3,478 words
In the life of any successful activist, there comes a moment of choice. You can have power, or you can have access.
Jack Hunter chose access over power. Now, he has neither.
“Power resides where men believe it does,” says Lord Varys in Game of Thrones. The trappings of power can contribute to the real thing, but they can also conceal the truth. Radical Traditionalists and White Nationalists are under no illusions that the common people or even elected politicians hold the real power under our glorious democracy.
However, power is also relative. Even a totalitarian dictator must confront the limits of his power. By any standard, financier George Soros has more power than just about any individual citizen, but all his wealth and might did not allow him to push through gun control. Similarly, a Senator like Richard Lugar might have the connections and prestige acquired from decades of Beltway dealmaking and pushing through anti-white policies, but he was unseated by disgruntled conservatives from his own party. All the cries of the media elite and his own party leaders couldn’t save him from angry Hoosiers.
A system such as ours is dangerous because the sources of power are diffuse and hard to track. Campaign donations, media bias, backroom connections, or even esoteric groupings are all sources of power that exist beyond the kind of informed and open decision-making that democracy supposedly rests upon. Opinion can be created, choice can be an illusion, and the spontaneous cries of the masses are often the result of an elite agenda determined long ago.
However, our system is not completely closed, and important aspects are not fully under control. Especially at the local and state levels, grassroots organizing and political technology can actually empower citizens to displace mayors, Congressmen, and even Senators. While Radical Traditionalists and White Nationalists have no illusions that successful electoral campaigns can lead to systemic change, they can impose tactical defeats and strategic delays on the enemies who confront us. Mainstream politics will never save us, but it will always affect us, and revolutionaries have a responsibility to understand how it operates.
Often, it is better to command campaign donations (or failing that, angry voters) than it is to try to manage a campaign directly or even run for office yourself. Something like the National Rifle Association has more power within in its field than any individual Senator, Congressman, or even President. Mainstream political activism is the effort to command sufficient political pressure to force politicians to do things they don’t necessarily want to do.
A politician qua politician is defined by his ambition superseding his humanity. This includes his principles, if he has any. Existence in political office is life. Electoral defeat is death. Inflicting the political pain that could potentially lead to death – withheld donations, angry voters, negative press – is the realm of the activist.
In the never-ending exchange between the grassroots and the politician, the successful organizer holds the power. The politician may have his hand on the button, but unless he wants to commit political suicide, he will do what the most successful activist tells him to do.
Of course, Radical Traditionalists and White Nationalists find it difficult to overcome the academic, media, and financial establishment that render entire issues forbidden territory for mainstream debate. But even the question of what is considered “mainstream” or “fringe” can change with time. For the Left, gay rights is an obvious example of an issue that passed through the Overton Window from “fringe” to policy in a remarkably short amount of time. For the Right, open discussion of the Federal Reserve (albeit without discussing who precisely owns it) has moved from the margins into acceptable political discourse.
While some political change can come from within the heart of power – through bribery, intimidation, extortion, and skillful lobbying – most comes from the margins. An activist who commands angry voters in a politician’s home state has more power, in real terms, than any Congressional staffer or even a Congressman himself.
Politicians have to manage activists – especially those from “their” side – if they want to stay in power. Thus, for the activist, the fateful day eventually comes when he is offered a job from inside the system. He will receive the trappings of power, the social status that comes with proximity to office, and the financial opportunities that arise with a job on the Hill or in a state capitol.
However, if he accepts, the activist’s role is transformed. Rather than the grassroots representative to the politician, he becomes the politician’s ambassador to the grassroots. Rather than pressuring the politician to do what the grassroots want, his job becomes to convince the grassroots to accept what the politician does. The activist is concerned with what he can get. The staffer is concerned with what the constituents will tolerate.
Which brings us to Jack Hunter.
Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the “Southern Avenger, was a radio “shock jock” and political pundit who created a persona that mixed professional wrestling antics (such as a luchador mask with a Confederate flag design) with paleolibertarian commentary. A member of the League of the South, a soldier in the Buchanan Brigades, and a supporter of Ron Paul, Hunter was typical of the early Ron Paul supporters that were the core behind what became an unexpectedly prominent and long lasting political and social movement.
The “Southern Avenger’s” views were scandalous to the Beltway, but hardly alarming to anyone on the Dissident Right. He supported a restrictionist view on immigration. He supported Southern heritage. He recognized that a nation is more than a simple economic unit. One of is most prominent passages that are being subjected to the “point and stutter” treatment was his observation that,
Americans, white or otherwise, don’t want Spanish-speaking people dominating their airwaves, neighborhoods, or country is no more racist than Mexico’s lack of interest in Seinfeld. . . . Native Americans had no illusions about how their land would change as boatloads of white men landed on their shores and modern Americans aren’t wrong to deplore the millions of Mexicans coming here now. A non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious – whether we are supposed to mention them or not.
Hunter’s lively prose and entertaining persona allowed him to ride the wave of the new libertarianism. Gradually, he became more prominent (and serious, donning a suit and tie), writing for websites such as Takimag.com and eventually The American Conservative and Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller. More critically, Jack Hunter became closely associated with Ron Paul’s son, Rand, who was elected to the Senate from Kentucky in 2010 in an insurgent campaign that shocked the Republican Establishment. Hunter ghostwrote Senator Paul’s book and became an official part of Senator Rand Paul’s staff.
Not surprisingly, the tone of much of Jack Hunter’s commentary changed. While Hunter continued to speak for insurgent libertarians attempting to seize the party from the “neocon war party,” Hunter also became an apologist for Senator Rand Paul against more anti-System libertarians. While Ron Paul refused to endorse Mitt Romney, Rand Paul did endorse the Republican nominee, and Jack Hunter defended this as a necessary step. Jack Hunter lectured libertarians on the need to avoid conspiracy theories that would make them look extreme, notably 9/11 “Trutherism” and paranoia about the Bilderbergers. Hunter also softened his tone on immigration, declared support for gay marriage provided it was decided at the state level, and urged conservatives to avoid the “Culture Wars,” quite a departure from supporting the man who coined the very phrase.
Perhaps most importantly, Jack Hunter explicitly explained to angry libertarians what Rand Paul was doing. Libertarians, often organized through their own political party (the Libertarian Party) have long been regarded to the fringes of American political debate. Jack Hunter and many other libertarians emerging from the movement see a chance to capture and reorient the Republican Party away from statism and war towards nonintervention, limited government, and culture war moderation. As Hunter put it (in one of his columns which has since been taken offline):
Some say Rand is not Ron because he is “willing to play the game.” That’s exactly right. That’s the point—to play it, influence it and win it as much as you can. The neoconservatives certainly do, to their advantage. Even Ron Paul “played the game” to some extent by becoming a Congressman, running for president and being engaged in practical politics. In the end, we’re all playing a “game” of some sort, even if it means trying to prove we’re the most pure in our ethos. The question is—is the endgame simply to satisfy our own egos? Or to achieve loftier, principled and tangible political ends?
Of course it is worth noting that the specific policy that Hunter is defending in this case is Senator Rand Paul’s pronouncement that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States. This is a dramatic departure from the principled non-interventionism of Rand’s father and was seen as proof by many libertarians that the apple had indeed fallen far from the tree.
In fairness, Rand Paul has reached political heights undreamed of by Ron Paul. He came within a whisper of winning the influential American Conservative Union Presidential Straw Poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2013, despite the obvious efforts of the conference’s organizers to dampen his vote. After feinting Left and garnering positive media, he voted against the Senate amnesty bill, skillfully positioning himself as the only anti-amnesty alternative among leading Republican presidential contenders. His filibuster against the drone assassination policy of President Barack Obama won him praise from powerful conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh, brought home many libertarians to the “Stand With Rand” camp, and divided his intraparty rivals Lindsey Graham and John McCain from the Republican base. As Jack Hunter put it himself, by couching libertarian rhetoric in conservative terms and avoiding offensive posturing, Rand Paul – and libertarians generally – were taking over the Republican Party from within.
Yet the ultimate point of all of this has to be questioned. Taken at face value, Rand Paul has proven himself wobbly on the existential issue of immigration, and leads a movement that mostly sides with the enemy. On foreign policy, he has reversed his father’s position. After briefly questioning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on libertarian grounds, Paul reversed himself when challenged and speaks passionately on the need to bring more non-whites within the Republican fold. On social policy, the moderation and nuance supposedly so in evidence on issues of race and immigration is nowhere to be found, as Paul aligns himself with the most reactionary elements of the Religious Right, inveighing against homosexual marriage and abortion and winning the straw poll at the Family Research Council. It’s not that Rand Paul is afraid to pick enemies among the rabidly pro-homosexual, liberal press – it’s that Rand Paul doesn’t feel comfortable doing anything that can be regarded as pro-white.
For the principled libertarian, the dedicated white advocate, or the passionate non-interventionist, the only defense left of Rand Paul is that of Jack Hunter – he is “playing the game.” Put another way, he is lying about his beliefs in order to be elected, so that when he is President he will rip the mask off and give us a libertarian utopia of sound money, Constitutional Rule, and a restrained foreign policy. This alone justifies the Traditionalist critique of democracy, as those who would rule must consciously deceive those they seek to lead about their policies. As usual, White Nationalists remain some of the most gullible, stubbornly believing that Rand Paul is secretly “on our side” while his real policy is something closer to making sure the Third Worlders who inherit our country will use shiny stones as currency. We are asked to support a politician on faith, to actually hope that he is lying, and believing that he is deceiving everyone except us.
To perform this act of faith is to voluntarily relinquish even the little power we still have. It is to trust in the fantastical hope of an otherworldly Messiah, who, against all expectations and history, will somehow heroically stand in defense of our people and their right to exist at the critical moment. After decades of disappointment and betrayal, we can not afford to be fooled again.
But there is a more important objection to the “trust, but don’t bother to verify” strategy of those who seek to trade access for power. Though he would never put in these terms, Jack Hunter’s entire strategy is an attempt to “sneak up on the Jews,” in the same way that George Lincoln Rockwell attempted early in his career. Though he may not realize it (or admit it), the “neoconservative tribe” behind the foreign policy Hunter rightly despises is far too alert to meet the fate of traditional American conservatives who found themselves outcasts within their own movement after the neoconservative takeover.
That attack that destroyed Jack Hunter didn’t come from “antifa” or “civil rights groups” – it came from within the so-called American Right. The source of the attack was one Alana Goodman, a cub reporter for the Washington Free Beacon. The Beacon is a “conservative” publication headed by Matthew Continetti, who is married to Anne Kristol, daughter of leading neoconservative William Kristol.
The charges then were swiftly repeated by the likes of Wonkette writer Kris Benson, who took a break from whining about “white male privilege” and wondering why too many white men have tech jobs. Wonkette of course is published by the tiresome cliché Rebecca Schopenkopf, who is still taking it out on whites for chasing her ancestors out of some shtetl in Poland. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center made his appearance, and his duckspeak style blog post was dutifully reprinted by the content aggregator The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post’s editorial director is Tribe member Howard Fineman, who thought the story was so important he felt the need to weigh in with his own report.
Once the “liberals” had piled on, the requisite concern trolling came into play. Jack Hunter and Rand Paul were condemned by self-appointed guardians of respectful conservatism, Jonah Goldberg of National Review and Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post. This political hit – for what else can it be called – came after Rand Paul bent the knee, pledged fealty to the Jewish state, and went out of his way to kiss the ring of Bill Kristol and other leading neoconservatives. Nonetheless, this didn’t save him. Like the scorpion riding the frog, it is in the Tribe’s nature to attack even when it is unnecessary or even to their own disadvantage – for there seems little possibility that the likes of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or some other Israel First nonentity could win the allegiance of the American people anymore than Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan.
Jack Hunter has now announced he is leaving Rand Paul’s staff in order to return to the life of a syndicated columnist. His first priority – as you might have guessed – is to prove he is not a racist. He’s even gone so far as to “retire” the name of the Southern Avenger. Furthermore, he has renounced his own writings, now explicitly arguing that cultural change does not matter – only the abstractions of “limited government.”
The accusations of cowardice or willful stupidity come easy, but let us be charitable. Jack Hunter truly believes that Rand Paul can be President and he is willing to do what is necessary so as not to detract from his candidate’s chances. There is a certain nobility in this willingness to sacrifice – but there is also a great amount of naivete.
The neoconservatives – let us be blunt, the Jews that run the American Beltway Right and control its financing – saw Rand Paul and Jack Hunter coming. They hate them not because Paul and Hunter are populist nationalists – they are not – but because they are not fully under control. That is enough for them to be destroyed. Like the aliens in They Live, the call goes out that “We’ve got one who can see,” even in some limited way. Even after publicly toeing the line, Jack Hunter and other kosher Constitutionalists received no mercy from the neoconservatives. The fate of Jack Hunter shows it is impossible to “sneak up” on the Jews.
Nonetheless, Jack Hunter limps on, as does the libertarian insurgency within the Republican Party. Of course, the libertarian tendencies allowed within the GOP tend to be those that align with what would traditionally be seen as Left-wing causes – open borders, drug legalization, and gay marriage. Any “takeover” that would occur would be hopelessly compromised from the beginning. Furthermore, the neoconservative core perceive Jack Hunter, Rand Paul, and those like them as a threat. Those who lead the GOP are no more likely to allow Rand Paul to gain the nomination than the Republicans of the 1990s allowed Pat Buchanan. For the Republican leadership, political defeat is far more preferable than losing control of the American Right, even to the smallest degree.
As a matter of objective political reality, it is far more likely that we will see an independent neo-Confederacy than the restoration of constitutional government following a democratic election with current American demographics. The Republican eEstablishment would much rather lose than allow someone they do not fully control to win. Nonetheless, Jack Hunter and his ilk will continue to tell us to trust them and their politician of choice and do whatever is necessary to secure political victory. The illusion of relevance, the trappings of power, and the excitement of the political horse-race will always tempt away would-be revolutionaries.
But – what if they’re right? What is my analysis is utterly mistaken, and Rand Paul, against all odds, becomes President of the United States? Certainly, a President Paul would make a difference and like Pat Buchanan, he could unleash populist forces that couldn’t fully be controlled.
Yet even if Paul is elected, as the Jack Hunter episode shows, it will be as a candidate either indifferent or openly hostile to white interests on immigration, civil rights, and other critical fields. Even in the utterly improbable event that he is elected, white Americans will once again be in the position of trusting in “implicit” identity signals and wishful thinking rather than possessing an authentic champion. If Paul and his team are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes in order to gain election, who is to say that Rand Paul 2016 would not be much the same as George W. Bush 2004?
In our system, real power doesn’t belong with the politicians. It belongs with those limit their choices and guide their behavior. Our enemies control much of this power, but there are still openings for activists to make a difference. However, our activists need to understand that the System – and all those who operate to sustain it – are enemies that need to be replaced. Even those who operate within the system should only do so as a tactic to destroy the entire thing. In the end, the power we seek is the power to break away entirely from the System’s control. As unrealistic as that sounds, it is far more likely than somehow making the enemy’s System work for us, or winning a game where the rules have already been rigged.
If Jack Hunter wanted to reclaim his power, he should reclaim the mantle of the Southern Avenger and start talking about those issues that made him popular in the first place. By harnessing angry voters, putting pressure on Southern politicians, and inspiring resistance to the Federal regime, he would be far more influential than in his current role as apologist for the libertarian wing of the Beltway Right. Ultimately, by leveraging his Beltway credibility into a role as an eloquent, reasonable spokesperson for Southern independence, he could even be a game changer in the current political debate. But let there be no confusion – his career within the Beltway Right has gone as far as it will go. He reached the same glass ceiling that awaits any conservative who shows – or who once showed – intellectual independence, creativity, or courage.
Jack Hunter “played the game” – and lost. Like in War Games, there is only one way to win – not to play. We should participate in their system, but only on our terms. All political activism, whether it be “undercover” work from inside the System or besieging it from outside must aim for the same goal – breaking the System entirely. Any activist who doesn’t recognize that isn’t just ineffective – they are not even in the struggle.
9 Comments
An astute analysis. The following paragraph in particular was worthy of Robert Michels, (‘Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy’):
‘However, if he accepts, the activist’s role is transformed. Rather than the grassroots representative to the politician, he becomes the politician’s ambassador to the grassroots. Rather than pressuring the politician to do what the grassroots want, his job becomes to convince the grassroots to accept what the politician does. The activist is concerned with what he can get. The staffer is concerned with what the constituents will tolerate.’
It also reminds me of an observation of Peter Gelderloos: ‘representative politics in a democracy being the art of selling out a constituency while maintaining its loyalty’
William Joyce in his ‘Twilight Over England’ had an interesting insight into how idealists were corrupted by the establishment, which may also be pertinent in this context:
‘ In brief, there exists in Britain a kind of corruption infinitely more subtle and far more insidious than that for which the United States are famed. Social patronage is the secret. Take the raw and class conscious Labour M. P., give him sherry and champagne, surround him with forthcoming Duchesses who laugh at him behind his back, call him by his Christian name, invite him to the country mansion for a few week-ends, give him a few tips for the Stock Exchange and tactfully lend him the money. If he is able to resist treatment of this kind, and few are, listen to him politely, compliment him on his political genius, his oratory, his encyclopaedic knowledge, and constantly pretend to seek his advice on the basis of give and take. If that fails, have a quiet talk with some Old School pal in his party and point out that nothing but promotion will have a sobering effect upon him. Promotion usually means having to obey orders. If the work is not yet fully accomplished, try an O. B. E. Above all, try to make him a Mason. If all these efforts fail, tell him that he is a damned honest fellow and pack him off to Maxton’s Mental Clinic, where his bones can rot in peace. Lug him out to a reception once in a while, and point him out to novices as an awful example of what fanaticism and eccentricity can do to a man of brilliant promise who “lacks the touch.” ‘ (Twilight Over England, pages 30-31).
If disruption of a more or less functioning political system is the goal for revolutionaries then what asymmetric but peaceful tactics and strategies can be employed? Non-peaceful tactics and strategies can certainly be effective but obviously could not be elaborated here.
An interesting analysis. However, I disagree that the only path is to not play the game. One can play the game much better than Jack Hunter or Rand Paul by lying all the time, rather than showing one’s cards all the time. I would argue we need to be skillful at lying to succeed – I’ve noticed that it works wonders. Use your enemy’s weapons against him.
NBG in blockquotes:
Hood has it right; as Rockwell so astutely noted, “You can not sneak up on the Jews.”
Simple as that.
The larger issue remains, if you played NBG’s game, and became President ,you would discover the entire political system, Congress, the bureaucracy, and the media, united to make sure your simplest initiatve would fail.
In short, as Hood implicitly notes, “It’s The System, stupid.”
We are the ONE Racial group ou can organize against, and attack with impunity. This will not change unless so many things that are demographically and politically impossible happen. As even Limbaugh is admitting, the Republican policy regarding the Democratic policies is “Victory Through Capitulation”: (1) Let Them Win, (2) Have The People React In Outrage By Supporting Us, (3) Win. Remarkably, Stage (2) never seems to take place.
Rand COULD form the foundation of a true Third Party, uniting the libertardians and the home-school evangelicals, transforming the social order from the bottom up, from the school house and the school boards, to the White House, and the corporate boards. But that’s too much like work. All the while, of course, you can not publicly advocate for our Race.
The greatest flaw in the Child-like magical thinking of such “reformers” is they think they can change the political inertia of a century, somehow, magically, mysteriously. In doing so they forsake their own political effectiveness in a very real sense, and remain emotional Children in a world of very Adult politicians.
Now, they could stop pretending “The South Will Rise Again,” and consider a future in the Northwest Republic. Ah, but that would require they put away the soft, safe fantasies of Childhood, and become true Adults, with an intergenerational perspective.
Never happen.
I have the same thoughts, generally. I just wanted to point out that it is “theoretically” possible to subvert the system in the same way jews subverted the system – by being impeccable liars and manipulators. Alas, it appears we (good) White people are unsophisticated at these dark arts.
While many consider this is a sign that we have better morals, it in fact means we have a terrible weakness within us. Cowardice is our new religion.
The whole implicit whiteness approach is a complete and proven failure, because (1) it does not fool the enemy at all, and (2) it does fool and mislead our own people.
I think you forgot that change take time. In Greece, the Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS) entered the Greek parliament in 2007. LAOS is a soft implicit white nationalist party with a Christian tone. It took not long before they were sitting in the knee of the conservative establishment. At first they were excluded from enter an agreement with the conservative elite but because of the crisis the elites had no choice to let them have a piece of the pie to continue in power. Because of LAOS the conservative establishment did some minor changes policy towards reducing immigration. As expected, LAOS sold out to the banking establishment and as a consequence were forced out from the Greek Parliament in the election of 2012.
What LAOS actually did was actually to create a critical discussion about immigration in the public and that helped Golden Dawn into parliament. LAOS seeded the ground for a more radical party. You see other implicit white nationalist parties in Europe do the same. Swedish Democrat is gaining support rapidly in the public. What the Swedish Democrats do is to create good soil for radical movements to grow. The Party of Swedes (Similar to Golden Dawn) is now growing rapidly the mist of the Swedish Democrats. In United Kingdom the civic nationalist UK independence (UKIP) party is growing quite fast. Yes, they condemn the British National Party (BNP) and ethnic nationalism but UKIP actually indirect helping the BNP by talking about nationalists political issues. We do not see any effect of this right now but we will in a couple of elections.
In America the soft paleoconservative and libertarian movements help the radical elements just being in the center of the discussion and push soft versions of white nationalist policies. Yes, they do speak for different audience and if they see a chance to grow they will back down to gain more support but they will ultimately push for some minor changes in policy. What you want to look out for is the liberal Judeo-Americano part of the neoconservative establishment. Jonah Goldberg and the prominent New York Times columnist David Brooks are two of these people. Goldberg is slightly to the right than Brooks but they both push the Republican Party to the left. Goldberg pushes the more conservative establishment to the left-wing libetarianism and Brooks push the liberal-conservative establishment to the progressive liberalism. They grow both on the same tree a
I would even say that these people are even more dangerous than the Contra-Jihadist right-wing Judeo-Christian extremists that circle around Frank Gaffney Jr., Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and David Horowitz because they are not happy until the Republican end up as the conservative parties in Germany and Sweden – which pretty much are liberal or left wing libertarian parties and only conservative by name.
When it comes to the Contra-Jihadist movement, it should be avoided because they want a war between the entire western world and the Islamic world. These people actually inspired Norwegian terrorist Breivik do go and kill almost 100 people – many of them children. The Contra-Jihadist movement is willing to support some white nationalists causes (not like the liberal neoconservatives like Goldberg or Brooks) but they also want wars. They support the most fringe radicals in Israel and support their Anti-Arab, Anti-Russian and Anti-Muslim cause. They have been very successful in UK, Netherlands and found some success in Belgium.
These people are so radical that most of the neoconservatives prefer to sit down and have friendly chat with the Paul Family and even the grumpy nativst paleoconservatives then these people. The reason is quite obvious these people are ideologically close to late militant Zionist Meir Kahane and even have a platform with Jewish Defence League. They are even considered to be dangerous racist militants by y the hard right wingers in Israel.
The reason why I do not see these people as dangerous is because they out of their minds but in their own madness they make a lot of people to wake up in some sense and then they lose them to other movements. Today, even Dutch populist Geert Wilders seem to understand that these people have more love for Israel and Jews than his people. I think he has discovered that he is just a tool. Wilders have therefore approached Front National which has angered Geller and the others in this camp.
I do not advocate that any white nationalist movement should have any kind of corporation with them but just as the soft paleoconservatives (were I guess I belong) and libertarians in Americano as the implicit white nationalists parties in Europe they to try limit and reverse immigration. Most importantly they discuss some important issues for white nationalist. This is also the case for the Zionist nuts in the Contra-Jihadist movement. When Jewish and Judeo-Christians try to ride the tiger of nationalism than you know that the break through is close. They want a place in the future new European order.
For average Joe in UK the step from going from UKIP to British National Party is smaller than going from Tories to British National Party. All changes are good changes. Even the Fox News media rants is in the long run good for the white nationalist cause. It is also a good sign.
What is important and that the Party of Swedes, Jobbik and many other explicit white nationalists is that they understand the dynamic and importance of ethnic belonging. When I read Tom Sunic he argues that the future lies in a racialist western world were nations are replaced with one white nation. He wants a white European union. This is misunderstanding. The peoples of Europe would hate to belong to a imperial white nations.
There will not be a Pan-European movement just as there will never be a Pan-African movement. The cultural and social differences between the Norse ethnic groups are quite large when comparing to the Southern European kind. This does not mean that they cannot be any corporation – in fact – we will see more of it this in the future but all people, regardless if it is implicit or explicit white nationalist movement they will continue to defend the national states and their ethnic, cultural and religious heritage. Does this mean that ethnic heritage is more important for Europeans than whiteness? I would say yes.
Remember that you Americans left Europe for a colonial empire were you created a multicultural and a multireligious society. I understand that you define yourself through race but this is not the case for Europe and Europeans. I do not reject the concept of race but what I’m saying is that Americanized white nationalism is not possible in Europe and has never been possible in Europe. Ethnic heritage more important and so will ethnic nationalism be the way of Europeans.
By the way, many Europeans read this blog and other nationalist blogs in America but we are quite tired of being criticized by you. Instead of bitching – We Europeans have come a long way and will soon break through, you on the other hand have never even had a pro-white person in congress since the civil rights movements won. Your battlefield is America our battlefield is Europe. We listen to you – why not listen to us from time to time? You americans may not like it but you have our blood in your veins.
I agree with your analysis. From conservatism some “transit” parties ( such as LAOS, Swedish Democrats, UKIP etc.) are usefull to reach full blown racial / ethnic-nationalism. In Greece this has been achieved by Golden Dawn.
There is a danger that this development be hijacked by Zionist Jews for their own purposes (“anti-Jihadism”). These Jews present “Islam” as the ultimate danger to the entire West and not Muslims per se, let alone non-White immigrants in general. Their aim is to use the US and NATO to fight wars for Israel in the Middle East. On the other hand they don’t want such nationalist movements “degenerate” into real ethnic-nationalist ones because that would jeopardize the Jewish plan of race-replacement for all white nations and ultimately could turn “anti-Semitic” because Jews are also foreigners after all. Hence the stress by such Jewish controlled movements that they are not “racist”, not “Nazi”, not “anti-Semitic” and support Israel, which is portrayed as the vanguard in a global struggle against Islam. These Jewish controlled movements are not conservative either. They fully subscribe to the liberal agenda of feminism, gay-rights etc. See the behavior of the EDL which has a Jewish division, a homosexual division and invites rabbis to speak to them.
Real ethno-nationalist movements should be fully Jew-wise and therefore be totally judenrein.
And in Europe general racial-nationalism wouldn’t work, since all European peoples have too strong ethnic identities, but ehno-nationalism would. It goes without saying that in Europe ethno-nationalism would automatically imply racial-nationalism.
In the Netherlands Geert Wilders is a willing tool of the Jews. His party should be replaced by a genuine (read : judenrein) ethno-nationalist party. If that happens, then Wilders would have had the above mentioned “transit” function.
Almost all of the European populist-conservative parties in Europe are transit-parties. In the end they end up betrayal their own voters. This year the Swedish Democrats voted to lower corporate taxes from 25 to 22 percent. When it comes to VAT or income taxes that are as high as the corporate they have done nothing. Sweden has very high VAT on food which should be lowered but for the Swedish Democrats lowering taxes for banks is of more importance. In fact, the lowering corporate tax bill that the Swedish Democrats vote yes to benefited to 85 percent investment banks and not manufacturing industry that actually hire people.
It is the only party in the Swedish Democrats that still wants to continue the trade with occupied and annexed territories on the west bank. It was also one of few parties that did not want to recognize Palestine as a member in the United Nations.
The party officials is quite slick on issues like immigration but when it comes to these positions it becomes clear that this is positions that is not positions deep rooted in the party. They have actually no arguments against both of these positions which become quite clear in their political debate with the radical socialist party. These two positions were actually decided in the very top of the party after they had visit Israel. The Swedish Democrats try to establish relations with Israeli parties Shas, Yisrael Beiteinu and HaBayit HaYehudi but Yisrael Beiteinu seem not want to openly defend them. Currently they say no to foreign interventions but it is just a matter of time before they will change on this issue as deeper their relations with Israel and US Judeo-Christian neoconservative establishment goes.
I think many people inside and even on the very top in that party has good intentions but a small fraction that currently is in power continue to push this pro-Israel and pro-banking agenda on the party. So long the party is growing (and yes it will continue grow) there will be no real opposition. The entire Youth organization is critical of the pro-Israel and pro-banking fraction within the party but they have just 1/3 of the party behind them.
Just as Popular Orthodox Rally or the Dutch Party for Freedom there will come a time when the Swedish Democrats will be let into the establishment but just as Popular Orthodox Rally or the Party for Freedom they will stab their voters in the back. Popular Orthodox Rally and Party for freedom did so when it came to economics. LAOS was forced out from the parliament because o their betrayal and Party for Freedom went from 15.5 percent in the election of 2010 to 10.1 percent in the 2012 election.
I think all European countries will have their different transit-parties and some radical parties will come out of the transit-parties or will come out of the blue like Golden Dawn or Jobbik. Some transit-parties may end up being more radical. Wilders is now talking to Front National and UKIP is willing to work together with more radical alternatives. Some of these transit-parties may end up saying that we are willing to support the endless war of United States and Israel and continue support banking and Jewish causes in exchange for abolishing multiculturalism – except European Jewry. I think the Swedish Democrats will travel in that direction.
Sadly, I think the radical alternatives on the right are pretty bad because they are to out of touch with the general public and would be so even in a crisis. The Golden Dawn does not seed for the future – rather they are more interested in revolutionary causes then working for a long term change. For example, the party chairman Nikolaos Mihaloliakos argues for the annexation of Cyprus and Northern Epirus. It is madness. The European people do not need wars – nor for Israel and United States or for some petty nationalist cause.
This is one of the reasons why I do not support the radical right in Europe. They are dangerous and show the worst parts of radical racial or ethnic nationalism. When it comes to the western nationalist parties I think Front National do the right thing argue against international finance, globalization, free immigration and wars. I also think this party is here to stay and I do not consider it a transit-party but parties like Party for Freedom, UKIP (I must say I have some sympathy for them), Progress Party, Danish Peoples party and others are just here temporarily.
In the end parties do change and are replaced. The British Whigs was dissolved after 190 years. The Swedish Centre Party was founded in 1913 and will most likely leave the parliament in the election of 2014. In the 1970 they had 20-25 percent of the electorate – today they swim around 3-4 percent in the polls. I do not believe in a 1000 year party or the final victory of the white man. Nor do I believe in a racial and social collapse. Change need to come gradually so that is why I do not complain about very parties that want to see small changes – so long they are made. Just as you I’m worried about the Zionist machine. Though, I do not want to exclude Jews from parties I do not want to fight Zionist-American wars.