders, and another massive internal contradiction. This raises yet another historical question that the movement cant seem to answer. If you read a lot of propaganda from racialists like the late Dr. Pierce, you get the idea that your current era is ruled by Jews and their lackeys, but there was some other time when white society wasnt under their thumb. The question is however, when was that exactly? If you read a White Nationalism pamphlet today, at the time of this writing it is early 2007, you will probably run across the theme of Jewish domination of Western society. Look up some White Nationalist material from the mid-1990s and sure enough youll find that the Jews were just as firmly in charge back then as well. Find something from the early 80s- yup, ZOG was still in control. Look at the 70s, or read White Power written by American Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell in the 60s. The Jews were still in control back then! Read Nazi wartime propaganda; Jews were firmly in control of both the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Read 1930s era propaganda of people such as Henry Ford, and Jews had already come to dominate American foreign policy and the world of business according to him. Read Mein Kampf from 1924 and youll find that Jews were in charge of the Weimar republic as well as behind the downfall of the Kaisers regime. As far back as 1543, Martin Luther made allegations of Jewish corruption and even domination of non-Jews at that time. And there are some in the White Nationalist movement that to varying degrees, believe Christianity itself to be a Jewish scheme to dominate non-Jews, primarily Europeans. So the question is, when exactly was white society not under the thumb of the all-powerful Jew? When were European and Eurocentric societies ruled by genetically superior men rather than Jews and their underlings; who came into power by some unknown force?    White Nationalists assure us that there was some better time, when white men were men and women were women, but somewhere it got corrupted. Yet any time the question of what caused each era to degenerate further and further, it always comes back to the Jewish question. The 60s counter-culture rebellions were due to Jewish domination of the media and academia after WWII, but the victory of the Allies(read: Jews) in WWII was due to Jewish domination of academia and the media back then as well, and so on and so forth. As usual the only white failing that is ever hinted at is our eternal altruism or generosity, the standard White Nationalist cop-out. Of course the reality behind many of the problems that White Nationalists see is the capitalist system; but the problem with that is that it is complicated and doesnt fit in with the good versus evil worldview of the movement. The inevitable effects of an evolving economic system need a villain behind them; there has to be some consciousness behind it.    Perhaps the fact that capitalism has over a century of history behind it, and due to the fact that it has evolved radically during that time, could help explain why White Nationalism cant come to grips with its own purported version of history. That is since a lot of White Nationalism is obviously reaction to effects of capitalism, such as the decline of the nuclear family or in more recent times, globalization, maybe this helps explain why the predecessors of modern White Nationalism seem to have felt that they were in an era of long-since established Jewish domination. In fact, the point at which many White Nationalists seem to put the beginning of contemporary Jewish domination is around the turn of the last century; late 19th to early 20th. Is it only a coincidence that the Jews are said to have began to made major advances toward dominance in an era when capitalism had come to dominate a large part of Europe and was making major progress in America as well? Perhaps that would be better left to another article.    Like the White Nationalist concept of Jewish domination, the treatment of white history is also mishandled by the movement. As already noted, the White Nationalist movement often promotes the idea that things used to be better. We are told that white men used to breed within their own race, for example. This of course is ludicrous primarily because the opportunity for wide scale miscegenation in places like Europe was physically impossible. Advances in technology, as well as the capitalist mode of production, created the multi-racial societies of today.    The last article was dedicated to inherent, glaring, internal contradictions in the White Nationalist ideology. This exposed a few more, but keeping with the theme of this specific article, they were limited to the scope of those contradictions stemming from a lack of historical understanding. That is to say that one possible explanation for so many of the movements problems in terms of forming a coherent ideology is the ignorance of its ideological history. The movement doesnt know itself; it doesnt know or understand its ideological roots. It follows hodgepodge of various ideas that are painted with a broad brush as pro-white, rather than examining these ideas and developing something more coherent. In light of this, it is not difficult to understand why the movement seems to be in a state of perpetual stagnation.