Print this post Print this post

White Lies:
Buchanan’s Endorsement of Romney

Pat Buchanan on Hardball1,068 words

I respect Pat Buchanan, but I respectfully disagree with his endorsement of Mitt Romney and his reasons for that endorsement. While I’m somewhat disappointed by it, I’m certainly not surprised. His chosen role is as a sort of gateway between the faux Right and the far Right. It’s a role he performs very well and for which he’s uniquely suited. Unlike virtually every other supposedly “far right” politician on the landscape, he doesn’t hide behind extreme individualism and libertarian fantasies. Beneath his carefully evasive and soft delivery, he’s a White Nationalist.

He takes a side-swipe at the neocon warmongering . . .

Recent wars—Vietnam, Iraq—have seen us not “fighting side by side” but fighting side against side.

He mocks the very notion that we remain a nation in any meaningful sense . . .

Racially, morally, politically, culturally, socially, the America of Jay and the Federalist Papers is ancient history. Less and less do we have in common. And to listen to cable TV is to realize that Americans do not even like one another. If America did not exist as a nation, would these 50 disparate states surrender their sovereignty and independence to enter such a union as the United States of 2012?

He even flirts indirectly with secessionism . . .

Nor are we unique in sensing that we are no longer one. Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders maneuver to break free of the nations that contain their peoples. All over the world, peoples are disaggregating along the lines of creed, culture, tribe and faith.

But, alas, there’s a reason Pat retains access to mainstream media outlets despite throwing out all of that red meat. He pays the toll, exhorting us to throw our support behind whatever clown the Republican primaries dredged up.

What has this to do with the election of 2012? Everything.

For if America is to endure as a nation, her peoples are going to need the freedom to live differently and the space to live apart, according to their irreconcilable beliefs. Yet should Barack Obama win, the centralization of power and control will continue beyond the point of no return.

While I don’t wish to stereotype my comrades by age group, there’s definitely a pattern among older ones of believing that we’re not already long past the point of no return. They still think in terms of “conserving” America, of rediscovering and renewing the White America of their youth. For them, a wholesale rejection of the American nation and state is not even wrong, it’s unserious. While mobilizing a revolutionary vanguard seems unlikely at this dark hour, it’s even less likely, even less serious, to fantasize about making any meaningful progress within this system.

Any socio-cultural shift dramatic enough to put our ideas back into the game would be so seismic, destabilizing, and radicalizing that outright revolution and secession would be on the table. Aside from the useful skills which can be gained and lessons which can be learned from engaging in the mainstream political process, there’s no point in engaging it. There’s certainly no point in carrying water for the Jewish and capitalist anti-White monstrosity which is today’s Republican Party. But it’s worse than pointless, because it threatens the one thing we do have: our credibility.

As of this writing, the InTrade odds remain in Obama’s favor, but what if Romney does win? He’ll preside over four more years of decadence, decline, and dereliction. He’ll “reach across the aisle” to betray us on our core issues, do what conservatives always do on cultural issues, and pursue his party’s warmongering, cutthroat capitalism, and austerity measures with gusto. If we endorse him, then we’ll have endorsed that, and we’ll have damaged our credibility.

While many on the far right have fallen for the Rothbardian scheme of opposing “socialism” out of spite for bloated Black welfare queens, the future of our movement lies in opposing austerity when it comes to America. In the coming years, the White Americans who remain relatively comfortable will be imperiled by a cascade of social and economic crises. Our trump card (one we haven’t been able to play because the economy’s been too strong) is that we and we alone can credibly offer White Americans a first world standard of living with a basic social safety net after the bottom falls out on this pyramid scheme.

Our target audience will be far less enthralled with Ron Paul’s “live and let die” austerity policies when they’re on the dying side of the equation.

Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital  Read more: concludes his endorsement with a point so farcical that he can only be disingenuous . . .

In the first debate, Mitt Romney said that in crafting a budget that consumes a fourth of the economy, he would ask one question: “Is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?”

If a President Romney held to that rule, it would spell an end to any new wars of choice and all foreign aid and grants to global redistributionists—such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It would entail a review of all U.S. alliances dating back to the Cold War, which have U.S. troops on every continent and in a hundred countries.

Pat would have us seriously entertain the notion that Mitt Romney’s going to pull us out of the United Nations, bring the troops home, and extend his middle finger to the international bankers. He knows Mitt Romney has already answered those questions, that he’s even more hawkish than Bush and Obama were and even more banker-friendly than Bush and Obama. Mitt Romney’s not going to cut military spending. He’ll cut the same people he’s spent his entire life cutting: working families. Pat would have us believe a white lie.

It pains me to see such a gifted statesman and rhetorician degrade himself like this in order to retain access to the mainstream media. I hope he realizes that alternative media outlets now empower him to have a voice without it. He no longer needs to lie to be heard. Besides, at his age, he needs to consider his legacy. Will he be remembered as a craven and dishonest apologist for a sinister and declining regime, or as a visionary statesman who fired the first shot in the battle for our sovereign ethnostate?

Pat Buchanan has a stark choice to make, one we’re all forced to make by this modern world: to be respectable or to be honorable.



  1. Posted October 31, 2012 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    Nowicki: who cares? No one compromises their credibility by voting for whatever candidate they think best, for whatever-the-heck set of reasons, and if other people “judge” us that way, again, who cares? Just because we are the North American New Right doesn’t mean we aren’t a branch of the Right, period. As a broad rightist, I believe in helping out our mainstream brethren even if their plans are unlikely to work. Besides, you know you want to! Throw your qualms out the 44th storey window and vote Republican. You just KNOW you want to!!

    Come now, you know Romney won’t, for instance, sue any sane state governments that try to enforce immigration laws. If there is something I can’t stand about White Nationalism, it is its willed aloofness from mainstream politics. You would do much more for the dignity of the White race by calling yourself a White for Romney, and leaving the candidate to deal with it when it becomes enough of a meme. Whatever comes in the future, White Nationalists are no better than Lenins if they do not do their best to be good citizens and reformers in the countries into which they are born or move, and reject this petty dilettantism that shames people for voting for the center-right on a good instinct.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 4:08 am | Permalink

      When a man koshes you on the head and steals your wallet, that is bad enough. But when he tells you a sob story about a broken down car, a pregnant wife, and a hungry baby — and then steals your wallet, that is far worse. The first thief just takes your money. The second also undermines the trust and generous sentiments that are the foundations of a decent society. People who exploit others because of their virtues penalize virtue and undermine the moral order of society. Such people should be punished far more harshly than someone who merely takes physical goods.

      Now, I ask you: Is it moral cynicism to tell people not to be taken in by liars who exploit and penalize their decency and trust? Because that is what Republicans do. They exploit the decent, conservative instincts of the voters to gain power, just as Democrats exploit the decent, public-spirited instincts of the voters to gain power. The net result of such politics is pervasive cynicism and amorality, which is an environment most conducive to corruption.

      I submit that it is the politicians who are the moral cynics here. They are enriching and empowering themselves by burning through the moral capital of society, and it has to stop; we have to stop them; and we can only stop them by not allowing them to further exploit the remaining decency of the public; we can stop them only by utterly destroying the serpentine talking points of system enablers like you.

      • Ted
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 4:58 am | Permalink

        I agree 100% with Matt and Greg here. I for one am not part of any “broad Right.” To the extent that terms like “Left” and “Right” have any meaning, I’m “Far Right” and have nothing in common with the evangelical-neocon-big business alliance that makes up the “rightist” wing of America’s single party system. “Voting Republican” – just like “implicit whiteness” – is one of the crutches that diverts people from looking the race problem squarely in the face and dealing with it via racial nationalism.

        Come now, you know Romney won’t, for instance, sue any sane state governments that try to enforce immigration laws.

        It’s hard for me to believe that anyone here doesn’t know what the real Establishment endgame is with respect to illegal immigration – and immigration in general. Here it is: legalize everyone, open borders. By that I mean – if the “legal immigration” (and note that “Rightist” Republicans like Romney just love, love, love “legal” immigrants, no matter their origins) quotas are set high enough, then “illegal immigration” becomes meaningless. If anyone who wants to come to the USA can do so legally then – by golly! – illegal immigration will fall to zero. How about that? A foolproof plan to stop “illegal immigration!” I’m sure all the mainstream patriotards will just love that!

        The only “disagreement” between the “Left” and “Right” wings of the Establishment is what to do about those unfortunates who “crashed the party” “illegally” before the borders are legally flung open. Does anyone doubt that, eventually, the “Republicans” will agree to amnesty in order to garner the “Latino vote?” Romney has already shifted “Left” on immigration and has been making noises about supporting his own version of the “Dream Act.”

        Eventually, the compromise will be – amnesty in exchange for strict enforcement. And the “strict enforcement” (not that it would ever occur) would become absolutely meaningless since “legal” immigration will be greatly increased.

        And the “mainstream” patriotards will never notice how they’ve been scammed.

      • Roissy Hater
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 5:32 am | Permalink

        “we have to stop them; and we can only stop them by not allowing them to further exploit the remaining decency of the public”

        Unfortunately, from my political interactions, ‘crusader’ represents the over-arching mainstream sentiment among the typical conservative, even very conservative Republican.

        The viewpoint now amongst conservative voters is that illegal immigration is wrong, but nothing can be done about it. Demoralized, they’ve given up and have basically accepted the Hispanic invasion in the SW and elsewhere as regrettable, but inevitable.

        The remaining ‘decent’ segment of the voting public will go along with the status quo so long as there exists enough food, gas, and housing provided by the system.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink


      If there is something I can’t stand about White Nationalism, it is its willed aloofness from mainstream politics. You would do much more for the dignity of the White race by calling yourself a White for Romney, and leaving the candidate to deal with it when it becomes enough of a meme.

      I belong to a tradition-oriented “social nationalist” right wing a la Father Coughlin et al. I believe that free enterprise has an important place…under the boot of a robust and involved central government. Our expansive interstate highway system, the Internet, our most impressive R&D achievements, our moon landing, and our large middle class were all the result of intensive government meddling.

      My great-grandfather fed his family thanks to FDR’s PWA, and the delivery of power, fresh running water, and the mail to my family’s remote neck of the woods was all thanks to big government. My mom raised me on foodstamps. The free market would have left my chronically ill wife to die long ago. As for social issues…Romney was only nominally “right” on social issues during the brief spell during the Republican primaries where it was necessary for him to be so.

      There’s no indication that he’s actually with the right on social issues, and there are plenty of reasons to suspect that he’s against it.

      I honestly don’t think I’m being aloof or doctrinaire. I would consider voting for the lesser of two evils if, for the life of me, I could figure out which one is less evil. Romney’s the most slavishly pro-Zionist general election candidate we’ve ever had. I’m left with the farcical choice between a Black Nationalist and a Jewish Nationalist.

      I’m not sitting around waiting for a doctrinally pure White Nationalist…but this is ridiculous!

      • Corey
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        Couldn’t agree more. But the whole thing is a false choice to begin with. Most people being robbed or assaulted don’t sit around asking which person doing the robbery or assault is a better choice, or slightly less rough. A sane person would rebel if given the opportunity, and they wouldn’t give any legitimacy to what’s happening. In other words, they would make a third choice. Lest anyone think the analogy is silly, robbery and assault is pretty much the sum total of what the government does.

        At least a few decades ago you could reasonably claim that the robbery and assault were on the behalf of the American populace. No matter how morally corrupt that sounds, at least it’s rational on some level. But now, well, we are all Iraqi’s now!

      • Justin Huber
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        Matt, you’re quite right when you say that Romney is “the most slavishly pro-Zionist general election candidate we ever had.” This alone should have kept Buchanan from giving him his harebrained endorsement. Personally, I gave up on Buchanan years ago. Churchill, Hilter and the Unecessary War is a pretty good book though.

  2. Roissy Hater
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 5:20 am | Permalink

    “I hope he realizes that alternative media outlets now empower him to have a voice without it. He no longer needs to lie to be heard.”

    Mr. Parrott, your idealism blinds you from reality. I grew up reading Buchanan’s work and love what he *represents*, but he’s too intelligent not to be able to apprehend what has actually happened since WW2. He knew well before most of us here were born.

    Buchanan is not an ignorant man. This gentleman has an intellect which borders on near genius personality (because like Bowden, he assimilates culture and history with charisma). Buchanan’s books aren’t as spectacular as Spengler, Gasset or Yockey’s but he hits on major themes which are now recurring on this site and elsewhere in a very eloquent fashion.

    Do you think the Zionists would allow Buchanan to free float in and out of the mainstream, Presidential administration, and comment on historical reality (Churchill, Hitler and ….) without being compromised? Buchanan knows the score … I honestly think he knew much more than Nixon about Middle Eastern politics and the old boy network.

    Buchanan is not a covert Nazi. He’s working for the enemy, providing just enough material for the Far Right to say they are somewhat represented.

    • Gregor
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

      @Roissy Hater:

      You said, “… Buchanan is not a covert Nazi …” and thereby reveal that you CALL someone who disagrees with you a “Nazi”.

      I’m glad you do this. You CALL anyone who disagrees with you a “Nazi”, possibly even “anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews”. And I certainly disagree with you.

      • Roissy Hater
        Posted November 1, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

        When I said that Buchanan was not a covert Nazi, I meant that he is not on our side. I like Nazis.

  3. Posted October 31, 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    Good point about austerity coming to America.

    I know unemployed White American men living down the street from dairy farms that are employing illegal aliens from Brazil at 15 an hour with lots of time and a half overtime.

    They are not yet actually hungry, though they have to ration their cigarettes. They spend a lot of time playing “War Commander” so long as they have a roof over their head and someone is sharing their wireless internet with them. In War Commander world they have vast wealth. In the real world, they could be going around offering to rake leaves but do not.

    So I am waiting to see what happens when Americans actually go hungry. Any business that is employing NW immigrants shall be named/shamed and hopefully picketed. That’s my dream scenario — unemployed Americans picketing and pillorying and openly hating businesses that employ Mex and Guats and Brazilians. that will be our version of Golden Dawn activism.

  4. karsten
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    ” I hope he realizes that alternative media outlets now empower him to have a voice without it.”
    Forgive me, but what voice? Where are these alternative media outlets?

    Can we possibly look at ourselves honestly and see just how small, just how invisible, “our” media outlets are? How whisper-quiet our voices are?

    Alas, one of the shortcomings of all blogs, etc., on the alternative right is that they create the illusion that we have a voice, when we do not.

    What is our furthest reach? A few thousand at best, if we’re lucky? That’s not even the size of a single city. Every newspaper, every TV station, every part of the mass media reaches more.

    There are no “alternative media outlets.” Not yet, anyway. And until someone on the true Right is wealthy enough to create a WN version of Fox or a paleoconservative version of MSNBC, we have nothing. It’s the mainstream media or silence.

  5. Gerald Martin
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Matt, a few words if you please…

    Yes, what our tired old friend Pat Buchanan said were white lies…laughable lies. But the man has a doglike loyalty to Republicans (except for that thing in 2000), and has done enough service for our cause – as your “gateway” from faux conservatism to (if only) racially aware conservatism – that we should give him a pass – at age 75 and in not so good health – on this sentimental foible.

    A few more nits…PJB the statesman? Naw. Brilliant, historically informed journalist and shrewd, tough-minded political operative. But a horrible political candidate (that thing in 2000) = not a true leader and no statesman. More like a typical intellectual of any stripe.

    Finally…you worried about losing credibility if we go Romney? I despise the man, but c’mon! We are not at the level where credibility is an issue beyond our living as decent lives as possible, and being men other men can respect.

    • Jaego
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 1:06 am | Permalink

      Yes, the secret White Nationalist chose a Black Woman as his running mate – thus bending over backwards to maintain his identity as Bruce Wayne and hide the Batman. This was a incredible error in judgement – indicative of a lack of moral courage amounting to a character flaw. That it’s a common one doesn’t make it other than what it is. But choosing a Black Woman is something one would expect from Ralph Nader or Jill Stein, not Pat Buchanan

  6. excalibur
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    No political party,no politician at federal,state even local level,no business enterprise,no educational institution from the lowest to the highest level,no church of any denomination, no professional organisation, represent the interest of the whites.They even do not mention the word “white” as if it is a cursed word.

    • Gravity
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

      That is so true as to Christian churches. By whatever name, ethno-nationalists are so full of hate, you see.

  7. Gregor
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    It’s time for Pat B. to be given an invitation to have a show on C-C radio. Of course, no sane person will expect him to take up the offer.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Probably not, but he might agree to do an interview with Greg or Mike. After all, he has appeared at Alternative Right before.

  8. Robert Stark
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    As others have pointed out I find the term New Right missleading and confusing to people. Even Tom Sunic who is associated with the movement pointed that out in a podcast at VOR. People here New Right and they might think Neoconservative. The word Right is associated with the broader movement which calls itself the Right that includes the Tea Party and Republican Party. While many like to say we are the real right thats exactly what the Paleoconservatives like Buchanan have done. Its improtant to totally dissasociate ourselves from the modern right rather than trying to reclaim to the terminology. If we have to find a term to label ourselves why not stick with Third Position, dissasociating ourselves from both the left and right.

    • me
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

      Robert Stark has a point about the terms Right, New Right, etc. How about using “New Populist” or “White Populist”? That way, it won’t have current connotations with today’s meaning of Right/Left, etc. Granted, there have been populist parties in the past and attempts by old-time populists such as Willis Carto to bring it to the mainstream, but they always get hi-jacked by bankster/jewish forces.

    • Lew
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

      I think “New Right” is as close to pitch perfect as you’re going to get in a universe of imperfect labels. The point, or the takeaway for me at least, is that it’s a New Right, that is, a right that is distinct from both the faux American right and what Greg calls the old right.

    • Hyperborean
      Posted November 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

      Agreed Robert, Left vs Right is in economic political paradigm which has its origins in the pre-WW2 struggle between Capital and Labor. It was an economic paradigm because racial loyalty and defending traditional values were considered self-evident by both sides. Modern politics has transcended the Left/Right dichotomy, it is really only relevant in terms of party politics which is itself irrelevant.

      The current political paradigm is a struggle of Nationalism vs Marxism, which when broken down is truly a struggle of racially aware Aryans against the parasites (and the masses which have been enthralled by them) for control of Western Civilization.

      At this point it is important for the Nationalist movement to establish an identity which transcends party politics and its Left vs Right dichotomy, as it is the only movement which presents a true alternative to it.

  9. Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    While the “Romney for President” title was almost too gross to link to, when I read it I was pleased to see the first 3/4 of it was full of win, until the lukewarm, mechanical endorsement itself. Good to see your response to it here, Matt.

  10. Sandy
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    The only reason I hope Obama wins is that I am of the opinion that things are so bad and unfixable I would rather have people blaming the Black guy rather than the White guy.

    • arcturus
      Posted November 3, 2012 at 6:18 am | Permalink

      That was a very insightful observation. USA is in very bad shape; let Obama reap what he has sown, esp as Romney is not even a hardline conservative.

  11. Posted October 31, 2012 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

    I disagree, but just barely. I want Obama punished, so I’ll vote for Romney. But everything Matt says is true. I’ve linked to it and commented on it here:

  12. me
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Maybe we shouldn’t vote at all. This article has excellent points of what voting has gotten us into.

  13. me
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Someone wrote a nice list of white-awkening forces out there, besides the (re)-election of Obama:

    There are other potent awakening forces operating besides the presidency. For instance, the exploding non-white anti-White population within America. This exploding White-genocidal demographic bomb will NOT disappear with the election of Romney. It will be increasingly directly experienced by the White Sheeple throughout America.
    Other White awakening forces.

    Negative White-Awakening Forces:

    Open borders.

    Anti-White immigration policies. Letting non-whites in and keeping Whites out.

    Anti-White and anti-American political and economic governmental policies.

    Israel’s stranglehold on the executive and legislative American branches of government.

    The negro.

    Insufficiently punished, even encouraged black/brown crime against Whites.

    The anti-White jewish media: television, movies, books, newspapers, magazines, advertising, etc.

    ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center.

    Constraints against free speech and free association.

    Anti-White male discrimination in education, jobs, promotions.

    Constant needless wars fought against the interests of White America.

    Anti-White “hate” crime legislation.


    The governmental retraction of the Bill of Rights.

    The obliteration of the Constitution.

    The anti-White courts.

    The anti-White police — and the anti-White militarization of the police.

    I’m sure you can think of many others.


    Positive White-Awakening Forces:

    The internet in general. Thousands of pro-White websites.

    The alternative internet news websites.


    Counter Currrents

    American Renaissance

    David Duke

    Jared Taylor

    White radio/podcast shows

    Racially realistic and awakening books

    Racial differences: Intelligence

    Racial differences: Other racial attributes

    Anthropological truth

    Golden Dawn White Nationalist Movement

    The budding White Student Union Movement

    And many many more positive White-awakening forces.

  14. me
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps the reason Buchanan wrote that essay of supporting Romney to buy us whites more time:

    “The reason to vote for Romney is not to expect great White things from him or the Republican party, but to buy us 4 to 8 years of time, maybe more, and to prevent an immediate full-on anti-White marxist soviet police state tyrannization of America by the Obama entity — which could be a very serious situation for White patriots in America. We know what these soviet communist police states do. It is a serious and real danger. Romney sidesteps that danger and gives more time for both the positive and negative awakening forces I listed in a prior post to have their further awakening effect. [see the list above]

    I think this is a critical juncture for White America. We had best make the correct choice here.”

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      This is a joke, right? A parody of Republican scare-mongering to rope in credulous Right-Wing Alex Jones listeners?

  15. Posted October 31, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Please keep the “New Right” name, anything other, like “Third Position”, sounds either anarchist or libertarian or just plain weird, and you dont want that.

    Conservatism in America is nothing but libertarianism/classical liberalism, in other words more destructive rationalism/soft utopianism. “The american dream” and all this nonsense. The dream of what?? Being armed to the teeth and paying no taxes??

    So “Right” sounds Right. And “New” makes it sound New and Vital!

    Keep it!

    • me
      Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      If one is going to start a movement to save and serve the White Race, it would be beneficial to start with a fresh new catchy name – the one that represents positive and forward thinking and uses our (white) mental & physical capacities to the fullest, the one that encourages brainstorming frequently and maximizes thinking outside the box to find solutions that benefits our White race (& eventually other races downstream). You don’t want to use terms that have had some negative connotations in the past (like Left/Right, Socialist, Capitalists, etc.), as they all carry negative baggage or image in substantial portion of our white people.

      The term New Right may imply some form of “right wing” politics in the minds of some of the very people who we wish to attract – the good white people who classify themselves as liberals, but actually are fence-sitters. Greg’s “New Right” has ideas that really don’t fit in the current ‘left/right’ political paradigm. That’s why I suggest a fresh new & catchy name without any baggage – the one that benefits us all whites.

      • Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        Dont think so!

        Because in order to attract people you have to be honest about where you stand. Or else they will feel lied to, and/or you will attract the wrong people.

        As I see it, ethno-nationalism is a thing of the Right. So you have to say that out loud from the beginning. The Right is based on nature and history, not idealistic rationalism (the hope to “end” history and to recreate nature) which is the aim and order of the Left.

        Now members of the ethno-nationalist movement in America are faced, at least in my mind, with the problem of being blocked from calling themselves “conservatives” because of the libertarian/rationalist character of american conservatism. Sure you want to survive and thereby “conserve” yourselves, but calling yourself conservative is misleading, also because you dont want to preserve the existing political-economic system.

        So “Right” is Right!

  16. Mark Farley
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Parrot says calls P.B. a “White Nationalist” likes it’s a bad thing. And saying that Pat doesn’t have to lie anymore… We’ve heard more truth from Pat than any of the fake “Tea Party” commentators. And what revalation could be expected in a two party system other than vote for the lessor evil?
    There’s really no cause for an article on Pat’s current perspective with a week to go before election day.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      Mr. Parrot says calls P.B. a “White Nationalist” likes it’s a bad thing.

      I meant it as a good thing, to clarify that I believe he is on our side.

      And saying that Pat doesn’t have to lie anymore… We’ve heard more truth from Pat than any of the fake “Tea Party” commentators.

      I agree, but I do not believe our interests are served by falling in line behind Mitt Romney and I believe Pat’s case for doing so is a naked lie.

  17. Lew
    Posted October 31, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Pat is a brilliant and courageous man. I think making trade offs like endorsing the execrable Mitt Romney is worth it for Pat to keep his visibility. Every second, column inch and book on the shelf at Barnes and Noble is a thumb in the eye of the Jews and others who have tried to destroy him. More importantly, he reaches people too.

    That said, his age probably does understandably influence his thinking. Ultimately, he is from a very different era and background than us. For one thing, he is old enough to remember pre-Jew America, America when it was still a pleasant to live. He has seen every minute of the implosion first hand. He came up through the Republican party, wrote editorials in the 60s, worked for Nixon and helped design the Southern Strategy all before running for president. The experience of seeing everything you cherish destroyed before your eyes, with former colleagues responsible for much of the destruction, is probably hard to overcome on a emotional level. Retaining hope it might still be saved seems reasonable.

    Regarding vanguards and the mainstream, my sentiment is that a vanguard that isn’t engaged with the mainstream isn’t a vanguard. It’s something else. The definition of a vanguard is a group of leaders leading people toward a political objective. If the group is so far removed from the mainstream they’re not leading anyone, they can’t be a vanguard for anything. There has to be engagement with the mainstream in some form.

    • Posted October 31, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink


      Regarding vanguards and the mainstream, my sentiment is that a vanguard that isn’t engaged with the mainstream isn’t a vanguard. It’s something else. The definition of a vanguard is a group of leaders leading people toward a political objective.

      Political objectives don’t necessarily need to be pursued within the existing framework. I’m not against being political. I’m against wasting our political energy on supporting the current GOP and its neocon candidates.

      • Lew
        Posted October 31, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

        Matt, Yes, I agree completely with not wasting energy on the GOP or, generally, on political struggle in this framework. I should have been clearer about this. This is an imperfect parallel with the American scene, but the Golden Dawn party engages the mainstream in the way I had in mind. They engage people ( the “mainstream”) and work to lead them but in the service of radical agenda (relative to Greek status quo).

  18. me
    Posted November 2, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    At his age, I sure wish Pat would say it loud and clear on who is behind the destruction of white American and much of the white world before he passes on.

Post a Reply to me Cancel reply

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace