3,483 words
Multiculturalism is the state ideology of the System – and you will be made to agree. Even a sadly conventional old rancher protecting his cattle has become an Enemy of the People, as no one will be permitted to escape the Empire of Diversity.
The rekindling of the “sagebrush rebellion” is an instructive guide to the contemporary Culture Wars, as neither side is talking about what is actually at stake. The Right is mumbling vaguely about the Constitution. The Left is screeching about the Rule of Law. Neither of these things matter in our system of government.
As always, this is a battle about identity. As usual, once they make their initial ideological claim, the Left quickly admits the primal tribal (or should that be Tribal?) impulse behind their motivations, while American conservatism takes solace in misleading rhetoric so they don’t have to admit they are on the same side as rural white people.
The issue started when one Cliven Bundy of Nevada refused to pay fees that would allow his cattle to graze on land adjacent to federal land. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management moved to seize his cattle. Though Bundy is clinging to the view that the “sovereign state of Nevada” and not the federal government owns the land, it seems clear that Bundy is in the legal wrong and simply does not want to give up his cattle.
But the law is an ass. And it’s more complicated than that. While Bundy and other ranchers once enjoyed free grazing on the land, the federal government is slowly squeezing ranchers ostensibly in the name of “protecting” federal holdings and the environment. In Bundy’s case, his family’s doom was sealed because of a tortoise. The Bureau of Land Management ruled that Bundy would have to pay a fee for each head of cattle in response to a native tortoise being listed under the Endangered Species Act. Bundy did not pay, and legal battles resulted, which Bundy of course had no chance to win.
The same federal government which can’t pay for body armor for American soldiers or a simple fence at the American border did manage to find helicopters and advanced surveillance to keep track of exactly how much cattle Bundy had assembled. When the BLM moved in, they tasered Bundy’s son, sicced snipers and police dogs on citizens, and barricaded protesters in a “First Amendment Zone” similar to those set up to cordon off conservatives on college campuses.
The BLM also began confiscating Bundy’s cattle, though it denied that it was killing them. We now know that was a lie and that the animals were being slaughtered. The BLM backed down in the face of citizen opposition – including militias – and the media on the East and Left Coasts began screeching about “thuggery.” Of course, they didn’t mean the people pointing guns at ranchers – they meant the citizens who came to protest it.
The reaction of the System’s media and its obedient followers is an illuminating guide to the precarious physical security of the historic American nation in the Age of Obama. For a fun experiment, check out the comments section of the likes of the Huffington Post whenever there’s a tornado or flood in a Red State and enjoy the pure vitriol and death threats made against white Americans. For that matter, check out the comments section anytime a conservative has a child. Of course these people want to kill us. Of course they would celebrate if the BLM simply opened up on the crowd. Trayvon Martin will be honored in the degenerate churches across the continent, but who will mourn for productive citizens except “racists?”
And the media did not disappoint this time. Ryan Cooper at The Week was relatively restrained in his dismissal of “some kook and his pack of assault rifle-wielding thugs.” Salon.com, featuring the usual stable of anti-white bigots doing their best to make Julius Streicher look like Wendell Berry, is ululating with a never ending series of articles concern-trolling about “violence” – as if the government hasn’t already unleashed it. They are also explicitly arguing that the BLM needs use more regulation to drive out the ranchers, not less.
Among them are liberal creationist Amanda Marcotte, who connected the issue to her “right” to have others pay for her birth control, not surprisingly considering her hatred of children (a blessing if it ensures she remains an evolutionary dead end). And of course, there is the usual librage against “angry old white men” who dare disobey the multicultural Administratum and think they can “disobey the law.” A Heather Digby Parton desperately screeches that she’s still cool and sneers that conservatives “never had a day of sheer, joyful fun in their sad, unimaginative lives.” One can only say that the tragic spectacle of a withered Lefty crone having flashbacks about Woodstock because it was the last time she received male attention is sufficient in itself to discredit everything she’s ever said.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is continuing its mission creep by flailing about Bundy. It’s tempting to ask why an organization ostensibly dedicated to fighting “hate” should care one way or the other about whether some rancher gets to keep his cows. But as the Family Research Council, the Foundation for American Immigration Reform, “pick up artists” who teach men to approach women, Senator Rand Paul, and The Lord of the Rings are all apparently threats to the System these days, it’s no surprise that the SPLC is shrieking about “extremists” in the West, and Mark Potok has been brought on MSNBC to read his press releases about “imminent bloodshed” “entirely provoked” by Bundy and his supporters.
The IREHR is also sounding the alarm about “white extremists” ready to use violence, notably using the word “white” itself as a trigger word to get its readers upset. The best parts are the repeated references to Bundy as a “County Supremacy Activist.” (I have a moment of “sheer, joyful fun” every time I try to read these hysterical reports.) The group has been notably silent about the recent news that Texas has been enriched with 100,000 gang members, mostly of the especially vibrant Latino variety.
Gawker’s Adam Weinstein, pivoting from his recent call to imprison global warming “deniers,” reacted with fury to the news that the government hadn’t righteously gunned down protesting Americans. In an article entitled, “Crazy Armed Whitey’s Successfully Defend Cows’ Constitutional Rights,” Weinstein sneered at “angry white dudes” from “Inner America” with “gut[s]-hanging-over-the-brass-belt-buckle.” In the comments, he brags that he has a great deal of sympathy for the real owners of the land – the Indians. Not the land he lives on of course, but the land that the Wrong Kind of White People live on.
It’s tempting to say that Weinstein isn’t even really writing an editorial here, just expressing his bigotry. Ranting about fat “whiteys” is just socially acceptable hate. It’s the intellectual equivalent of me saying that it’s typical of a Weinstein to kvetch from his double chins about actual Americans in contrast to the “crazy darkies” with their pants hanging over their ankles who have destroyed every American city they have ever occupied more completely than an atomic bombing. But I strive for a higher tone.
The most hilarious posturing comes from Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow (who may or may not be the same person) banging on about the rule of law and the sovereignty of the federal government. Of course, these and other liberals are the exact same people who are assuring us that illegal immigrants are not actually criminals and that it’s not actually a big deal that they broke the law. In fact, they should be rewarded. One could ask why Obama doesn’t simply give Bundy an exemption to the regulation – after all, he’s been eager to make unilateral and unconstitutional changes to Obamacare and provide exemptions to unions and political allies. But I suppose the question answers itself.
Either way, the Rule of Law hasn’t mattered in this country for some time, so how can we take their screeching seriously? When illegal immigrants are testifying before Congress, you’re telling us we should be outraged because a rancher won’t pay a fee to save a turtle that isn’t even endangered?
The constant motif in this and other commentary is a laserlike focus on the shocking whiteness of Bundy and his supporters. This is either implied or baldly stated to render their grievances illegitimate. There is no insight offered – just blunt and crude insults.
Among them is the constant taunt that Bundy and his supporters are “fat,” which doesn’t seem true in Bundy’s case (especially compared to Weinstein) and doesn’t seem relevant either. It is especially surprising when the Left’s latest crusade is against “fat shaming,” and the likes of Lena Dunham are elevated to civil rights heroes because of their inability to stay away from carbohydrates for 20 minutes. But it’s ok if she is fat – indeed, it’s positively courageous. In contrast, Bundy and his supporters are unfashionable, embarrassing, and scary in the eyes of those of those who whine about white privilege for a living.
Indeed, the Left-wing faux anarchists of “Burning Man” are holding a festival nearby specifically to mock Bundy and his concerns. The organizer laughs at some “cranky old dude and some cows” and bows to the “rule of law.” Our reborn Blackstone tends not to show similar concern when it comes to laws regulating narcotics or sex, but those laws are repressive infringements on passive enjoyment. Bundy’s struggle focuses on protecting his livelihood and producing something. Real “freedom” in America means the freedom to play – and nothing besides. You are “free” to be a childlike Leftist rutting and drugging yourself into oblivion – or you are free to have a government bureaucracy you’ve never heard of send snipers after you.
In contrast to the blunt and even refreshing bigotry of the Left, conservatives are doing their best to stick to their traditional limp rhetoric. National Review has run several cautious articles expressing mild sympathy, while taking care to genuflect to the “rule of law,” but condemn Bundy’s supposed “Taliban tactics.” Ron Paul is condemning “authoritarianism,” to the scorn of the Little Green Footballs’ Charles Johnson, always on the alert for unfashionable thoughts. Other conservative voices, noticeably Sean Hannity, also offered a defense.
Alas, Bundy managed to cut his links to the respectable Right by making the mistake of speaking to a New York Times reporter, offering his rather unsophisticated political philosophy, and using the word “Negro.” Republicans immediately backed away and the Leftist websites are crossposting the story with glee. Courtier Jon Leibowitz “Stewart” displays that rapier wit of The Daily Show with the line that Bundy is a professor at “Duke University – David Duke University.” (Derp!)
But Bundy’s language doesn’t change anything about the issue. And it’s worth noting that Bundy, in his innocence, was not trying to be racist, and has been swearing up and down on the likes of “colorblind” libertarian shows such as the Peter Schiff show and the Alex Jones show that he wasn’t trying to denigrate blacks. Just like any American conservative, he thinks Martin Luther King would be on his side.
More than that, Bundy has actually internalized the anti-white talking points about how “Spanish” people (i.e. Hispanics) are superior to whites and how blacks burning down the cities was a protest against “injustice.” He states,
I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back. We sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Aside from referring to “colored people” in the same way as the NAACP, this is typical PC cringing. Moreover, he states,
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people — and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.
Bundy a white nationalist? Hardly. We can all read the Constitution in Spanish together in the public parks that they’ve destroyed in Bundy’s Republic.
Indeed, he sounds more naïve than anything else when he moans that he would “appreciate it” if the New York Times took down its article, seemingly unaware that destroying him and others like him are the only times The Paper of Record can be bothered to do any reporting.
Bundy was making the case that blacks actually had a better life under slavery than they supposedly do now under a supposedly expansive government. While absurd on its face and offensive to blacks, this is only a slightly more extreme argument than the Republicans usually make. Paul Ryan, who has distinguished himself since his failed run for Vice President in his sociopathic desire to destroy his constituents with amnesty for illegal immigrants, has also come under fire as a racist for daring to suggest that there was something wrong with “inner city” culture. Conservatives also habitually decry the “liberal plantation” – and despite the intended groveling behind their rallies and arguments, are called racist for their trouble.
What conservatives don’t understand is that black dependency on government is a feature, not a bug. Blacks believe they are owed housing, EBT, and set asides, and have nothing to gain from an “ownership society.” Conservatives can – accurately – complain about how minorities are suffering under liberal governance, but blacks themselves don’t care any more than they care about crime in their own communities and vermin in their own kitchens.
White liberals are now operating under the same kind of paradigm. To be a liberal white means to seek out a place in the administration of the Managerial State, governing the behavior of whites for the benefit of non-white mascots. Personal material prosperity thus corresponds with an attitude of moral superiority. Weinstein described this attitude perfectly when he condemns “Inner America” (his beat) in the name of those “reading this, without moving your lips, someplace where wi-fi runs fast and strong” on the “civilized, productive edges of this thing called America.”
Of course, even in those “civilized edges,” the likes of Gawker, and Jezebel, and the rest of the parasitic class spend their days looking for thoughtcrime among those formerly cool software developers or complaining there isn’t enough melanin or estrogen on the boards. To be “civilized” means to be under control. The media can’t be bothered to report on corruption or abuse but it will leap into action if someone put “White GeNOcide” banners in Easter Eggs. So called “anti-fa” who claim to be anarchists warn dissidents that if they flirt with white identity, they will endanger their security clearances for government jobs. Random SWPLs volunteer to keep files on college kids to make sure they can’t get jobs if they once wrote for a politically incorrect humor magazine. As Jared Taylor said in the American Thinker, we have a world where every man is his own commissar.
This is now translating into an explicit defense of statism by the Left. Politicians charge that it is “unpatriotic” if you don’t support gun control. Signing up for Obamacare is your duty to your country. Protesting tax raises is “economic treason.” And of course, many conservatives, especially neoconservatives, are complicit in this. Charles Krauthammer, furious that American conservatives were briefly talking about something other than bombing Russia, is raging that it is contradictory that someone can be a “conservative hero” for not “respect[ing] the federal government.”
It is said that taxes are simply the price we pay for civilization. This is true if you have a real country. This is not we have. Taxes are what you pay so your neighborhood can be destroyed by Section 8 housing, so your business can be shut down if you don’t hire enough “oppressed” people, and so our soldiers can be sent to give welfare to Muslims who hate us, before they are eventually killed by our own “allies.” If you do not recognize that the greatest threat to our survival is the System that rules from Washington D.C., you are not even in the struggle. Every dollar you pay to Washington goes to making your life worse and ensuring the government can replace you and your children with more pliable clients.
What the American Right doesn’t understand is the ideological justification for this system, and the increasing hatred by the SPLC and other Leftists of “anti-government” groups. A Gawker or Huffington Post will see no contradiction between screaming for global warming deniers to be imprisoned and screaming about civil rights abuses if the NYPD uses surveillance on Muslims. “Liberal fascism” is not fascism precisely because it is directed against more traditionalist-oriented whites. The Constitution, or limited government, or “states’ rights” are irrelevant. The Left – both SWPLs and non-whites – doesn’t want “liberty.” It wants the state using force to restrain its enemy – the historic American nation.
And yet, for all the talk about “liberty,” even these would-be sons of the soil are dependent on state power. Bundy is, after all, asking to graze for free on government land. Bundy once enjoyed this right as he and other settlers were seen as assets by an implicitly white American government that wanted to secure its control over new territory. Now, Bundy is seen as a liability by an explicitly anti-white government – indeed, less valuable than a desert tortoise. And this macro shift in racial power has personal economic consequences – Bundy can no longer graze his cattle, and his lifestyle is marked for extinction.
The System’s media and its client populations of nonwhites are utterly frank about the desirability of eliminating what Weinstein calls the “moronic armed brutes” that once compromised the American nation. In contrast, Bundy’s battle was lost before it even begun. He and his supporters are appealing to legal arrangements in the blissful ignorance that law is only the surface of power – what sustains it is a belief in legitimacy backed with primal forces of identity and willingness to use violence.
There are only two possibilities regarding the Constitution of the United States. One is that it is working as it was intended, in which case it is a monstrosity. The other is that it was broken somewhere along the way – in which case it failed. Either way, Bundy and his supporters, both on the range and the media, are but priests of a dead god, appealing to ritualistic legal formulas and sacred texts which have long been dismissed by the rulers of the country.
The law is a creation of power, not a source. And politics is about who controls state power, not what after the fact rationalization is made up to con the rubes. The historic American nation cannot look to its salvation through the rhetoric of “limited government” or an appeal to a white United States that is long since dead and buried. White Americans can only save themselves in the fight in their own name – not in the name of the very regime that is destroying them. The alternative is for Bundy and American conservatives, in this case and so many others, to continue to claim that they are the champions of the real “colorblind” “limited government” American ideology.
The clash in Nevada is between two differing versions of Idiocracy. Contra the media rhetoric, both sides are claiming to fight in the name of the true egalitarian American vision. It may seem incredible that so many whites are willing to say obviously untrue things like Martin Luther King would care about the constitutional rights of some cracker rancher in Nevada. But we should have some compassion. Admitting that America is dead, and that white people’s salvation can only come by carving out a state for ourselves, is far more frightening than facing down federal thugs with guns.
42 comments
Bingo, right on target, and especially the last paragraph.
Great article.
Right now on infowars you have the headline: “Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black Pro-Mexican Comments”.
What if Bundy or anyone else for that matter made some “Pro-White/Pro-European Comments”?
It’s becoming more obvious I think with each month that Americanism is becoming a serious problem, perhaps on an equal level as the JQ. Why? Because they are diverting all energy and action into these dead-ends. What Matt Parrot calls “crank-cuckoldry”.
European Nationalists are bewildered and confused at the severe lack of Nationalism in America. Even in Airstrip-One UK, the National Front is making good progress.
For anybody reading this here from Europe you have your answer. America’s origin as a enlightenment constitutional republic has made it so that traditional White Americans are attached to this bizarre dangerous idea of “equality”. I support the AFP but even when I hear their ads on Michael Rivero’s show I notice the appeals to “freedom” and “liberty”.
BTW what are the the Pro-White groups in America? Off the top of my head I see Counter-Currents Publishing, NPI, AmRen, Daily Stormer, and Kevin MacDonald’s American Freedom Party.
I suppose I also support Southern Nationalism from the League of the South and The Council of Conservative Citizens. Because this large population of American Whites is so different from one another, realistically there will probably be multiple White Ethnostates conforming to the ideas for each group.
~New England Millennial~
More than equality, which you are right about, i think it is the constant struggle to satisfy money hungry egos that keep a lot of euro-americans to be compared with us.
But honnestly, seeing the demograpgic changes here ans there, both areas will have to somehow focus on the substance (ethnie), rather than the container( nations).
Awesome site by the way, was desperate to find an ethnocentered site that focuses on intellectual skills rather than the nostalgy of third raïsch.
Merci!
In one of the passages from Hitler’s Table talk he says something to the effect that he never tried to curry favor with the bourgeoisie. In our own times, I would say that White Nationalists should not try to curry favor with conservatives or libertarians. These people are a lost cause in my opinion.
I love cowboys. Just because he has no prejudice against blacks means he has probably meet some good ones who are willing to work. The measure is the man, not the skin. This has been a noble trait of whites for a long time. That is why we are in trouble now. The world has changed.
When the law no longer has the spirit of justice, this is what happens. I do believe that this is what conservatives do not understand. It is about power now, not justice or inalienable rights. Long gone values which still exist in the rural America and Canada. You know the local butcher will not cheat you because you will tell everyone you know that he did, but with the big business, it is a little different. They don’t care. People in cities get so jaded that they cling to the law as if it was divine. I just cannot stand the conformity. Give me a few crazy gold miners and cowboys and they make life very interesting. The sure sign that everyone has been domesticated is this divination of the law. (and for whose benefit)
No Bundy is not a white nationalist. But he may become one. He is the spirit of the Alamo, fighting for what he believes. I just hate how environmental issues have become an excuse for the government to go after ranchers and the common man. It is not them who hate the land. I am sure Harry Reid’s Chinese solar plan would harm tortoises much more than cattle. Oh those city zombies unable to see the forest for the profits or the desert for the solar panels.
“You know the local butcher will not cheat you because you will tell everyone you know that he did, but with the big business, it is a little different. They don’t care. People in cities get so jaded that they cling to the law as if it was divine.”
I have thought that this might partly explain the burning hatred of Jews for small town America and “flyover country”: it’s more difficult to get away with dishonest and manipulative behavior in small towns as compared to large cities. Jews have to restrain their vicious, vampiric instincts if they are not to draw attention to themselves. Popular opinion in a small and relatively fixed population has quite different properties from popular opinion in a large and fluid population. A bad reputation has real consequences, is easily acquired, and hard to shake it off. It’s harder to manipulate or fabricate popular opinion, which is what Jews need to do if they are to most effectively exploit their hosts.
It’s a good insight. Infectious diseases need a large population to sustain themselves. That’s why quarantine works.
I always wondered about that. I believe you have the answer. I want to add Gregory Hood’s article is completely outstanding and reading it produced a visceral reaction in me. I can not praise it enough.
The ” conservatives” and Republicans allow the left to dictate what they can say and how far they can go with any political view.
Here in my town recently a crack head broke into the Kalispell Montana abortion clinic trying to find drugs and money. He also broke into several other businesses that night. His mom was a member of the church group that does a 40 day ( really low key btw) vigil in front of the abortion clinic. So immediately it became a HATE CRIME. (And because I wrote a post on Stormfront 6 years ago telling people to donate money to a totally seperate Kalispell pro life group my name was on EVERY article and in EVERY news cast regarding the issue all over the state. WTF? Im not into crack and he was not a WN. I didnt even know these people but suddenly the human rights network was trying to make it out that ” racists” were involved…)
Anyway, the local pro life group literally fell all over themselves in order to ” write letters of sympathy and call to give support” to the very woman who had been murdering little babies, something they said they were against. They even showed up in ” support” of her in court when she came to testify about the damage to her building by Crackhead.
All it took was the word ” hate crime” and they turned tail and all but raced to kiss the ass of the baby killer. It was really really sickening.
I am done with these kind of people. I HOPE that it gets worse so that they have to live under the totalitarian regime that tells them what they can say and think. I hope that not a single conservative EVER wins an election again. The left will deserve what they get and so will the “right”.
All it took was the word ” hate crime” and they turned tail and all but raced to kiss the ass of the baby killer. It was really really sickening.
Indeed, though I am an evangelical and therefore anti-abortion, the sickening effeminacy (cowardliness) of evangelicas as a whole is making it increasingly harder for me to identify with same as a folk, if you will. As to faith we are alligned on essentials but this timorousness over the point-and-sputtering bleating of the left – a fear of mere words is the very ground-sewer level of cravenness. I will have to say, however, that the fault lies to great degree with theelite scribblers of big religion who gull the lay-folk with false guilt and a corrupted proposition of Christian universalism. A universalism that our fathers and mothers would have been appalled by. They are doing their fair share of neo-Marxist hasbara – to their everlasting shame and the curses of their soon-to-be dispossessed religious charges.
”Liberty” and ”Freedom” – these words have come to mean whatever you want them to mean. These words are being deployed by American politicians of all shades ad nauseam to justify anything from statist welfare to affirmative action to war. It seems these vile politicians have eaten too much of greasy, lard-packed ”freedom fries”.
In the traditionalist Indo-European sphere, ”Liberty” does not come really come up. An individual is not ”atomised” and ”free” but is organically connected to the rest of his kinsmen (”kin” is of Indo-European origin with cognates such as ‘Cynn” in old English, ”Genus” in Latin, ”Genos” in Greek, ”Janah” in Sanskrit).
When one is connected to their Genus-Genos-Janah through ancestral memories, through common rituals, through duties owed and expected, through shared traditions (oral and written) and through myths and legends, where is the need or the space for ”freedom”?
Some of the Indo-European inheritor cultures later (1st mil BC ?) did develop a theological concept of ‘liberty’ called ‘Moksha’ or ‘Nirvana’ which is really ”cosmic freedom” from cyclical time (cycles of birth and death).
This modern / post-modern idea of ”freedom” – free to atomise, disintegrate, become lonely and then consume – is alien to the soul of the Indo-European.
Please critique me and correct my understanding if it’s flawed.
Not a criticism, just an observation. I found the following in a Soviet history book, regarding the Roman conception of liberty:
‘The second basic concept was freedom, libertas , the freeborn citizen’s right to freely express his will, which distinguished him from slave and even freedman, both of whom had to conceal their thoughts.’ (Ancient Civilisations of East and West, page 279).
According to this source, it was part of the Roman trinity of pietas (the Roman idea of this was more akin to ‘duty’ than ‘piety’ as we understand it nowadays), libertas and fides (‘honouring one’s word’).
Perhaps liberty, in the traditional sense, is best expressed by the pagan proverb: ‘Whoever is brave, is free.’
There are only two possibilities regarding the Constitution of the United States. One is that it is working as it was intended, in which case it is a monstrosity. The other is that it was broken somewhere along the way – in which case it failed.
Very nicely put. I think Lysander Spooner said it best:”But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
The law is a creation of power, not a source. And politics is about who controls state power, not what after the fact rationalization is made up to con the rubes.
Very nicely put once again. Worthy of Schmitt or De Maistre.
Reading Hood’s review of the regime’s reaction to the Bundy affair I can’t help but think that we are approaching a Weimar, or a 1936 Spain episode.
This is an absolutely brilliant article, I must say. The last paragraph, as another has said, is bang on the money.
I know I probably shouldn’t at this point, but I still find it amazing at how websites like Salon so openly proclaim their descriptions of ‘angry, old, white men’, and just get away with it, with barely, if any, comments below calling them out on it. It’s a situation where the race of the individuals involved has nothing to do with it, yet they invoke the description whenever they can and the hatred that emanates from such a description is stark, you can really feel the association of white = evil when they use it.
Then there’s ‘old’. I don’t know if it has always been like this, but am I alone in feeling that in the west today being of an old age is seen as something to be looked down upon as if the person has actually done something wrong by staying alive past 50? I honestly get that impression, the description of ‘old’ against someone a writer dislikes is so openly used without a hint of shame, from both the left and the right I think, when it is such a ridiculous and irrelevant thing to insert that should, in a sane society, completely discredit the writer…but alas it does not.
‘To be a liberal white means to seek out a place in the administration of the Managerial State, governing the behavior of whites for the benefit of non-white mascots. ‘
So true.
I am laughing out loud while reading your critique of the Libs and their scribbling, and yet reminded that these people are deadly serious. Those like Mr Bundy are naïve and they would do well to consider the “two possibilities of the Constitution of the United States. One that is working as it was intended and one that is a monstrosity.” After reading Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s book, “The Real Lincoln, A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”, which I think would clear up the, “two possibilities” real quick. Those that think we are still living under the Founder’s Constitution are living in a delusion.
Mr. Hood,
I thought you would enjoy this link. NBC News(surprisingly not The Onion) is reporting that Chicago suffers from an epidemic of “murder inequality.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tale-two-chicagos-violence-plagues-citys-south-west-sides-n86166
Best thing on the subject so far. Quoted and quibcagged here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/
In the 1980s George Hunt was a volunteer at the Fourth Wilderness Conference which was attended by such dignitaries as Maurice Strong and the Rothschilds. After hearing about the proposal to establish a new world bank based on natural resources, i.e. land, George went on the road to warn his fellow citizens. He also wrote a book and made a video both of which seem to have gone down the memory hole. The nearest I can come to it his his recollections of the 1989 conference when he discusses the Rio Summit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZeWSEFJqI Whether this has anything to do with the latest land grab is beyond me but as we are all keen to know what is going to replace the petrodollar I thought that some of you might be interested.
This whole Bundy thing is an example of Metapolitcs in action.
Bundy is in the wrong here. Ranchers pay a very paltry sum to graze on public land and the land which Bundy uses was purchased by the Feds after the Mexican War and they still own it. Part of the BLM’s charter is to protect the land while still allowing ranchers to use it. All ranchers must deal with BLM policies and sometimes, as during a dry year, the BLM must cut back on permits to avoid another Dust Bowl.
To put it in crude economic terms, the BLM exists to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons.
Any rate, back to Metapolitics-this lone rancher has used the libertarian/conservative metapolitical idealism to cause nearly a thousand (is that number right?) Americans to take down their hunting rifles and go against armed Federal Law Enforcement agents like it was Lexington 1775.
All for an illegal immigrant using crony capitalist Corporate Welfare Queen.
A good idea perhaps, to see how the “Don’t Tread on Me” ideas got into his “militia” supporters heads. Those seeking true justice could gain some useful tips.
“…the land which Bundy uses was purchased by the Feds after the Mexican War and they still own it. Part of the BLM’s charter is to protect the land while still allowing ranchers to use it.”
Who are “they” that you refer to as “owning” the land? Theoreticallly it is public land and therefore “owned” by the citizenry and managed at the behest of, and for the benefit of the citizenry. Harry Reid acts as though it belongs to him personally, and by extension, apparently, to his son who stands to profit from a poposed deal with wealthy non-White foreigners.
The author states, “Bundy is, after all, asking to graze for free on government land.”
My understading is that Bundy’s position is not so simple. He refuses to pay the Feds on Constitutional grounds, but has been willing to pay state and local authorities, based on his belief in State sovereignty over all public lands within Nevada.
One reason for the leftwing vituperation over the Bundy Affair is that leftists are running scared.
All it takes is one rancher in the heartland to stand up alongside a few good old boys, and the left’s collective head melts down. Their whole system relies on complete conformity. When someone challenges it, especially by using the left’s own tactics of civil disobedience, they go into mass panic. Because if Mr. Bundy gets away with it (whatever “it” may be), then other white people might start doing the same.
Another thing: the left really can not deal with armed opposition. Yeah, leftists might be able to pull off some mob violence against milquetoast conservatives on a college campus. But guys with guns who do not back down, and who even have some semblance of an ideology behind them? That is another story. Leftists are Machiavelli’s “foxes” as compared to “lions.” Once the lions wake up, it’s over for the foxes.
Consider this: Bundy and his posse have a halfbaked ideology at best. What if there were a movement which had an ironclad ideology? And was prepared to exploit the confrontation to trigger a much wider mobilization among white people?
This affair needs to be studied and used for the future.
I wanted to comment on this:
“Indeed, the Left-wing faux anarchists of “Burning Man” are holding a festival nearby specifically to mock Bundy and his concerns.”
I went to Burning Man once, years ago.
Once.
It was supposed to be a big counterculture event, free spirits building a new community in the desert with no bounds, groovy man. But of course, the organizers started with a big lecture about how they were working alongside law enforcement to keep this a drug-free event, and that there were undercover narcotics agents circulating, so trust no one. This was on top of a perimeter fence which was supposed to keep wildlife out — or maybe the attendees in. The whole thing seemed to be a self-constructed Prison Camp in the Desert, an illusion of freedom in which people “oohed” and “ahhed” at theme camps and performance artists as if they were at a pay-to-play rock venue on Sunset Boulevard. You ended up with thousands of people wandering in circles at night, drinking (legal) alcohol and seeking out port-o-johns.
Just another level of The Matrix.
I say all this because Burning Man is indicative of the overall illusion. The people whom the public might think are committed to a revolutionary vision are the ones most in bed with the system. So when it is reported that “Burners” are taking up the government’s side in L’affaire Bundy, it hardly comes as a surprise. Most of what is laughably called the Left has long since become a front for the system. And America has long since become that self-constructed prison camp, upheld by the illusion of freedom when the perimeter fences are closing in, whether on cattle or on what can be debated in public.
This is where the Alternative Right can come in with its vision…
Diversity means chasing down every last white person.
You can tell that Cliven Bundy is up in age, even if you didn’t know it already, because, as you can see from the photo of the sign on his ranch, he uses “kid” to refer to a juvenile goat.
Now, as for your points, I’ve been waiting for you (Gregory Hood) to write something about the Bundy issue, because once you write something about something, there’s nothing left to be said, and it usually winds up being the definitive treatise or essay about a current issue in the WN/EN/RR/HBD/DE spehere.
That said, we (and I’m using “we” somewhat loosely) have to get away from this folly of trying either to meld racialism and libertarianism, or trying to pass racialism off as some sort of libertarian movement or offshoot, or, as the racialist Ron Paul supporters said in 2008 and 2012, that racialism can disparately impact from the libertarian cause. It does nothing but create a huge grab bag of moral and philosophical paradoxes and contradictions that wind up making most people crazy who try to be both racialist and libertarian, and because of our cultural Marxist climate, those that try will wind up drifting toward the libertarian and therefore become more anti-white over time. And we can come off sounding confused and crazy in the process, as we pitch a slow meatball over the heart of the plate with a slugger from the enemy team up to bat.
Then there’s the problem that libertarians win next to nothing, because most white voters are scared of the economic agenda of libertarians. And that leads to my next point: Most sane and right thinking people are on Cliven Bundy’s side, and they fully realize that government have become way too abusive of their power. So why hasn’t “our” side been able to translate that into getting governments to stop being abusive? Because the people who want governments not to be abusive are also dicking around with libertarian economic ideology, forcing people, white people no less, into the implication of having to choose between Medicare and not being abusive toward Cliven Bundy. And given that choice, you know the choice almost all voters will make. They’ll gladly live under a Marxist murderous dictatorship than see the Social Security check be $1 less a month next year than this year. So what’s the solution? Don’t force people into having to make that choice. Ditch libertarian economic ideology.
Well said. The Right must completely liberate itself from free market economic orthodoxy and classical liberal individualism.
It doesn’t mean that we have to ditch totally the free market or individualism, and it doesn’t mean that we have to embrace communism in the process.
We just must not allow them to become ideological cults, and we must not feel that just because we take the free market part (to an extent) and the individualism part (to an extent), that we’re somehow on the hook to swallow the rest of libertarianism, including its sine qua non, race denial and open borders.
Alain DeBenoist once said “I want to live in a society with markets, not a market society”. I think that pretty well sums it up. Free markets are good for some things but the “free market” (which is heavily manipulated by wealthy interests) is not the ultimate arbiter of values. For many libertarians, it is the ultimate source of values, which scares most white people who instinctively recognize what a bad idea this is.
Free markets are good for some things but the “free market” (which is heavily manipulated by wealthy interests
Lately, I’ve begun using Chomsky’s label: STATE capitalism. Not free market capitalism, because a classical free market is exactly we do not have once you get to level of large corporations, large banks, and the oligarchs who run them. When large businesses routinely “privatize” profits while “socializing” or pushing their costs onto the wider society with direct assistance from the government, that is not in any sense a free market. Even Adam Smith condemned business interests being indifferent to how their activities impact society.
Now here’s a tip for the readership. I strongly recommend you follow it if you’re not already doing this. My impression is that in our discourse communities we spend substantial time talking about conservatives and libertarians. We deal with questions such as how do we get these people to understand capitalism (more accurately state capitalism) is a problem. But people who lean left need to be convinced too. Myself, I’m mostly around liberals. With them, what you want to do IMO is frame wnsm/NR as being opposed to neo-liberal economics. Which it is I think, though I don’t see it put this way very often.
Very broadly, state capitalism and neo-liberal economics describe the same approach to the economy. But the term neo-liberalism has more currency within the contemporary left. Globalism itself, the economic aspects of it, boils down to an effort to take neo-liberalism global, with the US government leading the charge. That is partly what the American agenda in Ukraine is about; it’s one front in the mission to take neo-liberalism global. In Ukraine’s case, a main goal is to seize Ukrainian wealth and privatize it for the benefit of oligarchs with US-state backing. The American domestic equivalent to this practice is the conservative Republican policy idea of “privatization,” selling state assets and jobs to privately owned businesses.
So that’s my tip. Especially if you’re working within NR/ENR or west coast strains of nationalism, frame your economic critique in terms of being opposed to neo-liberal economics.
This synchronicity between libertarians and White Nationalists should be appreciated and massaged, because the last thing we need is to be pushing white people away from us. It is stupid and self-destructive to be denouncing serious and accomplished men, like Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, and many of the fine writers and researchers at Lew Rockwell.
Here’s an 8-minute reading on a chapter called “Discrimination” from a 2011 Ron Paul book. It could have been written by a White Nationalist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHkCW8G5nCw&t=58m15s
Until I perused Stormfront, I never knew that White Nationalism was so successful that we could be picky even to the point that we should mock and repel even the sort of men who wrote and agree with that passage.
Libertarian ethos is as natural to white men as taking pride in a clean home is to white women. Individualism and not wanting to live in fear of the rule of Big Chief government was the source ideology of this formerly great country. I also think it’s practical for whites: I’m not aware of any instances where white people wittingly submitted to any sort of authoritarianism for any extended period of time.
What’s more, in its most honest form, libertarianism and White Nationalism are compatible: In a true libertarian philosophy (such as in America circa 1900) white people would be free to form and defend their own communities.
It’s no surprise that there’s so much overlap between libertarians and race realists. Look at all the times libertarians have been “caught” being racist – from Ron Paul’s newsletters to his sociopath politician son saying the Civil Rights Act was wrong to LewRockwell.com writers to even the links on Twitter feeds of libertarians – there is clearly an ideological synchronicity between libertarians and White Nationalists. (I’m speaking of sincere libertarians, not the phony “Beltway Libertarians” that dominate Reason, the CATO Institute, and so forth.)
If tomorrow, white people had their own country, but it rejected libertarian ideas and was instead ruled by the sort of sociopath busybodies who are most compelled to government work, then within five years half the white population would defect back to their condos in suburban Chicago or their gated communities in Florida. White people simply don’t like self-righteous busybodies stomping into their homes, telling them how to think and how to live. Do you?
lol at one instance of where a “fascist” government could quickly ruin its entire country in a single generation: health edicts. I have gotten into the paleo diet in the past few years and it has been miraculous for me and my dad. I was informed of the paleo diet via LewRockwell and the libertarian community, where it has become HUGE. Conversely, I’ve frequently advocated the paleo diet at WN message boards….and the aspiring little tyrants most always mock the paleo diet and begin singing the glories of beer (“Hollywood shows Thor guzzling beer, so guzzling beer is the way for white men to be Viking War Gods!!!”) and how Hitler was a vegetarian, and therefore a WN state must impose Hitler’s diet on its people.
The punchline is looking at the photos and health of many White Nationalists: bloated, sickly, and androgenous. No, I don’t want these beer-bellied hobbits telling me what food to eat.
In addition to taking care of one’s own health, things such as home schooling and self-education, personal responsibility on finances, and celebration of innovation and industriousness would all be in jeopardy, and would likely atrophy, in any White civilization which rejected libertarianism.
Dreams of a dictatorship by White Nationalists are (a) never going to resonate with many whites (well, unless THEY’RE the dictators) and (b) would be disastrous if ever instituted, as in the example of government-mandated veganism.
So knocking on libertarians is self-destructive as a recruiting tool (like wearing Nazi costumes) and is ominous for any White Nation, insofar as it portends Big Chief governance, which works for Africans, but not for whites.
White Nationalists are not liberal individualists but racial collectivists and communitarians. We put the common good before private interests. Libertarians claim that collectives are both illusory and evil, and they deny that there is a common good altogether, or they claim that they common good is best served by ignoring it and pursing private interests. Libertarians elevate blindness to groups and group differences to a matter of high principle, which is ironic since some of them claim to base their views on objective reality.
The idyllic small-town America that you praise was not the product of economic libertarianism but of mercantilism and populist-republicanism. American communities are being destroyed by selfish capitalist individualism, which encourages globalization and deindustrialization so that consumers can have cheaper goods.
I know many white nationalists who are ex-libertarians, myself among them, but nobody grows out of libertarianism unless he is confronted with its shocking stupidity in the face of group differences and group competition.
Being “racial collectivists and communitarians” is 100% compatible with libertarianism. One can form a community and nation, and so long as membership is voluntary, it is libertarian.
A good P.R. stunt: Ask Ron Paul this question – “If people have the right of free association as long as membership in a community is voluntary, then do white people have the right to form their own community of only white people?” – and see him begrudgingly agree that whites indeed have the right, AND self-defense of that right. Ron Paul’s statement could generate huge “outrage” from liberals, and at the same time goad many libertarians to accept nationalism.
As far as the government “putting the common good [of the race]” first, that’s great in theory, failure in practice. Politics and high level government work attracts sociopaths the same as millionaires attract hotties. It’s always been this way, and always will be. Sociopaths have neither the desire nor the ability to dictate the “public good”. (Not all bureaucrats are sociopaths, nor are all millionaire’s wives golddiggers, but the percentages are very high.)
To repeat my earlier example, it is very clear that a huge segment of retard White Nationalists believe that guzzling beer and being a vegetarian – “Just like Hitler!” – is good public policy. I would never, ever, ever live in a situation where buffoons like these controlled a powerful FDA/Department of Agriculture-like bureaucracy and put a prohibitive tax on meat – or outlawed it altogether – because I do not want to be fat, impotent, sterile and lethargic. The same could go for any one of countless other government programs said to be “for the good of the people”, which would end up disastrously. Thomas Huxley had a eugenics program which he thought would result in geniuses, but instead which quickly resulted in a generation of stillborns and deformed babies. Somebody like him could easily be allowed to dictate who could have children in the White Nation if buffoon whites trusted the government to “know what’s best”.
So trusting a government bureaucracy to both know what’s good for everybody and to act in good faith in this is absurd and defies all white history. This is where libertarian ethos has to be adopted.
Actually, trusting private individuals to act in good faith and “secure the general welfare” — individuals who are not even trying to pursue the common good — instead of the government, which is at least in theory supposed to pursue the common good, is the true absurdity. Really, it is laughable right on the face of it. Yet libertarians believe and peddle this blatant nonsense all the time.
Citing examples of government corruption, where the state pursues private rather than public interests, only reinforces my point rather than undermines it. Government promotion of the “Four Food Groups,” for instance, is a product of agribusiness lobbying, not a reality-based assessment of the healthiest diet.
The history of the West, for all its ups and downs, is a record of very far-sighted and public-spirited elites pursuing the common good of their societies. Libertarians are guilty of the basest slander and the grossest ignorance when they dismiss all these people as sociopaths.
Empirically, moreover, sociopaths are drawn more to business and medicine rather than politics, and sociopathic trash tends to come to power in democracies, which is one argument for a hereditary leadership caste, which hardly fits with libertarian ideas.
And no, the ethnostate will not be voluntary. The survival of the race is too important to be left up to the choice of each individual.
So your dream of a White Nation would be a roach motel: nobody can ever leave? Would this kidnapping of citizens and refusal to allow emigration be included in the Chamber of Commerce brochure? “Come to the White Nation: You’ll Never Want to Leave….and You Never Will.”
lol. I can already see the underground railroad developing.
And I don’t agree with most any of the declarative statements that ensued after your vow to kidnap white people (citizenship isn’t voluntary).
You have some fundamental misunderstandings about economic theory. The core mechanism of a free market is individual choice, not the businessman’s whims. A businessman can be a total sociopath and push Coca-Cola on teenagers. But it’s up to the individual to decide whether to drink it or be healthy. Far more importantly: it is the government (in the case of soda pop, soy, and grains) which has enabled the choice to be so difficult for people with the artificially low prices of sugar products via subsidies (and comparatively high prices on healthy foods).
In addition to a silly interpretation of governance and civil law, the other point I was making about this endless snark against libertarians is that it’s repelling the very sort of people we should be recruiting: civilly curious, industrious, white men.
Look at the young whites at a Ron Paul gathering (not even a college one): Lean, energetic, sharp-witted, and sincere. Look at the sort of whites at the latest white gathering elsewhere (I won’t site any specifics out of kindness, but I can provide links if prompted): Bloated, irate, and frankly a little bit creepy. To me, it’s idiotic to be pushing the former away with shallow snark about their economic theory, and instead just giving the bobblehead dolls another tap on the skull.
The goal is an explicitly and exclusively White nation. The bureaucratic arrangement of government is secondary. Perhaps the best solution would be, well, united states: One region can be your apparent dream of some sort of Logan’s Run bubble dome where, once admitted, nobody can escape. Another can be for the lean and healthy Ron Paul people who don’t want to be kidnapped by their state. Another can be a Christian state. And so forth. But we will all be white people, and all be explicitly loyal to the white nation. This is the way Sam Dickson speaks of his ideal ethnostate, and I agree entirely.
So it’s the time for uniting under the principle of white identity and survival, not splitting apart because of disagreements over form of governance.
Find the common ground with the sincere and serious men in the libertarian community, rather than push them away with mockery (here) or unbridled hatred (Stormfront and elsewhere). You seem to hate business, but look at things from that angle: If you have millions of potential customers, and your store is on the cusp of going out of business, is it best to expand your product line to get those millions of customers, or limp along with no customers?
I’ve heard even Kevin MacDonald, in several interviews, speaking with very clear despair in his voice about how whites are not “waking up” as he’d hoped. Clearly, changes have to be made.
“Kidnapping”? That’s a juvenile parody even by libertarian standards.
Libertarianism is a philosophically incompatible ideology. Libertarians are useless to the White Nationalist project as long as they remain libertarians. And the only way they will cease to be libertarians is if we criticize their ideas and scorn their follies.
Libertarianism is not merely a bad ideology which would have terrible consequences, but it is entirely irrelevant to the defense of what is most important. The Bundy business is depressing to me, because the kind of Right-wing anti-government individualism represented by Bundy and his supporters is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Bundy is hated by the establishment as a white man, and yet he and his Right-wing defenders will not defend him on racial grounds. The Left attacks on the racial front, but the Right will only defend classical liberal abstractions. So the Right always fails.
Jim Goad put it brilliantly in one of his recent articles: he fights as an individual, which means he is always outnumbered by the people who fight as teams.
lol. Some people just love failure.
Libertarians love to verbally align themselves with achievers, but those who achieve the most by libertarian, i.e., monetary, standards are politically aligned with the Left.
Pandering to the “mainstream” is a path to oblivion, but at least it has the surface appearance of plausibility, since the middle is where the numbers and the power are. But we want to lead people in our direction, not be led in their direction (which in turn is being led ever further to the Left, because the Left vanguard always insists that things move toward them).
Pandering to libertarians is absurd on the face of it, because they’re not just politically clueless, they’re politically powerless as well, and there just aren’t that many of them.
Excellent commentary & a Big Thanks to Countenance for the referral! Just as needed to be said of every ideology in the West, beware of Left/tea-tarians as proposed by idiot Rand Paul & the Libertarian based belief of Lew Rockwell, Mises & even the elder Paul!
“One can only say that the tragic spectacle of a withered Lefty crone having flashbacks about Woodstock because it was the last time she received male attention is sufficient in itself to discredit everything she’s ever said.”
I must say that this line just cracked me up. I used to read her way back when she was pretending to be a man. Very confusing.
Indulge a fan of Gregory Hood’s if you will. Everything seems to appear in this piece. Gratifying, inchoate insights; savage counter-blast; blistering lampoon; hilarious mockery; and much, much more. GH is the bomb.
Good essay. can replace you and your children with more pliable clients. Actually they don’t care about pliability, they just want you dead. They don’t care if you’re replaced by un-pliable Muslims, they just want you dead. There’s mo real goal here except your extermination. They will end up losing power in the long run, they don’t care, they just want you dead. It isn’t really political or economic, they just want . . . well, you know.
Aw c’mon! You can’t expect the Demi-Gods of Galt’s Gulch to pick their own crops or wash their own dishes – except as part of a sexual fantasy that is. It would get old very fast and they would bring in Blacks and Mexicans to do the dirty work. Then they would become afraid of them and feel that they had to elevate some of them to be their peers. Also no doubt the raunchy billionaires would already be mixing it up with staff and lots of mixed toddlers would be falling into pools by this point. The gods love their human paramours and look after their children by them.
As the Fuhrer said, We need a new order that will create a new kind of Man, one above such petty conflicts. And they will create an Order that will protect lesser men from such temptations.
Finally got to find an equivalent site to fdesouche.com in France my home country.
I live in Oklahoma, and i am glad to discover that there is, here too, a newer generation aware of its capabilities.
I thought stupidely fir years that only country people in the US had still something of “occidental ethno conservatism” to share.
This site here seems much more intellectually developped, very interesting in that youger whites are not only concerned by the size of their wallets( i find it really insane at times)but that will go nowhere if not coupled with a network of deeply rooted communities.
It will be a long process to get somewhere politically, for both europeans and north americans.
I heard of an editor that translates in english all the important books in to educate young generations accross north hemisphere.
the language barrier has always been our main issue in Europe in order to share and exchange same poitical ideals from germany to spain. I mean this at a human level, out of political organizations. At roughly 800 millions occidentals left round the globe, it s about time to prepare the next generation to what babyboomers have thrown us into:
Diversity macht frei…
And i am not a fan of the german small moustache guy, i am simply proud to be part of the richest and most diverse ethnie on planet earth.
Thanks y’all!
Honneur et fierté!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.