Counter-Currents
1,680 words
Author’s Note:
I wrote the following essay in June of 2005. Again, it was circulated around the internet under the pen name Michael Meehan. I wrote it in response to a proposal in Edgar Steele’s Defensive Racism, which I learned about through a review by Mike Polignano.
The problem with this critique (and with Steele’s original proposal) is that it treats the issue of partition as a kind of abstract strategy board game, in which the power to do certain things is just assumed, so the only question is of what is desirable.
In the real world, I think it is very likely that a number of different states will emerge after the collapse of the United State. But they will emerge through physical force, and their boundaries will be determined by physical force. There will be no partition conference where politicians, lawyers, and plutocrats sip cocktails and decide whether Aztlan should be moved a little to the east.
I am reprinting it here since such abstract discussions can still be morally clarifying. I also think there are some good lines. Besides, even if it is flawed, it is still one of the bastard children of my pen that I now wish to acknowledge.
Many White Nationalists make a point of describing themselves as White “separatists” as opposed to White “supremacists.” A separatist believes that all races have the right to survive, flourish, and pursue their own destinies, and this requires that each race exercise political control over an exclusive living space, a racial ethnostate. The supremacist, however, believes that his race should rule over other races.
There is much to recommend separatism over supremacism. Separatism is a racial “live and let live” philosophy. Separatism seems more moral and more just because it is fair to all races. Under separatism, all races get an equal chance to create the forms of life that express their distinct biological and spiritual natures, free from the interference of other races. Separatism is classical liberalism applied to races rather than to individuals. Liberalism is, of course, the “common sense” of American culture, which goes a long way to explaining the appeal of racial separatism.
Separatism often appeals to egalitarian sentiments by adopting the pretense that the separatist does not hold that some races are better than others, only that they are different, and all equally entitled to control over their own destinies.
I think this pretense is ridiculous. Every healthy race thinks itself superior to others, and no matter what dimension of comparison one chooses, one of them will always be right.
Separatism appeals to the ecologically-minded, because it recognizes that conflict is inevitable when different subspecies are forced to occupy the same ecological niche, and the only way to terminate such conflict is separation for both parties or extinction for one of them—through miscegenation or outright extermination. Separatism is, therefore, the best way of preserving biological diversity.
Separatism is also the best way of preserving cultural diversity. When multiple cultures exist in the same society, cultural differences inevitably give rise to friction and conflict. This friction can lead to two possible results: the violent splitting of a multicultural society into several culturally homogeneous societies, or the gradual wearing away of cultural distinctions, leaving a debased and homogenized cultural precipitate, which is related to a genuine culture like a pidgin is related to a genuine language, i.e., it is good enough for economic activity and expressing the basic, or just plain base, desires we all have in common, but it lacks a vocabulary to express anything higher or more spiritual, anything that differentiates one individual or one culture from another.
Supremacism is, by contrast, deeply illiberal in spirit. The supremacist wants his own race to have its own homeland(s) where it is free to control its own destiny. But he would deny the same freedom to other races. He wants his own race to rule over others. This hegemony need not be exploitative. It can be benign, even paternalistic and benevolent. But whatever form it takes, racial supremacism denies that all races have equal rights to self-determination.
Considered in the abstract, separatism is more attractive to me than supremacism. It accords with my love of natural diversity and my sense of fair play. I am also, frankly, sickened by the suffering and cruelty that is inevitable when one race or nation seeks to conquer and dominate another.
But when I contemplate how racial separatists propose to deal with present multiracial mess in the United States, it gives me pause.
For instance, Edgar Steele, in his recent book Defensive Racism, envisions the partition of the US into “New America” for Whites, “Aztlan” for Mestizos, “New Africa” for Negroes, and “New Israel” for Jews. (Perhaps we can locate “New Palestine,” for our millions of Arabs, next door to New Israel.) Others have contemplated giving the San Francisco bay area and Hawaii to Orientals and Pacific Islanders.
Bear in mind that these plans for partition do not envision mere ethnic “reservations,” which are non-sovereign entities under the control of the US government, but completely sovereign states.
The main problem with such a scheme is that the new ethnostates would threaten the security of the White homeland they would encircle.
If the San Francisco bay area were turned into an Oriental enclave, I have no doubt that, after a brief and brutal spasm of ethnic cleansing, it would be controlled by the Chinese, and that in a matter of years it would become a huge Red Chinese colony and military base, complete with nuclear weapons, on the west coast of the North American continent. The Chinese would then be in a position to seize new territories either through nuclear blackmail or outright aggression.
If there were a New Israel on the North American continent (no doubt on the East Coast), it would lessen direct Jewish power over Whites, but it would not stop the Jews from broadcasting filth and promoting decadence among us. Furthermore, why provide the Jews with another sovereign territory from which they can plot their global swindles and to which they can flee when their victims rise up against them?
Finally, unless we located New Palestine right next door to New Israel, I would predict that the Jews of Israel would move en masse to New Israel, complete with their nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenals with which they could blackmail us. After all, New Israel would be far safer. The present Israel had to be wrested by force from its inhabitants, whereas under the New Israel scheme, the inhabitants of the US would take a portion of the continent conquered and civilized with the blood, brains, and brawn of their kinsmen, indeed one of the most valuable portions—and give it away to the Jews, who deserve anything but a reward for their parasitism and nation-wrecking.
A black ethnostate on the North American continent would quickly follow the course of every other black state. The civilization built by Whites would fall into ruin in the hands of blacks, who lack the intelligence, initiative, foresight, and moral character needed to create or sustain it.
Once ceded to Blacks, whole states of the defunct US would become a vast Detroit. Depending on where the borders would fall, we would see magnificent cities like Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans turn into burnt-out wastelands. There would be chaos, slaughter, civil war.
Horrified and soft-hearted Whites would open their wallets to feed starving children and open their borders to pitiful refugees, and we would be right back where we started.
Eventually a dictator would emerge, a cannibal statesman like Idi Amin or Emperor Bokassa, who would become a natural ally of New Israel or the Red Chinese, or both, in putting the squeeze on Whitey.
A similar course would be followed by Aztlan. Southern California and the Southwest would become just like the other filthy, impoverished, corrupt, violent, backwards, Spanish-speaking, Mestizo nations in this hemisphere. Then its residents would sneak across the border into the White homeland looking for jobs and handouts.
Although in the long run, Aztlan’s interests would conflict with those of the Red Chinese, Blacks, and Jews, in the short run they would be natural allies in looting and dispossessing Whites.
And why wouldn’t they?
The advocates of partition propose the following. The most powerful nation on Earth, with the most formidable military arsenal in history—a nation which in past generations ruthlessly conquered and civilized a vast portion of this continent—is going to surrender, without a fight, some of its richest and most beautiful territories. And to whom? To an army of dish washers and leaf blowers.
Any people so craven would never be able to rest secure behind the newly-drawn borders of their ethnostate. “If Whites were unwilling to defend their borders before,” our enemies will reason, “why would they defend them now?” “If they were unwilling to expel invaders before, why would they expel them now?”
And if Whites would be willing to guard their borders and expel non-Whites from a future ethnostate, then why not do so now?
If a pro-White government emerged with the power to partition the US into separate ethnostates, it would, ipso facto, also have the power to expel all non-Whites from the present US. This, as I see it, is the most realistic and responsible form of racial separatism. (Except for the American Indians and native Hawaiians, for whom segregated ethnic reservations seem the just solution.)
There are certainly no practical impediments to mass expulsions. If it was possible for millions of people to come here, it is possible for them to leave. Whether or not a pro-White government would have the political will to do this is another matter altogether.
Another option for the separatist is to abandon the idea of sovereign ethnostates in favor of a system of segregated reservations for non-Whites, reservations that might be internally self-governing, but whose relations with the rest of the world would be controlled by a White government. This, however, would be the very racial supremacism that the separatists want to avoid.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
26 comments
However if you can’t create momentum with one argument then you can use another and then steer the resulting momentum in the originally desired direction.
Land ownership for its own sake is obsolete. Ceding massive portions of this Continent to non-Whites is smart business, as the value of human capital so grossly outweighs the value of resource capital that to compromise the former in pursuit of the latter is imprudent. Ethics aside, mass deportation would be geopolitically disastrous. These nations don’t want these people back, and we can’t afford to make that many enemies abroad all at once.
Predictions for Black America are too dire. Generations of the “one drop” rule have had a profound eugenic effect, and reversing policies that pull the most capable Blacks out of their communities and into White ones would have a positive effect on those Black communities. They would be the most gifted and well-educated Black population in the world and the Black elites would now have a free hand to deal firmly with their underclasses.
I’m not saying Black America would be somewhere I would want to live, but I don’t think it would be Haiti, either. There are plenty of examples of competent Black government, such as Jamaica, Barbados, and Botswana. The first step would be to groom and prop up a competent Black American elite, then redirect the firehose of wealth transfer through them and into their autonomous districts for a transitional period until those districts become self-sustainable.
And if they never do become self-sustainable, that’s fine, too. Small price.
Matt,
(1) My predictions are based on Detroit and virtually every black government in existence. You are betting on the exception, I am betting on the rule.
(2) It is awfully big of you to be concerned about the negative effects on Mexico of repatriating Mexicans. But we should be more concerned with the positive effects on our country of sending the invaders back. What they want is less important than what we want.
(3) Whenever I hear of “smart business” I reach for my revolver. That kind of talk got us where we are today. I am sure it would be even smarter business to cede everything to non-whites except the gated communities, high-security high rises, and posh resorts where our plutocrats live.
Greg,
1. Detroit’s bad, but it’s not cannibals bad.
2. Any intelligent strategy must be pursued with a realistic consideration of the geopolitical repercussions of our actions. A mass deportation event would create just the kind of moral and selfish excuse to bring the whole world crashing down on us. And, yes, I do believe all involved should be treated as humanely as possible, even Mexicans.
3. No. Our competitors have been directly engaging mercantile realities and we have not. The Chinese, the White cosmopolitan elites, and the Jews are all dealing with the world as it is. We could use more “smart business” in our thinking, while remaining true to our core principles.
1. Detroit is not “cannibals bad” because it has not been cut loose of the US. When African colonies were given their independence, they became cannibals bad. There are at least three African heads of state who ate their enemies: Idi Amin, Emperor Bokassa, and Francisco Macias-Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. The colonial powers tried to leave their charges with good governments too, and it has pretty much all degenerated.
2. If Americans start defending our genetic interests, presumably that would deter the rest of the world from anything more than harsh language.
3. “Smart business” is rootless globalized cosmopolitan capitalism. If you want ethnic solidarity to put limits on business, then you have to say so.
2. That’s a mighty big presumption, especially given that we would no longer be a superpower and that the leading superpower will be non-White.
3. In the context, I was clearly talking about “smart business” in opposition to globalized cosmopolitan capitalism.
Just so we are clear that we are not talking about “free market” capitalism but some sort of race-wise mercantilism.
But, Matt, would you really dare such policies? After all, the Chinese might not want us to adopt them.
“Any intelligent strategy must be pursued with a realistic consideration of the geopolitical repercussions of our actions.”
Yes.
“A mass deportation event would create just the kind of moral and selfish excuse to bring the whole world crashing down on us. And, yes, I do believe all involved should be treated as humanely as possible, even Mexicans.”
No. Fighting for Israel has made the whole world hate the USA, the USA taking the leading part in White nationalism is just what a lot of nationalists in Europe are waiting for – no genuine nationalist power in Europe is possible without US support, since it is still the world police.
“The Chinese, the White cosmopolitan elites, and the Jews are all dealing with the world as it is.”
Yes, now they are – after they have changed it into what they want it to be: a world with judaized values. Before that they did all in their power to change those values and the cultural hegemony, through radical propaganda. The Jews became “conservative” (that is, “smart business”) after they won.
I think that Mexicans should be deported as humanely as possible. But deported nonetheless.
I agree with your argument in principle that a White homeland will have to be organized in a way that will allow for a vigorous defense; however, defending an ethnostate is such a long range concern I’m not sure the value of discussing these theoretical issues outweighs the potential serious damage to our side of advocating mass expulsions as a responsible solution to Whites’ problems. I direct people to Matt Parrot’s work often, for example, and most of the time it’s well received. If word gets out that Matt writes for a Web site that advocates mass expulsions based on racial supremacism, well, the persuasive value of his work is likely to go out the window fair or not. And I’d say that’s true for everyone who writes here. I understand your project is intellectual not political, but reinforcing the violent supremacist stereotype won’t help.
There has to be one place in the world where whites can talk about what is necessary for our survival without self-censorship, dissimulation, pandering, and posturing based on the hubristic assumption that we are going to game the existing system so that the people will vote themselves out of this mess.
Let’s be real:
(1) The idea that WNs need to censor ourselves of every idea that “won’t play in Peoria” is the path to perdition: to shutting up, blending in, not making waves, and going with the flow that is leading our people down to the sunless sea of extinction. The people in Peoria, the people “as they are today,” “where they are right now” WANT the system that is poisoning their children’s minds with self-hate and minority worship, flooding our nation with the detritus of the Third World, and setting our race on the road to extinction. They want that world, or they want the approval of their friends and neighbors and Baptist Sunday School teachers and Oprah more than they want to oppose the forces promoting our extinction.
(2) The Tea Party people want that world too, they just want to make sure that the mud people inherit a country with low taxes, private enterprise, constitutionally limited government, and sound money–as if they would have any use for them. They will do nothing explicitly pro-White, because they do not care enough about racial preservation to take the risk. They aren’t racists just because the Rachel Maddows of the world say they are.
(3) Politics always appeals to the existing value system. No WN politics is possible today, because the dominant value system is anti-racist. Anti-racism really is the only thing that is sacred in this country today. Unless we change that value system, any political progress we make will be at enormous cost and probably will be easily erased. Yes, one can swim against the current, but it is tiring, and one need only relax a second to see all one’s gains swept away.
The conclusion: We need a metapolitical movement to create the context in which political change is possible, and creating that context requires (1) changing people’s values and (2) expanding their conceptions of what is really possible.
But to do that, we have to say things that people will think are immoral or impractical, and then persuade them to change their minds.
We have to risk offending people if we are going to save our race. If you are not ready for that, then I am willing to wait.
(4) But what if the system offers us options, like a Border Fence, that would help us? Shouldn’t we work for that? NO, no you shouldn’t. Wide awake White Nationalists are very rare. If you are wide awake, then you need to put ALL of your money and efforts into awakening more people.
I know many wide awake WNs who poured thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into the Ron Paul campaign. Now they are wasting time and money on the Tea Party. Years ago, they were doing the same thing with Patrick Buchanan. I am sure it offers them the illusion of efficacy in the real world. But it is a very costly illusion.
If I were creating a system with a controlled opposition, I would create all kinds of little movements to take the time, money, and idealism of radical opponents and then just waste them. WNs who are serious about their cause are IMMORAL to spend one penny and one minute of their time on system-manufactured diversions when they could be working on awakening others to the truth.
To the WNs who think their time is better spent on the Tea Party, I ask: “If not you, then who?” If you are not staying on message, or at least stuffing money into envelopes to support those who do stay on message, then exactly who IS going to spread our message?”
(5) White Nationalism is small, but that means that there is a lot of room for growth. Imagine if 100 WNs who are wasting their time in the Tea Party movement actually put all their efforts into identifying one potential WN recruit and then bringing that person all the way to the truth.
And no, you do not need to join the Tea Party to identify potential recruits. They are as close as one’s existing friends and family, people who already share a lot in common with you, and who may share a lot more if you just get them talking.
Imagine 100 of us recruiting just one WN a year, and giving that person the impetus to do the same. At the end of the year, there will be 200 wide-awake WNs. A year after that, there will be 400, a year after that 800, a year after that, 1600, a year after that 3200, a year after that 6400, a year after that 12,800. By year 8, there will be 25,600. By year 9, there will be 51,200. By year 10, there will be 102,400 wide awake WNs. (See: http://nationalvanguard.org/2010/10/the-gateway/)
(6) Now ask yourself what will have been accomplished in the same 10 years of Tea Party activism. Well, chances are, you will have burned out after 2 years, and it will take you a couple of years to get back into any sort of political activism.
So let’s say after four years, you actually listen to me and get started putting your energy where it counts. If you start today, rather than four years from now, you will have created 1,024 new WNs–probably a greater number of real WNs than there are real Tea Party activists and organizers.
If you start 4 years from today, you will have created . . . 64. And because of you, our race will be that much closer to extinction.
Greg, While I agree with many of your points in principle, it occurs to me that Jews have always managed to publish material in their interests without being so blatant in public. The Frankfurt school writers, for example, never mentioned the need to genocide Whites in order to make conditions more favorable for Jewish survival. Instead, they just laid down the intellectual framework to do it, without being explicit, and still ultimately transformed the culture. Obviously that’s not a perfect parallel because our circumstances are so different. But anyway, thanks for the response.
Jews have openly preached genocide against their foes — something I do not advocate — for thousands of years, from the Bible through the Talmud to 20th-century tracts like GERMANY MUST PERISH. I am a quavering aspic of moderation by comparison.
I abide (as best I can) by a moral code which precludes doing many of these things that are allegedly necessary, and that code is neither rooted in situational ethics nor negotiable. I will not abandon either my tribe or my tradition, even if presented with a convincing argument that I must abandon one to save the other.
Nature teaches the strong dominate the weak, and because this is natural, it is good.
As a member of the White Race, I want my race to expand and advance over the whole of this planet, and use its resources to help it to colonize the universe. If all non-Whites have to be dominated or killed to make this happen, I have no problem with that. I do not care about the worm on my hook when I want to catch a fish, and I do not care about the means I have to use to advance my race. The end DOES justify the means. All Whites should think this way. I do not just read Nietzsche – I apply him!
It seems a bit grandiose to think in terms of global dominion when we are in danger of losing all of our ancestral homelands. Frankly, I would settle for holding onto Europe, North America, and the antipodes.
A hundred years ago, your ideas would have been almost mainstream — even though Nietzsche was quite on the fringe — and I would have been considered a leftist.
How things have changed.
Wow, Lew is worried that this is to radical?
What about the Tea Party Candidate for Governor of Colorado, Tom Tancredo and his remarks about flying drones on the Mexican border?!! He is advocating a totally militarized border! Drones notoriously miss targets! Whites are sure to become collateral damage in this scenario. This guy is truly psychopathic and an Israel first war monger. He is a neo-con, neo-liberal that advocates “spreading democracy.” And like Bush he believes we are in a clash of civilizations with radical Islam. He wants to cut any and all welfare for unemployed whites whose jobs have been sent over seas panting after cheap labor but welfare for jews in Israel is a must for their security, of coarse.
While Whites are loosing homes and jobs – The tea partiers have waved their flags with bands playing right over to the neo-con camp into the clutches of the ape-like grinning Jews and their subhuman henchman like Glen Beck who must regard this stupidity as the best joke of their lives.
Lena: I meant my comments in the spirit of friendly criticism not as an endorsement of the Tea Party, Jews, neocons and Israel. Trust me, I want the neocon order overturned as much as you do. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be reading CC. If you and the other CC writers don’t care about having your names possibly linked to an essay that can be fairly read as advocating the mass expulsion of non-Whites from the USA, it’s your call. Not that it matters, but my view is that the Frankfurt School should be the model for the CC intellectual project. Those writers helped to fundamentally transform the culture and its values completely in favor of Jewish interests without being blatant. Adorno, Horkheimer and the others didn’t lead with the Talmud. How about we learn from our enemies?
Lew-
I did not think you were endorsing the Tea Party. I was trying to show that the politicians are advocating things far more sickening then anything written here! And this notion that Whites should muzzle their voices, eccentrities, individualism, avoid obvious truisms to somehow appeal to the ever elusive masses is wrong headed. It does not even matter how much the masses are appealed to if they do not have the power to put their ideas into action.
Furthermore, The Frankfurt School was by its jewish nature designed to DESTROY not build, which is easy to do — so no thanks, it is not in my nature to destroy or pervert the beautiful. To assume that I should have something to learn from such 10th rate philosophical hacks who have been totally and utterly discredited is pretty abominable. Where do you see success? Lets see, should I follow the likes of Wilhelm Reich who promoted masturbating in a box as a cure for cancer? Does anyone believe this? Why would you look to a perverse and destructive jewish school of thought as a model to build anything? This was not a conscious revolution that changed the Whites world view or values. It was not writers that fundamentally transformed culture in favor of jewish interests, but BRIBES and money power. That is what the German’s knew and understood. That is why they totally changed their economic system in favor of Nationalism and attempted to throw off jewish money power. We, White European, (non jewish) have our own first rate thinkers and philosophers to pull from and we never needed the jew, not now not ever. How was anything that the Frankfort School put out not totally utterly offensive and degrading? Also, the mass expulsions of Palestinians is happening in real time, and still is — is that not offensive?
Lena, I see no value in the content of most Jewish philosophy. I do see value in Jewish methods. That’s where I believe we can learn from them. Reasonable people can disagree of course. The Jews’ top public intellectuals don’t go around writing things that will damage the ability of Jews to achieve their objectives. They just don’t do it. They never write, for example, that non-Jews are animals who exist to serve the Jews. They never express this idea in public because saying it in public won’t advance their goals and because Jews already understand it among themselves anyway. Likewise, anyone who reads CC already understands that violence will almost certainly be necessary at some point to ensure White survival. So why say it? Anyone who lands here already knows it. But when and if WN begins to expand in influence, our enemies will just take that essay and announce to the world “White advocates claim to be reasonable, but look — their best intellectuals advocate mass expulsions based on supremacism, just like The Turner Diaries.”
I disagree. I am a moderate compared to The Turner Diaries. I would like the most peaceful possible divorce from other races. Pierce wanted extermination, plain and simple.
Still, for the sake of argument, I’ll accept your claim that I am ultra radical.
Here is how I am going to do things. For the rest of my life, I am going to speak the truth as I see it, and I am going to try to bring as many people as I can over to my way of thinking. When our enemies quote me as a monster, that is just free publicity. They will send people my way, and some of them will be persuaded.
I will stand my ground and try to move the rest of the world in my direction.
If other WNs want to adopt more accommodating stances, then of course our enemies will use me as a stick to beat them. If they want, they can moan about it and attack me instead of the enemy, but:
(1) They should be using all their time and energy attacking the enemy.
(2) They benefit from my presence in at least two ways:
(a) They can cite me to look moderate by comparison
(b) To the extent that I am successful in persuading people of my more radical outlook, I reduce the moral and cultural headwind against which the moderates must press.
As for me, I will not attack people who are more moderate than I am, because moderates are stepping stones allowing people to move from the mainstream to where I am. There needs to be a whole spectrum of organizations and messages spanning the gap between the mainstream and the advocates of a white ethnostate.
The courtesy of not attacking moderates, however, applies only to those WN moderates who effectively move individuals and political discourse from the mainstream in the right direction.
If a WN moderate spends his time moving WN individuals and discourse closer to the mainstream, by encouraging us to shut up, blend in, and devote our scarce money and time to promoting the success of marginally better system politicians, well that is the path to perdition. People who mislead WNs like that need to be exposed, denounced, and shunned.
WN will only be advanced if those of us who believe devote all our time and energy into awakening people and moving them in the right direction. If we don’t take our own side, who will? If we don’t advocate our principles, who will?
Hey, I have an idea, what about attacking the system for exactly how sickening it is? Are vaccines safe? Should I tell you about my sons seizure that left him unconscious for twenty minutes after his jab, and now he is brain damaged??? Or would that upset the New Victorians? Should I write about the thousands of dollars I have to spend in therapy to help him while the “mainstream” professes vaccines are safe? What about the poisoning of the Gulf of Mexico? WN has been seriously missing on this topic, as if they are just elitist scum, much like jews and neo-cons. There are independent journalists/radicals who have risked their lives and health to tell the truth about the poisoning of the Gulf, but WN? MIA.
Lena, I am in whole-hearted agreement with you. Be assured that many if not most of our readers are sympathetic to your outlook. But I don’t know any writers who could treat these issues from a WN perspective.
Greg, Thanks again for responding. I write these comments fast and off the cuff. They’re not always totally clear. I didn’t mean to suggest you’re an ultra radical who supports a Turner Diaries approach. My point is that our enemies can portray you that way, however, based on this essay, and because I feel your writing has great value, I would hate to see that happen. They won’t quote the careful reasoning leading to your conclusions about the necessity of racial separation and your desire for peaceful separation if possible; they will skip all that and just grab the passage that casts your work the and whole NANR project in the worst possible light.
Anyway, I will close with this. I just want to reiterate that nothing I wrote was meant to be an attack on you. You actually make the best case I have seen in WN circles for a radical approach (but not Pierce radical).
I think you over-estimate the influence of the Frankfurt School.
Good comments Greg. I particularly agree with your assessment of the Tea Party.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment