Friday, September 24, 2021
HomeArchive-1Response to an Angry Correspondent

Response to an Angry Correspondent

by John Young

We get all sorts of mail via the contact form on our organizational website. A lot of it is from members and future members. Some of it is hateful rubbish.

The piece I’m going to share with you today is from a disgruntled nationalist who didn’t have the courtesy of leaving his real email address so we could correct his misconceptions.

I’m printing it today, along with a response, for the edification of our audience. That’s because chances are, if one person is wandering around with bad information, others probably are too.The missive from our correspondent is thus:

As a former NA member, why should anyone get involved with a bunch of NA rejects like yourselves?  I suggest all you washed up NA leadership types accept your mistakes and NEVER start or accept leadership positions again.  You below it so badly with the NA, you do NOT deserve a second chance.  PERIOD!

You are losers and need to accept this fact.  We need new leaders.

This is our answer:

It is presumed that by “NA” you are referring to the National Alliance. As a matter of policy, we do not critique organizations of that type or make personal attacks on their leadership, though we certainly feel free to criticize both philosophy and policy. Usually such critiques are sufficiently general as to not pertain to any one specific organization.

In essence, the philosophical divergence between EAU and organizations of that type is so great that no valid comparison can be made anyway.

You have made an extremely invalid assumption. No person in the board of directors or other leadership of European Americans United has EVER held a position of leadership in the National Alliance. By Leadership, I mean leadership in the sense of actually having policy-making authority over philosophy, strategy, and so forth. In other words, someone who could actually be remotely held responsible for the successes or failures of that organization.

So you are wrong about that.

Insanity has been defined, quite validly, as a person who keeps doing the same thing again and again, but expects to get a different result.

What you need to grasp, and you would grasp if you actually took the time to fully read and comprehend our Ethics, Principles and Constitution is that we are different in so many, and so many important ways, that we aren’t a case of doing the same thing again and again. We are a whole new approach, led by a whole new set of policymakers and thinkers.

So EAU IS that new leadership that you claim to want.

It is so much easier, though, to throw invalid ad-hominem attacks at people you don’t know than it is to make a commitment to get things done.

It is so much easier to bask in hostility and make demands of people who already work very hard than to roll up your shirtsleeves and get to work yourself.

It is so much easier to blame other people for your own past decisions.

You demonstrate that the problem isn’t with other people, but with yourself.

Unlike you, I don’t pronounce death penalties with inadequate information. I do not assume that because you have demonstrated a remarkable lack of introspective ability, you will always be that way. I do not assume that because today you are unsuitable for membership in our organization, you will always be.

Instead, I assume people will mature and grow. Sometimes that assumption is valid, and I hope it is in your case.

Look inside, and figure out WHY you wrote that letter. Realize it was based on false premises. Then think about it awhile.

May you fare well in your travels.

2007-09-23

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Step Zero

Weeds and Nationalism

Recent Comments