1,201 words
I had major disagreements with Charlie Kirk on immigration and Israel, as I do with much of mainstream conservatism. In fact, my first article was about roasting Charlie at UCLA during the Groyper War. But we fought each other with words, not bullets.
After the death of Charlie Kirk, many on the Right agreed that now is the time to unite the Right and crush the Left.
But Greg Conte argues that the Left-Right distinction is a Jewish divide-and-conquer tactic and that all our focus should be on Jewish power. I agree that organized Jewry is the chief enemy of our people, but I disagree with Conte’s views on the Left-Right distinction.
First, Conte states that, “As a National Socialist, my task is not to pick a fight with the left because the Jews want me to.” What would Carl Schmitt say to this? Conte clearly doesn’t want to be enemies with the Left. But sometimes your enemies choose you. The Left has chosen to be our enemy. The Left thinks that Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump deserve to die for basically advocating 1990s liberalism. Imagine what they would do to us if they could. Our only choice is whether we recognize this fact and act accordingly, or delude ourselves and keep making friendly overtures to people who hate us, want us dead, and think it’s funny. I associate that sort of behavior with guilt-laden liberals who simp for BLM. Again, we are not entirely in control of who our enemy is. Sometimes our enemies choose us.
Second, Conte thinks that we shouldn’t try to crush the Left but persuade or convert them. I share much of his frustration with the conservative rank and file and his disgust at GOP party apparatchiks, but we have limited time, money, and people. Thus, we should direct our outreach to where we will get the greatest return. So who is most receptive to our message?
A central issue for the identitarian Right is to end non-white immigration and begin remigration. Let’s look at some hard data on immigration from a recent Homeland Institute poll of white American voters. We can assume Democrat party affiliation is a proxy for the Left, and Republican for the Right.
In response to the statement: “The large number of foreigners both legal and illegal residing within the US is driving up housing prices for the native born,” 3.3% of Democrats, 26.7% of independents, and 44.1% Republicans said they “strongly agree.” Since basic economics predicts this effect, 100% of people should have strongly agreed. But Republicans strongly agreed with this truth at a rate more than 13 times that of Democrats. 54.5% of Democrats, 20.5% of Independents, and 4.3% of Republicans said that they “strongly disagree” with the applicability of the law of supply and demand to housing.
In response to the statement, “The large number of foreigners both legal and illegal residing within the US is reducing wages and workplace conditions for the native born,” 2.4% of Democrats, 27.1% of Independents, and 44.8% of Republicans said they “strongly agree” with basic economics, more than 18 times the number of Republicans than Democrats. 61.4% of Democrats, 21.4% of Independents, and 3.2% of Republicans said they “strongly disagree” with basic supply and demand when it comes to immigration.
In response to the statement, “The large number of foreign students attending college in the US is reducing educational and career opportunities for the native born,” 3.7% of Democrats, 21.4% of Independents, and 42.3% of Republicans said they “strongly agree,” whereas 65.4% of Democrats, 24.8% of Independents, and 5.7% of Republicans strongly disagreed.
We also asked respondents their opinion on the cliched stance that “Illegal immigrants are a net negative, but legal immigrants are a net positive” at both the start and end of the same poll. Republicans began with the highest understanding that legal immigrants are also a net negative followed by Independents and then Democrats: 12.5%, 2.9%, 0.4%. At the end of the poll, 2.4% of Democrats, 5.7% of Independents, and 16.5% of Republicans said that legal immigrants are a net negative. All three groups were somewhat educable, even within the space of a ten minute poll, but Republicans were the most educable, followed by Independents and Democrats.
Immigration extremism is more of a categorical imperative than a policy preference for the Left. Denying basic economic reality is a test of faith that most Democrats easily pass.
It’s obvious that our movement’s limited resources should be spent on the kind of people who vote for Donald Trump, not for Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, let alone for AOC, Kamala, and Jasmine Crockett.
I have no objections to reaching out to all white constituencies, even vegans and bottlecap collectors, but given how limited our resources are, it would be foolish to devote vast amounts thereof to such marginal constituencies. Such outreach should be regarded as hobby projects for the extremely online. The same is true for outreach to the Left.
It’s a fact of life that conservatives are both closer to us than liberals and easier to convert to our views. Trying to build a coalition with white liberals is almost as silly as trying to build one with blacks or Muslims.
The murder of Charlie Kirk is a rare opportunity. Because of his death, the Trump administration wishes to crush not coddle Antifa. We should do everything we can to give them moral support and shame backsliders and opposition. Conte, however, thinks this is some sort of Jewish trickery. No. Sometimes, you have to stop overthinking things, take the win, and destroy your enemies.
Conte regards the Jews, not the Left, as the enemy. Sadly, we can have more than one enemy. Jews certainly like to promote leftism as a tool of their ethnic interests, but the Left-Right divide still exists independently of the Jews. It is driven by entropy, biology, and psychology. If only it were as easy as impressionable theater kids being radicalized by Professor Shekelstein.
As Corneliu Codreanu said, every country has the Jews it deserves. Jews enjoy enormous power in America because our people are haplessly apolitical and ahistorical, as described by Yockey. For White America to survive, we must become historical and political. The Jews have walked all over us because of the disgusting softness of conservatives who have been content with performative gestures and half measures like issuing commemorative coins, tweeting, holding impotent hearings, filing hopeless lawsuits, and joking about underwater basket weavers. Using the death of Charlie Kirk to finally mobilize the Right towards wielding power for friends and against enemies is the first step towards exiting conservative fellahdom and entering history and politics.
Spengler wrote that “Politics in the highest sense is life, and life is politics. Every man is willy-nilly a member of this battle-drama, as subject or as object—there is no third alternative.” We must either conquer or perish.
Conte wants to live in a world in which blood matters more than ideology. So do I. But that’s not the world we live in. Too many white Leftists have chosen to be our mortal enemies. I would prefer to debate the Left as Charlie Kirk did, but the time for debate ended when they killed him and cheered. Now is the hour of decision. We must defeat the Left as Franco did in the Spanish Civil War.
44 comments
Strong piece. I agree with it.
I almost wrote a comment on Beau Albrecht’s thoughtful article too to say we should have all modes of advancement on the table. So you can have some kind of outreach to liberals, at least the weaker kind, as long we don’t expect too much, and as long as we are super clear headed about it. And also watch out for false converts.
The problem with what we call the left, is they are not driven by sane things that have been arrived at through reflection and examination, and they have virtually abandoned any historic good intentions the left had. Even the less nutty ones are driven by feelings, by social acceptance, by conforming to what they assume are ‘values’ and upholding taboos, no matter how hypocritical. The mid tier are ones invested in maintaining a barrier between them and other whites. The more nutty ones are driven by hatred and a revolt against nature.
You can’t ignore it if one group of people hate you and treat them as normal.
The way I see it, since I’m just writing articles, there’s no penalty for me trying to multitask. If possible, I’d run three dozen simultaneous strategies and then go forward with what works. If instead I were putting together a million dollar targeted advertising strategy, then I’d reconsider trying to chew gum and walk in a straight line.
So I came up with a relatively brief introduction suitable for us to send to any high-functioning liberal friends who need some encouragement. I bet a lot of us know someone like that! The way I see it, using logic bombs to collapse an indoctrination wall takes a while. Still, for a long-term strategy to have any chance of working, we have to try in the first place.
“As a National Socialist, my task is not to pick a fight with the left because the Jews want me to.”
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Who is this clown? Does he have any concept of the origins of National Socialism? I think “picking a fight with the left” was pretty high up on the list of that ideology’s founding principles.
These people who hate Jews more than they love Whites are absolutely toxic. They should be scorned and driven into the desert. Absolutely degenerate.
Should your formerly posted comment that you LOVE non-White people cause you to be scorned as a degenerate as well? Or have you changed your position?
Why are you so obsessed with me bro?
Does it bother you so much that someone would have compassion for all of humanity? Is your warped little schizo soul really that far from God?
For the record, I do love Whites more than non-Whites in situations where I have to choose one. I wouldn’t be posting here otherwise.
So whether or not you love White people more than non-White people is conditional. That’s really f#cked up. I can tell you that I unconditionally love White folk and I do not have any love for non-White people at all. As well, I think the fact that you claim to speak for some ‘God’ looks pretty low-tier intelligence as well as crazy. Also, you really should stop referring to strangers as ‘bro’ because it comes off as quite juvenile.
It really does get ridiculous. Just unbearably ridiculous. I do not envy Zsutty having to reason with someone whose yearning to give the Jews their comeuppance is so fierce that it’s basically just a quacky irrational religion.
Thanks for the reply James. I call these people “one-strugglers” and about 75% of them seem to be spiritually Muslim.
And like… I do get it… Jews have done a lot of damage to our race. That’s not even controversial. It’s trivially obvious. Even Jared Taylor can admit that, if with some qualifiers.
But a lot of these one-struggler types wouldn’t want any solution that would benefit our people if it also happened to confer any benefit whatsoever upon Israel or Jews. For instance, making New York City safer for Whites would likely make it safer for Ashkenazis as well. On that basis alone I think many of these thalidomide babies would oppose such measures.
They would happily see out race go down in flames if we could take the Jew with us. What the flip, man? They remind me of Christians who’d rather live in a multiracial Christian nation than a White secular one.
If White survival isn’t your primary heuristic, you’re going to have a bad time.
Sadly, I agree. There is no reason to believe they care about anything–including improving the lot of Whites–more than they care about giving the Jews their comeuppance. And it’s not surprising, really. Many of these guys are just basic-bitch internet edgelords, who feel they must constantly “up the ante” in order to be relevant, as they see it. The thought of being just a decent white man, aspiring to a decent-white-man’s way of life, appalls them.
National Socialism/Hitler/JQ Fetishism, these are things that give them the most bang for the miscreant buck. In other words, they’re in it for the misanthropy, never seeking to understand where other racially conscious white persons they’re interacting with are coming from. Like the two anons interacting with you above, there is no civil engagement, just presumption and assertions; every exchange a shameless mask-off betrayal of what they’re here for: conflict, strife, and offense.
It’s the only thing people like that are serious about. But as soon as something edgier than LARPing as storm troopers comes along you’d better believe they’ll be on to that next new thing. Maybe some will wise up and become mature white men who genuinely care about their race, not just “pwning” the Jews. I hope so, but am pretty skeptical.
“The day will come when all nations amidst which the Jews are dwelling will have to raise the question of their wholesale expulsion, a question which will be one of life or death, good health or chronic disease, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever.”
― Franz Liszt
Antiwhites are our enemies whether they are Jewish or non-Jewish. The Jews are the smartest, wealthiest, best organized, and generally most influential antiwhites, but a Black who simply wants to “get that White girl” is also antiwhite and also our enemy.
Yes, answer to the question “Who are the enemies of whites?” is simply: anti-whites. There’s a lot of them.
We should use the right words. The proper words for the real us-versus-them divide are pro-White and antiwhite.
Defining ourselves in terms of “left” and “right” would be a mistake that dissipated our focus into side-issues.
Someone’s opinions on labor unions are largely irrelevant. Opinions on topics like “socialized medicine” are largely irrelevant. We are trying to stop White genocide and save our race; that is our issue.
We should have no loyalty to Republican “values” such as Zionism, cheap brown labor, and the kind of crony “capitalism” that has every major corporation flying the Gay Pride flag, and many of them funding Black Lives Matter. We shouldn’t even create any confusion that suggests we might have such loyalty.
Yes and no. We are on the Right. I see no reason to obfuscate that. White people who vote for Right-wing parties are far more likely to become White Nationalists than those who vote for the Left. But not everyone on the Right is us. Anti-whites are our enemy, even if they are on the Right.
Statistically, you have a point.
We can’t repudiate things that are good for White people on the ground that they are tinged with right wing thinking, and the left will demand that we do that.
This is much less of an issue with the people who constitute the mass base of the right.
What exactly would the Dissident Right (DR) bring to the table such that the Left would form an alliance with it?
The Left as it is currently constituted has massive institutional support: NGO funding, lawyer guild lawfare, sanctuaries on university campuses, Hollywood agitprop non-stop, in-cahoots DAs dropping charges against rioters, big party political allies (“antifa is not an organization, it is an idea”), and quite possibly covert backing from certain three letter agencies.
Does the DR have the capacity to substitute for any of this support? Well, not likely… Best case, any faction of the DR which attempted to form an alliance would end up as an appendage to the Left, perhaps kept on as a way to control radical rightist opposition.
Let’s put this in practical terms:
Does anyone out there have any experience in forming Right-Left alliances? Can come examples be presented of DR cadre going to, say, a Leftist organizers’ meeting and proposing such an alliance? Or marching alongside a Leftist led street action with DR banners flying? Or setting up a recruiting table on the UC Berkeley campus green next to that of a Leftist front? Or soliciting a Leftist oligarch to contribute to the legal defense fund for the Charlottesville ’17 political prisoners?
Real questions, let’s see some real answers.
Does anyone out there have any experience in forming Right-Left alliances?
I remember the politics of the anti-System of the previous decade in my own eastern backyard. Radical anti-western Identitarians tried forming an alliance with some obscure Maoists. There was some meeting, kind words and speeches were exchanged and…everybody forgot about it in the next months. It became a subjects of jokes among the dissidents regarding the complete detachment from political reality of some people in this sphere.
Today the old-style left matured a bit, but still remains absolutely minuscule as compared to the right-wing ecosystem. They’re worth reading from time to time, but have nothing to offer politically. The right is no longer crippled by the libertarian dogma as it used to be in the past, so it retains a more flexible stance in economics. It’s like seriously entertaining an “alliance” with the Red Scare podcast.Mr Travis LeBlanc wrote about the potential “Red-Brown alliance” in the past here.
Going back in history, both the Polish Socialist Party and the National Democracy were committed to the restoration of independent Poland, but remained enemies until the end. Even the fact that they both despised the international communists didn’t build a bridge between them.
The dream of mystical racial blood overcoming politics is exactly that, a dream. For humans, factionalism is inherent even in the most basic forms of community like clans and tribes. The reason is often the real blood as various families vie for dominance. Antifa is a proxy of the System not only for its enmity towards the dissidents, but due to the fact that many deranged children of the upper class find their way there. Creating a myth of a common enemy to destroy works only in revolutions, which themselves are driven by small, disciplined factions. Democracy on the other hand favors coalitions which keep the most radical elements in check and focus on stability first. Antifa, as a threat to stability, can be a uniting factor for a coalition on the Right. The devil is, as usual, in the details.
“Does anyone out there have any experience in forming Right-Left alliances?”
(Holds hand in the air.) I won’t go into details. It was an utter catastrophe that wiped out the party that attempted it and destroyed the good cause that the party was formed to pursue.
There was never the slightest chance that this could have been anything but a disaster. The leftists wanted only total power for themselves and destruction for everyone else. No thoughts of honesty or fair play or working for a common cause ever entered their heads. They were not even the human types that have such thoughts.
If you try to work with these instances of cancer on two legs they will spend all their time on tactics like making meetings drag out till enough normal people get tired or just have to leave on other business, and then the leftists will dispose of everything in block votes, and they will do things like appropriate the treasury for themselves and set up unaccountable and powerful committees to pursue their agenda to the exclusion of what the organization is supposed to be about.
Exactly right. Never trust communists.
And never trust mock “conservatives” either, including Bush, Romney, Liz Cheney, David Brooks, David Frum, and the losers who work for The Bulwark. They are all enemies.
Well said. I think if we’re going to reach out to the left it should be more of a passive effort that if they genuinely admit to themselves and find the errors in their ways (and they’re not batshit crazy) then they can finally come home. Other than that if we do an active effort on making relationships with the left it should be focused on “key players”. The left isn’t really an ideological threat to european/white identitarianism, it’s a physical threat. Our biggest ideological threats are implanted in conservatism as we know it itself.
I was raised completely agnostic to the whole topic. 2 things in my life have stood out that make me hate jews as a group and zionists in particular…. That being said, the jewish people that I’ve had involved in my personal life have been wonderful individuals I hold no hatred towards – its the racial group that’s a problem (same for blacks – individually many are quite nice, but…)
#1 – Freedom of speech applies to everyone everywhere, except if you want to criticize the jew. Criticize any one or any thing else, and its protected speech, even if you find it abhorrent. Criticize the jew, or anything jewish, or even just notice a pattern of something, like, there sure are a lot of jews in charge of media and news companies, and the simple statement of fact, is labeled antisemetic, and you somehow have now become antisemetic, akin to hitler apparently, simply for speaking out loud a curious observation that is in fact never disputed as false…. but the fact that you observed it, is in fact the infraction. As if noticing that the emperor has no clothes and saying something, would get you thrown in jail. These are children’s parables writ-large. To know who rules over you, ask who it is you cannot criticize, for you adults in the room.
#2 In all of recorded history, there has never, EVER, been a group of people kicked out of every scratch of dirt they’ve attempted to call home. For 3000 years everywhere they’ve landed, the people hosting them, eventually become so sick and disgusted with them, that they actively kick them out and ban them from their country wholesale. 117 times and counting by some statistics… 109 on the conservative side. Not 10 or 20. Over 100, in some 3000 years. That… once every 30 years! They piss some nation state off so much that they formally and legally declare them persona non-grata. Now I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but some old timer once told me its easier to learn from other people’s mistakes, than make them yourself, so I try to do that from time to time.
If that’s not enough to convince you, ask why it is you’re not organically agnostic? Unless you’re born into the group, someone or something implanted a preference for or against it. Did you grow up in a jewish neighborhood, have fond memories of friends and neighbors? Or did the media (that ISN’T run by jews) give you that story? Your parents teach you to love the jew, have sympathy for jews? Why is it a war-crime if 7 jewish kids killed in the street by an arab with an AK, but if jews kill 2500 children bombing a school and a hospital with fighter jets and cruise missiles claiming terrorists are hiding in the basement, it’s unavoidable collateral damage? Why is it that they are always involved in all the reprehensible crap that goes on in our world (like drugs and porn and faggots)?
The Austrian painter was right, and you all know it, but the jews taught you that was badthink, and you accepted it.
Why do jews always get kicked out of countries but Whites just get murdered or brutally suppressed by regimes. Where are the histories of Whites getting kicked out of countries in jew fashion?
“The Left”, the gay BLM communists, are impossible to deal with and will always be enemies.
We have a much greater chance of converting moderate liberals into moderate conservatives in the current climate. The great benefit of this would be to deprive the Left of any electoral support, even if this new conservative base doesn’t support us at all.
Any talk with leftists is futile. They are suicidal lunatics, who want to kill us all. They are terrorists, druggies and perverts. There is no debating with Antifa psychos, anymore than you would debate with a rabid animal. The recent assassination proved it once again.
Hmm, why does Greg conte seem to be “in effect” right now? OD also has an article about him. I started listening to Conte’s podcasts—wow, he is super smart. He’s the closest thing we have to a living Spengler! Thanks for drawing my attention to him.
I have always been convinced that white nationalists should take over the socio-economic agenda of the old left. This is not some tactical concession – it is a necessity for our victory. If the global corporate elite remains in power, policies hostile to European nations and their culture will be implemented. For reasons of demographic survival alone, we must create tolerable living conditions for our people. Unrestrained capitalism will always lead to the opposite and, taken to its logical conclusion, to the Great Replacement.
Conte is wrong about the left, they are not going to sit still, and listen to anyone denigrating the jews—the left is crazy. 🙃
This is a great article.
The notion that Muslims are our allies because they don’t like the Joos is a fool’s errand. They are never going to support White interests. Full stop.
Also, the idea that it is only about the Joos is wrong and just plain dumb.
A lot of the people on the “dissident” Right are ex-Liberals and Leftists and have extended family with these priors. They don’t like being attacked as Whites by their fellow travellers, but the notion that the Left offers anything to White people is beyond stupid.
They tend to obsess in edgy podcasts about how the real fight is with the Conservatives and the GOP and not the Democrats. I am not defending Conservatives and the GOP ─ American Nazi Party (later NSWPP – National Socialist White People’s Party) Commander George Lincoln Rockwell accurately dissected that pathology over sixty years ago.
But the notion that the Democratic Party has any “baby” left with the proverbial bathwater is deluded.
A lot of confusion with the political Left and the Right comes from Libertarians, who are almost as bad as Liberals and Leftists. These “Big Gubbamint bad, M’kay” jokers sometimes put Communist and Nazi together on the Left, which again, is beyond dumb.
That is not what the Right-Left spectrum is about, either historically or pragmatically. It dates to the French Revolution, where those wanting more Authority sat on the Right side in the Assembly, then in support of the State (King) ─ and the Liberals sat in the seats to the Left in support of weakening the State, and promoting Egalitarianism, then in support of the Bourgeoisie.
National Socialism was in favor of an authoritative Nation-State where the Volk/Race/People were Sovereign. It is not that hard to understand, and it is not completely at odds with classical-Liberalism. And it is not an argument about taxes, budgets, nor universals about what size of government is better, save for the benefit of the Race and Nation.
You hear nonsense like this often from Libertarians and Conservatives who rationalize that people such as AntiFa (Anti-Fascists), for example, are censorious and violent because “they are the real Fascists.” This betrays a complete misunderstanding of what Fascism and National Socialism are.
One can easily argue that Ben Franklin who famously used a Fasces in arguing for ratification of the Constitution, was a Fascist. Or George Washington, who is often depicted with the Fasces symbol in Federalist art.
The early New Deal incorporated a lot of Fascist ideas in addressing the Depression. The 1935 Wagner Act, which is often more or less correctly called the “Magna Charta of Labor” in the USA, is one good example of a classic Fascist idea which was not ruled Unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
I’m told that my comments tend to be too long, and a historical lecture is not really the point here.
As far as Greg Conte, he is clearly falling into this “it is only about the Joos” trap. YES, the Jewish Question is essential, BUT that is not all that there is to it. The porch monkeys are not going to become friendly and docile just because the Joos have been sent to the East.
Secondly, there is a tendency to ascribe many authentically-progressive things to National Socialism and thereby to incorrectly call it Leftist.
This is a rookie mistake.
It goes far beyond the controversial argumentation of Povl Heinrich Riis-Knudsen, a Danish National Socialist who wrote a notable book in 1984 arguing that National Socialism is a Left-wing movement because the Third Reich had some less-well-known progressive economic reforms which benefitted the working classes (and all organic classes).
The answer is of course, NO. National Socialism is absolutely not a Leftist movement; it was about ending Class Warfare and not stoking it. And “Progressive” policies can come from either side of the political spectrum. Nationalism hardly precludes things like decent healthcare.
Otherwise, the concept of Left and Right has a clear political, ideological, and historical distinction.
🙂
If Greg Conte were escorting his mother home one dark night and saw Decarlos Williams, out of jail for the 15th time, loping towards him, would he cross the street? Or would he square his shoulders and continue forward, because — after all — blacks are not the ultimate enemy?
The goofball caricature-like nature of cuckservayids and the libshittery of being spooked by everything and everyone as racists, fascists, and nazis is something you would see lampooned by Seth McFarlane.
Great points, Scott. While listening to the debate something greatly ironic struck me. Conte, for all his ire for, and fixation on, the Jews, seems to wholly approve of one of Jewish academia’s cleverest tricks: deconstructionism.
By design, deconstructionism (i.e., analysis ad absurdum) seeks to turn opponents into baffled mumbling mental patients, frustrated beyond belief by the rigors of trying to “reason” with the deconstructionist, who won’t even let an adjective be an adjective, a term a term, a name a name.
The deconstructionist says, in essence, “I’m going to sow as much confusion as I can, find no common ground even if there exists any, and accept nothing short of my objective…right or wrong, rational or absurd. I didn’t get here by reason, and I won’t be defeated by reason either.”
“But sometimes your enemies choose you. The Left has chosen to be our enemy. ” First off, what is being identified as “the left” is part of the whole dialectical trap jews are using to pit us against each other and Greg is right, these distinctions don’t exist anywhere outside jew controlled media. Do you actually believe these monkeys on this so called left, (or even the trailer-park right), could put two cogent sentences together, much less distinguish between various political ideologies? Your drunk. No way. This mess we’re lost inside of is extremely complex, even for seasoned, graduate degree professionals, hence all the arguing going on here and elsewhere.
“Sometimes our enemies choose us.” You need to get a grasp the extent jews use their control of mass media to socially construct us. We are products of our environment, and the environment is controlled by jews.
“Conte regards the Jews, not the Left, as the enemy. Sadly, we can have more than one enemy.” Jews are the first enemy, from which all other enemies stem. Because we are so atomized, and jews control us so thoroughly (banking/government/media) they are the birth mothers of every pathology in the zeitgeist today. Get rid of the jews and everything else will clear up behind it.
“Jews enjoy enormous power in America because our people are haplessly apolitical and ahistorical”
There’s a bigger over-arching problem, which is our culture of competitive-individualism. WE goy compete against each other for everything, while jews, who are still reacting to the holocaust, cooperate with each other. Given their control of our money, government, courts (because of this cooperation and our disconnectedness), they have managed to metaphysically divide the way we think, see the world, and live.
This is the chicken or the egg argument, framed as the individual or the environment argument, and I understand why you think through this lens of individualism, simply because our system has brainwashed us not to think in terms of cooperation. We just can’t think the way jews think, which is why Greg is right. The white collectivism that results from national socialism will defeat the jews, who are actually national socialist themselves, only their number are much smaller.
I don’t see how Greg Conte is “right” since he clearly understates the formidable threat of powerful White Libtards who hate White people in general ─ or at least they fundamentally hate the concept of Whiteness, and not just the working classes or even the execrable White “Trash.”
For them, “White Trash” are not junkies, or Wiggers like Chet Hanks, but all of the White people who, for example, protested the razing of the General Lee statue at Charlottesville in 2017 ─ plus the torch-bearers at the UofVA, the academy founded by Thomas Jefferson, who said many race-realist things about Negroes that are now dropped into the proverbial Memory Hole.
I do not minimize the Jewish Question in the least, but these racially-subversive Whites, regardless of whether they are affluent and safely ensconced in their gated communities or not ─ are as very much a threat to White Nationalism as the Joos.
🙂
Scott, you’re not seeing with the eyes of faith; your problem is you just don’t have a personal relationship with their Lord and Savior, Austrian Painter.
In my defense, I’m more of a Hitler realist than an esoteric Hitlerist. That doesn’t make me less of a “Hitlerist.”
🙂
Sounds pretty balanced to me.
Greg says: “We are on the Right. I see no reason to obfuscate that.”
—-
Count me out, Greg, thanks, I’m no Right-winger, nor am I a Left-winger. I am an anti-Jew, White separatist/preservationist with National Socialist leanings because NS under Mr. Hitler was racist and ant-Jew. William Pierce gave us what we now need, racial and anti-Jew, grounded in reality in conformance with Nature’s laws.
Mr. Conti, referring I suppose to the Unite the Right debacle in Charlottesville eight years ago, says “it was THE RIGHT—as I recall—who stabbed us in the back.”
He’s correct. That was while THE LEFT’s counterdemonstrators, guided by THE largely Jewish RIGHT’s Charlottesville authorities <wink, wink!> were attacking pro-White activists in their front.
I agree with Conti when he says:
“The left” and “the right” are full of evil idiots and traitors. To stay sane, one can’t get caught up in their “clever” political games. So I do my best to ignore their bluster and keep my end-goal in mind: the total removal of the existing Jewish power-elite and their replacement by a native, Aryan leadership.
I like that. Don’t play Left vs. Right nonsense. William Pierce rightly told his Alliance supportere 50 years ago that the Alliance is neither Left nor Light, but racial. We can pick some things the so-called Left supposedly embraces, like protection of the environment, while appreciating some that comes from the so-called Right, like Trump’s FBI finally cutting ties this week with the Jewish ADL and the Jewish SPLC, both of whom have vowed for decades to “destroy” the National Alliance. See: “FBI Finally Cuts Ties With Jewish “Hate” Watchdogs” at WhiteBiocentrism.com.
That came about because complaints by organized conservative supporters of Christian Zionist evangelical TPUSA did not like being lumped in with the National Alliance as “extremist,” or whatever, by those Jewish hate watchdog groups.
NA’s being lumped in with TPUSA by Jewish watchdogs does not make me a supporter of those mostly White, conservative Christian Zionist nutcases, or to “unite” with them. TPUSA, whether Right or Left, are part of the problem, not the solution, even with 30 million followers on social media. The racially responsible among them will ultimately have to come our way, not we theirs.
Don’t expect ultraZionist Trump to name ADL and SPLC as extremist any time soon. I and my friend Bob of Sacred Truth Ministries will still be the only “haters” in Johnson County Tennessee on the SPLC’s bogus Hate Map — because, even though he is the largest publisher of CI material in the country we share a mission of telling the truth about Jewry.
Well, I’m an unashamed Right-winger. It does not take much historical context to not get confused by Jooish divide-and-conquer strategies.
For example, I tend to be socially Conservative but fiscally open-minded. Sometimes Big Govenment works, other times not so much. I would strongly disagree with Ronnie Raygun that it is always the problem ─ and because he was always more interested in the optics of sending “peacekeeping” Marines to Beirut (for Israel) than Nationalism, I stopped supporting him.
I used to be a Union shop steward for the IBEW electrical workers, which handled Broadcasting shops and the electrical workers at the National Laboratories, and I considered actually going into Labor law myself, but changed my mind because Globalization was already so far advanced, and adopted with enthusiasm by the “new” Left in the Clintonista era.
Globalization made the whole concept of workers organizing for decent wages and benefits effectively moot, and so the Unions themselves started to shill instead for DEI and other melanated Libtard nonsense. Employers also found that they could simply outsource overseas, and the Stock Market futures and both political parties encouraged this with tax incentives and other “colorblind” policies.
Furthermore, the vaunted “Service Economy” that was promised to the younger generations in the wake of deindustrialization was hugely oversold. Our country basically invented microchip electronics which were subsidized for the demands of the Space Program, but the actual manufacturing was soon offshored as thoroughly and as quickly as possible for cheaper labor, or else the cheaper labor would be imported. For American workers, we were just supposed to focus on the new “Service Economy.”
But not everybody is going to be able to make a living, buy a home, and support a family by selling insurance or by going to law school to chase ambulances. There are too many real estate speculators as it is, which drives the construction industry itself, and that is one of the many reasons why owning a home is almost unthinkable today.
The big picture is that Internationalism was having its way with Nationalism. And that is a big Fail. The Austrian-born Gefreiter clearly understood such things.
🙂
Scott: October 4, 2025 I’m an unashamed Right-winger. It does not take much historical context to not get confused by Jooish divide-and-conquer strategies…
—
I’m an unashamed man of my race, defining myself as neither a Right winger nor a Left winger, but a racial separatist/preservationist. Jews will not divide me from like-minded Whites, nor will they conquer us. As I said, I agree with Mr. Conti, at least as far as this much:
“The left” and “the right” are full of evil idiots and traitors. To stay sane, one can’t get caught up in their “clever” political games. So I do my best to ignore their bluster and keep my end-goal in mind: the total removal of the existing Jewish power-elite and their replacement by a native, Aryan leadership.
Scott, because you and Greg and others consider yourselves solidly in the Right-wing camp does not make you my enemy, nor that you are an idiot or a traitor as Conti suggests. You and Greg are both much more educated than I and probably smarter, We agree on much.
But when you bring up “historical context,” I want to remind you of the origin and early history of right-wing vs, left-wing, then ask you what in Hell does that have to do with preservation of our White race in 2025?
How the French Revolution Sparked “Left” vs. “Right”
By Missed History
February 8, 2025
You might be surprised to learn that the terms “left” and “right” in politics began with a seating arrangement in France’s National Assembly of 1789. When you hear politicians labeled as leftists or right-wing today, they’re actually drawing on a spatial metaphor that’s over 230 years old. This seemingly simple architectural choice – where legislators chose to sit based on their loyalty to the king – would transform into one of the most enduring political frameworks in modern history.
The Birth of Political Seating in 1789
When the Estates-General convened in May 1789 to address France’s financial crisis, no one could have predicted how its seating arrangements would shape modern political terminology.
In a cramped temporary hall behind the Menus-Plaisirs building, 1,200 deputies gathered with King Louis XVI presiding from beneath an ornate baldachin.
Initially, the seating arrangements followed traditional protocol, with clergy and nobility in designated areas while Third Estate deputies, dressed in black, sat in rows around the hall’s edge.
But as the assembly transformed – first into the National Assembly on June 17, then the National Constituent Assembly by July – the deputies’ seating patterns began shifting. The king’s resistance peaked when he ordered the Salle des États closed on June 19, forcing deputies to find alternative meeting places.
You’d have noticed how ideological alignment gradually influenced where deputies chose to sit, with radicals clustering together and conservatives forming their own groups.
Each region had submitted their Cahiers de doléances outlining grievances about tax inequality and feudal dues, which further divided the seating based on how deputies viewed these complaints.
From Chamber Sides to Political Identity
The revolutionary dynamics intensified as each group staked out its position.
While the right wing opposed forming political factions, the left embraced collective action to advance their revolutionary ideals. In the center, La Plaine members carefully balanced their commitments, sometimes siding with the left but occasionally supporting the right.
These divisions would ultimately shape political terminology far beyond France’s borders.
The National Convention marked a historic shift when it established the First Republic in 1792.
Core Values That Defined Each Side
Ideology shaped the fundamental divide between left and right during the French Revolution, with each side embracing distinct values and visions for France’s future.
The left championed liberty, equality, and social justice through radical reforms and wealth redistribution. They prioritized collective rights over individual interests, seeking to limit monarchical power while expanding social programs. Their principles were enshrined in The Declaration of Rights, which emphasized that all men are born free and equal.
The historical origins of this division can be traced to the summer of 1789 when representatives first chose their seating positions in the National Assembly.
The right stood in stark contrast, favoring strong authority and traditional hierarchies. They defended:
The monarchy and aristocracy’s privileged position
An established church’s role in society
The protection of private property rights
You’ll notice how these opposing philosophies created lasting tensions.
While the left pushed for dramatic changes to achieve their egalitarian goals, the right advocated for gradual reforms that would preserve existing social structures and traditional values.
Do right-wing and left wing ideologies today differ that much from those of the Frogs 230 years ago, according to where they sat? Really? Was it racial then, or was it “liberal” egalitarians vs.”conservatives” who favored the traditional Church and monarchy?
Can we not come up with a more sound, racially loyal ideology for our people today? I’ll stick with my mentor William Pierce’s ideology. He said:
THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE is not only working to achieve certain goals; it also stands for a comprehensive view of life, or worldview. Its goals have not been chosen arbitrarily in reaction to current social, racial, or economic problems, the way the Democrats and Republicans put together a party platform for election purposes; instead they follow naturally from Alliance ideology…
Read more of Pierce’s plan here:”What is the National Alliance?” at http://www.natall.com
Excellent points Will. The judeo/masonic poisoners in France created the left/right mind prison and and it was tragically exported to the world. It serves chaos and degeneration. In the aftermath of the slaughter in France, one of the first things they did was recognize Asiatic alien jews as citizens who must be protected. The destruction of the divisive left/right mind prison is essential if we are to be free. Thanks for being a part of the tip of the spear, and may you fight long and well.
Prototype 3: October 6, 2025 Excellent points Will. The judeo/masonic poisoners in France created the left/right mind prison and and it was tragically exported to the world. It serves chaos and degeneration. In the aftermath of the slaughter in France, one of the first things they did was recognize Asiatic alien jews as citizens who must be protected. The destruction of the divisive left/right mind prison is essential if we are to be free. Thanks for being a part of the tip of the spear, and may you fight long and well.
—-
Why, thank you, P3. When I was Ben Klassen’s XO in the late ’80s he gave me the Latin title Hasta Primus or “First Spear.”
My wife and I joked that the English translation must have actually meant “Spear Catcher” since I would catch so much flak from those, mostly Christian, who disagreed with the truths of Creativity, the non-Semitic religion Ben had founded for our people.
The Right is for Authority and Race and Nation. The Left is for Anarchy and Egalitarianism and Globalism.
The Right-Left spectrum remains an extremely-useful paradigm.
🙂
duplicate comment removed
Mr. Zsutty waited three weeks to comment here on Charlie Kirk’s death which is smart. I haven’t listen to the show but strongly agree with Greg Conte who is quoted as saying that, “the Left-Right distinction is a Jewish divide-and-conquer tactic and that all our focus should be on Jewish power.” Period!
Kevin Strom waited a full month to finally comment on Kirk’s assassination in his 11 October American Dissident Voices broadcast. “Charlie Kirk: Sainted Apostle of the Same Old Thing ” at nationalvanguard.com :
LYING IN STATE AFTER LYING to us for years. That’s how I see Charlie Kirk. I never paid much attention to the man, because he offered nothing new. He was a talented debater. He had the courage he needed to stand up in public and speak against the crazed and drooling mobs of the insane college left. He may have sincerely believed in the pro-Jewish and conservative Christian ideas he was promoting. He may have been seeing Jewish power slightly more objectively in the last few months of his life after being forced to think about the issue by Jew-critical hecklers who followed him around for years, and who ridiculed his ultra-Zionism at his own events. He even recently allowed Tucker Carlson, a mild critic of the Jewish state, to speak at one of his organization’s meetings. He did acknowledge for the first time very recently that big Jewish donors were behind the leftist movements he disliked — but his message was for those donors themselves to “wake up,” absolutely not for Americans to distrust or oppose Jews or Israel…
…Instead of speculating on the manner of his death — instead of getting all sobby over the theatre of his funeral and the self-serving martyr-to-conservatism hype that’s surging right now — let’s be hard-headed and realistic about what we do know about Charlie Kirk. He said that the answer to America’s decline is Christianity and “right-wing” conservatism — the same Christianity and conservatism that got us into this mess in the first place. The same Christianity and conservatism that failed to prevent the rise of the degenerate anti-White media and the anti-White takeover of the US government. The same Christianity and conservatism that screams in pain every time someone accuses them of “racism” and rushes to deny the accusation by pointing to their beloved Black conservative pastors and the wonderful and fully accepted racially mixed couples in their congregations. The same Christianity and conservatism that pretty much believes that Jews are emissaries of God on Earth and can do no wrong, and if they want to stifle your speech or burn a few thousand babies alive with phosphorous bombs, why that’s no reason to stop giving them money or allowing them to run “our” media. The same Christianity and conservatism that lost the war for power in this country and which now exists mainly as a dissent containment mechanism for our deadliest enemies who want us dead yesterday.
Only a total revolution, first in the hearts and minds of Whites, and then in the structure of our entire society — as envisioned in the philosophy of William Pierce and the National Alliance — can save our race and civilization. Charlie Kirk offered nothing that could make a significant difference in the long-term future of our people.
The solution to all this is a revolutionary transformation of society, the opposite of the reformist ideas of Charlie Kirk and his ilk, who merely want to slow and soften our race’s decline and death. The solution to all this is to make the survival and advancement of our race the very purpose of our society and of our lives. The solution to all this is complete racial separation and self-determination. The solution to all this is seeing that Jewish power is determined to exterminate our race for all time, and joining with eyes wide open the life-and-death struggle that they have forced upon us. This was the solution discovered by William Pierce, who founded the National Alliance and whose portrait graces the text version of this broadcast on nationalvanguard.org.
The solution to all this is embodied by the program of the National Alliance. You can read about our program at natall.com/join. I urge everyone hearing my voice today to do that immediately. The hour is late and the remaining seconds of your life are ticking by.
Hmm? Kevin speaks for me (except for his use of the word “leftists”). Much of what he says in this week’s ADV is omitted here for brevity, but can be read or listened to at the link. I watched some of the lovefest in Israel this morning over the release of Israeli and Jewish-American hostages by Hamas (under threat of total destructtion of Gaza by American and Israeli military if the hostages were not released immediately). What if Mr. Kirk had publicly left the pro-Israel cause in September and taken his millions of conservative Christian Zionist TPUSA supporters with him — would his doing that have rained on Donald Trump’s parade today?
… Charlie Kirk, not long before his death, stated explicitly that he was tired of being bullied and being told what to do by Jewish donors, and that he was going to have to abandon his pro-Israel stance. This confirms that Kirk was about to do something that would have aroused extreme hostility and anger among many in the Jewish power structure. I no longer find it incredible that they may have acted to prevent Kirk’s defection. Here is what Kirk said privately just before he was assassinated: “Just lost another huge Jewish donor. $2 million a year because we won’t cancel Tucker. … Jewish donors play into all the stereotypes. I cannot and will not be bullied like this. Leaving me no choice but to leave the pro Israel cause.”
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.