Foundations of the 21st Century
White nationalists, as such, politically define themselves in wanting to create a sovereign state in North America. They endeavor, therefore, not to “put things back the way they were,” as conservatives wish, but to rid themselves of them completely.
A National Revolution, they hold, will alone restore “the white man to his rightful place in the world.”
Inspired by the birthright handed down by the blood and sacrifice of ancestors, their project, relatedly, is not about restoring the Third Reich, the Confederacy, or Jim Crow, as Leftists imagine, but about creating a future white homeland in which their kind will be able “to pursue their destiny without interference from other races.”
The above quote is from a relative new-comer to White Nationalism, but I wanted to introduce this chapter with another voice than my own, or the ‘usual suspects’ who have graced us these many years; and as I have said before (Proem), there is much differing opinion as to just ‘what’ white nationalism is, or is not.
In my view, Mr. O’Meara has cut to the chase, as it were, with the above quote. I must admit, as well, that the prose and acumen, which Mr. O’Meara has brought to bear on this subject, that of ‘white nationalism’, is of the highest caliber. I have never met this man, and I know almost nothing about his bona fides in relation to our struggle; however, until proven otherwise, this voice is certainly one to be reckoned with.
At the same time, and not to detract in any way from the above quotation and yet, to prove my observations of current events, let me also add something that I do not agree with, but will add to the body of this work, and that is, to refine and define what ‘white nationalism’ is from its very inception – any evolution which has occurred since the beginning has only added to its pages, but not to its inception, as stated in the Fourteen Words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. All the mantra’s, which inundate our racial milieu stems, directly, from the above aphorism. To the novice, this distinction, while not of insurmountable importance, must be kept in mind while pursuing this work, for much stems, not from the tree itself, but from its roots.
Mr. O’Meara states:
Sometime in the second half of the 1990s, a terminological change occurred in the racially conscious community.
Many who previously identified themselves as White Power advocates, segregationists, separatists, supremacists, survivalists, neo-Confederates, biological realists, etc. started calling themselves “white nationalists.” 
As has been said before in other works (ROTW, SOA), the true beginning of White Nationalism as is known today, the very term being inspired in the early 80’s by a future member of Bob Mathews’ Silent Brotherhood, places an approximate date, but not necessarily a specific date, on its inception. Just to keep the record straight, this is important, if not to anyone else, then to me, and those comrades who actually did fight, who gave up their lives, and dedicated their honour to this very concept.
It is important to maintain a proper timeline of events for those who come after.
This embryonic White Nationalist movement has, to date, evolved quite well into that nascent, and implacable child, with the drive and intelligence of an Alexander, Aristotle, and the barbarism of Leonidas. These disparate elements have taken a relatively short life-cycle to adhere, in the main, to the calling of Race, ethnic-nationalist ideology, and the transvaluation of what has gone before; through the dim pubescent phases of instruction and experience, to the ‘new youth’ of today, what has evolved is, well, as is to be expected: no more, no less.
Through the din of personal attacks, vitriolic gossip mongering, and those few lucid and bright souls who, personally and collectively, maintain a purpose and vision for the future, it is as it should be. Or is it?
One thing that has always occurred, as is always the case in an insulated minority, is the ‘peer review’ system, that systematic approach to those happenings and occurrences which ofttimes lend fuel to the fire of discourse and evolution but, also, lends to the obfuscation of those issues most valued to the continuum of this, our White Nationalist imperative. These are the pragmatists and optimists, each offering their innermost desires and vision of that future which would bring the greatest happiness, independence, and sovereignty to their fellow man. All movements and theoretical experiments lead to this interplay between personalities and ego; between individualism and the collective spirit. Each are necessary, and each has a place in that Once and Future West, of which we all strive.
As is expected, a cacophony of disparate voices have given us their well reasoned input: the status quo of governmental employees, jealousy, the hangers-on of traditional (anglo-saxon) Christianity and its various offshoots, the revolutionaries, the rebellious, the common working class, and the ineluctable division of our intelligentsia. The written word abounds, both for and against our cause, our hope. Words, without a story, however, are like so many rivers, running together independently, never fully realizing the Source. That source, to be more precise, are those individual stories of individuals who, collectively, become the anchor-point, the harbinger of those thoughts and developmental tactics, which have brought us here, to our present presence.
