1,898 words 
The ongoing crisis taking place in the small Ohio city of Springfield has quickly turned into one of the leading stories in the American news cycle. In a predictable turn of events, flooding a community with thousands of Haitians has resulted in chaos, destruction and even death.
The good news is that the people of Springfield are not being ignored and forgotten. If the Biden-Harris plan was to destroy the city without attracting the attention and outrage of anyone outside Springfield, then they have failed spectacularly. Independent journalists and online sleuths have done an outstanding job exposing the individuals and organizations responsible for the invasion. Additionally, credit must be given to the Springfield residents who have spoken publicly about the negative impact the Haitians have had on their lives. These heroic men and women have told the truth despite knowing that they would be attacked and demonized as “racists” and “haters” by virtue-signaling liberals who would never tolerate an influx of Haitians into their own communities.
Because of the steadfast determination of Springfielders to prevent their hometown from sinking quietly into barbarism, the city now has the open support of the Republican party and its presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Unfortunately, Trump and the GOP are woefully inadequate as spokesmen for Springfield and for America’s white majority.
Whites who want to restrict immigration and resist their demographic replacement have flocked to the banner of Trump and the Republicans. This is understandable considering how appallingly antiwhite the Democrats are. I accept the premise that an antiwhite dystopia, such as the current situation in Springfield, is the logical endpoint of the program of the Democratic party. However, I also think that the logical endpoint of the Republicans’ conservative program is a kind of “Springfield-lite” where whites still get replaced, but at a slower pace and in a way that is less obvious and easier for the ruling class to deny and hide. It must not be forgotten that the mass migration of approximately 20,000 Haitians into Springfield is nothing more than an accelerated version of what has already happened to countless other formerly white cities and neighborhoods across America over a span of several decades.
The antiwhite rhetoric of the Democrats is actually a gift because it forces whites to contemplate the danger of our situation. On the other hand, the rhetoric often employed by conservatives, especially the “illegal immigration bad/ legal immigration good” dichotomy, lulls many whites who are rightly alarmed about their demographic decline into complacency. It deceives them into believing that conservatism will save them from the nightmare promised by the antiwhite coalition that dominates the Democratic party. It will not.
The ideology of conservatism has long been the driving force behind Republican politics. Sadly, in the context of immigration, conservatism has proved to be an unmitigated disaster for whites. I believe that there are three main reasons for this. First, conservatives prefer to judge the merits of mass immigration based on whether the immigrants arrive through the proper legal channels, and not on whether the native population will benefit from their arrival. Second, conservatives tend to revere the free market and value the GDP more than social cohesion. While the conservative may be unmoved by emotional arguments regarding the economic wellbeing of the migrants (e.g., “they are here because they want a better life.”) they can be swayed by appeals to capitalism and a supposed need for more workers. Greed, unfortunately, plays a major role in this. As David Zsutty recently explained:
It is pathetic that Republicans are so fixated on money rather than identity and honor. This has opened them up to manipulation by cunning politicians who know that they will lap up almost any lie about legal immigrants being good for the economy, since they will want to believe it is true due to their greed.
Third, white conservatives love to posture as colorblind individuals for whom race does not matter. When one considers where conservatives choose to live and who they choose to marry, their claims of colorblindness seem more than a little bit dubious. As we well know, all socially respectable people love racial diversity so long as it’s in someone else’s neighborhood. To keep up this charade, a conservative in good standing must speak of the Great Replacement only in terms of Democrats replacing Republicans, and never in terms of nonwhites replacing whites.
Trump’s proposal to give green cards to all foreign students who graduate from American universities, along with his support for increasing immigration (as long as its legal) because corporations want more workers, perfectly encapsulate the impotence of conservatism as a strategy to save White America. Last month, Trump promised that:
[W]e’re going to close the border and get the crooked ones out, the bad ones out. And we’re gonna let a lot of people come in. Because we need more people. Especially with AI coming and all of the different things. And the farmers need, everybody needs. But we’re going to make sure they’re not murderers, killers, drug dealers, and the kind of people we have, largely, coming in right now.
But, as Greg Johnson counters:
In what sense do tech oligarchs and farmers “need” immigrants? They don’t need them at all. They simply prefer them because it helps drive down wages. Whose wages? The wages of people who are already here, predominantly the wages of Americans. Your boss prefers to pay you less. You prefer otherwise. Trump is siding with the bosses. So much for populism and putting Americans first. This is standard Republicanism, which every working American should reject vehemently.
“Respectable” conservatives may insist on tiptoeing around the real issues, but the uppity white folks who comprise a large section of the Republican base know better. They know that the Haitians in Springfield need to be sent packing regardless of the fact that they came to the city legally. They know that the capitalists taking advantage of cheap Haitian labor are waging war on their own community, and that their ability to do so must be curtailed by state action, the free market be damned. And lastly, and most importantly, they know that the Great Replacement absolutely is about race, and that whites are being targeted because they are white.
But how can these problems be fixed if one is confined to the ideological prison of conservatism? The answer is simple: they can’t.
In his masterful 1996 essay “From Household to Nation”, Sam Francis predicted that his friend Pat Buchanan’s long-shot campaign for the Republican nomination would prove historically significant because his supporters represented “new social forces that only now are forming a common political consciousness.” Francis argued that “the Buchanan campaign for the first time in recent history offers them an organized mode of expression that will allow them to develop and mature their consciousness and their power.” He then went on to explain that:
Those forces consist, of course, of the broad social and cultural spectrum of Middle America. Middle American groups are more and more coming to perceive their exploitation at the hands of the dominant elites. The exploitation works on several fronts—economically, by hypertaxation and the design of a globalized economy dependent on exports and services in place of manufacturing; culturally, by the managed destruction of Middle American norms and institutions; and politically, by the regimentation of Middle Americans under the federal leviathan.
Significantly, Francis advised Buchanan not to call himself a conservative.
In 2016, the Middle American Radicals that Francis described were the driving force behind the election of Donald Trump. That nationalist, populist, and implicitly pro-white campaign was correctly seen by the party establishment as an attempt to hijack the Republican party and transform it into something other than conservative. However, Trump did not govern as the radical that white populists wanted and needed, and his current campaign is hardly distinguishable from typical conservative boilerplate. Instead of a conquest of the party by populist insurgents, what we have seen is an assimilation of Trumpism into conservatism.
Trump’s base is more radical than he is, and my fear is that the cult of personality which has formed around Trump is causing many racially-conscious whites to abandon their radicalism. Instead of smashing the taboos of both liberalism and conservatism and paving the way for real change, Trump now functions as a gatekeeper and an obstacle to the further growth of white identity politics. Although he may have been a net-positive for whites in 2016, Trump is now is no better for us than a McCain or a Romney.
Despite all of these problems, I do not believe that attempts by racialists to infiltrate and co-opt the Republican party are hopeless. Although I passionately oppose the conservatism that dominates the Republican party, I do so because I believe conservatism has been and will continue to be disastrous for white Americans. I do not object to conservatism because of any feelings of hostility I have toward the Republican party as an organization. If the Republicans, or the Democrats for that matter, were to adopt a White Nationalist platform today, I would join immediately.
As a White Nationalist, it would be foolish for me to oppose the Republicans or the Democrats in the abstract. To understand why this is so, a crucial distinction must be made between party and ideology. Parties are not themselves ideologies, but vehicles by which those who control the party can advance their own ideologies. For example, the platform of the Democratic Party did not endorse the legalization of same-sex marriage until 2012. Obviously, support for same-sex marriage did not somehow become inherently “Democrat” in a way that it was not prior to 2012. What happened was that supporters of same-sex marriage became more influential within the party and succeeded in agitating for this change to the party platform.
If there were some physical law or divine commandment which dictated that the Republican party must forever and always be bound by conservative dogma, then any attempt to influence the party would be a complete waste of time. But luckily for us, there is no law that requires the Republican party to be conservative! A pro-white policy such as an immigration moratorium would indeed be incompatible with conservatism, but it would not be inherently anti-Republican. In fact, the 1924 Johnson-Reed act which implemented rigorous immigration controls was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican president. This demonstrates that Republican Party was at one time an effective vehicle for white identity politics, and also offers hope that it could be again. There have also been instances when the Democratic Party was an effective vehicle for white identity politics, particularly in the South. Resistance to school integration is a notable example. Right now, however, the Republican party happens to be where most of the racially-conscious white people are. Thus, for the foreseeable future, any attempts to work within the existing two-party system will likely have to take place under the Republican banner.
By itself, in electoral politics will not save White Americans, but I think it would be a mistake to dismiss electoral politics entirely. Instead, I suggest that we view the Republican party as one of many tools that could potentially be used to further our cause. At the same time, we must recognize, as Sam Francis did, that the Republican party can only be of use to us if it ceases to be conservative.
23 comments
Until we punish individual “conservative” White immigration traitors like the fat as# > $14 million a year CEO of Tyson Foods who openly brags he replacing our White workers with lowest wage POC migrant workers, nothing will change.
Our side refuses out of cowardice to punish filthy rich White Conservative immigration /race traitors like the Koch Brothers, the Bush and Romney family , pretty much all rich LDS ( “don t call us Mormons anymore m Mormons were White racists”).
Please study the effective plan of action in Saul Alinsky s “ Rules for Radicals” – make the conflict personal . We must target real flesh and blood White Immigration traitors like Ron and Rand Paul ( Rand Paul was Amren s White traitor of the year) but it’s only been BLM and Antifa mobs that have confronted Rand Paul and his lovely White wife. When a BLM in DC attack him and his wife, nearly beat the, mercilessly – Rand Paul responded that he was on the BLM side and had sponsored a “ Justice For Breonna Taylor act” preventing law enforcement from doing armed home raids on Black African American heroin drug traffickers ! How cucked is that?
I’d like to nominate Ohio’s open-borders Governor Mike Dewine, himself a Springfield native, as the 2024 traitor of the year. Last Friday he wrote an op-ed in the (((New York Times))) defending the invasion, and yes, he’s a self-described conservative.
DeWine is quite possibly the worst Ohioan since William Sherman, though at least Sherman never destroyed any cities or towns in his own state.
He showed his true colors with this. It’s all about the hot stinky federal grant money. It’s been happening in the town I grew up in; all these big cheap apartment complexes popping up. You don’t need a 3 digit IQ to know they’re going to be for housing all the “legal migrants” paroled through Kamala’s and Mayorkas’ BS app.
Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ was always bullshit. Alinsky was part of a wealthy and already-powerful ethnic group that could count on support from co-ethnics in business and media and government. If you want to study something of political value, read Jean Baudrillard’s ‘In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities’ or a good translation of Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’ (I like Clavell’s).
Alinsky was packaging pro-jewish politics as ‘cool’ for non-jews who wanted to align with jewish interests. If you’re not a jew or a pet of a jew, Alinky’s ‘rules’ aren’t going to give you much traction.
My response :
in a word :
No
you re just doing a knee jerk reaction , ad hominem attack :
” Alinsky was a Jew “
you aren t referencing the very practical tactics presented in “ Rules for Radicals “
as Orwell said “ Freedom begins with the ability to say 2 + 2 = 4”
i m sure Alinsky spoke the truth that yes 2+ 2 = 4. Alinsky being Jewish doesn’t alter the fact that he was right to say 2 + 2 = 4.
“Rules for Radicals” presents so many practical actions for radicals to fight to win and yes win .
isn t winning better than always ALWAYS losing ?
White Right Wing Conservatives tend to lose almost all the time – it s almost like they are trying to lose .
Alinsky was a jew. That’s a fact. If that fact constitutes an ad hominem in your opinion, go talk to the jews. It’s their problem.
‘Rules For Radicals’ is a complete waste of time. In fact, all ‘leftist agitation’ was a hoax. What ‘leftists’ agitate for is something the ruling class already wants. All the ‘agitation’ did was provide fodder for the jewish press to provide a fig-leaf of ‘democracy’ over the actions of the ruling class.
The jewish ruling class used stupid Whites and darkies to attack the White ruling class so that jews could take over the ruling class.
And the stupid White ruling class preferred to cut its own throat rather than make peace with American labor and allowed the jews to take over the ‘labor movement’ and make it all about darkies and ‘wages’ rather than Whites and power.
Following Alinsky is such a bad idea, only conservatives and ‘rump’ right would think it was a good one.
When you see advice like ‘Do actions that are fun’ you should immediately realize that the proposed ‘actions’ are merely a form of entertainment, and not serious political activism.
If you want to ‘win’ for Whites, I would recommend that you don’t follow the advice of jews. They’re not White and they don’t support Whites.
Besides, if you want to know where ‘leftist activism’ is today, you should look up ‘Midwest Academy’ not ‘Saul Alinsky’.
Alinsky appealed to the infantile egoism of the Bone-Head Left. It was never applied against any real power, like the jews.
If you want to see what happens to leftists who think Alinsky’s rules work against jews, look at how it completely failed for the Gaza/Palestinian protestors.
The jews just rolled right over them.
Charleroi Pennsylvania and Springfield Ohio are the New Model Army. It is possible these stories came out now on purpose: Does anyone care about the American working class any more?
I put both those towns/states in search engines and all I got from Bing, Google, and Duckduckgo were drippy articles about how “locals were fine with migrants till Trump…” and I stopped reading.
Then I went to Yandex and the very first result gave a fairly good summary of the whole story:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/no-americans-insider-reveals-how-charleroi-pa-factory-imported-haitian-great-job
Electoral politics is where populist movements go to die. Eventually, ‘pragmatism’ proves too much for the more ephemeral and inchoate impulses of populism and the energy and sense of belonging that makes populist politics populist, is dissipated in trying to ‘work within the system’.
If populist movements want to thrive, they follow the path of parallel institutions and nullification right up to and past the militarization of expectations.
Trump is a like a leech set on a dying patient in the pretense of helping with the patient’s anemia. It’s ‘doing something’ for the same of ‘doing something’ without the patient – MAGA – having any idea how much worse ‘doing something’ is going to make things.
Neither the national DNC nor the national GOP are offering pro-Whites anything. There’s no reason to vote for either.
Is your local GOP or DNC offering anything? Probably not. Unless you get involved and work toward occupying local political and administrative positions.
I will vote for Trump, just to run up his numbers in the popular vote (he has zero chance of winning my state), and because he is the most rightwing of any of the candidates on the ballot. Believe it or not, Trump is the least antiwhite of all the candidates, including third party ones.
And, for I admit selfish reasons, I do hope he wins. Decades ago, I supported accelerationism: I wanted whites to be forced to make a decision re their collective racio-national survival when we still had numbers (and human quality) on our side – and when I was young. I am no longer young. No man can read his future, but I suspect I only have two decades left, and maybe less. Trump would be much better for me – and for the country – than Commiela. Race is not the only issue in politics. He will, however, even be better for the prowhite movement, as he will buy us some more prowhite organizing time; he might build the Wall; he might go after DEI; and he might deport tens of millions of illegals (whereas Commiela WILL attempt to give amnesty to those tens of millions).
Don’t be petulant and immature in your thinking.
A vote for Trump is a vote for the jews. And the jews hate White people and want to destroy them. if the jews loved White people and wanted to protect them, nothing would be like how it is. The best thing a serious White person can do is to not vote for anyone for President. No matter who you vote for your interests as a White person will not be represented. Unless, of course, you’re a racially-masochistic White. Then you’re particular sniveling, groveling and step-n-fetchit version of Whiteness will most definitely be represented.
If you’re a Concerned White or a generically pro-White or a committed White Nationalist, you’re not going to get anything from the GOP or Trump but more betrayal. If you don’t vote, at least you’re less complicit in your humiliation.
Lord Shang – I have the greatest respect for you; however, in the political climate we will continue to live in, as our demographic decline continues apace, I believe it is simply impossible for Trump to build a border wall, or even deport more than a handful — much less tens of millions — of even the most undesirable illegal aliens. He will meet with crushing resistance at all levels; even outright refusal to carry out lawful orders. Some of the fiercest opposition will be our fellow Whites and (((fellow Whites))). Trump would still make a far better President for White people than the Harris person. Sadly, that is now a pretty low bar.
I think the author is confusing neoconservatism with real conservatism. Conservatism neither advocates nor lends support in any way to race replacement; indeed, quite the opposite. The issue of the proper relation between race and conservatism, it has long seemed to me, does need philosophical development. I recall reading The Conservative Mind in the early 80s, and already being annoyed by its almost complete lack of attention to the race question (although Russell Kirk must have been close to us on the matter, as most of those thinkers he celebrated as famous “conservatives”- and not just Calhoun – would today be dismissed as “white supremacists”) .
It would be a mistake, however, for prowhites to draw too rigorous a contrast between ourselves and conservatives. Conservatism is a much more extensive ideology than white nationalism, and most whites who are or would be disposed to WN generally agree with most of these conservative policy positions. It is also well-established in the public mind. It is smarter, therefore, for prowhites to insinuate ourselves throughout the conservative movement – exactly as neocons did in previous generations – and then seek to change the understanding of conservatism so that it comes to encompass anti-immigrationism, both in fact (ie, among conservative intellectuals and activists), and in the broader public understanding.
I do agree with the author’s implicit conclusion that support for an immigration moratorium (which is the most palatable, if only third best immigration policy position: the second best would be one designed to maximize white immigration, even if some nonwhites were also allowed in; the best would maximize white immigration while commencing deportations of legal nonwhite immigrants: at a minimum, those convicted of crimes, as well as chronic welfare deadbeats) should henceforth be considered the absolute minimum for anyone whom we should support, or who should merit being called “conservative”.
The issue of the proper relation between race and conservatism, it has long seemed to me, does need philosophical development. I recall reading The Conservative Mind in the early 80s, and already being annoyed by its almost complete lack of attention to the race question
I came rather late in life to political philosophy so I make no claim to expertise. But I think your comment puts the finger on why conservatism always loses: it’s entirely theoretical, a set of “values” without intrinsic connection to a living and identifiable pre-existent human group, aka a tribe.
Leftliberals have managed to merge their “values” with the group identities of a variety of victim groups, so that now unless you vote Democrat, you’re not Black (Our late president taught us that), or you’re not gay or a woman or a Jew. That is their enormous strength.
I see every group that embraces an overtly universalist vision as using that vision covertly for the aggrandizement of the group. The foreground is non-ethnic; the background always is…until contemporary Whites, the only group to be suicidally fundamentalist about our Enlightenment “value” of equality. None of the Enlightenment thinkers did.
Somehow a viable political philosophy has to serve the survival and flourishing of distinct groups that pre-exist the philosophy, ie it must be ethnic or racial. In our case, of course, overt White Nationalism.
Otherwise we have the sorry train of color-blind “conservatives” who turn out to be nothing more than traitorously grifting retarded anti-White liberals.
Your observations have value, but I don’t think adherence to universal ideologies untethered from particular peoples, tribes, clans, ethnies, etc, is unique to conservatism; such adherence is, rather, unique to white people. Whites are the most ideological race, sometimes for good (varieties of the Right), others, for evil (varieties of the Left). We are so ultimately because we are the innately most ethical race, which I suspect in turns derives from our being both the most individualistic race, and the most philosophical. As a function of our genetic inheritance, it seems obvious to most of us that we should place transcendent moral systems ahead of mere tribal self-interest. Indeed, it seems obvious even to me. And yet this is precisely why whites are dying out: in the evolutionary arms race of existence, our concern with abstract values, as you correctly note, weakens us in competition with others who feel no such compunction.
Can this ‘circle’ be squared? We must develop a universal ethical system that safeguards the moral right to white living spaces. This is what many here argue for: universal ethnonationalism. We can even call this “Wilsonian ethnonational self-determinationism”, as this is basically what Woodrow Wilson thought would maximize the chances of world peace (ie, a de-imperialized world of self-governing ethnopolities).
[I believe such a world would be far preferable to today’s – infinitely so from the prowhite perspective – but I doubt it would usher in perpetual peace. Status competition among men in a world where wants always exceed resources, and evil remains an ontologically ineradicable aspect of the human condition, guarantees at least the perennial possibility of future conflict.]
Of course, universal ethnonationalism is only one way by which whites can rationalize taking measures necessary for group survival. I come at the problem quite differently. I assert that our right not to be self-bound by universalist strictures stems from our very collective superiority, and that beginning with our moral superiority. Whites as a race are simply better than other races – ‘better’ in light of every one of the traditional virtues (justice, fair play, charity, concern for the common good, including the life-maintaining biosphere itself, etc). We are also by orders of magnitude the most accomplished of races. It matters to human (and not just white) welfare that whites continue to exist; indeed, given modern man’s industrial assault on the environment, and his immense potential for planetary destruction, white existence matters more now than ever.
About 20 years ago, a silly fantasy movie was produced entitled A Day Without A Mexican. Its conceit was that somehow civilization – or at least, California – would collapse if all of its Mexican workers disappeared. I saw it in theater, and found some of it funny (though not at all always in line with what the narrative POV wanted to be found funny). But I distinctly recall wondering what would happen to the US (and the world) if all the whites disappeared. It would not be pretty (see, eg, “Zimbabwe”).
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had failed to connect our white nationalist project of universal ethnic states with a kind of moral code. That would both serve us something a bit more than just a tribal ethic. I do think that real ethics are always tribal, but it has been important to connect group Self interest with some kind of larger, moral vision, if only to provide a defense against people, who want to reduce our desire to survive to some kind of parochial selfishness.
I also agree that without the continuance of the white race, all the nations of the earth will suffer. We clearly are not race of angels. No race is. But what our people have contributed to the betterment of the human condition is without parallel. again, I appreciate you taking the time to respond.
‘Conservatism’ needs White Nationalism more than White Nationalism needs ‘conservatism’.
‘Conservatism’ is an almost exclusively White obsession.
All of the ‘other issues’ that ‘conservatism’ brings are just distractions from the central issue of race-mixing and the racial oppression of Whites.
No ‘conservative’ has ever spoke up for White people and survived the attack of other conservatives.
‘Conservatism’ is a kind of ideological parasite. It’s attached itself to the White race, nourishes itself on the White race, but provides no value to the White race.
White Nationalists don’t need to be beholden to any particular political-economic solution.
‘Conservatism’ failed.
It’s White Nationalism’s turn to see if something of value can be harvested from the rubble of ‘conservatism’s’ failure.
Dave, this is another well-written and thoughtful contribution. The quote from Sam Francis was well-chosen. He was uncommonly far-sighted. I wish he were still with us today.
Dave C.: I believe conservatism has been and will continue to be disastrous for white (sic) Americans.
—
That could well be your conclusion, Dave.
I challenge anyone to name even a single national politician — conservative or otherwise — who will admit to the biological fact that non-Whites are incapable of making White babies.
As a race-thinking political junkie and National Alliance cadreman I met and interacted somewhat with both Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan. What was not to like about either of those White men? However, as a White racial nationalist/separatist, I found that they fell short, being paleo conservatives. WikiJews’ definition:
Paleoconservatism is a political philosophy and a paternalistic strain of conservatism in the United States stressing American nationalism, Christian ethics, regionalism, traditionalist conservatism, and non-interventionism. Paleoconservatism’s concerns overlap with those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s[1] as well as with paleolibertarianism.[2][3] By the start of the 21st century, the movement had begun to focus more on issues of race.[4][5]
Note that WikiJews’ source #4 there leads to SPLC’s article that names both Messrs. Francis and Buchanan, as well as other alleged “White supremacists” as Jarad Taylor, Peter Brimilow and Kevin MacDonald, etc. They cannot fool the Jews once they focus on the taboo of race.
—
You commented: I’d like to nominate Ohio’s open-borders Governor Mike Dewine, himself a Springfield native, as the 2024 traitor of the year. Last Friday he wrote an op-ed in the (((New York Times))) defending the invasion, and yes, he’s a self-described conservative.
—
Good choice. 23 years ago, possibly before you were born, William Pierce told us about formerly practically lily-White Iowa being destroyed by another anti-White white governor in “Murdering Iowa” at nationalvanguard.org.
Under Iowa’s new Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, state officials have launched a campaign to bring more non-Whites into Iowa. Recruiting teams are sent to ghettos and barrios around the country to persuade Blacks and mestizos to move to Iowa. The government in Washington is pumping money into a number of special programs in Iowa to help in the process of multiculturalization. Non-Whites are even being recruited in Mexico, Africa, and other non-White areas and then brought to Iowa as government-approved immigrants.
Race traitor Vilsack was later awarded, serving as a Secretary in both Obama’s and Biden’s Cabinets.
I think the truth is that Conservatism really doesn’t mean anything specific at this point, nor does Liberalism mean anything specific either.
White American: September 26, 2024 I think the truth is that Conservatism really doesn’t mean anything specific at this point, nor does Liberalism mean anything specific either.
—
Liberalism is a disease of the brain and has become anti-White when compared with Voltairean liberalism of old. Conservatism may pretend to be pro-White to some but is weak and cannot stand up to organized, revolutionary Marxism, or even to the anti-White Democrat Party. To serious racial nationalists both terms have become as meaningless as the terms left-wing and right-wing. I’ll post again Dr. William Pierce’s 53-year-old, but timeless “Why Conservatives Can’t Win” at nationalvanguard.org:
Revolutionary Advantage
Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy – an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary way of life.
The advantage has always lain – and will always lie – on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the evolutionary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other an offensive role.
Besieged vs. Besieger
The offensive-defensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to strategy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks – he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger – but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.
The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different…
In any discussion of Conservatism by Whites determined to preserve their kind, this classic of wisdom on the subject by WLP deserves a bump until it sinks in:
I’ll post again Dr. William Pierce’s 53-year-old, but timeless “Why Conservatives Can’t Win” at nationalvanguard.org:
Revolutionary Advantage
Conservatives cannot win because the enemy to which they are opposed is a revolutionary enemy – an enemy with revolutionary goals and guided by a revolutionary way of life.
The advantage has always lain – and will always lie – on the side of the contender who is prepared to take the offensive, rather than maintaining a defensive position only. And the evolutionary natures of the conservative and the revolutionary determine that the one shall always play an essentially defensive role and the other an offensive role.
Besieged vs. Besieger
The offensive-defensive dichotomy does not apply absolutely to tactics, of course, but it does to strategy. The conservative may launch brief counterattacks – he may sally forth from his fortress to harry his revolutionary besieger – but in the long run he is always the besieged and the revolutionary the besieger.
The goal of the conservative is to protect what is, or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary is to radically transform what is, or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different…
While on the theme of the failure of conservatism by the long-time expert on the subject, Dr. William Pierce, here is another of his essays on the subject from the 1970s:
...Conservatives are correct, of course, in viewing communism as a serious danger, an evil which should be opposed. But – and this is the essence of the matter – conservatives oppose communism for the wrong reasons. They see it, first and foremost, as a threat to free enterprise: a threat to their bank accounts. What they really hate about communism is that it is collectivist (i.e., that it subordinates the welfare of the individual to the welfare of the community – at least, in theory) and that it is statist (i.e., that it vests ultimate authority in a highly centralized party-government apparatus instead of in more-or-less autonomous local governments).
But if collectivism and statism were the only aspects of communism we had to worry about, I, for one, would welcome it with open arms, as an infinitely superior alternative to the Jew-ridden, minority-coddling, culture-defiling, soul-stifling, filth-wallowing, corruption-breeding, decadence-producing, race-destroying monstrosity of a System which now squats so unwholesomely in the power centers of our nation (and which, of course, is also collectivist and statist, in the worst sense of the words, even if not so forthrightly as the Kremlin).
No, the real evils of communism are that it, like capitalism, is alien to us in origin and essence; and it, also like capitalism, is racially destructive. The doctrine of communism was born in the alien mind of Karl Marx (ne Levi); and it, as a doctrine which interprets history and all social phenomena solely in economic terms, predicates the primacy of gold over blood.
It is true that a perceptive minority of conservatives has awakened to the fact that big capitalism, private monopoly capitalism, is by no means antithetical to communism (state capitalism). They have finally reached a vague understanding, after years of observing the backslapping camaraderie between Western capitalists, like the Rockefellers, and the masters of the Kremlin, that the fundamental values of the two systems have certain similarities – that they are merely variations on the same economic materialist theme.
But it has not yet dawned on even the most alert conservatives that they themselves have a serious problem with values. Whether the issue is bussing or the Middle East or the menace of Marxism, the conservative’s lack of a race-based world view invariably leads him astray – either by putting him on the wrong side of the issue, as in the case of the Middle East; or by robbing him of the courage of his conviction, as in the case of bussing; or by so confusing his motivations that he becomes ineffective, as in the case of opposition to Marxism.
Beyond this, conservatism suffers the serious drawback of being an inherently defensive position. It has no aggressive, forward-looking program of its own, no great and shining Idea on high to guide the steps of its pioneers, no stirring anthem to inspire its troops to rush forward and slay the unbelievers.
The goal of the conservative is not to create something new but merely to protect what is or, at the extreme, to restore what recently was. The goal of the revolutionary – of the “radical” whom the conservative so passionately hates – on the other hand, is to transform in a fundamental (i.e., radical) way what is or to do away with it altogether, so that it can be replaced by something entirely different….
Read more of this, here: “The Trouble With Conservatism” at nationalvanguard.org
William Pierce 50 years ago: It has not yet dawned on even the most alert conservatives that they themselves have a serious problem with values…
—
Kemi Badenoch wins Conservative leadership contest, pitching party to the right after blowout UK election loss
CNNAnalysis by Rob Picheta
November 3, 2024
Britain’s humbled Conservative Party elected Kemi Badenoch as its new leader on Saturday, turning to a right-wing favorite who has railed against identity politics, transgender rights and state spending to rebuild its reputation after a devastating election defeat.
Badenoch defeated Robert Jenrick in a vote of party members by 53,806 votes to 41,000, after a months-long contest to replace Rishi Sunak as leader. She’s the first Black woman to lead a major British political party….
Not sure exactly what the British Conservative Party is conserving, but at least this bubble-lipped, blue-gummed Nigerian female leader of the Party will be taking things rightward, whatever that means. ;o{
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.