- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

White Lies:
Buchanan’s Endorsement of Romney

Pat Buchanan on Hardball

Pat Buchanan on Hardball1,068 words

I respect Pat Buchanan, but I respectfully disagree with his endorsement of Mitt Romney [1] 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 [2] 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 [3] 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: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829#ixzz2Aql0PYIJ [4]Pat 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 [4]. 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.