It’s time to draw some lines. I can tolerate disagreement on many issues, but not on fundamentals. If we’re not in agreement on the fundamentals, then we’re not on the same side, no matter how many secondary issues we may agree on or how similar our views may superficially appear.

If we’re not on the same side, then I will not endorse your site by linking to it. Since my position on the fundamentals is the correct one, and since I wish to draw people to my side, it makes no sense to blur the line and confuse people about what I stand for by appearing to endorse sites which are fundamentally at odds with my position.

I’ve just pruned my blogroll of a few sites with whose positions I have irreconcilable differences. This was not an easy decision for me, since I happen to personally like the individuals running those sites. But as it often happens in times of war, two men who would be friends in peacetime have to stand opposite each other on the battlefield, ready to blow each other’s heads off. C’est la vie.

As a matter of principle, I will no longer link to sites which:

• use codewords, such as “Zionists,” “elites,” or “liberals,” to refer to jews. Unless a site has a damned good excuse for using them, such as being hosted in a country in which direct criticism of jews is a prosecutable offense, I expect a spade to be called a spade.
• claim to oppose jewish power while engaging in ADL/$PLC-style attacks against others who oppose jewish power more straightforwardly or aggressively than they do.
• attack certain groups, such as blacks or Muslims, while turning a blind eye to jews.
• discuss racial problems without mentioning the cardinal jewish role in creating or exacerbating those problems.
• claim to fight jewish tyranny while condoning the very weapons jews have used to tear Western societies apart, such as humanism, hyper-individualism, feminism, communism, racial integration, the queer movement, and political correctness.
• attempt to limit discussion of the Jewish Question to certain issues, such as Zionism or banking, making it appear as though those are the only problems and are only being caused by a small cadre of jews.
• attempt to define jews in solely religious (Judaism) or ideological (e.g. Zionism) terms, ignoring or downplaying the tribal/racial aspect.
• claim to be White Nationalist while promoting known homosexuals to prominent positions within the movement.

I hope others will consider following in my example. This “movement” tolerates far too much ambiguity, too many blurred boundaries, as a result of misguided notions of solidarity and the “marketplace of ideas.” Again, if someone doesn’t agree with us on the fundamentals, they’re not on our side and we shouldn’t be giving them the time of day. It’s better to stand with someone you despise but whose principles are correct than with someone you like who spreads harmful ideas.