Letters to David Irving on this Website

Lawrence A Starr writes from Ohio, USA, August 22, 1998:

JUST THE other day I was talking with, or perhaps more accurately being talked to by a person I'll call John. Now John really isn't a rocket scientist. OK, like most of us he got through high-school. And like most he didn't have the chance to go to college. Having started work at the local garage to support his family right out of school. John therefore doesn't have a lot of fancy capital letters following his name. He is nevertheless a basically good person, who like many of us is deeply and passionately concerned about the direction this county is taking--and who is taking it there.

John is a rather tall red-headed fellow and when he gets excited he turns a very nice shade of reddish-purple. Just about the same color that's on the wallpaper in the parlor of old widow Dudley's mansion up the street. Well, on this particular Friday--for it was as I recall a Friday--John was a particular nice plum tint. A hue magnified by his after work consumption of several "Buds."

In this talkative state he related to me the shortcomings of the Racialist/Nationalist/Revisionist 'right.' "That Taylor and his organization" he said, "is nothing more than a suit and tie Confederate reenactment society . . ." He further stated that: "Shoko Asahara says he attained supreme enlightenment in the Himalayas; Pierce thinks he'll find his on a mountain in West Virginia--it's easier to found a cult than to build a movement." "And Irving, he's gone soft; Carto, well he's a 'snake-oil' salesman and rip-off artist; Metzger's list of followers reads like an inmate register from the California Department of Corrections and anyway he's been co-opted by B'nai Brith." "And Butler, well Butler, he's an informant for the FBI."

Now in hearing this diatribe I think most of us recognize the obvious; that is that John is not the resident expert in this area. He's just repeating the usual rumors, innuendo and gossip that seem to be so much a part of the scene on the so-called radical right. As with many rumors however, there may well be a touch of truth to some of the things that John says. It was I believe, Alfred 'Lord' Tennyson who prophetically observed: "A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies."

Be that as it may. One of the true strengths of the so called 'right,' unlike the blindly accepted dogma and 'party-line' toadied by the lemmings on the 'left,' is our ability to criticize ourselves.

Indeed, so all pervasive is this independence of thought that one shouldn't wonder that two radical 'rightists' upon viewing a road-killed opossum would not argue whether it was really dead or if it hadn't ascended to a new level of consciousness. A third swears it goes to Valhalla; a fourth into the arms of Jesus; and a fifth would look over his shoulder and in whispered tones state that the poor furry little corpse might contain a government listening device. Who needs agent provocateurs when we have among us people like John.

Yet having said this it again needs to be recognized that John is not really a bad person. A self-described product of outcome based education. He nevertheless subscribes to a number of 'alternative' newspapers and magazines; is in a fashion fairly well read and frequently contributes money to 'the cause.' No, John in spite of his shortcomings is not entirely at fault here. He's only reacting to the fractious behavior that characterizes all too much of the radical right. In short he's probably more like most of us than we are willing to admit. And hey, that's OK.

Now, you know; there was recently an article published in one of the 'rightist' bulletins. This article implied that many people; people perhaps not unlike John, or for that matter you and I; were wasting their energy and resources in supporting the intangible concept of 'the movement.' When in fact no unified national 'movement' as such exists. The article insinuated that only this organization had the true vision. The special knowledge and mysterious insight hidden from all others, and therefore only it could succeed--all others merely being dupes.

Herein lies the problem; it lies with well meaning but provincial people and their blanket criticism of others. Criticisms which by association damage whole segments of the movement. It lies with those who cannot see the big picture. Or worse, are really content with their place in the status-quo. Feeling subconsciously perhaps that if a 'rightist' movement were ever to achieve true and legitimate power they would lose their privileged yet parochial positions. Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven, as it were. Finally, it lies with those who while deriding individualism, seek at the same time only to further the interests of their own individual organizations.

Some of this is of course a natural inclination. We all seek to protect and further the interests of our immediate families. To defend our wives our children, our mothers and fathers; before we promote the good of any larger but more obscure entity. Entities like our ethnicity, our race and our Western Civilization. It is after all this creative individualism and nuclear family orientation which separates us from, and has allowed the ascendancy of, Western societies over the tribalistic collectivism predominate in Africa and Asia. I therefore do not take umbrage with the many dedicated and experienced individuals whose emphasis is exclusively on their own. I simple ask that we all do some serious soul-searching; for it may well be that John's restricted view is an impediment to our ultimate ascendancy.

Consider for example that the 'left' has historically been able to acquire power greatly disproportionate to their habitually small numbers largely because of their ability to organize. And that this organizational ability has been based in no small measure on their cunningly building collations out of ideologically disparate groups: blacks, farm-workers, feminists, unionists, students and the like. Recall if you will what happened when the 'lefts' collation broke down in 1968. Then the radical anti-war students withheld their support from candidate Hubert Humphrey during that year's presidential election, deeming him to not be ideological pure enough. As a result Richard Nixon was able to win the presidency by less that one percent of the vote and the Democratic party was fragmented for decades afterward.

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that we adopt the casual and situational morality of either the 'tweedle-dum' or 'tweddly-dee' parties. What I am suggesting is that to maintain our current unyielding, stubborn and mule-headed stance; where everyone uncompromisingly seeks their own unique version of ideological purity excluding all others, is to always be on the outside looking in. In maintaining this frontiersman like independence we here in the united States may feel personally empowered. Yet paradoxically we limit our ability to achieve the unified strength we need to defend our culture and our people.

Looked at another way consider the Nationalist Parties in Western Europe. Austria's Freedom Party consistently garners some 20% of the vote. Italy's National Alliance/Social Movement, 15% plus. France's Front National, 15% and the Belgium National Front 10% of the popular vote! Nationalist organizations such as the British National Party in Great Britain, the German Peoples Union (DVU) in Germany; as well as Nationalist parties and organizations in Russia, Poland, Greece, Sweden and elsewhere are also garnering significant influence. Nationalist parties in the united States--zero percent of the vote and virtually no popular influence!

We need to learn a lesson from our European brothers and sisters, both of today and of old. Or are we to forever be like the ancient Germanic tribes in the time of Hermann (Arminius). The Cherusci, the Marcomanni, the Semnones, the Lombards, the Chatti and others who spent so much time fighting among themselves that they were unable to present a consistently unified front against the invading Romans.

The ideological isolationists must realize that White men and women and children can not individually defend themselves in an increasingly non-White and anti-White world. Not unless we create a powerful national entity that will serve our interests--White interests. In this we clearly have more issues and concerns in common than those which pull us apart. We are after all, all of us, like it or not, in this thing together. The only force on earth that can ultimately defeat us, overwhelm our drive to fulfill our mutual and historical destiny--is ourselves.

To respect our brothers and sisters with whom we may have petty differences is not a concession--we all share in the struggle. It is not selling out to provide friendly consideration to others who may envision a different path to essentially the same end. This is after all a battle for the very survival of all that we hold dear; our culture, our civilization and ultimately our race. Only a national movement that thinks in these comprehensive terms can accomplish these broad ends. And only we as individuals can set aside our petty bickerings to create such a movement. While all politics may indeed be local, the need to act in concert with the whole of the interests of all our people in mind is a world-wide undertaking. To accomplish our goals we must take a new and less restricting path. A path of cooperation born of a mutual need--the need for White survival.

Rather than getting angry at each other for real or imagined slights some serious introspection and reflection is needed. Indeed, I would suggest that those whose reaction to this note is anger rather than thought, are the most in need of thought. To recapture the future we of the Racialist/Nationalist/Revisionist 'right' must start talking to one another here in the present!

With the specter of imposed White guilt coming to an end and the paralyzing sickness born of it now slowly being cleansed--the time to act is increasingly close at hand. Of course, immersed for so many years in the corruption of our dispossession the confused and the weak may forsake us. The strong however, will like mighty Odysseus temper the steel of their resolve through the long years of waiting. And at that time, destined by providence and the Gods, we like the hero of Troy will rise up and reclaim our world!

Lawrence A Starr

 David Irving notes:

 Comments from other Right-wingers are invited . . . I'm too soft to get involved in this.