The path of compassion, insight and creativity - the struggle for GAIA and against the 1%-satrapy of war and wage-slavery.

This is a continuation of my zandtao blog.

Email Zandtao:-

For details on new blogs follow me on twitter.

Zandtao Blog Links page

White Empathy??


I have been touched by a very powerful book, so powerful it has interfered with my own writing of Kolok's Distress. It has also determined that I write a manual on pathtivism. I hope I have the sense to finish the book (I have) - and the writing (not yet).

"Rising out of Hatred" is the book, and it is about Derek Black who was heir apparent to be the leader of US White Nationalism - and Stormfront. It is written by Eli Saslow, as such I would see him as money-making but his work and effort to make this happen is sound and well worth a mention. But the book is about the "life and times" of Derek Black and what made him turn. Here he is with Trevor and Eli talking to the snowflakes - fascinating. Apart from the interview being fascinating, he said this about how he was motivated now compared to before, his answer was compassion - I discussed it here.

But he hit a chord with me that made me want to look at his book, and the book has really got to me. In a sense it is a must-read for all interested in politics - interested in building unity. Quite clearly alt-right and snowflakes are divided, and the only chance we have is unity. For the alt-right reading his book might start to question where they are coming from and examine what I consider misplaced hatred. But in my case I have started reading this and have a feeling of empathy - and that definitely needs explaining. Trump and Brexit shocked me. They showed me how little I understand white people, and whilst the neoliberal parties are not embracing this understanding I want to. Of course by now if this blog were prescribed reading I would have lost most snowflakes, and the alt-right wouldn't consider reading this - and therein we have the real egoic problem that divides the movement.

I do feel empathy, the whole first chapter just feels like a guy organising against injustice. But you can only feel that empathy if you can detach from your conditioning of dismissing white supremacy. I can try and do that as a white man. I think for this book to have the impact it should all people need to try to be detached, and I include black people as well. I think the more radical black people can do this but I would completely understand why they won't - I am asking black people to feel empathy for a white nationalist whose antecedents hung their recent ancestors (their family).

The point about the injustice is that it has some legitimate basis, what doesn't have any basis at all is how white supremacists have attributed blame. So to understand and create unity we need to draw a distinction, I am suggesting we cannot just see the crimes of white supremacy but we have to see the two processes of injustice and attributing blame. Let me be absolutely clear here, however, the injustices experienced by white people pale into comparison with the injustices experienced by black people in what bell calls the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

Personal Injustice

Having made that clear (that WN looks at injustice and inappropriate blaming) it is worth examining injustice personally, how we individually feel about the injustice that we have experienced. If we can feel our own injustice, maybe we can feel empathy for their injustice. I consider that all my life I have experienced injustice. I was a teacher, and I consider teaching the second most valuable job after healing - but a close second, the benefits of healing are limited if we heal those who perpetuate problems - perpetuate the suffering. I was a suit for a short time in life, and throughout teaching I compared the socially valuable job I was doing with what the suits were doing, and always asked if we had a just society would they earn so much more? It was only the ego in me that asked this as I always had sufficient to live quite well - just not like the suits. You might ask could I have done their jobs, and the answer quite simply is no. Did I have the intelligence and acumen to do their job? Yes. What stopped me? Compassion. I couldn't be heartless for money. But at the same time as a teacher I had to bury my insight because ultimately whatever education I brought to the kids the system squeezed me into a straitjacket that meant I was only perpetuating a 1%-system of wars for profits and wage slavery.

So my very job gave me a sense of injustice. I started working in a majority non-white school (1976-1985), and my innate sense of injustice made me recognise that the non-whites were suffering in the school, and I became reputed in the school for working for them. In general I have no idea how the white kids saw me. I do remember some angry white sixth formers I was close to who were tentative about talking to me but who saw me as fair. They experienced appalling bullying from black kids; it angered me that the liberal school would do nothing to protect them such as bringing in security, because the majority liberalism including the establishment could not face the adverse optics of black bullying and white security. I spoke recently to an ex-student, a man in his 40s/50s, and he was still very conscious of this bullying. When I became aware of this bullying I went to the administration and was angered as they fobbed me off. This type of liberal establishment negligence only perpetuates racism - black people were ashamed of these gang bullies (they bullied non-blacks for dinner money so they could buy drugs in the evening). For the snowflakes I must again make it clear that the suffering that these white kids went through was in my view (then and now) less than the suffering black people went through. But the experience of this bullying scarred those white kids for life, and made racists for life. If they met white supremacists such as Derek Black when he was recruiting they would have been prime candidates.

Only one time was I ever promoteable, and that was in this black school where my head of department was a leading SWP activist. At that time he used Bill Gates-type Machiavellian practices to maintain his power, and the administration wanted to promote me because I was a good teacher but more importantly because I would take power from him. Educationally I was the choice - you will have to accept my word on that, but a number of forces militated against me (not least my naivete) and the job was given to someone who wouldn't confront the activist's authority. I was angry at this injustice.

I remember a particular instance with this man, it is still vivid and yet it occurred more than 35 years ago. His faction within the school had manipulated a minority unofficial strike in support of action against cuts in education. At the time I was in the NUT but was politically na?ve (when I was later not na?ve I would still not have supported this SWP position). There was a small picket of SWP people at the main entrance to the school. There was such a minority who had manipulated the unofficial action that they couldn't picket all the entrances. Most teachers chose other ways to go into the school, oblivious and na?ve I walked in through the main entrance, and remember this activist who was my HOD screaming the word "scab" at the top of his voice right in my face. I was gobsmacked - not literally, but as a radical socialist (anarcho-syndicalist) now I was no scab, that was not a picket line, and these people were in many senses a class enemy. They were causing injustice - this is why I remember it. In that school there were a number of teachers who were exploiting, but the administration was too weak because few wanted to work there. The SWP activist was a competent teacher but he should never have been running a department with his attitude to education, even though as an education activist he contributed much outside the school.

This school was a long list of injustices that were never addressed. It was institutionally racist despite the efforts of many good teachers. It allowed the exploitation of many students (mostly but not all white) by black bullies from black gangs. Teacher politics were all over the place enabling power blocs to create injustice. But clear analysis in totality makes the injustice clear. The school establishment at that time was part of a hierarchy that included the local education authority. The LEA, at that time, was fighting politically against a 1%-system that didn't want any local funding - that process of defunding anything that is not profit-making continues to this day; at that time it was called monetarism and was championed whilst I was in this school by Thatcher. Because of its own politics the LEA was scared of optics so would not address the racial bullying, so the higher white 1%-system effectively, but indirectly, caused the bullying of the boys in the school. However white supremacists without analysis can observe the bullying, see that black kids got away with it, and promote their own agenda. The facts cannot be disputed, the white boys were bullied by black boys. An institutionally racist system (in this situation the liberalist system) prevented the white kids from being protected. More suffering as a whole was caused to the black kids in the school, within the school as opposed to private life I think these white (and non-black) kids suffered disproportionately. Educationally the whole school suffered as the standard was low because of the appalling discipline, teacher expectation didn't help - mainly the expectation that the discipline would be poor so good kids could not be academic. Despite being a good teacher at the time my academic delivery was the lowest I ever taught because of the effect of discipline on institutional expectation. There was much injustice that was not addressed.

At my next school I lost promotion because of different injustice - this time because I was the union rep. Moving away from the cauldron that had been caused by SWP strategies, in my next school the head was a bully, the staff were united against him, but were not active. As union rep I was given partial support, and because he was a confronting bully he called the bluff of the union. The union through me would confront him, and this caused him difficulty, but he would not promote me to show people what attacking him meant. He also knew the teachers were too weak to strike over his treatment of me. It was unjust but because I wanted to be union rep the situation continued. His tactics of non-promotion didn't work so he started disciplinary proceedings that were so vague that I was at risk of being dismissed. I resigned from the union rep position, and within a term was given a bonus. Injustice. In this case the analysis was so much clearer. The head perpetuated the 1%-system, did not want teachers working together against that system, so he intimidated the rep. The teachers had no rep until just before I left.

At this point I began working in Botswana. Before I started there I knew that they would always appoint local staff, if available as HOD. When I arrived I met the best HOD I ever had but he was retiring - he was not local. Under this HOD I worked hard with the department to build up a programme that was ready within that year. When the guy retired a local teacher came in as HOD, and a non-local schools inspector who had been demoted because of lack of funding was brought into the department. The HOD had worked under the inspector so they formed an alliance. Now the schools inspector had an agenda, he was writing a book, and he wanted to develop and test materials so the new HOD simply ditched the programme that had been written by the team the year before. This was unjust given all the work that had been put in, others acquiesced but injustice angered me and I fought this. Apart from this alliance he was a good HOD but we spent a number of years at loggerheads, he was unwilling to demand compliance with the inspector's system but he still expected all the department to acquiesce - he called it cooperation. When he left two incompetent HODs, one after the other, were appointed. Because I knew beforehand this was less of an injustice but it was unjust. It was a racist policy however, a black government appointing a black HOD. It was just nationalism, there was no pretense at competence, nor was it described as positive discrimination or affirmative action. Although the teachers were less educated and less competent, they were not suffering from any disadvantage based on the country's system. In terms of the global 1%-system of neoliberalism and neocolonialism they were disadvantaged, I have no idea whether that was ever offered as a rationale. All other factors being even a system ought to be a meritocracy, it was unjust that it wasn't.

Back in my first school (the majority black school) there were the occasional black teacher who was not there based in my view on competence, this is very dangerous to say. It is never clear how much confidence is given to black students in a white system when they see a black authority figure, but that must add to their competence as a teacher. But I had a feeling that some black cards had been played over competence. Students would of course know this so it might not have helped. But of course there was white incompetence as well. And in education there was a question of alienation, if you were a dedicated teacher you always had to fight the malaise in the establishment, the malaise that stemmed from a 1%-system that did not want these kids to be successful.

There were environments I worked in where the prevailing ethos was to attempt to address the gender imbalance, I have no examples but this can lead to a sense of personal injustice for men especially white men - quotes often heard she got the job because she's a woman.

I empathise with any feelings of injustice because of what I have experienced myself. It is hard to cope with when you suffer financially and when you feel that you have lost out when you are more competent. Such feelings should never be dismissed, and here is where I feel empathy because I think these feelings have been dismissed in the case of many white males. In terms of unity it is not constructive to label this white distress as unimportant when it is affecting the lifestyle and families of these people.


How did I cope with any personal injustice? Compassion. I was compassionately committed to inequality so when I was on the wrong side of justice my compassion held me strong. Injustice is a part of every person's life experience. To turn around and respond to injustice with knee-jerk emotionalism is a sign of weakness. Whatever the injustices that are thrown at us we need to hold to our true nature - compassion.

I consider censorship to be injustice, and I feel there is a voluntary censorship that is applied to this issue of race. I feel that white liberal males censor their feelings about personal injustice. I feel that equality in the workplace is an ideal they aspire to, and for that to happen they have to keep quiet about their feelings of injustice. When censorship begins in this way there is a very disputable sense of logic and fairness that if one white man can be censored in this way then so can all white men. White liberal men censor themselves and support censorship of all white men. This produces resentment in MAWPs, and that resentment produces an alt-right/cucks feud and is a feeding ground for white nationalism. End any form of censorship, and promote compassionate awareness.

"40% of white people feel their experience is worse than that of black experience", Derek said this was a fact he used to use - somewhere. My response, what a load of crap. When this sort of thing is said I want to join in with the snowflakes and complain about whining privilege. Let me be clear I have sufficient personal knowledge of black experience to say this is crap, and when you listen (deeply listen) to black people you know it is crap. But if I leave it there what am I doing? Contributing to an increase in the 40%.

Apart from the deplorables (I will discuss the use of this word later) in the 40%, there are good(ish) people in the rest who are hurting - "ish" only means they are not functioning from compassion. And many aren't functioning from compassion, white liberals! These 40% (-deplorables) are hurting and need our compassion, in the US they never got it, under Obama this fuelled racism and this contributed to the emergence of Trump-puppet. In the UK this hurt contributed to Brexit. To the liberal part of me I see in this hurt ignorance and blame, and if drunk potential violence, so I am not empathetic. But as a compassionate man I know these people are hurting, and something must be done about this hurt.

But compassion does not deal with one hurt only, it tries to deal with all the hurts. In my first school, when I was still learning, there was this white hurt, and apart from being professional I ignored it focussing on the bigger problem - racism, the hurt of the black kids. I am sure I contributed to the 40% in that school. Compassion has to be concerned with suffering of all, black and white, those you empathise with and those you don't.

As I learnt more compassion took me to the recognition that the problem was the 1% (bourgeoisie before Occupy). But that is the infrastructure of compassion, but compassion is in the details and that is where I am going now.

Understanding white and race

I listen to Derek and I know I don't understand white people. This is not my only excuse, the movement doesn't understand white people. Look at Trump-puppet and Brexit, isn't this an indication that the movement doesn't understand white people?

Who does understand white people? The 1% knows enough to exploit them through race. Black people saw Trump coming, and Derek knows about recruiting.

First of all I am an anti-racist. I live in rural Thailand where the only white people I come across are MAWPs. Previously I would not have known these people, now I do because they are in my "enclave". I am in the enclave but I am not part of it because I won't put the interests of these MAWPs above compassion; this separates me.

Wherever you live anti-racism is required. When I do socialise I have to listen to racist crap about Thais. Basically Farangs don't know Thai society. How can they, they don't speak the language. It is not the highest class of Thai society who will have a relationship with Farangs. I know, a little, some Thais who are different from the Thais that Farangs know because I volunteer in a Thai school. The teachers do not behave like the girls/women that the Farangs know. But I don't know Thai society because I am not part of it and I don't speak the language. But whenever I speak with these MAWPs I have to bite down the anti-racism in me to be at least in some way pleasant - sociable.

Derek said it is easier to be a white nationalist than an anti-racist. I find this an absolutely fascinating statement. Examine that, the more you think about it the more it knocks you back. I will look into conditioning but following the path I rejected all conditioning I was aware of. That includes conditioning about race - a conditioning I know I had. It was my compassion that made me recognise the suffering of the black kids in my first school, so my education path into fighting the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy was only a matter of time, time that was lengthened by the intellectualism that was embodied in the SWP.

I don't get the feeling of path from Derek, of course I don't know him. He certainly recognises the importance of compassion as he discussed here. There has to be some inevitability about his WN rejection. In my case I had no choice other than be anti-racist, it was part of my duty.

Buddhadasa discusses here idappaccayata, nature as the Buddhist God, and in it he describes nature's duty. It is my duty to be anti-racist. It was quite common for me to be guilt-tripped by black people, and when younger I was more vulnerable. I can't say I ever really felt guilty. Sure I was privileged, as a white middle-class male I had a lot of benefits - helped by being a bit academic as well. But I didn't choose privilege, I was born with it. I can only be guilted by what I chose, so I suspect the guilt-tripping I was subjected to when younger was because I chose drinking and wasn't following my path as much as I could. With anti-racism being a duty there was no choice. It was hard not to be around racists so I was always in conflict as to what awareness I should raise.

So that brings me to a huge question that I haven't considered recently, what is a racist? I have a feeling that Derek's ex-people have a very clear understanding of what is a racist, and that is connected to WN so I will go into that later. I have always kind of used the NUT anti-racist definition of racism - prejudice + power = racism.

This was a useful definition especially with the emotional reaction about black guys using the word "honky" - eg "Brother Louie" by Hot Chocolate. But as to a racist I am not sure how much it helps. I think there is some sort of spectrum that I will try to represent here:-

"Bell Hooks" - the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy

Just a bit of an explanation. For someone to be compassionate on the path then they will respond to society as if it is imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy because they respond with compassion - even if politically they are not aware of Bell Hooks' meaning. An anti-racist has not per definition dealt with their own contributions to patriarchy although it would have to be in development.

The intention of this graphic is to show that the degree of racism is a spectrum, and that it has two aspects. The first aspect is institutional (societal or political). When the 1% get us to fight wars they must demonise the enemy so that soldiers are willing to kill them. I sit on the beach with Germans my parents' generation would happily have killed - and vice versa. The Germans were demonised, and that occasionally shows in humour now. As colonialists the British exploited countries of black people, the scientists came up with models that black brains were smaller than white brains, and as such it was OK to treat them as slaves. Now the institutional function is scapegoatism, the 1% need someone to blame for the problems they create whilst they add zeros to their bank accounts.

On a personal level this institutional racism translates to fear. Whilst there is nothing to fear intrinsically from a black person, when you treat them as second-class then there becomes a fear. What if as a white person I was treated this badly how would I respond? This just shows itself as fear. It is promoted as fear in the media so that those people who never meet black people are afraid of them. Fear of muggers, fear of black sexploitation, fear of black neighbours reducing house prices, these are all fears that add to racism. And with institutionally-racist employment practices more black youth is forced into crime to get money, and so engender more fear.

On an institutional level racism is there for scapegoatism, and on a personal level racism exists because of fear, but what racism is not is intellectual. There is no rational basis for racism. IQ statistics merely demonstrate that the IQ test does not measure intelligence. The crime statistics demonstrate that if you treat people unjustly they will turn to crime, and people are afraid of this. Many racists are exposed to the rational truth but don't respond because it is an emotional issue. The rational explanations promoted by Don and Derek Black were there to make racism respectable, to allow intellectuals such as the Heather MacDonalds of this world to pretend that they are still intellectuals rather than ignorant people conned by the scapegoatism into being afraid. If there were a rational basis to racism it would have long since been dismissed. But fear is fanned and racism remains.

At this point I think it is important to understand how we learn through conditioning, that it is through attachment, and that is where white people accept the racist ideas that eventually makes them racists. To begin with we learn through instinct from our parents and family. It is instinctive to have emotional attachments to our parents, and we seek approval from them. We suckle, enjoy, attach to the joy, do it again. Similarly we feel the emotions of parents towards race. Parents are afraid of black people, we feel their fear, attach to that fear, and start the process of becoming racists. Media is another source of racism or anti-racism; if we come from a racist home then the media will add to the racist attachments. Education can help against racism but in a mixed race school if the racial conflict is not controlled then the school can add to racism. When we are young it is not one idea that holds true, but a reinforcement of events that we attach to. In my view it is the duty of educationalists to be anti-racist but unfortunately that is not the way the establishment sees it - it would be fair to describe the delivery in schools and universities to be mostly liberal; but there are pressures such as Dark Money Network's Turning Point USA that seek to move it right - look at the site and see how much it is being financed. There is little pressure to make education anti-racist.

So education does not offer the reinforcement it should. It might help a little but there is not enough reinforcement to cope with the family and media.

So in our society white people grow up racists, liberals or anti-racists dependent on background. Except for a few on the path most people continue within these groups as that is where they will get their reinforcement. So when WN meets a white liberal (who is not an anti-racist), they see potential for recruitment especially if they have suffered recent racial trauma - simply because conditioning is only a matter of reinforcement amongst liberals.

But of course the converse is true a white nationalist is vulnerable to change through reinforcement. But neither is likely to happen as there has been much conditioning leading up to adulthood.

Repressive censorship that has been the practice of PC-authoritarianism is not a sound strategy. In fact it is a very divisive strategy. It forces the liberal to comply with liberalism through community pressure, and it forces the racist to seek "subterranean" understanding. Free speech enables arguments and statistics to be refuted, assuming teachers are allowed to do their jobs and students are allowed to speak against the racist - the frightening professor watchlist.

It seems that everything that is happening about race and politics is being intentionally divided - look at the financing here, I remember various cauldrons in Brixton. But there is only one strategy - open dialogue in an attempt to find the truth. Calling for free speech is playing into the hands of the right and their financial backing, but we have to develop the personal strength to deal with that powerful financial support symbolised by Turning Point, USA. PC-authoritarianism does not help us cope with general life where this financial control is so prominent. Throughout Derek's book there was clear evidence of pc-authoritarianism to such an extent that at one stage Allison reacted against it for fear that it would force Derek back into WN. It was a weakness on the part of the students - bullying Derek. Initially their rejection was positive expression but it was not left there; on campus they had the power and they chose to bully - weak. Students were legitimately afraid of Stormfront, and for a long time Derek's refusal to dissociate from Stormfront stoked that fear. But campuses need to be free speech zones even though that will allow the money to infiltrate. Cocooning liberalism (safe spaces etc.) is not a long-term solution, the cocooning temporarily protects the vulnerable but does not remove vulnerability and leaves them to be potentially exposed later on. The anti-racist movement needs to be equipped to cope with false arguments, and liberals need to toughen up.

The 1%-satrapy kills, and liberals want safe spaces from negative propaganda. Get some conviction.

Culture and Heritage

All my adult life I have been an outsider living outside the culture where I am resident. After uni I moved to London and rented, and where I rented was considered multi-cultural but I was always an outsider because I hadn't set roots. In Clapham for example there was a white community, a black community, and quite a number of temporary outsiders like me. When I moved to Brighton I was a community activist and teacher so that was probably the nearest I ever was to being in a community. Then I began teaching outside the UK so my community was the teaching community of the countries I lived in. In one African school as a white person I was considered transient by the local black staff but because they were career teachers I taught there longer than most teachers. I have lived in Thailand for 12 years, I am an outsider. Mostly the local Thai people ignore me although because I am respectful the traders are happy to take my money. I volunteer teach at a local school and this adds to my acceptability but I will never be Thai. I have no rights in Thailand, I cannot own property - I must rent, I have no choice or I don't live here.

WN in erstwhile white countries such as US, Europe, Australia and NZ would be very happy to have the legal setup that Thais have, I am sure. But they can't have them because of their country's history, only in Europe are whites native. Whilst Thailand's economy has a significant proportion of tourist money, significant but not dependent, her history has not been that of exploitation. Thailand did not invade the UK, take UK resources and build up her wealth. If that were the case I would be far more vociferous about my rights in Thailand. Thailand offered me a home under various conditions. I accept that Thais want to live together, and I also accept that if the political winds change I might have to leave Thailand - not likely but a possibility. Thais have their culture and I choose to live here as a "guest".

White culture in America is far different from that. First and foremost white people are not indigenous, America is not a white country, it is a red country - I hope it is not offensive to Native Americans to describe their country as red. After British people invaded America and then white Americans kicked out the British, the invasion of America was complete. At that point America might have been described as a white country by whites, but geographically only a few places were controlled by whites. It was a red country and a white country. If the situation remained that way then WN might, I stress might, have a case for claiming that certain lands in America could be WN.

Before I continue I want to look at the way Derek describes WN taken from here. He is describing WN as white people wanting to live together in their own country. Although I personally wouldn't want that, in isolation it is not an unreasonable campaign - white people wanting to live with white people, Thais wanting to live with Thais, and so on. Throughout the book "Rising out of Hatred" he describes his WN-self and his father as not wanting sociopaths. He uses statistics that says whites have lower IQs than East Asians and higher IQs than blacks. If there are statistics that support this contention then this would be another reason for me to dispute the validity of using IQ as a measure of intelligence - in his book he says Allison gave him studies recognising the cultural bias in the IQ test [p287 of 496]. But I raise this here because Derek uses it to demonstrate that whites just want to live with whites. This is far different from the Supremacy sociopaths that Hillary called deplorables who claim whites are superior to all others and are willing to use violence to further their cause. The way Derek is presented in the book is that he understands the violence but has never advocated it - see On White Nationalism below, but WN and whites wanting to live together are very different.

When I was living in London I lived in multi-cultural areas but there were certain areas I would not live. I was frightened to live in the East End because of the white crime but worse the white working-class violence that would arise if I discussed anti-racism. I also would not want to live in certain black areas although I was comfortable living in multi-cultural communities. I recently met a US estate agent who probably would not have described herself as racist but .... She harped on the fact that she had black clients who did not want to live in black-dominated areas. I am an anti-racist but I do not want to live in areas of high crime, whatever race is associated with that crime.

I feel very sorry for any people who are forced to live in areas of high crime. I don't know for sure because I have never been there but some of the projects sound absolutely horrendous. I feel so sorry for the good black or Hispanic people who are forced to live there and try to keep their kids out of gangs. It is a disgrace that no US government has tried to regain those areas, there are sufficient good black people around for that to happen.

Let me return to the question of culture that I was examining historically. I was at the stage where America had two peoples, there was a red part of American and a white part of America that white people had appropriated. So what did the white people do? They enslaved black people and brought them to America, and then eventually granted those black slaves freedom. They invaded red America appropriating more lands for white America, but this was never white America because they had made part of it black America. I suspect that there would be plenty of black people who would "return" to whatever African country they were captured from with an appropriate portion of the white fortune that had been made from them.

And then we have Hispanic America where cheap labour was encouraged to cross the border, and built up huge fortunes for white people. American foreign policy in Latin America was that of interference as described in Juan Gonzalez' (Democracy Now) "Harvest of Empire". If Latinos were given a fair proportion of the US GDP I suspect many would be happy to go back to the land that circumstance took them out of.

So America is not now a white land because the wealth of America has been predicated on people who are their citizens. As far as I understand it there are areas in the US which are predominantly white. I would wonder whether there could be a white Alabama homeland in which all reparations had been made to the black people who made the wealth of the land. But then all the powerful whites there would have to give back the bulk of their wealth so I suspect no WN homeland would be wanted.

Every non-white citizen in America is either there because their family was forcibly brought there, arrived there because of exploitation that made the fortunes of Americans or are there because of American companies employ them or have links in their home countries, or are there because of foreign interference such as Syrian immigrants.

Because of American history WN is in conflict with the 1% and American government. The non-whites should not be a target of any WN movement because it is American governments, originally white American governments, who brought the people over and made them American citizens. As a principle it is reasonable for white people to ask to live together, because of American history in America it is not practical for there to be nationalism because America is multi-cultural - live with it. The racial cauldron that is America is a consequence of its violent past, the invasion by white people, the exploitation of other peoples through slavery and migrant labour, and its interventionist foreign policy. All Americans have to deal with this violence together rather than blaming each other.

This blaming benefits the 1% who are exploiting cultural differences as a means of division in order to exploit all of America's people including the WN.

On White Nationalism

This section on white nationalism is a subjective opinion and is not based on any strong evidence. In the last section on culture I have described the reasonableness for a white culture to have a cultural homeland - this happens all over the world. But I have also explained that given US history the US cannot consider itself a white country and as such the US cannot be a white homeland - maybe parts of it with suitable reparations. WN is not reasonable.

In this section I want to offer an opinion as to the validity of this claim for white nationalism by considering the position Don and Derek (prior to his "rise"). Don established Stormfront, and Derek developed the website; this is a hate website advocating violence. Derek's plausibility in his separation of white nationalism from white supremacy appears to be making the claim that white nationalism does not support violence it is just "white people wanting to live together".

Here is Derek attempting to clarify WN and white supremacy. He himself says he is being long-winded, I think he is having difficulty - over violence. Reading the book the Blacks are a close family, and Derek's rise must be so difficult - as the book says. Throughout the book Derek appeared reasonable and implicitly questioned the fear of his peers that he, Derek, was a physical threat. Yet for at least half the book he was still talking on the internet radio with his father. Why hasn't WN expressly condemned violence? White culture is plausible, violence isn't and should be condemned. In the same way the anarchist element within Antifa should be condemned - I condemn it. Whilst remaining plausible, advocating white culture, WN also tacitly advocates violence; the difference between white supremacy and white nationalism is not violence vs the plausible cultural whiteness. Both are violent otherwise they would denounce it. In the last chapter of the book the connection between Trump and WN is drawn, and at Charlottesville Trump did not denounce the violence of WN. Wanting white culture is not violent imposing the white culture of WN is.

Here is Heather MacDonald speaking at Hillsdale College, an elite white college; I don't recommend this talk at all. At the beginning she welcomes the comfort of being able to speak at Hillsdale, and derides the Liberal aggression she usually is met with because of her right-wing views. Presumably she considers herself plausible yet she espouses rhetoric that might well be considered the plausible WN of a white cultural homeland, but in effect she is supporting violence. Violence is how 1% oppress, the violence of the security system from drones, military, FBI/CIA/MI5, police, is a way that legitimate struggle such as Occupy is oppressed.

I was not aware of how WN the Republican candidates in the 2012 election campaign had been. "In the Republican Party, the 2012 primary had become a race to the far conservative right on immigration issues, with one candidate after the next proposing ideas that were once popular only on forums like Stormfront. Rick Santorum tried to please Tea Party activists by saying he wanted to make English the country's official language, mandatory for all residents. Herman Cain suggested building an electrified border fence, twenty feet high and coiled in barbed wire, with enough voltage to kill a human being. Michele Bachmann said she could do one better by building a "secure double fence" along every foot of the border. Even Mitt Romney, the party's eventual nominee, had moved away from his centrist roots and suggested an immigration policy of "self-deportation". His idea was essentially that lawmakers could make life in America so difficult for immigrants - by withdrawing government assistance, eliminating their jobs, and increasing police patrols in minority neighborhoods - that they would become miserable and choose to leave on their own," [p244 of 496]. There's not much of a jump to get to Trump's wall. Do these people condemn violence?

Charlottesville was concerned about free speech. If you ignore the question of where the money comes from to pay for these speakers, they claim the right to free speech. Yet are these speakers condemning violence when they claim the right to free speech? If you have the right to free speech then you have to accept the right to protest so then who pays for the required policing because neither side demands protest be 100% peaceful. In reality it is a WN strategy to provoke violence as a tactic to demonstrate that their views are being oppressed, this was the purpose of Charlottesville according to Derek.

I hate Liberal censorship - PC-authoritarianism, all it has done is promote the rise of the right - illustrated by Trump and Brexit. Free speech that does not promote violence is legitimate, protest that does not promote violence is legitimate. Hateful speech that presents lies about race or whatever needs to be exposed not repressed, repression (PC-authoritarianism) has been demonstrated as not working. Violence in the name of the class struggle historically is just an excuse for state violence, and is alienating and counter-productive. Whilst it is unrealistic to say that society should be better than that, our tactics should not make society worse. Peaceful protest against hateful free speech is required - not repression.

I am an anti-racist but ....

"I'm not a racist but ...." is a phrase WN looks for in recruiting recognising the potential for turning. I am an anti-racist but there is a high level of personal crime within black communities. As far as I know this is a fact, and it is a fact that WN uses for recruitment. As an anti-racist I recognise that this crime and violence is a fact that white establishment, neoliberalism - 1%-satrapy, allows to happen to enable scapegoating division. Further the 1%-satrapy enables drugs through the gangs of these communities. This happens for three reasons. Propagating a drug problem within these communities keeps them unstable and enables the scapegoatism. Secondly it enables a supply of recreational drugs for their own community. And thirdly they somehow profit financially from the drugs trade. I am unable to substantiate these three reasons but they make sense to me.

In most black countries there is not such an issue of gangs and drugs but they are prevalently-enabled within white countries - specifically NATO countries. In black countries (Africa) there is no such problem. Given the poverty and the neocolonial puppet governments, governments where the puppets seem to shove wealth into the faces of their peoples, the level of crime is remarkably low. And the crime is not dominated by gangs who hound their own people.

Apart from knowing that the gangs are a huge problem for good black families living in gang-controlled areas, I know little about gangs. I do know that policing of black communities has always been an issue. In the US Black Lives Matter illustrates the problem of police killing blacks with impunity, and far too many white people see the killings as justified because of fear of personal violent crime making the assumption that those shot deserved it. Policing black communities could be handled in a far more sensitive and cooperative way as there are so many black people harassed by the criminality in their communities. But rather than sensitive policing there is confrontational policing. By nature many police tend to be right-wing, nationalist and willing to accept all the racist stereotypes. At the same time the structural racism within the police force ensures continuity of the problem. However there are sufficient good police officers who could deal with the problem if neoliberalism actually wanted the problem resolved. However much more money is spent on policing the profits of the 1% and protecting the senior members of the 1%-satrapy. Back in the 80s I could substantiate these claims, now I am not current although I see no evidence to the contrary. Because I am an anti-racist I understand how the neoliberalism of 1%-satrapy creates the problems that exist within these black and Hispanic communities, and I understand why the situation is unlikely to change unless there is political will. That will is unlikely to come from frightened white liberals, and definitely not from the neoliberals that dominate Democrats and Labour.

Derek's Letter to the SPLC

A large section of the community I grew up in believes strongly in white nationalism, and members of my family whom I respect greatly, particularly my father, have long been resolute advocates for that cause. I was not prepared to risk driving a wedge in those relationships.

After a great deal of thought since then, I have resolved that it is in the best interests of everyone involved, directly or indirectly, to be honest about my slow but steady disaffiliation from white nationalism. The things I have said as well as my actions have been harmful to people of color, people of Jewish descent and all others affected. I will not contribute to any cause that perpetuates this harm in the future.

Advocating for redress of the supposed oppression of whites in the West is by its nature damaging to all others because of the privileged position of white people in these societies. Promoting a victim complex for whites does not recognize the oppressed experiences of others, and that's what my efforts have done.

It is impossible to argue rationally that in our society, with its overwhelming disparity between white power and that of everyone else, racial equity programs represent oppression of whites. More importantly, white nationalism's staunch opposition to the gains in numbers and in influence of non-whites makes it a movement by nature committed to suppressing these people. It has become clear to me that white nationalism is not a movement of positive identity or of asserting cultural values, but of constant antagonism at the betterment of other groups. Advocating for white nationalism means that we are opposed to minority attempts to elevate themselves to a position equal to our own. It is an advocacy that I cannot support, having grown past my bubble, talked to the people I affected, read more widely, and realized the impact my actions had on people I never wanted to harm. I am sorry for the damage done by my actions.

I realize not all will instantly believe me, or may perceive this as a seemingly abrupt change when it has been instead a gradual awakening process. I understand that my words don't suddenly heal all wounds caused by my actions or my encouragement of others. Time, however, will demonstrate my full lack of involvement. I should be the one who calls out what I disagree with.

I can't support a movement that tells me I can't be a friend to whomever I wish or that other people's races require me to think about them in a certain way or be suspicious at their advancements.

Minorities must have the ability to rise to positions of power, and many supposed "race" issues are in fact issues of structural oppression, poor educational prospects, and limited opportunity. I believe we can move beyond the sort of mind-boggling emphasis white nationalism puts on maintaining an oppressive, exclusive sense of identity - oppressive for others and stifling for our society.

The Real Empathy I have just finished the book and find it fascinating. I began it because listening to Derek on Trevor's show I could see that Derek had understood compassion to some extent. The book and the show presented Derek's transformation as an intellectual exercise of perseverance and reinforcement on the part of some of the New College students whose comradeship in Shabbat greatly helped - typified by this opinion about Derek and his shabbats presented as "Knowledge is thicker than bad blood".

I don't see this, I see a heart-rending love story; caveat - I don't know them.

For me there is a rather unusual love triangle involving Derek, Allison and Don. Don loved his son and as a father wanted to pass on what he understood. As a young person Derek's ego was reinforced by the continual personal and media reinforcement, and he would undoubtedly have had an apartheid ego - an ego so reinforced it would be virtually unbreakable. The only thing that could break it was love - Allison's love. The way Allison is presented in the book she sees herself as presenting the truth to Derek, and eventually the truth persuades him. To me love transformed and love opened up Derek's compassion breaking through his apartheid ego to finally recognise the truth. In my view intellect and reasoning (the knowledge of the clip) would not have done it, love was the key that enabled the knowledge to come in.

As the book ends there is still love between Derek and his father, the rest of his family have made more efforts to accept how he has transformed - after the SPLC letter had been written Don had to leave his own 60th birthday party to speak with his son. For me the message of this book is the power of love, how love can break down even the most powerful (apartheid) ego, and if we can show love rather than increasing hate we perhaps have a chance of ending the barriers the 1% put between us.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Matriellez, Mandtao.