Counter-Currents
1,541 words
Former Vice President Joe Biden is now all but assured the Democratic nomination. His campaign appeared dead just a few days ago, and Bernie Sanders was thought unstoppable. Now only an unexpected disaster can stop Uncle Joe.
Biden won ten of the contests Tuesday night, exceeding even the most optimistic predictions. The only big race he lost was California, but he made up for it by winning Texas and multiple states that were supposed to go for Bernie. Sanders only won four states. As with Biden, Sanders’s fortunes have reversed in just a week. He was once the presumed nominee; now it looks like he will lose in a more humiliating fashion than in 2016.
How did this happen to Bernie? He was supposed to be the socialist chosen one. Why is he getting humiliated like this? The most obvious reason is that he went up against an establishment that is far more ruthless and competent than the Republican establishment.
Biden’s sudden rise is all due to other establishment candidates dropping out of the race. Pete Buttigieg led the charge when he abruptly dropped out on Sunday, despite winning the Iowa Caucus and coming in a close second in New Hampshire. Buttigieg is the first candidate to perform so well in the first primaries, only to drop out before Super Tuesday. His departure was followed by Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who also did well in the early primaries. Both endorsed Biden. Both dropouts secured Biden’s huge victory Tuesday.
Bernie is also hampered by Elizabeth Warren’s continued presence in the primary. She competes in the same lane as Sanders and she takes votes away from him. If Warren had dropped out before Super Tuesday, Bernie would’ve won Massachusetts, Texas, Minnesota and possibly a few other states. Warren is likely staying in to hurt Bernie, not to win. She knows the establishment will reward her.
The only candidate whose presence helped Bernie is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg siphoned off voters from Biden and was expected to do well on Super Tuesday. Instead, he spent nearly over half a billion dollars just to win American Samoa. This disappointing finish convinced the billionaire to drop out and endorse Biden.
This is likely the last nail in Bernie’s coffin.
Sanders needed a divided field to win. This was essential to Trump’s 2016 victory:
Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich competed for the establishment vote, Ted Cruz received the true conservative vote, and no other candidate could compete in Trump’s populist lane. None of Trump’s opponents carried the luster of being the former vice president of America’s first black president. The average Republican voter didn’t care for any of them. Jeb dropped out after South Carolina, but the other three lasted past Super Tuesday, ensuring Trump faced a divided field. When the establishment decided to settle on a candidate, they went with Ted Cruz. Cruz’s main characteristics were his unlikability and sliminess. Trump’s “Lyin’ Ted” nickname nailed him perfectly.
In contrast, Uncle Joe is far more likable than Lyin’ Ted, and the establishment is actually happy to back him. The Republican establishment only begrudgingly accepted Cruz as the lesser of two evils.
You can buy Greg Hood’s Waking Up From the American Dream here.
Sanders compounds his problems with his fundamentally weak character. Trump revels in insults and dominates his opponents. Bernie only wants to talk policy and refuses to get dirty with his rivals. This has allowed the Democratic establishment to roll over him twice. Sanders should feel particularly humiliated this time. He’s about to lose to a senile man who recently lied that he was arrested with Nelson Mandela and can’t stop being accidentally racist.
Another reason Bernie is losing again is his inability to connect with the majority of black voters. Sanders is the favorite candidate among post-1965 Americans. But Biden (and Bloomberg) were ahead of him when it came to blacks. It wasn’t because Bernie was insufficiently accommodating to their interests. Many of his plans are designed to give more handouts to blacks. He promises to enact criminal justice reform and reduce policing to advance black interests. He also makes sure to talk about how racist America is and how much we owe blacks. His radical economic message was arguably the most beneficial to blacks, yet blacks overwhelmingly prefer Biden.
The reasons are pretty simple: Biden was Barack Obama’s vice president and their community leaders back Joe. They don’t really care for socialism unless their pastor is down for it. They don’t care that Biden opposed busing and backed tough-on-crime policies. Their community leaders say he’s down for the cause, and that’s all they need to know. Most black voters are older women who don’t care about student debt forgiveness. They just want to know that their communities will get more power and goodies.
The black vote thwarted Bernie in 2016 as well. Blacks are doing the same again.
Bernie also lost much of the normal white vote for his 2020 run. In 2016, he was the great champion of the non-college educated whites. Now that demographic has either gone to the GOP or sided with one of the establishment choices. As I previously wrote, Sanders embraced identity politics and alienated normal whites in the process. His economic populism was not an alternative to wokeism — it conformed to wokeism. Bernie deployed the most obnoxious representatives of leftism — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Linda Sarsour, etc. — to campaign for him. No factory worker wants to hear about their white privilege or transgender rights.
In 2020, Bernie emboldened the weird left-wing activists who worshipped him rather than a silent majority of Democrats. He no longer entertained sensibility on immigration or guns. His core supporters wanted him to go full SJW, and he was duped into following this path. He’s paid the price with his smaller coalition in this election.
2016 Trump was the opposite. He didn’t represent conservative activists; he represented the silent majority of Republican voters. The activists despised him and called him a phony conservative. Biden is more like Trump in that the activists hate him, yet ordinary Democrats love him.
The socialist Left has taken a drubbing recently. Jeremy Corbyn was supposed to lead Labour into power in the UK’s elections last December. Instead, Labour suffered its worst defeat in living memory. Corbyn resigned from leadership in disgrace. Sanders looks to have a similarly ignominious downfall if he is trounced before the Democratic convention.
The socialist Left has argued that its platform represents the future of the Left. Two huge failures would completely discredit this theory in the Anglosphere. Average Democrats appear to just want a woker neoliberalism, not left-wing populism.
What does the development mean for the general election? For Trump, it means he will likely face a tougher opponent than Bernie. Biden may be senile, but he still appeals to wide swaths of the population. Many Americans just want to rewind back to the Obama years. Even though Biden can’t distinguish his wife from his sister, he doesn’t come across as a threat. Trump is a master fearmonger who will be hard-pressed to make Americans leery of a Biden presidency. Biden’s harmlessness is one of his most attractive qualities. He’s just a lovable grandpa — wouldn’t it be cool to have grandpa as president?
Trump can still beat Biden, but it will be a very lame election from a metapolitical standpoint. Trump will primarily attack Biden as the real racist for opposing busing and supporting sensible criminal justice policies. Biden will, in turn, say Trump is the real racist. Trump will rarely talk about policy outside of standard conservative fare and criminal justice reform. It will all be about personal insults. Trump will still attack Biden on good issues like immigration and guns, but they will get less attention than criminal justice reform. Forget law and order, Trump’s gotta talk about all the great drug dealers he released!
The one upside of a Biden matchup is that it saves us from the “socialism sucks!” pitch of a Bernie contest.
Besides the “socialism sucks” cringe, a Bernie race would be better metapolitically. Trump would effectively fearmonger against Bernie, presenting the Vermont senator as a grave threat to the historic American nation. Immigration and other identity issues would serve as the focus of the campaign outside of “socialism.” Bernie would double down on his own radical policies and force suburbanites to ditch their fantasies of a return to “normalcy.” The new normal forces you to choose between nationalism and socialism. That’s a choice that ultimately favors the Dissident Right.
With Biden, it forces Americans to choose between a false return to normalcy and Trump. That’s not as redpilling as a possible fight against Bernie.
At least the Trump-Biden debates will be must-watch TV. Just imagine the entertainment as two septuagenarians duke it out over their children, their alleged racism, and who could win a physical fight. There’s a high chance Biden will actually try to fight Trump on stage. The insults will be incredible. The anguish from the chattering class at the sordid state of our sacred democracy will be even better.
This is our future election, whether we like it or not. Unless some unforeseen event happens that gives the nomination to someone else, Biden is Trump’s Democratic opponent.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
24 comments
You forget the best part, when Biden dies or gets 25’d, the insanely woke vice president will be president. At this point, it’s either socialist nagger Warren or gap-toothed Black Supremacist Abrams.
If that isn’t red pilling…
Why not Queen Hillary as VP? She would be more than happy to play second fiddle to Sleepy Joe until he resigns because of “ill health”, drowns in the bathtub, gets electrocuted plugging in a lamp or some other tragedy befalls him. She would weep bitter tears at the tragic loss of such a great statesman then assume her rightful place in the Oval Office.
From that high perch she would wreak havoc upon the whole world in the greatest act of vengeance against enemies, both real and imagined, the world has ever seen. No doubt the country and much of the world would be a smoking, radioactive ruin when we were done with her.
The DNC is able to control its nomination process because of the black base, which is low IQ and easily frightened. There is no equivalent in the GOP, because even the dumbest whites are roughly equivalent to black college graduates. For this reason, anti-establishment Trump could break through, whereas Bernie cannot.
You also should mention a real cleavage between Hispanics and Blacks. Hispanics are overwhelmingly for Bernie. Blacks weren’t. As the Hispanic population increases (expected to double in 30 years), there will be real instability in the Democratic Party. These Hispanics have brought their comfort with Socialism with them to America. I think it will prove harder for Jew media to dominate Hispanics because many of them don’t speak English very well.
Although it is safe to conclude that Sanders won’t be the Democrat Party candidate, one shouldn’t conclude that the candidate, therefore, will be Biden.
Two months ago Joe Biden was a doddering old coot who couldn’t tie his own shoes and keep his hands off any woman between 8 and 80. Today the Democrat apparatchiki hail him as their party’s messiah. When they’re finished using him to derail Sanders, he’ll once again be the crazy uncle locked in the attic, and then party stalwarts will demand a brokered convention where Mrs. Rodham-Clinton is fingered to be the nominee.
This is the Democrat Party we’re talking about. Its members machinations are never so clear or straight forward to even be called Byzantine. These people practice politics dirtier than even the sleaziest potentate’s.
I had foreseen this. It’s exactly the same pattern as Clinton, if one looked underneath the super delegates. The centrists do well in the black and business states. If Biden wins, the return to normalcy will be nice. If trump can’t make progress on his agendas, whatever the reasons, we might as well have peace and a sense of progress towards “something,” whatever it may end up being.
Peace? If a Democrat gets into office, you can guarantee that we will go to war with Iran and God knows who else.
Progress? The only progress will be toward further degeneracy and the dissolution of America.
You are delusional.
One of the “benefits” of having a Democrat is that the Middle East would simmer down. While perforce both parties have to be hostile to the Middle East, the democrats typically avoid actual hot wars. We can can hurt the Middle East, or hurt ourselves at home. That’s the options!
Democrats have a long history of “hot wars” WWI-Woodrow Wilson, Democrat, WWII-FDR Democrat, Korea-Truman, Democrat, Vietnam-Kennedy/LBJ, Democrat
Clinton’s 1999 war against Serbia, destruction of Libya in 2011, Syrian Proxy War beginning in 2012. Also, the events detailed in Black Hawk Down occurred on Bill Clinton’s watch.
Just after I read this, a breaking article declaring that Warren is dropping out of the race comes across my newsfeed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/05/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-drops-out.html
Trump should just call him Creepy Uncle Joe and play the Paul Joseph Watson video of the same name.
Trump himself is “creepy” enough with his philandering.
No, not really.
He doesn’t sniff and paw women and children in public. You’d imagine Hannibal Lecter behaving that way, if he totally lacked self-control.
The best part about Biden humiliating Bernie on Super Tuesday is that all the Bad Whites are blackpilled AF right now. Those Bad Whites are:
1. The Dirtbag Left/DSA crowd, of which I highly recommend this February 2019 piece in New York Magazine:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/socialism-and-young-socialists.html
It’s a LONG read, and you’ll need to grit your teeth at times, but its the most comprehensive analysis of the Democratic Socialist Left in America, who they are, who leads them, how they are organized, and what they stand for. Spoiler: Sean McElwee is one of the ring leaders. As in, Democrat politicians in NYC go out of their way to visit him and earn his endorsement, including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
2. WN Socialists, such as Richard Spencer, Keith Woods, Erik Striker, Mike Enoch, Matt Parrott, and their followers/listeners.
On twitter, Spencer is currently on a tear against Blacks for voting for Biden by overwhelming numbers. They’ve all made it clear that they are against any idea, policy, or strategy that can be remotely tied to “Conservatism” or “Neoliberalism.” They’re now signaling against the very principle of Immigration Restriction, because DSA supporters – all of them White, all of them Hipsters, all of them underemployed, bitter nerds – don’t like it. They’ve all but admitted that the Browning of America is something we shouldn’t even bother worrying about. “Gibs for White Bois” is their calling card.
By chasing the DSA Left, WN Socialists are being herded into a corner where they will be nothing more than an unwanted, despised cheerleader for the DSA economic agenda. And they won’t even get student loan forgiveness or national healthcare for their efforts. Lord Shang said it perfectly in Mr. Hampton’s article on Bernie in February:
“Many Dissident Rightists are lazy, repulsive people, just like Nazis and fascists and Klansmen so often have been in the past. They are also similarly mentally unstable.
This is speculation on my part, but here’s what I believe: In their hearts, WN Socialists are driven by the sentiment of misanthropy that we saw on display in Spencer’s secret Charlottesville rant released last November. All that hate Spencer directed at Blacks is exactly how WN Socialists feel about Normal Whites/Good Whites. It’s the unholy combination of Elitism and Envy that drives the Bad Whites – be they regular Leftists or racially resentful Leftists like Spencer – to support Socialism, not because such and such DSA policy might help someone. That’s just a cover for their real agenda, which is lording it over Normal Whites in the Middle Class (the Elitists like Spencer), or getting systematic revenge against those Normal Whites who have nice things in life (the Envy fueled rageaholics like Parrott).
I’m slowly but surely starting to come around on the view that Trump supporters, and White Conservatives in general, are the ones who should be courted. I’ve been against that strategy for years since a lot of White Conservatives are also either Boomers or devout Evangelical Christians, but you know what? Every single Boomer alive is now over 55 years old, and Evangelical Christianity is sharply declining, particularly among young Whites. Those two groups were always the only “True Believers” in racial egalitarianism, and they are fading away.
White Nationalism, at its heart, is a Revolutionary Conservative movement. We should never break bread with the kind of Leftists who unironically think the Bolsheviks did nothing wrong.
@ DP84
They’ve all made it clear that they are against any idea, policy, or strategy that can be remotely tied to “Conservatism” or “Neoliberalism.” They’re now signaling against the very principle of Immigration Restriction, because DSA supporters – all of them White, all of them Hipsters, all of them underemployed, bitter nerds – don’t like it
Where is the evidence that these people are signalling against immigration restriction? Links appreciated.
.
@nineofclubs:
Here’s a study published by NPI last December in which Spencer argues that immigration is insignificant.
https://nationalpolicy.institute/2019/12/15/whexit-and-the-new-class/
Here are the key quotes:
He’s making it clear, without explicitly stating it, that to oppose immigration is stupid and makes us look racist. This coming from the “Heilgate” ring leader of Charlottesville.
Matt Parrott, being more honest and blunt than Spencer, said this on January 8, in response to Counter Currents no less:
https://twitter.com/arnelsmom/status/1214891465727528960
Woods, Enoch, and Striker haven’t made explicit statements about immigration restriction being stupid or immoral, I’ll grant you that, so perhaps I could have been more specific in who I was thinking of, but you and I know both know that Woods, Enoch, and Striker blame “neoliberalism” for mass immigration, as evidenced in Woods’ Youtube videos and the Strike & Mike radio show, which is nothing more than Chapo Trap House for racially resentful Leftists.
I’ve seen your comments on this site, and I agree with you that Socialist and/or Communitarian economies are only possible in racially homogeneous, White countries. However, that means nothing to me, because the rhetoric of Communitarian champions like Spencer and Parrott, and the absolute hatred they express towards the Middle Class/Bourgeoise, makes it clear to me that Pro White conservatives have no place in their world. An ideological conflict is coming.
Bring it on.
Spencer has been dismissive of immigration reform for years. He never offers a sensible rationale. Just dumb takes like “Immigration reform won’t solve ALL the problems.” As if anyone thought it would. He always expressed a great deal of resentment toward Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Eventually, I concluded that he believes that everyone else on the right must fail before he can succeed in doing whatever it is he wants to do. It is all so inchoate with him.
Of course, if Spencer were the last right-winger on Earth, he would still go nowhere because he is a repulsive narcissist promoting half-baked ideas.
He and Parrott both seem to hold versions of Alex Linder’s crack-brained “polarization” idea that if we just attack conservatives long enough, people will eventually follow us. It seems like narcissistic rage to me. These people have been rejected by conservatives and have concluded that the best strategy is to attack them bitterly until their rivals are reduced to nothing and the world finally gives them their due. But you don’t influence the mainstream by alienating every shade of opinion between you and it.
Parrott is particularly hateful toward middle-class people. In 2015 or 2016, when he was launching his party, he asked me to be on the board. I told him no, because his whole strategy seemed to be premised on his inferiority complexes and resentment toward middle class and wealthy people, which drove his strategy of recruiting from the bottom of the movement: skinheads, KKK people, etc. But these are the sort of people that Parrott felt he could influence.
I told him that he could not create a successful party by recruiting people with lower than average incomes and educations and higher than average problems with drugs, crime, unemployment, etc. These people deserve to have their interests protected, as do all white people, but the solution is not going to come from them alone.
I have never listened to Enoch and Striker. Enoch used to be a friend. I still respect his mind. Striker used to be with the Trad Youth/TWP crowd. He struck me as a dumb, dishonest phony who would read Russian and Iranian anti-American media and promote their blistering takes as the truth. I have never been curious about his opinions.
I doubt there is going to be a great intellectual battle in the future. Spencer, Parrott, and TRS are self-marginalizing. I doubt their audience and influence are growing. New people will come and go from their circles, for example, Dutton and Woods. But they’ll eventually learn. So the general trajectory remains downward into oblivion.
@DP84
Thanks for your considered reply.
..but you and I know both know that Woods, Enoch, and Striker blame “neoliberalism” for mass immigration..
I’m not familiar with Enoch or Striker (or Parrott). I have had a look at some of Woods’ work and think you’ve fairly characterised his position.
Can I ask, do you disagree with this position? Do you think it’s something other than capitalist neoliberalism that’s driving mass immigration? I know that many on the dissident right blame ‘leftists’ for it – and it’s obviously true that some liberal globalists on the left have made a cult of mass immigration. But how much influence do those people really have? Are they the primary drivers of – or just cheerleaders for – mass immigration?
Some Australian rightists maintain that capitalism has become temporarily ‘pozzed’ and that this is due to the success of liberalism (what Americans would call leftism) in influencing the media, universities etc. They hope that when conservative values reign supreme again, business will follow, drop all the woke hoopla and return Australian society to something like it was in the 1950’s.
I think that might be partly correct. On issues like LGBT, transgenderism etc I can’t honestly see how business profits from pushing that stuff, except that in the current year it seems hip – and maybe being hip provides market appeal. If cultural attitudes changed I expect that business might change with it.
But immigration is different. Immigration and open borders are absolutely essential to the way capitalism works today. Yes – we could go back to restricting capitalism like it was in the 50’s, with little immigration and trade protectionism. But that’s a bit like treating the symptoms of a disease rather than curing it, I think. Without the kinds of limits that most on the right decry as socialism, capitalism has proven that it will prioritise the dollar over national integrity and well-being. Every single time.
So who’s to blame for mass immigration? Well, I can’t believe that those who actually determine immigration policy are listening to a handful of crusty Trots. Far more likely, they’re responding to the dictates of industry associations like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who routinely call for more immigration to address fictional ‘skills shortages’. Like Woods, then, I blame capitalism.
If these people, Parrott and Spencer, actually believe that immigration restriction is not important then to my mind they’re not socialists. Genuine socialism is about putting the family, tribe, clan and organic nation first. Prioritising it over any kind of internationalist dogma, over money and the commercial success of a few. The first role of the socialist state should be to protect the integrity of the nation – that includes preventing commercially inspired invasions as well as military ones. So giving up on immigration restriction seems like a very capitalist thing to do. A Koch brothers idea, even.
On your (and Greg’s) point about the hatefulness of Parrott towards the middle class – assuming that he is as hateful as you say – then I’d agree with you. Our peoples don’t need to be divided any more than they already are. At the same time, I don’t see a problem with calling out bourgeois ideas and attitudes, like prioritising cheap household labour over the employment prospects of your national kin. This is an argument especially hurtful to liberal globalist leftists, who don’t like to think of their positions as bourgeois.
Thanks again for your thoughts. The ideological conflict you predict is, I think, good and necessary. If nationalists have misdiagnosed the real cause of our current problems then we’re not likely to resolve them in any lasting way.
.
Isn’t this simply a semantic quibble? What you are calling “socialism” sounds to me an awful lot like “nationalism”. Instead of “socialism”, might you consider using the term “ethnocommunitarianism”?
It seems to me that what you want is the prioritizing of race, nation, folk, and kin above selfish individual pursuits of wealth and economic maximization. I agree with that completely. Mammon so to speak should not be life’s controlling deity. The idols of this age might one day be smashed. What matters is that the racial essence of our people endures, even as new forms of life and economy arise perhaps in tandem with technological changes as yet wholly unforeseen.
But how is that “socialism” of the Marxist or Sandersist or Ocasio-Cortez variety? Modern socialism is a wholly leftist rallying cry invariably uniting economic wealth redistributionists, with disproportionately lawful and ethical and rules-abiding whites bearing most of the brunt of that redistribution, while more manipulative (((other parties))) game and end-run the system via cronyist laws and tax loopholes, with antiwhite-nonwhite ethnonationalist grievance politics. Advocating any kind of “socialism” (when what you really want is National Communitarianism extended to collective economic decisions as well as demographic and security policies) simply strengthens the hand of the nonwhite parasites – especially in heavily ‘diverse’ countries like the US.
I do not mean this as any kind of an insult or inflammatory statement when I say that what I think you really want is something like Hitler’s national socialism, especially in its more idealized or theoretical forms. I have always considered Nazism to be a legitimate option for white preservationists, even though I myself am not a NS supporter. But what I truly think you fail to grasp is that the nationalism MUST precede the socialism, NOT the other way around. That is, if we could ever achieve an all-white ethnostate, you would be on much stronger ground at that point to begin arguing for a more socialist political economy as a mechanism for further consolidating the racial state and binding together the volksgemeinschaft (though I could still offer any number of objections, all from a spirit whose primary focus is white purity, perpetuity and civilizational excellence). But as matters stand viz endless ‘diversity’ importation and propagandizing, denigration of “capitalism” plays into the broader leftist agenda of using the state to loot predominantly whites, as well as to further weaken our hold over our own property as well as finally liberty. The State in America today (and I think everywhere) is owned by the left; what strengthens it weakens us the dispossessed and oppressed.
@ Lord Shang
Advocating any kind of “socialism” (when what you really want is National Communitarianism extended to collective economic decisions as well as demographic and security policies) simply strengthens the hand of the nonwhite parasites
On the contrary. There are a whole bunch of young white people who know our current economic systems are sick. They seek alternatives. They see this lisping, mincing ultra-liberal thing that calls itself mainstream socialism or Marxism and they might not like a lot about it, but they hear and like what (little) it has to say about the economy.
To my mind, this is a tragedy because this is not what real socialism was about historically. And it’s not what a lot of us want today either. You suggest that advocating socialism of any type strengthens the liberal, globalist left. I believe that by advocating socialism that’s national and illiberal, or perhaps just socially moderate, we demonstrate that ‘socialism’ is not a homogenous monolith. If this results in a splitting away of those socialists who reject liberal globalism from the ‘poz’, then this must surely weaken liberal globalism. Let me ask you, do you think the existence of the Dissident Right empowers the most cucked elements of the Republic Party? I suspect you don’t. The evidence seems to indicate that within the Right, a stronger dissident right moves the frame of rightist discourse in an illiberal and nationalist direction.
..what I think you really want is something like Hitler’s national socialism, especially in its more idealized or theoretical forms
Not really. What I want is a specifically national form of socialism, but that’s far from what Hitler delivered or even wanted. Hitler was imperialistic, highly militaristic, harboured ethnic chauvinism towards fellow whites (esp Slavs), accommodated corporate interests to the detriment of German workers and variously murdered, exiled or demoted anyone within his movement who actually expected German National Socialism to deliver socialism. Hitler was, in many ways, the embodiment of the worst traits of the Right.
By contrast, Australian socialism (as a nationally specific type of socialism) harbours no imperial ambition, favours armed neutrality with no use of our military for foreign adventures, supports national liberation and integrity for ALL nations – and would definitely not be colluding with big business to the detriment of workers.
For Australian nationalists and socialists, Hitler’s thoughts on our future should also never be forgotten:
The descendants of the convicts in Australia should inspire in us nothing but a feeling of supreme indifference. If their vitality is not strong enough to enable them to increase at a rate proportionate to the size of the territories they occupy, that is their own look-out, and it is no use their appealing to us for help. For my own part, I have no objection at all to seeing the surplus populations of prolific Asia being drawn, as to a magnet, to their empty spaces. Let them all work out their own salvation! And let me repeat – it is nothing to do with us.”
– February 7 1945. (Hitler’s Testament)
But how is that “socialism” of the Marxist or Sandersist or Ocasio-Cortez variety?
It isn’t, as far as I can tell. Just as there are liberal and globalist Conservative elements throughout the West, there are liberal and globalist elements of the left. To call these elements ‘socialist’ is misleading in my opinion, but I’m sure they do it to take advantage of the justified disgust that people currently feel for capitalism.
When I write the things I do, I’m not trying to convert you to socialism. I suspect that’s a lost cause. What I hope to do is show people who might be attracted to Bernie, or Jeremy Corbyn, or similar folk, that genuine socialism isn’t necessarily this globalist, rainbow coloured freak show that the MSM portrays it to be. Which brings me to..
..what I truly think you fail to grasp is that the nationalism MUST precede the socialism, NOT the other way around
and
Isn’t this simply a semantic quibble? What you are calling “socialism” sounds to me an awful lot like “nationalism”.
You seem to see nationalism and socialism as two separate things. I see them as being completely inter-related. Yin and Yang. Genuine socialism is national in character. True nationalism is social.
Or, to repeat myself and put it another way, socialism needs the ethno-state and the ethno-state needs socialism.
So yes, of course they will look similar – and this will seem alien for those conditioned to see nationalism as a fixture of the right.
.
Biden will trot out the “some fine people” hoax at every opportunity. Trump will accuse him of being “the real racist” for working with Southern segregationists decades ago. Sounds pretty tedious to me.
I’ll miss having that screeching, scolding, Nurse Ratched-like, cauliflower-head Hillary on stage to throw tomatoes at. But the funniest stuff was at the ’16 GOP debates, e.g., “You’re low energy” (to Jeb), “Lyin’ Ted” and “small hands” stuff . . .
Edvard Luttwak said of Hillary: “She’s an empty carapace with ambition rattling inside.”
Not sure stutterin’ Joe will engender such colorful language . . .
I truly appreciate the idea of “…a false return to normalcy” with the implication that there ever was a real normalcy in the USA.
I don’t mean it in a nasty sort of way. “Jacksonian Democracy” was normal if you lived in the backwoods and kept yourself to yourself. Freedom was mostly absence of Hesiod’s negative strife, the draining, petty hassles that are “normal” in the present century so far.
This election MIGHT signal the end of that “negative normal” at long last. The current campaigns and polls look seriously familiar to history buffs. After Stalin died, after Khrushchev was ousted in 1964, the old USSR went through a series of gyrations nearly identical to our political circus now: All the old party hacks and agency functionaries whose only qualification was avoiding purge or death are now presenting themselves as model statesmen. Theirs weren’t then and ours aren’t now.
The difference is the USSR had lots of spark left after 1964. The USA is the Hapsburg Empire of our times: A polyglot mess of strangers about to come apart at the seams.
So things are looking up. The sooner the fall, the better for the good remnants who will be real nations by midcentury. A goal worth working for.
Good point:
“This election MIGHT signal the end …at long last. The current campaigns and polls look seriously familiar to history buffs: the old USSR went through a series of gyrations nearly identical to our political circus now: All the old party hacks and agency functionaries whose only qualification was avoiding purge or death are now presenting themselves as model statesmen. Theirs weren’t then and ours aren’t now.
“The USA is the Hapsburg Empire of our times: A polyglot mess of strangers about to come apart at the seams.
“So things are looking up. The sooner the fall, the better …”
Socialism doesn’t entice blacks because they’re already have it. They are either on section 8, welfare checks, and free medical, or they’re working in the civil service. The reason blacks generally don’t like Sanders has probably a lot to do with Farrakhan’s teachings over the years.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment