Beyond the Norway incident: Matt Parrott

It is always wise to listen the Christian and temperate voice of Matt Parrott (photo). Below I collected some of Parrott’s responses in the most recent thread about the Norway incident at The Occidental Observer, “Letter from Sweden: Fallout from Breivik.” It throws some light into the ultimate issues of White and Western preservation:




From a crude tactical perspective, I believe the biggest victory for Jew-wise explicit racialists is that the cultural nationalists and neocon imperialists have lost the credibility of their moral argument for defining a distinction between cultural and ethnic nationalism.

What’s the point of playing the “cultural nationalist” angle if you’re still going to be stained by association with violent radicalism? The anti-immigration sentiment and growing anxiety over ethnic displacement isn’t going to simply go away because of this, but this deeply problematic quasi-Zionist “anti-racist” cultural nationalism may no longer prove suitable as a vehicle for its expression.

My suspicion (one shared by the left) is that an infinitesimal fraction of cultural nationalists actually believe their prattle about the millions of aliens peacefully assimilating into traditional Western society. It’s a vehicle, one driven by pragmatic racialists seeking bourgeoisie legitimacy and Jews looking to usefully channel the West’s sublimated racial anxiety.

It would be a tragic defeat for our interests if racial tensions boiled over in the West, only to be misdirected by Christian Zionists, “cultural nationalists”, and Likudnik infiltrators into exhausting itself in more land wars in Asia. Breivik’s manifesto betrays a complete failure to recognize this very real threat, even indulging in the dangerous scope creep of framing the Middle East itself as occupied territory due for a new Crusade.

Sticking to explicit racial and ethnic nationalism is necessary, as our competitors are waiting to leap into the gap between what we say and what we mean. As Kevin MacDonald suggests, to recoil is to forfeit the moral argument. When you concede that White folks have no legitimate interests, you’re forfeiting an argument we’ll eventually win as people become more radicalized by social and economic trends.

Islamic immigration is merely one dimension of the problem. Even if it were reversed tomorrow and the 90% who’ve failed to effectively integrate are deported, the declining birth rates, decadence, and non-Islamic immigrants would still be there. A man’s truly intent on committing suicide will find a way to do so, even if you’ve managed to hide the scimitar from him. Breivik’s focus on leftist political leaders instead of the immigrants indicated a degree of awareness of that, but targeting the leftists promoting unchecked immigration still amounts to hacking at the branches.

He kind of reminds me of a problem I see in America, of racialists falling into a pattern of thinking that the problem is really all about illegal immigration. Some vilify the illegal immigrants as wife-beating gang-bangers hellbent on Reconquista, appealing to law and order… as if desperate foreigners are to be faulted for breaking laws our leaders beg them to break.

It’s a fine angle, and a scab which definitely ought to be picked. Just don’t mistake the scabs and fungal infections for the underlying auto-immune defect.

Media censorship drives men to a desperate mind set. And desperate men do desperate things. – Tadzio

It’s not just media censorship. It’s direct attacks on our means of supporting our families. It’s death threats on ourselves and our family members. It’s bricks thrown through the windows of the restaurants we’re meeting at, pepper spray and fist punches at our supporters, and law enforcement officers conspiring with antifa terrorists to cancel our events.

It’s more than a mere tactic to ask them this question. It’s a damn good question that I, for one, would like to have answered. The answer, of course, is that they wish to cow us into cowering and conceding defeat.

The Norwegian leftists succeeded with their ham-fisted tactics in drumming ABB [Anders B. Breivik] out of conventional political activism. I believe the technical term for the predictable result of what they did and what they’ve redoubled their efforts to do in response to this is “blowback”.


Julian Curtis Lee said…

“Sticking to explicit racial and ethnic nationalism is necessary, as our competitors are waiting to leap into the gap between what we say and what we mean.” –Parrott

Tremendous statement. (The whole post, though I brought out that vital line.) Bravo!

Let’s get explicit, folks! Come what may.


Kevin MacDonald said…

We at TOO [The Occidental Observer] are going to continue to be explicit about race and Jewish issues. Someone has to do it. But politicians have to think about getting elected in a particular context and they may be right. If we could end non-White immigration without being explicit, I’d be all for it. I think the jury is still out on that one.


Matt Parrott said…

Why is an argument from racial and ethnic nationalism necessary to put an end to unchecked immigration. There are many, many other good arguments for why mass immigration is insane and suicidal. – Anon2

In theory, an argument from racial and ethnic nationalism is not necessary to put an end to unchecked immigration. In theory, it’s not even necessary to preserve the racial and ethnic nation.

Our advocacy team actively collaborates with groups across the political spectrum (all of which are explicitly against preserving our ethnic identity) to help reduce immigration.

But this isn’t really about the Muslim invaders. It’s not really about the Mexican invaders. It’s not really about the Black youth mobs. What it’s really about is a lack of a will of a people to live. As long as America and Europe are spiritually and ideologically hellbent on suicide, they’ll find new ways to keep hurting themselves. Even if ABB’s anti-Islamic crusade scenario were actualized throughout Europe, they would still be slaughtering their own offspring by the millions. They would still be barren. They would still be decadent and nihilistic. They would still be allowing Afro-Caribbean and myriad other populations to elbow in on their homeland.

Removing Islamic immigration from Europe is akin to hiding the gun from a man who’s suicidal. It may buy some time, but if a guy’s really set on killing himself, he’ll figure out some other way to do it.

I do believe that only an argument from racial and ethnic nationalism will be sufficient to steel Europeans to take the bold action necessary. After all, stopping illegal immigration and asylum fraud is insufficient. Reducing legal immigration to reasonable levels isn’t sufficient. Stopping legal immigration cold isn’t sufficient. Offering cash prizes for emigration isn’t sufficient. Deporting most of them isn’t sufficient. Only deporting each and every last non-White community from Europe is sufficient.

The sorts of mild arguments that operate within the mainstream paradigms and respectable bourgeoisie talking points are well and good for slowing the acceleration of the rate of our demise. But the radical steps necessary to actually reverse our course require the widespread acceptance of these radical ideas.

But let’s grant that one can find some clever angle to convince voters to deport all the non-Whites without requiring White Americans and Europeans to embrace their right to survive. That only solves the immigration dimension of our multifaceted problem. The mainstream paradigms and respectable bourgeoisie talking points would spell doom for the West if it were a fortified island continent.

5 Replies on “Beyond the Norway incident: Matt Parrott

  1. Trainspotter has just commented in that thread:

    Excellent post, Matt. One silver lining that could come out of this, as you suggest, is that Daddy may take the Cultural T-Bird away. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with hammering on the culture versus islamic immigration theme, it is hardly the fundamental problem that ails us. The only real solution is to recognize the value of our racial and ethnic identies and seek to protect and preserve them. Until we can come to grips with this, that we are a people and not just flies of a summer, then we will find ourselves upon losing ground regardless of the short term payoffs of taking another strategy.

    This is another way of saying that if one rejects race as important, then one is inherently on liberal ground. Liberalism begins to make sense, for if one accepts liberal premises (race doesn’t matter) then liberal conclusions will inevitably follow.

    Here in America the conservatives gave in on the race issue about 40 or 50 years ago. It’s been downhill ever since. They instead focused on the “culture war,” and have been losing even that ever since. I wonder why?

    Yes, the “culture warriors” could get more airtime, and get some people elected to office. There were some perks and privileges. But by accepting the key liberal premise that race doesn’t matter, it’s been a stready slide into ever greater decay. To twist Ben Franklin, those who value culture over race deserve neither, and in the end will have neither.

    As we’ve seen here in America, once non-whites fill your schools, it is inevitable that the nation’s historical narrative, its icons and its values, MUST change. For example, in my not terribly long life I’ve seen Martin Luther King supplant Washington and Jefferson as the most prominent American icon. If race doesn’t matter, this sort of thing becomes more or less inevitable. You simply can’t have large numbers of non-whites and not have them undermine your existing culture and replaced with something that suites the non-whites.

    So, to the cultural conservatives of Europe, I would say that a racial transformation in your country, whether Muslim or not, will transform your nation in the most fundamental way possible – and not for the better. This is for a very simple reason: the non-whites are simply not us. You can dress them up in a traditional Norwegian peasant outfit, but this changes nothing.

    Again, they are not us. We know it and they know it. It is only natural that they transform the culture and national instiutions in order to better suit their tastes, sensibilities and values. Again, it matters not a whit whether they are Muslim or not.

    Once one rejects the importance of race, other liberal ideas start making sense as well. Affirmative action? Without it, you’re going to have seething resentment from races with low intelligence. This is not good for societal stability. Restrictions on freedom of association? Freedom of speech? In a multiracial society, these restrictions make sense. After all, such a society is basically a tinderbox ready to go, so restrictions on speech and behavior become more and more necessary for the multiracial project to continue.

    The anti-Jihadists are missing all of this, and I haven’t even scratched the surface.

    I could go on and on, but the point is that liberals are not as crazy as they seem: their policies do make sense, if one takes as a valid premise that race doesn’t matter. If one accepts non-Muslim blacks and asians and other assorted odds and sods, why wouldn’t Akbar do as well? He just needs some education and opportunity, and everything will be right as rain.

    Of course, we all know that this isn’t true at all. But for someone who has accepted the premise that race doesn’t matter, it’s not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. Again, liberalism makes sense when you give up on race.

    In the European context, it is amazing that they can’t make ethnonationalism work. After all, the whites there represent indigenous peoples going back thousands of years. Intuitively, it would seem an easier sell there than in America. Just goes to show that I don’t have a full grasp of the European context.

    Nevertheless, it seems that Europe has been, rather eerily, following in the footsteps of America. The Right ignores race, focuses on a “culture war,” and inevitably loses because the concept that “race doesn’t matter” is central to the liberal mindset. Then, as soon as some anti-establishment momentum is created (just as we were experiencing here in the States during the early nineties), have yourself a McVeigh moment.

    I’ve seen this movie before, and believe me it doesn’t end well. Perhaps its time to wrap up the anti-Jihad vehicle and get back to basics, as at least some seem to be suggesting. Get back to what really matters.

    Having said all of that, methinks that Europe will awake despite this tragic and unseemly setback. If this tragedy provides a way back to a stronger ethnonationalism, then that would be the greatest gift of all.

    1. Trainspotter:

      “In the European context, it is amazing that they can’t make ethnonationalism work. After all, the whites there represent indigenous peoples going back thousands of years. Intuitively, it would seem an easier sell there than in America. Just goes to show that I don’t have a full grasp of the European context.”

      Because they don’t have a “First Amendment,” the European ethnonationalists have to talk in code, like Pegida, substituting “muslim” for [sand-]nigger, or writing with long-winded circumlocation, á la Hervé Ryssen, hoping in either case that their audience will get the point, but such redirection is lost on the bulk of the population.

      You’re correct in noting that, in a liberal, multicultural state, speaking plainly is the equivalent of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre.

      And that is exactly what we need to be able to do!

      I have come to the conclusion that what is most needed is more, technologically-enabled freedom of association, of speech, commerce and action. Bitcoin, Tor and Bittorrent are a beginning, desktop additive manufacture is not too far off, and there is more to come.

  2. There is one issue I take with Train on this. You can’t really compare the patriot movements in the 90’s which had zero racial element to them and for the most part were just stupid moronic “anti-government” conspiracy sentiment with no intelligence behind it.

    Brevik laid out very clearly in his book that his desire is for the preservation of Europe and of the Nordic people’s. That has a major racial element to it. Something that the patriot movements of the 90’s had none of.

  3. Matt Parrott:

    “But this isn’t really about the Muslim invaders. It’s not really about the Mexican invaders.”

    Yes it is. There are other problems, but today’s priority is to stop and reverse immigration from the third-world. I don’t think that Matt Parrott himself is trying to boost his fellow Americans’ will to live. He is trying to stop immigration. First things first.

    “The mainstream paradigms and respectable bourgeoisie talking points would spell doom for the West if it were a fortified island continent.”

    Maybe so, but I hate the way Matt Parrott presents that idea, saying that it isn’t really about Muslim/Mexican invaders.

    1. The way I understand Matt is that throughout the West the white spirit is sick. One example: When I visited the States in 1994 the first thing that struck me was a mixed couple in a very populated restaurant: a blonde woman and a black beast. I felt something bad about the situation, but since I was a brainwashed liberal I couldn’t put words to my sentiments.

      Also in San Antonio, Texas I saw another blonde, a homeless woman; a few meters away a gang of well-off niggers were talking to themselves. I felt something like: How such a thing could’ve happened in this nation?

      To the tourist I was then these shocking images spoke volumes: something had gone horribly wrong with an otherwise admirably nation. Yes: I had seen the Mexers neighborhoods and had seen Muslims in California. But this was even more serious. If WASP women are treated this way, every other ill was possible.