Who are the "We"
IMO, the "we" should be determined by two things:

1. genetics (racial genotype);
2. A strong, almost religious belief in the importance of preserving the "white race"; and possibly, also a belief in the need for eugenics (this eugenic aspect is rarely discussed on the boards and needs to be brought into the open).

See, right now we are thinking the "we" is determined by strategies or tactics or beliefs that don't directly enter into the endgoal of creating a community of whites who self-consciously conceive of themselves as representives of the "white" race and its future.

First of all, I would like some discussion about whether this is really the endgoal. My main questions arise from two issues: who is white; and what role should eugenics play in the Whitopia we create. (BTW I know Whitopia has a negative connation from utopia, a place of perfection that can never exist, but we need to really believe in this place if we want to band together as a movement, so we could call ourselves Whitopians even though it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

But if we can hammer out our raison d'etre, then we can begin to form a "we" which I would argue should not include/exclude based upon differences in strategies, whether kikes did 9/11, or anything else other than the above two criteria.

Linder would like to formulate the movement solely on the basis of elimination of the kikes (only a slight exaggeration). Well, whether you approve or not, this is not at the core of White Nationalism.

We need to think about what our goals really are. Here is a hypothetical: Suppose some billionaire racist decided to fund the $10million/person trip to Mars to colonize the planet. He would fund 50,000 white folks. Who should go? Who should be excluded? What would entice you personally to go? This is the "we" we need to work on - finding a nucleus of people who are passionate enough about this to give up everything for a fresh start on Mars; you really need to trust and have an affinity for your co-white nationalist, almost a religious bonding. This is what the folks had for each other on the Mayflower.

Everyone who aspires to be a white nationalist needs to think beyond a dislike of niggers and kikes and really figure out what this movement is all about.

Sorry this is poorly written, but I just wanted to get this out there and get people starting to think about this movement that is not yet a movement because no one seems to be thinking through the issues.
__________________
I understand and do not understand. 
I'm glad you're thinking about this. I argue that, at this point, the politics overrides the science, or genetics. "Looks white-acts white" is good enough. Since Asians and blacks and mexicans can hardly sneak in, for visual reasons, the concern becomes jews - who can sneak in visually, and who are well known to be our worst and most dangerous enemy. In many ways, they are our only true enemy. So defining we starts with politics, for the gross definition, and devolves into science, for the refined definition. They can both be done at once, we're speculating here, but in practice, as we look around, the single most significant decision we can take in defining "we" is what a jew is. I say we use at least the NS/Israel standard - anyone who is 1/4 jew (has at least one jew grandparent) is NOT white. Is excluded by definition. Beneath that level, it's a matter of behavior.

My argument is that jews are utterly excluded. And so are any groups who work with them. We should work to undermine and eliminate all groups claiming to speak in the name of our race that admit jews or treat them as something other than as not merely an enemy but the enemy.

Quote:
See, right now we are thinking the "we" is determined by strategies or tactics or beliefs that don't directly enter into the endgoal of creating a community of whites who self-consciously conceive of themselves as representives of the "white" race and its future.
I don't get what you're saying here. We don't control the polity. Jews do. And they will not allow us legally to form communities excluding non-whites. That is the first thing that must be dealt with politically, in the bigger picture, once we have clear who we are. If you are referring to things we can do today, within the controls of ZOG, then you should state that. If you believe that we can achieve our goals without worrying about ZOG, then state that too (ie, withdraw to some semi-remote corner of the lower 48 and create an enclave).

Quote:
First of all, I would like some discussion about whether this is really the endgoal.
Of course that's the endgoal, the problem is that you can't simply pick some desired state while ignoring political realities. The powers that be won't allow us that. If you mean what they think doesn't matter, or isn't determinative, then state it flat out. Is there a "soft" way to achieve what you're talking about? Is that what you're arguing?

Quote:
My main questions arise from two issues: who is white; and what role should eugenics play in the Whitopia we create. (BTW I know Whitopia has a negative connation from utopia, a place of perfection that can never exist, but we need to really believe in this place if we want to band together as a movement, so we could call ourselves Whitopians even though it is somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)
There is disagreement over eugenics. Many are for it; i'm personally hesitant. I tend to believe that, apart from some weeding of the very furthest extremes (as the jews have done re Tay-Sachs and other genetic diseases peculiar to them) by far the greater part of what we need is achieved simply by the means of eliminating government, which always grows its own dependent scum populations through a hundred forms of welfare INCLUDING giant standing armies. I see a monofunctional government (albeit with several arms pursuing that sole mission) and the white MAN taking care of the rest. WHITE is the community, MAN is the means and the mission. This is subsidiarity sublime, as I see it. Both man and community are in proper relation: the man isn't a a fucking "resource" for the state; neither is the community to suffer because the "man" want to destroy it for profit. These are not easy to reconcile, in some case, but that's just how it is. There is no perfect system. The man can't be allowed to destroy the White society; but neither can the society subserviate the man. It occurs that subserviate is not technically a word, but I'm going to overlook that for just now.

Quote:
But if we can hammer out our raison d'etre, then we can begin to form a "we" which I would argue should not include/exclude based upon differences in strategies, whether kikes did 9/11, or anything else other than the above two criteria.
I think there's already agreement on what you set. If you stick to praxis, the difficulty is really the position on jews. Are jews white? If they are, then I'm not a White nationalist. If I am a White nationalist, then jews aren't white. And those who work with them are merely white, not White or WN.

Quote:
Linder would like to formulate the movement solely on the basis of elimination of the kikes (only a slight exaggeration).
That's ridiculous. The biggest obstacle to achieving our goals is no joke or trifle.

Quote:
Well, whether you approve or not, this is not at the core of White Nationalism.
It sure as hell is at the core if what's preventing "us" from achieving these goals is jews or any other party. In nature, one subspecies drives out another. And that is precisely what the jews are doing: forbidding us from driving others out of our space. Solving that problem is paramount - right after we figure out who we are - politically. Remember: right now, nowhere on earth, do Whites control territory, with control defined as having the ability to exclude all non-whites. How do we fight that? It starts by deciding for once and for all who "we" are. And in practice that means making a decision on the jews, and more than that, on non-jews who work with jews and welcome them into our ranks.

Quote:
We need to think about what our goals really are. Here is a hypothetical: Suppose some billionaire racist decided to fund the $10million/person trip to Mars to colonize the planet. He would fund 50,000 white folks. Who should go? Who should be excluded? What would entice you personally to go? This is the "we" we need to work on - finding a nucleus of people who are passionate enough about this to give up everything for a fresh start on Mars; you really need to trust and have an affinity for your co-white nationalist, almost a religious bonding. This is what the folks had for each other on the Mayflower.
That hypothetical would only make sense if humans could live on Mars. That's not even remotely technically possible, so what's the sense in discussing it now?

Quote:
Everyone who aspires to be a white nationalist needs to think beyond a dislike of niggers and kikes and really figure out what this movement is all about. Sorry this is poorly written, but I just wanted to get this out there and get people starting to think about this movement that is not yet a movement because no one seems to be thinking through the issues.
Who is White? The right answer, as far as politics, is as indicated above. The action needed is to form up ranks and start attacking all who disagree yet would adopt our name and cause as their own - AmRent and the other weaklings who support Jewfucker Jared and his AAACP.
  Why should that be an exaggeration at all? Nationalism, as I learned it, means self-determination. The need for WN therefore presupposes that we aren’t already in control of our own affairs. That’s how we differ from both existing right and left. The right says whites are in control, only they’re too liberal. The left says whites are in control, only they’re too conservative. Only WN states the obvious: jews are different from us, and they’ve seized enough choke points that they and not whites make the important decisions. So WN, in its most minimal sense, means excluding jews from our people and removing them from power over whites. We can go further than that, and we should, but anything short of that isn’t WN at all.