Vote for Romney? I Can’t Do That to MyselfMatt Parrott
One of the most grave sacrifices I make for my race and faith is keeping up on mainstream political affairs. Among those sacrifices was watching as much as I could stand of the Republican National Convention.
The highlight of the event was Clint Eastwood’s awkward and senescent attempt at a political comedy routine. While he’s seen better days, he does exude a sort of unvarnished masculine energy that has since been lost in a sea of alienated hipsters, ironic dandies, and posturing pussies. Even at his worst — and he was certainly at his worst — his barely scripted and honest performance was better (and, perhaps unintentionally) more memorable than all the other speeches combined.
At the beginning of his speech, he claimed that he was not alone in Hollywood . . . that it had plenty of conservatives. They were, however, more conservative. Conservatives are, after all, by their nature less vocal about their beliefs. This was meant as a punchline at the expense of obnoxious liberal celebrities, but who’s the joke really on? Is conservative silence and submissive acquiescence after having faced decades of humiliation and defeat something to be smirking to ourselves about? No. If America’s most gruff badass of all, the man who famously growled “Go ahead, make my day,” admits to backing down and shutting up rather than answering and challenging leftism, then perhaps it’s time to fold up the tent.
In an especially awkward moment in the especially awkward speech (at an especially awkward convention crowning an especially awkward candidate), Clint Eastwood chided Obama (symbolized by an empty chair) for his warmongering, for his reversal on Gitmo, and for his breaking all of his promises to curb America’s war machine. What little laughter was had was nervous laughter. With the possible exception of some Ron Paul delegates (who were in no laughing mood), the entire audience supported Obama’s warmongering.
Both Romney and Obama have the same foreign policy agenda. They’re both beholden to the same interest groups. They’re both bankrolled by the same banks. They would both be horrified by the very notion that my people have a right to protect and preserve themselves and their way of life. If anything, Obama would likely be less horrified, as minorities generally harbor a suspicion that we Whites can’t actually be as naive about racial matters as we purport to be. I suspect Romney actually is just about as oblivious to the threat facing his ethnic extended family of White Americans as he purports to be.
When beset with a choice between Romney and Obama, I can’t help but wish I could vote for the empty chair.
And, yet, this is the time during the election cycle when the outliers from the respective herds are rounded up behind one of the two monolithic American parties. This is the time for essays and Facebook posts insisting that we go ahead and vote for the lesser of two evils. Brett Stevens at Amerika.org explains in a roundabout way why it’s imperative that we vote for Romney in his essay “The right wing fragments its own vote again.” In it, he argues that the Right wing always fragments its vote while the Left wing always unites because it’s united by the singular goal of “equality.”
I disagree with the philosophical claim that it’s all about choosing between equality and hierarchy, but my quibble with that part of his assertion is a subtle and abstract one. His message contains what I believe to be a demonstrably false statement of fact. Just over a decade ago, the Left did split its vote between Al Gore and Ralph Nader, delivering George W. Bush his narrow victory. The Right split its vote with Ross Perot in the two elections preceding that one. Of the three major minor parties, the Green Party and the Libertarian Party have far more elected officials than the Constitution Party, so I struggle find a perspective or spin which could support the proposition that the Right-wing is more likely to fragment.
I apologize for playing the word games, but should we just accept the whole “Left” and “Right” paradigm promoted by mainstream American punditry as legitimate? Is Libertarianism really a “Rightist” thing, for instance, or perhaps an especially soulless and alienated variety of Shia Leftism? And if the single biggest leftist thing Obama has done is enact “socialized healthcare,” then wouldn’t that make Romney, the guy who first modeled and implemented it, a Leftist, too? And if Romney boasts of his family’s commitment to “civil rights,” to his father having marched with Dr. King and his having wept uncontrollably (with relief) upon having heard that his church had abandoned its racial principles, shouldn’t I just take him at his word, that he’s also a fanatical supporter of multicult hysteria?
Obama’s Black and Romney’s White. But sometimes I wonder if perhaps a Black man plugging Black interests is better for everybody than a White man plugging Jewish and corporate interests. Of course, Obama also serves Jewish interests, but I have a hunch that he only does so to the extent that Realpolitik demands it, not with the zeal of a Christian Zionist (. . . or LDS equivalent) stooge. Given that I’m closer to Father Coughlin’s authentically conservative economic policies than the GOP’s classically liberal economic policies, and Romney’s shown little interest or aptitude for any matters other than economic ones, is Romney not, perhaps, the more liberal of the two?
I’m sympathetic to game theory undergirding coalition politics, that we all need to team up at the right time to ensure that the lesser of two evils wins. But what about when it’s two evil twins? For the life of me, I can’t tell which one of these two candidates is the lesser of the two evils. I can’t find the mainstream political coalition that I wouldn’t be driven out of with a pitchfork if I shared my beliefs and positions with them. And, finally, at this late hour, the thought of politically, socially, and financially unplugging to the greatest extent possible seems not only tempting, but morally defensible. I’ve seen enough episodes of Celebrity Rehab and Intervention to know how loving relatives with misplaced pity and misguided hope can end up enabling the addict and holding back the day the addict hits rock bottom.
I’m not going to make the empty gesture of voting for either of the empty suits in either empty chair. I can’t do that to myself.
The Republican Party Must Perish
Comparing Monogamous & Polygamous Men, Part 2: Case Studies
Koronavirus a jak změní svět
It Really is Fake News
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 455 The Counter-Currents 12th Birthday Celebration, Part 2
The Worst Week Yet: May 29-June 4, 2022
The Dirty Harry Sequels: Deconstructing a Hero
The Fear of Radicalization
What makes you think your vote actually is counted?
With the ability to pre-program electronic voting machines, not to mention many other forms of fraud that interested parties could employ, given the state of advanced technology, I doubt that the Presidential and Congressional vote tallies are accurate representations of the pure will of the populace (not that I’m an advocate of the will of the populace).
I appreciate the sacrifice that you’ve made in watching this event and reporting on it on behalf of our race as it is indeed, a torture that I could not bare.
Naturally, I agree with your conclusion that the choice is meaningless.
I must say, however, that I believe that a White Left is emerging coherent, meaningful and distinguished from the Jewish muddling of White group (and White private property, enterprise, association, etc) interests that have gone before.
No Enemies to the Left is a very real Principle. Imagine if we could be anywhere near as united. Instead Conservative self righteously take pleasure in exposing and expelling even mild racists from their midsts.
The strongest argument in favor of Romney is the nightmare of further Obama appointees to the Supreme Court. Kagan and Sotormayor are alien and hostile – at the level of Thurgood Marshall or Ginsburg. We can’t take anymore of these.
“With the possible exception of some Ron Paul delegates (who were in no laughing mood), the entire audience supported Obama’s warmongering.”
I’ve only seen one other commenter — admittedly, I’m seldom able to stomach reading all the nonense published by MSM pundits even for research — and that was over at a financial blog, ZeroHedge, that figured out that CE was delivering a critique of BOTH Obama and Romney, but designed to get past the convention handlers.
Not just foreign policy either; “Do you care about the millions of unemployed”, for example, clearly zinged Romney as well; who thinks he does?
The Democrats would never have let an unscripted non-politician on stage, especially at that time of night; they don’t call the Republicans the Stupid Party for nothing.
In an on-camera interview, David Siegel crows that he got George W. Bush elected president. When asked how he did that, the Florida resident declines to give particulars, claiming his actions “might not have been legal.”
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/159145/the-biggest-mcmansion-of-them-all/?p=all#ixzz25b6PHWew
Kagan and Sotormayor are alien and hostile – at the level of Thurgood Marshall or Ginsburg. We can’t take anymore of these.
Respectfully, I think that race-shy conservatives and Republicans would fold much sooner under such circumstances and the number of racially aware Whites would grow exponentially, assuming the Internet and free speech are preserved. What a friend we have in Elena Kagan! Four more years of Obama followed by a Democratic monoparty in perpetuity are realistically the only soil in which our little shoot will grow. The false opposition offered by Republicans has been fatal to White National outreach, motivation, enrollment, conversion, funding, and has withheld the fire from the feet, from under the ass, and from the the belly of the vast herds of biologically ( but not politically) White animals that roam the plains of this country.
Maybe the best we can hope for is a situation of deadlock. For example with Obama winning another term, but with a Republican majority in both Houses. No policy is definitely preferable to an effective Jew guided one.
That is sooooo 20th, 19th and 18th century! Or haven’t you noticed that the Executive now “legislates” via executive order?
Matt, you should be given a medal for watching the RNC. I had the misfortune of hearing some on Romney’s speech. Quite frankly, it made me want to barf. Tired old canards about a land of immigrants, the greatest generation, civl rights etc. etc. Obama’s a jack ass, but he at least makes the Jews work a little bit. I have a feeling that Romney would be licking their boots.
2016 will be just as bad for us under Romney as Obama, with a difference.
Romney will implement the GOP’s mongrelization of America with lies and subterfuge; Obama will do it with proud hate.
“Diversity it a toxic biohazard targeted against White Humanity’s privilege of freedom and liberty.”
-Rev. Jed DeValleysim, “How it ends for us,” 2009
What a miserable article by Brett Stevens. He could have saved himself a lot of verbiage by saying “vote Republican.”
I am voting for Obama unless Merlin Miller is on the ballot in my state. I’m voting for Obama based on personal self-interest, short-term gain for whites in general who don’t own hedge funds or have similar personal wealth, and because of the deeper racial meta-game. Keeping a black face on TV every night giving the orders while America circles the drain works to our advantage.
I may even put an Obama sign in my front yard!!!
There is some difference between Democrats and Republicans but for our purposes it really is like choosing between “evil twins.” But Matt Parrott asks an interesting question:
It is my belief based on my observations from “normal” everyday whites that Obama is great for awakening or triggering their ethnocentrism. There’s something about seeing a black man at the head of the United States of America that pisses off whites and/or makes them feel uncomfortable. It necessarily racializes things. So I would prefer Obama to Romney because of his effect on our people. Plus, seeing a democrat warmonger and destroy other countries’ sovereignty gives us a lot of ammunition to convince “leftists” this system is a joke (or broken), and that their leaders have betrayed them.
The other issue is that by voting you legitimize the system, which is completely illegitimate. So in that sense, the less and less people vote, the less populace elected the officials, the more obvious it is they don’t represent us (i.e. they lose legitimacy). Not voting is already a trend. A lot of American citizens don’t think their votes count and that the system is inherently corrupt.
So, what to do?
Here is how I make my decision on if I should vote (for Obama) or not:
1) Do I live in a swing state?
If no, I do not vote.
If yes, then,
2) Do I live in a swing county?
If, no, I don’t vote.
If yes, I vote for Obama (or possibly another non-white depending on the situation).
Of course, this is assuming my vote “counts,” which is very debatable and even silly if you know how the system works, but it might have an affect so if you think it outweighs the cost of legitimizing the system, I would go for it.
I live in a state which is so blue my vote for president doesn’t make any difference.
But if I lived in a swing state, I would vote for Romney, without hesitation.
Simply watching the conventions makes the decision easy. One party is white and looks like me and my family. The other party looks like a pageant of freaks, mongrels, and third world invaders.
Going deeper than appearances, the differences continue. I think we underestimate how socially liberal the Obama Admin is. Underestimating is understandable though, considering how so much of what they’re up to is done under the radar with very little fanfare or media coverage.
Dems have their politically correct commissars at every level, fundamentally re-shaping government institutions and culture in ways to actively, consciously dispossess whites as fast as they can. The GOP isn’t overtly racially conscious, but you simply won’t find the rabid politically correct types appointed at every level of government the way you do with the Dems. Romney would at least slow the malignancy.
Simply put, an Obama win will give the politically correct academics in the Obama Admin carte blanche over the next four years to put their permanent mark on the country. On the national stage things may appear gridlocked, but at the level of agencies run by highly partisan appointees far left, anti-white, socially liberal policies will be enacted that simply wouldn’t be if a GOP President were in office.
I think that the lesser of the two evils is Obama, as Romney would be almost certainly pushing an amnesty. WNs do best if Republicans have at least one arm of the Congress, and fight the Democrats tooth and nail on all issues. Thus, Obama pushing an amnesty has much less chance of success than a Republican (and let us take a moment of silence to curse the execrable George Bush for his attempted betrayal on that front). I think that voting for Obama though, is immoral. A WN must vote for a third party, barring that, then a write-in candidate, and as a last resort don’t vote for president. I do recommend voting Republican for Senate and House races, to help keep the government constipated, with as little as possible passing through the noxious bunghole that is the American political system.
As far as Eastwood is concerned, we need to get to the point where we are not made uncomfortable by Whites standing up and speaking up (hes not a WN but at least hes sounding off with unpopular views in public). I thought Eastwood was kind of funny, and I thought he had a classy presence. We had to read the media reviews of his presentation before we could decide whether we liked it or not. Vulnerability to the judgement of others is a critical weakness (I fear its related to our brain structure, but its still overcomeable, I think). We need to develop a greater sense of confidence, an unshakable certainty in the rightness of our purpose that defies anyone’s ability to cause us the slightest discomfort.
A second Obama term means two things that matter. First, Obama will legalize as many non-white immigrants as he can. Once they’re citizens they can vote. Romney is the best anti-immigration candidate the GOP has run since Eisenhower.
Second, Obama will appoint anti-gun Supreme Court justices, probably jews, but academic blacks and Mexicans are just as anti-gun. Or maybe he’ll toss a bone to the old self hating white liberals and put a mainline protestant globalist in there. No matter which color of the rainbow he chooses it will be a committed gun controller and the Second Amendment decision will be reversed.
No guns for citizens + non-white majority = WHITE GENOCIDE.
Obama means genocide sooner, not later. At worst Romney will carry out the globalists’ plan with less enthusiasm, and the army of Mormons he appoints to the courts and bureaucracy will at least be white. When the balloon goes up the more whites we have on the inside the better.
So vote Romney. It buys us time.
Are you aware Romney signed an “assault” weapons ban as governor and once boasted of not being beholden to the NRA?
Republican-appointed judges have been upholding the liberal legal agenda for 40 years. As recently as this summer, GOP-appointments voted Arizona’s immigration law down, and Obamacare up.
If they’re going to go for hard, violent genocide in the near future, the type people would resist with guns, we might as well get it on now rather than later while there are more of us on American soil with many still young enough to shoot straight. If it comes to the worst, WNism never gets off the ground, and we lose beyond any hope of recovery, we can always take a few of the right people with us.
We don’t want to buy time, we want stuff to get as difficult and uncomfortable for the average White American as soon as possible. Maybe you want to live out your golden years in peace but I dont want to be too old when the major action of an open revolution happens.
On May 17, 2012, you said, “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.”
What’s changed? The addition of Ryan, who has is one of the worst Republicans on immigration (Numbers USA grade: C)? Romney’s lack of fight against Obama’s administrative DREAM amnesty?
If Mitt’s opinions on illegal immigration can evolve between the spring and summer, then so can mine! He’s flagrantly flip-flopped on us.
I know, I know. I should have seen it coming!
I do go ahead and support Republican candidates on the single issue when they’re reliable on that single issue. Tancredo comes to mind. I think Jan Brewer, Mike Delph, and other Republicans who hold the line on this issue have earned my vote. I consider myself a cheap date, but Romney’s “evolving” position on immigration is straight off the Dollar Menu.
Actually, Clint Eastwood was the perfect person to speak at the RNC since he’s nothing but a racial sell out in my book. All you have to do is watch Gran Torino to realize this. A lot of whites liked the movie because Eastwood mouths off to a bunch of darkies and brandishes a gun at them. Then, however, he plays nice with all the Asians that are moving into the neighborhood. If anything, the Asians pose an even bigger threat than the blacks.
“I suspect Romney actually is just about as oblivious to the threat facing his ethnic extended family of White Americans as he purports to be.”
It is a mistake to think liberals and economic big money conservatives have brains that function the way ours do. Liberals are not just conservatives who had a bad up bringing.
I believe in a soical biology sense that liberasl brains are wired differently from the brains of racialist.
Racialist support their own tribe, while liberals support “the underdog” even if the underdog is an immigrant.
There are social biology reasons to explain why both racialist and liberal personalities exist.
Liberals help to prevent or end wars between neighboring groups for instance and to prevent excessive inbreeding. Preventing inbreeding is a problem when your only means of getting to a date with a non-third cousin is to hike twenty miles. Under modern conditions the predeliction of liberals to “date out” is no longer valid, but liberals mistakenly still react to their primordial instincts.
To big money conservatives everything takes a back seat to grubbing money. The evolutionary reason such personalities to exist is no harder to understand than is the reason for oportunistic sociopathic personalities to exist.
As we are fighting both liberals and big money conservatives we should understand our adversaries.
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.
Edit your comment