A New Podcast! 
Nationalist Strategies

9 comments

1. Hadding says:

   February 28, 2011 at 6:56 pm

   I appreciate the point that trying to be friendly with Jews and pro-White at the same time doesn’t work, as far as appeasing the Jews is concerned. The Jews cannot be appeased because they are paranoid.

   But on the other hand, what MacDonald does not address, is the question of whether adopting such a pose makes it easier to gain the support of other Whites. It seems that White people sometimes just need a ready response to criticisms. They can say, But David Duke has changed! and then vote for him knowing that the change is mostly cosmetic. But Geert Wilders is not a nazi! He loves Jews!

   Unfortunately, MacDonald makes clear that Wilders is not that clever. He is genuinely philojudaic, and therefore a fool.

   0

   0

   1. Greg Johnson says:

      February 28, 2011 at 9:57 pm

      I think that MacDonald’s main point is precisely that such postures give voters deniability, and that this is responsible for the gains made by Wilders with Dutch voters, but not of course with Jews.

      0

      0

      1. Hadding says:

         March 1, 2011 at 8:25 pm

         It seems to me that MacDonald stops short of saying that. I only hear MacDonald talking about White people being motivated by factors like the conflict between Islam and liberal principles, and some pragmatic concerns — the kinds of approved concerns that Rush Limbaugh might express.

         I don’t think that objecting to immigration on the basis of upholding liberalism is going to provide a long-term answer, because liberalism is by its nature individualistic, while racial thinking is what we need.

         Toward the end MacDonald does talk about White racial consciousness growing as a result of the negative effects that some White people personally feel, but insofar as these people have been radicalized by experience they do not need deniability in political candidates, and MacDonald does not mention deniability in that context.

         You can argue that there are points of agreement between the would-be defenders of true liberalism and the racial thinkers, but that is only going to go so far.

         0

         0

         1. Hadding says:

            March 1, 2011 at 8:37 pm

            We can hope that the tendency to unify under abstractions will dissipate, but that presupposes increasing hardship. If the Defenders of Liberalism like Geert Wilders succeed in partially meliorating the situation (in the manner of Ronald Reagan) it could delay and diffuse the needed reaction without really solving anything.

            There is also a tendency for people to get trapped in the principles that they espouse.

            0

            0
   2. Chechar says:

      February 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm

      Of course he is a fool, but a wise fool so to speak. Only an useful idiot, a Parsifal—in Wagner’s opera, “a pure fool enlightened by compassion”—can expose the double-think intrinsic in liberalism. E.g., Islam is inherently anti-gay, anti-women; therefore the Islamization of the West refutes the liberalism that in the first place empowered the Muslims.

      At the same time Wilders avoids the race issue: a subject that is de facto forbidden in Europe. Brutally honest white nationalists could never gain political power. Even the BNP had to set aside the Jewish Question. Only the naïve and candid Parsifals might have a chance.

      Yes: Wilders is a liberal who is taking the very first step that could destroy liberalism.

      0

      0

      1. Hadding says:

         March 1, 2011 at 6:22 am

         “Even the BNP had to set aside the Jewish Question.”

         Under Nick Griffin they did. Under John Tyndall, as Griffin complains, the party was “frankly anti-Semitic.” The question is whether it is to this change that the BNP owes its small successes, and whether those small successes are worth the sacrifice of truth-telling.

         0

         0
2. Wandrin says:

   March 2, 2011 at 12:36 am

   “I think that MacDonald’s main point is precisely that such postures give voters deniability, and that this is responsible for the gains made by Wilders with Dutch voters, but not of course with Jews.”

   If it’s true that people are held down by the pressure of the dominant culture then in lieu of undermining the power of the dominant culture “plausible deniability” should work to a certain extent as a way for white people to psychologically side-step the power of the dominant culture, and i think it does. The problem is the deniability doesn’t stop the other side from constantly repeating the same attacks and demanding the same denials. The constant denials act as a constant distraction (and reinforces the dominant culture) so it’s not perfect but it’s better than nothing.

   However, let a 1000 flowers bloom.

   0

   0
3. Evan says:

   March 4, 2011 at 12:38 pm

   Yes: Wilders is a liberal who is taking the very first step that could destroy liberalism.

   +1

   Keep your own understanding but let developments–Wilders, the BNP–unfold a little on their own terms.

   0

   0

   1. Hadding says:

      March 4, 2011 at 1:25 pm

      Chechar said: “Yes: Wilders is a liberal who is taking the very first step that could destroy liberalism.”

      In fact it is liberalism reaching its own reductio ad absurdum, pushed to that limit by Jewish propaganda. It’s a tendency throughout history that Jews tend to push everything too far, even for their own good. Liberalism is more likely to die because of immigration than because of people like Wilders who would like to temper and save Liberalism.

      0

      0

Comments are closed.