Counter-Currents
1,080 words
I was recently reading in the news about a group of English soccer fans who, while chanting “we’re racist,” refused to allow a Negro to board a train in Paris. This was, as one can imagine, inflated into an international incident, plastered across newspapers and websites, certainly more important to the System than those mild shenanigans in Rotherham (completely forgotten about by now). Let us for a moment forget that a Negro has no business being in Paris to begin with, and consider the deeper meaning of this incident.
When such things occur, I wonder about the perpetrators. Of course, we do not know who they are, but I very much doubt that these are any sort of real racial nationalists or ethnonationalists. I wonder who they vote for back in England, who they support. Maybe the Conservatives. Maybe even Labour (do you doubt it?). Maybe — “at best” — some support the UKIP. If Nick Griffin was running for office how many of those “racist” soccer fans would vote for him, as opposed to the mainstream conservatives? Most likely, not a single one. The “bigotry” of these soccer fans is personal, not political. There may well have been alcohol involved. Typical of the juvenile and feckless creatures Whites have become, displeasure over race replacement does not manifest in practical political action, but in carefully hidden disquiet that will rarely erupt in a silly display of (drunken?) hooliganism.
There used to be a TV show popular in 1970s America, All in the Family, with one of the most famous characters in television history: the blue-collar White bigot Archie Bunker. This being a Jewish-created show, Bunker was of course shown as ignorant and buffoonish, no surprises there. But, that said, he did — and still does — represent something about Whites that remains a serious problem for nationalist progress.
Despite all of Bunker’s anger and frustrations toward minorities (and also White ethnic Catholics), he was — what? A neo-Nazi? No, not by a long shot. Bunker was a supporter of Richard Nixon, the Republican President who promoted affirmative action and busing. Bunker gave his ardent support to a politician who enacted policies that were complete anathema to Bunker’s fundamental racial beliefs. Thus, the problem: Bunker’s racialism never expressed itself in practical politics, it never manifested in a manner that could influence public policy or in any way modify the historical currents to which he objected. Like White “bigots” the world over, Bunker’s racialism was private, manifested in “venting,” and bluff displays of “politically incorrect” verbal bravado (and even that is forbidden today), not in any sort of useful activism, not even in making the right choice on election day.
White “bigotry” is childish, useless, sterile. It accomplishes nothing but to energize the anti-White Left, and give more ammunition to the forces of White dispossession. I’ve had Bunkers in my family; I’ve known their behavior well. You the reader may have had the same experiences in your family. Folks who sputter with venom about “the niggers and the spics,” and yet go on to vote for Nixon or Bob Dole or George “Open Borders” Bush or John McAmnesty or any of the others. These are folks who are deeply upset about illegal immigration and who will rail against “dem wetbacks crossin’ the border” but then they’ll flock to the polls and eagerly vote for a Jeb Bush or a Marco Rubio. Their bigotry is all “hot air,” it is “sound and fury signifying nothing.” And as their world crumbles around them, they begin to find that even this harmless venting, this juvenile name-calling, even that is no longer allowed. it is “hate speech,” and they had better learn to just “shut up” and vote for whatever White-hating, immigrant-loving, far-Left GOP candidate is being championed by FOX news.
There are some who would make excuses for the Bunkers. Why, they say, there’s no choice on the ballot! Better Nixon than McGovern! Putting aside the issue of why the Bunkers allowed their nation to be stolen from them, so they are constantly presented with such non-choices, the fact remains that, even when a small level of choice is in fact presented to them, they don’t take advantage of it. David Duke ran for President several times. He did very poorly. What fraction of “White bigotry” supported Duke? A small fraction indeed. Pat Buchanan is a moderate paleoconservative and no racialist, and it is true he was part of the Nixon administration. But compared to other Republicans, Buchanan at least represents a sliver of difference compared to the neoconservative juggernaut. How did Buchanan’s Presidential aspirations fair? Also poorly. Republican primary voters, far more “conservative” than the general White population, favored the likes of Bush Sr. and “civil rights Republican” Bob Dole over Pat Buchanan. If even someone like Sessions, a System Republican who takes a hard line against immigration, were to run for President, do you doubt that the Archie Bunkers would still vote for Jeb and Marco, all the time muttering under their breath about the “illegals stealing our country?”
Europeans are not much better. Significant fractions of Europeans express strong opposition to mass immigration in opinion polls, and then these same people cheerfully go to the ballot box to vote for a Merkel, a Sarkozy, a Cameron, or worse. I have no doubt that in, say, Greece, the fraction of the population vehemently against immigration is significantly larger than the fraction who vote for Golden Dawn. But these “bigots” will instead vote for pro-immigration conservatives or even for Syriza.
The problem is not just that we need to “wake more White people up,” it is that those who are at least partially awakened refuse to act upon their beliefs and upon their “awakened” status. Like Archie Bunker, they’ll mutter and complain, shout racial slurs at soccer games, prevent Negroes from boarding trains, leave comments on Internet blog threads, but they won’t even vote the right way in the complete privacy of the ballot.
This “Bunker Syndrome” represents a major impediment to progress: even when Whites know, they do not act. Even when they know, they will not vote for the far-Right. Even when they know, they remain complicit in their own dispossession. So, the “movement” had better be aware that it is not enough to educate and “awaken,” one must somehow instill political maturity and seriousness into a population that behaves like a bunch of semi-retarded children. That will not be an easy task.
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-bunker-syndrome.html
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
33 comments
I don’t see the point in chastising the average white person when all of the problems we face today stem from a failure of leadership. By definition, the average man is… average, middling. He’s not a superhero. He can’t be a part of nor really understand any sort of political vanguard. What’s he to do when all that’s offered to him politically is garbage and the only palatable alternatives are virtually non-existent? Leave the Archie Bunkers alone. This mess isn’t their fault and they alone don’t possess the capacity to fix it. That’s just democratic nonsense.
It might be better to think of these critical portraits as phases through which many of us pass on the way to something else, rather than types to be finally and irretrievably condemned.
The average man certainly can’t fix the system but by refusing to support those who would advocate for him he deserves what he gets. The people of Rotherham could have voted for the BNP but didn’t and their children were sexually abused. No point crying about it now. The North American average man has a wide assortment of advocates to choose from but refuses to make the effort. If the average man can’t be bothered to make the effort then their children and grandchildren deserve whats coming – its a gift from the average man.
” The people of Rotherham could have voted for the BNP but didn’t and their children were sexually abused.”
Exactly. Also see this:
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2015/02/out-of-it/
Here’s a question to ponder about those White Rotherham parents. Would they vote for the BNP today? Not back then, but…today. After all that’s happened, after all they know. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Another question: do the average members of other races show so little regard for supporting those who represent them racially? Does anyone believe the typical Black bigot would support, say, Thomas Sowell over, say, Al Sharpton? The idea is laughable. But when Duke ran, or even the milksop Buchanan, the votes went to Bush and Dole.
@Theodore
I guess they’ll vote for the BNP or something similar as a last resort, when they feel like they’re at Rorke’s Drift.
By then, BNP will be just another multicultural party.
A part of the people stil has some instinctive reflex, but the ruling order is represing it down. Unfortunatly we can not rely on it, because it is not enough.
Sounds like a fun evening at the train station, an act of drunken rebellion that is so politically incorrect, so defiant against a massive, stifling system of anti-Whiteness, that it is hard to resist. I don’t drink or watch soccer, but if I did, I imagine that this would be an evening to remember, that was incredibly cathartic. I was in the Ukraine several years ago, and my Ukrainian friend explained that the word for African was “Neeger”, which sounds very similar to the “Nigger Word”. He couldn’t understand why I kept saying it and laughing. I think he was worried for a while that I was losing my mind. It was such a profound relief to be able to say the “Nigger Word” as a reference to Africans, and it was absolutely perfectly normal, no one even raised an eyebrow. It had no more social approbrium than the word, “milk”. The system of political correctness is such a dead weight, requiring Europeans to continually silence themselves and run from the dreaded epithet “racist”, that being able to get drunk and cry, “I’m a racist”, while doing something mildly annoying to a non-White would, I imagine, be a great relief and escape, which is why most people drink, I suppose.
Is treating a black or other non-white person unfairly & saying the word nigger what being a white man is all about ?
Thank you for your point-missing comment. White men desire to be free, to be able to act and speak frankly and honestly. When living in an unnatural, oppressive environment which punishes these things, it is natural that people rebel, even if they are in small, symbolic ways. To be a “racist” in England is to be an outlaw, this is literally a crime punishable by prison time. Rebellion against unjust oppression is normal, natural and good. As far as I know, the non-White was not harmed, just inconvenienced by a half-hour perhaps. He should not be in England in the first place, benefiting unjustly at the expense of the indigenous European inhabitants, endangering the long-term survival of that people.
I am generally in agreement with Mr. Sallis, but I understand the European Archie Bunkers, and it is hard to fault human beings for being human. The problem is that they are not xenophobic enough, they are too tolerant. The Japanese, Korean, Iraqi et al Archie Bunkers are many times more xenophobic and achieve real results in maintaining the homogeneity of their nations.
I think it’s because the candidates you’re asking these “bigots” to vote for don’t want to be accused of bigotry or feel like a bigot inside. Buchanan was demonized as a bigot. My feelings on this have changed completely within the last four or five years. While I admire Buchanan very much, particularly for his books and speeches on WW II, I never voted for him and I never shared his concerns for the future of the west – until the last few years.
What or who changed my mind are just a small number of people. I recall my mother coming back from a visit to Germany in the 1970;’s (her first visit after she left a few years after the war ended) and she remarked on the large number of foreigners in Germany. My father commented on a black guy working at the airport who spoke perfect German to him and my father was very surprised. None of us knew what was behind this and most people still don’t.
For me it began with listening to David Irving speeches on the internet and reading articles he wrote. I was astounded at his bravery and what he revealed, the constant and outrageous lies by the allies, led by the Jews. Then I read about the Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish!” and his plan to sterilize the entire German population and how his book received wonderful reviews in the early 1940’s, then I read about the Harvard anthropologist Ernest Hooten’s plan to bring millions of German men into foreign countries as forced laborers and have them “breed” with non-Germans and bring millions of non-Germans into Germany to “breed” with German women. This would be done supposedly to “destroy German nationalism and aggressive ideology while retaining and perpetuating desirable German biological and sociological capacities.” Of course, I also learned Germany didn’t want the war and Great Britain did and that they forced Germany into attacking Poland and then they made this small conflict into WW II.
As the historian Mark Weber wrote “In the decades since the end of World War II, something of the spirit of the genocidal Kaufman and Hooton plans seems manifest in Germany’s population and immigration policies. Since the nation’s defeat in 1945, the German birth rate has fallen to below the replacement level, millions of racially and culturally alien migrants have been welcomed as settlers in Germany, the number of children of mixed ethnicity has sharply increased, and the ethnic-cultural character of much of the country has been drastically altered, especially in the larger cities.” This is not a coincidence. Kaufman’s and Hooten’s books are the blueprints for the deracination of Germany and the rest of Europe and white countries founded by Europeans.
Then I read about American Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau’s plan to bulldoze Germany into a country of farmers that would be devoid of all industry. About ten million additional Germans would have died if fully implemented.
Then I started listening to Professor Kevin MacDonald’s speeches on Jews and their ancient hostility to whites in particular. Fascinating. Their role in promoting immigration of eastern Europeans (many being Jews) into the USA and then their role in passing the 1965 bill that would change the USA from a white Christian country into a multiracial one, the bill that opened the immigration door to the USA to the whole world, not just to Europeans as had been the case until then.
More recently I began thinking about my own family. My uncle, the German soldier (served the last few months of the war in the Waffen SS) and how he was sent to France for I believe three years, was a slave laborer there and was treated brutally, as told to me by his wife, my aunt. Then I reflected on my uncle’s Arab wife and their son, my cousin. I’ve never met him and I have nothing against Arabs, but now I understand why I have an half-Arab cousin.
Then I started considering the famous “anti-semites” like Charles Lindbergh, Father Coughlin, Henry Ford and many, many more that said Jews pushed the USA into WW II. Then I read this quote from the article link at bottom. The Polish ambassador to the USA, Germany’s most hateful enemy (besides the Jews), this man who obviously wanted peace saying the Jews run the USA and are pushing the world into a war.
In early 1938 the Polish ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki reported back to Warsaw on his observations of the American political scene:
“The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February 9) 32
On January 12, 1939 Ambassador Potocki reported back to Warsaw:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …”
There is no doubt in my mind that Jews are responsible for multiculturalism and they were responsible for WW II. If not for them, there would not be “mass” migration of non-Europeans into white countries and WW II would have never happened. At worst, it would have been a small conflict between Germany and Poland, possibly then a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Jews are the most dishonest and hateful people in the world and they are not only German’s enemies, but all of mankind.
This is how I went from being a liberal to a conservative.
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_2/the_jewish_hand_in_the_world_wars_part_2.php
One has indeed to go through the stages you did in order to understand how the present came to be and to want change. The present democratic-Western past is only one big, pernicious lie, carefully laid out, carefully maintained and fostered.
To understand that is not an easy task because all of the psychological traps and ambushes built into the narrative, so that there is an uncomfortable feeling of wrong-doing at first, when one recognizes something and is whistled back immediately by the images of mayhem and suffering millionfold repeated in films and books, allusions, ceremonies, memorials, “museums” and with certain codes (e.g., to use the number 6 million has an uncomfortable air and can be dangerous as the recent article on CC about Ms. Duisenberg described). Once one has understood the all-pervasive nature of the false narrative one can understand the present as the offspring of yesterday’s ideas set in motion.
Once this stage is passed, one is in principle ready for a revolutionary change, as the bonds to the present world have been severed with no emotional, but only a functional relationship remaining – we exist in this world and need to interact with for simple provisions and survival. No emotions bind to “a best world” anymore. With time, a parallel world could come into being with its own projections into the world.
there is an uncomfortable feeling of wrong-doing at first, when one recognizes something and is whistled back immediately by the images of mayhem and suffering millionfold repeated…”
I remember that feeling, not long time ago. It was soon replaced by a sense of loneliness and disgust for the sorrounding world, the MSM, mainstream culture, mainstream politics… I haven’t yet got over it.
Since I have gone through a long intellectual journey to be where I am, it find it very difficult to awaken people who are close to me, because of the conditioning they have been subjected to, their intellectual limitations, and other reasons. It would take years for them to wake up.
Now, when I re-read these chilling words, I don’t feel comforted:
the other degraded races wear out and disappear; the Jew remains, as determined, as expert, as persevering, as full of resource and resolution as ever. . . . All which proves, that it is in vain for man to attempt to baffle the inexorable law of nature which has decreed that a superior race shall never by destroyed or absorbed by an inferior”
(B. Disraeli, 1852)
Thank you.
With no offense, but the four comments of this article are all off the point, tangential at best and deeply confusing and demoralizing at worst. Mr. Sallis presented a very clear, persuasive, and convincing argument here, and it seriously baffles and even annoys me to see that the comments makers failed to see the picture and the coherent points of Mr. Sallis. The alternative candidates to the mainstream “conservatives” (aka. neocons) mentioned by Mr. Sallis are real, though being far from truly perfect, were by any means admittedly better and more desirable to the White Nationalist movement. It is the racial and political responsibility of those petty and immature and unqualified White “racialists” to at least make correct decisions at political elections and vote accordingly, if not committing to do more in activist practices to further and advance the White nationalist cause. How sad and lamentable those people failed to understand that and act with courage and conviction!
In a system of institutionalized political correctness, three types of people escape the mental conditioning: the very dumb, the very smart, and the very evil. Thus you have a vast intellectual chasm between the “Aryan brotherhood drug dealer” racist, and the “American Renaissance” racist.
The very dumb do not have the mental capacity to filter their words like a “respectable conservative,” and they are incapable of the mental gymnastics of the implicitly-White swipple. Sometimes we make the mistake of viewing anti-White propaganda as transparently false, when it is actually an extremely detailed and opaque deception.
As for the very evil, take, for instance, the Columbine terrorists. They liked Hitler because they believed him to be every bit as evil as they were taught he was. We can never gain anything by supporting or associating with these people.
On racial issues, the very dumb default to what their nature tells them, and only obey the system out of fear. They are incapable of leading or growing any political movement, and will be swept along by whoever seems “the strongest horse.” We are a long way away from appearing like “the strongest horse,” and therefore these people will be lost to us until are on the cusp of obtaining power.
A cancerous, reoccurring idea coming from the skinhead types is that we have to emulate fascism, because fascism succeeded in gaining political power. This idea states that we need to *start* with a paramilitary group of storm troopers, who don’t know how to do anything other than brawl and terrorize, and only *then* can we succeed. It draws parallels between the SA or the black shirts and these football hooligans. After all, Table Talk quotes Hitler as saying, “A strategist is nothing without the brute force. Better the brute force without the strategist!”
And it would be the right idea, if our countries had just lost millions of men fighting in a pointless war, millions more of whom would return disaffected to witness a succession of two of the greatest economic crashes in modern history. Men who had just spent four years practicing nothing but war, whose only instinct was to continue. Men who found their governments on the edge of anarchy, threatened by brigades of violent communist revolutionaries.
Instead of that situation, we find that over 75% of young men are ineligible for military service due to obesity, criminality, or stupidity. We find a situation in which over 90% of men are dependent on life-sucking porn and/or the life-draining pursuit of third-wave feminist pussy. Fascism rode the unstoppable wave of testosterone abundance. If it wasn’t fascism, it would have been communism. We have no wave to ride, and we can only make waves if we value virtue and truth over the false appearance of legitimate order and masculinity.
Now is the time for a return to the stoic völkisch philosophers predating the first world war. Useful hooliganism can come only after the system collapses on itself and ceases to ensure comfort and pleasure. Then “the strongest horse” will be whoever believes in the rightness of their ideas, and it won’t come from the status-quo sycophants and egoists, whose only “faith” in the system comes from its ability to satisfy their hedonism.
Fantastic article! This very much relates to an incident which took place in England just recently. There was a celebration of the death of the last Anglo Saxon King of England, King Harold at a place called Waltham Abbey just outside London. The whole event was filmed by an undercover TV crewe who wanted to expose an English Charity called the Steadfast Trust. There was one bonehead who referred to a mixed race family who attended the event as niggers walking with their nigger kid. This was captured by the TV undercover reporters and shown on TV.
A little investigation revealed that this chap was just a violent thug. He did nothing in his life that was constructive in promoting our cause or helping to bring about real change. Easier to just get pissed and call people niggers! Waste of space!
The show “All In The Family” was the first hard, Marxist propaganda the jews presented after the immigration rules were changed in 1965. The idea was to hold a mirror up to the faces of white America. All white men were to be inferred as racist bigots like Archie Bunker; all white housewifes were to be inferred as air-heads like Edith Bunker. Soon after the success of “All In The Family” the jews done away with all “pastoral” comedies and western shows. The jews deleted any show that celebrated the racial history of whites in a positive light. I think the last western “Gunsmoke” went off the air around 1975, although you could classify “Little House On The Prairie” as a western.
“Soon after the success of “All In The Family” the jews done away with all “pastoral” comedies and western shows. ”
I read something about this few years ago, TV series about the Wild West and the countryside were still popular in the ’70s but the “tribe” that controls the TV decided that they simply didn’t want that anymore even if had a huge audiences.
I remember reading an article in the “National Enquirer” not too long after “Gunsmoke” was cancelled in which Milburn Stone who played Doc stated that he did not understand why they cancelled the show, it was ranked 20th at the time.
Yes, Peter, it has been expertly scripted. I’ve written about this extensively in the print Occidental Quarterly and in various essays for The Occidental Observer. See, for instance: http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v6n3/TOQConnellyV6N3.pdf
I also want to illuminate another theme that the jews have made use of since 1965 is “the collective threat.” After Orson Welles’ October 30, 1938 “The War Of The Worlds” radio broadcast caused widespread panic among the gentile cattle, the jews realised the value of “the collective threat” theme. The jews get a lot of “conditioning value” out of this theme, and have made extensive use of it, since the 70s the public has been subjected to an ever increasing number of alien threat movies, (i.e., Alien; The Thing; etc.) The most illuminating alien threat movie was “Independence Day” in the scene at the end, in which the American president (I think it was Bill Pullman) exults in a speech over the destruction of all national governments, racial boundaries, and I think religions (I’ll have to re-look at it someday). It also should be noted that the use of a black protagonist to save the world, increased the movies’ “conditioning value. Yes the jews want us to believe that we must do away with all racial differences, because little green men are going to get us. The jews have been exploiting gentile credulity since Joseph went into Egypt and interpreted the Pharaoh’s dreams.
I have known many “Archie Bunkers” in my lifetime and I often found them quite endearing. They aren’t overly smart intellectually but they know their trades and are honest, hard working individuals.
They would be what I would describe in Marxist jargon as “peasants”. Peasants aren’t known for being bright, but when you go too far with them they don’t want to be messed with. Gordon Kahl was one of these guys once. So was Gregory Antonov. In Communist Russia they were a class to be humiliated and tyrannized. In Nazi Germany they were exalted.
They go to church out of habit and vote out of habit. They are also quick to take offense and aren’t afraid of using their fists now and then if you piss them off. They continue to work within the system because they don’t know anything else and there isn’t anything else for them anyway. Very soon there will be no retreat for him. It’s hard to educate them because their bigotry has left them close minded to new ideas but as the road narrows and the noose around their necks gets tighter and tighter they might be a force to be reckoned with. They might become the really cruel ones. I understand Mr. Sallis’s message and frustration and he makes some good points but “Archie Bunker” is nevertheless a Jewish stereotype of what a white man represents in his twisted mind and uses humor to humiliate us all. The Jew has been making fun of us for years now…remember Al Bundy? The REAL Archie Bunkers become Freikorpsmen, or so they did in the past. As long as this materialist Jewish bubble keeps going, I’m afraid we are going to have to keep on “riding the tiger” awhile longer. It’s heartbreaking for sure, being witnesses to such degradations.
Much of this kind of thing was done to the peasantry of Russia during the Revolution and Civil War and the commissars had a lot of trouble dealing with them. Even Stalin couldn’t subdue them entirely despite his forced famine. The peasantry needs leadership however to rise out of it’s serfdom.
Teds article demonstrates a common theme about not only “white people” but people in general, to wit, nothing moves them until there is a “serious sense of urgency” usually involving a threat to one of Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” being unfulfilled.
Why doesn’t a “negro” have any business being in Paris to begin with ? Aren’t there many foreign visitors to France every year ? Should they be disallowed from conducting lawful business in the French Republic ? Or be disrespected by Caucasians while they are there ? Are Caucasians not still bound by the eternal guidelines of Dharma & Asha to be decent & respectful to outsiders or has rudeness & cruelty become our new code ? Just as we do not want others to treat us unjustly then we have an obligation to treat others in a just way.
China threw every White out of every China to show everyone that China belonged to the Chinese. We need to do the same. Once things are back to normal, foreign visitors would be allowed.
Do you even care about White Genocide?
Are you referring to the white genocide that can be stopped by white men breeding with white women ? What can be done to bring this to an end ? Perhaps the technique of having white men approach white women in a polite manner and ask them out on a date could work ? Once on that date they could be nice to the white women, pay attention to them and make them feel good. If the white men could do that then it would be like being on your opponents one yard line with 20 seconds left in the Super Bowl. Now just one last word of advice though, mentioning your admiration of Adolf Hitler at this point in the evening could backfire on you and would be the equivalent of throwing an interception which could blow your chances of breeding with that particular white woman which would prolong the previously mentioned white genocide.
Yes, save Hitler for date #2.
Well said Sir.
Sorry to upset you Jeff, but we are not referring to some genocide that can be stopped by breeding. We are referring to the kind of genocide our European ancestors had to go through during Holodomore, Dresden bombing, Katyn massacre, etc. at the hand of jews or of their hirelings.
Thanks for this. Funny thing about Archie Bunker is that in spite of the actor (Carroll O’Connor being about as close to a Thomas Nast Irish-American caricature as you’ll ever see in real life), Jews and others identified with him deeply. “Awww, he’s just like my Uncle Nate.” Archie was supposed to be a working-class Anglo Protestant, yet second-generation Sicilians and Hungarians felt very close, thought Archie was representative of them. George Carlin insisted he was like *his* relatives. End of the day, Archie wasn’t really anything, but people were so desperate for a white man who spoke his mind that millions embraced him, even though he was created to be an ignorant caricature of the generic white male.
There are any number of reasons why an “Archie Bunker” might not vote for a candidate who supports white ethnic interests. One of these is organizational-technical. Generally, many or most people are not too motivated to vote in an election. Major parties have huge “machines” which exist to get out that vote: precinct walkers, phone bank callers, booth sitters, flyer handouters, ladies club auxiliaries, and much more. It’s a lot of “grunt” work, but it makes the difference in getting that extra ten percent to the polling booth who give a candidate the votes to get ’em over the top and into office.
It is often difficult for minor parties to put together such machines. Even if they have brilliant candidates and media access, they nonetheless lack the boots on the ground, so to speak.
Another dilemma is in getting your Archie Bunker to prioritize his interests. Yes, he may be annoyed by that affirmative action hire who can’t steer the forklift to save his life, or raise an eyebrow over his bartender’s kid who got conked on the head by a third world immigrant. But there’s all the vital issues defined by the media, like being strong on national defense or a 5% raise in the minimum wage or some private remark by a celebrity which is now declared “offensive” to polite opinion. Trying to sort the central issue of our time — race — from the static is an Augean Stables level task.
There’s also the security of sticking with a mainstream party and candidate. If the choice came down to a Richard Nixon or George Wallace, many whites would (and did) consider Nixon’s stance on many issues to outweigh any annoyances due to affirmative action, et alia.
Now to give a couple of examples. Some years back, an acquaintance in the US Green Party made a major effort to recruit Hispanic immigrants. He got next to nowhere in this endeavor. Why? Well, he informed me, the attitude of the vast majority of Hispanics was, “My family has always voted Democratic, so I will too vote Democratic.” End of story.
Similarly, another acquaintance who was an anti-tax partisan told me that he votes Republican rather than Libertarian because he fears that a Libertarian victory would lead to major upheavals in which his personal wealth might end up being confiscated. Better the devil that one knows, and all that sort of thing…
This is not to say that the task of creating a pro-white electoral majority is impossible. To the contrary, it has been done in many white countries, right up until the 1950s. Consider that integration in the USA was imposed from the top down by the federal government through the court system, and via the agitprop of the national level media. The majority of whites, if they had a choice, stood for their own racial interests until quite recently on a historical scale. One can make similar points about white voters in Europe, Australia/NZ and South Africa.
So white interests can be a political issue. The main thing is in understanding how politics actually work–and act accordingly to get the Archie Bunker vote.
Ted’s cogent article is very spot on. These are the type of White people that we ultimately need to win over, despite their duplicity, apathy and short sightedness. Who ever said that saving a complacent race would be easy?
” I very much doubt that these are any sort of real racial nationalists or ethnonationalists.”
In Europe most rightists affiliate with their local football team, and Chelsea supporters are known to be be fiercely royalist and racist, so I think you’re wrong. The Chelsea Headhunters’ logo is a Totenkopf btw.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment