Counter-Currents
The Counter-Currents Summer Fundraiser
The Costs & Benefits of Controversy
Greg Johnson
Jacques-Louis David, “The Death of Socrates,” detail, 1787
1,443 words
Several readers have asked what happened to our summer fundraising drive. The short answer is that we hit a bump in the road. But we have stepped over it and are moving forward again.
Since our last update on July 18, we have added $5,482 to our total, based on 11 donations ranging from $2 to $5,000. Thank you to all of our donors! Our grand total is now $11,255.30.
Our goal is $25,000. We will keep you posted of our progress more regularly until we reach it.
Now about this bump in the road: Our second largest donor, and one of the donors we expected the most from in the long run, has withdrawn his support from Counter-Currents. The most immediate consequence is that this donor had promised a $6,000 matching grant to help us make our goal of $25,000 by August 11. Obviously, we are going to have to drop that deadline. We will end this fundraiser when we meet our goal, whenever that may be.
This is, obviously, a setback. It will not stop us, but at least in the short run, it will slow down our projects a good deal: we will be publishing fewer books; we will be organizing fewer and smaller events; we will be able to pay fewer authors and will have to give them less money per work; we will generally be playing it safe, financially speaking, for the foreseeable future. I will not try to shrug this off with some brave or flippant remark. It’s a disaster, given that we really do believe that we are helping lay the foundations for the long-term survival of our race, and we don’t have time to waste.
Why did this happen? Quite simply, it is the cost of controversy. On July 20, Kevin MacDonald published my essay, “Dealing with the Holocaust,” at The Occidental Observer. In it, I argued that the Holocaust is one of the primary tools by which white ethnocentrism, pride, and nationalism are beaten down, softening our people up morally and psychologically for our ongoing dispossession. Thus if whites are going to regain control over our destiny, we need a response to the Holocaust.
But I also argued that Holocaust revisionism is not an adequate response. Instead, I argued that the foundation of the Holocaust’s malign power is largely moral and psychological, namely our people’s grandiose tendency to assume and expiate unearned guilt, and that the only real solution to the Holocaust and other ethnic guilt trips (e.g., over slavery, the American Indians, etc.) is a transformation of white moral consciousness.
The essay sparked a great deal of controversy. There were more than 750 comments at TOO before they were shut down, and the discussion spilled over to other websites, where it continues to this day. Although I was heartened by the positive responses of Kevin MacDonald and the most astute commentators at TOO, I caught hell from some who thought my article too pro-revisionist and others who thought it too anti-revisionist. In addition to fundamental differences of principle, this debate has also churned up a great deal of ugliness and irrationality. All told, it was a very costly controversy.
So be it. For such controversies also have benefits.
First and foremost, Counter-Currents is premised on the notion that ideas matter. Ideas make history. Good ideas lead to good consequences. Bad ideas lead to disaster. Our race and civilization are perishing because our people believe and act upon bad ideas: whites do not think that we are a distinct people, with a distinct identity, unless it is something to apologize for; whites do not believe that we bring anything positive to this world; whites do not believe that ethnic conflicts are inevitable and are exacerbated when different peoples live in the same society; whites do not believe that it is moral to take our own side in ethnic conflicts.
These bad ideas are destroying us, and the only thing that will save us is accepting and implementing better ideas. But that requires discovering better ideas. And discovery entails discussion, disagreement, and debate. In the short run, this leads to hurt feelings and organizational upheavals — in short, the staples of the White Nationalist political scene. But it would be folly to shy away from controversy just to avoid unpleasantness. For in the long run, controversy is the way to truth, and living in accordance with truth is the only way our people will be saved.
In this case, I argued that while Holocaust revisionism is a legitimate historical exercise, it has limited utility for White Nationalism because it does not get to the roots of white weakness and Jewish power, and we need to understand these things correctly if we are to change them.
Second, avoiding controversy is also bad from an organizational point of view. There is a perennial temptation to try to make organizations grow by avoiding controversy, moderating one’s tone, and papering over differences. In the short run, such policies can fill one’s ranks with the lukewarm, wishy-washy, superficial, and duped.
But, as a radical political organizer who was wiser than even Saul Alinsky once argued, what good is it to attract followers who don’t agree with one’s fundamental principles or who lack the character to stick to any principles at all in the face of opposition? One’s energy will be increasingly spent fighting with one’s own tepid followers instead of engaging the enemy. And when one is forced to stand up to one’s enemies on a matter of principle — at a time when numbers would really come in handy — such people will all abandon you anyway.
So, in the end, the only way to create a really effective movement is to be absolutely clear and unbending on basic matters of principle. Such a movement will start small and grow slowly. But it will have the strength of unity, which will give it an advantage over much larger but less unified rivals.
Third, when the occasional politician or public figure transgresses the boundaries of political correctness, the same drama plays out with depressing regularity. His friends and allies cry, “How could you?” And the heretic hastens to retreat and apologize. He thinks only of the present friends that he might lose. He never seems to ask himself if he might be better off without people who are more loyal to the reigning lies than to their own friends. Nor does he wonder about the new friends that he might make if he stands firm: friends who actually agree with him on issues of fundamental importance. It takes courage to put matters of principle ahead of social relationships, but in the end, it is the only way to find social relationships that don’t require fundamental compromises of principle.
In short, we have faith that the long-term benefits of controversy outweigh the short-term costs. Thus I don’t blame our erstwhile donor. I can’t ask anyone to support ideas that make him uncomfortable, and it is better to discover one’s differences sooner than later.
But I need those people who agree with me to come forward and show their support. I also need the support of those who think that courting controversy is the right thing to do, even if they disagree with me.
Our fundraiser is almost half way to our goal of $25,000. A matching grant of $6,000 would get us most of the way there, as it did last year. So I am looking for a donor who will put up $6,000, or six donors who will put up $1,000 each. Please contact me at [email protected].
Of course we welcome donations of all sizes.
You can make two different types of donations:
- First, you can make is a single donation of any size.
- Second, you can make a recurring donation of any size.
Recurring donations are particularly helpful, since they allow us better to predict and plan for the future. We have added several new levels for recurring donations. Please visit our Donations page for more information.
We can also customize the amount of a monthly donation. There are, moreover, other ways to make monthly donations besides Paypal, although it is the most convenient. For more details, contact Mike Polignano at: [email protected]
There are several ways to make one-time donations:
- The easiest is through Paypal. For a one-time donation, just use the following button:
- You can send check, money order, or credit card payment by mail. Just print out our donation form in Word or PDF.
- You can contact Mike Polignano at [email protected] to do a credit card donation.
Please give generously!
Thank you for your readership and support.
Greg Johnson
Editor-in-Chief
Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd.
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 164
25 comments
After the work of Kevin MacDonald we don’t need the Protocols anymore.
After the coming book of David Irving on Herr Himmler we won’t need knee-jerk, naive denialism anymore.
A more mature and robust nationalism is in the making with these two giants on evolutionary psychology and Second World War history.
Unlike the old-fashioned nationalists, in this century we must focus on the genocide committed by the Jewish Bolsheviks and on the holocaust perpetrated against the German people in 1945-1947 (recently Tom Goodrich, the author of Hellstorm, has granted me permission to quote extensively from his extremely shocking and heartbreaking book in my blog).
I look forward for a new generation of nationalists who leave behind “holocaust” denialism, 9/11 conspiracy theories, monocausalism and even their infatuation with rock music and Jew-controlled Hollywood films.
Why do you always have to spoil everything by shaking your cane at pop music and Hollywood films?
That was an important piece, and showed evidence of real WN leadership. No wonder it caused a major stir. I wonder if the donor who pulled out was upset because it was too revisionist or too anti-revisionist.
I won’t say, and of course I will not mention any names, or any other details, for that matter.
Greg Johnson, I fully support your stance on the issue of the Holocaust and moral attitudes. With due respect to all the revisionists who made so many sacrifices and put so much work into their position, the unfortunate truth is that “revising” the facts of history is not what is essentially required. The issue is not so much as what specifically happened (even though that is important in some ways) but how you look at what happened.
Mainstream historians oftentimes, when they want to condemn a group for an act, describe that act, which in many cases really happened, from a certain perspective and in a certain manner (that is, from a hostile perspective and condemning manner). For us, much more effective than arguing over technical details would be to advocate our perspective on the same acts. That is, not so much our perspective on the facts of these events, but how to view the events and in what context. I do not want the fate of an entire people to rest solely on simply the denial of every little wrong done by Europeans that mainstream historians have recorded.
As Greg wrote, we need to change the way people think about things. Whites today need to have the inner strength and such a worldview that even if the Holocaust happened exactly as described (and other similar events), they could look past it, view it within the specific context in which it existed, and still believe in the inherent value of race and Volk (much like Alfred Rosenberg in his “Memoirs”). Otherwise, we will remain flimsy and weak and even the slightest act of violence such as the Breivik incident will cause entire worldviews to collapse. Counter-Currents ought to be supported for the very reason that it provides good and stable arguments on behalf of our history and people.
You took alot of flack at TOO and other places. It did though, really help me separate the wheat from the chaff.
Your essay was a very intriguing and very intelligent exercise in transgressive thinking.
Two thoughts, if I may, from my perspective as a psychotherapist:
You are very wise to focus less on the shape of the always revisable facts about the Holocaust, numbers, etc. and to place your emphasis on attitudes toward it and how these facts are to be used in constructing identity. It is a commonplace of therapy that we have little choice about facts, but a lot more choice about our attitudes toward, our feelings about and our chosen actions in response to them.
About the rightness of shame over some past actions of our ancestors, however, I make a caution. Shame is even more debilitating than guilt. Guilt is carried by the ego and can be admitted, dealt with, forgiven or atoned for. But shame effectively obliterates the self, driving it to seek a hiding place, withdrawal or even death. I suggest that regret over some past actions of our ancestors can be a healthier response. It recognizes a moral failing without overinvolving the present self and its future life in a past-temporal trap.
Anyone know what’s the issue with the Euro-Synergies website? It can’t be accessed. http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2009/01/13/remembering-johann-herder.html
I have written to Robert Steuckers to ask, but I have had no reply. I have offered to host it, if need be.
Greg Johnson in blockquote:
THIS is where The Opposition wins, ten for ten, as they see the Deep War as two steps forward, one step back , one step slightly to the side, but NEVER two steps back.
As to the issue of “Holocaust revisionism,” let me simply note that the factual issues are settled along the lines you suggested.
In essence, “Holocaust revisionism” is like the entire “Right to Life” Movement. Any relevance it may have had, outside a few people, is gone. We have “stepped over it,” and are moving forward, as this issue is settled.
Harping on this issue simply paints us as “Yesterday’s Men,” trying desperately to change of the minds of people who hate us, and all we stand for, to begin with. I would ask The Other Side the basic political question, “At the end of the day, what outcome do you want to achieve, and why?”
Then I would say, “Focus on THAT. Focus on something constructive. If you need something to replace this with – and all too many do – might I suggest the Northwest Republic?”
Sending money to counter-currents is a most substantial, and most effective, alternative to living in the Past, without learning the Lessons of History.
I think this is basically right. I wanted to make an addendum to what you’ve posted.
We shouldn’t confuse “stepping over” the narrative with being unwilling to address the issue when it’s inevitably brought up to morally shame us. I see too many whites whose strategy is to simply IGNORE the Second European Civil War altogether as though they are tacitly admitting the correctness of the charges against them. As though it’s some EMBARRASSMENT. We shouldn’t confuse not getting bogged down with numbers with being totally ignorant about the conflict and it’s context– because that’s how it’s all used against us. We shouldn’t confuse not arguing about this detail or that detail with the idea that the mainstream narrative is basically right as it’s PRESENTED to us.
Every time whites assert themselves, this issue is brought up. It’s not a coincidence. European racial survival is connected to our ability to address this historical event effectively from a European, as opposed to a Jewish, perspective.
There are two issues that I think are often conflated with respect to this subject among WNs– how whites dialogue with each other in order to arrive at a more healthy, appropriate understanding of their own history and how whites dialogue to others (Jews and non-whites) who are trying to morally bully them into falling back in line so they can further exploit them.
Dr. Johnson’s article, if I’m not mistaken, was an outline to show whites WHY and even HOW it is morally permissible to “step over” the Holocaust. It was written to whites. It’s the non-whites who we don’t owe any explanation to (and who we in most cases shouldn’t try to explain ourselves to as it’s a waste of time) and who we are ultimately “stepping over.” But it’s hopeless to expect whites to “step over” anything like that if they don’t have the mental buttress in place to be able to do so. Although many WNs want to outright ignore it all, the more we talk about this issue without quibbling about numbers and the like and the more we instead focus on the framing and perspectivism the whole situation demands, the better.
We don’t want to sound like conspiracy “nuts” when we don’t have to to make our points.
UFASP in blockquote:
Precisely. I’ve looked at many election ballots over the years, and not ONE dealt with “Holocaust revisionism.” Not one. Ever. No one I meet in the course of a day ever mentions it, either.
It is a perfect tool for The Other Side, as we look like we are fighting straw men, rather than solving the very real problems other people have today, and their Posterity will face tomorrow.
The irony: those who have monetized “the Holocaust” knew the importance of steady, solid, consistent investment, compounding over time. That’s how they won. One Goal, one Cause, One End and many, many means – by ANY means necessary – to its fulfillment.
In another thread I mentioned an alternative history scenario where David Eden Lane forms a Church, recruits qualified people, and tithe (first annual tithe of $36,000), while donating in-kind services to a Church whose membership is compounding annually at a 20% rate, while the financial investments compounded at a 3% annual rate.
The sum thus acquires for the Church in thirty years is absolutely breathtaking, and demonstrates the importance of consistent donations – the amount donated is virtually less important that the consistency.
We are told ignorance is free. That’s wrong.
Ignorance is incredibly expensive.
People will say, “Why, I was always told ignorance is free.” Yes, and look who told you that, and where they were trying to manipulate you to do, usually vote for more money for local school districts or rec and parks funding.
Ignorance is incredibly expensive.
Look at all the hours many have invested in so-called “White Nationalism” over the last century. To what end? What have they accomplished? The various Civil Rights Laws passed, and Governance funded their supporting bureaucracies, and the expansion of same. Illegal immigration continues apace, and they are de facto legalized with the Executive Order of the DREAM Act. The list goes one, until your heart breaks, and you really do have moments where you say, “Why bother?”
Then, lightning strikes. A piece by Michael O’Meara on VNN made me realize SOMEONE is ahead of the curve, SOMEONE just plain “Gets It!” Then, I read Harold Covington, and I realized the reason for a century of Failure I repeat a century of Failure, is that we were always pointed in the wrong direction, doing everything but the one thing that works. Reread that last sentence – “we were doing everything but the one thing that works.”
Why is that, Charlie Brown?
It’s because Someone always chose the Target of the Week for us, and encouraged us to waste our time, our irreplaceable time, fighting shadows, and wondering why our hands were always broken from hitting the shadows on the wall as hard as we could…to no avail.
For the first time we have the power to lay the groundwork for intergenerational cultural and political effectiveness, thanks to Harold Covington, who gave us our New Polaris, the Northwest Republic, Bob Whitaker’s BUGSers, and counter-currents, where we step over the dead, to build new lives, better lives, among the living.
We have pretty much squandered the opportunities of the last hundred years. Those opportunities to unite, organize, and build are gone. Today, with counter-currents, THIS is the investment where your pay off pays off, for the much better world we, and our Descendants, deserve.
Yockey, who I read nightly upon retiring, said our Enemies took his writings more seriously than we did. He was right, and, for the moment, they hold the High Ground.
We can Do Something about that, starting with monthly contributions to counter-currents. Monthly, and without fail. We can take this seriously, for a change. Believe me, our Enemies take counter-currents more seriously than we do, because they KNOW what works.
That is a lesson we can learn from them.
Why didn’t you publish Alex Linder’s response to this article? He has the decency to allow you to comment on his website, without restriction. You should return the favor. What are you scared of? The fact that you censor his comments makes you look weak, dishonest and shifty.
I would have if he had not used ethnic slurs, personal insults, and generally acted like an ass.
I don’t provide a forum for people to insult me or my friends or the intelligence of our readers.
Beyond that, he has his own site, so it is not possible to “censor” him at all.
It is important to create clear intellectual distinctions between what we stand for and what Linder stands for. He is clever writer, but a toxic personality who is indifferent to reason and truth and who promotes every Old Right idea I reject in their most intense form, as well as a pathological madhouse atmosphere.
I’m sorry to hear that this essay cost Counter-Currents an important donor, but the point needed to be made – Holocaust Revisionism is not going to neutralize the Holocaust story as a weapon used against us. That was exactly the idea that many of the early revisionist activists had, and it has proven to be wrong. Yes, Revisionism has had some success in forcing concessions from the mainstream historians, but the whole Holocaust industry lives on and prospers despite it. They can always find something that happened during that time to beat us over the head with that even revisionists cannot dispute. We need a better response to Holocaust propaganda, and that essay provided it.
I can’t make up that $6000 on my own, but at least I’ve been motivated to not only make a donation but to sign up as a monthly contributor. I hope this incident has motivated other readers to do the same.
Thomas Dalton’s response to Greg Johnson’s essay is worth reading:
http://helvena.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/nationalism-and-the-holocaust-a-reply-to-johnson/
Quoting from my post above:
After Rudolf, all these issues have been decided factually. The Holocaust Revisionists seem to be living in a world that no longer matters, fighting shadow on the wall and wondering why the Shadows hands don’t seem to hurt like theirs do.
They are fighting to change the minds of people who have everything to lose if their mind is changed.
Nurmeberg dealt with “Nazi guilt,” from a Western “legal” perspective.
The Holocaust is a fabricated myth, which monetizes certain beliefs. Simple as that.
THAT is what White Nationalists miss about the Hoax of the Holocaust, so I will make it clear to you.
It is a TOOL created by the Jews.
The issue is The Tool; the issue is what the Toolmakers intend to do, how and why they will do it, and what it means for us.
The LARGER issues is, “What do WE CHOOSE to do?”
You Holocaust Revisionists, keep trying to kick the football, Charlie Brown.
The rest of us have the work of men to do.
Northwest Republic – the New Polaris for Our Race.
Krishna spoke to Arjuna to simply do the ‘right thing’ and to leave the consequences to God. Simply put: continue to tell the truth, publish the truth, and regardless of who reacts in whatever way. That is ‘right’ living.
You are correct btw, in every respect, that revisionism is insufficient. Revisionists themselves do not like receiving flak and try their best to limit things to the single issue of the Holocaust. There are many good people amongst the revisionists but some of them are less than completely honest and pretend to be anti-racist, bleat that some of their best friends are Jewish, etc. etc. ad nauseum, and adopt ‘clever’ strategies where the truth is too often abridged here and there and the old Churchillian method of wrapping the truth in coverings of lies is sometimes practiced. I have known these people for many years and know whereof I speak.
If revisionism does not expand into deeper discussions of Jewish activity that LED TO the German reaction of 1933-1945, and the contextual place of it all within racial history and racial future, it will sooner or later wither away. They, however, are more than reluctant.
“Revisionism” will die the soft death of the impotent.
Analysis of how Judaism stands in diameteric opposition to the West, and Western Civilization, speaks for itself.
“Revisionism” has not brought one person to White Nationalism – not one. At best, it has been a source of intellectual support, and at worst, a rationalization for what they wanted to believe anyway.
After Rudolf, they are irrelevant. The Work has been done, all of the relevant questions have been asked and answered.
The larger issue is how to regain control of our Institutions. That is a worthwhile activity for all of us. Absent that singular goal, all we will have done will have been for naught.
The current state of “revisionism” can be summed in one metaphor – an old man, driving down the road as fast as he can, with both eyes rigidly focused on the rear view mirror.
And, as to those who refuse to support the broadest and most effective of analytical endeavors for the best of our Race for a minor philosophical bump in the road, that the rest of us have stepped over, aren’t we all better that they have shown their true colors now?
And, as always, let me address The Question Covington uses to address those who point anywhere but to the Northwest Republic:
“Let’s assume all you say is true. AND THEN WHAT?”
If THIS dispute over “Revisionism” is the reason you refuse to give, that’s fine. I appreciate your honesty, because it clarified a criticism Jim Giles had of the “Spooky Movement” that I suspected was more important than he realized.
That is this: Movement Past has made a religion out of Revisionism. Take way their rationale, and they are faced with a future they are not prepared to face. So, they retreat into the soft, comfortable Past, ignoring how the seeds of our demise were laid all the while, much less what they can DO about it.
Counter-currents looks at the seeds, and how they bear fruit, yesterday, today, and into the future, and not the false religion of the Revisionism. Even Pierce didn’t ride that horse too far. Even Pierce recognized we had to look forward.
I know of at least two people who came to WN by way of revisionism.
I read Greg Johnson’s essay at Occ Observer and found it entirely agreeable. But I will not contribute w/o the thermometer. Put the thermometer back up. It’s great for guilt-induction. It works. Restore that thermometer w the red juice in it and I will contribute. Not until. Thanks.
I will contribute if all I see is a blank web page, as long as the name counter-currents.com is on it.
Think of how Savitri should have been discouraged when she flew into the ruins of post-War Berlin.
Remember the statement of her Jewish interrogator:
“I see you have come too late.”
“No,” said Savitri.
“I have come too soon.”
If counter-currents “came too soon” for the men of Movement Past, so much the worse for them – they really can’t get much worse – and so much the better for us, as the Damaged Children and the Arkham Asylum crowd can stare helplessly as we move forward.
I have wasted too much of the irreplaceable time of my life arguing with Losers, to no avail. No more. No damn more.
I have the counter-currents mailing address, so even if it goes off-line, I will continue to contribute. It is no secret that the Leadership of counter-currents and I have crossed swords in the past over the life and legacy of William Luther Pierce, and not all of my posts were posted as I might have wished.
That’s fine. I still sent money, and will continue to do so, because it takes steel to sharpen steel.
If it’s Valerian Steel, so much the better. (HT: Game of Thrones)
Bury the dead with the dead, and let the rest of us get on with living the lives our Ancestors fought and died for. If we have come too early, that gives more more time to Do Something BETTER, much damn BETTER. What’s better, you ask?
Glad you asked.
The Northwest Republic is the New Polaris. Everything else is a footnote.
I think we should define ourselves primarily as identitarians rather than as historians. While I think that historical revisionism has a place in White nationalist culture, and that the Holocaust revisionist thesis is essentially sound, I’m not preoccupied with historical revisionism, and I’m probably not alone in this. A work like Dominique Venner’s Histoire et traditions des Européens means more to me than a work like Arthur R. Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. I can endorse the theses of both, but I find the former far more interesting, profound, and consequential than the latter.
We need a strong sense of who we are and what is good for us. If historical revisionists are simply engaged in arguing “not guilty” or “not proven guilty” for this or that historical actor, this has little to do with positive legitimation for our people and our cause.
In Le système à tuer les peuples, Guillaume Faye remarks: “As Carl Schmitt noted, the essence of a people is movement: movement of a historical project, movement of a national mobilization, movement of a political direction, movement of a human and social ideal, and also movement of a technical conquest of the world.” These things provide the bases of positive legitimation and should form the bases of our political project.
The article at TOO was excellent as it represented both a more mature approach to a highly controversial subject without turning your back on honesty, interesting also that most of your critics quickly resorted to name calling and a very emotional response to a differing opinion from their own instead of discussing the issue at hand. The same kind of “true believer” mentality (in the sense that no one are allowed to break conformity and present a new perspective on a “holy” issue) we always criticize our opponents for. If we are to grow and evolve we at least have to be able to discuss matters in a civil manner amongst ourselves.
“But, as a radical political organizer who was wiser than even Saul Alinsky once argued, what good is it to attract followers who don’t agree with one’s fundamental principles or who lack the character to stick to any principles at all in the face of opposition? One’s energy will be increasingly spent fighting with one’s own tepid followers instead of engaging the enemy. And when one is forced to stand up to one’s enemies on a matter of principle — at a time when numbers would really come in handy — such people will all abandon you anyway.”
Hitler wrote that after a period of rapid growth it would behoove a new radical movement to stop recruiting for a while. He also wrote that you had to keep your propaganda radical in order to attract radical recruits.
He emphasized that if you wanted to truly effect revolutionary change you must hold back from the temptation to become more moderate in a misguided effort to recruit more widely.
If you look at the history of the first dozen years of the NSDAP that is exactly what happened. There were at least three different periods where the party went through explosive growth then halted at a plateau for a year or two.
I suppose this was to allow time for the “old hands” to acculturate newer recruits to the radical agenda, just a thought.
The other thing I recall him emphasizing was the party had to be more than just a social conservative party. It had also to offer something to the middle and working classes in
order to steal support away from the communist.
That lack of even a modicum of support for the working class is what dooms the Republican Party, not to mention the Republican activist will likely never seriously support white interest, as indeed they never have. America third position fills these requirements.
What ever we think of Hitler we have to admit that his political strategy worked in a situation pretty much identical to what we face. He also faced pretty much the same people that we face. As Pat Buchanan wrote America looks more and more like the Weimar Republic every day.
Thanks for hanging tough guys.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment