Counter-Currents
2,956 words
The 2012 Presidential Election is over. Despite being a vulnerable incumbent in a sour economy, Obama defeated liberal Republican “moneybags Romney” and can now preside over four years of radicalism without any more electoral worries.
Even before the election results were in, the usual suspects were talking about how a Romney loss means that the age of the “Anglo voter” is over, that the GOP has to “move toward the center” (as if they are not already there), and champion “immigration reform” (i.e., illegal immigrant amnesty) to “win over the Latinos.” After all, as we all remember, when Ronnie Raygun gave the last mass amnesty in the mid-’80s, that really brought all the “Latinos” into the conservative Republican fold, didn’t it? All sarcasm aside (but that last point is a good talking point for the Paleoconservative patriotards holding on to the last remnants of the GOP), what does all of this mean for us?
Greg Johnson is correct: the Republican Party must be destroyed. How can this be achieved?
Many pundits predict that demographic change will make the Republican Party increasingly unelectable at the national level. The GOP may attempt to deal with its declining white voter base by accelerating its current broad strategy of pandering to minorities while taking white support for granted. This, I think, will not help them – in the long run. It’s difficult to see how the Republicans can out-pander the Democrats, and the more they try, the greater will be white disaffection.
Granted, American whites can take much abuse, and seemingly are addicted to voting for Republican Presidential candidates who give a “wink-and-a-nod” to (implicit, of course) white interests during the primary season, while quickly ditching any adherence to those interests during the national campaign — and more so if elected. For example, in the 2012 election cycle, Romney predictably moved to the Left on issues such as immigration going from the primary season to the general election.
I stress “predictably,” because this happens over and over again, without end, and stupid whites – including some in the “movement” – never seem to catch on. Of course, the same process takes place on a smaller scale in more local elections. After all, GOP reasoning is that “white voters have nowhere else to go,” so those voters can be continuously betrayed on a regular basis, in order to pursue the pipe-dream of a significant fraction of the colored vote.
However, as overall conditions in America continue to degenerate, and as white Americans become increasingly uncomfortable with their impeding minority status, it is quite possible – although, unfortunately, not definite — that white voters will wake up to the long-standing GOP con game. Therefore, a long-term strategy for us would include hastening the political destruction of the GOP as a viable electoral player while, at the same time, increasing racial pressures continuously and irreversibly on a permanent basis, rather than depending on some sort of immediate “outrage” which the masses won’t find “outrageous” enough to get off the couch about, anyway. If, also, economic collapse feeds into this, so much the better, but the strategy should be able to stand alone independent of any hoped for major, history-changing catastrophes.
The basic strategy is that of “balkanization” – or as certain non-whites may say (albeit in other contexts), “the politics of exclusion.” Overtly explicit (NOT implicit) pro-white politics and social organizing must be initiated. Given the feckless nature of the white masses (at the current time), this would initially be targeted only toward a relatively small minority of the white population. However, given the close nature of most American “elections,” particularly at the national level, even a small decline in support for the GOP, especially in “swing states,” can make that party unelectable even earlier than what is expected without implementation of this balkanization strategy. At the same time, overt white politics would trigger outrage among non-whites – after all, even though most whites can seemingly take unlimited sociopolitical abuse, non-whites become outraged over the smallest of “slights,” even for “slights” which are completely imaginary.
Intelligent white politics, performed seriously (and not as the usual “movement” freakshow) and with a long-term sustainable focus, and with sufficient success to garner media attention, will trigger balkanizing reflexes from non-whites who believe they have a moral-based monopoly on “identity politics.” The pro-white politics could then utilize this non-white hostility to pry away another thin layer of white support from “mainstream conservatism,” making the pro-white political movement a bit stronger and, in a virtuous cycle, provoking even more useful non-white outrage and non-white anti-white identity politics, in turn allowing for the next thin sliver of white support to leach away from the GOP.
At the same time, the loss of a few more percentage points of white support will make the GOP ever more increasingly unelectable, even at the state level. This in turn would further diminish the appeal of “Republican conservatism” to those disenchanted whites still stubbornly adhering to the GOP. Thus further decline in Republican fortunes, and the enhanced discrediting of their “implicit whiteness” con, would increase the appeal of more explicit pro-white politics. This would result in further leaching away of white support, making the GOP even more unelectable, etc. Meanwhile, the minorities will continue to be outraged, and colored antics would reinforce white support for explicit identity politics and melt away remaining bastions of implicitly white “conservatism.”
The GOP would thus be forced to choose between moving in a pro-white direction themselves – further outraging non-whites and increasing the balkanizing pressures – or overtly abandon an increasingly “radicalized” white electorate, thus hastening the processes described above.
Of course, the Republicans are self-destructing quite nicely even without any push from our side. Their enthusiastic embrace of America’s demographic changes has hastened the demise of their own voting bloc. Further, the GOP has the amusing tendency to put forth the most unappealing candidates, particularly at the Presidential level, and some of these aspirants to power are unable to put together a coherent and disciplined campaign. The likes of Dole, Dubya, McCain, and Romney – not to mention also-rans such as Gringrich, Santorum, Bachman, and Cain – could it get any worse?
And while Bush’s aggressive personality led to fairly competent political campaigns, Dole and McCain hardly made an effort, and “rich-man” Romney’s efforts (apart from one credible debate performance) bordered on the tragicomic, a wooden “vulture capitalist” without the slightest idea of how to seem even the least degree appealing. And the less we say about the atrocious Palin, the better. Even so, the process described above could greatly enhance the rate of GOP collapse, and put in place an alternative that can compete with attempts by the enemy to co-opt white disaffection (see below).
Of course, this is predicated upon that at least a minority of whites are intelligent enough, and disciplined enough, to – at the very beginning of the process, when we need to peel away that first layer of white Republican support — eschew voting for an anti-white liberal Republican (“our guy”) so as to defeat the (ideologically identical) anti-white liberal Democrat (“their guy”).
One wonders how long whites will be fooled. Do we have to remind them of how often they are betrayed by “conservative Republicans”? It would be bad enough if the GOP simply did nothing and just preserved the status quo. But the reality is much worse — Republicans actively push for anti-white policies, sometimes more aggressively than do the Democrats.
It wasn’t Carter or Clinton who have us a massive illegal alien amnesty – that was conservative superhero Ronald Reagan.
The white working class brought Richard Nixon to the White House, and Nixon “rewarded” them by championing affirmative action and school busing.
The latest enthusiasm for illegal alien amnesty would never have “picked up steam” if it wasn’t for the bipartisan cover given to “immigration reform” by George W. Bush and John McCain.
One cannot forget the “Civil Rights Republican” Bob Dole and the “Martin Luther King Republican” Jack Kemp, and their declaration that “bigots” and “racists” were not welcome and should leave the 1996 Republican Convention.
Republicans in general are enthusiastic about “legal” immigration to add to their love for the illegals. Romney shifted to the Left on immigration after the primaries, and he was the most fervently pro-Zionist Presidential candidate in US history. Which leads us to — the GOP ruining America in order to fight wars for Israel. That’s “pro-white conservatism”?
That whites are so slow to realize how they are being scammed does not speak well for their general intelligence or their faculties for critical thinking. Nevertheless, we must hope that at least a significant minority of “right-wing” white voters can be convinced to stop drinking the “Republican Kool-Aid” so we can get the balkanization process well under way. Although whites are easily fooled and can take an enormous amount of sociopolitical abuse from “their” leaders, a breaking point – at least for a minority of whites – hopefully will be reached. And that moment must be seized upon.
This balkanization strategy is also predicated upon the idea that the pro-white politics would be able to defeat any attempts of the GOP to (à la Sarkozy vs. Le Pen in past French elections) to superficially mimic an explicit pro-white stance for elections before “moving to the center.” This last possibility would seem to be implausible, since it appears impossible for the GOP to both explicitly support white interests while pandering to minorities. They could both implicitly appeal to whites (as they have been doing) while pandering to minorities. But then we know – or we should know – that “implicit whiteness” is the deadly enemy of “explicit whiteness” and the two are ultimately incompatible. And only one – the explicit – has the power to immunize white politicians from the colored-pandering and “shift-to-the-center/left” approach they have been practicing so successfully for decades.
Therefore, a crucial point is that we must get over our infatuation with implicit whiteness. Again – and this can’t be stressed enough — implicit whiteness is our enemy, it is a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a detour, a weed preventing the full flowering of explicit whiteness. For the plan outline here to work, the GOP con game of subtle implicit whiteness needs to be exposed and ridiculed, and the distinction between explicit and implicit whiteness needs to be made very clear — again and again.
After all, the Republicans – who have shared with the Democrats a political monopoly in America since the time of Lincoln – will not simply roll over and give up. They and their behind-the-scenes handlers will make every effort to stretch implicit whiteness as far as it can go without becoming explicit enough to scare away the coloreds. They have a massive infrastructure, much experience, much money, and decades worth of success in bamboozling naïve whites. They simply cannot be allowed to get away with the implicit con game anymore. They cannot be allowed to continue to run right in the primaries, shift center in the campaign, and then govern left if elected. It is our responsibility to expose them to the extent possible, and present to white voters a clearly distinct and appealing alternative.
This plan is also predicated on the idea that the pro-white politics would be sufficiently organized in depth so as to defeat “social pricing” targeted against its adherents, and, as well, that the USA doesn’t follow Canada and Europe in restricting free speech to the extent that the strategy becomes untenable. For the former, it is advised that pro-white politics follows the lead of groups such as Greece’s Golden Dawn, and form a movement – a real movement – rather than just a political party.
Pro-white American politics must become a comprehensive and integrated program encompassing an alternative system for white Americans, including a real and strong support infrastructure for white activists, so as to evade social pricing – and at the same time, this political movement, like Golden Dawn does in Greece, must provide real-life assistance to their present and possible future supporters.
It’s not enough to simply canvass for votes at election time. Activists must be in the community on a daily basis, dealing with individuals at the local level, and integrating themselves in the fabric of white society. If you want to take (votes), then you have to give (social and economic assistance, development of a sense of community and organic solidarity built on race and culture).
As America becomes darker – both figuratively and literally – problems for white Americans will only increase, and the multicultural establishment will be part of the problem for suffering whites, not the solution. We must be part of the solution. We must earn the support of whites – not by the usual “movement” freakishness and misanthropy, not by the usual crackpot pseudo-scientific and pseudo-historical racial theories, not by irrational conspiracy-mongering, not by theosophical nonsense about “Hyperborea and root races,” but by being a positive everyday presence in the lives of the members of our racial/cultural community.
With respect to free speech, that issue must be at the forefront of explicit white politics, up at the top of concerns along with immigration or any of the more obvious racial issues. Another practical issue is ballot access and other structural blocks put in place to obstruct third parties and maintain the “two” party monopoly. These are serious issues and have to be addressed in some manner.
However, the more disenchanted whites become with the GOP, the more anxious they become about their future, the more the demand an alternative, then the greater the pressure for third party formation, and – hopefully – the greater will be the will and the resources to overcome the roadblocks that are placed in the path of third party success.
Is there a place for metapolitical activism in all of this? Yes, and it will be more important than ever. There needs to be an overarching ideological framework, an underlying intellectual foundation, to political activism. There needs to be a cadre of elite activists to exhibit responsible leadership, looking at the long-term broad strategic picture, not just at the immediate street-level tactics.
There are many “ifs” and potential problems, but here is presented at least a very rough outline to follow that may help to create irreversible fissures within the multicultural society. Needless to say those ideas that would help heal these fissures and reverse balkanization – such as Sailer’s aracial “citizenism” – must be absolutely eschewed and recognized for the anti-white memes that they are. We need more racial division, more conflict, more balkanization, more and more and more proof that multiculturalism is a failure. More – not less.
As Salter states in On Genetic Interests, for a majority being dispossessed, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is a multiculturalism that does work. Therefore, anything that would tend to reform the System and prop up the multiculturalist regime – “citizenism,” constitutional patriotism, voting for the “lesser of two evils,” conservative compromise, implicit whiteness, endlessly running to ever more remote suburban enclaves – all of these are the enemy of explicit white racial interests.
Conversely, anything that tends to increase racial balkanization, increase cynicism and bitterness toward the System, increase the sense of “there’s nowhere left to hide” – that’s all to the good. Ballkanize, balkanize, balkanize.
One very important worry is that the enemy will – and let’s have no doubts about the definitiveness of “will” – attempt to co-opt any white resurgence to channel racial discontent into harmless and/or “Semite-safe” directions. With respect to “mainstream” politics, we can expect a dual effort to invest in aracial libertarian Paul/Tea Party activities, as well as a solidly neoconservative “Conservative” movement that will champion a “muscular” (i.e., pro-Israel) foreign policy, coupled with robber baron economics and proper “social values” (i.e., abortion bad, miscegenation good).
Further, they will attempt to co-opt the “movement” itself. Before you scoff, consider the success they have already had in doing so. We can all think of certain philosemitic precincts of the “movement,” in which individuals who are not of indigenous European ancestry preach their memetic poison. Let’s establish a multiracial, multicultural “white separatist” (sic) state! Others, who “danced in the streets” when the civil rights laws of the ’60s were passed, tell us to support the “racial status quo” and that implicit whiteness is the best we can hope for since, after all, we are viewed as the moral equivalent of child molesters. Others suggest that racial preservationism for its own sake is “insane,” and others make a “litmus test” for “sane” activism contingent upon whether we support Israel.
We’ve seen hardcore white racialism be transformed into some sort of libertarian-conservative “HBD race realism” and “cognitive elitism” in which “high-IQ” Jews and Asians are the racial supermen we must embrace as our betters.
So, yes, indeed, the “movement” can be co-opted, and the more hardcore elements – particularly the top leadership — of the “movement” that resists such co-opting can then be targeted by government infiltrators, online trolls, and the ever-present “watchdog” groups, while being undermined by the sincere yet stupid among their own (legitimate) ranks.
The co-opted will be allowed to thrive while the resistant activist leadership will be more directly eliminated – unless of course the more hardcore leadership are shrewd enough, intelligent enough, and disciplined enough to eschew morons, trolls, and infiltrators, while evading pressures from the government and the NGOs (often working hand-in-glove). And this they so far have shown no ability to do.
The eventual, impending collapse of the GOP will hand us an enormously valuable opportunity. Will we blow it, as we have done with other opportunities time and time again?
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
31 comments
I agree that the abomination (sounds like ‘Obama-nation!) known as the Republican Party must be destroyed. As I predicted on this website months ago, aside from losing to Obama it will now shift itself further to the left with a ‘new’ strategy of pandering to brown and black votes. It will get practically no votes at all from them, and will lost still more millions of white votes this way, but hey, that will be the strategy.
One tube pundit today also predicted that the Stupid Party will never again have an all-white ticket for Prez. He may be right on that.
I think that 2012 was the Stupid Party’s last chance to win the presidency. If it had focused itself on the white electorate, I believe it would have gotten enough of a turnout to win it. As it is, it picked up a couple of million LESS votes than McCain did in 2008. I believe that is because it picked a liberal like Romney and did the usual pandering to non-whites while ignoring whites.
The Stupid Party takes white votes for granted, and loses them in the millions.
Each national election from here on will be the democrats’ to lose, as with their ever-growing racial bloc constituencies behind them – along with all homosexuals, prison inmates, feminists, etc. – they will be tougher and toughter to beat, if not impossible to beat. And particulary if they continue to field candidates ‘of color’.
I voted third party this time around and for the Stupid Party at the local and state level, but from here onwards I will never again vote for the Stupid Party at ANY level. They are utterly beneath my contempt.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read on the the reality of American “conservatism” in a long time. While I will admit that a part of me did feel a moment of acute disappointment when Romney lost (despite the degree to which I loathe him), I understand that things MUST get worse before they get better. With Obama at the helm, fearing nothing, such things as an amnesty are a foregone conclusion. Sadly, such events seem to be the only way in which our people will (hopefully) wake up to the reality of their dispossession. Moreover, it is also clear that politics, as we know it, is useless to us. It is time for something new.
We must simply “ride the tiger” now, and work together more than ever.
This is one very incisive, well organized, and superbly written article. An article to be read, pondered, and re-read again. Congrats to you, Ted Sallis!
Fully second that, Junghans, I´m most impressed by this article.
I am really not sure what explicit whiteness actually means. Coming from the left, in my younger days I was enthralled with Che Guevara. He has just become an image for the left now. No one really knows what he did and how he inspired people. He did say though that a revolution requires great love. He was an intellectual and that was why he was so dangerous. Studying the tactics and methods of those who were supposedly on the other side is a very useful endevour. He wrote too.
The Art of War by Sun Tzu and of course our very own Machiavelli are books that make one think and start to imagine just what can be done. I am sure there are others. I do think that before one can do something one has to imagine and believe one can do it. That is the point at reading about the Iron Guard too. Belief is everything.
One reason I do admire the Golden Dawn is that they do believe in what they are doing and they are out to save the Greek people. I may not like the violent part of it, but nothing is gained without conflict. Even Gandhi’s passive resistance played on the British by psychological subterfuge. Creating doubt in your enemy is a masterful game.
That is what our enemies have done to us. Created doubt in ourselves and what White people have actually done for humanity. It is a start. To stop doubting our abilities to rise to this challenge. Start doubting them and what they say.
A very incisive article, we do need more ethnic strife, balkanization and conflict. As Nietzsche opined, “What is falling should be pushed”.
However, in regard to “implicit whiteness is our enemy, it is a dead-end, a cul-de-sac, a detour, a weed preventing the full flowering of explicit whiteness;” I am not convinced of this. I think implicit whiteness has its place as a natural gateway, part of the process of most Whites’ transition to WN. It is what the vast majority of Whites are comfortable with at this point. My understanding is that public opinion shifts over time, gradually moving in a particular direction in a series of small steps. This is the theory behind the Overton window, where attitudes form a continuum from what is current policy to what is considered radical or unthinkable. As attitudes shift along the continuum, what was previously unthinkable becomes accepted.
An example is the previous unacceptable and radioactive viewpoint of homosexual rights. It went from being seen as an abomination not so long ago to an uncomfortable topic to limited acceptance, and is now well on the way to widespread acceptance. Had the courts tried to foist it on the country twenty years ago, there would have been outrage and intense public reaction rejecting that. Opinion changed incrementally, with the issue being constantly pushed by hard-core activists, and it is now probably just a matter of time before we slouch further toward Gemorrah and homosexual marriage becomes commonplace across the nation.
Likewise, I think that implicit whiteness forms a point on the continuum of the Overton window toward WN. It might also be argued that the “conservative” movement and the Tea Party movement lay on that path as well, as many Whites will transition from “liberal” to “moderate” to Ann Coulter “conservative” to Pat Buchanan “paleoconservative” on their journey. When Whites are organizing together and being criticized racially for it, thats probably a good thing. I think that a proper movement would consist of a wide range of groups, organizations and initiatives, with strategies ranging from the mildly implicit to the extreme explicit.
Implicit Whiteness is a useless, deeply flawed conceptual tool that muddles the issues and inhibits clear thinking on racial matters. I think Kevin MacDonald made a serious very mistake introducing this idea into our conversations (unless I’m mistaken the idea comes from him). A person or group is either for whites or not. Using this implicit idea can and has led to some horrible and preventable tactical decisions in the community (ex: arguments to support/fund Ron Paul, conservative and Republican programs that are anti-white because most of the faces in their crowds are white).
I basically agree. Implicit whiteness – like that stupid “NAMs” acronym (“non-Asian minorities) popular with the “cognitive elitist” HBD race realists – is a concept that’s become a bit over-used. More important, it’s been I think mis-used. Some folks think it’s a good thing – people are “secretly n our side.” We need to flip the paradigm and stress the negative aspects of implicit whiteness. Ultimately, the implicit and the explicit occupy similar niches and in the long run there is only room for one of them.
Just a quick thought; could it be at all advantageous or oportune to begin party-building and political organizing in solidly (and hopelessly) blue states? Would White Republicans be more susceptible to breaking political habits once they realize that “their” party is unviable anyway and therefore to vote contrary to it (and the Democrats) is better than nothing?
That’s a good point. Blue states represent a safe, “nothing-to-lose” environment in which to test out various permutations of the balkanization strategy, before trying in in Red states.
Of course, if someone can have immediate success in Red states, more power to them.
I’m helpling Rational Elites, conservative white non-politicians who are half way to white nationlism. The RE’s are suggesting we back a third party as the Republicans are hopeless.
It deffinately will be easier to recruit whites for political/social activismin blue states.
The RE’s told us to vote for Romney if we were in swing states (they seem to think a second Obama term will be very dangerous) but to vote third party if we were in deep red or deep blue states. The idea was we need to promote the visibility of what ever third party eventually replaces the Republicans. The RE’s seem to favor the explicitly white american third position party.
The RE’s seem to want to hold the country together and avoid having a Soviet style breakup or a Yugo Slavia type civil war.
I don’t think the RE’s will be able to avod break or civil war unless whites wake up almost immediately. So I’mbeginning to see an explicitly white party as an organizing and rallying point for eventual millitary white resistance. We will be political as long as we can but a time is coming I believe when we will have to fight for survival. Then we will let the white’s that we have organized inside a deep blue state that their families only hope for physical survival will be to join the long column of refugees headed for the white heartland.
Can the author please define “implicit” whiteness and “explicit” whiteness? I’m confused about those terms.
explicit means that you openly have a White racial identity, you openly pursue White racial interests – like people here or WNs in general
implicit implies that you do things which are considered “White” but are not openly racial. Supporting Republican conservatism, Tea Party, liking country music or NASCAR or Hockey or classical music – doing anything that is predominantly White, is culturally friendly to Whites, and which most non-Whites are not interested in. BUT – it is always portrayed as preferences that are not racial, and those who do it will hysterically deny any interest in race. When people move to all-White suburbs and make up non-racial excuses for doing so, that’s implicit. Implicit Whiteness is a furtive way for people to be around those like themselves and to feel comfortable without being openly racial. It is in my opinion a danger, because people get comfortable with this useless and furtive style of Whiteness and never go to defend racial interests.
There are many examples of implicit whiteness. Why McCain chose Palin as a running mate? Why was she a “hockey mom”? Who are hockey players, contrast them with basketball or even football players? The message was passed that he was a “pro white”. There are numerous similar examples,even Mitt Romney during his campaign was surrounded by whites. But none of them ever said the affirmative action is anti-white, none of them said that whites are discriminated, I want to protect whites rights. If anyone says so he is “explicit”. Implicit whiteness only wants to deceive you to lull you, that it is why is so detrimental to the whites.
The problem I have with “implicit whiteness,” again, is that it is just too much of a comfortable cu-de-sac, a too-cozy dead-end, and if available, many whites will just fall into it and refuse to go any further. Which is why the System may actually promote implicit whiteness if their backs are up against the wall, and they have no other choice in order to defuse a potentially disruptive explicit whiteness.
Further, is there any actual data supporting the so-called “Gateway Hypothesis?” There’s anecdotal evidence, sure, and lots of speculation, but do we really know if numbers of people are really going from implicitly white conservatism to WN? Are people going from moderate philosemitic “HBD race realism” to hardcore racialism? We assume they do, and we hear from the odd individual who claims to have made the transition. However, we need quantitative metrics to evaluate this question, as well as many others.
A lack of quantitative analysis is a real problem for the “movement.” We’d benefit from surveys, polling, and other approaches done in a manner that prevents opponents from subverting the analysis by submitting false data (to obfuscate and mislead).
The most important question I think to be analyzed in this manner: why do most Whites eschew racial activism and, in general, reject a racial identity and the pursuit of racial interests? Activists spill lots of Internet digital “ink” speculating and debating about this. But we have no real data. If there was some way to honestly survey solid sample sizes of various White demographics to get some “real-world” answers that would be beneficial.
I’ve thought about this too. There is a lot of cheap and free survey software out there. It has crossed my mind in the past it might be worth it to build a survey on “how were your views formed” and post it on Stormfront.
I see two great trends unfolding here.
One, just as Buckley and his supporters singlehandedly transformed classical American conservatism – “Taft” conservatism – into conservatism, and then into neocoservatism, so something not unlike that is at work here in the party formerly known as “Republican.”
I see this as the beginning of the end phase of the Republican Party into two parties. The politically astute Whigs morphed into the new Republican Party as we know (knew) it. The remnants of the Whigs went into various trivial political organizations, and died off fairly quickly.
Something like that is happening here.
Two, the Republican Party has changed into an ideology-free tool of political power. Call this Republican Core, for ease of analysis.
The ideologues are left as a Southern rump, useful to join with Glenn Beck, Libertardians, and others fringe organizations – i.e.; anyone with an ideology other than the direct pursuit and exercise of power. Call this Republican Outliers.
Three, note how the arguments are being made around the clock about how to transform the Republican Party into, well, the Democratic Party in all but name. A lot of ink has gone into explaining why they should support the Mexican vote, and this will be all the more important when Obama offers amnesty to the thirty million I repeat THIRTY MILLION illegals in American, and, by extension, to their families.
Four, this makes sense only if you can accept a two national metatrends: one, the de facto (and, in ten years, de jure) merger of America with Mexico, and two, the transformation (liquidation) of the American Republic to support the American Empire.
Five, this presents both parties to have internal Core organizations that are one in purpose, and will run the new nation like PRI ruled Mexico; as a soft dictatorship devoted solely to (1) the wealthy becoming wealthier, and (2) insuring no acts of rebellion get a chance to occur.
Thus, we see the role of Race in the Empire model before our eyes; we are one Nation among many, and no longer. demographically, first and equals. That is how this election played out, and will define all future elections. At the level of Rulership of Empire, we, as a Racial organization, no longer Rule, and the Owners have no need to pretend to tolerate us any more.
Harold Covington has it right.
With a de facto “communist” take-over of the American economic system – industry (GM), finance, housing, health care, public schooling/education – we are one minority group in the American Empire, and the one that is openly and officially discriminated against, forbidden to organize along explicit political lines.
The transformation of the Republican Party, and the American Republic, into their new Forms, strongly imply a commonality of purpose within the Leadership. This Is Not By Accident.
Wow, in the last few days I have spoken to so many WNs who are actually really upset that Romney lost….I am confused, all his winning would have done would have given the average White American an excuse to continue to stick his or her head in the sand and pretend that everything was alright.
Buckwheat being elected is the best thing for the pro White movement in so many ways. Sure it might suck for a good while, but better this come to a head sooner rather than later. I sure don’t want to pass this mess on to my kids when we might actually be able to kill the monster that is the US in my time.
Wow, in the last few days I have spoken to so many WNs who are actually really upset that Romney lost..
That’s a powerful indictment of the “libertarian conservative HBD race realist cognitive elitist moderate philosemitic asiaphilic” branch of the “movement.” I’m sure people who crow about the “sweet deals” they got done in their business careers, and all the Sailerities huffing and puffing about “NAMs” and “citizenism” are all upset about the election results.
Of course, there may be some “hardcore” racialists who are also upset. If that’s the case, we really are in big, big, trouble.
By the way, most of the pundits are now saying Romney’s loss is based on the GOP being “too White,” too “far right wing extremist” and “full of grumpy old White men.”
It’s obvious they take for granted that all these grumpy whites will vote GOP no matter how far to the left Republicans drift.
Are they right?
STOP. VOTING. REPUBLICAN.
Yesterday Rush was saying that if it was bad to have old white males on the presidential ticket then the old white males on the TV networks would have to go too.
Rush seems to be moving toward explicit whiteness.
I suspect he is following where he knows his audience
is going. Rush was being very aggressive with his argument.
Also I think it was Hannity who had a debate on his show between Pat Buchanan and Juan Williams. It was basically should the Republicans go Hispanic or not.
The other radio talk shows were basically going the political correct route.
I think Rush has his finger closest to the pulse of conservative whites.
The gateway hypothesis of implicit whiteness should, I think, be under consideration, as to date there probably is not any definitive data on what brings Whites to WN. My personal experience is moving from a Limbaugh “conservative” after high school, convinced that free-market economics was the key to a nation’s success, stumbling on “The Bell Curve” in college, after graduation, enthusiastically supporting George W.’s first term. This led to Pat Buchanan’s “the Death of the West”, and discovering the immigration/birth rate issue, and disgruntlement with W.’s policies led to stumbling onto the Occidental Quarterly, and after some time trying to digest the truth of the Jewish Question, the whole horrific situation was finally laid bare. For me, Pat Buchanan’s implicitly white book was key, and if it had been overtly explicit, it would have probably clashed too much with the world view that I had been spoonfed for decades, and I would have rejected it, stuck in my previous paradigm. Most of my friends are still in the Republican stage, existing in an implicitly White world.
My personal experience is anecdotal and of limited use, of course. It would be more useful to examine how public opinion has shifted on other issues, and develop strategies based on what has worked in the past, following successful models. If you were to research the top 20 transformations of public opinion (and I have not), I think you would see gradual shifts as per the Overton window theory.
This sort of gets back to the previous topic regarding whether appeals to implicit whiteness are an appropriate strategy for WN political parties such as A3P. If you are at a booth handing out fliers titled, “White Racial Consciousness Now” or something very explicit, it would frighten off the bulk of your potential audience. But implicit pamphlets about stopping illegal immigration because its “against the law” or legal immigration because “it takes our jobs” are probably acceptable to most. For most people I know, I would prefer they experience being gently drawn in to the movement rather than confronted directly with something they have been conditioned against, which they will therefore have a strong tendency to reflexively and vehemently reject.
In any case, I agree with Ted’s recommendation that the issue be decided by statistical data, analysis and “what works”, rather than jumping to conclusions.
I came along a similar path. I’ve made a habit in my travels of bothering advocates about their “awakening”. Aside from a remnant from the Deep South who enjoy a family legacy of racial identity and (ironically) those of varied edge case ancestries who grew up enjoying an outsider’s perspective on Whiteness, I think most of us followed a similar Bell Curve and HBD path, gradually working through the issues piecemeal.
My first response is that there’s really no big conundrum, here. The HBD, game, paleo-conservative, alternative right, and historical revisionist gateways are still there. They’re not going anywhere, and I don’t believe anybody in this discussion is proposing that we target or turn against them.
There’s a smaller conundrum about whether one’s time is better served at this post or that post. Much of that is as much of a matter of personal situation, skill set, disposition, and preference as it is of strategy. Perhaps you’re eyeing tenure and can only afford to risk having a milquetoast blog on population genetics. Perhaps you’re raking in big money at a politically sensitive job and need to settle for injecting paleo-conservative ideas into discussions at the Lodge (while tithing to the cause, of course).
My second response is that the overwhelming majority of people don’t think. I’m not being arrogant or elitist, and I don’t have any contempt for people who don’t think. I forget how H.L. Mencken put it, but he said something to the effect that the world would be insufferable if everybody were an independent thinker. To borrow an HBD phrase, the only people who arrive at our message through poring over Lynn, Rushton, and Murray are a statistically fractional subset of the “cognitive elite”.
If you’ll excuse my quoting Hitler, “That which only a few philosophically gifted spirits are in a position to scientifically analyze, is sensed in the heart of the unspoiled man of pure instinct.”
While we should respect and protect the gateway we entered through, the masses can’t fit through that gate. A different approach, one that speaks in the language of power, emotions, myth, and style, is necessary to reach our folk.
Well that’s the thing: there will be implicit Whiteness for the foreseeable future – and organizations that cater to that. We don’t have to worry about that. We have to worry about is not being implicit – which for us is just weakness of will and refusal to take the next step. Without Explicit Whiteness and Its Organizations – there is no reason for implict Whites to take the next step, no place for them to go. We can hopefully evolve a graceful relationship with Implicit groups or at least some of them. Call it initiation….
What’s HBD?
HBD = Human Biodiversity
Thanks for this, Ted. This was a really excellent piece. I have a feeling I’ll be rereading and referring back to this again and again (not to mention referring people to it).
I hope the author of this most excellent piece is out there practicing what he preaches. There are many excellent writers in WN…not so many people on the ground.
And I’m feeling a contradiction between the admonition to balkanize, balkanize, balkanize when we are also not supposed to be “endlessly running to ever more remote suburban enclaves.”
And I must say, I get a little tired of all the negative criticism of things that have been done in the past by well meaning Nationalists. Hindsight is 20/20 and its easy for US to see what hasn’t worked but I suspect if it wasn’t for some of these attempts, many of us would never have woken up to racial reality. Remember, there was no internet in times past. People worked with what they had. We stand on the shoulders of giants. And if you want to not have the “ usual movement freakshow” get some money together and give “the freaks” something to do. Most of those well-meaning working class folks are just trying to make ends meet and support a White child or two. They don’t have the time or money to strategize. They just see their race dying and want to do something about it. Perhaps some of you “elites” of the movement could get off your ars…er high horses and start working with these folks instead of bashing them.
Finally, as alluded to above, we need MONEY. CASH, DINERO (get used to that word if you aren’t ready to roll up your sleeves) and lots of it. Perhaps one of you intellectuals could tell us how to get some real cash together because without it, we are just flailing in the wind.
No, sorry, the “giants” had money. They had supporters. For decades. And what did they do? Hide out on a mountaintop, bashing the people sending them money? Engaging in serial monogamy with mail order Eastern European brides? Writing cartoonish versions of “history?” Marching around with swastika armbands? Or, others who have plenty of our “dinero” over the years hosting meetings so that the Chosen Ones can insult the audience? While the “giants” insult their own supporters while placating the enemy? Or maybe “giants” taking the “dinero” and gambling it away?
Who? Who are these giants? We’ve wasted decades, and we have a fundamental problem because of social pricing, because the “movement” humiliated itself for decades, because of the White tendency for individualism. The people we need to be active, to step up as leaders cannot, or will not, do so, for the reasons just mentioned. So we have by default the loony-tunes brigade, the sieg-heilers, the dysfunctional.
Perhaps some of you “elites” of the movement could get off your ars…er high horses and start working with these folks instead of bashing them.
Work with whom? Thanks to “movement” stupidity and the “as long as they say they support us they must be OK” mindset, a large number of the “folks” are gov’t informers, “anti” infiltrators, or just plain nuts. That’s the reality. One does not have to be wealthy or an “elite genius” to use a bit of common sense. But most of the “folks” don’t have even that.
And I’m feeling a contradiction between the admonition to balkanize, balkanize, balkanize when we are also not supposed to be “endlessly running to ever more remote suburban enclaves.”
There’s no contradiction. If you “run to the suburbs” and then vote for Obama or Romney, you’re part of the problem. If you “run to the suburbs” and contribute in some way to delegitimizing the System, you are part of the solution. I criticize the implicit whiteness of “soccer moms” and “soccer dads” who run away from diversity while at the same time supporting the very system that forces them to run away in the first place.
Hindsight is 20/20…
Yes, one needs a lot of “hindsight” to avoid those things mentioned in the first paragraph here, which is just the tip of the iceberg. No, the problem is that “movement” dysfunction is self-perpetuating. Because of a lack of discrimination (ironic for “racists”), any droolcup or opponent who professes support is accepted and given the keys to the kingdom. After the inevitable disasters, well-meaning and rational potential supporters become discouraged, leaving behind the dregs. The dregs contribute more stupidity and over time we have a “movement” consisting of people who almost exactly match the stereotypes of our opponents.
The only way to break the cycle is to be intolerant of past, present, and future dysfunction. The “giants” wasted countless piles of CASH and DINERO, they wasted years/decades of peoples’ lives, they caused chaos, and they delegitimized WN to people who otherwise would have been more amenable to it.
We do not stand on the shoulders of giants. We are trying to dig ourselves out of a hole created by pygmies.
Ted has nailed most of Rita Rabbit’s errors. Some of his excellent criticisms must be amplified.
Rita Rabbit in blockquote:
Not one I repeat ONE attempt at effective political organization took place after “Youth for Wallace” went under. Rockwell tried. Those who were supposed to carry the ball down the field – *cough* William Luther Pierce *cough* decided to explicitly avoid any attempt at political organization, despite his membership list being full of people asking him to do just that.
Harold Covington said it best. Paraphrasing the late Dr. Revilo Oliver, he said, “A century of failure is ENOUGH!” He’s right. Oliver’s quite was fifty years of failure is enough. Obviously, nothing effective happened between Dr. Oliver’s 1968 (?) article, and Mr. Covington’s recent commentary.
“Negative criticism” has been well-earned, and is well deserved.
“Give me money or I will dress up in NSDAP uniforms that are mismatched, and don’t fit my morbidly obese physique. And, my cousin will pit on his green satin bedsheet and pillowcase hood, and stand next t me as exemplars of White Nationalism.”
WNisn should be to the phase of cash on the barrelhead, and feet in the street. Having failed at either, much less both, believe me, Rita’s people could not “strategize” anything more sophisticated than the usual, pathetic “streetwalking,” where the police cast a blind eye to their being neutralized, and sent to emergency rooms.
Fine damn Aryan Warriors, they. They do a better job of advertising AGAINST us, than political representation, FOR us.
Easy.
Send money to counter-currents, monthly. The regularity is almost as important as the amount. Send it early, and send it often.
Have added you to the Blogroll: http://riseofthewest.wordpress.com/
Good luck with your efforts.
“…we must get over our infatuation with implicit whiteness.”
Reading this in 2020. America will be Balkanized because of your anti-white disgusting sentiments now openly preached by the cult of the Left. We will have 2 choices by 2028: Balkanize/Separate/Secede peacefully or by force. And for you laughing Leftists, it will not be like the 1860s. Think 1930s.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment