Jacques-Louis David, “Napoleon Crossing the Alps,” detail, 1805
1,670 words
Conservatism is Unrealistic
The Republican Party is useless as a political force. The key battle was not the presidential election of 2012 but the passage of Barack Obama’s health care plan. All of the disparate factions of the American Right joined together to oppose “Obamacare,” and they failed, miserably. Instead of Obama’s Waterloo, as then Senator Jim Demint promised, it was his Austerlitz.
Obama is now cruising into his second term with a Democratic Senate and a compliant media at his back. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is leaderless and rudderless, Jim Demint quit the Senate so he can make money scamming old people for Conservatism Inc., and the Indian-American Republican governor of South Carolina appointed an unqualified black guy so the media won’t call the GOP racist. The next day, a leading political website reported that the Republican Party’s main problem is that it is racist.
If it was not already clear, it should be clear now – there is no longer anything realistic about believing the conservative movement can achieve any of its stated goals. Conservatives frustrated with racial double standards on affirmative action, official multiculturalism, mass immigration, and political correctness are already used to contemptuous treatment by the Republican Party and “the movement.” However, even kosher conservatives worried about limited government, tax cuts, or deficit spending have nothing to look forward to. John Boehner has kept from sobbing and tanning long enough to cave on discussions for the “fiscal cliff,” and nonwhites favor greater government spending by even larger margins than they support immigration liberalization.
The brilliant Republican “consultants” who spearheaded the fearless and inspiring campaigns of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 are already hastening to sound retreat on guns, perhaps the one issue where the conservative movement has actually accomplished some good. What we are witnessing is the wholesale surrender of the conservative movement. The model to follow is therefore David Cameron’s conservatives, which changed their logo from a torch to a cartoon tree, is furiously attacking to the right, and is even supporting “anti-fascists.”
None of this should be surprising – conservatism has never won, conservatives don’t want to win, and arguably the movement has been specifically designed in order to lose. In response, secession is once again mentioned in the political conservation, especially in Texas and the states of the Old Confederacy. While this is nothing really new (remember all the talk about seceding from “Jesusland” after Bush 2004?), what is new is the celebration of Barack Obama as symbolic of a new, non-white, and most importantly, explicitly anti-white America. Just like Hollywood, the political class is ripping off the mask and is increasingly comfortable with overt pronouncements that white people should be dispossessed, disarmed, and destroyed. We only have to look to South Africa to see what a “modern, democratic” nation can do once the demographics have shifted.
Whatever the triumphalism of the liberal scribblers, this isn’t some “new America.” It’s not America at all. It’s not even a country. It’s just some Third World freak show that rolls on and on, careening wildly from one disaster and humiliation to another.
More importantly, this is likely the best it is ever going to get. There is no possibility spending will be restricted and the burgeoning debt reduced. There is no possibility that illegal immigration will be stopped. There is no possibility that the vast system of funding for anti-white activists will be cut. It’s only going to get worse, and whites increasingly know it.
Secession and State Power
If pussyfooting around with conservatism is no longer an option, even theoretically, secession becomes the last quasi-legal hope for those opposed to unlimited liberal control. Secession cannot be simply the cry of a party out of power, or a frustrated grassroots, or a sign of cultural alienation. It’s the only way out, and it’s more realistic than donating to Rand Paul, vainly hoping that someday he’ll cut foreign aid.
That said, secession can’t just be the only way possible to achieve conservative policy goals. It is, of course, but that isn’t the point. The goal should not be to simply create some corporate utopia where workers can be casually exploited and disregarded. Not only would such a state be nightmarish, but the lust for cheap labor would promote mass immigration, and the pattern would simply repeat itself.
It also can’t just be independence in name. A new state carved out of the federal Leviathan can’t just be another colony of the banks with a pointless flag. Though the financiers are powerful, their control is not infinite. Iceland shows that a state can defy the Masters of the Universe and prosper without being crushed by some mysterious legion sent by the House of Rothschild.
The reason for secession is that we as a people need some kind of mechanism to propel forward positive societal change, financially, culturally, and demographically. This requires state power. Let us have no illusions about “individual freedom,” or “limited government,” or “constitutionalism.” Every negative individual choice made in this country, from the children ripped away from a father, to the white workers thrown out of a job, to the women murdered on the street in yet another “random” attack, is partially the product of an entire system pushing its desired outcomes. A healthy, moral life becomes more difficult every day and will eventually become impossible, and the people making it so know exactly what they are doing.
To reverse this requires force. Let us be clear – we want a state in order to use force to create a superior way of life for our people and protect them from their enemies.
What a white ethnostate can do is transcend Left and Right and reconcile the better elements of our warring parties into an actually functional society. Whatever else one may say about them, one of the most thrilling aspects about the novels of Harold Covington is its portrayal of the mundane details of a white ethnostate. An armed populace and disarmed police, efficient and environmentally friendly mass transportation, healthy food rather than mass produced garbage, intact families living happily in mortgage free houses, and quality goods produced by hard workers paid high wages are the kinds of goals that we can all understand and that are worth fighting for. Even the cultural changes he describes, from revitalized heathen and Christian religious movements, to the return of courtly dating, to fashion that promotes dignity rather than degradation – are only possible if whites are able to carve out a space for themselves.
What Paul Kersey has termed Black Run America is not capable of making the trains run on time or preventing Negroes from attacking people or even throwing their own feces. It certainly can’t do anything about mending the social fabric. Progress towards an even tolerable society requires ripping this monstrosity out of the muck, and placing it, by force, on a different track.
State power allows whites to recapture the sense of building a society, “progressivism” in its best sense. It allows us to create a feedback loop of positive action constantly generating further advances. Today, we are stuck defending the rotting inheritance of our forebears, grimly waging a slow retreat and consoling ourselves we’re making them pay for every step. To break out of that system requires breaking this system.
None of this can happen without a state. All other tendencies and activity – metapolitics, cultural societies, spiritual movements, writing, teaching, politics – are means to the end of a truly sovereign white ethnostate. I am a rebel and an anarchist in this society, because it is beyond reform, and attempting to save it from itself is sick and immoral. I am a pillar of the community in the White Republic of the future.
All societies have hierarchy and compulsion. The only question is what kind of compulsion do we want. With intelligence – and compassion – we can build a society that fits with the best elements of human nature so the hand of government is lightly felt. A sovereign state doesn’t mean an intrusive one. Given minimal support or even benevolent neglect, whites will build good societies. Even with all the forces of the tyrant aligned against them, whites are still doing the best they can, carving out a piece of heaven here and there amidst the malevolent carnival that used to be their country.
However, recognizing this doesn’t mean all white advocates have to do is throw off the yoke and then do nothing. We must set a deliberate direction for culture and society through specific government policies.
If you want strong families, you have to reform family and marriage law and create economic policies that reward good choices. If you want quality education, you have to put through policies that recognize that not everyone should be going to college and that real skills and real curriculum should be taught both at a trade school and at a liberal arts university. If you want responsible financial management by families as well as by government, you need policies that reward saving rather than constant consumption. If you want a white ethnostate to stay white, you can’t just bar nonwhite immigrants and yell racial slogans – you have to create a system that prioritizes quality products over plastic junk and skilled labor over dull-eyed helots.
All this can only come from the top. All of this requires force and state power.
Secessionists and white nationalists have to get real and get together. It’s not about petitions, protest, or proscribing certain actions of the government. It’s not about returning to a Constitution that either is working as intended (and therefore sucks) or failed (and is therefore useless). It’s about acquiring power and using it for meaningful, beneficial ends. We will use state power to make a better life for our people at the ground level and promote the upward development of the race. All the rest is a distraction.
32 Comments
Another excellent article by Mr Hood.
Nothing is more baffling than conservatives and libertarians obsession with ‘the state’. They speak of it as if it were a conscience entity in itself. In reality, it is nothing more than a tool, a necessary tool, that is as benign or malignant as who wields it. Being unable or unwilling to confront those who control the state or their agenda, conservatives instead prefer to simply joust with the windmill of ‘the state’.
It was the “state” – monarchs, parliaments, nobles, presidents, legislators, and military autocrats addicted to privilege, wafare, and domination – that sold our ancesters and their descendents into the bankers’ web of debt-slavery. Without a coercive taxing authority with a legitimized monopoly on armed violence, bankers would have no ability to impose irredeemable debt-money on the common folk and to collect usury therefrom. Without the state’s active complicity, the central banking cartel could not exist. Libertarians and conservatives, as were most of our founders and as WN’s should be, are right to be deeply suspicious of highly concentrated political power.
That’s their state. The only thing that can save us from their state is our state. There is simply no way that a small, relatively powerless state or a non-state can fix the problems we face. Libertarianism, conservatism, and anarchism are simply not serious political philosophies. They are just diversions to keep those who might be inclined to resist distracted and sandboxed until it is too late.
The Los Angeles Times pointed out Obama has no reason to compromise on guns. The Obama coalition is blacks, Latinos and other non-Whites, enthusiastically supported by White liberals and Conservative Inc. and led by Jews. Millions of White liberals are lined up on the other side. Over the last week, I have come to hate them The Obama coalition has the numbers on its side going forward. Also, because of gerrymandering, there are few competitive districts left in the country. For the last 18 years, Democrat strategists have theorized that Bill Clinton’s AWB cost Al Gore the 2000 election. The theory, until now, has been that gun control hurts Democrats in rural districts. Now, this factor is irrelevant because most Democrats hold “safe” seats.
They are going hard at “assault weapons” (a propaganda term but leaving that aside), with semi-autos next on their list. Of course, these weapons are rarely used in crimes, and virtually never by the legal, registered owner. Not that they care. Banning assault weapons is at the very top of their list because of who buys them.
If the goal is to protect schools from crazy, deranged killers, the NRA has a sensible proposal. Do what we do in every bank: post armed guards. Instead, they want to disarm white male gun owners, starting with the group they perceive as the biggest threat, the semi-autos community. Posting guards makes sense if protecting kids is your real agenda; it’s not their real agenda. This is obvious.
We know the top conservative leaders don’t get energized for any issues other than killing rag heads for Israel and transferring wealth to the top .01%. Otherwise, they roll over after feigning putting up a fight.
So, what we have here is a non-white/Jewish coalition and black president working to disarm one of the most responsible and law-abiding segments of the country. Conservative white men (rank and file not elite).
They are pushing for everything at the Federal level, of course, to de facto nullify all state-level gun laws: Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, Concealed Carry, everything a white person needs for self-defense in a multi-racial world. I would expect any Congressional votes to unfold along Hunter Wallace’s pattern: overwhelming support for gun control in the North and Far West, with Red State flyover country marginalized. The federal courts will quickly dispose of any legal challenges.
When I argue the race angle on mainstream blogs, the hate comes back fast and hard, usually from white liberals. “White men mistreated non-whites for a long time! Cry me a river!” (an actual response I got).
This hate, this vindictiveness, this triumphalism, we have got to find a way to turn this to our advantage. Somebody ought to start keeping a database of these quotes, with screen caps and saved video clips, and we need to figure out a way to get them in front of white male cops, recent veterans and their familes.
Nicely put!
RE documenting liberal triumphalism: start saving examples to a file. We’ll come up with something.
If some major form of federal gun control legislation were passed, this would really galvanize the secession movement, needless to say. A sad case of worse is better, this.
Black columnist Leonard Pitts said “Cry me a river” when white activists were raising awareness of the Christian-Newsom murders.
Austin restaurant owner Eddie Nimibutr wrote on facebook “I don’t care if a bunch of white kids got killed. F*ck Post-Racial bullshit.” (This was the day of the Newtown shooting.)
Those are all I can think of right now. These kind of comments would be more prevalent if the mainstream media addressed anti-white crimes above the local level.
Amazing article!
I appreciate that the thrust of this essay is to point to the need for secession of some state or states in order to have a government protecting white interests. Nobody here would disagree with such a concept. This call first went out in the early 1970s with Wilmot Robertson’s ‘Ethnostate’ essays – followed by his book of that title – but so many questions abound here. America is structured to avoid this kind of extremity, and certainly what was accomplished in the mid-19th century is not possible anymore.
To secede you need enough popular support to elect people to office at local levels and upwards, and enough of them to get their sh*t together to majoritize the idea in a legislature or legislatures plural, then also enough support nationally in the form of a majority in congress and a White House occupant who won’t oppose it, veto it, crush it with troops, smash it with a compliant judiciary…
I can only wonder how many methods and tricks are available at the national level to frustrate something like this. What the US Constitution allows or disallows is not relevant anymore, since no one in the executive, legislative, of judiciary branches gives a flying rat’s ass for that guiding document. Even the most far-left racist ideologues like Obama recognize that whites are needed everywhere in order to pay endless taxes to support the parasitic ‘47%’ (soon to be 55%, 70%, 82%, 97%…) mud populations who don’t work and don’t pay taxes. Letting them migrate into some ethnostate is not an option for them. The idea is to have whites around be controlled and milked a la a dairy herd, or for target practice, or sexual playthings…
As was pointed out above, if via a string of miracles a state or state did actually secede – and this is only put forward as a what-if scenario – and as was pointed out above – the problem of the whole mud immigration invasion repeating itself is itself overwhelming. Structuring borders that are defensible and keeping out cheap labot… most white employers and even the most racist onces would welcome cheap labor of any color. Conservatives would emotionally welcome black and browns who claim to have similar views, miscegenation would not stop, economic issues superceding all, I just do not know where to start with all this.
The white homeland idea is great, it is wonderful, it represents a fine dream to indulge, to inspire hope, and a tool with which to escape reality. Visualize thousands, millions, of whites abandoning the darkened states and moving to the new bastion of white strength. For every white nationalist moving into an envisioned homeland area – if there are any at all – there are thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of blacks and browns already entering the same places. How is one to reverse those numbers? I mean realistically?
The question of how to accomplish any of the above, when it is no longer possible to elect a dogcatcher on our side, anywhere, anywhen, is something I must be missing. Perhaps I am just not seeing some things here or am too pessimistic or defeatist – or simply firmly grounded in reality?
As it is now, there is a single person in any statehouse in the nation, or in congress who is explicitly and forthrightly white racialist to take up a cause like that. Or put another way, there is not a single individual in any such entity who not oppose such a thing. And that is before we even get to talking about the influence of mass media and all other entities of opinion formation.
Then there is the issue of race-conscious whites relocating to this new paradise. Today if you put them all together, you could perhaps populate a small town somewhere. If you put all the polically ACTIVE white nationalistls together, perhaps a small village if not a single hut. The numbers of blacks and browns and interracial couples seen in a single WalMart at any given time of day, already exceeds even the most optimistic projections of white nationalists resettling somewhere. There is no state anymore without a rapidly growing black and brown popuation that vastly excels in numbers and growth all active white nationalists put together everywhere on the globe.
Ok. But it has to be done. These formulas have come forth perhaps hundreds of times over the past half century or so, but rarely with any sort of plan attached thereto, and most certainly never with any workable, practical, promising plan.
I agree with Joseph Bishop that there is a lot here to wade through. Defining exactly what “white interests” are is one of them.
The alternative right’s disdain for conservatism for instance, seems to include disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution (limited government) or in Hood’s words, “the rotting inheritance of our forebears.” But most of the conservative movement has been based on a restoration of the rule of law and limited government as embodied in the Constitution. Although we can criticize this as weak and disagree with it now for it ineffectiveness, or call it a massive deception, to say, as Hood as stated in another of his articles that “the quest for a white ethnostate at least has the theoretical potential for victory, [sic]Conservatism doesn’t” is fanciful, overstated, and confusing.
To ignore that conservatism has been fighting multi-culturalism, campus speech codes, and all the badness that comes from the Left (including domestic Communism which allied itself with the racial Left and a foreign country) with the traditional legal culture stemming from the American founding is to discredit conservatism unnecessarily.
Although it does not get reported on, there are many controversial racial issues that the conservative legal movement continues to fight quietly (while being pilloried for racism) like attempts to abolish the Voting Rights Act. For the alternative right to ally itself with the legal left (as Hood does in one of his links to an Alex Stark article above) is to work against “white interests” as I see them.
We may disagree with conservatism, or call it ineffectual, or say it is a massive deception, but to present it as coequal with the Republican Party is a mistake that indicates to me the basic leftist framework many in the alternative right seem to be working out of. It would seem to me that respect for the rule of law, and constitutionalism is a “white interest” and an advanced or “white” way to live that is unique to our race. A strong central state, run by an ill-defined elite (those people Greg Johnson or Alex Kurtagic believe should run things?) is not progressive nor respectful of the talents of the race.
And for those sentimentalists out there, a state run by a cult of personality,military parades, and occult symbolism would not last 1000 years amongst whites either. We are, after all, not Chinese.
Is concern for the rule of law and the moral foundations required for liberty a “white interest” or not? It seems that a lot of huffing and puffing about black political power or “BRA” is that it cares nothing for liberty and shuns the law and the traditional structure of American limited government in favor of increased collectivism and ethnic interests. Ours are not the interests of the black collective, but there are many, many whites who believe differently. They are called leftists. Any alliance with them, even on the level of ideas cannot be good.
One big ass-ed Bingo on that, Greg. We know what’s needed, but the clueless will have to be dragged kicking & screaming to get there.
@Lew
I like your idea of assembling a montage of their hateful, anti-white rhetoric. But I did want to take exception to your idea that such a montage would have to be specifically shown to “white cops and veterans”.
Because, well, are there any OTHER kind of white men in modern America? Every white dude I know is eschewing productive work in the private sector in lieu of going into the military (consuming all and producing zero). So just saying, “Show it to white guys” assumes showing it to the military, ya know?
We whities can’t produce anything anymore. We leave all that “creation” and “civilization” silliness to Indians and Jews at the top, and Mexicans and Chinese at the bottom. Instead, we just doll ourselves up in government costumes and prance around with guns, murdering defenseless peasants or arresting blacks for weed.
For all of this article’s forceful, cogent arguing for a white country, he’s forgetting that you need people to BUILD bridges, homes, and both digital and tangible infrastructures. Creation always precedes defense, by definition. And here, whitey has become utterly useless. We have no more engineers, architects, programmers, etc to build things. Just cops and soldiers to “defend” things.
I think Lew was simply saying that police and veterans are an important target audience, not necessarily the only one. Regardless of whether Lew’s emphasis on this target audience is practical or impractical, I think it’s good that Lew is differentiating and prioritising target audiences, instead of dealing with amorphous aggregations such as “the public” or “the masses.” We can’t influence the public (which is general and singular), but we can influence publics (which are particular and multiple).
Yeah, WhiteRepublican, I guess that specificity and explicitness of one’s audience is probably a good idea. But I think that saying, “Productive and spirited people descended of European Christendom” is specific enough.
And I definitely wouldn’t agree that we should go groveling to the cops and military as a target audience. In the first place, these people are usually worthless as productive members of society, as they have a consuming rather than producing worldview. Secondly, they’re institutionalized by nature (this is why they go to the government) and therefore aren’t going to be drawn toward a minority movement until after it becomes the status quo. Finally, they receive affection and outright idolatrous reverence from the rest of America (all the “Support the Troops” ribbons dotting every can of Coke and banner hanging at Wal-Mart) and so they’ll just be numb to more groveling.
Finally, I don’t want to see more whiteys sucking up to armed government agents because, as a white Christian, I become utterly humiliated when I see these dolts pretending to cry and speaking all somberly about cops and the military. It’s even more embarrassing than watching my fellow white men talk with breathless arousal about black football players.
Of course….now I’m digressing too much!
I didn’t say we should only micro-target police and military, much less grovel to them.
A “strong state” and a White Republic means a republic in name only. How do you resolve the two?
Why do you say that? Or are you presuming that a republic is some sort of classical liberal setup?
“Even with all the forces of the tyrant aligned against them, whites are still doing the best they can carving out a piece of heaven here and there amidst the malevolent carnival that used to be their country.”
What a devastatingly accurate way to put it.
Don’t have much to add, other than that Mr. Hood is one of the best right wing writers I’ve come across in years. Keep up the good work.
Not the police or army per se, but the Oath Keepers are the hope of the next few years. If they and the NRA can keep our 2nd Ammendment in place, maybe they will buy us time to awaken more Whites and begin to really organize. If not, then I think those FEMA Camps will being to fill. Of course alot of the Patriot types don’t like White Nationalists so it looks pretty grim. If they lead the way, any Movement of Secession will be deeply flawed, without any real critique of Capitalism, Race, or Culture and probably infiltrated to boot.
I read a quote from a European intellectual. The gist was that Italians (or other Euro folk) with pitch forks are more of a threat to their elites than Americans heavily armed with guns. Americans are so atomistic and individualistic they will never seriously threaten their elites, he argued. The gun community is the only segment of conservatism left with some fight in them, but they are definitely hyper-individualistic even by American standards.
Libertarian thought wedded to an aracial, colorblind worldview has almost completely neutralized (distracted and sandboxed) that potentially problematic community.
The question is: how much of the leading gun opposition is real? Some in the gun community believe the NRA is controlled opposition. Dismaying if true, but I don’t think it can be ruled out. Or, this idea might be coming from trolls looking to spread divide and rule. I have noticed all the major conservative sites are overrun with trolls in the comments, especially concern trolls (“we can’t be too radical on … X …immigration, guns, secession …”). There is always a subset of conservatives on those sites who are completely fed up with Republicans and Conservative, Inc. They either get banned or heavily concern trolled when they speak out.
At the end of the day, the NRA has to work within the system — and we know what that means. Even if the NRA puts up an honest fight, they don’t have a chance if the government decides the time is now to bite the whole apple.
As for the OathKeepers, I haven’t seen any speculation they’re controlled opposition, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are. What better way to identify retired military and police who might be a problem then having them all sign up with the same group putting all the names in one place?
I think the author of this piece needs a larger dose of the real conservative writers like Russell Kirk. People in general are not rebellious and anarchic, as the author admits he is, people are traditional and driven by a human nature which says that the central dynamic of human behavior has been group-selection, where people prefer their own kind, their own cultures, their own regions and localities. This preference evolved over time because it was successful in survival and reproduction. This was the main foundation in the creation of human ethics.
If we want to be realistic we must allow groups, states, and regions, a strong measure of independence, separation and variety, and then protect that independence with a light federalism. If we pay attention to real human nature we will not force different people and different cultures to be all the same, or to live together in the same spot—coercion is the only way that this kind of egalitarianism can happen, if at all.
It so happens that the Constitution of the United States thinks in terms of largely independent states, especially in its affirmation of the Tenth Amendment, which says that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This is the conservative and legal way to allow human nature to be what it is. Neither forced egalitarianism, nor secession of the states, are necessary. I don’t believe that forcing a new white state in rebellious secession against the United States is the best way to deal with the coming cultural clashes, given human nature.
Why is that the unusually realistic writers on this website seem to be inclined toward anarchy, rebellion and revolution, no-matter what the subject?
And what did Russell Kirk’s erudition and knowledge get him? His work was useful toward what end? His views aren’t exactly swaying public policy. Kirk, while a man of significant achievement and intellect, left us an example that exposes conservative intellectuals as weak, timid and ineffectual when facing leftist revolutionaries who never stop attacking. When the Jewish neoconservatives revealed themselves in the early 80s, Kirk was quickly marginalized by enemies willing to cut throats in a way he wasn’t. At one point, the Jewish neocons tarred Kirk with the anti-Semite label because he observed the neocons often confused Tel Aviv for Washington DC. Now, Kirk is largely forgotten while William Kristol gets face time on national TV.
Why is that the unusually realistic writers on this website seem to be inclined toward anarchy, rebellion and revolution, no-matter what the subject?
Because the alternative to secession, partition and revolutionary change (no one here is an anarchist) is attempting to effect change by working within the existing system (a futile path).
Re: K.L. Anderson
“I don’t believe that forcing a new white state in rebellious secession against the United States is the best way to deal with the coming cultural clashes, given human nature.”
1) The ‘cultural clashes’ have been happening for fifty years. The hour is much later than you realize.
2) It’s impossible to achieve our goals within the current socio-political framework of the United States. Been tried a million times, hasn’t worked yet. What’s really sad is that so many decades were wasted by well-meaning people who assumed that our problems could be dealt with by petitions and elections. They wasted valuable time.
3) The ruling class in the United States is working towards the destruction of white people as a race. Our only real hope is to overthrow our parasites and secure the resources and territory necessary to maintain our people. That means an ethnostate.
Great article! I can understand the draw of the Libertarian strain of American thought because it would mark the end of the mercantile, “race-blind,” empire. Mr. Hood is absolutely right in pointing out that all of the other changes we wish to see require a strong state, and one that is not simply a Conservative Republican carve-out.
For example, if the American South were to vote to secede for example, they would presumably abolish abortion once they are freed from the US Supreme Court. Considering that the South is (ironically, when compared to the red v blue map) the region with the highest percentage of blacks[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_2000_white_percent.gif], one must ask how many generations it could last as a white ethno-state.
Harold Covington was right to pick the Pacific Northwest, but that is currently a region with far less interest in secession than the South.
After the US presidential election I was mulling over writing an article about General Boulanger and the failed movement to overthrow the Republic (it failed but not for lack of popular support, here is a lecture by a leftist professor at Yale who speaks in English and grunts in French about Boulanger [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXHQmbH0_M]).
I wondered if Petraeus might be a potential Boulanger since he had broad support without much in terms of making statements on wedge issues. I did not imagine he would set up a White ethno-state, but with a nonpartisan victory he could pursue many of the other broadly popular goals of Fascism: eradication of special interests in favor of the national interest, suppression of big business and unions in favor of centrist economic reforms, and returning barracks style discipline to public works projects (like FDR’s CCC).
It looks like his career is dead now, but I wonder what your thoughts are on a creeping pro-white statism through the institutions or led by military personalities? Can you envisage the world situation changing in such a way that the interest of the gentile plutocrats or the military-industrial complex would realign in favor of a pro-white strong state?
“It looks like his career is dead now, but I wonder what your thoughts are on a creeping pro-white statism through the institutions or led by military personalities? Can you envisage the world situation changing in such a way that the interest of the gentile plutocrats or the military-industrial complex would realign in favor of a pro-white strong state?”
A military coup is possible only in societies where the military is the strongest institutional force. The United States has a plethora of other institutions that could mobilize against the military. Further, the U.S. military is full of non-whites. It would not have enough internal unity to impose control on the United States. These problems will only increase with time.
Can I imagine conditions in which our plutocracy realigns? Realistically, no. They are too soft and too concerned with their money. Our white plutocrats have watched as entire cities devolve from major industrial centers into third-world ghettos. Their response was to move their manufacturing overseas. And besides that, the white American plutocracy has been shrinking, both in number and influence, even faster than white population as a whole. (See: http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/09/2010-forbes-400-by-ethnic-origins.html )
Lew: Do you really think William Kristol will be remembered and Russell Kirk will not? Talk about short sighted. The neoconservatives are obviously only temporary. Kirk’s kind of paleoconservatism goes on, and will go on, after revolutionaries and secessionist make their short term noises, because it reflects real human nature over the long term. What needs to be done is to harmonize the new with the old, what we have with what we now need. That is what will happen anyway, over time.
I doubt anything produced by the post -WW2 American conservatives will survive, nor should it. It’s a body of thought that has earned its place in the ash heap of history. What value there is in conservative insights can be found in Burke, Calhoun and others (a lot of Kirk’s work was derivative, especially from Burke).
I’d be curious to get your thoughts on how your definition of a neo-con might differ from that of the stereotypical airhead I encounter on a daily basis on mainstream news sites?
I see neo-conservatism as a Jewish tribal strategy adapted to a particular context. He is probably right that neo-conservatism won’t survive into the future, but it’s not designed to. Jews change their tribal strategies as circumstances dictate like, for example, when certain American Jews abandoned communism for neo-conservatism.
When was the last time you heard neoconservatism described as a Jewish tribal strategy on the mainstream news sites? lol.
This is for any constitutional conservatives who might be reading. Based in this passage in Federalist 47, James Madison, were he alive today, would likely favor secession and revolution based on the fact that today’s US federal government fits his definition of a tyranny.
Madison wrote :
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.