Romney wins Round I
972 words
Last night’s debate went very well for the Romney campaign. Obama’s well-earned reputation for being smug and professorial was on full display. Enjoying a relatively comfortable lead in the electoral college projections, he made a tactical decision to shrink from risk at every turn. He had several open shots he could have taken at Romney, shots he surely recognized and made a conscious decision to pass up. He made a tactical decision to keep things mellow, too mellow for a fiery campaign-defining game-changing exchange.
In a larger sense, Obama achieved the minimum he set out to do. Romney won the debate itself by every metric (except perhaps a wonkish and irrelevant fact-checking one), but he didn’t pull off a truly game-changing moment. While Romney’s InTrade odds did spike in the wake of the debate, they haven’t spiked to anywhere near 50%. Given Obama’s lead, his first imperative was keeping the debate small. He managed to do so, forfeiting a little debate to a struggling challenger whose little victory is likely too little and too late.
In the immediate context, Obama’s debate performance was a failure. He attempted to replicate the strategy Romney deployed so effectively in the primary debates: aloof alpha posturing. When it works, as it did for Romney against Santorum and others, you look like an adult among children. When it doesn’t, you look like a poseur. Obama’s body language reminded me somewhat of Romney’s body language during Ron Paul’s tirades. While my sentiments were firmly with Dr. Paul, I knew that amused smile on Mitt’s face was defeating him more effectively than any counter-argument possibly could . . . not that he had coherent counter-arguments. Last night, Obama’s half-amused dismissiveness was dissonant with his tall and handsome challenger’s passionate and polished performance.
While Mitt Romney spent the majority of the prolonged primary debate fiasco with a fatherly grin chiseled on his wooden countenance, he did go on the offensive a handful of times. When Rick Perry tried to corner him on his employment of illegal immigrants, he dominated and scolded him with a startling show of physical intimidation. While he didn’t happen to be within reach of Newt when he tried to call Romney out, Romney was every bit as cruel, direct, and devastating. Romney’s been lying and flip-flopping his ass off for years, but there’s seemingly a biblical curse that strikes the tongue of anybody who attempts to directly challenge him on it. Romney goes on the offensive when cornered, and Obama’s not going to open himself up to that unless he has to.
Obama: A talker, not a fighter
For all Obama’s vaunted Blackness, his manner and disposition is that of a pampered, sarcastic, non-confrontational hipster. Romney, on the other hand, is a bonafide bully. He genuinely enjoys hurting weaker people and seizes every pretext which allows him to do so. He’s been a bully since his prep school days, and it’s the secret ingredient behind his meteoric success in the financial consulting profession. He loves the jolt of power that comes with firing people so much that he made a point to inform the PBS moderator that his organization would be defunded like one of Bain Capital’s underperforming investments . . . essentially gloating about his plan to fire him when he gets the chance.
The Democratic pundits and wonks are howling at Obama today for shrinking from the confrontation. Obama did the smart thing, as it’s highly unlikely that he would have the nerve to win against a more aggressive exchange. He would run a very real risk of being humiliated in the same way Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich were humiliated. The most likely outcome is for Obama to act like he always acts when cornered or challenged . . . pissy and prissy. The startlingly large number of voters whose decision will come down to their visceral impression of the candidates in the debates will have a choice between a bold statesman and a butthurt wimp.
The next presidential debate will be about a blend of domestic and foreign policy issues, then the final one will be exclusively about foreign policy issues [Note: Immigration has apparently ceased to be a major issue.] Obama’s best bet is to stick with his initial strategy of avoiding a genuine debate and confrontation at all costs. The subject matter will become more amenable for Obama, as Romney’s foreign policy views are a startling mashup of LDS-inspired American Exceptionalist bravado, Likudnik Israel First brinksmanship, and Cold War reenactment.
If Obama can ignore the chorus of fools in his party goading him to corner Romney, Romney will never have the pretext he needs to bully and humiliate him. If Obama can ignore the chorus of fools goading him to destroy Romney, Romney will destroy himself.
Not that I care one way or another.
Since every single candidate (including, regretfully, Merlin Miller [01:17:15]) has explicitly denounced my right to preserve my heritage and identity, I will (for the first time in my adult life) not be casting a vote in the upcoming election. I’m tired of making a fool of myself.
Birchers are losers. Why not emulate the Golden Dawn?
While I couldn’t or wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama, I would rather be up against a straightforward enemy than a traitor. Furthermore, I would rather be up against a straightforward traitor like Mitt Romney than a conniving traitor who has siphoned untold thousands of dollars and hours of time from White Advocates. After waiting for our checks to clear, Merlin Miller has declared that not only is he outright opposed to us . . . but that he’s on a veritable anti-racist moral mission of some sort to hijack one of our organizations and redirect it away from its chartered purpose of defending our right to exist.
26 comments
I’d never vote for a guy named Merlin, Mitt, or Barack. One is Christian traditionalist, one is an ignoble capitalist, and one is a shallow celebrity. This has to be the worst election in US history.
Too bad the ‘conservative’ elements have not fully been weeded out.
I am a ‘white nationalist’, and I will only vote for a true White Nationalist. The A3P was suspect from the start, as their complement of public figures are a remnant of the past, and our goal is the future.
Their foundations lack integrity, and our future depends on a more revolutionary approach – that is WN.
Mr. Parrott,
I agree with your conclusions regarding the evil party candidate and the stupid party candidate. And it is wise to regard all politicians in this nation with extreme skepticism and suspicion. However, I think you have read too much into Merlin Miller’s comment. Mr. Miller is no traitor, he is supported by the Third Party leadership, which consists of luminaries such as Dr. MacDonald and Dr. Sunic. The goal of this political party is to appeal to White Americans, and pursue their interests. The party has made a decision to emphasize issues that appeal to White Americans, such as opposing affirmative action and immigration. It is not a WN party, but its goals are all WN. While the party is not perfect, and does not directly espouse race realism and so forth, it is a very good first step. “Politics is the art of the possible”. If a party such as this can achieve traction, then it moves the envelope in our WN direction, which is progress (and can be moved further in that direction in the future). I believe that the strategy inherent in the A3P’s positions is intelligent, and the most effective possible under the circumstances and realities that we face (it is much the same as the strategy of Nationalism finding success in France and elsewhere). The alternative is a fully satisfactory but completely marginalized WN political party.
Each vote that the third parties received does make a difference. First, each vote gives legitimacy to those parties. A party with 1 vote is a joke, but a party with 1 million votes represents a serious movement and receives serious consideration. If significant votes are going to third parties, the Republicans will pay attention, as they did with Ross Perot’s success, after which the Republicans adopted most of his platform. A vote not cast is wasted, but a vote for one of the third parties achieves progress.
Andrew,
I think we should do what we can to play nicely with a broad spectrum of “alternative right” and non-mainstream political folks. I respectfully disagree with your claim that mainstreaming rather than polarization is the way to go (and point to Golden Dawn and others as evidence to support my case), but this isn’t about Merlin creeping too close to the mainstream for my taste. I’m happy to play along with that as long as he’s not openly and actively hostile to our goals.
This is about him pointedly and specifically denouncing us…without being prompted or cornered into doing so by the interviewer! This is about him boasting about his plan to purge the party of its racialist members and ideals. Marine Le Pen hasn’t gone this far in denouncing her father, has she? Even Ron Paul only carries on like that when forced.
I do what I can to play along with angles, but am I supposed to say nothing when I’m rather convinced that his goals for his campaign and the future of the party are entirely misaligned with the goals of the party and its members? I want to be a team player. I’m all about being a team player…but there has to be some sort of line somewhere, right?
I totally agree. But can you explain to me what Merlin Miller’s offering that Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson are not? I was totally willing to cast my lonely little vote for a single candidate in the race who’s not hostile to my people.
What would Merlin Miller have to say in order for you to conclude that he’s perhaps misdirecting our activists, our institutions, and our resources? He essentially said “Hi, I’m Merlin, and my goal is to convert the A3P into a race-blind tea party patriotard organization.”
At the very least, I believe sincere nationalists should be invited and encouraged to listen to the interview and decide for themselves whether his goals are aligned with theirs.
“can you explain to me what Merlin Miller’s offering that Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson are not?”
The way I see it, there are 2 important issues: immigration and foreign policy. I’d grade the candidates as follows:
Immigration:
A – Favors a moratorium
F- Open borders ideologue
C- In bbetween these two extremes
Foreign policy:
A- Noninterventionist
F- Thinks Russia is our #1 geopolitical threat, will bomb Iran
C- In between
Obama
Immigartion – F
Foreign policy – C
Johnson
Immigration – F
Foreign policy – C
Romney
Immigration – C
Foreign policy – F
Goode
Immigration -A
Foreign policy – C
Miller
Immigration – A
Foreign policy – A
If Miller is on the ballot, cast your protest vote for him. If he is not on the ballot, cast your protest vote for Goode.
My understanding is that the A3P and Mr. Miller do indeed support a moratorium on immigration, as well as opposing all forms of amnesty. That is, in my mind, by far the most important issue that can be resolved politically. Mr. Miller also discusses Zionism, which other third parties don’t, although personally I think I would prefer that a nascent political party not do this yet.
My understanding is that the A3P is working to develop itself as a mainstream, legitimate party with a potential for achieving real traction. Mr. Miller discusses not being “racist”, and wanting to remove elements of “White Nationalism” from the party, yes. My interpretation of this though, is that he means distancing the party from costumed goose-steppers and scary terms that evoke the wrong imagery, while pursuing pro-White policies. I will confess to you here that I am a completely biased fan and follower of Dr. MacDonald, and if he is supporting a political party or individual, then I will be doing so as well.
I do agree also that part of the role of WNs is that of extremists, to constantly push discourse and policies in the right direction, being perpetually dissatisfied with that which falls beneath what is ideal. So, I understand and respect your position, although I do not subscribe to the gloom that others have about events. In my eyes, there are so many exciting developments here and around the world, there is much to be optimistic about if viewing events with a long-term view, looking at them as part of a 100-year march of progress, that starts of incrementally and gains steam through natural processes, as populations respond to natural forces and hardships during our Era of Decay.
I disagree with the utmost respect Matt. Further, its unclear to me whether your decision not to vote for Miller is principled or practical. You seem to be motivated by principle, and I understand that, but I believe that the best thing that could possible happen for whites would be the Republican Party getting the message that whites are tired of being unrepresented. A vote for Miller would send this message loud and clearly. Also, from the A3P website:
“During the 1960’s, our immigration system was transformed to favor persons from Third World countries incapable of assimilating into any EUROPEAN HOMELAND. If current demographic trends continue, OUR PEOPLE will become a minority in America within only a few decades.”
I share your frustration and I don’t agree with Miller distancing himself from WN, but still we should think about how we can send a message to the GOP. Next time, the party may choose someone better but in the meantime this is the best we can do for whites.
Thank you again for everything you do for our people. You are such an inspiration.
JustAWhiteMom,
First off, thank you for your kind words. I consider your nick a paradox, as being a White mom is among the most vital and important roles…if not the most important of all.
I believe Shotgun summarized my position better than I did. The position he laid out on that interview wasn’t one of merely being moderate or pragmatic. Miller laid out an anti-White ideology…one of civic nationalism in opposition to ethnic nationalism.
Civic nationalism isn’t a softer form of what we want. It’s a completely different thing from what we want, a complete alternative to what we want. As Pat Buchanan has demonstrated in his last several years of writing, it’s quite possible to water down our message into a form accessible to a broad audience without repeatedly, pointedly, and ideologically stabbing White identity in the back.
The claim following his advocacy for civic nationalism that he intended to redirect the A3P away from its founding mission was truly alarming to me, as it fits a pattern of organizations founded to defend our interests and identity being subverted and redirected.
I have the utmost respect for the A3P, and for its esteemed leadership. There are elements within the party which are opposed to dropping its White Advocacy mission and those elements have my full and unqualified support. Merlin Miller has done plenty of good work in speaking up against Zionism and Israeli aggression. But he’s going to need to find a different platform for doing so if he expects the A3P platform to drop its mission altogether in favor of civic nationalism.
It’s obvious Miller is not on our side. I suspected as much last week the second I saw him run from being called a racist while doing an interview in Iran. I take it Professors Sunic and MacDonald back this flawed approach as well, flawed being a charitable way to put it? It seems a reasonable inference. Unless I’m mistaken, they’re still involved with the A3P. TOO just ran an article by Miller. This movement — stuckment — makes me want to put my head through a wall sometimes.
The United States was founded as a Kingdom of Yahweh, the new Atlantis. We should not involve ourselves in voting or participating in a political process which is thoroughly Jewish.
While this country has had a small sample of accomplished individual talent, since the Civil War, America has been a monumental cultural FAILURE and a parasitical, global cancer:
1 – America destroyed Western civilization militarily (WW1, WW2, and subsequent conquests).
2 – America has culturally destroyed the West through social media.
3 – America has socially deconstructed the morality of the West by streamlining consumer culture, fast food, and automatism.
For all of this to have happened, America must have originally contained the genetic garbage of Europa. How else do explain the lack of resistance?
Romney or Obama … I think the people deserve worse.
“Romney or Obama … I think the people deserve worse”
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it … good and hard. — H. L. Mencken
In terms of civic courage or responsibility, how much does taking a political position matter anymore given the available choices and relative environment?
I support Counter Currents as an online university which keeps the flame of tradition alive—truly a monumental task—for now, that is all (political and social circumstances could change in a few decades). But for those of us who believe in ideals and traditional modes of existence, we need to be more realistic in assessing the modern world for what it is … a matrix which is not worth evaluating; one should simply turn away.
As someone who has some experience with anti-immigration rallies and politics on campus I don’t see any well-informed, legitimate resistance.
I’m puzzled as to why there is any enthusiasm for discussing politics, stopping immigration, or fighting political correctness.
At this point, the best we can do is be aware … but to take positions is pompous, it implies we have power or that our opinion matters right now.
Roissy Hater,
Well, the first and most superficial answer is that it’s what persuadables are thinking about. It’s a useful starting point for introducing our ideas. While we can’t actually change what’s happening at this point, we do have the power to inject our unique and compelling perspective into the debate. Our movie reviews and our commentary on current events are our leading drivers of new visitors.
The article started with a perspective on the debate which was dismissive of both “system” options and concluded with an exhortation to model our political work on radical groups which are achieving quantifiable progress and goals without compromising their principles.
While we should definitely invest the majority of our time and energy in defining positive cultural, political, and philosophical alternatives to the mainstream cesspit, it’s necessary and important for us to apply our critique to it. If people arrive because they found one of my political comments or movie reviews, then stumbles onto one of the truly engaging and academic essays from one of our writers who can’t be bothered to engage pop culture, then I’ve done my job.
Mr. Parrott,
I appreciate your general opinions expressed in this piece and agree with most of them. It was a well written article, as is most of your material.
My problem is that I see a lot of content produced here describing the currents state of affairs in the West which implies, however sub-textually, that we, white men, are still in some form active participants in the unfolding of modern Western political history.
The political circus is a necessity to make us believe that, even if we make every attempt to avoid acknowledging it, we are not living in a culturally communist, world corporate state.
In point of fact, every issue that the candidates discuss is a complete distraction from the fact that the whole of the West is now in dark, sinister hands. Policy is dictated, there is no debate. The issues discussed have ZERO correlation with what our masters will actually implement, regardless of who is elected (the fact that Regan is viewed by most conservative as a saint is testament to this fact).
We need to help shatter the illusion by calling the whole thing a carnival and walking away.
I take it you mean America=Jewish/Bankster Occupied Nation – at least since 1913.
I don’t have a problem with a White organization making appeals using mainstream issues. There is evidence this approach can work in the right circumstances. The National Socialist program had 25 points many of which had to do with economics. There is nothing wrong with focusing on economics, and money. Economic conditions affect everybody. The typical White person at every IQ level doesn’t care about philosophy and theory, and that probably doesn’t matter because most people’s skills, aptitude, interests and ability to contribute to society lie in other areas. What they care about is jobs and good schools for their kids. The White construction worker shouldn’t lose opportunities to illegal Mexicans, nor should White coders have to lose to Indians in Bangalore. So, the problem here is not the A3P’s emphasis on “mainstream” issues or that it is not a hardcore “White Nationalist” party calling for revolution. The problem is not the emphasis and the issues but that it is not a White organization (assuming Andrew’s statements below are an accurate representation of the thinking inside the organization).
Any organization that isn’t explicitly representing White interests isn’t representing White interests. It’s probably not even possible. How can any organization represent a group without identifying itself as a representative of that group? Who does this? Other ethnic groups obviously don’t. That’s a given. It’s a given in the broader political arena as well. Imagine the NRA, AIPAC, or the Catholic lobby trying to do what they do without telling people they are for gun owners, for Israel and for people over 55.
Considered from the vantage point of direct comparison to other advocacy groups, the implicit approach is so obviously flawed I think speculation about malicious intent in the leadership is very reasonable. But maliciousness toward who? It would have to necessarily be maliciousness toward the rank-and-file people who have been led to believe the organization is for them. In this case, that is good and decent White folks who have given up on the major parties and are looking for leadership and direction.
I don’t think it’s necessary to call for revolutionary change to be effective for White interests, though I’m convinced it’s necessary and the proper long-term goal. Most people aren’t prepared to open their ears to calls for revolution. Until they are, I think the most important thing to do in the meantime that will not do harm is to simply speak up for White folks explicitly on the issues of the day. I’m finding the more explicit I am for White interests in my interactions, the better results I’m getting. I recently had a pitched but cordial exchange with a left-wing but reasonably open-minded lawyer. At the end of it, we didn’t agree on anything, but he said something that’s been rattling in my head ever since. He said “I can respect an overt racist whose not ashamed to admit it more than I can a conservative who speaks in code to maintain plausible deniability race is what he’s talking about.” Being explicit is the way to go. The A3P board should can Miller if they legal authority to do so and reverse course.
Not sure you’re right about that: the Democratic Party has been slowly taken over by Socialists and Communists over the last decades. But it was gradual and never admitted. Overall, the philosophy was one of denial outwardly while inwardly adhering to a “no enemies to the Left” line. Anyone who had a problem with it didn’t rise up in the party or they got out.
So what would following this tack mean? No overt public acknowledgement of White Nationalism and absolutely no overt condemnation of it either. But inwardly, acknowledgement of and support for it at the higher levels. Always, always, always – no enemies to the Right. Build a vast coaltion of fellow travelers.
Jaego, While you’re correct about the various Marxists hiding much of their real agenda over the years, I’m not sure you’re correct about what I take to be the core issue here: the merits of explicit representation versus implicit. The Democrat party is explicit in representing the interests of non-Whites. Just start by examining Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s records for the last four years! Then, study their record working backwards a few decades to the US Civil Rights era.
Look at Obama’s campaign rhetoric. As recently as this summer, Obama imposed the Dream Act via executive order. Holder has been attacking states left and right with lawsuits to protect “minorities.” They make it clear who they’re for. They don’t use universalist language. I know you know these things, but maybe you’re overlooking them? How about we learn from our enemies?
fnn,
Those groups are as explicit as you can get in the names of their organizations and mission definitions. They don’t use universalist langauge; they say who they’re for. The NAACP tries uses unversalist language in their mission statement on their wbe site. But as soon as you drill into the details of their positions and goals, you’ll find language about people of color this, people of color that.
Lew and Jaego, I think you both are right. The trick is to deny or minimize ethnic conflicts of interest like others do. The Jews claim that what is good for the Jews is good for everyone, what is good for blacks is “social justice”, what is good for Hispanics is “prosperity.”
In other words, advocate explicitly for whites, just as Democrats advocate explicitly for “people of color”, but then make a pitch to other groups like this:
Immigration threatens the European ethnic character of this nation and the white population that made this country great. Furthermore, it harms the poorest minorities by suppressing wage growth.
White people are being targeted for crime by minorities who are taught to blame us for all their problems, which leads them to feel powerless to improve their life chances in productive ways.
Affirmative action is unjust to whites. Furthermore, it harms non-Asian minorities by placing them in universities where they are unprepared to compete academically.
I completely agree that implicit whiteness is a dead end. It doesn’t work, and even worse it LEGITIMIZES the idea that white advocacy is reprehensible. This situation is totally unacceptable. Again, other ethnic groups and the organizations that represent them get whites to support them by denying or minimizing any actual conflict of interest. That is the way forward I think.
I would just like to add that this is basically the mirror image of what has been done to us. That is, conflicting white interests are either denied altogether or delegitimized. For example, whites’ interest in opposing immigration is called “white supremacy.” La Raza does not deny that they advocate for their own people, and the Democrats do not deny that they represent them. However, they deny that they are acting against any legitimate interest of whites by demonizing those interests.
I also agree that I get better results when I just come right and advocate explicitly for whites. I mean, what are people going to say?
Also, the approach I’m suggesting would give whites who suffer from feelings of shame a sense that they are on the right side. As Kmac has pointed out, this is essential for whites. A simple appeal to self-interest will not work on most whites.
NCLR, NAACP, ADL and all the other major racialist orgs of the anti-white coalition employ bland universalist language when promoting their agenda and never call themselves “nationalist.” The anti-white bias that dominates both elite and mass culture a means that a pro-white org has to be even more skilled at double talk than the enemy. From the NCLR website:
http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/faqs/the_truth_about_nclr/support_of_separatist_organizations/
Anyway, regardless of the language employed, a pro-white political party can’t get anywhere under the archaic first-past-the-post system used almost everywhere in the US. Even under conditions of almost complete economic collapse Golden Dawn got only 7% of the vote in the last election. Wallace’s big vote of 13% in 1968 obviously didn’t do anything to slow the pace of white dispossession.
Yes! Blandness has been their greatest weapon. Let’s make it our’s. Who doesn’t want to come right out and speak the Truth? They have begun to do just that – confident now of victory. Let’s snatch it from them. As Ernst Zundel said, they are Masters of snatching defeat of out the jaws of victory through their hubris.
But we cannot follow the the glorious path of the Golden Dawn. We are far too heterogenous – and with all the confusion that comes from that. We must be confuse everyone – including vast numbers of our own people. Ugly but true. But as Just a White Mom says, we do get our message out with bland non exclusionary language. We don’t endorse the radicals nor we do condemn them. We can chide them a little of course. But No enemies to the Right. As you know, the Right heretofore has exalted in throwing other Whites to the wolves – seeking approval from invisible parental figures whom they fear/love.
There is tremendous debate whether this is already going on. I don’t know, but it must be clear to all comitted activists that it is – and that each group has it’s place and must not be criticized if they are doing the job of that place well. And it will be far more complicated than radicals and establishment moderates. There will be many intermediate grades. Establishment types wont be able to associate with radicals but they will associate with “moderates”. And moderates with the more radical and so on.
About Mr. Miller,
I had the opportunity to help host an online discussion with him last night, and specifically asked about this radio interview.
I can’t remember his response word for word, but in general, he gave a politician’s answer. I was not satisfied with it.
He said that he did *not* renounce white nationalism, but rather, wants to move the harsh rhetoric (he was implying anti-jewish rhetoric) to the background, and not “lead” with these things. He painted his hesitancy towards white nationalism as a pragmatic (and discreet).
But, earlier in his presentation, he offered some sort of pan-American identity ideal. His statements seemed on par with a form of civic-nationalism prevalent in political narratives of the neoconservatives. This sort of propositional nationalism is opposed to my white nationalism on a very fundamental, philosophical level. (For those familiar with Fr. Matthew Johnson: he might call this “nominalism” vs. “realism”, or some such).
This makes me wonder if he’s really trying to be discreet, or doing his best to give white nationalist ideals the boot.
Voting for someone like that would be like marrying a contentious woman – a constant and demoralizing, internal struggle.
Who needs it?
Mr Miller is so old that by the time A3P comes to power his thoughts won’t matter. If the guy can increase the power base of A3P then so much the better. Tyndale built up the BNP only to have it stolen from him. Miller is a politician. Did FDR get elected by saying he was going to wage war against Europe? No, he got elected by saying the exact opposite.
Rome wasn’t built in a year my dears. We have to think beyond the next election and look towards the next hundred years. Brer Rabbit when caught by Brer Bear pleaded with the bear to boil him alive or skin him alive, or whatever, but please “Don’t throw me into the bramble patch.” Not being a politician but an upright and honest fellow Brer Bear threw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch who lived to fight another day. Politicians are, well, politicians. Hold your nose and vote Miller.
Concerning Miller:
I was skeptical of Matt Parrott’s claims about Merlin Miller despite my great respect for and friendship with the former. I am all for practicing the art of politics, however, after listening to the interview with Miller I can’t help but agree with Matt. (My apologies for being skeptical, Matt).
I could never support someone who thinks that advocating for my people, for their right to resist their own genocide is “stupid”; for someone who is fundamentally opposed to the idea that White people deserve a country of our own; someone who supports the idea of maintaining the multiracial monstrosity that is the American Empire. In other words, someone who de facto supports White Genocide.
I think the best solution for all Americans is to peacefully separate into states for White people, Amerindians/”Hispanics,” Blacks, and a small multiracial state for those who desire to live in such an environment. This is by far morally superior to the “solution” of attempting to create a race-blind America where white people are continuously mixed out of existence in a slow genocide (by the accepted, official UN definition).
I can get behind and support coalitions and movements incorporating groups with contradicting interests–in fact, this is exactly what I would like to see in order to take down the “Western”/global elite–but I will never do so if it means I cannot advocate for my own people’s sovereignty, for our right to Resist Genocide.
Merlin Miller should step down from his position in the A3P if he is unwilling to stand up and advocate for the interests of White people. I think his remarks are grounds for his expulsion.
How can the A3P possibly let someone head their party who is not willing to stand up for the very people it was founded to represent?
I cannot believe Dr. Kevin MacDonald and Dr. Tom Sunic will stand by and let Merlin Miller continue to shame and humiliate them and anyone who has ever supported the A3P.
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.