Counter-Currents
2,075 words
If there is one thing that frustrates me to end, it’s seeing white nationalists/advocates actively supporting conservatism, especially after it has proven just as destructive to our cause as liberalism on ethnic issues and vastly more destructive than liberalism on every other matter.
I find that white advocates generally support conservatism for two reasons. The first reason is that they essentially become single-issue voters because they believe that conservatives will be more hawkish in regard to illegal immigration. While white nationalist conservatives understand that mainstream conservatives still fully support third-world immigration and multiculturalism, they will settle for anyone who will do something about our demographic situation, however insignificant it may be.
This approach baffles me, as anyone who thinks conservatives are substantially better on immigration than liberals is extremely misguided. Did we forget that in 1986, Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants and that his act didn’t even obligate employers to verify the authenticity of workers’ documents?
I think liberals have better reasons for their support of immigration and multiculturalism than conservatives. It strikes me that liberals actually believe that immigrants enrich our country culturally and economically, while conservatives (being good corporate puppets) support immigration as a way to get cheap labor and to weaken unions. I can’t think of a single conservative politician who has done anything to meaningfully combat multiculturalism in any way. Conservatives are truly just cowards afraid to address any of America’s demographic threats and alienating potential voters and afraid of upsetting their corporate overlords, so in the public discourse they generally parrot liberal lines about diversity being our strength and so on.
In a way, I can respect liberals for their belief that a multicultural society is a good thing, even though I profoundly disagree with this view, because they are sincere, while conservatives hide their true reasons for supporting immigration. Just look at Mitt Romney as a perfect example of conservative cowardice on this issue. In recent debates he called Arizona’s SB1070 law a model for the nation. Anyone with eyes can see that he was only trying to cut down his primary opponents by moving to their right to win the support of gullible blue-collar whites. Just weeks ago, Romney confessed at a private fundraiser that winning the support of Latinos is critical and his campaign staff has said that he’s still making up his mind on his positions about immigration reform.
The other reason white nationalists vote conservative is because they sincerely support conservative principles. This deeply rooted conservative ideology amongst many (if not most) white nationalists is, in my opinion, possibly the greatest threat to our movement gaining any traction or being taken seriously. I find that the political ideology espoused by these white nationalist conservatives betrays a profound ignorance when it comes to understanding the political questions of our time.
Conservatism has harrowed our country: its economic policies have been disastrous, it has greatly empowered corporations, it has screwed over countless impoverished European-Americans, it has pursued treasonous foreign policies and wars that our citizens have no stake in, it has fought relentless battles over non-issues like abortion and gay marriage, it has ravaged the environment, it has obstructed meaningful progress in Congress with the abuse of filibusters, it has undermined healthcare reform, and it has threatened to cut successful welfare and entitlement programs. Liberalism has the more compelling case and the greatest intellectual weight — Greg Johnson has admitted before that the left attracts the brightest minds — on almost every issue except the matter we find ourselves discussing here on Counter-Currents.
Let’s look at the records of conservative Republicans across a few of the issues and see whether their goals are really in line with those of white nationalists.
- In 2011, the Republican-led House voted nearly 200 times to weaken, block, or delay needed measures to update laws that defend our air, water, wildlife, and lands.
- In 2010, the Republican Supreme Court Justices held in the Citizens United case that corporations can make unlimited political expenditures. The decision also allows tax-exempt incorporated public advocacy groups to spend money on political races without disclosing their donors’ names in their FEC filings. Republicans love to decry Obama for disregarding the constitution, but is there any decision more contradictory to the spirit of the constitution than the Citizens United ruling?
- Republican-led state legislatures across the United States introduced 2,044 provisions restricting women’s reproductive rights in 2011 and 2012. Their legislation has focused on mandating that women seeking an abortion must have medically unnecessary ultrasounds intended to scare them out of going through with their abortions and the legislation also narrows the time when abortions may be performed and limits insurance coverage of abortion.
- Republican state legislatures have implemented right-to-work laws that cripple unions. Controlling for all variables, wages in right-to-work states are 3.2 % lower, the rates of employer-sponsored health insurance are 2.6 % lower, and the rates of employer-sponsored pensions are 4.8 % lower compared with non-right-to-work states.
The greatest horrors conservatives have inflicted on this country, as well as the rest of the West, are their neoliberal economic policies. I’ll mention a few relevant points and then wrap up my argument, but I must encourage everyone to read Timothy Noah’s series of articles about income inequality on Slate, as well as Paul Krugman’s NYT columns, and also William Deresiewicz’s recent humorous article about capitalism and psychopathy at the NYT.
In light of the current economic crisis, Hayekian/neoliberal economics should have been discredited as these theories were the driving force behind our pursuit of financial deregulation, while Keynesian economics should have been validated. However, conservative governments across Europe, showing their weak grasp of economics, decided to remain faithful to the principles that resulted in this crisis and have implemented sweeping austerity measures. Conservatives argued that we needed to reduce our deficits, bring down our national debts, undertake structural reforms, and promote growth, however the results haven’t been promising as countries like the UK have slipped into a double-dip recession.
At home, Republicans have rallied around the Paul Ryan budget plan that would have America take the same course as Europe. Republicans show no signs of possessing the faculty of critical thinking that would dictate that their economic policies must be reevaluated when confronted with the reality of Europe’s prolonged recession, but detachment from reality is a conservative hallmark. There is no reason tackle the federal budget deficit or the debt at a time when we’re facing staggering unemployment and underemployment that prevents the lower and middle classes as well as private corporations from spending and consuming regularly. Once the economy has been stimulated and has fully recovered, then it will be an appropriate time to work on reducing our debt.
Realistically, Obama has governed very center-right and all of his failings to improve the economy can be attributed to the way he has caved to Republicans any time they have pushed back against him. Obama’s stimulus was anemic not only because of its small size, but because it was full of tax cuts that Republicans had demanded.
With regards to Eric Holder, many white nationalists hate him because of how he sued Arizona over SB1070, and I agree that that was ridiculous. However, the fact that Eric Holder hasn’t prosecuted Goldman Sachs or any of the other financial institutions that were caught defrauding their clientele is even more serious. Many figures on the left, like Eliot Spitzer, have called for Holder’s resignation, however I am doubtful that Holder will suddenly grow the balls to prosecute Goldman Sachs and I certainly don’t think that a Republican attorney general would have done so either.
I haven’t said much about Mitt Romney yet, but I fail to see how any white nationalist could even contemplate voting for him. He epitomizes everything wrong with conservatism. Here’s a portrait of Mitt Romney to give you a better understanding of what kind of leader he is.
- I deferred military service to go bicycling in France and while I was there, I lived in a 5-bedroom house with a chef and a housekeeper.
- I’ve claimed that I lived like a poor person then.
- I spent the duration of the Vietnam War proselytizing and converting people to my faith rather than serving my country.
- I worked at Bain Capital where I became the CEO. I turned the company from a venture capital enterprise into a corporate raider.
- I drove 22 companies into bankruptcy after stripping them of their assets and selling them off.
In the case of Ampad, I personally helped Bain reap $100,000,000 after completely destroying a profitable company. - I laid off more than 10,000 living, breathing people, solely to line my own pockets.
- I enjoy firing people.
- Of the companies I didn’t completely bankrupt, I drove tens of thousands of people with livable wages into accepting minimum wage and told every single one of them that if they didn’t like it they could leave.
- At the same time I gave the company’s top management huge pay rises.
- I created countless jobs on foreign shores and the people who worked for me there earned a couple of dollars a day, in appalling conditions and with no safety standards.
- I retired and my termination agreement still sees me receiving more than 7 million dollars a year and because they are deferred payments, I pay 13 % in taxes on unhidden money, though until it became illegal in 2011, I hid it in tax havens.
- I had the third lowest job creation rate of any state in America as governor.
- While I was governor, I used the Heritage Foundation’s healthcare plan and created Romneycare, which lowered the insurance costs for my electorate by 1/3
- I was proud when President Obama decided to use the plan, as I thought it would help my chances of becoming President, but when my party vilified it, I abandoned my only life accomplishment.
- It cost Massachusetts $200,000 when I replaced all of the state’s government computers to hide my record.
- I think corporations are people but if you look at my history, you’ll find that I don’t think people are people.
- I have been perpetually running for president.
- I have made $1/4 billion by destroying thousands of lives.
- I don’t care about any of those lives, as they can’t contribute to my campaign to lower America’s living standards.
- I spent $200,000,000 to beat the weakest and most bizarre field ever in Republican politics.
Not only is his record appalling, but so are his policies. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has determined that relative to current policy — that is, if you keep the Bush tax cuts in place, as Romney wants to do — Romney’s tax cutting plans would increase the deficit by nearly $5 trillion over 10 years. That’s on top of keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Romney has promised to close various loopholes to pay for his tax cuts, but he hasn’t specified which ones. Until he does, the Tax Policy Center concludes his plan would cost $5 trillion — which would be added, yes, to the deficit. Romney’s plan would also cut the top corporate tax rate form 35 percent to 25 percent.
Last but not least, there is the issue of income inequality. Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Vanderbilt, has documented a five-decade pattern in which income inequality has grown under Republican presidents and shrunk under Democratic ones.
The most significant challenges America faces today include income inequality, financial deregulation, the decline of the middle class, and the loss of opportunity. When you look at a list of countries ranked by the Gini coefficient, the US has levels of income disparity comparable to China, Russia, and Nigeria. Our economic inequality has long been masked by our high per capita income. Generally, our income is higher than the rest of the Western world. However, America’s higher income generally reflects our lower taxes. And our lower taxes reflect a neglect of social services to our citizens. In the US, the cost of healthcare is nearly double that of any other country, yet we have 50 million-plus with little or no insurance at all. By contrast, other Western countries have higher taxes that are used to support robust social service programs such as healthcare.
Finally, income disparity is not just a material measure. It is also a measure of social cohesion. I fear the US will not be able to escape the same social issues that now plague third world countries. Our own citizens will no longer continue to accept third world levels of income inequality while the elite amass vast and largely untaxed fortunes.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
59 comments
It should be “fully recovered” by about 2020.
The American Empire is a neo-Bolshevik beast and is the main sponsor of white dispossession worldwide.
“I think liberals have better reasons for their support of immigration and multiculturalism than conservatives. It strikes me that liberals actually believe that immigrants enrich our country culturally and economically, while conservatives (being good corporate puppets) support immigration as a way to get cheap labor and to weaken unions.”
That is true actually. Never thought about it in this way. Even though liberals and leftists are loopy, their arguments for mass immigration is better than the creepy authoritarian good school boy type of conservatives.
Thanks for a timely reminder. You’re absolutely right that there is no real conservatism left in American politics today, of any variety. There’s the paleoconservatives, but they’re practically as marginalized today as the New Right is in Europe. But certainly the Republicans have nothing to offer the true Right today.
Excellent article, though I come bearing quibbles…
My rule with voting is to walk into the booth and vote for whoever would do the least harm to my perceived interests. I appreciate and respect that there’s some elaborate game theory explanations for why one might do something else, but I don’t trust myself to be smart enough to pull that off and am sure as hell the average voter isn’t. I don’t see what’s wrong for voting for a Republican who favors curbing illegal immigration as a “single issue” vote if there’s nothing stronger available.
Disclosure: I voted for Chuck Baldwin in ’08 and will be voting for Merlin Miller in ’12. I voted for Chuck despite the credible threat that Obama would win, and don’t regret doing so in the least. But, after all, Chuck Baldwin is himself a bit too moderate and “conservative” for my tastes.
With the strident simplicity of a cornpone political ad in a statewide election, you declare it intuitively obvious that Europe’s decision to attempt austerity disproves austerity in principle in favor of Keynesian theory. Consider for a moment that we’re sitting on the porch of our McMansion giggling at our neighbor frantically picking up a second job, selling his convertible, and coupon-clipping. If, as I suspect is indeed the case, Europe is maturely and methodically working through the necessary and inevitable “pain”, then we’re the fools and there’s an eviction notice in the mail. Within a decade or so, Europe may well more or less have its affairs in order while America’s debts and liabilities are at that point catastrophically past the point of peacefully slogging through them.
I don’t really know. I’m not an economist. But I do know that what you’ve presented here is insufficient.
Thanks for all the positive comments and the critiques (I expected that there would be quite a few objections). I will post some more responses later on.
I definitely agree that we can rely on some Republicans to be bulwarks against illegal immigration and that to many people that will be a compelling reason to vote for a Republican. However, curbing illegal immigration is a short-term solution that barely even begins to address the demographic threats to the country. Just today, it was revealed that in 2011 non-white children made up a majority of the births (50.4%) in the US. I am doubtful that the Republican party and mainstream conservative factions will provide fertile ground for sowing the seeds of a movement dedicated to the defense of Western civilization as a whole, though conservatives as individuals will be much more receptive to our message. As demographic trends worsen, we can expect that Republicans will only make further concessions to multiculturalists out of fear that they will lose power.
I think my statement about Hayek’s theories being invalidated came across too absolutistic. What I meant was that his economic theories should not be the guide that shapes our policy decisions as we try to recover from this recession, but that they may be more relevant again once we have recovered.
I’m certainly no economist either. And I think that economics has proven to be a very wooly discipline and that we should not lend its theories our unwavering faith. But while I may not have any solutions of my own to offer, I think that we must judge economic solutions as objectively as possible.
The best argument I can make for Keynesian economic policies during a recession is to compare the economic standings of the US vs. the UK, though I admit that this still doesn’t fundamentally address the issue you raised about how austerity affects debt in the long run.
The UK entered its worst recession since World War II in 2008. In Q4 of 2009 and Q1 of 2010 the UK recorded a growth rate of 0.4%, which jumped to 1.2% in Q2 of 2010. During Q2, in May of 2010, David Cameron was elected prime minister and formed a Conservative-Liberal coalition. Soon after his election, he passed an austerity program with the aim of reducing the UK’s deficit with £6.2 billion in cuts so that by 2016 the total public debt as a percentage of GDP would decrease.
However in Q3 of 2010 the growth rate slipped to 0.8% and then to – 0.5% in Q4. The UK economy grew by 0.2% in Q1 of 2011. Q2 had zero growth and was followed by growth of 0.6% in Q3. In Q4, the economy shrank to – 0.3%. In Q1 of 2012, the UK economy entered a double-dip recession after a decline in GDP of – 0.2%.
In the US, the growth rate for Q1 and Q2 of 2010 was 3.9% and 3.8%, respectively. During Q3 and Q4 the rate shrunk to 2.3%. In Q1 of 2011, the growth rate reached a trough of 0.4% due to a drop in government spending. The rate rebounded in Q2 and Q3 with rates of 1.3% and 1.8% growth. In Q4, the rate accelerated to 2.8%. The current rate in Q1 of 2012 is 2.2%.
Government spending as a percentage of GDP in the US was 25.3% in 2011. Average levels of government spending since WWII are around 18-25%. The only item in the federal budget that has seen increased rates of spending has been defense (3% increase from 2009 to 2010).
As for the unemployment rate, since Jan 2010 the UK has experienced (seasonally adjusted) unemployment rates varying from 7.6% to 8.3% and the rate currently stands at 8.2%.
In the US, the Jan 2010 unemployment rate was 9.7%, which rose to a peak of 9.9% in April 2010. Since then it has steadily declined (except for a small jump to 9.8% in Nov 2010) and now stands at 8.2%
When it comes to whether large debt hinders economic growth or not, economists seem to be at an impasse.
Here’s what I’ve read from Paul Krugman on the matter:
Reinhart and Rogoff specifically cite data from the United States showing slower growth when debt was above 90 percent of GDP. But if you know the data at all, you know that so far, the only years in which US debt was above 90 was in the immediate postwar period, when growth was indeed slow — but not because of the debt burden; instead, the US was demobilizing after the war, with many women leaving the paid work force. So it’s a terrible example to use.
And I suspect that much of the rest of their result reflects reverse causation: Japan had low debt and fast growth before the 90s, high debt and slow growth since, but surely we believe that Japan’s financial crisis is what both slowed growth and increased debt; similarly, the onset of Eurosclerosis is what led both to slowing growth and higher debt in Europe. And here’s the thing: Reinhart and Rogoff have not, as far as I can tell, made any effort to disentangle the causation here.
So what’s happening is that the idea that Really Bad Things happen when debt crosses 90 percent of GDP is being treated as a solid fact, when it’s nothing of the sort. And if the Obama commission feeds that false perception, right there it’s doing a lot of harm.
The rest is here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/bad-analysis-at-the-deficit-commission/
I think it was Pat Buchanan that said Democrats and Republicans are the right and left wing of the same bird.
To my mind though you are damning a word “conservative” by accepting the hijacked definition of it as used in the USA. Conservative describes a wide range of options from Traditionalist to NeoCon. In the USA it implies that you are basically true to Lockean positions. To many of those I know this is a corruption of the definition and not supportive of their conception of the word. By disowning the term you alienate millions of people who self define using just this term and your road to change is exponentially lengthened
The Republican Party as it exists in general today is anything but conservative yet the term is used I think to make distinctions easier in the MSM. Romney as we saw was struggling against serious lack of interest amongst the “conservative” vote yet he apparently was the choice of the elite. But who were the people that kept fighting against them. What did they beleive, we do not know. Somehow they are waiting for a different sort of person. I might propose that understanding what that is might yield openings for WN’s.
I think one salient point that exists in my mind is that this is the USA and thus we must think within the context of this country if forward movement is to be made.
Take capitalism: I do not consider it ideal nor the endgame. Yet for the present, as an economic ordering system it may give white people their current best shot for physical survival. The purer it is the better we become because we can out compete. Take that away and we will be co-opted into donating our resources towards other out groups. The result of that is what you see today, shrinking numbers of whites and rising numbers of out groups.
I have been a business strategist. The process is easy: you assess the situation, understand the environment, determine your strengths and weaknesses. Use one, work on the other. Determine tactics, utilize all the resources you can grab (build allies) …Go
Progress is made thru compromise. You negotiate, claim what is non negotiable and offer up what is. The other way of course is violent overthrow but it usually does not win in the end without the soul of the people behind it.
Strikes me that a little use of judo is called for. You use the others energy on your behalf. There are large numbers of white people who could easily be stirred but you need idea distribution to make it happen. Distribution systems already exist why not use them. Do like the left does, learn the language of your target and turn it to your ends.
Having been reading WN sites for awhile I think the problem is really one of ideological entrenchment. There seems to be no room for negotiation. One needs to build alliances not stand hard on all points some of which may not matter really. No one is looking for the light that shines thru the bricks.
Charles Martel in blockquote:
“Bird of prey,” is the term, if memory serves.
Yet, “conservative” – in the phrasing formed by Burke in reaction to the French Revolution – has two meanings. The first, in practice, is the one that rules – a racket to bluff the fools, where the rich grow exponentially wealthier, and the former middle class is free, in the absence of bread, to eat cake.
“Conservative” currently has its most honest meaning in the hearts and minds of the Santorum voters, who truly found common intellectual cause within the churches, which, according to Tocqueville, were America’s great strength. More about them directly, as their relevance to the Cause is worthy of further discussion.
Those were the Santorum voters – the Reagan Democrats who realize their Catholic Church has been betrayed by the Obama Administration’s war on the beliefs and practices. Look how strongly they came out for Santorum in the South, particularly the Deep South. Santorum spoke to them as victims of the Culture War they knew they were the victims of, but could not find their unifying theme, their one voice, until Santorum spoke.
Yet, what we call “capitalism” isn’t really capitalism, as historically defined, anymore. Government ownership of the insurance companies – AIG – the banks – the bailouts – the automotive industry – GM – the alternative energy industry – Solyndra – the list goes on Indeed, it resembles the Crony Capitalism that was the hallmark of the Soviet union before it fell.
“Capitalism” is a term commonly, and incorrectly, conflated with a system that allows market clearing prices; indeed, worships market clearing prices, by allowing mobility of resources and prices that signal market values. The best term that comes casually to hand is “free enterprise.”
“Capitalism” is politically useful as a dog whistle shorthand term telling the workers they have a chance to live the William F. Buckley lifestyle. This divides the workers beautifully. That, in practice, is its purpose.
True progress is made through having clearly defined end states, and a plan to get there. White Nationalists have squandered the last century arguing over how to move the ball at all. As a result, the Other Team has moved the ball at will. They even control the referee! I don’t think this is by accident.
That is why Counter-Currents, and Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic, are so critically important. For the first time, we have a defined End Game, and are developing the metapolitical system to define the political framework to get us there, on OUR terms.
Bob Whitaker and the guys at white rabbit radio are well advanced in this area. The larger issue is, we have allowed Others to define both the Ends, and the Means towards those Ends, for us, for far too long.
Only Harold Covington realized there WAS a Light, and we were its best servants.
It is useful to recall that the bricks are rotting, and, as they fall, will fall hard on the innocent, and the trusting – that’s US, for the last, oh, century or so.
We have allowed our Enemies to define us in terms of what we are against. They change that a little tiny bit, and reduce us to further political ineffectiveness. We are opposed to illegal immigration? Fine. They will just legalize them, and that takes care of that.
What we have to do is BE the Light they see through the broken bricks of their failing lives. Our best Voices in this are Kevin Alfred Strom who did a professional quality advertisement for National Vanguard – guitar, professional speaker, positive message, just like a professional political campaign – and Harold Covington’s Northwest Republic.
Years go, the marketing guys – the smart ones, not the jumped up sales types – were shocked at the audience response to movies of the Pacific Northwest. Just set up a camera and have it scan from Mt. Rainier, over. The (White, Middle Class) audience pretty much ripped the knobs off their measuring devices in their approval for this.
Take those ideas, meld them with, call it “Social Capitalism” as an aside to Social Credit, and move forward from there. I know families that are very few months away from being homeless, and would love to Start Over in the higher ground that is the organic foundation of the Racial Nation, the Racial Homeland.
They have been so demoralized they don’t think they can do it.
That’s where we come in.
Thank you for your reply. I am going to layback for awhile so I will not say anything except that my sense about Santorum was that he was talking about culture and that is where the enthusiasm came from. I recall he was gaining traction before Obama pulled the contraceptive deal out. Romney is only talking economics and that is where the lack of enthusiasm is coming from.
I will take your recommendation and read Covington since I have not thus far.
Agains thank you for taking your time to address my points.
Mr. Martel,
You are presupposing a party framework in which white interests can be voiced. Pick any Republican you care to name and imagine him suggesting publicly any one thing that we discuss on this site. What would happen? Same thing that happened to Joe Sobran and John Derbyshire: they are rejected and marginalized. Why? Because the Republican party has become a mouthpiece for Israel. I totally understand not wanting a black president but I fail to see how Romney can help–truly help–white people in anything but a temporary, symbolic way. And I am not willing to cast my vote for a symbol when all else will remain the same. In addition, the Republicans fight against my tangible, day to day interests. I am a student. They want to corporatize the university system, double the interest rate on student loans, and generally make college life even tougher than it already is. If I have to sit through lecture after lecture, seminar after seminar hearing how terrible European men are then I had better get a financial break as part of my compensation. I will not vote for one evil over another. With Obama there truly is hope: rumbling grassroots anger and indignation. It also just so happens he is the best for me financially too so…sorry, Romney. Make no mistake, I am not voting for Obama. I have always only voted in the interest of my people even when they differed from those of my wallet. But then only when the choice was clear. I am entirely fed up with existing in a political grey area. I’m through. No compromise.
But you have to consider that there are a lot of white republicans that are seething underneath and want a voice. They are Republican because no other choice is available, like me. Republicans are almost all white so your chance with them is way greater then with anyone else right now. Things can change in the future but now they are as they are and there are only two parties. Republicans and I are so far apart that the list is endless but they at least open the door to a discussion. You can in private discussions with white people begin to make small admissions and find that there is more agreement then was thought. You enter amongst them and with the quality of the intellects I see on the Currents page I suspect there is a chance at conversion. Virtually all Republicans know exactly what is going on and also know how they must play the game for the present. They are not stupid they are careful. Republicans know that they would need 100 percent of the white vote to win thus they have no choice but to play the game as craftily as possible.
Furthermore, normally I might agree with all you but this election is of criitcal importance. If Obama wins i guarantee the next step is a woman.
Just one more thing: I would encourage you and all others to read Gandhi’s “Hind Swaraj” for an idea of the power of non-cooperation. He was a deeply right-wing thinker who was co-opted by the Left in order to channel his popularity towards their infernal causes. Like Hitler, the deeper one goes the more one sees the immense popular distortion of the initial ideology.
I still think Dr Pierce nailed it all those years ago. Conservatives are not much better than liberals.
Liberals are destroyers, liberals respect nothing and desire above else to be fashionable.
Conservatives hang to what already exists and to support it even if it doesnt make senset so long as it has an aura of authority, conservatives respect authority and crave respectability for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqsxJ9GjlQo
Understand most people are very stupid, they are no more then sheep willing to follow any Shepard. The systematic thinkers or the social engineers are actually the Jews, the understand how the liberals and conservatives “think” and because of this are able to manipulate them accordingly. For example the reason behind all the adoptions of black babies by white celebrities is to send a signal to the “white liberals” if you want to be “fashionable” you go out and adopt blacks.
Dr pierce put so much information in 9 minute talk.
SanMan in blockquote:
No, “liberals” and “conservatives” are, in practice, in policies chosen and implemented, one and the same. The Inner Party simply triangulates using them, and always wins.
Look at today’s policies, in practice. They would have been rejected by “liberals” as being “too liberals” even a generation ago. And the “conservatives” have the same misleading issues to keep the workers occupied – gay marriage!
Are you tired of chasing your tail, puppy?
Are you tired of listening blindly to William Pierce, who refused to address certain issues at all? Would you like to try thinking for yourself for a change?
Kevin Alfred Strom actually addressed the issue of why we are not conservatives in an ADV, if memory serves. His presentation was precise, and precisely professional.
As well, if memory serves, “Geoff Beck” of the podcast “The Truth Is No Defense,” also did an exemplary analysis of why our revolution is not conservative, and can not be conservative.
On a par with Strom in terms of his depth of commentary is Jim Giles, who did a Radio Free Mississippi podcast on the topic of “Conservatives,” if memory serves.
These are some useful sources on why we are not conservative, and can not be conservative. What we ARE to be is up to us, and too many of us are afraid to look in THAT mirror.
Indeed, only Covington looked THROUGH the mirror, and reduced everything to one issue: What is best for the White RACE?
Everything else is either a means to that end, or is in the way.
The choice is yours.
Choose wisely.
This article was good up until the point where the author gets into the list of “conservative Republican” records, and it goes downhill from there.
While I have mixed feelings about abortion (I generally support it), my feelings and beliefs are not only irrelevant, they are actually counter-productive to White advocacy when voiced in any kind of public setting. Whites are highly divided on this topic. To many Whites, and not just the religious ones, abortion is literally murdering babies. I’m sorry, but that’s not a winning issue. You’re screwed if you take a stance on it either way. And as White advocates, we need to be sensitive to practical politics. We stand nothing to gain and a lot to lose from taking a stance on it. It should be avoided whenever possible. If forced to, giving either an elusive answer or supporting the more popular position wherever you are, and then shifting the focus back to something relevant to White interests is the best course of action. I know that isn’t easy, but we need to put our personal preferences aside and do what works for getting our people on board.
More than the whole abortion thing, which I can sympathize with (although not from a “Women’s Rights” perspective), I think the author falls into some very distracting traps. First, he seems to buy into a lot of things that are clearly biased even from within the false and grossly simplified left-right dichotomy. You can tell from the language he uses he consumers a lot of “liberal” Western MSM. More importantly however, I think this article reveals the extent to which the author is distracted and wastes time reading mostly irrelevant, polarized, mainstream media positions on things (and not reading between the lines).
Instead of just looking at the positions of liberals and conservatives, maybe he should consider there are positions on the a lot of these issues that neither are willing to entertain. It sounds like he buys into our whole global financial system, or at least is distracted by the mainstream media’s discourse on it. The “Western” MSM will never threaten the globalist system, which is and is extremely harmful to our racial interests. It shouldn’t be trusted on face value.
And as far as the president is concerned, I think the author’s missing the point. I don’t care about either of the candidates characters, not even enough to look into them nearly as much as the things listed here. Why? Because it doesn’t matter. Obama has been the best thing for fostering White awareness not only in America, but in White countries everywhere. It’s not like we’re deciding between a president who is going to slow down immigration (illegal or otherwise), start deporting people, etc versus an open boarders president. They are essentially the same choice, only one comes in brown and helps wake White people up, while the other one looks like us, has no loyalty to us, and is of no use to us.
Thanks for this comment. Some of the issues it raises are points I meant to address in the essay.
To cut right to the crux of the matter, in my opinion, this is the attitude that really hinders the progress of a racialist movement. It is the self-defeating, detached ideology of internet white nationalists, not the ideology of a movement that truly seeks to challenge the system.
Racialist online communities are populated by many bright minds with a keen understanding of philosophy, art, and the human sciences. It follows naturally that we should have some degree of disregard for the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry, and other branches of society that have contributed to the decline of our civilization. Yet to scorn all of the realms of society that we deem at fault for our decline and to balk at the prospect of actually participating in the real world at any level is inimical to our progress.
Participating in the discussions of the media as well as those of online racialist communities is not a negative; in fact, it is an imperative. If we exile our movement to the shadows of the web we will gain no traction. Too many racialists vilify the media indiscriminately, as if every word journalists write on any issue is calculated to blight the minds of the public with multiculturalist propaganda.
Political issues have very real implications for all racialists and online havens cannot be our only source of information about the world. We need to equip ourselves with the knowledge that the media provides or else we cannot hope to thrive as a movement. After all, Nietzsche’s master morality was strong-willed, yet open-minded.
If you want to understand the role of large financial institutions in our economic crisis then you must rely on the media.
“JPMorgan Chase takes deposits in from every single mom and pop, and small business and large business, in the world, and the President of the United States. They’re a utility bank and it is their job and their duty … to take those deposits and lend them out into the economy. And what do they do instead? They take $360 billion and put it in a hedge fund in London.” – Felix Salmon, Reuters
If you want to understand how the Dodd-Frank Act fails to create meaningful reform of financial institutions and how the Volcker Rule (a section of the bill) fails to restrict speculative investments as robustly as the repealed Glass-Steagall Act did, then you must rely on the media.
“The restrictions imposed by Glass-Steagall kept bank deposits, and banks themselves, at a safe distance from the markets. But that distance gradually shrank, and in the heady, free-market days of the late 1990s, Glass-Steagall itself was formally revoked. So commercial banks — the big ones, at least — returned to the Wall Street marketplace. This time they got into trouble by engaging in proprietary trading — that is, the buying and selling of securities for their own account, particularly subprime mortgages packaged as bonds. When that market crashed in 2008, the federal government bailed out the banks, and now the president is asking Congress to bar banks from proprietary trading. The president is acting on a proposal that Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has been pushing for months. It is sometimes referred to as “Glass-Steagall in spirit.”” – Louis Uchitelle, New York Times
If you want to understand the ridiculousness of subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies and the weaknesses of our current regulations, you have to rely on the media.
“In some years, some of the large oil companies — after making billions of dollars in profit — pay absolutely nothing in federal income tax. That is clearly wrong.” – Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) speaking on why he has sponsored the End Polluter Welfare Act, which would eliminate tax breaks and subsidies for the oil, gas, and coal industries.
“The House has passed three bills that reduce environmental review on new offshore leases. Nothing has been done to increase drilling companies’ $75 million liability cap in the event of a catastrophe. Because the BP oil spill ultimately cost between $20 and $25 billion, BP could have actually walked away from this whole thing and put it all on the American people … The legislature has not fixed that liability cap. It still remains today.” – Bob Cavnar, oil industry veteran and author of “Disaster on the Horizon”
If you want to understand how the government surveillance of citizens works and how these programs have been expanded under Obama, then you have to rely on the media.
“Not only did I discover the wheels had come off the existing vehicle, we were in an entirely new vehicle — in absolute violation of the Constitution. I knew if I remained silent that I would be complicit to the subversion of our own Constitution.” – Thomas Drake, NSA whistleblower, describing Trailblazer and Stellar Wind, NSA programs designed to intercept Americans’ phone calls, emails and other communications, without the need for warrants or oversight.
Citizens United has direct consequences for racialists. Imagine that there was a candidate running for office who had taken great strides to present racialism in a way that would resonate with citizens. Citizens United would allow his opponent and the opponent’s allies to spend unlimited amounts that would all go towards smearing our candidate’s reputation and destroying all of the credibility that he had painstakingly cultivated.
It is important to take sides on issues even when our cause is not represented fully. Make no mistake, both parties do not have our interests at heart on racial issues, but it is wrong to see them as two heads of the same hydra because they do deviate in meaningful ways on important issues. We must utilize the information provided by the media because racialist sites do not have the resources to provide us with the same amount of information. However, we can consume the media discriminatingly. We can reject the information that propagates multiculturalist ideas and encourage others to see through media slander as well.
If I didn’t read between the lines, I wouldn’t have sought out a site like Counter-Currents. I agree that, more often than not, much of the media’s political debates are mundane and meaningless (which is why I love the academic and philosophical perspective that Counter-Currents provides), but that does not mean that all political questions are irrelevant. Dismissing the information provided by the media because the media and the globalist system at large are hostile to our cause would deny us the chance to arm ourselves with knowledge.
I appreciate the response. I think you misunderstood my points, however.
When you said,
you responded to a portion of what I had written instead of my point. My point was that there is no substantial difference between Obama and Romney besides skin color. And THAT has had a huge psychological impact on Whites in America and elsewhere encouraging ethnocentrism. Are there differences between the “right” and “left” in America? Sure. Are they substantial? Not generally.
Liberals tend to be more in tune with environmentalism and they occasionally push through half-way decent laws but generally they fail miserably on protecting our environment. If America wasn’t a multiracial state I would agree with a lot more “liberal”/socialist policies (like nationalized healthcare). But I am getting off point.
I completely agree. Why are you insinuating otherwise?
Again, no disagreement. I’m not sure why you are engaging in a semi-straw man argument here.
Yet again, agree. So would the vast majority of WNs. What you’re saying isn’t controversial.
You should really note what I actually said,
That is in no way a categorical rejection of “the media.” All I’m saying is that we need to read between the lines, and that we should also pay attention to non-Western media sources to get a better understanding of what’s really going on. Russia Today, for example, is a great source to compare with its Western counterparts.
Your quotes from various commentators in the media are unnecessary.
When I said you should read between the lines more, I was essentially disagreeing with a statement you made in your response to me:
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you have to choose side A or side B. You can take a third position if it makes sense. If there is a policy supported in the mainstream by the democrats or republicans that I agree with, I will support it. My point was that you seem to rely on other people’s analysis of situations at face value too much. Your quotes don’t really help you in that regard.
I disagree. They should be viewed as such because they are. The important issues they do deviate from are rendered almost irrelevant (there are a few exceptions) by the issues they don’t deviate on. The genocide of our people, White people, is far more important an issue than squabbles between parties fighting over which policy can kill us off faster and which policies are better for the Jews.
Does that mean we shouldn’t pay attention to the issues that aren’t really important now? Not at all, because these issues would be important in a hypothetical White nation-state. We should take stances and promote our positions when it makes political sense to do so. For instance, when it comes to financial matters we have a plethora of legitimate criticisms and corrective models that we could use to destroy our establishment opponents. We should take that out of the bag in the specific instances where we can benefit from it. We should also avoid talking about abortion, as I mentioned before, because it is very divisive and generally a losing topic.
Most of the time we should probably focus on White genocide by bringing up the double standards, gaining the moral high ground, and demoralizing our enemy using the same tried and true tactics they used against us. But that’s another argument and not as relevant when dealing with others on Counter-Currents.
Besides what I quoted above and the exception that I think you should read between the lines more, I agree with the majority of the last two paragraphs in your comment. I think we agree on more than we disagree on, especially considering most of the arguments you argue against weren’t made by me.
Sorry about that. I did take your comment out of context and make a lot of sweeping generalizations, so I ended up with a very conceited and irrelevant diatribe. My rant was more inspired by the discussions on a lot of online racialist forums than it was by the writers and commenters on C-C (who I would consider to occupy the highest echelon of knowledge amongst our movement). I didn’t make that context clear, so I came out of nowhere with my argument and made a lot of tangential points that didn’t address your argument.
I clarified myself a little bit more on this with Lew.
That’s a great point.
Like I mentioned above, this is a gripe I have with racialist forum-goers rather than you or other commenters here.
You’re right. The quotes were directed at forum-going types. There is an attitude amongst forum-goers that treats all of the media as tainted and this attitude inadvertently glorifies the state of being uninformed. That environment produces vitriolic flamewars that only serve to dissuade people from our movement. It goes without saying that C-C is immune to those kinds of debates.
You’re right. What I was trying to get at is that it is absolutely worthwhile to engage people with differing political views in debates because it will allow us to cast racialists in a positive light.
I have to completely reject this. In light of the elaborated responses I have posted, I hope that you realize that there’s been a misunderstanding. I didn’t just copy quotes from some list of Democratic talking points; I was demonstrating examples of how issues that are seldom discussed at length in racialist circles are discussed with great incisiveness in the media and that we need to open ourselves up to analyses from others and deconstruct their interpretations. If racialists only drone on about ethnic issues and don’t advance insightful critiques on other issues, then we run the risk of being viewed as aimless dissidents.
Absolutely. Racialists have a unique perspective to bring on issues like economics that will allow us to undermine the credibility of both political parties as well as the financial elites.
I think we’ve reached a mutual understanding. The only thing I have to add to this, and it’s not much, is that we should avoid making the core racial issues (immigration, multiculturalism, and fertility rates) the entire focus of our discourse. Coming across as angry racists who just want to get rid of minorities would be the easiest way to undermine our own cause and allow the media to dismiss us. We must show the inter-connectedness of racial issues to economics, foreign policy, and other areas outside of the realm of politics like art and philosophy and show how our movement would allow for a revitalization of Western civilization as a whole.
I appreciate your objectivity.
I agree with this point. I think our only differences are in the analysis after the fact, but on the main point we agree.
I agree with this statement 100% when we are addressing the correct audience. The correct audience is the intellectual/intelligent, educated minority — the Counter-Currents types (and maybe a few notches below) — not the majority of white people. The kind of discussions you are talking about are appropriate for a website like Counter-Currents, which is aiming (in the long term) to forge the intellectual elite of the North American New Right. However, roughly 95% or more of the time we are not dealing with such an audience.
When we’re not dealing with intellectual types (maybe even exclusively intellectuals who are at least partially open to our points of view), it is much more beneficial to stay on point — to use talking points. This means focusing on white genocide, making our points, imposing our discourse, and not getting distracted. When dealing with anti-whites we shouldn’t be afraid to play “dirty” and use humiliation tactics either. After all, that’s exactly what they did to us with terms like “racist” and it worked against the average white person as well as the intellectual. It didn’t necessarily work in convincing the intellectual to be anti-white but worked in taking the moral high ground from him and isolating him from the multitudes of average, moderate white people.
If you’re interested in applying practical politics like this, I would highly recommend the first 20 or so podcasts of Follow the White Rabbit: http://whiterabbitradio.net/podcast-2
Despite a lot of the conspiracy theory stuff which is only included to entertain and reach out to a certain untapped audience, there is a lot of really good lessons in practical politics. Then you can start practicing and applying it over at Bob’s Undergraduate Seminar (BUGS). The much shorter and concise podcasts titled “Beefcake’s Bootcamp” (none are over 30 minutes in length), are focused exclusively on how to apply practical politics on the BUGS “swarm” : http://whitegenocideproject.com/category/beefcakes-bootcamp/
I would highly recommend this also. It can be used as a crash course. The first one is a little rough IMO, but after that it’s pretty smooth sailing.
Of course, many Counter-Currents types may be turned off to BUGS for a few reasons. First, being as intelligent as they are, many C-C types may not like how simple it is. You’re using some of the same kind of mind-numbing talking points and tactics that you hear politicians use to persuade the masses. I find that hard to stomach usually but in this case I don’t mind since I’ve been convinced through my own experience that it works (and it can be a pretty dynamic and fun game). Second, because of the elitist nature of many C-C types, they may scorn the idea of working with some of the people on BUGS. Remember, it’s simple enough that average white people can utilize it (but using Obama as an example, you can see why being intelligent makes you better at the game). That being said, most of the people at BUGS right now are intelligent and many are C-Cs frequenters (and commenters on here).
Anyway, I thought I would mention it in case you’re interested.
Exactly. And the approach used by those on BUGS, as well as the approach you are advocating, avoid that, which is why I view them as complimentary.
Absolutely. I’ve found that this approach does work with the thinking minority. In my experience, it tends to work mostly by “planting seeds,” so to speak. For instance, I’ve had more than one person I discussed these types of things with dismiss or write me off at the time, only to tell me months/years later about epiphanies they’ve had and how they agree with me now. Basically, most people like to figure things out for themselves instead of just being convinced through arguments (however sound they may be).
I think I’ve veered off on quite a few tangents now. So let me wrap this up.
So do I.
Romney’s phony, fireproof grin comes across on TV like an unctuous smirk, one that betrays his contempt for everyone outside his social class. He is the quintessential lying, reptillian, execrable and in this case literalWall Street Republican. They all lie; they all play games; they’re all in the tank for globalism, neo-liberalism and the MIC; they’re all grifters to some extent, some more so than others. But never in a lifetime of observing American politics have I seen someone as unprincipled, duplicitous and transparently phony as Mitt Romney hit the national stage and be taken seriously.
I said on Jack Donovan’s article that I plan to vote for Barack Obama, and encourage others to vote Obama to throw some gas on the fire. Policy aside, I see the symbolism as the the most important reason to work for Obama. Since at least the end of WW2, the symbolism has not matched the substance in this country. It’s crucial, in my view, that the symbolism match the substance going forward, from now until the trip over the cliff: White Americans need to see on a daily basis they are being ruled by non-Whites (Technically, they are mostly being ruled by Jews and anti-White Whites, but that difference does not matter; the point is that Whites are being ruled by people who are different and/or hate them). With Obama in the White House, they will see exactly that.
But, even if you completely put aside WN considerations, the sad truth is that Barack Obama’s economic program better serves White interests than the GOP one. The exception would be Whites in the top 2% or 3%. It is a very sad reality, but still reality.
Part of the reason most white nationalists see themselves as conservatives is that modern American liberalism is so harmful to our folk. In addition to harmful immigration policies, shared by the neoconservatives in control of the Republican party, their social policies, since Johnson’s “Great Society,” are dysgenic for the country as a whole as well as for all races. When young girls can get their own welfare check and apartment by giving birth to multiple illegitimate children, what happens? Sometimes it seems that liberals can’t see that if you reward bad behavior you get more of it. This policy has not only increased the percentage of blacks, but it’s reasonable to believe (I don’t have any evidence) that less intelligent girls are more likely to embark on such a career, while the average girls may marry and produce a few children. Then affirmative action programs, as well as the educational system and media, which are both thoroughly controlled by liberals (or maybe I should say Marxists), encourage the more intelligent not to reproduce at all, but instead to find fulfillment in a career. Also it seems to me that the agencies that make up a liberal state tend to adopt an agenda that empowers their agency to the detriment of the people. A welfare office may help deserving widows and orphans, but it can promote dependency in order to build up its customer base, and to win political support from the recipients.
Now if we had an ethnostate, where whites are not taxed to support their own genocide, and where liberal social policies are actually designed for the good of the people, white nationalists could support a liberal agenda. However, many whites seem to prefer less government and more liberty. We can see the contrast between the New England states, the northern tier of the Midwest, and the West Coast, with the Southern and Western states. When we establish our white republic it might be best to retain a federal system so that those who want a big helpful government in their state can have one, and those who prefer more independence can have it, with those in need getting assistance from neighbors, churches, etc.
There’s nothing conservative about Romney as far as I can see, and the only good thing I can say about him is he has raised a beautiful family. I just hope some of his children and grandchildren have more character than him. A choice between Democrats and mainstream Republicans like Romney is, to me, like a choice between being hanged and being shot. I’ll agree with what several have said, however, that Obama has done a great deal to promote racial awareness among whites. Maybe the best case we can hope for is a second term for Obama, with enough Republicans in congress to keep him from doing much, whether it’s through principal or just partisanship. In particular I would fear for freedom of speech and the internet if Obama were given a compliant congress.
I also wonder if it’s true that liberalism attracts the best minds. That may have been the case in the past, but the quality of thought and writing I see on various conservative sites I read (tending toward libertarian and paleoconservative) seems to me better than what I see in my admittedly small experience of liberal and leftist sites.
There can be no doubt that liberalism attracts the best minds. Or to be more precise, the best minds are possessed by those who enter the university system in which they are fed an endless, all you can eat buffet of anti-white, anti-European, anti-male propaganda and so become liberal–often terminally so. It takes an iron constitution to resist. No one does it publicly. I assume there are a handful of dissenters, of course, but if they care one bit about a career in academia they must strategically keep their mouths shut or suffer the consequences. My fingers are crosssed though for the next decade when some of these hypothetical right-wingers have tenure and can start to say what they believe. As in the business world, one must network, one must kowtow, one must play the game to have any chance of success. The “business world” of the university IS the Left. One can only position oneself on a continuum of Leftish ideology to have any chance of gaining power, having a future, existing socially. I tend to opt for the ultra Left role because it is simply more fun. It is a way for me vent steam. If someday I teach and I decide to venture so far to the Left that I end up on the Right, well…oops! How did that happen?
Just to add on a bit with a few observations, this article reads like the work of a mainstream Democrat who is also a WN. It is standard Democrat analysis of Republican positions with a racial twist and Democrat bias. It’s also a fine article and I’m not suggesting otherwise. But, there is a definite bias here in favor of mainstream Democrat positions.
The notion that GOP obstruction is the only reason Barack Obama has not been more aggressive in standing up to Wall Street, Big Business and their agenda for ongoing wealth redistribution to the top and ongoing middle class impoverishment is laughable. Obama sells out the segment of the left base that wants real change in this area just like the GOP sells out the right base.
GOP obstruction is Obama’s pretext for not doing more, like jailing Wall Street executives and making their predation illegal. In the meantime, he signs things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA for indefinite detentions of anyone in the world, anywhere, anytime, including American citizens.
Naked Capitalism has good article up exposing Barack Obama as a lying crony who positions himself as a friend to poor blacks while screwing them over in many cases. It turns out that when Obama was practicing real estate law in Chicago, he and Valerie Jarret made money working with wealthy Chicago business interests to tear down black housing. Nice guy.
In debates on economics on Democrat and especially on far left web sites, as long as the discussion stays on economic topics, you might think you are on a WNist site like CC, or a Euro right site.
It’s illusory though. Those same leftists that are so adept at critiquing crony capitalism, corporate power, Wall Street and globalism are also hardcore “race does not exist” egalitarians. They will turn on a dime and start talking about White privilege, institutional racism, and the fundamental evil of Western civilization. So, leftists are as much of contradictory, mixed bag as the mainstream rightists. There is potential for conversion to WNist ideas there, but at present it’s only potential.
Now, I don’t mean these statements as a negative comment against the author. I have come around to the view that it is long past time for the American White right/New Right to welcome any perspective that is compatible with advancing White interests no matter what it is, and with open arms and no hostility.
WNist interests might best be served by adopting a strictly neutral stance toward most mainstream political ideas, if the idea can be made compatible with our goals. Unless the mainstream idea represents a direct assault on White interests and one that will never be compatible with White interests (i.e. race doesn’t exist; diversity is our strength; White privilege must be abolished; immigration is good for business), I can’t think of reason WN shouldn’t be neutral. Not hostile, not supportive, but neutral.
Certainly there are many ideas and memes that circulate on both the mainstream right and left that have the potential to serve White interests if “bent” or “twisted” in the right direction. These would be ideas that in theory are compatible with advancing White interests even if they aren’t now in practice. The trick would be to convince the parties that hold these ideas to move them in new directions because it’s in their interests to do so.
Leftists who care about sustainability and environmental issues might be such a group. There is no necessary reason environmentalism has to be coupled to the diversity agenda. The diversity agenda actually undermines many of the environmentalists’ stated goals. So, there is no good reason for WNists to oppose environmentalism per se simply because it is currently hooked into the left coalition. Environmentalist ideas definitely can be made compatible with White interests with just a few “twists” or changes to decouple them from the problematic parts of the left agenda.
Likewise, I think WNists often virulent hostility to all mainstream or so-called”patriotard” conservative ideas is a serious mistake with negative consequences. Many of their ideas need to be attacked, of course, but not all of them for no reason other than they are currently hooked into mainstream conservatism. Some basic distinctions need to be made. As with environmentalist ideas, many mainstream right ideas are perfectly compatible with advancing White interests with just sight “twists” in application.
In particular, the idea that the government’s role is to aggressively protect property rights still has a lot of resonance on the right, especially in the south and mountain West. This idea, in turn, has a lot of potential value for Wnist because freedom of association is concomitant with property rights — and freedom of assoiation would give Whites the legal ability to form all White communities on private property.
The same logic applies to the federalism and states rights’ arguments that circulate on the mainstream right. Federalists arguments that resonate with conservatives might useful in the future to get a state out from under the US Fed gov. And notice also that the ethical concept of rights itself, and in particular the concept of “negative rights” which is how rights are usually understood in conservative circles, is a conservative meme with huge potential value that should not be written off.
Freedom of association is fundamental right. Whites have the right to free association. That is a powerful argument for voluntary segregation, but one that can’t be made if the concept of rights itself is rejected, as it often is in this sector of WNism– a sector hostile to most ideas descended from the Enlightenment.
The real axis of separation between WRA (white race advocates) has always been the same for decades and is of a purely tactical nature: preserve, or destroy.
There are those who, in their own words, do not believe in the “scorched earth policy”, and therefore want to hinder, postpone and delay by any means the inevitable socio-economical death of the current western Nation-States. They tend to believe that a conservative President is more in our interests than a liberal President, as a “lesser evil”.
There are those who believe that anything able to harm the current western Nation-States (such as economic crises, unpunished non-White criminality, and general havoc) is good for us, as it both weakens the hostile State and favours the “awakening” of the masses. They tend not to care about democratic politics, and if they do, they prefer an insane liberal as President to a sane conservative.
If history is taken as a witness, the “scorched earth policy” is actually what works. Chaos, ruin and weakness promote the birth of new social orders and the rise of new nations, while bourgeois stability creates a comfortable inertia where “extremist” political parties and ideas stagnate. Without the Great War, the Bolshevik revolution in Bavaria, the death of the monarchy, the hyperinflation of 1922 and the banking crisis of 1931, the NSDAP would never have had a single chance of accessing power. And that’s only the most obvious example.
Great piece, like seeing someone putting together all the little facts and figures in one place, so I don’t have to.
Coincidentally, I just got around to getting the second edition of Troy Southgate’s Tradition & Revolution, and several pieces there provide an insightful theoretical perspective on Left/Right delusions that would complement this fact-based piece.
I like a recent suggestion on, I think, Occidental Review online, that the decisive change in the Left, the “New Left” of the 60s, came about when the Jews took over [of course!] and changed the orientation from ‘money and rights for the White working man” to anti-American identity and grievance issues that we still have today. In short, Anti-White rather than Anti-Business.
Taking up what one commentator says about Leftist economics, it’s amazing how many fringe Left bloggers, like Michael Hudson or Max Keiser, get everything right, but still wind up denouncing “racists” and “Nazis” as behind it all. Like the Koch brothers give two shits about race. As always, the Judaic strategy is run both sides [New Left and Neo Con] and divide and conquer the goyim.
I may stop reading those sites altogether since I’m sick of hearing “fascism” as a synonym for ‘globalism’, or “Mussolini defined fascism as corporativism, like we have now” and other inanities. As if Fascism were not the polar opposite, social control of corporations [at least in theory, this being the Strasser-Hitler divide, as covered by Southgate in the op. cit.].
You should see [well, no, spare yourselves] the whining and pissing about “Greek Neo-Nazis” last week, or last month, when Jesse of Jesse’s Cafe Americain, a fine economics site, was posting all kinds of maudlin clips celebrating the “martyrs of the anti-Nazi resistance”.
Fascism is the answer, a la Pound, Lewis, Mosley, etc. so the Left suppresses it by PC, making it “un-mentionable.” See how it all fits together?
On the general issue of Lib vs. Con, my slogan has become “Conservatives are stupid, but Liberals are bat-shit crazy.” No matter how many “studies” they come up with to “prove” conservatives are stupid, they never point out that, like Hannibal Lechter, liberals are smart but crazy.
I recently blogged about discovering that I was anticipated by A. E. Housman:
“Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain; and it hardly possible to step aside from the pursuit of truth without falling a victim either to your stupidity or else to your vanity. Stupidity will then attach you to received opinions, and you will stick in the mud; or vanity will set you hunting for novelty, and you will find mare’s-nests.” — “The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism” by A.E. Housman. Proceedings of the Classical Association, August 1921, Vol XVIII.
Notice how Housman in his second sentence quite casually condenses into one sentence the supposed “discovery” of the psychological roots of political persuasions, the fruit of wise observation over a hundred years ago, rather than the pretentious and expensive dribble [not quite a shit-storm, but of the same material] of “studies” that have been clamouring for attention from we weary news consumers.
And dig, if you will, as well, the tertium quid: those who are not stupid [and stick in the mud, like “conservatives”] and yet are not vain [like “liberals” or “progressives,” chasing after one Marxist fantasy after another and trying to impose it on the stupid, recalcitrant masses]. Who might they be, who are both smart enough to pursue Truth yet humbly bow before the Truth they are wise enough to find?
Why, that’s us, the Traditionalists.
Alex Stark,
I agree with much of what you’ve written. But, just as Matt put it above, I have a few quibbles.
No, they mostly don’t. The problem with this claim is that it’s not supported by any evidence I know of. The case that there are no meaningful differences is overwhelming. There are absolutely no meaningful differences between them. Or, there are marginal or superficial ones only.
Consider the roll call.
1) Multiculturalism, quotas, de facto open borders, race replacement, or whatever the anti-White stance is on any issue with a race dimension.
Virtually no differences.
The GOP has been marginally better recently, on a somewhat important but still pretty minor issue in the scheme of things. They have obstructed the latest attempts at “immigration reform.”
But, the difference here is so marginal there might as well be no difference.
The top GOP leaders agree with the Democrats. See the Bush amnesty attempts supported by John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc. and sundry GOP filth like Karl Rove and Michael Gerson.
The GOP will push it through the first chance they get. The last amnesty was signed by a Republican as you noted.
2) “Perpetual war.”
No differences.
The GOP war record is well known. Younger people may not realize that Democrat Bill Clinton was responsible for the mass slaughter of Whites in the Balkans.
3) US Military hegemony over the Middle East, the Pacific rim, Japan, Australia, the South China Sea, Eastern Europe, and Western Europe. Essentially the whole world except China, Russia and North Korea.
No differences.
Obama recently approved stationing missiles practically on Russia’s border in Poland and Romania.
4) Favors using America’s economic, diplomatic and military might to spread “democracy, human rights, feminism, egalitarianism” and other ideas that undermine traditional societies.
No differences.
5) Coordinates with and supports genocidal anti-White governments in Europe and across the world; Does the same with the EU, UN, NATO, G12 and other trans-national institutions that are anti-white.
No differences.
4) Support America’s MIC.
No differences.
5) Supports totalitarian police-state and surveillance measures that undermine Americans’ traditional Constitutional protections and civil liberties.
No differences. These are likely to be rolled out against White advocates at some point.
The NDAA passed with 90+ votes, including almost all of the Democrats, and was signed by Barack Obama, a Democrat.
6) Supports the anti-male feminist agenda at the federal level (Violence Against Women Act; other anti-male federal legislation).
No differences. Democrats maybe slightly worse.
7) Beholden to Wall Street, Big Business and large corporate donors.
No differences.
8. Devotion to Israel and organized Jewry’s agenda.
No differences.
Now, regarding wealth inequality, once you begin looking at the years-old mass of laws, regulations and economic policies that have been impoverishing America’s White middle class for 40 years and that culminated in the great recession of ’08 – ’12, it is clear again there are few or no differences.
There is a perception of important differences and that the Democrats are better. The differences mostly don’t exist. They’re either marginal, or superficial (surface or rhetorical differences only).
Fundamentals underlying middle class impoverishment and wealth inequality:
9) Support for free trade and globalization.
No differences
10) Support for supply-side “Reganomics,” big cuts in top marginal rates, cap gains, etc.
Superficial differences only. Reagan, the Republican, generally gets all of the blame here. Democrats and mainstream liberals misleadingly blame Reagan and the GOP exclusively for political reasons.
In point of fact, the president does not make the law alone. Reagan worked with a Democrat House and Senate in his first term when he did the most of the damage, and a Democrat House in his second.
Reagan’s entire economic program reduces to a program of wealth transfer from the White middle class to the top. But, Reagan signed nothing into law without Democrat support. People often forget or ignore this factor.
When the roles were later reversed under Bill Clinton, he did little to reverse the core trends Reagan set in motion. Clinton signed NAFTA, GATT, etc.
10) Support for the minimal Wall Street oversight that is crucial for these mostly Jew-controlled financial institutions to loot White middle class wealth.
There is a general appearance of differences but no substantive ones. The Democrats have propagandized people into believing they are better than the GOP on this one.
However, Bill Clinton, a Democrat repealed the Glass-Steagal regs paving the way for Wall Street’s thieving in the ’00s and its related wealth transfer effects.
From ’09 – ’11, Barack Obama used his party’s rare Congressional super majority to pass Dodd Frank. It has a few good things in it that the GOP never would have agreed to, like the Consumer Protection Financial bureau.
Dodd Frank, however, is laughed at in far-left circles as a Wall Street oversight measure. Dodd Frank allows for future Wall Street bailouts. Wall Street thieves caused the problem. Wall Street thieves got bailed out. Obama and the Dems get elected. Obama and the Dems pass laws that won’t prevent it from happening again.
Goldman Sachs supported Dodd Frank.
Think about what that means. The Democrats had a once in a generation super-majority, a once in a generation to opportunity to force through progressive change. They represent themselves to the public as economic progressives. And they used their majority to pass a law Goldman supported.
Citizens United
A horrible decision by the conservative majority, but the only one in 50 years. Liberal court majorities have done far, far more damage to White interests in America than conservative ones, starting with Brown versus Board of Education under Earl Warren.
But, again, there are no substance differences here anyway.
The Democrats have made no serious effort to introduce legislation to overturn Citizens.
Barack Obama is using Citizens to his advantage. Obama has super-PACs supporting him that are collecting money in ways made possible by citizens.
Sorry this “quibble” is so long. Once I got to reflecting on how few meaningful differences actually exist, many more came to mind than I expected….but ultimately, yes, it’s two heads of the same Hydra on every important issue.
I completely agree with your assessments. I appreciate the critiques; these are the kinds of discussions I love.
I devoted most of the article to excoriating Republicans’ records and I didn’t make it a point to criticize Democrats’ records (though I did mention in passing that there where some points of fault for Democrats, such as Eric Holder). Instead, I used Democrats’ principles in the abstract as the point of comparison to Republicans. In reality, they are indistinguishable in many ways. However, I will still maintain that there are some differences in the degree to which they support damaging policies.
I think that Obama would rather have withdrawn from Afghanistan and that his expansion of the war was only a ploy to deflect Republican criticism and help his reelection, but you’re right, his actions have been indistinguishable from Bush.
I agree. I mentioned this in my response to Greg Paulson.
True, though Republicans are somewhat worse. When Romney spoke in front of AIPAC he said he would send warships to the Mediterranean. I don’t know if that’s just a case of Mitt Romney’s rhetorical hyperbole or not, but mainstream conservatives seem to have a single-minded devotion to pursuing Israel’s agenda (Michele Bachmann comes to mind immediately).
This may be an outlier, but there is a Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut named Lee Whitnum who has advanced that kind of critiques of US foreign policy on Israel that you almost only hear on racialist sites. She even called her opponent “a whore for AIPAC.” Though she seems to approach these issues from a pro-Palestinean perspective and not from our perspective, it’s great that she has brought these kinds of discussions into the mainstream.
As an aside, I can’t stand the mainstream rhetoric about Iran. Though Democratic circles are more critical about starting a potential war, they don’t see through a lot of the lies about Iran. The first thing the public has completely forgotten is that the US and the UK overthrew Iran’s democratically elected leader in 1953 to install an authoritarian puppet. But the public also sees Iran as just another nation of backwater Muslim terrorists, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. Iranians are easily the most civilized and well-educated people in the Middle East and, as Persians, they shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of the Arab world. No one seems to realize that Iranian citizens are almost never behind any terrorist attacks in the West. Terrorists are usually Arabs, African Muslims, North Caucasus Muslims, or South Asian Muslims, but Iranians usually never commit acts of terrorism. Also the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the US was clearly a hoax.
You’re absolutely right about Bill Clinton. He has a horrible legacy of contributing to our current financial crisis with his push for deregulation.
Also, Obama’s super majority was much more short-lived. Specter switched over and became a Democrat in April 2009. Al Franken (the 60th Senator) wasn’t seated until the summer due to the recounts in his Senate race. At the end of summer Ted Kennedy died and in Nov his seat was won by Scott Brown. So it was a very narrow window of time.
On Citizens United, I agree that Democrats haven’t done much to challenge this decision., though I just checked Wikipedia and it appears that there are a few states trying to overturn the decision.
“The legislatures of California, Hawaii and New Mexico have passed resolutions calling for the decision to be overturned. In addition, California is also planning on calling a constitutional convention to pass an amendment that would repeal the decision.”
The Democrat program better serves White economic interests for now; there is no doubt about that. It is still a question of degree though. While the Democrats are better than the GOP on economics, I can’t imagine a lower bar.
These can be complex issues when considered from the vantage point of White interests. Consider the Paul Ryan budget. On the surface, if you review the Ryan budget, you would think that the Ryan budget might be a Saturday Night Live caricature or parody of something the GOP would propose.
With income inequality at record levels, Wall Street looting the country and a horrible recession in progress, the Paul Ryan budget calls for massive tax reductions for corporations and the super-rich, coupled with “medicare” reform (i.e. ending traditional medicare).
Apart from a few libertarian ideologues, people support the Medicare. Medicare, essentially, is a single payer universal health care system for old people only. It’s massively popular.
Yet, here comes Paul Ryan and the GOP proposing to gut it while giving a windfall to oligarchs.
So what to make of that? On the surface, it looks like the usual GOP bullcrap. Romney, Ryan and the GOP are justifying it using their standard talking points about “cutting spending,” “deficits,” “debt,” “privatization,” and so on. By using this rhetoric to mislead their White middle-class supporters in the Red States, they seek to pass laws, if they can, that will help oligarchs while cutting the social safety for ordinary people.
Given that most Whites are not oligarchs, it would appear the most rational vote for Whites based on economic self-interest would be for Obama and the Democrats.
Except it’s not that simple.
Ryan’s changes to Medicare wouldn’t go into effect for years, the same years America’s demographic balance will be changing. As the non-Whites share of the population increases, the number of Whites being served by Medicare is going to decrease. Eventually, Whites won’t be a majority of those being served by Medicare.
So, if the ultimate impact of Ryan’s budget is to destroy traditional Medicare coverage for non-Whites, who cares? I really don’t care if the social safety net gets yanked away from them.
So what seems on the surface like an easy choice for Whites based on economic self interest actually isn’t that straightforward in my opinion. A vote for the Paul Ryan budget today, in a way, is a vote to destroy Medicare for future waves on non-Whites. Not a bad vote, actually.
Lew:
One quick comment about the Ryan Budget – the critical elements of which will pass, one of these days.
You are right about the restructuring of Medicare, and the limits of Medicaid.
The missing element the actuaries are strongly supporting is the formal transformation of Social Security back into what the Supreme Court said it was, back in the Forties, and was designed to be – the last safety net for our senior citizens.
Currently, a lot of people are treating their Social Security payments as lifetime annuities, with this being the frosting on their cake of income and benefits. Currently, you can have your defined benefits pension (going away, by the way, over the last twenty years), your IRA distribution, your SEP distribution, and your various other payments (Roth IRA, etc.).
Under what I call the Big Change (mark to market for pension assets being one of them), Social Security becomes a formally means-tested income maintenance program. People living on Social Security in other countries (*cough* Mexico *cough*) will face totalization, and will have strong incentive to return those dollars, with themselves, to America.
The key organization to watch is the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation – PBGC. Once your pension is taken over by PBGC, in practice, your income is no more than thirty thousand dollars a year, AND your pension has a dollar-for-dollar offset (the “offset”) for Social Security when you begin to take it. I think the average pension payout under PBGC is about $14,500 a year, but don’t quote me. Take into account the offset, and you see the shape of things to come.
Ryan’s Budget simply formalizes what current practice has become on the margin, and will become in the future. There’s too much cold,. hard truth in there for too many people, but look at the yields on thirty year Treasuries, and ask yourself what is backstopping your pension, where the actuaries can impute eight percent, or more, in returns.
This is why I have stated we will go back to having three or more generations under one roof, and, if that roof is big enough, more than one branch of the family. Grandpa and Grandma aren’t just babysitters for the grandkids. Their cash income (Social Security!) will pay the property taxes for the homestead as well.
And, those people driving big honking RV’s with those damn bumper stickers on them, “We’re Spending Our Children’s Inheritance?” Those will do very well parked on their children’s property, where they will not be able to afford the gas to put in them.
Good observations re: Ryan. Sometimes, I don’t know what’s keeping all the balls in the air.
Lew in blockquote:
Twenty-one trillion dollar increase in the money supply, accounting rules that allow the “deferment” or “off-balance sheet” recognition of losses, and an unwillingness to face what happens when we face a “mark to market” regime vis-a-vis the dollar.
That’s why we need to look at economics from a new perspective, one consistent with the metapolitical focus. Hence, Soddy on Cartesian Economics, and from there to ecological economics. From a business perspective, understanding the Theory of Constraints by Goldratt given us an enormous advantage.
On another thread, “Rudel” bemoaned the lack of NS economic theory, leading to NS economic practice. These are all excellent starting places, and would apply perfectly in a Northwest Republic. Here, there is simply way too much unrecognized debt overhang, and the answers to that from a status quo perspective are all bad. The only way they can begin to hit some sort of balance, it seems to me, is an “emergency” tax on your retirement accounts. Five percent ought to do it, for openers. Imagine your standard of living getting cut in HALF. That is the functional equivalent of, say, ten dollars a gallon for gasoline and heating oil.
It is THAT bad.
Remember, all economics ultimately reduces to physical economics. THAT is why, for my family Back In The Hills, I had them give two of their three houses back to the bank., rebuilt the house – and barn! – to support several generations of several branches of the family under one roof, paid for dual septic systems – a greywater system – and became a damn expert on ICYNENE insulation. The money freed up from ending the pretense they could afford houses they couldn’t afford made this possible.
NOTHING in this economic system, is getting better; quite the contrary, unless you are a billionaire.
Remember, when we play THEIR Game, by THEIR Rules, and THEY get to be the Referee, we always lose.
And THAT, in part, is why we are not conservatives.
Just for fun I sort of lifted this from the “Atlantic” blog post:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/what-americans-mean-when-they-say-theyre-conservative/252099/
This is a starting point for their definition of US Conservtatism. It would provide for an interesting discussion to assess what here is acceptable and what is rejected.
1. An aversion to rapid change; a belief that tradition and prevailing social norms often contain within them handed down wisdom; and mistrust of attempts to remake society so that it conforms to an abstract account of what would be just or efficient.
2. A desire to preserve the political philosophy and rules of government articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
3. A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, through cultural norms.
4. A belief that it is imperative to preserve traditional morality, as it is articulated in the Bible, using cultural norms and the power of the state.
5. An embrace of free-market capitalism, and a belief in the legitimacy of market outcomes.
6. A belief that America is an exceptional nation, a shining city on a hill, whose rightful role is leader of the free world.
7. A belief that America should export its brand of democracy through force of arms.
8. The conviction that government should undertake, on behalf of the American polity, grand projects that advance our “national greatness” and ennoble our characters.
9. An embrace of localism, community and family ties, human scale, and a responsibility to the future.
10. A belief that America shouldn’t intervene in the affairs of other nations except to defend ourselves from aggression and enforce contracts and treaties.
11. A desire to return to the way things once were.
12. Affinity for, identification with, or embrace of Red America’s various cultural cues. (For example, gun ownership, a preference for single-family homes oriented around highways rather than urban enclaves organized around public transit, embrace of country music, disdain for arugula and fancy mustard, etc.)
13. Disdain for American liberalism, multiculturalism, identity politics, affirmative action, welfare, European-style social policies, and the left and its ideas generally.
14. A desire to be left alone by government, often coupled with a belief that being left alone is a natural right.
15. A principled belief in federalism.
16. The belief that taxes should be lower and government smaller.
17. The belief that the national debt and deficits put America in peril.
18. The belief that whenever possible, government budgets should be balanced.
19. Consciousness of the fallibility of man, and an awareness of the value of skepticism, doubt and humility.
20. Realism in foreign policy.
21. Non-interventionism in foreign policy
I think your tone is unnecessarily divisive and harsh in places. However, in spirit and substance if not in style, I’m probably closer to your perspective on most of those matters than to Alex’s given his obvious sympathy for mainstream Democrat positions.
That said, articles like this one are important because they give mainstream liberals and Democrats a reason to consider White ideas. While definitions and terms can and do vary with context, fair or not, in the United States today the word “conservative” is synonymous in the public mind with “Republican voter” and “GOP agenda.” In that sense, “we” are not conservatives, and “we” need to make that perfectly clear. This article does that.
That was meant for “Skandi” whose comment seems to be gone now.
Yes, I decided to delete it. The ranting tone was just not right for CC. But he or she should try again.
From the picture, it would seem that “conservatives” means Romney supporters.
As for mainstream conservatives opposing multiculturalism, on Capitol Hill Rep. Peter King’s radicalization hearings come to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Radicalization_hearings
Several conservatives also gain mention in Wikipedia’s “Criticism of Multiculturalism” article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism#United_States
I am sure you could also pluck several from my personal favorite mainstream conservative, Ann Coulter. This is not to say that they are ordinarily mealy and weak in their opposition, but I just think that when you condemn “conservatives” in such strident language, you describe them in terms even the denizens of the Beltway would deny with some evidence from their records.
Note especially that many conservatives think of Reagan’s amnesty as folly. At any rate, who do you think passed the successful bills in Arizona and Georgia (in the latter state, at least, I know that indigenous unemployment fell steeply in the months after passage).
You can not be a conservative, but what sense does it make to speak of “We” when your article admits that some White advocates are conservatives? I can be no more than a fellow traveler to any movement without room for pro-European, Modern Age-reading, traditionalist conservatives like myself.
Note too that I value the works of Pierce, Covington, et al, and think they have an important place in the movement. But I worry that, while (admit it) Whites can now live with security and only livable government interference in most of the country, if the national meltdown-upheavals they envisioned ever came to pass, the odds would be against us, and certain masters of the universe would be keen on committing, not gradual like there is now, but bald White genocide! I simply think most pro-White thinkers would show more respect for moderation, and at least try and see through the mainstream conservatives’ eyes, if they thought of those likely consequences.
The generalization that change happens in upheavals is too vague; not only is the change not necessarily good, but it also ignores the total hardship and lack of the goods conservatives protected for generations even if a better order eventually does come about.
All this boils down to: Whites should not try to break with a society that means our slow genocide, because our enemies won’t let us. We’ll get in trouble. Better stay with the security of slow genocide. This is why we are not conservatives: because conservatives are cowards who conserve nothing and merely obstruct clear, radical thinking and real political change. I can’t think of any reason why we need to woo a group of people whose most salient characteristics are cowardice, lying, and losing.
Crusader wrote:
Note too that I value the works of Pierce, Covington, et al, and think they have an important place in the movement. But I worry that, while (admit it) Whites can now live with security and only livable government interference in most of the country, if the national meltdown-upheavals they envisioned ever came to pass, the odds would be against us, and certain masters of the universe would be keen on committing, not gradual like there is now, but bald White genocide! I simply think most pro-White thinkers would show more respect for moderation, and at least try and see through the mainstream conservatives’ eyes, if they thought of those likely consequences.
The generalization that change happens in upheavals is too vague; not only is the change not necessarily good, but it also ignores the total hardship and lack of the goods conservatives protected for generations even if a better order eventually does come about
Well said. I think there is a certain wisdom in the old saying An Enemy of my enemy is my friend. I maintain that white Republicans are far more sympathic then is imagined. They are simply working in a climate that they understand and as such do what is necessary to gain ascendancy. My bet is that the environment that WN’s look forward to is exactly the same one that Republicans and Christians describe except that it would be all white and thus would come with a more likley reality that it would be sustainable So why fight with the people who can enable you when a little tweaking is all that may really be required.
I know of not one Republican that thinks highly of Black or Womens studies. I know of not one Republicans that does not think that Western Civilization is not superior nor who is not proud of European descendency. I do not know one Republican that does not think our entire educational system is corrupt and foul. My guess is that they are simply picking the battles of priority as they go.
I agree that they support Israel but in reality on a global scale this is probably warranted at the moment. It is really unclear who is using who here. Islam is not the friend of the West and Israel is holding a position in the Middle East which benefits us as well as them.
A radical system breakdown will not do us any good. I once looked forward to it but my mind has changed. Civilizations take centuries to build and there is much to be saved in this one, in fact the only rabid element in our culture is really the anti white crap that is infiltrating and that is where we need to be tactical about making change. The rest of the flaws we can educate out as well or build institutions to manage them. And as for unwanted immigrants you do exactly as Romney suggests you make it untenable for them to stay and they will self deport.
Like Anticarville says, basically go out and infiltrate and do not be afraid, and as Greg Johnson made the point when they throw the standard litany of slurs at you do not cower, step right over them.
I somehow feel that we also need to articulate a detailed vision that common men can understand. The people on here are way too intelligent to be representative of the common people so you need to spaek to them in pictures and stories. We need art to begin to flow. The white folk need to bring forward the art of the past that represents us and we need to create the art that shows our future. We need to find the already accepted cultural themes, that all already know and support and link to them thru our vision. Simple ones upon which to start: Freedom, Safety, Security, Beauty, Clean-ness, Community, Integrity, Wholeness. These are white people values that all already know and understand we need to make our philopsophical, political and social positions into what provides these things.
If the Republicans agree with us more than they seem, then they are also bigger liars and cowards than they seem.
You are engaged in classic goy-wrangling here. Moderate Republican messengers go to the conservatives and the pro-lifers and whisper: “Vote for the moderate, because he really is sympathetic to you. He just can’t say so.” Meaning: repose your hopes on a lying coward and hope that he finds a spine or a conscience someday, and in the meantime, maybe you can feast on crumbs from his table. And instead of sending a counter-proposal — perhaps accompanied by the messenger’s bloody head in a box — the conservatives just take the deal, signalling that they are ultimately made of the same lying, cowardly, defeated, losing stuff.
The moment we publish something that indicates that we are NOT porous to this kind of conservative seepage, you and “Crusader” show up here pushing the same talking points among WNs, going full-grease to slip the manacles back on our minds.
The problem with conservatives, Republicans, and their ilk is not their professed or hidden beliefs (“convictions” would be too strong a word for them). It is their character. And without character — most saliently courage, which is a necessary condition of honesty — their convictions amount to nothing. In the end, the only thing any conservative tries to conserve is his own: his own status, his own money, his own security, and he cuts a separate peace with the system in order to do that, selling out he common good in the process.
Maybe we need to pass out bracelets with a little slogan on it that reminds WNs that nothing good comes from cowards, liars, and losers even if they claim, deep down, to really sympathize with our views.
What would Leonidas do? What would Hitler do?
The problem with conservatives is that they lack character. Every LONG-TIME mainstream conservative, and every racially-conscious conservative, I have ever met has been made of the same rotten, reflexively lying, cringing, cowardly stuff.
I say “LONG-TIME” because yes, good people sometimes call themselves conservatives. But if they really are good, eventually they grow out of it. The ones who never do, and who sing their siren songs and lure others onto the rocks, are the ones we need to prevent our people from listening to. They always, instinctively tack in the wrong direction, back to the middle, the muddle, the lies and cowardice and evasion and losing.
Man that is a pretty strong comeback toward me and a complete misread on who I am and what I am about.
My point has been to simply open you guys a little more toward possible allies in the hope that the conversion curve might be shortened. I am in general agreement with the things you all say on here and am not trying to undermine you nor to sucker you in here at all. I have been reading your pages for some time and engaging everything that has been written and finally I felt like my sense of things had developed to where I thought I might contribute. I have spent my life reading like you have and probably have different experiences then you have and thought to offer toward your effort my own ideas.
My recommendations have been with the hope of helping bring forward where I see what I think may be deficits. I have even given sincere comments towards you and others on here when I could without appearing gratuitous. So really I am stunned to read this and rather suspicious about the open-ness of people who I thought were compatriots in the battle against the same issues that have plagued me for a long time.
Maybe there is a culture already formed here that requires certain prerequisites to be understood before one can engage that I have not grasped so I will exit and find greener pastures even though I really cannot understand why anyone would turn in such a way toward one of similar mindset.
Final recommendation: When you are angry remember to look for the forest not the trees.
Thanks for your response though I learned much from it.
Charles Martell in blockquote:
If you will grant me a moment of your time, perhaps I can help bring some understanding to your understanding of Greg Johnson’s response to your comment.
If Johnson does “misunderstand” your position, please help one and all by taking a minute or two and clarifying your position. What is misunderstood? Although we are quite comfortable with Whitaker’s Mantra, for example, we see the need for defining things more clearly, and even a bit ruthlessly, as the warm fuzzies that have passed as “conservative” thought prove pretty helpless in dealing with even the “conservatives,” much less the Orcs coming after us in full battle gear.
Sincere comments are sincerely appreciated. I suspect “conversion curves will be shortened” as learning curves are accelerated, and people realize the hopes they have been offered by the “conservatives” are all marked to their true market value. I will borrow a phrase from Savitri, and refer to “conservatism” in practice as a racket to bluff the fools.
On EVERY issue, in practice, the “conservatives” have been as one with our Opposition, from voting for their proposals, to funding their bureaucracies. EVERY single damn issue. Even their heartwrenching hot button issue, the rights of the Unborn, have been abrogated in practice by their supporting the appointment to the Federal Judiciary of abortion advocates, and their funding of abortion support agencies in Congressional appropriations. If that isn’t enough, the proper NGO’s are funded, just to insure policy and practice are one in practice, and moving in the right direction.
And what are they worth to their allies in the Republican Party?
How many people did the Bush Administration send to the funeral of Jerry Falwell? Not one. Not even a Cabinet member, not even an Undersecretary. Not ONE, to attend a funeral a few hours drive from Washington, DC.
They treated them like they treat us, with soft, barely concealed, open contempt.
There is a culture here that is rapidly developing, where, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, steel is used to test steel. If our Ideas can not taken the test of challenge in safe, comfortable cyberspace, how can they expect to be remotely competitive, much less prevail, in the Dark Times that are upon us?
This is what I like about Bob Whitaker. As long as you keep the Goal in mind, and address all issues in the light of the Goal, you can challenge him with ruthless intellectual honesty, and he will respond in kind. Bob could have easily been a leader of the Conservatives, and the Republican Party, retiring to a life of ease, in a mutual admiration society. He chose not to do so, and to spend what time he has remaining fighting for the Race, DEFINING the Cause, and developing the best way to support the Cause, from a temporal political prespective..
Greg Johnson is doing the same, from a metapolitical perspective.
And when the forest has been set on fire by the Morlocks, cut down the trees to build firebreaks. Then, attack the fire – in an “apple pie, strictly legal, sort of way.” (HT: Jim Giles)
We’re constructively battling the soft genocide of the white Race.
There is more, much more, to learn, and to do.
Be Better. Do Better. Join us.
Charles Martell:
That perspective used to leave me scratching my head, too, until I think I got the rationale behind it and came to understand why it’s necessary. In part, it has to do with breaking with that which has not worked and people aligned with GJs perspective not wishing to screw around any longer with methods that have clearly failed (all forms and strains of post-WW2 American conservatism).
In my experience, even the most sophisticated conservatives such as people who have heard of Modern Age have a woefully inadequate understanding of the sheer magnitude of the conservative failure record. Or, they understand it but don’t want to let it go. I know the territory from whence I speak because I’ve been there. They resist, I think, out of habit, being ill-informed on the issues, or a sense of personal investment in a system of thought that they’ve studied and bought into rather than any credible evidence that post-WW2 American conservatism will ever work as an intellectual vehicle for defending the West.
Samuel Francis once said something to the effect that conservatives who seek to defend the West need to find new modes of thought to preserve the things they have traditionally said they want to preserve. This is true. It’s the reason the smartest conservatives always voluntarily leave conservatism or like Derbyshire, Francis and Sobran get thrown out.
Lew in blockquote:
Sam Francis has fascinated me, because he came THIS CLOSE to seeing the deeper truth and dealing with it, a la Covington. He didn’t because he was too much in love with conservatism as it had been defined to him, as s “dream walking.”
He never realized “conservative” thought came from somewhere – in particular, Burke’s desire to keep the British Aristocracy on top, by any means necessary. Burke developed the intellectual foundations for the Industrial Age’s version of the Divine Right of Kings. He was paid five thousand pounds a year for life to do so. It was probably the best investment the Crown ever made.
Dr. Francis fell prey to Wordism, wondering why the mystical incantations he used didn’t change the hearts and minds of others. These were, to Buckley, et. al., simply tools to control the Minds of those follish enough to trust them, and see them as Authority Figures.
I suspect Dr. Francis had no idea what the underlying Reality was for him, until he crossed The Line, and became Outcast. As his world, his influence, his effectiveness, grew ever smaller, he could not understand why; he was singing the right tune, and hitting the right words buttons.
The short answer – to him, these conceptions were ends unto themselves, while, to conservative leaders, they were simply means to an end, the end of more power or themselves, and less power for everyone else. think of it as the intellectual equivalent of multilevel marketing – “Do What You Were Told, And Do Not Question.”
I suspect, if I am reading between the lines correctly, Dr. Francis died alone, and, with perhaps one or two exceptions, unmourned. After all, who bemoans the loss of a tool?
Certainly not Buckley, or his Conservatives.
After all, conservatives do not want to defend the West, unless it makes them ever more powerful. That’s why they have set up tax shelters overseas, and have dual citizenship. Just in case.
That’s another Wordism error Dr. Francis made.
He equated “America” exclusively with “the West.” And after the America you thought you knew, Dr. Francis?
Try not to take things so personally. Someone disagreeing with your opinion, even if done so too harshly, is not a good justification to write someone off, let alone a whole website or movement.
May I suggest developing a thicker skin? You’ll certainly need it if you intend on sticking around for this fight. At Counter-Currents, we offer each other real criticism. It’s the only way to foster intellectual growth and the growth of our movement to achieve its goals. As Fourmyle of Ceres said,
So I urge you — in order to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children — to put your personal differences aside and develop a thicker skin.
You always have an interesting take on things. It never occurred to me look at it that way. Burke wrote all that verbiage criticizing the French Revolution not out of conviction or a belief in the dangers of abstract ideology but because he was a paid hack for British Aristocracy. This, in effect, would make Burke a WFB-figure.
It wouldn’t surprise me though because it happens every day. When the Koch brothers need to get something done, they often snap their fingers and drop $25,000,000 to fund an “independent think tank.” The “think tank” then goes about churning out reams of “independent” research “proving” how whatever they want to do will be a boon to society. This, pretty much, is what they do right now when funding groups like Reason, CATO, and AEI. It’s oligarchs buying intellectual window dressing exactly the way the you’re suggesting the British crown bought Burke.
It’s a depressing thought (to me anyway) because it implies the best ideas ultimately don’t matter at all when it comes to influencing society. All that ever matters, or all that ever seems to matter, is who has the money. He who has the money buys the propaganda; he who buys the propaganda buys the masses; he who buys the masses controls the guns.
But ideas do matter. That’s why the oligarchs and culture distorters invest so much in them.
Well, that’s true too. Looking at it that way, you might say ideas are all that matters. Ayn Rand said its intellectuals control the fate of every civilization. By coincidence, after I left that comment, I read a long Razib Khan article on “White Privilege versus White Supremacy.” It had this observation about Stoddard:
Exactly how do you get millions who believe one thing come to believe other things, often very different things, or in our case the exact opposite of what they believed just a few decades earlier? It will take a deeper mind that I think I have to grasp that. It has to be a top down process. At this point, I get that and pretty much only that.
The suggestion that Edmund Burke was, to use Soviet parlance, an “agent of influence” reminds me of what Revilo P. Oliver wrote of Daniel Defoe (Liberty Bell, December 1983):
“. . . I shall mention a detail of his biography that remained unknown for almost a century and a half after his death. It may interest members of the ‘right-wing’ who may be perplexed by some periodicals and organizations that are professedly on our side but yet pudically refrain from mentioning the grim realities of race.
“Defoe began his writing as a man of strong convictions, but after he, as he says in The Consolidator, ‘met with all that fate which they must expect who attempt to open the eyes of a nation willfully blind,’ he became more cynical and, a few years later, accepted employment as a secret agent of the government then in power.
“British politics were not then so corrupt as is only normal today, but there were organized factions that were virtually political parties, such as the framers of our Constitution naïvely thought they had prevented in our new nation.
“During the latter part of the reign of Queen Anne there were two crucial issues in English politics: Who would succeed the childless queen when she died? What measure of religious toleration should be extended to Protestant dissenters from the Church of England and to latitudinarians within that church?
“The Whigs, who had more or less dominated British government since 1690, were therefore faced by two large and relatively powerful groups of opponents. The two oppositions were by no means coextensive, but they did overlap to some extent, and they sometimes had the good sense to unite in opposing some measures of the Ministry in power.
“The Jacobites hoped and plotted for the restoration of the male line of the Stuarts to the British throne, and they had a good chance of ensuring the succession of the young Stuart prince, whom they called Charles III, when Queen Anne died in 1714, although the romantic story of their failure in Thackeray’s Henry Esmond is, of course, fiction. After 1714, the Jacobites remained a potent political force until their insistence that the Hanoverian monarchs, installed by the Whigs, were not the legitimate rulers of England became less and less cogent after Charles was defeated at Culloden in 1746.
“The High Church faction wanted to enforce doctrinal uniformity within the Church of England and to treat Protestant dissenters from that church as Roman Catholics were then treated as a matter of course, i.e., to exclude them categorically from all political offices and influence. This faction was partly animated by self-interest, of course, but the more intelligent members of it were aware of the crucial importance of religion as a bond of political unity. They foresaw, correctly as the event proved, that the Protestant dissenters were potentially a greater danger to the stability of Britain than the Roman Catholics, who were excluded from politics. They knew that political subversion would inevitably follow political toleration of religious subversion by heretical sects. . . .
“Defoe, in the second part of The Consolidator (in which a visit to the Moon is merely a pretext for a thinly-veiled discussion of British politics), analysed some of the blunders by which the Jacobites and the High Church faction had ruined opportunities to acquire greater influence. A few years after the publication of that book in 1705, he was hired by the Whig interests to pretend that he had become an adherent of both of the opposing factions, and since he was a writer of undoubted skill and polemic power, he had little trouble in obtaining editorial positions that gave him effective control over the three leading periodicals of the Jacobite and High Church parties, Mist’s Journal, the Mercurius Politicus, and Dormer’s Letter. He used his control over these periodicals to neutralize in large measure the political forces they had been founded to promote.
“Defoe’s secret sabotage of the three publications can be described fairly, but more concisely and perspicuously, in the terminology that is used today. He urged and often enforced editorial policies of ‘moderation,’ insisted on avoiding issues that were ‘too controversial,’ and rejected or suppressed articles that were too forthright on the grounds that ‘extremism’ would compromise the journal’s ‘respectability’ and alienate its ‘moderate’ readers.
“This clandestine and treacherous sabotage of the two major forces of opposition to the Whigs was certainly dishonorable on Defoe’s part, but it was sagacious on the part of his wily employers. It is most unlikely that their clever political stratagem has been forgotten by the powers that now occupy and rule the United States, but I shall leave to others conjectures about the various publications and organizations that are ostensibly on our side but practice ‘moderation’ and ‘respectability,’ claiming that it would be ‘counter-productive’ to confront our enemies forthrightly.”
Michael Hudson is an example of an economist “on the Left” that’s useful because he exposes the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ pseudo-pundits. He has a piece today that debunks Krugman, the NYT/NPR/SWPL’s favorite economist.
Just as the New Left abandoned labor for “identity politics” so economists have abandoned historical and structural concerns for “pure mathematics”. It’s all about “getting the right amount of stimulus” rather than hanging the bankers. Chomsky pointed out that economist would have you believe that the transformation of India from self-sufficiency to growing cotton for export was due to some “law of comparative advantage” without mentioning the British army marching into Bombay and breaking the thumbs of anyone caught weaving.
“The tradition is grounded in the Progressive Era’s reform program. Correcting such structural and institutional defects, parasitism and privilege seeking “free lunches” is what classical political economy was all about – and what the neoclassical reaction sought to exclude from the economic curriculum. But from the perspective of neoclassical writers [Liberals] through Rubinomics deregulators [Conservatives], the problem of massive, unpayably high debt expanding inexorably by compound interest (and penalty fees) [i.e., USURY, and we know who THAT is] simply disappears. ”
http://184.154.228.18/~micha608/?p=1486
Thanks for posting; that was an interesting essay. I plan to add Hudson to list of “left-wing” pundits and analysts that I routinely follow. I hate using the labels “left,” “right,” etc. but I always fall into it out of habit and convenience.
Here is an interesting quote (my emphasis):
It’s amazing the way this “system” — another problematic formulation that I fall into using out of convenience — works like a Swiss watch to blunt change from every direction except that which the people running this thing want.
Greg mentioned above how Republican leaders abuse the pro-lifers and rank-and-file conservatives by whispering “vote for us! We’re a lot closer to what you want! Look at the alternative!” Or, they just flat out ignore them as cannon fodder than can be taken for granted. Karl Rove’s mentor, Lee Atwater, once told George H.W. Bush “screw the gun nuts; they have no one else to support.” Or words to that effect.
The Democrat’s abusers use this approach too, the effect being to keep disaffected liberals from breaking with the Democrats and turning to more economic radical ideas such as Chomsky and Nadar’s. “Yeah, I know Obama and the Senate Dems rolled over on the NDAA and take money from Wall Street, but look at the alternative…don’t waste a vote on someone like Nadar…”
Despite Krugman’s harsh anti-Republican rhetoric, his positions, ultimately, represent a defense of plutocracy. He is not a stupid, so it has to be on purpose. The same is mostly true across the universe of liberal opinion. Many, many liberal pundits criticize Obama’s program for not being “more liberal”, but then follow up with an argument that people should keep voting mainstream Democrat anyway because the alternative is worse.
Lew,
To get millions of people to believe things that they didn’t a few decades before you examine how it has been done to us and then simply do it again. White nationalists need to get their message out as much as possible on websites, strive to attain places in academia, work their way onto school boards, study film and make movies, become comedians, etc. Attain as much cultural power as economic power and start chipping away at modern “values” in the exact same way that the Left has. They control the entertainment industry and they control the universities. But each one of them–each professor, each Hollywood director– will retire and will die and we need to be there to replace them. It requires no extraordinary mind just extraordinary commitment and constant action.
On that note, I was sorry to see that we lost one or two potential allies in the debate here. If we couldn’t convince them of the truth of our beliefs I am not sure that we will fare better with those who are actually hostile to us. Whether it is a question of thick skin or not, we had an easy sell and we had the door shut in our face. We can say to ourselves that we don’t need people who aren’t one hundred percent behind us but that is just the luxury of powerlessness. Eventually, inevitably, we will need them and we had better be able to make the sale.
Perhaps I flatter myself, but I think this project is important enough to attract the attention of some very sophisticated internet trolls. That is what I think “Charles Martell” was up to. He has been banned. I have my suspicions about “Crusader” as well. It is odd: I would actually prefer to think that they are enemies rather than real conservatives, since I can respect an enemy who acts out of conviction, but I can’t respect conservatives who act out of cowardice.
I have no doubt that this project is important enough.
I’m not a very good troll-spotter because I tend to take people at their word. Maybe I am naive in that respect. And, I guess, to be honest, I am just old enough to not really understand the “trolling” thing. Is this an individual hobby? A collective effort? A strategic attack? All of the above?
I wonder if an FAQ or posting guidelines might help. Or perhaps a section for dissenting opinions. I know nothing about running websites so I have no idea how much extra work that would be. Nor do I know if it would be worth it: dissenting opinion is just everywhere once one leaves this site.
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
This project is that important, because both of them sing the same soft song of the betrayal of your dreams: be cool, go along to get along, be their friends. Martel’s comments about Israel sealed it.
I think this is very high praise. All other WN sites, with the exceptions of Whitaker’s and Covington’s people, deal with the issues by talking around the issue with Childlike, fantastical thinking.
This project took a lot of time and effort on their part.
High praise, indeed, and all the more reason why sending money to counter-currents, each and every month, is a worthwhile investment.
Greg,
What do you think of Brett Stevens’ conservatism? I’ve read of few snippets of his work. Not a lot. Looks like good stuff, but I don’t have time to follow everybody. He appears to have little in common with mainstream conservatives but still calls himself a conservative.
http://www.amerika.org/?doing_wp_cron=1337960610
I don’t think Stevens is on our side.
1. He pushes the “blame ourselves” meme and openly opposes “naming the Jew.”
2. He pushes the liberal vs. conservative paradigm, as if the only problem we face are liberals.
I realize this conversation has wound down, but I wanted to share this.
Partial list of Romney’s foreign policy team.
Cofer Black – (BlackWater USA)
Dov Zakheim – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Robert Kagan – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Michael Chertoff – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Eliot Cohen – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Eric Edelman – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
John Lehman – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Evan Feigenbaum – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Aaron Friedberg – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Kent Lucken – (Israeli Dual Citizen)
Kristen Silverberg – (Israeli Dual Ctizen)
Norm Coleman (Freemason. Religion – Judaism)
Dan Senor (Religion – Judaism)
Jim Talent (Descended from Russian Jewish immigrants)
Pierre Prosper (An “Anti-Racist”. Member of ICERD – wants to make “hate speech” and “membership of racist organizations” a crime)
Vin Weber (Member of PNAC – The group calling for “another pearl harbor”)
I think Chertoff is an American; I think his wife is dual.
The list does make a point that many on Our Side tend to overlook, and that is the importance of organization over libertarianism.
All the more reason to send money to counter-currents, regularly, Monthly would be fine, and cash would be fine.
Today would be fine, as well.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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