Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogenous state or “homeland” for the White race. Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent. Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality? Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

First off, simply put, movements move. Understandably, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the concept of White Nationalism is nearing the age of needing heart meds (literally and metaphorically). Excluding a handful of leafleteers and diversity dodgers, the only movement is that of fingers on a keyboard. The keyboards allow for just enough recycled thought to prevent total ideological stagnation. Through the years, numerous would-be White Nationalists have searched the realms of Cyberia in hopes of finding White camaraderie in their geographical region; only to eventually permanently “log out” after discovering the movement is primarily an internet based phenomenon. It doesn’t take the intellectual to comprehend keyboard removal will simultaneously induce movement default.

Sure, there will be those in the movement who disagree with my pessimistic observation, but isn’t White Nationalism comprised in racial realism, which is fundamentally supported by social and biological truths? One can’t pick and choose the truths they accept, for the truth doesn’t lie. As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

If White Nationalists focused just a fraction of the time they spend defending their character (I’m not a hater, racist, etc.) in a proverbial attempt at reinventing the wheel; the wheel might just start to move. First impressions are everything, and that initial meeting took place years ago. The concern shouldn’t be the opinions of the antis, but the cohesion of the pride. The two-faced paranoia (paranoia of meeting face-to-face) should be of greater concern than ideological identifying terminology. White Nationalist is the desired euphemism of the modern day pro-White individual, but any mainstream media coverage, or reference by non-sympathizers will always be the traditional verbiage (racist, White supremacist, neo- Nazi, etc.).

Therefore, if only but a few are responsible for movement motion, should those stagnate racialists be labeled accordingly? Are they White Nationalists, or cyberacialists? Does race even exist in Cyberia? The irony of racial unity in the Land of Letters pretty much sums up the dysfunctionality of the movement. Any weirdo, psycho, nut case or even non-White can assume the alter ego of a White Nationalist. And considering the rampant epidemic that is two-faced paranoia, nobody will ever know (or care). The Internet isn’t to blame, for it is merely a tool. Unfortunately for White Nationalism it is the tool. The tool created the cyberacialist, which is responsible for the transformation of an ideology into a hobby. Ideas evolve, and perhaps “hobby” is the progressive transition to an eventual grassroots movement.

We need a face-to-face community of noisy, intelligent, attractive, committed White people marching in the street with signs opposed to immigration, multiculturalism and the strident ethnic politics of other groups; there is a need for a steady drumbeat of political advertising where pro-White themes, whether explicitly white or not, are repeated over and over to the point that they become part of the furniture of life even if winning elections remains a distant goal.

In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence. With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists. The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….

“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats