Why Romney Must Lose

^[1]2,589 words

Worse is not necessarily better ^[2]. Obama’s re-election is a defeat for white advocates. A successful black President will restructure the entire country along anti-white lines. And despite all of this—Mitt Romney must lose. 

White advocates should understand at the beginning how desperately weak our position really is. We do not have the numbers to appeal to either major political party on a national scale. White Nationalists are also incredibly divided when it comes to political action—the price of being independent thinkers against the egalitarian ideology of the regime. We are perhaps the one constituency in the entire country that a politician can safely dismiss and even openly insult, saying “I do not want your support.”

Nonetheless, Gregory Hood’s first rule of White Nationalism remains true: the farther away a figure is from White Nationalism, the more likely White Nationalists are to sense sympathy or even quiet agreement. If one is so inclined, you can craft a semi-plausible case about how Romney is secretly on “our” side or how Barack Obama is at least “more independent of Israel.” That said, let’s not kid ourselves that we have any real impact on this election or a potential secret friend in the Oval Office. As a community, we are too divided, too marginalized, and simply don’t have the numbers. The only reason we should care about this election at all is because of the impact it will have on our own organizational efforts. The only question we need to ask is, “Is it good for white advocates?”

Let’s start with the idea that Obama’s re-election is actually an unqualified good thing for White Nationalism ^[3]. It’s certainly true that Obama’s first term has been a bonanza for white racial awareness. Most observers conclude that “racism” is rising among American whites ^[4], or more accurately, whites are becoming increasingly impatient with liberal excuses for black dysfunction ^[5]. The initial promise that Barack Obama would be a “post-racial” President that could unite the country has already collapsed in ruins. The Obama regime has created the rise of the implicitly white and tactically populist Tea Party Movement and fueled an increasing radicalization of American conservatives. It’s tempting to simply say that we want this process to continue and that we should favor Obama’s second term for tactical reasons. Worse is better, right?

However, there will be formidable costs. If Barack Obama is defeated, America’s first black President will go down as a failure, and there will be riots and disorder that will accelerate the fraying of this failed experiment we call the United States. If he is re-elected, barring some completely unforeseen disaster, he will go down as the liberal Reagan ^[6], a successful President who killed Bin Laden, passed his signature health care law, and pulled the country out of recession. Regardless of predictions that “the Collapse” is nigh, the economy is improving (albeit slowly), and there is no reason to doubt that this will continue in the short term. While Americans may find it difficult to adjust to the new normal of high unemployment, adjust they will, and Republicans will find it difficult to attack Obama’s record unless the country relapses into an actual recession.

Make no mistake—this is a defeat for whites, and will be interpreted as such. Even more than in 2008, blacks will see this on tribalist grounds as a triumph over their enemies. It opens the door for Obama to be introduced into the pantheon of great American Presidents like FDR or Lincoln, and the controlled media will do its best to create a mythology that will put Kennedy’s Camelot to shame. Psychologically, it will be sickening.

With these costs in mind, it would be more than justified for white advocates to compromise and vote Republican if there was even a chance to limit the damage. It’s easy to imagine hypothetical scenarios in which a Republican victory could fuel a renewed push towards a populist Right. Even anti-white mainstream political parties can inadvertently legitimize new viewpoints and fuel new political movements. This was the case following Republican presidential victories in the 1980s, when Pat Buchanan commented that “the largest vacuum in American politics is to the right of Ronald Reagan.”

One of the more divisive debates in the history of the white advocacy movement took place during the 1992 Republican primaries, which featured Pat Buchanan and David Duke as candidates. Representative Duke used the usual tactics of fringe candidates, trying to embarrass Buchanan into associating with him, leading to scenes where Pat Buchanan literally ran away so he wouldn’t be caught in a photograph. Obviously, to those opposed to white genocide, Pat Buchanan was acting like a coward.

That doesn’t matter. If Pat Buchanan had won the GOP nomination and the White House (without Perot running to screw over George H. W. Bush, he would have), it would have fueled a new surge in patriotic activism at a time when it could have made a difference. Buchananite officials would have taken key positions in the Party. Elected officials would be forced to attack free trade, immigration, and cultural Marxism out of party loyalty. Everyone would know what issues and impulses were behind his rise, and they would move to exploit them. Even though Buchanan’s policies were preferable to George H. W. Bush’s (or Bill Clinton’s), the more important effect is that it would have fueled further movement to the right. He wasn’t a safety valve—he was gasoline on a fire.

In contrast, what would Mitt Romney lead to? Even his supporters don’t really know what Mitt Romney believes about critical issues. He has run an oddly defensive campaign for a challenger, seemingly pinning all of his hopes on the poor economy. He has offered no positive vision for what he would do as President and has managed to antagonize the very white working-class voters in the Midwest (the Reagan Democrats) that would propel him to an easy victory.

The one constant of Mitt Romney’s political philosophy is the redistribution of wealth to the rich. His running mate’s brilliant idea is cutting Medicare payments that disproportionately benefit elderly whites—the one welfare program whites really benefit from. At a time when there is a real opening to mobilize against the parasitical bankers that have ripped apart the Western world, the Republican Party is offering us a parody of a vulture capitalist.

A Romney victory would be catastrophic on several fronts. Putting the equivalent of the Monopoly guy in the White House would be a massive shot in the arm to the Occupy movement and other elements of the activist Left. Leftists have done an excellent job of policing themselves to ensure that street opposition to the banks is monopolized by activists firmly committed to Left-wing social causes, open borders, and anti-white animus. While this has limited their appeal, with a corporate stooge in the White House they will be able to frame themselves as the populist alternative to a corrupt system. The result would be a re-energized Left, from the halls of Congress on down to the lowest antifa.

Romney’s policies, like those of George W. Bush, would actively punish and dispossess his own base. It’s not clear that Romney actually is the “lesser evil.” An emphasis on finance capital and an indifference to white workers would exacerbate the class divisions ripping apart American whites.

Romney’s swift adoption of the Chamber of Commerce position for unlimited cheap labor suggests that restrictionist Republicans would once again face the threat of national suicide at the hands of their own party. A Republican House is likely to dig in its heels against Obama’s plan to ram through amnesty. A President Romney would actually be more likely to win over Republican defectors to join with the Democrats to deliver the death blow to white America.

That said, let’s be honest—even if Obama is still the President, amnesty may be a fait accompli. There may be enough Newt Gingrichs and Jeb Bushes this time around to join the Democratic push for dispossessing the historic American nation. Amnesty will be the final nail in the coffin for any Republican presidential aspirations. It is critical that there is a black face on this action and that it is interpreted in racial terms as an aggressive act against “racist” whites. If Republicans do it, it will be simply be seen as a strategic mistake.

The most commonly advanced argument is the most unconvincing. After the fiasco of Chief Justice John Roberts, it should be embarrassing to suggest that whites should vote for Republicans in order to get “good judges.” While Republicans have to pick judges who carefully refrain from expressing themselves on anything and then read the tea leaves to hope they are conservative, Democrats casually nominate their “wise Latinas” and activists from the ACLU. Republican-nominated Justices like David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor would carefully look for legal rationales to preserve programs like affirmative action, whereas Justices like Ginsburg and Sotomayor casually toss aside whatever stands in the way of their policy preferences. After a half century of catastrophic judicial activism starting with the Warren Court (Earl Warren being nominated by the Republican Dwight Eisenhower), we simply don’t have time for these games anymore.

Despite the claims of an “elected dictatorship,” the President does not have independent freedom of action on domestic policy. Foreign policy should be far more important in the choice of a President. Here, Romney is not even close to the lesser of two evils, but is far worse. A Romney Administration would mark the return of the neoconservatives who have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

The Obama Administration has overseen the transformation of the Middle East from generally pro-American (or at least easily bribed) autocrats into democratically elected paladins of the Muslim Brotherhood. Amazingly, Romney manages to simultaneously criticize the Obama Administration for allowing this process to occur while also saying he’s not moving fast enough. He condemns Egypt’s conquest by the Muslim Brotherhood but thinks we need to “do more” in Syria to achieve the same result.

Romney has also been boasting of his fealty to the Jewish state. A Romney presidency would accomplish the neat trick of increasing radicalization in the Muslim world, antagonizing Islamic populations through rampant interventionism and servility to Tel Aviv, and blowing American lives and treasure in adventures that make the country less secure. Once again, Americans will be sent to die for people who hate them. Romney would scoop out the worst filth of the Obama and Bush foreign policies, combine them, and unleash it on the world.

The worst part is that a President Romney would co-opt the frustrated patriotism of Middle Americans into supporting these pointless quagmires. With President Obama, there is at least an opening to argue that foreign interventionism is actually targeted against Middle America. The current cold war between the Navy SEALs and the Obama Administration is a key division white advocates would be wise to exploit. We want to encourage the idea of a Dolchstoß, a stab in the back of brave patriots by a civilian leadership that despises them. It also happens to be true.

However, with President Romney, Middle Americans would support these interventions and unleash another wave of pointless false patriotism. Worst of all, the primary target of a Romney Presidency would be Russia, our number one geopolitical foe. In its dying gasps, the might of the American Empire would be marshaled to destroy what little white anti-system resistance remains against the global order of liberal capitalism. Much like under George W. Bush, the Left would be free to exploit popular anger against wasteful foreign wars. Instead of a populist uprising against an exploitative anti-white system, we would see a rising Left mobilizing against the racist, patriarchal Empire of white supremacist religious extremist Mitt Romney.

This is the heart of the issue. If white advocates are to triumph, we have to become the popular opposition to the ruling system. It’s not just what policies are followed, it’s about how they are interpreted. If Romney is President, it once again forces the white advocacy community into a reactionary stance, defending the corrupt American ruling class and its financial masters against an anti-white Left with renewed revolutionary élan. Unlike a President Pat Buchanan, Mitt Romney would generate no momentum to the revolutionary Right. Instead, he would gradually retreat, apologetically, embarrassingly, on all of the issues that are important to us. His only strong stands would be in defense of his old colleagues at institutions like Bain Capital.

Emotionally, of course I want Romney to win. Of course it will be sickening to watch the celebrations on MSNBC or in the college towns around the country. The aforementioned costs are real. However, we must remember that the United States of America has already been lost. We can no longer afford to read into things what we wish to exist, rather than what actually is there.

Worse is not always better, but in this case it is. We have no alternative to offer anyone at this time. Our enemy is this system. Therefore, our best bet is for this system to be revealed for what it is—a parasitical institution dedicated to destroying white communities and degrading the best in humanity for the benefit of exploitative plutocrats and twisted culture distorters. A friendly white face doesn’t change anything.

Even if, under the most sympathetic reading, Mitt Romney does want to help, there is nothing in his career or life to suggest that he will actually do anything to actively oppose the Left-wing forces arrayed against him. When this system fails, we have to be sure it is identified with the right people and that the right people get the blame.

We have to delegitimize the regime, and most white people vote for the Republicans. Therefore, we want to encourage the idea President Obama’s government is an occupier. This is already happening. Birtherism is the desperate attempt of conservatives to believe in constitutionalism and Americanism without having to draw racial conclusions. Soon, even this thin reed will be taken away. If Obama is re-elected after months of a triumphant victory narrative among Republicans, many will believe that the election was stolen ^[7]. Reports of bussed-in Somalis ^[8] swinging the vote, corrupt political machines in major cities ^[9], and threats of black riots are all to the good ^[10]. A situation in which Mitt Romney wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote would be even better.

White Americans need to understand that they can’t elect their way out of this crisis; that it is literally no longer possible. They need to understand that it is the System itself that is against them, and readings of the Constitution won’t save them.

This doesn’t mean Republicans are irrelevant. It doesn’t mean third parties are irrelevant. It doesn’t mean partisan democratic politics are irrelevant. They are all relevant insofar as they lead people to us. What it means is that we have to craft an independent force to save our race and advance our ideas and policies.

This election is not our fight. We have to engage in politics on our own terms. Even mainstreamers should dedicate their time and talents only to movements and figures that can lead to greater things, not sacrifice for people who will continuously retreat from the day they are elected.

No one else will do it. It will take everything we have to save ourselves. We shouldn’t dedicate anything we have, even our votes, to saving our enemies.