National Vanguard to Reporter: Thanks, We Have Our Own Media Now
Opinion; Posted on: 2006-02-09 22:20:42

But you do have something we want...

by David Daugherty (pictured)

I MUST ADMIT being the Webmaster of National Vanguard's Tampa, Florida Web site does have its perks. For instance, some of the emails I receive provide great opportunities for presenting our ideas, while having a lot of fun doing it. One recent email came from a local reporter looking for a story. I agreed to tell him everything I know, in exchange for conditions I knew would make any establishment editor grow faint and buckle at the knees. Here's the email I received:

Mr. Daugherty: Since learning that your group meets regularly in Brandon, I have wanted to make contact for a story. As with any other proposed story, higher-ups must usually sign off first, and I am awaiting a decision. Since that decision will not come down right away, I thought I would introduce myself and let you know of my intentions. I am hoping to write a story about your group, depending on the degree of cooperation you would be willing to give. We can talk further about why you might want to cooperate, what's "in it" for you. But briefly, I would just say that if you have a message and you would like for people to know who you really are, maybe this would be a way to accomplish that aim.

This would neither be a cheerleading piece nor a hit piece. I am interested in how people got motivated to join and become active members -- how it is that you focus or seem to focus so much on problems between white people versus other races and cultures. This really does intrigue me. Anyway, if you want to talk my number is (813) 661-XXXX, and I'll be back after the new year.


Andrew Meacham
Staff writer, the Brandon Times section
St. Petersburg Times

My Response:

Mr. Meacham,

My response and the article you write, if you are permitted to write it, may be quite different from what you had in mind.

Since you live in the heavily sheltered, ideologically monolithic world of journalism, it is understandable that you have little knowledge of what motivates those of us involved in political dissent and rebellion. Instead of wasting time presenting specific facts of which you would probably not see the significance anyway; I will attempt to convey some basic concepts and ideas.

In short, the problem at hand is not caused by race -- it is caused by implementing public policy based on the denial of race.

An analogy of this would be like going to medical school in the year1800 -- you would have been taught methods and procedures based on the theory that microorganisms didn't exist -- methods and procedures that killed many of the patients they were supposed to have saved. The reason it was necessary for scholars of that time to explicitly deny the existence of microbes was because there were many who did in fact know better, and who challenged academia when they could. The theory of microorganisms wasn't anything knew -- some had considered their existence a fact centuries earlier.

Unfortunately, the ruling elite and academia took the position that microorganisms did not exist -- under the belief that they were advancing in knowledge and making 'progress.' Anyone who said otherwise was obviously stupid, ignorant, and had no idea of what they were talking about. After all, only someone who is trying to "roll back the clock" would argue with the 'experts' and stand in the way of 'progress.'

Even some of those teaching medicine in that period knew microorganisms exited, but that didn't stop them from standing in front of a room full of students and saying the exact opposite.

Well, that was all 200 years ago, in the medical field. Let's move forward in time a little. Let's say you were a reporter in 1976 -- in Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad. You would have known about the failure of the collective farms and factories and the harm collectivization was causing; however, I seriously doubt you would have written any stories about it.

The ruling regime had adopted the dogma that Communism was "correct" in every particular, which made it unquestionable. Professors at the time knew very well that Communism was a failure, but that didn't stop them from standing in front of a room full of students and saying the exact opposite. Those who challenged them were denounced as stupid, ignorant and bigoted -- Communism was the future. After all, only someone who is trying to "roll back the clock" would argue with the 'experts' and stand in the way of 'progress.'

The theory that was supposed to advance them into the future pushed them into the past. While the rest of the world moved forward, they stagnated -- but no one could say anything. Even you, as a reporter in the USSR of 1976, would have said nothing. The thought of saying something would probably have never occurred to you.

You would have had your editor, who would have ensured that only "appropriate" material was published, and you would have lived your life without a care. As long as you didn't cross the line you would be just fine -- and you, your editor, along with everyone else who worked at that newspaper, would have known exactly where that line was.

In the United States and rest of Western civilization today, we have yet another sacred cow of a theory -- 'diversity.' Yet another super-advanced theory that will hurl us all toward a utopian future at break-neck speeds. Never mind that it's based on the complete denial of reality and the same delusions of "total equality" that sent Communism straight to its grave -- we're all supposed to ignore those minor details.

We now find ourselves in a highly undesirable situation, similar to that of the patients of archaic doctors and the Soviet Union's proletariat -- subjects of policy based on fantasy at the hands of the ruling elite.

The same basic process is being repeated -- the ruling elite or ruling political parties, adopt a theory that at the time has few facts to support it, but seems like it could be true. Then, the ruling elite create methods, procedures, laws and public policies based on the new theory. When people challenge the theory, the ruling elite, especially those in academia, defend it passionately. The ruling elite find defending their position increasingly difficult because dissidents are bringing evidence to bear against the theory that cannot be easily argued or dismissed. The ruling elite retaliate by attacking the dissidents any way they can -- not excluding the force of the state.

The situation deteriorates further. The dissidents are incensed by the aggressive measures taken by the ruling elite and become entrenched in their positions. The policies instituted by the ruling elite fail, not slightly but catastrophically. These failures only embolden the dissidents. The ruling elite can no longer defend their position intellectually so all public discourse concerning the theory is either prohibited, or tightly controlled. Propaganda is intensified -- dissidents are demonized, slandered, dehumanized, criminalized or worse. Meanwhile, the theory is trumpeted as the untouchable, undeniable truth -- the very wellspring of all that is good.

By this point many in the ruling elite either know the theory is wrong or have some very definite doubts it will ever work the way they had planned. The problem is they have painted themselves into a corner. They have been defending a theory that is wrong for decades. Some of them defended it knowing it was wrong. They spent massive amounts of wealth pumping it up with propaganda and used their authority to force it upon the public and assault anyone who challenged them.

At this point they feel trapped. If they back down and admit the theory is false after using their power to enforce it and to abuse those who challenged it, they fear it will discredit them to such a degree that it will destroy their ability to rule -- a fear that came true for the Communist Party in the now deceased Soviet Union.

That was why a reporter in Volgograd in 1976 couldn't write a story about the hardships caused by the failure of the collective farms and factories. It is also why a reporter in Brandon, Florida in 2006 would not be permitted to publish an article about the harm caused to White students because of the failure of 'diversity' in the public schools. Your editor would never allow it -- you would never think of it -- and you know where the line is.

But everybody knows 'diversity' has failed; even the White liberals pull their kids out of "bad" schools so they can send them to "good" schools. We all know what makes a school "bad." Only a handful of people have the guts to say it, though -- everyone else just chants propaganda slogans like "diversity is our strength" with fake smiles on their faces.

The reason the scholar in 1800 couldn't tell his students that the procedure of letting the "bad blood" out of the patient was wrong and stupid, is the same reason professors in 1976 in Volgograd couldn't tell their students Communism was a failure. And it's the same reason professors in 1996 in Tampa couldn't tell their students that 'diversity' was a failure -- too few of them had the guts to do it.

Too few of them today have what it takes to stand up to the power of the ruling elite and say "the theory was tested, it was a total disaster, the experiment must stop -- it's time to assess the damage and make plans to finally start moving forward."

The focus of modern dissidents isn't the fact that racial conflicts exist -- the focus is on the failed theories such as 'diversity' that created multiracialism, and in turn created the racial conflicts. Just as when someone objected to letting the "bad blood" out of a sick patient, the focus wasn't on death, but on the misguided procedure that killed the patient. As long as they continued with their denial of the existence of microorganisms and applied lethal procedures to sick people, people died. When doctors stopped bleeding people to death, their patients stopped dying. As long as we continue with denial of racial differences there will be racial conflict. Stop 'diversity' and you'll stop racial conflict.

If you can comprehend the ideas above, you'll have one of the basic concepts of modern rebellion in your intellectual inventory. There are several other major driving influences such as the principles of self-government and self-determination. Since those would require a lengthy discussion by themselves, I will not address them now.

As for your article, I have no interest in attempting to convey any kind of message through your newspaper -- however, you do have something I want. You may be new at this or maybe you haven't tried reporting on any taboo subjects before, but never tell someone who frequently deals with reporters that you're not doing a "hit piece." Every reporter I have ever met has said that -- and they were all lying. You don't get to decide what's in the final print; the editor does.

For the reasons stated above, your editor would never allow something to be printed about any White activists without a sufficient amount of derogatory comments for good propaganda. Telling me this isn't going to be a "hit piece" is like a reporter in the USSR in1976 saying he is going to write an objective article about a group of people who criticize Communism -- yeah, right.

The Tampa Unit has much more effective outreach methods than a short article in the back pages of a newspaper, anyway. We keep track of what generates mail, email, Web site traffic, and phone calls. Also, the demographics of your readership are not what we would consider "prime." Most newspaper readers are middle aged and up. Most activists, with some notable exceptions, are younger, under 35. Most young people get their news from independent sources on the Internet.

Well, what do you have that I want? You have yourself, and your position. In exchange for an interview I would like to interview you, a staff writer for an establishment newspaper. If you like, we could do this quid pro quo. I would like to ask you some basic questions about your employer and some of the policies that outline what you can and can't write. I would be especially interested in seeing any written policies that guide or restrict published information. I will also ask you about several politically taboo subjects.

I would be very interested in visiting your office, asking some of your co-workers a few questions, and maybe shooting some photographs.

In exchange for this I would be willing to speak very openly about White activism in Florida -- an interview far more candid than anyone else would get. We usually give reporters perfectly useless, well-rehearsed, generic sound bites. You could be the first to get real answers with real meaning.

In theory your editors will have nothing to fear. In theory "diversity is our strength." So in theory you can speak freely with nothing to worry about, since we live in a free, enlightened society -- in theory anyway.

I am very interested in your reply.


David Daugherty,
Webmaster, National Vanguard Tampa
[email protected]

His Reply:

David, Thank you for replying at length to my request. I read your letter with interest. I regret to announce that the newspaper will not be pursuing the story. There are many reasons for this decision, some of them having to do with the time necessary to do this story well and my relatively young status with less than one year logged on the bureau.

Moreover, we would not have been able to meet the demands conveyed in your letter. I appreciate the time you took to express some of your concerns.

Andrew Meacham

More by David Daugherty

Source: National Vanguard Tampa • Printed from National Vanguard
( )
National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 • USA