White Nationalists, even today, fall into that chasm of misleading and obtuse reckoning by dividing, or letting others divide us as, ‘supremacists’, ‘Jim Crowists’, and traditional ‘nativists’ who, fearing for our lives and power, continue, in ways oblique, so as to mis-direct our detractors and, hence, deprive our opponents of their own justice, waiting to be meted out, to those who dare remind themselves, and the world, of their sense of purpose and hard-won hegemony. As in days past, this contest of world-views remains fixed, and only real and ineluctable power, will ever change this. This, as well, is old news.
Modern, young, and inexperienced zealots of White Nationalism have, to date, been prudently or, in more marked designations, been purposely kept from a larger nationalist view by members who, early on, were more revolutionary in scope and action. Men like Robert Miles, or Tom Metzger who, each in their own right, held views of the common man, not as dupes or potential ‘membership’, but saw their people first, and foremost, as being a part of an organic strata, that necessary ‘work force’ of the greater mass led, not strictly by devices of the word, but by action in the political realm and in the streets. Most intellectuals of the day, even as now, showed little or no commonsense in regards to the efforts and successes, no matter the perceived national response or, in consequence, the fundamental political stratagems, offered by such individuals (and there were many more in this generation who offered a winning combination of ideas) as these. In our present efforts, the same hydra, lifts her tired and scaly heads.
In the final analysis, it is the common man who will make the difference, this has been Tom Metzger’s policy; Robert Miles, no stranger to theoretical warfare, as well as his professional experience in marginalizing ‘guerrilla’ combatants knew, as do all tacticians, that it is the coalescence of mind and labor, which has always been the foundation of any movement; and while these two examples proved that this was a workable alliance, nevertheless received little support for a nation-wide campaign in this regard. Even then, the posers and sycophants, were ever jealous of these trailblazers, these new and seemingly arrogant ‘white nationalists’. This happened, even as now, because the conservative elements of the status quo were monied, held positions of public acclaim, were ministers and public servants, publishers and hucksters, selling wares from Classic reprints, to gold and silver. The attention of the public is always short-lived, and one cannot blame them for only seeing what this coalition mind-trust, allowed them to see. The pen, even amongst our own, is a mighty sword.
The naïve and redundant proclamations of ‘categories’ of White Nationalists, runs through every imaginable arm-chair warrior/patriot within this white nationalist ‘association’; designations which, for the most part exist, and conditionally were created, by white men during extremis within the confines and, the necessity of, the times in which they found themselves, but which are now being used against us in a comprehensive and heavily subsidized attack on all White people. Titles such as, Klan, Neo-Nazi, Creator, Christian Identity, Christian patriot, Neo-Confederate, Council of Conservative Citizens, skinhead, revisionist, militia/paramilitary, underground terrorist, paleocon, race realist, and populist are, nevertheless, used interchangeably, to the detriment of our movement, by our detractors, as well as ourselves, continuing the disconnect of our disparate elements. This could well have been side-stepped by the intellectuals and publishers of an earlier time who, rather than seeing a changing and brighter future, closed the door to their mushroom abodes, and continued to declare that the sky was falling. Even the word White Nationalist, was not utilized until relatively recently, and only grudgingly.
The longing for preemptive discourse is a reality now, as it was, also, thirty years ago; Louis Beam, for instance, received little or no positive support for his ‘revolutionary rhetoric’ back in the early 80’s, even so, his positions on tactics and strategy were well-grounded, and have proved successful, albeit limited because of the imperiled virtues of the mainstream conservative, unlike the Left, who heartily has embraced Bill Ayers, and others, who was the father of the SDS, and the various sycophants of Che Guevara, Marx, and Lenin who, today, because of their unapologetic balancing between ‘activism’ and ‘political’ altruism, have gained the preeminent position within the political and military machine of our nation. All this, because writers, institutions, and those who represent them, did not fail to support financially, and to collectively support one another in times, both good and bad – one should not forget the example of the Chicago 7 – nor the Lawyers (like Alan Dershowitz, himself a radical, with ethnic loyalties which have only gained in political power) who defended them, unlike the cowardly response to the men of Robert J. Mathews’ Silent Brotherhood by those arrogant and conservative nay-sayers of the Right. One group, however, continued to grow in stature, and the other, relegated to obscurity, not by the government, they did their job, but by those erstwhile individuals who, while not being of this caliber, failed to carry these efforts to the folk-at-large, thereby making the same examples which, inevitably, leads to that mythos so necessary to the survival of a revolutionary movement, cease to exist before its time.
Those who subscribe to the mainstream, those milquetoast patriots, will forever be with us. It is the duty of our intelligentsia and its accompanying Press, to remember the past, and its mistakes, with a new strategy for the future, namely, to ferret out those spokesmen and writers who, while on the fringe, nevertheless make for honest copy. Until this happens, no ivory tower, or its ivory illusions, will save them from a spiritual disconnect from their People, because of the lack of knowledge and information. Alas, where are the brave newspapermen of yesteryear, closer to the folk, and unhindered, except by their own moral code of sympathy and understanding for the down-trodden amongst them?
Where were the tellers of tales, of newsworthy reporting when discussion of the Territorial Imperative began in earnest, or when or who it was created? Where was the spoken and written works regarding the acronym ZOG – Zionist Occupational Government – which played such a major part in the radicalization and extension of white reaction to the dismemberment of their way of life? It must be noted, again, that these terms, not just in a rhetorical sense, were a full-bodied casus belli, of earlier belligerents reacting to a declaration of War individually, and collectively, by a transparent and ever-reaching agenda of interests not of our making. This history, so rich in the telling, has hardly gone noticed by serious publishers and writers; William Regnery will publish Pat Buchanan, but not Louis Beam or David Lane; Noontide Press will address historical and revisionists issues, but has always failed to address the present day activists, theoreticians, and seers produced by this, shall we admit it, hostilities, in which we all, most assuredly, are embroiled in.
Some material abounds in which the old and the new of White Nationalism could benefit by, which are works by relatively unknown persons, at least within those inbred circles of white nationalists, such as Committee of the States, The Silent Brotherhood, Ruby Ridge, White Power, White Pride!, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds. I am sure that there are other volumes dedicated to this material, as well as authors such as Carroll Swain, a dedicated Black academic who, at least, is consistent in her observations, if not in her intentions as an academic, but this only underscores what dilemmas the white nationalist faces.
Not much material, to be sure, and not even written by our own, but for one exception; nevertheless, valuable in its reach and informative tone. Information, at the time of these events, was easily obtained, either from direct sources, or second hand, with verification being more readily available, it was not taken advantage of, either for honest comparative analysis, or for the certain largess to be received from this effort. What could have been the reason? Were writers in scarce supply for the efforts of the Chicago 7? Hardly. There is the rub: one group showed courage, yes courage, in the face of overwhelming odds and social criticism, yet it was done, and done again, to the betterment of their cause.
The repetitive whining of all and sundry, about what to do, is nothing less than shameful. As any normal, or bright person could see and anticipate those things heart-felt, or publicly prudent in terms of extending our White Nationalist views, we failed, as a movement, to take advantage of our own sacrifice and vision. Yet, the same continues today. Mirrors are made for reflection, and a useful tool they are. It is not the reflexion of true Psyche, which we seek but, rather, the reflexion of our own political, philosophical and professional persona, our own truthfulness, in what and how we face the future that we see. All it takes is knowledge and dedication, with the courage to take a risk, to stand for something, not just to belong to a club or social back-slapping orgy, that is for lesser persons – not White Nationalists. Our reflexion must ever be the reality of our inner-most desires and needs, and the courage to realize them.
To address ‘revolutionary soldiers’ in the field, as ‘gangs’ or ‘criminals’, is the epitome of a mainstream conservative, at least an individual who, at the outset, is still fundamentally flawed in his or her outlook, within the confines of our political and intellectual activities which, as well, oftentimes brings what it does: revolution. We decide our nomenclature, not our opponents.
Revolution in thought is, perforce, a wellspring of our ideology, as the past several generations have left us, any of us, with few alternatives. Better we embrace the destiny set before us, rather than re-hashing the old and timid appraisals of the past, with the same expectations and finality expressed therein.
Who is to remind us, and inform us, as to these events, thoughts and political direction? Surely we, as intelligent and independent writers and speakers, should not give more than passing attention to those who have already published works that, at more than a casual glance ignore, or misrepresent the hard-won attempts and victories of our kind. Where, for instance, is the exhaustive Biography of Ernst Zundel, Richard Girnt Butler or Thomas Metzger, early pioneers of both thought and action? Fame of A Dead Man’s Deeds should have been financed by our own, written by one of our own, not to discount the ‘awakening’ of Robert S. Griffin, author of this inspiring work.
It has been mentioned by few, very few persons, that of men like Wilmot Robertson, who published his own works, out of pocket, with nary a advertisement by mainstream or small town newspapers, even though we had members of Staff, editors, and reporters who saw the genius and truth of his Dispossessed Majority, and the seminal importance of his The Ethnostate. Slackers, all, who failed in their support of an idea which, at the outset, was easily digestible by mainstream America, not to mention the potential largess by these efforts for all involved.
The internet, as a viable medium has, to date, filled our expectations of the future with regard to discussion and debate. Yet, to date, the general public is still enchanted with ‘published’ authors, and assume that the internet is still relegated to the ‘kooks’ and opinions of the mob, never having had the chance to participate in the volk geist of a majority ethos, of which some of us were fortunate enough to have experienced. This is for the near future however, and it behooves us, all of us, to inculcate that singular presence of mind, which will only come about if we, ourselves alone, work diligently and collectively, to promote those ideals which, in their own right, play their parts in creating and establishing that Once and Future West!
The rancor and fear, of the ordinary man on the street, needs more attention than simply the yea-saying of the seer and poet, he needs the public discourse, as was the usual fare a generation ago, without the burden of ‘permits’, when ‘free association’ actually meant a clear and distinct freedom to associate with ones neighbors, in american-style public discourse; why not demand this, for instance, in print, instead of the continuing, albeit quite interesting, masturbatory debates about the ‘colour of crime’? Demand these issues, as a matter of course, for our readers and fellow citizens. How about ‘free access to our own Land’? Ownership of private property, of useful and necessary commodities like Cattle, Agriculture, Poultry and the like, with the right to sell, independent of government oversight, with nominal State interdiction regarding health procedures, being necessary to a free people. These are issues, which with only a glance, will mark us free or slave, in the coming years. Very few, indeed, will fight for truths which, although pertinent in ways the common man may not see, but who will, nevertheless, fight for rights if, and he must be exposed to this, that mark him as master of his own ‘ship of state’, not beholden to this pernicious world order, this plantation mentality, which even the share-croppers of old, maintained more freedom and nobility than our modern counterparts.
This was the tenor of the early White Nationalist, discounted by settled and traditional individuals, and for their lack of vision and courage, the tragic dispossessed remain engulfed by treason and empire, unworthy of their name. To the Bards of White Nationalism, you have an obligation and duty to promote, without fear or favor, those issues dearest to the long-term happiness of our people, no matter the discord, which may, for a time, ensue.
The common man believes in himself, but has little telling voice; let those who are able to speak, speak in words clear, resonating with bold truth, political foresight, and the ways and means to facilitate these visions. We have little time to waste.
[copyright/Foundations of The 21st Century/Frank L. DeSilva – excerpt]
 O’Meara, Michael – Toward a White Republic
 This acronym was, nevertheless, made a part of the early lexicon of white nationalism by the many and diverse ‘independent’ publishers, small periodicals, group associations and the like. In short, it was the folk-community who, by word of mouth, made the 14 Words, the 88 Precepts, and various acronyms and aphorisms, which breathed life into a fledgling movement. I have met many of these men and women, now fathers and mothers, with families of their own, who are still dedicated to these concepts – without the benefit of large publishing machines and organized propaganda. FLS