Print this post Print this post

Republican National Committee Report 2013: 
A Declaration of War on White Americans

elephantbones829 words

The RNC’s apparatchiks recently published a landmark report, The Growth and Opportunity Project, on their strategic challenges and potential responses to those challenges. It’s bursting with info-graphics, tables, and charts which lend an air of gravitas and finality to what’s essentially a bundle of biases and conclusions drawn from the false premises cherished by Beltway elites.

The report arrives at three basic conclusions:

1. We need to silence our ignorant and bigoted constituents;

2. We need to actively replace White party leadership with minority tokens; and

3. We need more wonks generating more reports with bigger computers.

To recap, the 2012 election was one in which the most data-driven wonk in the entire history of national politics was crowned by these party elites against the protests of the disorganized and splintered majority of the Party. Mitt Romney focused almost exclusively on economic talking points, minority outreach, and ignoring social issues, as if he had somehow received an advance copy of this very report at the beginning of his campaign and obeyed it faithfully (save for an obligatory, disingenuous, and temporary nod to border security during the tight primary race).

The result was a disastrous loss, one caused almost exclusively by an unprecedented implosion of enthusiasm among his Middle American conservative (read: White) base. While Barack Obama’s campaign patiently and pragmatically pandered to and whipped up the people who were his natural base, Mitt Romney pursued the strategy outlined in his report: churning out reptilian economic talking points to historically hostile groups through a vast analytically-driven political machine.

According to this report, Mitt Romney wasn’t reptilian enough, and his mainframe he used to track and extract money and votes didn’t have enough vacuum tubes and flashing lights on it!

As a White male from a humble Midwestern background, I know exactly what all the talk about “promoting representatives of the [anything but my own] community” boils down to. It doesn’t boil down to ejecting White elites. The blue-eyed and redheaded sons and daughters of the lobbyists and politicians who run the party aren’t going to be ejected from their seats to make room for the Pacific Islander tokens they’ll be propping up. Ambitious and talented White males and females who aren’t from a privileged background are the targets of these zero-sum diversity initiatives.

Renouncing White Privilege always amounts to renouncing the Whites who aren’t privileged.

Not that I object to that. I believe White males should be insulted, demoted, marginalized, and deprived of a voice until they awaken. I’m glad that Affirmative Action and racial quotas lock untold millions of ambitious and talented White men and women out of this nation’s elite institutions. The single most damaging thing one can do to a community is to take its most promising individuals and systematically extract them from the community. It’s my opinion that our opponents are making a mistake which will be their undoing, and you won’t hear me join other White Advocates in objecting to Affirmative Action.

I don’t want a seat at this table. I want to take a proverbial chainsaw to the table. I don’t want a voice in the Republican Party, I want it to implode under the weight of its lies, delusions, and betrayals of the people who’ve been supporting it in vain. Perhaps I’m being melodramatic, but this report is nothing short of a declaration of war on White Americans. It’s an overt program to eradicate the last implicit vestiges of White interest and White identity from the party.

Imagine for a moment an Indian chief releasing a statement that given the large number of White settlers flooding into the region, he has decided to place the interests of these settlers over the interests of his tribesmen, and actively replace his tribesmen with settlers in the prominent roles within the tribe. This chief would be a traitor, would he not? Of course, contemporary White tribes are understood to be the only tribes which have no legitimate group interests, no right to a voice, and no right to resist their displacement and replacement. Our chiefs are the only chiefs who fight over which one of them is most thoroughly and effectively betraying his tribe.

While minorities are jockeying for better seats on the bus, we’re busy throwing each other under the bus.

This report marks a definitive and final departure from the GOP’s failed “universalist” message which ignores race altogether. The GOP is now going tribal, descending on all but one tribe in America to actively pander to their interests. It acknowledges that Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Pacific Islanders are to be reached out to in tribal terms, appealing to their tribal interests in their own tribal voices. “Civic nationalism” is officially dead. The GOP has (accurately) concluded that Pacific Islanders don’t care about what’s best for America, they care what’s best for their extended family of Pacific Islanders.

Soon, White Americans will begin to realize that there’s daylight between what’s best for “America” and what’s best for themselves.



  1. Lew
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Greg Johnson’s speculation has to be right that they’re destroying the party on purpose to make sure forces beyond their control don’t accidentally, and without pre-planning, turn the GOP into a vehicle for explicit white interests. Nothing else makes sense. I know a lot of them believe their own bullshit, but they can’t be that stupid. It’s just not plausible they are stupid enough to believe a non-white outreach strategy is viable.

    Renouncing White Privilege always amounts to renouncing the Whites who aren’t privileged.

    Great line. Wish I could do that.

    • Bobby
      Posted March 19, 2013 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

      Lew, I believe they are going to fail in this. They are going to fail because to many things that hurt whites, are already mandated by law. It’s as simple as that. European-Americans are waking up and will wake up fully. It’s a dynamic that cannot be stopped. The leftists went to far in this nation, and all one had to do is read the popular political blogs to get the real mood of the white majority. Of course, watching or listening to main stream news, one would think nothing is brewing at all, that just a few minor “fixes” will put European-Americans in their place.

      • Lew
        Posted March 20, 2013 at 12:28 am | Permalink

        Just to engage in some idle speculation, I think the various oligarchs will want to prevent what happened in the Soviet Union from happening in America. Bolshevism evolved into a kind of National Bolshevism that didn’t serve the interests of the people who created early Bolshevism in the first place. Later, the Soviet Union fractured. When the dust settled, Putin came out on top. He is no friend to American White Nationalists, but neither does he seem to be a person the Western powers are entirely happy with either. So the Western powers probably got some outcomes in that break up they didn’t consider ideal.

        The dissolution of the Soviet Union is a precedent. It shows a window for major change can emerge when a brittle and vulnerable order disintegrates. But it’s a lesson for our enemies too. With Amerika moving to an end game, it only makes sense that they will take steps to prevent any evolution of society in directions that work against their interests.

        So a while back, Johnson put forth the idea that select Republicans might just pick up explicit white interests to protect their own asses. Probably anyone who rises that high into the US government could be easily bribed, but you never know. This would be the outcome they want to prevent by destroying the GOP with this stupid non-white outreach strategy: Republicans moving to represent whites for real to protect their own power.

        The latest wrinkle in the gun debate shows this dynamic potentially at work. It looks like there might be enough Republican votes to delay the AWB / high cap mag ban for another election cycle.

        It would be interesting to know if there is a single Republican who gives a rat’s ass about the principles. I think it’s doubtful. A few of them at the lower levels might care a little, but at the highest levels definitely not. What they care about, probably, is not voting for something that for now only will endanger their own election chances.

        The thing is, even if the Republicans are not doing it to help whites, and they’re almost certainly not, the AWB going down will still be a victory for the wrong kind of whites.

        So you have to wonder what the elites are thinking. The aggressive jack boot agenda ramping up with the NDAA, drones, etc. makes a lot sense if they see what we see, the possibly of disruption and maybe an opening for whites to organize.

  2. Posted March 19, 2013 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Great piece Matt Parrott. I watched much of the CPAC and came away with many of the same thoughts.

    The sad truth is the sentiment expressed by the GOP is mainstream of the many white folks I know. They disavow their own identity with a petulant moral superiority and will aggressively attack any white guy that doesn’t gush with enthusiasm over their own dispossession and diminishing relevancy.

    And I don’t see much on the horizon to alter this self destructive illogical righteousness of our fratricidal brethren, less complete social and economic collapse?

    • Posted March 19, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      And I don’t see much on the horizon to alter this self destructive illogical righteousness of our fratricidal brethren, less complete social and economic collapse?

      You say complete social and economic collapse like it’s a bad thing!

      • Stronza
        Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        Do you have any idea what a “complete social and economic collapse” even looks like? It’s not a church picnic where it’s started to rain and your clothes get wet. It’s a long, slow, dreary slide (already in motion) resulting in an utterly nonfunctioning society, or massive sudden collapse of everything that makes our lives at least minimally predictable. Either way, I’m not hoping for it. This “cleansing” will clean more than all those trouble-causing minorities and their enablers.

        Mind you, I can’t wait for the Grand Ol’ Party to implode, going completely out of business. Such an event wouldn’t be the cause of any great country-wide suffering that isn’t already here.

  3. DunnoBoutThatMatt
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Somehow I get the feeling white Americans will not wake up and just passively die. It feels wrong to feel that way, but it is my gut reaction. Sorry to be so pessimistic.

    • Posted March 19, 2013 at 10:34 pm | Permalink


      Somehow I get the feeling white Americans will not wake up and just passively die.

      Life is not a spectator sport, man! Join me in fighting to wake them up!

      And even if it is all absolutely and utterly hopeless, and the story’s already been written, there’s a poetic beauty and symbolic value in raging against these vultures and scoundrels during my brief cameo in this tragicomic farce.

      • Riki
        Posted March 20, 2013 at 9:30 am | Permalink

        “Life is not a spectator sport, man! Join me in fighting to wake them up!

        And even if it is all absolutely and utterly hopeless, and the story’s already been written, there’s a poetic beauty and symbolic value in raging against these vultures and scoundrels during my brief cameo in this tragicomic farce.”

        Matt, I was deeply moved and inspired by these words of yours in particular as well as your essays here at CC in general. I like them very much. I especially identify with your inspirational and exhortative message which filled me with a pugnacious pride and resolve and resonate with my heart completely. I am an East Asian and certainly non-White, but I believe I fully understand and support your cause of pan-Aryan racialism and solidarity, and I also strongly and fervently believe in the veracity and validity of a line Greg, you and other comrades have expressed that separate racial nationalism is good and wholesome to all nations in stark comparison to the hideous and nefarious multicultualism, domestic diversity, race mixing and the likes preached and implemented by international Jewry and its White or colored cohorts who are the certainly the arch-enemy to all healthy and decent human beings on earth.

        Though being an Eastern Asian, I have a natural, visceral, powerful and sincere metaphysical attachment and a selfless and unwavering commitment to your great and honorable cause of a White-only North American Republic built anew on the carcass of a ruined, imploded and self-destructed multicultural and multi-racial USA that is unsustainable and despicable. I imagine someday in the future, when the vigorous and homogeneous great new state by, for and of the Aryan Whites is established on this planet, my best and only wish is to become its honorary and temporary guest. I would visit the wonderful place once a twice every year and stay for about a week to ten days every time, but I would never endeavor to live there permanently because I do not belong to your great people. I would settle fully contented and honored to be a temporary and warmly welcomed guest, and I know I must prove I am worth this great honor with not only a congenial and faithful mind, but some actual and substantive deeds which I intend to achieve in my future life.

        Though not being in US myself, I would like to do all I can think of to promote and assist your cause and make positive contributions to it in my full capacity as much as I can do and be helpful. So far I think what I can do is to make donations and write or translate something when I have time and inspirations. Also, when the occasions feel right, I try to discuss with, talk sense into, persuade and convince any gentile Westerner I encounter and communicate with in my academic and extracurricular environments on the core issues that concern us here at CC.

        I felt a bit ashamed to say so far I have donated only once to CC in about a year since my first encountering with you thanks to a passage I read at IHR. I donated US$50 to CC and besides that meager amount of financial assistance, I have also contributed three translation articles from Japanese to English on Yukio Mishima. I am a humble graduate student and am now at the last year of my Ph.D. program. Upon graduation this Summer or Winter, I will probably get a job at a college here in the residence country of mine in Asia. I will definitely donate more money and more frequently and perhaps regularly to CC after getting such a stable job with a stable inflow of income for myself.

        I will continue to read and support CC into a very distant future.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

          Riki, thank you so much for your kind words and moral support, as well a the actual work you have already done with translations. Would you be interested in reviewing the new Mishima biography Persona?

      • Donar van Holland
        Posted March 20, 2013 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        Great inspiring words, Matt!

        They remind me of King Théoden at the Battle of Helmsdeep:

        “Let this be the hour when we draw swords together”

      • Posted March 20, 2013 at 10:33 pm | Permalink


        As a teenager working in fast food and in the local furniture factory, I strove to apply a martial spirit and traditional honor to whatever absurd or degrading context Modernity placed me in. I read Taicchi Ohno, Kiichiro Toyoda, and the other prominent Japanese industrial process theoreticians on my lunch break, because I took flipping burgers and sanding desks that seriously, which eventually led to my career in systems analysis and design.

        Amusingly, when American journalists asked Ohno what inspired his designs and processes which were outperforming American manufacturers, he replied that he had borrowed it primarily from Henry Ford.

        My point there isn’t to assert that he ripped off Americans, but rather to elucidate a real life example of how great men who are civilizations and generations apart can take turns with the golden thread of Tradition as one or the other backslides into decadence and dishonor. I believe there are a few additional lessons from Henry Ford that both our nations would benefit from revisiting!

        Obviously, industrial process theories aren’t necessarily Traditional, and some in our circles see efficient factory labor as integrally antithetical to Tradition, but The Seven Samurai certainly is Traditional, and I made my kids watch it a while back. If you haven’t read Yggdrasil’s review of it, I believe you’re in for a treat.

        I’m all about networking internationally with allies the world over. Don’t hesitate to hit me up and let us know if there’s anything we can do to assist you in your own efforts to promote tribe, tradition, and transcendence among your own folk.

      • Riki
        Posted March 21, 2013 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        Dear Matt and Greg:

        Thank you for your kindest encouragement, sharing of good information, offer of assistance, and your trust and invitation to me of writing a book review for the comparatively new Mishima biography “Persona”. I have not read the book yet. Upon your suggestion, I have made a few checks on the and respectively and found out the book, both its translated version and the original Japanese version. As I noticed, the book was written by Naoki Inose, who is a well-known writer and literary commentator in Japan and also happens to be the current vice-governor of the Tokyo-to, the massive metropolitan area and the very heart of the modern Japan, politically, economically and culturally. As a politician, he has remained a central-right political stance consistently. Also, it is to my knowledge that Mr. Inose is a close associate and sort of a former protege and confidant to the veteran politician and current governor of Tokyo Shintaro Ishihara who has a been a regarded as a nationalist (only a half-way and compromised one in my opinion) and a influential and controversial political figure in the post-war Japan and also a famous and flamboyant writer and essayist himself.

        The most interesting inner side of the story is that Ishihara used to be a friend and comrade of Mishima in the 1960s and 1970s in his youthful days. But unlike the absolutely sincere and spartan, spiritual, unrelenting and self-sacrificial Mishima, Ishihara was more mundane, earthen, socially sophisticated, speculative and calculating. If we compared Mishima to an authentic Right revolutionary and warrior of pen and action, Ishihara could be appositely aligned with the column of self-preening and vainglorious “conservatives” which were not in short supply in the post-war Japan, only a more daring and outspoken one compared to the rest of his camp. The ideological and personal comparison of Mishima and Ishihara is just like that of the thorough-going White nationalists as represented by CC and the GOP supporters, tea party members and other less-awakened White folks here in the US and the West in general.

        Back to the topic of Mishima and Ishihara. To summarize their relationship and relevant historical facts on that briefly, the latter used to be an admirer and sort of a follower of the former, but his softness and bourgeois inclinations and other faults were gradually becoming known to the former i.e. Mishima who rebuked and reprimanded him in an expectation to get him on the right track but failed. The relationship soured and the two became estranged. After the suicide of Mishima, Ishihara showed a total lack of understanding and appreciation of the inner beauty, strength and the sacrificial value of Mishima’s chosen death and actually wrote a satirizing piece in a scornful manner which enraged and embittered many fans of Mishima. So the two men are just not of the same dimension and not made of the same material, metaphysically speaking.

        Considering the intimate relations and political connection of Naoki Inose, the author of “Persona” to Shintao Ishihara, I am now curious to see how he has depicted the life of Mishima though I still believe he should have written a largely fair and informative book on M, just need to see how he handled the most mysterious and inspiring part of Mishima. Meanwhile, I have not read many literary works of Mishima either and will read more in days to come albeit I think I am quite familiar with his political ideas and ideals. Again, I have not read the very book about which you kindly suggested I write a review. I would read it in the future and see if I can muster enough intellectual and perceptual abilities of mine to write a decent and meaningful review.

        As I checked the aforementioned two version of the book here: (the English version whose cover design is elegant and indicative), and here: (the Japanese version whose juvenile cover I consider frivolous and ugly). The Japanese one has about 400 pages, and the English one is a tome that more than doubles the Japanese one in page numbers. I guess you want me to review the Japanese one as I believe all you guys can read the English version and are capable of doing much better review yourselves (especially Greg) than I could possibly manage to do. Is my understanding correct? In that case, a flattered and humbled I would like to purchase the Japanese book first, read and digest it carefully and then try my best to write something.

        However, honestly my current situation does not allow me to engage in such a time-consuming endeavor, at least for the time being. I am now in my final stage of writing my doctoral dissertation and will have to complete it first, do necessary revisions, handle other related work and if all of them are considered qualified by my academic adviser, face an oral defense this coming May. When all the things are done, hopefully I will buckle down to reading the book and striving to write a review within my utmost capacity in which I am not too confident. If any of you guys here at CC will have already written one based on the English version, all the better. But in case nobody would have written on by then or if my future review based on the Japanese version would still be deemed as helpful and useful, I would still like to contribute one then.

  4. Trainspotter
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    “Renouncing White Privilege always amounts to renouncing the Whites who aren’t privileged.”

    That is indeed a great line, and it deserves to be widely used and circulated. Think I’m going to steal that one from you, Matt. Hope others do as well.

  5. Bobby
    Posted March 19, 2013 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

    Matt, I was going to make some other points on the attitude of the Republican elite towards their base, but you have hit all the essential points, in fact, “the essential point”. They have no interest whatever, in the people that have been supporting them in vain. I’m as through with them as through can possibly get. They can pander away to others in vain, in the same way we Republicans have waited in vain for representation from them for years.

  6. bluegrass
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    White flight from the………RNC?! My fellow WN’s, count our blessings, even when they’ve come dressed like a harlot.

    Was an inevitable course of events?

    After WW2, the destruction of American White Nationalism became the primary goal of the state and the organized Jewish community.

    So, it seemed that modern White Nationalism (us) would always be viewed as a downtrodden, ostracized, but explicit form of White activism in a sea of implicit White Nationalist movements and ideas.

    After civil rights the Republican Party went in and swooped up those racist but demoralized southerners to produce an effective electoral strategy. (A strategy developed by Pat Buchanan, so I’ve heard).

    This was the beginning of big implicit White Nationalism (I.W.N.).

    Before the Soviet collapse, I.W.N. then became: Free-Market (ship jobs to Mexico)! Reagan (worship a celebrity)! Tough on crime! (throw coloreds in prison!) Down with welfare queens! (hint-hint White guy, vote for me and we’ll stop those black mommas from making any more brood with govt handouts. Except, that also means no welfare for your white momma and kids)

    After the wall fell, implicit WN seemed to go on the defensive. Bill “whites will be a minority!” Clinton came in and the anti-white policies continued. The militia boogie man came and went, which was itself a fundamentally white phenomenon.

    2000’s come, Bush and 911. When those planes hit, Whites siphoned the pride that should have been racial to a pride that was plastic Americana mixed with Germanic military bravado. (If we can’t fight the colored invasion at home, I guess we’ll settle the Iraqis far from home.) Thus, for Jewish foreign interests and the continuation of the bubble economy, Bush began to dismantle the Empire.

    Present day: Tea Party, libertarianism, Ron Paul. It’s as if all the White people got together after the Bush debacle and said: “hey, we can’t win with this implicit White Nationalist, social conservative stuff. Let’s be all about individualism, and economic ideas and sound money. Maybe that way they won’t tax us too much while they replace us.”

    The problem, of course, was that non-Whites aren’t stupid or demoralized enough for that. Thus, libertarianism became the weakest, most superficial I.W.N. that’s ever come into existence.

    Now that the R.N.C. sees I.W.N. as a curse instead of a cow to milk dry, where will Whites go?

    Well, to counter-currents first. I have a strong hunch in the next year or two that Greg will get surprisingly large donations from men who write “I’ve donated Ron Paul for years, I donated Republican before that. I’ve learned that you’re all that’s left, and I’m going all in.”

    I.W.N. needs to die before E.W.N. will ever thrive. No filters, no pressure valves: the 14 words, and nothing else.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 20, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

      You’re on fire! Well said.

  7. John McNeill
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    Civic Nationalism is dead? Well there’s a consolation prize if there ever was one for us.

  8. Junghans
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    A very incisive, salient and apropo essay, along with some excellent comments. Only through the ignition of intellectual racial prairie fires, can anesthetized White America redeem itself.

  9. Micronaut
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    Practice has shown the token minorities gambit to be a nonstarter anyway. What blacks admire Condaleesa Rice? To their credit, they seem to regard her as some sort of race traitor, and in this way, I would have to admit they show more sense than mainstream whites. Nixon appointed more Jews to high office than any other president, yet the vast majority of Jews hate him as a Satanic figure.

  10. Guest
    Posted March 20, 2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    you won’t hear me join other White Advocates in objecting to Affirmative Action.

    Don’t overlook its value as a rallying point. There is no issue that puts the anti-whiteness of our culture and laws in sharper relief. When mainstream conservatives oppose Affirmative Action, it is almost never on the grounds that it is unfair to whites, especially in recent years. The key to turning things around for whites is to get them to start thinking in terms of their group interests, and getting whites to see the unfairness of Affirmative Action towards whites will help make this happen. The same applies to anti-white and anti-male contract set asides, which are pervasive.

    • Posted March 20, 2013 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

      Insisting on the abolition of Affirmative Action is necessarily predicated on egalitarian and meritocratic rhetoric, rhetoric which is incompatible with and antithetical to a consistently tribalist and traditionalist position.

      Just about everyone I’ve spoken to is aware of vast network of laws, quotas, and norms which are overtly or covertly anti-White. Objecting to Affirmative Action necessarily requires appealing to notions of “fairness” which fundamentally conflict with our position that we should put our people first. I believe the repeated historical attempts at fairmongering demonstrate the futility of this strategy. Ultimately, I don’t believe whining appeals to the men and women we need to reach, or that there’s much value in appealing to the sort of people who respond to whining.

      Furthermore, abolishing Affirmative Action when our borders are wide open merely results in the seats reserved for Black Americans being handed over to East Asian and South Asian immigrant elites. Abolishing Affirmative Action replaces one very familiar and rather benign problem (money wasted on trying to educate underqualified Blacks) with a worse problem (grooming our technocratic overlords).

      • Guest
        Posted March 21, 2013 at 12:59 am | Permalink

        Whites should oppose anti-white racial preferences because they are anti-white first and foremost. They have to start getting used to advocating for their group interests, and part of that is making use of the concept of “fairness” for their own group’s advantage. Whites never try to get an advantage for their own group now. Nonwhites use the concept of “fairness” to their advantage, and whites should be able to also. The question of what is “fair” depends on your point of view anyway. Whites just have to start framing issues in such a way that “fairness” favors their own interests.

      • Posted March 21, 2013 at 1:47 am | Permalink


        Whites should oppose anti-white racial preferences because they are anti-white first and foremost.

        Promoting “fairness” within an integrated context and implicitly universalist moral frame is anti-White. Moral universalism is anti-White, and arguing for more fairness within that context amounts to jockeying for a better deck chair on a sinking ship.

        They have to start getting used to advocating for their group interests, and part of that is making use of the concept of “fairness” for their own group’s advantage.

        Meta-strategically, the cause benefits from having both mainstream incrementalists and consistent radicals pursuing independent strategies in parallel. You focus on delivering a message which doesn’t alienate soccer moms and tea party patriots. I’ll focus on delivering a message that doesn’t bore angry and disaffected youths who are open to a radical alternative to the contemporary political order.

        I’m not going to focus on fairmongering because it intuitively feels and smells lukewarm to me, and the people I’ve seen it appeal to feel and smell lukewarm to me. There’s no urgent need for us to be playing the same angle. We can celebrate diversity, here.

        Whites never try to get an advantage for their own group now. Nonwhites use the concept of “fairness” to their advantage, and whites should be able to also.

        It’s not always as simple as flipping the script. You don’t rid yourself of parasites by latching onto them and sucking their own blood, for instance. You tear them off. You don’t respond to burglars by putting on a ski mask and breaking into their own houses, for instance. You flip on the lights and start yelling.

      • Guest
        Posted March 21, 2013 at 10:42 am | Permalink

        I make a similar point about the word “racist.” I think the matter is more clear-cut for the word “racist” than for the word “fair,” however. “Racist” has been consistently used to bash whites since its creation, and its use by whites in a negative sense tends to keep explicit white solidarity suppressed. I don’t see such a specific problem with “fair.” “Fair” can mean different things to different people, and it doesn’t have the same specifically anti-white and anti-racialist connotations as “racist.”

      • Lew
        Posted March 21, 2013 at 11:05 am | Permalink


        Ultimately, I don’t believe whining appeals to the men and women we need to reach, or that there’s much value in appealing to the sort of people who respond to whining.

        But is “Fairmongering” and “whining” what Guest is proposing? Those are your terms and your frame. Attacking AA in my understanding is about attacking egalitarianism not demanding fairness as egalitarians understand it.

        Why don’t radical demands for an ethnostate amout to whining under this logic? Why wouldn’t any expression of White grievance amount to whining under this logic? One point of an establishing an ethnostate is to escape all kinds of exploitation and mistreatment and go about building a better alternative than what we now have.

      • Posted March 21, 2013 at 11:49 am | Permalink


        Why don’t radical demands for an ethnostate amout to whining under this logic? Why wouldn’t any expression of White grievance amount to whining under this logic? One point of an establishing an ethnostate is to escape all kinds of exploitation and mistreatment and go about building a better alternative than what we now have.

        Under the fairmonger model, we’re appealing to the guards to afford us more soap and blankets, because the other prisoners get more soap and blankets. It implicitly accepts the authority of the guards, the prison’s protocols, the validity of the sentencing, and the validity of the prison itself.

        Under my model, there can be a discussion about our lack of soap and blankets, but the discussion necessarily pivots to ordering cakes with nail files in them, tying what blankets we do have together into ropes, chiseling our bars of soap into replica pistols, and hatching an escape from the institution, its rules, and its rationalizations.

  11. Lew
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Guest wrote:

    Don’t overlook [racial preferences] as a rallying point. There is no issue that puts the anti-whiteness of our culture and laws in sharper relief.

    I agree entirely with you on this point. It is, quite frankly, hard to understand how not opposing anti-white policies doesn’t directly translate to white advocates renouncing the “whites who are not privileged” because they are the only ones affected.

    Attacking racial preferences makes sense for many reasons:

    1) builds white racial consciousness; gets people thinking in terms of “white interests” and “the good for whites”;

    2) lays bare the anti-white nature of the system for people who may not fully appreciate it (and many don’t or there would be riots in the street);

    3) exposes the timidity and cowardice of the Republican party and mainstream conservatives who fail to defend whites; sets a clear distinction and alternative between white advocates who attack programs that harm whites and Republicans who don’t.

    4) positions white advocates as directly engaged with the concrete needs of white people and concerned with the practical impact of anti-white policies;

    5) takes the side of the unprivileged whites, the whites most harmed by the programs.

    This expression of disagreement is nothing personal of course; I make it a priority to read everything Matt writes; he commands a lot of respect from me and from everyone else, and deservedly so.

    I mean, a pithy, cutting line like this is worth its weight in diamonds:

    Renouncing White Privilege always amounts to renouncing the Whites who aren’t privileged.

    But the first thing that crossed my mind was using this gem in the context of racial preference debates. The impact of those preferences directly falls on talented but not privileged whites.

    My tentative conclusion is that Matt off the mark on the best interests of whites in this specific, narrow instance (the wisdom of attacking preferences or not). I think he is otherwise right in the main. My conclusions are always provisional. I’m open to being convinced.

    • Lew
      Posted March 21, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      Nudging Whites toward suicide? That’s ridiculous. Please don’t read things into what I’m saying.

      I’m disputing the claim attacking preferences from the standpoint of explicit white advocacy requires implicitly or explicitly accepting an anti-white frame, or that such attacks amount to whining with a feminine quality (the type of appeal that might resonate with soccer moms rather than young white men on the front lines of the system abuse).

      That case has not been made.

      Attacking preferences is about taking our folks’ side in the struggle for power. It’s a step down the path to boosting white identity and raising consciousness which must necessarily happen before anything else more radical can happen.

      Demanding white quotas strikes me as a good idea, but it’s not inconsistent with attacking AA. One could attack AA by demanding it be replaced with white quotas; that is certainly one way to do it. Calling for white quotas by definition means calling for abolishing AA in its current form. I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

    • Posted March 21, 2013 at 12:26 pm | Permalink


      One could attack AA by demanding it be replaced with white quotas; that is certainly one way to do it.

      If that’s what you’re talking about, then I’m in agreement. I’ve yet to witness opposition to Affirmative Action in practice go in any other direction than an aggressively meritocratic, universalist, Ward Connerly-style celebration of egalitarianism, universalism, and The American Way.

    • Lew
      Posted March 21, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      Yes; I have in mind methods of attack that make it clear we are against the abuse of whites in all forms, attacks that reject both the narrow application of the policy and the frame behind it, and followed up with positive alternatives like demands for white quotas. If there are white advocates arguing against it from a universalist perspective, then I agree with you that makes no sense and ought to be discouraged. I see such people as more akin to conservatives than true white advocates.

  12. Posted March 21, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Permalink


    One of the hallmark differences between ourselves and other populations is the weight of our abstractions relative to our instincts. It’s one of the things that make us magical, presuming the delightsome appearance of our women weren’t enough. We don’t have the option of just arguing for simple pragmatic interests, and must necessarily package what we’re doing as a selfless abstract universal crusade if we expect it to take with the target demographic.

    Lew can’t help being a White guy, and this should be a safe space where he’s not teased for thinking and acting like one.

  13. Posted March 21, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink


    I bet $1 that you, personally, are motivated by a lofty, poetic, aesthetic, and abstract vision, and that you’re trying to translate that into vulgar material terms so that the target audience will want to join you on what’s essentially a crusade for you. I know that’s how it is with me.

    I’ve concluded that White people think like I do, pretty much, and don’t really take well to resentful, fairmongering, material arguments as well as they do to inspiring and lofty missions where they get to be heroes, perhaps even tragic and selfless heroes. The problem, in my opinion, isn’t that Whites are wrapped up in mythic visions, it’s that they’ve been sold on the wrong mythic vision.

  14. Lew
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Anything that boosts white fertility and white consciousness is good. anything that weakens it is bad. that is natural law.


    What in the world, what exact words I have written in these comments, do you perceive as inconsistent with that?

    Maybe you’re reading too fast. I do it all the time when scanning comments. People tend to read and comment while doing other things (or I do anyway).

    Please review my list of reasons for opposing AA. Where do you see any explicit or implicit appeal to, or elevation of, any form of universalist abstract ideology over the concrete interests of the white tribe?

    Tell me where I’m giving that impression because I want to make sure I don’t do it in the future.

  15. Lew
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Permalink


    And your rationale and evidence for this is what? This comment strikes me as quite abstract. Tribe, tradition, etc. are just words too without concrete illustrations of how the insights of tradition translate into concrete defense for the tribe.

    I’m arguing here for taking the tribe’s side in a concrete way by calling for the end of a practice that harms our tribe. That is a direct appeal to concrete self-interest, not petty resentment. How does it help white birth rates if a white male can’t a get a decent job because of AA? Or if he gets stupefied by drudgery doing work well below his intellectual level just to survive and never finds time to think on ideas such as your own?

    I do perceive, perhaps incorrectly, that some traditionalists come to the edge of denigrating anything they deem a “material” concern. You are right that people are motivated by myth and vision. They are also of necessity motivated by the material, and to deny it or downplay it I think is to move away from the grounding of white advocacy in reality and toward a grounding in abstraction.

    People don’t go war in a revolution or rally behind revolutionaries only over the stirring appeal of mythic visions. They rally because they can’t feed thier families, or because their livelihoods and means of survival are threatened. Most of the German national socialist platform dealt with economic matters. That is just one example. They also emphasized the preservation of German culture and a vision for their people. They did both not one or the other. These things are mutually exclusive.

    I’ve concluded that White people think like I do, pretty much, and don’t really take well to resentful, fairmongering, material arguments as well as they do to inspiring and lofty missions where they get to be heroes, perhaps even tragic and selfless heroes. The problem, in my opinion, isn’t that Whites are wrapped up in mythic visions, it’s that they’ve been sold on the wrong mythic vision.

    • Lew
      Posted March 21, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Meant *not* mutually exclusive.

      They did both not one or the other. These things are mutually exclusive.

  16. Lew
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink


    Just to make it a little bit clearer,

    In short, anything that boosts white fertility and white consciousness is good. anything that weakens it is bad. that is natural law.

    This, again, is exactly the point of attacking AA without using appeals to universalism, to build consciousness and improve birth rates.

    How is a white male supposed to attract a woman and provide for large family if he gets passed over for the best job opportunities?

    East Asians and Jews can’t ravage jack shit without an anti-white putting a thumb on the admissions scale to drive out white talent with the smarts to compete at that level. Not that quotas aren’t a good idea too.

    Abolishing AA won’t help much? Disputable, but isn’t some help for whites better than none? Large families are very expensive, and the difference in lifetime earnings between an MBA from Harvard and one from Perfectly-Respectable-But-Not-Harvard State U is huge.

    God only knows how many qualified white males have had their lifetime earnings, and hence their capacity to raise big families, vastly reduced as a result of being shut out of the elite universities.

    Let me take a wild guess.

    You don’t have kids, do you?

    What about this?

    Do you have any family members denied entry into Yale to make room for laughably unqualified blacks, latinos, and wealthy jewish legacy admits? I do, and I’m not very happy about it. It happens every day to other white families east, west, north, south, and those are the families I’m thinking about when I say let’s go after AA.

    See, what I suspect you may be overlooking, is that these anti-white policies neede to be ruthlessly attacked because they affect real, flesh and blood white people. There is ideology there. That’s about helping flesh and blood people. If white advocates aren’t going to go after the anti-whites pushing this garbage then, who is?

    we should not over think. it should be instinctive, intuitive, but we overload and crush ourselves with tiresome reasoning, cobwebs of logic, ideology and deny a healthy, natural, organic order.

    Well then let’s just shut down then, close up the NANR, and hold a bonfire using every remaining copy of the books listed over on the right.

    Who needs hundreds of thousand words of tiresome reasoning and logic when simple assertions of instinct will do?

    You are oversimplifying, drastically. I think you ought to withdraw your confused comments accusing me of nudging whites toward suicide.

    • Lew
      Posted March 21, 2013 at 11:16 pm | Permalink


      We can agree completely on that. I agree with you we need to do everything possible to help fertility and families. In the end, that’s what it’s all about. In fact, for me, that is the vision, a future with lots and lots of happy white families, babies and children.

      Going forward, I’m going to put more effort into looking at it the way you do. When debating options, my starting point is asking “is it good for whites, how does it benefit whites?”, and then I go from there. Evaluating options in terms of “does it contribute to increasing fertility or not” is vitally important too. You are on the money on that one.

  17. Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    The GOP was founded by scoundrels. It’s just returning to its roots. Great piece as usual. Quoted, linked, and riffed on here:

  18. rhondda
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    Matt, you are so hot. Yes, yes, a higher vision. Principles before persons. I just learned that.(Evola) Food on the table is important, but not if you are a slave. Wives and children so totally understand that and find ways to make do if they are a part of the cause. Fear must be conquered. A new economic structure is not going to happen until people actually start doing it. ( like Dr. Johnson and Mike P starting this site)
    I have a whole shelf of books that I told my kids that when I die, they might want to keep those. They are all about self-sufficiency and getting off the grid. They aren’t now, but that is their choice. Some of the books are even from the 60’s. (Foxlife I got at used book sales)

  19. me
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Speaking of whites applying to any ivy league school, there was an article in David Duke site, by Dr. Patrick Slattery, titled as “Want to get into Harvard? Tell them you’re Jewish!”

  20. rhondda
    Posted March 21, 2013 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Sometimes a guy comes along and says it like it is. It is not that I totally agree with everything he says, but he has come through the chaos.

  21. Guest
    Posted March 22, 2013 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    The goal should be to wake white people up and to get white identity politics into the mainstream. Once whites start thinking about their group interests explicitly everything else will follow. It is a necessary and sufficient condition for everything else that white advocates wish for. If you put aside opposition to anti-white racial preferences then you are putting aside something that will help wake up white people, which is a mistake.

    • Lew
      Posted March 23, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      There is an opening for WNists/advocates to move in and claim issues long ignored by conservatives. Section 8 housing, restrictive covenants, freedom of association, criminality, tax exploitation and racial preferences are big ones. In fact, every mainstream issue that directly impacts white folks lives’ is ripe for the taking since neither party cares about whites.

    • Guest
      Posted March 23, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      I would include immigration in the list also. FAIR and NumbersUSA have been ineffective on this issue because they are not explicitly pro-white.

  22. Lew
    Posted March 25, 2013 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    3 Jews, a Puerto Rico and white interests on the line.

    I think we know how those four votes will go. The question is, which “conservative,” Republican appointed Justices will screw whites this time?

    This a classic illustration of the rigged American system. In this instance, whites in Michigan voted to end university AA. Federal courts threw it out based on — laugh now — “equal protection” for non-whites.

    I don’t think WNists should cede these “incremental” issues, though of course when WNists approach them it should be on the basis of explicit white interests not appeal to color-blind universal principles.

    Lower and working class white males with academic talent are the ones marginalized by AA. Michigan is a top school. A person will have many more options with a degree from Michigan versus one from Michigan State. Less lifetime earnings, less money for a family, deceased chances of moving into a position of real influence if the person is eventually won over to white ideas.

    One reason they drive white talent out of the elite schools is to keep them out of positions of real power and influence for which a degree from an elite school is a requirement.

    Allan Bloom said the fate of the US is controlled by graduates from the top 20 or 30 universities. Is it any wonder they work so hard to exclude whites from those very universities.

    I also dispute the idea attacking AA is inconsistent with WNists articulating an inspiring, larger vision for the future. This is not whining with a feminine quality. It’s taking our own side. That is very masculine. When members of our side get pushed around, it’s up to WNists to push back not lay down. There is nothing masculine about laying down for exploitation.

    When this court rules against whites, I think we need to ready with a message like Greg Hood’s memo.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace