3,366 words
What exactly do they want?
You could understand if they were doing it for money. It’s easy to maintain revolutionary integrity in the midst of poverty, but there are few who wouldn’t be seduced by the promise of lifelong luxury and comfort. But they don’t really get that.
You could understand if it was for social status. The fabled “cocktail parties” and pomp of the elite are even more tempting than a fat bank account. But they don’t really get that either, and they are despised by the actual leaders of the culture.
You could understand if it was for power, or even the chance of power. Men will sacrifice almost anything for power, even family, love, or their most cherished ideals. But they don’t get that. They never actually get what they want. If anything, they aren’t even able to defend their own self-interest competently.
I understand the how. I don’t understand the why.
What makes your average movement conservative tick?
The mystery of the American conservative movement is critical to understanding the barriers to White Nationalism in the United States. Regardless of whatever ideological absurdities, theological blasphemies, or simple intellectual cowardice plagues the American Right, the objective reality is that the American conservative movement is the most well-funded, active, and coordinated Right-of-Center movement in the Western world. Furthermore, regardless of the actual principles it espouses, the hard reality is that the American Right has increasingly become the political movement of American whites, and so there is bound to be overlap between the conservatives of the past and whatever movement arises to represent white Americans in the future.
I take as a premise that most people reading this book are already predisposed to scorn American conservatives. They are right—conservatives should be scorned. That said, they should not be underestimated.
The average activist or functionary in the Beltway conservative movement is competent, somewhat intelligent, focused, dedicated, and, of course, white. Let us be brutally clear—the average conservative is more capable of political activism than the average White Nationalist. More importantly, they can organize, fund, and perpetuate institutions that at least nominally move their cause forward, even as white advocates are forced to the fringe.
At the same time, conservatives never seem to actually get anywhere. The America of today, with its vast entitlements, massive government spending, and crumbling “Judeo-Christian” culture is much worse by their own standards even after the “Conservative Revolution” of Ronald Reagan and the Revolution of 1994. Some of the more farsighted among them, like Pat Buchanan and Mark Steyn, even know this explicitly. Nonetheless, the only thing they can think of to do is vote for a Mitt Romney, who shows no signs of halting the decay and may even accelerate it. Even the most incompetent and cartoonish White Nationalist who somehow converts one other person to the cause has accomplished more than all of these multimillion-dollar foundations put together. The quest for a white ethnostate at least has the theoretical potential for victory. Conservatism doesn’t.
So why do they do it? Generally speaking, people join movements for one of three primary motivations: financial, ideological, or social. One of the most common criticisms of movement conservatives is that they are “in it for the money.” It’s true that many movement conservatives will actively restrain themselves from speaking certain truths or addressing certain topics for fear of losing their job. However, this isn’t really the same thing as “selling out.” Websites like Counter-Currents don’t require commenters to post their names and phone numbers. Under the glorious democratic regime, normal people have to lie in order to protect their livelihood.
The truth is that conservatism as a profession doesn’t pay very well. Sure, if someone is elected to Congress or runs a successful campaign, he might eventually make a great deal of money as a lobbyist or a consultant. However, most political activists lead terrible lives. The hours are long, the money is small or nonexistent, the food is terrible, and the influence is limited. You could run a brilliant campaign, only to lose at the last minute because of a gaffe or another person’s mistake, and you are always the one who is expendable.
Jobs with nonprofits aren’t much better, as they combine the work hours of a high-powered law firm with the average salary of a greeter at Walmart. Even for those who have the ambition, intelligence, drive, and luck to reach the heights, the salaries are nothing to those obtained by even young employees in investment banking or finance. To paraphrase what P. J. O’Rourke and many others have observed, the best minds on the Left go into politics while the best on the Right go into business. A conservative who pursues politics as a career for financial reasons is either absurdly confident, misinformed, or a complete idiot.
The second rationale, ideology, doesn’t have much more to offer most conservatives. True, a small number of conservatives are willing to make sacrifices and work for their beliefs even when there is no reward. Take a young activist like James O’Keefe, who used video journalism to bring down ACORN and expose voter fraud by the son of a sitting Congressman (one of the few, it should be noted, critical of America’s ties with Israel). O’Keefe is occasionally hailed as a hero by the conservative Right, but is also condemned by them when his stunts don’t quite work out. According to some reports, he is heavily in debt and fighting continuous legal battles—but, mysteriously, all those rich conservative donors haven’t helped him out even as he takes on such eminently kosher causes as proving that abortion providers are racist or that Democrats enjoy breaking election laws.
The vast majority of conservative activists seem to have a deep disquiet with actually seeking victory, with the possible exception of pro-lifers and libertarians. Pro-lifers are the one group of conservatives who are actually willing to be arrested for their cause. But the American pro-life movement holds to an even more radical egalitarian critique of American society than the liberals. White Nationalists have nothing to look for here.
Many of the grassroots libertarians are highly ideological and deeply dedicated. They have successfully developed a thriving subculture, complete with an internal economy. They operate both inside and outside of the system. They participate within the Republican Party and the conservative movement, but remain an independent force. They have their own overall Weltanschauung and institutions to meet activists at every level, from college students to serious academics.
Most of all, libertarians have a serious critique of the system, and they have something to say—as long as it doesn’t get them in trouble with the wrong people. No matter how radical they are, most libertarians are cautious to apply their rigid beliefs only to those issues that fit with Left-wing talking points. If confronted by cultural Leftists, they will switch positions, run away, or actively join the other side. They may oppose the System, but like the pro-lifers, they oppose it because it is not egalitarian enough on issue like immigration, race, homosexuality, or national identity.
Conservative Christians of all denominations may believe they are acting out God’s will on earth, but it is not a political version of holy war. Instead, the most militant evangelical Christians think God Himself will come down to sort out our affairs, and so our efforts will come to nothing. Insofar as they are passionately interested in the demographic situation of a nation, it is that of Israel, and a serious case can be made that evangelicals have evolved from worshiping a savior of Jewish blood to quite literally worshiping Jewish blood.
Many of the more hierarchical Christians such as Catholics or some of the Orthodox believe in their denominations, but in the bloodless modern way so as not to cause offense. Christianity is justified on the grounds that it led to modern liberalism. The actual tactics that were used to establish these churches go without defense. Insofar as there are movements seeking to re-establish Christian majorities, they are swiftly condemned. It’s telling that the legendary National Review columnist and fierce Catholic Joe Sobran was unceremoniously expelled from the movement for questioning Jewish domination, while anti-God crusader, enthusiastic blasphemer, and self-described man of the Left Christopher Hitchens was warmly welcomed even until his last days. While there might be the occasional joke about the Crusades or the Rapture, the God of the conservative Christians is either an invisible Republican Martin Luther King Jr. who lives in the sky, a Pope issuing a bull on the need for more democratic elections, or an Israeli Prime Minister.
Russell Kirk, the brilliant reactionary author of The Conservative Mind, famously defined conservatism as “the negation of ideology.” Instead, conservatism theoretically was an intellectual temperament with a mild partisan fixation. However, as “conservatism” became “Conservatism Inc.,” conservatism simply became a word, a party line imposed by a series of interlocking institutions from the top down, designed to create talking points to elect preferred candidates.
Insofar as there is an intellectual justification for conservatism, it accepts the American founding as part of a gradual progression towards egalitarianism after the so-called Enlightenment. The idea that the Enlightenment itself was problematic is outside the consensus. Conservatives see their mission as defending the existing system, with their dissent simply functioning as a way to make it more efficient. The difference between the American Right and Left seems to be that the former is willing to dragoon pre-modern institutions to better defend modernity, whereas the latter wants to extirpate traces of the traditional West altogether.
As Jonah Goldberg of National Review and Liberal Fascism writes, “[W]hatever our differences with American liberals may be, conservatives understand that our argument with them is still within the family. The fighting is intense, but we’re all trying to figure out what it means to live in this country bequeathed to us by the American Revolution and the Enlightenment.” It should be noted that for Goldberg, even Buchananism was too fascistic, because it hinted at a vision of an organic society.
American conservatism can’t win because it is enlisted in the defense of a System openly hostile to the traditional loyalties of its followers. Regardless of how degenerate, egalitarian, and fundamentally Leftist American society becomes, conservatism will shift to interpret it as the new normal. American conservatives lack a core coherent ideology to motivate them and somehow, at the same time, they deny the concrete realities of race, place, religion, and real nationhood in the name of an abstract proposition nation. It is the worst of all possible political movements. At a core level, it’s not just that conservatives don’t want to win—they don’t even know what victory would mean.
This leaves the final factor as the real secret of conservative identity—the social factor. As with all movements, the conservative movement provides its participants with being part of a shared experience, a common subculture, and a social network of friends and colleagues. This alone has a great deal of seductive power. Once a person joins the conservative movement, for whatever reason, he will be hesitant to do anything which will lead to expulsion from respectable gatherings. This has less to do with honest fear of the Left than it does with losing the respect of conservative colleagues.
While this is a necessary part of the explanation, it’s not sufficient. Modern conservatism, if it lacks a core system of beliefs, does contain certain vague feelings that are universally shared throughout the American Right. Chief among them is a sense of superiority among conservatives. This does not contradict the egalitarian ideology anymore than status-seeking SWPLs indulging in expensive sandwiches believe anything is awry with their behavior. Status seeking is universal among humans. It simply functions in perverted ways in ostensibly egalitarian societies.
Among Republicans, the devotion to capitalism and limited government operates not just as an economic platform, but as a social outlook. Even though the movement has manifestly failed to limit government in any substantive way, the insistence on seeing America as a meritocratic society gives Republicans a way to associate themselves with the successful. The fetishizing of “job creators,” Mitt Romney’s dismissal of the “47%,” and the vulgar, simplistic interpretation of Ayn Rand as the prophet of the capitalistic superman reflect this self-image.
The problem, of course, is that Republican functionaries don’t function in the business world. Teenagers with business cards, college students drinking scotch, and hacks making 20K a year wearing three-piece suits to the bar are an attempt to substitute the illusion of wealth and power for the thing itself. At the core of the Republican identity is the idea that “we still run this thing.” The liberal rage against the rich and the privileged actually feeds Republican glee. As long as they do not jeopardize their position, liberal hatred helps bind conservatives together and distinguishes the elite from the rabble. Even in Obama’s America, conservatives are forever the landed elites, pitying the vulgar mobs below.
Thus, conservatives accept the institutionalization of every new Left-wing victory. While they may complain about voter fraud, judicial activism, or mass immigration, the idea of championing a restricted franchise, nullifying laws, or recognizing identity based on ethnicity and culture is obviously unthinkable. After all, conservatives believe it’s their system.
Working hard and engaging in revolutionary political action implies that you don’t already control everything. As Saul Alinsky observed, one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue, and one’s distance from the scene of conflict. By considering themselves “above” smash-mouth politics because of the illusion of control, Republicans can avoid getting their hands dirty. The more pessimistic can console themselves that the world will not see their like again but still maintain the casual air of the upper class. To be a Republican is to simultaneously believe that the country is going to hell but that it is the greatest country that ever existed, and somehow, we will always be in charge.
It’s not that many Republicans aren’t politically incorrect behind closed doors—after all, even the castrati of the College Republicans were singing “Stomping Out the Reds” not long ago. It’s that being controversial implies that you have to get your hands dirty, rather than having an air of amused mastery towards your political opponents.
Thus, White Nationalists who look to conservatives as possible allies are sure to be disappointed. They will fight even more fanatically than Leftists to protect their American illusions. After all, most conservatives think revolution is by its very nature Left-wing. It’s therefore not surprising, but entirely logical, that Glenn Beck is opposed to Leftists because they could potentially lead to “Nazis like the Golden Dawn in Greece.”
Being a conservative Republican involves a very specific kind of self-glorification. The premises of the Left (democracy, equality, anti-racism) aren’t systemically challenged, but Republican activists believe they still control the System. The rhetoric about individualism, capitalism, and meritocracy provide a justification to ignore “collectivist” appeals to race and nation while glorifying the self. A revealing episode at the Conservative Political Action Conference involved the author discussing the British National Party with a group of American GOP and British Conservative activists. They were horrified by the BNP, not because the party was racist, but because it “supports the working class.”
It should be noted that many conservatives really do believe that everyone can succeed if they “work hard,” like the educator who claims that he won’t stop until every student in the country is “above average.” For example, even as Jesse Jackson Jr. stumbles through rehab, his Republican opponent (being crushed in the polls) says his primary goal is to have everyone move into the 1%, presumably starting with black urban dwellers. Of course, if one accepts this premise, it means that Republicans who associate themselves with success get to glorify themselves even more, as they “earned it.”
Less hypocritically than urban hipsters, conservatives have developed a way to show they are better than everyone else without actually having to adopt a systematic defense of hierarchy. Those nationalist appeals that are accepted are couched in rhetoric about democracy, equality, and “freedom.” An appeal in the name of racial loyalty, traditional identity, or collective action can be safely ignored as all of these efforts imply subordination to a greater collective good.
The Right’s fixation on American Exceptionalism is another exercise in self-deception, as the impulse for self-glorification is used to fuel chest-beating pride that America can defeat fascists and theocrats in the name of global democracy. In the end, Americanism itself becomes the real religion.
Even if the Left totally controls the country, they can still never be comfortable with any kind of patriotism. Regardless of how far the Long March proceeds in the United States, Leftists know the United States of America was built by and for the white race. The Right remains deliberately ignorant of historical realities, simply pretending that race doesn’t exist and that there were black Founding Fathers. It’s arguably more dangerous because it twists the natural impulses of patriotism, loyalty, and the striving for greatness into an ever-more irrational and conspiratorial ideology ever-more remote from what was good about this country.
To be a Republican offers the appearance of status, power, and responsibility without the reality. Like an unemployed black puffed up with pride because “our people” run his city of Detroit, Republican activists are a giant cargo cult of primitives who put the symbols of status before status itself. As the real America retreats from the immigration-inundated coasts, the culture collapses even in the Heartland, and the people demand an ever-greater welfare state, the Republican Party will continue to pretend they are defending their America.
Even Pat Buchanan, who has written book after book proclaiming the “Death of the West,” thinks Mitt Romney can save us. As Garet Garrett wrote, “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.” It’s worth noting that Buchanan also endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 on the grounds that he would give us conservative justices and that he simply could not align himself with the Democratic “tribe.” George W. Bush gave us the conservative John Roberts, who then saved Obamacare.
The businessman who cuts the checks to his alma mater that pay Left-wing faculty, the Republican frat boy who glories in his status even as his house is abolished because it’s not “inclusive,” the faithful churchgoer who wants to defend “Christian America” as they build a mosque in Murfreesboro, the Beltway defense intellectual who plots to maintain the military superiority of Barack Hussein Obama’s Praetorians and bomb those evil tsarist Russians—all share the belief that this is still their country, and that rest of us just live here. While College Republicans can fantasize that being in the GOP will help them bag Southern sorority girls, those girls are too busy sleeping with their black high school students, and there’s nothing that the supposed “white power structure” can do about it.
It’s tempting to say, “Power resides where men believe it does,” but that’s not entirely true. Power is concrete, not just an illusion, and sometimes the appearance of weakness is used to disguise the reality of the iron fist. The Left would have us believe that the United States of America is run by an ultra-conservative racist, sexist, patriarchal WASP ruling class that is constantly oppressing everyone. The American Right would have us believe that they are that class, but they are actually governing benevolently for the good of everyone. It’s a farce, of course, but it meets the psychological needs of both groups. In the twisted status competition of a nominally egalitarian society, the grassroots activists of the Republican Party are one giant “Wooden Titan” so committed to their fantasy of power they don’t even realize they have been dispossessed. American conservatism is social proof masquerading as a political movement, and it won’t end until we end it.
27 comments
Power is concrete, not just an illusion, and sometimes the appearance of weakness is used to disguise the reality of the iron fist.
Great line!
They will continue to talk about free markets and elections even when they have become cave morlocks squatting in the ruins of New York. The Democrats will be still be the Enemy, but now also Morlocks, fought with clubs instead of words. Will the pen still be mighter than the sword when the the ink is dry, there is no paper, and no one can read? It becomes merely a second class dart then.
Fascinating observation that Democrats often understand American History better than Conservatives – and they hate it. Solutions? No easy ones, just education about American History focusing on our talking points: created for Whites, Washington’s Farewell Address, etc. For some reason they have become obsessed with Lincoln lately – both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Spielberg is coming out with a movie about Lincoln being for Black Equality. Needless to say, this is a golden opportunity to do some damage.
This is a brilliant essay, which summarizes the major reasons why the “conservative” dead-end exists.
The question is – how can we use this innate human need for social interaction, belonging, the feeling of elite superiority, the whole social proof paradigm, to enhance the status of racial nationalism? This is something we need to think about, and Kurtagic has written about that to some extent.
I think the first step is to realize that the “defective” element in the “movement” is a major stumbling block. Unfortunately, the “movement” is so desperate for followers, so eager to hear validation, so happy to have “help,” that they’d accept virtually anyone and everyone who says the magical words: “I agree with you.”
Social proof works in both directions. When the System says that the “movement” is a bunch of defectives, this gives a ready excuse for the deluded conservatives to eschew real activism, since they are getting confirmation of their (self-interested) beliefs. The problem exists when a significant portion of the “movement” really are defectives – then the subject of the social proof scorn is in fact reinforcing the System’s propaganda.
When social proof gets confirmed by personal observation, the resulting reinforcement may be impossible to overcome. And this is one large reason why the defectives are so damaging – by confirming and reinforcing stereotypes, and by reinforcing social proof beliefs, they delegitimize racial nationalism at a level that is as much, or more, “irrational” than “rational.” So even when people realize the racial crisis, they’ll still stick with “conservatism.” After all, who wants to be associated with the likes of them? (meaning “us”).
Well, grass roots political organization shouldn’t be based on World War II and the Third Reich. It should focus on that which is visible in the present. I mean stuff like Sec. 8 housing, refugee resettlement of Third World primitives and other cans of worms that degrade the social and physical environments. Do it in a sophisticated manner and the only “defectives” who will show up will be those
sent over by the ADL/SPLC and/or various police agencies. My guess is that the best way to handle them would be to assign them an urgent task involving a mop or a broom.
Greg Johnson has pointed that the entire leadership of BOTH parties are often to left of the general membership, hence they often act against the interests of the public. I discussed that with a friend of mine. I showed him a letter I wrote to any Congressman. He read the letter, and said THATS the real reason our leadership of BOTH parties act against the interests of the public. Here’s the letter:
Dear Congressman/Senator,
The most common complaint I hear from friends and relatives and co-workers – i.e. the majority of the voters – real live people – is that the Congress “does not represent me ! [i.e. the living people of all walks of life]”
I wish to quote an item I found in “Corporism: The Systemic Disease that Destroys Civilization.” [ http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3310.htm ]
Long before the birth of the American Republic, the British crown adapted the corporation that was the form of ancient universities into a device to dominate British colonies throughout the world, including those on this continent. Through their “crown corporations” the Kings of England and their designated agents governed, taxed, and controlled the production and trade and skimmed off the profits of their colonial lands and subjects, enforcing their reign by military means. When our forebears revolted, defeated the British, and formed the United States, we also wiped out the King’s corporations. They ceased to exist here. That was part of what independence meant to our founding fathers.
By the time of our civil war, however, the “robber barons,” those famous, greedy, wealthy, ruthless American industrialists, had again found ways to establish device of British kings to their own aggrandizement. In court case after court case for almost a century and a half, corporation lawyers have refined and perfected the legal immunities and powers of these artificial, state-created, wealth-hoarding, irresponsible entities. Beginning in 1886, they prevailed upon the U.S. Supreme Court to grant them virtually all of the constitutional rights of citizens. This in effect allowed them to resume the role of their royal predecessors in ruling the country. In cahoots with their banks, huge corporations now control America’s body politic by reason of their bald-faced purchases of the three branches of the American government and America’s major media.
In consequence, by the beginning of the 21st Century the United States had ceased to function as a republic, much less as a democracy. These giant corporations, headed in most instances by members of an extremely wealthy elite group of multimillionaires and even billionaires, subvert healthy enterprise and true entrepreneurship. One percent of those at the top of the economic scale now have as much wealth as the bottom 95%, and the ratio keeps worsening. We humans, reduced to being “the non-corporate citizens” of the United States, retain only those rights and benefits that Corporate America allows us. Corporations in essence now elect and control our government, write virtually all its laws, and have control of the police, the courts, and the military.
This same Corporate America, ensconced now as “the only superpower,” through its foreign subsidiaries and the state-corporate world-governing instruments, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund, effectively controls the entire world. We Americans have come full circle in these past 225 years. We overthrew the British King’s corporate rulers in 1776, but now we suffer the domination of American corporate rulers who are also colonizing the rest of the world on behalf of themselves.
My questions to you:
Who do you represent – the voters ( living people ) who voted you into office ? Or corporations ( artificial entities )?
Do corporations (artificial entities) have a power to vote for the Congressional office? In other words, does one vote in any election represent one live person or one artificial entity?
If you represent living people who voted you into office, then why do corporations (artificial entities) have more say on issues in the halls of Congress than living people?
Would you listen to us “we the people” as living individuals or families more if we living individuals/families formed a “corporation”?
Looking forward to your informative reply.
Sincerely,
me: Nice letter. Regarding the claim of chucking out the British I Googled, “Americans that have been knighted” and found the following list. I don’t know what it means but there is still a connection between GB and USA that no other country has.
The following people are Americans that have been knighted:
Admiral Leighton W Smith Jr.
Alan Greenspan
Alfred J. Welsh
Andre Previn
Bill Gates
Bob Hope and Delores Hope
Caspar Weinberger
Charleton Heston
Colin Powell
Engelbert Humperdinck
George Bush, Sr.
Jerry Lewis
John Paul Getty II
Lynn Sandstedt.
Muhammed Ali
Norman Schwarzkopf
Peter Falk
Ricardo Montalban and Mrs. Montalban
Ronald Reagan
Roy Disney and Mrs. Disney
Rudy Giuliani
Steven Spielberg
” Tom Foley
Wellington Webb.
Wesley Clark
Having been working for three years for the French conservative movement, and having been visiting the major libertarian and conservative organizations based in Washington, D.C. for one month, I have to say that this is the most precise, true and ruthless portrait of the conservative movement that I have ever read. It’s even truer for Western Europe, where the conservative activist makes even less money, lives in a more expensive city compared to his income, with much less opportunities of White flight. And, still, I have never seen any revolt in my former “colleagues'” eyes. They were ready to serve a lazy MP 70 hours a week for a little more than 1000 euros a month (and I’m not exaggerating). Maybe there’s simply a part of plain masochism in their behavior?
Think of the religious devotion of a man or woman who would willfully and cheerfully abide by the strictest Rule of an Order in consecrated celibate life. Think of that kind and degree of devotion transposed here to the secular plane, a full suite of habits of the heart, but without legitimate object, nor even knowledge of the proper object of such devotion. Too many of us Westerners call such quixotic, after Cervantes’ Knight in Error.
I have been there. What I have to say in response to this article is that observing six decades of social change has convinced me that this country is beyond salvage. The Body Politic we colloquially call “Uncle Sam” is on his deathbed, raving in dementia. How does one relate to that?
We must sever the relentless stream of anti-White propaganda which is being directed at the masses of people through media and schools. That is the control mechanism which psychologically fuels everything from federal enforcers to apathetic laborors.
Some very basic tips for successful activism:
People usually talk to other people, a lot. Especially when they say they don’t.
Screen, screen and screen again. If a person screws up badly or is ill tempered, send them on their way. If the person is only participating because someone else is directing them or praising them, they are not serious about White Nationalism.
Serious activism should never be about how many “friends” you are admired by. One lone street activist who doesn’t need the credit for a specific action, is a more effective force than any number of attention seekers who need other people to know what they have done.
Whether you want street activists or article writers, you should ask a person who is seeking your advice, what they are willing to do on their own. Ask yourself that question too. (i.e. Without someone else’s knowledge, permission or guidance.) If they answer “I don’t know what to do.” or seem confused, you don’t need their services.
If you must, give them a low class job where they won’t be able to spy on your actions. Ask them to pass out fliers or write propaganda. Grade their work and let them know if they are making mistakes. If they are not suited to those jobs, send them on their way.
If they advocate for you to do anything illegal, TELL THEM TO GET LOST! Especially if they can do it on their own and better than you can do it. At best they are stupid; more likely they are trying to set you up or use you for their own purposes.
Anyone who is serious about White Nationalism is well aware of the consequences of getting mixed up with violent idiots who get a thrill out of playing Billy Bada**. White Nationalism is about saving the White race first. Whatever tactics need to be used to achieve that goal are secondary.
People who enjoy violence as a lifestyle ARE “the wrong crowd” to associate with. They make any movement they participate in look horrific in the extreme.
Be smart about whatever you do. Be steady much more often than hasty because you will have to act in haste at some point. You need to win many long run battles for every short run victory.
“People who enjoy violence as a lifestyle ARE “the wrong crowd” to associate with. They make any movement they participate in look horrific in the extreme.”
I fully concur. You have told more truth than you know, for what you have said is true in many more contexts than only this.
All good and well – except when the “achievements” of WN’s are compared favorably against the “achievements” of the conservatives:
Qute: “Even the most incompetent and cartoonish White Nationalist who somehow converts one other person to the cause has accomplished more than all of these million dollar foundations put together. The quest for a white ethnostate at least has the theoretical potential for victory. Conservatism doesn’t.” Unquote
Are you serious? That is nothing! And you even give some criteria of success which are completely at odds with this sentence: Money, Power and Social Status. True that the conservatives do not get much of it, but WN’s get even much less of it. According to those criteria WN’s are the most pathetic losers on the political scene by far.
But I doubt whether those criteria are the only ones which count. And one big difference between WN’s and conservatives is that WN analyse the situation they are in better than conservatatives. But I have to qualify this: Only those WN’s who see Jewish power as the main root of our problems can gain a truthful analysis of our problems. The others who for example see Whites as the victims of a cosmic cycle live in a fantasy world as well and there is not much to chose between them and conservatives in terms of truth.
And for those “(un)happy few” who get the problem right a question will arise: Will the “truth make us free”? I don’t see it at this point and the failure of the jewise Right after the Second World War is much to big to have much hope. Call me a defetist if you like. But I wouldn’t be too smug when I would compare myself with conservatives. We are both losers in the political field.
Converting one person to the truth which, if tried, would save our race, is a greater accomplishment than everything the conservative movement does, since conservatives fail by our standard of saving the race and by their own standards as well!
Sure, the conservatives enjoy more irrelevant perks than White Nationalists. But the point is that they are irrelevant. In terms of what really matters, Hood’s statement is correct.
As I have argued before, I do not think one can defend the claim that Jews are the sole or primary cause of our race’s downfall, but they now the primary controllers and beneficiaries of the present system, and they are the primary impediments to change.
Mr. Johnson, when you use the term ‘White Nationalism’ or plea to ‘save our race’, surely you are not referring to the needs of the average white person on the street, are you?
I assume what you mean is saving the historical totality of achievements made by the explicit or naturally occurring aristocracy within our race, not the white masses.
Certainly the white masses provide the genetic material and labor for building a decent society, but I hope the movement isn’t overly concerned with their economic or social welfare. I am aware that you cannot tell the white public this to their face.
You are mistaken. Read my essays “Notes on Populism, Elitism, and Democracy” and “Introduction to Aristotle’s Politics,” Part 1.
I do not think that the masses are merely a means to the ends of the elites. Truth be told, my views are closer to the opposite. I believe in the populist principle that the common good is the highest aim of politics and that social and political inequality are justified only by the common good of the body politic.
So I am an elitist, because I think that elitism, properly used, is good for the whole community. But when elites begin to rule for their own factional interest, they become a cancer in the body politic that needs to be removed. The intellectual, political, and economic elites of the white world are cancerous and need to be cut out and discarded, so we can put new, loyal elites in their place.
But my point was that converting one person to the truth won’t save our race. Sure, you can always fantasize, that the wings of a butterfly will cause a huge hurrican, but come on.
And I didn’t say that jews are the only cause of our decline but the main cause. And if someone doesn’t have a worldview wich acknowledge this fact he lives in fantasy world as conservatives do. And in the real world he gets less money, less status and less power than they do.
Mind you I don’t advocate giving up. But I think that Hood criticizes conservatives from the wrong angle, because this critique would be a huge bumerang if it would be applied to WNs themselves.
I think you are continuing to miss the point, Hood’s point and mine. Judged by superficial standards, Republicans are better than WNs. Judged by standards that matter, Republicans are failures. They fail even by their own standards, not just ours. Converting one person will not save us, but it is a step forward. And the longest journey begins with a single step.
I think WNists need to shift the terms of the JQ debate and decouple the JQ from the concept of “causation.” Linking the JQ to causation, debating to what extent Jews were “the cause,” creates too much confusion and muddles the issues. It gives enemies and confused nationalists an opening to say we were the cause, capitalists were the cause, etc. Whatever truth there is to those positions, and I agree there is some, putting the emphasis on them obscures the fact that Jews are the main impediment today. A good way to frame it might be Jews are the most immediate reason it’s impossible for Whites to make progress. Framing it in those terms would also smoke out the liars trying to divert attention from Jews by citing the reality of a complex historical and social picture.
There is always a left wing and a right wing in politics. The role of the left wing is to reign in the main power base of the country, while the role of right wing is to defend the main power base. The main power base is the race or ethnic group that establishes and maintains the dominant culture and economic and legal systems and defends the country if necessary on the battlefield. The main power base in Western countries is white people, and white males in particular. The problem with the right in the West is that it doesn’t acknowledge or realize whom it is supposed to be defending.
That’s the way a healthier society might work. But try this saying by Chesterton on for size: The function of Progressives is to make mistakes. The function of Conservatives is to conserve those mistakes.
Thus the Progressives have the real power and the Conservatives go along with them and pretend to conserve Tradition but really are always adjusting the people to the new normal until it’s time for the next set of changes by the progressives.
What Conservatives are really serious about and good at is conserving their portfolios.
But I agree with you that different WN’s will play different roles in the Movement. And beyond that, some disagreement is inevitable and even healthy. Something like what you describe is to be expected in any case.
Sandy posted a list of “americans that have been knighted”.It is a disgrace and insult to British history and all medieval nobility and warriors.It reminds me of ever-expanding list of “saints”of the churches or ” secular saints” .How low we have fallen.It is depressing.
The major advantage of WN is that it has a vision. It’s no surprise Jews and Masons have taken control because of their multi-generational outlook. Without this higher cause, people will only act toward their immediate interests no matter what lip service they pay.
I also agree with Lew regarding the murkiness/framing of this ’cause’ issue being a false question. Traditionally, all great societies/nations have risen as an anti-thesis to a particular enemy/system. It doesn’t matter what the ‘blame’ percentages are, as if we are going to have some white Utopia if we just analyze the issues.
If anything, we should demonize the enemies even more so. This is the only tactic that sufficiently galvanizes a people. It would be better to consider the J as an ideological enemy instead of blaming them on a ‘personal’ level… which seems like an egalitarian trap.
eg. Jews are neither good or bad, it’s simply their ideology which is destructive to our cultural survival.
A great essay. Although not emphasized, there is the factoid of Republicans/conservatives who truly believe that the 47% who are blacks and browns and don’t pay taxes really will ultimately become conservatives/republicans themselves and vote RP somewhere down the road. Ditto for the masses of others of color who will be entering the USA in the scores of millions in coming years. I.e. RPers see a future for themselves. They probably envision a black or brown republican benevolently ruling America. Cain – the groper of white female subordinates – came fairly close, did he not?
What is nice about that belief is that it fits within the non-racial parameters of the political system. The fact that hispanics living here are more concerned about the economy than about ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ buttresses the idea, but it doesn’t reflect how they ultimately vote. Blacks who are jobless at a rate of 14% will still vote skin color even though it may mean the 14% growing to 20% or beyond. They instinctively sense that deep wthin all this, race is the ultimate factor of importance.
I really liked the article. How about expanding it into a book, i.e. an all-out analysis of the American political system?
Greg Johnson wrote:
> …Converting one person will not save us, but it is a step forward. And the longest journey begins with a single step. <
Over the years I know I have converted quite a few people and influenced a lot more. But I think what is dispiriting is that for every individual converted or influenced, perhaps 10,000 subhumans enter the United States and 10,000 more of them are spawned here. It is the numbers that gets one down…
Let's say that ultimately we have the overwhelming majority of white people here who are converted and finally at long last think and act intelligently along racial lines. But then they are a tiny minority of say 5% in a vast ocean of mud – a minority virtually enslaved by the ocean, still paying all the taxes and having to give up everything else to the ocean. I mean, where else can all this be going?
I am not trying to be defeatist here, it's just that this is surely the inevitable direction we are travelling. Barring some great unforeseeable catastrophe or upheaval before then?
Joseph Bishop in blockquote:
Great question, and one that has been addressed, in good part, by a Mr. Harold Covington, in his temporal bridge to the temporal foundation of the proper metapolitical order, the Northwest Republic.
A proper metaphor might be found in Singapore. Lee’s biography lays out in great detail how the proper cultural foundation made it possible for the dispossessed Malaysian Chinese to build a remarkable city-state (useful term to remember!) in the midst of a flood of open hostility. Lee was truly Cicero in his idea of a few laws, strictly (and fairly) enforced. That wrks, when all of the members of the society share identical values, and come from an uncommon section of a common culture.
In any game of numbers, we lose. But look where we are today. The minority that we are in the world creates all of the value, and all that is properly valued, in the world. As a rule, no one wants to move to the countries that are sending their dispossessed to us.
From the spiritual foundations of Culture, and thus, Civilization, we can clearly see that, given time and space without meaningful interruption, quality prevails, ten for ten. As to the Reconquista in America, or the transformation of London to Londonistan, note the astute observation of Tom Metzger, who saw the situation in the cold, clear light of biological imperatives: All they are doing is action as the eaters of carrion they are. When the living stop growing, when anabolism is overtaken by catabolism, room is present for those who live of the dying, and the dead. From the perspective of the student of ecological dynamics, it is nothing personal.
“Inevitable direction(s)” are inevitable until someone looks down the road, and sees the need for a course correction. New directions are defined, and new courses laid in.
This is why Harold Covington’s Idea – and Ideal – of a Northwest Republic, a White ethnostate, calls all of us to try to act in our personal lives AS IF we are living in such a state, in microcosm. From that foundation, we can derive solutions to personal and collective issues that can be creatively, and effectively resolved, in the light of what is best of the us, and our Posterity – the Race.
You are not being “defeatist.” You are being a “realist,” but it is incumbent upon us to form the foundation of the next Cultural Reality, starting where we are. That way, anabolism defeats catabolism, ten for ten.
Conservatives lose because conservatism- “respectable” conservatism, that is- is defined by jews, and they define it so that it can only be a failure. Whites who adhere to conservative ideals don’t realize this.
On the JQ I suspect that the absence of Jews in the late 1800’s was the reason the white working class was able to put an end to East Asian immigration. By 1910 there were too may Jews here pushing for immigration.
I believe that America will break up the way the Soviet Union did, and at about the same time or a little sooner. When whites are no longer the majority the situation will force it.
The mass of “minorities” will not be able to restrain themselves from looting the product of the whites, and the politicians of what ever hue will not be able to resist the voting blocks pushing for more “minority” privilege. The white minority will be said to benefit from a residue of historical “white privilege.”
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.